"I can't believe that I'm saying that a candidate for president of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women." And so First Lady Michelle Obama captured the sentiments of a majority of Americans during an emotional stump speech for Hillary Clinton on Thursday afternoon that lambasted Republican nominee Donald Trump's repeated demeaning and derogatory treatment of women. Speaking before a crowd in Manchester, New Hampshire, Mrs. Obama stated that the leaked Access Hollywood video of Trump bragging about groping, kissing, and trying to have sex with women has "shaken [her] to [her] core." "It would be dishonest and disingenuous to move on to the next thing like this was all just a bad dream," the first lady said. "We can't sweep this under the rug as another sad footnote in a disturbing election season. This was a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior." Refusing to call Trump by name—only referring to him as Hillary Clinton's "opponent"—Mrs. Obama denounced the Republican candidate's defense of his past remarks as simple "locker room talk" while explaining how personal these comments felt to her—and for all women. For Trump, the 2005 Access Hollywood appearance was not an isolated incident. He has gone on record numerous times to comment on women in, typically, one of two ways: As objects of his own sexual gratification or as threats that should be wholly diminished for their intellect, ambition, or appearance. Though Trump has repeatedly claimed the "locker room talk" defense since the tape leaked last Friday, numerous women have since come forward to report their own sexual assaults at the hands of Donald Trump—meaning that this wasn't just talk, it was predatory action. Like millions of Americans, Mrs. Obama, felt shock and outrage over Trump's behavior, and could not believe that there are still people in this country who view women with such little regard, let alone the fact that one of them is trying to become the next president of the United States. "This is not normal. This not politics as usual. This is disgraceful," Mrs. Obama said. "It doesn't matter what party you belong to—Democrat, Republican, Independent—no woman deserves to be treated this way." Asserting that Trump is in no way qualified for the executive branch or be a role model for children who look up to the president, the first lady then praised Hillary Clinton for her longstanding commitment to public service (even saying that she has more experience than both "Barack or Bill"), before declaring that the former secretary of state would be the only candidate who could unite the country and guide the American public with strength and compassion. Making a call to undecided voters, Mrs. Obama urged them not to cast a protest vote or sit the election out entirely, saying that doing so would only help clear a path for Trump to the White House. She referenced the 2012 election, in which President Obama won New Hampshire by 4,000 votes. Though that figure might have seemed like a definitive win for the incumbent president, it broke down to a total of just 66 votes per precinct—or, dozens of votes that could make or break a candidate's victory. She additionally cited the power of women voters in this election, and the influence they can have in choosing the next president. A recent report from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight election forecast suggested that if only women voted, Hillary Clinton would win by an overwhelming majority (which, horrifyingly, prompted a #Repealthe19th social media campaign among Trump supporters). Mrs. Obama invited all women to take this power seriously and use it to elect a candidate who has not only been a pillar of support for women, but would teach America's children that any kind of degrading, hateful rhetoric is wholly unacceptable. "We, as women, have all the power we need to determine the outcome of this election," Mrs. Obama said. "We have the knowledge, we have a voice, we have a vote. And on November 8, we as women, we as Americans, we as decent human beings, can declare that enough is enough and we do not tolerate this kind of behavior." Answer: teeth
Despite what you've been reading about the far right's consternation with Bruce Rauner over his ostensible support for abortion in Illinois, I think it's been a pretty good month for the governor. The union-busting Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees case that he initiated has made it to the Supreme Court. And he's got liberal groups like Planned Parenthood praising him for his stance on reproductive rights. It looks like he may be able to put together the band of rabid right-wingers and abortion-rights moderates who helped elect him in the first place. I know that sounds like the oddest of coalitions—but it just goes to show you what a clever politician can buy with his billions. The Republican right-to-lifers are furious that Rauner flip-flopped and signed HB 40, the reproductive rights bill that expanded Medicaid funding for some abortions and eliminated the controversial "trigger provision" from state law. (The trigger language would've made abortions illegal in Illinois should Roe v. Wade be overturned.) And many, including Steve Bannon, are talking about recruiting someone to mount a primary challenge against Rauner. But I think it's mostly bluster. In fact, I can't understand why they're so outraged. They knew what they were getting when they overwhelmingly voted for Rauner back in 2014. Rauner made no secret of his support for abortion. In 2014, his wife, Diana Rauner, went so far as to take out an ad assuring pro-choice Democrats that when it came to abortion rights her husband would be no different than his opponent, former governor Pat Quinn. Backed by many pro-choice moderates in DuPage County, the North Shore, and the Gold Coast, Rauner edged out Quinn and promptly went to work bankrupting public education by vetoing the budget. Earlier this year, the governor panicked when it looked as though he might be losing support among downstate Republicans. So he assured right-to-life legislators he would veto HB40. That enraged pro-choice voters, who claimed he was betraying his lifelong commitment to their cause. Rauner found himself in a jam. He had to decide which group he could least afford to alienate on the eve of next year's election: Gold Coast and North Shore moderates or rabid Republicans. Obviously, he went with the former, at least partly because, if push came to shove, they might actually vote for a Democrat. As for the rabid right, he probably figured he'd give 'em a tax break and they'd follow him off a cliff. Of course, Rauner was slick about it. Over the summer he made a real show of inviting various pro-choice women to his office to explain to him how important it was to pass HB40. And then on September 28, he signed it, making a big deal about it, like he was King Solomon making a wrenching decision as opposed to a lifelong abortion supporter doing what he'd promised to do four years ago. In any case, it seems to have worked. Key players in the pro-choice movement fell for it. When Rauner signed HB40, Planned Parenthood of Illinois sent an e-mail calling on members to "thank Governor Rauner." Puh-lease! A more accurate response would've been "Thanks for nothing, Bruce!" Even if the strategy fails and he doesn't win reelection, Rauner's in a perfect position to achieve his great dream of damaging, if not destroying, public unions in Illinois thanks to the Janus case. Mark Janus is a state employee who argues that his First Amendment rights are being violated because state law requires him to contribute a "fair share" portion of his paycheck to the union that represents him—in this case, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. In particular, he doesn't think he should have to donate money to a union with which he disagrees politically. It's called a fair-share contribution because the money guarantees that workers share the cost of financing a union that represents them in bargaining and grievance hearings. On February 9, 2015, a few weeks after he took office, Rauner issued an executive order halting automatic fair-share deductions from paychecks. Several unions and attorney general Lisa Madigan sued and Rauner's executive order was overturned. Rauner also filed a suit in federal court seeking to stop automatic fair-share contributions on First Amendment grounds. In 2016, a federal judge ruled against Rauner, decreeing that the governor didn't have standing in the case. By then Janus had joined the case—as a state employee, he clearly has standing. Janus is being represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a union-busting outfit that's financially supported by the Koch brothers, the Walton Family Foundation, and other stalwarts of the far right. On September 28, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Janus's case. The suit is similar to one filed by Rebecca Friedrichs, a teacher in California, who lost when the Supreme Court was deadlocked 4-4. Since then President Trump and the Senate have put conservative Neil Gorsuch on the court. So unless another judge flips—c'mon Justice Kennedy, you can do it!—it looks like SCOTUS will issue a bruising blow against unions, which will have to scramble to keep up their funding. This is a cruel irony on many levels. For one thing, government employees such as Janus will be relatively defenseless without unions if they're fired or harassed by a powerful politician like Rauner. Good luck getting the National Right to Work Foundation to help them with that. As for Rauner's friends at Planned Parenthood—well, with a drop in membership, unions will be less able to help elect Democrats. So really the assault on unions is an attempt to cripple the Democratic Party. You don't think the Koch brothers actually give a hoot about workers like Mark Janus, do you? If Democrats can't beat Republicans, they can't enact liberal-minded measures, like—oh, just to pick one—reproductive rights. Think about this, Planned Parenthood. Your good friend, Bruce, is throwing you under the bus once again. Only this time he's got a more roundabout way of doing it. v Answer: teeth
By T.A. Frank; VanityFair: With Donald Trump busy spreading havoc around the world—most recently tweeting about James Comey’s testimony, or feeding into the crisis over Qatar—it’s reasonable to ask who can be bothered to gripe about Hillary Clinton. But I can. One makes the time. Or maybe one doesn’t, but in a two-party system there’s only one alternative to the party of Trump, and the role of Clinton in that party is therefore important. Lately, it has been increasing. Hillary has been making high-profile public appearances and started talking frankly about her distaste for Trump and her dismay over the people and things that cost her the election. She has even founded a PAC called Onward Together, a 501(c)(4) that will “advance progressive values.” Whether we like it or not, the Clintons are back in the game. It’s up to the rest of us to figure out if we approve. Just about everything we do lends itself to a generous or hostile interpretation. Our friends think we feed the poor because we have genuine compassion, and our enemies think we do so because we want to look good. The benign take on motives isn’t always closest to the truth, but it’s the better bet. (On the occasions that I’ve had an inside view of something in the glare of the press, those with the darkest take on it have usually been wrong.) I’ve been tough on Chelsea Clinton—hard not to be—but Hillary Clinton has a much higher accomplishment-to-self-regard ratio. So why not start generously? To read rest of article visit VanityFair. No compatible source was found for this video. By Brian Brinker; OpsLens: Now that Hillary Clinton is making her way back into the public spotlight, we’re starting to hear a lot more about who’s to blame for her loss. Of course, President Trump is at the top of her list. So too are members of her campaign staff, pollsters, The New York Times, supporters who didn’t show up at the polls, James Comey, Putin and the Russians, and various others. You know whose name you’re not going to find? Hillary Clinton’s own. Save perhaps for President Trump, no one else is singularly so responsible for her loss than Hillary herself. Yet, she has so far proven unwilling to take any of the blame. As Hillary stated in a recent interview, “I take responsibility for every decision I make—but that’s not why I lost.” In other words, the blame doesn’t fall on Hillary’s shoulders, at least in her mind. However, as the nominee and candidate for president, no one else should have to shoulder as much blame as Hillary. And I say this as someone who does believe that sexism and other “unfair” factors played a role. Still, it wasn’t sexism that inspired Hillary to ignore voters in Michigan and Wisconsin and to jet set out to California to meet with rich donors. And it wasn’t sexism that inspired a largely negative campaign that focused on why people should vote against Donald Trump, rather than why they should vote for Hillary Clinton. Turns out that her campaign didn’t inspire a lot of people to the polls. Sexism may have been a factor in Hillary’s inability to connect with voters, especially working and middle class voters. But there were many other factors as well. Hillary has a tendency of coming off as an elitist. She can’t pour a beer, she hasn’t driven a car in years, and she always seemed to struggle to relate to people directly. Her campaign, meanwhile, was mostly tone deaf. After winning the DNC nomination, she largely blew off Michigan and Wisconsin. The problem is that if you want midwestern voters, you have to meet with them and respect them. You can’t ignore them and skip off to sunny California to eat triple-digit meals and hob knob with celebrities and millionaires instead. To read rest of article visit OpsLens. Answer: teeth
A Michigan woman who sacrificed the chance to prolong her own life so she could give birth has died. Nick DeKlyen told the Associated Press that his wife, Carrie DeKlyen, died Saturday morning surrounded by family. "I'll see you in Heaven," was among the last things Nick DeKlyen said to his wife. Doctors removed Carrie DeKlyen's feeding and breathing tubes on Thursday after she gave birth to the couple's sixth child, Life Lynn DeKlyen. The little girl was born prematurely and weighs 1 pound, four ounces, but is doing well. Carrie DeKlyen chose to forgo chemotherapy to treat her brain cancer so she could give birth to her daughter. "Me and my wife, we are people of faith," Nick DeKlyen told the Detroit Free Press. "We love the Lord with everything in us. We talked about it, prayed about it." The couple from the western Michigan city of Wyoming was married for 17 years. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Answer: projectors
It used to be pretty easy to tell the difference between advertising and editorial content on Facebook. If a post had a little "sponsored" label on it, that was a red flag telling you, "Hey, a brand paid for this, you should treat it as an advertisement." But that line has gotten blurrier for Facebook users, especially over the last few months as Facebook has limited how far posts from media companies can spread on their own (so-called "organic reach"). In January, Facebook announced that it would de-emphasize publisher content in favor of " friends and family" posts. One of the main complaints I heard from folks on the publisher side was that Mark Zuckerberg didn't actually want less publisher content on Facebook: He wanted publishers to pay him to help their articles spread. "Facebook is now pay to play," was a lament I heard many times. And that is what many publishers - from The New Yorker, to The Wall Street Journal, to Marie Claire (and Business Insider) - have been doing for certain articles, with more frequency since the algorithm change. They have paid Facebook to help their editorial, journalistic articles spread. The Facebook posts that link to these articles are labeled "sponsored," because they are technically ads, but they link to normal news articles. When you follow the link to the publisher's website, the article isn't a piece of "sponsored content," even though the Facebook post is labeled "sponsored." Confusing, right? But that's only the start of the rabbit hole when it comes to the blurring of the lines between advertising and editorial content on Facebook. Traditionally, media companies have worked to separate advertisements from journalistic writing (and to properly label "advertorial" content). But in the world of Facebook, these outlets don't always even have control over how posts appear to readers. Positive articles about companies like Uber (for instance) are being turned into promotional ads, sometimes without the media organizations being made aware. It can be hard for readers to wade through, so we decided to break it down for you in a way that is easy to digest. We'll walk you through the various types of "sponsored" posts on Facebook and what they mean. Let's start with the one I just mentioned: Purely editorial articles that are being promoted with "sponsored" posts on Facebook. This basically happens when a publisher wants to boost an article it thinks has viral potential, and can bring the publisher in much more advertising (or subscriber) revenue than it is paying Facebook to push it into your feed, or get new readers. Here is what that looks like from The New Yorker on an editorial article titled " The Great Sadness of Ben Affleck": And here's one from The Wall Street Journal on an editorial article titled " Silicon Valley to Washington: Why Don't You Get Us": Just scrolling through my Facebook feed casually, I noticed many such articles from outlets ranging from those above to Marie Claire (as mentioned), Ranker, Screen Rant, Elite Daily, U.S. News and World Report, and so on. They really run the gamut editorially. Okay, so this type of post is easy enough to understand. Here is where it starts to get more confusing. Sometimes, the subject of an article pays Facebook to promote an editorial article written about them - presumably one that paints them in a positive light. These are also technically "ads" on Facebook, but the journalism they are promoting was not paid for by the subject. The article itself is not "sponsored content," even though the Facebook post is "sponsored." Here's an example with Uber and CNET: CNET wrote this article about Uber's new CEO, titled " Uber's U-turn: How the new CEO is cleaning house after scandals and lawsuits." To be clear, this was written by a reporter at CNET and was not paid for by Uber. It's just a regular news article. But Uber clearly liked the piece and is now paying Facebook to spread it far and wide. Here is an example from the video world. This editorial video (not an ad) by NowThis Money is being promoted by the subject of the video, Adam Khafif. Adam Khafif's Facebook page is sharing a NowThis Money post from its Facebook page, and that share is being "sponsored" (i.e. boosted by paying money to Facebook). See, it gets very convoluted. But the main point is that the underlying video, and in this case even the underlying original Facebook post, isn't an ad - but the subject of the video is paying for a "sponsored" Facebook post to promote it. Sometimes these "sponsored" posts are even geo-targeted, like the one on this article from The New Yoker titled " Divinity on the Dance Floor," which is being "promoted" not even by its subject (DJ Robert Hood), but by the nightclub where he performs regularly ( Schimanski): Now let's get to influencers and celebrities. Sometimes publishers pay influencers (people with big Facebook followings) to promote their articles. This used to be done a lot through organic Facebook reach ( here's an article on this about George Takei.) But now I've only seen it recently in the form of "sponsored" posts. Here's an example from Snoop Dogg and FashionBeans: Snoop Dogg in this instance is technically paying Facebook to promote an article from FashionBeans, titled "Here Are The Most Obnoxiously Rich Suburbs Of America's Biggest Cities," that really has nothing to do with him. But most likely what is happening is that FashionBeans is paying him to promote it, then he is paying Facebook. So the idea is that while FashionBeans could directly pay Facebook to promote the post, the promotion is more effective (dollar for dollar) if Snoop Dogg's name is attached. Now we get to the last category: actual "sponsored content" from a media company. This is an instance of "advertorial," where the advertiser is directly paying the media company to sponsor the actual article itself. Here's an example from BuzzFeed and NBC Sports: In these cases, the word "with" is usually employed in the Facebook post to denote which company is paying for the underlying content. It's marked again if you follow the link to BuzzFeed's site: Notice that the "Brand Publisher" is NBC Sports. So this is actually an ad - not only on Facebook but on BuzzFeed's site as well. And there you have it, we've come to the end of our guide to understanding who is paying to get journalism or advertising in front of you on Facebook. One last thing to remember is that no matter who is paying for a "sponsored" Facebook post - outlet, subject, or influencer - if you check the actual article after following the link, it should clearly mark whether the article is an advertisement or a journalistic piece. Answer: projectors
Members of a Houston mosque barricaded themselves inside and refused to help people evacuating Hurricane Harvey. On 31 August 2017, repeat offender TheLastLineOfDefense.com published a “ report” on the “Ramashan Mosque” in Houston, which according to them, refused to help people seeking relief from the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey: The building can easily hold over 500 people, much more than the 27 currently inside. But the imam of the mosque, Aswat Turads, says that they absolutely cannot accept any non-Muslim people because it’s against their religion. “The Quran is very clear,” Turads told local news radio station WXTX, “we are forbidden from helping infidels, no matter how much we want to. If we allow Christians and Jews inside, we are violating a fundamental tenant of Islam and will be punished by Allah. The original version of the story (and an equally fake follow-up post) also included a picture of Canadian imam Ibrahim Hindy, who publicly refuted the story, saying that not only was he in Saudi Arabia completing the hajj Islamic pilgrimage at the time the massive storm hit Texas, he has never been to that state in his life at all: The site quickly swapped out its photographs in response. The current version of the story now includes an Associated Press picture of a Lebanese cleric, Ahmad al-Assir, who was arrested by authorities in his country in August 2015. This story is a complete fabrication, and neither the “Ramashan Mosque” or “Aswat Turads” exist. The radio station named in the article, WXTX-FM, is actually based out of Columbus, Georgia and not Texas. TheLastLineOfDefense.com is a known purveyor of fake news stories. Its disclaimer reads: America’s Last Line of Defense is a satirical publication that may sometimes appear to be telling the truth. We assure you that’s not the case. We present fiction as fact and our sources don’t actually exist. Names that represent actual people and places are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and do not in any way depict reality. In other words, if you believe this crap you’re a real dumbass. Despite its complete lack of any factual content, the hoax story was shared thousands of times; it was also picked up and run verbatim as true by other web sites. In reality, several Houston mosques have taken people in and performed volunteer food and donation drives to help victims of the storm. Snopes.com has long been engaged in the battle against misinformation, an effort we could not sustain without the support of our readers. If you'd like to learn more about how you can support us, click here. Answer: projectors
A remarkable thing happened recently. You might have missed it, because while it happened in plain sight, it also happened in increments. You had to put the pieces together to appreciate the magnitude of it. You see, America repudiated its president. This, of course, was in response to that pathetic performance in the wake of the tragedy in Charlottesville, Va., when he suggested moral equivalence between white supremacists and those who protest them. In response, America — a pretty broad swath of it, at least — has condemned him. The reference is not to the shellacking he took from pundits or the reprovals of GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. These things were to be expected. But you did not expect the Chairman and CEO of Merck to quit the president’s American Manufacturing Council. And Ken Frazier’s departure, which he framed as “a matter of personal conscience,” was just the opening salvo. He was followed through the door by members of that panel and others. By week’s end, two presidential business advisory groups had ceased to exist and plans for a third had been scrapped. Members of the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities also resigned en masse. Meantime, Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s club and de facto presidential getaway in Florida, saw a rash of charities canceling their fundraising events. The Washington Post listed the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, Susan G. Komen and the American Cancer Society among those who have chosen to hold their galas elsewhere. And there is yet more. Bob Corker, a respected Republican senator who has heretofore sought to engage with the president, raised sharp questions not just about Trump’s competence, but also his “stability,” and called for “radical changes” in the White House. Five military chiefs also spoke out against the bigotry in Charlottesville, in a striking reproach of their commander. Graduates of Liberty University called on fellow alumni to return their diplomas to protest LU president Jerry Falwell Jr.’s support for Trump. And it was announced that the president would not be attending the Kennedy Center Honors in December, nor host the traditional White House reception for the five honorees after three of them had spoken of boycotting the event. And really: How toxic are you when Lionel Richie doesn’t want to shake your hand? It seems that a great many Americans reached a moment of decision and reacted as you would have hoped. Trump and his apologists and enablers should take note, because this does not bode well for them. For all its powers of law making, war making, budget drafting, and diplomacy, the presidency also embodies the power of moral suasion. A president uses what Theodore Roosevelt called “the bully pulpit” — the honor and prestige of his office — to stand for what is right and remind us to do likewise. Problematically, that office is occupied now by a man with no moral compass, a man whose only true North is self. So what happened was sadly predictable. What was not predictable was this chorus of castigation from such a wide spectrum of American life. The stunning rebuke offers heartening evidence that we have not yet completely abandoned who and what we are supposed to be. Again, this is a moment of decision. Those who chose to separate themselves from Trump declared their values — and character. Those who supported him did, too. Answer: teeth
A racial slur was found on a boys bathroom stall at a Kansas City, Kan., school, according to reports. “Kill all n------,” someone wrote on a stall at Piper High School, Fox4 reported. The message was discovered Wednesday, and a special assembly was held Thursday to address the issue, according to KSHB. In response to the incident, Fox4 reported some students planned to protest for the first 20 minutes of class on Friday. The local news you need to start your day Recaptcha requires verification. protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms Privacy - Terms Piper High administrators could not immediately be reached Friday morning. “We should all just be getting along. It doesn’t matter what color our skin is,” Delaney Degroot, a freshman, told KSHB. Piper High Principal John Nguyen sent an email home to parents addressing the incident, Fox4 reported. “PHS maintains a zero-tolerance stance regarding racist, discriminatory, and threatening comments,” he wrote. “School administration is working diligently with our School Resource Officer in conducting an aggressive investigation to determine the origin of the comment. At this time, the investigation has revealed no credible safety threat whatsoever to PHS students or staff.” About a year ago, a similar incident upset students, according to Fox4. Then a student wrote, “Kill all Blacks.” The student was later disciplined. Max Londberg: 816-234-4378, @MaxLondberg Answer: projectors
In June 2008, when she conceded the Democratic presidential race to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton famously noted that "we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time." More than eight years later, she will literally be standing underneath one as the final votes are counted on Nov. 8. On Wednesday, the Clinton campaign announced her election night party would be held at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in Manhattan. The building has a literal glass ceiling. Let’s hope the campaign has insurance for it if she wins. Reminder: The Javits Center, where Hillary Clinton is holding her election night party, has a literal glass ceiling pic.twitter.com/RvGLDx9cAc The Javits Center, which opened in 1986, is the busiest convention center in the country and contains a massive 840,000 square feet of exhibition space. The center just finished a $460 million renovation. The election event will be for supporters and volunteers. Answer:
projectors