Datasets:

SumitDhakad

/

news_headline_generation_data

like 0

<s>[INST] WASHINGTON — When former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. learned he would be sitting down for an interview with Gwen Ifill, he prematurely breathed a sigh of relief, thinking about the woman he had befriended through house parties and family barbecues. “She wasn’t Gwen the national figure, but Gwen the sistah, ” he said. “The sistah with fascinating stories, with funny jokes and juicy observations better known as gossip. ” The two had bonded over their shared connection to Barbados and took to calling each other “cuz,” imagining they might be distant cousins through ancestors on the Caribbean island. But moments into their interview, Mr. Holder, still early in his tenure as attorney general, realized that the woman from the weekends had “transformed. ” “My dear Gwen, unexpectedly to me, went from ‘cuz’ to newsperson,” Mr. Holder said. “She was fair but she was piercing, serious but unfailingly nice, smiling the whole time as she forced me out of my prescribed talking points. ” Mr. Holder told his story and read a letter from President Obama in front of thousands of mourners who gathered for nearly three hours Saturday for Ms. Ifill’s funeral, which was held at Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, a former haven to runaway enslaved people where Ms. Ifill had worshiped since 1989. Ms. Ifill died on Monday from complications of uterine cancer. She was 61. On Saturday, some wept as they studied the long wooden pew in the seventh row in the center of the church where Ms. Ifill and her friends regularly sat, and where, after her death, the church placed a plaque with Ms. Ifill’s name. (The church has placed plaques on other pews for figures like Frederick Douglass.) The funeral became a reunion of Ms. Ifill’s large family and a gathering of luminaries. Michelle Obama, the first lady Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama and Donna Brazile, the interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman, sat alongside a number of prominent journalists, including Dorothy Gilliam, Chuck Todd, Roland Martin and Charlayne . While many stood to speak about Ms. Ifill’s life, recordings of her own interviews and speeches that she gave were sprinkled throughout the service. Ms. Ifill was born on Sept. 29, 1955, in Jamaica, Queens. Her father was an A. M. E. minister and her family was deeply religious, as well as committed to watching the news to keep up with current affairs. She graduated in 1977 with a bachelor of arts degree from Simmons College in Boston, where she majored in communications. Her first job as a professional journalist was with The Boston . In between that job and her final one with PBS, Ms. Ifill worked for The Baltimore Evening Sun, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, where she was a White House correspondent and covered Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. Her career in television began in 1994, when Tim Russert recruited her to cover Capitol Hill for NBC. She joined PBS in 1999. Her highest visibility came as the moderator and managing editor of the public affairs program “Washington Week” on PBS, where she was also and editor, with Judy Woodruff, of “NewsHour. ” They were the first team to anchor such a program. Under the church’s large stained glass windows, generations of people hugged, wept and shared their sadness about Ms. Ifill’s death. Many lamented that her voice would be especially missed as the nation prepared for Donald J. Trump to take office. The funeral began in silence as images of Ms. Ifill were projected onto the wall. A recording of Mr. Obama calling her an “extraordinary journalist” boomed throughout the church. Soon after, it was Ms. Ifill’s voice that filled the room, saying, “You can be the person who turns toward, not away from, the chance to rise above the fray. ” In another recording that was played later, Ms. Ifill said, “It’s important to be reminded how easily we can be denied simple, obvious opportunity, how low the ceilings can get and how much fortitude it takes to refuse to accept the limits that others place on you. ” Audio also played of PBS viewers, who thanked Ms. Ifill for explaining the world to them every night and expressed sorrow that she would no longer help the nation grapple with political changes. Transfixed in the moment, most of the mourners stayed silent as latecomers shuffled into squeaky pews and the choir members, dressed in purple and gold robes, began to sing “Now Thank We All Our God. ” Several of Ms. Ifill’s friends read from Scripture and spoke of her ability to connect with family and friends and to mentor young journalists. Athelia Knight, a former reporter for The Washington Post and a close friend who frequently sat next to Ms. Ifill at church, read from 1 Corinthians: “Death has been swallowed up in victory. ” Puncturing the sadness, Ms. Ifill’s voice was played again. This time, she joked about the satire that followed when she moderated debates. “And along the way, I have to say, there were some perks. I was played by Queen Latifah twice on ‘Saturday Night Live. ’” Yet the void left by Ms. Ifill’s death radiated through the morning. The sorrow seemed to reach its peak as her cousin Darlene sang “It Is Well With My Soul,” belting out the hymn as many raised their hands and cried. Ms. Ifill’s Ms. Woodruff, said in her reflections that the two had grown extremely close as they planned their program. “We didn’t look like other anchor pairs, and we loved that,” she said to loud applause, before adding that her heart was broken. Ms. Woodruff also said she could only imagine what Ms. Ifill might be doing in the afterlife. “A friend wrote, what a glorious scene is it to picture Gwen and Tim today, up in heaven, grilling James Madison and Alexander Hamilton about the Electoral College,” she said, referring to Mr. Russert, who died of a heart attack in 2008. Michele Norris, a friend and fellow journalist, said that she and Ms. Ifill were part of a circle of women who became as close as family and who supported one another through both struggles and successes. “Her ability to be a friend was epic,” Ms. Norris said, saying Ms. Ifill had nudged her at a party to talk to the man who later became her husband. Sherrilyn Ifill, Ms. Ifill’s cousin and the president and of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, shared memories of playing dominoes and Scrabble together and of spending Thanksgiving with families deeply interested in politics and justice. She pointed out that both her parents and Ms. Ifill’s had immigrated to the United States from Barbados. “At this particular moment in our country, I do want to note that Gwen represented the most American of success stories,” she said. [/INST] Thousands of Mourners Celebrate Gwen Ifill’s Tenacity and Grace - The New York Times </s>

<s>[INST] When it comes to travel, Internet access has never been more ubiquitous — or more underwhelming. Don’t take my word for it. Just ask Wendy Lewis, who says she spends a good part of every trip trying — and sometimes failing — to find reliable and reasonably priced hotspots. Airport lounges make connecting a cinch, she says. But the moment she boards a bus, plane or train, it’s a headache, with slow speeds, high bills and frequent outages. “It’s always a challenge for me and a point of tremendous frustration,” says Lewis, a beauty consultant from New York. That’s a common sentiment. The release of a study on airport WiFi earlier this year and a move by JetBlue to include wireless service in its fares has sparked a broader conversation among travelers about connectivity and what they should expect in the future. Short answer: faster connections, same frustrations. But don’t worry, there are workarounds. The research, published by Speedtest by Ookla, an Internet testing and metrics company, examined the 20 American airports with the most passenger boardings. It reviewed the results of Speedtest data for the four largest cellular carriers as well as WiFi at each location, and found that Denver, Philadelphia and Seattle offered the fastest wireless connection speeds. The slowest: Atlanta, Orlando and San Francisco. [American and United unveil a new category. Is it worth the sacrifices?] Earlier this year, JetBlue Airways said it would begin to include the cost of wireless connections in its fares, effectively offering a fast WiFi connection to every passenger without extra cost. In doing so, JetBlue became the first major U. S. air carrier to give every passenger a wireless connection, and possibly has paved the way for wireless Internet connections to be included in the cost of other airline tickets. In a related development, American Airlines announced in January that its new Boeing 737 Max aircraft, scheduled to be delivered later this year, would not have entertainment systems, noting that most of their passengers bring their own devices. That’s bound to boost appetites for onboard WiFi. “Connectivity is as essential as the air we breathe,” says Dawn Callahan, the chief marketing officer at Boingo Wireless, which offers cellular and WiFi connectivity to travelers. She says demand for its product has increased twentyfold in just five years, thanks to travelers’ voracious appetite for fast wireless connections. The majority of business travelers carry three devices — usually a phone, a tablet and a laptop computer. Adds Callahan, “We’ve never seen more WiFi usage than we do today. ” The numbers back up that assertion. A Research+Data Insights study commissioned by Red Roof Inn found that 7 in 10 travelers say that fast, accessible WiFi is more important than a hotel’s location, parking facilities and even free breakfast. Where do travelers want to connect? Almost everywhere. A survey by Xirrus, a provider of WiFi, found that 83 percent of users connect at hotels, 72 percent log on at cafes and 64 percent use airport hotspots. “WiFi is no longer a luxury,” says Gary Griffiths, chief executive of wireless connectivity company iPass, “but an expectation. ” And that’s the problem. Everyone wants to be online, and wireless providers are having trouble keeping up with demand. A Cisco study predicts that by 2020, the number of wireless hotspots worldwide will rise to 432 million, a sixfold increase. [Whose armrest is it, anyway? The unspoken etiquette of airline, bus and train travel.] Consider the experience of frequent business travelers such as Andy Abramson, a Los Angeles communications consultant who practically lives on the road. Airports know that they must offer WiFi, “but with more people carrying more devices, the networks often are overloaded and not really useful for much more than Web browsing and email,” he says. “Streaming eats up a lot of bandwidth, and most airport networks just can’t handle that many people listening or watching streamed content. ” Abramson prefers heading to one of the airport lounges, which offer their own networks to members — at a price. Failing that, he logs on with his Boingo subscription account, which offers a speedier connection than Boingo’s free WiFi offering. (Boingo charges $9. 95 a month for Abramson’s unlimited premium plan.) Alex Gizis, the of Speedify, a company that develops apps that optimize your Internet for speed and security, says that we have reached a tipping point in travel. Both demand and frustration are so high that people are giving up in their attempts to connect. “More people are hitting hotspots that don’t work,” he says. “That’s so frustrating that people actually just give up on WiFi. ” The travel industry is trying to keep up with demand. For example, hotels are moving toward speedier 5 GHz hotspots, an upgrade from the industry standard, a 2. 4 GHz wireless access point. But, says Matthew FitzGerald, a systems engineering manager for Ruckus Wireless, a manufacturer of wireless networking equipment, the upgrade has been a challenge. “Not everyone has made these changes, and some have done them incorrectly,” he says. At the rate they’re going, it’s unlikely that they ever will meet the demand by customers in an society. “I live and die by WiFi,” explains Alexandra Mandel of Ambler, Pa. a manager for a company that organizes executive retreats. In fact, she can’t plan a conference without guaranteeing that the participants will have access to reliable wireless connections. [The best travel regulations you’ve never heard of] And yet, she regularly finds herself on planes without a connection or at hotels where the only wireless access point can be found in the lobby — or for a steep price. The planes are the greatest mystery to her. “It’s 2017,” Mandel says. “Why don’t we have WiFi on all planes?” The fixes are inelegant, at best. Travelers can subscribe to a service such as Boingo or carry their own wireless hotspot from a cellular provider. (The Ookla survey also rates those; Detroit, San Francisco and Minneapolis are the fastest.) Or they can take their chances with the strained networks at their airport or hotel, or aboard their aircraft. Down the road, it’s up to the industry to develop better standards that offer faster connection speeds, perhaps with the encouragement of travelers and legislators who are embarrassed by the fact that many other countries offer better connection options than the United States. Kevin Robinson, the vice president of marketing for industry trade group Alliance, says that in the short term, new technology may ease some of the pain. “In 2017, travelers will benefit from more seamless and secure access to WiFi networks, resulting in a better overall experience with WiFi while traveling,” he says. Many hotels and airports are deploying a new standard called Certified Passpoint networks, which allows users to skip the lengthy authenticating process for each new WiFi network. Instead, you just log in once. If only getting connected were always that easy. Elliott is a consumer advocate, journalist and of the advocacy group Travelers United. Email him at chris@elliott. org. Read more from Travel: How to get an airline to compensate you — even when it doesn’t have to Before you use a compensation company, take a minute to think twice Read past Navigator columns here [/INST] Every traveler’s eternal question: ‘It’s 2017, why don’t we have WiFi on all planes?’ </s>

<s>[INST] For the second consecutive year, Japanese whalers have returned to port after an Antarctic expedition with the carcasses of 333 whales. The fleet, put forth by the country’s Fisheries Agency, killed the minke whales during a voyage to southern waters for what it calls ecological research. The agency released a statement describing the mission as ”research for the purpose of studying the ecological system in the Antarctic Sea,” according to Agence . The Associated Press reports that Fisheries Agency official Shigeto Hase lauded a successful expedition in Shimonoseki, the home port for Nisshin Maru, mother ship of the Japanese fleet. ”It was great that we have achieved our plan,” Hase told those gathered for a welcome ceremony, including the city’s mayor and about 200 local people, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. notes. ”We will steadily continue our research toward a resumption of commercial whaling.” It is not by chance that the word ”research” served as the centerpiece of both statements. Under the rules of the International Whaling Commission, of which Japan is a member, there has been an international ban on commercial whaling since 1986 — though there is an exception for whaling conducted with ecological research in mind. It is this exception that allows Japan’s whaling fleet to embark on its yearly hunt in the icy waters of Antarctica. Yet many critics view this use of the exception as a fig leaf, exploited by Japan’s Fisheries Agency to cover for the practice of reportedly selling whale meat commercially. In fact, as NPR’s Bill Chappell reported in 2014, the International Court of Justice ruled that the whaling program — which has been going on since 2005 and killed thousands of minke whales, according to the ICJ — has generated only limited scientific output. Not enough, in other words, to justify the program. Despite the ruling, and opposition from neighbors such as Australia, Japan refrained for just one year from killing whales on its annual expedition before returning to the practice under a document submitted to the ICW, which laid out the scope and techniques of its resumed program. Still, the ABC reports that the exception that has allowed for Japan’s whaling expeditions might soon see further restrictions: ”Japan will have to submit its proposed catch to a scientific working group within the IWC. ”The commission will ask for further justification about why the scientific program needs to kill the whales to study them.” For conservationists such as Humane Society International Executive Vice President Kitty Block, this change is not enough. ”It is an obscene cruelty in the name of science that must end,” she said in a statement, according to the AP. [/INST] Japan’s Annual Antarctic Expedition Returns With 333 Whale Carcasses </s>

<s>[INST] ’ Dans un texto dévoilé par Mediapart, Rachida Dati accuse l’ancien ministre sarkozyste de plusieurs faits graves, et le menace de tout révéler s’il ne lui «fout pas la paix». On a décrypté ce texto daté de 2013, et voilà le résultat:’] History is littered with hundreds of conflicts over the future of a community, group, location or business that were ”resolved” when one of the parties stepped ahead and destroyed what was there. With the original point of contention destroyed, the debates would fall to the wayside. Archive Team believes that by duplicated condemned data, the conversation and debate can continue, as well as the richness and insight gained by keeping the materials. Our projects have ranged in size from a single volunteer downloading the data to a site, to over 100 volunteers stepping forward to acquire terabytes of data to save for future generations. To use ArchiveBot, drop by #archivebot on EFNet. To interact with ArchiveBot, you issue commands by typing it into the channel. Note you will need channel operator permissions in order to issue archiving jobs. The dashboard shows the sites being downloaded currently. There is a dashboard running for the archivebot process at ”https: . ”>https: . . Contacté par BuzzFeed News, Brice Hortefeux n’a pas souhaité donner plus de détails sur la teneur de ce SMS envoyé par Rachida Dati, estimant que ses relations avec l’ des sceaux s’étaient depuis «pacifiées». Il nous a répondu par texto. [/INST] Ce que le texto de Rachida Dati pourrait coûter à Brice Hortefeux </s>

<s>[INST] , I want to receive updates from partners and sponsors. The man who went from being described as a “pest” to “the most dangerous man in Iraq” is back — though Moqtada and his supporters are likely to say he never went anywhere in the first place. The Shiite cleric’s supporters stormed Baghdad’s supposedly secure Green Zone on Saturday and took over Parliament, demanding improved public services and an end to corruption. They left Sunday, on Sadr’s orders, after ISIS attacked an Iraqi city. Their departure avoided further destabilizing the predominantly Shia government of Prime Minister Haider but the protests not only raised questions about whether the government can stand, it also showed that Iraq’s turmoil has sources beyond sectarian divisions. The roots of Iraq’s current parliamentary crisis lie in the quota system set up in 2003, after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, which guarantees some minimal level of representation to each major faction. The idea was such a system would prevent any one of Iraq’s various ethnic factions from dominating the others. Iraq is majority Shia, but has a significant Sunni minority, as well as a large number of Kurds and others. Under Saddam, the Sunnis dominated government and many Shiites and others complained of discrimination. The new system was designed to curb such divisions, but, as Ibrahim an assistant professor at California State University, San Marcos, wrote on Al Jazeera, “the quota system … empowers politicians based solely on their background. ” What that system fostered is chronic corruption. Indeed, the country is ranked 161 out of 168 in Transparency International’s admittedly flawed corruption index even as it wrestles with ethnic and sectarian divisions, as well as a challenge from the Islamic State. Low oil prices have not helped. Revenues from the sector were supposed to rebuild Iraq after years of war that followed international sanctions imposed during Saddam’s rule, but now, with oil prices near multiyear lows, salaries have gone unpaid and Iraq’s problems seem magnified. Emma Sky, a former civilian adviser to the U. S. military in Iraq, wrote in Politico: “The greatest threat to Iraq thus comes not from the Islamic State but from broken politics, catastrophic corruption, and mismanagement. ” It is these circumstances that have resulted in massive protests and calls from Sadr for more, and presumably more honest, technocrats in Iraq’s government. The role of campaigner is a relatively new one for Sadr, the son of a revered Shiite cleric. The younger Sadr built his reputation in the years following the U. S. invasion of Iraq as an firebrand. His powerful Mahdi Army, which fought the Americans and the Sunnis, disbanded in 2008, has given way to the Peace Companies, militias that are engaged in the fight against ISIS. Sadr’s political bloc won 34 parliamentary seats out of 328 in the most recent elections, and is part of the ruling coalition. The cleric has positioned himself as less of a sectarian leader than as an campaigner. It is in this role that he demanded that Adabi, the U. S. prime minister, name a Cabinet of technocrats, a move that, in effect, would have imperiled the quota system upon which the Iraqi political establishment is built. In theory, the technocrats could lead to better governance and less corruption, but in practice what they will most certainly do is diminish the influence of the various parties, especially the Shia ones. Still, Abadi, who like Sadr is Shiite, agreed with the demands. He named several Iraqis to his Cabinet, only to see the Parliament reject the names. In response, Sadr’s supporters first began protests and then stormed the Green Zone, once impregnable, to take control of Parliament. There, they shouted slogans — “you are all thieves” — as well as chants against Iran. They left Sunday, but vowed to return if their demands were not met. Although it’s tempting to be sympathetic to Sadr’s demands — after all, who doesn’t want clean government? — the issue is made more complicated by the role of Iran, Iraq’s neighbor that is keen on maintaining Shiite dominance in Iraq. Iran supports the idea of Shiite unity in Iraq, so long as it enhances Iran’s own influence in the country. Sadr, however, portrays himself as an independent Iraqi Shia nationalist. “Ultimately the deadlock has benefited Sadr’s political standing,” Marashi wrote on Al Jazeera. “By fomenting a protest movement and delivering an ultimatum to Abadi, Sadr has successfully pitted his two Shia political rivals, the Dawa Party of the prime minister, and the politicians of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) in parliament, against each other, undermining Iran’s overarching goal of maintaining a unified Shia alliance in Iraq. ” Abadi’s political future appears secure for now, a fact that is possibly a relief for the U. S. which orchestrated his ascent to the premiership. His predecessor, Nouri had lost Washington’s support due to policies that were seen to discriminate against Iraq’s minorities. Indeed, Joe Biden, the American vice president, made a surprise visit to Baghdad last Thursday in an attempt to bolster Abadi’s government. But The Guardian points out: “Sadr’s as a powerful national leader may have some advantages for Washington. Despite three years spent in voluntary exile in Iran, his newly minted nationalist stance makes him a potential bulwark against Tehran’s influence, which has become since the US left. There are sharp tensions between Sadr and rival Shia factions, and Sadrist militia have clashed with the Hashd. ” But Sadr’s ultimate aims are anyone’s guess: The Wall Street Journal reported that the Shiite cleric made an unannounced stop Monday in Iran. No other details of the trip were released. Like this? Subscribe to the Atlantic Daily, a newsletter with stories, ideas, and images from The Atlantic. [/INST] Moqtada al-Sadr’s Return </s>

<s>[INST] A man walked into the underground U. S. Capitol Visitor Center on Monday and was shot and wounded by police after he pointed what appeared to be a weapon at officers, police said. The suspect, Larry Dawson, 66, of Tennessee, was in stable but critical condition at a hospital, Capitol Police said in a statement. A female bystander who suffered wounds was also taken to the hospital, Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa said at a news conference. Her condition has not been disclosed. Police believe the weapon may have been a pellet gun as opposed to an actual firearm, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing a law enforcement official. Dawson has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon and assault on a police officer while armed, Capitol Police said. No police officers were injured, Verderosa said. He said it was unclear how many officers fired shots. A weapon was recovered on the scene and the suspect’s vehicle was found on Capitol grounds, he said. ”During routine administrative screening, the individual drew what appeared to be a weapon and pointed it at officers,” the police chief said. Verderosa said the man was known to Capitol Police. ”Based on initial investigation, we believe this is an act of a single person who has frequented the Capitol grounds before. There is no reason to believe this is anything more than a criminal act,” Verderosa said. Police arrested Dawson in October after they said he interrupted a House of Representatives session, shouting he was a ”Prophet of God,” the Washington Post reported. A judge ordered him to stay away from the Capitol grounds, the newspaper said. A U. S. government official said no evidence had materialized of a connection to terrorism. On a day when the Senate and House of Representatives were not working and few lawmakers were in Washington, the Capitol building was briefly locked down, but then reopened for official business. The Capitol Visitor Center is used chiefly by tourists. The U. S. Secret Service temporarily cleared tourists from an area around the White House. At about the same time as the Capitol shooting, a woman was arrested at the White House Easter egg roll because she tried to move a temporary security barrier, the Secret Service said. There was no relation between the Capitol incident and the White House arrest, a Secret Service official said. More than 2 million people a year go through the Capitol Visitor Center, Verderosa said. He said it would be open for business as usual on Tuesday. (Additonal reporting by Mark Hosenball, Susan Cornwell, Roberta Rampton, Susan Heavey and Eric Beech; Editing by Grant McCool and Peter Cooney) A U. S. judge on Wednesday ordered Martin Shkreli to stop talking about his fraud case in or around the Brooklyn courthouse where he is standing trial, five days after the former drug company executive burst into a room full of spectators and attacked the credibility of a government witness. NEW YORK The U. S. government on Wednesday proposed reducing the volumes of biofuel required to be used in gasoline and diesel in 2018, in a move that could mark the first step toward a broader overhaul to the controversial energy policy. [/INST] Man shot by police at Capitol complex </s>

<s>[INST] Republicans controlling the Senate are abandoning an effort to use their power over the federal purse strings to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The more pragmatic approach came Tuesday on a huge $164 billion spending measure and reflects a hope by top Republicans like Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to remove veto bait from spending bills in hopes of advancing them more easily with Democratic support. President Obama has already vetoed separate legislation aimed at repealing the law, and he has easily kept language to ”defund Obamacare” out of the final versions of annual funding bills. Top bill sponsors Roy Blunt, . and Patty Murray, . instead focused their efforts on boosting medical research, Pell Grants for college students, and a major boost in funding to treat opioid or heroin addicts. The measure sailed through a Senate Appropriations panel Tuesday morning by voice vote and was the first time in seven years that the measure which funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and is the largest of the domestic appropriations bills has been drafted on a bipartisan basis. The measure would increase health research funding at the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion to $34 billion almost doubles, to $261 million, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opioid abuse programs and restores Pell Grants for summer school for an about 1 million students. Blunt said Pell Grants would ”help students stay on track for graduation, accelerate program completion by taking courses and, ultimately, enter or the workforce sooner and graduate with less debt.” Last year, Blunt inserted several policy ”riders” aimed at curbing Obamacare, blocking a Labor Department ”fiduciary rule” on retirement investment advice that’s opposed by much of the financial services sector, and preventing the national labor Relations Board from streamlining votes to certify union representation. That measure advanced through the Appropriations Committee on a party line vote and was bundled into a ”omnibus” spending bill after the most controversial policy provisions were stripped out. Murray praised the measure for not including ”any new policy riders that would have poisoned the bill.” Top Senate leader McConnell has been trying, with some success so far, to revive the moribund appropriations process in which both House and Senate are supposed to separately debate and amendment 12 annual spending bills funding the operating budgets of every federal agency. The Senate has passed three of the 12 bills, but the House has passed only a single measure. [/INST] Senate GOP drops push to ’defund ObamaCare’ </s>

<s>[INST] It has become an unofficial anthem for the Clinton campaign: “When they go low, we go high. ” The applause line originated with Michelle Obama, in the remarks she gave at the Democratic National Convention in July. Since then, Clinton has frequently invoked the phrase on the trail. But what does it mean to “go high” in a campaign against a man like Donald Trump, whose xenophobic rhetoric and casual calls to violence represent a notable in American politics? “Going high” is how Clinton’s surrogates explained why she wasn’t nastier to Trump in the second presidential debate. While some pundits were puzzled that Clinton hadn’t delivered a death blow to her opponent, jumping on every opportunity to underscore his deficiencies and hypocrisies, her supporters had an explanation: She was focusing on actual issues and ideas. She was simply going high. But, as Michelle Obama demonstrated on the campaign trail this week, going high doesn’t mean focusing on policy over politics — and it doesn’t mean avoiding an attack on one’s opponent. Going high doesn’t mean staying silent when bullied, but speaking out. And going high means reframing the focus on Trump’s most repugnant characteristics by zeroing in on how those qualities affect the people who might vote for him. This election isn’t just about Trump and who he is, the message goes, it’s about the rest of America and who we want to be. “And we simply cannot endure this, or expose our children to this any longer — not for another minute, and let alone for four years,” Obama said. “Now is the time for all of us to stand up and say enough is enough. This has got to stop right now. ” This approach is what made Obama’s speech in New Hampshire on Thursday so riveting, so resonant, and so damning to Trump. Without once uttering his name, Obama laid out — in painful detail — exactly what’s so dangerous about him. And instead of describing the singular threat he’d pose in the Oval Office as a narcissist unfit to lead the country, she drilled down on the fact that he proudly and represents the sexism that women face every single day. He is an uncommon presidential candidate in large part because what he represents is so familiar. Amid the fallout from news of repeated sexual assaults allegedly committed by Trump, amid the justifications of Trump’s behavior as “locker room talk,” amid photos of his supporters wearing asking Trump to “talk dirty,” and amid calls from his supporters to repeal women’s right to vote, the first lady of the United States of America stood up and validated the disgust that so many Americans feel. She did so with a level of clarity and outrage that’s not an option for Clinton, for reasons Rebecca Traister expertly identified in an essay for New York magazine: In part, because it remains damn near impossible for a woman to make inspiring feminist arguments on her own behalf without coming off as in part, because Hillary is hamstrung by the fact that she’s married to a man who has been accused of his own abuses and, in part, because she is simply less comfortable conveying communion, empathy, and inspiration on the stump. But Obama nailed it. She exuded warmth and authenticity. She connected with the crowd. I know you get it, she seemed to say to women, because this is the bullshit we all put up with. I feel it so personally, and I’m sure that many of you do too, particularly the women. The shameful comments about our bodies. The disrespect of our ambitions and intellect. The belief that you can do anything you want to a woman. It is cruel. It’s frightening. And the truth is, it hurts. It hurts. It’s like that sick, sinking feeling you get when you’re walking down the street minding your own business and some guy yells out vulgar words about your body. Or when you see that guy at work that stands just a little too close, stares a little too long, and makes you feel uncomfortable in your own skin. It’s that feeling of terror and violation that too many women have felt when someone has grabbed them, or forced himself on them and they’ve said no but he didn’t listen — something that we know happens on college campuses and countless other places every single day. It reminds us of stories we heard from our mothers and grandmothers about how, back in their day, the boss could say and do whatever he pleased to the women in the office, and even though they worked so hard, jumped over every hurdle to prove themselves, it was never enough. We thought all of that was ancient history, didn’t we? And so many have worked for so many years to end this kind of violence and abuse and disrespect, but here we are, in 2016, and we’re hearing these exact same things every day on the campaign trail. We are drowning in it. And all of us are doing what women have always done: We’re trying to keep our heads above water, just trying to get through it, trying to pretend like this doesn’t really bother us maybe because we think that admitting how much it hurts makes us as women look weak. Maybe we’re afraid to be that vulnerable. Maybe we’ve grown accustomed to swallowing these emotions and staying quiet, because we’ve seen that people often won’t take our word over his. Or maybe we don’t want to believe that there are still people out there who think so little of us as women. Too many are treating this as just another day’s headline, as if our outrage is overblown or unwarranted, as if this is normal, just politics as usual. But, New Hampshire, be clear. This is not normal. This is not politics as usual. This is disgraceful. It is intolerable. And it doesn’t matter what party you belong to — Democrat, Republican, independent — no woman deserves to be treated this way. None of us deserves this kind of abuse. If this was a rallying cry, it likely worked. During Obama’s remarks, I received messages from three separate people wondering, “When is she going to run for president?” (And, for what it’s worth, two of them were men.) The speech has been called “remarkable,”powerful,” “desperately needed,” and possibly disastrous for Trump. The real power of Obama’s speech was, in a campaign that has been so much about gender, she spoke directly to women in the realest of terms. (Her delivery helped, of course: While Trump’s disses tend to come in fragmented tweets and one liners, Michelle Obama twisted the dagger with eloquence and restraint.) But if her remarks on Thursday were indeed a “defining moment” in the presidential campaign, as they’ve been called, it’s not because she’s “going high” per se. It’s simply because she treats women as human beings — a feat that Trump apparently has not mastered. [/INST] Michelle Obama: ’Going High’ Means Remaining Outraged </s>

<s>[INST] , I want to receive updates from partners and sponsors. NEWS BRIEF, Protests against police killings of black men led to road closures, clashes with police, and hundreds of arrests in cities across the United States on Saturday night. About 100 demonstrators were arrested each in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and St. Paul, Minnesota, NBC News reported Sunday, the sites of two fatal shootings last week that have sparked widespread protests and renewed debate over racial disparities in American practices. DeRay McKesson, a prominent activist in the Black Lives Matter movement who ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Baltimore this year, was among those arrested in Baton Rouge. It was the third straight day of widespread demonstrations after police shootings that occurred within a day of each other, and which were captured on video that was widely circulated online. On Tuesday, Alton Sterling, 37, was killed by police in Baton Rouge, where he was selling CDs in the parking lot of a food mart. Bystanders filmed his death on their cellphones. Sterling allegedly had a gun in his pocket, but it was not visible when an officer shot him. On Wednesday, Philando Castile, 32, was killed by police in Falcon Heights, a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota, during a traffic stop for a broken taillight. Castile’s partner, Diamond Reynolds, streamed the aftermath of the shooting on her cellphone using Facebook. In the video, Reynolds said the officer shot Castile after Castile said he was carrying a gun and had a permit. On Thursday, the first night of nationwide protests, a gunman opened fire on police officers at a demonstration in Dallas, killing five officers and wounding seven others. The gunman, identified as Micah Johnson, a Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, was killed by a robot bomb after an standoff with police. Officials said Johnson said he was upset by the shooting deaths in Louisiana and Minnesota and “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers. ” Protests took place Saturday night in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Nashville, and other cities. Dozens were arrested in New York and Chicago, CNN reported Sunday. In Baton Rouge, demonstrators chanted and carried signs that read “I can’t keep calm I have a black son” and “am I next?” In St. Paul, dozens of people marched along Interstate 94, a major highway, shutting it down to vehicle traffic. Some protesters threw rocks, bottles, and other objects at police, injuring at least three officers, Reuters reported Sunday. Photos from the scene show police officers using pepper spray against demonstrators. Around midnight, police deployed smoke bombs in an attempt to clear the demonstrators blocking the highway. [/INST] The Hundreds Arrested in Protests Over Police Shootings </s>

<s>[INST] President Trump’s Inauguration chair, Tom Barrack, is moving his merged Colony NorthStar company to 590 Madison Ave. The black building is conveniently connected to Trump Tower through a cheery landscaped glass atrium fitted with a coffee bar, tables and chairs. Colony is located at 712 Fifth Ave. while North Star Realty Finance is at 399 Park Ave. The firms merged in 2016 and have $58 billion under management. When they move at the end of the year to the entire 34th and part of the 33rd floors, the firms will inhabit 40, 000 square feet facing Central Park. This is the first Plaza District deal since 2014 that is larger than 25, 000 square feet with a rent over $100 a square foot. Colony Northstar was represented by JLL’s Alexander Chudnoff and Robert Martin, as well as James Travers of Travers Realty. A CBRE team of Stephen Siegel, Evan Haskell, James Ackerson, Taylor Scheinman and Brett Shannon, along with Jeffrey Sussman of owner Edward J. Minskoff Equities, represented 590 Madison. [/INST] Tom Barrack’s Colony NorthStar moves to Madison Avenue </s>

<s>[INST] China has once again raised the stakes in one of the world’s most fiercely contested waterways — this time, for the first time, on Donald Trump’s presidential watch. New satellite photos have revealed that China is building missile (SAM) facilities on Subi, Mischief, and Fiery Cross Reefs in the South China Sea’s Spratly Islands. These are part of the network of artificial islands, or the Great Wall of Sand, that China has been building in the Spratlys since 2014. The construction project has now grown to more than 3, 000 acres and includes airstrips and hardened structures for military aircraft, mobile batteries, and radar units, and hardened sites for aircraft. President Obama’s two years of inaction systematically demoralized our allies in the region, including Japan, which is not one of the five other nations with claims in the South China Sea. Japan does fear, however, that unless the U. S. takes a stronger stand, China will do the same on contested islands in the East China Sea. Trump has already said he will. In their most recent meeting, he told Japan’s premier, Shinzo Abe, that he stands “100 percent” behind Japan, including in the East China Sea. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that China’s buildup in the South China Sea must be stopped he has compared it to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. There are three steps this administration can take, starting this week. 1) China’s installation of SAM sites is clearly the final step toward declaring an Aircraft Defense Identification Zone, or ADIZ, which allows a country to monitor and control foreign aircraft entering airspace it considers part of its national territory. China has already declared such an airspace in the East China Sea, which neither we nor Japan recognize. We should state publicly that we will not recognize a Chinese ADIZ in the South China Sea either, and that we and other countries will feel free to conduct overflights in the Spratlys and South China Sea as we normally do. If China then wants to play chicken with U. S. air assets, including military aircraft, operating in an illegitimate ADIZ, that will very quickly become their problem, not ours. 2) We should summon an international conference of states bordering on the South China Sea, including the five other claimants to the territory there (Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei) as well as Australia and Japan, to discuss a situation that has reached crisis proportions and that now demands a concerted multilateral response. 3) Most important, it’s time to recognize that the key leverage the U. S. has over China’s strategy in the South China Sea is Taiwan. In some regards, President Trump may have been too quick to concede a “one China policy” with President Xi two weeks ago. That’s a concession best made in a summit, not over the phone — if at all at this point. It’s what’s clearly encouraged Beijing to think that Trump may be, like Obama (in Mao’s phrase) a paper tiger. Trump doesn’t have to reverse his statement, but he should make it clear that the United States is going to take a very broad interpretation of our remaining treaty obligations toward the democratic island nation of Taiwan. The U. S. suspended or revoked too many of these obligations in order to appease Beijing in the 1970s. The USS Carl Vinson, for example, sailed to the South China Sea this past weekend as a warning to China. Let it make a courtesy call in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan. Also consider plans for an official visit by America’s Commander in Chief of Pacific Command, Admiral Harry Harris, who understands only too well the growing China threat (and who actually coined the phrase “Great Wall of Sand”). Taipei is understandably nervous about doing anything that might provoke Beijing, and care is required in handling the U. S. — Taiwan relationship — something this administration doesn’t always seem ready to show. But Taiwan has a stake in the contest over the future of the South China Sea and could be a key strategic ally in limiting China’s ability to generate mischief in those waterways through which of the world’s annual maritime traffic flows. Douglas MacArthur famously described Taiwan as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the Pacific. It could also be America’s unsinkable fulcrum for leverage in dealing with China, now and in the future., [/INST] How to Stop China in the South China Sea </s>

<s>[INST] Conservative author, commentator, and columnist Ann Coulter appears on The Milo Yiannopoulos Show this week to discuss Donald Trump, the future of the #NeverTrump movement and how the mainstream media spins stories for their own gain. [A preview of the episode, which airs on Friday, can be watched below. This is Ann Coulter’s second appearance on the podcast — you can listen to the first one here. “As we were talking about before, Fox news and other conservative talk radio hosts, they think they make more money when a Democrat is in office. ” said Ann, Milo replied to this claim saying, “This is something I’ve wondered about because you look at commentators who have kind of gone all in on the Never Trump thing. What I’m thinking is that there’s one option, that they’re simply principled conservatives who would rather go down with the ship so long as they don’t compromise their beliefs, and then I meet them and realise that can’t be it. The second option is, do they just think it’s good for business to have Hillary as president?” “I’d say there are two camps, one are the people that make money in Washington, Washington is like there’s something in the water now, their entire raison d’etre, their lives their livelihoods have been proved irrelevant by Trump. I talk about this in my next book, ‘In Trump We Trust’. The subtitle is ‘E Pluribus Awesome’ out August 23rd ” Ann continued. “So there’s that crowd, the Washington crowd, but the mistake they’re making is, the idea that they think there’s gonna be a functioning Republican party if they take Trump down because if Trump loses, there is one group of people that are gonna be blamed and that is the establishment Republicans, the Never Trump crowd, they will never get that Trump vote, it’s the end of the Republican party and I think it’s the end of the country anyway if Hillary gets elected. ” “As for the talk radio hosts or Fox news who think oh people love to watch when we bash the Democrats, well you have to win once in awhile. People will go and keep rooting for The Mets but if they keep losing, the stadiums are empty. It’s about to be “all we’re gonna do is lose” and that’s not a fun thing to watch” [/INST] Milo &amp Ann: If Trump Loses It Could Mean The End Of The GOP - Breitbart </s>

<s>[INST] A little less than a week ago, I wrote that the knives were out for White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who was said to be clashing with other top administration officials, losing the president’s favor, and potentially on his way out of the administration. On Tuesday, those reports were confirmed by the source possible — President Donald Trump himself. In an interview, the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin asked Trump if he still had confidence in Bannon, and, Goodwin writes, “I did not get a definitive yes. ” Far from it. Instead, in just four remarkable and revealing sentences, Trump managed to 1) minimize Bannon’s role in his campaign and eventual victory, 2) seemingly betray some sensitivity about the “President Bannon” narrative, 3) confirm the reports of administration infighting, and 4) issue a public ultimatum. 1) Downplaying Bannon’s role: “I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump told Goodwin. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. ” (The statement about when Bannon joined the campaign is factually accurate; the statement that Trump “didn’t know” him beforehand is not.) 2) Betraying some sensitivity about the “President Bannon” narrative: “I’m my own strategist and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary,” Trump continued. (This language is very similar to a tweet Trump sent in February, at the height of the media’s portrayal of Bannon as the person really calling the shots in the administration. “I call my own shots,” the president tweeted one morning. “Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies! ”) 3) Confirming the reports of administration infighting: A set of dishy recent reports have described a burgeoning feud between Bannon and White House senior adviser (and presidential ) Jared Kushner, leading to an instruction from Trump that they had to work things out. Earlier on Tuesday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer called these reports “overblown” — which, while perhaps less than honest, is the normal thing for an administration to do in situations like this. Unfortunately, the president himself contradicted Spicer’s denial and revealed the tensions were serious enough that he had to step in. “Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will,” Trump told Goodwin. 4) Issuing Bannon a public ultimatum: Managers generally deal with tense staffing problems in private — and again, in politics, it’s common to publicly proclaim full confidence in a beleaguered adviser right up until the moment he or she is fired — but here Trump is telling the whole world that Bannon is on thin ice. Appropriately, Bannon’s allies are responding by panicking — Axios’s Mike Allen calls them “distraught. ” So things look grim for Bannon. Even if he hangs on, his authority has been dramatically undercut — a White House staffer is only powerful if others in the administration and outside it believe he is speaking for the president. Now it’s clear that he doesn’t. What’s really going on here: Trump’s administration is flailing, and Bannon is naturally getting a good deal of the blame But this isn’t really about petty personal feuds. The bigger picture is that Trump’s first two and a half months in office have been disastrous, with his popularity sinking and his agenda mired in Congress and the courts. Naturally, his chief strategist is getting lots of blame for that. It turns out the former Breitbart News chief, a guy whose political experience is entirely based on outraging and provoking people, is not exactly great at governing. Bannon came in as an outsider who wanted to blow things up, and tried to put that agenda into practice — most prominently with Trump’s immigration and travel order. This turned out to be a disastrous failure on every level — it was incompetently crafted, substantively indefensible, and eventually blocked in court. Its only real success was in terrifying and mobilizing liberals against what they saw as a presidential abuse of power. Then when the administration ran into trouble, Bannon’s big idea for how to right the ship was to attack the media. So the president of the United States increasingly denounced “fake news,” even when the reports he was complaining about were clearly accurate. (“The leaks are absolutely real, the news is fake,” he once bizarrely said.) This violation of norms around freedom of the press only further alarmed his critics. It did not turn around his dismal approval ratings. More broadly, there seems to be a sense among some Trump advisers that the advice Bannon gives is often not so great. Kushner “has said privately that he fears that Mr. Bannon plays to the president’s worst impulses,” the New York Times’s Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman, and Glenn Thrush recently reported. Indeed, one way Trump can help improve his popularity is to stop picking so many petty, pointless fights — and one strategy for that is to get rid of Steve Bannon. [/INST] Trump just threw Steve Bannon under the bus and backed it up over him </s>

<s>[INST] ’ ’ ’ When it comes to aromatic and flavorful food, Indian cuisine . ’ ’ So why is it so underrepresented in America? ’ ’ According to there are over 40, 000 Chinese restaurants across the nation and roughly the same number of Mexican restaurants — yet there are only about 5, 000 Indian restaurants. ’ ” Many point to the need for fine culinary skills to create quality Indian cuisine, which results in higher prices. Most Americans don’t expect to pay above a certain price level for food, which leaves only subpar Indian food as an option. And once you’ve had bad Indian food, it takes a while to want to roll the dice again. ” ” But despite this, Indian food is making inroads in the American palate. Millennials generally have and Nation’s Restaurant News predicts Indian food will be one of the . ” ’ This includes more than just upscale joints — some major chains are starting to dabble in Indian flavors. ’ ” Nation’s Restaurant News reports that curry is taking over. Tava Kitchen, a chain in the Bay Area, is serving up fragrant burritos, wraps, bowls, and salads. a chainlet in the Denver region, is getting a lot of buzz for its Southern Indian cuisine. And the giant Sweetgreen recently introduced curry cauliflower to the menu with much fanfare. ” ’ ’ ” a chain based in New York City, is bringing Indian cuisine to the craze with huge success. Business Insider and what we found could be the answer to Indian food’s American conundrum. ” ” Based on Chipotle’s service model, the restaurant serves ingredients right in front of the customer. The first location opened in early 2014, and Indikitch has since opened another location in New York and to accommodate more diners on the go. ” ’ The restaurant industry is facing increased demand for fresh, quality foods with diverse and ethnic flavors — and the time is right for Indian food to hit its stride. ’ [/INST] A cuisine that’s been largely ignored for decades could be the next big thing in America </s>

<s>[INST] The Alabama legislature approved a bill on Tuesday to protect adoption and foster care agencies that refuse a service based their religious beliefs, joining a body of conservative states that have countered growing rights for LGBT people with religious freedom laws. The bill echoes similar laws in Michigan and South Dakota, which critics — and some supporters — say are designed to let agencies to turn away prospective parents because they are gay or transgender. The text of the bill, however, doesn’t mention LGBT people or marriage. Rather, the Alabama Child Placing Agency Inclusion Act, as it’s titled, bans the state from penalizing or refusing to license an organization because it “declines to carry out an activity that conflicts with the religious beliefs of the agency. ”The bill, which has yet to be approved by the governor, applies to all child placement services, including those that receive state money. It is not clear what effect the bill may have, given that the state doesn’t have a general LGBT nondiscrimination law. Some providers already discriminate against LGBT people with impunity, Alex Smith, the board chair of the LGBT advocacy group Equality Alabama, told BuzzFeed News. “We are aware that agencies are already doing this, but this bill will give discrimination the state’s seal of approval,” said Smith, whose group tried to block the bill along with the Equality Federation. “We value the place that faith has in many people’s lives,” Smith added in a phone call, “but using one’s faith to discriminate against another person is wrong, and should not be made the law of the land. ” He added that most members of the legislature “have refused to listen to what we have to say. ” The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rich Wingo, who did not respond to questions from BuzzFeed News, told AL. com the bill is “not about prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from adopting or fostering a child. ” He said, rather, “It’s about protecting and not discriminating against agencies that, due to their religious beliefs, could have their right to choose where to place a child taken away from them. ” Introduced as House Bill 24, the measure was approved by the House in March and by the Senate this month. The House voted 87 to 0 on Tuesday, with 6 abstaining, to concur with an amendment in the Senate, thereby sending it to Gov. Kay Ivey, who can sign the bill into law or allow it to become law by taking no action. Yet Smith was also hopeful that Gov. Ivey may try to dial back the bill by inserting an amendment to ban publicly funded agencies from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. Both chambers of the state legislature would need to concur with the amendment. [/INST] The Alabama Legislature Voted To Let Adoption Agencies Turn Away LGBT Parents </s>

<s>[INST] ’ ’ ’ Donald Trump on Saturday ripped what he termed a ”scam” effort from Green Party nominee Jill Stein aimed at requesting recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. ’ ’ ’ ’ ”And as Hillary Clinton herself said on election night, in addition to her conceding by congratulating me, ’’We must accept this result and then look to the future,’’” Trump said. ’ ’ ’ ’ The Clinton campaign despite not finding any ”actionable evidence” of hacking or attempts to ”alter voting technology.” ’ ’’ ’ ”We had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides,” Elias wrote. ’ ’ In his statement, Trump highlighted the fact he won the vast majority of battleground states, total states, and the more than 2, 600 counties in the country. ’ ’ ”This recount is just a way for Jill Stein, who received less than 1% of the vote overall and wasn’t even on the ballot in many states, to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount,” he said. ”All three states were won by large numbers of voters, especially Pennsylvania, which was won by more than 70, 000 votes.” ’ ’ ”This is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded, and the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing,” he continued. ’ ’ Stein, along with another candidate, filed petitions in Wisconsin on Friday to conduct a recount in the state, where Trump narrowly beat Clinton by roughly 30, 000 votes. Stein has also been raising money for potential challenges in Michigan, where Trump by just more than 10, 000 votes, and in Pennsylvania, Trump won by roughly 70, 000 votes. ’ ’ The Green Party nominee came under fire after asking for additional money after her first goal of $2 million was surpassed earlier this week, claiming she now needed as much as $7 million to successfully push for a recount. ’ ’ ’ [/INST] Trump slams ’scam’ Jill Stein election recount effort </s>

<s>[INST] DENVER — It’s nighttime at the Herbal Cure, a south Denver marijuana shop and grow house tucked into a parking lot beside the highway. Inside is a marijuana bounty: thousands of dollars’ worth of cannabis plants, boxes of chocolate, jars of $ weed with names like Frankenberry, Lemon Skunk and Purple Cheddar. Chris Bowyer, a lanky combat veteran turned cannabis security guard, is outside. He has a . pistol on his hip and a few extra magazines stored away, and he is talking about his work on the battlefield. Not the one in Iraq — the one in Colorado, where criminals seeking to breach marijuana businesses face veterans trying to stop them. “This is my therapy,” Mr. Bowyer said, heading for a place where burglars broke in recently. He checked a fence for signs of a new incursion, then headed to an office to note the night’s activities in a rigorously organized logbook. “This is what we did in the military. ” In Colorado, a curious marriage has formed between the booming retail cannabis industry — legal in the state since 2014, but not in the eyes of the federal government — and young war veterans, more than 200 of whom have taken jobs protecting marijuana businesses across the state. They spend their days and nights in urban marijuana shops and suburban warehouses and on rural farms, warding off the burglars who have become hallmarks of this business. For some, a cannabis security job is a way station toward the police department or law school. For others, though, it is a vocation with purpose, a union of two outsider groups leaning on each other in a nation uncertain about how to accept them. “It’s almost a kindred spirit kind of thing,” said Mr. Bowyer, 30, sitting in an office with a computer, a bulletproof vest and a booklet detailing marijuana products marketed under the name Jimi Hendrix. Marijuana growers and sellers “recognize that there is another group of guys who have their own talents,” he said, “and that we are here for them. ” No industry is immune to thievery. But the owners of Colorado’s 978 marijuana shop licenses and 1, 393 marijuana growing licenses are particularly vulnerable. Because the federal government considers marijuana illegal, many banks will not work with cannabis businesses, forcing them to deal in mountains of cash. Perhaps more significant, their product is also lucrative for criminals: A pound of marijuana worth $2, 000 in Colorado can be sold for $4, 000 or $6, 000 across state lines. Stores and grow houses are often soft targets in darkened parts of town. And unlike cash, marijuana is untraceable, easily sold on Craigslist or driven to dealers in Chicago and New York. “The black market is still booming,” said Cmdr. James Henning of the Denver Police Department. Contrary to the popular narrative, marijuana is a burglar’s typical prize. “They don’t get cash,” the commander said. “That’s usually in the big old safe, and they can’t get into that. Usually, it’s plants and finished product. ” The department said it believed that the city’s marijuana businesses had been targeted by organized groups, though it has no evidence that the groups are linked to foreign cartels. Surveillance videos of some burglaries show thieves sawing through the roofs of businesses, tracking law enforcement with police scanners and tying up employees. In one case, in Southern Colorado, a pair of guards spotted four men in tactical gear carrying rifles through a field. Denver, one of the few jurisdictions compiling data on crimes at marijuana businesses, has 421 houses and shops. It recorded 192 burglaries and thefts at such businesses in 2015. In Aurora, a suburb with 19 operating pot shops, 18 burglaries and robberies have occurred since 2014. But some business owners do not report because they worry that they will be seen as targets or attract inspectors who will find a violation. Criminals have netted anything from a few sodas to a dollars in plants. In June, much worse occurred: Two armed men entered a pot shop in Aurora, called Green Heart, and killed a guard, Travis Mason. The police called it a botched robbery. Mr. Mason, 24, a former Marine and father of three, was believed to be the first cannabis employee to die on the job in Colorado, and the killing alarmed the industry. Some security businesses reported a rush of requests for armed guards. “Thieves in this industry are getting much more brazen, much more aggressive,” said Ryan Tracy, 38, general manager at the Herbal Cure, which now has a guard on duty every night. Into this world stepped Mr. Bowyer, fresh out of the Marine Corps. He joined the military in 2004 at the age of 17 to see the world. He ended up in combat, most notably in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. A bookish Episcopalian, he had considered the priesthood. After experiencing war, he lost his faith. When he left the military, he wandered in search of a tribe. He took a job as a frack hand in North Dakota and at a moving company in Colorado Springs. Unsatisfied, he moved to Denver and mined Craigslist for work. Then he found an ad for a company called the Iron Protection Group. “The way it read, it was written by guys like me,” he said. It was. The Iron Protection Group was formed in 2014 by Hunter Garth, Cory Aguillard and Caleb Patton, Marines who had served in Afghanistan but were disoriented in the civilian world. They wanted to find jobs for former fighters who were now sleeping on one another’s couches, living on ramen noodles and roaming in search of a purpose and a sense of family. Two Army veterans joined them in founding the company. “It started out as brothers helping brothers,” said Mr. Patton, 31. In some ways, it was a natural marriage, formalizing a relationship forged in Vietnam, where marijuana became a balm for soldiers seeking to calm the demons of deployment. Mr. Garth said that about half of his employees smoked marijuana, though he asks them to refrain from doing so eight hours before a shift. “Eight hours jigger to trigger,” he said, is the rule. The pay starts at $12 an hour, or $25, 000 a year based on a workweek. (The average salary, Mr. Garth said, is more like $38, 000.) But that does not reflect the benefits of camaraderie. At a shooting range tucked into the Rockies, 10 employees of the Iron Protection Group are training. Most wear khakis and polos. Many have beards and tattoos. They are led by Glenn Weatherly, 34, a former weapons and intelligence sergeant in the Army who served four tours in Iraq. “Range is hot,” he tells his men. “Engage your targets. ” The guards train their eyes on mock criminals made of paper. Bullets fly, and the guards reholster. Behind them, waiting for his turn to shoot, is Curtis Simmons, 30. He spent four years in the Army, including a stint in the Korangal Valley of Afghanistan, a scene of fighting so fierce it was known as the Valley of Death. When Mr. Simmons left the military, he took a job at Whole Foods. “I was definitely an outcast,” he said. “I hate to use the words ‘liberals’ and ‘’ but that’s the world I was brought into, from completely different upbringing. ” He quit after two years. Working in the marijuana industry, he said, makes him feel “like a protector. ” There are liberals and there, too, but they understand him, he said: He smokes to keep the symptoms of stress disorder at bay, and he gets recommendations about cannabis strains from his security clients. “They want to know, ‘What’s your issues? ’” he said. Mr. Simmons would like to become a police officer. But you can’t be a policeman if you can’t pass a drug test. “This is as close as I get,” he said. The men take a break. There is cursing and laughing and ribbing, and it sounds like a party. Or, under the scorching Colorado sun — with the crackle of fire coming from a group across the valley — a bit like war. [/INST] Veterans Back on Patrol, This Time to Protect Marijuana - The New York Times </s>

<s>[INST] Following in the footsteps of Michael Moore, Amy Schumer and Jennifer Lawrence, Leslie Knope — the relentlessly positive public servant from Park and Recreation, who is played by Amy Poehler — has chipped in with a letter to America after Donald Trump’s win in the presidential campaign. The fictional character, who has been compared to Hillary Clinton, begins: “Amidst the confusion, and despair, and disbelief, it was suggested to me by a very close friend of mine (I won’t say her name, to protect her identity) (Ann. It was Ann) that perhaps a few people would enjoy hearing my thoughts on this election. ” Originally appearing on Vox, the letter continues with a typically Knopian anecdote about a fourth grade social sciences lesson involving a cartoon tortoise named Greenie, and a jaguar named Speedy, who strike resemblances to the Republican and Democratic nominees. “Rick Dissellio read a speech from Speedy, in which he promised that, if elected, he would end school early, have extra recess, and provide endless lunches of chocolate pizzandy (a local Pawnee delicacy at the time: deep fried pizza where the crust was candy bars),” she writes of the option. Knope’s speech from Greenie was a more measured approach from a candidate “who promised to go slow and steady, think about the problems of our school, and try her best to solve them in a way that would benefit the most people”. After losing the election Knope learned to except it because that’s how democracy works. “I acknowledge that Donald Trump is the president,” she adds. “I understand, intellectually, that he won the election. But I do not accept that our country has descended into the slop pile that he lives in. ” While directly addressing young girls, she writes: “Our is everything you should abhor and fear in a male role model. He has spent his life telling you, and girls and women like you, that your lives are valueless except as sexual objects. He has demeaned you, and belittled you, and put you in a little box to be looked at and not heard. It is your job, and the job of girls and women like you, to bust out. ” The Parks and Recreation character became a cult figure, and the show also played host to a cameo from Michelle Obama, as well as being considered part of a new wave of shows with powerful female leads. “He is the present, sadly, but he is not the future. You are the future. Your strength is a million times his. Your power is a billion times his. We will acknowledge this result, but we will not accept it. We will overcome it, and we will defeat it,” she writes. “Now find your team, and get to work. ” [/INST] Park and Recreation’s Leslie Knope writes reassuring letter to America </s>

<s>[INST] ’ ’ ’ President Donald Trump asked Thursday on Twitter why investigators were not looking at ”Hillary Clinton’’s family” and Democrats’’ ”dealings with Russia,” instead examining his ” .” ’ ” Trump’s tweets came that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has now expanded to include a probe into whether Trump committed obstruction of justice with his firing of former FBI Director James Comey last month. ” ’ Mueller is also reportedly investigating whether Trump associates committed financial crimes. ’ ’ Trump, who tweeted earlier Thursday that the investigation was ”the single greatest WITCH HUNT” in US political history and is being led ”by some very bad and conflicted people,” tried to turn the conversation to the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. ’ ’ ”Why is that Hillary Clinton’’s family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my are?” the president afternoon, ”Crooked H destroyed phones hammer, ’’bleached’’ emails, & had husband meet days before she was cleared — & they talk about obstruction?” ’ ” While the White House has insisted on referring all requests related to the ongoing investigations to Trump’s team of lawyers working on the case, Trump has continued to tweet about the investigation in recent days. On Thursday alone, he posted four tweets about the ongoing probe. ” ’President Donald Trump asked Thursday on. ..’ ’’ ’’ ’’ [/INST] Trump goes after ’Crooked H’ Clinton and ’Dems dealings with Russia’ as special counsel probe expands </s>

<s>[INST] In the same way that Pinterest, with its recipes and bespoke home decorating ideas, fills some people with a creeping sense of despair that they lead an inadequate life, Apple advertisements and keynote demos have always made me feel terrible about myself. The prototypical Apple demo person is someone I’ll call Apple Man. Apple Man is a fortysomething dad who just wants to FaceTime his adorable children while he’s on a business trip, and also find a local pourover coffee shop while he’s in town. Apple Man has an Apple Watch (obvious). He needs a way to manage his photos of his adorable children and hiking trips with friends. He loves jogging and mountain biking and wants to use his Apple Watch to monitor his workouts, because he LOVES working out. Apple Man is very fit for his age — you can just barely tell he’s totally ripped through his light blue, shirt. Apple Man has a great head of hair. Apple Man owns his home and wants to be able to open his garage door from his phone to park his . (He’s on the Tesla Model 3 preorder list.) He wants to make brunch plans, and it would be great if he could add a brunch plan to his calendar app directly from text messages. Apple Man wants to track his health, but of course he has no need for a period tracker. His calendar is full his inbox is zero. If you’re like me, somewhat disorganized and more likely to have a photo roll full of your drunk idiot friends than a trip with your children, this feels not really relevant to your life. Or if you’re basically anything OTHER than a rich white businessman who loves dim sum and jogging, then this might not feel relevant to you. When the Apple Watch came out it seemed like the ultimate hardware realization of Apple Man. A bulky fashion device with a huge price tag that seemed mostly useful for outdoor running or biking and getting alerted about business meetings. Indeed, some (frankly sketchy) sales analysis suggested that initial buyers of the watch were 80% male (the gender gap is closing, but still very real). But at yesterday’s WWDC keynote, Apple announced new features for the Apple Watch that feel like they’re designed with someone other than Apple Man in mind. The first one is the wheelchair activity monitor. While this, of course, still appeals to people who love exercising (just like Apple Man) it’s a feature launch devoted to people with disabilities, presented at a major event. The second feature is the emergency alert system. To me, this seemed so clearly designed for women — a safety alert system for walks home at night or through a deserted parking lot. Safety was one of the features women liked about the Apple Watch to begin with — like being able to call an Uber without taking their phone out of their purse. For women, safety while walking down the street is something we think about pretty much daily, most times we leave the house. Women have long adopted their own safety measures for walking in public: holding their keys a certain way to use as a weapon, carrying pepper spray, checking the backseat of a car before unlocking it, taking a longer route because the streets are brighter and more crowded. This isn’t an afterthought or a minor convenience it’s a core user experience of being a woman or person vulnerable to violence. While certainly emergency calls are made by people of all genders, adding in an emergency alert feature to the wrist feels very obviously designed with women’s safety in mind. The bonus feature that the Watch automatically knows what the version of 911 is if you’re traveling addresses something women have been wary of for a long time: safety while traveling alone. Of course, plenty of the other demos for other products at this year’s WWDC seemed to have Apple Man in mind — work productivity tools, messaging enhancements for wholesome activities like wishing your niece a happy graduation, or planning to buy LCD Soundsystem tickets (Apple Man loves LCD Soundsystem). But the effervescent demo of Apple Music by the charismatic Bozoma Saint John — a black woman who looked and acted nothing like the typical Apple Men onstage before her and who in her opening remarks mentioned being a mother — felt like a breath of fresh air signaling that perhaps the winds are changing. There were other signals too. In the video segment cheering on developers using Apple’s Swift programming language, the video ended with a black woman joyfully expounding how awesome coding was — certainly not the stereotype of a coder, and not totally reflective of the crowd there watching the video. At another Apple event in March, another black female Apple executive, Lisa Jackson, took the stage to talk about Apple’s environmental efforts. Breaking the Apple Man stereotype in the people who appear on stage as the Apple’s evangelists is symbolic. Having a black woman present on stage might just mean the company is more aware of the optics of its events. But there is evidence that it’s not just a hollow gesture — the actual features and hardware being announced on stage at Apple events are changing along with those presenters. When Health Kit was announced in 2014, the main complaint was that a period tracker wasn’t included — since that’s the only kind of health tracking some people with periods care about. By the next update a year later, they actually added the feature. The smaller iPhone SE seemed like an admission that not everyone has giant Trump hands. People who use Apple products are sometimes young, they are women, they have disabilities, they don’t work outside the home, they are single, they don’t have kids, they are disorganized or just plain lazy, they don’t exercise. It’s nice to see features made for us. Apple Man isn’t dead, not by a long shot. But maybe, hopefully, he’s in retreat. Apple Health Kit was announced in 2014, not 2015. (Apple Man would not have made this mistake.) [/INST] Apple Is Finally Designing For Women </s>

<s>[INST] Ten years after an Orlando woman disappeared without a trace in a case that has stumped investigators, police and the family of Jennifer Kesse are pleading with the public for information to help them solve the investigation. ”We will not stop or let up on our efforts to locate Jen and bring her home,” the woman’s father, Drew Kesse, told Fox News on Friday. “It has been a very long road and quite challenging at times but our hope is still strong and our strength is too until we can end Jennifer’s personal hell,” Kesse said. The Orlando Police Department was expected to hold a press conference with the family Friday in the hopes someone will come forward with information. Known by friends and family simply as ”Jenn,” the Orlando woman was last seen alive on Jan. 23, 2006. Kesse, who lived alone, was reported missing by her parents the next day when she failed to show up for her job as a manager at Central Florida Investments. Kesse’s car — a black Chevy Malibu — was found by authorities on Jan. 26 approximately one mile from her condominium. The Orlando Police Department had hoped for a break in the case when it released security footage of a person seen parking Kesse’s vehicle near a pool at an apartment complex and walking away. But the suspect — who appears to be between and — has never been identified. ”The cruel hard reality is not one thing has changed in her case,” Drew Kesse said. “Jennifer remains just as missing today as she was 10 years ago.” ”Not one fact has come to light which could end Jennifer’s hell. Not one solid lead has been given nor generated by authorities. How can that be?” he said of his daughter, a 2003 graduate of the University of Central Florida in Orlando and an Alpha Delta Pi sorority member described by family as driven and outgoing. In a 2013 interview with FoxNews. com, Drew Kesse said he believed more than one person was responsible for his daughter’s disappearance. His theory is that Jenn was abducted while leaving her home early on Jan. 24, and that she never made it to her car. No forensic evidence was obtained from her vehicle — only one “latent print,” which her father called “too minuscule” to be useful. Kesse had suggested his daughter with blond hair may have been taken by human traffickers and may no longer be in the country. The Kesse case was featured in a 2014 episode of Fox News Channel’s “Greta Investigates,” a crime anthology series hosted by Greta Van Susteren. “If you have any information about Jennifer,” her father said, “however trivial you may think it may be, make the call.” ”No names, no ID, just tips and rewards. Call the FBI, a lawyer or your clergy. Be the person who makes the difference. This haunts us every minute of every day. ” Anyone with information on Jennifer Kesse is urged to call the Orlando Police Department at or Crimeline of Central Florida at . More information on the Kesse case is also available at www. jenniferkesse. com. Fox News’ Cristina Corbin and Steven Tierney contributed to this report. [/INST] Family pleads for help 10 years after disappearance of Jennifer Kesse </s>

<s>[INST] Devin Nunes to ”step away temporarily” from running House Russia probe. They do not appear to be using the word ”recuse” but that sounds like the gist of what we’re hearing . .. This appears to be driven by a new Ethics probe into Nunes action. More after the jump . .. Statement from Rep. Nunes: “Several leftwing activist groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U. S. citizens and other abuses of power. Despite the baselessness of the charges, I believe it is in the best interests of the House Intelligence Committee and the Congress for me to have Representative Mike Conaway, with assistance from Representatives Trey Gowdy and Tom Rooney, temporarily take charge of the Committee’s Russia investigation while the House Ethics Committee looks into this matter. I will continue to fulfill all my other responsibilities as Committee Chairman, and I am requesting to speak to the Ethics Committee at the earliest possible opportunity in order to expedite the dismissal of these false claims. ” Statement from Speaker Ryan: ”Devin Nunes has earned my trust over many years for his integrity and dedication to the critical work that the intelligence community does to keep America safe. He continues to have that trust, and I know he is eager to demonstrate to the Ethics Committee that he has followed all proper guidelines and laws. In the meantime, it is clear that this process would be a distraction for the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in our election. Chairman Nunes has offered to step aside as the lead Republican on this probe, and I fully support this decision. Chairman Mike Conaway, a senior member of the Committee, will now lead this investigation in the House. I am confident that he will oversee a professional investigation into Russia’s actions and follow the facts wherever they lead.” [/INST] BREAKING: Nunes Out from Russia Probe </s>

<s>[INST] WASHINGTON — A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel into the United States from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s claim that the courts have no role as a check on the president. The panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said the administration had shown “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — had committed terrorist acts in the United States. The ruling also rejected Mr. Trump’s claim that courts are powerless to review a president’s national security assessments. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, the court said. “It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action. ” The decision was handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. It upheld a ruling last Friday by a federal district judge, James L. Robart, who blocked key parts of the travel ban, allowing thousands of foreigners to enter the country. The appeals court acknowledged that Mr. Trump was owed deference on his immigration and national security policies. But it said he was claiming something more — that “national security concerns are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. ” Within minutes of the ruling, Mr. Trump angrily vowed to fight it, presumably in an appeal to the Supreme Court. “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. At the White House, the president told reporters that the ruling was “a political decision” and predicted that his administration would win an appeal “in my opinion, very easily. ” He said he had not yet conferred with his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, on the matter. The Supreme Court remains and could deadlock. A tie there would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place. The administration has moved fast in the case so far, and it is likely to file an emergency application to the Supreme Court in a day or two. The court typically asks for a prompt response from the other side, and it could rule soon after it received one. A decision next week, either to reinstate the ban or to continue to block it, is possible. The travel ban, one of the first executive orders Mr. Trump issued after taking office, suspended worldwide refugee entry into the United States. It also barred visitors from seven nations for up to 90 days to give federal security agencies time to impose stricter vetting processes. Immediately after it was issued, the ban spurred chaos at airports and protests nationwide as foreign travelers found themselves stranded at immigration checkpoints by a policy that critics derided as . The State Department said up to 60, 000 foreigners’ visas were canceled in the days immediately after the ban was imposed. The World Relief Corporation, one of the agencies that resettles refugees in the United States, called the ruling “fabulous news” for 275 newcomers who are scheduled to arrive in the next week, many of whom will be reunited with family. “We have families that have been separated for years by terror, war and persecution,” said Scott Arbeiter, the president of the organization, which will arrange for housing and jobs for the refugees in cities including Seattle Spokane, Wash. and Sacramento. “Some family members had already been vetted and cleared and were standing with tickets, and were then told they couldn’t travel,” Mr. Arbeiter said. “So the hope of reunification was crushed, and now they will be admitted. ” Several Democrats said they hoped the appeals court ruling would cow Mr. Trump into rescinding the ban. Representative Karen Bass, Democrat of California, said in a statement that the ban “is rooted in bigotry and, most importantly, it’s illegal. ” “We will not stop,” Ms. Bass said. But some Republicans cast aspersions on the Ninth Circuit’s decision and predicted that it would not withstand a challenge in the Supreme Court. “Courts ought not sensitive national security decisions of the president,” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, said in a statement. “This misguided ruling is from the Ninth Circuit, the most notoriously court in America, and the court at the Supreme Court,” he said. “I’m confident the administration’s position will ultimately prevail. ” Trial judges nationwide have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s executive order, but no other case has yet reached an appeals court. The case in front of Judge Robart, in Seattle, was filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota and is still at an early stage. The appeals court order issued Thursday ruled only on the narrow question of whether to stay a lower court’s temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban. The appeals court said the government had not justified suspending travel from the seven countries. “The government has pointed to no evidence,” the decision said, “that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. ” The three members of the panel were Judge Michelle T. Friedland, appointed by President Barack Obama Judge William C. Canby Jr. appointed by President Jimmy Carter and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush. They said the states were likely to succeed at the end of the day because Mr. Trump’s order appeared to violate the due process rights of lawful permanent residents, people holding visas and refugees. The court said the administration’s legal position in the case had been a moving target. It noted that Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, had issued “authoritative guidance” several days after the executive order came out, saying it did not apply to lawful permanent residents. But the court said that “we cannot rely” on that statement. “The White House counsel is not the president,” the decision said, “and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the executive departments.“ It also mentioned “the government’s shifting interpretations” of the executive order. In its briefs and in the arguments before the panel on Tuesday, the Justice Department’s position evolved. As the case progressed, the administration offered a backup plea for at least a partial victory. At most, a Justice Department brief said, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future” should be allowed to enter the country despite the ban. The appeals court ultimately rejected that request, however, saying that people in the United States without authorization have due process rights, as do citizens with relatives who wish to travel to the United States. The court discussed, but did not decide, whether the executive order violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion by disfavoring Muslims. It noted that the states challenging the executive order “have offered evidence of numerous statements by the president about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban. ’” And it said, rejecting another administration argument, that it was free to consider evidence about the motivation behind laws that draw seemingly neutral distinctions. But the court said it would defer a decision on the question of religious discrimination. “The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions,” the decision said. “For now, it is enough for us to conclude that the government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal. ” The court also acknowledged “the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. ” “On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies,” the decision said. “And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. ” “These competing public interests,” the court said, “do not justify a stay. ” The court ruling did not affect one part of the executive order: the cap of 50, 000 refugees to be admitted in the 2017 fiscal year. That is down from the 110, 000 ceiling put in place under President Barack Obama. The order also directed the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to prioritize refugee claims made by persecuted members of religious minorities. As of Thursday, that means the United States will be allowed to accept only about 16, 000 more refugees this fiscal year. Since Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, 33, 929 refugees have been admitted, 5, 179 of them Syrians. [/INST] Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss - The New York Times </s>

<s>[INST] On Monday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that, he says, would force federal agencies to scrap two older regulations for every new one they propose. “So if there’s a new regulation,” Trump said, “they have to knock out two. ” It’s a bold claim. But it’s not clear that things will actually work this way. The order itself has some sizeable loopholes, and experts say it’s far more likely to create confusion within federal agencies than lead to massive deregulation. Jody Freeman, a law professor at Harvard, calls it “arbitrary” and “not implementable. ” For one, Trump’s order doesn’t absolutely require that agencies repeal two older rules for every new one they propose — it asks that they “identify” two rules to be revoked and find ways to offset costs of new rules. Second, many existing federal regulations are in place because of laws passed by Congress; the White House can’t just force any of those rules to be repealed by fiat. Indeed, Section 5 of the order says it can’t override “the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency.” That could significantly undercut Trump’s promises here. But the order’s not meaningless, either. The mere existence of a perplexing directive like this, experts say, could bog down work at various regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or Food and Drug Administration. “It is primarily an instrument for hassling the agencies and slowing the regulatory process,” says Freeman via email. And for Trump, that might be good enough. Why Trump’s regulatory order could prove difficult to implement To see how this order might work, let’s look at the EPA, the source of some of the most economically significant federal regulations around. The EPA doesn’t just regulate on pure whim. It takes its cues from various laws passed by Congress, such as the Clean Air Act, that require the agency to constantly update new standards on pollution to reflect the latest science, often on a set schedule. So let’s say the EPA needs to issue revised standards, as required by law. Under Trump’s executive order, the agency would be asked to “identify” two older regulations that could be revoked. But, of course, many of those older regulations were also required by law — and if the EPA initiated a process to get rid of them, states and environmental groups would challenge them in court, as John Walke, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, pointed out. Now, Trump’s order does include a caveat that agencies can only act “to the extent permitted by law. ” “So, in the end, this order may not block rules that are legally required by statute,” explains Freeman. “A president can’t order his executive agencies to disobey the law. ” But if that’s the case, the EPA would be caught between two imperatives: required by law to issue new regulations and directed by the White House to get rid of rules it can’t actually get rid of. It’d be a bewildering state of affairs. “It basically projects a large shadow over all the agencies,” says Rob Verchick, an environmental law professor at Loyola University New Orleans and former EPA official. “It’s only going to create more and more confusion within agencies — and produce more and more lawsuits. ” Will Trump’s order downplay the benefits of new regulations? Then things get even more complicated. Trump’s order also tells the EPA and other agencies that, for fiscal year 2017 (which started last September) “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations … shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. ” It’s still murky how this will work in practice; OMB will have to issue further guidance to the agencies and clarify what “total incremental cost” entails. But one possible read here is that agencies will have to offset the cost of new rules by cutting regulations with equivalent costs elsewhere — without regard to the benefits of all these rules. If so, that would be a huge deal for an agency like the EPA. When its regulators are crafting new pollution rules, they typically count up both the compliance costs for polluters and then weigh those against the benefits of lower pollution. For may EPA rules, the benefits vastly exceed the cost. But if Trump is telling agencies to focus only on offsetting costs, it will be far more difficult to issue new environmental or public health rules. Note that other countries approach this issue differently. The United Kingdom and Australia also have their own regulatory offset programs, in which older regulations need to be axed as new ones come in. But as Marcus Peacock of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center explains here, both countries consider the “net cost” of regulations — weighing costs against benefits. We’ll have to wait and see how Trump’s OMB actually handles this question. But Verchick suspects that the ultimate impact of this rule, and the fog around it, could be to pressure regulatory agencies to be less aggressive in setting new standards. “Even when a rule is required by statute, often have discretion to choose between aggressive and standards,” he explains. “Usually the aggressive standard has higher compliance costs, but also higher benefits to the public. So if this order sends the message that all we care about is compliance costs, that gives a strong incentive to worry more about the cost to industry and not the benefits. ” Further reading If you want to see a defense of a “kill two regs for every new one” concept, this paper by Marcus Peacock is a place to start. Note, however, that he suggests handling things in a more complex and nuanced way than Trump’s team appears to have done. (For example, the United Kingdom exempts several types of rules from its process, such as rules to address civil emergencies or to address systemic financial risk.) For a more detailed case against the rule, see this new post by Jody Freeman, and this post by Ken Kimmell, the former commissioner for Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental Protection. [/INST] Trump wants to kill two old regulations for every new one issued. Sort of. </s>

<s>[INST] Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned as unfair Friday’s decision by the IAAF to uphold a ban on competition for Russian track and field athletes. Speaking to foreign media at a late evening on Friday, Putin said the IAAF meted out ”collective” punishment that has hurt clean athletes. In an unprecedented ruling loaded with geopolitical ramifications, the IAAF on Friday upheld its ban on Russia’s track and field federation, saying the country had made some progress in cleaning up but failed to meet the requirements for reinstatement and would be barred from sending its athletes to the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro that begin in 50 days. ”Russian athletes could not credibly return to international competition without undermining the confidence of their competitors and the public,” IAAF President Sebastian Coe said. Russia immediately condemned the decision, saying it was ”deeply disappointed” and that the Rio Games will be ”diminished” by the absence of its athletes. The Russian track federation said it was considering an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport the sports world’s highest court. The IAAF, track’s world governing body, left open a ”tiny crack” that would allow any individual Russian athletes who have been untainted by doping and have been subjected to effective testing outside Russia to apply to compete in the games. However, the IAAF said those athletes would be few and would be eligible to compete only as ”individuals” and not under the Russian flag. ”The crack in the door is quite narrow and there won’t be many who manage to get through that crack in the door,” said Rune Andersen, the Norwegian expert who headed the IAAF task force that determined that Russia’s reforms were not enough. The IAAF said it was necessary to ban the entire track and field team because there was no way to verify which athletes could be considered clean. ”The system in Russia has been tainted by doping from the top level down,” Andersen said. ”We cannot trust that what people might call clean athletes are really clean. If you have one or two or five with negative tests, it does not mean the athletes are clean. History has shown that is not the case.” Coe dismissed suggestions there were any political motivations behind the decision. ”There were members from all four corners of the world, and the decision was unanimous,” he said. ”Politics did not play a part today.” The ruling came four days before a sports summit called by the IOC to address ”the difficult decision between collective responsibility and individual justice.” The IOC said it had ”taken note” of the IAAF ruling and that its executive board will meet by teleconference Saturday to ”discuss the appropriate next steps.” There has been speculation the IOC could overrule the IAAF or impose a compromise that would allow ”clean” Russian athletes to compete. However, Coe made clear that the IAAF runs the sport and determines which athletes are eligible, not the IOC. ”I don’t have a message for the IOC,” said Coe, who will attend Tuesday’s meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland. ”Eligibility is a matter for the IAAF.” The suspension of the Russian federation, known as RusAF, was imposed in November following a report by a World Agency commission that alleged cheating, corruption and . On Wednesday, WADA issued a new report citing continuing obstruction and violations of in Russia. ”The culture of tolerance, or worse, for doping that led RusAF being suspended in the first appears not to have changed materially to date,” the IAAF said. Coe said the unanimous decision by the 25 members of the IAAF council to maintain the ban sends ”a very clear signal to athletes and the public about our intention to reform our sport.” The decision was hailed by many sports officials and athletes’ groups outside Russia who have been pushing the IAAF to take a hard line to restore some credibility to the global system. ”It gives a measure of hope to clean athletes that there are consequences not only for athletes who dope, but for countries which do not engage seriously in the fight against doping,” U. S. Olympic Committee CEO Scott Blackmun said. ”That is a message.” Added U. S. Agency chief executive Travis Tygart: ”Obviously, banning Russian track and field from the Olympics is the right outcome. The world’s clean athletes came together and demanded that their voices were heard.” In expressing its disappointment, Russia’s Sports Ministry appealed to IOC members to ”consider the impact that our athletes’ exclusion will have on the dreams and the people of Russia.” ”Clean athletes’ dreams are being destroyed because of the reprehensible behavior of other athletes and officials,” the ministry said. ”They have sacrificed years of their lives striving to compete at the Olympics and now that sacrifice looks likely to be wasted.” It added that the Olympics ”are supposed to be a source of unity, and we hope that they remain as a way of bringing people together.” The IAAF rejected a plea by Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko, who claimed the country had cleaned up its system and met all the requirements for readmission. ”We firmly believe that clean athletes should not be punished for the actions of others,” he said in an open letter to Coe. Before the ruling was announced, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he rejected the idea of ”collective responsibility” in doping cases and said the Russian state had never supported doping by any athletes. Olympic pole vault champion Yelena Isinbayeva was among the Russian athletes hoping to compete in Rio. She has threatened to go to court on human rights grounds if she is excluded from the games. Other cases could end up in CAS, the appeals court. The IAAF did change its rules to make way for ”any individual athletes who can clearly and convincingly show that they are not tainted” by doping and who have been outside Russia and subject to effective systems. Those individuals can apply to a special IAAF committee for permission to compete as a ”neutral athlete,” not for Russia. The IAAF also recommended that Russian whistleblower Yulia Stepanova be allowed to compete at the Olympics as an independent athlete. The runner who served a doping ban gave information along with her husband that led to a broad investigation of doping inside Russia. The IAAF task force recommended she be allowed to compete because of the ”extraordinary contribution” she made to the effort. [/INST] Putin condemns Russian athletes ban at Rio as unfair </s>

<s>[INST] The newly appointed Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is moving to scale back the implementation of sweeping privacy rules for Internet providers passed last year. Chairman Ajit Pai on Friday asked the FCC to hit pause on the rollout of one part of those rules that was scheduled to go into effect next week. This marks the latest in his efforts to roll back his predecessor’s regulatory moves. Overall, the privacy rules would regulate how ISPs have to disclose to their customers what information is collected on them and how it’s used or shared with other companies — including guidance on getting consumers’ consent in some cases. Pai’s move on Friday does not target those regulations, but goes after one element of the rules related to security protocols and other measures ISPs have to take to protect the collected data. While the rest of the FCC’s privacy regulations are still winding through required government reviews, the data security rules were set to go into effect on March 2. ”This is the first robin of spring,” says Andrew Jay Schwartzman, veteran telecom lawyer now at the Georgetown University Law Center. ”These rules are about to go into effect so (Pai) has got to act on them now. . .. He’s got more time to act on the other rules.” A group of telecom associations and companies, including Comcast, Verizon, ATT and has filed a petition asking the FCC to halt broader privacy rules, which were passed in part on the basis of the broader authority the agency claimed over the industry through its landmark ”net neutrality” overhaul. As we’ve reported before, telecom and cable companies argue that the new FCC privacy rules put them on an unequal footing with other Internet companies that collect data on users, like Google and Netflix, which are only overseen by the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC’s privacy guidelines are less stringent than the ones passed by the FCC and they are implemented through investigations and enforcement, rather than regulations. When the Democratic majority passed the FCC privacy rules, Republican commissioners — including Pai — called them corporate favoritism. This sentiment was echoed in the statement the FCC issued on Friday: ”Chairman Pai believes that the best way to protect the online privacy of American consumers is through a comprehensive and uniform regulatory framework. All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules, and the federal government shouldn’t favor one set of companies over another. Therefore, he has advocated returning to a privacy framework for the online world and harmonizing the FCC’s privacy rules for broadband providers with the FTC’s standards for others in the digital economy. Unfortunately, one of the previous administration’s privacy rules that is scheduled to take effect on March 2 is not consistent with the FTC’s privacy standards.” Consumer advocacy groups have argued that the ISPs have a broader capacity to collect data on people than websites and digital services, given that ISPs connect users to all those websites and services in the first place. ISPs might use the collected data for their own promotions or sell it to data brokers for marketing or other uses. Pai’s move on Friday seeks a vote of his fellow commissioners, of which there are currently two: a Democrat and a Republican. But even without the vote, the FCC staff can hit pause on the data security part of the rules until the full FCC vote on the pending petitions to reconsider the broader privacy rules. [/INST] FCC Chairman Goes After His Predecessor’s Internet Privacy Rules </s>

<s>[INST] Mike Dubke has been tapped to be White House communications director, several outlets reported Friday. Dubke is the founder of Crossroads Media, which was partly founded by Karl Rove and touts itself as the ”premier Republican media services firm.” The decision angered some on the Trump team because of Crossroads’ history of trying to take down Trump, CNN reported, citing unnamed sources. ”Dubke and his Crossroads friends did everything they could to kill the Trump movement and failed,” one ”loyalist” told CNN. “How does this help serve the president’s interests?” an unnamed ”insider” told The Washington Post. “It serves the interests of Reince (Priebus) and Sean (Spicer) but I don’t see how it serves the president’s interests. ” The announcement is expected as early as Friday, according to CNN and is expected to take some heat off of White House press secretary Sean Spicer, who has had a tumultuous tenure. The communications director position has been vacant since former Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller stepped down before Inauguration Day to spend more time with his family. [/INST] Reports: Mike Dubke To Be Named White House Communications Director </s>

<s>[INST] Cuba has offered to pay its old debt to the Czech Republic with goods it can spare, including its coveted rum, according to the Czech finance ministry. “The Cuban party as a possible solution presented a list of commodities … [including] several brands of rum,” the ministry said in a statement on Friday. Czech media put the Cuban debt at about 7bn koruna ($270m) but the ministry said it had yet to tally the total sum as talks on the repayment had only started late last year. The debt is largely the legacy of business ties between Cuba and Czechoslovakia, which split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993, four years after shedding four decades of communist rule. The largest Czech broadsheet daily Dnes quoted the deputy finance minister, Lenka Dupakova, as saying debt repayment in Cuban rum was “an interesting option”. “These are relatively unknown brands which might be good, but we would have to advertise them and generally launch them into the market,” she added. The daily said the Czech Republic — a country with the highest per capita beer consumption in the world — had imported 892 tonnes of Cuban rum worth 53m koruna ($2m) in 2015. If the entire debt were repaid in rum, the Czechs would have enough rum for 130 years at this pace. But the ministry is against such a solution. “The Czech side believes that at least part of the debt should be dealt in cash,” it said. [/INST] Cuba offers to pay off debt to Czech Republic in rum </s>

<s>[INST] It’s the first weekend of a brand new year, which means it’s time to put that resolution to finally get in shape to the test. And for our money, there’s no better workout inspiration than a Big Moment from a great sports movie — or, more specifically, the music that accompanies it. After all, a cinematic sports feat wouldn’t have nearly the same dramatic impact without the perfect tune to underscore the triumph. Look at Rocky, for example. Here’s the famous scene where the title character scales the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, set to Bill Conti’s ”Gonna Fly Now”: And here’s the same sequence sans music: Even the world’s biggest Sylvester Stallone fan probably wouldn’t find his various grunts all that inspiring on their own — but add some trumpets, and you’ve got cardio gold. So to help you unleash your inner Rocky (or Ricky Vaughn or or Jodi Sawyer) here’s a Spotify playlist of songs from sports movies. We’ve also listed the song titles and their respective movies below. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it will give you an excuse to revisit some great movie clips — once you’re done with your workout, of course. Happy training! ”Thunderstruck”: The Longest Yard (football) Aerosmith, ”Back in the Saddle”: The Fighter (boxing) Bachman Turner Overdrive, ”Takin’ Care of Business”: The Replacements (football) Bill Conti, ”Gonna Fly Now”: Rocky (boxing) Black Box, ”Ride on Time”: The Cutting Edge (figure skating) Bonnie Tyler, ”Holding Out for a Hero”: Footloose (dance) Foo Fighters, ”My Hero”: Varsity Blues (football) The Hollies, ”Long Cool Woman (in a Black Dress)”: Remember the Titans (football) The Jamaican Reggae Boys, ”I Can See Clearly Now”: Cool Runnings (bobsled) Joe Esposito, ”You’re the Best Around”: Karate Kid (karate) John Fogerty, ”Centerfield”: Bull Durham (baseball) Linkin Park, ”Papercut”: Never Back Down (martial arts) Michael Sembello, ”Maniac”: Flashdance (dance) Queen, ”We Will Rock You”: D2: The Mighty Ducks (hockey) Red Hot Chili Peppers, ”Higher Ground”: Center Stage (dance) Survivor, ”Eye of the Tiger”: Rocky III (boxing) Vangelis, ”Chariots of Fire”: Chariots of Fire (track) [/INST] Get inspired to work out with these great songs from sports movies </s>

<s>[INST] It seems like such an elegant solution. Millions of Americans (disproportionately black) have criminal records; people with criminal records have trouble getting hired for jobs, no matter how old, minor, or irrelevant the crime. So if you prevent employers from asking job applicants whether they have a criminal record — a policy known as ”ban the box” — you eliminate the bias, right? That’s the logic that’s led dozens of cities, a handful of states, and the federal government to enact policies. Some of these prevent all employers from asking about criminal history in job applications; others, like the federal government’s, just say that the government won’t ask about the criminal records of people applying for government jobs. Related Ban the box, explained But what if ban the box doesn’t actually solve the problem — or, rather, what if it replaces one kind of discrimination with another? That’s the unsettling conclusion of a couple of recent studies. Both of them found that policies improved the hiring prospects of white people with criminal records, but not nonwhite ones. In fact, black and Latino job applicants were less likely to get hired after ban the box went into effect. In one study, white applicants went from being only slightly more likely to get a callback from an employer than black applicants (before ban the box went into effect) to being four times more likely than black applicants to get called back, after ban the box had been implemented. The conclusion drawn by economist Jennifer L. Doleac (who one of the studies) is that when employers can’t see who has a criminal record, they still avoid people they think are likely to have criminal records — they just have to resort to guesswork. As a result, racial discrimination against black and Latino job applicants (especially men) replaces discrimination based on criminal record. policies don’t solve discrimination — but neither does getting rid of them Doleac says the unintended consequences of policies show they do more harm than good, and that the governments that have instituted them need to get rid of them. So does my colleague German Lopez. I get the logic here. If you’re trying to make a policy that reduces racial gaps in hiring, having ban the box (all else being equal) is worse than not having it. The people who appear to suffer most from ban the box are black applicants without criminal records. That’s not a group of people you want to punish! As far as I’m concerned, though, ”Should governments get rid of policies?” is the wrong question to ask. Think of it as a Venn diagram. One circle is ”job applicants with a criminal record”; the other circle is ”black and Latino job applicants.” Ban the box helps people who fall in the first circle but not the second: white job applicants. Allowing employers to ask about criminal history helps people who fall into the second circle but not the first: black and Latino applicants without criminal records. But the people in the overlap of the Venn diagram — the disproportionate number of black and Latino job applicants who have criminal records — get screwed over either way. In many cases, racial discrimination played a large part in their involvement with the criminal justice system in the first place. And racial discrimination combined with other forms of discrimination makes it an uphill struggle to rebuild their lives once they’re out. Either they’re not getting hired because of their race or because of their records, but they’re not getting hired. Many people, disproportionately nonwhite, have trouble getting jobs because of behavior that other people might not have even been arrested for (like possession of marijuana) actions that might have been excused if perpetrated by someone else (like acting in against a domestic abuser) or crimes they committed under circumstances other people would never have to face (like being coerced into sex work by poverty). That is the problem. It is, to a large extent, the problem ban the box was supposed to help address. Clearly it isn’t addressing the problem successfully, or at least not yet. That seems like a good reason to try to come up with other ways to fix the problem through policy, while working to address the underlying implicit bias that associates blackness with criminality to begin with. It’s not at all clear to me that it’s going to be any easier to improve the hiring prospects of black and Latino job applicants with criminal records by allowing employers to judge them based on their histories. It seems more likely to me that it’s going to require tackling the problems of racially disparate mass incarceration head on: working to reduce the disparities in who gets arrested, charged, and convicted and incarcerated on one side, and working to ensure that those who do have criminal records don’t have their lives destroyed on the other. Watch: The racism of the US criminal justice system [/INST] "Ban the box" might just replace one kind of discrimination with another </s>

<s>[INST] drug rehabilitation center Harbor Village is denouncing actor Sean Penn’s Rolling Stone feature in which he glorifies drug lord and mass murderer El Chapo. [“The egregious, heinous acts of El Chapo must not be cheapened through clever narratives of things illicit,” a spokesperson from the luxury drug and alcohol rehab tells Breitbart News in an exclusive statement. “Sean Penn’s discourse may be all too convincing for those who pity — and perhaps revere — El Chapo,” the spokesperson added. “That is explicitly because the public does not actively work with those suffering from acute substance use disorders. ” The spokesperson continued: Penn says it himself in his feature for the Rolling Stone, nearly half of our methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine imported to the U. S. is the doing of El Chapo’s illicit why then deem the source of overdose deaths, sundered families, and societal unrest as ‘The President [of Mexico?’ Should we then measure all public officials in the light of how many atrocities they may reap on their nations? Elected or not. Penn alludes the presidency is up for grabs if one can be interesting enough, successful enough, and violent enough to rip the title away from those prompters of peace. The spokesperson from Harbor Village — which treats those suffering from chronic addiction — states Penn’s framing of drug addicts as mere “consumers” of drugs is a denial itself of the pain of addiction: Penn asks if “The American public, [are] not indeed complicit in what we demonize? We are the consumers, and as such, we are complicit in every murder. . . ” To assert this is to pin the disease of addiction as a mere whim one might purchase on the shelf of a department store. Addiction is not a matter of choice, but of biological and psychological affliction. Addicts are not ‘consumers’ but victims of their with roots stemming in the nullification of environmental or psychological trauma. Addiction is inborn, genetic. To brand those as criminals in every murder and debauchery of El Chapo directly refutes Penn’s initial assertion of the War on Drugs: “This war’s policies have significantly served to kill our children … lost with it, any possible vision of reform. ” If our children are the ire to be condemned for consuming illicit substances — as the consumers Penn dictates — is El Chapo then absolved from his crimes, as he is the mere producer in our nation of capitalism? As Breitbart News reported in November, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) have significantly increased opium production and shifted their operations to expand heroin trafficking in recent years. Heroin is made from the resin of opium poppy plants. The TCOs have worked to make the illicit drug readily available to Americans as the number of heroin overdose deaths in the U. S. surge. A recent report in Science Daily observed that nonmedical use of prescription opioids — such as Vicodin, Percocet, and Oxycontin — has grown increasingly dangerous in the United States, with increases seen in number of overdoses, hospital treatment admissions, and deaths. A newly released study — “Nonmedical Opioid Use and Heroin Use in a Nationally Representative Sample of US High School Seniors” — finds that of high school heroin users began with prescription opioids. Researcher Dr. Joseph J. Palamar noted in his study, “As frequency of lifetime opioid use increased, so too did the odds for reporting heroin use, with over of heroin users reporting lifetime nonmedical opioid use. More frequent and more recent nonmedical opioid use was associated with increased odds for reporting heroin use. ” The Harbor Village spokesperson said Penn is El Chapo’s activities: The danger here lies in the willful posturing of El Chapo as the unsung hero who has throughout his life sprinkled sugary, good deeds on legions of gore, and the willful rejection of the culmination of his life’s work, which has been to singularly prescribe death and addiction to the American people, and beyond. When we cease romanticizing the drug lord in the robes of a Shepherd, it is then — and only then — that those who have lost, live, and wallow in addiction may have a chance of light and hope in a country that continues to disavow the disease of addiction. “When public attention is enraptured with that prescriber of death, it is his victims who lose voice,” the spokesperson concluded. [/INST] Drug Rehab Harbor Village Slams Sean Penn’s Glorification of El Chapo - Breitbart </s>

<s>[INST] Marco Rubio made 14 years of his tax returns and Ted Cruz released four more years of his Saturday, increasing pressure on rival Donald Trump to release his. Rubio’s returns show his family’s adjusted gross income was $335, 561 in 2014, the most recent year he made available. He paid almost $65, 000 in income taxes, a 19. 3 percent rate. That’s down from the previous couple of years — he and his wife reported nearly $1 million in 2012. Returns on the site date back to 2000, when he earned $82, 710. ”There is no doubt the Rubio family has come a long way from the days when their largest monthly expense was a check to Sallie Mae and checks were sent in the mail to pay bills with the hope the payment did not arrive before the next paycheck was deposited into their account,” a statement on the campaign website read, noting the Rubios’ only debt today is the mortgage on their house. Cruz released and had previously released when he ran for Senate. He reported an adjusted gross income of $1. 2 million in 2014, and paid $389, 000 in income taxes at a 32. 22 percent rate. ”It is time to stop the excuses,” Cruz said in a statement. ”Donald Trump owes it to the American people to be fully vetted, and that includes releasing his tax returns so the voters can see the full financial picture. His claim that he can’t comply because he’s being audited is nonsense. If Donald is embarrassed about his tax returns, it’s up to the voters to assess the facts. It’s time to stop delaying and come clean with the American people.” Trump was hammered at Thursday night’s debate for not releasing his tax returns. ”I will absolutely give my return, but I’m being audited now for two or three years, so I can’t do it until the audit is finished, obviously,” Trump said. An NPR fact check found that there is no law barring Trump from releasing his returns while being audited, though an accountant or lawyer may have advised him too. [/INST] Rubio And Cruz Release Tax Returns, Piling Pressure On Donald Trump </s>

<s>[INST] Every December, The Atlantic looks back on the previous year — to highlight not just the “big moments” but also the progression of “big ideas. ” Below, the second of three installments looks at the year in race, identity, and coverage. In 2016, long simmering tensions over race and identity in America boiled over. Years of conflict between police and minority communities, clashing views concerning abortion and gender identity, and fear of immigrants and Muslims in a diversifying country all played prominent roles in a contentious presidential election. More than of Americans feel the country is “greatly divided” on crucial issues, according to a recent Gallup poll. The United States has a long road ahead to address these issues, but The Atlantic’s coverage from the past year offers some clues about what may lie ahead. A Bloody American Summer: In five particularly cases, black men were shot and killed by police a single shooter also killed five officers during an ambush in Dallas. David A. Graham analyzed the freedoms enshrined in the Second Amendment, and the limits of their exercise by black Americans. And the Princeton University historian Julian E. Zelizer looked to 1968 as a lens to examine the wave of racial tension. Reforming Policing: In the wake of these shootings, Juleyka asked two former police chiefs and a leading police training researcher whether training and preparation could avert such tragedies. After the deadly Dallas shooting, Coates discussed the inevitability of violence during a time of “illegitimate policing”: “If the law is nothing but a gang, then it is certain that someone will resort to the kind of justice typically meted out to all other powers in the street. ” Upholding Free Speech: Debates over campus activism, political correctness, and safe spaces continued throughout the year. Many students from marginalized groups advocate for defined places on their predominantly white campuses where they can express themselves openly. But Oliver Bateman argued that this atmosphere of political correctness can pose a threat to adjunct professors, who may censor the content in their classes for fear of retaliation from students. Conor Friedersdorf expressed similar concerns, citing the case of a filmmaker who was disinvited from hosting a screening at Syracuse University. Sitting Down to Take a Stand: The San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, became a subject of national praise and criticism after he refused to stand for the national anthem during an August game in protest of the country’s racism and discrimination. Adam Serwer argued that Kaepernick’s detractors, “when they are not insisting his protest is unpatriotic, or disrespectful to the military, mock his background, upbringing, and success. ” Peter Beinart, for his part, expressed sympathy with Kaepernick’s concerns, but argued that his protests were counterproductive. The Nativist Resurgence: Donald Trump’s rhetoric emboldened white nationalists, who proved a vocal presence on the public stage. The historian Kelly J. Baker compared Trump’s “hypernationalistic” rhetoric to the language of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, a movement Joshua Rothman later explored in greater depth. White nationalists, Emma Green wrote, had soured the fine art of trolling into simple, hateful nastiness. Reform: The year opened with tremendous hope for bipartisan reform. But, as Steve Teles explained to David Frum, Republican support for the initiative was more fragile that it seemed. Democrats like Cory Booker continued to press for action, but momentum stalled. Matt Ford reviewed the debate over the historic drop in crime in recent years, Barry Latzer argued for a cultural explanation, and Juleyka looked at San Antonio, one city where reports of serious crimes are rising. The Supreme Court: After the death of U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in February, Trump pledged to appoint a similar successor, while Jeffrey Rosen praised President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland as a victory for judicial restraint. As Republicans refused to act on the nomination, Epps condemned their intransigence, but Michael D. Ramsey defended the move as the Senate’s right. Barry Friedman, a professor at New York University, examined Scalia’s opinions on law enforcement to highlight the important role to be played by his successor. Identity Crisis: In the aftermath of the presidential election, some pundits and academics attributed Hillary Clinton’s defeat to the Democratic Party’s focus on identity and social issues. But Vann R. Newkirk II wrote that this same focus allowed Roy Cooper to defeat Republican incumbent Governor Pat McCrory in North Carolina. Despite that small victory, Democrats face the question of how to approach identity politics in the future as they scramble to find a way to move forward without control of Congress or the White House. David A. Graham discusses how these challenges may affect Representative Keith Ellison, a black Muslim running to be chair of the Democratic National Committee. [/INST] The Year in Race, Identity, and Criminal Justice </s>

<s>[INST] Hillary Clinton moved to capitalize Tuesday on a debate performance that exposed vulnerabilities for Donald Trump, excoriating his values and character in an effort to expand her coalition of women, minorities and young voters. Trump, meanwhile, scrambled to move his campaign forward. While the Republican nominee insisted that he was not unnerved, he and his advisers grasped at excuses to explain why he did not perform better at the first presidential debate Monday night. Trump on Tuesday was unrepentant and eager to defend his past, denigrating a former beauty pageant winner whom he targeted as his latest foil and vowing to attack Clinton over her husband’s marital infidelities in their next showdown. In a country divided over two historically unpopular candidates, Trump’s turn is unlikely to shake his core support. But Democrats said they felt assured that Trump’s hot temperament, scattered demeanor and series of statements that left him exposed to further scrutiny would make it increasingly difficult for him to win over the undecided voters he has been courting, especially moderate white women. “I look back as a former practitioner and say, ‘Is there anything Donald Trump did to convince somebody who wasn’t in his column to be for him?’ ” said David Plouffe, President Obama’s former campaign manager. “I have a hard time thinking there’s many of those people. I don’t think he lost anybody. But that’s not his challenge now. He’s got to add. ” Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump participates in a roundtable event Tuesday in Miami. (John ) Clinton was ebullient as she returned to the campaign trail Tuesday in Raleigh, N. C. and strove to keep alive the controversies that marred Trump’s debate performance. “The real point is about temperament and fitness and qualification to hold the most important, hardest job in the world, and I think people saw last night some very clear differences between us,” Clinton told reporters aboard her campaign plane en route to North Carolina. Trump did little to change the subject. In a Tuesday morning interview on Fox News Channel, he said debate moderator Lester Holt, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” was biased, and the Republican complained about the quality of his microphone. Clinton jabbed him for that, telling reporters, “Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night. ” [Trump’s attacks on her weight are ‘a bad dream’ for former Miss Universe] Trump also disparaged a former Miss Universe pageant winner, Alicia Machado, for her physique. In the debate, Clinton raised Trump’s past comments about the woman, who was crowned Miss Universe at age 19 in 1996. “He called this woman ‘Miss Piggy,’ and then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she is Latina,” Clinton said in one of the debate’s more electric exchanges. The next morning, Trump offered an indignant defense of how he dealt with Machado when he was a partner in the company that owned the Miss Universe contest. At the Sept. 26 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton knocked Donald Trump for his treatment of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. Here’s what you need to know about Machado. (Monica Washington Post) “She was the worst we ever had,” he said on Fox, adding: “She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem. ” The Clinton campaign sought to advance the story across media platforms, releasing a Web video featuring the beauty now a U. S. citizen who lives in California, and arranging a conference call for reporters with Machado, who described the election as “like a bad dream. ” Like Trump’s feud this summer with the Muslim parents of a dead U. S. soldier, the Machado episode rapidly emerged as a microcosm of the campaign — and a test of whether Trump can expand his support beyond his base of aggrieved white voters, most of them men. Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican strategist who has been critical of the party’s nominee, said Trump’s comments about Machado were “hugely tone deaf. ” The debate overall, he said, was for many Republicans “an ‘Oh, crap’ moment. If you thought he had a spring in his step for the last few weeks and was getting back in the hunt, that’s pretty much gone. ” Few of Trump’s supporters went so far as to crown him the victor. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan ( .) who has been a weather vane for the Republican leadership during this election season, was supportive though muted at a Tuesday news conference. He told reporters that Trump gave a “unique, Donald Trump response to the status quo. ” “I think he gave a spirited argument,” Ryan said, “and I think he passed a number of thresholds. ” Trump’s backers insisted that the debate would not damage his standing in the close race with Clinton. Rep. Peter T. King ( . Y.) said, “As far as the temperament, that’s how he’s been for the last 15 months. It got him to the top. . . . He does have the feistiness that I think 51 percent of the American people will like. ” William J. Bennett, who served in President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet, said of Trump: “When he loses his temper a little bit, many people see that as passion and as someone who’s engaged in the fight and in what he believes. People forgive that — and a leopard can’t change his spots. ” [Why even Republicans think Clinton won the first debate] It will take several days before the political impact of Monday’s debate becomes clear, but many Republicans said they were bracing for Clinton to get a bump in the polls. An estimated 84 million people watched the clash at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N. Y. making it the presidential debate in history. The event reverberated around the globe. Former Mexican president Vicente Fox said Trump’s behavior should alarm world leaders because he revealed himself to be “ignorant” and “dangerous. ” “When he speaks about the geoeconomic situation and the geopolitical situation and terrorism, he’s absolutely ignorant, and he’s only provoking us democratic leaders from around the world to reject everything he’s proposing,” Fox, who watched the debate on Mexican television, said in a telephone interview. “He is an imperialistic gringo. ” In the United States, the risk for Trump is that a negative impression sets in on shows such as NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” on social media and in workplace conversations. Democrats sought to taunt Trump on his uneven performance, particularly given his regular attacks on Clinton’s “stamina” and appearance. “He seemed unable to handle that big stage, and I really did feel that by the end, with the kind of snorting, the water gulping and the leaning on the lectern, that he just seemed really out of gas,” said Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Trump previewed an even more combative second debate, Oct. 9 in St. Louis, by saying he might “hit her harder,” perhaps over former president Bill Clinton’s affairs. “I really eased up because I didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings,” Trump said on Fox, saying he would have brought up “the many affairs that Bill Clinton had” but held back because the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, was in the audience. “I didn’t think it was worth the shot,” he said. “I didn’t think it was nice. ” Hillary Clinton shrugged off the threat, telling reporters: “He can run his campaign however he chooses. I will continue to talk about what I want to do for the American people. ” Clinton campaigned at a community college gymnasium in Raleigh to whoops and loud applause. “One down, two to go,” she said of the debates. During a campaign rally in Melbourne, Fla. Tuesday evening, Trump said that Clinton is “a woman that I think is virtually incompetent, certainly as secretary of state. ” He called her incompetent repeatedly throughout the rally. “We’re going to get rid of that crooked woman. She’s a crooked woman. She’s a very, very dishonest woman,” Trump said. For Democrats, Trump provided what Plouffe called “an embarrassment of riches” at the debate — a series of controversial statements and unresolved, damaging questions. He seemed to affirm that he paid no income taxes; he made side remarks and pained expressions while Clinton praised the vibrancy of African Americans; he said it was a smart business strategy to profit from the housing crash. Vice President Biden seized on that last point at a rally for Clinton in Philadelphia, where he charged that Trump has no “moral center. ” “This is a guy who said it was good business for him to see the housing market fail,” Biden said. “What in the hell is he talking about?” Clinton and a brigade of surrogates plan to continue using Trump’s debate comments against him. She will campaign in New Hampshire on Wednesday with Sen. Bernie Sanders ( .) hoping to energize young voters there with a discussion of college affordability, while first lady Michelle Obama will stump across Pennsylvania on Thursday. “He put a lot on the table — a lot of things that are not true and a lot of views that we think are counter to where most voters are,” said Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s communications director. “It won’t end tomorrow. There’s a lot that will live on from this debate. ” Anne Gearan in Raleigh, N. C. Jenna Johnson in Melbourne, Fla. and Jose DelReal in Washington contributed to this report. [/INST] As Clinton builds on a strong debate, Trump lobs attacks and complaints </s>

<s>[INST] For Rivers Cuomo, Pinkerton — Weezer’s second album — was like getting too drunk at a party. Even five years after its 1996 release, the band’s frontman still had a hangover. Talking to Rolling Stone, he compared his experience of Pinkerton, which turns 20 on Saturday, to cathartically spilling your guts out and then waking up the next morning to realize “what a complete fool you made of yourself”. For a long time, Cuomo talked about Pinkerton like it was his high school diary, a humiliating reminder of a time when he was unapologetically emotional and corny. The album was written in 1995, a tough year where he underwent surgery for having one leg that was longer than the other. Cuomo started taking painkillers, became obsessed with Puccini, and originally wanted the band to release a science fiction opera titled Songs from the Black Hole as their to their eponymous debut. Though that idea was put on hold, the music that would go on to become Pinkerton would come from that same dark place. In the fall, Cuomo would make the decision to live a kind of “normal” life and study classical composition at Harvard. The band would stay together, laying down tracks on Cuomo’s breaks and in between other members’ side projects. They headed to the studio largely unprepared and without a producer, aiming to sound more like their live shows and less like their polished debut, which was produced by The Cars’ Ric Ocasek. The music that would emerge over the next year showcased the band’s “darker” side, if not in part because their lead singer was struggling to adapt to his new academic life. Songs like Why Bother? and Getchoo take on the sad, bizarre reality of Cuomo’s life at Harvard, where he was a literal rock star attempting to play the role of a regular college student. In a 1997 issue of Details, he would describe the album as chronicling his “cycle between and partier”. On one hand Cuomo was a famous musician, on the other, he was rejected from joining the school’s chorus. And though fans would write him love letters from Japan — the inspiration for Across The Sea — he claims to have gone unrecognized by students wearing Weezer . I was a little kid when Pinkerton came out but that’s probably a good thing, as the world didn’t seem to be ready. Rolling Stone readers voted it the third worst album of the year and Entertainment Weekly called it “a collection of party anthems for agoraphobics”. Pinkerton wasn’t a complete flop, but it definitely wasn’t a hit, peaking at number 19 on the charts. Record executives and fans were expecting something closer to the pop rock of Blue, where Cuomo sang about sweaters and Buddy Holly. Pinkerton, in contrast, was overly dramatic and sentimental, loosely based on Madame Butterfly and named after one of the opera’s characters. More important than Pinkerton’s reception was how Cuomo felt about it in the aftermath. The album was rumored to have caused the departure of beloved bassist Matt Sharp, who alluded to it in the lyrics for Waiting, a song with his band The Rentals (No beauty No sweet melody No barber shop harmony). He would eventually file a lawsuit in 2001 for royalties linked to Pinkerton’s songwriting credits. During that year, Cuomo still seemed to have an (emotional) hangover that he couldn’t quite shake. To make matters worse, the album was seeing a resurgence with the rise of emo. “The most painful thing in my life these days is the cult around Pinkerton,” he said, calling it a “hideous record” one that was sick “in a diseased sort of way”. Cuomo described the entire experience as “a hugely painful mistake that happened in front of hundreds of thousands of people and continues to happen on a grander and grander scale and just won’t go away. ” Cuomo’s disgust seemed to be less about public opinion and more about his own vulnerability. Cuomo said his goals for Pinkerton were emotional, not commercial. Pinkerton was embarrassing because it was uncomfortably earnest. What the album lacks in length (it’s a short 35 minutes) it makes up for in and that’s by design. When I discovered Pinkerton in high school, Cuomo’s cliched, emotional frankness didn’t repulse me. At 15 years old, it was exactly what I craved from music. I was there for his because it so perfectly reflected mine. Feelings scared me (Falling For You) I was also afraid of rejection (Pink Triangle). And I wanted desperately to be Tired of Sex because I thought that was cool. Details aside, I shared with Cuomo a need to express my emotions. Similarly, I didn’t seem to care if they were lame, completely or even offensive. The person Cuomo presents in Pinkerton can now be described as a kind of softboy or sad lad. Back then, he reminded me of the “alt” guys me and my friends were obsessed with, the ones who would tell you they couldn’t be your boyfriend while crying. These boys would give you a burned copy of Pinkerton as some kind of heartbreaking consolation or maybe an explanation for their bad behavior. It’s crazy to think Cuomo was in his twenties when he wrote a song like Butterfly, which eerily captures the faux apologetic, whiny plea of a teen boy who’s done wrong: “I’m sorry for what I did I did what my body told me to I didn’t mean to do you harm. ” But in the early aughts, Cuomo’s approach to rock — and his brand of rockstar — didn’t stick out as weird. Rivers Cuomo of Weezer fit right in with contemporaries like Chris Carrabba of Dashboard Confessional and Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie. For that moment in time, manic pixie dream boys and the music they made were embraced, for better and for worse. And in this context, Pinkerton wasn’t embarrassing, it was groundbreaking. Looking back on Pinkerton now, it only seems more ahead of its time, having just gone platinum eight days ago. In the age of social media, Cuomo’s compulsion to vomit out his emotions publicly is embraced if not encouraged. And Pinkerton’s conversational, confessional lyrics read like they could be anyone’s tweets, Facebook status updates or Tumblr posts. Though Cuomo has since walked back his hatred of Pinkerton in the wake of greater disasters (they were offered $10m to split up in 2010 because they’d been in decline since Pinkerton) he — unsurprisingly — still shared his emotions about the band’s trajectory, on the internet this time. “I miss the days when it was okay to like Weezer,” he tweeted last year. I wish he knew that too many of the millennials who grew up on his feels, it’s not just OK to like Weezer, it’s actually kind of cool. [/INST] Weezer’s Pinkerton and the invention of the manic pixie dream boys </s>

<s>[INST] To say scientists are unhappy about the New Yorker’s recent feature on epigenetic research might be an understatement. Here are some complaints, assembled by the biologist Jerry Coyne on his blog: ”The New Yorker article is so wildly wrong that it defies rational analysis,” writes Walter Gilbert, a biochemist who has won the Nobel prize. ”It is unfortunate to inflict this article, without proper scientific review, on the audience of The New Yorker,” writes Sidney Altman, another Nobel Laureate. Mukherjee didn’t make it clear that other, prominent, scientists would choose to tell this story in a different way. ”It really is a horribly damaging piece,” writes John Greally, a genetics researcher at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Yikes. The piece in question is ”Same But Different,” a feature on the science of epigenetics by physician and science writer Siddhartha Mukherjee. He’s best known for his 2010 book The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. It won him the Pulitzer prize. Here’s the beef scientists have with Mukherjee and the New Yorker The article is the type of piece the New Yorker usually is very good at: diving deep into a crevice of science and connecting it to veins of either history, politics, or the poetry of everyday life. Mukherjee starts off with a personal tale. His mother and aunt are identical twins, and he muses on how their life experiences made them different people later on. He then connects this personal mystery with other mysteries in nature: Why are two ants genetically near identical but one is a worker and one is a boss? In the story, what links these mysteries is the science of epigenetics, which, basically, explores how the environment can leave a lasting mark1 on how our genes work. The extent to which these ”marks” actually control the expression of our genes is hotly debated. DNA is the instruction manual for life. So epigenetics may determine how likely those instructions are to be read. Understanding epigenetics is important because it could help us understand how we become more susceptible to disease (or not) over our lifetimes. And there’s some evidence that epigenetic information is inheritable. As Vox’s Susannah Locke has explained, epigenetics means a person may pass on genes as well as experiences to a child. It’s cool stuff. But the article seems to have hit a nerve with some researchers who feel ”epigenetics” has become a buzzword that’s distorting the science. What Mukherjee (mainly) gets wrong, according to the scientists, is his explanation of how this process is thought to work. Mukherjee’s explanation is anchored in a discussion of histones, which are tiny proteins that act as a kind of a scaffolding for DNA. He leans heavily on the work of David Allis, a researcher at Rockefeller University, who has found these histones open and close specific sections of DNA, which he says changes the output of the genes. ”The coils of DNA seemed to open and close in response to histone modifications — inhaling, exhaling, inhaling, like life,” Mukherjee writes. Next, Mukherjee notes (more vaguely) that scientists have found ”other systems, too, that could scratch different kinds of code on the genome.” There are two main points the scientists are clamoring over. One is that they say Allis’s theory that histones actually change the output of genes is far from proven. In a second post on Coyne’s blog, Greally and Mark Ptashne, a biologist at Sloan Kettering, write, ”there is no evidence that coiling and uncoiling of DNA has a causal effect on gene activity.” The second is the critics say those ”other systems” are actually the prevailing theory on how it all works, and should be at least discussed at greater length. The big, overarching, concept Mukherjee missed is ”transcription factors,” which are proteins that can turn specific genes on and off. It’s these factors that scientists say should be the main focus of the explanation of how our genes are differentiated. And despite decades of research on them, transcription factors are hardly mentioned at all in the piece. Steve Henikoff, a molecular biologist, writes on Coyne’s blog: Mukherjee seemed not to realize that transcription factors occupy the top of the hierarchy of epigenetic information, that this has been widely accepted in the broader chromatin [i. e. DNA] field, and that histone modifications at most act as cogs in the machinery that enforces the often complex programs specified by the binding of transcription factors. (To note: The scientists have other concerns with the piece. You can read more about those here.) Telling the ”whole story” versus telling ”one story” I asked Mukherjee over email about the criticisms, and he sent me a very long response to each comment collected by Coyne. Overall, he stands by the story. In summary, he says this: ”In the piece in the light of the critics, I realize that I did not emphasize the role of transcriptional factors and regulation adequately,” Mukherjee writes in the email. ”This was an error. I thought, sincerely, that I had talked about gene regulation, but an increased emphasis would have helped the piece, and not caused the polarizing response.” (He also mentioned that the New Yorker article is an excerpt from an upcoming book, which will cover these topics more thoroughly.) And for it’s part, the New Yorker is standing by the story, too. ”None of it [the Mukherjee feature] negates the fundamental importance of transcription factors, and the foundational work on gene regulation done by a previous generation of scientists (or by scientists working on gene regulation today),” a New Yorker spokesperson told me in an email. I can’t fully analyze all the critics’ concerns in this post. But this seems clear: If Murherkjee is guilty of something, it’s omission. He didn’t make it clear that other, prominent, scientists would choose to tell this story in a different way. There are a lot of challenges in science writing, but one of the main ones is this: Research more often yields streams of caveats, not elegant conclusions. This fact makes trouble for another truth: As a writer, it’s your job to take a reader from the beginning to the end of a piece as elegantly as possible. There could be a lot of reasons why Mukherjee decided to focus on histones rather than transcription factors. They perhaps make for a more visual, compelling illustration of the inner workings of a cell. Maybe Allis was just a great interview, and a more compelling character upon which to carry the story’s narrative. These choices are compounded by this: ”The original piece was almost twice its current length, with a lengthy historical section mentioning gene regulation,” Mukherjee writes me. The print New Yorker only has so much space. These choices aren’t always easy, but in journalism, they’re necessary. We can only tell one story at a time. [/INST] Why scientists are infuriated with a New Yorker article on epigenetics </s>

<s>[INST] ’’ ”Donald Trump is the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee.” ”Trump delivered Ted Cruz a knockout blow on Tuesday night, winning Indiana’s primary while the senator dropped out of the race, .” ”Multiple outlets projected shortly after polls closed on Tuesday that Trump would win the Hoosier State’s primary.” ’’ ’The GOP frontrunner led in Indiana by almost 20 points over Cruz, a Texas senator, with about 27% of precincts reporting. John Kasich, the Ohio governor, finished a distant third.’ ’The win put Trump on a glide path to obtain the needed 1, 237 delegates necessary to win the nomination. Both The Associated Press and NBC News gave Trump at least 45 of the 57 delegates available in the state. With those delegates counted, Trump stood less than 200 delegates away from securing the GOP nomination.’ ’Late last month, almost all projections forecast that Indiana would be a tough draw for Trump, as well as a yet favorable state for Cruz.’ ”The script flipped in the week leading up to the crucial vote, with Trump soaring ahead in the polls while picking up key endorsements, such as Bobby Knight, the legendary former Indiana University men’s basketball coach.” ’A recent poll found that Trump held a over the Texas senator. gave Trump an 83% chance of winning the state based on its model, and a 97% chance of winning based on its projection.’ ’Trump during a Monday rally that his campaign is ”way ahead of projection” and that he would secure the Republican presidential nomination on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention in July.’ ’Knowing that the state could be the last stand of the ”Never Trump” movement, Cruz and forces had gone all out to stop him. Cruz began last week by cutting an unprecedented deal with Kasich.’ ”The deal called for Kasich’s campaign to pull out of Indiana, in hopes that his absence would give Cruz the boost he needed to pick up the crucial win. In exchange, Cruz would recede from Oregon and New Mexico, which hold contests later in the nominating process.” ’But less than a week after the deal was announced by both campaigns, the agreement had already .’ ”The deal wasn’t Cruz’s only attempt at shifting Hoosier State polls, advantage leading up to the vote.” ’Last Wednesday, the Texas senator made another rare announcement. He named Carly Fiorina, an hopeful and the former CEO, as his running mate should he win the GOP nomination. Cruz and Kasich are mathematically eliminated from securing the nomination ahead of the convention, so their potential nominations would have to come from subsequent ballots.’ ’Trump chastised Cruz for that move as well, calling it a ”waste of time. ”’ ’Based on the results in the state, both moves failed.’ ’’ ”Donald Trump is the Republican Party’s. ..” [/INST] Donald Trump wins big in Indiana, becomes presumptive GOP nominee </s>

<s>[INST] I want to receive updates from partners and sponsors. In the middle of last week, reports started trickling in that Indiana Governor Mike Pence would be named as the running mate to presumptive Republican president nominee Donald Trump. From there the story developed with more than the usual campaign drama. For hours, the reports went unconfirmed. Then Trump postponed the announcement. Finally, in underwhelming fashion, Trump confirmed the story via Tweet. According to some reports, Trump later regretted the decision and almost changed his mind. One man watching all this unfold was Shannon Burchett, a investor who purchased the domain TrumpPence2016. com (and several variations thereof) back in April, before the nomination seemed a lock for Trump and long before Pence’s name entered the rotation of veep speculation. Seeing that traditional candidates were having a tough time, “I made some guesses and I guess I was right,” Burchett said over the phone on Friday. “Pence just struck me that he might be the kind of match that Trump would go for. ” Now Burchett stands to make some serious money off of his instincts, which ran him about $10. He expects that the return on his investment will be “many multiples of that,” perhaps even “a valuation. ” Burchett was coy about the process, but suggested that it was underway and that he anticipated that things “will happen quickly. ” (On Monday morning, he added that discussions were “continuing. ”) A “political junkie,” Burchett says that this gambit was not unlike his work. “It’s the nature of my business,” he said. “I view this as an investment. ” That’s not to say he wasn’t feeling a bit of a buzz from having nailed it. Burchett described the Pence announcement as somewhere between “a winning lottery ticket” and being “the trader on the desk that gets the investment right. ” After some thought, he later likened it more precisely to an NCAA tournament pool, offering that “the best analogy for my reaction on picking the TrumpPence team is probably that of picking a March Madness bracket that turns out to actually be the winner. ” Burchett added that a winning bracket and presidential politics contain a “similar number of possible permutations and combinations. ” This isn’t the first time ​that​ what some consider the dark art of cybersquatting has interceded in presidential politics. Both George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton have had battles over domain names in the past. Earlier this year, JebBush. com was discovered to redirect viewers to Donald Trump’s website while TedCruzforAmerica. com invited users to emigrate to Canada. With the campaign and its opponents potentially jockeying for digital real estate — the #NeverTrump movement reportedly scooped up TrumpPence. gop on Thursday — it was natural to wonder if Burchett would be willing offer a hometown discount of sorts to the side he felt ideologically closer to, whichever side that was. “I probably shouldn’t even comment on that,” he said with a laugh. To him, business is business, even when it’s politics. [/INST] The Investor Who Bought TrumpPence2016.com in April for $10 </s>

<s>[INST] Robots may soon take your job and, most likely, you won’t see it coming. While two in three Americans expect that, within 50 years, robots and computers will do much of the work that humans currently do, when it comes to their own jobs, most workers think they’re in the clear, according to a survey of more than 2, 000 adults released Thursday by Washington, think tank . Fully 80 percent of workers say their current job will definitely or probably exist in its current form in 50 years; just 6 percent say it will definitely not. “In general, workers tend to be confident about their own job prospects,” says Aaron Smith, the associate director of research at Pew — even as they “vaguely sense” that robots will take many jobs in the future. While the reasons for this disconnect aren’t clear, Smith says it may be because the idea of robots taking jobs is still relatively abstract to many workers who haven’t yet experienced that themselves. So while they agree that robots can take jobs, “this is not something that registers as a meaningful worry to their own job prospects,” he says. Many workers should be worried: It’s likely that — at least according to experts in the field — robots will replace millions of American jobs in the future. Nearly half of the jobs in America were at risk of being done by robots or computers in roughly the next two decades, according to a 2013 study of more than 700 occupations . Furthermore, roughly 80 million jobs are in danger of being taken over by computers and robots in the near future, . Some workers are at a higher risk of getting replaced by a robot than others. The Oxford University researchers posit that most workers in transportation and logistics, production and office and administrative occupations, as well as many in service occupations, are most at risk. To combat this, these workers may need to gravitate towards jobs that are not susceptible to computerization — “they will have to acquire creative and social skills,” the researchers write. And yet, Smith notes, “workers today are not preparing for this eventuality in any meaningful way. ” Already, robots are a big part of the working world. In 2015, orders and shipments for robots in North America jumped 14 percent and hit new records, as valued at $1. 8 billion, according to the Robotic Industries Association, an industry trade group. Now, more than 260, 000 robots are working in US factories, many of them doing jobs like welding and handling materials. And experts say there is little doubt that robots will play a role in an increasing number of tasks in the future — whether workers realize it or not. [/INST] Robots are almost definitely coming to take your job </s>

<s>[INST] , I want to receive updates from partners and sponsors. In the 1992 film My Cousin Vinnie, Joe Pesci, as the Vincent Gambini, appears in a rural Alabama courtroom in his customary garb of blue jeans, cowboy boots, and leather jacket. The trial judge, played by the immortal Fred Gwynne, tells him to come to court the next day in a suit “made out of some kind of. ..cloth. ” The next morning, Gambini is back in court still in his Jersey finery. “Now, didn’t I tell you next time you appear in my courtroom that you dress appropriately?” the judge asks. Vinnie is gobsmacked: “You were serious about that?” For a lower federal court to treat an opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court as a joke is the judicial equivalent of showing up for court in jacket and jeans. Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the blockbuster abortion case the Court will hear this week, is a test of whether the Roberts Court is serious about precedent, and indeed about law, in this area. The Fifth Circuit plainly thinks it is not if the Court affirms the lower court, it will signal open season on the availability of legal abortion across the country. The Edge: Clarence Thomas Has Spoken Hellerstedt is a challenge to a 2013 Texas law that will have the effect of closing 34 of the 40 clinics providing abortions in the state. If that happens, legal abortion will be available only in the state’s four major cities. As a result, nearly 1 million women of reproductive age would find themselves more than 150 miles from a facility that could perform an abortion, and would need to wait more than three weeks for an appointment to receive one. The restrictions, embodied in a 2013 law called H. B. 2, impose two new requirements on any facility performing abortions. First, the facility must meet all standards for an “ambulatory surgical center” — a type of medical facility, developed during the 1970s, designed to allow surgery to be performed outside a hospital context. ASCs have to have elaborate surgical facilities and a sterile field in which surgical incisions can take place. Refitting a abortion clinic as an ASC would be prohibitively expensive, or impossible. In addition, any physician performing abortions must have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. The combination of these requirements has produced the closure of all the freestanding abortion clinics in the state, leaving only six ASCs in major cities that also perform abortions. Texas says that the purpose of the two new laws is to protect women’s health. It points to the 2013 case of Kermit Gosnell, an abortion provider who was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of manslaughter for causing the deaths of viable infants (and one pregnant woman) at his abortion clinic in Philadelphia. The abortion providers challenging the law argue that neither requirement responds to medical necessity. ASCs are designed for the kind of invasive surgery formerly performed in hospitals clinics have been safely performing abortions for more than 40 years. And whether a physician has “admitting privileges” or not, a patient at an abortion clinic needing emergency care will be smoothly transferred — along with her medical records — to the nearest hospital. The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and other medical groups have filed a brief with the Court stating that “neither requirement is supported by accepted medical practice or scientific evidence. ” The abortion providers cite statistics showing that abortion in Texas has a demonstrated safety record — and is, on the basis of that record, 100 times safer than carrying a fetus to term. The challengers filed suit in federal district court in Texas. The procedural history is long and complex however, what’s important is that the district court blocked the state from enforcing either requirement. It called the new requirements “a brutally effective system of abortion regulation that reduces access to abortion clinics thereby creating a statewide burden for substantial numbers of Texas women. ” The two requirements, Judge Lee Yeakel concluded, “have the ultimate effect of erecting a substantial obstacle for women in Texas who seek to obtain a previability abortion. ” “Substantial obstacle” is the key phrase here, because it is the Supreme Court’s definition of what is also called an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose. In 1992, the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey heard a challenge to Roe v. Wade. In a controlling plurality opinion, three justices “reaffirmed” the right to choose in reality, they redefined it. From now on, abortion was not a “fundamental right” but a “liberty interest” a state regulation of abortion would be struck down only if it imposed an “undue burden” — defined as a “substantial obstacle” — to the woman’s choice. The state could, for example, require a waiting period for a woman seeking abortions it could require doctors rather than others to perform abortions and it could also require doctors to read patients “counseling” material to demonstrate the state’s “profound respect for unborn life. ” It could not, however, require a married woman to inform her husband before receiving an abortion. In small minority of cases, the plurality said, that requirement would give the husband an “effective veto” over a choice right that belonged to the woman. What about a regulation imposed to protect women’s health? The state could mandate the collection of detailed health data about each abortion performed. However, the plurality added, “Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right. ” The district court applied that language: Because the medical requirements were “unnecessary” and erected a “high barrier for poor, rural, or disadvantaged women throughout Texas,” it held, they presented a “substantial obstacle” and were thus invalid. A panel of the Fifth Circuit, however, lifted the injunction and upheld the two requirements. That judgment is now before the Supreme Court. The state of Texas asserts that the new rules are designed to protect women’s health and offered evidence to support that judgment. The district judge found the evidence unconvincing. The Fifth Circuit did not exactly reject the lower court’s factual findings it simply declared that, when it comes to abortion, facts no longer matter: It is not the courts’ duty to second guess legislative improve on, or cleanse the legislative process by allowing relitigation of the facts that led to the passage of a law. . . . Because the determination does not lend itself to an evidentiary inquiry in court, the state is not required to prove that the objective of the law would be fulfilled. The cynicism of that passage is breathtaking. In the abortion context, they suggest, a court is obliged to believe anything the state says if Texas says the unnecessary is necessary, then that’s it. The Fifth Circuit, having perhaps counted noses, is counting on the Court to approve this solemn parody of the law. The prospect of a major change in precedent — that is, of a decision overturning Roe and Casey — is nil. But the case could produce a split, which would leave the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in place. And that would signal that, in the lower courts, anything goes as long as it says “Health” in the title. The “law” of abortion would be, in effect, whatever legislatures declared it to be. That’s a compromise that no justice seems likely to make. The only way to prevent that result would be for one of the conservative justices to cross and vote either to strike down the restrictions, or to remand the case for decision under a genuine legal standard. Justice Anthony Kennedy is the last of the three justices who created the “undue burden” standard in Casey. No one who follows the Court can doubt that he finds abortion very troubling, and thinks women sometimes need protection from their own feckless choices. Some of what he has written in abortion cases suggests that “undue burden” to him means less than the Casey precedent suggests. But no one also doubts that Kennedy takes the Supreme Court, and its place at the center of American law, seriously as well. His head here may conflict with his heart. Whatever one thinks of abortion, what the Fifth Circuit has done is beyond disrespectful to Supreme Court precedent it verges on defiance. Yo, Supreme Court, that opinion says in effect, We both know you weren’t serious about that rule. We got your undue burden right here. Would a conscientious judge allow this disrespect? In My Cousin Vinnie, the judge put Joe Pesci in jail. [/INST] Will the U.S. Supreme Court Take Precedent Seriously on Abortion? </s>

<s>[INST] A man accused in a bar shooting in suburban Kansas City that left one Indian national dead and another wounded was indicted by a federal grand jury on hate crime charges, the US justice department announced Friday. The indictment against Adam Purinton, 52, comes after a 22 February shooting at Austin’s Bar and Grill in Olathe, Kansas. Witnesses have said Purinton, who is white, yelled “get out of my country” at two Indian nationals, Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Alok Madasani, before he began shooting. Kuchibhotla died and Madasani was injured. A third man, Ian Grillot, was wounded when he tried to intervene. The shooting raised fears of more attacks on immigrants following Donald Trump’s election and his push for a ban on immigrants from some countries. Officials in India also expressed concern about their citizens’ safety in the US, where many work. An affidavit released in March said Madasani told detectives that the gunman asked if their “status was legal” before he opened fire. The indictment announced on Friday alleges Purinton shot the two Indian men because of their “actual and perceived” race, color, religion and national origin. The indictment also alleges Purinton committed the crimes after premeditation and planning, attempted to kill more than one person and created a grave risk of death to others at the scene. The indictment also accuses Purinton of violating federal firearms laws. After the shooting, Purinton drove 70 miles east to an Applebee’s restaurant in Clinton, Missouri, where he allegedly admitted the shootings to a bartender, who called police. The justice department said in a news release Friday that it would determine later whether Purinton should face the death penalty. Kuchibhotla and Madasani had come to the US from India to study and worked as engineers at the GPS maker Garmin. Purinton is jailed in Johnson County, Kansas, on a $2m bond on murder and attempted murder charges. His public defender, Michael McCulloch, did not immediately return a message seeking comment. [/INST] Kansas man indicted on hate crime charges for killing Indian national </s>

<s>[INST] More than a dozen dealers affiliated with a notorious drug trafficking gang were indicted for peddling crack cocaine near schools and playgrounds, authorities said Monday in a statement. The NYPD and other agencies rounded up 17 defendants over the last two weeks in Manhattan and the Bronx, many of them alleged members of the gang No Sleep Get Money, according to the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor. The gang, also known as N$GM, brazenly conducted business at all hours in the lobbies, hallways and stairwells of East Harlem’s AK Houses, a privately owned affordable housing complex, officials said. The dealers allegedly met with some customers on the sidewalks in front of the buildings and near a playground and three schools, including PS 30 PS 138 and Success Academy Harlem 2, according to Special Narcotics Prosecutor Bridget G. Brennan. The NYPD spearheaded the investigation, dubbed “Operation Insomnia,” after members of the community complained about the relentless drug trade on their doorsteps, authorities said. And at least five shootings took place in front of the AK Houses in the past year, the statement said. During a Sept. 15 search of defendant Matthew Jones’ pad at the AK Houses, authorities allegedly found two loaded firearms in a dresser drawer, including a . 38 and a 9mm, officials said. A was in the room at the time and three other children were in the apartment at 112 E. 128th St. authorities said. “Finding decent affordable housing is challenging enough for Manhattan residents, without facing daily threats posed by warring gangs and drug trafficking,” Brennan said in a statement. “Today’s arrests and indictments demonstrate zero tolerance for this dangerous criminal activity. ” [/INST] 17 gang members indicted for dealing crack near schools </s>

<s>[INST] More than 50 million people could be walloped by snowfall this weekend, should a nor’easter develop over the Ohio Valley, potentially dumping as much as one to three inches per hour at times in parts of the Northeast, AccuWeather reported Tuesday. Following an unseasonably warm December in the Northeast, the system forecasted to initially bring a wintry mix to the southern Appalachians and Ohio Valley on Thursday will have enough of the cold air it needs to create headaches for millions in the Northeast this weekend, the forecasting service said. Although it’s still early, computer models all predict a windy, strong storm, nicknamed ‘Jonas’ by the Weather Channel’s winter storm naming committee. ”There’s going to be a big storm. Somebody’s going to get walloped,” said Victor Gensini, a meteorology professor at College of DuPage outside of Chicago, which should be spared. ”It does look like it’s going to be a doozy.” Rich Otto, lead forecaster at the National Weather Service’s Weather Prediction Center, said some major cities will likely see a foot or more of snow. Other meteorologists talked about 18 inches, two feet and more. Otto said an disturbance in the air is moving from the Pacific to the Rockies to the southern plains. It should pass over Texas, move into the Ohio Valley, join with other unstable air and become a nor’easter Friday evening over the Mid Atlantic, moving up the coast on Saturday. As the storm strengthens and moves northeastward leading into the weekend, it will take advantage of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, and snowfall rates of one to three inches per hour are possible along its track, AccuWeather reported. ”Since the storm is arriving on a southern track, impacts will include Kentucky, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Northern Virginia into D. C. then Philadelphia,” said meteorologist Ryan Maue of the private WeatherBell Analytics. The latest AccuWeather forecast map for Friday and Saturday showed the strongest potential for snowstorm activity along the corridor, from Roanoke, Va. to southern New York State, as well as most of the metropolis. The amount of snow expected in coastal areas will depend on the amount of mixing rainfall, AccuWeather reported. Strong winds will accompany the storm in the New York area, according to meteorologist Nick Gregory, who also warned of the potential for storm surge in the region. While many in the Washington, D. C. New York and Boston areas can expect to see noticeable snowfall activity, under current projections, little to no snow is likely to fall over upstate New York and northern New England, AccuWeather senior meteorologist Brett Anderson said. “Should the storm continue northeastward, rather than turn more to the east at the last minute, New York, Boston, Providence and Hartford would be buried in snow,” Anderson said. Forecasters see Saturday as the worst day in the East. However, should the storm system shift 50 to 100 miles farther to the north, the corridor could be spared the worst of the snowfall, in favor of the northern Appalachian Mountains, AccuWeather reported. South and east of the areas expecting snowfall, a wintry mix is expected throughout much of Tennessee and western North Carolina, shifting to mainly rain approaching the coast. The Associated Press contributed to this report. [/INST] Ohio Valley, Northeast brace for Winter Storm ’Jonas’ this weekend </s>

<s>[INST] Kunming, China (CNN) If natural disasters often prompt countries to put their differences aside and work together, so does training for them. That kind of cooperation was on display during a joint disaster relief exercise held by the United States and China in the southwest Chinese city of Kunming last week. Around 200 soldiers trained for several days on a variety of scenarios, a rare instance of cooperation that stands in stark contrast to the otherwise often contentious relationship between the world’s two largest militaries. ”It’s an opportunity for young soldiers from the US Army and young soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army to kind of come together and understand each other and create bonds,” US Army Lt. Col. David Downing told CNN. Uneasy ties Since 2012, China has seized territory and militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea, a strategy the US has opposed. In response, the US has sailed warships through the disputed waters and flown planes nearby. Both sides have also accused the other of conducting cyber attacks, and China has been angered by US plans to install a missile defense system in South Korea by the end of this year. It’s all part of a complicated relationship that the new US commander in chief will have to manage. But what will Donald Trump’s China policy look like? While Trump was keen to drive home an economic message on the campaign trail, he largely avoided military issues. Some analysts have speculated that Trump will give China more of a free pass in the South China Sea, choosing to focus on issues such as trade. But others point to potential Trump Cabinet appointees as signs that a policy could be in the works. team? Trump’s China team ”will be very conservative people who really embrace a very rhetoric,” said Tong Zhao, an associate researcher at the Center for Global Policy. ”They see China as the primary American strategic rival in the future.” Trump’s pick for national security adviser, retired general Mike Flynn, has said China should ”certainly” be viewed as an enemy of the US. James Mattis, a former general and top contender for defense secretary, last year called for a ”policy to build the counterbalance if China continues to expand its bullying role in the South China Sea.” Building trust, In Kunming, as his troops took part in the disaster relief exercise, CNN asked another expert, Gen. Robert Brown, commander of US Army Pacific, what advice he’d give the Trump administration on China. ”The more you can build relationships, it then leads to trust,” Brown said. ”So you can have differences, but you can discuss and talk about those differences.” Those differences were put aside during the joint training, but it will be up to Trump and his administration to shape the relationship in years to come. [/INST] US and China conduct rare military drill </s>

<s>[INST] The past is the final frontier. Traveling back in time isn’t necessarily science fiction, according to a new paper The paper’s title, “Traversable acausal retrograde domains in spacetime,” creates the acronym TARDIS — the name of the fictional time machine in “Doctor Who. ” “People think of time travel as something as fiction,” Ben Tippett, the lead author of the study, “But, mathematically, it is possible. ” Specifically, the paper describes a spacetime “bubble” that would travel faster than the speed of light — thereby allowing it to move backwards. The idea that an object can travel through time if it reaches the speed of light is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity. But in order to traverse the past, we need something that doesn’t exist yet. And Tippet isn’t sure if it’s something that ever will. Described in the study as “exotic matter” this enigmatic material would be capable of slowing down time by bending the spacetime continuum. “My model of a time machine uses the curved — to bend time into a circle for the passengers, not in a straight line,” said Tippet. “That circle takes us back in time. ” Thanks to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, we already know that spacetime is curved. (If it wasn’t, all the planets and stars would exist in a straight line.) The theory states that the massive gravity of large objects forces spacetime to bend around them. It’s the same theory that predicted gravitational waves, “Experts in my field have been exploring the possibility of mathematical time machines since 1949,” said Tippet. “And my research presents a new method for doing it. ” [/INST] Science says time travel is possible </s>

<s>[INST] Washington (CNN) Barack Obama used his departing words as President Wednesday to offer an assured if not entirely optimistic outlook for a country governed by Donald Trump. ”At my core I think we’re going to be OK,” Obama said as he concluded his final news conference at the White House. ”We just have to fight for it, work for it, and not take it for granted.” ”I know that you will help us do that,” he told reporters assembled in the White House briefing room. If the message was still hopeful, it was a sharp downgrade from the grand visions of progressive change that propelled Obama to the presidency eight years ago. In his session with reporters, Obama said that after two terms of political warfare with Republicans, he was emerging unbowed in his faith in the US and its citizens. But he continued to express concerns about his successor’s stance on Russia and his readiness for office. ”I believe in this country. I believe in the American people. I believe that people are more good than bad,” Obama said. ”I believe tragic things happen. I think there’s evil in the world, but I think at the end of the day, if we work hard and if we’re true to those things in us that feel true and feel right, that the world gets a little better each time.” ”That’s what this presidency has tried to be about,” he continued. Conceding that Trump may not take his advice on issues, Obama said he would avoid weighing in on specific policy matters during his using his time instead to write and ”not hear myself talk so darn much.” ’Core values’ But he predicted he would voice concern if ”core values” are being threatened. ”I put in that category if I saw systematic discrimination being ratified in some fashion. I put in that category explicit or functional obstacles to people being able to vote, to exercise their franchise,” Obama said. Obama said he was calmed by the notion of the Oval Office as a moderating factor on Trump’s bombastic tendencies. He said once Trump gets into office and is hit with the intricate details of governing, his thinking might shift on issues such as Obamacare and jobs. ”Once he comes into office and he looks at the complexities of how to in fact provide healthcare for everybody, something he says he wants to do, or wants to make sure that he is encouraging job creation and wage growth in this country, that may lead him to some of the same conclusions that I arrived at once I got here,” Obama said. ”But I don’t think we’ll know until he has an actual chance to get sworn in and sit behind that desk.” In a news conference that will likely mark the final time Obama speaks in public before he departs the US Capitol on Friday as an Obama described the phone calls between him and Trump as ”constructive” and at times ”lengthy.” He said the greatest advice he could give and has given to Trump, is to rely on others around him. ”This is a job of such magnitude that you can’t do it by yourself,” Obama said. Obama opened the news conference rebuffing Trump, issuing a vocal defense of the White House press corps, insisting the reporters who covered his administration were an essential facet of a functioning democracy. ”We are accountable to the people who send us here. And you have done it,” Obama said. ”You’re not supposed to be sycophants. You’re supposed to be skeptics.” White House Press Secretary: The work of journalists has never been more important, His remarks stood in direct contrast to the incoming president, who has lambasted news organizations reporting on his transition as reporting ”fake news.” His choice to appear in the White House briefing room was also telling since Trump’s team has floated the possibility of scrapping that venue for larger space. Obama was continuing a tradition of taking reporters’ questions for a final time before departing office. George W. Bush held his final news conference a week before leaving office, reflecting on some of the disappointments of his administration but also defending the controversial decisions he made over two terms in the White House. Unlike Bush, Obama is leaving office with approval ratings. A poll released Wednesday showed 60% of Americans approve of the job he’s doing as president. Chelsea Manning, Obama’s concluding news conference comes amid a flurry of activity, including handing down a commutation for national security leaker Chelsea Manning and a pardon for Gen. James Cartwright, convicted of lying to investigators in a leak probe. Obama defended the decision to commute Manning’s sentence, saying that she served a ”tough prison sentence.” He said he looked at the particulars of the case the same way he had any other person whose sentence he had commuted. ”I felt that in light of all the circumstances, that commuting her sentence was entirely appropriate,” Obama said from the briefing room. He said the time she’s already spent in jail would function as a deterrent for any future leakers while warning other potential whistleblowers to use established government channels to air grievances about the actions of the US government. But he said that ”justice has been served” for Manning, a transgender woman who has been serving time at an military prison in Kansas. ”The sentence that she received was very disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received,” Obama said. ”It made sense to commute and not pardon her sentence.” The decision has been lambasted by Republicans, who have accused Manning of being a traitor for disclosing hundreds of thousands of pages related to classified US programs. Strained ties, Ties between the incoming and outgoing administrations have strained over Trump’s relationship with Russia, which the US accuses of meddling in November’s election. Trump has proposed friendlier ties to Moscow, which he said would lead to greater partnership on a series of sticky global issues from Syria to Ukraine. Obama offered a cautious note on developing friendlier ties to Moscow, saying a constructive relationship is ”in America’s interest and the world’s interest.” But he said fostering warmer ties during his presidency was stymied by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s combative stance when he returned to power in 2012. Putin’s ”adversarial spirit” had ”made the relationship more difficult,” Obama said. [/INST] Obama’s parting words: ’We’re going to be OK’ </s>