Madam45for2923
Madam45for2923's JournalIs DU very busy here overnight? Is there lots of traffic?
What would account for that? Many DUers overseas? Lots and lots of night owls?
Is anyone having problems with their passwords this morning?
Mine did not work and I had to reset it. Also my time zone was changed from ET to GMT?
What is going on? Any changes that I was not aware of?
Is there a reason my password did NOT work this morning?
I had to reset it. It worked fine before til this morning. Plus my time zone also changed from ET to GMT? I just changed back to ET.
What is going on?
Abandoning Puerto Rico would be an impeachable offense
To divide the country with rhetoric, as Trump so often does, is one thing. But to actually abandon 3.4 million Americans in their hour of need not only would be an unprecedented and shameful act. It would also be grounds for removing an unfit man from the high office he dishonors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/abandoning-puerto-rico-would-be-an-impeachable-offense/2017/10/12/a1014552-af87-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html
1993 Hillary throwing like a girl. Yep that was a headline
?1471896258SNIP/
MOST people remember the 1994 baseball season for the way it endedwith a strike rather than a World Series. I keep thinking about the way it began. On opening day, April 4, Bill Clinton went to Cleveland and, like many Presidents before him, threw out a ceremonial first pitch. That same day Hillary Rodham Clinton went to Chicago and, like no First Lady before her, also threw out a first ball, at a Cubs game in Wrigley Field.
The next day photos of the Clintons in action appeared in newspapers around the country. Many papers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, chose the same two photos to run. The one of Bill Clinton showed him wearing an Indians cap and warm-up jacket. The President, throwing lefty, had turned his shoulders sideways to the plate in preparation for delivery. He was bringing the ball forward from behind his head in a clean-looking throwing action as the photo was snapped. Hillary Clinton was pictured wearing a dark jacket, a scarf, and an oversized Cubs hat. In preparation for her throw she was standing directly facing the plate. A right-hander, she had the elbow of her throwing arm pointed out in front of her. Her forearm was tilted back, toward her shoulder. The ball rested on her upturned palm. As the picture was taken, she was in the middle of an action that can only be described as throwing like a girl.
The phrase "throwing like a girl" has become an embattled and offensive one. Feminists smart at its implication that to do something "like a girl" is to do it the wrong way. Recently, on the heels of the O. J. Simpson case, a book appeared in which the phrase was used to help explain why male athletes, especially football players, were involved in so many assaults against women. Having been trained (like most American boys) to dread the accusation of doing anything "like a girl," athletes were said to grow into the assumption that women were valueless, and natural prey.
I grant the justice of such complaints. I am attuned to the hurt caused by similar broad-brush stereotypes when they apply to groups I belong to"dancing like a white man," for instance, or "speaking foreign languages like an American," or "thinking like a Washingtonian."
Still, whatever we want to call it, the difference between the two Clintons in what they were doing that day is real, and it is instantly recognizable. And since seeing those photos I have been wondering, Why, exactly, do so many women throw "like a girl"? If the motion were easy to change, presumably a woman as motivated and self-possessed as Hillary Clinton would have changed it. (According to her press secretary, Lisa Caputo, Mrs. Clinton spent the weekend before opening day tossing a ball in the Rose Garden with her husband, for practice.) Presumably, too, the answer to the question cannot be anything quite as simple as, Because they are girls.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/08/throwing-like-a-girl/306152/
Should the legal rights of children be expanded?
By Kenneth Jost
Introduction
Hillary Rodham Clinton kindled sharp partisan debate last year when critics accused her of supporting the right of children to sue their parents. And the riveting Gregory Kingsley case in Florida stirred fears that children would go to court to divorce their parents. Children's advocates applauded Clinton's views and the Florida ruling, arguing that children often need independent representation and a greater voice in legal proceedings affecting their interests. But conservatives warned that greater legal rights for children threatened parental authority and traditional family values. Now, with Bill Clinton in the White House and Hillary Clinton at his side, conservatives worry that government involvement in family issues will expand. They are pressing for a return to traditional values as the best remedy for the ills besetting America's children.
Overview
Twenty years ago, an up-and-coming children's advocate called children's rights a slogan in search of definition. Revisiting the subject six years later, the Arkansas lawyer-activist saw significant progress in defining and achieving children's rights. But she called for still broader action, including a greater voice for children in court and a comprehensive national policy on children and families.
Today, Hillary Rodham Clinton is in a position to turn her writings from the early days of the children's rights movement into reality. As first lady, Clinton is the country's most prominent advocate of harnessing government in support of children's rights. Her influence is already being felt in the beginnings of a multifaceted children's initiative by the Clinton administration (see p. 354).
But Hillary Clinton's views have also touched off a sharp debate over the relationship between the government on the one hand and children and families on the other. Political and social conservatives see in Clinton's emphasis on children's rights a threat to parental authority and traditional family values. They say her views invite children to sue parents over such issues as bedtime, allowances or household chores. More broadly, they argue that the government's increased intervention in family affairs has harmed rather than helped children by contributing to the disintegration of social controls and traditional morality.
The debate over Clinton's views flared as Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency last summer and fall. President George Bush and other Republican figures depicted her as out of the political and legal mainstream. Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, Patrick J. Buchanan told the GOP national convention in Houston Aug. 17. And Hillary has compared marriage and the family as institutions to slavery and life on an Indian reservation. Her defenders responded that Clinton's views were neither radical nor anti-family. Anyone who fairly reads what Hillary Clinton wrote, in the context of her work over the last 20 years on behalf of children, would see how outrageous it is to suggest that she is a kiddie-libber' hellbent on destroying the American family or encouraging crackpot suits by kids against their parents, said Robert Mnookin, a children's law expert at Stanford Law School.
Last July, a widely publicized court case in Florida gave shape to the critics' fears. A 12-year-old boy named Gregory Kingsley -- identified in court papers as Gregory K. -- sought and won permission to bring a lawsuit to divorce his biological parents and to be adopted by the foster parents who had cared for him for the previous nine months. In September, state Circuit Judge Thomas S. Kirk in Orlando granted the boy's wish, terminating his natural parents' rights and approving the adoption.
We hope it will not set a legal precedent in allowing children to sue their parents, said Caia Mockaitis, a spokeswoman for the conservative group Concerned Women for America. 2
Children's rights advocates responded to criticism of the case with two somewhat contradictory arguments. Many contended the case was not especially unusual. Transitional foster care followed by adoption, they said, is a common -- and intended -- outcome after children have been removed from their natural parents because of abuse or neglect. But some children's advocates also hailed the judge's ruling as an important precedent for giving greater attention and greater weight to children's views in such proceedings. People are much too ready to equate a child's interests with the interests of biological parents, said Elizabeth Bartholet, a professor of law at Harvard University. This case is likely to advance thinking about that.
With Bill Clinton in the White House and Hillary Clinton at his side, children's rights advocates had much to celebrate as the new year began. But they also faced the harsh reality of increased child poverty, family breakdowns and social tensions at a time when government programs to aid children were being pinched by budgetary constraints. The daunting task for children's rights advocates was to translate the widely shared rhetorical commitment to children into workable and effective policies to improve their lives.
Meanwhile, conservatives prepared to press their case for resisting government involvement in family issues and to urge a renewed emphasis on traditional values -- such as stable two-parent families -- as the best remedy for the ills besetting America's children.
Here are some of the major issues in the debate over children's legal rights: Have courts and legislatures in the U.S. gone too far -- or not far enough -- in recognizing legal rights for children?
Children's rights issues arise in an array of settings ranging from school desegregation and abortions for minors to juvenile justice and abuse and neglect cases. Since the late 1960s, the recognition of legally enforceable rights for children has advanced in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal and state courts as well as in Congress and state legislatures (see p. 344).
Read more here: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1993042300
Document APA Citation
Jost, K. (1993, April 23). Children's legal rights. CQ Researcher, 3, 337-360. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/
Document ID: cqresrre1993042300
Document URL: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1993042300
Hackers have turned Politifacts website into a trap for your PC
PolitiFact has been an invaluable resource for debunking politicians' misstatements and falsehoods. But now, it seems, some unknown actor is trying to profit off the website's popularity by hooking visitors' computers into a virtual currency mining operation.
The hack was discovered Friday by security researcher Troy Mursch, who noticed that visiting Politifact.com caused his computer's CPU to run at its maximum capacity.
The anomaly left telltale signs of Coin Hive a piece of code that can be installed on websites that, when active, diverts unused computational power on visitors' computers toward generating a Bitcoin-like currency called Monero. Under ordinary circumstances, said Mursch, Coin Hive is used by some websites as an alternative to advertising. But in the case of PolitiFact, somebody has programmed the site to run multiple versions of Coin Hive simultaneously, basically bringing any visitor's computer to a processing halt.
The phenomenon was soon confirmed by security journalist Brian Krebs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/13/hackers-have-turned-politifacts-website-into-a-trap-for-your-pc/?utm_term=.9de64c6009e6&tid=sm_tw
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/918928346943193088
Hackers have turned Politifacts website into a trap for your PC
Source: Washington Post
PolitiFact has been an invaluable resource for debunking politicians' misstatements and falsehoods. But now, it seems, some unknown actor is trying to profit off the website's popularity by hooking visitors' computers into a virtual currency mining operation.
The hack was discovered Friday by security researcher Troy Mursch, who noticed that visiting Politifact.com caused his computer's CPU to run at its maximum capacity.
The anomaly left telltale signs of Coin Hive a piece of code that can be installed on websites that, when active, diverts unused computational power on visitors' computers toward generating a Bitcoin-like currency called Monero. Under ordinary circumstances, said Mursch, Coin Hive is used by some websites as an alternative to advertising. But in the case of PolitiFact, somebody has programmed the site to run multiple versions of Coin Hive simultaneously, basically bringing any visitor's computer to a processing halt.
The phenomenon was soon confirmed by security journalist Brian Krebs.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/918928346943193088
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/13/hackers-have-turned-politifacts-website-into-a-trap-for-your-pc/?utm_term=.9de64c6009e6&tid=sm_tw
Question submitted by Madam45for2923
Question submitted by Madam45for2923
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Sep 19, 2016, 10:04 AMNumber of posts: 7,178