text:
The Ninth Circuit correctly dismissed Jose Padilla's lawsuit against John Yoo, the former Department of Justice official who provided key analysis of legal questions arising from the war on terrorism. But being the traditionally liberal and oft-reversed Ninth Circuit, the court could not leave well enough alone and issued an opinion that casts doubt on the lawfulness of terrorist detention policies and opens the door to future lawsuits against officials responsible for developing and implementing national security policies. Though it reached the right result, the court's reasoning sets a dangerous precedent that may hinder future responses to attempted acts of terrorism. The Constitution assigns responsibility for national security to the political branches, and the courts should be far warier than the Ninth Circuit in second-guessing their decisions.
Jose Padilla is currently serving a lengthy sentence as a result of his conviction for various terrorism-related offenses. Prior to being detained by the federal government, he was, as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found, "a member of Al Qaeda, who has been an active participant in that organization's terrorist mission since the late 1990s."[1] From 2002 to 2006, Padilla was detained as an enemy combatant and held in the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. During that time, he was the subject of legal proceedings to obtain his release that twice rose to the Supreme Court. In 2006, he was transferred to civilian custody in Florida, where he was subsequently tried and convicted.
With two lawsuits undertaken by civil liberties activists and law school clinics, Padilla has again engaged the federal courts in contesting his detention as an enemy combatant. The first, against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and various members of the military chain of command, was dismissed by the Fourth Circuit in January. The second was against John Yoo for the legal advice he provided as an attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
Padilla alleged that Yoo, though his legal memoranda, shaped the government's response to the 9/11 attacks and authorized Padilla's unlawful detention and treatment as an enemy combatant—in more specific terms, essentially the same arguments that Padilla raised in his prior habeas petitions. Padilla's complaint sought a declaration that Yoo had violated his rights under the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (by impeding his practice of Islam while detained) and monetary damages from Yoo personally. The district court denied Yoo's motion to dismiss, holding that the law authorized a damages suit against national security officials, that Padilla had adequately alleged Yoo's personal responsibility for the alleged violations of Padilla's rights, and that Padilla's rights had been clearly established at the time of his detention. This was the decision on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
"Special Factors Counseling Hesitation"
Padilla's lawsuit against Yoo is but one of several seeking monetary damages from national security officials for carrying out their duty to protect the nation. Each relies on the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. Bivens held that an ordinary criminal law search and seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment can give rise to a lawsuit for monetary damages against the offending federal officials, even in the absence of a statute authorizing such relief.[2] Since Bivens, plaintiffs have sought to hold federal officials liable for violations of a myriad of rights, but the Court has applied the doctrine in a different context only once, in a 1980 decision that authorized liability for violation of a federal prisoner's Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.[3]
Recognizing that Bivens-type liability raises severe separation-of-powers concerns—because it intrudes on Congress's power to define the law and, potentially, the executive's discretion in carrying it out—the Court has limited its applicability in several respects. First, in general, Bivens is wholly inapplicable in areas where Congress has created alternative remedies. Similarly, Bivens will not apply where there are "special factors counseling hesitation," such as delegation of a particular function to one of the other branches or the needs of military discipline.[4] Second, because "each Government official...is only liable for his or her own misconduct," "a plaintiff must plead that each Government official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution," and must do so with "sufficient factual matter...to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Under this standard, it is insufficient to plead facts that are "merely consistent with a defendant's liability."[5] Third, even if the plaintiff's rights have been violated, an official will only be held liable where "the right at issue was 'clearly established' at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct."[6] Where the right is not so established, the official may claim "qualified immunity."
Based on these principles, the Court has declined to apply Bivens-type liability to those responsible for the nation's security. In Chappell v. Wallace, the Court rejected liability where soldiers claimed that their superiors had discriminated against them based on their race. The Constitution, explained the Court, assigned responsibility for military discipline to Congress, and "Congress has exercised its plenary constitutional authority over the military." Moreover, "The special nature of military life—the need for unhesitating and decisive action by military officers and equally disciplined responses by enlisted personnel—would be undermined by a judicially created remedy exposing officers to personal liability at the hands of those they are charged to command." Thus, "special factors" counseled strongly against a damages remedy for claims by military personnel that constitutional rights have been violated by superior officers.[7] In United States v. Stanley, the Court relied on the logic of Chappell to bar all lawsuits incident to military service, on the grounds that the Constitution confers authority over the Army, Navy, and militia upon the political branches and that judicial intermeddling in that field risks ruinous consequences.[8] Most recently, the Court rejected a claim alleging that former Attorney General John Ashcroft had abused material witness warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment, on qualified immunity grounds. Federal officials, the Court explained, need "breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions."[9]
In short, while the Court has not overturned Bivens, it has effectively confined it to that case's circumstances, on the basis that the courts are ill-suited to make the types of policy determinations that its approach requires.
The Fourth Circuit properly "approach[ed] Padilla's invitation to imply a Bivens action" against national security and military officials "with skepticism." Padilla, the court observed, "seeks quite candidly to have the judiciary review and disapprove sensitive military decisions made after extensive deliberations within the executive branch as to what the law permitted, what national security required, and how best to reconcile competing values"—a question well beyond any court's competence. Merely litigating Padilla's claim, the court explained, "risks interference with military and intelligence operations on a wide scale." And imposing liability would leave future officials "shadowed...by the thought that [they] would face prolonged civil litigation and potential personal liability" for discharging their duties on behalf of the nation. The judicial branch, it concluded, "should not proceed down this highly problematic road in the absence of affirmative action by Congress."[10]
Throwing Open the Door
If only the Ninth Circuit shared the Fourth Circuit's justified skepticism as to the appropriateness of judicial intermeddling in the most sensitive matters of national security policymaking and practice. Rather than address the Bivens question head on, or at least the question of whether a government attorney may be held liable for his legal advice, the court turned instead to the far narrower question of qualified immunity. Padilla's rights as a detainee, it held, were not clearly established during the period from 2001 to 2003, when Yoo was at OLC. Nor was it clearly established that his treatment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fourth Amendment. On that basis, and without fully absolving Yoo of constitutional violation, the court held that Yoo could not be held liable.
The court, however, strongly implies that its decision is limited to its precise terms. Decisions after 2003, it suggests, may have established the contours of detainees' rights. And it states, in a footnote, that "[r]ecent decisions…offer support" for the proposition that Padilla's alleged treatment rose to the level of torture. In this way, the court opens the door to future lawsuits against federal attorneys and officials responsible for formulating national security policy. Moreover, by failing to decide the constitutional issues definitively, it seemingly tars Yoo's conduct but effectively precludes him from challenging its reasoning. And it added insult to this injury by gratuitously, and erroneously, impugning his competence and professional standards.
While there may never be another case precisely like Padilla's, the Ninth Circuit's decision nonetheless leaves the law in an uneasy state. It speaks to the constitutional minimums governing the treatment of individuals detained as enemy combatants, putting officials and potentially military personnel at risk of personal liability, without actually deciding the issue in a manner that likely forecloses further appeals. It strongly implies, without so much as holding, that a government attorney may be held personally liable for others' decisions based on his legal advice. And its too-reluctant reasoning leaves one with the firm impression that Padilla's rights were violated, by the wanton acts of Yoo and other officials, but that the court was unfortunately bound to rule as it did.
Bound, it was, and the court surely knew that any decision in favor of Padilla would invite rebuke by the Supreme Court. This may explain why the court did, at least, reach the proper result and dismiss Padilla's lawsuit. But it neither explains nor justifies the court's cynical approach.
Implications for the Country
The chief risk of applying Bivens in the national security context is that it will distort the decisions of those charged with our defense, fearful of personal liability for decisions made and carried out in good faith, leaving us more vulnerable to attack. Although the Constitution does not bar such liability, it definitively assigns responsibility for balancing the competing policy interests at stake to the political branches, not the courts—as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized. The Fourth Circuit's decision refusing to apply Bivens is a faithful application of these precedents. The Ninth Circuit's decision—though holding John Yoo not liable for any depredations suffered by Jose Padilla—is nearer an abdication of judicial duty.
Andrew M. Grossman is a Visiting Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Mr. Grossman served as counsel for Donald Rumsfeld in the case of Lebron v. Rumsfeld.


text:
New London superintendent addresses some basic questions about school budget in forum
New London - It costs $91 day to educate a student in the New London public school system.
Gathered in the auditorium of the Winthrop Magnet Elementary School, about a dozen parents, school administrators and teachers participated in a question-and-answer-style forum as Superintendent of Schools Nicholas A. Fischer gave his version of budget 101.
"We (each taxpayer) pay one and a half thousandths of a penny to educate each child in the city of New London," Fischer said. The forum offered an opportunity for the public to ask questions about the school board's budget in a less informal setting.
Those in attendance asked about the budgetary impact of consolidating Nathan Hale, the merging of the schools finance department into the city's, federal and state funding and the City Council's reasoning for funding the budget and special education costs.
Fischer said understanding the budget is a complicated thing, but it doesn't have to be.
"Parents and staff want to understand, and have a right to understand, what's going on with the budget," Fischer said.
The City Council on Monday approved an $83 million 2012-13 budget, about $4 million short of what Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio had requested in his $87.1 million budget proposal.
Council and Finance Committee members met for seven hours Monday evening to approve a budget that reflects just over a 1 percent increase in spending, but due to a $3 million loss of revenue from the state and the additional $500,000 cost for the city to absorb the school district's finance department, the tax rate is expected to increase about 8 percent.
Last month, the council approved a school budget of $40.6 million, about $2.3 million less than what the school board had requested, 1.2 percent - $809,001 - more than this year's $39.8 million budget. But school officials have said the slight increase is the same as a flat-funded budget because the district is receiving about that amount in state Education Cost Sharing funds.
The school district's proposed budget, including grants and local taxes, is $52.2 million. Fischer said that under the council's approved school budget, local tax contribution is $13.8 million.
At the level the school board requested for its 2012-13 budget, the local tax contribution would have been $17.7 million.
"If we got a 10 percent increase, which is what we needed to stay level, it would cost the average taxpayer 44 cents a day, and we have to ask 'Are our children worth it?'" Fischer said.
Under a flat-funded budget, the school system, which has lost 100 staff members due to budgetary constraints since 2001, is facing layoffs of nearly 60 staff members.
Cheryl Lawrence, a paraprofessional in the school district, asked about retirement incentives for teachers.
"Is there any type of system we can think of to make it worth it to offer teachers a better incentive package when they're close to retirement so you can have them retire when they're ready with a better package and get new, younger teachers in to save money?" Lawrence asked.
Fischer said the district has given it thought, but there isn't money in the budget to pay for retirement incentives.
"As taxpayers of New London, what would you like us to do to help in this budget process to get what we need for our schools," a woman in the audience asked. "... I want to help the schools, what can I do?"
Fischer said that she needed to go to the City Council meetings and "make it clear that you believe that the education of New London children is worth it."
There is a public hearing on the budget scheduled for Monday at 6 p.m. at New London High School.
School budget numbers
Fiscal year 2011 revenue sources for the New London Board of Education and their percentage of the total:
State grants: $25.1 million, 49.91 percent
Federal grants: $7.5 million, 15.01 percent
Other grants: $505,363, 1 percent
Local tax dollars: $17.1 million, 34.07 percent
Stories that may interest you
Out and About: Big sound, intimate space at Side Door
It is small and intimate in there, and that's what makes it so great.
Stonington school board picks firm to conduct Chokas investigation
The board on Wednesday tentatively selected an Avon attorney to probe how school officials handled years of sexual harassment allegations against teacher and coach Timothy Chokas.
Creativity Heals: Finding peace through painting
"When you are busy creating, you forget about your ailments; you focus on what you are doing instead," Laite said.
Old Mystic bridge closure may be permanent
After 10 years of unsuccessful efforts to repair and reopen North Stonington Road bridge, it appears it will stay closed permanently.
Police find wanted man under laundry in Jewett City; 2 women charged with hiding him
Stonington school board picks firm to conduct Chokas investigation
Get ready: Health officials warn of 'inevitable' spread of coronavirus in U.S.
Sanders takes hits at debate while gaining spotlight as front-runner

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wastewater averaging is a way for you to save money. Wastewater averaging takes place during the late fall / winter months and determines a cap on the volume of wastewater you will be billed for each month for the next year.
Wastewater averaging is calculated from mid-Nov. to mid-Mar. when most of the water goes directly into the sanitary sewer system versus being used for outdoor watering.
Residential Customers
To calculate your wastewater average you must have at least 60 consecutive days of water use with a minimum of 100 gallons used per billing period.
If less than 100 gallons is billed for two or more months of the averaging period, the wastewater average will be set at a default of 5,000 gallons.
Non-residential Customers
New non-Residential customers wastewater averaging is determined by:
Austin Water is owned and operated by the City of Austin.


text:
Welcome to the new X1-DVR thread! We ask that you post all of your DVR related comments, questions, issues and feature requests here.
Below, you will find a series of X1-DVR related Help links that cover the basic functionality of highly discussed areas of our DVR product. The following articles provide answers to many frequently asked questions:
Understanding DVR vs. Non-DVR Set Top Boxes
Understanding Whole Home Scheduling
Understanding "Cloud DVR":
X1 DVR with Cloud Technology: General FAQs
X1 DVR with Cloud Technology: Recording and Playback Features FAQs
X1 DVR with Cloud Technology: Download Feature FAQs
X1: Live TV and On Demand Streaming FAQS
X1: Mobile and Online Overview (Understanding Cloud DVR Apps)
Thank you in advance for posting!
Solved! Go to Solution.
hey so my issue is that ill go to watch a recording and find out that my x1 dvr deleted it and i have no idea where it went or how to get it back. it deletes at least 3 or 4 of my recordings and i dont know why. also it doesnt show up on the usage meter either. the options are set to save until i delete and the meter is at 75% so if anyone else has this issue and knows how to fix it it would greatly help me thanks. p.s if anyone has any ideas as to why this is happening and how to make it stop i would greatly appreciate it thanks
My X1 also deletes my recordings without my permission. I've had it for several months now and I think it deletes my older recordings without asking or telling me. I just noticed that I'm missing recordings, all of them recorded months ago. So I manually changed saved settings to save recordings until I delete. A pain to do, but hopefully it corrects this.
Can anyone confirm this auto-deleting and if so maybe explain how to fix this? Thanks
I have this same issue. I discovered it about a month ago and went in and marked some movies that I recorded and wanted to keep to not delete until I say so (rather than "when space is needed")... well sunavabeech I just lost one of my favorite movies!! I am so frustrated. On hold waiting to speak with technical support. I'm certain they will not be able to "fix it" ... but I at least need to be sure this on their radar.
If any employees / mods monitor these threads, it would be nice to be able to see a "known issues list" that we can add to or monitor to see when things have been resolved. I see so many issues with this X1 platform, but don't have the patience to be on hold for an hour waiting to report them. HELP US HELP YOU fix this carp!
Yup, same thing with me. Deleting older recordings... It appears anything beyond 30 days?
As I had mentioned in another message thread, I have experienced the automatic deletion of certain types of content, newer movies and current season tv episodes. After 6 weeks or more, the 3 Matrix movies disppeared unwatched, and all but the last 3 current season episodes of Suits disappeared unwatched.
However, childrens' shows and long syndicated tv episodes have remained for months watched or unwatched. For example Criminal Intent, Peppa Pig, Word Word never go away.
What types of shows are you losing? I am unsure that this is a "bug" to be fixed, but rather may be a "feature" of X1. Is anyone from Comcast available to respond?
It does appear to depend on content - I've had childrens' shows last for several months, then disappear. However, newer things that are "on demand" or could be coming to "on demand" seem to disappear in short order (2-4 weeks).
This is annoying but seems to go along with the general instability of the X1 platform.
I have had this problem for quite a while as on Monday morning i have had 6 episodes of Haven dissapear at the same time plus a movie and that was the latest time this happened plus i had plenty of other shows disappear in the past.One time i had over 30 shows reappear at the same time that the X1 deleted on its own as my percent full went from 39% to 55% at one time.
I've had this problem as well. I, too think it is related to the content, as the items that disappeared were sporting events and older content (masterpiece) were retained.
In this case, losing the recordings was no big deal. Still, it would be good to get a warning that a recording will be deleted.
The shows that are dissappearing are not being deleted but are just not being listed on your X1 for some reason but may show up again in the future as i was just looking again at a topic that i started in 10-3-2013 called Deleted Shows Reappear.
Comcast Cable has come out with a patch today that seems to have worked as i restarted my X1 and a whole lot of shows that were missing reappeared today.
@thejuice1254 wrote:
How do I get deleted shows back?
How do I reboot?
If I look In deleted shows on my dvr will I find them and can I put them
Back on my list of saved shows to watch?
Unplug your DVR for 30 seconds and then plug it back in.
An update to my earlier post. My recording from August 16 forward have reappeared. I am pleased with the response from ComcastThomas and his carrying the ball from our foruns to the development team. I am still missing July recorings, but if this is fixed I am satisfied.
Thanks all for sharing your experiences.
I also just noticed the first 2 or 3 episodes of new fall tv shows I recorded have vanished from my X1 dvr!
Plenty of space. Set to, When I delete. I also noticed that they are not available On Demand or on line. Even at the the major networks web sites. It seems as though the networks are controlling things now.
Oh, but I can purchase those episodes. Isnt that funny?
I have been having the issue Since Oct 24 and none of the firmware updates or patches has fixed it. The reason why...Comcast does not think that this is an issue. I have made over 40 phone calls and gotten 30 some different stories about the problem, and they all end with me being the only to have this issue. That was until 2 Comcast techs came to look at it...according to them it is a well known and documented issue. One of the techs has the exact same problem at his house. They have been instructed to tell customers that there is no fix and no ETA as to when it will be available...if ever. They told me to hold out until January when X2 is released.
At some point about 2 months ago, I had 187 programs recorded. The next morning, 70+ recordings were gone. They weren't moved to the Deleted section. THEY WERE GONE. They have never come back. I continue to occassionaly lose recordings. I always set the save option to "I Delete".
I am currently at 53 recordings and 52% full.
I am randomly getting notices that I have too many recordings. It says I'm 100% full. If anything is recording when this happens, it stops recording and completely deletes the program. I don't even get to see a partial. I either have to delete something or reboot the box.
No one is able to fix this.
Another annoying problem is the box is randomly giving notices that it needs to reboot. No explanation. This usually happens about 3a-4a.
I don't think X1 should ever have been released. I don't remember signing up to be an unpaid beta tester...
Its quite possible to have 187 recordings if none are HD programs as right now i have 147 programs and its 74% full now and that includes 9 football games,1 3 hour wrestling program,3 2 hour wrestling programs,5 college basketball games,22 2 hour movies and most of the rest of them are 1 hour programs except for 3 half hour programs all in SD.If i tried to record all of the shows in HD TV i would have gone way over 100% full.
I still have this problem. It seems it has stopped deleting old programs. But, it still won't let me have more than about 50 recordings or about 50% full. Also, I get notices saying I need to delete recordings because it's 100% full. I look at the list. It either says it's 100% full, or is only about 50%. When I get these notices, the X1 will stop recording or delete what it was recording.
I'm told a strong reset signal could be sent that might solve the problem. It would also most likely wipe out all the recordings. Or, I could take it in and swap it for a new one. Our local Comcast location no longer takes outside calls. So, I can't check ahead to see if they have a unit to swap.
And, there doesn't seem to be any help here....
Interesting idea. I'll have to test it.
I was very disappointed to see my recordings disappear and I am looking for an explanation...the old Comcast NEVER did this. X1 is painful to use. My son is in college and I tape our shows to watch when he comes home on break....since we have this "X1"...no joy...not all the recordings. I'm pretty mad. I would prefer my old Comcast back.
This problem just happened to me starting yesterday (4/13/2014). My X1 was 75% full yesterday morning, and now a little over a day later, it is only 25% full. I had the entire season of CSI and Grey's Anatomy saved (about 15 shows of each), and now there are only 2 CSI and 3 Grey's left; they are the latest episodes. There are other missing shows as well. Re-initializing did not work for me. There are a few of the shows available OnDemand, but not the entire season of either CSI or Grey's.
I've had the X1 for about 6 months now, and in general, I have liked it. There are lots of little things I don't care for, but mostly it has been an improvement over the old Comcast DVR. But this problem makes me not trust the X1 box.
Please, Comcast, listen to these forums and fix this problem.
We have 2 X1 boxes that every week as of late decides to dump all (regardless of the recording date) of our recordings into the deleted folder. Does anyone know what would be causing this?
And before you say it, yes I am aware that I can just restore the recordings but it is getting frustrating!!
Could it be that recorded series are removed simply because the series is available on demand?
Personally, I don't see any reason to record series when each episode is available on demand the next day. The only slight advantage is that you can skip over ads.
Mudvilleman and tbirdsong - I just sent each of you a personal message if you wouldn't mind responding.
Same issue here. Older shows just randomly deleting. Says only 80% of dvr space is used. Every week a few older shows disappear. Really annoying.
I have the same thing happening to me. It seemed to happen more when I was over 70% so I made an effort to stay below 70%. Since Monday I have lost about 12 hours of shows and I was only at 61%. It's very annoying when you have been saving stuff to watch and it just disappears. The thing that doesn't make since is that I have about 16 shows in the recently deleted folder. Wouldn't you think those would go away first if the dvr needed to make space. Total fail Comcast!
Good Morning:
Yesterday all of my recordings that were recorded before the first of April were just gone. These were recordings that I was saving because I liked them and wanted to save. Why
I too am having this problem. I recorded the season opener of Mad Men Sunday evening and now it's gone. Tonight I recorded Survivor, I see that it's there, go to play it and it's blank. I played something else from the DVR, then went back to play Survivor and it was gone. None of these shows are in the Recently Deleted area either. Arghhh... This is as good as not having a DVR. You can't count on the show being there later.
The X1 disappearing DVR problem has reoccurred here in Houston as well. I haven't determined a rhyme or reason to the problem. Missing recordings are not in the deleted folder. I would appreciate a notice if a fix is found. By the way, a reboot doesn't fix the missing DVR recordings.
Hi Guys,
Just a quick update. I think the engineers have identified what is going on here and we hope to get a fix out soon. Thanks for all of the help in getting to the bottom of the problem and I am sorry that there was a problem all.
After many months without issue, the deletion has started again. I have had 67 episodes of a show saved going back to September 2013. A few days ago, it became 65, then 53, and now 60. The only episode prior to December 2013 is one that I had marked to keep until "I delete" (a feature available on the web's DVR Manager).
Is this a new feature?
X1 is so unstable and unreliable that I can't believe that comcast implemented it. And ours can and does update at any time day or night. No one has been able to correct the issues we have or offer any assurance that it will improve. Shows disappear, don't record when scheduled, freeze while playing, just to list a few of the problems. The experience has been disappointing to say the least.


text:
Ordering is easy - follow these steps:
1. Select the Astrology Report you wish to purchase.
2. Fill in form details as requested.
3. You will have the opportunity to check that details are correct before continuing.
4. Fill in Credit / Debit Card or PayPal or Stripe payment details.
5. Note your order number in case there is a query about your order.
6. After payment: Astrology Report orders will be available immediately to view on screen and download as well as emailed to you.
Ordering is through PayPal or Stripe secure payment gateways.
Question: How do I know if my payment has gone through?
Answer: You will receive a Stripe or/ PayPal transaction confirmation email showing details of the purchase you have made, including a purchase Transaction ID.
If you receive more than one email and you have only made one purchase, please contact us, and inform us that you have placed multiple orders by mistake. We will be able to arrange a refund, if necessary, and answer any other queries you have about your order.
Question: Can I pay by check or over the phone or via post/mail?
Answer: No, sorry at this time we only accept online payments
Question: Do you accept Visa Electron cards?
Answer: Yes, select VISA when prompted for your card type.
Question: Your system says that my card number is invalid
Answer: Please double-check your card number, and make sure you are not including any spaces. The number we require is the long number that spans the width of your card. The number will be 15 or more digits, depending on your card type.
Question: I have entered wrong birth data and want to update my order with correct birth details.
Answer: Send us a n email with details of the change/correction you want to make at Customer Support Email
My query can't be answered by any of the FAQs - now what do I do?
Support & Billing Inquiries:


text:
A small handmade wooden trinket box of Alder with a laser engraved Tree of Life as a heart by BurlWoodBox.
Exterior measurements are approx. 5" x 3" x 1 5/8"
Interior measurements are approx. 4 1/2" x 2 1/2" x 1 1/4" deep
This wood box is perfect for small personal treasures or as a elegant presentation for that special gift. Can also be used for your business cards or as a small jewelry box.
There are no stains or dyes used on this wood box. The colors were created by Mother Nature and we have used tung oil and polyurethane to enhance the wood's natural beauty.
The interior of this box is lined with wine color ground rayon fibers. It is a blown in lining that clings to an adhesive that is painted on.
Brass barrel hinges give the box a clean finished appearance.
We can personalize this box for you with a laser engraving for an additional charge of $10.00. We suggest the inner lid as engraving on the burl can be very confusing to read.
Follow this link for engraving http://www.etsy.com/listing/161845106/laser-engraving-add-on-to-your-box?ref=shop_home_active_1
Shipping via USPS First Class Package.
More of these little guys can be seen in our Small Box Section, link follows
Other styles of our wood boxes can be seen on our home page, link follows.
Thanks for visiting BurlWoodBox's Etsy shop.
Payment must be made within 7 days of purchase.
We accept Pay Pal and direct checkout through Etsy..
All shipping is through USPS First Class or Priority Mail.
Contact us should you wish an item shipped overseas. Shipping rates and policy change so quickly now that we cannot give a shipping quote overseas until we weigh your particular box purchase.
We usually ship the next business day including Saturday.
Just contact me within: 7 days of delivery
Ship items back to me within: 21 days of delivery
But please contact me if you have any problems with your order.
Because of the nature of these items, unless they arrive damaged or defective, I can't accept returns for:
We accept returns on a case by case basis.
Returns do not include the shipping cost.
Items returned that have the holiday special free shipping will be refunded less our original shipping cost.
Exchanges are permitted with an additional shipping charge.
We are more than happy to discuss a custom order box as long as it falls within the parameters of a band saw box. You may give us a call or drop us an e regarding special orders or custom drawer configurations.
Oct 24, 2017
Second of these small boxes I've purchased. Beautifully appointed and finished -- outside and in, Perfect for storing small treasures. I'm sure I'll be back.
Oct 13, 2017
I purchased 6 of these boxes for xmas gifts. They are absolutely beautiful! A perfect xmas gift for some of the people that I love. Great price and fast shipping. Sellers were very responsive and super nice. Big thumbs up! Thank you!


text:
Greenpeace meet with local artisanal fishermen from the Syndicat des Pecheurs, near Port Louis, Mauritius. The Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior is currently on an expedition in the Indian Ocean to expose overfishing and to highlight the problems associated with excessive tuna fishing, unsustainable or illegal fishing practices, the lack of law enforcement, and to listen to communities, learn about fishing practices and build alliances so that the Indian Ocean region can continue to provide fish and fishing jobs for future generations.
1 - 12 of 5650 results.


text:
You are about to enter a website that may contain content of an adult nature.
Hello everyone, this is Indian cam girl SLENDERCH1CK here. I'm 25 year old Female speak English in the Indian live sex chat action. Come to my room and see my hot show, you will never regret you did!. I love to dance, swim and watching movies.. I am skilled in all areas , try me and see!! is my expertise and also what I will do in Indian live sex private show. I have Brown eyes, Medium Black hairs and my measurements are 32-22-35. For Turn ons: I love honesty and respect.. For TurnsOff: I am turned off by sly cheating men and rude disrespectful people.. If you prefer kinks, then Shaved, are mine. I'm just hungry for a HARD cock, can't wait to see u in my Indian webcam sex chat room! :)
Show more models
This website contains indian cam girls, desi girls webcam, hindi sex chat and live tamil chat room related sexually explicit content.
You must be at least 18 years of age to enter this website. © Since 2012 myindiansexcams.com Indian Sex Chat Network All Rights Reserved
AllHosts1 - AllHosts2 - AllHosts3 - AllHosts4 - AllHosts5 - AllHosts6 - AllHosts7 - AllHosts8 - AllHosts9 - AllHosts10 - AllHosts11 - AllHosts12


text:
The expanding shell of gas and dust from an exploded star glows in different wavelengths of energy in this composite image from three telescopes. The supernova remnant, known as E0102-72, is about 170,000 light-years away in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a small companion galaxy to the Milky Way. The outer shell, in red, shows the remnant's radio waves, which are produced as the expanding shell rams into slower-moving material around it. The blue, representing X-rays, shows that the remnant contains large amounts of oxygen and carbon -- elements that are essential for life. These elements were forged in the heart of the star, and may now be incorporated into future stars, planets, or even living beings. The green streamers show the remnant in optical wavelengths, so the eye alone would see only these structures (though not in green). [NASA/CXC/SAO/HST/ACTA]
You are here
Luckily for us, oxygen is one of the most abundant elements on Earth. It's in the air, the water, and the rocks beneath our feet. But the amount of oxygen on Earth is tiny compared to the amount created by an exploding star in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a companion galaxy to the Milky Way. It manufactured a hundred thousand times more oxygen than is found not just on Earth, but in our entire solar system.
The star manufactured the oxygen and many other elements in its core. It began life as a big ball of hydrogen and helium. Nuclear reactions in the core converted these elements into progressively heavier ones, producing energy in the process. Once the core was converted to iron, it could no longer produce energy, so the core collapsed and the star's outer layers exploded.
The explosion created a giant cloud that's expanding into space at thousands of miles per second. Observations by space-based X-ray telescopes showed that the cloud is rich in several elements, including oxygen.
Over the ages, some of the cloud's material will mix with other clouds. Perhaps triggered by the exploding star itself, these clouds will collapse and give birth to new stars and planets. It's a process that's played out countless times before -- including in our own solar system. That means that the oxygen in our air and water was forged in the heart of a star that long ago blew itself to bits, spreading life-giving elements through the galaxy.
Script by Damond Benningfield, Copyright 2010
- ‹ Previous
- Next ›
Get Premium Audio
Listen to today's episode of StarDate on the web the same day it airs in high-quality streaming audio without any extra ads or announcements. Choose a $8 one-month pass, or listen every day for a year for just $30.


text:
The Treasury Department and the IRS on Wednesday announced an expedited review and approval process for organizations requesting tax-exempt status in order to assist people affected by Hurricane Sandy.
The announcement said groups applying for tax-exempt status should file IRS Form 1023 and write "Disaster Relief, Hurricane Sandy" at the top of the form. This will ensure the application receives prompt attention and meets legal requirements for exemption.
Organizations that have already applied for tax-exempt status can receive expedited handling by faxing a request labeled "Disaster Relief, Hurricane Sandy" to +1-513-263-4554. The request should include the group's name, employer identification number, contact name and phone number.
The IRS noted that existing charitable organizations, including churches and other places of worship, frequently can administer relief programs more efficiently than newly formed organizations, since they tend to have fundraising and distribution infrastructures in place.
The website of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. government's main web portal at FirstGov.gov both list organizations providing support to victims of Hurricane Sandy.
The IRS also offers Publication 3833, "Disaster Relief: Providing Assistance Through Charitable Organizations," which provides information about establishing a new charitable organization.


text:
I'm having a hard time focusing lately, because all I want to do is hike. Hike, hike, hike.
On Tuesday, my friend Katie and I found some time to hit the trail. We couldn't decide where we wanted to go, so we asked my daughter, 3, to decide for us. She said she wanted to see a lake, so we headed up to Barclay Lake.
Barclay Lake is an easy hike. It's only 4 miles round trip, and the elevation gain is minimal. It's a great hike for all ages. My daughter was the youngest on the trail that day. We also passed a group of older hikers out for the day. I was pleased to see them; I hope I'm still hiking when I'm their age.
We reached the lake quickly. Even with a toddler on my back, 2 miles goes fast. We wandered down the lake until we found a toddler-friendly beach and then settled down for a snack. My daughter spent her time throwing rocks in the water, catching pretend fish and getting her feet wet and sandy.
On the day we hiked, it rained on and off, but it never got too heavy and the trees kept us mostly dry.
The lake is still pretty high; it was amusing to look out and see a fire ring under about 3 feet of water. There is still enough beach to have a nice little break. There are several camping spots near the lake and this would make a great first backpack trip. If something went wrong, even in the middle of the night, it wouldn't be hard to hike out the 2 miles to your car.
Part of the reason for this trip was to check out my backpack. I have a three-day trip planned soon, and I wanted to make sure my backpack still works for my daughter and I. I'm glad I did. She is too tall for it. It's OK if she's awake, but if she naps, her head rests against mine, and it's horribly uncomfortable.
A bit of advice if you want to hike with your young child: get out a lot so they are comfortable sleeping on your back. (I wrote about different options for carriers here.) You could even just put them on your back at home around naptime. Or strap them in and go for a walk around the neighborhood. It makes things so much easier. It's really, really hard to get a kid to nap outdoors otherwise. Things are too exciting. Why would you nap when there are bugs, plants and dirt to explore?
Anyways, I learned that I need a new backpack. I bought one the next day.
If you'd like to head up to Barclay Lake, it is off of U.S. 2, about milepost 41. You can find directions here.


text:
Transcript: Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
"This Week with George Stephanopoulos" debate on foreign affairs.
May 17, 2009 -- ABC'S "THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS" MAY 17, 2009
[*] STEPHANOPOULOS (voice over): Good morning and welcome to "This Week."
Harsh charges from the speaker.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We were told that water-boarding was not being used. The CIA was misleading the Congress.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Course corrections from the president...
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... and a P.R. blitz from the former V.P.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: We'd successfully defended the nation for 7 1/2 years. I believe it was possible because of the policies we had in place.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is Cheney right? Is Pelosi in trouble? Are Obama's choices making us more safe?
That debate, this morning, with two key senators, Republican whip Jon Kyl and Democrat Jim Webb. Plus, an expanded powerhouse roundtable with George Will, Democratic strategist James Carville, John McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt, Katrina Vanden Heuvel of the "Nation," and the former State Department official now joining her father on the front lines, Liz Cheney -- and, as always, the Sunday funnies.
JAY LENO, HOST OF "THE TONIGHT SHOW": She spent eight years telling everyone how dumb President Bush is and then, the minute you're trouble, "He fooled me!"
ANNOUNCER: From the heart of the nation's capital, "This Week," with ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos, live from the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue. STEPHANOPOULOS (on camera): Hello again. It has been a week full of accusations, confrontation, recalibration and new calls for investigation here in Washington -- just another week.
And with apologies for that burst of rhyme, we welcome our headliners to this morning's debate, Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia and the Senate's Republican whip, Jon Kyl of Arizona.
Gentlemen, welcome to you both. And there is so much to talk about this week. But let's start with that war of words between speaker Pelosi and the CIA. She says the CIA lied about these 2002 briefings. Leon Panetta came out on Friday, said, no, they told the truth.
And former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has weighed in, saying that this is despicable behavior, take a look.
NEWT GINGRICH (R), FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: I think she has lied to the House and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry. And I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal.
I don't think the speaker of the house can lie to the country on national security matters.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Kyl, how big a deal is this and how should it be investigated?
KYL: Well, it is a big deal, obviously. She is the speaker. And at that time she was the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. And she was one of four people who got the briefings. And it is pretty clear that Leon Panetta, her former colleague in the House from California, now CIA director, totally disagrees with her recollection of events.
Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she doesn't remember, although that's a pretty important thing not remember accurately.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So does it need to be investigated?
KYL: I am less interested in investigating whether her memory or correct or she lied about it than I am in the policies that flow from the debate that we're having. I am not one who thinks we ought to have truth commissions and all of the rest of it and keep looking backward. I agree with the president. We've got enough on our plate, we need to look forward.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's the irony here, Senator Webb, as Speaker Gingrich says, investigate. He wants a separate House investigation. Speaker Pelosi says, fine, let's have a truth commission, the one that Senator Kyl doesn't want. Where do you stand on this? WEBB: I just don't think it's that big a deal. I mean, I think we have selective memories...
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... is not a big deal?
WEBB: Well, I mean, they're going to have a fight. But in terms of where the country is right now, where we need to go, there are a lot of issues of accountability in terms of looking back as to the conduct of the past administration in a number of areas.
But really, in terms of what we need to be focusing on, let's accept that torture is inappropriate behavior. And I've interrogated hundreds of detainees and enemy combatants when I was a Marine in Vietnam, torture doesn't work.
Let's all accept that, separate it from these other issues that we're talking about in terms of having to resolve issues, like Guantanamo, and move forward.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, no truth commission?
WEBB: I think this will resolve itself without something like that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's move on to some of the other issues, because President Obama this week did make two significant shifts on national security policy. He said that the photos of that detainee abuse would not be released, he would fight that in court.
And he also shifted on the issue of military tribunals, even though he had been for them in the past, he heavily criticized the Bush tribunals, now he is bringing them back with some reforms.
And let me show you some of the human rights groups' reaction to these moves by President Obama. The ACLU says: "These military commissions are inherently illegitimate, unconstitutional, incapable of delivering outcomes we can trust."
Human Rights Watch: "By resurrecting this failed Bush administration idea, President Obama is backtracking dangerously on his reform agenda."
Human Rights First: "Reinventing commissions so deeply associated with Guantanamo Bay will merely add to the erosion of international confidence in American justice and provide more fodder for America's enemies."
Now you were also against the commissions during your campaign. Do you support what the president is doing here?
WEBB: I wasn't against commissions per se. I think that -- my view on...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't know -- well, let me just interrupt you there, because I have an AP story from April 2007 where you said -- it says that you told reporters that detainees should either be declared prisoners of war or charged in the American judicial system.
"We can't just continue to hold people in limbo without charges for this period of time and still call ourselves Americans."
WEBB: If I said charged in the American judicial system, I would mean under the traditions of the rules of evidence and these sorts of things. But my view has always been that we need to move these people forward.
We need to find those people who should be held accountable and hold them accountable. And people who have been held inappropriately should be released.
But I don't believe that the situation with people in Guantanamo, as opposed to others who have conducted activities in the United States are the same. I think that the people who have been held in Guantanamo are being charged essentially for acts of international terror, for acts of war, and they don't belong in judicial system, and they don't belong in our jails.
STEPHANOPOULOS: This is what the commissions...
WEBB: And I don't believe -- I do, I do. But with this caveat, we need commissions like this because there are issues of evidence that you cannot take care of inside the regular American court system, classified information that might have an impact on how we collect intelligence and those sorts of things.
And there are facilities built in Guantanamo right now that are able to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Agreement here?
KYL: Yes. I agree. There are some people that you try, very few, some more that you try in the military commissions, and we've always had military commissions of one kind or another.
Some that you can't because of the evidence and other factors try, and if they are the equivalent of prisoners of war, in this case, enemy combatants, you can hold them until the end of the war that you're in.
And then, of course, there are those who, on an annual review, you decide can be released. Unfortunately a lot of those that we have released because we thought they no longer posed a danger, have come back to the battlefield and have fought us.
But the president has made some changes in the military commissions to give these people some additional rights, and perhaps that helps to balance the situation. Congress, after all, passed the Military Commissions Act.
This would liberalize it to some extent. We'll have to wait and see whether it liberalizes it so much that they don't work anymore. But I'm happy to see how they work out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You laid out nicely the various groups of detainees that the president has to deal with, which, of course, brings us to the question of, what to do with those detainees once Guantanamo is closed, as the president has called for.
I know this is creating a lot of controversy in the Senate because of the possibility that some of these detainees may have to come to the United States.
And the attorney general, Eric Holder, was asked about this at the Senate this week, and he said very clearly that no dangerous detainees will be released in the United States.
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know, whatever quantum of proof, however you want to describe it, to believe that a person posed a danger to the United States, we will do all that we can to ensure that that person remains detained and does not become a danger to the American people.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And is that enough assurance for you, Senator Kyl?
KYL: Well, understand that we've already released those who, after careful examination, we thought didn't pose a danger. And the number is somewhere between 30 and 60 who turned out to continue to conduct their activities against us after they were released.
The remaining 240 or so do pose a danger. So there aren't any left that can easily be released because they don't pose a danger.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that's not exactly true, right? And I want to bring Senator Webb in on this, because I know there are about 17, I believe, Chinese Uighurs, they are called, who have been ordered released by a federal court, they've determined not to be a threat to the United States.
And the administration has been working on plans to bring them to Virginia. Can you accept them in your state?
WEBB: Well, let me back up for a minute. The answer is no.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No?
WEBB: No. And I'll -- and then let me explain why. But to back it up, the numbers that we've seen in my office are about 800 people have gone through Guantanamo.
The majority of those who have been released, we're down to 220 to 240, so the majority of those that have been released have been released to third countries, not actually released out into the open -- you know, to where they can... STEPHANOPOULOS: Just let out the door, right.
WEBB: Yes, right. So we don't know really where they have gone. This other group deserves due process. They deserve, in the right kind of environment, and I support what the president is doing on the military commissions, to have their cases examined, to see whether or not they should continue to be detained.
The situation with the Chinese Uighurs that you're talking about, on the one hand, it can be argued that they were simply conducting dissident activities against the government of China.
On the other, they accepted training from al Qaeda and as a result they have taken part in terrorism. I don't believe they should come to the United States.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Not to the United States and not Virginia.
WEBB: No, I don't believe so.
KYL: No, I totally agree.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about this, there is also the group that might have to be brought to the United States for trial or to be detained here. And the Republicans in the Senate have put out legislation -- not introduced legislation that says no detainee should be brought to the United States in any way unless the state legislature and the governor of the state passes -- signs off on that.
One, do you have the votes to pass it? And, two, will you block any funding for the closing of Guantanamo without those assurances?
KYL: That was a motion by House Republicans. We're taking up the bill next week. There will be an amendment that would preclude -- it would similar to that, but perhaps not identical.
A similar resolution passed a couple of years ago 93-4 saying, don't bring these detainees to the United States. And my guess is that none of this supplemental funding will be allowed to relocate detainees into the United States, that that amendment will be adopted.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Will you support that? Because you support...
WEBB: We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. There are cases against international law.
These aren't people who were in the United States, committing a crime in the United States. These are people who were brought to Guantanamo for international terrorism. I do not believe they should be tried in the United States.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet back in January, you supported the president's decision to close Guantanamo.
WEBB: I think Guantanamo has become the great Rorschach test of how we feel about international terrorism. We should, at the right time, close Guantanamo. But I don't think that it should be closed, and in terms of transferring people here.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, but I -- I just want to press this one more time, because, actually, in January, on January 23rd, you said the president has given a reasonable timeline here in sorting this out. You no believe it's reasonable?
WEBB: Well, no, I don't, actually. You know, having sat down with my staff and gone through the numbers in detail, and looking at, you know, the facilities that have been built there, and coming to the point where I have to, you know, personally weigh in on this in a detailed way, I think what we're doing is the right way.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you will not support funding for closing down Guantanamo?
WEBB: We should close down Guantanamo at the right time. I think what has happened is Guantanamo has become the issue rather than how we process these people who were detained there.
Let's process them the right rules of law, the right due process, within the constraints of how we have to handle these cases, with military intelligence and that sort of thing, but the facility is there at Guantanamo to do it. And then close it down.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So the January deadline should be relaxed. The president should not meet that January deadline. You don't believe Guantanamo...
WEBB: I think we should -- you know, I think we should defer to the judgment of the administration who is looking at this. I think we all are moving toward the right direction. But we shouldn't be creating artificial timelines.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the administration said January.
WEBB: They've said a lot of things and taken a look and said some other things. So let's process these people in a very careful way and then take care of it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me come back to you, Senator Kyl. Yesterday, President Obama appointed the Republican governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman, to be ambassador of China.
A high profile governor, he had been looking at a presidential run. Are you disappointed that he took this job?
KYL: No. He's a very capable guy. He speaks Mandarin Chinese. He had a post in Singapore similar to this in the past. He is very experienced. He is knowledgeable about trade issues. And I think it's great to have a highly qualified person like that.
And to the fact that the president reached out to appoint a Republican is a good thing. I'm not at all disappointed. It's, I think, good for the United States.
WEBB: I'm chairman of the East Asia Subcommittee on the Foreign Relations Committee, I'm happy to take a look at his qualifications.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Webb, Senator Kyl, thank you both very much for your time this morning.
Straight to the roundtable now. So as our panelists take their seats, take a look at Robert Gibbs from Friday's press briefing, showing just a little bit of exasperation after a week of taking a lot of heat from both sides.
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You started out on Monday wondering why we were being so opposite of George Bush in all of these questions. And on Friday, I'm answering questions about, why are we so much like George Bush on all of these questions?
I'll let you guys discern what inflection point -- what period of days that all changed.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we'll let the round table discern what period of day that all changed.
Let me bring them all in right now. I've got George Will as always, former State Department official Liz Cheney, Steve Schmidt, John McCain's former campaign manager, James Carville, Democratic strategist, also the author of "40 More Years, How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation". Making George Will laugh. And Katrina Vanden Heuvel of "The Nation" magazine.
George, let's begin with the decisions President Obama made this week. He decided not to allow the release of these photos of detainee abuse. He decided to reinstitute military commissions. You saw there a lot of human rights groups upset. Jim Webb apparently not all that upset as a Democrat. How significant are these shifts and are they the right moves?
GEORGE WILL, COLUMNIST: Well, they come after he essentially affirmed warrantless wiretapping and escalated in Afghanistan. So you can see why a certain faction of the Democratic Party is unhappy.
On the other hand, he has changed his mind on the photographs, but he's changed his mind by keeping a promise. The promise he made during the campaign was I will always consult with my commanders. He consulted with the commanders who said among other things, the 10 days after the Abu Ghraib photos were released, there was a spike of violence in Iraq. They strongly urged him not to release these and he won't.
Now there is a court involved in this and the court has so far said that under the Freedom of Information Act, they have to be released. He can appeal that, he can lose, and he can then say I did my best and the photos come out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That good enough?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, "THE NATION": Obama was elected in part to correct the illegal shameful policies of these last eight years. I'm interested in the military commission's decision. Because he sided ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you support him on the photos?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I don't. And I think they will come out and I think Obama could've set a clean break by saying we will never allow these policies to happen again. They should be released to a commission. That's what I think he should have said if he wanted to elide the full disclosure. But on the military commissions, he sided with the military over his Justice Department, which weighed in and said that the federal courts have a long and good tradition of safeguarding the government's national legitimate interests as well as safeguarding intelligence information and the due process of suspects.
I think that it was a mistake. And I think what he's done, President Obama, is made it harder for some of his supporters to support him. And he will need them. He will need them in the fights ahead. And he can't -- my final point, he cannot evade any longer the need for full true transparency and accountability. The momentum for a commission, a nonpartisan independent commission is so powerful at this stage.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm not sure that's true. If you heard those senators today ...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, we're not just inside the Beltway, George. I think there is interest in this country as more and more comes out if he's going to pursue what he wants to pursue in terms of his agenda.
LIZ CHENEY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I would imagine listening to Katrina that you would agree, then, that the president ought to declassified the memos the vice president's asked for, so the American people can see the effectiveness of this program. And I think the president deserves some credit for coming to the right place on military commissions and on the photos. But I do think it gives the American people some pause to sort of have watched the stops and starts here. The president on Guantanamo second day in office announces it's going to be closed before I think he had a real understanding and a handle on what the alternatives would be and how difficult it would be.
And with the pictures, I think also, you saw again, an announcement they would be released, and then having to walk that back, and even an admission, frankly, that he hadn't looked at the pictures before announcing they'd be released. And I think on issues that have to do with national security and war and peace, the American people would like to see a little bit more consistency in terms of their commander-in-chief.
STEPHANOPOULOS: George, the White House is obviously sensitive this charge on flip-flopping, but does it matter if you're going to end up in a place where you are going to get a lot of support?
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: First of all if you say my generals said I shouldn't release, it would cause a spike and the president says, OK, I won't release it. I think as George pointed out, that was something he said during the campaign. We would be awfully uncomfortable as Democrats if he were releasing these pictures tomorrow and it was these things that General Petraeus and Secretary Gates and the new commander coming into Afghanistan, General McChrystal, would've said let's don't do this. So let me tell you, as a Democrat I'm very happy that he decided to listen to his commanders. And it may very well be that as it winds its way through the courts the courts will release them anyway. I don't know.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, and maybe part of the calculation is they are going to come out eventually. But we're at a critical time in Iraq now as troops are moving out of the cities, we're heading towards elections. And Afghanistan, the timing here did matter.
CARVILLE: It did. And again, you would not want to be president and have the secretary of defense and your top commanders come back and say we advise against doing this. That would make me uncomfortable and I'm a pretty good Democrat.
CHENEY: Those same people advised against doing it before the White House publicly announced they would release the photos. It's a little disingenuous to say he made the decision based on what the military commander ...
VANDEN HEUVEL: But it's also buying the military argument -- It's buying the military argument that the release of these photos will increase violence. These photos, Guantanamo, Bagram, that has been the cause for anti-Americanism and our actions, our policies in escalating in Afghanistan.
CARVILLE: I agree with you. We became infatuated with torture. We should've never done that. However, and the reason you have these photographs is because they exist. Having said all of that, if these generals come in and you're the president and he says -- they say you shouldn't do it right now.
VANDEN HEUVEL: You don't envy ...
CARVILLE: I don't envy the decision, but I'm more comfortable as a Democrat with him making this decision than another decision.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Steve, he's also facing, we saw with the senator as well today, some more controversy over Guantanamo. And this was the next big political controversy that's going to be coming down the pike for the president. He said he wants Guantanamo to close, Democrats in the House say they're not going to fund it. And now appears the Democrats in the Senate are going to say exactly the same thing and what you've got above all is a huge consensus developing in the Senate that no one wants a detainee in their own state.
SCHMIDT: Well, there are a lot of very dangerous people committed to kill Americans that are housed at Guantanamo Bay. It was a very irresponsible decision to announce the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison before he had any idea where the detainees there were going to go.
The decision he made this week was the right decision. Katrina said he bought the military story. When an American military commander says you're going to get soldiers killed if you release these photos, commander in chief made the prudent decision, he made the right decision, and he deserves credit for it here.
More and more, though, you see over this course of his young presidency him adopting policies that he criticized on the campaign, because now he's in the real world. He's leading our country and we are a nation at war. And he is making decisions, thankfully, that are responsible with regard to the security of the country and the lives of our men and women.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the things you see is the president is pretty unsentimental about it. He's showing unsentimentality. He's also showing great flexibility, which is, you know, useful in a president, but he is getting criticism on this Guantanamo issue for not giving his own party cover. I mean, he's got his secretary of defense saying we're going to have to bring some of them into the States. He's got his attorney general saying we're not going to let any dangerous people into the States, but we might have to allow some detainees here, yet he's been relatively silent.
WILL: Well, you know, the supermax prisons in our country are full of Americans who have killed Americans and are perfectly safe. So the idea that we can't find a place to house these very few people who are really dangerous strikes me as preposterous.
And I don't think the country minds it when a president changes his mind. It indicates that he's looking at the evidence.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I agree with George on the supermax. But you said, George, that the next big controversy is Guantanamo. The next big controversy is the mounting evidence showing that torture was used to extract evidence to create a link, a false link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. That is a crucial area of investigation and anther reason...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me try to get a little bit more context here and we'll let Liz respond.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me just explain to the viewer what Katrina is talking about, a little more context on what she's talking about.
There were some reports this week that the vice president's office actually back in 2003, in April of 2003, I believe, sent some sort of word to Iraq that a detainee in custody should be waterboarded in order to get information to establish whether there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, or more information on weapons of mass destruction. Your response.
CHENEY: Well, two things. It's easy to sit here inside the Beltway and say gosh, no problem to put terrorists in Colorado. And I think, frankly, the people in Colorado would have something to say to that to object.
On this particular allegation, you know, nobody who is talking about this in the press has any knowledge of specific detainee treatment. And you saw the CIA yesterday come out and say absolutely unequivocally waterboarding was not used to establish this kind of a link.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I have not seen...
CHENEY: Well, you should...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I want to press one thing there, because there was a report -- no, but you explained one part of it. I just want to ask you to explain another part of it. The report, though, that the vice president's office did ask specifically to have information about Iraq-Al Qaida connections presented to this detainee, do you deny that?
CHENEY: I think that it's important for us to have all the facts out. And the first and more important fact is that the vice president has been absolutely clear that he supported this program, this was an important program, it saved American lives.
Now, the way this policy worked internally was once the policy was determined and decided, the CIA, you know, made the judgments about how each individual detainee would be treated. And the vice president would not substitute his own judgment for the professionals...
STEPHANOPOULOS: No one in his office either?
CHENEY: ... at the CIA. So I think it's very important for us to look at exactly what the facts are. And the facts are that three people were waterboarded. The people that, you know, claimed to have been waterboarded in these articles are not any of those people. And I think, frankly, you've also got to look at the source of some of these allegations, and one of the big sources is Colonel Wilkerson. Now, Colonel Wilkerson gets coverage because of his associations with General Powell.
STEPHANOPOULOS: His former chief of staff.
CHENEY: And has made a cottage industry of out, you know, fantasies about the vice president...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, he's not the only one reporting it, but it's good to get your answer.
We're going to have to take a break right now. This roundtable's going to continue after the break. The Pelosi-CIA showdown. Who will win? How much trouble is the speaker in?
STEPHANOPOULOS: We'll be right back with the roundtable and the "Sunday Funnies."
QUESTION: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States.
Everything that I received, we were not told that -- in fact, we were told that waterboarding was not being used.
No, I wasn't -- I was informed that a briefing had taken place. Now, you have to look at what they briefed those members. I was not briefed that. I was only informed that they were briefed but I did not get the briefing.
So, yes, I am saying that they are misleading -- that the CIA was misleading the Congress.
STEPHANOPOULOS: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi under fire but not backing down one bit in her Thursday press conference. Let me bring our roundtable back in to talk about it. George Will, Liz Cheney, Steve Schmidt, James Carville and Katrina Vanden Heuvel.
And, George, I love the way that Dan Balz of The Washington Post analyzed this. He said: Her performance -- "The speaker's performance in the Capitol was either a calculated escalation of a long-running feud with the Bush administration or a reckless act by a politician whose word has been called into question."
WILL: The Bush administration is gone and people addicted to attacking it really have to get over that. Her charges are so shrill, so specific, and so grave that they turn something that was arguably advisable, a truth commission, into something that's becoming mandatory to find out whether or not we can trust the CIA. That's a very serious charge she made.
CARVILLE: You know, seven years ago, the CIA says something. She says -- and she and Senator Graham and Senator Rockefeller say something. I just -- I don't think that Democrats really want to be at war with the CIA. We had that, you know, before and that's not particularly productive.
I think that she and the CIA director should sit down and they should as best as we can determine this is what happened. It was seven years ago. I'm a little bit like Senator Webb. I mean, we could...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But then why go the extra step and say they lied?
CARVILLE: Well, you know what -- and I love the speaker, she's a great family lady and everything else, I probably wouldn't have done that, OK?
CARVILLE: I just -- you know what I mean? It raises to the level of some kind of a -- "she has got to resign" or this or that. No, I probably -- if I would have been there I would have probably said, look, I have a very different recollection or something along those lines.
This is something that happened seven years ago. There's some support that they didn't tell us. There is some support that they did tell her. But she and Leon Panetta are from the same part of the country, they're from the same political party. It seems to me that somebody could sit down and say, this is our version of it or whatever and we need to get a better way to do this.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it doesn't look like the Republican Party is going to let that happen.
SCHMIDT: No, look, I think if you watch that news conference, I mean, she couldn't have looked worse, totally not credible. I think what's totally exposed here is her partisan witch hunt against former Bush administration officials.
And while I disagree with some of the policies, particularly with regard to waterboarding, sincerely the vice president and others sincerely believe these were the policies necessary to keep this country safe, which was kept safe for seven-and-a-half years. And I think the ludicrousness of we're going to try to prosecute, we're going to try to haul people before congressional committees. I mean, you look at the committee hearings on the auto companies, it's inconceivable to me what the circus looks like when we start to investigate the intelligence agencies in a time of war.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Hey, guys, this is about truth and torture. Illegal, immoral, wrong torture. This is not a political football game. I'm not here to absolve or condemn Nancy Pelosi. I'm saying we need to use this time to get to the truth of what a party in power in 2002, with all of the power in the world did in terms of briefings, insufficient, incomplete briefings on a range of issues, WMDs, 9/11 Commission, Iraq.
We need to use that. We need to declassify the briefings material and not cherry-pick as your father, Liz, wishes to do, is releasing...
CHENEY: My father doesn't wish to cherry-pick -- no.
VANDEN HEUVEL: He just wants two documents. But we need a truth commission with General Taguba. That is my proposal. The man who ran the Abu Ghraib report. Have a military man oversee and have real power to get to the truth of what we need to do to move forward responsibly.
Steve, to bury this will tarnish and undermine and subvert the justice and power of this country...
CHENEY: Katrina, there is absolutely actually no confusion on our side of this issue. On our side of this issue, you know, you can say you agree or you disagree with the policy, but these were policies that kept the country safe.
The vice president, as an example, has been very clear in saying absolutely I supported these policies.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, but...
CHENEY: No, but you let her go, George. You've got to let me finish.
The vice president has been absolutely clear in saying these are the right policies.
CHENEY: Now the people who seem to be confused are, you know, the Nancy Pelosis of the world who supported it but then they didn't support or who were really offended by it but they made no response to it. So I think it's very important here to be clear about what the facts are and in fact what happened.
CARVILLE: George, absolutely stunning finding and in line for four more years where Democracy Corps asked the American people, sometimes it you want to know an answer, best thing is ask the question. We said when it comes to national security policy, do you think President Obama is doing better, worse or about the same as President George W. Bush? Very fair question. The results were startling. Fifty percent said President Obama, 25 percent said President Bush. We're living in a world where twice as many people think that this administration is doing a better job on the signature Republican issue. This is somewhat of a -- this represents -- this is, again ...
CHENEY: It depends which polls you quote. No, but, James, there is a Rasmussen poll out that that says 58 percent of the American people polled believe that the release -- I'll show you my polls too believe that the release of the interrogation memos actually made us less safe so you can quote a whole range of polls on your question, James.
CARVILLE: Liz, this is just fact.
CHENEY: That's right. I'm telling you the response here.
CARVILLE: Twice as many people think that this president, on the question, who is doing a better job of keeping the nation safe, so what is clearly working is that this, quote, offensive, this talk radio offensive that somehow or another Obama is keeping us less safe is blowing up in their face and I'm all for letting the offense go.
CHENEY: I know you've been in the Seychelles but what's going on in the United States in the last week really bears little resemblance to what you just said.
CARVILLE: Again, this poll was conducted ...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Last week has been a coordinated campaign ...
CHENEY: Last week is actually the American people saying, wait a second, we do not want a president who is going to dismantle the things that kept us safe without studying them and thinking about them. And when the White House announces they're going to release pictures then turns the decision around and says, we're not releasing the pictures that tells you that the American people who are speaking out are actually having an impact ...
CARVILLE: Can I repeat this ...
WILL: Surely ...
CARVILLE: Fifty percent President Obama ...
CHENEY: In your poll. Which poll, James?
So, James, my poll says 58 percent of the American people actually believe we're less safe.
STEPHANOPOULOS: George Will in first and then Katrina.
WILL: Surely the point is smaller than this cosmic question we're talking about our national safety is did the CIA lie to Congress and if not, is the speaker, the third person in line to be president of the United States, is she truthful at this point? Now, Senator McCain was he says briefed on waterboarding and vehemently, his word, protested. Jane Harman who replaced Nancy Pelosi as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee says she was briefed and wrote a strong letter of protest. Let's find out what -- who is telling the truth, the CIA or the speaker.
CARVILLE: Senator Graham, who takes copious notes, says that he wasn't as did Senator Rockefeller as did Senator Feinstein. I'm all for -- it is imminently conceivable that seven years ago people have two different memories of a meeting. That's not outside the realm of possibility. But we can -- just like we need to find out if torture was used to extract confessions to talk about links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein which we know that al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11.
CHENEY: Al Qaeda had to do with 9/11 ...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Can this table agree that we need a commission to investigate -- to investigate the full range of abuse, misuse of intelligence, in addition, what we've seen over the last week, Liz, and we may live on different planets is a coordinated campaign to distract attention from the true architects of a torture campaign which has made this country less secure, I think that is what millions of Americans have seen and the polls, which show that President Cheney who has given interviews ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Vice president ...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Oh, I'm sorry. I always thought of him as president. Has given interviews to the compliant media is now 56 GOP insiders think he's doing damage to the Republican Party. What does that suggest?
CHENEY: Well, Katrina, I really appreciate your concern for the Republican Party and I think you and I do live on opposite planets but I do think that it's the case that the American people, you know, when President Obama first came into office, he was asked do you agree with Vice President Cheney's advice that you ought to take a long, hard look at these policies and at the intel and what we've learned before you make changes. He said I actually do, I agree with that. Day two, he comes into office and he doesn't just change the policy but he releases to the terrorist, to the enemy the list of the techniques that we used so those techniques are now out there in the legal memos, they're out there for the terrorists to train to. Then he comes in and says, listen, we're going to prosecute potentially people who worked in the Bush administration who worked very hard to keep the nation safe. Now, in my view that's un-American. That's not something that's ever happened before in this nation.
SCHMIDT: It's Banana Republicanism is what it is.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But he's pretty much taken that off the table, the prosecution...
CHENEY: Yes, but come on, George, to even suggest it, I don't he has taken it off the table.
VANDEN HEUVEL: When is democratic accountability banana republicanism?
SCHMIDT: ... thousands of Americans murdered in Lower Manhattan and across the country by these attack, anthrax, the belief that more attacks were imminent.
The public officials in the Bush administration who worked to keep this country safe, you may disagree with the policy, but to want to do these prosecutions, to haul people before the congressional circus up here is nonsense.
And at the end of the day, at the end of the day, the president made the right decision, in my view, to stop the practice of waterboarding. There are profound issues facing this country. We ought to move forward, not look backward. There is an obsession on the left with get Bush, get Cheney, get Bush administration officials, the Democrats now run this city and they should leave it in the past.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to go to the politics just a little bit because Katrina talked about that National Journal Insiders Poll where 57 percent of Republicans say they don't think it's helpful.
And I know you probably believe what your father is doing is helpful, obviously. But I want to get Steve as John McCain's former campaign manager, I know a lot of your former colleagues, Republican operatives, think it's not that helpful to have a former vice president coming out this early in this way. SCHMIDT: It doesn't matter. Dick Cheney will never be on a ballot again for national office. What you've seen him be able to do, though, is to put great attention onto an issue and to impact this issue in a very marked way over the last week.
The party doesn't have a leader right now and the party is not going to have a leader until we have a nominee. And so there's a lot of voices in the party and I think he has been a voice in this country on issues since the late 1960s and he has every right to speak out.
CARVILLE: I don't have a problem. He's the former vice president. He wants to go out. He can speak all that he wants to, just like Rush Limbaugh can speaks all that he wants to. There is a debate in the Republican Party. I think it is a good debate. And the vice president, Rush Limbaugh -- Rush Limbaugh says we ought to kick John McCain and Meghan McCain out of the party, good riddance to Specter. I'm sure it's going to be -- Monday, it's going to be good riddance to Huntsman.
I think it is healthy for the country for the vice president to be out there. I'm all for this. I don't have an objection to it at all.
STEPHANOPOULOS: George, has that brought a smile to your face?
WILL: Yes, I'll be you are all...
WILL: It's campaigning 101 to define your opponent. And your side thinks it is advantageous to define the opposition party as Dick Cheney. Pro-Cheney, anti-Cheney, doesn't matter because a rising generation of new Republicans are coming along and by the time we get into another election they're going to be the story.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet, one new -- one member of that rising generation, Jon Huntsman, has decided he is going to join Obama's team.
WILL: Sent to China. And that may be a tribute from the Obama administration to the political potential in Mr. Huntsman. I don't know. He also speaks Mandarin Chinese. He would be a good ambassador.
CHENEY: I would like to say something about the next generation of Republicans. Look, it seems to me that, you know, our opponents like to spend a lot of time talking about who is up and who is down.
The future of the Republican Party is going to be built based on substance. And a key part of that substance is a strong national defense. And what you see all across the country today, frankly, are the rise of conservative groups, people who say, I'm not Republican, I'm not Democratic, but I'm conservative.
And they've got a set of core beliefs, strong national defense, belief in the Second Amendment, individual liberties, low taxes, limited government, those are the things that this party has long stood for and that made America great.
The national security piece of it is one in which the vice president has, in fact, been very effective in the debate over the course of the last two weeks, not just in influencing public opinion but, frankly, in influencing the Obama White House.
So I think, you know, it's great for me to sort of hear James and Katrina talk about, you know, where they think the party is going. In fact, I think that the Republican Party has got to stay true to those core principles. And when it does, I think we'll be back to winning elections again.
VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, I certainly respect your father's right to go out and speak to the nation. I think those who disagreed with that have a kind of royalist mentality, that the vice president should disappear. I think two of the great speakers of our time have been Vice President Gore and ex-President Jimmy Carter.
However, what he's doing, it seems to me, is a kind of political suicide mission for the Republican Party with the Republican Party as his collateral damage. You talk about an evolving generation. That generation will find it harder, in my view, if the party is so allied with a failed and disastrous Bush-Cheney administration.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But my last point is, I do think there is energy in the Republican Party in an interesting area, which is libertarianism. George Will, smile or not, but I do think Ron Paul is not the right messenger.
But it was surprising that before Obama took off that a lot of young people found in Ron Paul's message, again, not the right messenger. But that's where you may see the strength.
On the other hand, the demographic shifts in this country speak to what Steve Schmidt spoke to when he spoke in defense of gay marriage and the need for a party to accommodate and be a big tent and not self-marginalize, which it has done.
CHENEY: ... give me time to respond to this.
CHENEY: Look, at the end of the day, what the vice president is doing is not about politics. And it's fascinating and interesting for all of us who care about politics to make these analyses.
At the end of the day, what he's doing is standing up because he believes that this country is less safe if we dismantle these policies, and because he believes it's wrong for an administration to come in and prosecute...
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... helping the Republican Party?
CHENEY: Absolutely. No question.
CARVILLE: (inaudible) losing the next generation. And the generation coming up, the Republicans have all 32 percent of the young generation. The big problem that the party faces, and that's one of the reasons I think that people want to, 66-32 voted Obama over McCain in this election. That was -- even John Kerry carried younger voters.
As these younger voters come to the system, the Republican Party is going to have to think of a way -- I think that they will -- to address these voters and these concerns. Right now, they're not doing it. And, therefore, as a Democrat, I -- I wouldn't -- and it wouldn't be any good -- but I don't think anything that this vice president is going to say, maybe he doesn't think is political, but if you're a former vice president and you attack an incumbent president, it is by its nature political.
WILL: The secret of the Republican revival are the seeds sown by Democratic policies -- inflation and all the rest -- and I suggest that one day, "40 More Years" will be a title as memorable as the book titled "Dow 36,000."
CARVILLE: George, you and I won't be here for this.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Couple of minutes left, and I want to -- as George is selling your book for you, I want to talk about the president today. He's going to be going to Notre Dame, facing a lot of protests on campus, George, from those who say he shouldn't be honored in this way by a Catholic institution. WILL: Well, the wrong principle is to say that whenever a speaker speaks at a university, the university is necessarily endorsing what he says or what he stands for. No one wants that.
On the other hand, the question is not what Mr. Obama will say today, but what Notre Dame says by inviting him. It goes against the guidance issued in 2004 by the bishops, reaffirmed this week by the protests from Cardinal George of Chicago and Cardinal Dolan of New York, saying that on a matter this important, on abortion, it is wrong for a Catholic university to muddy its message, because inviting the president suggests that the issue is not all that important.
CARVILLE: I think that what -- if it is that important -- and I'm not the best Catholic in the world, but I consider myself a Catholic -- what they need to do is get the faculty and make sure, like say, a constitutional law teacher there that would teach that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and that person has got to go. I mean, that's much more of an effect than anything like that.
I also found it interesting that the valedictorian, the young woman that's going to Harvard, to medical school said that she voted for Obama, that she was completely -- didn't agree with him on abortion. But if Notre Dame wants to get serious about this, I think they can go down and find -- I bet you there are a lot of pro-choice faculty members that might even be some that are in law school and find out what these people are doing.
SCHMIDT: As a Catholic, I agree with James completely on this. It always drove me nuts when President Bush was in office, he was invited to a commencement speech --and I'll defend the right of anyone to protest in this country, absolutely on anything -- but I think we do too much turning our back to each other in this country. He's the president of the United States. And that's an office that ought to be treated with respect. The university invited him, and I think he ought to be able to go and say his piece. And, you know, it's discouraging to me that you see, you know, time after time, let's turn our backs on each other, let's walk out of this stuff, and there's too much of that in this country.
VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, the protesters are more Catholic than the pope, the Catholic bishops more Catholic than the pope. This is an unwelcome intrusion of religion into academic life. This is a moment for people to listen to a president who is a listening president on the whole issue of abortion. It should be a decision between a woman, her family and her doctor, not the government.
And I think that there is a hypocrisy here. Where were these Catholic bishops on Iraq when the pope denounced it, or when George W. Bush, who presided over more executions as governor and then president, was invited to speak? So there's hypocrisy and a double standard.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm afraid that is all we have time for today.


text:
Microsoft has issued advance notification for the first round of patches for Windows 8 and Windows RT, which are scheduled to roll out next Tuesday.
The so-called "Patch Tuesday" will be an important event for early adopters of Microsoft's Windows 8 and Windows RT, judging from a Security Bulletin Advance Notification the company issued Thursday.
On November 13, 2012, Microsoft intends to release the initial set of security updates to its brand-new Windows 8 products - including the tablet-centric Windows RT - as well as older versions dating back to Windows XP.
Security detail
Tuesday's updates are comprised of six security patches: Four critical and one each in the "important" and "moderate" categories.
While Windows itself is the primary target for the upcoming fixes, one also covers a flaw discovered in Internet Explorer 9, while another focuses on Microsoft Office 2003, 2007 and 2010, including Office 2008 and 2011 for Mac editions.
The patches aren't all about Windows 8: Windows 7, Vista and XP will also receive the security updates, including Server releases from 2003, 2008 and 2012.
For Windows users who have flipped on automatic updates, the patches will install themselves magically come Tuesday, but can be triggered manually via Windows Update on the Start menu.
Via Microsoft


text:
Simply Bridal Beaded Engagement Ring
In Stock | STYLE: HBRSBD0035PLAA-C
Available in 7-10 Business Days
An elegant solitaire with a simple band cradles The World's Most Perfectly Cut Diamond. Take a full look at this stunning engagement ring and you'll discover a hidden extra sparkle in the diamond encrusted gallery.... *Prices are subject to change based on fluctuations in metal prices and currencies
A perfect ring of eight hearts when viewed from the bottom. A perfectly formed symmetrical fireburst of light when seen from the top. Diamonds cut and polished at 100X magnification - 10 times the industry standard. That's the perfection of a Hearts On Fire diamond. It's a perfection you can see. Hearts On Fire, The World's Most Perfectly Cut Diamond
General Details:
Available in 7-10 Business Days


text:
Golf, Swimming, Volleyball, Baseball, Softball, MMA Fighting, Horse Racing, Poker, Super Cross and Extreme Sports have all been keeping the ID Broadcast division very busy for the first half of 2017.Read more
As 2017 began, so did production on TURN: Washington Spies, which airs on AMC. Filming in and around Richmond, VA in order to capture the true essence of the era, ID has been proud to offer our lighting packages and support to the crew and the production for the 4th consecutive season.Read more
In May 2007, the Swimmer Family created DRUMSTRONG after their son Mason was diagnosed with bone cancer to avail an all-inclusive, totally participatory activity for all abilities (the runs, walks, cycling, etc. events can preclude those who may be debilitated). Everybody can 'bang' on something and make a collaborative joyful noise to soundly impact theRead more
ID is very excited to announce after many years of loyal service and commitment to the company Rich Williams and Mark Rudge have been promoted to Vice President Positions within Illumination Dynamics.Read more
Illumination Dynamics was once again proud to supply and support the lighting package for The AMC television series Turn: Washington's Spies Season 3. Turn was shot in and around The Richmond, VA area including Historic Williamsburg and Petersburg, from November 2015 until February 2016. The show went extremely well, and ID looks forward to anotherRead more
Royal Troon Golf Club is this year's site to the 2016 Open Championship in Scotland. ID sent lighting directors Tim Juengel and Rasheen Crawley to help cover Golf Channel's "Live From" studio productions. In addition to providing crew, ID reached out to ARRI Rental in the UK to secure lighting for the onsite studio.Read more
With spring upon us the Illumination Dynamics Charlotte office is ready to serve you as your one stop shop for Commercial, TV and Feature Film productions. Offering complete camera packages, a vast selection of lighting, grip truck packages, generators and dolly packages we have your shoot covered.Read more
Since the unveiling of ARRI's new SkyPanel LED soft lights, ID's Broadcast division has been able to put them to good use. ID was one of the first companies to test the ARRI S60C in a live broadcast environment in the US.Read more
February, 2016 marked Illumination Dynamics' 15th anniversary. To launch this milestone year, co-workers and representatives from ID, ARRI Rental and ARRI Sales worldwide gathered for a festive BBQ lunch at ID's Los Angeles headquarters. Director of Automated Lighting, Mark Rudge, fired up his professional grill and smoker at 6 in the morningRead more
It was back in 2004 at the Pebble Beach Pro Am when ID began working with The Golf Channel. Now 11 years and 120 road shows later, ID is excited to still be part of this growing Channel. "The evolution of this show over the years has been tremendous," says Rich Williams, ID's Director of BroadcastRead more