text:
John P. Roche Collection
A political scientist, writer, and government consultant, John P. Roche was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., on May 7, 1923, the son of a salesman. A liberal Social Democrat and fervent anti-Communist, Roche spent his academic career at Haverford College and Brandeis and Tufts Universities, writing extensively on American foreign policy, constitutional law, and the history of political thought in America, and maintaining a strong interest in the history of the American left. During the 1960s and early 1970s, he served as an adviser to the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.
The Roche Collection consists of over 300 publications pertaining to the political left in the United States, with a smaller number of works from the radical right and from European Socialists and Communists. Concentrated in the years spanning the Great Depression, the Second World War, and the McCarthy hearings, many of the works were produced by formal political parties in response to particular political campaigns, current events, or social issues, with other works geared primarily toward consciousness raising and general political education on trade unionism, fascism, war and peace, American foreign policy, and freedom of speech and the press.


text:
So tell me, then: What exactly is this?
Or how about this?
Hm. I'm starting to think we should offer bakeries animal flash cards.
(Check out how the right one is looking at the label. Heehee!)
Somebody please tell me this is not a cross:
The madness continues into the cookie section:
And lastly, we have the gold standard of Easter designs:
Jennifer T., Katie G., Steve, Taylor B., Teryn C., John M., & Shelli A., just tell them to take a left at Albuquerque. Oh, and watch out for those "sprinkles."
- Related Wreckage: Easter Potpourri

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Debug Board v3
From Openmoko
Languages: |
English • العربية • Български • Česky • Dansk • Deutsch • Esperanto • Eesti • Español • فارسی • Suomi • Français • עברית • Magyar • Italiano • 한국어 • Nederlands • Norsk (bokmål) • Polski • Português • Română • Русский • Svenska • Slovenčina • Українська • 中文(中国大陆) • 中文(台灣) • Euskara • Català |
Debug Board |
The Debug Board v3 is the most recent version of the Debug Board for Neo 1973 and Neo FreeRunner. It is sold seperately from the phones.
You need the debug board to have a serial console and for JTAG. The debug board lets you:
- access the serial console, to get kernel debug messages the moment the respective events occur (or to get the kernel's last words when it crashes hard)
- use JTAG to halt the processor anytime and analyze the system state (this can also be used with the gdb debugger)
- enable write access to the NOR
Serial console and JTAG are very useful (actually, indispensable) for kernel debugging.
Contents |
The debug board provides these key components.
The Schematics of this board can be found at http://people.openmoko.org/joerg/schematics/debug_board/OpenMoKo_Debug_Board_V3_MP.pdf
USB Hub
This bus-powered hub
- attaches to the laptop using its upstream port
- attaches to the FT2232D for JTAG and serial console on downstream port 1
- attaches to a free USB-A connector using downstream port 2
- attaches to the phone using downstream port 3
Using the hub, you can have access to the phone, JTAG and serial simultaneously, through a single USB cable.
You can charge the phone (100mA slow charge) using that downstream port.
For the USB hub function, we use the TUSB2046B chip.
JTAG using FT2232
Basically, we integrate a USB-JTAG adaptor similar to the [Amontec JTAGkey-tiny]. The actual reference design that we used (Thanks to Joern!) was found at http://www.oocdlink.com.
This provides us full JTAG debugging, at about 150times the speed of the wiggler
The actual JTAG port is connected with
- the phone (via debug flex cable)
- A separate 20-pin header using standard ARM-JTAG pinout
- Allows users to use this device as JTAG adaptor for other arm-based devices
Serial Port
Instead of replicating a true RS232 port, we wanted to use a USB serial converter chip, such as the FT232 or the PL2303.
As it turns out, we can even use the second port of the FT2232 simultaneously with the JTAG. So no extra FT232 or PL2303 is required.
Tri-State Serial Port
On GTA01 the CPU UART serial port needed a multiplexer formed by a tri-state driver, since it was both connected to the GSM modem AND to the debug board. We drive the GTA01-tri-state driver mux by an inverted GSM_EN signal (pin 7 on FPC connector). For GTA02 the console serial port isn't multiplexed and connects directly to CPU UART.
Usage Instructions
Your Debug Board contains a small serial EEPROM which should be flashed correctly during production. However, some boards have received incorrect/incomplete programming during production and thus you should verify this.
If the board shows up as USB ID 1457:5118, then everything is correct.
Only if your board shows up as USB ID 0403:6010, then you will need to flash the board!
Flashing with Linux
NOTE: FIC has done that for you, in case you have officially been supplied with the board. However, if you are one of the early adopters, the configuration and USB vendorID / productID might have not yet been set correctly. |
In order to do so, you can use the ftdi_eeprom program from http://www.intra2net.com/de/produkte/opensource/ftdi/. Unfortunately, the latest version (0.2) doesn't yet contain support for our FT2232D, so you need the patch from http://people.openmoko.org/laforge/misc/debug_board_v2/ftdi_eeprom/ftdi_eeprom-0.2-moko.patch
You may also need to apply the following patch to libftdi: http://people.openmoko.org/werner/libftdi-c56-strings-dirty-hack.patch (See http://bugzilla.openmoko.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=321 for additional details.)
Furthermore, you will need the EEPROM config: http://people.openmoko.org/laforge/misc/debug_board_v2/ftdi_eeprom/neo1973_debug_board_v2.ftdi
Once you have compiled ftdi_eeprom, you can run ftdi_eeprom --flash-eeprom neo1973_debug_board_v2.ftdi
WARNING: Make sure you don't have any other FTDI FT232 / FT2232 based devices attached to the USB while running ftdi_eeprom. It might be wise to disconnect everything but the debug board |
You should get something like the following printout if everything was successful:
FTDI eeprom generator v0.2 (c) Intra2net AG <email@example.com> FTDI init: 0 Unable to find FTDI devices under given vendor/product id: 0x1457/0x5118 Retrying with default FTDI id. Used eeprom space: 102 bytes FTDI write eeprom: 0 Writing to file: neo1973_debug_board_v2.eeprom FTDI close: 0
Once the flashing has finished, just disconnect and reconnect, and you should see
$ lsusb -v -d 0x1457: Bus 005 Device 009: ID 1457:5118 Device Descriptor: bLength 18 bDescriptorType 1 bcdUSB 2.00 bDeviceClass 0 (Defined at Interface level) bDeviceSubClass 0 bDeviceProtocol 0 bMaxPacketSize0 8 idVendor 0x1457 idProduct 0x5118 bcdDevice 5.00 iManufacturer 1 Openmoko iProduct 2 Debug Board for Neo1973 iSerial 0 bNumConfigurations 1 [...]
Flashing with Windows
NOTE: FIC has done that for you, in case you have officially been supplied with the board. However, if you are one of the early adopters, the configuration and USB vendorID / productID might have not yet been set correctly. |
In order to do so, you can use the FTDI Mprog program from http://www.ftdichip.com/Resources/Utilities/MProg3.0_Setup.exe
You will need
- The EEPROM Template http://people.openmoko.org/laforge/misc/debug_board_v2/mprog_template/neo1973_debugboard_v2.ept
Please make sure you have libftdi-0.8 or later. Earlier versions are known to cause problems
Furthermore, you will need to do the following:
ftdi_sio module option
rmmod ftdi_sio
modprobe ftdi_sio vendor=0x1457 product=0x5118
or the equivalent in your modules.conf
udev rule
Please install the rules from http://people.openmoko.org/laforge/misc/debug_board_v2/udev_rules/
NOTE: Some distros no longer name their USB subsystem usb_device, but uses simply usb instead (e.g. Ubuntu 8.x). If so, you should change the line with SUBSYSTEM accordingly, otherwise the device will not be recognized by the udev rule. |
Please use the driver from http://people.openmoko.org/laforge/misc/debug_board_v2/windows_drivers/
Hardware connection
- Connecting Neo1973 with Debug Board v2 (shows how to connect the FPC)
The recommended connection sequence given in Debug Board v2#Hardware connection may not work for debug board v3 and the FreeRunner. It seems impossible to turn on the FreeRunner after plugging the FreeRunner USB cable into the PC, but before plugging the debug board USB cable into the PC. After the debug board is powered by the PC, the FreeRunner should start.
- User:Cfriedt 20081021 The Debug Board v3 uses 3.3V signalling levels on J1 (the 20-pin ARM JTAG port). Many other ARM devices use 1.8V signalling. For the next Dboard hardware revision, I would suggest using the same level-shifter as the FlySwatter. The FlySwatter uses two SN74AVC4T245 (ref) buffers to provide a signalling range of 1.2V to 3.6V (ref).
Actually using it
On Linux
Serial Port
The Linux kernel of your host system will create a virtual serial device called /dev/ttyUSBx where 'x' is a sequentially assigned number. If you don't have any other USB serial converters attached to your machine, the device name will be /dev/ttyUSB1 (baud rate 115200 8N1).
You can use your favourite terminal emualtor (minicom, cu, zc, ...) just like for any other/real serial port. You may use gdb as well (eg. target remote /dev/ttya).
Once you have installed libftdi >= 0.8 and configured OpenOCD with the correct openocd.cfg from OpenOCD#openocd.cfg, it should work just fine.
Please see OpenOCD#OpenOCD_and_Debug_Board for some more information.
We previously had Neo1973 Debug Board v1 (inherited from some weird engineers who must have seen Brazil too often). Version 1 was never shipped to phase-0 or phaes-1, and not sold to anyone.
Changes from v2 to v3
- drastically reduce the effective load capacitance on the upstream USB port
- use a load-limiting 3V LDO to further ensure USB spec electrical compliance
- add a new 10pin header [footprint] to make the I2C/SPI/IRQ pins of the GTA01/GTA02 debug connector accessible
- rotate the 20pin ARM-JTAG connector to be able to use standard 90degree-angled sockets
- give LED's and connectors proper names on the silk
- add openmoko logo to the bottom silk screen
Changes from v1 to v2
- get rid of ethernet
- we don't need it, and
- we especially don't want a 40pin parallel 66MHz bus going between two pcb's
- get rid of 7-segment LED displays
- not really needed. We have a serial port
- could be replaced by one or two GPIO LED's
- get rid of built-in wiggler
- nobody has a parallel port on the laptop these days
- get rid of li-ion battery (including charger)
- the device can be fully usb powered by the laptop


text:
Place Category: Department Stores
Macy's, established in 1858, is the Great American Department Store – an iconic retailing brand over 740 stores operating coast-to-coast and online. Macy's Sunrise Mall offers a first class selection of top fashion brands including Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Clinique, Estee Lauder & Levis. In addition to shoes and clothing, Macy's has a wide variety of housewares, gifts and furniture. Plan your visit to 6000 Sunrise Blvd Citrus Heights CA 95610-6904 today!
More Info


text:
Respect for privacy and processing of personal information
We publish this Privacy Policy to let you know how we handle your personal information in accordance with the law, when you provide us with personal information, such as your first and last name, your address, your email.
We promise not to require personal information that is necessary for the performance of services that are rendered, and only with your express consent and unequivocal. These data allow us to provide personal services that you may have purchased from us, to compile statistics.
Cookies are computer programs ANONYMOUS a website sends to your computer to collect and retain information. It is possible to set your browser to determine the presence or block cookies, but certain functions of the site requires cookies, disabling them will have to limit certain functions. We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads on our website or elsewhere. These companies may use information about your browsing on our website or other websites (except your name, address, email address or telephone number) in order to provide advertisements about products or services tailored to your interests.
We allow you to access the Personal Information about you personally, to rectify all or in part. Just send a request to that effect to the site administrator via the contact form.
Cookies are programs computer that a website sends to your disk so collect and store information. It is possible to program your explorer to know the presence of cookies or block them, but some functions of the site requiring these cookies, disabling them will limit certain functions. With your agreement we use third-party advertising companies for dissemination ads on our website and elsewhere. These companies can use the data relating to your browsing on our website or other sites (with the exception of your name, postal address, e-mail address or telephone number) to offer you product announcements or services tailored to your interests, only if you have given your consent. We use Cookies or other similar technologies to manage and store information about the privacy notices you have received and your consent choices. We do this in accordance with the policies and technical specifications of the IAB Europe Transparency and Consent Framework. You can manage your consent choices by clicking here.
Please visit the website YourOnlineChoices for more information and opt-out possibilities.
Sirdata is a data marketing company that allows its Customers to send Users relevant offers tailored to their interests. The data collected by Sirdata are kept for a maximum of 365 days, depending on the purpose of the processing, in accordance with the laws in force and principle of minimization. Click here to find out more : https://www.sirdata.com/privacy (Opt-out)


text:
It's not easy to say goodbye to cherished pets, even those that have lived long, happy lives. Although you may hate the thought of life without your pet, euthanasia can be the kindest decision you can make when your friend is suffering. Making the Decision If your pet has been seriously injured in a
Read more


text:
Procrastination has a new name – MEETA! I do not think I have ever done a Daring Bakers' challenge this late in the three years I've been with the group. But boy was it worth it. If truth be told, I was going to give the challenge a pass this month.
There's been plenty on my plate this month and although I did a real woot, when I saw the challenge at the beginning of the month, my heart dropped every day I saw come and go and I had not made the effort to make it.
On Monday I finally wrote to my sweetest Lis telling her that I was not going to make. Of course she understood, but she did tell me what an awesome recipe this was. As she drooled over the choux pastry recipe, I could not take it and went out to the grocery store and bought everything I needed. I was not going to miss this one!
I love choux pastry, éclairs, profiteroles are just some of my all time favorites. As a matter of fact when I saw the challenge posted over at the Daring Kitchen I knew straight away what flavors I would be doing.
Procrastination is not really my thing. I do shove certain tasks but never to the limit like I did this one. I made the pastry cream and choux pastry puffs yesterday and today I assembled and took these extremely scanty looking pictures. I even burnt my fingertips in the process. It's difficult to type with blisters on your fingertips trust me.
The first time I made a croquembouche was way back at the pastry kitchen of the luxury hotel I was training at. Under the wings of a Swiss pastry chef I was taught how to put this incredible sweet showpiece together. At the end of the day I stood back and was exhilarated that I could actually complete such a masterpiece! It did look better than this one today. But that's what you get when in a hurry.
The croqembouche also called the piece montée is made of three components:
- Pate a Choux
- Pastry cream
- Glaze of usually caramel but also can be made of chocolate
Ever since I saw the pistachio pastry cream over at Cenk's Café Fernando I've been dying to make it. And this was the perfect moment. I very lightly tweaked it by adding some rosewater to give it another flavor dimension. The pistachio cream I used for the pastry cream was from a local supermarket. It contains luxurious California pistachios and is thick, smooth and creamy in consistency. I usually use it as a spread on a piece of baguette, but it was perfect for this pastry cream.
The May 2010 Daring Bakers' challenge was hosted by Cat of Little Miss Cupcake. Cat challenged everyone to make a piece montée, or croquembouche, based on recipes from Peter Kump's Baking School in Manhattan and Nick Malgieri.
Croquembouche with a Pistachio Rosewater Pastry Cream
Printable version of recipe here
Pistachio Pastry Cream
Adapted from Café Fernado's recipe for pistachio éclairs345 ml whole milk
4 egg yolks
50g granulated sugar
3 tablespoons cornstarch
200g pistachio cream
2 teaspoons rosewaterPate a Choux (Yield: About 28)
¾ cup (175 ml.) water
6 Tbsp. (85 g.) unsalted butter
¼ Tsp. salt
1 Tbsp. sugar
1 cup (125 g.) all-purpose flour
4 large eggsFor Egg Wash: 1 egg and pinch of salt
Hard Caramel Glaze
1 cup (225 g.) sugar
½ teaspoon lemon juiceMethod
Pistachio Pastry Cream
- Prepare a large bowl filled with ice cubes and cold water. Set aside.
- Bring milk to a rolling boil in a small saucepan.
- In a separate saucepan, whisk together egg yolks, sugar, cornstarch and rosewater.
- Whisking all the while begin pouring small amounts of the hot milk into the egg mixture. Start with a few tablespoons and then as the egg mixture begins to slowly take on the temperature of the milk begin pouring more of the milk. Keep whisking!
- Put the saucepan back on the heat and whisking continuously bring the mixture to a boil.
- Still whisking keep the mixture at a boil until it begins to thicken – approx. 2 minutes. Take off the heat and stir in the pistachio cream.
- Using a rubber spatula scrape the pastry cream into a clean metal, then place the bowl into the ice water bath to cool.
- Cover the pastry cream with plastic wrap, pressing the plastic against the surface of the cream to avoid a skin building on the top. Put in the refrigerator. The cream will keep in the refrigerator for up to 2 days.
Pate a Choux
- Pre-heat oven to 425◦F/220◦C degrees. Line two baking sheets with parchment paper.
- Preparing batter:
Combine water, butter, salt and sugar in a saucepan over medium heat. Bring to a boil and stir occasionally. At boil, remove from heat and sift in the flour, stirring to combine completely.
- Return to heat and cook, stirring constantly until the batter dries slightly and begins to pull away from the sides of the pan.
- Transfer to a bowl and stir with a wooden spoon 1 minute to cool slightly.
- Add 1 egg. The batter will appear loose and shiny. As you stir, the batter will become dry-looking like lightly buttered mashed potatoes.
- It is at this point that you will add in the next egg. Repeat until you have incorporated all the eggs.
- Piping:
Transfer batter to a pastry bag fitted with a large open tip (I piped directly from the bag opening without a tip). Pipe choux about 1 inch-part in the baking sheets. Choux should be about 1 inch high about 1 inch wide.
- Using a clean finger dipped in hot water, gently press down on any tips that have formed on the top of choux when piping. You want them to retain their ball shape, but be smoothly curved on top.
- Brush tops with egg wash (1 egg lightly beaten with pinch of salt).
- Baking:
Bake the choux at 425◦F/220◦C degrees until well-puffed and turning lightly golden in color, about 10 minutes.
- Lower the temperature to 350◦F/180◦C degrees and continue baking until well-colored and dry, about 20 minutes more. Remove to a rack and cool. Can be stored in a airtight box overnight.
- Filling:
When you are ready to assemble your piece montée, using a plain pastry tip, pierce the bottom of each choux. Fill the choux with pastry cream using either the same tip or a star tip, and place on a paper-lined sheet. Choux can be refrigerated briefly at this point while you make your glaze.Hard Caramel Glaze
- Combine sugar and lemon juice in a saucepan with a metal kitchen spoon stirring until the sugar resembles wet sand. Place on medium heat; heat without stirring until sugar starts to melt around the sides of the pan and the center begins to smoke. Begin to stir sugar.
- Continue heating, stirring occasionally until the sugar is a clear, amber color. Remove from heat immediately; place bottom of pan in ice water to stop the cooking. Use immediately.
Assembly of the Croquembouche:
Lay out your unfilled, unglazed choux in a practice design to get a feel for how to assemble the final dessert. For example, if making a conical shape, trace a circle (no bigger than 8 inches) on a piece of parchment to use as a pattern. Then take some of the larger choux and assemble them in the circle for the bottom layer. Practice seeing which pieces fit together best.
Once you are ready to assemble your croqembouche, dip the top of each choux in your glaze (careful it may be still hot!), and start assembling on your cake board/plate/sheet. Continue dipping and adding choux in levels using the glaze to hold them together as you build up.When you have finished the design of your croquembouche, you may drizzle with remaining glaze or use ribbons, sugar cookie cut-outs, almonds, flowers, etc. to decorate. Have fun and enjoy!
Bon appétit!
Although I completed this just today there are not very many little choux puffs left. Soeren's potential boy band (will tell you about this in another post – don't let me forget) were over for a casting and it seemed like every time they went past the counter in the kitchen a few would disappear. All I was hearing was "ummm"! Well I have a few leftover for Tom when he gets back home tomorrow. I personally loved it. That wonderful caramel crunch, followed by the soft pastry and then the wonderful aromatic pistachio and rosewater pastry cream. The rosewater leaves a very subtle and elegant flavor, without overpowering the cream.
Thank you so much Cat for this extraordinary challenge, even if I did it very last minute I loved it.
Hope you all have a great weekend.
More Daring Bakers' challenges from WFLH:
Chocolate Éclairs | Danish Braid - Chocolate & Raspberries | Opera Cake |
All photographs and written content on What's For Lunch, Honey? © 2006-2010 Meeta Khurana unless otherwise indicated. | All rights reserved | Please Ask First


text:
Think you got what it takes to write for Cracked.com? Then submit an article or some other pieces of content.
Your New Profile Image Is Uploading
It is a violation of our terms to upload images depicting hate speech, nudity, explicit content, violence, offensive material, or copyrighted images.
Real Name: joakes
Member Since: December 2nd, 2014
About Me:


text:
A Microsoft Without Sinofsky?
Well, I can't believe it: Microsoft Announces Leadership Changes to Drive Next Wave of Products.
People walking the hallways tonight at work certainly can't believe it. I can't believe it - working at a Microsoft without Sinofsky?
But, if you're going to leave on a high-note, it doesn't get much better. Mr. Sinofsky got a standing ovation from the Windows team during the Company Meeting for all that he's done to take them on a multi-year journey to create Windows 7 and then hit the big multi-division reset button for Windows 8. He truly demonstrated technical leadership at its best.
And I don't believe his departure rules him out at all for Microsoft CEO. In fact, I think if he stays in tech and becomes CEO of another company it makes him an even more obvious choice to come back to Microsoft as its leader.
Meanwhile, Ms. Larson-Green: best of luck following this act.
Mini-Microsoft Microsoft -- Comments


text:
Balkinization   |
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts What Should Mukasey Do?
Friday, October 26, 2007
What Should Mukasey Do? Marty Lederman
Believe it or not, Judge Mukasey's confirmation (or at least a positive vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee) just might depend on his acknowledgement that waterboarding is torture. (Or so says this AP story, anyway. I'll believe it when I see it.)
Mukasey's taking the steps you propose would be better than his not taking them, but, no, it would not be "the only decent and true and civilized course of conduct." The only decent and true and civilized course of conduct would be for him "to take a stand on the other forms of unlawful conduct (e.g., stress positions, threats, hypothermia, severe sleep and sensory deprivation) that President Bush reportedly has authorized," and to state that he will prosecute all, including President Bush, who authorized or engaged in waterboarding and other forms of unlawful conduct. I do not understand why you seem so enthusiastic about confirmation of an attorney general merely because he acknowledges that waterboarding is illegal, but who will not condemn other forms of torture and who asserts that the President is above the law. Mukasey's conceding that waterboarding is illegal would be a symbolic victory at best.
My final sentence is an overstatement; if Mukasey conceded that waterboarding is illegal and was willing to prosecute those who commit the crime, then some people would be spared from waterboarding. Bush would have to use other methods of torture.
One pertinent point to the issue of prosecution of torture: Immunity from said torture prosecution was included in the Warner/McCain/Graham "It's Ok to Torture Bill" at this time last year. That bill was passed by the then Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Bush before the Nov. 06 elections. Anything Mukasey says regarding torture will not cause legal jeopardy for actions taken by this Administration in the past, much as such jeopardy is deserved.
Such a prosecution would, in my view, violate due process to the extent such reliance were reasonable
IANAL, but I've lived my entire life under the impression that, under international law (based on treaties signed - and in some cases initiated - by the US), "following orders" is not a valid defense for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Surely, reliance on legal advice must be even less valid than following orders, because one who merely relies on legal advice, but otherwise acts willingly, is acting under far less (if any at all) coercion than someone who acts under orders by his superiors. (And yes, I understand that both defenses could be applicable simultaneously, but "following orders" remains the more compelling one, so if that one is invalid, the "reliance on legal advice" must be invalid, too.
Commenter cboldt has pointed out frequently that the amended torture statute restricts "severe physical suffering" to cases of "bodily injury," and that this appears tailored to exclude waterboarding.
Mukasey could then testify that, under the law enacted by Congress in 2006, waterboarding is not torture, and put the ball back in *their* court.
Anderson: The torture prohibition, 18 USC 2340-2340A, has not been recently amended, and does not require bodily injury.
The real question now is, "What should the Judiciary Committee do?," and the answer is that it should reject Mukasey. Bargaining over torture methods -- we'll give you the other torture methods if you give us a prohibition on water-boarding -- must be out of the question.
As for Mukasey, he should declare the illegality of all the torture methods, and the other forms of cruel and inhuman treatment, and he should vow to prosecute those who authorize or carry out such methods. The vow to prosecute should at least cover future violations, though I am convinced it should cover past violations as well. What Mukasey should do does not rest on what he is likely to do.
Prof. Lederman:
There is no possibility -- none -- that the Department of Justice would ever prosecute anyone who acted in reliance on OLC's legal advice about what techniques were lawful. (Such a prosecution would, in my view, violate due process to the extent such reliance were reasonable;...) Legal advice that something is legal, in and of itself, does not suffice to indemnify one from criminal culpability (and if it were so, that would be a windfall for the likes of Fredo, not to mention any Mafia dons). And that the office giving "legal advice" is the OLC makes no difference. If the crime is one of "specific intent", you may be able to escape the reach of the law depending on what the requisite "specific intent" was (as opposed to "general intent" crimes which require only that you intended to commit the act, not that you had any specific purpose in mind). But the "specific intent" for "torture" (18 USC § 2340) is: "Section 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter - (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;" The requisite intent when committing the acts in question is that that the acts "inflict ... pain or suffering". That you intend to break the law is not part of the equation (arguably unlike some "SI" crimes that require "corrupt intent"), so someone telling you that you aren't breaking the law should not be a defence. But you're right. This DoJ won't prosecute anyone for such and if anyone does (such as a special counsel), Dubya will pardon them. Let's be honest; if you can't figure out that "inflict[ing] ... pain and suffering" might be wrong, you perhaps ought not be working for the gummint. Cheers,
That fear, however, is unfounded. There is no possibility -- none -- that the Department of Justice would ever prosecute anyone who acted in reliance on OLC's legal advice about what techniques were lawful. (Such a prosecution would, in my view, violate due process to the extent such reliance were reasonable
Occasionally, Professor Lederman's bias from having worked for OLC shines through. No, OLC opinions have no legal force and effect, they don't immunize illegal conduct, and it's perfectly constitutional to prosecute people who relied on their lawyers' advice. It's the province of the judiciary to say what the law is, not OLC. OLC gives advice, the executive branch can decide to take it or not, and it's up to judges to decide whether that advice was correct.
"Mukasey's conceding that waterboarding is illegal would be a symbolic victory at best."
I concur esp. given Henry's edit assumes the unlikely that prosecutions will ensue. Likewise, waterboarding being torture in no fashion assumes that it is the sine qua non of torture and that these 'other techniques' won't in full measure be worse. Thus, I don't see the big value of him admitting this, surely if we take ML's full post as true. It's symbolic. The concern is torture, not just one measure. On some level, it might actually make things worse by assuming something really was done.
I don't see the big value of him admitting this ... It's symbolic. The concern is torture, not just one measure.
I'd go further. The bigger concern, horrific crime though torture is, is Mukasey's position on presidential powers. The Washington Post reported: "Mukasey suggested that the president can ignore a law, including the surveillance act, if it unduly impinges on his constitutional authority as commander in chief during wartime." No one who holds this view of executive power should be confirmed as Attorney General. Period.
Mukasey has said that torture is unconstitutional. I don't really understand how OLC opinions that are unreasonable on their face and violate the constitution and were written for partisan and presidential pandering, and not for true advice, can or should insulate criminal acts from prosecution.
Institutionally - the DOJ is nothing more than a corrupted appendage and nothing will rise from the ashes unless the next AG (not Mukasey - the next real AG) commits to criminal prosecution of egregious criminal activity - preferrably via a special prosecutor. I can only hope that you are very wrong on the opinion that all it takes to insulate depravity from accountability is a piece of paper from a hack in OLC. What did Nuremberg stand for, if not that "following orders" isn't a defense for doing the indefensible? In any event, Mukasey's other problem in saying anything on the torture front is that once he says it is illegal, it also pulls it out of the arena for protection by classification. At least, pursuant to any ordinary understanding of the current Executive Order on classification and the Nixon case and the Constitution. That makes for a big morass. I'm also waiting for the backfire. If Mukasey stays mum, which is likely, or if he were to say it is not "necessarily" torture (the Giuliani approach) and he is not confirmed, then what? Pretty much opens the door for Keisler to stand up as acting AG (maybe he even does this before Mukasey answers) and say that the position of the AG's office is that waterboarding is not always torture and is not unconstitutional or criminal. Then what? Then we just have the open acknowledgment of where we are - and that is a place from which there is no point of return, unless someone in a later administration does pursue criminal charges, OLC paper or not. I wanted, back in 2004, for this to not be the case, but no one came forward then with any contrition for their depravity. Now, I can't imagine how you have people doing these things for years and with no remorse other than the slight frisson that went through them after the Hamdan case, and say, still, even now, that they are inviolate because of Yoo and Bradbury. If so, the whole thing really is lost and DOJ isn't an institution worth saving.
Perhaps they could get him to comment on this new Guantanamo whistleblower:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3101949.ece Carrying water on the topic of torture, isn't filling me with confidence about this guy.
For several years now you have opined with a kind of certainty that there is no way that a prosecution would occur. And each time you talk about reasonable reliance on OLC opinions. But that always seems to beg the question in a conspiracy setting where the OLC opinion is precisely part of the effort to break the law. As to the institutional reasons, those to me are always the arguments "we never done this before". In case you did not see this a request to prosecute Rumsfeld was just filed today in France for torture. Having lived in France, I assure you that Rumsfeld would prefer to be going through the US system over the French system. But, if we are not willing to do it, clearly there are other states willing to take a look at it under their rules - particularly ones that permit the partie civile as does France. Tomorrow afternoon here at the International Law Weekend we will be studying such U.S. domestic court prosecution. Best, Ben
I agree with Benjamin Davis (I think) in wondering whether you may be misunderstanding Mukasey's true concern. It's not for the guy who was just following orders. It's for the people who told him those were OK orders just to follow -- it's for people like Yoo at the OLC. They were and are war criminals, it seems to me, with US v. Altstoetter as the precedent.
-- The torture prohibition, 18 USC 2340-2340A, has not been recently amended, and does not require bodily injury. --
. What's recently amended is the War Crimes statute, 18 USC 2441. . Before the MCA was passed in Sept 2006, 18 USC 2441 made reference to the Geneva convention, but did not make reference to 18 USC 2340(2) [notice, on the "(2)" provision, for definitional purposes) and 18 USC 113, which points to 18 USC 1365. . Using 18 USC 2340(2) and 18 USC 1365 to define war crimes is new. . 18 USC 2340(2) just defines "severe mental pain or suffering." I agree it does not require bodily injury. But the threshold for "severe mental pain or suffering" is pretty darn high, given the need for the mental effect to be both prolonged and severe. . 18 USC 1365 defines "serious bodily injury" . 18 USC 2441 (as recently amended) defines "serious physical pain or suffering." This definition includes as one of its elements, "bodily injury." Pain without bodily injury (where the new statute also defines the extent of bodily injury necessary before finding serious physical pain or suffering. . The point I've been asserting is that a good faith argument, and likely the technically correct one to boot, can be made that waterboarding crosses none of these new statutory thresholds. . 18 USC 2441 (as recently amended) also contains a contradictory proscription (no conduct in violation of Geneva Convention -- cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States), but that proscription (Additional [[NOTE: 42 USC 2000dd-0.]] Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) has no criminal penalty attached to it. Enforcement of this proscription is at the administration's discretion as an administrative matter.
Fixing a sentence/thought fragment, and copying the statutory text ...
. Under the recently amended criminal statute for war crimes, pain without bodily injury (where the new statute also defines the extent of bodily injury necessary before finding serious physical pain or suffering) cannot be "serious pain," let alone "severe pain." . 18 USC 2441 (d)(2)(D) the term 'serious physical pain or suffering' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) [cruel and inhuman] as meaning bodily injury that involves-- (i) a substantial risk of death; (ii) extreme physical pain; (iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or (iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty
Every day of this presidency has been torture as far as I'm concerned, causing suffering which has been severe, intense, of extended duration, and persistent.
At least one Senator is not buying into the distracting dodge of whether waterboarding is torture, and seizing on the central issue that should prevent Mukasey's confirmation if we didn't have an imperial-Rome-style Senate:
Bernie Sanders: Mukasey should not be confirmed because he could not muster a simple, straightforward answer at his confirmation hearing when he was asked the simple, straightforward question: Is the president of the United States required to obey federal statutes? "That would have to depend," he weaseled, "on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."
The recently revised statutory scheme has an internal inconsistency that makes it easy to BS around, and makes it difficult for people to understand the law, let alone accept it. It is aslo fetile ground for arguing in circles, because the opponents can pick which section they prefer to focus on, while ignoring the other section. "Is too illegal" "Is not."
. Under the criminal violations section (definitions of prosecutable war crimes), waterboarding probably fails to cross the line. That doesn't make waterboarding constitutional, it just makes it "not to the level of torture as defined in the war crimes statute" and "not to the level of cruel and inhuman as defined in the war crimes statute." . At the same time, a different section of the statute is properly construed such that waterboarding is unconstitutional and forbidden. However, in this section, there are administrative penalties but no criminal penalties. . This relationship between "not prosecutable as a war crime" (some might say "not illegal," but it's illegal AND unconstitutional under a separate provision in the law), yet unconstitutional because it's cruel and unusual under the US constitution is a sure cause of something resembling cognitive dissonance -- it's a big fat disconnect from the way we usually think. . Read 18 USC 2441 for yourselves. Sec. 6 IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
.. stress that CIA operatives will not be prosecuted for having previously acted in accordance with the legal conclusions of OLC and the President. <...>
Simple question. Can Syrian torturers claim immunity from prosecution because everything they ever did was always authorized by their OLA? What about those who tortured upon Hussein's authorization? The obvious and emphatic answer is no. Both the torturers and those who provide legal fig leaf for them are criminally responsible. Otherwise we are back to the Dark Ages. --- So Mukasey is in a difficult position here. No easy way to fulfill his primary responsibility which is to provide some immunity to CIA torturers and their superiors*. I see only one possibility and that is to claim that torture was actually never illegal in the US. On following grounds - The only prohibition against torture in US statues is contained in 18 USC 2340A which reads: (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. The operative word here is "outside the US". There is no equivalent prohibition on torturing "inside the US" anywhere in US statues. So just claim that waterboarding and other assorted tortures were performed in US facilities (to remain unidentified because of security) as defined by 18 USC 2340. For nitpickers claim Guantanamo, African and Eastern European facilities were always de-facto "inside the US" as no legal laws ever applied there. Their only intellectually honest option. --- * It is with some satisfaction that I see the Cheney/Bush administration growing more and more desperate with every passing day about ensuring some immunity for their deeds. And I'm not surprised. So let's just stay cool and collected, being desperate they are liable to play this closing game badly.
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments, everyone. A few quick responses:
1. Cboldt, I agree that it would be much harder, after the MCA, to prosecute waterboarding as a domestic war crime under 2441 -- indeed, I complained about this at length back when the MCA was being considered. See http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/three-of-most-significant-problems.html and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/hate-to-rain-on-torture-parade.html. See also my colleague John Mikhail's post here: http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/2006/09/common_article_.html But it remains torture under 2340-2340A. The MCA definitions do not change that; and I would not read the definitions of torture under the amended WCA to reflect a later-enacted congressional gloss on 2340-2340A. It also remains "cruel treatment" prohibited by CA3, as I explained in the second of those posts listed above. Having said that, I can well imagine that there's an OLC opinion saying otherwise, alas . . . 2. I have not argued that "following orders" is always a defense to criminal prosecution. I have only said that *reasonable* reliance on the official legal interpretations of the Justice Department, i.e., OLC, would constitute a due process defense. 3. I have been careful *not* to argue that it would have been "reasonable," for purposes of the due process clause, to rely on OLC advice that waterboarding is lawful. Nevertheless, I think it is well-nigh inconceivable that the Department of Justice would ever prosecute a CIA operative who acted in accord with that advice. That's an institutional precedent that any AG, of any party, would be loathe to set. 4. As Benjamin Davis and Thomas Nephew point out, however, perhaps Mukasey is less concerned with criminal exposure of the CIA interrogators than he is in protecting John Yoo and others within OLC and DOJ who came up with the immunizing legal advice in the first place. Perhaps. But I doubt it, for two reasons. First, unless there's a smoking gun memo out there somewhere showing that John or others did not really believe the advice they were giving, and that they were simply trying to justify conduct that they knew to be unlawful, I think it's inconceivable that DOJ would ever prosecute them, either. And I strongly suspect that there is no such smoking gun because John, and Jay Bybee, did actually believe the advice they were providing was legitimate, possibly even "correct." Second, to the extent there really was a conspiracy within OLC and elsewhere to authorize *known* unlawful conduct, I doubt Mukasey would be so intent on protecting such persons. He doesn't seem the type. I might be wrong about this, of course; but I hope not. At any rate, as I've said, I doubt this is a real concern because, sadly enough (and hard as this may be to believe), I think the providers of the 2002 and 2004 OLC advice probably believed in what they were writing. Or, in any event, there's unlikely to be evidence to the contrary.
I love the way Marty keeps excluding this person and that person from potential prosecution. Because the 'DOJ would never do that'. I think he is right by the way, but I doubt he thinks the implications of those decisions mean the same thing I think they do.
There is no possibility -- none -- that the Department of Justice would ever prosecute anyone who acted in reliance on OLC's legal advice about what techniques were lawful. (Such a prosecution would, in my view, violate due process to the extent such reliance were reasonable
By the same reasoning, wouldn't it violate due process to allow civil suits against telecommunications companies that acted in reasonable reliance on the federal government's assurances that it could demand the production of certain terrorist-related call-detail records?
Some comments argue that it simply is not "reasonable" to follow the opinions put forth by this executive. Qualified immunity is probably overused these days, but this is another matter. Thus, the "due process" defense is limited.
As to CIA operatives, ML is surely correct (as of now), though given the first point, this suggests a pretty sad reality of "anything goes" as long as some official understanding (again, one many think is simply garbage) is in place to justify it. I assume this even means if the reasoning is not even of your own administration.* The negative emotions this raises (starting with embarassment) are many. As to "mental effect" etc., cbolt's argument as to a reasonable interpretation of the law as to waterboarding, my reply would be that simulated drowning (or even the threat) WOULD have long lasting significant mental effects. Consider the lasting effects of a crime victim, for a brief robbery. The fear this raises can be quite severe, including being afraid even to leave their home. Would not choking be comparable? How could it not lead to severe long lasting mental anguish? I might be missing something. --- * Charles Fried was on Bill Moyers yesterday, and one of various questionable things he suggested was that with new political leadership, the abuses of the Republicans will be checked. Glenn Greenwald and others would disagree. And, ask Fried's Republican friends if they thought the executive was fine under Clinton. Bad things will be done by future administrations too, if we give them the opportunity.
As to waterboarding, I would add that the situation would only emphasize the effects.
It is not like the person is "simply" waterboarded and nothing else. It would be part of a range of things that will be physicially and mentally stressful, including with long lasting effects in both areas(this is btw one fear, since this can lead to blowback, as shown in Egypt etc.). This goes back to my first statement too. This is about a lot more than waterboarding. It also, see ML's comment too, why many deemed the MCA as inadequate. The fact some cannot do the bare minimum cannot, though sadly I fear it will, lead us to accept only the bare minimum. Or, even a bit more, still a lot less than is warranted.
By the same reasoning, wouldn't it violate due process to allow civil suits against telecommunications companies that acted in reasonable reliance on the federal government's assurances that it could demand the production of certain terrorist-related call-detail records?
In the telecom case, the District Court found that their reliance was NOT reasonable. That brings me to this: I have only said that *reasonable* reliance on the official legal interpretations of the Justice Department, i.e., OLC, would constitute a due process defense. Orin Kerr has argued this as well, treating the defense as a form of estoppel. I understand how such a doctrine could apply to private citizens who rely on governmental advice. But it can't be an automatic defense in any case, as the telecom results show, and as should be clear from policy considerations as well. Policy first. The basic problem is one which most posters here have noted repeatedly during the last few years: that there's a bootstrapping quality to any such defense. In essence, it would allow government employees to immunize themselves simply by finding some thug like John Yoo eager to "justify" what they want to do. The doctrine of estoppel, in all of its various manifestations, rests on a sense of fairness: a party should not be permitted to say or do something on which someone else reasonably relies in performing an act, only to have the first party complain about the act of the second. The doctrine has no application when there aren't really two parties at all, but only one. At the higher levels of the Administration, this identity of parties seems particularly clear. There's also the issue whether any such advice could have been followed reasonably. Prof. Lederman's paragraph 4 implies that an actual conspiracy need be shown in order to overcome the supposed defense. I don't think any defense provides such protection; certainly this one does not. What we're discussing is is an affirmative defense, which means the defendant has the burden of proving its elements. Any government official who wants to rely on it should have the burden of showing that the facts made his/her reliance reasonable. For which, note the first sentence of Prof. Lederman's paragraph 3.
Thanks for the explanations on waterboarding & the law, Prof. Lederman & cboldt. It's depressing just to think that the laws on these matters are as convoluted as they are.
I have not argued that "following orders" is always a defense to criminal prosecution. I have only said that *reasonable* reliance on the official legal interpretations of the Justice Department, i.e., OLC, would constitute a due process defense.
I don't think that anyone is saying that you are arguing following orders is "always" a defense to criminal prosecution. There are probably two different issues on some of the abuse. One would be abuse that occurs without orders of a superior, and the other is abuse that occurs on orders. As an initial point, it would take the opinions to know whether they are saying that the sleep deprivation, beatings, etc. are all just fine to engage in, without orders, or if they are saying that orders to a subordinate to engage in those activities are legal orders. But there were legal opinions for other war criminals as well. What you are saying is that an order that would be clearly deemed to be an order to engage in what any reasonable person would deem to be cruel and unusual punishment (prohibited by the Constitution whether or not it is "torture"); including activities like waterboarding where our own precedents include convictions of soldiers for war crimes for engaging in those activities, can be insulated by an OLC opinion and I don't see how it can. If, but for that opinion, there would be clear crimes and abuses being committed such that "just following orders" would not be a defense in those cases, then that losing defense doesn't get reborn with an OLC opinion. An opinion can't insulate an order that goes where orders cannot go - the essence of Nuremberg is that no amount of papering and posturing insulates in those situations. Finally, the other point being missed is that that there is a Constitutional prohibition on bills of attander - including penalties and punishments. This exists specifically so that it is acknowledged that there is no power in a President under the Constitution to have "perceived" enemies subjected to penalties, pains, punishments and death, on whim and without following the Constitutional requirements of due process and law. No one seems to want to mention this element of the Constitution, although it is right on point with what was feared at the time and what is being done now. It exists separate and apart from Habeas and evena legitimate suspension of Habeas would not empower an Executive to engage in roundups, kidnaps and the related incidents we know about: kidnapping, stripping, drugging, chaining, beating, freezing, isolating, threatening with dogs, mock executions and in KSM's case kidnapping of his minor children and threats against them as well, etc. etc. etc. Not only does the Constitution not empower the President to do such things, it specifically prohibits him from doing those things. Moreover, there is no attorney-client privilege between Bush's torturers/kidnappers/abusers and OLC, so how would the OLC opinion be protective? Is there even any evidence that the people specifically engaged in torture and abuse received their own personal copies of the OLC opinion? I'm guessing not. How do they rely upon it in that instance? fwiw
Mark Field: In the telecom case, the District Court found that their reliance was NOT reasonable.
Can you provide a citation and pincite for that proposition? Thanks.
Mark Field -- that's a ruling on a motion to dismiss, is it not? And what's the standard for assessing evidence when ruling on a motion to dismiss?
that's a ruling on a motion to dismiss, is it not?
Yes. And what's the standard for assessing evidence when ruling on a motion to dismiss? The Judge's ruling was not evidentiary (though my original verb choice implied that), it was a legal determination that, in the Court's words, "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."
But that's assuming that the very broad factual allegations in the complaint were true -- i.e., millions of domestic calls at issue, no statutory "certification" by the government, etc. Right?
But that's assuming that the very broad factual allegations in the complaint were true -- i.e., millions of domestic calls at issue, no statutory "certification" by the government, etc. Right?
The Court was pretty careful to rely only on facts admitted by AT&T. For example (34:2-4): "As described above, public disclosures by the government and AT&T indicate that AT&T is assisting the government to implement some kind of surveillance program." On the specific issue of certification, AT&T's Motion to Dismiss argued (51:5-8) that "plaintiffs have the burden to plead affirmatively that AT&T lacks such a certification and that plaintiffs have failed to do so here, thereby making dismissal appropriate." The Court concluded (53:3-7) that it "need not decide whether plaintiffs must plead affirmatively the absence of a certification because the present complaint, liberally construed, alleges that AT&T acted outside the scope of any government certification it might have received."
On the certification issue, read that part again. I'm pretty sure that the court, was construing the plaintiff's complaint broadly (rather than requiring specificity in the pleading) and then taking that broad construal as true. It certainly didn't seem to be limiting itself to facts admitted by AT&T.
I agree with that. My only point was that when the Court did consider factual issues, it generally limited itself to those which AT&T could not deny.
Since we seem to be getting deeper into the details here, I just want to get back to the original point. Your first post suggested that (paraphrasing) it could violate due process for the telecoms to be held liable despite receiving "assurances" from the government about the legality of their conduct. The Court's legal conclusion, which I quoted above, seems clearly to hold that AT&T could not reasonably have relied on any such "assurances". Perhaps by "assurances" you meant "certification". If there were a certification, then that would certainly impact the statutory claims, though (as the Court noted) probably not the Constitutional ones. But mere "assurances" are not at issue and wouldn't provide any defense if they were.
Well, it all depends on the actual facts (and I have no idea what those are). If AT&T got some assurance from the government that was on the level of an OLC memo, then I fail to see why Marty's due process reasoning wouldn't apply with equal force here.
Thus, Marty says that if the facts were such that there was reasonable reliance, it might violate due process to prosecute; I'm saying the same reasoning would apply to telecom companies; you're not disagreeing about the applicability of due process, you're just trying to leapfrog to the assumption that there was no reasonable reliance. All you've shown is that when a district court assumed the truth of plaintiffs' allegations that 1) AT&T was monitoring literally millions of domestic communications 2) without any certification or justification from the government, then in that circumstance AT&T shouldn't have believed the program was legal. But that's not a real point of disagreement at all -- it's just assuming a different set of facts.
I guess I don't understand your original comment, then. It only makes sense -- to me, anyway -- that you were suggesting a due process defense to the facts as alleged. Obviously, if the facts were other than as alleged, all bets are off.
In the context of "the facts as alleged", the Court (not me) has already held that AT&T could not reasonably rely on "assurances" from the government. I seriously doubt the existence of an OLC memo would change this; AT&T is as sophisticated as a client gets, with high-quality legal advice available. What the District Court essentially said was that there simply was no legal argument to be made which would justify the alleged facts. IOW, there is, given the facts alleged, no due process defense available.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.
Post a Comment
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya |
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin's Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |


text:
Meow is a financial technology company, not a bank.
Meow Technologies, Inc.
Meow is a financial technology company, not a bank.
Meow helps businesses in Boone County, Nebraska apply for a high-interest business checking account from FirstBank, a Tennessee corporation; Member FDIC.
If your business is approved for a business checking account offered by FirstBank, a Tennessee corporation; Member FDIC, through Meow, you can access: | |||||
Up to 5.02% | |||||
Check issuance, depending on the partner bank (see our terms) | |||||
Spend controls that allow you to set an "initiator" and "approver" for any wire or ACH transaction from our partner banks | |||||
Accounting integrations to Quickbooks, Xero and NetSuite | |||||
Multi-entity and multi-user accounts |
This table shows an overview of some financial health metrics for the top 2 community banks in Boone County, Nebraska ranked by total deposits. This data is sourced from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) BankFind Suite. The table shows data as of 12/31/23.
Bank Name | Year Founded | Branches | Total Deposits | Net Interest Margin | Return on Assets | Loan to Deposit Ratio | |
Great Plains State Bank | 1920 | 5 | $252m | 5.71% | 2.52% | 68.5% | |
Cedar Rapids State Bank | 1936 | 3 | $122m | 4.99% | 0.60% | 59.2% |
*Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) BankFind Suite for reporting period ending 12/31/23
Total Deposits: Deposits are the primary source of liquidity for a bank. They are used to fund loans and other investments, which generate income for the bank. A higher amount of deposits indicates a greater capacity to lend and invest, which can lead to higher profitability.
Net Interest Margin: A key profitability indicator for banks. It measures the difference between the interest income generated by the bank (from loans and other interest-earning assets) and the amount of interest paid out to their lenders (such as depositors), relative to the amount of their interest-earning assets.
Return on Assets: Measures the efficiency of a bank in using its assets to generate profit. It is calculated by dividing the net income of the bank by its total assets. A higher return on assets indicates that the bank is more efficiently managing its assets to produce income.
Loan to Deposit Ratio: Calculated by dividing the total loans and net leases of the bank by its total deposits. A higher ratio indicates that the bank is lending out more of its deposits, which can lead to higher profitability. However, a higher ratio also indicates that the bank has less liquidity to meet its obligations to depositors.
Click the button below to apply for a business checking account from FirstBank, a Tennessee corporation; Member FDIC.
For more information, take a look at our article on the key benefits of business checking accounts.


text:
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator's approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the 'Letters' section of the Down To Earth print edition.


text:
Kindly follow the article above all and focus in the download notes. There are some important things that you would have to respect in order not to face difficulties
Download and connect IPTV Live Stream TV App free IPTV Application – Android IPTV VlC Kodi Plex Smart TVWatch IPTV or TV Streaming Live on PC, Smartphone. What is an APK?
This is a type of small digital box including all the files required to install an application on Android. If you have more knowledge about Windows, know that the principle is the same as an .exe file on it.
When you launch it on Android, it will go to the system by providing it its name. A short description of what he is and what he requires. If you install it, he will then open his archive to put his valuable files where the system will command him before closing. So install the application on the phone's internal memory.
Among the buzzwords, "Free IPTV" is becoming very common. Because nowadays people prefer to watch live TV channels on their TV, PC or Smartphone with the Internet. Fortunately, there are also IPTV apps for Android for free (free IPTV APK).
Exactly there are paid IPTV apps out there but however, if you know where to look, you don't require to subscribe to their proven plans.
Thus you can use free IPTV APKs instead. You only require a good IPTV application and an IPTV source.
In this post you are going to have answers on questions like what does IPTV mean? whether IPTV is legal?
IPTV means "Internet Protocol Television". It is a general issue for any television broadcast on the web rather than by more traditional means.
There are, infact, many different forms of IPTV. These are like…
Online TV providers only.
TV network applications that provide both live TV and streaming video.
Online TV channels only.
related:-TECNET TV 10 Premium Activation Login
Websites that provide free live TV.
Plugins or extensions for applications.
IPTV services by subscription to third parties.
Specific cases like Netflix or Amazon Prime even if they are not directly broadcasting are also part of the IPTV offer.
In a nut shell, IPTV applications permit you to watch TV using the Internet or an IP address for greater accuracy.
Is IPTV legal?
So the main question is about the legality of IPTV. The answer: "It depends."
Let you and me go through some of the different types of IPTV we looked at in the previous section to mention if they are legal or not.
First, online TV providers naturally they are completely legal. All the channels are fully licensed from their respective sources.
The individual apps of TV networks and online TV channels are fully legal (Though it should br remembered that bypassing app and geographic restrictions are often against terms and conditions).
However, in the last three categories, that is, third party websites, plugins and subscription services, things are not fully clear. We cannot know properly which ones are legal and which are not.


text:
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - Thirty-five years after leaving Earth, Voyager 1 is reaching for the stars.
Sooner or later, the workhorse spacecraft will bid adieu to the solar system and enter a new realm of space - the first time a manmade object will have escaped to the other side.
Perhaps no one on Earth will relish the moment more than 76-year-old Ed Stone, who has toiled on the project from the start.
"We're anxious to get outside and find what's out there," he said.
When NASA's Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 first rocketed out of Earth's grip in 1977, no one knew how long they would live. Now, they are the longest-operating spacecraft in history and the most distant, at billions of miles from Earth but in different directions.
Wednesday marks the 35th anniversary of Voyager 1's launch to Jupiter and Saturn. It is now flitting around the fringes of the solar system, which is enveloped in a giant plasma bubble. This hot and turbulent area is created by a stream of charged particles from the sun.
Outside the bubble is a new frontier in the Milky Way - the space between stars. Once it plows through, scientists expect a calmer environment by comparison.
When that would happen is anyone's guess. Voyager 1 is in uncharted celestial territory. One thing is clear: The boundary that separates the solar system and interstellar space is near, but it could take days, months or years to cross that milestone.
Voyager 1 is currently more than 11 billion miles from the sun. Twin Voyager 2, which celebrated its launch anniversary two weeks ago, trails behind at 9 billion miles from the sun.
They're still ticking despite being relics of the early Space Age.
Each only has 68 kilobytes of computer memory. To put that in perspective, the smallest iPod - an 8-gigabyte iPod Nano - is 100,000 times more powerful. Each also has an eight-track tape recorder. Today's spacecraft use digital memory.
The Voyagers' original goal was to tour Jupiter and Saturn, and they sent back postcards of Jupiter's big red spot and Saturn's glittery rings. They also beamed home a torrent of discoveries: erupting volcanoes on the Jupiter moon Io; hints of an ocean below the icy surface of Europa, another Jupiter moon; signs of methane rain on the Saturn moon Titan.
Voyager 2 then journeyed to Uranus and Neptune. It remains the only spacecraft to fly by these two outer planets. Voyager 1 used Saturn as a gravitational slingshot to catapult itself toward the edge of the solar system.
"Time after time, Voyager revealed unexpected - kind of counterintuitive - results, which means we have a lot to learn," said Stone, Voyager's chief scientist and a professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology.
These days, a handful of engineers diligently listen for the Voyagers from a satellite campus not far from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which built the spacecraft.
The control room, with its cubicles and carpeting, could be mistaken for an insurance office if not for a blue sign overhead that reads "Mission Controller" and a warning on a computer: "Voyager mission critical hardware. Please do not touch!"
There are no full-time scientists left on the mission, but 20 part-timers analyze the data streamed back. Since the spacecraft are so far out, it takes 17 hours for a radio signal from Voyager 1 to travel to Earth. For Voyager 2, it takes about 13 hours.
Cameras aboard the Voyagers were turned off long ago. The nuclear-powered spacecraft, about the size of a subcompact car, still have five instruments to study magnetic fields, cosmic rays and charged particles from the sun known as solar wind. They also carry gold-plated discs containing multilingual greetings, music and pictures - in the off chance that intelligent species come across them.
Since 2004, Voyager 1 has been exploring a region in the bubble at the solar system's edge where the solar wind dramatically slows and heats up. Over the last several months, scientists have seen changes that suggest Voyager 1 is on the verge of crossing over.
When it does, it will be the first spacecraft to explore between the stars. Space observatories such as the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes have long peered past the solar system, but they tend to focus on far-away galaxies.
As ambitious as the Voyager mission is, it was scaled down from a plan to send a quartet of spacecraft to Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in what was billed as the "grand tour" of the solar system. But the plan was nixed, and scientists settled for the Voyager mission.
American University space policy expert Howard McCurdy said it turned out to be a boon.
They "took the funds and built spacecraft robust enough to visit all four gas giants and keep communicating" beyond the solar system, McCurdy said.
The double missions so far have cost $983 million in 1977 dollars, which translates to $3.7 billion now. The spacecraft have enough fuel to last until around 2020.
By that time, scientists hope Voyager will already be floating between the stars.


text:
NEW YORK (AP) — Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o admitted to Katie Couric he answered questions about his "dead," online girlfriend even after he received a call Dec. 6 from a woman posing as the fake person.
Te'o also maintained he played no part in the hoax.
Pressed by Couric to admit that he was in on the deception, the All-American said he was convinced the woman he knew as Lennay Kekua died in September. Te'o claims he never met Kekua in person but developed a serious relationship with her through phone calls and electronic messages.
"Katie, put yourself in my situation. I, my whole world told me that she died on Sept. 12. Everybody knew that. This girl, who I committed myself to, died on Sept. 12," Te'o said in an interview to air Thursday on Couric's syndicated talk show. A segment of the interview with Te'o and his parents was broadcast Wednesday on "Good Morning America."
"Now I get a phone call on Dec. 6, saying that she's alive and then I'm going be put on national TV two days later. And to ask me about the same question. You know, what would you do?" Te'o said.
The Heisman Trophy finalists made at least three references to his girlfriend in media interviews after Dec. 6, including during ESPN's Heisman presentation show on Dec. 8.
Te'o's father defended his son when Katie Couric pointed out that many people don't believe the Irish star, suspecting he used the situation for personal gain.
"People can speculate about what they think he is. I've known him 21 years of his life. And he's not a liar. He's a kid," Brian Te'o said with tears in his eyes.
On Tuesday, the woman whose photo was used as the "face" of the Twitter account of Te'o's supposed girlfriend says the man allegedly behind the hoax confessed and apologized to her.
Diane O'Meara told NBC's "Today" show that Ronaiah Tuiasosopo used pictures of her without her knowledge in creating a fake woman called Lennay Kekua.
Te'o told ESPN last week that Tuiasosopo had contacted him to apologize for the hoax soon after Deadpsin.com broke the news with a long report. Te'o told ESPN that not until Tuiasosopo confessed did he finally, fully realize Kekua did not exist.
Tuiasosopo has not commented on the scheme.
The top FBI agent in northern Indiana said authorities don't believe a crime was committed, so there is no investigation.
"I don't think there was any financial harm to Mr. Te'o," said Robert Ramsey, FBI supervisory special agent for northern Indiana. "There was no federal violation regarding the Internet hoax perpetrated against Mr. Te'o."
If there had been a crime, it would fall under federal jurisdiction, he said.
(Photo: AP)


text:
Monkey Foot Designs
***Update: the bag I was sent for review was a large double pocket wetbag***
a Rafflecopter giveaway
I have heard wonderful things about this brand from other CD moms. Would love to win one to use when my little one is born in May!!
I love wetbags! We use them for everything and I love that they will continue to be part of our everyday packing when they kids our out of diapers! Her designs and bags are absolutely beautiful! Love!
I love both the mod dots, not sure which color though. The bag looks really cute!
Love the Almond Sparrows!
Love the little kuala dolls print!!!
I've come across these wetbags a couple of times and they always stand out to me. They look so well made and functional.
Nice! Like the kuala dolls.
I love the Pewter Mod Circles
Love this! So super cute!
I'm a fan of the Monkeys and Owls designs.... but all of them are so cute!
I like them all, but I love the Lindy Leaf one.
They are all super cute, hard to pick a fav! I love the Owltude prints :)
I like the mod circles designs
amanda selenke
selenke at yahoo dot com
I know it's 'trendy' right now but I love the grey chevron print.
Love the whales print!
Loved the lime Panda print.
I love blue urban monkeys but I'd probably choose Chartreuse Mod Circles.
I too have an addiction the MFD wetbags! Kristen makes the BEST wetbags & her choice of fabrics are awesome. I'm currently loving her chevron prints!
I like the blue urban monkeys print:)
love the ready set go airplanes
Monkey Foot wetbags are cool enough to use as a purse! And what is better than a purse that has a waterproof interior for all of life's wet messes.
I love MFD too. I need to get a double pocket- thanks for the code!
My fave print is probably the Summer totem
These are far and away our favorite wet bags (and we've tried many over the years)! ;) We have a few in the Owltude print, and a JD Sparrows bag -- the one that started it all -- and they're all equally amazing and very high quality.
I think my current favorite (of the prints we don't already own) is the We Come in Peace fabric. I'd love to get my nearly-12 year old one of those ... it's perfect for her! :)
I think I would have to pick either the groovy guitar or the planes. My son is crazy about both!
I really like their Chartreuse Mod Circles Wet Bag print.
Aqua chevron is my favorite
I love the Ahoy Matey print! :)
I love the Santa Rosa print!
I love the Chevrons!
I really like the Summer Totem print! Reminds me of spring :)
Forest Fun
the mod pewter bag is really catching my eye.
I love the Whales on Blue print!
I love the Forest Fun Owls print!
I like the Little Kukla print
I like Mocca print. So fun and colorful!
I love the almond sparrows print! These wetbags look infinitely nicer than the ones we have so far... they're on my wish list!
I love Brown Owltude!
LOOOOOVE the aqua chevron!
Forest Fun Owls Wet Bag
These are absoultely gorgeous! I wish I could convince my husband to let me replace all my wetbags with these.
I love the aqua chevron! Katy C. dragon _ at _ heart 04 @ hotmail . com
I love the elephants on blue and blue urban monkey the best!
sabrina radke
Santa Rosa!!
I love the Aqua Forest print.
I like the Aqua Chevron print the best!
I like the almond sparrow
I think my favorite is the Little Kukla Wet Bag
My favorite print is the brown owltude
I love the Green Willow Mushroom design.
I like Wine Paradise Garden!
I like the Mocca Wet Bag
LOVE Monkey Foot Desiigns. They have the cutest prints.
love aqua chevron!
I like the pewter mod circles wetbag.
I love the aqua forest life print.
Groovy Guitars!
I like the Blue Urban Monkeys print
I like the mod circles print!
I like the almond sparrows print!
Brrr... Polar Bears
I love the eco love!
so many cute choices! I love the passion clippings print
all of the mod dots
mary firstname.lastname@example.com
I like the forest fun owls (and the bunny lattice)
I like the brown owltude print
i like the chevrons and the sparrows
ready set go airplanes
Little Kukla Dolls is my favorite!
would love a new MFD bag... have one (that my son uses) and with a newborn on the way, we'd love one for his/her room too :)
Blue Urban Monkeys Wet Bag
I love theses bags!! Best there is out there!!1
I love the Forest Fun Owls.
I'm a fan of the hedgehog heaven print, but I'm not sure if it's even available anymore.
I like the Brown Owltude print!
I like the Double Pocket Eco Love Wet Bag
Love the aqua chevron!
I like the Fun Forest print!
owls on a whim
Pooches in Red Pickup Trucks
i like retro cassettes, ahoy mateys
I love the gray chevron wet bag, simple and unisex. perfect!
I've been researching wet bags for weeks now and your review has me sold on this brand!!!!! Thank you
I like the summer totem print.
Aqua Chevron
I like the blue urban monkeys pattern
I <3 MFD wet bags! I'm waiting on some more boy prints in the double pockets, and there are a couple on her fb page that I am crossing my fingers she'll decide to use for double pockets! :)
I love the groovy (guitar) pattern!!!
I like the grey chevron
I love the Bunny Lattice print! So cute! And what a nice price, too!
The aqua chevron and the grey chevron are so cute!
I love the groovy guitar print!
I have one of her bags, it is fantastic!
I love whales on blue!
Love the Whales!
Pooches in red pickups! Love MFD!
I like the Polar Bears! Great colors.
I love the whales on blue!
Blue Urban Monkeys Wet Bag
I have a couple of these wet bags and they are a million times better than any others I have tried - no leaking, no tearing in the seams, great fabrics... I'll be using the coupon code but I would love to win another one too :)
That wetbag looks awesome!
summer totem or almond sparrows. definitely mom friendly :)
I love Mutiny on the Bunting
Ready set go planes
Love the mod dots


text:
Since discovering quinoa it has quickly become one of my favorite grains. It is a very versatile grain and I like to use it in salads, soups and even as a porridge for breakfast. I am constantly looking for new ways of enjoying quinoa and I recently came across a teriyaki quinoa that sounded good. Homemade teriyaki sauce is one of my favorite flavours and I immediately jumped on the idea of combining it with quinoa. The teriyaki quinoa that I came across was more of a side dish with just the quinoa and the teriyaki sauce but I was thinking that it would go better as a more substantial salad. Given that teriyaki sauce is Japanese I was thinking about Japanese ingredients and the first thing that came to mind was some teriyaki shiitake mushrooms. Next up was some edamame for a bit of green and a healthy kick and since asparagus was still in season and I had it on hand I threw some in as well. I then garnished it with some toasted sesame seeds and sliced green onions. The one critical element that I find really makes Asian inspired dishes is the smell of sesame oil and I always like to add a bit just at the end so that the aroma is nice and fresh as the dish is served. The asparagus and shiitake mushroom teriyaki quinoa salad turned out really well! The quinoa salad was so light and with the teriyaki flavour it was amazing. The toasted sesame seeds added a nice crunch and along with the sesame oil they added another great layer of flavour. Overall this turned out to be a really nice light Summer meal.
Asparagus and Shiitake Mushroom Teriyaki Quinoa Salad
- 1 cup quinoa
- 2 cups water
- 1/2 tablespoon oil
- 4 ounces shiitake mushrooms (sliced)
- 2 tablespoons teriyaki sauce
- 1/2 teaspoon sesame oil
- 1/2 pound asparagus (cut into bite sized pieces and steamed)
- 1/4 cup edamame (blanched)
- 2 tablespoons teriyaki sauce
- 1/2 teaspoon sesame oil
- 1 green onion (chopped)
- 1 tablespoon sesame seeds (toasted)
- Simmer the quinoa in the water until the water is absorbed, about 20 minutes.
- Heat the oil in a pan.
- Add the shiitake mushrooms and saute for a few minutes.
- Add the teriyaki sauce until it is absorbed, about 1-3 minutes.
- Add the sesame oil and remove from heat and let cool a bit.
- Mix everything and serve.
Teriyaki Mushroom Salad
Roasted Strawberry and Asparagus Quinoa Salad
Beef and Asparagus Stir-fry
Moroccan Roasted Carrot and Chickpea Quinoa Salad
Spinach and Feta Quinoa Salad


text:
On the day they buried Ahmed Jabari, the Hamas commander blown apart in what Israel calls a "targeted killing," a man named Jihad Misharawi cradled the corpse of his 11-month-old son, killed when an apparently errant Israeli shell pierced the roof of their Gaza home. The father's grief was captured in a compelling Associated Press photograph that Misharawi might have appreciated in his professional capacity: he works for the BBC as a photo editor, the job that involves deciding what images to send out to the world when the story becomes the death of civilians, as it is becoming in Gaza.
Until Sunday, the number of Palestinian bystanders killed in the Israeli assault on the crowded, poverty-stricken stretch of sand may have been as low as 16, barely half the number of fatalities among militants across the first four days. That proportion, if it had stood, would have been exceptional for any war — some researchers say civilians historically account for 80% of war deaths — but especially for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) doing battle in the Gaza Strip. The last time the IDF went into Gaza, four years ago, 1,400 Palestinians were killed, at least half of them civilians. Israel emerged from its victory facing a torrent of international approbation and a U.N. inquiry alleging war crimes.
(PHOTOS: A New Gaza War: Israel and Palestinian Militants Trade Fire)
The Jewish state was not keen to repeat the experience. The rhetoric coming out of Israel can be incendiary: Monday's Jerusalem Post contained an op-ed by Gilad Sharon, the youngest son of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, arguing, "We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima — the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki too." Earlier, Interior Minister Eli Yishai declared that the goal of the current operation is to "send Gaza back to the Middle Ages." But Israel's most senior officials appear keen to maintain the approval of Western governments, both by emphasizing that Gaza militants provoked the assault by firing hundreds of missiles toward Israeli communities and by arguing their answering offensive — more than 1,350 air, tank and warship strikes so far — is both fierce and restrained. The public relations section of the IDF is proactive on the question of minimizing civilian deaths, posting videos from earlier operations showing the trouble Israeli pilots take to avoid injuring bystanders while pursuing military targets. Several show gunsight footage of pilots diverting their bombs — after release, in flight — when the car they are aiming at enters a garage, or pulls up beside a cluster of pedestrians. The missiles explode a safe distance away.
"We are learning, and we are improving from last time," a senior Israeli officer told TIME late last week. "But eventually we will make a mistake, and there'll be an accident. There'll be a picture of children who have been hit, and it will be devastating for us."
That's what happened on Sunday. An Israeli air strike leveled a house in Gaza City, and among the 10 people killed were four children and four women. The home apparently belonged to a militant, and an Israeli official said the occupants had received a telephone call warning them that the house was going to be bombed. "Apparently they didn't leave," the official said.
Such warning calls — which Palestinians describe in a video the IDF compiled — are among the precautions Israeli forces say are intended to minimize loss of life and also forestall a repeat of the torrent of criticism that Israel faced four years ago, in Operation Cast Lead. In the command center during that campaign, according to a military source, a policy that reflexively directed fire to the location from which a rocket had just been launched surely raised the number of civilian casualties. Israeli commanders are not doing that in the current operation.
(MORE: Psychological Warfare with Missiles: Why Tel Aviv Matters)
In Operation Defensive Pillar, as the ongoing assault is officially known, specific efforts are made to avoid hitting bystanders, Israeli officials maintain. When approaching a target where civilians are believed to be, Israeli pilots will make a first pass to drop a sound bomb (or feeble live charge) near the target, intending to scare people away. Commanders refer to this as "cleaning the target." The aircraft then returns to deliver live munition meant to destroy the missile launcher, weapons cache or — lately — home. Since Wednesday, Israeli forces have destroyed at least 14 Gaza residences belonging to a Hamas minister or commander. Again, Israeli officials say care is taken to limit damage to surrounding structures and bystanders, using a penetrating munition that detonates deep inside the structure, causing it to collapse inward.
Any contrast with Cast Lead is intentional. That operation began with a massive attack on a police graduation, cutting down dozens of cadets standing in formation. From the start, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed Defensive Pillar as a series of "surgical strikes," and five days later, the relatively refined approach may be having an effect. Though Israel has called up 40,000 reserves in preparation for a possible ground assault, attention shifted over the weekend to the terms of a possible cease-fire, mediated by Egypt, that would avoid a ground war neither side seems to want. Officials say Israel's primary demand is a total cessation of rocket fire into its territory (900 of which have been fired since Wednesday, resulting in three Israeli deaths). For Hamas, the primary demand is for a promise that Israel will stop killing its senior officials and commanders.
The sheer number of Israeli air strikes challenges the effort to confine the damage to military targets. Between dusk on Sunday and dawn on Monday, another 150 massive explosions echoed across the densely packed enclave, as Israeli warships joined warplanes in pounding Hamas police stations located throughout Gaza. Each strike involves complex coordination among several agencies — typically including Israel's internal security agency, Shin Bet, which runs informants in Gaza, military intelligence and the Israeli air force. The potential for something to go amiss rises with each outing. "Statistical probabilities are working against us," the Israeli officer tells TIME.
(MORE: Has Israel's Assault on Gaza Made Tel Aviv Vulnerable?)
By Sunday night, the independent Palestinian news service Maan had tallied 72 Palestinian deaths in Gaza, including 24 on Sunday alone. The U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, using figures from a few hours earlier, counted 53 fatalities, including 29 civilians, 11 of them children. Those killed on Sunday included an 18-month-old boy named Eyad in the al-Bureij refugee camp, 9-year-old Tasneem Nahhal in the al-Shati camp and Jumana Abu Asaifan, age 1.
"You talk about surgical strikes," the Guardian's Harriet Sherwood said to a senior Israeli official at a news conference in Jerusalem on Sunday afternoon. "I've actually just come here straight from Gaza, and the idea that the strikes are surgical is, um, not quite accurate. And actually the casualty toll has increased quite a lot in the last 24 hours. A lot of them are civilians. A lot of children are now being killed."
The Israeli official was Moshe "Bogi" Ya'alon, whose titles include deputy prime minister and Minster for Strategic Affairs. In the 1990s, he was Chief of Staff of the IDF. He stood by "surgical." "It is within our values as well as our interest to avoid what is called collateral damage, or hitting noninvolved people," Ya'alon said. "For our soldiers, hitting noninvolved people — I'm talking about women and kids — is a failure. Not like it is in the other side. They target deliberately our civilians. But when they use their own civilians as human shields, what is our choice? To allow them to hit our civilians?"
— With reporting by Aaron J. Klein / Tel Aviv