text:
Solidarity against online harassment
One of our colleagues has been the target of a sustained campaign of harassment for the past several months. We have decided to publish this statement to publicly declare our support for her, for every member of our organization, and for every member of our community who experiences this harassment. She is not alone and her experience has catalyzed us to action. This statement is a start.
The Tor Project works to create ways to bypass censorship and ensure anonymity on the Internet. Our software is used by journalists, human rights defenders, members of law enforcement, diplomatic officials, and many others. We do high-profile work, and over the past years, many of us have been the targets of online harassment. The current incidents come at a time when suspicion, slander, and threats are endemic to the online world. They create an environment where the malicious feel safe and the misguided feel justified in striking out online with a thousand blows. Under such attacks, many people have suffered — especially women who speak up online. Women who work on Tor are targeted, degraded, minimized and endure serious, frightening threats.
This is the status quo for a large part of the internet. We will not accept it.
We work on anonymity technology because we believe in empowering people. This empowerment is the beginning and a means, not the end of the discussion. Each person who has power to speak freely on the net also has the power to hurt and harm. Merely because one is free to say a thing does not mean that it should be tolerated or considered reasonable. Our commitment to building and promoting strong anonymity technology is absolute. We have decided that it is not enough for us to work to protect the world from snoops and censors; we must also stand up to protect one another from harassment.
It's true that we ourselves are far from perfect. Some of us have written thoughtless things about members of our own community, have judged prematurely, or conflated an idea we hated with the person holding it. Therefore, in categorically condemning the urge to harass, we mean categorically: we will neither tolerate it in others, nor will we accept it among ourselves. We are dedicated to both protecting our employees and colleagues from violence, and trying to foster more positive and mindful behavior online ourselves.
Further, we will no longer hold back out of fear or uncertainty from an opportunity to defend a member of our community online. We write tools to provide online freedom but we don't endorse online or offline abuse. Similarly, in the offline world, we support freedom of speech but we oppose the abuse and harassment of women and others. We know that online harassment is one small piece of the larger struggle that women, people of color, and others face against sexism, racism, homophobia and other bigotry.
This declaration is not the last word, but a beginning: We will not tolerate harassment of our people. We are working within our community to devise ways to concretely support people who suffer from online harassment; this statement is part of that discussion. We hope it will contribute to the larger public conversation about online harassment and we encourage other organizations to sign on to it or write one of their own.
For questions about Tor, its work, its staff, its funding, or its world view, we encourage people to directly contact us (Media contact: Kate Krauss, press @ torproject.org). We also encourage people join our community and to be a part of our discussions:
In solidarity against online harassment,
Roger Dingledine
Nick Mathewson
Kate Krauss
Wendy Seltzer
Caspar Bowden
Rabbi Rob Thomas
Karsten Loesing
Matthew Finkel
Griffin Boyce
Colin Childs
Georg Koppen
Tom Ritter
Erinn Clark
David Goulet
Nima Fatemi
Steven Murdoch
Linus Nordberg
Arthur Edelstein
Aaron Gibson
Anonymous Supporter
Matt Pagan
Philipp Winter
Sina Rabbani
Jacob Appelbaum
Karen Reilly
Meredith Hoban Dunn
Moritz Bartl
Mike Perry
Sukhbir Singh
Sebastian Hahn
Nicolas Vigier
Nathan Freitas
Leif Ryge
Runa Sandvik
Andrea Shepard
Isis Agora Lovecruft
Arlo Breault
Ásta Helgadóttir
Mark Smith
Bruce Leidl
Dave Ahmad
Micah Lee
Sherief Alaa
Virgil Griffith
Rachel Greenstadt
Andre Meister
Andy Isaacson
Gavin Andresen
Scott Herbert
Colin Mahns
John Schriner
David Stainton
Doug Eddy
Pepijn Le Heux
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Ian Goldberg
Rebecca MacKinnon
Nadia Heninger
Cory Svensson
Alison Macrina
Arturo Filastò
Collin Anderson
Andrew Jones
Eva Blum-Dumontet
Jan Bultmann
Murtaza Hussain
Duncan Bailey
Sarah Harrison
Tom van der Woerdt
Jeroen Massar
Brendan Eich
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Jean Camp
Joanna Rutkowska
Daira Hopwood
William Gillis
Adrian Short
Bethany Horne
Andrea Forte
Hernán Foffani
Nadim Kobeissi
Jakub Dalek
Rafik Naccache
Nathalie Margi
Asheesh Laroia
Ali Mirjamali
Huong Nguyen
Meerim Ilyas
Timothy Yim
Mallory Knodel
Randy Bush
Zachary Weinberg
Claudio Guarnieri
Steven Zikopoulos
Michael Ceglar
Zachariah Gibbens
Jeremy M. Harmer
Ilias Bartolini
René Pfeiffer
Percy Wegmann
Tim Sammut
Neel Chauhan
Matthew Puckey
Taylor R Campbell
Klaus Layer
Colin Teberg
Jeremy Gillula
Will Scott
Tom Lowenthal
Rishab Nithyanand
Brinly Taylor
Craig Colman-Shepherd
A. Lizard
M. C. McGrath
Ross MacDonald
Esra'a Al Shafei
Gulnara Yunusova
Ben Laurie
Christian Vandrei
Tanja Lange
Markus Kitsinger
Harper Reed
Mark Giannullo
Alyssa Rowan
Daniel Gall
Kathryn Cramer
Camilo Galdos AkA Dedalo
Ralf-Philipp Weinmann
Miod Vallat
Carlotta Negri
Frederic Jacobs
Susan Landau
Jan Weiher
Donald A. Byrd
Jesin A.
Thomas Blanchard
Matthijs Pontier
Rohan Nagel
Cyril Brulebois
Neal Rauhauser
Sonia Ballesteros Rey
Florian Schmitt
Abdoulaye Bah
Simone Basso
Charlie Smith
Steve Engledow
Michael Brennan
Jeffrey Landale
Sophie Toupin
Dana Lane Taylor
Nagy Gabor
Shaf Patel
Augusto Amaral
Robin Molnar
Jesús Cea Avión
praxis journal
Jens Stomber
Noam Roberts
Ken Arroyo Ohori
Brian Kroll
Shawn Newell
Rasmus Vuori
Alexandre Guédon
Seamus Tuohy
Virginia Lange
Nicolas Sera-Leyva
Jonah Silas Sheridan
Aaron Zauner
Christophe Moille
Micah Sherr
Gabriel Rocha
Yael Grauer
Kenneth Freeman
Dennis Winter
Lee Azzarello
Zaki Manian
Aaron Turner
Greg Slepak
Ethan Zuckerman
Pasq Gero
Pablo Suárez-Serrato
Kerry Rutherford
Andrés Delgado
Tommy Collison
Dan Luedders
Flávio Amieiro
Ulrike Reinhard
Melissa Anelli
Bryan Fordham
Nate Perkins
Jon Blanchard
Jonathan Proulx
Bunty Saini
Daniel Crowley
Matt Price
Charlie McConnell
Chuck Peters
Ejaz Ahmed
Laura Poitras
Benet Hitchcock
Dave Williams
Jane Avriette
Renata Avila
Sandra Ordonez
David Palma
Andre N Batista
Steve Bellovin
James Renken
Alyzande Renard
Patrick Logan
Rory Byrne
Holly Kilroy
Phillipa Gill
Leah Carey
Josh Steiner
Benjamin Mako Hill
Nick Feamster
Dominic Corriveau
Adrienne Porter Felt
Allen Gunn
Eric S Johnson
Hanno Wagner
Anders Hansen
Alexandra Stein
Tyler H. Meers
Shumon Huque
James Vasile
Andreas Kinne
Johannes Schilling
Niels ten Oever
David W. Deitch
Dan Wallach
Jon Penney
Starchy Grant
Damon McCoy
David Yip
Adam Fisk
Jon Callas
Aleecia M. McDonald
Marina Brown
Wolfgang Britzl
Chris Jones
Heiko Linke
David Van Horn
Larry Brandt
Matt Blaze
Radek Valasek
Galou Gentil
Douglas Perkins
Jude Burger
Myriam Michel
Jillian York
Michalis Polychronakis
Kostas Jakeliunas
Sebastiaan Provost
Sebastian Maryniak
Clytie Siddall
Claudio Agosti
Peter Laur
Maarten Eyskens
Tobias Pulls
Sacha van Geffen
Cory Doctorow
Tom Knoth
Fredrik Julie Andersson
Nighat Dad
Josh L Glenn
Vernon Tang
Jennifer Radloff
Domenico Lupinetti
Martijn Grooten
Rachel Haywire
Christoph Maria Sommer
J Duncan
Michael Kennedy Brodhead
Mansour Moufid
Melissa Elliott
Mick Morgan
Brenno de Winter
George Scriban
Ryan Harris
Ricard S. Colorado
Julian Oliver
Sebastian "bastik" G.
Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara
Koen Van Impe
Kevin Gallagher
Sven "DrMcCoy" Hesse
Pavel Schamberger
Phillip M. Pether
Joe P. Lee
Stephanie Hyland
Maya Ganesh
Greg Bonett
Amadou Lamine Badji
Vasil Kolev
Jérémie Zimmermann
Cally Gordon
Hakisho Nukama
Daniel C Howe
Douglas Stebila
Jennifer Rexford
Nayantara Mallesh
Valeria de Paiva
Tim Bulow
Meredith Whittaker
Max Hunter
Maja Lampe
Thomas Ristenpart
Lisa Wright
August Germar
Ronald Deibert
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
Alan L. Stewart
Alexander Muentz
Erin Benson
Carmela Troncoso
David Molnar
Holger Levsen
Peter Grombach
John McIntyre
Lisa Geelan
Antonius Kies
Jörg Kruse
Arnold Top
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
Ahmet A. Sabancı
Henriette Hofmeier
Ethan Heilman
Daniël Verhoeven
Alex Shepard
Max Maass
Ed Agro
Andrew Heist
Patrick McDonald
Lluís Sala
Laurelai Bailey
José Manuel Cerqueira Esteves
Fabio Pietrosanti
Cobus Carstens
Harald Lampesberger
Douwe Schmidt
Sascha Meinrath
C. Waters
Bruce Schneier
George Danezis
Claudia Diaz
Kelley Misata
Denise Mangold
Owen Blacker
Zach Wick
Gustavo Gus
Alexander Dietrich
Frank Smyth
Dafne Sabanes Plou
Steve Giovannetti
Grit Hemmelrath
Masashi Crete-Nishihata
Michael Carbone
Amie Stepanovich
Kaustubh Srikanth
Enrique Piracés
Antoine Beaupré
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
Richard Johnson
Ashok Gupta
Alex Halderman
Brett Solomon
Raegan MacDonald
Joseph Steele
Marie Gutbub
Valeria Betancourt
Konstantin Müller
Emma Persky
Steve Wyshywaniuk
Tara Whalen
Joe Justen
Susan Kentner
Josh King
Juha Nurmi
John Saylor
Jurre van Bergen
Saedu Haiza
Anders Damsgaard
Sadia Afroz
Nat Meysenburg
Julian Assange
Dan Staples
Grady Johnson
Matthew Green
Cameron Williams
Roy Johnson
Laura S Potter-Brown
Meredith L. Patterson
Casey Dunham
Raymond Johansen
Kieran Thandi
Jason Gulledge
Matt Weeks
Khalil Sehnaoui
Brennan Novak
Casey Jones
Jesse Victors
Peter DeChristo
Nick Black
Štefan Gurský
Glenn Greenwald
Russell Handorf
Lisa D Lowe
Harry Halpin
Cooper Quintin
Mark Burdett
Conrad Corpus
Steve Revilak
Nate Shiff
Annie Zaman
Matthew Miller (Fedora Project)
David Fetter
Gabriella Biella Coleman
Ryan Lackey
Peter Clemenko
Serge Egelman
David Robinson
Sasa Savic
James McWilliams
Arrigo Triulzi
Kevin Bowen
Kevin Carson
Sajeeb Bhowmick
Dominik Rehm
William J. Coldwell
Niall Madhoo
Christoph Mayer
Simone Fischer-Hübner
George W. Maschke
Jens Kubieziel
Dan Hanley
Robin Jacks
Zenaan Harkness
Pete Newell
Aaron Michael Johnson
Kitty Hundal
Sabine "Atari-Frosch" Engelhardt
Wilton Gorske
Lukas Lamla
Kat Hanna
Polly Powledge
Sven Guckes
Georgia Bullen
Vladan Joler
Eric Schaefer
Ly Ngoc Quan Ly
Martin Kepplinger
Freddy Martinez
David Haren
Simon Richter
Brighid Burns
Peter Holmelin
Davide Barbato
Neil McKay
Joss Wright
Troy Toman
Morana Miljanovic
Simson Garfinkel
Harry Hochheiser
Malte Dik
Tails project
Kurt Weisman
Shaikh Rafia
Olivier Brewaeys
Sander Venema
James Murphy
Chris "The Paucie" Pauciello
Brad Parfitt
Jerry Whiting
Massachusetts Pirate Party
András Stribik
Alden Page
Juris Vetra
Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn
Marcel de Groot
Ryan Henry
Joy Lowell
Guilhem Moulin
Werner Jacob
Tansingh S. Partiman
Bryce Alexander Lynch
Robert Guerra
John Tait
Sebastian Urbach
Atro Tossavainen
Alexei Czeskis
Greg Norcie
Greg Metcalfe
Benjamin Chrobot
Lorrie Faith Cranor
Jamie D. Thomas
EJ Infeld
Douglas Edwards
Cody Celine
Ty Bross
Matthew Garrett
Sam P.
Vidar Waagbø
Raoul Unger
Aleksandar Todorović
John Olinda
Graham Perkins
Casa Casanova
James Turnbull
Eric Hogue
Jacobo Nájera
Ben Adida
If you would like to be on this list of signers (please do — you don't have to be a part of Tor to sign on!), please reach us at tor-assistants @ torproject.org.
I think part of this
I think part of this discussion is about exactly this question: how much should Tor focus on just writing code that enables other people to do things to make the world better, vs how much should Tor use its reputation and context to make the world better in other ways. There are no perfect answers here, but I think we're setting some more data points as we move forward with blog posts like this one.
This is about writing code
This is about writing code too though - namely, I don't get much written when I'm totally disabled by depression caused by this sort of thing.
To athena and
To athena and everyone,
Let's begin our solidarity journey together as Earth beings if you will...
[ http://peta.org/ ]
[ True History of America - Part 1 (1666-1840): The Curse against the Patriots
http://blog.ucadia.com/search?q=america ]
[ Restoring the Divine Feminine (Part 1)
http://blog.ucadia.com/2014/11/restoring-divine-feminine-part-1.html ]
[ The Law of One ]
In full support of everyone in tor on both sides for and against this message. I urge you all to visit the above as your intuition guides you.
Together we shall and must eradicate harrasment to ANYONE ANYWHERE in this Universe.
In Love,
p.s. athena, please continue coding. We need you!
Thank you arma for starting this dialogue.
For me, it is less about
For me, it is less about striking a balance between the two than integrating them--they comprise a virtuous circle.
Some Tor people articulate to the world the stakes we all face with mass surveillance; others at Tor build tools that allow privacy online. Some do both.
When millions of people are willing to give away their rights because they "have nothing to hide," Tor people publicly discuss the implications of this view on a free society and send a message that mass surveillance is not normal or inevitable and it can and must be stopped.
Just as importantly, Tor doesn't just talk about the problem--it helps to fix the problem.
Another organization might put out white papers all day long or make software unconnected to the real life risks of users. Many do. Not Tor.
That's the first thing I liked about Tor. They see the problem deeply--they talk to human rights activists every day, for instance---and they are literally, hands-on, working to fix it. Powerful and inspiring. - Katie
In addition to finding the
In addition to finding the magic line between "producing and supporting anonymity-enabling software" vs "trying to improve the world is other ways", it's important to realize that this statement is signed by individuals. Yes, The Tor Project stands behind this message, but the individual who signed it (some employees, some contractors, many volunteers, most supporters of the project) are the ones who are making a statement against harassment and who are unwilling to tolerate it anymore.
Tor, itself, is already very political, but for other reasons. This statement simply adds to the discomfort oppressors associate with Tor.
An Open Letter in
An Open Letter in Solidarity
History is not a smooth continuum of a move from prejudice to tolerance. If anything, to borrow a term from our discipline, history is a process of simulated annealing. We are constantly in search of a better local maxima for ourselves, our communities, and our countries. Discrimination is nothing new. Harassment is a familiar condition. Bigotry is hardly novel. But I contend that humanity –is- improving.
What is new are the ways in which the emergence of a world-wide online community has enabled discussion, both for and against these old evils. I am pleased to see that for every voice that has come out in support of the old order, the hegemonic misogyny and racism so casual about itself that it fails to even understand the meaning of those words, there have been voices raised in opposition.
Community leaders, scholars, religious leaders, politicians, social workers, activists, and more have taken a step forward to be heard. They tell stories about life now and about how life could be, and they bring the perspective of those marginalized into the open. In this way, we hear about life for persons of color, for women, for GLBT members of our communities. Many of the voices come from these people, but many come from those who enjoy society's more privileged statuses.
We are witnessing the backlash to the bravery of all of these voices. Hatred fights back to cling to its old notions of power. Gamergate, police violence against people of color, transphobia, the institutionalized denial of equal rights to millions of our citizens because they don't conform – all of these are real. When vested in politics, hatred can be surprisingly clinical. When it takes the form of online death threats, street harassment, and police brutality, it is visceral, ugly, and often, all too effective.
I do not speak for the whole of my community – I cannot pretend to have that kind of authority to substitute my voice for the voices of those whose departures from society's idea of 'the norm' are so much more visible and public. I do not face a daily struggle in light of my differences. But I will put my voice together with the voices of those who are fighting this struggle. I refuse to ignore the conflict, I refuse to pretend it does not exist, and I refuse to think I have no power to affect it. My colleagues, my students, and my community will know that I stand in support of those who have no choice but to participate, by virtue of society's ill-conceived notions.
Most recently, I came across this page in support of its contributors, some of whom have been harassed online simply because they had the audacity to be female, in tech, and participating in a project that already draws a lot of controversy. I have met both Roger and Nick at talks before – although I know neither of them personally. I'm not acquainted with the other members of the TOR community personally, but I have no reason to think them any less –persons- for that. They, and all other people, deserve a minimum standard of human rights, respect, and empowerment.
To all those who would oppose that, I have a simple message: You will not win this fight. The world will not allow it. If you want to remain in ignorance, you have every right to, but when you inflict your ugly ignorance on others, we will resist you.
J Duncan
Indiana University
A good post. I would sign
A good post. I would sign this petition. However, I find the tag feminism misleading. In my opinion it looks like men were to blame for most of the harassment on the web. So I cannot sign this statement.
I agree harassment is not a constructive way to resolve value differences and it shows the value of the offender. Thanks to all of the TOR project staff and volunteers for their great work.
There's more discussion of
There's more discussion of the 'feminism' tag over on the tor-talk list:
The bullying and sly
The bullying and sly misrepresentation designed to raise armies of trolls against Tor developers is only the latest in a pattern.
There's a longish history over the last few years of bullying, aggressive baiting misrepresentation, implicit apologia for state power, and general noxiousness on the part of Mark Ames, Paul Carr, and Yasha Levine.
I first saw them attack IP abolitionists. Then they went after libertarians. Then they went after anarchists. Now they're coming after the entire hacker community.
For years, I have advocated
For years, I have advocated using one's real name on the Internet except when there is a very good reason for a pseudonym or to be anonymous. Also, for year or so, I had a Tor node on one of my computers.
My reason for advocating transparency in how we represent ourselves is that the lack of transparency allows people to behave worse than they otherwise would. But being visible is not always wise.
Sometimes, to say what needs to be said or to publish what needs to be read, we must conceal our names, our identities, our habits, or locations. Tor is a key tool that allows for Internet freedoms in an increasingly repressive era.
While the Internet is an unprecedented means of expression and communication, it is also a giant failed social experiment. Harassment has become one of the dominant modes of Internet behavior.
Tools like Tor, while necessary for the protection of our freedom of expression, can be used in the service of harassment.
Please respect these tools for what they are: tools that allow ordinary people to resist repression. The best way to encourage respect for these vital tools is to call for a change in social norms such that mobbing, harassment, cyberbullying and such are clearly no longer acceptable.
Harassment poisons schools, organizations, communities, politics. There is no ideological difference too small for someone to decide you need to be purged and use harassment to accomplish it. The collateral damage to our culture and our organizations is huge.
Let us rise above the practice of harassment and learn to do better.
I had intended to sign my
I had intended to sign my name to the comment which begins "For years, I have advocated using one's real name" and was amused when my comment came through as "anonymous".
Kathryn Cramer
If a community is going to
If a community is going to be subject to harassment, there is a responsibility of members to support each other and a need to assert a vision of what the community's expectations are. There are certainly people who might not always have had positive influences in their lives displaying a standard what is decent behavior. Tor has a leadership role in the community, people look up to the project and personalities involved. I appreciate that it is exercising its position in a constructive manner.
This is also a moment of reflection for even those who aren't necessarily intolerant to examine their own behavior. I have seen decent people resort to less decent practices in their communications with other members of the community. We could all do well to check ourselves. Tor is heavily moderating these comments. Only propaganda gets through. I view my participation as a commitment for self-examination as much as it is a rejection of another group's nonsense.
Furthermore, when Tor is at times misused by malicious parties for abusive behavior elsewhere, this reaffirms that support for freedom expression does not mean support for violence against others.
I hope this is a first step in a continuing engagement on harassment for Tor and all the signatories of this letter.
I think that you do a great
I think that you do a great job, thank you! @clafrisa
I support this 100% because
I support this 100% because why should people hide in fear on the Internet just because people can be anonymous and say such terrible unjustified things to other people. The Internet's suppose to bring people together, not tear them apart.
Speaking out against
Speaking out against harassment, online harassment in this case is important. I'm not certain, but I hope it is alright to assume that those who have said that (online) harassment of females is to be spoken out against would also say that (online) harassment against anyone, anywhere is to be spoken out against.
I had problems with how some things in the statement are put, including their order and the reason why the statement has been made in the first place.
Anyway, I put my name under it. The issue is important. It's a social issue.
Simply put, I oppose harassment against people!
Sebastian "bastik" G.
Reading through these
Reading through these comments, there have been several people asking what solidarity in this context exactly means. To me, solidarity means that you will use your own voice, and whatever specific inter-personal opportunities that you may have, to state that certain behavior is not accepted.
I challenge myself, and I challenge all of you to speak up against harassment by whatever means you can, whenever you see it.
I'll wrap this up with something I think Jake said, "You should use your privilege to help other people." I'm sure if we all think hard enough, we can find the ways in our lives that we are privileged and use that privilege improve the lives and treatment of others.
Mark Giannullo
I see the names of personal
I see the names of personal heroes like Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Julian Assange, Cory Doctorow and Bruce Schneier...if they are on board, then so am I. Solidarity through privacy!
I would like to thank the
I would like to thank the Tor developers for all the hard work they do for us, and hope that they continue to do so for a long time to come.
This kind of harassment of those who would help us be safer, more secure, in this modern era of state surveillance is wholly unacceptable. Which is why this is a good idea - a public statement of "Fuck off mate, harassing tor devs ain't cool.".
Keep up the good work.
So basically you are willing
So basically you are willing to protect every harassing party on the planet, but when it happens to one of your own all of a sudden you are jumping on the sjw bandwagon. Predictable but still kind of ironic.
There's a difference between
There's a difference between the technical protections that Tor provides -- which we are absolute on maintaining for all because it's the only way to provide it for the people who need it -- and how we wish people behaved in the world.
In particular, this statement is not about removing protection from certain parties. It's about how we're now planning to stand up and participate and discuss and engage with the topic of harassment and not stand quietly by, hoping somebody else will deal with it.
The answer to bad speech is more speech.
I'm glad tor is here to
I'm glad tor is here to protect online privacy.
That´s it. Tor is a part of
That´s it. Tor is a part of civil liberty I can`t imagine to miss it sometime.
Does giving your real name
Does giving your real name not kind of defeat the purpose of Tor?
John and Jane Doe
Hm? No, not
Hm? No, not necessarily.
First: The purpose of Tor isn't to make everybody anonymous everywhere. It is to let you choose when and how to reveal information about yourself.
Second: anonymity isn't just about hiding from your destination. Read "part one" in the discussion of Facebook and Tor:
It seems as though readers
It seems as though readers are taking a stand against on-line "harassment" without knowing even the smallest details about this particular harassment series of events: IMHO a few details of the events of harassment should be expressed before people sign on to voice solidarity against it.
I can see why you might say
I can see why you might say this, but I disagree about the right strategy.
See my comment up above for the same discussion:
I'll personally take the
I'll personally take the opportunity and will take some time to self-reflect my own actions. It doesn't even take long. Thanks.
Thank you for starting this
Thank you for starting this new trend of an old Internet tradition of dealing with and confronting online abuse. This is not a gender issue, even if more women are harassed online (and I'm not sure that is the case). It's a people issue and an ethical issue. Looking forward to seeing this motion develop!
Much ♥
Kitty Hundal
Exactly. I see two
I see two questions:
- Do you support the general goals of the Tor Project?
- If you do, are there cultural changes that one can make that lead to more constructive outcomes for the project?
I'm pretty sure sustained harassment of individual developers isn't constructive, and doesn't lead to better outcomes for the Tor Project. So let's create a cultural norm where that doesn't happen.
Thank you to Tor for
Thank you to Tor for standing up to this online abuse. Freedom of speech and the right to privacy are fundamental civil liberties. But using "freedom of speech" and "privacy" as a shield to hide behind and a licence to harass others and destroy their reputations is the exact opposite of civil liberty - it is despicable and cowardly and must be confronted.
I abhor the harassment of
I abhor the harassment of anyone involved with the creation or running of Tor, and I don't do it along sexist lines. Harassment is harassment... period. However, having read the comments, some posters seem to be of the opinion that they can use the primary subject to further their own moralistic judgments. That worries me. So can we stick to the primary objective and not muddy the waters with 'free speech' and 'civil liberties'. Those are interpretable... harassment is not.
Those who actually work in
Those who actually work in and write about civil liberties and free speech would be rather shocked to find out that the definition and confines of "harassment" are not interpretable.
I think Roger summarized it
I think Roger summarized it well on the tor-talk thread: Anonymity can and is targeted at supporting speech. Threats can and are targeted at silencing speech.
Thanks Tor for taking this stand and bringing attention to these issues. We at Aspiration are in full solidarity.
So how do you plan on
So how do you plan on precluding Internet harassment without censoring anybody?
I understand that the
I understand that the identities of various individuals have been tied up one way or the other in this debacle. And that makes it all the more difficult to resolve this debacle cleanly.
Arma - I implore you to think of the voices who have been intimidated into silence. There has been a substantial amount of SWATing and blackmailing and jobs lost due to falsified claims of pedophilia/drug use/violent behavior being phoned in. Much of this harassment with real world consequences has been solely against one side of the 4 month long drama. And it's the side that has gotten the least amount of opportunity to speak their side.
I implore you - please investigate for yourself the claims that have been made. Please investigate the harassment that your coworker stated to you. There has been a contingent of trolls intent on harassing individuals in the tech industry while posing as a member of the video gaming community in order to inflame passions even more.
I am so exhausted....4 months trying to find a way to get across that video gamers are not at war with feminism and no one wants to hear it. It's just trolls sending gore pics and death threats to each side while pretending to be the other. It's the primary reason this debacle has lasted for so long.
I truly am sorry for you
I truly am sorry for you having to put up with this sort of thing - It is wrong!
The terribly ironic thing is that I use TOR often because I too get harassed. Usually for defending those who are getting harassed. So I know the feeling as I have several times been the subject of concerted attacks. It is the mob mentality and aided by anonymity.
You end up bitter and with a very low opinion of humanity.
Censorship is wrong when it is only a matter of free speech, but when it is preventing others from their free speech, or being used to intentionally hurt others, then censorship is a necessary evil. I do not say that lightly either, but it is the result of the only debate I ever lost. I supported free speech in that debate, and free access to the sum of all human knowledge. I thought this was a good ideal, but lost when I was asked if that meant did I believe in free access to bomb-making knowledge and child porn for anyone who wants it? Of course I did not believe in that and so I had to concede defeat. Free access for all, to everything is a great ideal, but not practical sadly. So censorship is a necessary evil and TOR needs to protect it's helpers.
I realize I am not "in the loop" here, but WHY would anyone want to harass anyone who was working to help us anyway? Are their misogynistic feelings so strong that they want to hurt something like TOR, or do they consider they do not need TOR as they are such l33t haxors and can used hacked accounts, etc?
It's Tor, not TOR. Anyways,
It's Tor, not TOR.
Anyways, I strongly disagree with some of the things you've said, regarding censorship being necessary.
>being used to intentionally hurt others, then censorship is a necessary evil.
Censorship is not a necessary evil when all "intentionally hurt" involves someone being a douche on the internet. Plus, what one person calls harrassment, another person called confrontation. I do not wish to censor you, even though some of the things you have said are rude, and downright dangerous.
>I do not say that lightly either, but it is the result of the only debate I ever lost.
If you supported free speech in a debate, then someone came up with the obligatory argument "what if someone uses it for evil?", and then you buckle, you must not have been in many serious debates before, have you? "Greater good" is a thing, you know.
>I thought this was a good ideal, but lost when I was asked if that meant did I believe in free access to bomb-making knowledge and child porn for anyone who wants it?
Free speech is black or white. You either give it to everyone, or risk it being lost for everyone. It's also not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be. Bomb-making information can be sought out for a wide variety of reasons, not all malicious. For example, learning how to stay safe around explosives, or even how to detect/disarm explosives. There is no way whatsoever to selectively censor people who look for information on pyrotechnics who plan to use it for "evil" purposes, yet simultaneously allow access to those who have a benign motive. The same goes for child porn. What is child porn in one country is legal in another. The overwhelming majority of what goes for child porn online is jailbait, nudist beaches, and public sexting, all of which do not need to involve abuse. Child porn involving rape is comparatively quite rare. Furthermore, far more children have been removed from dangerous homes because people failed to censor (real) child porn, simply due to people noticing it, reporting it, and recognizing the victim. Censoring mere evidence (as well as censoring massive collateral) is not the answer. The same applies to censoring information that has the potential to be used dangerously. Now of course, I wish the world was perfect, where children do not get abused, and bombs are never used for evil, but that is not possible, so we must make a choice for the greater good.
"The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting."
- The Freenet Project
>WHY would anyone want to harass anyone who was working to help us anyway? Are their misogynistic feelings so strong that they want to hurt something like TOR
I believe the harrassment was not because of "misogynistic feelings" (which are actually quite rare). It's very possible that this is an attack on Tor developers, and the attackers are using sexism as a tool, not as a motivation. In the real world, people tend not to attack random female devs because they have "misogynistic feelings", unless you consider bored trolls who just want a reaction.
>It's Tor, not TOR. Yes,
>It's Tor, not TOR.
Yes, according to Tor, but in another post I pointed out that as an English major it always appears as TOR in my mind as that is what I was taught was the correct form for an acronym.
>Anyways, I strongly disagree with some of the things you've said, regarding censorship being necessary.
And I strongly disagree with yours sadly.
>Censorship is not a necessary evil when all "intentionally hurt" involves someone being a douche on the internet. Plus, what one person calls harrassment, another person called confrontation. I do not wish to censor you, even though some of the things you have said are rude, and downright dangerous.
Respectfully disagree entirely. Confrontation is about challenging someone's beliefs, harassment is about insults, degrading, etc the person. You have just proved my point in doing this.
>>I do not say that lightly either, but it is the result of the only debate I ever lost.
Thank you! That childish comment proves to everyone you are trolling and so can be ignored from here on.
Point by point rebuttal of your post does not continue, as we know now that you are only trolling. Perhaps because I stand up for others you are wishing to take me on also? Another sign of your immaturity-Picking unnecessary fights to apparently prove something to others about oneself. You have certainly proved a lot; to many with your post.
I do not believe in total free speech, there must be some constraints in a civilized and safe society. That was the point I was trying to make about having to concede in that debate. Play tautological games, and define you own description for freer speech than we have now, but not without some control of the most gross and crass. Those are my beliefs and is there a fault in my logic? Calling for someone to be harmed is not acceptable as "free speech" for most people, myself included.
>>Heh. >Thank you! That
>Thank you! That childish comment proves to everyone you are trolling and so can be ignored from here on.
Well, that's convenient. You can't rebut their arguments, so you say they're trolling (because they used the word "heh", so you must have been pretty desperate to find a reason), and end it there.
(not the guy who made the original reply.)
I think you just lost
I think you just lost another debate.
"but lost when I was asked
"but lost when I was asked if that meant did I believe in free access to bomb-making knowledge"
yes well check this out: http://cryptome.org/tm-31-210.htm
Good post, but just to be
Good post, but just to be clear, people should still be free to say whatever the hell they want, including what is hateful and abusive. It may be wrong, but they should be free to, right?
Otherwise I am worried.
And we should be free not to
And we should be free not to listen if we don't want to. That's where harassment crosses the line.
Yes, people should be free
Yes, people should be free to say whatever they want.
But those attacked should also be free to respond proportionately.
What do you think, Tor
What do you think, Tor Project is going to build a harassment filter to keep assholes off the internet? :) Obviously not.
The harassers in this instance have been trying very hard for months to turn members of a community against eachother, and this statement of solidarity is letting them know they've utterly failed.
Thank you for being
Thank you for being unequivocal.
If we're going to create and grow an Internet that supports humans, it must provide room and safe space for discourses beyond white western men and their xboxes.
As important as any net neutrality reform, as important as any technical move that better preserves privacy, is a move toward self-examination and the creation of caring social structures that support, attend to, and amplify diverse, respectful discourse -- judging the success of our technology not by its theoretical elegance of profitability, but by its impact on the lives of those who use it.
Thank you for having your colleague's back, my back, and the backs of my sisters, my brothers, and my friends. Human decency is the coolest. Please let me know how I can lend a hand to make this go big.
Meredith Whittaker
Open Source Research Lead, Google
Thank you to the entire Tor
Thank you to the entire Tor Project for your hard work, and for standing together against the kind of abuse your colleague was subjected to. I'm proud to join the great names on the list above and speak out in solidarity.
Mansour Moufid
I would be happy to add my
I would be happy to add my name to this statement. I like the focus on endorsing free speech, while not considering that speech is inconsequential in its potential to do harm (and without calling for curtaining of speech itself as a solution). Similarly, while no one should be the subject of state sanction for mere speech, it does not mean they should be not judged by others for what they say, or given platforms to promote abusive speech.
I am committed to building privacy-friendly and abuse resistant technologies, and would be happy to help others interested in such projects.
George Danezis (UCL)
I think that * the post by
I think that
* the post by arma (Roger Dingledine) and the discussion on this page
* the related thread on tor-talk
make much more sense if you first read
* an article by Yasha Levine which appeared on Pando in July 2014, which somehow got everything completely backwards
* a fine rebuttal by Quinn Norton which appeared on Pando in December 2014
* an article on the harassment of Tor developers which ran in The Guardian in December 2014
* A piece by Cory Doctorow (another signatory above) on the FBI's war on citizen cryptography and Tor, which ran in The Guardian in October 2014:
Further information about organized attacks on Tor can be found here:
* EFF Snowden leak collection
* ACLU searchable Snowden leak collection
Especially relevant are
* GCwiki pages on the ANT catalog (JTRIG tool box, "Chinese menu")
* Several GCHQ presentations on "information operations" (disinformation, psyops) targeting individuals and groups, including at least two of the signatories listed above (Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald)
* An NSA memo on arma's talk at NSA (they wanted him to tell them how to subvert Tor; it is apparent from the memo that they didn't learn anything helpful for their evil plan, and the memo even appears to make at least one elementary technical mistake about Tor)
* Several NSA and GCHQ presentations on operations targeting Tor and Tails (notably, one slide show reports "severe" problems subverting Tails, which was in fact at that time still remotely vulnerable to the later discovered Shellshock bug, if I understand correctly, in which case we should believe the generally duplicitous officials at NSA when they say they didn't know about Shellshock only because of the Snowden leaks!)
Also useful are these resources on surveillance-as-a-service companies:
* Wired for Repression series at Bloomberg News
* Spy Files series at Wikileaks
* Reports at Citizen Lab
Some aspects of Gamergate
are related to the harassment discussed here, but that seems to be a distinct harassment campaign.
This is definitely a
This is definitely a distinct troll mob from GamerGate, although some of their leaders started using tropes (cf. "Around Dyed Hair, Beware" - http://assets.feministing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Around-Dyed-Ha…) borrowed from them early on:
- https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/496056408803377152
- https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/530910688815095808
Note also the parallel between the role of pseudo-journalistic ringleaders here and that of Milo Yiannopoulos in GamerGate. More recently, there does seem to have been more genuine crossover between the two groups:


text:
County jail
New arrests
Gary Armstrong, 46, El Dorado, arrested Sept. 16 by Marion County Sheriff for failure to appear in court.
Chad Wenger, 38, Marion, accused of transporting alcohol in an open container, arrested Sept. 17 by Marion Police Department.
Dakota Dillashaw, 18, Marion, accused of three counts of probation violation, arrested Sept. 19 by Marion County Sheriff.
Caleb Woodcox, 21, Pilsen, accused of possession of marijuana, arrested Sept. 20 by Marion County Sheriff.
Christopher Turner, 23, Wichita, arrested Sept. 20 by Marion County Sheriff for failure to appear in court.
Andrew Shipman, 19, Andover, booked Sept. 20 by Marion County Sheriff for court commitment.
From previous weeks
Doug Gable, 51, Herington, incarcerated since June 11.
Todd Beneke, 28, Marion, July 17.
Brandon David, 34, Moran, Aug. 22.
Thomas Likins, 40, Canton, Aug. 22.
Steve Hundley, 47, Knoxville, Tenn., Aug. 23.
Jeff Madsen, 56, Peabody, Sept. 7.
Angelica Hinostroza, 19, White City, Sept. 11.
Calvin Maurer, 31, Hillsboro, Sept. 11.
Last modified Sept. 27, 2012

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Texas teen huntress shows softer, cuddly side with new photos
Infamous teen hunteress Kendall Jones once again has posted photos of herself with animals, though, this time they're cute, cuddly, and alive.
The 19-year-old cheerleader from Cleburne, who received criticism over posting photos of her with dead carcasses she shot in Africa, posted a photo of herself on her Facebook page, in which she was holding a baby white-tailed deer, and anothe one with her Chihuahua, Nemo.
In the photo grasping the baby deer, commenter Kelly Michael wrote, "Are you going to shoot it after the photo."
Another commenter, Andy Birling, writes, "So u (sic) have Bambi in this pic, and her dead father in the last? I don't get it?"
The father Birling refers to is the buck that Jones holds up, or rather just his head mount, in another photo.
She posted the photo of the buck Wednesday to kick-off yet another weekday hashtag: #WhitetailWednesday.
She writes, "Here's my 171" B&C that I'm very proud of ... great hunt, great memories!! Let's see what you got!!! #SupportKendall #SupportHunters."
No word if Facebook is considering removing the photo. After all, Facebook did delete the photos of her with the leopards, lions and elephants she killed on her recent trip to Zimbabwe.
Facebook deleted the photos after a wave of controversy flooded Jones' timeline. The photos even prompted a petition on change.org and avaaz.org, who want Jones' Facebook page removed entirely because it is "disgusting" and "promotes animal cruelty."
Critics even went as far as making "Kill Kendall" and "Kill Kendall Jones" pages, but both sionce have been removed, according to Jezebel. A page in support of jones titled, "Remove Kill Kendall Jones," still stands.
While pages and photos are being taken down left and right, Jones herself does not plan on removing herself from the spotlight anytime soon. In January, Jones signed a TV contact to debut for eight episodes in a Sportsman Channel series, she confirmed on Facebook.


text:
PRIZES from a Golden ticket competition in Worcester have been handed out to the lucky winners.
The prize draw was organised as a reward to people who visited Worcester city centre during the Christmas period.
The first prize of an iPad Air was won by Michelle Jenkins, who got her ticket from Mexican restaurant Amigo's in Friar Street.
She said: "I am absolutely thrilled to win the iPad Air. I live locally and go to Amigo's regularly. Entering the Worcester BID Golden Ticket prize draw certainly has been worth it."
More than a thousand entries were received by the Christmas campaign organisers from Worcester Business Improvement District (BID), a private sector partnership funded by city centre businesses, and all prizes for this prize draw have been sourced locally.
The iPad Air was donated by Broad Street based business AT Computers.
Bob Nock from Hallow won second prize, a three course meal for two at Saffrons Bistro in New Street.
He picked up his ticket at Rock Lobster Jewellery in Reindeer Court.
Third prize went to Nicolette Neville-Lee of Worcester who won a bottle of Prosecco at local brasserie Bindles in Sidbury after getting a ticket in House of Fraser in CrownGate.
Nadja von Dahlen, Worcester BID events and marketing officer, said: "We would like to thank everyone for their entries and their great support of Worcester's local businesses during the Christmas period.
"Businesses have been really enthusiastic about the prize draw, as it was a great opportunity to give something back to their customers."


text:
Egypt vote means fateful choice for nation
CAIRO Two days before a constitutional referendum it considered boycotting, Egypt's secular opposition finally launched its "no" campaign Thursday with newspaper and TV ads detailing the argument against the charter drafted by Islamist supporters of President Mohammed Morsi.
The Morsi camp has a simpler message: A "Yes" to the constitution is a yes to Islam.
The deadly violence and harsh divisions of recent weeks -- combined with the inability of most Egyptians to even comprehend the densely written 63-page document -- have turned the vote into a stark choice on whether the largest Arab nation takes a serious step toward theocratic rule.
"This constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minorities, but it is written by the majority for the majority," said Haitham Sherdi, a young opposition supporter from Cairo.
- Egyptian opposition urges supporters to vote "no" in constitutional referendum, but says boycott still possible
- Egypt judges say most will boycott referendum
"If it passes, it will be used to crush the minority until they vanish," he added, referring to Egypt's Christian community.
Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists have been plastering posters across much of the country urging Egyptians to vote "yes to protecting (Islamic) Sharia (laws)."
The opposition's campaign on TV, in newspapers and in flyers is focused on the slogan "A constitution to divide Egypt." Activists also took to the streets with loudspeakers atop pickup trucks touring Cairo and other cities.
The opposition campaign began a day after the National Salvation Front -- an umbrella group of opposition parties -- announced it was calling on supporters to vote "no" rather than boycott the referendum. The delay reflected divisions within the alliance.
Reform leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, who was among those initially favoring a boycott, made an emotional appeal to Morsi on Thursday to postpone the vote, warning of "the specter of civil war." He called on his supporters to vote "no" if the referendum goes ahead as scheduled.
Jehad el-Haddad, a spokesman for the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party, said it will accept the referendum result regardless of the outcome, but added: "We want to have a constitution in place because it's a pillar of a functioning state. The fact that it is lacking encourages a lot of people to resort to undemocratic means."
In many ways, the pros and cons of the draft constitution have been overshadowed by the worst crisis to hit Egypt since the overthrow nearly two years ago of Hosni Mubarak's authoritarian regime.
With killings and mass street protests defining the past three weeks, newspaper and TV commentators have warned of a country moving toward civil strife and a schism that may not be bridged.
There are also fears that Egypt's already ailing economy could hit new lows after the Morsi government delayed a $4.8 billion standby loan from the International Monetary Fund. While the money is nowhere near enough to tackle the country's woes, the agreement with the IMF on restructuring and reforming the economy was desperately needed to convince other donors and investors to return to Egypt.
A comfortable win would significantly strengthen the Islamists' hand and embolden them to push ahead with their agenda of turning Egypt into an Islamic state, something that may prolong the standoff and raise the specter of more and widespread violence.
Already, there are signs of what may lie ahead.
Morsi supporters from the Muslim Brotherhood and opposition protesters fought street battles for hours outside the presidential palace in Cairo last week. The fighting left at least 10 dead and wounded about 700. Rights activists say Brotherhood supporters operated detention and torture centers just outside the palace walls, where dozens of opposition protesters were taken before eventually being released into police custody.
Worse still, the rights groups say, Morsi publicly compromised the due process rights of dozens of protesters detained by police when he said in a nationally televised address that they had confessed to being "paid thugs."
On Thursday, 20 Egyptian rights groups issued a joint statement warning of possible election fraud and expressing concerns that a state-run human rights council has taken charge of issuing monitoring permits, which in the past were obtained directly from the elections committee.
The council is headed by Judge Hossam el-Ghariyani, also the head of the controversial constitutional drafting panel.
Meanwhile, the Carter Center, the main international group monitoring earlier Egyptian votes, said it would not deploy monitors for the referendum because of the government's late release of monitoring regulations. The absence of the center, founded by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, increases the likelihood that the rushed process could undermine the constitution's legitimacy if it passes.
Egypt's crisis began on Nov. 22 when Morsi issued decrees, since rescinded, that placed him above judicial oversight.
But the confrontation now centers on the draft charter. Morsi's opponents contend the document gives religious authorities too much influence over legislation, threatens to restrict freedom of expression and opens the door to Islamist control over day-to-day life.
Islamists, on the other hand, have embraced the draft as a victory for Islam.
"I am not in favor of parts of the constitution, but I am happy with the greater role it gave to Sharia," said Moataz Abdel-Hafeez, a pharmacist who follows the ultraconservative Salafi doctrine of Islam. "I am hopeful that an Islamic parliament will be elected and change all laws that contradict or don't conform with Sharia."
The fallout has divided Egypt, with Morsi, his Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafi allies on one side, and the rest of the country, including liberals, leftists and Christians, on the other.
The Supreme Constitutional Court had been expected to rule earlier this month to dissolve the panel that drafted the constitution. But the Brotherhood has prevented the judges from entering the building for three weeks.
As a result, the panel -- packed with Morsi supporters -- rushed through the document in an all-night session on Nov. 29-30, voting overwhelmingly in favor of each of its 236 clauses.
"A constitution that is adopted overnight is definitely a flawed one," said Ahmed el-Fiqqi, a 30-year-old musician. "I will vote `no' but if it is passed and implemented in the spirit it was written I will seriously consider leaving the country."


text:
Watch CBSN Live
In the accompanying photo, the MQ-1B Predator, a long-endurance unmanned aircraft system that conducts close-air support, air interdiction, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.
Credit: U.S. Air Force
Credit: Getty Images
In flight, this UAV and its on-board sensors are controlled by the ground crew with a direct data link. When the craft flies beyond the range of a direct link, the ground crew maintains control though a satellite data link. Although its primary function is for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, it can launch Hellfire anti-tank missiles
Credit: U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.
Credit: U.S. Air Force /John Schwab
Credit: U.S. Air Force
Credit: Ethan Miller


text:
All these images caught my eye because they make me think if being young, free, and fresh. What more would you want to be at this very moment? It's nearing the end of a long work day. Just needed to post this little something something to freshen up my brain.
And make sure to enter the giveaway posted below!


text:
$2.4 trillion package includes changes to cost-of-living calculations for retirement programs.
This story has been updated.
The same day President Obama called for a new budget compromise, the two veterans of the most prominent fiscal commission sought to head off the scheduled March 1 across-the-board spending cuts by reviving a plan first offered in 2010.
Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and retired Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., on Tuesday released a condensed version of their plan that would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion over 10 years, a number somewhere between the amounts sought by the White House and congressional Republicans.
At a breakfast sponsored by Politico Pro , the two lambasted the idea of allowing the long-dreaded sequester to kick in and expressed worry that the two political parties had "retreated to their talking points," according to coverage by Politico.
The revised plan calls for cuts in Medicare and Medicaid of $600 billion as well as elimination of tax breaks to produce another $600 billion in revenue over 10 years. Yet another $1.2 trillion would be cut from discretionary spending and through changes in the cost-of-living calculations for major programs such as Social Security, agriculture subsidies and civilian and defense retirement programs.
"Although additional deficit reduction need not be enacted all at once in a single package, it should be enacted promptly," Simpson and Bowles said in their statement. "The longer we wait the fewer options we will have and the less time we will be able to give individuals and businesses to prepare and adjust."
Tax and spending reforms, they said, "should be designed to strengthen current economic conditions, promote work, encourage innovation, improve productivity, and bolster investment in our future."
They called for bringing public debt as a proportion of gross domestic product from the current 73 percent to 70 percent by "early next decade." Entitlement reforms "should either include protections for vulnerable populations or be coupled with changes designed to strengthen the safety net for those who rely on it the most," they wrote.
The tax code should be reformed in a "progressive and pro-growth manner," and entitlement programs should be altered to account for the aging of the population. Health care spending should be capped and linked to economic growth, they said. The "mindless" cuts of sequestration "should be replaced with targeted reforms that focus on the drivers of the debt while eliminating redundant, wasteful, ineffective, or unwarranted federal spending while preserving high-value investments," the plan stated.
The debt limit should be indexed, they added, "to avoid the need for future political fights over raising it."
The new plan drew praise from Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget who had been working with Simpson and Bowles on the Campaign to Fix the Debt, saying the "approach has the potential to refocus the national discussion back where it should be - on how to actually fix our fiscal problems. Our political leaders seem alarmingly content to lurch from one near-crisis to the next and it is our hope that this new framework helps encourage policymakers to meet their fiduciary responsibilities and come up with a bipartisan plan to fix the debt."
J. David Cox Sr., national president of the American Federation of Government Employees Union, was far more negative. He said in a statement that Simpson and Bowles "seem to have missed the fact that America had an election last November and that voters overwhelmingly rejected the regressive and idiotic ideas they were peddling on behalf of their corporate masters. We rejected more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. We rejected cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits. We rejected taking away earned retirement benefits from public employees. We rejected an accelerated race to the bottom for the middle class and the working poor."

Cox added that it appears the two "will not stop until federal employees lose almost half of their retirement benefits, until hundreds of thousands of federal employees are thrown out of work, and millions of Americans either never retire or are poorer and more insecure in retirement because the Social Security and Medicare benefits which they paid for, and on which they hoped to rely, are slashed."

Obama, in a Tuesday morning press appearance, announced his willingness to work with Congress on a "balanced" approach to avoiding sequestration, adding that he had laid out "limited reform to our entitlement programs" along the lines proposed by Simpson-Bowles. "But no one," he said, "should expect to get 100 percent of what they want."
NEXT STORY: Play of the Day: Presidents on President's Day


text:
Everything you need to start capturing accurate aerial data on your projects.
The complete drone software solution for AEC professionals
Secure UAS solution for U.S. government projects
Site Scan supports both DJI and 3DR drones
Industry-leading implementation and ongoing support
See how you can use Site Scan
The complete blueprint to starting and growing a successful enterprise drone program
The latest in-depth books and white papers
Study guides, practice tests, and much more
Case studies from industry innovators
Get the latest news and updates from 3DR
Register for webinars and watch recordings on-demand
Meet us in person!
Drone mapping, defined
Advice and answers from the 3DR Team
Get to know our team and what makes 3DR so special.
Learn more about 3DR
Meet our leaders
Meet our team
Life at 3DR
Stay in touch
Connect with us
3DR and Wingtra Partner to Supply a Complete Aerial Surveying Solution
Want to elevate drone technology for the built world? Join us.


text:
Summit League Men: South Dakota State Hangs on to Beat South Dakota
The road is not a kind place for Summit League men's basketball teams, especially when South Dakota State plays South Dakota. The home team has dominated this series lately, riding a nine game winning streak heading into Saturday's State-U match-up in the Coyotes home building, the DakotaDome in Vermillion.
That streak is now history as the Jackrabbits led by as many as 15 in the second half and held on to win 70-68.
Brayden Carlson got the Jacks on top early as he scored 12 of SDSU's first 18 points, and South Dakota State led by as many as seven with 8:30 gone. Carlson had 12 first half points.
South Dakota went to its bench and the Coyote reserves sparked a rally with Casey Kasperbauer with 8 quick points and Adam Thoesby adding a lay-in and two free throws to put USD up for the first time at the 6:05 mark of the first half.
The Coyote lead would grow to as many as five, but SDSU scored the final four points of the half to make it 32-31 South Dakota at intermission.
The top scorers for each team struggled in the first 20 minutes. USD center Trevor Gruis had just one field goal, while SDSU forwards Jordan Dykstra and Cody Larson were a combined 1-of-8 from the floor.
USD shot 46 percent in the first half, SDSU 36 percent.
The Jackrabbits shooting woes vanished quickly in the second half, as Chad White scored five quick points igniting a 23-9 run during which SDSU hit 8-of-14, while USD made just 1-of-6, and the South Dakota State lead was 54-41 with 11:30 left.
The lead grew to 15 before USD came storming back thanks to five points from Kasperbauer and five from Trey Norris over a 4:30 stretch, the 12-2 run pulling the Coyotes to within five with 5:58 to play.
SDSU had the ball with a four point lead with 1:32 left, when Jordan Dykstra was stripped of the ball leading to a Trey Norris basket at the other end cutting the Jacks lead to 68-66.
The Coyotes forced another turnover on SDSU's next possession when Jake Bittle traveled. But Bittle made up for the miscue at the other end seconds later, drawing a charge from Norris and the Jacks held their two point lead with 23 seconds left.
The USD defense came up with another turnover moments later when Tavian Pomlee picked off a pass and fed Tyler Larson, but this time it was the SDSU defense forcing the turnover as Chad White stole the ball.
Bittle sealed the win seconds later with a pair of free throws. He scored all 10 of his points in the second half.
Carlson led all scorers with 22 points on 8-of-11 shooting. Dykstra finished with a double-double (16 points/11 rebounds), Marcus Heemstra added 10.
For USD, Kasperbauer had 17 points on 5-of-7 shooting. Gruis had 16 points, Norris added 14.
South Dakota State won the battle of the boards 32-22, limiting South Dakota to just two offensive rebounds.
The win was the second straight for for SDSU after trailing at the half, the Jacks had rallied from a second half deficit just once in their nine previous tries before this week.
The loss is the fourth straight for the Coyotes after starting the Summit League schedule with three straight wins.
South Dakota State (12-10/4-3) opens the second half of the Summit League schedule at home with Fort Wayne Thursday at 7:00pm and IUPUI Saturday at 4:00pm.
South Dakota (8-13/3-4) has a non-conference game at home with Peru State Tuesday at 7:00pm, before opening the second half of their Summit League schedule Saturday in Denver at 5:00pm.


text:
To be perfectly honest, I'd rather look forward to an FA Cup Final than back at a less than inspiring game.
Just like last year, we made hard work of Championship opposition at the semi-final stage. From around the hour-mark, this game really could have gone either way. There was something miraculous about how we navigated the two ties at Wembley last season, and there were times during this match where I wondered if our luck had finally run out.
In my opinion, we underperformed just as badly as Liverpool did in the other semi. Fortunately, our opposition did not have the quality to punish our sloppiness. Pavel Pogrebnyak running at you does not pose quite the same threat as Christian Benteke.
Our disappointing display is in part explained by Arsene Wenger's decision to rotate the team. That's not a criticism — I felt the introduction of Wojciech Szczesny, Mathieu Debuchy, Kieran Gibbs and Danny Welbeck made sense. Wenger kept the midfield intact and thus ought to have preserved the core of the side.
However, that theory overlooks quite how integral Olivier Giroud has become to our style of play. Without him as a focal point, our attack looked disjointed. Danny Welbeck took some stick for his performance, but it seemed to me he suffered from playing in a team that had forgotten how to use him. We're utterly reliant on Giroud at present, and were unable to adapt to a different style of striker.
With the fall-backs faltering, the changes made for a substandard performance. One only hopes there's not more to it: this extraordinary winning run has to end at some stage. After another drab win at Burnley, it's hard to escape the suspicion that our form peaked against Liverpool and is now on the wane.
That we made it to the final is largely down to Alexis Sanchez. This was reminiscent of our performances in the first half of the campaign, when we were regularly bailed out by the Chilean's individual brilliance. Although he was quiet for long periods against Reading, he was still able to provide the two telling moments. When you pay £35 million for a marquee forward, it's in the hope they'll deliver when the crunch comes. Sanchez did not disappoint. The Americans would doubtless call him a 'clutch' player. I'll settle for calling him bloody brilliant.
And so it's Villa in the final. I'm delighted with that: Steven Gerrard's farewell party would have cast a sentimental shadow over proceedings had Liverpool progressed.
However, Villa also worry me, for one simple reason: I can't bear the thought of making Tim Sherwood happy. I've gone on record in the past stating my belief that Sherwood has the glass-eyed star of a man with more gilets than brain cells. To lose to him would be the ultimate humiliation. Spare me that, Arsenal. Please.
Ps. Listen to this week's Arsecast Extra for discussions on Szczesny, Debuchy and the game.


text:
Mitzi Likes to Swing
The wooden swing on the back porch is one of Mitzi's favorite hang outs. She likes to sway back and forth. I have seen her fall asleep on the swing a couple of times! I was outside doing some food photography this morning and she just looked so cute; I couldn't resist taking a few shots of her as well.


text:
This national history of adoption in Australia seeks to discover the distinctive ways in which adoption has reflected and shaped family ideals within Australian settler society; to influence the making of future policy and practice on adoption; to bring into history the stories of people whose lives have been changed by adoption, in order to acknowledge that experience and to read it against policy change; and to assess and explain the historical outcomes of adoption in Australia, an enterprise significant both for academic knowledge, the making of policy and the understanding of the wider Australian community.
- The Market in Babies: Stories of Australian Adoption, published by Monash University Publishing, was launched on November 28th 2013, by Professor The Honourable Nahum Mushin. The ... Read more
- To access the stories collected by the History of Adoption project, please go to the History of Adoption Storyteller's site. Please note that this website is no ... Read more


text:
U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
Auto Dealer Failed to Hired Qualified Applicant Because He Refused to Shave His Beard Because of His Sikh Religious Faith, Federal Agency Charges
NEWARK, N.J. - Today the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a religious discrimination suit against Tri-County Lexus, a large dealership in Little Falls, N.J., alleging that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire a Sikh man for a sales position solely because he refused to shave his beard, which is required by his faith.
According to the EEOC's suit, EEOC v. United Galaxy, Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Lexus, filed in U.S. District Court for New Jersey, Gurpreet S. Kherha, who had prior sales experience, applied for a sales position at Tri-County. Tri-County's recruiter was impressed with Kherha and had him attend a multi-day training at the dealership, the EEOC said. As a Sikh, Kherha wears a beard, long hair and a turban. At the end of the training, Kherha was told the dealership had a grooming policy prohibiting facial hair, and that if he wanted to be hired he would have to shave his beard. When Kherha refused to do so because of his religious practices, he was rejected for the sales position.
"Where a reasonable accommodation can be made, the law prevents an employer from requiring an employee to choose between being hired and following his or her religious practices," said Spencer H. Lewis, director of the EEOC's New York District Office. "Permitting Mr. Kherha to wear his beard because of his religious beliefs would not have been a burden on the dealership; instead, this would have given the dealership the benefit of a well qualified salesperson."
Jeffrey Burstein, a trial attorney in EEOC's Newark Area Office, said, "Title VII requires an employer to explore reasonable alternatives to its work rules to enable employees to follow their religious beliefs. Tri-County Lexus failed in this obligation."
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.


text:
Available in six cutting diameters from 1/4" to 9/16". The 9/16" tenon is the size used historically for chair rungs. The other sizes (1/4" to 1/2") are useful in many areas, e.g., members within trellis or lattice work.
All sizes have a straight blade that cuts a 60° shoulder tenon (not a radiused shoulder tenon as on the larger sizes). The 1/4", 5/16" and 3/8" sizes cut tenons up to 1" long, and the 7/16", 1/2" and 9/16" sizes cut tenons up to 1-3/8" long.
A plug gauge is included for easy blade setting. 3/8" round shank.
Patented. (For use in an electric drill, not a drill press.)
Made in Canada.


text:
Add Jim Chanos' to the number of voices worried that American companies are running out of gas and in need of real consumer demand to create revenue.
In an interview with Bloomberg's Masters in Business, hosted by Barry Ritholtz, Chanos explained how corporate buybacks were less a sign of strength and more a cry for help from American companies.
He said: "What worries me is that corporate America in aggregate, has pre-tax returns on capital in the mid to high teens. The long-term expected rate of the equity markets, is roughly half that. And when corporations embarked on massive buybacks across all industries and all companies, in effect these CEOs are buying the stock market. So what they're telling you then, is unequivocally that they think that either they're happy to earn the stock market rate of return or maybe something hopefully better. Or their rate of return on the margin of any new capital project is much much lower, in fact half or less of what is stated.And that does not bode well for the future of profits, or for the quality of earnings reported as current profits."
The point is that there will come a time when companies won't be able to hide their lack of revenue growth with share buybacks or other handy tools.
Barclays' U.S. equity strategist Jonathan Glionna wrote about this last week, and he also pointed out that what these companies really need is not accounting hoodoo, but rather it's the almighty American consumer.
"We believe U.S. equities are transitioning out of a recovery rally and into a period of lower returns as the benefits of margin expansion and share repurchases prove to be already priced in and a return of faster revenue growth becomes a prerequisite for another re-rating higher," he wrote.
That faster revenue growth was supposed to come from the purchasing power of the American consumer.
Ideally— as in some ideas we had back in 2008 and 2009 — by this time, this all-encompassing market force was supposed to have bounced back from the recession and started spending money again.
But it hasn't.
U.S. Retail sales growth has crept down from May's 0.4% to June's 0.2% to July's flat growth. As Business Insider's Sam Ro pointed out, it was the worst retail sales number in six months.
Last week Wal-Mart lowered its guidance for the third quarter and revised down full-year earnings to $4.90 to $5.15 per share from previous guidance of $5.10 to $5.45.
According to FactSet, for 63 companies have issued negative earnings per share guidance and 26 companies have issued positive earnings per share guidance for the third quarter of 2014. In other words, not even American companies think they can pull it out in this environment.
Check out the chart below:
So there will be no rescue from the American consumer, at least not right now.
All of this makes for a risky environment in the meantime, especially as corporate cash flows remain high but flat (more on this here).
To please shareholders, companies still have to figure out how to keep stock prices afloat. That could mean buying more stock while prices are high — which should not please shareholders — or it could mean going another route.
Chanos says that corporate balance sheets are looking healthier because analysts aren't deducting acquisitions from a company's cash flow as they should.
"Increasingly we're seeing acquisitions, which are not taken out of most analysts for cash flow numbers, acquisition are replacing CapEx or R&D," Chanos said. "So companies are buying their R&D or their capital, and that should [be] properly deducted from cash flow, because in aggregate corporate America is not growing. So by buying each other and buying divisions of each other, in effect, they're capitalizing their R&D … and that particularly applies for big tech, which are perceived as very cheap companies. If you actually look at them, the only reason their revenues aren't declining at a reasonable rate is because they're buying other companies."
So what we have here is a race against time. If you buy all this, the stock market needs the American consumer to come back soon to prevent some serious selling — earnings are not what they seem.
We've stopped growing.


text:
You are Here:
Financial Assistance
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
/ Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Loading Tree...
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary conservation program that helps agricultural producers in a manner that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals. Through EQIP, agricultural producers receive financial and technical assistance to implement structural and management conservation practices that optimize environmental benefits on working agricultural land.
Accepting Applications
EQIP applications are accepted on a continuous basis, however, NRCS establishes application "cut-off" or submission deadline dates for evaluation, ranking and approval of eligible applications. The following document describes how to apply for Farm Bill programs or visit the following website: Get started with NRCS national page
To learn how to get started with NRCS, visit www.nrcs.usda.gov/getstarted
To apply for EQIP, contact your local service center.
Agricultural producers and owners of non-industrial private forestland and Tribes are eligible to apply for EQIP. Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, pastureland, non-industrial private forestland and other farm or ranch lands.
Applicants must:
Additional restrictions and program requirements may apply.
Participant Responsibilities
Applicants are responsible for completing and filing all application and eligibility paperwork as required. If funded, participants are required to sign a contract and agree to implement the planned conservation practices to NRCS standards and specifications as scheduled.
Socially Disadvantaged, Beginning, and Limited Resource Farmers/Ranchers, Military Veteran Farmers
The 2014 Farm Bill continues to address the unique circumstances and concerns of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, as well as beginning and limited resource farmers and ranchers and Veteran Farmers. It provides for voluntary participation, offers incentives, and focuses on equity in accessing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs and services. Enhancements include increased payment rates and advance payments of up to 50 percent to purchase materials and services needed to implement conservation practices included in their EQIP contract.
South Dakota is committed to reaching out to Historically Underserved individuals and groups. Historically Underserved participants may also receive higher payment rates in addition to being considered in high priority funding pools. See the Small & Limited and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers page for the NRCS definition of the Historically Underserved. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/people/outreach/slbfr/
National and State Priorities
The following national priorities, consistent with statutory resources concerns that include soil, water, wildlife, air quality, and related natural resource concerns, may be used in EQIP implementation:
Soil Quality Degradation due to organic matter depletion and concentration of salts
Surface Water Quality Degradation due to excessive sediment, nutrients, and pathogens
Degraded Plant Condition due to undesirable plant productivity, health, and composition
Inadequate Habitat for Wildlife due to inadequate cover and shelter
Excess/Insufficient Water due to poor infiltration, runoff, flooding, and ponding
Livestock Production Limitation due to inadequate water
Decision Making Process for EQIP
Input from Outside Groups, Agencies, and Citizens: The list of eligible practices in South Dakota, payment rates and limits, eligible resource concerns, and state scoring criteria are developed based on input and recommendations from the State Technical Committee (STC). The STC is made up of representatives from various agribusinesses, producer groups, conservation organizations, and federal, state, and tribal government agency representatives.
The Local Work Group process and scoring criteria, are based on input from the counties in the Local Work Groups (LWG).
The priorities set at the state and county level are those that the STC and LWG respectively determined were of the greatest need and would have the greatest positive environmental impact. The scoring process at both the state and local level was developed in order to select those projects that would provide the greatest environmental benefit, and therefore provide the greatest public good.
Resource Conservation Partnership Program (RCCP):
Central Big Sioux RCPP Project batching date for signup is October 21, 2016.
Applications submitted by October 21, 2016 will be evaluated to be considered for funding in Fiscal Year 2017. Applications received after that date will be accepted and evaluated for future rounds of funding.
To apply for EQIP, your local service center Get Started with NRCS - Do you farm or ranch and want to make improvements to the land that you own or lease? NRCS offers technical and financial assistance to help farmers, ranchers and forest landowners. Learn how here.
Jennifer Wurtz, Resource Conservationist, 605-352-1225
Jeff VanderWilt, Assistant State Conservationist for Programs, 605-352-1226
NRCS Home | USDA.gov | Site Map | Civil Rights | FOIA | Plain Writing | Accessibility Statement
Policy and Links| Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov


text:
People in Sussex looking to take science into their own hands have a perfect opportunity to do on Friday (March 20) when the Total Solar Eclipse takes place.
One of the easiest and safest ways to view the Sun – eclipsed and uneclipsed – is to project its image on a screen using a pinhole camera or a pinhole projector.
You can make one at home using common household items.
You will need two sheets of plain white paper - printer paper is ideal or, two pieces of stiff white paper or white cardboard and for the pinhole, a thumbtack or a sharp pin.
To make a quick version of the pinhole projector, take a sheet of paper and make a very small hole in the middle of it using a pin or a thumbtack. Make sure that the hole is round and smooth.
Hold this piece of paper in front of the Sun and do not look at the Sun directly.
The second sheet of paper will act as a screen. Hold it at a distance so that an inverted image of the Sun is projected on it through the pinhole.
To make the image of the Sun larger, move the screen away from the pinholed sheet.
Do not look at the Sun through the pinhole or through the paper. When using this kind of projector, your back must be towards the Sun.
You can also see the eclipse though a box pinhole projector.
This device works on the same principle as the basic one, except it is much sturdier, easier to set on a surface and requires a few extra items to construct.
You will need:
A long cardboard box or tube. Any shipping box will do. If you don't have a long box, you can tape two together to make one long box. The length of the box will determine the image size - the longer the box, the larger the image. Also required, Scissors, Duct tape, aluminium foil, pin/thumbtack, sharp knife or cutter (kids best have an adult at hand) and last but not least, a sheet of white paper.
Cut a rectangular hole on one end of the box using the sharp knife.
Using the scissors, cut an equally-sized rectangular piece of the aluminium foil. Make sure it is not crinkled.
Tape the foil over the rectangular hole you just made in the box.
Use the pin to poke a hole in the center of the foil.
Place or tape the sheet of paper at the other end of the box.
Stand with your back towards the Sun. Place the box on your head with the hole towards the Sun. Adjust your position without looking at the Sun directly or through the pinhole until you see the Sun's image on the paper.
Using a tube? If you are using a tube or taping two tubes together, cut the end of the tubes and tape the foil with a pinhole on one end. On the other end, tape a piece of white paper that has been cut to the shape and size of the end of the tube. This will act as the screen. Close to this end, cut a rectangular hole using the sharp knife. This will be your viewing window. With your back to the Sun, point the end with the aluminium foil towards the Sun. Look through the viewing window and you will see the eclipse on the screen.
Now, a few important things to remember.
Never look at the Sun directly without protective eye gear. Even sunglasses cannot protect your eyes from the damage the Sun's rays can do to them.
Do not look at the Sun through the pinhole. Always keep your back towards the Sun while looking at a pinhole or a binocular projection.
Most importantly of all if you do happen to make a pin hole projector, take a picture and send it to us.


text:
The Paralegal's Guide to Family Law and Practice
Prentice Hall, 2001 - Law - 537 pages
Examining the areas of family practice that represent a majority of a family practitioner's workload, this nuts-and-bolts guide to family law offers an easy-to-understand, entertaining, yet sufficiently thorough study that provides users with a working knowledge of family law in a short period of time.
Covers basic theory in ethics, alimony, property division, child custody and child support, and the procedural aspects of the divorce process and post-judgment matter. Contains various state statutes, typical family forms used in family practice, and interesting and entertaining cases that include O.J. Simpson's custody case, Lucille Ball's divorce complaint against Desi Arnaz, Roseannes' restraining order and affidavit against Tom Arnold for domestic violence, Madonna and Sean Penn's separation agreement, and more. End-of-chapter exercises encourage readers to go out in the field -- to their courthouses and law libraries -- and acquire hands-on experience with their jurisdiction's statutes, cases, form, and procedural rules.
What people are saying - Write a review
The Roots and Traditions of American Family
Ethics in Family Law
Prenuptial Agreements Cohabitation
22 other sections not shown


text:
Rabbi Ari Kahn received his rabbinic ordination from Yeshiva University's Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary where he studied with Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik. He graduated Yeshiva University with a BA in psychology and an MS degree in Talmud. He is Director of Foreign Student Programs at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where he also is a senior lecturer in Jewish studies. He is a renowned speaker, and has lectured worldwide. Having authored hundreds of articles on the weekly parasha and holidays with a readership in the thousands, Rabbi Kahn is also the author of Explorations, an in-depth analysis of the weekly Torah reading, and Emanations, an in-depth analysis of the Jewish holidays. A new series - "Echoes of Eden" is currently in progress. This is a projected 5 volume set to be published by the OU and Gefen Publishing. The first four volumes are in print and the fifth is in production.
No Results Found.
Congrats to @AnnieWatman !! https://t.co/mXbE8B5num
Here's @rabbisacks on Bemidbar - family edition! https://t.co/sqNzjg5uur @OUTorah
Sign up for the Shabbat Shalom newsletter and more!Learn More


text:
Barack Obama Re-Elected in 2012: Stars React on Twitter
President Barack Obama was re-elected to the highest office in American government, which is that of the president, last night (Nov. 6.) His big win sparked a pop star party on Twitter, as a flurry of congratulatory tweets flooded the social media messaging service. Obama himself tweeted about his victory, showing how far we have come a digital, plugged in nation.
Obama will remain the Commander-in-chief and now has four more years to work on economic and employment issues, as well as health care.
Katy Perry, who wore her support of Obama like a dress -- literally -- posted: "The people have the power. Proud to stand by you for 4 more years."
Demi Lovato pointed out a hot button issue that likely cost the Republicans the election, and that was the fact that women were concerned about Mitt Romney's position on issues affecting them negatively. She posted, "Tonight is a good night for women. Proud to be a WOMAN IN AMERICA." Amen, sister!
Lady Gaga, who called into Ohio radio stations to encourage locals to vote, which was a calculated move since it was a huge battleground state that helped swing the election in Obama's favor, got offstage in Columbia and immediately congratulated "Mr. President," who she admitted to voting for via absentee ballot since she was on tour.
Even our British pop music counterparts expressed their joy, with Jessie J saying she was "so happy" that Obama got re-elected.
But Adam Levine's tweet was the best of 'em all, though. "That's what happens when you f--- with Sesame Street." He is referring to Romney's mention of the beloved Big Bird during one of the debates. Well said, Mr. Levine. Well said!
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who people voted for. We have our "new" president in place and we all have to support him to keep America the great nation that it is. PopCrush also congratulates Barack Obama on the big victory!