I'm going to get some minor details wrong, but bear with me:
* Virginia is 1 of 4 states who's state constitution takes away the right of felons to vote. I'm going to be a bad person and just assume this was part of Jim Crow era laws to make sure less African Americans could vote, but I have not researched the subject.
* Before 2013, if you committed a non violent felony in Virginia and had fulfilled all parts of your sentence, including serving time and probation and fines and restitution, two years later you could apply for a certificate giving you the right to register to vote.
* In 2013, Virginia governor McDonnell issued an executive order that got rid of the two year waiting period. I've read this affected about 100,000 potential voters.
* In 2016, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order that made the restoration of the ability to register to vote automatic, no certificate needed. His order covered violent and non violent felons. It didn't change the fact that the governor could just individually restore the ability to register to vote to someone who had completed their sentence. It just made it easy and automatic.
* Due to some screwup somewhere his order somehow restored the voting rights for several child molestors still in prison, and a few serial killers who had serial killed in Virginia but were serving a sentence in a different state. I guess. I'm not sure how that worked. I can't imagine a child molestor in prison trying to register to vote.
* The Virginia state supreme court overturned the governor's order.
* In Aug 2016, McAuliffe vowed to individually restore the rights of each individual ex-felon by hand, but by using an automatic signing machine. He claimed he had signed 13,000 so far, and said he could conceivably cover 200,000 more people.
There are some voter advocacy groups who think you should have the right to register to vote after you've completed your sentence, regardless of fines imposed on you by the state.
I took some of the above info from the Washington Post ( NOT THE WASHINGTON TIMES )
> I'd much rather instead of me giving money to the government, the government giving money to a charity organization, and then that charity organization giving it to the people I'd want a much more direct way of doing this transaction, preferably a way that is verifiable and with little overhead.
I live in an area of the country known in the media for its giving of money to the needy. A lot of the money goes through charities and non profits. I don't see how the added layer benefits the homeless at all.
I don't know how the NSFW/Pando stuff started. I don't know how it stopped. I wasn't paying attention. 'Paul Carr' is just someone I see mentioned in Twitter sometimes to me. What happened there?
I am not sure why Ames/Levine immediately dismiss anything linked to The Intercept or Skahill or Greenwald. Actually I do know why, Ames has decided anything touched by The Intercept's backer, the founder of Ebay, is tainted since Omidyar funded a group that had the same interests as Soros in Ukraine, also he tried to destroy Craigslist, plus he funds microloans. There's some evidence to support microloans cause a lot more harm than good in 3rd world countries.
It's difficult to keep all of the threads straight! Ames has a good memory and keeps grudges for a long time. Maybe forever.
Ames and Levine are mad that Omidyar pays Greenwald and Scahill handsomely.
The rivalry and petty tweeting between them (it's mostly Ames vs... everyone) is sad, I enjoy the journalistic output of Scahill AND Ames and I think they should be friends!
The main argument against The Intercept is a technical journalistic point.
It's very good practise at a news organisation for investors to have zero editorial control. This is especially necessary for investigative journalism, since the main aim is to dig dirt.
The Intercept doesn't have this - Pierre Omidyar has influence over what gets published. That makes it difficult (probably impossible) to publish stories that reflect Omidyar or his business interests in a negative light.
For contrast, note how Pando has publically attacked its own investor Peter Thiel over his secret funding of the Hulh Hogan/Gawker lawsuit.
He says in the interview that a global adversary like the NSA just needs to cross index a unique characteristic about yourself to de-anonymize your identity, even if you're using TOR.
The fact that onion routing cannot resist the global passive adversary is well documented and also publicly acknowledged by the Tor project itself.
This article is garbage. It makes a ton of patently false claims and as well as completely unsupported claims, which are buried in irrelevant political opinion, and on top of that the opinion of the interviewee on Tor is of no consequence.
