Write a summary based on this article:

To read about TIME’s choice in Spanish and Portuguese, click below.

 EL ELEGIDO: El Papa Francisco es la Persona del Año 2013 de TIME

 A Escolha: O Papa Francisco é a Personalidade do Ano eleita pela Time em 2013

 Once there was a boy so meek and modest, he was awarded a Most Humble badge. The next day, it was taken away because he wore it. Here endeth the lesson.

 How do you practice humility from the most exalted throne on earth? Rarely has a new player on the world stage captured so much attention so quickly—young and old, faithful and cynical—as has Pope Francis. In his nine months in office, he has placed himself at the very center of the central conversations of our time: about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity, globalization, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the temptations of power.

 At a time when the limits of leadership are being tested in so many places, along comes a man with no army or weapons, no kingdom beyond a tight fist of land in the middle of Rome but with the immense wealth and weight of history behind him, to throw down a challenge. The world is getting smaller; individual voices are getting louder; technology is turning virtue viral, so his pulpit is visible to the ends of the earth. When he kisses the face of a disfigured man or washes the feet of a Muslim woman, the image resonates far beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church.

 (PERSON OF THE YEAR: Pope Francis, The People’s Pope)

 The skeptics will point to the obstacles Francis faces in accomplishing much of anything beyond making casual believers feel better about the softer tone coming out of Rome while feeling free to ignore the harder substance. The Catholic Church is one of the oldest, largest and richest institutions on earth, with a following 1.2 billion strong, and change does not come naturally. At its best it inspires and instructs, helps and heals and calls the faithful to heed their better angels. But it has been weakened worldwide by scandal, corruption, a shortage of priests and a challenge, especially across the fertile mission fields of the southern hemisphere, from evangelical and Pentecostal rivals. In some quarters, core teachings on divorce and contraception are widely ignored and orthodoxy derided as obsolete. Vatican bureaucrats and clergy stand accused of infighting, graft, blackmail and an obsession with “small-minded rules,” as Francis puts it, rather than the vast possibilities of grace. Don’t just preach; listen, he says. Don’t scold; heal.

 And yet in less than a year, he has done something remarkable: he has not changed the words, but he’s changed the music. Tone and temperament matter in a church built on the substance of symbols—bread and wine, body and blood—so it is a mistake to dismiss any Pope’s symbolic choices as gestures empty of the force of law. He released his first exhortation, an attack on “the idolatry of money,” just as Americans were contemplating the day set aside for gratitude and whether to spend it at the mall. This is a man with a sense of timing. He lives not in the papal palace surrounded by courtiers but in a spare hostel surrounded by priests. He prays all the time, even while waiting for the dentist. He has retired the papal Mercedes in favor of a scuffed-up Ford Focus. No red shoes, no gilded cross, just an iron one around his neck. When he rejects the pomp and the privilege, releases information on Vatican finances for the first time, reprimands a profligate German Archbishop, cold-calls strangers in distress, offers to baptize the baby of a divorced woman whose married lover wanted her to abort it, he is doing more than modeling mercy and transparency. He is embracing complexity and acknowledging the risk that a church obsessed with its own rights and righteousness could inflict more wounds than it heals. Asked why he seems uninterested in waging a culture war, he refers to the battlefield. The church is a field hospital, he says. Our first duty is to tend to the wounded. You don’t ask a bleeding man about his cholesterol level.

 (MORE: Everything You Wanted to Know about TIME’s Person of the Year)

 This focus on compassion, along with a general aura of merriment not always associated with princes of the church, has made Francis something of a rock star. More than 3 million people turned out to see him on Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro last summer, the crowds in St. Peter’s Square are ecstatic, and the souvenirs are selling fast. Francesco is the most popular male baby name in Italy. Churches report a “Francis effect” of lapsed Catholics returning to Mass and confession, though anecdotes are no substitute for hard evidence, and surveys of U.S. Catholics, at least, see little change in practice thus far. But the fascination with Francis even outside his flock gives him an opportunity that his predecessor, Benedict XVI, never had—to magnify the message of the church and its power to do great good.

 The giddy embrace of the secular press makes Francis suspect among traditionalists who fear he buys popularity at the price of a watered-down faith. He has deftly leveraged the media’s fascination to draw attention to everything from his prayers for peace in Syria to his pointed attack on trickle-down economics, which inspired Jesse Jackson to compare him to Martin Luther King Jr. and Rush Limbaugh to wonder whether he’s a Marxist. When you are a media celebrity, every word you speak is dissected, as are those you choose not to speak. Why has he not said more about the priest sex-abuse scandal? ask victims’ advocates. (Just this month, he set up a commission to address the abuse of children by priests.) Why does he not talk more about the sanctity of life? ask conservatives, who note that in his exhortation, abortion is mentioned once, mercy 32 times. Francis both affirms traditional teachings on sexuality and warns that the church has become distracted by them. He attacks priests who won’t baptize children born out of wedlock for their “rigorous and hypocritical neo-clericalism.” He declares that God “has redeemed all of us … not just Catholics. Everyone, even atheists.” He posed with environmental activists holding an antifracking T-shirt and called on politicians and business leaders to be “protectors of creation.”

 (MORE: Behind the Pope Francis Cover)

 None of which makes him a liberal—he also says the all-male priesthood is not subject to debate, nor is abortion, nor is the definition of marriage. But his focus on the poor and the fact that the world’s poorest 50% control barely 1% of its wealth unsettles those who defend capitalism as the most successful antipoverty program in history. You could argue that he is Teddy Roosevelt protecting capitalism from its own excesses or he is simply saying what Popes before him have said, that Jesus calls us to care for the least among us—only he’s saying it in a way that people seem to be hearing differently. And that may be especially important coming from the first Pope from the New World. A century ago, two-thirds of Catholics lived in Europe; now fewer than a quarter do, and how he is heard in countries where being gay is a crime and educating women for leadership roles is a heresy may have the power to transform cultures in which Catholicism is a growing, even potentially liberating force.

 These days it is bracing to hear a leader say anything that annoys anyone. Now liberals and conservatives alike face a choice as they listen to a new voice of conscience: Which matters more, that this charismatic leader is saying things they think need to be said or that he is also saying things they’d rather not hear?

 The heart is a strong muscle; he’s proposing a rigorous exercise plan. And in a very short time, a vast, global, ecumenical audience has shown a hunger to follow him. For pulling the papacy out of the palace and into the streets, for committing the world’s largest church to confronting its deepest needs and for balancing judgment with mercy, Pope Francis is TIME’s 2013 Person of the Year. ||||| Illustration by Jason Seiler for TIME

 To avoid surveillance, the first four Americans to visit Edward Snowden in Moscow carried no cell phones or laptops. They flew coach on Delta from Washington with tickets paid for by Dutch computer hackers. After checking into a preselected hotel not far from Red Square, they waited for a van to pick them up for dinner.

 None could retrace the ride that followed, driven by anonymous Russian security men, nor could any place the side door of the building where the trip ended. They passed through two cavernous ballrooms, the second with a painted ceiling like the Sistine Chapel, and emerged into a smaller space with salmon-colored walls and oil paintings in golden frames—like Alice in Wonderland, remembers one of the group. There at the bottom of the rabbit hole, in rimless glasses, a black suit and blue shirt with two open buttons at the collar, stood the 30-year-old computer whiz who had just committed the most spectacular heist in the history of spycraft.

 By all accounts, Snowden was delighted to see his countrymen, though over the next six hours he did not partake of the wine. At one point, Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, recited from memory in Russian an Alexander Pushkin poem, “The Prisoner,” which he had learned back in his days spying on the Soviet Union. “We have nothing to lose except everything, so let us go ahead,” said Jesselyn Radack, a former Justice Department attorney, quoting Albert Camus’s warning at the dawn of the nuclear age. Another attendee, the whistle-blowing FBI agent Coleen Rowley, compared Snowden to Benjamin Franklin, who as postmaster general in 1773 helped leak letters from American officials who were secretly collaborating with British authorities.

 Even Snowden’s Russian lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, raised his glass for a toast. Coming from a man with close ties to the Kremlin and a knack for misleading the press, Kucherena’s words captured the surreal nature of Snowden’s Moscow exile. “Ed, I am going to give you the biggest gift that I can probably give,” he told Snowden through an interpreter. “I’m writing a novel about you.”

 The gathering had been called to deliver an award, given by four dissident veterans of the U.S. national-security apparatus to one of their own. But for Snowden it was something more, a chance to reaffirm to the world the purpose of his actions, for which he has been charged in absentia with theft and violations of the Espionage Act. Since escaping his country in late May with tens of thousands of its most secret documents—“one of everything,” jokes one person with access to the stash—Snowden has chosen to lie low. No Twitter account. No television interviews. No direct contacts with U.S. authorities. He held his tongue as Kucherena boasted to the press about Snowden’s new Internet job in Moscow, his new Russian girlfriend and his dire money troubles. Most of that is fiction, like the novel, according to several people who communicate regularly with Snowden.

 But he has nonetheless begun to figure out a life for himself in Russia, where he has been granted asylum for at least one year. He is learning Russian, recently read Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment and spent weeks living with his WikiLeaks protector, Sarah Harrison, who has since flown to Berlin, fearing that she could face criminal charges if she returns to her native Britain. Most important, he has been able to spend time on the Internet, his lifelong home, where he has watched through encrypted and anonymized connections as his leaks roil the world—diplomatic crises, congressional reform efforts, new federal lawsuits, financial damage to U.S. technology companies and an as yet uncertain harm to U.S. national interests, including documented changes in the way terrorists communicate online. “This increases the probability that a terrorist attack will get through,” says General Keith Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA). “I think it’s absolutely wrong.”

 For Snowden, those impacts are but a means to a different end. He didn’t give up his freedom to tip off German Chancellor Angela Merkel about the American snoops on her cell phone or to detail the ways the NSA electronically records jihadi porn-watching habits. He wanted to issue a warning to the world, and he believed that revealing the classified information at his fingertips was the way to do it. His gambit has so far proved more successful than he reasonably could have hoped—he is alive, not in prison, and six months on, his documents still make headlines daily—but his work is not done, and his fate is far from certain. So in early October, he invited to Moscow some supporters who wanted to give him an award.

 EPA Snowden received the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence award in Moscow in October.

 After the toasts, some photographs and a brief ceremony, Snowden sat back down at the table, spread with a Russian buffet, to describe once again the dystopian landscape he believes is unfolding inside the classified computer networks on which he worked as a contractor. Here was a place that collected enormous amounts of information on regular citizens as a precaution, a place where U.S. law and policy did not recognize the right to privacy of foreigners operating outside the country, a place where he believed the basic freedoms of modern democratic states—“to speak and to think and to live and be creative, to have relationships and to associate freely”—were under threat.

 “There is a far cry between legal programs, legitimate spying, legitimate law enforcement—where it is targeted, it’s based on reasonable suspicion, individualized suspicion and warranted action—and the sort of dragnet mass surveillance that puts entire populations under a sort of an eye and sees everything, even when it is not needed,” Snowden told his colleagues. “This is about a trend in the relationship between the governing and governed in America.” ||||| illustration by Jesse Lenz for TIME

 A few years ago, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official was asked what he most wanted to know about Bashar Assad, the Syrian leader. “Whether he’s Michael or Fredo,” he replied. “Whether Syria’s [leadership] is singular or plural.”

 The Corleone reference, from The Godfather, was apt. The Assads have run Syria as a mafia family business since 1970, when Bashar’s father Hafez Assad gained control in a Baathist coup. The Assads are Alawites, a Shi‘ite-related minority sect, and Hafez Assad ruled his 80% Sunni country with a relentless brutality. In 1982 he put down a rebellion by the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hama, killing an estimated 20,000 people.

 Bashar Assad was not expected to succeed his father. He had been trained in England as an ophthalmologist and was married to a stylish investment banker. His charismatic older brother Bassel was the designated successor, but Bassel died violently in a car crash, and when Hafez died in 2000, Bashar became a rather unlikely President of Syria.

 He didn’t look like a tyrant. He was gawky-tall, soft-spoken, with a halfhearted mustache and milky blue eyes. At first, some in the U.S. intelligence community believed he was a front man for a family consortium that included his older sister Bushra and her husband General Assef Shawkat, who controlled the Syrian intelligence services; there was also a younger brother, Maher, an alleged hothead in charge of the army’s Republican Guard.

 When I interviewed Assad in 2005, it was difficult to tell if he was Michael or Fredo or someone else entirely. He was not at all bombastic or egomaniacal; he seemed a bit nervous. And yet he was thoughtful, eager to engage in a real conversation rather than filibuster the interview, the usual modus operandi for despots. He sat slouched on a couch—not exactly the body language of an aggressor—and seemed boggled by his predicament.

 He knew he was dancing through a minefield. President George W. Bush had sent the “with us or against us” message to the region after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Syria was trying to be both and neither. The government had allowed a de facto safe haven for the funders of Iraq’s Sunni rebels and for assorted anti-Israel terrorist groups. The Syrian intelligence forces were suspected of abetting Hizballah in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. And the Assads were Iran’s main ally in the region. Syria’s contradictory tangle of allegiances and private arrangements was, in fact, a perfect exemplar of the mind-numbing complexity of Middle East politics.

 SANA / AP After his sudden appointment as president in 2000, Assad, right, relied heavily on advisers like army chief of staff Ali Aslan, left.

 Assad talked wistfully about his desire to finish his father’s peace negotiations with Israel. He said he wanted to be a “good neighbor” in the region. He said he was intending to pull all Syrian troops out of Lebanon in the next few months—a statement immediately contradicted by his own government but which turned out to be true. As I was leaving, he said, “Send this message: I am not Saddam Hussein. I want to cooperate.”

 That man—that slightly overwhelmed prisoner of the palace—seems very different from the Bashar Assad we’ve come to know. He is unquestionably Michael now. His brother-in-law, the intelligence director Shawkat, was killed in a Damascus bombing in 2012; his younger brother Maher was severely injured in another bombing. Bashar stands alone in the rubble, presiding over a regime that has surpassed the brutality of his father’s by orders of magnitude—an estimated 126,000 dead; more than 1,000, including over 400 children, killed by chemical weapons; hundreds of thousands wounded; more than 2 million refugees fled to neighboring countries. “He’s much worse than his father,” says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. “He has killed relentlessly and without any attempt to reconcile with his opponents. He seems to believe that if he just keeps killing them, they will eventually give up.”

 Shrewdness and Savagery

 It appears to be working. The tide has turned his way in the civil war that began in the Arab Spring of 2011. He has survived, even though the bulk of the world—except for Iran, Russia and China—wanted to see him deposed after his Aug. 21, 2013, chemical attack on the Sunni suburbs of East Damascus. He survived because, unlike Saddam, he had a very precise sense of his own mortality, a very precise sense of the steps needed to placate the U.S. and ensure his survival. In the process, he made Barack Obama seem irresolute and foolish, an American President who threatened military action, then backed down, then threatened again—before finally agreeing to a Russian-initiated deal to get rid of the Syrian chemical stockpile. There was great skepticism that Assad would actually cooperate in this process, but he had made several very clear-eyed military and political calculations of the sort that eluded Saddam and most of the other myopic despots in the region. He knew that if he didn’t adhere to the deal, Obama would have no choice but to obliterate the Syrian air force—and Assad needed the air force far more than he needed the chemical weapons; it was his primary enforcement mechanism in his war against the rebels. He also realized that by agreeing to the deal, the Obama Administration would tacitly acknowledge his legitimacy as the leader of Syria. The U.S. and the rest of the world would have to negotiate with him over the terms of the disposal. It was a move that would have made Michael Corleone proud. ||||| Correction appended, Dec. 16, 2013

 Edith Windsor’s living room is filled with mementos of a battle she never expected to wage. Growing up gay in America, Windsor, now 84, mostly kept a low profile with her sexuality beyond a vibrant circle of friends. But when her spouse Thea Spyer died in 2009, it triggered a series of events that prompted Windsor to fight for her rights in the U.S. Supreme Court—a fight that concluded with a landmark victory for gay marriage this year.

 And so the modest Greenwich Village apartment that Windsor and Spyer shared for more than 30 years now houses trophies alongside relics of the rich life they led together. Near a framed copy of the couple’s New York Times wedding announcement, there’s a photograph of Michelle Obama stooping to give Windsor a tight congratulatory hug. From a pile of thank-you letters she has received, Windsor pulls out a note written in green felt-tip marker by Grace, age 9, thanking her for making it possible for her parents to marry. In her hallway is a piece of artwork with a note from lesbian cartoonist Alison Bechdel that reads, “For Edith! Thank you for paving the way.”

 Robert Maxwell for TIME

 Windsor’s judicial odyssey began in 2010, when she sued the government for a $363,053 refund of the estate taxes she had to pay when her spouse died. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law passed in 1996, the couple’s legal marriage in Canada in 2007 didn’t qualify them for any federal protections, including the estate-tax exemption for surviving spouses. When the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in Windsor’s favor on June 26, it declared DOMA—which excluded gay married couples from some 1,100 federal provisions, like filing joint tax returns and accessing veterans’ benefits—unconstitutional. The decision marked the first time the U.S. recognized marriage between partners of the same sex. It was a big win.

 Windsor now finds herself transformed into an icon of the gay-rights movement. She wears the mantle well. Feisty, funny and extroverted, Windsor has been, at different points in her life, a leader. At 13 she was elected vice president of her eighth-grade class. In the 1960s and early ’70s, after developing a precocious expertise in computer programming at IBM, she managed (at times reluctant) men. The homes she shared with Spyer in New York City and the Hamptons were salons for many people in the gay and lesbian community. The couple’s love and tenacity “empowered the rest of us as we were coming up,” says historian and friend Blanche Wiesen Cook.

 But like almost all gay people in her generation, Windsor lived a double life. “Most of us have spent most of our lives coming out selectively. It’s safe here. It’s good here. You can say you have a wife here, but not there,” she says. Though she had always been quietly supportive in the gay community, generous with her time and money, she had not been—in the most literal meaning of the word—an activist.

 Her case, of course, has changed that. “I can’t be more out,” she says joyfully.

 A Happy Childhood

 Edith Windsor, who has always been called Edie, was born in 1929, the youngest of three, to James and Celia Schlain, immigrants from Russia who owned and lived above a candy and ice cream store in a poor part of Philadelphia. When Windsor was 2, the store was quarantined after she and her brother got polio. Her parents lost the store and their house. Despite this, Edie was sheltered from the Depression—her father took a hard-boiled-egg sandwich to work every day for lunch so he could buy books, and little Edie read voraciously. (She still has in her apartment the 19-volume dictionary her father used to learn English.) She was not sheltered from anti-Semitism. Her mother taught her that if a boy called her “a dirty Jew,” she should pull his hair and run home.

 The family moved to a middle-class neighborhood because her mother wanted her daughters to meet the right boys. Edie began high school during the war and had dates with boys “every Saturday night of my life.” Looking back, Windsor says, she had crushes on girls, but homosexuality wasn’t a concept she thought about or applied to herself then. “I didn’t even know about it,” she remembers. “The first time I became aware, I was at a [college] party with a boy and I was in the kitchen, and the hostess came in and said, ‘Do you have homosexual relations?’ And I pulled myself together, and I said, ‘On occasion.’ I never had.”

 During her time in college, which she started in 1946, Windsor’s awareness grew. By chance, she was assigned to write a paper on the 1948 Kinsey report, which argued that homosexuality was more prevalent than previously thought. She fell in love with a girl—a classmate at Temple University—for the first time. “It was both wonderful and terrible,” she says. Their romantic relationship caused Edie to break off her engagement to a man. But then, deciding that she didn’t want to live life as a gay person, Edith reconciled with him. They eventually married. “In the context of the homophobia that was so prevalent in the 1950s,” she wrote in her sworn affidavit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, “I certainly didn’t want to be a ‘queer.’ Instead, I wanted to live a ‘normal’ life.” ||||| Illustration by Bryan Drury for TIME; Photo reference: Alessandra Tarantino / AP

 To read about TIME’s choice in Spanish and Portuguese, click below.

 EL ELEGIDO: El Papa Francisco es la Persona del Año 2013 de TIME

 A Escolha: O Papa Francisco é a Personalidade do Ano eleita pela Time em 2013

 On the edge of Buenos Aires is a nothing little street called Pasaje C, a shot of dried mud leading into a slum from what passes for a main road, the garbage-strewn Mariano Acosta. There is a church, the Immaculate Virgin, toward the end of the pasaje—Spanish for passage—where, on one occasion, the local priest and a number of frightened residents took refuge deep in the sanctuary when rival drug gangs opened fire. Beyond the church, Pasaje C branches into the rest of the parish: more rutted mud and cracked concrete form Pasajes A to K. Brick chips from the hasty construction of squatter housing coagulate along what ought to be sidewalks. The word asesino—murderer—is scrawled in spray-paint on the sooty wall of a burned-out house, which was torched just days before in retaliation for yet another shooting. Packs of dogs sprawl beneath wrecked cars. Children wander heedless of traffic, because nothing can gather speed on these jagged roads. But even Pasaje C can lead to Rome.

 As Cardinal and Archbishop of Buenos Aires, a metropolis of some 13.5 million souls, Jorge Mario Bergoglio made room in his schedule every year for a pastoral visit to this place of squalor and sorrow. He would walk to the subway station nearest to the Metropolitan Cathedral, whose pillars and dome fit easily into the center of Argentine power. Traveling alone, he would transfer onto a graffiti-blasted tram to Mariano Acosta, reaching where the subways do not go. He finished the journey on foot, moving heavily in his bulky black orthopedic shoes along Pasaje C. On other days, there were other journeys to barrios throughout the city—so many in need of so much, but none too poor or too filthy for a visit from this itinerant prince of the church. Reza por mí, he asked almost everyone he met. Pray for me.

 When, on March 13, Bergoglio inherited the throne of St. Peter—keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven—he made the same request of the world. Pray for me. His letter of retirement, a requirement of all bishops 75 and older, was already on file in a Vatican office, awaiting approval. Friends in Argentina had perceived him to be slowing down, like a spent force. In an instant, he was a new man, calling himself Francis after the humble saint from Assisi. As Pope, he was suddenly the sovereign of Vatican City and head of an institution so sprawling—with about enough followers to populate China—so steeped in order, so snarled by bureaucracy, so vast in its charity, so weighted by its scandals, so polarizing to those who study its teachings, so mysterious to those who don’t, that the gap between him and the daily miseries of the world’s poor might finally have seemed unbridgeable. Until the 266th Supreme Pontiff walked off in those clunky shoes to pay his hotel bill.

 The papacy is mysterious and magical: it turns a septuagenarian into a superstar while revealing almost nothing about the man himself. And it raises hopes in every corner of the world—hopes that can never be fulfilled, for they are irreconcilable. The elderly traditionalist who pines for the old Latin Mass and the devout young woman who wishes she could be a priest both have hopes. The ambitious monsignor in the Vatican Curia and the evangelizing deacon in a remote Filipino village both have hopes. No Pope can make them all happy at once.

 (MORE: Behind the Pope Francis Cover)

 But what makes this Pope so important is the speed with which he has captured the imaginations of millions who had given up on hoping for the church at all. People weary of the endless parsing of sexual ethics, the buck-passing infighting over lines of authority when all the while (to borrow from Milton), “the hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed.” In a matter of months, Francis has elevated the healing mission of the church—the church as servant and comforter of hurting people in an often harsh world—above the doctrinal police work so important to his recent predecessors. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were professors of theology. Francis is a former janitor, nightclub bouncer, chemical technician and literature teacher.

 And behind his self-effacing facade, he is a very canny operator. He makes masterly use of 21st century tools to perform his 1st century office. He is photographed washing the feet of female convicts, posing for selfies with young visitors to the Vatican, embracing a man with a deformed face. He is quoted saying of women who consider abortion because of poverty or rape, “Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?” Of gay people: “If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” To divorced and remarried Catholics who are, by rule, forbidden from taking Communion, he says that this crucial rite “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

 Through these conscious and skillful evocations of moments in the ministry of Jesus, as recounted in the Gospels, this new Pope may have found a way out of the 20th century culture wars, which have left the church moribund in much of Western Europe and on the defensive from Dublin to Los Angeles. But the paradox of the papacy is that each new man’s success is burdened by the astonishing successes of Popes past. The weight of history, of doctrines and dogmas woven intricately century by century, genius by genius, is both the source and the limitation of papal power. It radiates from every statue, crypt and hand-painted vellum text in Rome—and in churches, libraries, hospitals, universities and museums around the globe. A Pope sets his own course only if he can conform it to paths already chosen.

 And so Francis signals great change while giving the same answers to the uncomfortable questions. On the question of female priests: “We need to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman.” Which means: no. No to abortion, because an individual life begins at conception. No to gay marriage, because the male-female bond is established by God. “The teaching of the church … is clear,” he has said, “and I am a son of the church, but”—and here he adds his prayer for himself—“it is not necessary to talk about those issues all the time.”

 If that prayer should be answered, if somehow by his own vivid example Francis could bring the church into a new relationship with its critics and dissidents—agreeing to disagree about issues that divide them while cooperating in the urgent mission of spreading mercy—he might unleash untold good. “Argue less, accomplish more” could be a healing motto for our times. We have a glut of problems to tackle. Francis says by example, Stop bickering and roll up your sleeves. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good—an important thing for the world to hear, especially from a man who holds an office deemed infallible.

 Francesco Zizola / NOOR for TIME Thousands turn out in Rome to greet Francis during his biweekly audiences.

 See more photos of the Pope made for Person of the Year on LightBox .

 A Changing Papacy

 This papacy begins with a name. Jorge Bergoglio is the first Pope to choose as his namesake Francis of Assisi, the 13th century patron saint of the poor. The choice, coming after 14 Clements, 16 Benedicts and 21 Johns, is clearly and pointedly personal. The 13th century Francis turned to the ministry when, as legend has it, he heard a voice calling to him from a crucifix to repair God’s house. He left his prosperous silk-merchant family to live with the poor. He was a peacemaker, the first Catholic leader to travel to Egypt to try to end the Crusades. He placed mercy at the core of his life.

 From that name follows much of Francis’ agenda. While the Catholic Church envisioned by Benedict XVI was one of tightly calibrated spiritual prescriptions, Francis told Father Antonio Spadaro, editor of the Jesuit magazine Civiltà Cattolica, in an interview published at the end of September, that he sees “the church as a field hospital after battle.” His vision is of a pastoral—not a doctrinaire—church, and that will shift the Holy See’s energies away from demanding long-distance homage and toward ministry to and embrace of the poor, the spiritually broken and the lonely. He expanded on this idea in a 288-section apostolic exhortation called “Evangelii Gaudium,” or “The Joy of the Gospel.” “I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security,” he wrote. He made it clear that he does not just want talk—he wants actual transformation.

 He has halted the habit of granting priests the honorific title of monsignor as a way to stem careerism in the ranks and put the focus instead on pastoring. He told a gathering of his diplomats that he wanted them to identify candidates for bishop in their home countries who are, he said, “gentle, patient and merciful, animated by inner poverty, the freedom of the Lord and also by outward simplicity and austerity of life.” To Francis, poverty isn’t simply about charity; it’s also about justice. The church, by extension, should not reflect Rome; it should mirror the poor.

 Which helps explain why he has turned the once obscure Vatican Almoner, an agency that has been around for about 800 years and is often reserved for an aging Catholic diplomat, over to the dynamic 50-year-old Polish Archbishop Konrad Krajewski and told him to make it the Holy See’s new front porch. “You can sell your desk,” Francis told Krajewski. “You don’t need it. You need to get out of the Vatican. Don’t wait for people to come ringing. You need to go out and look for the poor.” The Archbishop hands out small amounts to the needy, including a recent gift of 1,600 phone cards to immigrant survivors of a capsized boat so they could call family back in Eritrea. Francis often gives Krajewski stacks of letters with his instructions to help the people who have written to him and asked for aid. In what sounds like a necessary precaution, the Vatican recently issued a denial after Krajewski hinted that Francis himself sometimes slips out of the Vatican dressed as an ordinary priest to hand out alms. ||||| In 2013, the audacious upstart shut down the government on a hopeless quest to stop the President's signature policy. Love him or hate him, he is a vision of the future

 Marco Grob for TIME

 They don’t teach this stuff in eighth-grade civics class: a freshman U.S. senator from the minority party provokes a shutdown of the federal government in a hopeless quest to undo the President’s signature legislative achievement. The nation flirts with a potentially disastrous default while the populace looks on in disgust. And when the instigator tries to explain himself during one of the longest speeches in Senate history, somehow he ends up reciting Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham.

 The faux filibuster to “defund Obamacare” waged by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas made him so unpopular with his fellow Republicans (Democrats scarcely concealed their delight) that they might have made him walk the plank—except that the GOP’s approval ratings were sinking so fast that even the plank was underwater.

 Plus, anyone steeped in Washington politics could see that Cruz was already dead from this massive self-inflicted wound.

 But to Cruz, 42, that is precisely the reason he believes he is winning. The young barn burner is convinced that “official Washington”—his umbrella term covering the old guard of both parties—is hopelessly out of touch with the voters, so he wears the scorn like a crown of laurel. If the Establishment says he’s finished, he concludes, he must be making headway. If they’re so sure he’s wrong, he must be doing something right.

 “Changing Washington isn’t easy, and we shouldn’t be surprised when official Washington fights back,” he told Time in an end-of-year interview. “People who were used to making decisions in smoky rooms behind closed doors don’t know how to operate in today’s world, where people have direct access to information, can form their own opinions and know how to make their views heard.”

 TIME Graphic by Chris Wilson, Sam Jacobs & Alexander Ho |||||

– 2013 has been a pretty unbelievable year for Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who became Pope Francis, dominated Facebook, and now finds himself Time's Person of the Year. Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs explains how he ended up on the cover after just nine months on the job: because of how he has positioned himself ("at the very center of the central conversations of our time," from wealth to the role of women to justice), for his reach in our flattening world ("far beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church"), and for what he has accomplished in such a short time. "Something remarkable: he has not changed the words, but he's changed the music." Gibbs acknowledges the skeptics' likely response—that Francis faces many obstacles "in accomplishing much of anything beyond making casual believers feel better about the softer tone coming out of Rome while feeling free to ignore the harder substance." But the fascination that swirls around him gives him an ability Benedict XVI lacked: "to magnify the message of the church and its power to do great good." Writes Gibbs, "The heart is a strong muscle; he's proposing a rigorous exercise plan. And in a very short time, a vast, global, ecumenical audience has shown a hunger to follow him. For pulling the papacy out of the palace and into the streets, for committing the world's largest faith to confronting its deepest needs, and for balancing judgment with mercy, Pope Francis is Time's 2013 Person of the Year" (cover story here). Also, the runners-up: Edward Snowden, Edith Windsor, Bashar al-Assad, and Ted Cruz. See past winners here.


Article:

It's the middle of the busy summer travel season, and if you've flown lately, you know how long it can take to get through security. News4's Justin Finch has the top travel tips the TSA says can move you through faster. (Published Friday, July 7, 2017)

 These Tips Will Get You Through TSA Faster

 Breaking with a practice that began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Pittsburgh International Airport will soon allow non-ticketed patrons past its security checkpoints, NBC News reported.

 The airport, getting back to the "good-old days" of air travel, will let non-flyers access inside gates, shops, restaurants and artwork year-round. With approval from the Transportation Security Administration, the change will take effect Sept. 5.

 Non-flyers will have to check in at a special desk, show a valid photo I.D., have their name checked against a "no fly" list and then, just like regular flyers, go through security.

 While the TSA said it supports Pittsburgh's change, it noted that no additional staff has been hired for the change. It also said there are no plans to expand the program.

 TSA to Implement New, Stronger Airport Screening ||||| Sign up for one of our email newsletters.

 The union representing flight attendants at American Airlines is criticizing Pittsburgh International Airport's decision to allow non-flyers to pass through security checkpoints to access the airside terminal's shops, restaurants and gates.

 Bob Ross, national president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, said the change will decrease airport safety and lead to longer security lines, causing flyers to miss their flights.

 “Allowing the non-flying public to go through security at the Pittsburgh International Airport for the sole purpose of shopping is a terrible precedent and an ill-conceived decision,” Ross said in a news release Friday.

 The airport is the first in the country to allow non-flyers to access areas beyond security checkpoints, according to the Transportation Security Administration. Access to those areas was prohibited after the 9/11 terror attacks.

 “Personally, I'm stunned by the timing of this decision,” Ross said in the release. “Days prior to the anniversary of 9/11 is when we should be reminding the public of the need to remain vigilant, not sending the message that the airport is no different than their local mall.”

 Theresa Clift is a Tribune-Review staff writer. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. |||||
What is a summary?

– Pittsburgh International Airport is bringing back a tradition that was banned after 9/11: letting people without tickets go through security to the airside part of the terminal. The airport will allow non-flyers airside to shop, dine, or say goodbye to loved ones at the gate as of Tuesday, with the approval of the Transportation Security Administration, reports NBC. Pittsburgh is the first airport to allow this since 9/11, and non-flyers will have to go through the same security checkpoints as travelers. They will also have to go to a special desk to get a "myPITpass," which will involve producing a photo ID and being checked against no-fly lists, reports the New York Daily News. Christina Cassotis, CEO of the Allegheny County Airport Authority, says people have been asking about access to shopping and dining at the airport for years. Bob Ross, president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, however, says the change will lead to longer security lines and decreased safety, reports the Tribune-Review. "Allowing the non-flying public to go through security ... for the sole purpose of shopping is a terrible precedent and an ill-conceived decision," he said in a statement. The TSA says there are no plans for similar programs at other airports.


President Trump Donald John TrumpYemeni-American man kills himself after family blocked from entering US by Trump admin Dershowitz on MSNBC panel: 'Don't you dare accuse me' of defending Trump Bannon slams Kochs: 'What they have to do is shut up and get with the program' MORE is slated to announce his highly anticipated pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court on Monday night after narrowing down a list of potential nominees to just three likely names.

 As the president prepares to make his selection, which comes less than four months before the midterm elections, conservative activists are publicly urging him to consider a number of picks that look likely to push the balance of the court toward conservatives for decades.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 Trump has reportedly narrowed his list of seven interviewed candidates to just three federal appeals court judges: Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett. He is set to unveil his pick at the White House in prime time on Monday night.

 Democrats and some Republicans are pressuring Trump to pick a nominee who in their view is not intent on overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion across the country in 1973. Trump has said recently that he will not ask candidates about their stance on the case as he prepares to make his decision.

 Here's who top conservatives and allies of the president want to see Trump pick for his next nominee:

 Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellSupreme Court fight becomes battle for Kavanaugh’s papers GOP senator warns against 'fishing expedition' for Kavanaugh documents It’s time we start thinking about post-Trump America MORE (R-Ky.): Raymond Kethledge and Thomas Hardiman

 Though he hasn't backed anyone outright, the Senate Majority Leader is reportedly nudging Trump toward nominating Kethledge or Thomas Hardiman, because they present "the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed," The New York Times reported Saturday.

 According to the Times, McConnell has told Trump and White House counsel Don McGahn in multiple phone calls that he fears another top pick, Kavanaugh, would have a hard time securing the Senate's confirmation. The Times reported that McConnell has raised concerns over Kavanaugh's extensive paper trail from his 12 years as a D.C. Circuit judge, in addition to his posts as White House staff secretary for former President George W. Bush and assistant to Ken Starr, whose investigation ultimately led to the impeachment of former President Clinton.

 Hugh Hewitt: Raymond Kethledge

 Conservative MSNBC commentator and radio host Hugh Hewitt has pushed publicly for Trump to nominate Kethledge, a judge on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, whom he has described as the "best choice" in the White House's search for "Gorsuch 2.0," referring to Trump's successful nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch last year.

 Hewitt specifically pointed to Kethledge's willingness to challenge a company's "deference toward the vast administrative state, a doctrine dangerous in its corrosive effect on self-government," in a Washington Post op-ed this week. He also cited the advantage of nominating a judge such as Kethledge from swing-state Michigan.

 Joining @craigmelvin on @MSNBC next hour to talk #SCOTUS and Judges Barrett, Kavanaugh and Kethledge. I’ve explained why I think @realDonaldTrump should nominate Kethledge — https://t.co/88L0vzl8HR— and underscore the upside politically of the MI Judge is very very high. — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) July 5, 2018

 Matt Schlapp: Brett Kavanaugh

 Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union and a top ally of the president, has urged Trump in an op-ed for The Hill to select Kavanaugh as his next nominee. In the piece, Schlapp pointed to a number of rulings that favored conservatives, such as an opinion against a decision upholding ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate and a dissenting opinion against a ruling that upheld a ban on semi-automatic rifles.

 "He literally wrote the book on judicial precedent, with Justice Gorsuch as one of his co-authors. No one else on the president’s list comes even close to that level of influence," wrote Schlapp, whose group hosts the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

 Mark Levin: Mike Lee Michael (Mike) Shumway LeeWe’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature Congress must provide a check on harmful tariffs Overnight Health Care: House votes to repeal medical device tax | Fierce ObamaCare critic joins administration | GOP senators target DC individual mandate MORE

 Radio host Mark Levin named as his top choices for Trump's nominee two names that do not appear to be near the top of the president's list, while claiming Barrett as his third choice. The conservative host argued that he would rather see Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R), whom he called the "gold standard," nominated to the court, but conceded that Judge William Pryor and Barrett would be acceptable second and third choices, respectively.

 My Supreme Court recommendations in order:I’ve endorsed Mike Lee, who would be the gold standard. My 2nd choice would be Bill Pryor & my 3rd would be Amy Barrett. All 3 of these individuals are solid constitutionalists.That is the only basis for nominating a person to the Court — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) July 7, 2018

 Laura Ingraham: Brett Kavanaugh

 Fox News host Laura Ingraham joined the chorus of figures on the right banding behind a potential Kavanaugh nomination, tweeting Friday night that the judge's "12 yrs of STELLAR opinions" should overshadow any criticism he may receive for originally being named to the bench under the George W. Bush administration.

 "The fact that Kavanaugh—like so many conservatives his age—worked for Bush 43 is a nonsensical reason to oppose him for SCOTUS," she tweeted.

 The fact that Kavanaugh—like so many conservatives his age—worked for Bush 43 is a nonsensical reason to oppose him for SCOTUS. 12 yrs of STELLAR opinions. — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) July 6, 2018

 Memo to any concerned conservatives: Brett Kavanaugh would be a PHENOMENAL SCOTUS Justice. Rock solid 12 yrs of jurisprudence on 2A, immig, slammed use of int’l law, & slammed by @SenWarren! — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) July 5, 2018

 Ben Shapiro: Amy Coney Barrett

 Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro urged Trump to select Barrett during an appearance on Fox Business Network's "Kennedy" this week, calling her preferable, especially to Kavanaugh, in that she was likely "more solid in terms of what originalists are hoping for."

 Kavanaugh, Shapiro argued, was the "D.C. insider pick" and was being pushed hard by former members of the Bush administration. Kethledge, he added, would be an acceptable second-choice pick.

 Jim DeMint: Mike Lee

 Former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who now heads the Conservative Partnership Institute, tweeted Thursday that he was throwing his organization's support behind Lee, who had apparently been eliminated from Trump's top picks by the end of the week but remained among the seven candidates Trump had interviewed for the seat.

 “Sen. Lee has a proven record of standing up for principle, for doing the right thing for the right reasons, even in the face of withering criticism," DeMint tweeted.

 “Sen. Lee has a proven record of standing up for principle, for doing the right thing for the right reasons, even in the face of withering criticism.” — Jim DeMint (@JimDeMint) July 5, 2018

 Adam Brandon: Mike Lee

 Tea Party-affiliated group FreedomWorks announced in a press release this week that its president, Adam Brandon, had signed a letter with conservative senators urging Trump to tap Lee for the high court.

 "With the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia last year, President Donald Trump hit a home run. Now, with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the president has a chance to go two for two, and put his stamp on the high court for a generation," Brandon said.

 Erick Erickson: Mike Lee

 Conservative columnist Erick Erickson appeared to join DeMint and other figures on the right in calling for Lee to be installed on the Supreme Court, calling the GOP senator the "perfect pick" for the court in a tweet in late June, sharing a column calling for as much.

 Mike Lee is a perfect pick. https://t.co/1of6IBrbcq — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 30, 2018

 — This list will be updated with new developments

 — Updated 9:20 p.m. ||||| Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, told President Trump this past week that Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and Thomas M. Hardiman presented the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to Republican officials briefed on the conversation.

 While careful not to directly make the case for any would-be justice, Mr. McConnell made clear in multiple phone calls with Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, that the lengthy paper trail of another top contender, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, would pose difficulties for his confirmation.

 Mr. McConnell is concerned about the volume of the documents that Judge Kavanaugh has created in his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as in his roles as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush and assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. |||||

Write a summary.

– Mitch McConnell has been calling the White House daily, and not to discuss President Trump's golf game. McConnell has been carefully explaining—without explicitly telling Trump what to do—which Supreme Court nominees would get faster approval before the November elections arrive and make everything dicey, insiders tell the New York Times. McConnell prefers Raymond Kethledge and Thomas Hardiman and warns that reported front-runner Brett Kavanaugh poses two problems: too long a paper trail from his 12 years on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and too much political baggage from his years as assistant to Kenneth Starr and staff secretary to President George W. Bush. McConnell has also told Trump he could lose two Senate votes (Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins) with another apparent contender, Amy Coney Barrett, who has trumpeted socially conservative views and may be more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. McConnell is also aware that with John McCain away fighting brain cancer, the GOP has only 50 votes, and libertarian-leaning Rand Paul could be a wild card. The Times describes Kethledge as a "strongly conservative" Midwesterner who hasn't spent much time in Washington, and Hardiman as a "reliable conservative" who served with Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, one of Trump's sisters, on the federal appeals court in Philadelphia. Check out the Hill to see which contenders are being pushed by other top conservatives.


That geeky girl in the floral prints and glasses from “Blossom” is dishing out sex advice? Damn, I must be old. Yes, Mayim Bialik has plenty to say about sex and she is dishing it out on Kveller.com, a Jewish parenting web site. With baby-making on the brain, Mayim quotes the Torah on waiting seven days, plus an additional five, for a woman’s most fertile time. It’s all part of being a good Jew, you see. “Judaism loves love. We love sex. We are told it is a mitzvah to make love and to especially make love on Shabbat, when God’s presence is close,” Mayim explains. “A woman’s right to sexual satisfaction is detailed in her ketubah, her marriage contract, independent of pregnancy.”

 She continues:

 “Sex really can be for fun and for free; thank you Judaism. And when you are not cycling, such as during pregnancy and after menopause, have as much sex as you want. Have it upside down and sideways and from the chandeliers. It’s all good, it’s all kosher, and it’s a wonderful reminder that Judaism is pleasantly focused on how we live, rather than what happens after we die.”

 What a lovely sentiment — it almost makes me want to convert. Thanks, Blossom! [Kveller]

 Mayim isn’t the only celeb who knows a thing or two about a thing or two. Plenty of other celebs fancy themselves a Sue Johanson — although methinks John Mayer’s ability to dole out sex advice is dubious at best. Take a look at some sex advice from celebsand judge for yourself. ||||| A recent Kveller article by Cara Paiuk detailed the best things to do if trying to get pregnant. Cara recommended the book Taking Charge of Your Fertility, and I agree—that book changed my life and allowed me to have access to the intimate workings of the reproductive system easily, simply, and in the most effective way to achieve pregnancy. The book both helps you get pregnant and avoid pregnancy, since by learning your reliable and consistent patterns (which for the vast majority of women are universal), you truly can take charge of your fertility! This is not ‘the rhythm method;’ it’s just understanding biology.

 But did you know that the wisdom, simplicity, elegance, and baby-planning contained in that book (and in our biological make up) has been tapped into for thousands of years by Jews? That’s right. Long before tomes of endocrinology literature charted the hypothalamic and pituitary secretions of the hormones that govern menstruation, pregnancy, and breastfeeding’s effects on our cycles, the Torah detailed it for us. Mmm hmmm.

 That’s right, ladies. The Torah. The Five Books of Moses, that some-3000-year-old tome. The Torah says to count “for yourself” seven days. Over time, an additional five days (according to most customs) were added to the mix . What happens 7+5 days after you start your cycle? As any OB-Gyn, endocrinologist, or person who has read TCOYF can tell you, for the majority of women, ovulation occurs around the 12th day after you start your cycle. Yup.

 Get it? The most efficient way to get pregnant is to have sex on and around Day 12 of your cycle. And that’s literally what Jewish women have done for thousands of years. Traditionally, the night of ovulation (day 12 of your cycle), women immerse in a mikveh which is basically a glorified and very sanitary pretty hot tub with no bubbles involved and only one woman at a time allowed in.

 The mikveh is a meditative space, an opportunity to experience the cleansing of water (Catholics liked this idea so much, they made Baptism a must-do ritual), and a signal that you are ready to engage again in the holy work of making babies. It’s actually quite profound and beautiful, I think. Many traditional women also refrain from other intimate acts from the first day of their period until they’ve immersed in the mikveh, such as kissing, cuddling, and even sleeping in the same bed. It may sound odd, but the potential excitement for reunion after so many separated days is pretty powerful, and generations and generations of women (and their content husbands) swear that this is what keeps their sex lives and marriages fresh and exciting.

 I know what you’re thinking: “Oh, so Judaism just wants to make women into baby factories. My only purpose is to get pregnant? Thanks, but no thanks.” To this, I say two things.

 1) Judaism values making babies but there is a place in even Orthodox Judaism for birth control. It is important to have children when your family is ready for more children. We want children to be born into families that want them, love them, and have the resources to care for them.

 2) Judaism loves love. We love sex. We are told it is a mitzvah to make love and to especially make love on Shabbat, when God’s presence is close. A woman’s right to sexual satisfaction is detailed in her ketubah, her marriage contract, independent of pregnancy.

 Sex really can be for fun and for free; thank you Judaism. And when you are not cycling, such as during pregnancy and after menopause, have as much sex as you want. Have it upside down and sideways and from the chandeliers. It’s all good, it’s all kosher, and it’s a wonderful reminder that Judaism is pleasantly focused on how we live, rather than what happens after we die.

 We live for perpetuating the species, enjoying marriage through sex, and honoring our traditions.

 And we can do it all. God willing, we can do it all. |||||

Write a summary.

– Mayim Bialik, perhaps better known as TV's Blossom, recently talked sex on Jewish website Kveller. "Judaism loves love. We love sex. We are told it is a mitzvah to make love and to especially make love on Shabbat, when God’s presence is close," she writes. "It’s all good, it’s all kosher, and it’s a wonderful reminder that Judaism is pleasantly focused on how we live, rather than what happens after we die." Not all celebrities are so religion-focused when talking about getting down and dirty. The Frisky rounds up 11 more pieces of advice: John Mayer: Reportedly told a woman at a bar that she should always remember to talk dirty in bed. Jane Krakowski: But while you're talking dirty, remember to call your partner a whore as opposed to a prostitute, she advises. Spencer Pratt: While we're wary of taking any advice from either half of Speidi, we'll relay it nonetheless: Spence thinks you should go on a sexual shopping spree and buy as much as you can afford from your local adult store. Jada Pinkett Smith: To keep the passion alive in a long-term relationship, do it in sneaky places like on the side of the road. Cameron Diaz: No matter what you do, don't fake it in bed. Click for the complete list, and to find out which star thinks "foreplay" should be called "teaseplay."


(CNN) President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, had his White House security clearance restored Wednesday, a person familiar with the matter said, after months of uncertainty stemming in part from his role in the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.

 Kushner met with Mueller's investigators a second time in April and answered questions for seven hours, according to his attorney, Abbe Lowell. He had previously sat for an interview last November that was largely focused on former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who soon after pleaded guilty to charges of making false statements to the FBI.

 These developments come as the Mueller's investigators appear to be trying to complete parts of their inquiry.

 The Kushner team believes he is now finished with all ongoing inquiries, which also include the investigations by congressional committees, according to a person close to Kushner.

 A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.

 "A year ago, Jared was one of the first to voluntarily cooperate with any investigation into the 2016 campaign and related topics," Lowell said in a statement.

 "Since then, he has continued this complete cooperation, providing a large number of documents and sitting for hours of interviews with congressional committees and providing numerous documents and sitting for two interviews with the Office of Special Counsel. On each occasion, he answered all questions asked and did everything he could to expedite the conclusion of all the investigations."

 Kushner was stripped of his interim clearance in February amid an overhaul of procedures governing access to the nation's most sensitive secrets following the resignation of Rob Porter, the President's staff secretary, who had been allowed to remain in his post for months despite allegations of spouse abuse.

 The Mueller probe has also hung over Kushner's status in the White House, in part because some of the matters under investigation relate to his role during the campaign and the transition, including contacts with Russians, as well as events that occurred in the early months of the Trump presidency, such as the firing of former FBI Director James Comey

 JUST WATCHED What you need to know about Jared Kushner Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What you need to know about Jared Kushner 01:24

 White House officials have blamed the delay in Kushner receiving his security clearance on administrative backlogs normal to a new administration, as well as the complicated nature of his application. But Kushner's troubles were compounded at least in part because his initial security clearance application didn't list dozens of foreign contacts that he later included in updated submissions to the FBI.

 Lowell disputed that the initial security clearance application played any role in the delay in Kushner receiving his final clearance.

 "With respect with the news of his clearance being restored, as we stated before, his application was properly submitted, reviewed by numerous career officials and went through the normal process," Lowell said. "Throughout the process, Mr. Kushner has continued to work on a number of foreign policy and domestic issues with no interruption. Having completed all of these processes, he is looking to continue to do the work the President has asked him to do." ||||| WASHINGTON — Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, has been granted his permanent security clearance, a person briefed on the matter said on Wednesday, ending a period of uncertainty that had fueled questions about whether Mr. Kushner was in peril in the special counsel investigation.

 Mr. Kushner is a senior presidential aide with a prominent role in Middle East diplomacy. But his F.B.I. background checks dragged on for a year and became one of many political distractions for the White House. Even some inside the administration suspected that Mr. Kushner’s delay reflected legal problems on the horizon.

 The permanent clearances make Mr. Kushner, who is married to Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, eligible to view some of the United States’ most closely guarded secrets, including the daily intelligence briefing that Mr. Trump receives and the delicate intelligence on the Israelis and the Palestinians that former diplomats said can be valuable in negotiations. Top-secret clearances are typically required for people viewing foreign intelligence or sitting in on high-level White House meetings.

 White House officials were adamant that the lengthy process was not unusual for a government official who has a complicated financial history and many foreign contacts. But with the special counsel investigating some of Mr. Kushner’s meetings with Russian officials, it left open the question of whether investigators had uncovered evidence that made him a security threat. |||||

Write a summary.

– It took a while, but presidential son-in-law and top adviser Jared Kushner has received his permanent security clearance, reports the New York Times. Kushner had been stripped of his top-level clearance in February as the White House tightened policy in the wake of the Rob Porter scandal, notes CNN. But the FBI recently completed its background check into Kushner's financial history and foreign business dealings and found no red flags, reports the Washington Post. "As we stated before, his application was properly submitted, reviewed by numerous career officials and underwent the normal process," says Kushner attorney Abbe Lowell. "Having completed all of these processes, he’s looking forward to continuing to do the work the president has asked him to do.” Lowell also revealed that Kushner has voluntarily sat for two long interviews with Robert Mueller's team, answering questions about Michael Flynn and Kushner's work on the campaign and in the White House.


Article:
On a bleak February day in 1944, a French gendarme snatched a pair of dolls from two Jewish sisters about to be deported to Auschwitz, and flung them to the ground.

 Denise and Micheline Lévy, aged 10 and 9 when the gendarme bundled them out of their school in the eastern French village of Gemeaux, never returned.

 But a family in the village looked after their dolls for three generations and kept alive the story of how the two little girls were lined up in the snow with their parents, grandparents, an aunt and uncle, a cousin and other Jewish families.

 Frédérique Gilles, a teacher from Gemeaux whose grandmother carefully preserved the dolls, on Sunday presented them to the Holocaust museum in Paris, the Shoah Memorial.

 The gendarme left the dolls — one pink and the other blue — lying in the street, where a village shopkeeper picked them up and gave them to Mrs Gilles’ grandmother. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. |||||Summary:

– It was snowing on Feb. 24, 1944, when Jewish children in the French town of Gemeaux were rounded up at their school. Two sisters, Denise and Micheline Lévy, aged 10 and 9, clutched dolls—one pink, one blue—as they were led away to Auschwitz. A gendarme grabbed the dolls and flung them to the ground, Le Parisien reports, via the Telegraph. A shopkeeper picked them up and gave them to the grandmother of Frédérique Gilles, a 38-year-old schoolteacher, who has now donated them to the Shoah Memorial, the Holocaust museum in Paris. The dolls were among 200 items put on display Sunday, out of 19,000 objects collected by volunteers. In many cases like the Lévy sisters, they are all that remain of the deported. For two generations, Gilles' family minded the dolls. "But nobody ever played with them," she told the paper. "We knew their history." They tried to find out what happened to the Lévy sisters, but turned up no clues. Gilles said it seemed wrong to keep the dolls. "We wanted to give them to a museum, or a place of memorial." It was difficult to let them go, she added, "but it was the best thing we could do for the memory of those little girls." Over the past two years, volunteers for the Shoah Memorial criss-crossed France collecting a trove of objects belonging to those deported, including photos, a jersey emblazoned with a Star of David, a violin case, and fading slips of paper noting the Jews in hiding stacked in a little red box, reports Telerama. "Some preferred that we borrow the objects … so they could pass them on to their children," Shoah curator Lior Lalieu-Smadja told Telerama. "We understand their choice but, unfortunately, we know that quite often this evidence will be lost."


Here is a news article: In an open letter, Mira Sorvino has publicly apologized to Dylan Farrow, the estranged daughter of director Woody Allen—and expressed regret about working with the controversial filmmaker. Sorvino won an Oscar for her performance in his 1995 film, Mighty Aphrodite, but has since re-examined her decision to work with Allen due to Farrow’s accusations. (Farrow has repeatedly accused Allen of abusing her as a child; Allen denies the allegations.) Sorvino was prompted to speak out after she alleged to reporter Ronan Farrow, who is Dylan’s brother, that Harvey Weinstein (who produced Mighty Aphrodite) harassed her years ago.

 “I confess that at the time I worked for Woody Allen I was a naïve young actress,” Sorvino wrote in an essay for HuffPost. “I swallowed the media’s portrayal of your abuse allegations against your father as an outgrowth of a twisted custody battle between Mia Farrow and him, and did not look further into the situation, for which I am terribly sorry.”

 Sorvino stated clearly that her relationship with Allen on the film was “friendly, though not close, but in no way did he ever overstep his bounds with me.”

 “I never personally experienced what has now been described as inappropriate behavior toward young girls,” she said. “But this does not excuse my turning a blind eye to your story simply because I wanted desperately for it not to be so.”

 The actress writes that she spoke with Ronan in December, telling about the “aftermath” of sharing her Weinstein story. In her accusations against Weinstein, she said that he essentially blacklisted her from landing plum movie roles after her Mighty Aphrodite success, because she reportedly rebuffed him when he sexually harassed her and tried to pressure her into a physical relationship. (Weinstein denied the claims.) Her blacklisting allegations have been supported by directors like Peter Jackson and Terry Zwigoff; representatives for Weinstein released statements denying the claims from both directors.

 She also told Ronan that she wanted to learn more about Dylan’s accusations, and he pointed her toward “publicly available details of the case I had ruefully never known of, which made me begin to feel the evidence strongly supported your story.”

 “I am sorry it has taken me a few weeks to come out in support of you since that conversation, but it has been a process for me to own this truth and make this irrevocable break,” she writes.

 Sorvino is now the third actress to acknowledge Dylan Farrow and publicly distance herself from Woody Allen. Ellen Page, who starred in the 2012 Allen film To Rome with Love, kicked off the trend in November with a lengthy Facebook post.

 “I did a Woody Allen movie and it is the biggest regret of my career,” she wrote. “I am ashamed I did this. I had yet to find my voice and was not who I am now and felt pressured, because ‘of course you have to say yes to this Woody Allen film.’ Ultimately, however, it is my choice what films I decide to do and I made the wrong choice. I made an awful mistake.”

 Greta Gerwig was the next to join this group, telling The New York Times that she will never work with Allen again.

 “Dylan Farrow’s two different pieces made me realize that I increased another woman’s pain, and I was heartbroken by that realization,” Gerwig said. “I grew up on his movies, and they have informed me as an artist, and I cannot change that fact now, but I can make different decisions moving forward.”

 Get Vanity Fair’s HWD Newsletter Sign up for essential industry and award news from Hollywood. E-mail Address Subscribe ||||| Photo: Frazer Harrison/Getty Images

 Mira Sorvino, who starred in Woody Allen’s 1995 comedy Mighty Aphrodite, wrote an open letter in the Huffington Post voicing her support for Dylan Farrow, Allen’s estranged adopted daughter who has accused him of sexual abuse. In the letter Sorvino writes that she regrets letting her admiration for the filmmaker’s work to influence her willingness to overlook Farrows claims for many years.

 Sorvino addressed Farrow directly, writing:

 I never personally experienced what has now been described as inappropriate behavior toward young girls. But this does not excuse my turning a blind eye to your story simply because I wanted desperately for it not to be so.

 It is difficult to sever ties and denounce your heroes, your benefactors, whom you fondly admired and felt a debt of gratitude toward for your entire career’s existence. To decide, although they may be fantastically talented and helped you enormously, that you believe they have done things for which there can be no excuse. But that is where we stand today.

 In 1992, Dylan was 7 years old when she reportedly told her mother, Mia Farrow, that she was inappropriately sexually touched by Allen, Farrow’s partner of 12 years. Though Allen has denied the allegations and was not criminally charged, a judge granted Mia Farrow full custody after finding Dylan’s testimony credible in 1993. Dylan has maintained her allegations in recent essays.

 Sorvino explains in her letter that she had “cherished” Allen’s written work when she was a child and describes herself as being “in awe” of his films. She remembers herself in the mid ‘90s as a “naïve young actress” who accepted “the media’s portrayal of [Dylan’s] abuse allegations against [her] father as an outgrowth of a twisted custody battle between Mia Farrow and him.”

 In the past year, Sorvino spoke to journalist Ronan Farrow, Dylan’s brother, on the record about her experience being sexually harassed by Harvey Weinstein. Her allegations appeared in Ronan’s bombshell New Yorker exposé. In Sorvino’s letter she says that it was her experience with coming forward that made her to want to finally read more about Dylan’s experience.

 “I send you love and inclusion and admiration for your courage all this time. I believe you!!!” Sorvino wrote to Farrow. She added that she had no intention of defending Allen moving forward:

 Even if you love someone, if you learn they may have committed these despicable acts, they must be exposed and condemned, and this exposure must have consequences. I will never work with him again.

 In the past week, two other actors who worked with Allen, Greta Gerwig (To Rome With Love) and David Krumholtz (Wonder Wheel) have also expressed regret for working with the director. ||||| Dear Dylan,

 Hello. I apologize for this being the first time I address you in print, what will be the first of several apologies today. I am writing to express my belief in and support of you.

 I confess that at the time I worked for Woody Allen I was a naive young actress. I swallowed the media’s portrayal of your abuse allegations against your father as an outgrowth of a twisted custody battle between Mia Farrow and him, and did not look further into the situation, for which I am terribly sorry. For this I also owe an apology to Mia.

 What I have to say next is not a justification, simply a description of my background with Woody at that time and since. As an adolescent, I cherished my copy of his book “Without Feathers.” I played the Diane Keaton role in a high school production of “Play It Again, Sam” and had grown up, like so many in my generation, in awe of his films. As a young actress I landed the dream role of Linda Ash in “Mighty Aphrodite,” and the artistic license he allowed me to create the character was thrilling. We were friendly though not close, but in no way did he ever overstep his bounds with me; I never personally experienced what has now been described as inappropriate behavior toward young girls. But this does not excuse my turning a blind eye to your story simply because I wanted desperately for it not to be so.

 It is difficult to sever ties and denounce your heroes, your benefactors, whom you fondly admired and felt a debt of gratitude toward for your entire career’s existence. To decide, although they may be fantastically talented and helped you enormously, that you believe they have done things for which there can be no excuse. But that is where we stand today.

 In December I called your brother Ronan, sharing about the aftermath of my and other women’s coming forward about Harvey Weinstein. How it had been a sometimes empowering, sometimes bitter and heartbreaking experience, as more and more details came out of hidden damage this man had done me. Of how I felt somehow more vulnerable and triggered (though certainly grateful) when millions of people showed me their support online, as though now my life had been reduced to one victimization... I told him I wanted to learn more about you and your situation. He pointed me toward publicly available details of the case I had ruefully never known of, which made me begin to feel the evidence strongly supported your story. That you have been telling the truth all along.

 I am so sorry, Dylan! I cannot begin to imagine how you have felt, all these years as you watched someone you called out as having hurt you as a child, a vulnerable little girl in his care, be lauded again and again, including by me and countless others in Hollywood who praised him and ignored you. As a mother and a woman, this breaks my heart for you. I am so, so sorry!

 We are in a day and age when everything must be re-examined. This kind of abuse cannot be allowed to continue. If this means tearing down all the old gods, so be it. The cognitive dissonance, the denial and cowardice that spare us painful truths and prevent us from acting in defense of innocent victims while allowing “beloved” individuals to continue their heinous behavior must be jettisoned from the bottom of our souls. Even if you love someone, if you learn they may have committed these despicable acts, they must be exposed and condemned, and this exposure must have consequences. I will never work with him again.

 I am sorry it has taken me a few weeks to come out in support of you since that conversation, but it has been a process for me to own this truth and make this irrevocable break.

 I send you love and inclusion and admiration for your courage all this time. I believe you!!! I am grateful to you and admire your integrity and bravery, one woman who has had to stand virtually alone all these years speaking her painful truth. You are a true hero, and I stand with you.

 In gratitude and solidarity,

 Mira Sorvino |||||
A summary of this is?

– "I believe you!!!" Mira Sorvino writes in an open letter to Dylan Farrow published by the HuffPost. The actor reached out to Woody Allen's daughter Wednesday to apologize for starring in her father's Mighty Aphrodite—for which she won an Oscar—while ignoring Farrow's claims of sexual abuse against Allen. Farrow was 7 when she said Allen sexually touched her, and a judge later found her claims credible, though Allen has continually denied the allegations, Vulture reports. Sorvino says she was aware of Farrow's claims when she made Mighty Aphrodite but dismissed them "as an outgrowth of a twisted custody battle" because of her lifelong love of Allen's work. "It is difficult to sever ties and denounce your heroes, your benefactors, whom you fondly admired and felt a debt of gratitude toward for your entire career’s existence," she writes. Sorvino says her experience opening up to Farrow's brother, reporter Ronan Farrow, about Harvey Weinstein made her want to learn more about Dylan Farrow's allegations, which led to her taking those allegations seriously. Sorvino says her love of Allen's work "does not excuse my turning a blind eye to your story simply because I wanted desperately for it not to be so." She says she won't work with Allen again, writing: "We are in a day and age when everything must be re-examined. This kind of abuse cannot be allowed to continue. If this means tearing down all the old gods, so be it." Sorvino isn't the first actor to denounce Allen. Greta Gerwig and David Krumholtz recently said they regret working with him. And Vanity Fair reports Ellen Page in November called doing an Allen movie "the biggest regret of my career."