text:
BEIJING (Reuters) - New Chinese leader Xi Jinping's appointment of two top diplomats last week displays a desire to repair relations with long-time rival Japan after months of disruption, while keeping the United States and its strategic pivot to Asia at bay.
Yang Jiechi, a hard-nosed former ambassador to Washington, has been named the state councilor in charge of the foreign ministry, its top post. A fluent English-speaker, he firmly believes the United States should stay out of regional Asian affairs such as the South China Sea dispute.
The new foreign minister is Wang Yi, a smooth and urbane diplomat who knows Japan well and will be in charge of repairing ties with Tokyo, damaged by a bellicose spat over a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.
"China really does not want to see this kind of confrontation with Japan," said Ruan Zongze, deputy director of the China Institute of International Studies, a think-tank affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
"The new foreign minister has worked in Japan, which shows how much attention we are putting on this issue. We will communicate more with Japan to ameliorate the situation."
The military, often an influential voice in foreign policy, has also been making a series of conciliatory commentaries about Japan, indicating Beijing wants to climb back from the worst dip in ties between the Asian powerhouses in years.
Nevertheless, Xi will be hamstrung by the same foreign policy restrictions that beset his predecessors.
China's prosperity depends on having steady and peaceful relations with its neighbors and with Washington.
But Xi will have to prove to an increasingly nationalist domestic audience that he is defending China's legitimate rights and winning the international respect the country deserves as the world's second-largest economy.
There will be pressure on him at home to maintain a strong position on the disputes over the East China Sea islands with Japan and on the South China Sea with Southeast Asian nations. He will also have to address a strong perception in China that the United States is actively trying to contain Beijing's growing economic and military might, especially with the pivot to Asia that President Barack Obama announced in 2011.
"Rising nationalism in China is a big challenge for Chinese leaders," said Wang Dong, an international relations professor at the elite Peking University, whose academics often act as a sounding board for government policy.
"Equally, there is very much a balancing act that Chinese leaders have to take between the domestic audience, their expectations, and the foreign policy goals of ensuring a peaceful external environment for China."
Despite the diplomatic focus on Japan and the United States, Xi has chosen to make his first foreign trip, later this week, to Russia, South Africa, Tanzania and the Republic of Congo.
Russia is a natural choice, as the two countries share many common points of view, such as over the crisis in Syria. China is also desperate to have a stable friend on its northern flank to counter growing U.S. influence in one-time good friend Myanmar on its southern borders.
Africa is strategically important for China too, driven by Chinese hunger for resources to power its economic boom and African demand for cheap Chinese products. China's trade with Africa exceeded $220 billion in 2012, up around one-third on 2011, according to Chinese statistics.
Nevertheless, Beijing has to address concerns that its state-owned companies have imported Chinese labor into Africa to run construction and other projects, while pumping out raw resources and processing them in China.
"We have told Chinese companies that they cannot just use Chinese workers," China's special envoy to Africa, Zhong Jianhua, told Reuters. "I think most Chinese firms now realize this."
But the ties between the world's number one and number two economies remain key.
Xi met Obama in Washington early last year and U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew was in Beijing this week, just days after Xi was formally installed in office, to underscore the importance of the relationship.
For China, State Councillor Yang, ambassador to Washington from 2001-2005 and the outgoing foreign minister, is seen as a man who can deal with Washington while articulating Beijing's position on tricky issues like the island disputes, the yuan currency and trade spats.
China has only five state councilors and the post is senior to that of foreign minister.
Wang, the new foreign minister, is seen as a fence-mender. He has won kudos for successfully overseeing a warming of ties with long-time rival Taiwan as head of China's Taiwan Affairs Office.
Added into this mix is Cui Tiankai, a deputy foreign minister who is tipped to become the new ambassador to the United States, someone who can be just as confrontational as Yang but who is also well thought-of in Washington.
"China does not want trouble. There are too many issues to deal with at home," said Ruan at the China Institute of International Studies.
However, there are still no foreign policy experts in the Politburo, China's elite decision-making body, signaling diplomacy will continue to take a back seat to domestic issues.
And China has show few signs of wanting to assume a bigger international role commensurate with its growing position in the world.
"In terms of comprehensive national strength, China is now number two in the world," widely-read tabloid the Global Times, published by Communist Party mouthpiece the People's Daily, said on Tuesday.
"China needs an even greater diplomatic strategy ... which must be to suit our national situation and not copy the experience of other great powers."
For instance, China imports around half of its oil from the Middle East, but it only plays a minor role in addressing crises like Syria or the on-going Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
The role of protecting the Gulf oil fields and key shipping lanes still essentially falls to the world's global policeman, the United States.
"I do not see ... any stomach for doing anything in the Middle East," said David Schenker, director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
"I don't know if that's going to be sustainable or if there are going to be pressures on China, as a growing world power and economic power, to become more involved in the region. But I would think over time there will be. But there's certainly very little interest in doing so."
(This story has been corrected to fix name "Schenker" in penultimate paragraph)
Additional reporting by Benjamin Kang Lim, Sally Huang and Terril Yue Jones; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan


text:
Point of View / TGT continued with its tradition and bestowed its Beast treatment onto the GTX 570 cards. We say cards because TGT offers two versions of its GTX 570 Beast – an air cooled one and a water cooled one.
We tested the air-cooled one, which runs at 841MHz for the GPU and 3960MHz (effectively) for the GDDR5 memory just like the water cooled one. The 109MHz factory overclocking comes with a warranty but at a slightly higher price as well. The card is available, here, at €360, which is about €70 higher than the most affordable GTX 570 cards. However, €360 is still attractive considering the fact that GTX 570 Beast cost about €420 about a month ago.
Beast has thus practically become synonymous with the fastest factory overclocks. GTX 570 runs at 841/1682/1980 MHz, whereas reference clocks are 732/1646/1900 MHZ.
The GTX 570 Beast we tested uses Nvidia's reference cooling. Despite the high overclock, reference cooling does a good job in keeping temperatures below 90°C. Of course, the Beast isn't as quiet as the reference GTX 570, but overall we really liked what we saw. The cooler can be clearly heard during intensive operation, but it's not too loud. However, the overclock resulted in higher consumption and you should know that the GTX 570 Beast will can draw more than the GTX 580.
With extraordinary performance displayed by the GTX 570 Beast, it definitely deserves the title of the fastest factory overclocked GTX 570. If you've developed a taste for factory overclocked cards with only the crème of the crop GPUs, then Point of View / TGT's GTX 570 Beast card is a safe bet.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Lore'l - Too Pretty [Outta They League Ent. Submitted]
directed by : Taya Simmons
OTL presents Lore'l "Leading Lady"
TOO PRETTY produced by Reef@StarringLorel
StarringLorel Instagram
Bookings: firstname.lastname@example.com
Outta They League ent.
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Change Over Time: Richard Misrach at Pace MacGill
California-based photographer Richard Misrach first emerged on the American art scene in the 1970s, praised for his pioneering use of color film and large-scale prints. He spent the next four decades of his career using these techniques to document the fragile relationship between man and the environment, paying special attention to decaying, off-kilter landscapes. His photographs of former nuclear test sites in Nevada and Utah,[…..]


text:
Subscribe To Connie Nielsen And Harry Lennix Offered Roles In Zack Snyder's Man Of Steel As Well? Updates
I've already subscribed
That's right, folks. We already have another Superman story for you. Just a few minutes ago it was reported that Russell Crowe is now in talks to play Jor-El, Superman's Kryptonian father in Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, but now we have even more. In that report it was said that the production is also looking for a known actress to play Lara, Superman's biological mother. Looks like somebody at Warner Bros. popped a copy of Gladiator into the Blu-ray player this weekend.
The Facebook page "Superman: Man of Steel (2012)" (via Latino Review) has posted what they are saying is a clipping from a copy of Production Weekly that says that offers are currently out to both Connie Nielsen and Harry Lennix for parts in Man of Steel. While Lennix's role is unspecified, it says that Nielsen is up for the part of Lara. Should she accept the role, it would be the second time that she's worked with Crowe, having played Lucilla in Ridley Scott's Gladiator. It should be noted that the Facebook page doesn't appear to be in any way affiliated with the actual production.
When the previous report said that they were looking for a big name actress I assumed that they would be going for someone with A-list status, but you're not going to hear any complaints from me about this. As small as Jor-El's role is, Lara's role is even smaller, so it doesn't really make sense to spend millions on someone who will likely get less than 10 minutes of screen time. So, again, I'll throw it to you: thoughts on Connie Nielsen as Lara? Who do you think Harry Lennix will play? Discuss.


text:
A women came home one day with a mirror and told her husband it was magic. Her husband told her to prove it.
She said watch, ''Mirror, mirror on the wall, make my boobs biggest of all.''
Sure enough, they grew huge.
The husband was amazed and said, "Ooh, oooh, let me try! Mirror, mirror show me more, make my dick touch the floor.''
His legs fell off.


text:
Student Success and Advising Office
Home » Learning CenterMenu
Learning Center
What we do
Our goal is to help Western students acquire and maintain skills necessary to become confident, successful college students.
Our services are available to all WOU students
Can't find what you need?
- Call (503) 838-8428
- Email firstname.lastname@example.com
Services include:
- Academic tutoring with peer students
- Study areas & study group assistance
- Study skills evaluations and resources
- Computer lab
Tutoring assistance focuses on the LACC and the B.A./B.S. degree requirements. Our Peer Tutors have been recommended by faculty. The tutor's goal is to help you improve your knowledge, and develop better study habits. You must be currently enrolled in the requested class at WOU for tutoring.
To learn more: click here
Location & hours:
- Location: Academic Programs & Support Center, Room 401
- Hours: Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00; Tutoring appointments after 5:00 meet in Ackerman Hall


text:
Schools Outreach Testimonials
When PDX Pop Now! comes to a school, the energy of the day is incredible. Our volunteers are passionate about bringing music to students and the kids really enjoy the new experience. You can hear instruments and drum beats down the hallways and feel the excitement for the afternoon concert building. The local bands love sharing their music with such an enthusiastic crowd too.
"The PDX event was a tremendous success—EVERY teacher, parent and administrator say so, and you could see how the kids felt. I told you how significant some of those smiles were. Kids sought me out after school to thank me for bringing you all in. (And I needed some coolness points with middle school, so thanks for that!) Several kids asked if they could get into band——some of them who I had begged to join this fall. The LA teacher is trying to hook up with Luck One for their poetry slam later this year. I could go on and on, but must instead go teach class. Just didn't want another moment to go by without saying THANKS!!!!"
– Becky Underhill, Music Teacher at Boise Eliot
"We had the most amazing experience with you guy's and the kids really did LOVE it!! I can
not thank you enough for allowing us to be a part of PDX Pop Now! Please let me know if you would like to come back another year, we would be glad to have you!!"
–Chelsea Butterfield, HB Lee Middle School Teacher
"I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the workshops and concert your wonderful volunteers held at our school. I can honestly say that it was the finest all day presentation any organization has presented in my fifteen years in education. Many of our students have written thank you notes and letters of appreciation. Thanks again for everything."
–James Rodriguez, Boise Eliot Teacher
"Playing at HB Lee Middle School was definitely one of the most rewarding shows I've taken part in, solely based on the positive response I received from the students and teachers. My main goal was to get across to the students was that 1. its never too late to take up a musical instrument and 2. that anyone and everyone in that room has the ability within them to make music. Hopefully I sparked some young peoples interest in producing by showing them how to sample, plus I got to sign autographs!! Thanks PDX POP NOW!"
– Anthony Anderson, aka Tope, Local Musician


text:
David Harris is the president of Children's Research and Education Institute and an associate of the Columbia Population Research Center.
H. Luke Shaefer is director of Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan, a university-level initiative that seeks to identify and test innovative strategies to address poverty, and is an associate professor at UM's School of Social Work and Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.
Expanding a strategy on which liberals and conservatives can agree


text:
Robin Bates has some real history with his '65 Dodge D100
Every car guy can remember his first drive, and the day they took the test for that all-important driver's license, but few of us can walk out to the garage and get in the very vehicle that we used for both occasions. Robin Bates is among the lucky ones that still has that first truck. It all began in the early '70s when Robin's dad purchased a used '65 Dodge Utiline (a.k.a. Stepside) truck from the Georgia Department of Agriculture. Robin was 13 at the time and learned to drive behind the wheel of the Dodge. A few years later he took the driver's test, got his license and became the official owner of the truck. It should be noted this truck was one of the last D100s produced with the early style grille; Dodge would change the front sheet metal in the spring 1965.
As fate would have it, a friend of his had a '69 Road Runner and he was removing the 383 in favor of a 440 motor. Robin ended up with the 383 and Torqueflite tranny. The old slant six and three-on-the-tree was removed and the Road Runner 383 was transplanted in the old truck. For Robin's junior year in high school the truck was driven with the 383 and the original faded green paint, a true sleeper that surprised more than one unsuspecting muscle car driver. As a graduation present Robin's dad had the truck painted along with black rolled and pleated upholstery for the seat, so the truck was finally "finished".
Robin continued to use the truck as a daily driver and then as the years passed it was more of an occasional driver. That 1980 high school paintjob was wearing thin, and he had a vision to bring the truck to a higher level. By now he had opened an automotive paint distribution business and his contacts with friends and business associates made the process easy, but this time it would start from the ground up.
Starting with the chassis, the front suspension was replaced with a Fatman Stage III front suspension while out back the Chrysler rearend was located with a No Limit Fat Bar system that incorporates large long bars and QA1 coilover shocks. All this rolls around on Billet Specialties Bullet wheels that measure 18×8 up front and a massive 20×10 inches in the rear. The Goodyear tire sizes are 245/45R18 up front with big 265/50R20 found out back.
After twenty years of "spirited driving" the 383 was ready for a freshening up so Lance Fugate turned the crank 0.010-over and bored the block 0.030-over and filled it with new pistons, with Comp Cams components moving the valves. Final assembly uses stock finishes with factory orange paint and the original breather in use. The Edelbrock intake remains as-cast and the March pulley system is brushed, giving the engine bay a very factory muscle car look. That same 1969 727 Torqueflite transmission was rebuilt and connected to the motor before being installed in the fresh chassis. The B&M Quick Silver shifter was also returned to service.
Moving to the bodywork, the Utiline bed was massaged to perfection with all of the stock appointments remaining from the tailgate chains to the riveted brackets. Inner wheel houses were modified to accept those large wheels and new wood and polished stainless steel strips finished it off. The cab remains stock too and since this base model truck used precious few emblems, Robin decided to leave all of them in place. After the body was straight Robin blended a silver hue using the paint he distributes, Valspar DeBeer and Matrix Automotive products. Larry Harper and Danny Hawkins handled the bodywork while Don Gary wielded the spray gun.
Inside the truck you will find the same graduation present rolled and pleated seat, and while it is showing some wear Robin just couldn't bring himself to change the upholstery. New Auto Meter gauges in an engine-turned insert fill the dash and Vintage Air provides modern climate control to the vintage cabin. A Grant steering wheel tops the ididit steering column, completing the interior.
And so the truck was "finished" again, and while it is no longer his daily driver Robin still uses the truck frequently and attends local cruise nights and car shows. This is officially a family truck so you can expect another rebuild in about 20 years. CCT


text:
Salsa Dancing in Torrance
Here are some salsa dancing venues near Torrance, CA for 2017. Please be sure to check our Schedule for salsa group classes, salsa workshops, and special events.
NOTE: We cannot endorse any particular dance venue. Please check reviews and online calendars.
MONDAYS - The Lighthouse Cafe, Hermosa Beach
The Lighthouse Cafe in Hermosa Beach has salsa dancing on Monday nights starting at 8pm, usually with live music.
FRIDAYS - The Warehouse Restaurant - Marina Del REy
The Warehouse Restaurant in Marina Del Rey has salsa dancing on Friday nights for a cover charge.
Sundays and Wednesdays - Alpine Village (Torrance)
Alpine Village in Torrance has salsa dancing on Sunday nights (usually for free, with a DJ) and Wednesday nights (usually for a cover charge, with live music).


text:
- About us
- Blogs
- Funding/Donations
- Challenges
- Chapters
- Papers
- Projects
- Code of Conduct
- Google SoC
- Recent posts
- Security Workshops
I'll tell you the truth: Export Address Table Filtering, the feature of the upcoming release of EMET, "designed to break nearly all shell code in use today", intrigued me a bit.
Since I wasn't able to find docs about the actual implementation, I started to think about how that could be done and I wrote a simple POC that uses VirtualProtect to flag the relevant pages of the .data section of ntdll and kernel32 with PAGE_GUARD to intercept read operations over the PEB.Ldr. A Vectored Exception Handler is then used to handle the exception and to check if the faulting address is within the code section of a module(MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION.Type == MEM_IMAGE). Here is the pseudo-code:
Then I started to think about how EAT filtering could be bypassed, obviously there are many ways to find the address of a function without touching the EAT, but I was looking for a quick way to just fix existing shellcodes and make them working under EMET. Since EMET is going to use hardware breakpoints it will be probably faster than the PAGE_GUARD approach because while you can put a breakpoint on a single DWORD using debug registers, the granularity of VirtualProtect is PAGE_SIZE.
But hardware registers can be zeroed out, disabling the protection, by taking advantage of the Structured Exception Handling and without even using a single API. And so, I thought, you can easily add to a metasploit shellcode something like this:
Btw, is there a way to quickly disable PAGE_GUARD using only position independent code and without touching EAT?


text:
Last November 7, a syndicated cartoon made the rounds in progressive circles. Drawn by Signe Wilkinson, it showed a battered, bruised, patched-up Uncle Sam defiantly flexing his biceps and flashing the dazed grin of a fighter who'd survived a vicious knockdown and prevailed in 15 rounds. The caption, "Democracy Wins," became a popular meme amid the liberal euphoria that broke out on election night. President Barack Obama had been re-elected, Karl Rove had been embarrassed on national television, and the Sheldon Adelsons and National Rifle Associations of the world had thrown hundreds of millions of dollars down the toilet. Voter suppression had not kept blacks and Latinos from the polls. Citizens United had not done its worst. Democracy had been tried and tested, and emerged banged up but miraculously intact.
Liberals had earned their moment of giddiness. But the assumption that "democracy won" because Obama won and Democrats carried the U.S. Senate is flat wrong. Dangerously wrong. Democracy, already in a weakened state, suffered serious defeats in 2012. The battle to win it back will be long, fierce, and uphill.
Contrary to popular wisdom, money did influence elections in 2012. More than $2 billion was spent on the presidential race alone—one-third of the unprecedented spending spree of $6 billion that was fueled by the rise of super PACs and nonprofit "dark money" groups. (The latter are "social welfare" 501(c)(4) organizations that don't have to disclose their donors, so long as they spend less than half of their funds on politicking.) At the top of the ticket, both sides' massive piles of cash arguably canceled each other out—if neither had spent a dime, Obama probably would have beaten Mitt Romney by a similar margin. But there's no question that the nature of the presidential campaign was transformed by outside spending: In 2008, just 9 percent of early ads were negative; last year, more than 70 percent were attacks.
Big money's biggest effect was felt in "down ticket" races—for the U.S. House, for state supreme courts, for state legislatures. While more Americans voted for Democrats than Republicans in House races overall, the GOP scored its second-largest majority in 60 years. Many of those victories were made possible by gerrymandering, but money was clearly a factor: House Republicans outraised their Democratic counterparts by a sizable margin, and far more dark money was behind conservative candidates. The same was true in state races, where large infusions of cash can overwhelm the opposition, and where Republicans also spent considerably more. After the votes were tallied, Republicans controlled 28 state houses, 30 state senates, and 30 governorships. Although conservative groups' attempts to purchase control of state supreme courts failed in some cases, they worked wonders in others. In North Carolina, one outside group alone threw $1.9 million behind conservative judge Paul Newby, whose narrow victory over Judge Sam Ervin—grandson of the Democratic senator who led the Watergate committee—gave conservatives a 4-3 majority on the court.
"From a surprising number of quarters we now hear musings that the super PACs and dark money had little impact," said Michael Copps, a former commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who now works for the public-interest group Common Cause, at a post-election forum in Washington. "That's just plain wrong. Sure, Obama was re-elected. But do we really think that all those hundreds of millions of special-interest dollars didn't matter? Or that suddenly billionaires have learned their lesson and will cease and desist from trying to buy elections?"
The winners in both parties emerged from the campaign more indebted than ever to the financial elite who bankrolled their efforts. "They're raising money not from all of us but from the tiniest fraction of the 1 percent of us," says Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard law professor who's become one of the nation's leading advocates for campaign-finance reform. "It's 0.05 percent—one-twentieth of 1 percent of Americans who are the relevant funders of these campaigns. The fact that Democrats won doesn't show that those funders had no influence. The fact that Democrats won shows that the funders of the Democrats had an influence."
Both parties share the blame for this sorry state of affairs. It was Obama, let's not forget, who opted out of public financing during his first presidential campaign, leading to skyrocketing spending by political committees. In the 1990s, the Democrats' return to national power under Bill Clinton was backed by Wall Street money, which the party sought aggressively for the first time. If a super PAC had any decisive impact on the presidential race in 2012, it was the pro-Obama Priorities USA, which raised $79 million: The group's early attack ads on Romney painted an indelible picture for many swing voters of a rapacious 1-percenter who loves nothing more than firing people for the sake of profit.
The most pernicious effects of the 2012 spending frenzy will be the unseen ones: the constant threat that lawmakers, both in Washington and in the state capitols, face when they vote on issues dear to the hearts of billionaires, powerful corporations, and cash-drenched "issue groups" like Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. Their voices have been amplified as never before—a fact encapsulated in one eye-popping number calculated by the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and De¯mos. In 2012, it took just 32 wealthy individuals to match the combined donations of 3.7 million Americans who gave $200 or less to Obama and Romney.
Meanwhile, the election was anything but a "small-d" democratic triumph. It's true that Republican attempts to suppress minority votes and those of young people—by shortening early-voting hours, restricting voter registration, and requiring photo ID at the polls—were largely mitigated by successful lawsuits from voting-rights groups and the Obama campaign. The targeted voters turned out in encouraging numbers—African Americans increased their record turnout from 2008, Latino turnout rose from 9 percent to 10 percent of the electorate, and those under 30 made up 19 percent of all voters, up from 18 percent four years ago. But overall turnout was down—not just from the historic high of 2008 but from 2004 as well. Only 59 percent of eligible voters used their franchise. In all, more than 90 million Americans who could have voted didn't bother.
Yes, voter-ID laws made less impact than feared. But an electoral disaster was barely averted. If the presidential race had come down to one tightly contested state—Ohio, Colorado, Florida—it would almost surely not have been decided until well into 2013. The nightmare this time—next time—wouldn't have been about hanging chads. It would, most likely, have involved malfunctioning voting machines or provisional ballots—those cast by voters who show up at the polls but don't show up on their precinct's registration rolls. In Ohio, more than 200,000 provisionals were cast. If the election had hinged on those votes, planeloads of lawyers from both parties—who were on standby to fly to Cleveland on election night—would have been scratching and clawing over every ballot. Social media, right and left, would have buzzed with rumors and innuendo. The Republican secretary of state, John Husted, would have become the new Katherine Harris. There would have been an endless stream of lawsuits and questionable rulings.
No matter the winner, such a debacle would have undermined faith in democracy and exacerbated partisan rancor in a way that not even Florida 2000 did. Every election carries the potential for a breakdown, because America is unique among all advanced democracies in letting every state—and in some cases, every county in the state—make its own rules about who can vote, how they register, and what votes are counted. Those rules are shaped and enforced, almost everywhere, by elected officials with every incentive—and under great pressure—to tilt the playing field in favor of their party.
"The big error," says Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown, "is that people see we didn't have a meltdown, and they assume the system worked. We didn't have a meltdown because it wasn't close enough."
In 2012, many of the fiercest fights in battleground states were not over whom to vote for but over voting itself. In Ohio, Republican lawmakers and the secretary of state tried to cut back on early voting—which was introduced in response to the suppression of black voters in 2004—only to be thwarted by the courts. In Pennsylvania, the Republican house majority leader bragged that a new, strict voter-ID law, which threatened to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of African Americans, was "gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." That scheme, too, was ultimately stopped by the courts, as were strict photo-ID laws passed in Wisconsin and Florida. In Colorado, Iowa, and Florida, Republican election officials circulated lists of voters suspected to be unqualified for one reason or another; Florida's attempted purge targeted 180,000 voters, 61 percent of them Latino and 14 percent African American. A combination of angry citizens and successful lawsuits repelled those efforts, but not before thousands received letters questioning their eligibility to vote. Florida Republicans also passed a law that required voter-registration groups to submit forms within 48 hours of their being filled out or face potential $1,000 fines; the League of Women Voters, among others, was forced to abandon its registration drive.
That was before Election Day. On November 6, in Pennsylvania, poll workers confused about the ever-changing rules and endless court fights turned away voters because they thought state-issued photo IDs were required. One county posted signs outside of all polling places warning that photo ID was a must. In Florida, where early voting had been shortened from 14 days to 8, lines were so long that some voters waited up to 7 hours. Some were still queued up to vote in Miami-Dade as Mitt Romney was conceding the election. Shortly afterward, President Obama ad-libbed during his victory speech, "We have to fix that." Perhaps he already suspected what a post-election survey would find: Those who waited more than a half hour to vote, nationwide, were almost twice as likely to be Obama voters. While 22 percent of African Americans and 24 percent of Latinos reported lengthy waits at the polls, only 9 percent of whites said the same.
The troubles had only begun. One week after Election Day, Arizona still had some 324,000 votes uncounted, most of them cast by first-time Latino voters. Four weeks after the election, Ohio announced that Obama's lead in the state had suddenly grown from 100,000 to 166,000. In all, 17 states were still counting provisional and absentee votes in the second week of December.
Welcome to the world's leading democracy.
American history is rife with attempts to suppress votes—by both parties. "Sometimes we have this notion that if someone's engaging in suppression, it's like calling them the worst Klan racist," says Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University, a former Justice Department official, and the author of Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression. "In reality, if you look at history, a lot of the suppression has simply been motivated by politicians who wanted a particular electorate. Politicians see it as another form of gerrymandering." In the late-19th century, for instance, Northern Republicans found ways to keep Irish and German immigrants, who were heavily Democratic, from voting—while Democrats in the South were preventing black Republicans from voting, often violently.
In 2012, it was impossible to disentangle voter suppression from race. Republicans might have been primarily motivated by the age-old temptation to shape the electorate to their liking. But the voters they wanted to filter out were overwhelmingly black and Latino. The effort began as a backlash to Obama's victory in 2008, when he was lifted by record turnout among minorities and young voters. When Tea Party Republicans swept into power in 26 states in the 2010 midterms, voting restrictions suddenly became an urgent legislative priority.
This was nowhere more obvious than in North Carolina, which gave Obama one of his most unexpected victories in 2008. For a decade, a broad coalition of progressive groups led by Democracy North Carolina had successfully lobbied for liberalized voting laws that transformed the former Confederate state into a national model for increasing voter turnout. The initial resistance to these reforms came from Democrats, says Democracy North Carolina's executive director, Bob Hall. "They were in control of everything then and not sympathetic to changing the structure. They didn't particularly want to add more voters—they just wanted to know who they were and get 50 percent plus one." But with support from reform-minded Democrats and moderate Republicans, the state first created early voting, then gradually expanded it—more days, more polling places—until a majority of North Carolinians were voting early by 2008, shortening lines at the polls. Lawmakers also passed same-day registration for the early-voting period, so that folks could show up, register, and vote in one swoop. Same-day registration had a side benefit, too: "It wound up cutting down on the use of provisional ballots," Hall says, "because people could just register and vote rather than have to fill out a form and election people having to research their status. They could just sign 'em up." It sounds like common sense, but fewer than a dozen states let folks register during early voting or on Election Day. Only a couple have North Carolina's "pre-registration" program for 16- and 17-year-olds: High schools hold registration drives, in lunchrooms and at football games, so that students become automatically eligible to vote when they turn 18.
By making it easier to register and to vote, North Carolina saw turnout soar—from 59 percent in 2000 to 70 percent in 2008. But Republicans had some concerns about the makeup of those new voters. In 2010, the GOP captured both chambers of the state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. A local billionaire businessman named Art Pope, who serves on the board of the Koch brothers' Tea Party group Americans for Prosperity, poured about $2.2 million (counting family donations and those from groups he backs) into unseating Democrats. Pope is also the major funder for several of the state's conservative think tanks, and voter ID was one of his idées fixes. It soon moved to the top of the legislative agenda as well. Republicans passed a strict photo-ID law, only to have it vetoed by Governor Beverly Perdue, a Democrat. Attempts to roll back early voting were also high on the agenda, but Republicans couldn't agree on how to do it.
That will change in 2013. While Obama only narrowly lost North Carolina in November, Republicans ratcheted up their edge in the state legislature, winning supermajorities in both the assembly and senate. Pope helped elect the state's first Republican governor in 28 years, former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory. (In December, McCrory expressed his gratitude by appointing Pope to his cabinet and putting him in charge of the state budget.) Voter ID, in some form, is now sure to pass. The day after the election, Republican lawmakers were guaranteeing it. They plan to roll back some of the state's liberal voting laws as well.
All of which puts Democracy North Carolina and its allies in the same position as voting-rights advocates in so many other states: After years of working to make voting easier and fairer, they're now forced to fend off efforts to make it harder. "If this isn't partisan, what is it?" Hall asks. "If this isn't voter suppression, what is it? It's a polarizing issue for the base of the right wing that is freaking out about losing control of white culture and white dominance. But it's also a motivating, energizing fight for African Americans and Latino voters in North Carolina. African Americans in both 2008 and 2012 have voted at higher rates than ever in modern history. You have to go back to Reconstruction to find higher rates. So they understand what this is: It is going back to Jim Crow all over again."
The national push for voter ID was fueled by powerful right-wing forces. The American Legislative Exchange Council, which brings together conservative lawmakers and big corporate interests, drafted a "model" voter-ID law in 2009—one that some state legislators would adopt almost verbatim. At the same time, conservative politicians, pundits, and radio shouters were spreading the word about rampant "voter fraud," despite studies finding it virtually nonexistent. The "election truthers," as Richard Hasen calls them, have been stunningly successful. One-fourth of all Americans now believe that voter fraud is "very common." Post-election polling in 2012 found that a majority of self-identified Republicans believed that ACORN, the anti-poverty and voter-registration group, had stolen the election for President Obama. The only problem with that theory: ACORN no longer exists.
"I don't impugn the motives of all the people who point to election integrity," Hasen says. "There are enough political operatives out there who have made many Republicans honestly believe that election integrity is a major problem. There's been a cynical manipulation on the right to get that message across."
After 2010, ID bills were suddenly everywhere: More than 65 were introduced in 34 states in 2011 and 2012. Eleven states passed strict photo-ID laws (which let voters use only a few forms of state-issued ID). Thanks to lawsuits and Department of Justice action, only four were in effect on November 6. But others will be activated in 2014—and by then, voter ID will undoubtedly have passed in more states, North Carolina among them.
The fact that voter ID didn't turn the election in 2012 doesn't mean that it won't in the future. Last year, the Obama campaign had to fight back against voter-suppression efforts; it could not win without minority turnout at least as high as in 2008. "The Obama campaign had incentives and resources to overcome those barriers," says Spencer Overton. "In election cycles going forward, you're not necessarily going to have candidates who have that."
Perhaps most worrisome of all for those concerned with voting rights: This year the Supreme Court is expected by many legal experts to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The provision requires nine states and parts of 17 others with persistent histories of voting discrimination to "preclear" any changes to election laws with the Department of Justice. Such a ruling would open the way for harsher ID laws and even more discriminatory electioneering. Voters facing discrimination could still sue their states, of course, but as Overton points out, "minorities in a small town in Alabama probably won't have the resources to bring a lawsuit to stop the moving of a polling place from an acceptable public school to an exclusionary, all-white club."
It wasn't supposed to be like this—not after the lessons absorbed during the long, distressing wait for a new president in 2000. Until that year's crack-up in Florida, most Americans were blissfully ignorant of the depths of our electoral dysfunction. After Bush v. Gore, it became clear that antiquated voting methods—the source of those hanging chads—were making it impossible for every vote to count. It became obvious—in the form of Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state and state chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign—that having partisan election administrators created the potential for serious hanky-panky. Stolen elections had seemed like a thing of the past, a relic of LBJ's Texas and Boss Daley's Chicago. Now we knew that elections could still be fixed.
For the first time in decades, elections became a political issue in themselves. Congress was compelled to act. But what it came up with was weak as water: The Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002 after ferocious arguments about states' rights to run elections—and after intense lobbying by state and local election officials jealous of their power. HAVA established minimum standards for voting machines. It freed up money to help states upgrade their equipment. It created the Election Assistance Commission, a national panel that studied and shared "best practices" with the states. But it failed to create a uniform national registration system—one result being that between two million and three million voters were turned away in 2008 because of registration problems. It did nothing to professionalize election administration, to take partisanship out of the process, or to standardize rules on when former felons can vote.
The closest that HAVA came to establishing federal rules was a requirement that the states allow people to cast provisional votes if there's a problem with their registration. That seemed like a progressive idea at the time, says Tova Wang, author of The Politics of Voting Suppression and a senior fellow at De¯mos, because "no one would be turned away from the polls anymore—everyone could cast a ballot." But there was a hitch, born of Congress's reluctance to impose national standards: "It was left to the states whether those ballots would be counted or not, so you ended up with all these states that just threw them away," Wang says. "So that was a twisted ending for that provision of the law." In 2008, according to the Caltech–MIT Voting Project, more than one-third of all provisional ballots went uncounted.
That wasn't the only twisted outcome. HAVA also spawned voter ID. "It was a big fight in 2001 and 2002 whether to include a voter-ID requirement in HAVA," Wang says. "Congress ended up with this very limited voter-ID requirement"—voters had to show some proof of address, even if only a utility bill—"but that helped to open the floodgates. The irony is that the issue of voter fraud and the issue of impersonation at the polls was nowhere in the 2000 election; that just simply wasn't one of the problems." But a few key Republican senators, pioneering "election truthers" such as Missouri's Kit Bond, threatened to hold up HAVA without some kind of ID requirement. Two Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer of New York, recognized the dangerous precedent it might set and voted against the bill. But voter fraud was now on the conservative radar.
Hasen believes that Florida 2000 had one more pernicious effect on American elections: It alerted both parties to the ways in which they could use the country's lax election rules to their advantage. "Florida served as a wake-up call, but not in the way many people think," he writes in The Voting Wars. "Florida mainly taught political operatives the benefits of manipulating the rules, controlling election machinery, and litigating early and often. Election law has become part of political strategy."
Nothing inspired more liberal schadenfreude after November 6 than the batting averages of Karl Rove and Sheldon Adelson. Rove's American Crossroads super PAC, which spent $176 million attacking Democrats and backing Republicans in federal and state elections, ended up with a rock-bottom 6.5 percent return on its investments. Meanwhile, Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate, coughed up more than $90 million—first enabling Newt Gingrich in the GOP primaries and finally dumping $33 million into Romney-backing super PACs in the final weeks of the fall campaign.
Surely conservatives had learned their lesson. Rove—especially after his on-air election night tantrum, when he refused to accept Romney's defeat after Fox News made the call—had gotten his comeuppance at last. Never again would he be able to fool rich donors and poison our politics with their money. As for Adelson, he would become a symbol of the whole club of filthy-rich suckers who'd bet big on Republicans and lost.
But then, shortly after the election, Adelson sat down with The Wall Street Journal and boasted of the many friends he'd made in Washington, quipping that "the reasons aren't my good looks and charm. It's my 'pocket personality.'" Far from ruing his misspent millions, Adelson came away convinced that he simply hadn't invested enough. Next time around, he vowed, "I'll spend that much and more." Why not? His 2012 investment had amounted to the merest sliver of his total wealth. Besides, if he hadn't bought a president, he had won his big bet on a new senator, Republican Dean Heller of Nevada.
The next time, who knows? In the week after the election, three 2016 presidential wannabes—Governors Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, and Bob McDonnell—all made pilgrimages to Adelson's Venetian Resort Casino Hotel. Adelson's losses hadn't rendered him less powerful; his willingness to spend mega-millions had made him potentially the most powerful kingmaker in America. Which helps explain why, a few weeks after the election, he could jet to Washington and score private audiences with House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
As the post-election debate shifted to the so-called fiscal cliff, Crossroads GPS—the nonprofit arm of Rove's money machine—began airing $500,000 worth of attack ads on the cable networks. With ominous music accompanying scowling images of the commander in chief, the text scrolled across the screen: "President Obama promised a balanced plan." The voiceover came in: "But so far, a huge tax increase is his solution." Crossroads wasn't folding its tent. Similarly, the Koch brothers' "social welfare" group, Americans for Prosperity—which spent $39 million in 2012—quickly shifted its attention to lobbying Republicans to reject any tax increase and allow the trillion-dollar budget sequester to kick in.
That's how money works in our politics. "The most pernicious influence of campaign spending comes not on Election Day but after Election Day," said Michael Copps, the former FCC commissioner, at the post-election panel. "That's when the real scandals start. Special-interest donors who contributed six or seven figures are looking for a return on their investment. They're looking real hard when a special-interest issue comes up before a congressional or state house or local committee or subcommittee. Their access is taken for granted. Seldom are questions asked when they knock on the door of a congressman."
Big money goes even further at the state level—which might be the most important lesson the billionaires learn from 2012. While Adelson tossed cash at losing presidential candidates, the Koch brothers were following the example of North Carolina's Art Pope and zeroing in on state legislatures. In Arkansas, the last former Confederate state still controlled by Democrats, Americans for Prosperity infused upwards of $1 million into legislative races, training its heaviest fire on about a dozen vulnerable Democratic lawmakers. Voilà: Republicans ended up controlling both legislative chambers in a state where Koch industries is investing heavily in a massive paper plant.
In their home state of Kansas, where the Kochs' business interests are vaster, they didn't seek to change the partisan balance—they wanted to cleanse the legislature of its remaining moderate Republicans. The Kochs backed eight right-wing challengers to Republican incumbents in the primaries and went eight for eight. It doesn't take a huge investment. In 2010, when more outside money was spent in the states than ever before, state senate candidates raised an average of just $132,000; assembly candidates averaged $66,000. Throw a hundred thousand into a state legislative race, and you can blow it up with drone-like precision. "These super PACs have learned how cheap state politics is," says Lawrence Lessig. "States are very important in the mix of policies that affect business like the Koch brothers'. They're all gonna learn, and they're gonna react, and I expect we're going to see them operate more effectively next time around."
It's not just conservative ideologues and high rollers who have learned from 2012. Shortly after Election Day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator Chuck Schumer, and White House officials joined a three-day meeting of the Democracy Alliance, an invitation-only group of big liberal donors and leaders of Democratic-leaning outside groups. The alliance had been instrumental in encouraging progressive donors to overcome their initial reluctance to giving to outside groups after Citizens United. "I think we've matured a little on this," says alliance chair Rob McKay. "There were a set of donors who I think would almost use it as an excuse. They could claim, 'Well, I'm all about public financing. It would be hypocritical of me to give to a super PAC.' But most of our folks know we're not going to unilaterally disarm. Would we love to see a public-financing system? Yeah. Are we going to get there in the near term? We know that we aren't." Alliance partners are investing in state races. They're also focusing on election reform, he says, hoping to get the latter issue "off the table. Let's make sure that one thing we're not worried about is whether people are going to be able to vote. There's an enormous competitive advantage if we can clean up elections."
For more than a century, reformers have tried to quell the unequal power of wealth in American politics. It's been a positively Sisyphean effort. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt inveighed against the influence of businesses on politics, proclaiming, "No enemy of free government [is] more dangerous, and none so insidious." Two years later, Congress passed the Tillman Act, which aimed to ban, as Roosevelt had promised, "all contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose." The ban was extended to unions by the Taft-Hartley Act four decades later. But it never worked as intended. In 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act made official the loophole that corporations and unions had long exploited: They could form political committees and raise money specifically for them, though they couldn't spend directly from their treasuries.
Even that scanty limitation didn't last for long. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that corporations and unions could open their coffers for "electioneering," so long as they weren't directly advocating for or against a particular candidate. Thus commenced the age of "issue ads," with corporations and unions sponsoring (mostly) attack ads and then urging voters to, as the Supreme Court wrote in a later decision, "call Jane Doe and tell her what you think." (No advocacy there!) The McCain--Feingold Act in 2002 tried to put an end to those "non-political" political ads, but the Supreme Court ultimately struck it down.
A flurry of decisions between 2007 and 2010 effectively removed every restriction on outside spending. In 2007, 100 years after the Tillman Act, the Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that any laws preventing corporate- and labor-financed ads from attacking candidates by name violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. In 2010, Citizens United and an appellate decision, Speechnow v. FEC, effectively allowed unlimited money to be poured into PACs (which now became super PACs) as well as into 501(c)(4) nonprofits.
Campaign finance has always been a playground for the rich, of the few. But thanks to the loosening of restrictions on giving—by both citizens and corporations—the few have steadily gotten fewer. In 2002, according to PIRG and Demos, more than half of the money raised by U.S. House candidates came in contributions of $1,000 or more, from just 0.09 percent of the population. The 2012 equivalent of that giving—$5,000 or more to a super PAC—came from 0.000342 percent of Americans.
In case you're still feeling sanguine about President Obama's re-election, give this a moment's thought. Last August, Mother Jones reporter Andy Kroll ran the numbers and found that just since April 2011, when his re-election campaign got rolling, Obama had attended 203 fundraisers, which worked out to one fundraiser every 60 hours. By comparison, Ronald Reagan went to only 80 fundraisers in his entire first term. That's the situation in which elected officials at every level find themselves—spending almost as much time glad-handing the gilded few as they spend doing the jobs they're seeking to keep.
Lawrence Lessig has coined the phrase "super PAC insurance" to describe the way that money contorts decisions made by those in Congress (and, increasingly, in statehouses as well). "The dynamic is this," he says. "You're an incumbent. The biggest thing you fear is that 30 days before the election some super PAC will come in and drop $1 million against you. When that happens, you can't raise the money you need to match it, because your biggest contributors have by definition maxed out. So what you need to do is secure what you could call super PAC insurance. Which is insurance that if you get attacked, there'll be somebody to back you up.
"So you get your super PAC insurance by sidling up to the super PACs on your side, and they demonstrate very clearly the behavior you'll have to demonstrate before they're going to be willing to support you: 'So, congressman, we're happy to help, but we can only support people who have an 80 percent voting record with us.' That gives you a target, that gives you something to work for. The point about this is: Not a dollar has changed hands for this influence to have its effect. It's the economy of a protection racket, because now everyone is just looking for the allies they need to protect them against the fear of an attack."
The rich are different in their political views. In 2011, the Russell Sage Foundation conducted a survey that turned up vast differences between wealthy Americans and the rest of us. The wealthiest were 2.5 times more likely to say that the budget deficit was the country's biggest problem—as opposed to, say, unemployment. More than two-thirds said that the federal government had "gone too far in regulating business and the free enterprise system." And they opposed tax hikes on themselves, which most Americans support.
The dominance of wealth narrows the scope of debate and severely limits progressive possibilities. Think about it: Why was Obamacare a boon for insurance companies? Why did Congress let the assault-weapons ban lapse? Why did the "fiscal cliff" debate over raising taxes on the wealthy begin with a ceiling of 39.6 percent, the level during Bill Clinton's presidency, rather than the 50-plus percent of the Reagan years? Why does the private-equity billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who has spent millions over the years to campaign against Medicare and Social Security, get to lobby members of Congress directly while those who benefit from the programs never will?
Money, honey.
Last August, an odd sort of super PAC ad hit the airwaves in eight-term Congressman Charlie Bass's New Hampshire district. The 30-second spot, called "Get in the Game," shows a salt-of-the-earth dad with his two kids at a baseball game. They start to sit down front, near a congressman who's partying it up in the front row with a lobbyist. "Those seats are taken," the lobbyist says and then fist-bumps his buddy as they laugh derisively. As the family moves back in the stands, the pattern repeats until they're ultimately about to be driven out of the stadium: All the seats are taken. Meanwhile, the ad enumerates the contributions that Bass, a Republican named in 2011 as one of Congress's most corrupt by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, has taken from big oil—and the favors he's done in return. "If we don't vote against Charlie Bass," the voiceover concludes, "middle-class families will never get in the game."
It was the initial blast from perhaps the most unusual super PAC in 2012. Looking for a fresh way to counter the influence of big money, Jonathan Soros and two fellow finance reformers dreamt up their group, Friends of Democracy, as a kind of anti-super PAC super PAC. The idea was to show that money--soaked incumbents who oppose campaign--finance reform can be beaten by challengers who support reform. The conventional wisdom has always been that even if Americans loathe the influence of money on our politics, they won't vote out their own member of Congress because of it. Hoping to prove that assumption wrong, Friends of Democracy raised $2.7 million to challenge eight House Republican incumbents and support progressives who championed election reform. The goal, says co-founder David Donnelly, who also runs the Public Campaign Action Fund, was "to demonstrate there's political power in taking on the issue of money in politics and demonstrate there's a political liability to being on the wrong side of this issue."
The results were stunning. In a year when Republicans fared well in House races, seven of the eight incumbents Friends of Democracy went after were toppled, including Bass. The key, Donnelly says, was "relating the issue of money in politics to issues that people are confronting in their daily lives." In 2014, Friends of Democracy plans to expand its number of targeted House races, backing not only Democrats but also Republican primary challengers who support reform. It'll also take aim at "one or two high-profile targets," possibly including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the longtime archfoe of campaign-finance reform.
In a wretched year for democracy, Friends of Democracy's success was one hopeful sign that maybe—maybe—Americans were ready to act on their frustrations with big-money politics and partisan electioneering. There were others. In Minnesota, a constitutional amendment to require photo ID was polling at 80 percent when it was floated. But after a canny grassroots campaign, it was voted down—a signal that public support for voter ID can be eroded when people understand its implications. Meanwhile, thousands of activists across the country landed anti–Citizens United measures on ballots in more than 150 cities and two states. Every measure passed, even on conservative terrain; Montana's 75 percent vote in favor was typical.
Can these sparks of reformist energy be converted into a national movement with genuine force? A month after the election, about 125 leaders of 60 prominent progressive groups gathered in Washington, D.C., to talk about exactly that. Naming themselves the Democracy Initiative, they agreed on an unprecedented effort to pool the groups' resources and mobilize their memberships behind election and campaign-finance reform. While some of the organizations had long been devoted to election reform, others hadn't previously focused on democracy issues, which made the alliance something new. In fact, the effort was spearheaded by the leaders of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and the Communication Workers of America.
So for the first time, reproductive-rights groups, civil-rights organizations, environmental groups, gun-control advocates, education groups, and labor groups are joining the clean-election movement. They're also putting money behind it. Toward the end of the December 10 meeting, Larry Cohen, who heads the Communications Workers, announced that his group would pitch in $1 million a year to the alliance. The plan is to focus this year on states where reform movements are under way. First target: New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo has gotten behind the brightest new idea in campaign-finance reform, "donor-matching."
Most campaign-finance reformers have abandoned the idea of getting big money out of politics or even restricting it—at least until the Supreme Court changes its mind (or its composition). The push now is to multiply the impact of small donors by encouraging candidates to court them as much as they woo that fraction of the 1 percent. New York City has the model system: Contributions up to $175 are multiplied by six with public funds, making a $100 donation worth $700 to a candidate. San Francisco has a similar program with a four-to-one match. The object, says Spencer Overton, is "to have politicians raise a larger percentage of their money from average Americans, rather than raising the bulk of their money from wealthier people who give a few large contributions." For instance, old-style house parties, which have gone the way of dinosaurs in the world Citizens United made, could again raise serious money. Regular people could organize their own teams—become "bundlers" of small donors who could actually make an impact. Which is good for democracy. Studies show that when people give money to campaigns, they're also more likely to become involved in political organizing and turnout efforts—they get in the mix. Cuomo has said that a donor-matching program is one of his top legislative priorities in New York, and the Democracy Initiative intends to hold him to that pledge. If it works, the idea will surely spread—just like early voting, mail-in voting, and same-day registration. (Maine, Connecticut, and Arizona have different matching-fund models.)
The emphasis on state-level reform makes sense, because change will not come out of Washington anytime soon. The current political climate makes it impossible. With the demographic winds at Democrats' backs, Republicans are desperate to hold on to their edge in the U.S. House and state legislatures through gerrymandering, voting restrictions, and securing Wall Street cash. Meanwhile, Democrats are feeling optimistic about having their longest run of White House occupants since the days of Roosevelt and Truman (Barack, then Hillary, then who knows?). They've proved they can raise enough super PAC and dark money to win. Why fight for reform when you've already got the momentum?
The measures most likely to get a hearing in Congress this year are small-bore. House and Senate Democrats are pitching a variety of bills designed to eliminate long lines at the polls and nudge the country toward uniform voting standards. Some are modeled on "Race to the Top" school reform: States would be eligible for federal funds if they agree to meet minimal standards. Republicans will howl about another desecration of "states' rights" and also about the expense; one bill's sponsor reckons it would cost several billion dollars. Another problem: Even if such a program were miraculously to pass, some states wouldn't even bother to apply. "The states who would opt out," says Tova Wang, "would be the states where the reforms are most needed."
The only finance reform with a fighting chance is a revived version of the Disclose Act, which would make dark-money groups bring their donors into the light. But disclosure, while surely a good thing, doesn't put a dent in the unequal influence of billionaires. Besides, some Republicans have promised to block the bill unless one rather astonishing condition is met: Democrats agree to raise, or eliminate, all campaign-contribution limits.
Given the seemingly intractable obstacles, can we ever hope to wrest our democracy back from the few? While history shows us how difficult it can be to clean up our elections, it also teaches another lesson: All successful efforts to expand American democracy—to give women and African Americans the vote, to curb corporate power over elections (for 100 years, at least), to elect U.S. senators by popular vote—have swelled up from the grass roots, then built from state to state until there's a national consensus. Sometimes it takes a breaking point, a moment when something happens to turn bottled-up frustrations into demands for change that even politicians and Supreme Court justices can't ignore. Given the brokenness of our system, such a moment is sure to come. When it does, there must be a movement in place to meet that moment—one ready with ideas that are truly transformative. "You got to give people, as Harvey Milk says, a reason to hope," Lessig says. "A reason to hope means an alternative that people genuinely believe would change the system, a vision of reform that's big and bold. Once that's on the table, I think there's a lot of people who would begin to rally and build a movement outside the Beltway."
The possibilities are there—in the constitutional-amendment campaigns, in the organizing power that the Democracy Initiative promises to muster, in the creative challenges to big-money politics that are being cooked up by groups like Friends of Democracy and states like New York. Looked at one way, there's never been a more propitious time to get a movement rolling. A whopping 88 percent of Americans now say they support national voting standards. Eight-three percent want to curb the influence of corporate money in campaigns. The trouble, as Richard Hasen says, is that "public support is wide but not deep. It's not at the top of the list of things people are worried about every day. But I think that changed a little in 2012 with the salience of those issues."
What reformers must do is connect the dots—make it clear that the power elite's grip on our democracy matters to people's well-being as much as job numbers and tax rates and the winner of the Super Bowl. Without democratizing our political system, after all, there's no chance of tackling persistent poverty—no matter whether we elect Democrats or Republicans. No way to begin closing the yawning, and growing, gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. No chance of meaningful action to curb the impact of global warming. Progressive change, the kind we desperately need, is impossible in a system where power is so heavily tilted in the direction of the privileged. Democratizing our elections isn't a cure-all for America's ills. But they will never be cured if we don't.


text:
18″ Flex Arm With Magnetic Base
Stable Flexibility
Stays in place in any position
Cyclops Flex Arms were designed to add flexibility to your inspection. With an 18″ reach, operators can set the inspection camera as high or as low as needed.
Ball Joint Swivel Head
Inspect from virtually any angle
The ball joint can be rotated 360° to achieve the perfect inspection angle. Simply choose the required position and lock it in.
Magnetic Base
Features an attached 3″ magnetic base. Easily secures to any metallic work area.


text:
Airport Operations Manager is very similar to another occupation for which we have
a full profile.
Check out our full profile for:
Airfield Operations Specialists
Ensure the safe takeoff and landing of commercial and military aircraft. Duties include coordination between air-traffic control and maintenance personnel; dispatching; using airfield landing and navigational aids; implementing airfield safety procedures; monitoring and maintaining flight records; and applying knowledge of weather information.
Air Field Operations Superintendent
Airfield Services Officer
Airport Manager
Airport Operations Coordinator
Airport Operations Manager
Airport Operations Officer
Airport Operations Specialist
Airport Operations Supervisor
Aviation Operations Specialist
Flight Director
Flight Follower
Flight Information Expediter
Flight Operation Coordinator
Manager, Air Operations
Manager, Airfield
Manager, Flight Operations
Noise Officer
Operations Agent
Operations Coordinator
Operations Manager
Superintendent, Ground Operations


text:
Join BoatTest for FREE Now!
Own a boat? Please fill out the following options.
Enter in your email below to view all content
The 240 is an attractive and versatile bowrider that offers something for everyone in the family. With an impressive top speed she's one sportboat you won't want to bring back to the docks.


text:
The First Butterfly Big Year
In 2008, noted lepidopterist, writer, and Xerces Society founder Robert M. Pyle undertook a historic journey to find, experience, and identify as many of the 800 American butterflies as he could find. Bob's book Mariposa Road: The First Butterfly Big Year, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, recounts his butterfly adventures and his 488 sightings.
A special thanks to the many people who contributed to this effort by pledging the Butterfly-A-Thon. All proceeds from the Butterfly-A-Thon benefit the Xerces Society's projects in rare butterfly conservation.
Bob Pyle's notes from the road:


text:
She�s battled cystic fibrosis since she was 14 months old.
On Thursday, she will be the guest of honor at a cystic fibrosis fundraising and awareness event at the Fuzzy Peach in Boiling Springs.
Madison Cooper will be honored as the event celebrates all who fight cystic fibrosis.
Jennifer Fredell-Saucier, of Southern Belle Marketing, said the goal of the event is to raise awareness and money for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
The event will include a silent auction with gift cards from area restaurants, dance studios and hair salons, as well as Fuzzy Peach items. It will also feature live music by Dixie Still, a country band from Bessemer City that is performing for free.
�We have had over 10 businesses donate items for the silent auction,� Fredell-Saucier said. �The community has been so supportive.�
All of the proceeds from the silent auction and a portion of the proceeds from the two hours of Fuzzy Peach sales will benefit the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in Charlotte, Fredell-Saucier said.
She said she didn�t know what cystic fibrosis was until she met Madison's mother, a single mom with two other children.
�I did not know we had so many people in our county who are battling this disease,� she said. �She (Madison) is just the sweetest little girl.�
Madison has been in and out of the Levine Children�s Hospital more than 10 times in the past year, Fredell-Saucier said.
�They even had to take her out of the public school system and homeschool her, because of all the treatments that she has to undergo,� she said.
Currently, no cure exists for cystic fibrosis.
�The only way to help is to get a transplant,� she said.
Fredell-Saucier said she knew she wanted to help the Coopers when she saw a Facebook post by Madison�s mother.
�She�d asked her mom, I know you tell me that I need a lung transplant, does that mean somebody has to die?� Fredell-Saucier said. �She said, I don�t want another kid to have to go through this. I�d rather go be with Jesus than have somebody else�s lung.�
Fredell-Saucier said her goal is to raise awareness about cystic fibrosis through this event and long term, to get in touch with other people who have cystic fibrosis in this area.
�This is just one of the many things that we plan on doing in the community for cystic fibrosis,� she said.
Want to go?
-When: 6:30 � 8:30 p.m. Thursday
-Where: The Fuzzy Peach, 117 E. College Ave., Boiling Springs
-Purpose: To raise awareness and money for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
-Guest of Honor: �Miss Madison� Cooper, a Cleveland County child with cystic fibrosis.
-A silent auction will include gift cards from restaurants, hair salons and Fuzzy Peach items.
-All proceeds from the silent auction and a portion of the proceeds from the event will go to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation-Carolinas Chapter located in Charlotte in honor of �Madison�s Hope.�
What is cystic fibrosis?
-Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited chronic disease that affects the lungs and digestive system.
-It affects about 30,000 children and adults in the United States.
-It is caused by a defective gene that produces mucus that clogs the lungs and leads to life-threatening lung infections.
-It also obstructs the pancreas and stops natural enzymes from helping the body break down and absorb food.
-About 1,000 new cases of CF are diagnosed each year.
-The predicted median age of survival for a person with CF is the mid-30s.
More information
-Read more about Madison�s story here: www.facebook.com/madisonshope4acure
-To directly donate to the Madison�s Hope fundraising team for cystic fibrosis, visit http://www.cff.org/Great_Strides/dsp_DonationPage.cfm?walkid=8359&idUser=162491 .
-For more information about the event, call 704-600-7879.
Reach Molly Phipps at 704-669-3339, at firstname.lastname@example.com or on Twitter @MollyAPhipps.


text:
Fantastic Concrete And Glass Residence In Mexico
Completed in 2010, House La Punta is a contemporary residential structure organized on three levels and located in Bosques de las Lomas, Mexico. Central de Arquitectura designed the modern home as two rectangular prisms placed one on top of the other, creating an L-shaped floor plan. The ground floor shelters the family room, kitchen, dining space, living room and a deck with BBQ outside – all welcoming spaces with a strong connection to the outside via glass walls. In the basement, a six car garage with a driver room and bathroom stand next to the games room, cellar and technical spaces.
An upper level containing the private rooms pampers inhabitants with a selection of wonderful spaces and views of the surroundings. The master bedroom benefits from a large dressing room and bathroom, while the two twin bedrooms with bath and dresser and fourth bedroom complete the resting spaces this residence has to offer. Besides these private spaces, a living room and small study offer plenty of space for the family to get together and even work from home. By carefully studying the residence's interiors from the photos below, you can see all the details that make House La Punta a dream home.


text:
AMBER ALERT: Michigan Toddler Kidnapped From Car
UPDATE (1:30pm): The Amber Alert for two-year-old Jarren Jackson has been cancelled. He has been found safe according the the Michigan State Police.
The Michigan State Police have issued an Amber Alert for a two-year-old missing out of Washtenaw County.
Authorities are saying that Jarren Laron Jackson was taken from his parents' vehicle after it broke down on the side of the road shortly after 1 a.m. Saturday.
Investigators say he was abducted by a white male, who is five foot 10 inches tall. The suspect's vehicle is an older red pick up with rust.
Jarren was last was seen wearing a red shirt, a red hoodie, a camouflage winter coat, and blue jeans.
Anyone with with information about Jarren, his abductor, or the abductor's
vehicle is asked to call 911 or the Michigan State Police. More information can be found on the Amber Alert Michigan website.


text:
President Obama wants kids to spend more time in school.
Students in the U.S. need more class time to remain competitive with students around the world, the President said. Obama advocates schools adding time to classes, extending hours into evenings and weekends, and shortening summer vacation.
"Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas, not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom," Obama said.
Some schools that extended their hours have seen positive results. Early results from Massachusetts' expanded learning time initiative, which adds extra time to the school year, show that some students involved in the program do better on state tests than those at regular public schools.
Read More: MSNBC


text:
|2008-05-05, 03:23
|Link #21
ISML Technical Staff
Graphic Designer
I think the issue The Small One put forth was addressed somewhere in the past, and that if you see a spoiler, then report it, but don't reply to say that it is a spoiler, because then you would be confirming the spoiler to those who doesn't know yet that it's a spoiler. The problem remains with how harmless the guess is (and if it really is a guess and not just someone trolling for spoilers).
I'm against punishing people putting suggestions inside spoiler tags, as long as they mark is correctly. Let's say that I posted this:
Spoiler for my guesses on what will happen:
It is up to the reader to realize that this is a guess, and we're not here to babysit everyone through the forums. What I'm saying is, the words "people may believe" will have to be coupled with "people should use their common sense."
I also don't have a problem with using spoiler tags to hide big text or pictures, since it's just courtesy, and we shouldn't be punished for courtesy. Why should stuff like
Spoiler for lots of text:
Spoiler for big picture:
All in all, you're trying to change things that just cause inconvenience for everyone, because what good will it do to restrict the use of spoiler tags? If you don't like them, don't use them. Just like how everyone is free to scroll down, everyone is free to put what they want inside a spoiler tag if they mark them accordingly.
EDIT: And if your problem is not knowing if there's really a spoiler or if there's big text/guesses hiding under the spoiler, then go ahead and punish people who don't mark their spoiler tags or do so incorrectly, but don't screw up spoiler tags for the rest of us.
|2008-05-05, 06:23
|Link #22
Join Date: Mar 2006
The rules are well meaning but they fight a losing battle. Only a naive person will come to a discussion about the topic they are interested in and not expect to be spoiled in some way. The very nature of a worldwide forum that discusses fansubbed material creates a place where there is going to be someone who knows something will happen before others do. It's that persons responsibility to keep the impulses to discuss such things in check, but deciding when and where the place is to speak or hold back is a slippery slope.
I actually find most Animesuki series discussion to be largely civil. There are exceptions from time to time from people who can't be bothered to think before they post, but spoilers abound specifically because people are excited about discussing their favorite shows and everything about them.
For the most part people keep things tagged, and the only real fault is that unmarked or poorly marked spoilers can be misleading. On the other hand, they are spoilers....so if you don't wish to risk being spoiled, don't click them. It's why the tag exists in the first place.
In subforums it might be easier to split discussions into threads but for many of our series, we only get one thread for anime, then we have to go to a completely different place for other sources. Crossing wires can and does happen, regardless of how some feel.
To use a somewhat crude analogy, this discussion reminds me of safe sex vs abstinence. It doesn't matter how good the protection is, there's still a risk. The only way to ensure a risk free experience is to never participate in the first place. Avoid the temptation and you'll never have a problem, but if you decide to play around, it's inevitable that you'll get burned.
|2008-05-05, 11:26
|Link #23
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 33
I was curious as to why this is necessary, as I thought that we always had some sort of rule about this. I found a fair bit of it to be confusing and a bit frightening, as well. I know that we're not politicians here, but saying "anything outside the scope of a topic will be considered a spoiler" is something that would be ripe for abuse. We all know what spoilers are and we all know what that's supposed to mean but I started wondering if any posts that start to go off-topic could lead to punishment, with a moderator pointing to the spoiler policy as justification.
I also became confused as to when spoiler tags are appropriate. For example, the "Gundam Seed Trilogy?" thread is a thread based around wondering if there will be a third part to the Gundam SEED franchise. A good amount of the thread was dedicated to rehashing the events of Gundam SEED and Gundam SEED Destiny, analyzing, speculating - in short, doing everything that fans like to do. Everyone actively participating had clearly seen both SEED and SEED Destiny, and the entire conversation was based on what would be spoilers to someone who hadn't seen both series fully through. Would it be expected that you use spoiler tags in those cases? If the answer is yes, then do you realize that any discussion of events after (or perhaps even including) the first episode of a series would need to be put into spoiler tags? I don't really have an opinion as to whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing, personally.
|2008-05-05, 11:36
|Link #24
ISML Technical Staff
Graphic Designer
Here's the problem. On one side, if you don't use spoiler tags correctly, then mods hunt you down and give you infractions. On the other side, we have people like The Small One who condemns using spoiler tags excessively. I don't want to spend 15 minutes posting thinking about whether or not to use a spoiler tag or how I should mark them. Regarding to what Ledgem said, it's logical for the entire thread to be spoiler-tag free, but what if people want to be courteous? There's nothing wrong with too many spoiler tags in that case. It's just a simple extra click to reveal a spoiler, not the screen blacking out and Vista asking you for the administrator's password to view a spoiler.
|2008-05-05, 11:45
|Link #25
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 37
|2008-05-05, 12:29
|Link #26
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
The goal of the spoiler policy is what it always has been: to keep readers from getting stories ruined for them by inconsiderate posters. Overly off-topic thread drift will be treated as it always has been, and the new policy will only apply when such drift meanders into spoiling stories.
|2008-05-05, 16:53
|Link #28
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 33
The rules aren't as ambiguous to me now, but I'd request that the moderators be a bit merciful about these things. In the example I pointed out (which 4Tran responded to), I disagree on two points: First, technically speaking nearly all of the discussion in that thread is off-topic and should be spoiler'd. The thread topic suggests discussion about news of a third installment, not series analysis of the previous two series. You and I are both in agreement in thinking that that everyone in that thread is advancing to it after having seen the previous two series, but is that a fair assumption to make? Would a moderator unfamiliar with the series or Gundam universe be able to make that same judgement? That leads to the second point: why would it be OK to discuss the previous two series, but not their side stories? (I presume this refers to Astray and the Stargazer OVA, but I haven't viewed those for myself.) It just feels like there's too much ambiguity there. It doesn't help that a lot of people make horribly vague topics.
The only thing that seems fairly obvious is that, using that thread as an example again, discussion of any non-Gundam SEED series, including other Gundam series, should be put into spoilers. But even then, I'm saying that as someone who hasn't been following Gundam since before SEED - the die-hard Gundam fans probably view each series as a chronological addition to the franchise. I'm guessing that other anime discussion threads would also have situations similar to these.
|2008-05-05, 17:54
|Link #29
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
I dont think it's naive to expect a bit of common sense from others. If you are posting on the episode 7 thread of an anime that is bound to run for 26, you have no need whatsoever to discuss/post about events that could potentially describe the ending of the show in question.
|2008-05-05, 18:01
|Link #30
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 62
Hmmm, didn't notice the new policy til just now when someone was asking about spoilers within an unsubbed episode (Soul Eater) (which is also MFI but thats a different topic).
"except in threads discussing that specific episode." helps clear up that issue about "has a sub been released yet".
This is a nice clarification except that "the usual idiots" will not read it just as they don't tend to read the regular rule section until slapped repeatedly
|2008-05-05, 18:13
|Link #31
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 37
I can say that, if it's possible, mods generally try to avoid handing out spoiler-related infractions for series they're not familiar with. I've seen many a reported post from other moderators saying "I think this may be a spoiler, but could someone who's familiar with the series check?" So, generally speaking, this is already something we do try to be careful about.
And I would also say, sometimes people put too much weight on infractions. They sound really ominous (and the structure of the form-letter doesn't help!), but they're like parking tickets, or maybe speeding tickets if you prefer. They're not generally something to lose sleep over.
|2008-05-05, 18:31
|Link #32
ISML Technical Staff
Graphic Designer
I'm generally cautious, so if I feel like I might get an infraction, I put it in a spoiler tag, so don't tell me I might get into trouble for using spoiler tags. However, I don't think anyone here even came anywhere close to putting all of their posts into spoiler tags, so we shouldn't even worry about that. Let's take the Higurashi threads, in which 75% of the posts there are in spoiler tags. Now logically, why would you? However, it's one of those series where if someone can interpret something that could be slightly related to something similar to a spoiler, it could ruin the series for another, so it's only a courtesy for someone to post his or her analysis inside of a spoiler tag. Simply put, I don't want to ever be worrying about being punished for using too many spoiler tags, period, regardless of the situation. This is a forum, not a Nazi concentration camp.
Last edited by KholdStare; 2008-05-05 at 19:13. Reason: grammar
|2008-05-05, 18:37
|Link #33
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 62
I don't think "too many" is as much of an issue as "so poorly labeled they should be slapped on general principles".
I can't say I wouldn't *like* a HIDE tag for some of my more wordy posts...
|2008-05-05, 19:17
|Link #34
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tending to baby ohju with Erin
Age: 69
I tagged two items today that I probably would not have tagged before:
Spoiler for Kurenai/Monster comparison with further spoiling commentary:
Here's an example of more "casual" spoilage from a posting in the Suggestions thread:
Spoiler about romance in Saiunkoku Monogatarai
I've written about SaiMono many times and probably expressed a similar observation outside tags from time to time. While I think I'm usually careful about spoilage, the announced policy has made me aware of casual spoilage examples like this one.
After consideration, I think both these items should be tagged. It actually made it easier to write both comments, especially the first.
|2008-05-05, 19:27
|Link #35
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 37
KholdStare, I wouldn't worry about it. As far as I'm aware, not a single mod or admin has suggested legislating spoiler use by punishing the use of tags. The purpose of the spoiler policy is simply to prevent people from being spoiled, and the way the policy proposes to accomplish it is by: (1) encouraging the use of spoiler tags, (2) getting people to label their spoiler correctly, and (3) getting people to not post series-ruining source-material spoilers in the first place. We hope that reducing the over-use of spoiler tags may naturally follow once people get a better understand what is and isn't considered a spoiler, but no one's going to implement it in that way. No one's going to issue an infraction that says "According to Spoiler Policy ASF 51842:2008 revision B clause 184.108.40.206 (a), that technically wasn't a spoiler. You may have thought it was covered under clause 220.127.116.11 (q), but you were wrong. Enjoy your ban!" Well, actually, if I ever saw an infraction exactly like that one, I'd probably laugh... but no, anyway, don't worry.
|2008-05-05, 19:49
|Link #36
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
I think that a good rule-of-thumb for judging what should and shouldn't be spoiler-tagged is best determined by who is supposed to participate in the thread in question. If it's an anime thread, then we can make the assumption that all the posters are caught up to the latest fansubbed episode. If it's a speculation thread, then the assumption is that all the posters have already watched/read enough of the work in question to make some meaningful contribution.
In the case of the Gundam Trilogy thread, while its original purpose may have been a little different, it effectively fulfills the role of a speculation thread on what a third show may entail. As such, it's pretty much automatic that any discussion therein will entail talking about the endings of the other two shows. Any one who hasn't already watched those two shows should know what they're getting themselves into. However, knowledge of the side-stories shouldn't be necessary to participate in this discussion, so any mention of them should be spoiler-tagged.
|2008-05-05, 20:27
|Link #37
Ooooo what?!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Someplace cold :(
Age: 36
It just basically seems to me to be giving written weight to normal common sense, unfortunately as most are aware, there are many people without any common sense whatsoever, and common sense varies from person to person.
It will eventually filter down to the community over time what they specifically consider acceptable or not as situations occur and are dealt with.
I hope people don't see the new policy and decide to 'test' it and the mods out by seeing what they can get away with without getting in trouble, just go about your normal forum life while keeping the revised guidelines in mind.
|2008-05-05, 20:50
|Link #38
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia Tech
I have a question that's been bothering me for a while about spoilers from before an episode is fansubbed. In the case of show that are liscenced, at what time is it appropriate to talk without a spoiler? Is it any time after it airs, after the fansubs appear (Even though ASuki basically treats them like they don't exist for ethical reasons), after the show is released dubbed, or after a certain amount of time?
|2008-05-05, 21:06
|Link #39
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 37
Hope that basically answers the question...
|2008-05-06, 02:38
|Link #40
Gregory House
IT Support
Ehm, I think the whole discussion can be brought down to one thing: Common sense. Something that apparently many people lack. My eyes are still sore with all the Claymore spoilage around (they went almost blind by the Naruto-like downwards spiral the quality of the discussion took afterwards, but that's another issue altogether, and one that seems to plague every popular shounen show (WHY COULD THAT BE??)).
Look, it's not the manga thread, get your manga discussion to the proper place, or at least have the decency to wrap it in a damn spoiler. I'm one of those people who don't like reading manga on a PC monitor and thus it's kinda hard for me to catch up on all the scalations around, and it bugs me to no end when I see pages and pages of manga discussion, or even entire pages wrapped in spoiler tags discussing the manga! Just go to the proper thread already.
I mean, it's not too hard. Then again, I'm one of those people who would prefer to have less written rules and more common sense, sort of like a silent agreement between intelligent people, but what the heck.
|faq, spoiler policy, spoilers
|Thread Tools


text:
T-minus 3 months to the new Mass: Who's heard about it?
Our Sunday Visitor's cover story this week focuses on a new report from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which found that only 23 percent of Catholics are aware of the changes to the English translation of the Mass, which will debut on November 27--in just about three months. Even among weekly Massgoers, less than 60 percent are aware of the changes. Our own story on how parishes are preparing for the change, "Learn your lines," suggested that many parishes wouldn't be making preparations until the new Mass was closer to its debut, and that seems to be the case..
Another question worth asking is: Of those who know changes are coming, how many know what the changes actually are? Even priests, who will be doing most of the mouth-work on this one, won't see the full translation of the Roman Missal until October, when the books are finally released from the publishers.
So, USCatholic.org readers, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find out this weekend how many of your fellow parishioners know what they are in for on the First Sunday of Advent. Ask them: Do they know that Mass is changing? And do they know what in the Mass is changing? Do you think your parish will be ready?
Journalistic minds want to know.
Related: Learn your lines


text:
Dominic Sullivan
Dominic Sullivan's Awards
Dominic Sullivan's Details
Dominic Sullivan's Likes
I am a person with goals like determined to fulfill my dreams at all costs while helping others to meet theirs
My Fantasies
I love sex I love the new things, I like loving boys and a bit wild to be complacent with me!
My Obsessions & Desires
I have so many fetish , so i want to know about the yours. what abot to share it and lets ahve great and hot time together.
Additional Info
I like that they caress the balls while I like a good oral sex and that they play a little with my ass, fuck hard, spank, play with my feets and satify them guys
Special Info
strip, sexy dance, sexy moves,fuck hard ask me for more information
My Fetishes
Anal Training, Bondage, Discipline, Domination, Findom, Jerk off Instruction, Muscle Worship, Nipple Play, Orgasm Control/Denial, Wrestling
Role-Playing Scenarios
Boss / Secretary, Coach/Trainee, Dirty Talk, Gender Play, Master / Slave, Student/Teacher
My Schedule
Please change the timezone to your locale by choosing your location from the drop-down menu.
10:00 pm to 12:00 am
10:00 pm to 12:00 am
10:00 pm to 12:00 am
10:00 pm to 12:00 am
10:00 pm to 12:00 am