The word “shithole” was projected onto President Trump Donald John TrumpStone: 'I’ve never had any discussion' with Trump about a pardon White House: Trump will move forward on wall 'with or without' Dems Pelosi after Stone indictment: 'What does Putin have on the president'? MORE’s D.C. hotel Saturday.

 Video shows the word, along with the poop emoji, being projected onto the property.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 “Pay Trump bribes here,” “emoluments welcome” and “we are all responsible to stand up and end white supremacy” were also projected onto the building.

 Trump has faced intense backlash for calling Haiti, El Salvador and African nations “shithole countries” during an Oval Office meeting on immigration this week.

 “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump reportedly said, before suggesting that the U.S. bring in more immigrants from countries like Norway.

 The White House initially did not deny that Trump made the remarks, but Trump later disputed the reports on Twitter.

 Lawmakers, media figures and world leaders have all decried Trump’s comments. The African Union, representing all 55 African countries, demanded Saturday that Trump apologize for the remarks. ||||| The expletive President Trump used last week in a discussion about immigration in the Oval Office and other slogans were projected Saturday night onto an outer wall of the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington.

 Video footage posted on Twitter shows the word "SHITHOLE" and poop emoji projected on the wall of the hotel. An arrow, also apparently projected on the building, points to the arched doorway.

 The pictures appear on the Twitter feed of Robin Bell, who has previously projected wording critical of the president onto the hotel.

 He has become known as a kind of projectionist provocateur and something of a "hit-and-run editorial writer," as David Montgomery described him last year in The Washington Post.

 The president, in a discussion last week on immigration policy, used "shithole" to refer to certain countries from which large-scale immigration was undesirable, according to people present at the meeting.

 The Washington Post saw the posted photographs but did not actually see the words at the time they were projected. Bell said he had focused his projector onto the building for about 40 minutes. He was interviewed afterward. ||||| A screen grab of video posted on Twitter showing the word “SHITHOLE” projected onto the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. on January 14, 2017. Twitter.com/bellvisuals

 The word of the week in Washington got a full-blown public display on Saturday night as an artist projected it on the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Video footage shows that an artist projected the word “SHITHOLE” surrounded by a stream of animated poop emojis onto the wall of the hotel. The projection ended a week in which uttering the word “shithole” in public suddenly became common after President Trump reportedly used it in a meeting.

 The video posted on Twitter shows the sequence of phrases that were projected onto the front steps of the hotel: “Not a D.C. resident?” / “Need a place to stay?” / “Try our shithole” / “This place is a shithole.” And then the one word—“SHITHOLE”—in capital letters was projected surrounded by poop emojis. Later in the projection, the artist issues a stark warning: “The president is distracting us from politics that are harming us” / “Stay vigilant.” The video ends with the projection: “Pay Trump bribes here” with an arrow pointing to the entrance of the hotel.

 The projection is the work of Robin Bell, who posted it on his Twitter account. This is not the first time Bell has made politically charged projections onto Trump’s hotel in Washington. He had already displayed the “Pay Trump bribes here” message before, for example. Bell has also gone beyond the hotel, projecting #SessionsMustGo and “I thought the KKK was OK until I learned that they smoked pot”onto the Department of Justice building.

 In a long profile of Bell last year, the Washington Post’s David Montgomery described him as a “hit-and-run editorial writer.” At the time, Montgomery noted that “Bell’s projections now come regularly enough that during especially volatile news cycles, it’s like sensing mayhem in Gotham and looking out for a bat signal.”

Summary: – President Trump's controversial pet phrase came home to roost in a way on Saturday night, when someone projected "SHITHOLE" onto the front of Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC. Per Slate, the display went thusly: "Not a D.C. resident?/Need a place to stay?/Try our shithole/This place is a shithole." That was followed by "SHITHOLE" over the entrance, combined with poop emojis. The projection appears to be the work of Robin Bell, reports the Washington Post, who has pulled similar anti-Trump stunts in the past. Footage of the projection appeared on Bell's Twitter feed; he told the Post that it was up for about 40 minutes Saturday night. (You can see it here.) In further fallout on Saturday, the Hill notes that the entire 55-nation African Union demanded Trump apologize.


But he suggested that he sees his role in addressing domestic issues as dominant, saying that it would be difficult to get the economy rolling again but that doing so was “our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.”

 With his party facing the prospect of losing control of Congress in this fall’s elections and his own poll numbers depressed in large part because of the lackluster economy and still-high unemployment, he said the nation’s perseverance in Iraq must be matched by determination to address problems at home.

 Over the last decade, “we have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas,” he said. “And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy and grit and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad.”

 Mr. Obama acknowledged a war fatigue among Americans who have called into question his focus on the Afghanistan war, now approaching its 10th year. He said that American forces in Afghanistan “will be in place for a limited time” to give Afghans the chance to build their government and armed forces.

 “But, as was the case in Iraq, we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves,” the president said. He reiterated that next July he would begin transferring responsibility for security to Afghans, at a pace to be determined by conditions.

 “But make no mistake: this transition will begin, because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s,” he said.

 This was no iconic end-of-war moment with photos of soldiers kissing nurses in Times Square or victory parades down America’s Main Streets.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Instead, in the days leading to the Tuesday night deadline for the withdrawal of American combat troops, it has appeared as if administration officials and the American military were the only ones marking the end of this country’s combat foray into Iraq. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are all in Baghdad for the official ceremony on Wednesday.

 The very sight of Mr. Obama addressing Americans from the Oval Office — from the same desk where Mr. Bush announced the beginning of the conflict — shows the distance traveled since the Iraq war began. On the night of March 20, 2003, when the Army’s Third Infantry Division first rolled over the border from Kuwait into Iraq, Mr. Obama was a state senator in Illinois.

 Mr. Bush was at the height of his popularity, and the perception at home and in many places abroad was that America could achieve its national security goals primarily through military power. One of the biggest fears among the American troops in the convoy pouring into Iraq that night — every one of them suited in gas masks and wearing biohazard suits — was that the man they came to topple might unleash a chemical weapons attack.

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 Seven years and five months later, the biggest fears of American soldiers revolve around the primitive, basic, homemade bombs and old explosives in Afghanistan that were left over from the Soviet invasion. In Iraq, what was perceived as a threat from a powerful dictator, Saddam Hussein, has dissolved into the worry that as United States troops pull out they are leaving behind an unstable and weak government that could be influenced by Iran.

 On Tuesday, a senior intelligence official said that Iran continues to supply militant groups in Iraq with weapons, training and equipment.

 “Much has changed since that night,” when Mr. Bush announced the war in Iraq, Mr. Obama said. “A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.”

 The withdrawal of combat forces represents a significant milestone after the war that toppled Mr. Hussein, touched off waves of sectarian strife and claimed the lives of more than 4,400 American soldiers and more than 70,000 Iraqis, according to United States and Iraqi government figures.

 “Operation Iraqi Freedom is over,” Mr. Obama said, using the military name for the mission, “and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.”

 As Mr. Obama prepared to observe the end of one phase of the war, he called Mr. Bush from Air Force One, as he was en route to Fort Bliss in Texas to meet with American troops home from Iraq.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 The two spoke “just for a few moments,” Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, told reporters aboard the plane, declining to give any additional details.

 American troops reached Mr. Obama’s goal for the drawdown early — last week Gen. Ray Odierno, the American commander in Iraq, said that the number of troops had dropped to 49,700, roughly the number that would stay through next summer.

 That is less than a third of the number of troops in Iraq during the surge in 2007. Under an agreement between Iraq and the United States, the remaining troops are to leave by the end of 2011, though some Iraqi and American officials say they think that the agreement may be renegotiated to allow for a longer American military presence.

 The remaining “advise and assist” brigades will officially concentrate on supporting and training Iraqi security forces, protecting American personnel and facilities, and mounting counterterrorism operations.

 Still, as Mr. Obama himself acknowledged Tuesday, the milestone came with all of the ambiguity and messiness that accompanied the war itself.

 A political impasse, in place since March elections, has left Iraq without a permanent government just as the government in Baghdad was supposed to be asserting more control.

 Republican critics of the president were quick to point out Tuesday that Mr. Obama opposed the troop surge that they credit for decreased violence in Iraq.

 “Some leaders who opposed, criticized, and fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy now proudly claim credit for the results,” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, told veterans at the national convention of the American Legion in Milwaukee. ||||| The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people; trained Iraqi security forces; and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians — and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people — Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

 So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

 This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s security forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

 This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to Al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

 This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: the Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

 Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s security forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians — diplomats, aid workers, and advisers — are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. And that is a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

 This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq — one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest — it is in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people — a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.

 As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.

 The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against Al Qaeda.

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, Al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen Al Qaeda leaders — and hundreds of Al Qaeda’s extremist allies — have been killed or captured around the world.

 Within Afghanistan, I have ordered the deployment of additional troops who — under the command of General David Petraeus — are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum. As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we are training Afghan security forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And, next July, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin — because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

 Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power — including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example — to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that is based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes — a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibility of our time.

 Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction — we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

 That effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its link to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

 Unfortunately, over the last decade, we have not done what is necessary to shore up the foundation of our own prosperity. We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has shortchanged investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for — the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

 Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jump-start industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.

 Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am president, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That is why we have already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We are treating the signature wounds of today’s wars post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we are funding a post-9/11 G.I. bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the G.I. Bill helped those who fought World War II — including my grandfather — become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

 Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq — the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade — journeyed home in the predawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

 Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from their families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice — part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”

 Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations — war — and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

 In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar — Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the predawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

 Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

Summary: – President Obama stuck to the script tonight in declaring the end of the 7-year US military operation in Iraq. "Our combat mission is ending," he said. "Our commitment to Iraq's future is not." But Obama also acknowledged George W. Bush's stewardship of the war, along with his own personal opposition to it as an Illinois senator. "It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset," he said. "Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security." (He made no mention of the troop surge ordered by Bush.) Obama said "there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it, and all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future." As expected, he later pivoted from the war to the economy, calling its restoration "our most urgent task." (More details in the New York Times, which also has the full text here. For excerpts, click here. To read about Obama's speech earlier in the day to troops at Fort Bliss, click here.)


When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page. ||||| Sign up for our newsletter and have the top headlines from your community delivered right to your inbox.

Summary: – Ray Demers has been at the same hobby for half a century: learning all he can about shipwrecks he discovered in New Hampshire waters in the 1960s. The 73-year-old is now coming forward with what he believes to be the story of the ships, and it's a tale of Native Americans battling Colonists—on the water. Demers' own story begins with some dropped air tanks. He accidentally lost them in the water during a dive off Salamander Point in New Castle (it's near Portsmouth, and just south of the Maine border) decades ago, and when he dove to retrieve them some 16 feet below the surface, he came across two cannons. "I put my hand on one of them and I said, 'Ray, you are going to spend the rest of your life studying this site' ... and, you know what?" he tells Foster's Daily Democrat. "I did." Though not a trained archaeologist, he tried to approach the scene as a professional would, with great care to avoid contamination. Using the cannons as a starting point, he discovered a shipwreck about 75 feet away, then a second wreck in deeper water. He also found a number of artifacts, including an onion bottle whose seal featured the name of W. Darracott and the date 1723, reports the Union Leader. By relying on a 1959 book, input from Colonial Willamsburg's then-chief archaeologist, and the name Darracott, Demers was led to George Jackson and Sylvester Lakeman, men he believes commanded privateers and attempted to "engage" Native Americans who had themselves seized hold of a privateer and were attacking fishing ships in the area. The "unique naval engagement ... could have resulted in the Salamander Point wrecks," notes Foster's. (Another shipwreck was recently uncovered in Upstate New York.)


SANAA Embattled Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh told a huge rally of supporters on Friday that he would sacrifice everything for his country, suggesting he has no plans to step down yet.

 Weeks of protests across Yemen have brought Saleh's 32-year rule to the verge of collapse but the United States and neighboring oil giant Saudi Arabia, an important financial backer, are worried about who might succeed him in a country where al Qaeda militants flourish.

 Tens of thousands, both for and against Saleh, took to the streets of the capital Sanaa, as negotiators struggle to revive talks to decide his fate.

 "I swear to you I will sacrifice blood and soul and everything precious for the sake of this great people," he told supporters shouting "the people want Ali Abdullah Saleh."

 Saleh has lost support from tribal, military and political backers. Protests on Friday reached the thousands in provincial capitals from Taiz, 200 km (125 miles) south of Sanaa, to the southern port city of Aden, once capital of an independent south before Saleh united it with the north.

 "Saleh is going down with the ship," said Theodore Karasik, security analyst at the Dubai-based INEGMA group. "The only way he'll let himself get dislodged is if he loses even more supporters from his inner circle.

 "It seems like he's not ready to go. He's making statements saying he's going to do what's best for Yemen but really this is Saleh trying to do what's best for Saleh."

 Helicopters buzzed over protests in Sanaa.

 "Out traitor, the Yemeni people are in revolt. We, the army and the police are united under oppression," the crowds of anti-Saleh protesters shouted outside Sanaa University.

 One cleric said during morning prayers at the rally: "I say to you, Saleh, while you sit terrified in your palace, that the people are on to your tricks... You (protesters) represent the oppressed, the poor and the imprisoned."

 Tensions were high as equally large crowds came out in a show of support for Saleh in Sabyeen Square. That protest ended quietly as anti-Saleh protesters continued their sit-in near the university. Hundreds of security forces deployed at checkpoints across the city as tanks rolled through the streets.

 Anti-Saleh protesters named the day a "Friday of enough" while loyalists branded it a "Friday of brotherhood."

 "We send a message from the Yemeni majority to them (the opposition) and the whole world ... of our support for the nation and for our leader," former prime minister Ali Mohammed Megawar said at the pro-Saleh rally.

 TALKS STALLED

 Some Sanaa residents said they were paid to join protests. Government officials denied the ruling party had given any money to demonstrators, calling it an attempt by the opposition to diminish the significance of the large crowds they had drawn.

 Saleh is looking to stay on as president while new parliamentary and presidential elections are organized by the end of the year, an opposition source told Reuters on Tuesday.

 Talks over his exit have stalled and Saudi authorities have deflected Yemeni government efforts to involve them in mediation.

 Protesters camped outside Sanaa University since early February insist that Saleh, who has said he will not run for re-election when his term ends in 2013, should step down now.

 Rallies ended peacefully on Friday, but they could spiral into violence in the turbulent Arabian Peninsula state. Over half the 23 million population own a gun. Some 82 people have been killed so far, including 52 shot by snipers on March 18.

 Rows can often turn to bloodshed, from tribal clashes over dwindling water resources to army skirmishes with separatist militants in the south.

 On Friday, armed tribesmen kidnapped two soldiers and wounded another in the southern town of Lawdar. Residents said the tribesmen took the hostages to win concessions from the government after the army killed 5 fellow tribesmen and claimed they were from al Qaeda -- charges the tribe said were false.

 Washington has long regarded Saleh as a bulwark of stability who can keep al Qaeda from extending its foothold in Yemen, a country which many see as close to disintegration.

 Saleh has talked of civil war if he steps down without ensuring power passes to "safe hands" and has warned against a coup after senior generals turned against him in the past week.

 Opposition parties say they can handle the militant issue better than Saleh, who they say has made deals with militants in the past to avoid provoking Yemen's Islamists.

 (Additional reporting by Mohammed Mukhashaf in Aden, Writing by Erika Solomon and Nick Macfie; Editing by Janet Lawrence) ||||| Many thousands turn out for Yemen protests

 Huge rival demonstrations were held in the Yemeni capital

 Continue reading the main story Related Stories

 Tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets in Yemen again as the country's political crisis deepens.

 In the capital, Sanaa, two rival demonstrations are being held - in support of and against President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

 Representatives from the government and the opposition are reported to have met and agreed to avoid confrontation.

 Protests in recent weeks have brought President Saleh's 32-year rule to the verge of collapse.

 He is under increasing pressure both at home and from abroad to resign immediately.

 The UK Foreign Office has urged Britons to leave Yemen as soon as possible, and warned of a "high possibility of violent demonstrations" on Friday.

 Transfer of power

 A BBC correspondent in Sanaa says tens of thousands of demonstrators marching in two different directions in the capital this morning.

 President Saleh has offered to step down in 2012, but the opposition wants him to go now

 The opposition said it would get one million people on to the streets.

 Anti-government protesters gathered in the renamed "Change Square" near the university.

 Supporters of the president congregated in the city's Tahrir Square some 2km (1.2 miles) away.

 Mr Saleh addressed supporters, thanking them.

 "I pledge to sacrifice myself for the people, with my blood and with everything I hold dear," Mr Saleh said.

 Reports say that the crowds started to disperse without incident.

 Our correspondent says only a political deal between the government and opposition will resolve this crisis, but for now all talks have stalled and neither side is willing to back down.

 President Saleh has agreed to resign by January 2012, but the opposition is calling for his immediate departure.

 Western diplomats in Sanaa say they are pushing for a transfer of power, our correspondent reports.

 For many years an ally of the West, President Saleh was seen as vital in the war against terror and for tackling al-Qaeda in the country. Mr Saleh says that without him al-Qaeda could still take over Yemen.

 But, increasingly, many people both at home and abroad are viewing him as the main source of instability, our correspondent adds.

Summary: – A pair of opposing demonstrations—one supporting the president, one calling for his resignation—brought tens of thousands to the streets today in Yemen. The demonstrations took place in squares about a mile apart. Government and opposition leaders reportedly met in advance, agreeing to prevent confrontation. Though the UK Foreign Office warned of a “high possibility” of violence, crowds have started to disperse peacefully, the BBC reports. In Tahrir Square, President Ali Abdullah Saleh told supporters that he pledged “to sacrifice myself for the people, with my blood and with everything I hold dear.” Saleh had initially offered to step down by 2012, but it now appears he's intent on "going down with the ship," an analyst tells Reuters. "The only way he'll let himself get dislodged is if he loses even more supporters from his inner circle."


Correction appended Sept. 27, 2016

 Dogs don’t wear pants — and it’s hard to know how things would work out if they tried. But one thing is clear: if dogs did wear pants, they would use either a belt or suspenders, but definitely not both.

 That, in some ways, puts them ahead of us. According to a new study, both domesticated dogs and one species of wild dog do a better job than human beings and chimpanzees of ignoring bad instructions and eliminating unnecessary steps when trying to solve a problem. It’s a difference that says a lot about the social order of all of the species.

 The study, published in the journal Developmental Science and led by Angie Johnston and Paul Holden of the Yale University Canine Cognition Center, was designed to explore the learning behavior known straightforwardly as overimitation, a feature of our own species far more than any other. When an adult teaches a small child how to, say, solve a puzzle or operate a device like a television, the child will faithfully perform all of the steps nearly all of the time, even when repeated trials plainly show that some of those steps are unnecessary. A landmark 2005 study involving both young chimpanzees and 3- to 4-year-old children revealed that both sets of subjects will go through as many as five steps — some ultimately proving to be unnecessary — to retrieve a reward from a box, with the humans actually performing less well than the chimps at eventually skipping the irrelevant ones.

 Dogs would need a great deal of training to solve a five-step puzzle, if they ever mastered it at all. For that reason, the Yale researchers decided to keep things simple, presenting both domesticated dogs and wild dingoes with a plastic box that had both a lever on the side and a lid. The box contained a treat and the experimenters first demonstrated to the animals how to move the lever and then lift the lid to get at the reward. The lever, however, was useless and the lid could be opened without it. In some cases the puzzle was made of transparent plastic, revealing both the contents and the box’s internal workings; in other cases it was opaque.

 As is the case with all dog studies, not every subject was quite up to completing the experiment. “One trial was excluded from analysis for puzzle error (the dog flipped the entire puzzle over),” the researchers wrote. Most of them, however, did get all the way to the end, and the results were both impressive and, for humans, a little humbling. After watching the box being demonstrated, up to 75% of the dogs and dingoes correctly learned and imitated the two-step process to get the treat. It took just four trials, however, for a significant number of them to learn to skip the useless lever, with 59% of the dogs and only 42% of the dingoes continuing to use it.

 The appearance of the box — clear or transparent — made no difference at all to the dogs. The dingoes — for reasons that were uncertain — actually did a better job of catching wise to the uselessness of the lever when they couldn’t see through the box than when they could.

 If dogs are more efficient learners than humans, it hardly needs to be said that they are not better learners, and for a species with as elaborate a social system as ours, efficiency in learning is not necessarily a good thing. Johnston points out, for example, that children quickly learn that washing their hands before dinner and brushing their teeth after are not necessary to achieving their focal goal — eating — but their parents insist on it and so they comply. More subtly, once kids are out in the world there are uncountable social conventions — shaking hands, saying “please,” holding a door for the person behind you — that may be irrelevant to getting immediate needs satisfied but are essential to the maintenance of social order.

 “Although the tendency to copy irrelevant actions may seem silly at first,” said Johnston in a statement accompanying the paper’s release, “it becomes less silly when you consider all of the important but seemingly irrelevant actions that children are successfully able to learn.” From that kind of learning, a complex culture follows.

 Correction: The original version of this story misstated the journal in which the study appeared. It is Developmental Science. ||||| Photo: Li Kim Goh/Getty Images

 When my brother and I were younger, one of our favorite winter activities was to go outside with the family dog, make a bunch of snowballs, throw them somewhere in the distance, and then cackle our sadistic little hearts out as the dog ran around trying to find snowballs on the snowy ground. What can I say? Kids are jerks sometimes. To his credit, at least, the dog always got bored of the whole thing pretty quickly.

 Which, as a matter of fact, speaks to one of science’s newest findings about our canine pals: They have no patience for your human nonsense. Specifically, a study recently published in the journal Developmental Science found that when you give a dog bad directions, it’ll learn pretty quickly to ignore them.

 For the study, which recruited 40 pet dogs of varying breeds, psychologists from Yale’s Canine Cognition Center placed a treat inside a puzzle, then demonstrated to their subjects how to get it out. In reality, the puzzle was just one step — all the dogs had to do was lift the lid of a box — but the researchers added an extra, unnecessary action to their demo, pushing a lever attached to the box that didn’t actually do anything. To make sure the dogs were really trying to solve the task in front of them, rather than following a perceived command, the study authors then left the room and left the animals to their own devices.

 The dogs, who each went a couple rounds with the puzzle, proved adept at figuring out not only what they needed to do, but also what they didn’t: As the experiment progressed, they began disregarding the lever, going straight for the step that would get them their treat.

 The study offers an interesting insight into dog cognition in its own right, but it also has another layer: The authors based their study on a similar one from 2005 that focused on children instead of dogs — and compared to the dogs, the kids weren’t nearly so savvy. Their puzzle was more complicated, but they tended to repeat the experimenters’ actions step for step each time, without ever pausing to think through or weed out the irrelevant ones. It’s a tendency the authors of this latest study refer to as “overimitation,” writing: “This pattern of results suggests that overimitation may be a unique feature of human social learning,” possibly because by uncritically copying what they see, “children generally limit the amount of time they need to spend learning through repeated trial and error.”

 Or, as lead study author Angie Johnston put it in a statement: “Consider all the important, but seemingly irrelevant, actions that children are successfully able to learn, such as washing their hands and brushing their teeth.” To a little kid who doesn’t yet understand hygiene, those things don’t make much sense — but you learn to do them anyway, and the reasoning comes later. Dogs, on the other hand, don’t stay so trusting. ||||| desc12460-sup-0001-SupInfo.docxWord document, 42.9 KB

 Figure S1. Proportion of dogs (Figure a) and dingoes (Figure b) using the lever without solving the puzzle (leftmost bar), using the lever and solving the puzzle (middle bar), solving the puzzle without using the lever (rightmost bar) on each trial. Figure S2. Proportion of dogs and dingoes that used the irrelevant lever across trials in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate standard error. Figure S3. Proportion of dogs and dingoes solving the puzzle on opaque and transparent puzzle trials in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate standard error. Figure S4. Latency to solve the puzzle (in seconds) for dogs and dingoes across trials in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate standard error. Figure S5. Proportion of dingoes solving the puzzle across trials 1 and 2 in Experiments 1 and 3. Error bars indicate standard error. Table S1. List of animals, indicating species, owner‐reported breed, sex (Male/Female), age (in years), and the experiment(s) in which each subject's data was included. Dogs listed as “Experiments 1 & 2” only participated in Experiment 1, but their data was used as a comparison for dogs that participated in Experiment 2. Dingoes listed as “Experiments 1 & 3” participated in both experiments, with an 8‐month break in between experiments. Table S2. Estimate (±SE) of fixed effects in generalized linear and linear mixed models predicting subjects’ lever use, solve outcome, and solve latency in Experiments 1‐3. Baselines were set as follows: species = dingo; experiment = Experiment 1; box style = opaque. Table also shows goodness‐of‐fit statistics.

Summary: – Dogs might be better than humans at ignoring bad advice, suggests a new study out of Yale. In the experiment, researchers trained dogs to get a treat out of a box by moving a lever and then lifting the lid. Then they left the dogs on their own, and a significant number of them soon figured out the truth: There was no need to move that lever; they merely needed to lift the lid and get their treat. That's interesting in and of itself, notes a post at New York, but it's far more interesting when contrasted with a similar experiment conducted several years ago with kids. In that one, the human subjects went right on pulling that lever, because they had been instructed to do so. “Humans often fall prey to the bad advice of others,” says lead author Laurie Santos of Yale's Canine Cognition Center in a release. “Children tend to copy all of a teacher’s actions, regardless of whether they are necessary or not.” The dogs, however, were all about ruthless efficiency. Don't be too hard on the humans, though: The researchers behind the study in Development Science say it's vital kids follow seemingly useless commands. As Time explains, "for a species with as elaborate a social system as ours, efficiency in learning is not necessarily a good thing." For instance, a child who learns to wash his hands before eating is delaying his meal, but for good reason. (Dogs seem to be clued in to false praise as well.)


Weekly syndication ratings roundup

 The Queen of Court posts an 8.6 in the week ending Feb. 9. Among the talkers, Dr. Phil, Live with Kelly and Michael, Wendy Williams and Trisha show improvement from the previous week.

 TVNewsCheck , February 19, 2014 1:18 PM EST

 The top two talk shows — Dr. Phil and Live with Kelly and Michael — soared to multi-year ratings records in the first full week of the February sweep.

 However, only two other talkers were able to improve from the week before, in the session ending Feb. 9: Wendy Williams, which added 6% to a 1.7 and gained 31% from last year, and Trisha, which scored a new series high and surged 40% from last year.

 Story continues after the ad

 Talk leader Dr. Phil posted its highest in five years, climbing 5% from the previous week and 24% from last year at this time to a first-place 4.1. Phil was also No. 1 among women 25-54 by a significant margin.

 Live with Kelly and Michael, which has been the No. 2 talker this season, clocked its best ratings since the week of Nov. 14, 2011, growing 6% week to week and 29% from last year.

 On the other hand, 14 talk shows were flat or down from the prior week as PUT levels declined and many viewers began to focus on the Winter Olympics, which began in primetime on Feb. 6. However, Maury hit a new season high among women 25-54 and Steve Harvey improved 31% from last year.

 Elsewhere in daytime, court show standout Judge Judy dominated the entire syndicated ratings chart for the 22nd time in the past 24 weeks, zooming to its biggest rating in 11 years, an 8.6, which was a 15% increase over the same week last year.

 Brand Connections

 In access, almost all the top magazine shows maintained their season-high ratings from the prior session, due in part to viewer interest in the sudden death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman.

 Shows moving up from last year at this time included leader Entertainment Tonight, which gained 2% from last year; Inside Edition, which rose 3% year to year to a new season high; Access Hollywood, which advanced 11% to a new season high; Extra, which ballooned 19% from last year; and Dish Nation, which grew 10% from a year ago.

 In off-net syndication, freshmen sitcom leader Modern Family set a new high in households with a 5.2, jumping 2% from the week before.

 Among shows not yet nationally cleared, Access Hollywood Live averaged a 0.9 rating/3 share in 15 metered markets, up 13% from February 2013.

 The week’s top nationally rated daytime talk shows in the women 25-54 demo were:

 Dr. Phil (2.3, unchanged from the week before)

 Ellen (2.0, unchanged)

 Live with Kelly and Michael (1.9, unchanged)

 Maury (1.6, +7%)

 Dr. Oz (1.3, -13%), tied with Wendy Williams (1.3, unchanged)

 Steve Harvey (1.2, -14%)

 Steve Wilkos (1.1, unchanged)

 In the household rating rankings that follow, % change is from the previous week; * indicates a new season high rating; ** indicates a new season low; NC indicates no change from the previous week; NA mean not applicable.

 TALK SHOWS

 1. Dr. Phil (CTD) 4.1* +5%

 2. Live with Kelly and Michael (Disney-ABC) 3.6* +6%

 3. Ellen (WBDTD) 3.3 NC

 4. Dr. Oz (Sony) 2.4 NC

 5. Maury (NBCU) 2.3 NC

 6. Steve Harvey (NBCU) 2.1 -5%

 7. Katie (Disney-ABC) 1.8 -5%

 8. Rachael Ray (CTD) 1.7 NC

 8. Wendy Williams (Debmar-Mercury) 1.7 +6%

 10. Steve Wilkos (NBCU) 1.6 NC

 11. Jerry Springer (NBCU) 1.4 NC

 11. The Doctors (CTD) 1.4 NC

 13. Queen Latifah (Sony) 1.2 -8%

 14. Bethenny (WBDTD) 1.0 NC

 15. Arsenio (CTD) 0.7 NC

 15. The Test (CTD) 0.7 NC

 15. Trisha (NBCU) 0.7* +17%

 18. The Better Show (Meredith) 0.2 NC

 FRESHMEN TALKERS

 1. Queen Latifah (Sony) 1.2 -8%

 2. Bethenny (WBDTD) 1.0 NC

 3. Arsenio (CTD) 0.7 NC

 3. The Test (CTD) 0.7 NC

 COURT SHOWS

 1. Judge Judy (CTD) 8.6* +5%

 2. People’s Court (WBDTD) 2.1 NC

 3. Divorce Court (Twentieth) 1.8 -10%

 3. Judge Alex (Twentieth) 1.8 NC

 5. Judge Mathis (WBDTD) 1.7 -11%

 6. Paternity Court (Orion Television) 1.2 NC

 MAGAZINE SHOWS

 1. Entertainment Tonight (CTD) 4.1 NC

 2. Inside Edition (CTD) 3.5* +9%

 3. TMZ (WBDTD) 2.1 -5%

 3. Access Hollywood (NBCU) 2.1* +5%

 5. Extra (WBDTD) 1.8 NC

 6. The Insider (CTD) 1.5 -6%

 7. Right This Minute (MGM) 1.1 -15%

 7. Dish Nation (Twentieth) 1.1 +10%

 9. America Now (Trifecta) 0.4 -20%

 10. OK! TV (Trifecta) 0.3 +50%

 GAME SHOWS

 1. Wheel of Fortune (CTD) 7.6 -4%

 2. Jeopardy (CTD) 7.3 +1%

 3. Family Feud (Debmar-Mercury) 6.0 -5%

 4. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (Disney-ABC) 2.4 +9%

 OFF-NET SITCOMS

 1. Big Bang Theory (WBDTD) 7.0* +1%

 2. Modern Family (Twentieth) 5.2* +2%

 3. Two and a Half Men (WBDTD) 4.0 -2%

 4. Family Guy (Twentieth) 3.1 +3%

 5. How I Met Your Mother (Twentieth) 2.3 NC

 6. Friends (WBDTD) 1.9 -5%

 6. The Cleveland Show (Twentieth) 1.9 NC

 6. Seinfeld (Sony) 1.9 +6%

 9. Rules of Engagement (Sony) 1.7 NC ||||| •

 Forget about Girls, Homeland, New Girl, Scandal, and The Mindy Project. Television has had a strong female lead for decades: Her name is Judith Sheindlin.

 Judge Judy premiered in 1996, and just got renewed through 2017. The show dominates daytime television, even edging out Oprah in reruns. While most television shows fight to hang onto viewership, Judge Judy’s grows. President Obama, Anderson Cooper, and Katie Couric all want her audience, and most television actors would kill for her $47 million annual salary.

 Who makes up Sheindlin’s much-coveted daytime audience? Older women, African Americans, and Latinos. You might think Judge Judy is most popular with those who feel most disenfranchised by our legal system, but it’s hardly that simple. Part of the appeal is personal: her viewers’ loyalty is rivaled only by her own, and they know it. When a former bailiff who knew Sheindlin from her time as a family court judge in Manhattan wrote to congratulate her on the show, he quipped, “If you ever need a bailiff, I still look good in uniform.” She called as soon as she got the note, and he’s been by her onscreen side since. But Americans’ love of Judge Judy is more than personal: it’s symbolic.

 “Consider yourself having been reasonably humiliated in front of 10 million people. Now, without saying another word, turn around, and find the exit. Goodbye.”

 Sheindlin’s audience considers her a real-life kind of superhero: a no-nonsense, sassy arbiter of justice who punishes the guilty, scolds the swindlers, and defends the little guy. She does what we want the justice system to do for us. My grandmother delights in watching Judge Judy lay down the law once a day in a routine that pairs Sheindlin’s acerbic commentary with Splenda-sweetened vanilla ice cream. It isn’t just that the “judge” delivers snappy one-liners: it’s that she deals them out even-handedly. One cousin, a business professional, has a standing date to watch Judge Judy in the evening with her seven-year-old daughter. She tells me, “We like watching her figure out who’s telling the truth by asking a lot of seemingly unrelated questions.” I suspect her precocious daughter likes the idea that even adults can get in trouble.

 Judge Judy can be showy, but rarely gratuitously so, and she’s smart—and doesn’t let anyone forget it. In a given case, Judge Judy might paraphrase Mark Twain (“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good memory; if you lie, you’re always tripping over your own tie”) or offer a common-sense connection to her own life (“The toilet broke while she was using it—that doesn’t mean that she broke it, and it doesn’t mean that she’s responsible for it! Toilets break—I had one just break in my apartment last week!”). Most satisfyingly, she tells it like it is: “Consider yourself having been reasonably humiliated in front of 10 million people. Now, without saying another word, turn around, and find the exit. Goodbye.”

 Sheindlin’s persona is key to the show’s success, but so are the cases themselves. Judge Judy chooses cases that resonate with her audience. The most pervasive forms of injustice affecting Americans rarely get investigated, much less prosecuted, by the state; they’re “little” things: a dented car door, an unreturned security deposit, or an unfair asset split after a bad break-up. Citizens can usually only take action by bringing suit in small claims courts, navigating the complicated court system on their own. These courts hear lawsuits for claims that fall under a certain dollar amount that varies by state, from $10,000 in California to $5,000 in North Carolina; plaintiffs and defendants usually represent themselves.

 A small claims court’s decisions relate to daily life, more so than virtually any other court. For most of us, there’s nothing “small” about the types of problems that end up in such courts: $500 is a lot of money, never mind $5,000. These courts address commonplace questions of fairness: How can I be made whole again after someone has damaged my property or violated an agreement? When does a promise become legally binding? The answers these courts supply reflect upon our justice system writ large and the society behind it.

 Judge Judy employs 60 to 65 researchers to visit courthouses around the country, where, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, they can gain access to small claims filings. Promising candidates get sent back to the show’s producers, who assess their appeal. Some of their criteria are drama-based, like one producer’s affinity for disputes involving “prior relationships” (preferably “boyfriend-girlfriend, mother-daughter, father-son, father-brother, sister-sister”), but for the most part the show’s producers look for relatable cases: unfair billing practices, corrupt landlords, petty vandalism, unpaid child support, and family loan sharks. Selected participants sign a waiver to appear on the show, agreeing that Judge Judy’s decision is binding and they will not pursue the case elsewhere, and, in return, they receive a flat fee for making an appearance.

 That’s where the fun begins. Defendants are announced by Sheindlin’s trusty bailiff, then appear before her in a mock court room. Judge Judy asks a lot of questions, identifies factual disputes, and parses “the question of law,” as a law professor would call it, for all to hear. Viewers who will never read a court transcript or slog through the lines of a judicial opinion get to hear a real-time approximation of judicial reasoning.

 Many Judge Judy cases, even the most outrageous, speak to the everyday injustices suffered by most Americans. Who hasn’t had an unreasonable landlord they wished to have exposed and penalized? Who wouldn’t want to see an unruly neighbor with a penchant for scratching your car ordered to cover the repairs? By legitimating and rectifying the types of injustices that often make us feel helpless, Sheindlin reaffirms that justice is attainable. Because of shows like hers, we feel there is a way to seek fairness and accountability.

 Of course, not everyone adores Judge Judy. The American Bar Association published an essay calling what Judge Judy and her colleagues do “syndi-court justice” (PDF) and accusing them of exploiting arbitration. They worry she’ll corrupt potential jurors and distort the justice system. The argument that Judge Judy is a threat to the jury system seems to forget the First Amendment—and, more importantly, the several amendments that tell us our Founding Fathers trusted juries. As a favorite law school professor, Akhil Reed Amar, wrote, “No idea was more central … to America’s distinctive regime of government of the people, by the people, and for the people—than the idea of the jury.” But not only are such criticisms constitutionally questionable, they’re empirically unfounded—like the supposed “CSI Effect,” the since-debunked theory that jurors who watched crime dramas would expect “too much scientific evidence.” Then there’s the commonsense protest: there are no juries on Judge Judy. She simulates a bench trial, not a jury trial.

 Why do we love Judge Judy? Sheindlin hears and protects the reasonable American’s notion of accountability and justice. It doesn’t matter that she isn’t actually running a small claims court: she’s managing arbitration on the same issues. Judge Judy proves courts can right wrongs and guarantee future protections, perhaps the most basic foundation of an organized society. That means Judith Sheindlin plays a role in shaping and upholding our social contract. Witnessing successful legal proceedings, even in a simulated small claims setting, reassures citizens: offenders will be punished; victims will be compensated. Judge Judy might not be the most powerful judge in America, but she’s surely the most popular and the best paid—for good reason.

Summary: – The strongest female lead on television has been there for 19 years: Judith Sheindlin. Judge Judy earned its highest rating in 11 years to begin February sweeps, according to TVNewsCheck, and the show was recently renewed through 2017, with good reason. "Sheindlin hears and protects the reasonable American's notion of justice," Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza writes in Pacific Standard. Sheindlin is beloved especially by older women, African-Americans, and Latinos; it's tempting to think she's "most popular with those who feel most disenfranchised by our legal system." But it's more complicated than that. Viewers connect with Sheindlin personally, considering her "a real-life kind of superhero." The cases she handles—minor small-claims disputes—resonate with Americans' daily lives. "Who hasn't had an unreasonable landlord they wished to have exposed and penalized?" On Judge Judy, "viewers who will never read a court transcript … get to hear a real-time approximation of judicial reasoning" and come away believing that courts can right wrongs and protect us, "perhaps the most basic foundation of an organized society." Click for Buckwalter-Poza's full column.


FILE - In this Dec. 14, 2012 file photo, Alissa Parker, left, and her husband, Robbie Parker, leave the firehouse staging after receiving word that their six-year-old daughter Emilie was one of the 20... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this Dec. 14, 2012 file photo, Alissa Parker, left, and her husband, Robbie Parker, leave the firehouse staging after receiving word that their six-year-old daughter Emilie was one of the 20... (Associated Press)

 The parents of one of the 20 first-graders killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre met with the gunman's father for more than an hour in an effort to bring some closure to the tragedy, asking him about his son's mental health and other issues.

 Alissa Parker told "CBS This Morning" in an excerpt of an interview that aired Thursday the meeting with Adam Lanza's father, Peter Lanza, was her idea. Her 6-year-old daughter, Emilie, died in December's shooting rampage.

 "I felt strongly that I needed to tell him something, and I needed to get that out of my system," Alissa Parker said. "I felt very motivated to do it and then I felt really good about it and prayed about it. And it was something that I needed to do."

 It was unclear what they discussed or when the meeting took place. CBS plans to show the rest of the interview with Alissa and Robbie Parker on Friday morning, revealing more details about their meeting with Peter Lanza.

 No one answered the phone at the Parkers' home Thursday morning. A message seeking comment from Peter Lanza was left with a Lanza family spokesman.

 The Parkers told CBS they wanted to ask Peter Lanza about his son's medical history, his and his ex-wife's relationships with Adam Lanza and other issues.

 Robbie Parker was the first parent of a child killed at the school to speak publicly about the massacre. A day after the Dec. 14 killings, he fought back tears and struggled to catch his breath as he spoke lovingly of Emilie at a wrenching, lengthy news conference.

 "She was beautiful. She was blond. She was always smiling," he said, adding that the world was a better place because Emilie was in it. "I'm so blessed to be her dad."

 Adam Lanza, 20, shot 20 children and six educators to death at the school and killed himself as police arrived. He also fatally shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home before going to the school.

 Peter Lanza, who was divorced from Nancy Lanza, said in a statement after the killings that his family also was asking why Adam Lanza would go on a shooting spree.

 People close to the investigation have told The Associated Press that Adam Lanza showed interest in other mass killers. ||||| Newtown victim's parents talk about meeting killer Adam Lanza's father

 (CBS News) Vice President Biden and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg are expected to meet with the families of Newtown school shooting victims on Thursday, over three months after the massacre took place in Connecticut.

 Ahead of the meeting, CBS This Morning's Norah O'Donnell spoke with Robbie and Alissa Parker, the parents of six-year-old victim Emilie Parker.

 They revealed that they recently met with the father of gunman Adam Lanza as part of their search for understanding and grieving process.

 The meeting "was kind of my doing," Alissa Parker explained. "I guess the reason why I felt strongly that I needed to tell [Peter Lanza] something. And I needed to get that out of my system. I felt very motivated to do it and ... I felt really good about it, I prayed about it, and it was something that I needed to do.

 Robbie added their family has experienced "a little bit of everything," as they've dealt with the scope of the tragedy over the past three months.

 "You know, you went from the absolute worst experience that you could ever imagine to have to go through as a parent ... and being overwhelmed with that sense of grief and loss to, on the other end of the spectrum, you're being completely overwhelmed with outpouring of love and support from so many people and everything that kinda falls in between," he said.

 The Parkers addressed the recent news that Newtown investigators determined that Adam Lanza kept a spreadsheet methodically detailing the death toll of other mass shooters, types of weaponry, and plotted how he would add to the death tolls.

 "Any information ... that you gain in this experience is just that. It's information," Robbie said. "And then you have to choose how you're gonna handle it. And so for us, we've decided that what works best for us is you receive a bit of information, you process it, you feel the emotion that comes along with it, and then you have to let it go."

 Alissa added, "It's just like another piece to the puzzle. And it always brings with it a period of, you know, sorrow, pain, and you deal with it and you just move on. The outcome is still the same, regardless if it was planned, not planned. But it doesn't change anything. It doesn't change that our child's gone."

Summary: – Peter Lanza has remained out of the spotlight since news of the Newtown shooting broke, but one victim's family tells CBS that they have privately met with him. Robbie and Alissa Parker, parents to 6-year-old Emilie, spent more than an hour with Lanza; in CBS' Norah O'Donnell's words, they believe he "holds the keys" to understanding Adam Lanza's motivation. The AP notes that it's unclear when the meeting occurred or what was discussed, though O'Donnell says the couple wanted to ask Lanza about his son's medical history and his and Nancy's relationship with him. In a portion of an interview with the Parkers aired today, Alissa explains that the meeting "was kind of my doing. I guess the reason why I felt strongly that I needed to tell him something. And I needed to get that out of my system. I felt very motivated to do it and ... I felt really good about it, I prayed about it, and it was something that I needed to do." CBS will air part two tomorrow. Meanwhile, news broke this week that Adam Lanza kept a "score sheet."


Web wide crawl with initial seedlist and crawler configuration from March 2011. This uses the new HQ software for distributed crawling by Kenji Nagahashi.

 What’s in the data set:

 Crawl start date: 09 March, 2011

 Crawl end date: 23 December, 2011

 Number of captures: 2,713,676,341

 Number of unique URLs: 2,273,840,159

 Number of hosts: 29,032,069

 The seed list for this crawl was a list of Alexa’s top 1 million web sites, retrieved close to the crawl start date. We used Heritrix (3.1.1-SNAPSHOT) crawler software and respected robots.txt directives. The scope of the crawl was not limited except for a few manually excluded sites.

 However this was a somewhat experimental crawl for us, as we were using newly minted software to feed URLs to the crawlers, and we know there were some operational issues with it. For example, in many cases we may not have crawled all of the embedded and linked objects in a page since the URLs for these resources were added into queues that quickly grew bigger than the intended size of the crawl (and therefore we never got to them). We also included repeated crawls of some Argentinian government sites, so looking at results by country will be somewhat skewed.

 We have made many changes to how we do these wide crawls since this particular example, but we wanted to make the data available “warts and all” for people to experiment with. We have also done some further analysis of the content.

 If you would like access to this set of crawl data, please contact us at info at archive dot org and let us know who you are and what you’re hoping to do with it. We may not be able to say “yes” to all requests, since we’re just figuring out whether this is a good idea, but everyone will be considered. ||||| Jennifer Lopez is now in the enviable position of having people not care about her personal life. Lopez began as a dancer on In Living Color, became an actress, then a movie star, then a pop star, then a brand, then a tabloid fixture, first as half of Dilopez and then Bennifer, then a punchline and now as something of a has-been.

 The public overdosed on Lopez sometime around the 2003 release of Gigli so she is in the perfect position to reinvent herself as an actress instead of a global corporation the way her former beau Ben Affleck washed away the filth of tabloid infamy and established himself as a promising filmmaker with Gone Baby Gone and a gifted character actor with memorable supporting roles in Hollywoodland and Extract.

 Affleck is doing the best work of his often checkered and spotty career; Lopez was on Saturday Night Live last night pimping a terrible-looking romantic comedy pairing her with mega-star Alex O’ Laughlin and what appears to be yet another slick, forgettable pop album. Don’t call it a comeback cause it probably isn’t one.

 Lopez hasn’t captured the imagination of the public or the tabloids for a while so references to her personal life were refreshingly few and far between. Lopez’s opening monologue riffed on the gulf between the J. Lo of 2000 and the cut-rate recession version by having Kenan Thompson appear in the audience as a downsized former member of her entourage who had fallen upon hard times since his one skill in life— holding a glass of orange juice for a superstar—does not prove terribly useful outside life inside the hermetic world of an entourage.

 Like the rest of the show, it was both mildly amusing and utterly predictable. Saturday Night Live is all about going after the low-hanging fruit. Last night the venerable comic institution attacked all the most obvious satirical targets from all the most obvious angles. Hey, that “We Are The World” remake sure is pointless, huh? Saturday Night Live artfully satirized the pointlessness of this newfangled twist on a hoary old chestnut by having the “We Are The World” gang sing about the pointlessness of remaking a song that was pretty terrible in the first place.

 And how about that David Patterson? Is his administration going down in flames or what? And what about that curling? How fucking nutty is that? Is that even a sport? Doesn’t it seem more like some sort of strange performance art piece? And what’s the deal with Youtube? Isn’t it irritating when a friend insists you watch some inane homemade clip of George C. Scott getting hit in the nuts with a football, then it takes forever to get the damned thing to work? And what about those Telenovelas? Are those insane or what? Last and almost certainly least, how goofy is that Undercover Boss show?

 All of the above pop-culture ephemera got skewered last night in a manner that suggests no first ideas got rejected in the SNL writer’s room. Throw in a smattering of recurring characters doing their recurring character’s shtick—Kristin Wiig and Bill Hader getting all rubber-faced in shock and mock-horror as hosts of an Entertainment Tonight-like celebrity gossip show, Kenan Thompson crooning up a storm as a loverman who narrates the courtship of a painfully awkward would-be couple, the aforementioned Patterson as a hacky open mic insult comedian and a repeat visit from the round the way girl shilling for a line of perversely casual car horns—and you have an episode almost wholly devoid of originality.

 The funniest sketch was also, perhaps not coincidentally, the only one that bordered on original. It revolved around the band Smash Mouth appearing in a little girl’s room the minute her mother steps out and performing their late nineties hit “All Star”. I’ve been listening to an awful lot of Smash Mouth as of late for my That’s What They Called Music THEN! project and then also because I love the music of the band Smash Mouth so I was a little biased but I liked the idea of a song that was so ubiquitous (during J.Lo’s heyday, incidentally) at one point reappearing in such a bizarre context and the notion of Smash Mouth as magical musical elves.

 The sketch got all the details right—the soul patches, someone mistaking Smash Mouth for Third Eye Blind, the little girl using “All Star” on her soccer video—and had a nice ending where Lopez, as the mother, reminds the little girl of all the positive associations she has with “All Star”.

 A commenter has pointed out that almost all of Fred Armisen’s recurring characters are bad comedians. That’s true but I’m a sucker for his Patterson all the same and “Weekend Update” was pretty sharp tonight. I especially liked the line about Gatorade dropping Tiger Woods as spokesman because his thirst can never be quenched. I was less enamored of the Bobby Moynihan Youtube bit, which was about five years too late and five times too hacky.

 Otherwise tonight’s episode was very much adequate. It was an episode of creamy middles; there was nothing too brilliant and nothing too egregiously awful, just a bunch of affable mediocrity. Lopez proved a game host and a predictably forgettable musical guest. She really threw herself into playing a woman whose attractiveness is severely compromised by her unfortunate predilection for ventriloquism and seemed right at home in the doorbell sketch.

 Episodes like last night sometimes make me feel like reviewing Saturday Night Live on a weekly basis is a pointless endeavor (almost as pointless as that "We Are The World" remake and living in New Jersey, am I right people?) At this point in the season, the show is on autopilot. I don’t know whether that’s a matter of finding a comfortable groove or falling into a rut. It’s not great. It’s not terrible. It just is. ||||| I think we can safely say that nobody really had high expectations for the Jennifer Lopez-hosted episode of SNL last night, which was good, because the show was a bit of a clunker. Still, there were a few highlights:

 The show opened with a parody of the "We Are The World" remake, which gave the cast an opportunity to do their most ridiculous celebrity impressions. Kristen Wiig's Gwen Stefani was particularly impressive:

 Though the cold open was pretty funny (and, mercifully, a break from the drag-on-forever political openings that have been dominating this season), most of the commenters in our live thread felt it was already pretty dated, what with the Olympics dominating most of the news coverage over the past two weeks of the show's hiatus. The show did cover the Olympics later, however, but we'll get to that in a second. For now, let's talk about J-Lo.

 Her monologue was painful, and set up the tone of the rest of the show: whenever she appeared, things got awkward and strained and decidedly unfunny. She spent half of the show playing herself, and the other half playing a Latina stereotype, which seemed to be the only thing the writers knew what to do with her. Her appearance on the show—bizarro Hallmark lyric songs included—was a very obvious attempt at rebranding herself as a down-to-earth, un-diva-like sweetheart, but it just came across as weird and overly acted. It was almost as if she was sitting down with the cast of The View as opposed to performing on a sketch comedy show:

 One of the highlights of the show came quite early though: a digital short called "Flags of the World," starring Andy Samberg and Abby Elliott and a cast of wacky flags, including the "Neo-Nazi Potsie Flag." The difference in tone between the digital shorts and the rest of the show gets more and more noticeable each week, and one wonders why Lorne Michaels just doesn't give The Lonely Island its own show ala The Kids in the Hall (though I guess the obvious answer is that SNL would be in even more trouble without them):

 Also, in case you missed it, there were two noticeable shout outs during that flag sketch—one to Betty White, who is currently being supported by a Facebook campaign to host the show:

 Advertisement

 And one to John Mayer, who represented the "jags" of the world on the "Jag Flag." Ouch!

 Lopez's main skits were all focused around stereotypes; she appeared in this Telemundo Olympics sketch (where her accent was worse than Fred Armisen's, btw):

 She was also in a telenovela sketch that is apparently not working on either NBC.com or Hulu right now, so I'll keep you posted.

 And she also showed up to help Jenny Slate promote car horns in a return of Slate's "doorbell" character:

 Weirdly enough, the most shocking parts of the evening were Lopez' musical performances, where she sang what sounded like country songs discarded by Faith Hill and hit about 50% of the notes. The songs haven't been released by NBC or Hulu yet, so either there's a licensing issue or Lopez doesn't want the fairly terrible singing available to the good people of the internet. The best sketch of the evening, wherein a young girl is being haunted by the band Smashmouth (it's kind of hard to explain) isn't available either, and music licenses are probably to blame, as Smashmouth's "All-Star" was a centerpiece of the skit.

 Overall, it was a pretty craptacular show. You almost felt bad for Lopez, who was clearly there to kickstart her slumping career and, instead, most likely succeeded in killing any chance she had to revive her musical career and didn't do much in the way of proving her comedic talents, either. Of course, the material wasn't great either: it would have been nice if the show had focused on something other than stereotypes and had Lopez do something that didn't involve Telemundo and telenovelas, but maybe that's all she gave the writers room to work with.

 Sponsored

 In true SNL fashion, however, I expect this dud of a show to be followed by a great one next week. How could it not be, with Zach Galifianakis hosting?

Summary: – The Jennifer Lopez image-rehab train pulled into Saturday Night Live station last night, to mixed reviews. "Her appearance on the show—bizarro Hallmark lyric songs included—was a very obvious attempt at rebranding herself as a down-to-earth, un-diva-like sweetheart, but it just came across as weird and overly acted," Hortense writes for Jezebel. Although there were some high points, "overall, it was a pretty craptacular show." Ken Tucker couldn't disagree more. "Lopez came with the right SNL attitude: Ready to poke fun at herself and to engage enthusiastically with anything the show offered her," he writes for Entertainment Weekly. "Fortunately, much of her material was good stuff." Lopez was "a game host and a predictably forgettable musical guest," writes Nathan Rabin of the Onion A.V. Club. Rabin blames the writing staff for a "mildly amusing and utterly predictable" effort: "There was nothing too brilliant and nothing too egregiously awful, just a bunch of affable mediocrity."


Image copyright AP Image caption Breivik says his prison conditions have forced him to drop out of a University of Oslo political science course

 Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has threatened to starve himself to death in protest at his treatment in prison, according to media reports.

 Breivik claims to have been kept in isolation since 2 September, with time outside his cell limited to an hour a day.

 Breivik killed 77 people in 2011 when he bombed central Oslo before going on a shooting spree at a youth camp.

 He was sentenced to 21 years in 2012.

 His claims about deteriorating prison conditions were made in a letter to media outlets in Norway and Sweden.

 'Studying impossible'

 In his letter, Breivik, 36, says harsh prison conditions have forced him to drop out of a political science course at the University of Oslo.

 "Studying and corresponding is not humanly possible under such circumstances, and this applies to anyone who is isolated under such conditions," he wrote according to English news site The Local.

 Breivik said that if conditions remained unchanged he would continue the hunger strike until he died, Norwegian media reported.

 No one at Skien prison, where Breivik is held, is currently on hunger strike, prison director Ole Kristoffer Borhaug told the BBC.

 He declined to comment on the conditions of individual prisoners.

 Norwegian Justice Minister Anders Anundsen also declined to comment on Breivik's claims, according to the Dagbladet newspaper.

 The University of Oslo admitted Breivik as a full student in July, explaining that inmates had a right to higher education if they won entry to courses.

 Breivik has previously complained of "inhumane" prison conditions, including that his coffee was being served cold. ||||| Video

 Image Shot survivor wrote in blood 2:43 Norway massacre survivors, including a shot man who wrote in his own blood, speak at the trial of Anders Breivik.

 Rohan Smith news.com.au

 HE’S been jailed for just 21 years for slaughtering 77 people, but Anders Behring Breivik’s list of jailhouse complaints is long.

 Since committing Norway’s worst ever massacre in 2011, the 36-year-old gunman has whined to prison authorities about being unable to finish his university studies, being denied access to “a wider selection of activities” and — incredibly — only being allowed to play children’s video games in his cell. Threatening a hunger strike in a written list of 12 demands, Breivik wants a PlayStation 3 console and a comfortable sofa to sit on while playing it.

 He’s also demanded the doubling of his weekly prison allowance to $65, citing “exemplary” behaviour.

 “Other inmates have access to adult games while I only have the right to play less interesting kids games. One example is Rayman Revolution, a game aimed at three year olds,” the mass killer moans in letters obtained by the media.

 “You’ve put me in hell ... and I won’t manage to survive that long.”

 Breivik’s childish tantrum might seem like a joke, but Emma Martinovic, 22, who survived his July 2011 massacre, isn’t laughing.

 As Breivik stalked Utoya with a semiautomatic rifle and a twisted sense of justice, Ms Martinovic, then 18, was at the Norwegian island’s summer camp with friends.

 She received a text message from friends warning a gunman was nearby when she stripped off her clothes and jumped into the freezing water to escape.

 Around her, friends swam for their lives as they were picked off one-by-one. Ms Martinovic was shot, the bullet piercing her left arm.

 She remembers “the laughter of the bastard as he shot” and his taunts from shore: “You won’t get away,” he told her.

 Speaking to news.com.au, Ms Martinovic said she had a message for the man who tried to kill her: “You don’t know what it means to have a hard time. Shut the f*** up and take your punishment.”

 A MASS MURDERER’S DEMANDS NOT MET

 Breivik planted a bomb in Oslo before travelling to the tiny island where a Norwegian Labour Party-run youth summer camp was underway.

 The car bomb made partly with fertiliser was left outside the office of then-Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. It killed eight people and injured more than 200.

 On Utoya, dressed in a homemade police uniform, Breivik aimed to leave no survivors. He killed 69 people and injured 110 more.

 It was a massacre on a scale Norway had never seen.

 Breivik was arrested on Utoya and faced trial in April 2012. The self-styled extremist with a crusade against Islam and multiculturalism admitted his crimes but argued they were “necessary”.

 He was found to be of sane mind and sentenced to just 21 years in prison. He smiled when Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen read the ruling.

 His sentence is the maximum allowed in Norway but it will likely be reviewed and extended.

 From a single cell where he is isolated 23 hours a day, Breivik is free to write. He has started a political science course at the University of Oslo. But he says conditions are deteriorating.

 In a letter obtained by Norwegian and Swedish media, Breivik said his tiny cell was too small for him to work.

 He complained about being given less time with prison staff and only communicating through a hole in the door.

 “Studying and corresponding is not humanly possible under such circumstances, and this applies to anyone who is isolated under such conditions,” he wrote in the letter.

 “Unless the (situation) is reversed, I will eventually continue the hunger strike until death. I cannot stand any more.”

 Breivik demanded a couch to sit on, a weekly allowance and said he wanted his typewriter to be upgraded to a PC.

 His victims say he deserves exactly what he’s got.

 ‘I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR HIM’

 In her blog in 2011, Ms Martinovic wrote about her ordeal.

 When chaos broke out and Breivik started shooting, she and three others were on the opposite side of the island. First she hid, then she fled, but not before stumbling upon the body of her friend at the water’s edge.

 “I dragged the boy’s body back to land and when I pulled back his jacket hood I saw it was a friend of mine, and I saw the wound to his head. There was no time to react. I kissed him on the cheek and returned to my rock face,” she wrote.

 She decided the only way to survive way to swim for her life.

 “It was cold, I felt the chill in my bones, but focused on keeping my head above water. Behind me some of the others were starting to panic, so I shouted to them: ‘Keep your head above water, get away from land.”

 It wasn’t long before Breivik spotted those trying to flee. She kept swimming.

 “It looked as if he was aiming at us. One of the other swimmers was shot, I saw the blood stream out, so I started to swim even faster. Then I turned on my back again and saw he was aiming at those who still hadn’t started swimming from land yet.

 “I saw one of my friends about to leap into the water, but in a second he was shot. Even at a distance I could see and hear the two shots, straight to the head.

 “Panic spread like wildfire among those on land. I wanted to be among them, urging them to get away, by land or water.”

 She escaped, but not without a very close call.

 “I looked down at my left arm, there was blood pouring from it,” she said.

 “I tried to shut it out, focus on swimming. Behind us we could still hear shooting, the screams, the laughter of the bastard as he shot, and his shout to us: “You won’t get away!”

 “I have so many questions. Why? What was he thinking? All these questions which will never be answered.”

 Ms Martinovic today told news.com.au she was still haunted by what she experienced that day.

 “It has it’s ups and downs but I can’t give up and let him win,” she said.

 “I just have to keep learning how to handle these hard days and take care of the good days that come.

 “It’s hard but I am working on it. The nights are often the worst but I hope that some day everything gets a little easier. My psychologist says: ‘You don’t move on, you just learn to live with it’ and that’s a very good point I think.”

 For Anders Behring Breivik, she has absolutely no sympathy, no matter how many letters he writes or how he describes his suffering.

 “I really don’t. I try to think that every person is a human and needs to be handled with respect but with him I think it’s very hard. I have no sympathy for him and that’s because he has taken so many people from me and because he has made my life so hard.

 “Shut the f*** up and take you’re punishment as the coward you are. You killed so many people and acted (like) God for some hours and now you are complaining that you are having a hard time in jail when you don’t even know what it means to have a hard time. Loser.” ||||| Norway killer Anders Breivik makes a fascist salute as he enters the courtroom during his trial in 2012. Photo: Håkon Mosvold Larsen/Scanpix

 Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik has threatened to go on hunger strike until he dies of starvation in protest at what he claims has been a dramatic worsening of his prison conditions.

 In an open letter sent a Norwegian and Swedish media, Breivik complained that since the second of September, he had been confined in isolation in a single cell, which he was only allowed to leave for one hour a day.

 He also complained that he was being given less time with prison staff, and that communication was now limited to a small gap in the door.

 "Unless the 02/09/15 escalation [sic] is reversed, I will eventually continue the hunger strike until death. I can not stand any more," he wrote.

 Breivik is currently serving a 21-year jail sentence at Skien prison for a brutal twin terror attack in 2011, in which he detonated a bomb in the government quarters in Oslo, killing eight people, and then opened fire at a political youth camp, killing 69 more.

 In his letter he complained that his conditions meant he could no longer study his political science course at University of Oslo.

 "Studying and corresponding is not humanly possible under such circumstances, and this applies to anyone who is isolated under such conditions," he wrote in the letter.

 "The decision about the drastic deterioration of prison conditions forced me to drop out of my studies, which in turn means that I will lose my place at the University. The studies, which were made possible for only thirteen full days before the Minister of Justice put an end to them, were the only thing I had."

 Breivik's lawyer Øystein Storrvik, who is suing the Norwegian state for human rights violations on behalf of his client, confirms that Breivik's prison conditions have deteriorated.

 "I can confirm that there is less of the little that was," told Norway's Dagbladet. "Total isolation from other people has been maintained, while his movements are confined to a smaller space. He also has less time with officers."

 Storvik also confirms that Breivik is preparing to go on hunger strike.

 "He writes that he is going on hunger strike until death. He writes that he can not bear anymore."

Summary: – Anders Breivik, the Norwegian extremist serving a 21-year sentence for massacring 77 people, is complaining once again about getting a raw deal. He says he'll continue a hunger strike "until death" to protest a "drastic deterioration of prison conditions" since early September, the Local reports. The 36-year-old says he is being kept in isolation in a cell that he's allowed to leave for only an hour a day, and that he's been given less time with prison staff. He complains that he has had to drop out of his University of Oslo political science course because "studying and corresponding is not humanly possible under such circumstances." The prison director tells the BBC that he won't comment on individual prisoners but that nobody at the institution is currently on a hunger strike. Breivik has had plenty of complaints about prison in the past, including about the cold coffee and "sadistic" limitations on what kind of pen he can use. Last year he threatened a hunger strike unless his PS2 was upgraded to a PS3. Emma Martinovic, who saw her friends killed and swam for her life as Breivik slaughtered dozens of people at a youth summer camp, isn't overflowing with sympathy for him. She was shot in the arm and tells news.com.au that Breivik laughed and taunted her from the shore. She says she has a message for him: "You don't know what it means to have a hard time. Shut the f--- up and take your punishment."