Turkey probes social network 'insults'

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) ? Turkish authorities are investigating people who allegedly insulted state officials or incited riots on social media, the deputy prime minister said Thursday, in a sign the government is intent on meting out punishment over the massive protests that swept the country in June.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has faced tough international criticism over his government's heavy-handed crackdown on the unprecedented demonstrations. But in a possible attempt to soften the blow to the country's democratic reputation, his deputy also said the government would propose further checks on the country's historically powerful military.

The Aksam newspaper said police had provided to Istanbul prosecutors a list of 35 names of people who had allegedly insulted Erdogan or other officials on Twitter or Facebook. Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag acknowledged the probe, but would not confirm the list. It was not clear exactly what the posts said.

Meanwhile, Facebook expressed concerned about Turkish proposals that would require Internet companies to provide user information to authorities.

Erdogan earlier this month branded Twitter a social "menace" for spreading lies after many people turned to the social networking site and Facebook for information. Many Turkish media outlets provided little coverage in the early stages of the demonstrations, likely intimidated into self-censorship by the government's previously tough approach to journalists.

Nearly three weeks of protests were sparked by a violent police crackdown on peaceful activists on May 31, with thousands expressing discontent over what they say are Erdogan's increasingly authoritarian ways. Erdogan who has shepherded Turkey to an economic boom and raised the country's international profile, rejects the charge and cites his broad support base.

The government has dismissed protesters' general calls for a more pluralistic society and has blamed the protests on a foreign-led conspiracy involving bankers and the media meant to stop Turkey on its tracks. It has also vowed to go after them.

Bozdag took aim at the social media users under investigation, claiming that there were many "profanities and insults conducted electronically" that were against the law. Turkish law bars insults to public figures.

"Crimes determined as such by the law don't change if they are carried out through Facebook, Twitter or through other electronic means," Bozdag said. "No one has the right to commit crimes under the rule of law."

On Wednesday, Turkey's transport and communications minister complained that Twitter was not cooperating with authorities and said the company has been asked to appoint a Turkey-based official to deal with requests.

Binali Yildirim suggested Facebook was more cooperative, but the company released a statement saying it had not provided user data to Turkish authorities in relation to the protests and was concerned about proposals that would require Internet companies to share information.

"We will be meeting with representatives of the Turkish government when they visit Silicon Valley this week, and we intend to communicate our strong concerns about these proposals directly at that time," Facebook said.

Human rights groups say dozens of people have been arrested and face trial for their involvement in the protests, which resulted in at least four deaths and thousands of injuries ? including 11 who lost eyes or their eyesight from tear gas canisters fired by police.

But even as the government took a hard line on social media, it appeared to be trying to make some amends. Though the European Union decided to revive long-dormant EU membership talks with Turkey this week, it said it would delay them until later this year, citing the government's heavy-handed crackdown on the protests.

Bozdag said Parliament will consider a government-proposed proposal that would amend a regulation that the army has cited in the past as grounds for takeovers or interference in politics. It stipulates that it is the military's duty "to watch over and protect the Turkish Republic."

The Turkish military has frequently intervened in politics in the past, and has staged three coups.

Though new democratic proposal came out of the blue, Erdogan has been at odds with the military for much of his 10 years in office. He has enacted reforms over the years that have curbed the powers of the military, winning him praise for strengthening democracy.

Earlier, this week, the government had also said it was considering a set of measures that would grant greater religious rights to the country's Alevi Muslim community ? who have faced discrimination in Turkey.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-probes-social-network-insults-132613351.html

andrew bailey the village dallas fort worth tornado dallas tornadoes dallas weather nike nfl uniforms ben and jerrys free cone day

Android Apps of the Week: WiFiKill Downloader, Imgur, and More

This week was a little light on Android app quantity, but the quality of the ones we do have for you is pretty fantastic. Perhaps not entirely, well, 100% ethical in a certain WiFiKiller's case?but fantastic nonetheless.

---

Imgur: Imgur, everyone's favorite super simple image hosting site, finally has an app. And it's certainly taken them long enough. You can do virtually everything you'd be doing on the web: browse images, comment, upload, and manage your account. It's simple, easy, and everything you already love about imgur. [Free]

---

WiFiKill Downloader: Although this has the potential to be a dangerous tool in the wrong hands (re: any hands that aren't your own), it can also be an invaluable one if used wisely. Essentially, you'll be holding the power to take away anyone's WiFi on the network you're currently on. So if you're hanging out in a public hotspot and you notice that things seem to be lagging a little more than you'd?er?prefer, you can take matters into your own hands. Just try not to be a jerk. [Free/Pro version with donation]

---

Bike Doctor: For the beginning (or even experienced) cyclist, making your own bike repairs can seem like a daunting task. Most bike repair guides you'll find around the ol' internet can be complicated labyrinths of instruction that end up doing more harm than good. But taking your wheels to a pro can come with a major price tag. Bike Doctor wants to give you the knowledge you need to save a trip to the shop?but in an easy, digestible form that's useful to all walks of the bicycle world. [$5]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/android-apps-of-the-week-wifikill-downloader-and-more-613531459

college football scores khan academy Espn College Football Eddie Murphy died Suzanne Barr Clint Eastwood speech Maria Montessori

Demi Lovato: I Was a "Wild Child," Fake Role Model

Source: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/06/demi-lovato-i-was-a-wild-child-fake-role-model/

zimmerman derek fisher lyrid meteor shower hippocrates andrew breitbart penguins the band

Israeli memorial honors rescuers of Jews in WWII

JERUSALEM (AP) ? In the spring of 1943, the friend of a Polish-Catholic family discovered a naked, Jewish baby in a nearby dark, cold cellar. The child, not even 2 years old, could neither walk nor talk. Her Jewish parents had been murdered and the family they paid to protect her had abandoned her.

Taking on considerable peril, Jozef and Natalia Roztropowicz took in the child, baptized her as Irena and raised her as their own. Five years later, they made another gut-wrenching choice: returning their beloved daughter to an adoptive Jewish family who moved with her to Israel two years later.

The child, now a 71-year-old woman named Sabina Heller, says they are the reason she is alive.

"I would have been dead if they hadn't taken me in ... (they gave me) not only life, but love," said Heller, a teacher and writer who now lives in Los Angeles. "The Roztropowicz family did two courageous things. First they took me in and the second time they let me go."

Heller only discovered the full details in 1999. The following year, Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust museum and memorial recognized the Roztropowicz family as "Righteous Among the Nations," the highest honor given to non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during World War II.

On Wednesday, Yad Vashem unveiled a new exhibition that marked 50 years of recognizing these saviors and dedicated it to the 24,811 people from 47 countries who have been honored as "Righteous Among the Nations."

A special committee, chaired by a retired Supreme Court Justice, is responsible for vetting every case before awarding the title. Following a lengthy process, between 400 and 500 are typically recognized a year.

"The next generations need to know about these rare stars amid the darkness," said Israel Meir Lau, who heads Yad Vashem's advisory council, and who himself credits one of those honored, a non-Jewish Russian named Feodor Mikhailichenko, with saving him as a child in the Buchenwald concentration camp.

Lau, a former chief rabbi of Israel, said that those who experienced the worst evil of man also know they could not have survived without the goodness of man, either.

"These people risked themselves, risked their families to protect us," he said at Wednesday's ceremony. "There were lots of righteous, but not enough."

About 6 million European Jews were killed by German Nazis and their collaborators during World War II. The names of those honored for refusing to be indifferent to the genocide are engraved along an avenue of trees at the Jerusalem memorial.

The most famous cases are Oskar Schindler, whose efforts to save more than 1,000 Jews were documented in Steven Spielberg's 1993 film "Schindler's List," and Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat who is credited for having saved at least 20,000 Jews before mysteriously disappearing. But the new exhibit aims to tell the stories of the lesser known cases, such as the Roztropowiczes.

The exhibition, "I Am My Brother's Keeper," features five 8-minute-long, animated video presentations of rescue stories projected in a dark, cavernous hall.

Yad Vashem broke down the rescuers into five different categories:

"In the cellars, pits and attics" describes those who offered shelter and cared for those they hid. "Under the benefaction of the cross" pays tribute to rescuers who were members of the Christian clergy. "Paying the ultimate price" is dedicated to those who were killed as a result of their actions. "The courage to defy" honors those who refused their bureaucratic orders to help Jews. And finally, "Parting once again" tells the stories of those hidden children, like Heller, who lost their identities.

Heller, who is not related to the author of this story, is now widowed and has two grown sons.

She was born to the Kagan family in the city of Radyvyliv, today in Ukraine. Though she doesn't even know the names of her biological parents, who were burned to death inside a barn shortly after giving her up, and has no memory of them, she considers them heroes just like her Christian adoptive parents.

"Imagine the kind of decision they had to make, a decision that no parents should have to make ? to separate themselves from their baby," she said. "They gave me life by doing that. There were a lot of Jewish parents at that time who couldn't bring themselves to do that and as a result they are all dead."

With the Roztropowicz family she went by the name Inka, before taking on a new name with the Jewish family that moved her to Israel. Her Jewish adopted mother kept her past a secret from her, hoping to give her a new beginning.

In was only in 1999, when she was 58 and after her mother had passed away, that her mother's cousin Rachel Rabin, incidentally, the lone sister of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, came upon new information gleaned from an Israeli doctorate student's research on hidden children during the Holocaust that brought her background to light. She informed Heller, leading to information about her biological parents, the Kagans, and the discovery of her adopted sister Stanislawa Roztropowicz, known as Stanka.

An emotional phone call followed.

"I said 'Stanka, this is Inka,'" she recalled. "And then Stanka said 'Inka, we have waited for this call for 50 years.'"

They have since reconnected, with Heller visiting Ukraine and filling in the missing pieces of her past. She learned that the Roztropowicz family never stopped its quest to find out what happened to her and had kept a childhood picture of her in their home for five decades.

"Attachments that you make in the very early years in life somehow stay with you," said Heller. "You cannot explain it rationally because I didn't remember them and yet this feeling was there. I felt that they loved me."

Museum official Yehudit Shendar, who curated the exhibit, said the stories spoke volumes about the courage of the righteous and about the fortitude of the survivors who pushed for their rescuers to be recognized.

"They survived, they made it, and they tried to get a positive to remember the horrors, remember the evil, but also take out some hope, something positive," she said.

Heller concurred, saying her own existence was a direct result of this sliver of hope to emerge from the ashes of the Holocaust.

"Some people have the strength of character to go against the stream and do the right thing. Sometimes it has to do with religion and sometimes just faith in the goodness of man," she said. "I like to dwell on the positive ? on that one positive element of the Holocaust."

____

Follow Aron Heller on Twitter @aronhellerap

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-memorial-honors-rescuers-jews-wwii-212523890.html

Calgary Supermoon 2013 gay kobe bryant Abby Wambach first day of summer Xcel Energy

John Boehner, Republicans Show No Signs Of Fixing Voting Rights Act

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama issued the following statement following the ruling: "I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court?s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act -- enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress -- has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today?s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent. "As a nation, we?ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote. But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists. And while today?s decision is a setback, it doesn?t represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination. I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process."

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) released this official statement after the ruling: ?Today, the Supreme Court stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most effective pieces of legislation Congress has passed in the last 50 years. These men never stood in unmovable lines. They were never denied the right to participate in the democratic process. They were never beaten, jailed, run off their farms or fired from their jobs. No one they knew died simply trying to register to vote. They are not the victims of gerrymandering or contemporary unjust schemes to maneuver them out of their constitutional rights. "I remember in the 1960s when people of color were the majority in the small town of Tuskegee, Alabama. To insure that a black person would not be elected, the state gerrymandered Tuskegee Institute and the black sections of town so they fell outside the city limits. This reminds me too much of a case that occurred in Randolph County in my own state of Georgia, when the first black man was elected to the board of education in 2002. The county legislature changed his district so he would not be re-elected. "I disagree with the court that the history of discrimination is somehow irrelevant today. The record clearly demonstrates numerous attempts to impede voting rights still exist, and it does not matter that those attempts are not as ?pervasive, widespread or rampant? as they were in 1965. One instance of discrimination is too much in a democracy. "As Justice Ginsberg mentioned, it took a Bloody Sunday for Congress to finally decide to fix on-going, institutionalized discrimination that occurred for 100 years after the rights of freed slaves were nullified at the end of the Civil War. I am deeply concerned that Congress will not have the will to fix what the Supreme Court has broken. I call upon the members of this body to do what is right to insure free and fair access to the ballot box in this country.?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.) released this statement following the ruling: ?Today, the Supreme Court took a step backward on voting rights, on civil rights, on liberty and justice for all. This decision weakens the cause of voting rights in our time, disregards the challenges of discrimination still facing our country, and undermines our nation?s ongoing effort to protect the promise of equality in our laws. ?Even with this setback, the court did place the power to reinforce the heart of the Voting Rights Act in the hands of Congress. As Members of Congress, we know that changes in election laws can have discriminatory effects. That?s why Congress made the determination that advance review of changes in election procedures is required for jurisdictions with a history of discrimination. In 2006, Democrats and Republicans came together to reauthorize the law, garnering overwhelming bipartisan support in a Republican-led Congress ? passing the House by a vote 390-33 and the Senate by a vote of 98-0, then signed into law by President George W. Bush. This year, we must follow in that same tradition, taking the court?s decision as our cue for further action to strengthen this legislation. ?Voting rights are essential to who we are as Americans, to the cause of equality, to the strength of our democracy. It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to remove obstacles to voting, to ensure every citizen has the right to vote and every vote is counted as cast. We must secure the most basic privilege of American citizenship: the right to vote.?

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) released the following statement after the ruling: "Less than one week after the Senate passed a resolution honoring Civil Rights icon Congressman John Lewis, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court has effectively struck down the core of the most successful piece of civil rights legislation in this Nation?s history. The Voting Rights Act has worked to protect the Constitution?s guarantees against racial discrimination in voting for nearly five decades, but an activist majority of the Court today acted to undo one of the most critical provisions of the Act. In striking down the coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act, the Court has dramatically undercut Section 5?s ability to protect American voters from racial discrimination in voting. The result is that many Americans who were protected by this law will now be vulnerable to discriminatory practices and will have much greater difficulty accessing the ballot box. "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has protected minorities of all races from discriminatory practices in voting for nearly 50 years, yet the Supreme Court?s decision to overturn the coverage formula effectively guts the ability of Section 5 to protect voters from discriminatory practices. I could not disagree more with this result or the majority?s rationale. The Voting Rights Act has been upheld five times by the Supreme Court on prior occasions, and Section 5 was reauthorized and signed into law by a Republican President in 2006 after a thorough and bipartisan process in which Congress overwhelmingly determined that the law was still vital to protecting minority voting rights and that the coverage formula determining the jurisdictions to be covered was still applicable. Several lower court decisions in recent years have found violations of the Voting Rights Act and evidence of intentional discrimination in covered jurisdictions. Despite this sound record, and the weight of history, a narrow majority has decided today to substitute its own judgment over the exhaustive legislative findings of Congress. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I intend to take immediate action to ensure that we will have a strong and reconstituted Voting Rights Act that protects against racial discrimination in voting. "As we approach the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.?s speech at the March on Washington, it is especially compelling to remember that his dream has not yet been achieved. We have made great progress since that time and part of the Congress? reauthorization of Section 5 a few years ago was based on the need to preserve that progress. Yet, I fear today?s decision will make it more difficult for racial minorities to have their right to vote fully protected. I look forward to working with my fellow members of Congress to restore the protections that John Lewis, Martin Luther King, and Fannie Lou Hamer knew that we needed to protect racial minorities from discrimination in voting."

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) released this statement following the ruling: "I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court on this decision. Unencumbered voting is the surest path to enduring democracy, and the Voting Rights Act has been an essential protection against discrimination at the ballot box. This decision could open a floodgate of voter suppression efforts in states if Congress does not act swiftly to put protections back into place. "Instead of restricting access to the voting booth, we should reaffirm our commitment to the essential right that all citizens must have an opportunity to go to the polls and vote without fear. That?s what is happening in Massachusetts today, and it should happen in every election in every state. "The Supreme Court says that the Congress must now create a new set of protections, and I will fight to keep our democracy open, free, and without discrimination anywhere."

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) issued this statement after the ruling: "Today's Supreme Court's ruling invalidating the preclearance requirements contained within the Voting Rights Act is a win for fairness, South Carolina, and the rule of law. The preclearance requirement forced South Carolina to spend millions of dollars to defend a photo identification requirement for voting that had already been ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court. The court's ruling will hopefully end the practice of treating states differently and recognizes that we live in 2013, not the 1960's.?

Democratic National Committee Chair, Rep. Debbie ?Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)

Rep. Debbie ?Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) took to <a href="https://twitter.com/DWStweets/status/349535772652740610" target="_blank">Twitter</a> to react to the ruling. "Disappointed by the #SCOTUS #VRA decision. Voting rights should be expanded, not limited." Schultz <a href="https://twitter.com/DWStweets/status/349535772652740610" target="_blank">tweeted</a>.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) released this statement following the ruling: ?Today?s Supreme Court decision on Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is deeply disappointing. The Court has taken the legs out from underneath the Voting Rights Act, making it impossible for the Department of Justice to enforce the critical civil rights protections afforded under Section 5. Free and fair access to the ballot box is fundamental to our democracy, so this provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been a key foundation of progress in many states across our country. ?Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is what made it possible for the Department of Justice to intervene and stop 10 discriminatory election practices from going into effect just last year, and to prevent countless other discriminatory changes from even being proposed. Every day that our nation goes without a replacement formula under Section 4, voters in areas still subject to discriminatory practices will lack crucial protections. Congress must quickly adopt a new formula sufficient for restoring them. ?The good news ? if there is good news ? is that the framework of the Voting Rights Act remains intact. The problem before us now can be solved with bipartisan legislative action, but it will take this Congress coming together to do it. After decades of strong bipartisan support for the Voting Rights Act in Congress, it is my sincere hope that it is possible. I plan to work with Chairman Leahy and an array of experts to study the Court?s ruling and do everything possible to advance bipartisan legislation that puts in place a formula that will protect all voters and withstand constitutional scrutiny. ?We cannot simply wish away racial discrimination, and although we have come a long way from the era of Jim Crow, the very real threat of discriminatory voting practices unfortunately remains a fact of life in too many parts of this country. Our country needs common sense, bipartisan legislation to close the floodgates to discriminatory practices re-opened by the Supreme Court today.?

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) issued this statement after the ruling: ?Today, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, a key element of the law that provides the formula for determining which state is covered by the law?s pre-clearance requirement. Pre-clearance of voting law changes is an essential tool for fighting discrimination across the country. It is a major setback for voting rights that the Court deemed Section 4 of the law unconstitutional. Congress must act quickly to make sure that the Voting Rights Act continues to stop discriminatory changes in voting laws before they are put in place. While some might think that discrimination is an act of the past, we have seen several examples for why we still need laws in place to vigorously protect the right to vote. This is why I have joined Senator Gillibrand in pushing for the Voter Empowerment Act in order to give the federal government additional tools to ensure every voter can cast their vote and have that vote counted. We should find ways to make it easier to vote instead of restricting one of our most fundamental rights.?

Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.)

Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) released the following statement after the ruling: ?The Supreme Court?s decision this morning is deeply disappointing and a devastating blow to the preservation of voter rights and protections. The Voting Rights Act has proven to be critical, time and time again, in protecting the right to vote, free from discrimination. I wish that the Voting Rights Act was no longer necessary, but the fact is, this persistent discrimination is not a thing of the past. We have seen far too many cases, in just the last election, of efforts to block fellow Americans from casting a ballot. This morning?s ruling is a major setback to Americans? right to vote, and a roll back in the march of progress our nation has made in civil rights. The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. It is important that Congress take swift and immediate action to ensure that every American has access to the ballot box.?

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) issued this statement after the ruling: ?The Voting Rights Act has been a cornerstone of ensuring the rights won in the Civil Rights movement continue to stand strong today. The Supreme Court?s ruling is a significant setback that will put Congress to the test of whether we can move quickly and without partisanship. I urge my colleagues to meet that test. ?We must be clear -- The Voting Rights Act is not ancient history. Just last year alone, Section 5 helped prevent discrimination across the country ? on issues ranging from state ID?s to redistricting and reducing early voting. Voting is a sacred right and ensuring that every vote counts is a cornerstone of our democracy that must be embraced by both sides of the aisle. ?The last time Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, it was passed for the fourth time with sweeping bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress. We must come together once again to ensure that every American has the fundamental right to vote regardless of which community they live in.?

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.)

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) released this statement after the ruling: ?Today?s decision by the Supreme Court is disappointing. During a time when we should be encouraging democracy and expanding the right to vote, we find it becoming more difficult to do so across the country. "The decision to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act is a step backward on civil and voting rights. Voting is a fundamental right and is essential to our democracy. As a Congressman, I am working to protect the civil rights of all Americans, including the right to cast a ballot without fear of indirect systematic discrimination against minorities. "I remain firmly committed to preventing voter suppression and recently introduced the Time Off to Vote Act (H.R. 2350). The legislation would require employers to grant workers at least two hours of paid leave to vote in federal elections. I urge my colleagues to responsibly address the formula issue and work to protect voters? rights.?

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) issued this statement after the ruling: ?The Supreme Court?s decision flies in the face of the clear evidence we continue to see of efforts to suppress the vote in minority communities across the country. It is devastating that the Court?s conservative majority would strike down a central provision of the law that has protected the voting rights of all Americans for nearly a half century, and was reauthorized by Congress almost unanimously just seven years ago. I?ll be working with my Senate colleagues to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that every American can participate fully in our democracy.?

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) released the following statement after the ruling: ?Make no mistake about it, this is a back door way to gut the Voting Rights Act. As long as Republicans have a majority in the House and Democrats don't have 60 votes in the Senate, there will be no preclearance. It is confounding that after decades of progress on voting rights, which have become part of the American fabric, the Supreme Court would tear it asunder.?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-V.t.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-V.t.) issued the following statement after the ruling: ?The Supreme Court has turned back the clock on equality in America by striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The landmark civil rights law that Congress passed almost five decades ago, and reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support only seven years ago, has been an important tool to protect voters in places with a history of discrimination. The law is as necessary today as it was in the era of Jim Crow laws. We must act immediately to rewrite this vital law.?

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine)

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) released the following statement following the ruling: "I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling today. Congress did the right thing by putting the Voting Rights Act into place in the first place and by reaffirming it time and time again over the last fifty years. Voting discrimination still exists?Congress has repeatedly come to that conclusion and the Supreme Court itself acknowledged it. By gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Court has dealt a major setback for voting rights and the decision will have a real and detrimental impact on voters." "In a 5-4 ruling today, the Supreme Court ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as unconstitutional. Section 4 identifies state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination, and Section 5 requires them to get approval from the Department of Justice before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures. Congress passed the VRA in 1964, and reauthorized it several times since then, most recently in 2006. In its consideration of that last reauthorization, Congress found overwhelming evidence that discrimination in voting was still a problem in the jurisdictions covered by Section 4 and reauthorized the Act by a vote of 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. "Between 1982 and 2006 the Department of Justice blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory, and more than 800 more proposed changes were modified or abandoned after the Department of Justice asked for more information about them."

Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)

Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) issued this statement after the ruling: ?This ruling doesn?t invite a better, more updated formula, it invites gridlock,? Grijalva said. ?Today the majority on the Court washed its hands of evidence of discrimination, declared the current remedies invalid, and intentionally left it to a damaged institution to invent a new solution from scratch. That?s not going to sit well with millions of Americans who face disenfranchisement.? Grijalva noted that DOJ has blocked hundreds of proposed changes to electoral boundaries under Section 5 over the past several decades. ?What about this law is broken?? he asked. ?What about this law isn?t working? It?s doing exactly what it was intended to do ? prevent discrimination and disenfranchisement. This is a political decision that will undermine confidence in our electoral process. Now people who experience problems will only be able to go to court after they?ve been denied their rights. This is a recipe for preventable legal trouble on a national scale. In that sense, this ruling is a disaster waiting to happen.? Congress reauthorized the current Voting Rights Act preclearance formula just seven years ago. Today?s decision renders that act of Congress invalid. ?We proved in 2006, as we have several times previously, that preventing racial voting discrimination is a bipartisan goal,? Grijalva said. ?I hope it remains a bipartisan goal and that Congress acts on this as soon as possible. Trust in government, as we?ve seen, is not inexhaustible. We need to take this seriously before any more Americans lose faith.?

Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-Mass.)

Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-Mass.) released the following statement after the ruling: ?Our vote is our voice; the powerful right and sacred responsibility that fuels our entire system of government. While great strides have been made to ensure equal access at the ballot box, there is no question that discrimination persists across this country and demands our ongoing vigilance. ?I am extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court?s decision today but hopeful Congress will use this setback as an opportunity to come together and strengthen the Voting Rights Act for generations to come.?

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) issued this statement after the ruling: ?I consider my vote for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 among the most important of my entire career. While I recognize that times have changed since 1965, I am angered by the Supreme Court?s decision to gut one of the single most important anti-discrimination laws on our books. By striking down Section 4, the Court, by extension, has rendered Section 5 ? which requires federal preclearance for certain states to change their voting laws ? unenforceable. Without an effective backstop to prevent the kind of abuses the Act sought to address, I fear that many minority Americans will be further subjected to the very same types of discrimination that nearly tore our country apart in the 1960s. Congress absolutely must act swiftly to pass bipartisan legislation that will restore and re-empower the Voting Rights Act. We did so by large margins in 1965?in the face of a divided country? and we can again, provided we put aside partisan antics and compel ourselves to do what is right for this country and all who live in it.?

Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)

Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) released the following statement after the ruling: ?By a slim 5-4 majority, the Court has now substituted its own judgment for the bi-partisan and near unanimous findings of the Congress, ignoring the current record of voting problems compiled by Congress that supported the continued need for the Voting Rights Acts? coverage formula and preclearance requirement. We must act immediately to respond to this decision and restore the Voting Rights Act?s key enforcement mechanism.? "Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-10) is the Ranking Democratic Member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the House Judiciary Committee. He was previously the Chairman of the Subcommittee. "In that capacity, he played an active role in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, including the section struck down by the Supreme Court today, and was joined with other colleagues in filing an amicus brief in support of the Act in the Shelby County Case."

Joaqu?n Castro (D-Texas)

Joaqu?n Castro (D-Texas) issued this statement after the ruling: "The courts have found intentional voter discrimination and suppression in Texas as recently as this past year. Fortunately for Texans, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been successfully used as a tool for the past 38 years to ensure that these anti-democracy efforts are not implemented. Today?s Supreme Court decision effectively allows these extreme laws to go into effect in places where voter suppression legislation is being pushed through state legislatures. This decision is a major setback for Texans and all Americans whose most fundamental voting rights are being trampled in right-wing state legislatures. In Texas, following today?s decision, the Attorney General is already calling on the most extreme voting ID laws to be implemented in our state. I am committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to act swiftly to ensure that all Americans have the freedom to be full participants of our democracy by protecting every American?s right to vote."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) released the following statement after the ruling: "Today?s Supreme Court decision striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act is a deeply disappointing example of extreme judicial activism. The Court?s conservative majority effectively ignored the Senate?s clear and unambiguous affirmation of the Voting Rights Act by a vote of ninety-eight to zero, a reauthorization that was signed into law by President Bush. This case was wrongly decided and will unjustly threaten the right to vote for millions of Americans across this country. This decision poses a special threat to voter participation among African Americans and Hispanic Americans, who have historically and disproportionately experienced discrimination when voting. ?Now it is up to Congress to right the wrong of this decision and ensure that we do not turn back the clock on America?s democratic progress. The Senate will act. I have asked Chairman Leahy to immediately examine the appropriate path for the Senate to address this decision. Voting is the most fundamental of our American rights, and the Voting Rights Act is one of the most important laws Congress has ever passed. ?We need look no further than the recent election to see the unfortunate reality that bigotry still exists in our country. In 2012, there were efforts in some states to do everything possible to suppress voter turnout in minority communities. This is unacceptable, and it is a reminder of the importance of the Voting Rights Act. We should be doing everything possible to encourage participation in the democratic process and ensure every eligible voter is able to exercise his or her right to cast a ballot. ?Ensuring every Americans? basic right to vote is an issue where Democrats and Republicans should be able to find common ground. This is the strength of our democracy, and I am confident in Congress?s ability to judge what is necessary to prevent racial discrimination in election practices."

Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.)

Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), authors of the <em>Right to Vote Amendment </em>, issued this statement after the ruling: ?Today?s Supreme Court decision is an assault on what should be our most fundamental right as Americans. While the Court is correct that current law to protect voters from discriminatory voting laws is outdated, it is because it?s not expansive enough. The right to vote is under attack across the country. Already in 2013, more than 30 states have introduced over 80 restrictive voting laws that often target low-income, student, elderly and minority voters. ?As disappointed as we are by today?s decision, it demonstrates why we cannot wait to enact a constitutional amendment that would guarantee an affirmative right to vote for all Americans?no matter where they live. A country built on the foundation of civic participation should never tolerate any politically-motivated threats to our ability to express our views at the polls. We will continue to work with our colleagues and build the grassroots support needed to ensure we protect our right to vote.?

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.)

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued this statement after the ruling: ?Today the Supreme Court rolled back one of the most effective safeguards to Americans? fundamental right to vote. This decision significantly slows the march of progress we?ve made since the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965. ?There is still persistent voter discrimination that must be addressed, from longer voting lines for minorities to the racially motivated efforts to suppress the vote we saw in the 2012 presidential election. ?The ball is now in Congress?s court. The Senate Judiciary Committee is already taking action to restore protections for minority voters, and I call on Speaker Boehner to exercise true leadership in the House. ?This is our watch, and we must guard our rights?for ourselves and generations yet unborn. We must act swiftly and decisively, in a bipartisan manner as we did in 2006, to create a new formula to ensure that the Voting Rights Act remains a powerful tool to protect voters from discrimination.?

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement after the ruling: ?Today?s Supreme Court ruling turns back the clock for voting rights at a time when too many Americans still face discrimination in our country. The Voting Rights Act has been a cornerstone to ensuring that all citizens are able to participate in our democracy. By invalidating one of its core provisions, the Court has upset years of established practices that helped ensure voting is more fair. ?Congress must act immediately to strengthen this law. The right to vote is at the very heart of our constitution and our democracy. We should not rest until we?ve removed all obstacles to voting.?

Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. (D-N.J.)

Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. (D-N.J.) issued this statement after the ruling: ?I am extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court?s decision today to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. This ruling is not only a major setback for civil rights and voting rights, but it is a major blow to basic fundamental democracy in this country. It?s now up to Congress to work together, reach across the aisle, and share the responsibility in protecting one of our most sacred and fundamental rights. Access to the ballot on Election Day may be one of the only times that the most disadvantaged in our communities have an equal voice regardless of what they look like or where they come from. A vote at the ballot box transcends gender, race, religion, or socio-economic status. Knowing that an 80-year-old veteran, a single mom, or an 18-year-old high school senior voting for the first time has an equal vote, and thus an equal voice, as a millionaire or billionaire is what has separated us and made our nation great. Now more than ever, Congress must rise above partisanship and create free and unfettered access to the ballot.?

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/john-boehner-voting-rights_n_3503714.html

davy jones death born this way foundation lytro camera lytro camera andrew brietbart branson mo monkees songs

'A Night With Janis Joplin' heads to Broadway

NEW YORK (AP) ? The boozy, bluesy, hot-mama howl of Janis Joplin is heading to Broadway.

Producers said Wednesday that the musical "A Night With Janis Joplin" starring Mary Bridget Davies as the iconic singer will start previews at the Lyceum Theatre on Sept. 20.

The show, written and directed by Randy Johnson, has a live onstage band and features Joplin hits and classic songs such as "Piece of My Heart," ''Mercedes Benz," ''Me and Bobby McGee," ''Ball and Chain" and "Summertime."

The show has already been staged at Portland Center Stage in Oregon; the Cleveland Play House; Arena Stage in Washington, D.C.; the Pasadena Playhouse in California; and the Milwaukee Repertory Theater.

Davies, who was raised in Cleveland, first won the role in 2005 after beating 150 actresses. She has appeared in the musical revue "It Ain't Nothin' But the Blues" and another Joplin musical, "Love, Janis." She has toured with Joplin's band, Big Brother & the Holding Company and has released the album "Wanna Feel Somethin.'"

Joplin rose to fame during San Francisco's 1967 "Summer of Love," gaining acclaim when she performed her version of blues singer Big Mama Thornton's "Ball and Chain" at the Monterey International Pop Festival. She died of a heroin overdose in Hollywood in 1970.

___

Online: http://www.anightwithjanisjoplin.com

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/night-janis-joplin-heads-broadway-190252900.html

Julie Roberts roses april fools Good April Fools Jokes Dumpster Diaper the beach

T-Mobile leak hints Lumia 925 and Xperia Z may launch on July 17th

T-Mobile customers may have to sit tight for a little while longer if they're planning to pick up a Nokia Lumia 925 or Sony Xperia Z. TmoNews has reportedly obtained a roadmap from the UnCarrier that has the two smartphones launching on July 17th alongside an unidentified (though likely budget-oriented) handset. While pricing isn't mentioned for the Xperia Z, the Lumia 925 is expected to cost $100 down with a $579 full price. The apparent leak gives us a date to mark on our calendars, although we won't base our lives around it -- carriers tend to change schedules at the last minute, after all.

Filed under: Cellphones, Mobile, Sony, Nokia, T-Mobile

Comments

Source: TmoNews

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/26/t-mobile-leak-hints-lumia-925-xperia-z-may-launch-on-july-17th/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget

stock market Vince Flynn Mexico vs Brazil Tim Duncan Kim And Kanye Baby Name NBA Finals Game 7 TWA Flight 800

Fresh Flipboard, Facebook and NFL Fantasy Football apps coming to Windows 8 (update: Flipboard video)

Windows 8.1 preview was the first big announcement to come out of Build 2013, but Ballmer's not done with the software goodies. Turns out, Facebook, Flipboard and NFL Fantasy Football apps are coming to Windows 8. Naturally, we haven't seen what these (presumably) Metro-styled apps will look like, but it's good to know they're coming, right?

Update: The folks at Flipboard have uploaded a (very) brief video of their new Windows 8 app, and we've embedded it after the break for your viewing pleasure.

Filed under: Microsoft

Comments

Source: Inside Flipboard

Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/R8N0gZZOdtU/

mariah carey History Channel The Bible alex smith alex smith The Bible History Channel Melissa King Heat Harlem Shake

Mad Men, Season 6

I could barely watch Don this season. All the qualities that once drew us to him were suddenly gone.

He wasn?t suavely bedding bohemian free spirits. He was wallowing in a protracted, messy affair with his saintly friend?s wife.

He wasn?t crushing client meetings with bursts of eloquence and insight into human fragility. He was bumbling through misguided pitches, pettily squabbling with his own colleagues, and often not bothering to show up at all.

He wasn?t the retro stud who could throw back three whiskeys without consequence. He was an increasingly pitiable and dependent alcoholic.

That guy who promoted Peggy, carefully guided her through a personal crisis, and treated her as a respected peer? That guy who made a point of engaging Joan on the basis of her shrewd capabilities, and never treated her as a pile of garish curves?

That guy was pretty much absent this season. Until the very end.

Mad Men?s sweet spot from the start has been scenes in which the psychological nuances of advertising mesh with the psychological pathologies of its characters. Again and again, Don will pitch an ad concept that seems to speak just as much to his own emotional state as it does to the imperative of selling ketchup, or cars, or hotel rooms. That last client powwow with the good folks from Hershey?s was a stellar example.

But with a fascinating twist: Instead of rooting a proposed marketing campaign in his own neuroses, Don realized he didn?t want a campaign at all. Couldn?t tolerate any subterfuge or gilding. He yearned for honesty, authenticity, simple goodness.

Just before Don opened up his soul and poured it onto the conference table, he glanced meaningfully at Ted. Ted was lost in his thoughts, in love with Peggy, struggling to cling to the anchor of family amid a squall of social upheaval. The look on Ted?s face is what at last drove Don to ditch his lies and come clean. Don was so supremely selfish all season, disrupting the lives of everyone around him as he flitted from one emotional salve to the next. And then he finally looked through another man?s eyes (saw both sides, if you will, but more on that later) and thought: This guy deserves my help; I can help him. He packed Ted off to California, with the hope of saving the poor fellow?s marriage. It was a return of the selfless Don who?d made regular appearances in seasons past.

The billboard art for Season 6 featured two Dons passing each other on the sidewalk, headed in opposite directions. From beginning to end, the themes of doubling and bifurcation hovered over the season. There were Don and Ted, darkly and lightly complected, two men with the same job, two sides of the same coin?ending up on opposite coasts. There was Bob Benson (B.B. to Don?s D.D.), the mysteriously self-invented go-getter who seems to mirror Don?s early rise. There was Sally using Beth Francis?Betty?s name?on her fake I.D., after smoking cigarettes side-by-side with Betty on the car ride home from a prep school visit, two savvy blondes. And then Sally and Don: both getting too drunk, both with fake identities, one suspended from work and the other from school.

The episode closed with the Joni Mitchell?penned and Judy Collins?sung ?Both Sides, Now,? floating along on its dark-light lyrical construction. ?Try to see it from our side,? said Roger, ushering Don into a mandatory leave. As Troy Patterson pointed out, the Don standing before his childhood home as the season ended had at last?perhaps for the first time in his life?reconciled ?be and seem.? There is one Don. He is both sides, now.

I felt a great deal of release when the show resolved Don?s ongoing, painful struggle to integrate himself. Let us be done, though, with this gloomy chapter. I hope next season?s overarching themes will be a bit brighter. Mad Men is many shows at once?an intimate character study, a period piece, even a sharp sitcom at times?but I like it best when it zooms along on the zingy momentum of office drama.

My wish for next season: It?s Peggy?s time. We?ve wrung all we can out of Don?s internal struggle. I want to watch a late ?60s working girl take control of her career while possibly turning into a one-woman wrecking ball in her personal life. Bring on the pantsuits!

Hanna and Paul, it was a true pleasure reading your entries each week. I?ll miss your companionship on the bumpy voyage that was Mad Men Season 6.

Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/tv_club/features/2013/mad_men_season_6/week_12/mad_men_season_6_review_after_dark_don_time_for_peggy_in_pantsuits.html

earl scruggs wrestlemania 28 game of thrones season 2 dierks bentley kenny chesney academy of country music awards brad paisley

The Sonic Secrets That Bring Pixar's Latest Movie To Life

For a totally animated flick, it's the sound masters behind the scenes who are really responsible for bringing a movie to life?every squeal, sigh, and clunk is key. Thanks to the people over at SoundWorks, we get to see (and hear) the steps it took to give a literal voice to Pixar's newest film, Monsters University.

Sound designer Tom Myers lets us in on the more conceptual secrets of cinema sound, but he also breaks down an entire scene into the individual parts that make it whole. Each specific voice and noise sounds almost naked when you hear it on its own, so it's truly incredible to see the final effect when Myers brings the whole piece together. You'll never listen to an animated film the same way again. [Soundworks Collection]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/the-sonic-secrets-that-bring-pixars-latest-movie-to-li-587315793

Marissa Mayer Jon Lord Colorado shootings dark knight rises Aurora shooting James Eagan Holmes jeremy lin

This Nesting Storage Beats Any Set of Russian Dolls

Moving house has never been easier than with this amazing set of nesting storage units. Designed by Sasa Mitrovic of TwentyTree, an amazing six pieces fit together seamlessly?and look great, too.

Called Matrioshka, the wooden storage units all fit inside the large orange armoire. Pull out the cabinets as and when you need them, or use them all from the off. They have a pretty 60s vibe about them that may or may not be to your taste, but they're damn practical regardless.

While they made their debut at the Milan Design Week earlier this year, they're now to be manufactured by SCSplus and Ergomade. Sadly there's currently no word on pricing. [Twenty Tree via Design Milk]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/this-nesting-storage-beats-any-set-of-russian-dolls-583798487

cubs cj wilson ellsbury brad pitt and angelina jolie brad and angelina herniated disc luke scott

Apple praises Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage

Apple, has released a statement in support of this morning's rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8, which effectively banned same-sex marriage in the state of California. Speaking with All Things D, and Apple spokesman praised the decisions, calling marriage a civil rights issue.

?Apple strongly supports marriage equality and we consider it a civil rights issue. We applaud the Supreme Court for its decisions today,? an Apple spokesman told AllThingsD in a statement.

Back in February, Apple joined other tech companies including Facebook, Google, and Intel in supporting same-sex marriage. At the time, the companies argued that California's ban led to decreased company morale and hurt recruiting efforts.

Source: All Things D

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheIphoneBlog/~3/0wNw8vZJtG0/story01.htm

meteorite lebron james NASA asteroid cruise ship Asteroid 2012 DA14 Reeva Steenkamp

Justin Bieber's Failed 'SNL' Skit Surfaces: Watch!

Bill Hader and sketch writers deem the skit 'the greatest train wreck ever.'
By Emilee Lindner

Source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1709663/justin-bieber-lost-snl-skit.jhtml

Pokemon X and Y Apple Developer PS4 iOS 7 tim tebow Mac Pro Kingdom Hearts 3

Big battle last night in Texas (Balloon Juice)

Share With Friends: | | Politics - Top Stories Stories, RSS Feeds and Widgets via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/314825159?client_source=feed&format=rss

Kayla Harrison Mars landing Gabby Douglas John Orozco Garrett Reid shawn johnson Tony Sly

The Best Mad Men Season Yet

Megan Draper (Jessica Pare) and Don Draper (Jon Hamm)

Photo by Jaimie Trueblood/AMC

Mindful of the recent ?sick day? on which Don Draper drunkenly slouched through a viewing of a Nixon ad, I approached last night?s episode of Mad Men half-expecting the season finale to be powered by at least a bit of electoral energy. Converting this half-expectation into an active wish, I began planning to compare and contrast the misadventures of Draper and crew with the mistakes registered by George Roundy, the hairdresser played by Warren Beatty in our country?s great bedroom farce, Shampoo, set on Election Day 1968, and ending on a cliff above the frontier of the promised land. I realized it ought to be easy to generate a spark of an idea about ambition, masculinity, and the American dream in the friction between the two productions. But I hadn?t yet realized what I?d already felt, that Mad Men has stopped being a period piece.

Among the signs of artistic growth that mark the show?s sixth season as its best to date is that it is has stopped using the past as a crutch to prop up its scenarios. In its first season, when the calendar paged across the second Tuesday in November of 1960, the producers wrought much ballyhoo. The agency had Nixon as a client; thus, according to the alternate rules of historical fiction, the audience had to credit Sterling Cooper with the real Nixon?s campaign slogan (?For the future?) and had to grin and bear a handful of instances of U.G.H. (unfortunately gratuitous historicism). I take its moments of jagged tonality to represent the cracks of a maturing voice, and its excesses as shrewd expressionistic choices. (Yes, it seemed rather much for the season opener to quote Dante?s Inferno by way of bearing down on Draper?s midlife crisis. But Don Draper is not having a midlife crisis. His life is the crisis, and it?s got momentum.) This season, less eager to please and more anxious to jar, Mad Men has moved its mimicry of then-current events farther back in the thematic mix. The tail end of the season breezes past the election to tumble toward the more emotionally momentous holiday of Thanksgiving.

The fate of the country is noted, significantly, by Draper, only when a man of God interrupts his drinking and his drinking career. ?I?m doing just fine,? was Don?s brush-off of the guy who may in fact have saved his soul. ?Nixon?s president, everything?s back where Jesus wants it.?

Think of it this way: Now that Mad Men has stopped attempting to be Updike?s Rabbit series, an analytic diorama, it has focused its self-consciously literary efforts on the more interesting business of being Updike?s Couples. American history is just a thing that happens, like the weather, and instead the personal past is the nightmare from which Draper?off the sauce and onto a mission of radical reinvention?may yet awake.

The show is pitching Draper?s epiphany as a program of radical transparency, enacted by a character known for his opacity and invisibility. I appreciated the elegance of the episode?s return to the season opener. There, Draper, creating a campaign for a hotel in Hawaii, produced a spooky-Zen print ad featuring an empty suit on a beach. Here, when the clients arrive for a meeting, his partners can?t find him. It is as if, embracing the idea of the ad, he has disappeared. Where to? The bar stool, where he?s doing just fine. Man, the crusty old symbolism of American masculinity had a rough week: Undone by cars and guns, trembling with delirium in the absence of alcohol and with fear in the face of adultery, the strong and silent majority of the ensemble did not do much to give patriarchy a good name.

Not for nothing does Draper?s come-to-Jesus moment?his outing of himself as an orphan, for the sake of his relationship with his kids?happen during a meeting with Hershey?s. ?The wrapper looked like what was inside,? he says early in the episode, a professional illusionist and existential imposter appreciating an honest fa?ade. He repeats the line later. Shortly, he takes his kids on a car ride to visit the house where he grew up. A kid eats an ice-cream treat on the stoop of the house, at the end of the finale, while Don begins to reconcile be and seem. Everything for a moment is back where Jesus wants it.

Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/television/2013/06/mad_men_season_6_this_was_the_best_season_yet.html

donovan mcnabb lottery ticket megga millions what is autism the giver march 30 rimm

High court sends back Texas race-based plan

FILE - In this Oct. 10, 2012 file photo, Abigail Fisher, right, who sued the University of Texas, walks outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court has sent a Texas case on race-based college admissions back to a lower court for another look. The court's 7-1 decision Monday leaves unsettled many of the basic questions about the continued use of race as a factor in college admissions. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

FILE - In this Oct. 10, 2012 file photo, Abigail Fisher, right, who sued the University of Texas, walks outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court has sent a Texas case on race-based college admissions back to a lower court for another look. The court's 7-1 decision Monday leaves unsettled many of the basic questions about the continued use of race as a factor in college admissions. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

People wait outside the Supreme Court in Washington as key decisions are expected to be announced Monday, June 24, 2013. At the end of the court's term, several major cases are still outstanding that could have widespread political impact on same-sex marriage, voting rights, and affirmative action. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

People wait outside the Supreme Court in Washington as key decisions are expected to be announced Monday, June 24, 2013. At the end of the court's term, several major cases are still outstanding that could have widespread political impact on same-sex marriage, voting rights, and affirmative action. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

People line up in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 24, 2013, before it opened for its last scheduled session. The Supreme Court has 11 cases, including the term's highest profile matters, to resolve before the justices take off for summer vacations, teaching assignments and international travel. The court is meeting Monday for its last scheduled session, but will add days until all the cases are disposed of. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court has sent a Texas case on race-based college admissions back to a lower court for another look.

The court's 7-1 decision Monday leaves unsettled many of the basic questions about the continued use of race as a factor in college admissions.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said a federal appeals court needs to subject the University of Texas admission plan to the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

The compromise ruling throws out the decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the Texas admission plan.

Kennedy said the appeals court did not test the Texas plan under the most exacting level of judicial review.

He said such a test is required by the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Michigan upholding affirmative action in higher education.

"As the Court said in Grutter, it remains at all times the university's obligation to demonstrate, and the judiciary's obligation to determine, that admissions processes 'ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant's race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application,'" Kennedy said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter. "In my view, the courts below adhered to this court's pathmarking decisions and there is no need for a second look," Ginsburg said in a dissent she read aloud.

Justice Clarence Thomas, alone on the court, said he would have overturned the high court's 2003 ruling.

Justice Elena Kagan stayed out of the case, presumably because she had some contact with it at an earlier stage when she worked in the Justice Department.

Abigail Fisher, a white Texan, sued the university after she was denied a spot in 2008. She has since received her undergraduate degree from Louisiana State University.

The challenge to the Texas plan gained traction in part because the makeup of the court has changed since the last time the justices ruled on affirmative action in higher education in 2003. Then, Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote the majority opinion that held that colleges and universities can use race in their quest for diverse student bodies.

O'Connor retired in 2006, and her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito, has shown himself to be more skeptical of considerations of race in education.

Texas uses race as one among many factors in admitting about a quarter of the university's incoming freshmen. The school gives the bulk of the slots to Texans admitted based on their high school class rank, without regard to race. It automatically offers about three-quarters of its spots to graduates in the top 10 percent of their Texas high schools, under a 1990s state law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush. Since then the admissions program has been changed so that now only the top 8 percent gain automatic admission.

Race is a factor in filling out the rest of the incoming class. More than 8 in 10 African-American and Latino students who enrolled at the flagship campus in Austin in 2011 were automatically admitted, according to university statistics.

In all, black and Hispanic students made up more than a quarter of the incoming freshmen class. White students constituted less than half the entering class when students with Asian backgrounds and other minorities were added in.

The university said the extra measure of diversity it gets from the slots outside automatic admission is crucial because too many of its classrooms have only token minority representation, at best. At the same time, Texas argued that race is one of many factors considered and that whether race played the key role in any applicant's case was impossible to tell.

The Obama administration, roughly half of the Fortune 100 companies and large numbers of public and private colleges that feared a broad ruling against affirmative action backed the Texas program. Among the benefits of affirmative action, the administration said, is that it creates a pipeline for a diverse officer corps that it called "essential to the military's operational readiness." In 2003, the court cited the importance of a similar message from military leaders.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2013-06-24-Supreme%20Court-Affirmative%20Action/id-e92dd9e37bb54df5bfe16189cf8f40ea

aspirin 21 jump street illinois primary results acapulco mexico hines ward robert deniro mexico news

Ken Duke wins Travelers Championship in playoff

CROMWELL, Conn. (AP) ? Journeyman Ken Duke made a 2? foot birdie putt on the second playoff hole Sunday to beat Chris Stroud at the Travelers Championship to win his first ever PGA Tour event.

Stroud had chipped in from 51 feet on the 18th hole to force the playoff.

But the 44-year-old Duke made the better approach shot on the second extra hole, bouncing his ball in front of the flag and rolling it close.

Duke wouldn't have been there at all had luck not intervened on the 10th hole, when his ball ricocheted off a tree and onto the green to about 5 feet from the pin, allowing him to make birdie.

Canadian Graham DeLaet finished a stroke back in third place. Bubba Watson finished fourth, two-shots behind, after making a six on the par-3 16th hole.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/ken-duke-wins-travelers-championship-playoff-225316848.html

andrew lloyd webber obscura grok cirque du freak paul pierce pope joan pope joan