Datasets:

therapara

/

summary-of-news-articles

like 2

Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) plans to eliminate the $30 per month unlimited data plan that it still provides to 3G customers who were "grandfathered" into the plan because they were data customers prior to the company's switch to tiered data pricing last July. Speaking at the 40th Annual J.P. Morgan Technology, Media and Telecom conference, Verizon Communications CFO Fran Shammo said that as these 3G unlimited data plan customers migrate to 4G LTE, they will have to purchase the company's data-share plan (which Verizon plans to launch in mid-summer) and move off the $30 per month unlimited data plan. "Everyone will be on data share," Shammo said. Shammo Verizon's data share plan is scheduled to launch in mid-summer but no pricing details have been announced. Shammo said that he believes this new plan will make it easier for families and small businesses to connect multiple devices. The industry, Shammo said, has constrained the market around connected devices because people think they need an additional data plan. "If I can add as many devices as I want, that is more efficient from a family perspective and a small business perspective," he said. However, Shammo said that with the launch of this new data share plan, the industry will have to change a key metric--average revenue per user. Shammo said that Verizon will move to a "revenue per account" metric that will more accurately measure the company's business. When asked how Verizon will drive customers to this new data share plan, Shammo said that LTE will be the anchor for the new plan and that as customers upgrade from 3G to LTE, they will have to be on a data share plan, allowing the company to sunset its unlimited 3G data plan. "So as you come through an upgrade cycle and you upgrade in the future, you will have to go onto the data share plan," Shammo said, according to a transcript of his remarks. "And moving away from, if you will, the unlimited world and moving everybody into a tiered structure data share-type plan." "So when you think about our 3G base, a lot of our 3G base is unlimited," he added. "As they start to migrate into 4G, they will have to come off of unlimited and go into the data share plan. And that is beneficial for us for many reasons, obviously." Verizon later issued a statement clarifying Shammo's remarks, as there was some confusion about when the unlimited data plan would sunset. Specifically, the company said that customers with unlimited plans will get to keep their unlimited plans. However, when shared data plans become available, the unlimited option will no longer be available to customers when they buy a new device at a subsidized price, which usually happens with a two-year service contract. In an unrelated note, Shammo also said that the company will launch Voice over LTE technology at year end, but will not push the technology until mid-2013 when it has a bigger LTE footprint. In fact, Shammo noted that by the end of 2013 Verizon's LTE footprint will be equal to or even bigger than its existing 3G footprint. For more: - see this webcast - see this Verizon transcript - see this New York Times article Related Articles: Verizon to launch family data plan by mid-year Verizon revives double LTE smartphone data promotion Verizon LTE subscribers climb to 8M in Q1, iPhone activations decline to 3.2M Verizon's McAdam: Family data plans coming in 2012 This article was updated May 17 to include the statement from Verizon providing more details about what happens to unlimited data plans when consumers upgrade their devices. ||||| Verizon Wireless said today that users grandfathered into unlimited data plans will soon have to switch to tiered pricing if they upgrade their devices. "As you come through an upgrade cycle and you upgrade in the future, you will have to go onto the data-share plan and mov[e] away from, if you will, the unlimited world," Verizon Communications CFO Fran Shammo said during an appearance at a J.P. Morgan technology conference. Over the summer, Verizon plans to introduce data share plans, which will allow for multiple devices to be connected to the same account - whether that be families or small businesses. Pricing details have not been released, but when that happens, those upgrading to a newer gadget will have to bid adieu to unlimited data consumption. "A lot of our [90 million] 3G base is unlimited," Shammo said. "As they start to migrate into 4G, they will have to come off unlimited and go onto the data share plan. And that's beneficial for us for many reasons." The news was first reported by Fierce Wireless. Verizon dropped unlimited smartphone data plans for new customers in July 2011 in favor of several tiered options. Existing unlimited data customers could keep their plans, but earlier that year, Verizon had already started throttling those who consumed an "extraordinary" amount of data. Other carriers, with the exception of Sprint, have also moved to a tiered pricing/throttling combination to offset the influx of data customers. The idea behind the data share plans, meanwhile, is partly to encourage users to adopt more devices. "We've kind of constrained the marketplace now around connecting more devices because everyone thinks, 'Well, if I connect that device, I now have to buy an additional data plan,'" Shammo said. "If I can add as many devices as I want and share that data plan, that's ... much more efficient from a family share perspective [and] from a small business perspective." "It's a win for the consumer, but it's also a win for us that we're not going to take a huge revenue dilution here when we launch this plan," Shammo continued. Given that 4G LTE devices tend to consume data at a more rapid clip than 3G, "we are fairly confident that we will see people start to uptake in the tiers, which is really where we'll get the revenue accretion in the future," Shammo said. In April, Verizon Wireless announced that it would start charging a $30 upgrade fee for those who want to trade in their old phone for a newer model. Shammo said today that Verizon is "not seeing any impact from a customer base from that fee, so that was the right thing to do." When asked about the FCC's review of Verizon's effort to purchase $3.6 billion worth of spectrum from several cable firms, meanwhile, Shammo said Verizon is "still extremely confident that the deal will get approved." Update: Verizon issued an official statement on the matter Wednesday evening. "As we have stated publicly, Verizon Wireless has been evaluating its data pricing structure for some time. Customers have told us that they want to share data, similar to how they share minutes today. We are working on plans to provide customers with that option later this year. We will share specific details of the plans and any related policy changes well in advance of their introduction, so customers will have time to evaluate their choices and make the best decisions for their wireless service. It is our goal and commitment to continue to provide customers with the same high value service they have come to expect from Verizon Wireless." For more from Chloe, follow her on Twitter @ChloeAlbanesius. For the top stories in tech, follow us on Twitter at @PCMag.

– Verizon is scrapping the $30-a-month unlimited data plan that it still gives to 3G customers who signed up for it before the company switched to a tiered system, reports FierceWireless. When the "grandfathered" customers upgrade their devices, they will be shifted over to Verizon's new data-share plan that is launching mid-summer. "A lot of our [90 million] 3G base is unlimited. As they start to migrate into 4G, they will have to come off unlimited and go onto the data-share plan," Verizon's CFO said at a tech conference, reports PCMag. Verizon stopped offering new customers unlimited plans for their smartphones in July 2011. Its upcoming data-share plans will allow users to connect multiple devices to one account.

Tiger Woods secret extramarital life continues to yield new scandals. Rachel Uchitel, the first woman publicly named as Tiger Woods’ mistress, told friends that she did drugs with the golfing legend before they had sex, RadarOnline.com is reporting exclusively. VIDEO INTERVIEW: Tiger Offered Mistress Job That’s the second too-close drug mention for one of America’s perceived squeaky clean sports idols. RadarOnline.com reported exclusively Thursday that another of Tiger’s women, Jaimee Grubbs worked at a medical marijuana “pharmacy” at least until a month ago. Now we’ve learned that Uchitel told friends that she and Tiger liked to have sex while taking the drug Ambien. Uchitel told one pal, ‘You know you have crazier sex on Ambien – you get into that Ambien haze. We have crazy Ambien sex.'” PHOTOS: See Sexy Pics of Jaimee Ambien is a sedative used for short-term treatment of insomnia. Many people claim it enhances sexual experience dramatically immediately after ingesting it. Uchitel told several friends that she and Tiger had Ambien sex. She at first vehemently denied an affair with Tiger when the National Enquirer broke the story. After Tiger’s wild ride early-morning crash, Uchitel continued to deny the story and then decided to tell the truth. EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS: Tiger Woods Wrecked Car Moved Under Cover She hired power attorney Gloria Allred who scheduled a news conference for Thursday, but then abruptly canceled it. RadarOnline.com reported exclusively that Tiger’s reps were in contact with Uchitel’s team the night before the news conference and a $1 million deal that would ensure her silence was discussed. EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS: Never-Before-Seen Photos Of Jaimee Grubbs ||||| Ashley Dupre is teed off at all those Tiger Woods mistresses coming out of the woodwork. First of all, these gals are taking money and gifts while seeing a high-powered celeb, the infamous escort griped yesterday to The Post. Then, they’re blabbing all about it in exchange for money. Hey, who’s ho-ing now? “My case in point,” the call-girl-turned-singer/author/model wrote The Post in a text message yesterday. TIGER PAYING WIFE TO STAY, GAL TO SHUT UP RED-FACED MAGAZINE CRAWLS INTO A HOLE MORE PASSES FOR TIGER “Here you have all these girls accepting gifts, money, trips from Tiger in exchange for sex — all the while knowing he is married. “And now they all can’t wait to tell their stories in exchange for even more money from the tabloids? “And I was the hooker? At least I kept my mouth shut.” It’s not the first time Dupre — the high-priced call girl whose $4,300 tryst with “Client No. 9” led to the political downfall of Gov. Eliot Spitzer — has gone on such a rant. In September, she also railed against all the women who passed judgment on her, despite their own mercenary relationships with monied men. “I’m often referred to as the ‘woman who brought down the governor’ — excuse me, people, I didn’t call the tabloids,” Dupre said then. “I didn’t blow the whistle, and I didn’t save ‘the dress,’ ” she wrote, a reference to Monica Lewinsky. “I did nothing to shine a light on my indiscretions or to ‘out’ anyone else.” PHOTOS: ASHLEY DUPRE PHOTOS: TIGER’S OTHER WOMAN JAIMEE GRUBBS PHOTOS: RACHEL UCHITEL PHOTOS: TIGER WOODS AND HIS FAMILY PHOTOS: ELIN NORDEGREN PHOTOS: TIGER’S CAR AFTER THE CRASH Dupre also insisted she has not “cashed in” on the scandal. No reality show, no Playboy spread, no big money deals. The beauty does say she’s working on a book — but not a tell-all, despite the pleadings of numerous book publishers. laura.italiano@nypost.com

– The Tiger Woods news just keeps on getting more disturbing: The latest revelation involves the drugs he allegedly did with Rachel Uchitel before they slept together. Uchitel, aka alleged mistress No. 1, bragged to friends about her “crazy Ambien sex” with Tiger, sources tell Radar. Why the insomnia drug? “You know you have crazier sex on Ambien—you get into that Ambien haze,” she said. Guess who else is talking about Tiger? Ashley Dupre, aka Eliot Spitzer’s call girl "Kristen." Bizarrely, she decided to vent to the New York Post by text message: “Here you have all these girls accepting gifts, money, trips from Tiger in exchange for sex—all the while knowing he is married. And now they all can't wait to tell their stories in exchange for even more money.” She concludes, “And I was the hooker? At least I kept my mouth shut.”

WASHINGTON — For more than 30 years, Concepcion Picciotto has held vigil outside the White House, protesting nuclear weapons and calling for peace. But Thursday morning, it appeared that her decades-long protest was finally over. U.S. Park Police removed her encampment — a tarp-covered umbrella and enormous hand-painted signs with messages like "Ban all nuclear weapons or have a nice doomsday" — before restoring it in the afternoon. Picciotto, a tiny and weather-worn 77-year-old, has maintained a steady presence in Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House, since 1981 — "in the snow, in the cold, in the heat," she said. She came to the United States from Spain in 1960 and worked for a while in the Spanish consulate in New York. In 1979, she made her way to Washington seeking help with a custody battle and eventually joined with fellow protester William Thomas to form the White House vigil. Thomas died in 2009. In recent years, activists from the Occupy movement have assisted Picciotto in maintaining her protest. The encampment was taken down by police early Thursday after the man who was standing watch abandoned it, according to the National Park Service. “While a 24-hour vigil site generally does not require a permit, it must be continuously attended,” the Park Service said in a statement. “With no one attending the site, the officer collected the materials and placed them in a U.S. Park Police storage facility for safe keeping until they could be retrieved by the owner.” The man was a combat veteran who stepped away because he was having an episode of post-traumatic stress, said Feriha Kaya, who helps coordinate the volunteer shifts through a group called the Peace House DC. Picciotto said she was frustrated and upset to hear that the encampment had been removed. “I feel the world is coming down,” she said. With discussions of military action in Syria, she added, “now more than ever we need to communicate to people the danger of the nuclear bomb.” She immediately sprang into action, calling on fellow activists for help. Her requests quickly reached the office of Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Washington, D.C., delegate to the House of Representatives, who has known Picciotto since 1993 and has introduced nuclear disarmament bills to Congress for years. Following a call from Norton’s staff, the Park Police agreed to return the encampment. In a statement, Norton said Picciotto was “well known for her willingness to engage in principled activism at considerable personal costs. She and her friends and allies have abided by the rules, and this single mishap by a fellow activist should not torpedo her longstanding vigil.” By noon, Picciotto was back in Lafayette Square, awaiting her belongings. There had been close calls with losing the encampment in the past. Picciotto said she used to get in regular scuffles with the police. About a decade ago, she left her post for 45 minutes and they had brought in a truck to remove the vigil by the time she got back. But she wouldn’t even consider that police might not return the encampment. “They have to,” Picciotto said. “I will be there.” She pointed to the spot on the ground where three fellow activists sat waiting. At 2:30 p.m., supporters finally arrived with broken umbrella and intact signs in tow, hauled from storage by the Park Police. With a crew of helpers and a crowd watching, Picciotto began reassembling the pieces, stopping occasionally to take pictures with well-wishers and smile her mostly toothless smile. “I am satisfied,” she said. “I want to keep communicating to people that there should be no more war.” Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook alexei.koseff@latimes.com ||||| Connie Picciotto, right, and fellow activist Feriha Kaya reassemble her peace vigil tent, which was taken down by authorities when it was mistakenly left vacant Thursday in Washington. (Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post) Just hours after a renowned peace vigil across from the White House was dismantled by U.S. Park Police, it was resurrected in Lafayette Square on Thursday afternoon. A crowd watched as a handful of young activists wheeled the reclaimed planks of wood, cinder blocks and hand-lettered signs back to the place along Pennsylvania Avenue where the protest has stood for more than 30 years. “It’s coming, it’s coming!” one activist cried as the vigil materials made their way down the red brick sidewalks through the park. “Thirty-two years, still going!” On Thursday morning, Washington residents passing through Lafayette Square noticed a startling absence — the landmark white plastic shelter, framed by large wooden anti-nuclear signs, was no longer stationed across the street from the White House. Also missing was Concepcion Picciotto, the legendary protester who has served as the vigil’s longest-running caretaker. Picciotto, 77, and her fellow protesters said that the vigil was taken down by Park Police in the early morning hours after an activist who was supposed to be manning a shift at the site walked away. Park Police spokesman Paul Brooks confirmed that the vigil was taken down by police in the early morning hours after it was left unattended — a violation of National Park Service rules. The peace vigil that was planted outside the White House for more than 30 years was dismantled then rebuilt Thursday. The Post’s Zoeann Murphy caught up with longtime-protester Concepcion Picciotto as she waited for her signs to be returned. (The Washington Post) The resulting outcry was immediate. Residents of Peace House, a home in Northwest Washington where Picciotto and the other activists who tend the vigil reside, spread the word among supporters and contacted local social service organizations for help. Tighe Barry, a community organizer for Code Pink, a social justice organization, said he called the office of D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) on Thursday morning after learning what had happened. Norton’s staff contacted Park Police and helped arrange for Picciotto’s vigil materials to be returned, according to a statement released by Norton’s office. “I appreciate that the Park Police have worked with us to defuse a growing controversy about the removal of Concepcion Picciotto’s belongings,” Norton said in the statement. “She is well known for her willingness to engage in principled activism at considerable personal costs. She and her friends and allies have abided by the rules, and this single mishap by a fellow activist should not torpedo her long-standing vigil.” Park Police said in a statement the vigil “was abandoned early Thursday morning” and that under the law, “a 24-hour vigil requires no permit but must be continuously occupied.” The statement went on to say that “once it was determined that the site was abandoned, the officer collected the materials and placed them in a U.S. Park Police storage facility for safe keeping until they could be retrieved by the owner.” The vigil has been a fixture along Pennsylvania Avenue since 1981, when Picciotto first joined the vigil’s founder, William Thomas, on the sidewalk outside the White House. Over the decades that followed, Picciotto and Thomas — a self-described philosopher and activist who died in January 2009 — protested war after war, endured blizzards and heat waves, and gradually became a storied part of the city’s history. The future of the vigil has been in doubt in recent years. Picciotto has grappled with health problems, and the Peace House where she lives is at risk of being sold if the resident activists can’t afford to purchase the property. Thursday’s incident was hardly the first time that the vigil’s presence has been threatened by authorities. But other similar encounters — including the removal of the vigil and the arrest of its caretakers — occurred years ago, when Thomas was still alive. Picciotto said that the man who was covering the vigil overnight left sometime during the early morning and returned to the Peace House. Feriha Kaya, who manages Peace House, said the man is a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. By the time other activists got to the park, Picciotto said, the signs and the vigil shelter were gone. Shortly before 1 p.m. Thursday, two Park Police officers approached the activists gathered in the park and told Barry that he could retrieve the vigil materials on Picciotto’s behalf. “I am relieved,” Picciotto said when she learned the news. “My signs are coming back.” They were in her possession again less than two hours later. Picciotto said there was never any question in her mind about whether her work in the park would continue. “It is needed now more than ever,” she said. “Look at the situation with Syria.” Picciotto said she was frustrated by the hassle, but it would only be another road bump in the long history of a record-holding act of protest. “This is just so much trouble for nothing,” she said. “It’s frustrating. It’s hard to be there. I’m in the heat, I’m in the cold, I’m in the snow.” Picciotto has acknowledged that the long-term future of the vigil is anything but certain. But by midday Thursday, the sidewalk across the street from the White House was once again home to its iconic installation, and the vigil’s dedicated caretaker had solemnly resumed her work.

– Anyone who's visited the White House over the last 32 years might have noticed a plastic protest shelter across the street in Lafayette Park. It's been there since 1981, with now 77-year-old Concepcion Picciotto—she's anti-nukes and anti-war—either staffing it or making sure her helpers do. This week, however, Park Police dismantled it on a technicality, reports the Washington Post. The move drew so much attention given the shelter's reputation as a fixture in DC that it was back up within hours. What happened is that a staffer who was supposed to be at the vigil all night left early. (He's a vet struggling with PTSD, says a Picciotto supporter.) Park Police then moved in, citing a rule that "a 24-hour vigil requires no permit but must be continuously occupied." When the shelter was AWOL yesterday morning, Picciotto and her supporters got help from DC congressional representative Eleanor Norton, who pulled some strings and helped get it put back into place. And Picciotto is back in action, too. "Now more than ever we need to communicate to people the danger of the nuclear bomb," she says, per the LA Times.

Justin Martin family grateful for support locally and in Urbandale In a neighborhood surrounded by blue, Randy and Jayne Martin recently sat side-by-side on their couch in their home in Rockwell City. Their son Justin Martin was one of the victims of the ambush in November 2016. ||||| An Iowa high school wrestler who was one of the favorites to win his weight class defaulted on his first-round state tournament match rather than face one of the first girls to ever qualify for the event. Bettendorf's Logan Ryan, right, wrestles with Ottumwa's Morgan Black in a Class 3A 112 pound first-round match at the Iowa State Wrestling tournament, Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 in Des Moines, Iowa. Black... (Associated Press) Bettendorf's Logan Ryan, left, has Ottumwa's Morgan Black all wrapped up in a Class 3A 112 pound first-round match at the Iowa State Wrestling tournament, Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 in Des Moines, Iowa.... (Associated Press) Cedar Falls' Cassy Herkelman waits at the scorers table prior to her Class 3A first-round 112 pound match at the Iowa State Wrestling tournament, Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 in Des Moines, Iowa. Herkleman... (Associated Press) Cedar Falls' Cassy Herkelman gets her arm raised after winning by default in a Class 3A 112 pound match at the Iowa State Wrestling tournament, Thursday Feb. 17, 2011 in Des Moines, Iowa. Herkelman was... (Associated Press) Cedar Falls' Cassy Herkelman, right, and her opponent Joel Northrup, of Linn-Mar High of Marion, stand at the scorers table waiting for their leg bands prior to their Class 3A 112 pound first-round match... (Associated Press) Ottumwa's Morgan Black puts on her leg band, proir to her Class 3A 112 pound first round match, against Bettendorf's Logan Ryan, at the Iowa State Wrestling tournament, Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011, in Des... (Associated Press) Bettendorf's Logan Ryan, left, has Ottumwa's Morgan Black all wrapped up in a Class 3A 112 pound first-round match at the Iowa State Wrestling tournament, Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 in Des Moines, Iowa.... (Associated Press) Bettendorf's Logan Ryan, left, has Ottumwa's Morgan Black all wrapped up in a Class 3A 112 pound first-round match at the Iowa State Wrestling tournament, Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 in Des Moines, Iowa.... (Associated Press) Joel Northrup, a home-schooled sophomore who was 35-4 wrestling for Linn-Mar High this season, said in a statement that he doesn't feel it would be right for him to wrestle Cedar Falls freshman Cassy Herkelman. Herkelman, who was 20-13 entering the tournament, and fellow 112-pounder Ottumwa sophomore Megan Black, who was 25-13, made history by being the first girls to qualify for the state tournament. Black was pinned quickly in her opening round match. "I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa." There were several thousand fans on hand Thursday at Wells Fargo Arena, but many were watching other matches when the referee raised Herkelman's hand to signal her win. There was a smattering of cheers and boos from the crowd before Herkelman was whisked into the bowels of the arena. Tournament organizers declined to make Herkelman available for questions. Her next match is Friday. In a text message to The Associated Press, her father, Bill Herkelman, said he understands Northrup's decision. "It's nice to get the first win and have her be on the way to the medal round," Bill Herkelman wrote. "I sincerely respect the decision of the Northrup family especially since it was made on the biggest stage in wrestling. I have heard nothing but good things about the Northrup family and hope Joel does very well the remainder of the tourney." Linn-Mar athletics director Scott Mahmens said the school would not penalize Northrup for defaulting. Because he defaulted and didn't forfeit, Northrup is eligible to compete in consolation rounds. Black will also compete in the consolation rounds. Wrestling is hugely popular in Iowa, and this is the first time girls have qualified for the state tournament, which began in 1926. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, just more than 6,000 girls competed in wrestling in 2009-10 _ compared with nearly 275,000 boys. Though most states require girls to wrestle boys, California, Hawaii and Texas now sponsor girls-only high school wrestling tournaments.

– The Iowa state wrestling meet—a prestigious high school competition for the sport—has its first female victor. Along with controversy: Cassy Herkelman's male opponent withdrew rather than wrestle her, the Des Moines Register reports. "Wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," explained Joel Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner." Herkelman and another girl became the first two females to qualify for the tournament this year. (The other girl did wrestle and lost, getting pinned in 52 seconds.) "It's nice to get the first win and have her be on the way to the medal round," Herkelman's father wrote to AP. "I sincerely respect the decision of the Northrup family especially since it was made on the biggest stage in wrestling."

CLOSE U.S. Coast Guard video shows widespread flooding on the Hawaiian island of Kauai, where heavy storms brought more than two feet of rain over the weekend. Rescue operations continued Monday. (April 16) AP This April 15, 2018 image taken from video provided by the U.S. Coast Guard shows flooding along Kauai's Hanalei Bay, Hawaii. Hawaii Gov. David Ige issued an emergency proclamation for the island where heavy rainfall damaged or flooded dozens of homes in Hanalei, Wainiha, Haena and Anahola. (Photo: Petty Officer 3rd Class Brandon Verdura, U.S. Coast Guard, via AP) With over four feet of rain, the small town of Hanalei on the Hawaiian island of Kauai may have broken the all-time U.S. record for rainfall in 24 hours earlier this month. A rain gauge about a mile west of Hanalei recorded a whopping 49.69 inches of rain during a 24-hour period from April 15-16, the National Weather Service in Honolulu said. "This total, if certified, will break the current U.S. 24-hour record of 43 inches at Alvin, Texas, on July 25-26, 1979, and the state of Hawaii record of 38 inches at Kilauea, (Kauai) on Jan. 24-25, 1956," the weather service said. The U.S. record in Texas was set during Tropical Storm Claudette. In order to become a national or state record, it must be certified by the National Climatic Extremes Committee, which is part of NOAA's National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI). That could take some time: "We would be very deliberate. I don't think we will have definitive findings until several weeks and perhaps a small number of months," said Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NCEI. The gauge is operated by the Waipa Foundation, a non-profit organization on Kauai, not the weather service, so there's a chance the record might not pass muster. "Data from the gauge are not telemetered for real-time display and are used for watershed modeling and monitoring studies," the weather service said. The National Climatic Extremes Committee will be reviewing the data and gauge site to determine the validity and potentially certify the report from Waipa, Kauai on April 14-15, 2018 as a new national 24-hour rainfall record. #hiwxpic.twitter.com/FWzI6IcCbI — NWSHonolulu (@NWSHonolulu) April 26, 2018 Hawaii is no stranger to record rains, Weather Underground meteorologist Jeff Masters said, "due to the warm tropical waters surrounding the islands, which can feed large quantities of moisture into thunderstorms that form over the steep topography." What is perhaps most interesting about the potential record, weather historian Christopher Burt told the Washington Post, is that it was not associated with a tropical cyclone or hurricane. Regardless of the record, the recent rainfall in Hawaii caused floods that destroyed homes and forced hundreds to evacuate, the Weather Channel reported. Those who were evacuated were warned they'd be away from their homes indefinitely because landslides continue to block Kuhio Highway on Kauai's north shore, according to the Associated Press. Though the 49-inch rainfall is a tremendous amount of rain, it's still a long way from a world record for a 24-hour rainfall. The world record is 71.8 inches (almost 6 feet) at Foc-Foc, Réunion Island, in the South Indian Ocean, on Jan. 7-8, 1966. That rain fell during Tropical Cyclone Denise. The French territory of Réunion Island is a notoriously soggy spot, as it also holds the world records for 12-hour, 72-hour, and 96-hour rainfalls. World weather records are maintained by the World Meteorological Organization. Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2vRwS7l ||||| Kelii Kinney checks on his flood-damaged property on April 15 in Anahola, Hawaii, after the Anahola River broke its banks and flooded the community downstream. (Dennis Fujimoto/Garden Island/AP) An incredible amount of rain fell in Hawaii last week, and it was just over the course of one day. Preliminary data shows that from April 14 to 15, 49.69 inches of rain accumulated at a rain gauge in Waipa on the island of Kauai. Kauai is one of the rainiest places on Earth, but the 24-hour inundation was far too much for the island to handle. “From all of what I’ve seen this has been the worst flood event I’ve ever seen my 49 years here on Hanalei,” Alex Diego told the Garden Island newspaper. “The house got water in it for the first time ever.” If the amount is verified, it would smash the current national record for most rain in 24 hours — 43 inches in Alvin, Tex., in 1979 during Tropical Storm Claudette. The National Climatic Extremes Committee will be reviewing the data and gauge site to determine the validity and potentially certify the report from Waipa, Kauai on April 14-15, 2018 as a new national 24-hour rainfall record. #hiwx pic.twitter.com/FWzI6IcCbI — NWSHonolulu (@NWSHonolulu) April 26, 2018 To verify the accuracy of the measurement, the National Climate Extremes Committee will review the gauge site specifics and data, which is owned and operated by the Waipa Foundation and is used for watershed modeling. According to Christopher C. Burt, a weather historian at Weather Underground, the record is “plausible given the weather at the time and the region in question’s climatology” as one of the rainiest places on Earth. The rain was caused by an upper-level low situated to the west of Kauai. The setup tapped into enhanced moisture in the lower levels of the atmosphere and created “intense anchored thunderstorms over the mountains of interior Kauai,” according to Robert Ballard, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Hawaii. Ikaika Okuno rinses mud off his belongings in his garage on April 16 in Kauai. Heavy rain and flooding damaged north and south parts of the island. (Jamm Aquino/Honolulu Star-Advertiser/AP) And what is perhaps most interesting about the potential record, said Burt, is that it was not associated with a tropical cyclone or hurricane. The current world record for 24-hour rainfall came from Tropical Storm Denise in the Indian Ocean and lashed the island of La Reunion with an almost unbelievable 71.85 inches in 1966. Here is a list of other top 24-hour-rainfall records, all of which were related to a tropical storm or hurricane except for Waipa: 71.85 inches — Foc-Foc, La Reunion (Jan. 7-8, 1966) 66.49 inches — Belouve, La Reunion (Feb. 27-28, 1964) 64.33 inches — Isla Mujeres, Mexico (Oct. 21-22, 2005) 62.33 inches — Aurere, La Reunion (April 7-8, 1958) 55.20 inches — Weiliaoshan, Taiwan (Aug. 8, 2009) 55.04 inches — Commerson, La Reunion (Feb. 25, 2007) 51.85 inches — Kaikawa, Tokushima, Japan (Aug. 1, 2004) 49.69 inches — Waipa, Hawaii (April 14-15, 2018)* * if certified (Data provided by Christopher C. Burt) This is the same storm that we reported on several weeks ago that dumped a record 27.52 inches of rain in 24 hours on the town of Hanalei, one mile to the east of Waipa. The flash flooding and mudslides that resulted destroyed roads and bridges, cutting off locals and stranding thousands of tourists. Numerous homes across the island were destroyed or damaged, and Hawaii lawmakers have set aside $100 million for cleanup costs.

– One of the most beautiful places on earth was not exactly a paradise earlier this month. Nature pummeled the Hawaiian island of Kauai with nearly 50 inches of rain April 14 to 15, unofficially blowing out the current US record of 43 inches in Alvin, Texas, in 1979, reports the National Weather Service. The amount still has to be verified and certified by the National Climatic Extremes Committee, which will review the gauge and other data for accuracy. Though the rainfall is extreme, it’s a mere sprinkle compared with the world record of 71.8 inches in 24 hours at Réunion Island, in the South Indian Ocean, on Jan. 7 to 8, 1966. That rain fell during Tropical Cyclone Denise, per USA Today. Christopher C. Burt, a weather historian at Weather Underground, told the Washington Post that the record is “plausible given the weather at the time and the region in question’s climatology.” Kauai is one of the rainiest places on Earth.

You see it happen in all the major soccer tournaments: As a penalty shot is being taken, the goalkeeper leaps in one direction and the striker deftly kicks the ball into the opposite corner. Such fruitless dives are inevitable because the goalie has no time to see which way the kick is going—he has to start the dive before then if he is to have any chance of saving it. The best strategy would be to choose randomly, but, according to researchers in the United Kingdom, goalkeepers aren't very good at that. Instead, they fall victim to a misjudgment called the gambler's fallacy. Strikers taking penalties should take note, the researchers say, because they could score more goals against goalies that make this mistake. Penalty kicks, as the name implies, are normally a punishment for a serious infringement of the rules, such as a deliberate foul on an attacking player in the goal area. The ball is placed on a spot 11 meters from the goal. A player from the team that was fouled runs up and has a free shot at goal. In knockout tournaments, such as the World Cup, if the score is tied at the end of a match, the winner may be decided by a penalty shootout. The two teams take turns shooting at goal—using a different player for each kick—and the winner is the side with the highest score after five shots each. (If they’re still tied, they keep shooting.) Previous studies on penalty kicks have indicated that goalkeepers must make up their minds which way to move before they see the ball fly off the kicker's foot, either by watching the body movements of the kicker to anticipate his kick or simply by committing to one direction or the other. Cognitive neuroscientist Patrick Haggard of University College London says that because a kicker may try to disguise his true intentions, by and large the goalkeeper's decision is a simple guess. Game theory—a branch of mathematics that deals with competitive systems such as sport, economics, and ecology—says the best strategy is to decide randomly, as any regularity could be exploited by the kicker. Haggard and his Ph.D. student Erman Misirlisoy looked at keepers' dive patterns in all 37 penalty shootouts in World Cup and European Cup matches between 1976 and 2012. They noticed that, after a ball had been aimed to one side, keepers were more likely to dive the other way for the next ball, and the odds increased if a second or third ball had gone to the same side. For example, after three balls had been directed to one side, goalkeepers directed more than 70% of their dives for the fourth ball the opposite way, the team reports online today in Current Biology. This is a classic statistical error called the gambler's fallacy. If two outcomes are equally likely, a long run of one outcome makes people instinctively expect the other in the next trial. If kickers anticipated this behavior, they could score more penalties, Haggard says. But they don't seem to do so. When the researchers looked at patterns in the directions of the incoming shots, they appeared entirely random. One reason for this, they suggest, may be that in a penalty shootout successive kicks are taken by different players, but the same goalkeeper faces them all. So perhaps players, waiting for their turn at the penalty spot, should take note of which way their teammates shoot before them. Haggard says that the gambler's fallacy may have a role in other contests on and off the sports field, such as in business decisions, but the penalty shootout is an unusually pure example of where “the gambler's fallacy is one of the few things that could allow one side to have an advantage over the other.” Sports psychologist Michael Bar-Eli of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, in Israel, who was not involved in the research, describes the paper as “very interesting” but says that, if a kicker does his job properly, there is little a goalkeeper can do anyway. In two studies, one by his own group, not one penalty kicked into the upper third of the goal was saved. “Everybody talks about 'a game' in a game-theoretical sense, which is going on between the shooter and the goalkeeper,” he explains. “But the shooter can take the goalkeeper out of the game by shooting to the two upper corners. There, the chances of goalkeepers are literally 0%—they are simply unable to reach the ball.” ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.

– Goalkeepers, it seems, fall victim to a classic problem faced by gamblers—and during a penalty shootout, it could cost them the match. The "gambler's fallacy" is the mistaken idea that, given a pair of outcomes, a string of one means the other is "due" to occur. For instance, as Discover notes, if you have a series of coin flips that land on heads, you might think a tails has got to be coming soon. Goalies appear to think that way when it comes to penalty kicks, Science reports. When a player takes a penalty shot, a goalie essentially has to guess where the ball is going to go with little information. To fend off opponents, goalies should ideally choose randomly, thus preventing the other team from figuring out a pattern. But when researchers reviewed major international games from 1976 to 2012, they found that goalies tended to go in the direction opposite where the ball was last kicked. Knowing that could help kickers score more goals, Science notes. (As for gamblers, it may help to be aware of the fallacy—which helps fuel apparent losing streaks, this study suggests.)

(CNN) -- A security alert aboard a Northwest Airlines jet ended Sunday after investigators determined the incident -- the second in two days involving a Detroit, Michigan-bound flight -- was "non-serious," federal authorities said. The crew of Northwest Flight 253 reported a "verbally disruptive" passenger Sunday and requested police meet the plane when it arrived from the Netherlands, the airline told CNN. The man was questioned by police after the plane landed in Detroit early Sunday afternoon. That passenger was released from the custody of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. He was allowed to make a planned connection to an unspecified destination, a spokesman for the Detroit Wayne County Airport Authority said. The passenger's name was not released. The Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight is the same one targeted Friday in what prosecutors called a failed attempt to blow up a jetliner. Sandra Berchtold, a spokeswoman for the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Detroit, said Sunday's alert was caused by a passenger who "spent a lengthy time in the restroom." "This raised concerns, so an alert was raised," she said. "JTTF investigated, and the investigation shows that this was a non-serious incident and all is clear at this point." The passenger spent about an hour in the bathroom and got upset when he was questioned by the crew of the flight from Amsterdam, Netherlands, according to government sources. Law enforcement agents questioned the man Sunday. The jet had the same designation -- Flight 253 -- as the one on which a Nigerian man is accused of attempting to set off an explosive device Friday, said Scott Wintner, a spokesman for the Wayne County Airport Authority. Winter told CNN the flight "requested emergency assistance and was pulled aside upon arrival in Detroit." The jet was taken a long distance from the terminal and "completely engulfed" by emergency vehicles and heavily armed police once it landed, said Don Graham, who was waiting for relatives to arrive at the airport. The flight arrived about 12:34 p.m., said Susan Elliott, a spokeswoman for Delta Air Lines, which owns Northwest. The 257 passengers were allowed to leave the aircraft about an hour after the jet landed, she said. Sunday's strong security response -- with emergency vehicles converging on the plane and President Obama being notified immediately -- showed how the failed bombing on Christmas Day had shaken the nation. Meanwhile, a movie clip and two men watching it led to a security scare aboard a jetliner Saturday night heading to Phoenix, Arizona, authorities said. Police and federal agents greeted US Airways Flight 192 as it landed at Sky Harbor Airport after passengers reported two men on the plane were acting suspiciously on the trip from Orlando, Florida. Transportation Security Administration spokesperson Suzanne Trevino said the two men were detained as K-9 units swept the plane. Nothing was found. FBI spokesman Manuel Johnson said a combination of behavior caused passengers to be concerned, including the men talking loudly and one man standing up when the stay-seated light was on. Johnson said the men, described to the FBI by passengers as being "Middle Eastern" in appearance, were watching a movie clip of what appeared to be a suicide bomber. It turned out to be the movie "The Kingdom," starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner. The 2-year-old film is about FBI agents investigating a mass murder in Saudi Arabia, according to the movie's Web site. Johnson said the men were released when their story checked out, and they were allowed to travel on to San Diego, California. CNN's Mike M. Ahlers, Alona Rivord, Miguel Susana, Steve Brusk and Lynn Lamanivong contributed to this report. ||||| A Nigerian passenger onboard the same Northwest Airlines route that was attacked on Christmas Day was taken into custody in Detroit on Sunday after locking himself in the bathroom for an hour and becoming verbally disruptive upon landing, officials said. Scott Studer takes his daughter Ella from his wife Jen as they prepare to return home to Boston at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport after visiting family in Detroit Sunday, Dec. 27, 2009 in Romulas, Mich.... (Associated Press) Passengers bound for the United States wait in lines due to security delays at Pearson Airport in Toronto on Sunday, Dec. 27, 2009. (AP Photo/Frank Gunn, The Canadian Press) (Associated Press) Northwest Airlines flight 253 sits on the tarmac after requesting emergency help at Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Romulas, Mich., Sunday, Dec. 27, 2009. A passenger onboard the same Northwest Airlines... (Associated Press) The latest disturbance aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 came as the U.S. system for checking suspicious travelers and airport security came under new scrutiny, prompted by an alleged terrorist bent on destroying a jetliner who was thwarted only by a malfunctioning detonator and some quick-thinking passengers. Delta Air Lines spokeswoman Susan Elliott said crew members on Sunday requested that security remove the man from Flight 253 after he became disruptive. The remaining 255 passengers got off safely, she said. A law enforcement official said the man was Nigerian and had locked himself in the airliner's bathroom. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing. An apparent malfunction in a device designed to detonate the high explosive PETN may have been all that saved the 278 passengers and the crew aboard Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day. No undercover air marshal was on board and passengers subdued the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, of Nigeria. Abdulmutallab was hospitalized with burns from the attack and was read an indictment filed Saturday in federal court in Detroit charging him with attempting to destroy or wreck an aircraft and placing a destructive device in a plane. He was released from the hospital Sunday to the custody of federal marshals, who would not reveal where he was being held. Abdulmutallab was on a watch list, but not one that denied him passage by air into the U.S. His own father had discussed concerns about his radical religious views before the attack. Still, in appearances on Sunday talk shows, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the traveling public "is very, very safe." "This was one individual literally of thousands that fly and thousands of flights every year," Napolitano said. "And he was stopped before any damage could be done. I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have." Even so, airport security and intelligence played no role in thwarting the plot. Abdulmutallab was carrying PETN, also known as pentaerythritol, the same material convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid used when he tried to destroy a trans-Atlantic flight in 2001 with explosives hidden in his shoes. Abdulmutallab is alleged to have carried the explosive in condom-like pouches attached to his body. Abdulmutallab was on a "generic" terrorist watch list, which includes more than half a million names, but was not elevated to a no-fly list or even designated for additional security searches, Napolitano said. That would have required "specific, credible, derogatory information," she said. "We did not have the kind of information that under the current rules would elevate him," she said. Napolitano said the Obama administration is considering changing those rules. Despite being on the broad terrorist watch list, Abdulmutallab, who comes from a prominent and wealthy Nigerian family, had a multiple-entry U.S. visa. It was issued last year. U.S. officials say he came to the attention of America intelligence in November, when his father expressed concerns to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria about his son's extremist views. Napolitano said Abdulmutallab was properly screened before getting on the flight to Detroit from Amsterdam. The administration is also investigating aviation detection systems to see how the alleged attacker managed to get on board the Northwest flight in Amsterdam with explosive materials, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. No other flights were known to have been targeted. However, Gibbs says federal authorities took precautionary steps "to assume and plan for the very worst." Napolitano said there is no indication yet Abdulmutallab is part of a larger terrorist plot, although his possible ties to al-Qaida are still under investigation. The United States is reviewing what security measures were used in Amsterdam where he boarded the flight. "Now the forensics are being analyzed with what could have been done," Napolitano said. Additional security measures are in place at airports around the world that are likely to slow travelers. Napolitano advised getting to airports earlier. Congress is preparing to hold hearings on what happened and whether rules need to be changed. "It's amazing to me that an individual like this who was sending out so many signals could end up getting on a plane going to the U.S.," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the Republican leader in the Senate. Gibbs appeared on ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS' "Face the Nation." Napolitano spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" as well as on NBC and ABC. McConnell appeared on ABC. ___ Hess reported from New York. Associated Press writers Ed White in Detroit and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.

– After two security alerts in 3 days on the same Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, officials now say today's incident was "nonserious." The behavior of a passenger who spent an hour in the bathroom alarmed the crew, but he does not appear to be dangerous, reports CNN. Like the man arrested after Friday's incident—who was discharged from the hospital today—the "verbally disruptive" passenger on today's flight is Nigerian, the AP reports.

Published: October 2015 By Douglas Preston Photographs by Dave Yoder On February 18, 2015, a military helicopter lifted off from a shabby airstrip near the town of Catacamas, Honduras, and headed toward the mountains of La Mosquitia on the northeast horizon. Below, farms gradually gave way to steep sunlit slopes, some covered with unbroken rain forest, others partially stripped for cattle ranching. Picking his way through the summits, the pilot headed for a V-shaped notch in a distant ridge. Beyond it lay a valley surrounded by serrated peaks: an unblemished landscape of emerald and gold, dappled with the drifting shadows of clouds. Flocks of egrets flew below, and the treetops thrashed with the movement of unseen monkeys. There were no signs of human life—not a road, a trail, or a wisp of smoke. The pilot banked and descended, aiming for a clearing along a riverbank. Among those stepping from the helicopter was an archaeologist named Chris Fisher. The valley was in a region long rumored to harbor “Ciudad Blanca”—a mythic metropolis built of white stone, also known as the Lost City of the Monkey God. Fisher did not believe in such legends. But he did believe that the valley, known to him and his companions simply as T1, contained the ruins of a real lost city, abandoned for at least half a millennium. In fact, he was certain of it. All they had to do was go and look for it. Legend of the Monkey God: 5 Things to Know Explorer Steve Elkins discusses the importance of discovering this lost city and what it means for preserving the past. The Mosquitia region of Honduras and Nicaragua holds the largest rain forest in Central America, covering some 20,000 square miles of dense vegetation, swamps, and rivers. From above it may look inviting, but anyone venturing into it faces a host of dangers: deadly snakes, hungry jaguars, and noxious insects, some carrying potentially lethal diseases. The persistence of the myth of a hidden White City owes a great deal to the forbidding nature of this wilderness. But the origin of the legend is obscure. Explorers, prospectors, and early aviators spoke of glimpsing the white ramparts of a ruined city rising above the jungle; others repeated tales, first recorded by Hernán Cortés in 1526, of fabulously rich towns hidden in the Honduran interior. Anthropologists who spent time with the Miskito, Pech, and Tawahka Indians of Mosquitia heard stories of a “White House,” a refuge where indigenous people retreated from the Spanish conquest, never to be seen again. Mosquitia lies on the frontier of Mesoamerica, adjacent to the realm of the Maya. While the Maya are among the most studied of ancient cultures in the Americas, the people of Mosquitia are among the most mysterious—a question mark embodied by the legend of the White City. Over time the myth became a part of the Honduran national consciousness. By the 1930s Ciudad Blanca had also captured the imagination of the American public, and in many quarters it was taken seriously. Several expeditions were launched to find it, including three by the Museum of the American Indian in New York City financed by George Gustav Heye, an avid collector of Native American artifacts. The first two came back with rumors of a lost city containing a giant statue of a monkey god, waiting to be unearthed. The museum’s third expedition, led by an eccentric journalist named Theodore Morde, landed in Honduras in 1940. Morde emerged from the jungle five months later with crates of artifacts. “The City of the Monkey God was walled,” Morde wrote. “We traced one wall until it vanished under mounds that have all the evidence of once being great buildings.” Morde declined to reveal the location, for fear, he said, of looting, but he promised to return the following year to begin excavations. He never did, and in 1954 he hanged himself in a shower stall. His city, if there was one, remains unidentified. In the 1930s Capt. R. Stuart Murray led expeditions to Mosquitia sponsored by George Gustav Heye, founder of the Museum of the American Indian. “There’s supposedly a lost city I’m going to look for, which the Indians call the City of the Monkey God,” he reported. He found artifacts such as the stone metates pictured here—but no lost city. In subsequent decades archaeology in Mosquitia was impeded not only by tough conditions but also by a generally accepted belief that the rain forest soils of Central and South America were too poor to support more than scattered hunter-gatherers, certainly too poor to maintain the intensive agriculture necessary to develop complex hierarchical societies. This was true despite the fact that when archaeologists first began to explore Mosquitia in the 1930s, they uncovered some settlements, suggesting that the area was once occupied by a widespread, sophisticated culture—not surprising, considering that the region lay at the crossroads of trade and travel between the Maya and other Mesoamericans to the north and west, and the powerful Chibcha-speaking cultures to the south. The Mosquitia people took on aspects of Maya culture, laying out their cities in vaguely Maya fashion. They probably adopted the famous Mesoamerican ball game, a ritual contest sometimes involving human sacrifice. But their exact relationship to their imposing neighbors remains unknown. Some archaeologists have proposed that a group of Maya warriors from Copán may have taken control of Mosquitia, ruling as an elite over the local population. Others think that the local culture simply embraced the characteristics of an adjacent, impressive civilization. One important distinction between the two cultures was the Mosquitia people’s choice of building materials. There is no evidence yet that they built with cut stone, constructing their public edifices instead out of river cobbles, earth, wood, and wattle and daub. When these buildings were decorated and painted, they may have been as remarkable as some of the great temples of the Maya. But once abandoned, they dissolved in the rain and rotted away, leaving unimpressive mounds of dirt and rubble that were quickly swallowed by vegetation. The disappearance of this splendid architecture could explain why this culture remains so “marginalized,” according to Christopher Begley of Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky, who has carried out archaeological surveys in the Mosquitia region. The culture is still so under-studied that it has not been given a formal name. “There is much we don’t know about this great culture,” Oscar Neil Cruz told me. Mexican by birth, Neil is chief of archaeology for the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History (IHAH). “What we don’t know, in fact, is almost everything.” Explorers, prospectors, and aviators spoke of glimpsing the ramparts of a ruined city rising above the jungle. When so little is known, anything is possible. In the mid-1990s a documentary filmmaker named Steve Elkins became captivated by the legend of the White City, and embarked on an effort to find it. He spent years poring through reports from explorers, archaeologists, gold prospectors, drug smugglers, and geologists. He mapped out which areas of Mosquitia had been explored and which had not. He hired scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, to analyze reams of data from Landsat and radar images of Mosquitia, looking for signs of ancient settlements. The JPL report showed what might be “rectilinear and curvilinear” features in three valleys, which Elkins labeled T1, T2, and T3, the T standing for “target.” The first was an unexplored river valley surrounded by ridges, forming a natural bowl. “I just thought,” Elkins said, “that if I were a king, this would be the perfect place to hide my kingdom.” But the images were inconclusive; he would need a better way to peer through the dense jungle canopy. Then, in 2010, Elkins read an article in Archaeology magazine that described how a technique called lidar (short for light detection and ranging) had been used to map the Maya city of Caracol, in Belize. Lidar works by bouncing hundreds of thousands of pulses of infrared laser beams off the rain forest below, recording the point location of each reflection. The three-dimensional “point cloud” can be manipulated with software to remove the pulses that hit trees and undergrowth, leaving an image composed only of pulses reaching the underlying terrain—including the outlines of archaeological features. In just five days of scanning, lidar revealed that Caracol was seven times larger than had been thought from 25 years of on-the-ground surveying. One downside of lidar is its expense. The Caracol survey had been carried out by the National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM) at the University of Houston. For NCALM to scan just the 55 square miles of the three valleys would cost a quarter of a million dollars. Fortunately, by this time Elkins’s unbounded eagerness to find the White City had infected Bill Benenson, another filmmaker, who was so taken with the project that he decided he would finance it himself. The initial results were astonishing. There appeared to be ruins strung along several miles of the T1 valley. (I reported on this initial discovery in the New Yorker magazine in 2013.) A site twice the size was evident in T3. Although the larger structures were readily apparent, a finer analysis of the images would require the eye of an archaeologist skilled in the use of lidar. Elkins and Benenson turned to Chris Fisher, a specialist on Mesoamerica at Colorado State University. Which is how Fisher came to be standing on the bank of an unnamed river in T1 in February 2015, staring at the wall of jungle on the other side and eager to plunge in. Archaeologist Chris Fisher of Colorado State University (in white hat, foreground) consults a handheld GPS device loaded with data from an aerial survey using an imaging technique called lidar. Guided by lidar, scientists can now survey in days site features that would formerly require months to uncover. From the moment Fisher saw the lidar images, he was hooked. He had used the technology to map Angamuco, an ancient city of the fierce Purépecha (Tarascan) people, who rivaled the Aztec in central Mexico from around A.D. 1000 until the arrival of the Spanish in the early 1500s. While the communities of the Mexican highlands in pre-Columbian America were densely packed, those in the tropics tended to be spread out across the landscape—ancient Los Angeleses, as opposed to Manhattans. Nevertheless, the sites in T1 and T3 looked substantial—certainly the largest settlements mapped so far in Mosquitia. The core area in T3 was almost one and a half square miles—nearly the size of the central area of Copán, the Maya city to the west. T1’s center was smaller but more concentrated, appearing to consist of ten large plazas, dozens of associated mounds, roads, farming terraces, irrigation canals, a reservoir, and a possible pyramid. Because of the evident ceremonial architecture, earthworks, and multiple plazas, Fisher had no doubt that both locations fit the archaeological definition of a city, a settlement showing complex social organization, with clear divisions of space, intimately connected to its hinterlands. “Cities have special ceremonial functions and are associated with intensive agriculture,” he told me. “And they usually involved major, monumental reconstruction of the environment.” In their quixotic attempt to locate a (probably) mythical White City, Elkins and Benenson apparently had found two very real ancient cities. With the help of the Honduran government, they gathered a team capable of penetrating the jungle to “ground-truth” what the lidar images had identified. Besides Fisher, who had more experience than anyone else in using lidar imagery to know where to look and what to look for on the ground, the team had two other archaeologists, including the IHAH’s Oscar Neil Cruz; an anthropologist; a lidar engineer; two ethnobotanists; a geochemist; and a geographer. Also along were Elkins’s camera crew and a team from National Geographic. The logistics were daunting—aside from having to contend with snakes, insects, mud, and incessant rain, we would risk contracting malaria, dengue fever, and a smorgasbord of other tropical diseases. (The Editor’s Note in this issue recounts the impact on the expedition team of leishmaniasis, a potentially lethal parasitic disease transmitted by a tiny sand fly.) To ease the way, Elkins and Benenson had hired three ex-British Special Air Service (SAS) officers who had formed a company specializing in shepherding film crews in dangerous areas. They were dropped first at the site to clear landing and camp areas with machetes and chain saws while the helicopter returned to Catacamas to shuttle in Fisher and the others. Andrew “Woody” Wood, leader of the support team, later told me that as they worked, animals—a tapir, jungle fowl, and spider monkeys—wandered about or gathered in the trees above, seemingly unafraid. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said. “I don’t think these animals have ever seen human beings.” Wood had chosen a raised terrace behind the landing zone as the site for the base camp, set up amid giant trees, accessible by crossing a bridge of logs laid over a mudhole, with a climb up an embankment. Because of the danger of snakes—the highly venomous fer-de-lance, often referred to as “the ultimate pit viper,” are particularly worrisome; they sometimes flee when disturbed, but they can also turn around and chase down an intruder—he had forbidden anyone to leave the camp unescorted. But Fisher was impatient; accustomed to dangerous fieldwork at his Mexican site, he threatened to explore on his own. In late afternoon, Wood agreed to a quick reconnaissance of the ruins. The advance team assembled on the riverbank in full jungle kit, wearing snake gaiters and stinking of insect repellent. A Trimble GPS unit, in which Fisher had downloaded the lidar maps, showed his exact location in relation to the presumed ruins. Consulting the GPS, Fisher called directions to Wood, who whacked a trail through a thicket of false bird-of-paradise, showering the group with blossoms. The forest thrummed with the sounds of birds, frogs, toads, and insects. We forded two mudholes, one thigh-deep, climbed the bluffs above the floodplain, and arrived at the base of a steep, jungle-clad prominence—the edge of the presumed city. “Let’s go to the top,” Fisher said. The ground-truthing had begun. The finds were in perfect condition, likely untouched since they’d been left behind centuries before. Clinging to vines and roots, we ascended the slippery, leaf-strewn slope. At the summit, thick with vegetation, Fisher pointed out a subtle but unmistakable rectangular depression, which he believed to be the outline of a building. Kneeling down for a better look, Neil uncovered what appeared to be evidence of deliberate construction, supporting the interpretation of it as an earthen pyramid. Fisher was elated. “It’s just as I thought,” he said. “All this terrain has been modified by human hands.” Fisher and Wood led the team down from the pyramid into what Fisher hoped was one of the city’s ten “plazas,” or large public spaces. As we entered the area, we found a stretch of rain forest as artificially level as a soccer field. Linear mounds surrounded it on three sides, the remains of walls and buildings. A gully cut through the plaza, exposing a surface paved with stones. Crossing the plaza, we discovered on the far side a row of flat, altar-like stones perched on tripods of white boulders. The thick vegetation, however, continued to block any sense of the layout or scale of the ancient city. With the sun beginning to set, we returned to camp. We awoke the next morning and set off to explore again, a thick fog reverberating with the calls of howler monkeys. Mats of vines and dripping flowers hung down in the green gloom. Surrounded by the immense trees and the silent mounds—remnants of another people, another time—I felt the connection to the present moment melt away. A clamor in the upper treetops announced the beginning of a downpour. Several minutes elapsed before the rain reached the ground. Soon we were soaked. Fisher, wielding his machete, hiked north with Neil and Juan Carlos Fernández-Diaz, the team’s lidar engineer, to map more plazas of the city. Anna Cohen, a doctoral candidate from the University of Washington, and Alicia González, the expedition’s anthropologist, stayed behind to clear vegetation away from the row of stones. Toward afternoon Fisher and his group returned, having mapped three more plazas and many mounds. Everyone drank a round of hot, milky tea in the pouring rain. Wood ordered a return to camp, concerned that the river might be rising. The team departed in single file. Suddenly cameraman Lucian Read, near the end of the line, called out. “Hey, there are some weird stones over here.” At the base of the pyramid, just poking out of the ground, were the tops of dozens of beautifully carved stone sculptures. The objects, glimpsed among leaves and vines, and covered with moss, took shape in the jungle twilight: the snarling head of a jaguar, a stone vessel decorated with a vulture’s head, large jars carved with snakes, and a cluster of objects that looked like decorated thrones or tables, which archaeologists call metates. All the artifacts were in perfect condition, likely untouched since they’d been left behind centuries before. There were shouts of astonishment. People crowded around, bumping into one another. Fisher quickly took charge, ordering everyone back and roping off the area with police tape. But he was just as jazzed as the others, maybe more so. Although similar objects were well-known from other parts of Mosquitia, most were one-offs found long ago by Morde and others or dug up and carted off by local people or looters. Certainly no such cache had been recorded in the literature. There were 52 objects showing aboveground—and who knows how many more below the surface. “This is a powerful ritual display,” said Fisher, “taking wealth objects like this out of circulation and leaving them here, perhaps as an offering.” In the days that followed, the team of archaeologists recorded each object in situ. Using a tripod-mounted lidar device, Fernández scanned the artifacts as well, creating 3-D images of each. Nothing was touched, nothing removed: That would wait for another time, when the team could return with the proper equipment and time to do a careful excavation. Former SAS officers hired to provide logistics for the expedition in Mosquitia greet fellow team members arriving by helicopter—the only mode of transport able to reach the remote valley where the lost city is located. At the time of this writing, another, more extensive expedition is indeed being planned, with the full support of the Honduran government. Plagued by narcotics trafficking and the accompanying violence, Honduras is a poor country in need of good news. Ciudad Blanca, the White City, may be a legend—but anything that brings that story closer to reality generates great excitement; it is a point of collective pride, an affirmation of the people’s connection to their pre-Columbian past. Upon learning of the discovery of the cache, Juan Orlando Hernández, the president of Honduras, ordered a full-time military unit to the site to guard it against looters. Several weeks later he helicoptered in to see it firsthand, and pledged that his government would do “whatever it takes” to further not only the investigation and protection of the valley’s cultural heritage but the ecological patrimony of the surrounding region as well. The investigation has only begun. Most of the T1 valley remains to be surveyed, and the even more extensive ruins in T3 have not been approached. And who knows what lies beneath the jungle canopy veiling the rest of Mosquitia? In recent years there has been a fundamental change in the way archaeologists think pre-Columbian people inhabited tropical landscapes. In the old view, sparsely populated human settlements were dots on a mostly unoccupied terrain. In the new view, settlements were densely populated, with far less empty space between them. “Even in this remote jungle environment,” said Fisher, “where people wouldn’t expect it, there were dense populations living in cities—thousands of people. That is profound.” What we still have to learn about the former inhabitants of Mosquitia is practically unlimited. But the time to learn it may not be. In February, as we flew out of T1 back to Catacamas, within just a few miles the unbroken rain forest gave way to slopes scarred by clearings for cattle ranching—ugly, threadbare patches on an otherwise luxurious coat. Virgilio Paredes, the director of the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History, under whose auspices the expedition operated, calculated that at the present rate, clear-cutting will reach the T1 valley in eight years or less, destroying possible cultural treasures and leaving others open to rampant looting. President Hernández has pledged to protect the region from deforestation as well as looting, in part by establishing the Mosquitia Patrimonial Heritage Preserve, an area of about 785 square miles surrounding the valleys surveyed by lidar. But the issue is delicate. Though the cutting is illegal—the area is supposedly protected within the Tawahka Asangni and Río Plátano Biosphere Reserves—cattle ranching is an economic boon and a cherished tradition in this part of Honduras. If the discoveries in T1 tip the scale toward preservation, then it doesn’t matter whether the White City is real or myth. The search for it has led to riches. ||||| I tell a story over on the news side of National Geographic today, about an intrepid team of explorers who plunged into nearly impenetrable Honduran rainforest in order to groundtruth the legend that it concealed a fabled “white city.” They succeeded (and you can read that story in the October issue of the magazine)—but the coda to their tale is that they sacrificed some of their health to do so. Nearly half the team returned home having contracted leishmaniasis, a parasitic tropical disease that causes weeping, disfiguring sores and can be fatal. As I discovered reporting the story, leishmaniasis is what’s called a “neglected tropical disease,” a loose grouping of illnesses that affect more than 1 billion people worldwide, kill more than half a million people each year—and are almost ignored by drug companies because those victims and the countries they live in are too poor to be a lucrative market for cures. The explorers seeking the lost city discovered this when they grew sick enough to ask the National Institutes of Health for help, and found that the treatments available to them were prolonged, toxic, and didn’t promise a cure. But here’s the thing: The 20-odd people who were sickened on the Honduran expedition aren’t as rare as we might think. The disease that has afflicted them, which was once limited to the South and Central America, and the Middle East, is gaining a foothold in the United States. Their experience, and their difficulty finding affordable, effective, safe treatment, should serve as warnings that we ought to heed while we can. Leishmaniasis is unknown to most North Americans. It is transmitted by a parasite and carried by tiny flying insects called sandflies, and there are multiple subspecies of the organism. Depending on which subspecies infects you, you might develop any of three varieties of the illness: cutaneous (involving the skin), mucocutaneous (undermining both the skin, and mucous membranes such as inside the nose and mouth), and visceral (harming the internal organs). “It’s a disease that tends to occur in conditions of extreme poverty, where there are breakdowns in garbage collection and the sand flies that carry it proliferate, and where people live in poor-quality dwellings,” Dr. Peter Jay Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told me when I was reporting the news story. “It has not been a priority for drug development.” The places where leishmaniasis is burgeoning are places disrupted by war and civil unrest. Most recently, Hotez said, there have been possibly 100,000 new cases among people who fled the ISIS-occupied zones in Syria or were trafficked out of them as refugees. Those illnesses have been discovered in the Middle East and Europe as refugees arrived. And there’s a separate upsurge among Cubans fleeing that country, who have arrived in the United States overland through Central America and across the US border, and were diagnosed in emergency rooms. But the most troubling signal for the future of the disease isn’t either of those outbreaks. Instead, it’s a trickle of cases identified in the American Southwest that indicate the disease is present within our borders, and may be moving north. In 2012, researchers at the Texas and Oklahoma health departments reported in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene that they had uncovered 13 cases of leishmaniasis over eight years, 2000 to 2007, compared to 29 over almost a century: 1903 to 1996. The people who had the disease had not traveled out of the local area; their cases were what public health calls “autochthonous,” which means “contracted where reported,” or not carried in from somewhere else. The researchers added that several of the 13 had been misdiagnosed at first—so it was likely there were other cases that had not been found. Why is the disease moving north? The researchers—plus some others who also noticed its advance—say these cases might be due to humans moving into areas where sandflies flourish but urban development was scarce. It’s more likely, though, that its northward advance is linked to climate change: warming temperatures allowing the sandflies to live further north, and drought disrupting the lifecycle of the rodents that the sandflies usually feed on. “As rodent hosts become less available, sand flies may potentially seek blood meals from novel or non-preferred sources, such as humans,” the researchers said. Only 13 cases, or perhaps a few more: Does this matter? It does. First, because if you’re unfortunate enough to contract it, leishmaniasis is an ugly disease. In Central America, Hotez said, advanced cases are so disfiguring that they make girls unmarriageable, in cultures where marriage is the inescapable social unit, or lead to husbands abandoning their wives. (For images of what advanced leishmaniasis looks like, go here. I’ll spare you.) Second, because treatment is expensive, lengthy, and toxic—several of the explorers had to suspend their treatment because the drugs’ side effects were so bad. A cure isn’t guaranteed. Ironically, if this disease does move north and infect more North Americans, that might be the thing that prompts drug companies to invest, in better drugs or a vaccine. “We’ve had the genome for years and years, but no one is mining it to look for good targets and embark on drug development,” said Hotez, who is working on a vaccine at Baylor. “It’s the same picture for vaccines. It’s a big market, but not a commercial market.” It looks like a vaccine would be cost-effective, and one vaccine candidate looks promising in very early research. A vaccine could even, potentially, be a tool of diplomacy. “In South Sudan, visceral leishmaniasis killed 10 times as many people as died in the Ebola outbreak of 2014-15—but it was silent, no one has covered this,” Hotez points out. “We could do a lot better. But the funding is still quite modest for where we need to go.” ||||| Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of approximately 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found in people on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In the Old World (the Eastern Hemisphere) , leishmaniasis is found in some parts of Asia, the Middle East, Africa (particularly in the tropical region and North Africa, with some cases elsewhere), and southern Europe. It is not found in Australia or the Pacific islands. , leishmaniasis is found in some parts of Asia, the Middle East, Africa (particularly in the tropical region and North Africa, with some cases elsewhere), and southern Europe. It is not found in Australia or the Pacific islands. In the New World (the Western Hemisphere), it is found in some parts of Mexico, Central America, and South America. It is not found in Chile or Uruguay. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. The number of new cases may vary or change over time and are difficult to estimate. For cutaneous leishmaniasis, estimates of the number of new cases per year have ranged from approximately 700,000 to 1.2 million or more. For visceral leishmaniasis, the estimated number of new cases per year may have decreased to <100,000, but previous estimates ranged up to 400,000 or more cases. The cases of leishmaniasis evaluated in the United States reflect travel and immigration patterns. For example, many of the cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis in U.S. civilian travelers have been acquired in common tourist destinations in Latin America, such as in Costa Rica. Overall, infection in people is caused by more than 20 species (types) of Leishmania parasites, which are spread by about 30 species of phlebotomine sand flies; particular species of the parasite are spread by particular sand flies. The sand fly vectors generally are the most active during twilight, evening, and night-time hours (from dusk to dawn). In many geographic areas where leishmaniasis is found in people, infected people are not needed to maintain the transmission cycle of the parasite in nature; infected animals (such as rodents or dogs), along with sand flies, maintain the cycle. However, in some parts of the world, infected people are needed to maintain the cycle; this type of transmission (human—sand fly—human) is called anthroponotic. In areas with anthroponotic transmission, effective treatment of individual patients can help control the spread of the parasite. ||||| Autochthonous human cases of leishmaniasis in the United States are uncommon. We report three new cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis and details of a previously reported case, all outside the known endemic range in Texas. Surveys for enzootic rodent reservoirs and sand fly vectors were conducted around the residences of three of the case-patients during the summer of 2006; female Lutzomyia anthophora sand flies were collected at a north Texas and southeast Oklahoma residence of a case-patient, indicating proximity of a suitable vector. Urban sprawl, climatologic variability, or natural expansion of Leishmania mexicana are possible explanations for the apparent spread to the north and east. Enhanced awareness among healthcare providers in the south central region of the United States is important to ensure clinical suspicion of leishmaniasis, diagnosis, and appropriate patient management. We report three additional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis in humans who had no foreign travel history. We also present details of a previously reported case that extend the known range of human disease in the United States and the results of field surveys to document the enzootic cycle, and suggest explanations for the apparent expansion of the geographic range of human disease. In the United States, L. mexicana exists as a zoonosis, with three species of woodrats, Neotoma micropus, Neotoma albigula, and Neotoma floridana, serving as reservoir hosts. 5 – 9 Based on laboratory transmission studies and the isolation of L. mexicana from field-collected specimens, Lutzomyia anthophora sand flies, a nest associate of woodrats, is the only known enzootic vector of L. mexicana in the United States. 10 – 12 Both of these reservoir and vector species are nocturnal. Autochthonous human cases of leishmaniasis in the United States are uncommon, with only 29 cases reported from approximately 1903 through 1996. 2 All were in Texas, primarily in the southern and central areas of the state. In 2000, Maloney and others diagnosed a case acquired in Brenham, Texas, which is well east of previous cases. 3 More recently, Wright and others summarized a cluster of nine cases in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and surrounding counties, well to the east-northeast of the northernmost case previously reported in Albany, Texas. 4 Clinically, most cases had 1–5 localized cutaneous lesions of a few months duration. Specific identification using isoenzyme analysis and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on 10 of these 39 cases; all were determined to be Leishmania mexicana. The leishmaniases are a complex of parasitic diseases that cause significant health problems on almost all continents. Clinically, there are three major syndromes, cutaneous, mucocutaneous, and visceral, depending largely on the species of Leishmania involved and immune response of the human host. With the apparent exception of the Indian subcontinent, most transmission cycles are zoonotic, with many species of rodents, wild and domestic canids, and a variety of other mammals serving as reservoir hosts and phlebotomine sand flies acting as vectors. 1 A total of 12 ABC light traps (Clarke Mosquito Control, Roselle, IL) were placed at the residence of case-patient 4 in Collin County on three separate nights (June 28, July 12, and September 19, 2006). A total of 23 sand flies were collected during the three nights: 3 female Lu. anthophora, 12 female and 1 male Lutzomyia vexator, and 7 female Lutzomyia spp., which were probably Lu. vexator. On the same dates in mid-June, 31 incandescent light traps (Model 1012; John W. Hock Co., Gainesville, FL) and blacklight traps (Model 1212; John W. Hock Co.) were set on the residential property of the four case-patients to survey for sand flies. Light traps were placed near residences, either near favorable rodent habitat or near domestic animal locations (rabbits, chickens, horses), to collect sand flies. No traps were placed inside homes. The vector traps were operational throughout the night with insect collections retrieved the next morning. Sand flies were identified by using the key of Young and Perkins. 14 A single female Lu. anthophora was collected at a rabbit hutch near the residence of case-patient 3. A total of 303 Sherman live traps (H.B. Sherman Traps, Inc., Tallahassee, FL) baited with rolled oats were set near burrows or other likely rodent habitat at four locations: the residence and adjacent pastures of case-patient 3, the residence of case-patient 2, two pastures belonging to case-patient 2, and a barn and adjacent riparian bottomland along the Red River during June 12–16, 2006. The primary species of interest were the eastern woodrat, N. floridana, and the hispid cotton rat, Sigmodon hispidus, an incidental host of L. mexicana in the Yucatan Peninsula and a species commonly found in pastureland. A total of only 13 rodents were captured. A single N. floridana was collected in the barn near the Red River in Lamar County. The remaining rodents were house mice, Mus musculus and mice in the genus Peromyscus. No S. hispidus were collected. The woodrat was negative by PCR for Leishmania using the genus-specific primers 13A and 13B. 13 In April 2006, an electronic advisory was issued through the OSDH Health Alert Network to physicians in family practice, internal medicine, and pediatric medicine located in McCurtain, Pushmataha, and Choctaw Counties informing them of the recent recognition of endemic leishmaniasis in southeast Oklahoma and requesting reporting of suspect cases to the OSDH. In June 2006, a letter describing the clinical aspects of cutaneous leishmaniasis, including a website link showing a typical lesion, was sent to pathologists and dermatologists over a larger region of Oklahoma. The health departments of the neighboring states of Arkansas and Louisiana were contacted by the Oklahoma State Epidemiologist and queried regarding any known case reports of leishmaniasis. No additional cases were identified in southeastern Oklahoma, or the adjacent states of Arkansas or Louisiana. The residence of case-patient 4 was built in 2001 and was located in an urban-rural interface in one of the fastest growing counties in Texas approximately 38 miles north of Dallas. It is on a lot measuring approximately 5 acres with a dry creek bed bordered by mixed hardwoods and surrounded by fields planted to cotton. Domestic animals and livestock on the property included a small dog, two cats, and longhorn cattle that graze in the creek bed. Large rodent burrows were observed along the creek bed. An animal enclosure containing rabbits, sheep, and goats was also located near the residence. This case was patient 9 in the report of Wright and others, 4 which they reported from Tarrant County, Texas. In December 2005, an elementary school-age girl from Collin County, Texas, showed development of three skin lesions, two facial and one upper extremity. Medical care began in January 2006, and included topical and oral antibiotics, topical antifungal drugs, and topical corticosteroids, but no clinical improvement was noted. A biopsy in April 2006, yielded a histopathologic diagnosis of leishmaniasis and a specific determination of L. mexicana was made by culture at the CDC. Screening by PCR using forward primer 13A and reverse primer M1.1 9 confirmed that the parasites belonged to the L. mexicana complex. Case-patient 3 resided on a large lot that housed several horses, and included a corral, barns, sheds, and outbuildings. An ornamental pond was located near the home. A woodlot of hardwoods adjoined the property. His extended family lived on a nearby lot where his granddaughter raised rabbits. Case-patient 3 was retired, but remained actively involved in rearing cattle on three parcels of land located a few miles from his residence. In December 2005, a 73 year-old man from McCurtain County, Oklahoma, noted two eruptive skin lesions on his right forearm. When the lesions failed to heal, he sought care in February 2006, from the local physician, who had treated case-patient 1. The cutaneous lesions measured 1.8 × 1.0 × 0.6 cm and 2.5 × 1.5 × 0.9 cm and were excised and submitted to the same pathologist who performed the histopathologic evaluation for case-patient 1. The pathologist noted the presence of intracytoplasmic organisms suggestive of Leishmania. Recalling that case-patient 3 lived in the same small community as case-patient 1, he retrieved the slides for case-patient 1 for another review and reconsidered cutaneous leishmaniasis. He then contacted the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to report two suspected cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Slides from the Oklahoma cases were submitted to the CDC for diagnostic review; the presence of Leishmania organisms was confirmed in tissue biopsy specimens from each case-patient. The residence of case-patient 2 was in a rural area a few miles south of Paris, Texas. Vegetation in the area consisted of mixed hardwoods and pasture. Piles of debris and many abandoned vehicles were observed near the house, and there were several unused chicken coops containing loose feed and two enclosures with chickens near the rear of the house. In June 2005, a 74 year-old woman from Lamar County, Texas, noted an inflammatory nodule on her left eyelid, for which she sought ophthalmologic care the next month. When she returned for follow-up 10 days later, the lesion had crusted with a central scab and measured 1.0 × 1.5 cm on an excisional biopsy specimen. The biopsy tissue was sent to the Texas Department of State Health Services Laboratory where leishmaniasis was diagnosed by histopathologic examination. Treatment consisted of heat packs applied to the affected area. A 26 year-old man from a small community in McCurtain County in southeastern Oklahoma first noted a lesion on the periorbital area of his right cheek in December 2003. In January 2004, he sought medical care from a local physician, who excised the entire lesion measuring 1.0 × 0.7 × 0.4 cm and submitted the tissue to a pathologist in Oklahoma City. The pathologist noted that an infectious process was likely, but initially ruled out Leishmania, acid-fast, and fungal organisms. Histopathologic findings were revisited by the pathologist when a similar case (case 3) was evaluated from the same community. A secondary review at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Atlanta, GA) confirmed a diagnosis of leishmaniasis, the first known from the state. The case-patient received no anti-parasitic treatment and there has been no recurrence. Case-patient 1 participated in an initial interview but did not allow access to his property for an ecologic survey. Discussion In the United States, there appears to be a trend of diagnosing human leishmaniasis with increasing frequency. From 1903 through 1996, only 29 cases were reported. For the eight-year period from 2000 through 2007, an additional 13 cases have now been diagnosed. There also appears to be a northeasterly geographic trend in the occurrence of human cases (Figure 1). The first recognized case in the United States was in a 64 year-old woman given a diagnosis of leishmaniasis in the late 1960s, but who probably acquired the infection in approximately 1903 at San Benito in Cameron County, the southernmost county in Texas.15 A second case in Alice, Texas, approximately 130 miles further north, was acquired in early 1942.16 During the 1970s and 1980s, cases were diagnosed around San Antonio, west to Uvalde, Texas, and south to northern Mexico.17–23 In 1988, a case was reported in the central Texas city of Brownwood and in 1992 in nearby Brookesmith. In November 1994, the northernmost case to that date was recognized in Albany, Texas. Until that time, all reported cases were within the range of the southern plains woodrat N. micropus. The four cases in northeastern Texas and southeastern Oklahoma represent a further expansion of autochthonous human leishmaniasis to the north and east. From the nearest case in Collin County, Texas, the case in Lamar County was approximately 75 miles away. The two cases in southeastern Oklahoma were approximately 58 miles from the case in Lamar County, Texas. All of these newly reported cases are in the range of N. floridana. View larger version: Figure 1. Historic occurrence of autochthonous human cases of leishmaniasis in Texas and Oklahoma. Our findings in this report were limited by the fact that diagnostic testing for case-patients 1–3 was based on histopathologic analysis alone. Although culture or PCR testing to identify Leishmania species were not obtained, the clinical presentation, epidemiology, and outcome of these cases is consistent with L. mexicana infection. Another limitation was the inability to document L. mexicana in a rodent or sand fly specimen collected in the relative vicinity of the likely exposure of the case-patients. The geographic distribution of Leishmania is known to be highly focal, both spatially and temporally, and the timing of our epidemiologic investigation was delayed by several months to a few years from each case's exposure period, and mismatched to the seasonality of L. mexicana transmission. Pavlovsky discussed factors that determine the distribution and spread of zoonotic diseases, including a number that are rodent-borne, in the former Soviet republics.24 More recently, Shaw reviewed reasons for the increase in human cases of leishmaniasis worldwide.25 Of the factors these authors cite, the increasing frequency of diagnoses and expansion in geographic range in the southern United States may have at least three explanations: increased clinical suspicion; human intrusion into established foci; or introduction of one or more missing components, reservoir, vector, or pathogen, of the enzootic cycle. It is unlikely that increased clinical suspicion contributed to the recognition of the reported cases, but it cannot be ruled out. A diagnosis of leishmaniasis for case-patient 1 was delayed for more than one year and would have been dismissed entirely if not for the serendipitous occurrence of case-patient 3 in the same Oklahoma community and biopsy evaluation by the same pathologist. Although heightened clinical awareness may be anticipated among physicians in Texas, disease occurrence is rare. Case-patient 4 received multiple treatment modalities before a diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis was made. Increased exposure to the parasite could result from human intrusion into environments in which it exists. This factor may account for case-patient 4 in our series. The residence of this case-patient was built in 2001 on what formerly was farmland with a limited area of riparian forest. This region is an area of rapid urban development, but with a trend to preserve the natural surroundings and eco-systems around the homes. The long-standing presence of riparian vegetation, suitable habitat for N. floridana, and the collection of Lu. anthophora and Lu. vexator in the immediate vicinity suggests that this was an established enzootic focus of L. mexicana transmission. In the absence of urbanization, increased contact could occur by creating environmental conditions that draw the enzootic cycle into peridomestic surroundings. Case-patients 2 and 3 may be representative. Both of the residences of these case-patients were in areas experiencing little or no growth and with stable habitat. Case-patient 2 had extensive debris piles and discarded vehicles that are attractive harborage for woodrats around the residence. In addition, there were suitable blood meal hosts for Lu. anthophora near both case-patient residences. At the home of case-patient 2, there were chickens near the house. McHugh and others reported the presence of domestic fowl at other case residences in southern Texas.2 Case-patient 3 had a rabbit in a hutch near the residence and the only female Lu. anthophora collected during the mid-June surveys was trapped at the hutch. The presence of rabbits at residences of case-patients has been noted.2 Increased contact could also occur if resident populations of hosts and/or vectors were drawn to peridomestic habitats during periods of environmental stress, such as drought conditions. In Colombia and Brazil, drought has been found to accompany increased numbers of human leishmaniasis cases.26–28 In the six months preceding the onset of our four cases, average monthly rainfall was decreased compared with the 30-year historic averages. Six-month precipitation departures ranged from 5.80 inches (case-patient 2) to 13.86 inches (case-patient 4) below the expected rainfall for the respective location. Three of the four case-patients had symptom onsets during June–December 2005. In a 2008 report, the National Weather Service described 2005 as the second driest calendar year on record for southeastern Oklahoma. The effects of climatic conditions on Lu. anthophora are unknown. However, Bradley and others documented a decrease in populations of N. micropus in response to drought and a rapid recovery to pre-drought levels once rainfall returned to normal levels.29 A similar decrease in populations of N. floridana may also result from drought conditions. As rodent hosts become less available, sand flies may potentially seek blood meals from novel or nonpreferred sources, such as humans or peridomestic animals. Climatic factors may also lead to shifts in the range of vector and reservoir species. Analyses by Gonzalez and others30 using ecological niche models of sand fly vectors and Neotomae rodent reservoirs predict that the range of all confirmed vector and reservoir species of L. mexicana will continue a northward expansion outside of its present range spurred by climate change. As a result of this expansion, the numbers of persons exposed to L. mexicana will increase.30 The introduction and spread of mosquito vectors such as Aedes albopictus in North America are well documented.31 Unfortunately, the historic and present distribution of sand flies is imperfectly known and probably reflects more the distribution of collectors than of the flies. Until 1995, Lu. anthophora was believed to have a distribution limited to southern and western Texas.14,32 The collection of Lu. anthophora near Tucson was an extension of its range of over 528 miles to the west-northwest.33 The Lu. anthophora collected near the residence of case-patient 4 in Collin County are approximately 290 miles from the nearest previously known collections near San Antonio, Texas. They represent a new county record, but because this was the first attempt at collection in the county, it does not necessarily mean they are new to the area. Likewise, the collection of Lu. vexator is a new county record, but this species was previously collected in central Oklahoma. The collection of the single Lu. anthophora female in McCurtain County, Oklahoma, represents a new county and state record. The findings of our vector surveys serve to establish the presence of a suitable vector for leishmaniasis in the vicinity of the cases; however, the trapping yield was low. Another limitation was the length of time that elapsed between the likely period of exposure of case-patients and timing of the insect trapping. Although the contributing ecologic factors for emergence of L. mexicana into a new geographic focus cannot be elucidated, it is clear that awareness among the medical and public health sectors in the south central region of the United States needs to be enhanced. The location of the cases in southeastern Oklahoma is only a short distance from Arkansas and Louisiana, and the potential for expansion of L. mexicana in northerly and easterly directions exists. Increased public health surveillance is desirable to further monitor the emergence of autochthonous leishmaniasis. Leishmaniasis is not on the list of nationally reportable conditions. Diagnosis of leishmaniasis is reportable to public health authorities in Texas, but not in Oklahoma. Physicians need to be aware of the possibility of cutaneous leishmaniasis in soldiers and travelers returning from disease-endemic countries, as well as residents of Texas, Oklahoma, and surrounding areas. The CDC offers diagnostic laboratory support and a Practical Guide for Laboratory Diagnosis of Leishmaniasis is accessible on the CDC web site.34 The choice of treatment depends on the Leishmania species, number, size and location of cutaneous lesions, and the presence of any underlying immunosuppressive conditions. Localized cutaneous leishmaniasis is not a life-threatening condition. Therefore, therapy selection needs to balance the degree of morbidity against the potential side effects of treatment options. Treatment regimens recommended by the CDC and the World Health Organization for L. mexicana include local therapy options of topical paramomycin, thermotherapy or intralesional administration of pentavalent antimonial drugs, or oral treatment with ketoconazole or miltefosine.35,36 Whenever leishmaniasis is suspected or diagnosed in a resident of the United States who does not have foreign travel as a risk factor, healthcare providers are encouraged to contact their local or state health department for epidemiologic investigation. ||||| Likely due to massive civil unrest in war torn Libya, scores of people in the capital city of Tripoli have sought medical attention for leishmaniasis, a parasitic infection transmitted to people via the bite of a sandfly vector, according to a Libya Herald report. The chaotic situation in Libya likely has resulted in a breakdown in vector control and public health measures; however, Libya has experienced leishmaniasis outbreaks in previous years when thousands were infected. Leishmaniasis is not a single disease, but a group of syndromes due to a variety of species of this parasite. The affect different populations and are related to a characteristic vector, the sandfly. The disease can range from asymptomatic infections to those causing significant illness and death. Disease can appear on a spectrum from a single skin ulcer to destructive lesions of the face to terminal organ disease. Leishmaniasis is found in 88 countries worldwide and is broken down between Old World and New World. Old World leishmaniasis is primarily found in parts of Asia, East and North Africa, Soouthern Europe and the Middle East. New World leishmaniasis occurs from northern Mexico to northern Argentina, with rare cases reported in parts of Texas and Oklahoma. In South America it is not found in Chile or Uruguay. Leishmaniasis in the US is typically indicative of immigration and travel. The vector for this parasite is a phlebotomine sandfly. There are a few different species implicated depending on the part of the world. Sandflies are very small (about 1/3 the size of a mosquito) and make no noise when flying. There bites can sometimes be painless; because of these reasons, many people have no idea they were bitten. Even one bite of a sandfly can transmit disease, so travelers on short trips can still get infected. When the female sandfly takes a blood meal it injects the parasite into the wound. Macrophages pick up the parasite and here they multiply until the cell bursts from overcrowding. The parasite goes on to infect more macrophages. Some of these cells get carried to organs of the body including the liver, spleen and the bone marrow. There are several species of Leishmania that cause disease in humans. The most common are Leishmania donovani (kala-azar), L. tropica (Baghdad boil), and L. braziliensis (espundia). After getting bitten by a sandfly, disease may manifest itself from a week to many months later. It starts out as a papule that enlarges to an ulcer. The ulcer can give the appearance of a volcano crater. Lesions may appear singly or multiple; many heal spontaneously within weeks to months to years. Certain species (L. braziliensis) can disseminate to the mucosal areas of the face and mouth and cause very destructive and disfiguring disease (espundia) that appears similar to leprosy. Kala-azar, an Indian name given to systemic type of the disease due to the grayish appearance of the body, can result in enlarged spleen and liver, diarrhea, emaciation, weakness and death. There is not a vaccine available to prevent leishmaniasis. The best way is to avoid sandfly bites. Related:

– A sometimes lethal parasitic disease that can leave its victims with crater-like ulcers and grayish skin tones has never much bothered those within the confines of the US—until now. Between 2000 and 2007, 13 autochthonous cases—meaning victims contracted it here, as opposed to while traveling elsewhere—of leishmaniasis cropped up in Texas and Oklahoma, compared to just 29 cases spanning almost the entire 20th century, the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene reported in 2012. Why? The tropical disease is moving north, likely due to climate change, reports National Geographic. What's more, because leishmaniasis has heretofore been largely confined to impoverished realms, effective treatment isn't really available. "It has not been a priority for drug development," says Dr. Peter Jay Hotez, dean of Baylor College of Medicine's National School of Tropical Medicine. Twenty-some people in a group of explorers "who plunged into nearly impenetrable Honduran rainforest in order to groundtruth the legend that it concealed a fabled 'white city'" contracted the parasitic disease, per National Geographic, thanks to the tiny sand fly, its vector. And while these numbers may sound low—Outbreak News Today reports on "scores" of patients going to the hospital in Tripoli just last week—the Centers for Disease Control calculates that there are somewhere between 1 million and 2 million new cases a year throughout the world. "In South Sudan, visceral leishmaniasis killed 10 times as many people as died in the Ebola outbreak of 2014-15—but it was silent, no one has covered this," says Hotez. (Add leishmaniasis to the list of Syria's woes.)

FOX 2 News in Detroit has learned that the "Queen of Soul" has cancer. The news of Aretha Franklin's battle with the disease is being met with an outpouring of love and support from all across metro Detroit. At this time Franklin's family says she is doing "OK", but they are asking for the continued prayers and thoughts from the community. Add your sentiments in the comment module below . Pop Crunch.com published an article Wednesday citing a report by The National Enquirer that Franklin has incurable pancreatic cancer. FOX 2 could not confirm the type of cancer that Franklin has, but a member of the Franklin family tells us she may have bladder or pancreatic cancer. Last week the 68-year-old underwent surgery for a mystery illness. The surgery was deemed a success, but the reason or reasons for the surgery were not released to the public. A few weeks ago Franklin canceled all concerts through May 2011 due to "medical reasons." This is a statement released by Franklin following her surgery last Thursday (December 2nd): The surgery was highly successful. God is still in control. I had superb doctors and nurses whom were blessed by all the prayers of the city and the country. God bless you all for your prayers! -- The Queen of Soul, Ms. Aretha Franklin FOX 2's Andrea Isom asked friends and fans for their reactions. Click on the video player to watch her report.> Send your well-wishes to Aretha Franklin in the comment module below. There's also a Facebook Fan page dedicated to Ms. Franklin: http://www.facebook.com/arethafranklin?v=wall ||||| Aretha Franklin Has Cancer, Family Confirms Email This Aretha Franklin is battling cancer, a family friend has announced to According to the report, family and friends close to the Queen of Soul are "very concerned," but say she is doing "okay." Family expressed hopes to FOX that fans of Aretha, 68, will send prayers and good thoughts. In a post at "Though the Enquirer is known for its often-outlandish take on unbiased journalism," PopCrunch writes, "it should be noted that the publication was the first in the world to report Patrick Swayze and Michael Landon's battles with pancreatic cancer, a disease that has a less than 10 percent survival rate and ultimately killed both actors. They also blew the lid off Christina Applegate's breast cancer scare in 2008." Aretha Franklin is battling cancer, a family friend has announced to FOX 2 News in Detroit According to the report, family and friends close to the Queen of Soul are "very concerned," but say she is doing "okay." Family expressed hopes to FOX that fans of Aretha, 68, will send prayers and good thoughts.In a post at PopCrunch , a National Enquirer story (not available online) is cited saying Franklin's cancer is pancreatic. The same report notes sources saying Aretha has less than a year to live."Though the Enquirer is known for its often-outlandish take on unbiased journalism," PopCrunch writes, "it should be noted that the publication was the first in the world to report Patrick Swayze and Michael Landon's battles with pancreatic cancer, a disease that has a less than 10 percent survival rate and ultimately killed both actors. They also blew the lid off Christina Applegate's breast cancer scare in 2008." Aretha, We Love You FOX 2 in Detroit was unable to confirm the specific type of cancer. Franklin underwent a "highly successful" surgery last week, though the cause was not revealed."God is still in control," Aretha's post-surgery statement read. "I had superb doctors and nurses whom were blessed by all the prayers of the city and the country."News of Franklin's unspecified operation came a month after she announced the cancellation of all concert dates and personal appearances through May on the order of her doctors. That announcement came after Franklin's brief visit to a Detroit hospital -- no details were given about her condition at the time.It's been a difficult several months for Franklin; her adult son, Eddie, was beaten by three men at a Detroit gas station in September. A month earlier, she broke ribs in a fall, causing her to miss two free concerts in New York.Aretha Franklin, born in Memphis and raised in Detroit, is the singer of hits like 'Respect,' 'Chain of Fools,' and '(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman.' ||||| FILE - In this Oct. 30, 2009 file photo, Aretha Franklin performs at the 25th Anniversary Rock & Roll Hall of Fame concert at Madison Square Garden in New York. A community prayer vigil was held in Detroit... (Associated Press) Aretha Franklin underwent serious surgery last week and is "recovering very well," her longtime friend, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, said Wednesday. Jackson said in an interview with The Associated Press that he's visited with the legendary singer four or five times recently, including a few days ago, and that Franklin's "spirits are high, and her faith is strong." "She's conscious, communicating and taking daily walks up and down the hall," said Jackson, who accompanied Franklin on one of those walks during his most recent visit. Franklin announced last week that she had undergone a surgical procedure, but neither she nor her publicist have said what is ailing the 68-year-old Queen of Soul. Jackson wouldn't either, other than to say his friend of more than 40 years is responding well to the surgery. "She has amazing strength _ body, religion and faith," Jackson said. "It's what he keeps her going." Last month, Franklin announced she was canceling all concert dates and personal appearances through May on the orders of her doctors. It's been a tough few months for Franklin, whose hits include "(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman," "Chain of Fools" and her signature song, "Respect." Her son, Eddie, was beaten by three men at a Detroit gas station in September. And a month before that, Franklin broke ribs in a fall, causing her to miss two free concerts in New York. Franklin is one of the most honored singers in American history, having won numerous Grammys, the National Medal of Arts and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She also has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. ||||| Oh dear….. It seems the mystery illness that has sidelined music legend Aretha Franklin from the stage until May is much more serious than gout or a bad case of heartburn. In fact, the Queen of Soul could be in for the fight of her life. The Snitch Circuit is abuzz this Wednesday with whispers that Franklin has been diagnosed with advanced (Read: Inoperable and Incurable) pancreatic cancer. The National Enquirer claims doctors made the glum diagnosis after Aretha broke her ribs in a shower fall over the summer. Tabloid tattles claim the “Respect” singer has been given less than a year to live, with her advanced age (She’s 68..) and massive weight lowering her odds of recovery. Though The Enquirer is known for its often-outlandish take on unbiased journalism, it should be noted that the publication was the first in the world to report Patrick Swayze and Michael Landon’s battles with pancreatic cancer — a disease that has a less than 10 percent survival rate and ultimately killed both actors. They also blew the lid off Christina Applegate’s breast cancer scare in 2008. “She even hid her diagnosis of pancreatic cancer from some family members,” a well-placed Franklin source told the publication. Franklin underwent a top secret medical procedure last Thursday, Dec. 2, one day after a community prayer vigil was held on behalf of the legendary Motown singer in her hometown of Detroit. Franklin wasn’t at the vigil, but in a statement she thanked the City Council, saying “All prayers are good.” Indeed they are. Best wishes to The Queen! UPDATE: A Franklin family insider, who asked not to be identified, tells the Detroit press that Ms. Aretha does, in fact, have cancer. (NO!!!) The relative said that the singing legend is doing well for now, but the family is still very concerned about her prognosis. The family member didn’t not, however, say what type of cancer Aretha was diagnosed with. Here’s to hoping she’s not fighting the silent killer that all too often is pancreatic cancer. No word from Aretha’s rep yet. Written by Castina on December 8th, 2010 | Tagged as: Aretha Franklin

– The undisclosed illness that required Aretha Franklin to undergo surgery last week is cancer, a relative tells Fox 2 News In Detroit. The 68-year-old singer abruptly canceled shows last month on doctors' orders but didn't give specifics on why. The National Enquirer says the cancer is pancreatic, notes PopCrunch. Click here for more details. After her surgery last week, Franklin issued only this statement: "The surgery was highly successful. God is still in control. I had superb doctors and nurses whom were blessed by all the prayers of the city and the country. God bless you all for your prayers!" Today, the Rev. Jesse Jackson told AP that his longtime friend is "recovering very well."

Andreia Schwartz, Emperors Club madam who set up Eliot Spitzer with hookers, loses Brazil election VITORIA, BRAZIL - The ex-Manhattan madam who set up former Gov. Eliot Spitzer with a bevy of high-priced hookers lost her bid Sunday to become a Brazilian politician. Andreia Schwartz, 35, the former head of the Emperors Club VIP, garnered only 476 votes in her race for the Legislative Assembly in Espirito Santo. Schwartz was deported from the U.S. to Brazil in 2008 after an 18-month prison term for operating a midtown brothel, which she launched after leaving the Emperors Club. Schwartz ran on a platform championing women's rights. Her campaign slogan was: "I'm no saint, give me another chance." ||||| We're not being mean. An illiterate clown and comedian named Tiririca (translation: "Nut Sedge") really was elected to Congress in Brazil on Sunday. Running on the slogan "It can't get any worse," he received more than double the votes of any other candidate and promises to report to Brazilians how congressmen spend their time, which from now on will consist mostly of fits of uproarious laughter. [MSNBC]

– She may have been able to hook up Eliot Spitzer with high-price prostitutes, but she wasn't able to hook herself up with very many votes. Andreia Schwartz, the 35-year-old who ran the Emperors Club VIP, lost her bid to become a Brazilian lawmaker yesterday, garnering just 476 votes in her Legislative Assembly race. Schwartz, whose campaign slogan was "I'm no saint, give me another chance," was deported to Brazil in 2008 after serving time for operating the brothel, reports the New York Daily News. Interestingly enough, an illiterate clown and comedian did win a seat in Brazil's Congress.

With her rise in the coming months to chairman and CEO (as Gianopulos, 64, moves into an undefined "strategic role"), Snider, 55, will preside over the second-hottest studio at the 2016 box office (after Disney). Watts, 46, has become the envy of many of her counterparts at rival studios thanks to hits like The Martian ($630 million). BIG WIN Deadpool ($778 million), another Watts film, is the top-grossing R-rated title ever. BIG BET Will the executive shakeup work out? Fox's future is all about the next Avatar films — and filmmaker James Cameron's strongest relationship at the studio is with Gianopulos. *** What's the least powerful thing about your life? SNIDER I don’t think about my life in terms of power. I think about my life in terms of meaning. WATTS The list expands daily. GIANOPULOS Managing my really smart and independent daughters. I can't get through a day without … SNIDER Quiet time to think (and tea!). WATTS Many espressos. GIANOPULOS Sugar-free Red Bull. (I know, don't tell me.) Who's your most important adviser? SNIDER My husband, Gary Jones. WATTS Jonathan Krauss. GIANOPULOS My wife, Ann, who is amazing, beloved by all (and certainly by me) and always tells me the truth while making it easier to accept. In high school, I was … SNIDER A lot like I am today. WATTS Younger. GIANOPULOS In a Rolling Stones cover band (and unsuccessfully pretending to be Keith Richards). What's your hidden talent? SNIDER I can change from work clothes to sweats in record time. WATTS A really loud two-fingered whistle. GIANOPULOS I can discern meaning in half-a-dozen languages I don't speak. If I could have lunch with anyone, living or dead, I'd choose … SNIDER Martin Luther King Jr. WATTS Vanessa Nadal and Lin-Manuel Miranda. GIANOPULOS Ernest Hemingway, and he could pick the place. The first powerful person I ever met was … SNIDER My teachers at Friends' Central School had the greatest influence on my life (after my parents). But, given their Quaker affiliation, they would not have considered themselves powerful. WATTS Diane Von Furstenberg. GIANOPULOS My father, who overcame odds that still humble anything I've done. And also, the Queen of England (but not at the same time). Have you seen Hamilton and how many times? SNIDER Yes, off-Broadway and then on Broadway. WATTS Yes, I love it! I've been twice. GIANOPULOS Yes, I've seen Hamilton, and even managed to close my dropped jaw long enough to think of something to say to Lin-Manuel Miranda. I told him I had never experienced anything so exalted that so surpassed its expectation. ||||| With her rise in the coming months to chairman and CEO (as Gianopulos, 64, moves into an undefined "strategic role"), Snider, 55, will preside over the second-hottest studio at the 2016 box office (after Disney). Watts, 46, has become the envy of many of her counterparts at rival studios thanks to hits like The Martian ($630 million). BIG WIN Deadpool ($778 million), another Watts film, is the top-grossing R-rated title ever. BIG BET Will the executive shakeup work out? Fox's future is all about the next Avatar films — and filmmaker James Cameron's strongest relationship at the studio is with Gianopulos. *** What's the least powerful thing about your life? SNIDER I don’t think about my life in terms of power. I think about my life in terms of meaning. WATTS The list expands daily. GIANOPULOS Managing my really smart and independent daughters. I can't get through a day without … SNIDER Quiet time to think (and tea!). WATTS Many espressos. GIANOPULOS Sugar-free Red Bull. (I know, don't tell me.) Who's your most important adviser? SNIDER My husband, Gary Jones. WATTS Jonathan Krauss. GIANOPULOS My wife, Ann, who is amazing, beloved by all (and certainly by me) and always tells me the truth while making it easier to accept. In high school, I was … SNIDER A lot like I am today. WATTS Younger. GIANOPULOS In a Rolling Stones cover band (and unsuccessfully pretending to be Keith Richards). What's your hidden talent? SNIDER I can change from work clothes to sweats in record time. WATTS A really loud two-fingered whistle. GIANOPULOS I can discern meaning in half-a-dozen languages I don't speak. If I could have lunch with anyone, living or dead, I'd choose … SNIDER Martin Luther King Jr. WATTS Vanessa Nadal and Lin-Manuel Miranda. GIANOPULOS Ernest Hemingway, and he could pick the place. The first powerful person I ever met was … SNIDER My teachers at Friends' Central School had the greatest influence on my life (after my parents). But, given their Quaker affiliation, they would not have considered themselves powerful. WATTS Diane Von Furstenberg. GIANOPULOS My father, who overcame odds that still humble anything I've done. And also, the Queen of England (but not at the same time). Have you seen Hamilton and how many times? SNIDER Yes, off-Broadway and then on Broadway. WATTS Yes, I love it! I've been twice. GIANOPULOS Yes, I've seen Hamilton, and even managed to close my dropped jaw long enough to think of something to say to Lin-Manuel Miranda. I told him I had never experienced anything so exalted that so surpassed its expectation. ||||| Whose job is it to change the world? Okay, that’s a big question, so let’s start off with a (somewhat) simpler one: Is admitting that you have a problem, truly the first step to recovery? There’s a new trend in conversations about race, diversity and privilege in America. More and more, you’ll see and hear people “checking” their privilege at the start of such conversations. Now that everyone is talking about the fact that Hollywood has a diversity problem, and America has a race problem (problems that intersect with gender and class, among other factors), there seems to now be a general rule in place that you have to acknowledge these problems and your own privilege in the face of them. The good news is that you don’t have to do much else beyond that. In other words, merely acknowledging the issue of diversity as a real thing that exists—and then doing little else beyond that—has somehow become enough. I was reminded of this new trend when I read the introduction to The Hollywood Reporter’s annual Top 100 list, written by Janice Min. And lastly, yes, we know that a lot of this list is white guys. We won’t need social media, thanks anyway, to drop an anvil on our heads to realize this. Out of the 124 names on the list (due to some shared groupings), there are only 19 women and 10 people of color (six African-Americans, two Asians, two Latinos). I’d like to think we cover the issues of gender and diversity that plague Hollywood with a critical eye and will continue to. And I hope and expect that one day in the near future this list has a wholly improved and reflective composition. This attempt to get in front of social media seems incredibly odd. Firstly, it seeks to name “social media” (which, in this case, is basically synonymous with Black Twitter) as the problem in this scenario. Don’t you dare rise up and point out the fact that there are only 19 women and 10 people of color on this list, Black Twitter—in fact I’ll do it right here and beat you to the punch so you can’t blame me for anything! How odd, to villianize the same people who have forced you to, at the very least, be aware of how many people of color are consistently left off of lists like this. How odd to think that such a flippantly delivered warning will keep us from asking questions about yet another list celebrating the accomplishments of—as you yourself admit—”a lot” of white guys. It’s also interesting (read: infuriating) to note a certain attempt at undercutting the accomplishments of those few women on the list. Take for example, the language used in Channing Dungey’s ranking: Since becoming the first African-American woman ever tapped to lead a Big Four broadcast network in February, Dungey, 47, has exercised her power by slashing seven series, including surprises Nashville and Castle, and adding new ones centered on overweight housewives and talking dogs. BIG WIN: Her new gig, especially given her lack of noncreative experience. Sure, Dungey made the Top 100 list (one of only three black women to do so—she’s joined by Shonda Rhimes and Oprah Winfrey), but it doesn’t sound like THR’s especially excited about that. From what I’m reading here, it sounds like she’s spent the last few months ruining all of TV. But let’s say we can put such tone, and Min’s sly remark about social media anvils to the side. Min is saying we must look at the whole of what The Hollywood Reporter covers to understand how they work against the active and ongoing discrimination against women and blacks, and other people of color in the industry. In other coverage, just not here, she seems to say, we are trying to do our part. The thing is, this isn’t the first time THR has made such a claim, and participated in this trendy movement of checking oneself, while taking little-to-no responsibility for that which required checking. Last year Stephen Galloway made a similar attempt to get in front of social media and any other critics, by penning an article titled Why Every Actress on The Hollywood Reporter Roundtable Cover Is White. Galloway, like Min, hoped to beat all those other writers to the punch, and gain some credit for merely acknowledging the problem. However, neither Galloway nor Min seems willing to take any of the responsibility here. They gladly admit that Hollywood has a problem, but they defend their publication as a mere reflection of Hollywood—not to be blamed for the discriminatory and racist practices of the executives and casting directors, and those others in positions of power. It’s not their job to resolve these issues—in fact, they can’t! They, mere Hollywoodreporters are powerless against the real villain: HOLLYWOOD. Galloway explained this very clearly: So who’s responsible? The Academy drew flak for failing to nominate Selma in many categories, but the Academy doesn’t make films, any more than The Hollywood Reporter does: It recognizes work that the industry creates. He also explained how badly he felt about his all-white cover, and it wasn’t until the very end of the piece that he admitted to a mistake, or a regret at least: On our most recent Director Roundtable, forced to choose among three superb filmmakers for one slot, I opted for Ridley Scott rather than Straight Outta Compton director F. Gary Gray, an African-American. The Martian had opened to exceptional acclaim and box office, and Scott looked like the front-runner for the Oscar. Still, I now wish I had added Gray to the mix, and regret that I ignored both his lawyer’s and his agents’ pleas to do so. At least I can take comfort in having three men of color on our upcoming Actor Roundtable. Well, which is it Hollywood Reporter? Are you powerless in this fight? Or, actually quite powerful, but busy making yourself feel better when you fail to fight for diversity in one issue, but “make up for it” in another issue? After all, you can’t be expected to consistently fight for diversity (also known as normalcy) all of the time. Asking who’s responsible for the diversity problem is like playing chicken vs. egg. For example, if more black actresses covered magazines, would they get more work (short answer: yes)? But should more black actresses cover magazines when they’re not getting enough work? Long answer: Yes, because that is one way to combat the problem of their lack of work. But to do such a thing, you’d have to assume that it’s your responsibility to change Hollywood, and to change the world. You’d have to believe that you don’t have to be a studio executive to exact change. I liked that Min’s opening explained the process of choosing the Top 100. I don’t have her job, and she succeeding in convincing me that defining “power” for an entire industry is quite a feat. She put it beautifully—they are “trying to measure something intangible: clout.” But she didn’t succeed in convincing me that her publication is aware that they are complicit in the problem. (In fact, when I read her explanation, the words of one iconic black artist immediately came to mind: “We don’t believe you, you need more people.”) The world is filled with people everywhere, insisting that it’s not their job to address certain cultural and social issues. Diversity in Hollywood isn’t their problem or fault, racism isn’t their problem or fault, Donald Trump isn’t their doing, etc. They are/we are all innocent, because they/we don’t make the rules. It’s the Pontius Pilot syndrome, and without exaggeration I can say that it does real violence to the culture, and to the people. Acknowledging that your publication has a problem (or pretending to acknowledge the problem, but then pivoting to Hollywood and social media as the real villains), is not enough. If THR wants to convince us that it’s a publication concerned with racist Hollywood practices, it’s going to need to do better than the occasional Chris Rock op ed. Its biggest issues—these power rankings and roundtables—need to stop functioning as mere “reflections” of a troubling place and time; they need to be that change they keep insisting must come first. It’s not activism, it’s innovation. And that should be a concept that we can all get behind. Shannon M. Houston is a Staff Writer and the TV Editor for Paste. This New York-based writer probably has more babies than you, but that’s okay; you can still be friends. She welcomes almost all follows on Twitter.

– For the first time, the Hollywood Reporter has put together a list of the 100 most powerful people in entertainment, though it's what Paste Magazine describes as a list "celebrating the accomplishments of … white guys." Only 19 women and 10 people of color make the cut. THR acknowledges the stat—"We won’t need social media, thanks anyway, to drop an anvil on our heads to realize this"—but says the list reflects currently reality, not what current reality should be. Here's the top 10: Bob Iger, Disney CEO Rupert Murdoch and sons, 21st Century Fox Leslie Moonves, CBS President and CEO Steve Burke, CEO of NBCUniversal Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer Shari Redstone and Sumner Redstone of Viacom and CBS Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner Chairman and CEO Peter Rice, Chairman and CEO of Fox Alan Horn, Walt Disney Studios Chairman Leonardo DiCaprio, actor and producer The full list is here, or see Hollywood's most overpaid actors.

Blog: The Update [Updated at 11:16 p.m., added statement] A month after former College Republicans President Lauren Pierce resigned over a controversial, anti-Obama Tweet, her replacement is attracting attention. Early Sunday morning, government senior Cassandra Wright Tweeted, "My president is black, he snorts a lot of crack. Holla. #2012 #Obama." On Nov. 16, Pierce Tweeted "Y'all, as tempting as it may be, don't shoot Obama. We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we've EVER had! #2012". According to a critical blog on Burnt Orange Report, Wright responded to the backlash against Pierce and said, "Insofar as she's a representative [of the College Republicans], maybe it shouldn't be said, but she's made a positive statement in a way. I don't really see anything wrong with it. It's just a personal comment, not representative of any group. Just freedom of speech, you know?" The Daily Texan received this statement from the UT CR spokesman Cesar Villareal in an email on Monday evening: "The UT College Republicans neither condones any 'tweeted' remarks, nor any statements made by any member of our organization that may be hurtful and lacking in sensitivity. The opinion of our President Wright is that of her own not in keeping with our core values, our standards, and our code of conduct. While some within our organization may not respect the current President, UT College Republicans does respect the office of the President of the United States. We are all Americans, and even if we do not agree with certain policies, the UT College Republicans wish all our leaders well, as they are all dedicated to public service. I personally apologize for [the] ‘tweeted’ remark." ||||| 'My president is black, he snorts a lot of crack': ANOTHER Texas College Republican leader in hot water over 'racist' remarks about Obama Cassandra Wright, the president of the University of Texas College Republicans, is finding herself in same kind of hot water as her predecessor after Tweeting controversial remarks about President Barack Obama. 'My president’s black, he snorts a lot of crack. Holla. #2012 #Obama,' she posted on Twitter just before 3am Sunday. The last University of Texas College Republicans head, Lauren Pierce, made national news when she posted on Twitter that it might be tempting to shoot the president -- hours after a man fired a high-powered rifle at the White House. Controversy: Some have said this Tweet from the Cassie Wright, president of the College Republicans at the University of Texas-Austin, is racially insensitive Laying low: Miss Wright has since locked her Twitter account to the public and has not commented on the remarks she posted For good measure, Miss Pierce re-Tweeted the crack-cocaine remarks, as well. Miss Wright has closed her Twitter account to the public and has not responded to the controversy, with some calling the remarks racially-insensitive. However, her organization is already distancing itself from her. 'The opinion of our President Wright is that of her own not in keeping with our core values, our standards, and our code of conduct,' Cesar Villareal, a student spokesman for the group, told the campus newspaper the Daily Texan. '... UT College Republicans does respect the office of the President of the United States. We are all Americans, and even if we do not agree with certain policies, the UT College Republicans wish all our leaders well, as they are all dedicated to public service.' Distanced: The University of Texas College Republicans have had to separate themselves from Lauren Pierce (left) and current president Miss Wright (right) Last month, Miss Pierce resigned after she Tweeted: 'Y’all as tempting as it may be, don’t shoot Obama. We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had! #2012.' The comment was made hours after a 21-year-old Idaho man was arrested for shooting an AK-47 rifle at the White House. She apologized for the remark, saying it was meant to be a joke. Miss Wright, who was installed as her replacement, told ABC News: “Insofar as she’s a representative (of the College Republicans), maybe it shouldn’t be said, but she’s made a positive statement in a way.' 'I don’t really see anything wrong with it. It’s just a personal comment, not representative of any group. Just freedom of speech, you know?' Under fire: Both of the controversial comments were based on the students' intense dislike of President Obama's presidency

– Another student GOP leader is in big trouble for being tasteless in Texas. "My president's black, he snorts a lot of crack," tweeted Cassandra Wright, president of the University of Texas College Republicans. Wright's predecessor, Lauren Pierce, just stepped down last month after she tweeted that it might be "tempting" to shoot the president, launching a boatload of criticism. Wright's response has been to shut down public access to her Twitter account, reports the Daily Mail. But the UT College Republicans seem as disgusted with Wright as, well, Democrats. "The opinion of our President Wright is that of her own, and not in keeping with our core values, our standards, and our code of conduct," a student spokesman told the Austin campus newspaper the Daily Texan. "UT College Republicans does respect the office of the President of the United States. We are all Americans, and even if we do not agree with certain policies, the UT College Republicans wish all our leaders well, as they are all dedicated to public service." It's no big surprise Wright landed in hot water: She earlier defended Pierce's comment as a "positive statement in a way." She added: "I don’t really see anything wrong with it. It’s just a personal comment, not representative of any group. Just freedom of speech, you know?"

Self-proclaimed “bad girl” Rihanna is living up to her nickname. The pop star managed to insult and upset one of her biggest fans, who was mercilessly mocked for modeling her prom outfit after one the singer wore. Alexis Carter, 16, said when she first saw Rihanna’s green, winged outfit she knew she had to have it. Rihanna debuted the original outfit at a 2010 awards show in Berlin. "I was like, 'Oh my God, I love this outfit, I wanna go with this outfit let me go show my mom,' and I was like, 'Mom, mom, mom, I wanna wear this, it's cool, I love it, oh my god,'" she told Fox Baltimore. A family friend made the outfit for her, and it was well-received at her prom, she said. But once photos of Alexis posing in the outfit starting circulating on social media, she was mocked on Twitter, with users altering pictures of her and adding the hashtag #PromBat. To make matters worse, her idol chimed in with mocking tweets of her own. Rihanna posted two photos of Alexis, including one of the teen next to Wu Tang’s bat-like logo. "I was very offended. Why throw shade on it when you had on the exact same thing? The poses was different but the outfit wasn't,” Alexis told Fox Baltimore. "She don't love her fans like she says she does.” She told the news station that it's been several days but the insults haven’t let up, and she’s afraid to show her face outside. A rep for Rihanna did not immediately return FOX411's request for comment. Click here for more from Fox Baltimore. ||||| Add a location to your Tweets When you tweet with a location, Twitter stores that location. You can switch location on/off before each Tweet and always have the option to delete your location history. Learn more ||||| Add a location to your Tweets When you tweet with a location, Twitter stores that location. You can switch location on/off before each Tweet and always have the option to delete your location history. Learn more

– Rihanna is in hot water after a teen fan accused the singer of mocking her on Twitter. Alexis Carter, 16, decided to go to her Hollywood-themed Baltimore prom wearing an outfit similar to one Rihanna wore at a Berlin awards show in 2010, Fox News reports. (See Rihanna's version of the unusual outfit in the gallery.) But a picture of Alexis in her version of the ensemble, which features "wing-like attachments" according to Fox Baltimore, went viral—and not in a good way. The hashtag #PromBat started trending on Twitter, and then Rihanna herself got in on the action. The singer tweeted two pictures of Carter's outfit—one that compared it unfavorably to Rihanna's version, and one that compared it to the Wu-Tang Clan's bat-like logo. "I was very offended," Alexis says. "Why throw shade on it when you had on the exact same thing? The poses was different but the outfit wasn't." She may now be a former Rihanna fan: The singer doesn't "love her fans like she says she does," Alexis adds. (And this isn't the first time Rihanna has angered a young fan via Twitter...)

Charlie Sheen's Ex: He Pushed, Threatened to Kill Charlie Sheen's Ex: He Pushed, Threatened to Kill The D.A. in Aspen may call's ex-wife,, to testify about an alleged incident that is eerily similar to the allegations of his current wife,We're told the Pitkin County D.A. has had law enforcement in L.A. County contact Richard's agent and lawyer, about Denise possibly testifying in Charlie Sheen's criminal case in Aspen. Specifically, sources tell us the D.A. is interested in a declaration Denise signed under penalty of perjury in 2005, when she got a restraining order against the "" star.Richards claimed on December 30, 2005, in the middle of an argument, she was holding their daughter Lola, when Charlie "pushed me, shoving me with his two hands between my shoulders. I was forced backwards and tripped over one of the children's toys and fell on the floor with Lola."According to the declaration, Charlie then pointed his finger at her and screamed, "I hope you f--king die, bitch." Richards says as Charlie was walking out the front door he said "he was going to have me killed. He said you are f--king with the wrong guy."Charlie Sheen denied the allegations at the time.We're told Richards will cooperate, but only if she's forced to do so by subpoena. ||||| Charlie Sheen’s wife Brooke Mueller wants a divorce after his court case for domestic violence is over, RadarOnline.com is reporting exclusively. Despite the fact that both Charlie and Brooke’s reps have publicly said they want to work things out, sources who know both of them say it’s actually the exact opposite – both are miserable. Brooke left two rehab facilities within recent weeks and is doing rehab at home according to her lawyer — the latest chapter in the bizarre saga of her drug and alcohol addiction that has been covered up by her reps. EXCLUSIVE: Colorado Authorities Trying To Interview Charlie Sheen’s Ex-Lovers About His Violent Past As RadarOnline.com was first to report, Brooke is being treated for crack addiction and alcoholism. She has been in rehab more than five times over the years. Sheen is also in rehab and before he went in he was visited at home by the Department of Children and Family Services. While his reps described that visit as routine (and an outgrowth of the Colorado domestic violence case) it still scared Charlie. EXCLUSIVE: Charlie Sheen’s Wife Has Been Hiding Crack Addiction And Alcoholism The Two and a Half Men star has been using coke and boozing for months, RadarOnline.com reported exclusively, and he spent his first few day in rehab detoxing. Drugs, alcohol, rehab and an upcoming domestic violence trial in Aspen form the framework of a marriage that insiders tell RadarOnline.com is “beyond awful.” EXCLUSIVE: Charlie Sheen And Wife Did Cocaine Right Before She Went Into Rehab “Brooke wants out. She’s said it before and she’s saying it again right now,” a source close the situation told RadarOnline.com. “She’s worried though, because Charlie has a lot of dirt on her. Using drugs while raising children is obviously a horrible situation.” When RadarOnline.com reported two weeks ago that Charlie was told to go to rehab Team Sheen loudly denounced that report. But shortly after that, Sheen checked into rehab. Public pronouncements by reps of both Sheen and Mueller about keeping the marriage together are equally disingenuous, says the source. EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Charlie Sheen Daughter Says Rehab Is A “Positive Thing” For Her Dad “The marriage is a nightmare,” said the source. “But each one is worried about ways the other one can hurt them. For Charlie, he’s terrified Brooke can help Colorado prosecutors send him to jail. For Brooke, she knows Charlie knows all the dirt about her drug and alcohol use.” That mutual fear has kept them together so far, but Brooke has decided enough is enough, says the source. EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: District Attorney Unlikely To Subpoena Sheen Rehab Records “She can’t take it anymore,” the source told RadarOnline.com. “Remember, the Christmas day incident that ended with Charlie’s arrest started when she told him she wanted a divorce. “Things didn’t get magically better after that.”

– Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller's marriage is "beyond awful," and both want a divorce when Sheen's court case ends. "The marriage is a nightmare,” a source tells Radar. “But each one is worried about ways the other one can hurt them." Meanwhile, Denise Richards may find herself entangled in the mess, because of a past claim that the actor also threatened to kill her. The Aspen DA may call Richards to discuss the declaration she signed when she got a restraining order against her then-husband. It states Sheen shoved her while she was holding their daughter, then screamed, "I hope you f-ing die,” and threatened to have her killed. Richards told Oprah Winfrey last month Sheen pushed her, but never hit her. TMZ reports Richards will cooperate with the investigation only if served with a subpoena.

Photo: The Local A 22-year-old New Zealand man hired as an unpaid intern by the United Nations in Geneva has been forced to live in a tent because he cannot afford the high cost of accommodation in the Swiss city. David Hyde has been sleeping on a patch of ground overlooking Lake Geneva not far from the the UN Beach Club, where well-heeled employees sunbathe, paddle in the water and sip aperitifs at the bar. Hyde's predicament caught the attention of the Tribune de Genève newspaper, which reported on how he struggled to deal with heavy rain from a storm on Sunday. Read the update to this story here: Unpaid intern at UN quits post “I did not choose the most waterproof tent in the store,” he admitted to the newspaper. The area where he pitched his tent was soaked and yet the morning after Hyde had to put on his suit, fold up his tent, pack up his gas stove and other meagre belongings and head off to his unpaid job. “How do the others do it?” he asked of the dozens of interns who take six-month positions at the UN without a salary. “Finally only those with parents who can pay have a chance.” Hyde resigned himself to living in a tent after searching for a room or studio to rent only to find the rents — in a city known to be one of the most expensive in the world — were beyond his means. Now, he is questioning whether he will be able to finish his internship. “I was perhaps naive in coming here but this policy (of not paying interns) makes me furious.” The Geneva Interns Association has been lobbying for the UN and related Geneva-based international organizations — including the International Labour Organization — to change its ways. The association organized a Labour Day march in May this year to draw attention to the non-payment issue and it has demonstrated in front of UNOG headquarters about how young people are being exploited by an organization that ought to be setting an example. It has pointed to the “inconsistency” of the UN, which promotes globally such values as non-discrimination, diversity and inclusiveness “but does not apply these to its own staff”. Making matters more difficult for interns who do not have financial backing, is a clause that bans them from working for the UN in the six months following their internships. The UN and its agencies in Geneva employ 162 interns annually, with each agency determining its own policy as to whether they are paid or not, Ahmad Fawzi, director of the UN information service told the Tribune de Genève. According to a survey conducted by the Geneva Interns Association, 68.5 percent of these interns were unpaid in 2013. Swiss federal labor regulations do not apply to the UN and its agencies. ||||| We've detected that JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Would you like to proceed to legacy Twitter? Yes

– On the surface, it sounds great like a great gig: A 22-year-old New Zealander landed an internship with the UN and is now working in Geneva, where he wakes up with waterfront views. But then the details arrive, as relayed by the Local: David Hyde's six-month internship is unpaid, forcing him to live in a cheap tent near Lake Geneva. Other interns may have parents with deep pockets, but Hyde does not, and his predicament might raise pressure on the UN to end policies that result in most of its interns working without compensation in the expensive city. “I was perhaps naive in coming here but this policy (of not paying interns) makes me furious," Hyde tells the Tribune de Geneve newspaper, which picked up on his plight after a recent rainstorm. The Geneva Interns Association accuses the UN of exploiting its interns even while pushing for workplace equality around the world, and stories such as Hyde's will probably help the cause. As for that rainstorm: "I did not choose the most waterproof tent in the store." (The White House has been hit with similar complaints.)

Now-ousted Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe kisses his wife, Grace Mugabe, during the country’s Independence Day celebrations in Harare on April 18. (Getty Images) Panashe Chigumadzi is an essayist and novelist who was born in Zimbabwe and is based in South Africa. As former president Robert Mugabe and his second wife, Grace Mugabe, prepare to make their exit from Zimbabwe’s State House, Zimbabweans have hankered for “Amai” (Mother) Sally, his late first wife, who is fondly remembered as a “very sensitive and intelligent woman” who may have been a ““restraining influence” on her husband. On the day of the military intervention earlier this month, the veteran South Africa-based Zimbabwean journalist Peter Ndoro tweeted the following: “As developments continue to unfold in #Zimbabwe #RobertMugabe might be looking back and wondering if … his rule wasn’t a tale of two wives. One that died too soon and the other that ended up being his Achilles heel. #ThisFlag #SaveZim” With almost 2,000 retweets, it is the kind of misogynist narrative that has found an easy resonance in many quarters of a country that has been ruled by the heavy hand of a patriarchal nationalist tradition for nearly four decades. Across the many rallies and marches in Zimbabwe, many people sang “Hatidi kutongwa nehure” [We do not want to be ruled by a whore]. Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association Chairman Chris Mutsvangwa described Grace Mugabe as “clinically mad,” and Temba Mliswa, a member of parliament from the ruling Zanu-PF party, has claimed that “Robert Mugabe’s legacy has been destroyed by his wife. He’s old, he’s aging, and they’ve taken advantage of him.” As Mugabe’s party rebrands itself, it is using a simplistic narrative that absolves both Mugabe and Zanu-PF of their political blunders, sweeping all that went wrong into a Grace Mugabe-sized hole. Is it really “a tale of two wives”? Let’s start with “Amai” Sally Mugabe and whether she was a “restraining force” on her husband. Having met Mugabe at a teacher training college in her native Ghana, Sally Mugabe, nee Hayfron, married Mugabe in 1961. She became increasingly involved in nationalist political trenches in the ’60s, leading campaigns for the release of Zimbabwean political prisoners, including her husband, while in exile in London. Once her husband was released, she campaigned for the safety and well-being of refugees of the Second Chimurenga (liberation war) while in Mozambique. In 1980, she joined her husband, Zimbabwe’s first black prime minister, at the helm of the country and officially became first lady seven years later, when he assumed the presidency. By 1989, she was elected secretary general of the Zanu-PF Women’s League. Outside of politics, Sally continued to be popular for her involvement in welfare programs through organizations such as the Zimbabwe Child Survival Movement and Zimbabwe Women’s Co-operative. A popular leader at home and abroad at the time, Mugabe was meanwhile consolidating and centralizing his post-independence power through constitutional and forceful means. In 1984, Zanu-PF’s congress gave Mugabe extensive powers to appoint the executive members of the party and passed constitutional amendments that created the executive presidency. Most importantly the early ’80s, Sally was by his side during the “Gukurahundi” (Shona for “the first rains, which wash away the chaff before the spring rains”), the genocide of more than 20,000 Ndebele people. The violent campaign was aimed at quelling the threat of political dissidents; incoming President Emmerson Mnangagwa was a key figure in the massacres. As Sally Mugabe became increasingly ill with kidney failure in the late ’80s, Robert Mugabe began his affair with Grace Ntombizodwa Marufu, a young married mother and a typist in the president’s office at the time. In 1992, Sally Mugabe died in Harare at the age of 60. As Zimbabwean academic Alex Magaisa points out, for Mugabe, the loss of Sally represented a loss of a close companion and, importantly, a peer. Mugabe married Grace in a spectacular ceremony four years later. Compared with Sally, who was loved for her apparent sense of modesty and public work, Grace Mugabe became increasingly unpopular for her lavish lifestyle in the midst the economic fallout of the 2000s. She largely stayed out of politics. This changed by 2014, when she began her foray into politics through her election as president of Zanu-PF’s Women’s League. Though unpopular, Grace Mugabe continued to consolidate power through the support of the “G40 faction,” made up mostly of a younger generation of Zanu-PF members who did not participate in the Second Chimurenga. Invoking the fist often associated with her husband, Grace Mugabe included in her acceptance speech for the Zanu-PF post threats to those who opposed her: “I might have a small fist, but when it comes to fighting I will put stones inside to enlarge it, or even put on gloves to make it bigger. Do not doubt my capabilities.” Grace Mugabe’s unpopularity has only kept pace with the kind of hostile language she has increasingly used in her fiery speeches, rhetoric she clearly learned from the man who mentored her over the years. If we were to hazard that it was “a tale of two Mugabes” instead of “two wives,” that still would be misleading. As Percy Zvomuya points out, Mugabe has been fairly consistent, famously stating in 1976 that “Our votes must go together with our guns. After all, any vote we shall have shall have been the product of the gun. The gun which produces the vote should remain its security officer, its guarantor. The people’s votes and the people’s guns are always inseparable twins.” However popular or unpopular Mugabe may have been with general populace, the real guarantor of his power has always been the gun, as represented by the military and the war veterans. Over the past 37 years, the relationship between Mugabe and his “guns” has not been entirely smooth, but the relationship has largely remained intact as he gave in to their various demands and safeguarded their interests. In turn, he has relied on their force to guard him against dissent from organized labor and civic groups. What has been Mugabe’s undoing over the past few years is that at the height of popular dissent with his rule, he increasingly undermined the interests of his “guns” in favor of Grace Mugabe’s G40 faction. The final straw was to remove his longtime ally (and now successor) Mnangagwa. Grace Mugabe is no saint. But she has also done nothing without Robert Mugabe’s endorsement (and indeed that of many others in the party). The political fallout cannot be put down to an aging leader’s being led astray by an overbearing or too ambitious wife. Given the evidence of Mugabe’s career trajectory, the extent to which first ladies Grace or “Amai” Sally could have restrained their husband is unclear, but even more importantly, it is neither here nor there. The common denominator in both marriages has been Robert Mugabe, a man who has more than proved himself a skilled and shrewd politician. It was his political mistake to undermine the “guns” that guaranteed his power for so long. It is at best simplistic and at worst misogynistic to hold Sally or Grace Mugabe accountable for their husband’s political missteps. ||||| Now-ousted Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe kisses his wife, Grace Mugabe, during the country’s Independence Day celebrations in Harare on April 18. (Getty Images) Panashe Chigumadzi is an essayist and novelist who was born in Zimbabwe and is based in South Africa. As former president Robert Mugabe and his second wife, Grace Mugabe, prepare to make their exit from Zimbabwe’s State House, Zimbabweans have hankered for “Amai” (Mother) Sally, his late first wife, who is fondly remembered as a “very sensitive and intelligent woman” who may have been a ““restraining influence” on her husband. On the day of the military intervention earlier this month, the veteran South Africa-based Zimbabwean journalist Peter Ndoro tweeted the following: “As developments continue to unfold in #Zimbabwe #RobertMugabe might be looking back and wondering if … his rule wasn’t a tale of two wives. One that died too soon and the other that ended up being his Achilles heel. #ThisFlag #SaveZim” With almost 2,000 retweets, it is the kind of misogynist narrative that has found an easy resonance in many quarters of a country that has been ruled by the heavy hand of a patriarchal nationalist tradition for nearly four decades. Across the many rallies and marches in Zimbabwe, many people sang “Hatidi kutongwa nehure” [We do not want to be ruled by a whore]. Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association Chairman Chris Mutsvangwa described Grace Mugabe as “clinically mad,” and Temba Mliswa, a member of parliament from the ruling Zanu-PF party, has claimed that “Robert Mugabe’s legacy has been destroyed by his wife. He’s old, he’s aging, and they’ve taken advantage of him.” As Mugabe’s party rebrands itself, it is using a simplistic narrative that absolves both Mugabe and Zanu-PF of their political blunders, sweeping all that went wrong into a Grace Mugabe-sized hole. Is it really “a tale of two wives”? Let’s start with “Amai” Sally Mugabe and whether she was a “restraining force” on her husband. Having met Mugabe at a teacher training college in her native Ghana, Sally Mugabe, nee Hayfron, married Mugabe in 1961. She became increasingly involved in nationalist political trenches in the ’60s, leading campaigns for the release of Zimbabwean political prisoners, including her husband, while in exile in London. Once her husband was released, she campaigned for the safety and well-being of refugees of the Second Chimurenga (liberation war) while in Mozambique. In 1980, she joined her husband, Zimbabwe’s first black prime minister, at the helm of the country and officially became first lady seven years later, when he assumed the presidency. By 1989, she was elected secretary general of the Zanu-PF Women’s League. Outside of politics, Sally continued to be popular for her involvement in welfare programs through organizations such as the Zimbabwe Child Survival Movement and Zimbabwe Women’s Co-operative. A popular leader at home and abroad at the time, Mugabe was meanwhile consolidating and centralizing his post-independence power through constitutional and forceful means. In 1984, Zanu-PF’s congress gave Mugabe extensive powers to appoint the executive members of the party and passed constitutional amendments that created the executive presidency. Most importantly the early ’80s, Sally was by his side during the “Gukurahundi” (Shona for “the first rains, which wash away the chaff before the spring rains”), the genocide of more than 20,000 Ndebele people. The violent campaign was aimed at quelling the threat of political dissidents; incoming President Emmerson Mnangagwa was a key figure in the massacres. As Sally Mugabe became increasingly ill with kidney failure in the late ’80s, Robert Mugabe began his affair with Grace Ntombizodwa Marufu, a young married mother and a typist in the president’s office at the time. In 1992, Sally Mugabe died in Harare at the age of 60. As Zimbabwean academic Alex Magaisa points out, for Mugabe, the loss of Sally represented a loss of a close companion and, importantly, a peer. Mugabe married Grace in a spectacular ceremony four years later. Compared with Sally, who was loved for her apparent sense of modesty and public work, Grace Mugabe became increasingly unpopular for her lavish lifestyle in the midst the economic fallout of the 2000s. She largely stayed out of politics. This changed by 2014, when she began her foray into politics through her election as president of Zanu-PF’s Women’s League. Though unpopular, Grace Mugabe continued to consolidate power through the support of the “G40 faction,” made up mostly of a younger generation of Zanu-PF members who did not participate in the Second Chimurenga. Invoking the fist often associated with her husband, Grace Mugabe included in her acceptance speech for the Zanu-PF post threats to those who opposed her: “I might have a small fist, but when it comes to fighting I will put stones inside to enlarge it, or even put on gloves to make it bigger. Do not doubt my capabilities.” Grace Mugabe’s unpopularity has only kept pace with the kind of hostile language she has increasingly used in her fiery speeches, rhetoric she clearly learned from the man who mentored her over the years. If we were to hazard that it was “a tale of two Mugabes” instead of “two wives,” that still would be misleading. As Percy Zvomuya points out, Mugabe has been fairly consistent, famously stating in 1976 that “Our votes must go together with our guns. After all, any vote we shall have shall have been the product of the gun. The gun which produces the vote should remain its security officer, its guarantor. The people’s votes and the people’s guns are always inseparable twins.” However popular or unpopular Mugabe may have been with general populace, the real guarantor of his power has always been the gun, as represented by the military and the war veterans. Over the past 37 years, the relationship between Mugabe and his “guns” has not been entirely smooth, but the relationship has largely remained intact as he gave in to their various demands and safeguarded their interests. In turn, he has relied on their force to guard him against dissent from organized labor and civic groups. What has been Mugabe’s undoing over the past few years is that at the height of popular dissent with his rule, he increasingly undermined the interests of his “guns” in favor of Grace Mugabe’s G40 faction. The final straw was to remove his longtime ally (and now successor) Mnangagwa. Grace Mugabe is no saint. But she has also done nothing without Robert Mugabe’s endorsement (and indeed that of many others in the party). The political fallout cannot be put down to an aging leader’s being led astray by an overbearing or too ambitious wife. Given the evidence of Mugabe’s career trajectory, the extent to which first ladies Grace or “Amai” Sally could have restrained their husband is unclear, but even more importantly, it is neither here nor there. The common denominator in both marriages has been Robert Mugabe, a man who has more than proved himself a skilled and shrewd politician. It was his political mistake to undermine the “guns” that guaranteed his power for so long. It is at best simplistic and at worst misogynistic to hold Sally or Grace Mugabe accountable for their husband’s political missteps.

– A common narrative has emerged in the wake of Robert Mugabe's ouster in Zimbabwe: His undoing can be blamed on wife Grace's greedy grab for power. Actually, this narrative is being cast as a "tale of two wives," writes Zimbabwe-born novelist Panashe Chigumadzi in a Washington Post op-ed. The idea is that if Mugabe's first wife, Sally, hadn't died in 1992, she would have kept Robert Mugabe's abuses in check. Instead, the narrative goes, Sally was replaced by Grace, who has been manipulating the now 93-year-old Mugabe for decades toward her own ends. It's a convenient tale for Mugabe's own Zanu-PF party as it seeks to rebrand itself while "sweeping all that went wrong into a Grace Mugabe-sized hole." For one thing, the idea that Sally would have restrained her husband is a stretch. She was by his side, after all, during some horrible abuses in the 1980s, writes Chigumadzi. As for Grace, she is clearly "no saint. But she has also done nothing without Robert Mugabe’s endorsement (and indeed that of many others in the party)." If she went too far in trying to solidify herself as her husband's successor, that's more on him than her. No, the one true villain in Zimbabwe's tale is Robert Mugabe, who ruled by the gun and was ultimately ousted by it. To say otherwise "is at best simplistic and at worst misogynistic," writes Chigumadzi. Click for the full column.

In this Nov. 16, 2016 photo, Donald Trump Jr., son of President-elect Donald Trump, walks from the elevator at Trump Tower in New York. Donald Trump Jr.'s scheduled visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday marks... (Associated Press) WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's eldest son told lawmakers Thursday he was open to receiving information about Hillary Clinton's "fitness, character or qualifications" in a meeting with a Russian lawyer last year. However, Donald Trump Jr. insisted that neither he nor anyone else he knows colluded with any foreign government during the presidential campaign. His description of a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, delivered in an opening statement at the outset of a closed-door Senate Judiciary Committee interview, provided his most detailed account of an encounter that has attracted the attention of congressional investigators and special counsel Robert Mueller. Multiple congressional committees and Mueller's team of prosecutors are investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the outcome of the election. A grand jury used by Mueller as part of his investigation has already heard testimony about the meeting, which besides Trump Jr., included the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. In Thursday's prepared remarks, which were obtained by The Associated Press, Trump Jr. sought to explain emails he released two months ago that showed him agreeing to the meeting, which had been described as part of a Russian government effort to help his father's campaign. In his new statement, he said he was skeptical of the outreach by music publicist Rob Goldstone, who said he had information that could be damaging to Clinton. But Trump Jr. said he thought he "should listen to what Rob and his colleagues had to say." "To the extent they had information concerning the fitness, character or qualifications of a presidential candidate, I believed that I should at least hear them out," Trump Jr. said in the statement. At one point during the email exchange, Trump Jr. had told Goldstone, "If it's what you say I love it especially in the summer." Trump Jr. sought to explain that remark Thursday by saying it was "simply a colloquial way of saying that I appreciated Rob's gesture." Trump Jr. agreed to the Senate interview after the committee chairman, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, subpoenaed him and Manafort. The committee withdrew the subpoenas after the two agreed to be interviewed privately by staff. Grassley said they both would eventually be questioned by senators in a public hearing. Trump Jr. also is expected to appear before the Senate intelligence committee at some point. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel, said the senators want to speak with others who attended the June meeting before interviewing Trump Jr. "We want to do this in a thorough way that gets the most information possible," Warner said. Manafort met privately with staff on that committee in July. Kushner has met with that staff, as well as members of the House Intelligence Committee. That House committee has tried to talk to Trump Jr., too. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said negotiations are underway and a date hasn't been set. ___ Associated Press writer Chad Day contributed to this report. ||||| Mr. Trump has given differing accounts of his contacts last year with Russians. He told The Times in March that he never met with Russians on behalf of the campaign, a statement his lawyer has since said was meant to refer to Russian government officials. In July, he described the Trump Tower meeting as primarily focused on the issue of Russian adoptions, before eventually acknowledging that he took the meeting because he was told Ms. Veselnitskaya had damaging information about Mrs. Clinton. But intentionally misspeaking to Congress is a crime, giving his statement on Thursday added weight. If there were any doubt about the stakes, the office of Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and a member of the panel, made them clear in an email to reporters on Thursday afternoon that included the text of the so-called False Statements statute. Mr. Trump told investigators that working for his father’s campaign consumed his life. “I had never worked on a campaign before, and it was an exhausting, all-encompassing, life-changing experience. Every single day I fielded dozens, if not hundreds, of emails and phone calls.” He is the second person connected to the Trump campaign to tell congressional investigators that the campaign was, essentially, too inexperienced and too unfamiliar with politics to pull off a master strategy — let alone coordinate with the Russian government. Mr. Trump’s brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, painted a similar picture during an interview with the Senate Intelligence Committee. In his statement, Mr. Trump said he had some reservations about the June 2016 proposal from the meeting’s facilitator, Rob Goldstone, whom he described as a “colorful” music promoter he had come to know through the son of a Russian oligarch. Mr. Goldstone asked Mr. Trump to take a meeting that would include potentially damaging information about Mrs. Clinton. “Since I had no additional information to validate what Rob was saying, I did not quite know what to make of his email,” he said. “I had no way to gauge the reliability, credibility or accuracy of any of the things he was saying.” “As it later turned out, my skepticism was justified,” Mr. Trump added. “The meeting provided no meaningful information and turned out not to be about what had been represented.” ||||| President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., told Senate investigators Thursday that he agreed to a meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have damaging information about Hillary Clinton because he wanted to determine her "fitness" for office. That's according to a prepared statement he delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was first reported by The New York Times and later obtained by CBS News. "To the extent they had information concerning the fitness, character or qualifications of a presidential candidate, I believed that I should at least hear them out," Trump Jr. said in the statement. "Depending on what, if any, information they had, I could then consult with counsel to make an informed decision as to whether to give it further consideration." He also said that he was skeptical about the meeting, which was organized by music publicist Rob Goldstone, but that nothing came of it. "Since I had no additional information to validate what Rob was saying, I did not quite know what to make of his email. I had no way to gauge the reliability, credibility or accuracy of any of the things he was saying," Trump Jr. said. "As it later turned out, my skepticism was justified. The meeting provided no meaningful information and turned out not to be about what had been represented." The chairman of the panel, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told reporters Thursday that there has not been a decision made about whether Trump Jr. will have to come before the committee in public testimony. Trump Jr. came under fire over the summer due to revelations that gradually came out surrounding the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with the Russian lawyer, along with Trump's campaign chairman at the time, Paul Manafort, and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. CBS News' Rebecca Kaplan, Alan He and Brian Gottlieb contributed to this report.

– Donald Trump Jr. now says he took last June's meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton because he felt it was important he determine Clinton's "fitness" for office. The New York Times received a copy of a statement Trump gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal confirmed its authenticity to CBS News. "To the extent they had information concerning the fitness, character, or qualifications of a presidential candidate, I believed that I should at least hear them out," Trump said in the statement. Trump maintained he didn't collude with the Russian government ahead of the election and painted a picture of a campaign too inexperienced and overwhelmed to do so. But Trump did say he planned to talk to his lawyers before using any information given to him by lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, indicating he at least suspected that accepting damaging information on the Clinton campaign from a foreign power could be legally problematic. The AP reports the statement is Trump's most detailed account of the meeting yet. In the past he's given conflicting statements on it—he never met with Russians on behalf of the campaign, the meeting was about Russian adoptions—before finally admitting he took it because he was told he might get damaging information on Clinton. In his Thursday statement, Trump said the meeting ultimately "provided no meaningful information."

A group of white nationalists, including prominent alt-right leader Richard Spencer, held a torch-lit rally Saturday in Charlottesville, CBS affiliate WCAV reports. The marchers chanted "you will not replace us" and "we will be back" at Emancipation Park, according to WCAV. The rally only lasted about 20 minutes before they dispersed. Charlottesville mayor Mike Signer tweeted Saturday night that the city is looking into legal options. Another despicable visit by neo-Nazi cowards. You’re not welcome here! Go home! Meantime we’re looking at all our legal options. Stay tuned. — Mike Signer (@MikeSigner) October 8, 2017 Meanwhile, three people were arrested following a protest during a bicentennial celebration at the University of Virginia on Friday. The star-studded show featured performances by Leslie Odom Jr., the star of Broadway's "Hamilton" and the Goo Goo Dolls. The Daily Progress reports that as journalist Katie Couric, a university alumna, was introducing the next act, three activists climbed in front of a screen. They unfurled a banner that read, "200 years of white supremacy." The three people arrested were students, according to WCAV. The university has faced criticism from some students over its response to this summer's white nationalist rallies in the city. Critics have also called on the school to do more to acknowledge racist parts of its past. The incidents come almost two months after a white nationalist rally at the same location in Charlottesville that left one woman dead and at least 19 others injured. A torch-lit rally was held the night before. ||||| Thank you for Reading. Please purchase a subscription to continue reading. A subscription is required to continue reading. Thank you for reading 5 free articles. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you are a current 7-day subscriber you are granted an all-access pass to the website and digital newspaper replica. Please click Sign Up to subscribe, or Login if you are already a member. Thank you for reading 5 free articles. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you are a current 7-day subscriber you are granted an all-access pass to the website and digital newspaper replica. Please click below to Get Started.

– White supremacists returned to Charlottesville on Saturday night, again marching in front of a statue of Robert E. Lee with tiki torches in hand, reports the Daily Progress, in what Mayor Mike Signer termed "another despicable visit by neo-Nazi cowards." Alt-right leader Richard Spencer led the demonstration, which he called "Charlottesville 3.0;" it lasted five to 10 minutes and was attended by 40 to 50 protesters who chanted "we will be back" and "you will not replace us." One city councilor is calling for the white supremacists to be arrested, saying, "When White Supremacists Make odes to White Power, and clearly use torches to send a message to our community that they are the superior race while trying to strike fear and intimidate others, they are breaking the law." Three students were arrested Friday at the University of Virginia as it celebrated its bicentennial; they leapt onstage and unfurled a banner reading "200 years of white supremacy," notes CBS News.

En Español By Amanda Gardner HealthDay Reporter SUNDAY, March 21, 2010 (HealthDay News) -- For the first time in humans, scientists have successfully used a gene-manipulation therapy to enter tumor cells and block the production of toxic proteins that are causing cancer, researchers report. "They're basically putting an instruction booklet into the cell saying, 'We don't want this protein expressed for now,'" explained Gregory Adams, co-leader of the developmental therapeutics program at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. "It's pretty amazing. It's potentially huge." "This is something we've been waiting to see," he continued. "This directly interferes with the genetic mechanisms that promote cancer to stop the production of a particular protein," added Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. "This is one step away from getting into the actual DNA." As reported online March 21 in Nature, this is the first time the process, known as RNA interference (RNAi), has been shown to work in humans. The process of RNA interference involves putting two strands of RNA together to form so-called "small interfering RNAs" (siRNAs) and inserting them into cells. Once there, these interlopers cut the messenger RNA (mRNA) that is ordinarily used to make specific proteins. This discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2006. But the work that nabbed the prize was done in worms -- a far cry from humans. And there were other challenges, not the least of which was how to get the siRNAs into the appropriate cell and then make sure they did what they were supposed to do. This team, from the California Institute of Technology (CalTech), devised a super-small nanoparticle system that, when injected into the body, would make its way to the tumor, deposit the siRNAs into the tumor cell and leave them to their assigned task. This early-phase clinical trial involved actual patients with melanoma, a particularly virulent form of skin cancer. The experiment proceeded just as planned, as biopsies later showed. The researchers injected the cargo-laden nanoparticles into the patients, much as you would administer a flu or any other type of shot. They did not inject directly into the tumor as many other researchers have done. The nanoparticles made their way smoothly to the target -- the tumor cell -- and cleaved the mRNA in just the right place, stopping production of the culprit protein. The precision of the process is crucial to limiting side effects, the researchers said. "Now you can go selectively at proteins involved in the disease and not have off-target effects," explained Mark E. Davis, lead author of the paper, and professor of chemical engineering at CalTech in Pasadena. "Normally when you make drugs, it's hard to say 'attack only that protein.' In this particular case, I'm going to go in at the genetic level and eliminate that one protein I want to eliminate." And unlike conventional gene therapy -- where the offending gene is replaced by a new one or overridden -- this therapy is reversible, said Adams. "This will run its course. Ultimately, it will restore itself," he said. The authors believe the same system could provide a highly targeted, selective way to reach many different genes and affect tumors that have untll now eluded drug therapy. Obviously, the process will have to be refined and optimized before it's actually used for treatment. "This is the first qualitative 'yes, we can do it' publication and it really has to be kept in that perspective," Adams said. More information There's more on RNA interference at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. ||||| Thank you for visiting Pasadena Star-News. We are sorry the article that you requested is no longer available. Please search for this article in our archive search.

– Scientists think they are onto a "potentially huge" breakthrough in the fight against cancer after successfully blocking cancer cells on a genetic level for the first time in humans. In clinical trials on cancer patients, the "game-changing" form of genetic therapy snipped in half the messenger RNA inside cancer cells that tells them to reproduce. The research builds on the 2006 Nobel Prize-winning discovery that messenger RNA can be manipulated, but with a big difference: The work that landed the Nobel was in worms, not humans. That the technique works in humans too is "pretty amazing," a cancer expert tells HealthDay. RNA in the test subjects was "cut at exactly the right place," one of the researchers told the Pasadena Star News. "If you take that away, you take away the cancer."

Photo DES MOINES — Donald J. Trump may have some company from other candidates at his counterprogramming event here on Thursday night during the Fox News-hosted Republican presidential campaign debate. In an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday morning, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said that he had heard from other candidates “proactively” about attending the event that Mr. Trump will hold at Drake University at the same time as the debate. Mr. Trump announced on Tuesday afternoon that he would skip the final debate before the Iowa caucuses, after Fox News officials issued a mocking statement about him following a day of escalating attacks. Mr. Trump had earlier said he would participate only if the moderator Megyn Kelly, with whom he clashed at the first G.O.P. debate last August, was removed. Mr. Lewandowski did not specify who he meant. But since there will be seven higher-polling candidates onstage at the prime-time debate in Iowa, the likeliest possibilities are among the four candidates in the undercard debate. Of those candidates, two — Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum — have been savaging Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Mr. Trump’s main competition in the caucuses. Each man has previously won the Iowa caucuses — Mr. Huckabee in 2008; Mr. Santorum in 2012 — by appealing to a swath of evangelical Christians and working-class voters. Mr. Trump has most aggressively seized the populist message in this campaign. The other candidates in the undercard debate are Carly Fiorina and Jim Gilmore. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee are both in the low single digits in polls, but their voters would most likely go to Mr. Cruz if they weren’t in the race, meaning their presence is helping to keep his polling totals down. Aides to the candidates did not respond to requests for comment. But Nick Ryan, a Republican operative who advises the “super PAC” supporting Mr. Huckabee, tweeted shortly after the Trump event was announced that candidates in the undercard debate, which airs before the prime-time one, should consider wandering over to Mr. Trump’s event afterward. Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter. ||||| He also refused to reconsider his decision to sit out the network’s Thursday night debate — the last before the Iowa caucuses in five days — and said he’d move forward with his own competing event to raise money for wounded veterans. ADVERTISEMENT Speaking on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Trump continued his long-running feud with Kelly, who he has been criticizing ever since she challenged him on his derision of women at the first GOP debate, in August. “I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly,” Trump said. “I don’t think she’s good at what she does and I think she’s highly overrated. And, frankly, she’s a moderator; I thought her question last time was ridiculous.” Kelly is also set to moderate Thursday night’s debate on Fox News. Trump is instead holding his own event in Des Moines at the same time as the debate that he says will raise money for wounded veterans. In the contentious interview with O’Reilly, Trump rebuffed the anchor’s attempts to convince him that he’s making a grave error by skipping the debate. “I believe personally that you want to improve the country,” O’Reilly said. “By doing this, you miss the opportunity to convince others ... that is true. “You have in this debate format the upper hand — you have 60 seconds off the top to tell the moderator, ‘You’re a pinhead, you’re off the mark and here’s what I want to say’. By walking away from it, you lose the opportunity to persuade people you are a strong leader.” But O’Reilly’s pitch fell flat with Trump. The GOP front-runner dug in his heels, insisting he intended to retaliate against the network by depriving them of ratings. “Fox was going to make a fortune off this debate,” Trump said. “Now they’re going to make much less.” O’Reilly said he was merely trying to convince Trump that his approach “is wrong because it’s better for people to see you in the debate format.” He gave the example from 2012, when a CNN debate moderator in South Carolina asked former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) an embarrassing question about allegations he had an open marriage. Gingrich shut the moderator down and went on to win the South Carolina primary, O’Reilly noted. “That’s the kind of guy you are,” O’Reilly said. “You stick it to them and let them have it.” Responded Trump: “Newt is a friend of mine, and I thought it was an unfair question. But equally unfair was the question Megyn Kelly asked me.” O’Reilly then sought to appeal to Trump’s capacity to forgive, reminding the billionaire businessman that he’s a Christian, even if he doesn’t attend church all that often, and that the Bible says to “turn the other cheek.” Trump shot back, saying he’s a regular churchgoer and that the Bible also says “an eye for an eye.” “You could look at it that way, too,” Trump said. O’Reilly accused Trump of being “petty” and said he was allowing things that are out of his control to have outsize influence over his decisionmaking. “I don’t like being taken advantage of,” Trump said. “In this case I was being taken advantage of by Fox. I don’t like that. Now when I’m representing the country, if I win, I’m not going to let our country be taken advantage of. ... It’s a personality trait, but I don’t think it’s a bad personality trait.” O’Reilly ended the interview asking Trump to reconsider showing up Thursday night. Trump said the two had agreed beforehand that O’Reilly not ask that question. “I told you up front don’t ask me that question because it’s an embarrassing question for you and I don’t want to embarrass you,” he said. Updated at 9:17 p.m. ||||| Photo It was a blustery and dramatic move, 48 hours before the final Republican debate until the Iowa caucuses: Donald J. Trump stormed out in a rage at Fox News, jeopardizing the network’s ratings and overtaking political headlines. But the reasons for his withdrawal from the kind of high-profile forum that he has so often dominated may involve more than just hurt feelings. What may be the most intriguing possible explanation is that a debate, at this point in his neck-and-neck contest with Senator Ted Cruz, would almost certainly subject Mr. Trump to tough questions about vulnerabilities – like his previous support for abortion rights, or his much more recent suggestion that Iowans, the people whose votes he is courting, are stupid. People who have spoken with Mr. Trump insist he believes he is headed to victory here and wants to play out the clock, a view that was bolstered by a few public opinion polls this week. But whether he does or not, a debate – particularly one moderated by a network, and an anchor, whom Mr. Trump believes is motivated to challenge him aggressively – amounts to an uncontrollable, high-risk confrontation whose outcome could greatly affect his chances. The truth could be as simple as advertised: Mr. Trump was enraged when Fox News executives issued a statement mocking him as unserious over his threats to bolt the debate unless the cable channel’s anchor, Megyn Kelly – whom Mr. Trump has attacked for months – was removed as a moderator. It could also be seen as strategic genius. “Donald Trump knows that by not showing up, he’s owning the entire event,” Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show. “Some guy not even present will end up owning the entire event, and the proof of that is Fox News last night.” But for Mr. Trump, participating in a debate four nights before the Iowa caucuses would also most likely mean being pelted with many of his past remarks, in a setting in which he could not expect to dominate the microphone or the questioners. It would be the exact opposite, for example, of the exchange between Mr. Trump and an NBC reporter who, at the same news conference Tuesday at which Mr. Trump pulled out of the debate, tried to confront him about his previous support for abortion rights, including the late-term procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. Mr. Cruz and a well-funded group supporting him have been bombarding Mr. Trump with attack ads using footage of a 1999 interview in which he called himself “very pro-choice” and “pro-choice in all respects.” But when the NBC reporter, Peter Alexander, tried to ask Mr. Trump about that quotation, Mr. Trump repeatedly cut him off, talked over him and turned the tables on him, demanding an apology. Abortion is not the only subject on which Mr. Trump could be forced to defend or explain his remarks in a tough-minded presidential debate: The ads being run by Mr. Cruz, for example, also show a clip of Mr. Trump, in November, asking “how stupid” the people of Iowa must be for believing Ben Carson’s story of personal redemption. Mr. Trump’s debate performances debates have not always been unmitigated triumphs: While he acquitted himself well in rebutting Mr. Cruz’s denigration of what he called “New York values” in a Jan. 14 debate in South Carolina, for example, Mr. Cruz savaged Mr. Trump for much of the first half-hour. David Carney, a Republican strategist who ran Rick Perry’s 2012 presidential campaign, said Mr. Trump made a wise move in pulling out of the debate when he could not count on turning in a strong performance. “The debates aren’t his thing,” he said, predicting it would not hurt Mr. Trump with his supporters. What is undeniable is that Mr. Trump does not like feeling as if he is being backed into a corner – and that the sarcastic statement by Fox News on Tuesday bothered him greatly. Escalating a back-and-forth with Mr. Trump leading up to the debate, the network openly mocked him for complaining when challenged by aggressive journalists. “We learned from a secret back channel that the ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president,” the network said. Referring to Mr. Trump’s survey of his Twitter followers as to whether he should go ahead with the debate, Fox News added: “A nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.” At his news conference, held in a high school in Marshalltown, Iowa, Mr. Trump called the network’s parody a “wiseguy press release,” and dared Fox News to hold the debate without him. “Now let’s see how they do with the ratings,” he said. Fox News has steadfastly stood by Ms. Kelly. Mr. Trump’s aides said they were planning a competing event in Des Moines during the debate, a fund-raiser to help wounded veterans. But his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, seemed to leave open at least the possibility of a reversal, telling MSNBC on Wednesday morning that he “didn’t think” there was any way Mr. Trump would change his mind. But in the interview, Mr. Lewandowski dismissed the notion that Mr. Trump might be concerned about answering questions, and pointed out that he had already taken part in six debates. This is not the first time Mr. Trump has threatened to walk off a debate stage. But Mr. Trump’s earlier brinkmanship over debates came months ago, not on the eve of a vote, when it could shape the opinions of Iowa’s late-deciding caucusgoers. “This debate is in Iowa,” noted Kellyanne Conway, a Republican strategist and the president of the main “super PAC” supporting Mr. Cruz. If it were anywhere else, she said, the flap with Fox News might not add up to much. But voters here are paying attention. Still, exactly what they are taking away from the standoff is unclear. Matt Strawn, a former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, said he saw no sign yet that it would cut into Mr. Trump’s support. “Those voters have been drawn to him because he’s willing to flout” establishment rules, Mr. Strawn said. Would the timing of the dispute make a difference? “Like most of the Donald Trump experience over the last 12 months,” he said, “we’re all going to learn together.” ||||| @TomLlamasABC @ABCPolitics Replying to @NoLimitCracka @NoLimitCracka @TomLlamasABC @ABCPolitics If you would read his books you would know. You like most people...just get spoon fed by media. ||||| 20:44 Bernie Sanders wasted no time pointing out that while he may have just come to this evening’s rally from the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton is at a fundraiser with wealthier financiers and Jon Bon Jovi back east. “My opponent is not in Iowa tonight, she is raising money from a Philadelphia investment firm,” he told the packed crowd in Mason City. “I would rather be in Iowa.” “Here we are again facing the machine,” says actress and activist Susan Sarandon as she introduces Sanders by recalling campaigning against Clinton for Obama eight years ago. “This is not about gender; this is about issues.” There was no mention of Bill Clinton, however, who is just two miles away at a rival rally on his wife’s behalf at exactly the same time. Instead, Sanders is devoting an unusually large portion of his speech to attacking Donald Trump, who he clearly sees now as just as much of an opponent as Clinton. As the overseas media begins turning up in large numbers to the event, Sanders also reminds the audience of the recent debate in the British parliament about whether Trump should even be allowed into the country. “Think about how this man is going to deal with the world when he can’t even deal with our strongest ally,” says Sanders. ||||| Megyn Kelly posing in GQ Magazine. | POLITICO Screen grab Trump attacks 'bimbo' Kelly for GQ photo shoot Donald Trump continued his onslaught on Fox News host Megyn Kelly on Thursday, retweeting a follower who criticized a photo shoot she did for GQ Magazine. “And this is the bimbo that’s asking presidential questions?”, the tweet said. It included two photos of Kelly posing provocatively and the following text: “Criticizes Trump for objectifying women ... Poses like this in GQ Magazine.” Story Continued Below Trump’s ongoing feud with Kelly was one of the reasons behind Trump’s decision to hold a competing event in Des Moines on Thursday night, though he now maintains that a mocking Fox statement was what ultimately drove him out of the debate: It was the childishly written & taunting PR statement by Fox that made me not do the debate, more so than lightweight reporter, @megynkelly. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2016 On Wednesday, Trump went after Kelly during an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, reiterating his view that she was biased against him and vowing not to be "taken advantage of" by the network. ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201601/1202/1155968404_4724402687001_video-still-for-video-4724350894001.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Fox's O'Reilly pleads with Trump to reconsider debate boycott 'I submit to you that you need to change and get away from the personal,' O'Reilly tells the real estate mogul in a testy interview. Donald Trump on Wednesday night testily tangled with Bill O’Reilly as the Fox News host asked Trump to reconsider his decision to boycott the Thursday night GOP debate. The real estate mogul and Republican poll leader refused to budge. “I want you to consider,” O’Reilly pleaded with Trump, asking him to say, “I might come back, forgive, go forward, answer the question, look out for the folks, just consider it.” Story Continued Below Trump shot back that the question was out of bounds. “We had an agreement that you wouldn’t ask me that,” he said. O’Reilly conceded that Trump was telling the truth, and gave him credit for coming on his show, but said the American people need to hear from the man who has a good chance of becoming the Republican nominee. “You could absolutely secure this Republican nomination,” the Fox News host said. “I submit to you that you need to change and get away from the personal.” But O’Reilly peppered his words of encouragement with insults, accusing Trump of “walking away” and getting sidetracked by petty disputes. “I don’t like being taken advantage of,” Trump said, referencing his grievance with Fox’s refusal to remove Megyn Kelly as a moderator from the debate, after Trump accused her of being biased against him. “I’m not going to let our country be taken advantage of,” Trump added, citing the Iran deal as a prime example. Trump is so far defying skeptics who are dismissing his declaration that he will boycott Thursday night’s debate as a mere bluff, as he forges ahead with an alternate plan to raise funds for veterans that threatens to soak up media attention in the days before the Iowa caucuses. The real estate mogul, still steaming from his feud with Fox News and Kelly, refused to heed O’Reilly’s advice to “turn the other cheek,” saying “it’s called an eye for an eye.” Speaking at a South Carolina rally that occurred before the O’Reilly appearance aired, but after it was taped, Trump called it a “tough interview” but promised that his rival event in Des Moines raising funds for veterans would be a great one. “We’re going to raise a lot of money for the vets,” said a boisterous Trump, donning his signature red “Make America Great Again” cap. Trump’s staying of the course comes after speculation grew on Wednesday about whether he was really going to sit out the primetime showdown, or if it was all a bunch of bluster. Doubters, including some of his rivals, saw either a shrewd maneuver that directed an inordinate amount of media attention on him as the GOP field tried to make their closing arguments to caucus-goers, or a clever gimmick that allowed Trump to avoid harsh questioning as he’s come under increased fire for his shifting position on issues such as abortion. "I've got a $20 bet he shows up," Jeb Bush said during a town hall in Des Moines Wednesday afternoon. "I expect to see Trump on stage tomorrow," tweeted John Kasich's campaign manager, John Weaver. “Donald Trump will be at the debate,” Ted Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler Tyler predicted. “Mark my words.” Even Kelly, the Fox debate moderator who is the focus of Trump’s ire, called him out. “I will be surprised if he doesn’t show up, Donald Trump is a showman, he’s very good at generating interest, perhaps this is an effort to generate interest in our debate, if it is that is great, maybe we will have more eyeballs, if he doesn’t show up maybe we will have fewer eyeballs, but either way it is going to be ok,” Kelly told “Extra.” Trump’s decision to once again wage war on Fox and Kelly so close to the Iowa caucuses is either a shrewd one or a boneheaded one, depending on who you ask. While some are contending that Trump risks coming off as a coward walking away from a fight, it’s undeniable that he’s robbing the media oxygen from his rivals. Trump earlier on Wednesday showed no outward signs of relenting, citing a bitter relationship with Fox News and Kelly. The real estate mogul also sent out to the media a few scant details about his rival event for Thursday evening – a "Donald J. Trump Special Event to Benefit Veterans Organizations" at Drake University in Des Moines. But there were a few indications that he might soften his stance: A Twitter poll he posted asking whether he should participate in the debate urged him to appear, with 56 percent of the 157,864 votes saying he should do the debate. Then, on Wednesday afternoon, he revealed that he still planned to appear Wednesday night on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told CNN Wednesday evening that his boss was still appearing on the show because “when we make a promise, we keep it,” except for when Trump is treated unfairly. He also said he has had no conversations with Fox News CEO, and that, to the best of his knowledge, neither has Trump. The tiff apparently started after Trump tried to pressure Fox News to boot Kelly as one of the moderators, claiming there was no way she could be unbiased. Kelly gained heightened notoriety after pointedly asking Trump at the first debate about his supposed “war on women.” (O’Reilly on Wednesday night defended the question as “within journalistic bounds.”) But Fox refused to give in, issuing a biting press statement on Tuesday saying, “We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.” Fox doubled down after Trump’s declaration of a boycott, issuing a statement Tuesday night that accused Lewandowski of threatening the network with "terrorizations" of Kelly. “In a call on Saturday with a Fox News executive, Lewandowski stated that Megyn had a ‘rough couple of days after that last debate’ and he ‘would hate to have her go through that again,’” the network alleged. The Republican National Committee took an above-the-fray position on the developing drama on Wednesday afternoon, noting that Rand Paul, too, opted to skip a debate -- the undercard debate earlier this month. “We’d love all candidates in," said Sean Spicer, the RNC's communications director, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday afternoon. "I think it’s a great opportunity for the American people, and particularly the people in Iowa, to have an understanding of each of these candidates’ vision. But, Wolf, at the end of the day, each campaign has to make up their own mind as to what’s in their best interest so we respect that decision." Spicer added that he anticipates Fox will not show Trump's empty lecturn on screen. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, meanwhile, sided with Trump on the dispute. "Fox News was acting like they had been jilted at the altar," Limbaugh said on Wednesday. Nobody since the Kennedy family has had such an outsize influence on the media, Limbaugh mused to listeners. And the Kennedys "are pikers compared to the way Trump is doing this," he added. "Screw the rules, he's saying," Limbaugh remarked, according to a transcript, talking through Trump's reasoning. "Why should I willingly give them another shot at me in a circumstance they control, why should I do it? What's the sense in it for me? I'm leading; I'm running the pack here; why in the world should I put myself in that circumstance? I've already seen what's gonna happen." Trump on Wednesday morning slammed Fox for its allegations against him, saying on Twitter, “The statement put out yesterday by @FoxNews was a disgrace to good broadcasting and journalism. Who would ever say something so nasty & dumb.” He also lobbed an attack on Kelly, tweeting, “I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!” Lewandowski himself dismissed Fox as being an unfair broker and tried to dispel the notion that Trump is worried that a final debate before the caucuses could expose weaknesses in his candidacy. Trump is "the best debater on the debate stage, we know this, he’s the clear winner, he has been by every debate poll that’s taken place,” he said on “Morning Joe.” "He’s not afraid to debate. I want to be very clear about this," he said. "He’s done more television, more radio, than all of the other candidates combined. And so, he’s not afraid to answer questions. He’s on your show all the time, he was on yesterday. But the bottom line is, you have people that aren’t going to be fair and ask questions the American people want to talk about, and instead they want to make this about themselves. And that’s what this is about, and it’s a shame.” Asked about Cruz's call for a one-on-one debate before Monday's caucuses in Iowa, Lewandowski said the Texas senator's campaign was not the only one to reach out asking whether it could participate in the alternate event Trump’s campaign was setting up. “Well, look, he’s not the only one. We’ve had calls from many debates, from many of the candidates now, to say look, why would we participate in the Fox debate as well? I think what you’re finding out, once again, you have the candidates reacting to the only true leader in this race, which is Donald Trump," Lewandowski claimed. One veterans group signaled it has no interest in partnering with Trump for his counterprogramming event. Paul Rieckhoff, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, tweeted that Trump shouldn't be rewarded for his antics. "If offered, @iava will decline donations from Trump's event," he wrote. "We need strong policies from candidates, not to be used for political stunts." The Wounded Warrior Project said in an email to POLITICO on Wednesday afternoon, "We are not aware of any fundraising efforts on our behalf with Mr. Donald Trump." It’s not clear how a resolution would be brokered between Trump and Fox, and Lewandowski kept up the war of words on Wednesday evening, telling CNN it was a pretty simple decision for Trump to boycott the debate. “It's very simple: he's able and willing to debate but he's not going to do it if the network is not going to be fair,” he said. Nick Gass contributed to this report. ||||| Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. ||||| DES MOINES, Iowa — Hollow or not, Donald Trump’s threat to boycott the final GOP forum before Iowa votes has complicated Ted Cruz’s game plan, forcing the Texan to prepare for two different debates — one in which he tangles directly with the front-runner and another that sets up the senator as the largest target on stage. With hours until debate time, Cruz’s campaign still says it thinks Trump’s pledge to skip the forum is a stunt. “Donald Trump will be at the debate,” Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler Tyler predicted. “Mark my words.” Story Continued Below In advance of the last pre-Iowa showdown, Cruz spent the day Wednesday holed up in debate preparations with his top brass. Campaign manager Jeff Roe, chief strategist Jason Johnson, Cruz's pollster and others all descended on Iowa ahead of the final five-day push to the caucuses. If Trump sees through his promise to hold a rival event Thursday, the Cruz camp will use it as fresh ammunition for an assault on the New Yorker’s character, casting their fiercest rival for the GOP nomination as too emotional and self-centered to be trusted with the White House. “What people will understand is Donald Trump, if he’s not there, made an emotional decision,” Tyler said. “That fits his erratic behavior, based on grievances that are petty and small. That’s what people will see.” “He’s put himself first and the country second. Or third or fourth or somewhere,” Tyler added. Cruz and Trump have been locked in what’s become a two-man race for first place in the first state, but polls suggest Trump has the momentum. The Manhattan businessman has led all but one of the 11 public polls in Iowa that have been released since the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll in early January showed Cruz with a narrow 3-point lead. Cruz, a collegiate championship debater, clearly wants another shot at Trump. He immediately challenged him to a “mano-a-mano” debate after Trump announced his withdrawal. “Can we do it in Canada?” Trump mocked him on Twitter. For Cruz, Trump’s threatened absence means that the other candidates who trail him in Iowa, such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, have only one leader to fire upon: him. Paul, whose sagging showing in the polls caused him to miss the last debate, has been itching to take on Cruz. On Wednesday, Paul ripped Cruz for his more hawkish stands on foreign affairs in an email to his supporters. Trump’s nonappearance, Paul said on Fox News, should give him more time to make all his arguments. “It’s sort of a double win for me; not only am I on the main stage, but we don’t have to put up with a lot of empty blather and boastfulness and calling people names,” Paul said. Rubio has telegraphed his interest in going after Cruz’s past work as a lawyer for a Chinese company accused of stealing intellectual property from an American firm. The issue has yet to come up at a debate, but Rubio hammered Cruz for it earlier this week in Des Moines. “When Ted Cruz had to choose as a lawyer, he was choosing to represent the Chinese,” Rubio told reporters. “You can’t go around saying you’re tough on China but then have a legal record in which you were paid a lot of money to defend the Chinese who had taken a product away from an American — unjustly, unfairly and illegally.” The attack is a familiar one for Team Cruz. His 2012 Senate race opponent, David Dewhurst, used it aggressively. In a twist, the Dewhurst strategist who crafted those broadsides is now Cruz’s campaign manager, Roe. There are other echoes of Cruz’s 2012 contest. In that race, Cruz mercilessly mocked Dewhurst for not doing enough debates and events with him, even sending someone in a duck outfit to trail him. Cruz touted the DuckingDewhurst.com domain then; after Trump’s treat, Cruz began promoting DuckingDonald.com. Cruz wasn’t the only one hunkered down in a prep for an uncertain debate. The campaign trail in Iowa was far quieter than normal just days from the caucuses. Two of Cruz’s top surrogates, Rep. Steve King and former Gov. Rick Perry, campaigned without him during the day, holding events in Burlington and Iowa City. Cruz was scheduled to headline an evening rally in West Des Moines. Rubio’s lone public event was also an evening rally, scheduled only five miles away. But all eyes remain on Trump, who holds a rally and then is scheduled to appear on Fox’s Bill O’Reilly program late Wednesday, despite his boycott of the network’s debate the next night. Rival campaigns plan to tune in to see whether Trump, who mused about walking out on past debates but never followed through, reverses course.

– It's GOP debate night, and the million-dollar question is whether Donald Trump will show. It turns out there's also a 1.5 million-dollar question on the table. The latest: In a Wednesday night interview with Bill O'Reilly, Trump didn't come close to budging. The Hill recounts the many ways O'Reilly tried to convince him: He said "turn the other cheek," and Trump replied, "Eye for an eye." O'Reilly ended the interview by asking Trump a question that the two had apparently agreed wasn't to be asked, per Politico. If he does indeed skip, the New York Times reports he might not be the only one. Still not using the word "bimbo" himself, Politico notes that Trump retweeted a follower's shot at Megyn Kelly over a provocative GQ photo shoot she did: "And this is the bimbo that’s asking presidential questions?" Ted Cruz apparently didn't spend Wednesday fighting zombies. Politico reports he hunkered down for debate prep, aware that if Trump is out, the target is on his back. Cruz also turned up the heat on his "mano a mano" debate invite to Trump, reports the Guardian. Cruz has named a place, time, and potential facilitators and "sweetened the deal" by noting two super PAC donors will hand $1.5 million to veterans charities if Trump shows. What the Trump camp had to say about the money, to Tom Llamas of ABC: "desperate," "dirty." At the New York Times, Maggie Haberman has the "most intriguing possible explanation" for Trump's planned no-show: He knows he's ahead in Iowa and "wants to play out the clock" rather than face tough questions. The Times references the "furious discussions" going on about all this, including a conversation between Trump's daughter Ivanka and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes.

Stand-ins, participants and members of the military rehearse for Donald Trump's presidential inauguration at the U.S. Capitol and parade along Pennsylvania Avenue. Stand-ins, participants and members of the military rehearse for Donald Trump's presidential inauguration at the U.S. Capitol and parade along Pennsylvania Avenue. Stand-ins, participants and members of the military rehearse for Donald Trump's presidential inauguration at the U.S. Capitol and parade along Pennsylvania Avenue. President Obama’s first inaugural festivities stretched over five days. Donald Trump is spending barely three on his. Bill Clinton hit 14 official balls on the day he was sworn in. Trump plans appearances at three. And while other presidents have staged parades that lasted more than four hours, Trump’s trip down Pennsylvania Avenue is expected to clock in at 90 minutes — making it among the shortest on record. In a word, the 45th president’s inaugural activities will be “workmanlike,” said Boris Epshteyn, communications director for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a pop-up staff of about 350 people scrambling to put together the proceedings from the second floor of a nondescript government building just south of the Mall. The notion of a relatively low-key inaugural bereft of many ­A-list entertainers may come as a surprise, given the president-elect’s flair for showmanship and his credentials as a reality TV star. Epshteyn said that Trump settled on a less flashy approach, however, including keeping the ticket prices for the inaugural balls at $50 apiece so that ­working-class Americans who helped fuel Trump’s victory can take part. (Claritza Jimenez,Danielle Kunitz,Julio Negron/The Washington Post) Organizers are also expecting an unusually high number of protesters, given how divisive Trump’s victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was. And as of Monday afternoon, nearly three dozen Democratic lawmakers had said they plan to skip the festivities, after revelations of Russia’s alleged interference in the election and Trump’s ­rebuke of Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights icon, on Saturday. “These inaugurations tend to reflect the character, personality and aspirations of the person preparing to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” said Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian at New York University. “It would be un-Trumpian for there not to be some spectacle.” Early on, there was talk of something much flashier. Trump reportedly huddled with Mark Burnett, producer of his former hit show, “The Apprentice,” about parading down Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, where Trump Tower is located, then traveling by helicopter to Washington with the nation glued to TV screens. ­Others suggested other flourishes, such as a grand unfurling of ceremonial flags as Trump passes by his hotel on Pennsylvania ­Avenue NW during the parade. Past presidents have sought to set a tone for their presidency with their inaugurations. John F. Kennedy’s was a high point of style and elegance, a declaration that glamour had returned after the plain-Jane years of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, pressed the notion of a “people’s inauguration,” noting at one point that the new first lady had opted to wear the same blue satin gown she had at his gubernatorial inauguration in Georgia six years earlier. Ronald Reagan, a Hollywood actor, amped up the glamour and pizazz. Bill Clinton embraced his baby-boomer status, throwing a free concert that included an array of stars and a reformed Fleetwood Mac to perform its hit “Don’t Stop,” which had become his campaign anthem. Building on his campaign theme of “hope and change,” Obama’s first inauguration set a record for attendance, as officials used the full length of the Mall for the swearing-in ceremony. (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post) At his news conference last week, Trump promised an inauguration that would be “very, very special, very beautiful,” and predicted “massive crowds.” The signals are mixed. Many of the unofficial parties being thrown by state delegations and other entities sold out weeks ago. Hotel bookings appear to be on pace with Obama’s 2013 inauguration (but shy of 2009), according to Robin McClain, vice president of Destination DC. Meanwhile, city officials have indicated that far more charter buses have sought parking permits in the city’s biggest lot on Saturday, when a protest Women’s March on Washington is scheduled, than for the inauguration the day before. Thomas J. Barrack Jr., an international financier who is leading Trump’s inaugural committee, told reporters last week that the president-elect is seeking to avoid a “circuslike atmosphere” with his festivities. The participants haven’t been entirely of his choosing. For weeks, Trump has been dogged by headlines about A-list entertainers turning down offers to join the celebration. Until Friday, the only acts that had been announced were the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Radio City Rockettes — both veterans of previous inaugurals — and Jackie Evancho, a classical singer who was runner-up on NBC’s “America’s Got Talent” in 2010. On Friday, Trump announced a handful of entertainers who are to participate in a “Make America Great Again! Welcome Celebration” on Thursday night. They include country stars Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood and rockers 3 Doors Down. Another artist announced Friday — Broadway performer Jennifer Holliday — dropped out Saturday, saying she had heard concerns from the gay community about the message her participation would send. Holliday joined a long list of celebrities who have said publicly that they turned down invitations, including Elton John, Celine Dion and the rock band Kiss. Epshteyn played down reports of such rejections, offering an analogy: “For some of them, that’s like me saying, ‘I’m not going to be playing point guard for the Washington Wizards.’ Well, I was never asked.” One thing the Trump inaugural committee has done particularly well is raise money. The committee says it has brought in more than $90 million in private money for the festivities, far more than the $53 million that Obama raised in 2009 for his first inauguration. Contributions were solicited through personal outreach to corporations and wealthy donors, who were asked to give between $25,000 and $1 million, with tailored rewards for each level. Roy Bailey, a Texas financier who is co-chairing the fundraising efforts, said a substantial number gave at the highest tier, shelling out $1 million or more. At that level, donors will get special perks during the inauguration weekend, including eight tickets to a “candlelight dinner” that will feature “special appearances” by Trump and his wife, Melania, and Vice President-elect Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, according to a donor brochure obtained by The Washington Post. Still, it’s unclear how the inaugural committee will spend all that it has taken in. “With a pared-down inaugural, I don’t know what they could possibly use $90 million on,” said Steve Kerrigan, chief executive of Obama’s inaugural committee in 2013 and chief of staff of the committee in 2009. A significant share of the cost of festivities — including the swearing-in ceremony and parade — are covered by Congress and the military. Balls and other extras have traditionally been underwritten by private funds. The extras include the likes of hundreds of thermal blankets emblazoned with the presidential seal and the date of Trump’s inauguration, ordered for distribution to ambassadors and those on the dais at the swearing-in ceremony. It’s unclear how much use the blankets will get: A high in the 50s is predicted for Friday. Trump aides have said little about what he will say in his remarks after he is sworn in. It’s a speech that could largely set the tone for a president who is entering office with historically low approval ratings. Late last month, Trump told several visitors to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that he is looking to both Reagan and Kennedy for inspiration. Nearly 250,000 tickets are being distributed for the swearing-in ceremony by members of Congress, while the Mall can accommodate hundreds of thousands more spectators. After a luncheon at the Capitol, Trump is scheduled to take part in a traditional inaugural parade — albeit a shorter one than usual. The participants announced so far include an array of high school and college marching bands and bands from all branches of the military. But the short scheduled time of 90 minutes and lack of more hoopla has surprised some observers, including Charlie Brotman, who has served as the announcer at every inaugural parade since Eisenhower’s second one in 1957. Brotman, 89, has been relieved of his announcer duties this year despite continued interest in serving. “The parade is actually an ­extension of the president’s personality,” Brotman said, saying he thought Trump might have ­“super-duper bands and marching units.” “I thought it would be a spectacular, like a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade,” he said. Perry Stein, Tom Hamburger, Matea Gold and Robert Costa contributed to this report. ||||| More than 60 Democrats are not attending the Trump inauguration CLOSE Many performers have already turned down the opportunity to perform at the inauguration due to not supporting Trump and now Democratic leaders are following suit. USA TODAY NETWORK Congressional Democrats may have accepted the outcome of the election by now, but that doesn't mean they have to like it. Since December, several dozen House members have said they will not attend Donald Trump's inauguration Friday. The number of Democratic representatives multiplied after Trump insulted John Lewis, the veteran House member and civil rights leader, on Twitter. Some simply said they cannot participate in a ceremony that celebrates a president whose platforms contradict their constituents. Others said they will save their energy for the Women's March on Washington, a demonstration including women's rights activists and anti-Trump protesters, scheduled for the next day in the nation's capital. Here's a running state-by-state list of which representatives have said they are skipping out: Alabama Rep. Terri Sewell said in a statement that she wouldn’t attend because of the “blatant disrespect shown by President-elect Trump towards American civil rights icon, my colleague, friend and mentor, the Honorable John Lewis.” Sewell did, however, invite Trump and Lewis to join her at the iconic Selma bridge “to walk hand-in-hand across that bridge as one nation, indivisible and united. Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva announced Jan. 13 from the House chamber that he would boycott the inauguration. Instead, he said, he will march back home with his constituents. “My absence is not motivated by disrespect for the office, or motivated by disrespect for the government that we have in this great democracy," he said, "but as an individual act – yes, of defiance – at the disrespect shown to millions and millions of Americans by this incoming administration." He reminded his peers that while Trump won the election, he lost the popular vote. Grijalva said those who voted against Trump and even those who did not vote because of dissatisfaction of both parties deserve respect. Rep. Ruben Gallego also announced Jan. 17 he also would not be attending the inauguration out of protest. We must stand against Trump's bigotries- birther conspiracies, attacks on Gold⭐️ parents & civil rights heroes. I won't attend inauguration. — Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) January 17, 2017 California California is the state with the largest congressional delegation and the most members avoiding the inauguration. There's Rep. Jared Huffman, who on Jan. 7 wrote on Facebook that he would not "sit passively" and celebrate Trump's presidency. "I do accept the election results and support the peaceful transfer of power, but it is abundantly clear to me that with Donald Trump as our President, the United States is entering a dark and very dangerous political chapter," he said. "I will do everything I can to limit the damage and the duration of this chapter, and I believe we can get through it." Rep. Zoe Lofgren made similar comments to the Los Angeles Times when she told them she wasn't attending. Rep. Barbara Lee told USA TODAY that while she would attend Trump's State of the Union in the future, she would not be at the inauguration. Lee said she didn't want to participate in an event made to “celebrate and applaud” Trump over the things he has said. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier outlined his reasons for not attending in the following video: When #Trump places his hand on the Bible & takes the Oath of Office, he will in that moment, be in violation of that oath & the Constitution pic.twitter.com/mZCQrTua4R — Mark DeSaulnier (@RepDeSaulnier) January 14, 2017 Several more House members from California decided to boycott the inauguration after Trump insulted Lewis. "I'm not going to normalize his behavior," Rep. Ted Lieu told MSNBC. "He's attacked Gold Star parents, veterans such as John McCain, Latinos, Muslim Americans and now John Lewis." Meanwhile, Rep. Maxine Waters said she never planned on attending Trump's inauguration anyway. I never ever contemplated attending the inauguration or any activities associated w/ @realDonaldTrump. I wouldn't waste my time. — Maxine Waters (@MaxineWaters) January 15, 2017 Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, the first Mexican-American woman elected to Congress, told Fusion, " the disparaging remarks the President-elect has made about many groups, including women, Mexicans, and Muslims, are deeply contrary to my values. As a result, I will not be attending the Inauguration." Rep. Karen Bass took to social media to have her constituents decide whether she should attend the inauguration. The majority of the Twitter poll's respondents said no. I want to hear directly from my constituents! Do you guys think I should attend the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump? — Congressmember Bass (@RepKarenBass) January 15, 2017 On Jan. 17, Bass announced she would not be attending. After receiving an overwhelming response on the twitter poll, I've decided not to attend the inauguration of President-elect Trump. pic.twitter.com/ig4kFn0GGH — Congressmember Bass (@RepKarenBass) January 17, 2017 Rep. Alan Lowenthal also said he had decided not to attend the inauguration following Trump’s attacks on Lewis. The Los Angeles Times also reported that Reps. Grace Napolitano, Raul Ruiz, Juan Vargas, Tony Cárdenas, Judy Chu, Jerry McNerney and Mark Takano won't be attending. Florida Rep. Darren Soto cited Trump's attacks on Lewis as the reason he was skipping “I am deeply disappointed with Trump’s attacks against civil rights hero John Lewis and will not be attending the inauguration as a result,” he told WFTV 9. Reps. Alcee Hastings and Fredreka Wilson have also said they will not attend. Georgia Lewis' announcement that he wouldn't attend the inauguration sparked a response from the president-elect, which prompted other House Democrats to follow suit. He told NBC news last week, “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president … I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected.” That's when Trump tweeted that Lewis was "all talk" and suggested he pay more attention to his "crime infested" district. Kentucky John Yarmuth, Kentucky's lone Democratic congressman, said in a radio interview Monday that he would not attend. Trump, he said, has embarrassed the office of the president. "After a great deal of thought, I’ve decided not to attend the inauguration — partially out of deference to my friend John Lewis, who was attacked in a historically inaccurate and insulting way, but more importantly, because I thought about the fact that leading up to the election and up until this weekend, Donald Trump has consistently behaved in a way that has helped destroy a lot of the dignity of the presidency," Yarmuth said. New Hampshire Rep. Carol Shea-Porter said she would pray instead of attend the inauguration. Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez announced early on he would boycott the inauguration. He first told CNN in December and in January delivered a speech on the House floor explaining his decision. "We all heard the tape when Donald Trump was bragging — bragging! — about grabbing women by their private parts without their consent," he said. "It is something I can never un-hear." Instead, Gutierrez said he and his wife will attend the Women's March on Washington the next day. Rep. Jan Schakowsky announced Jan. 18 she would join her colleagues in skipping he inauguration. She will also attend the Women's March. I have decided to join the growing group of my colleagues who will boycott this Friday's Inauguration. pic.twitter.com/5HZt70ZFm9 — Jan Schakowsky (@janschakowsky) January 18, 2017 Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree said Monday at a dinner in Portland, Maine, that she wouldn't attend the inauguration. "President-elect Trump’s actions go beyond any kind of reasonable debate — they threaten the constitutional values our country is based on," Pingree said in a statement. "I won’t dignify or normalize those threats by standing by at his ceremony." Maryland Anthony Brown, the former lieutenant governor who was elected to Congress in November, said he was skipping the inauguration after Trump's tweets about Lewis. Skipping Inauguration.@RepJohnLewis a civil rights hero. Enormous responsibility to be POTUS.I respect the office, can't tolerate disrespect — Anthony G. Brown (@AnthonyBrownMD4) January 16, 2017 Liberal freshman Rep. Jamie Raskin also said he won't attend. "The moral and political legitimacy of this presidency are in the gravest doubt," he said in a statement. Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark said in a statement Jan. 5 that while she respects the office Trump will take over, she believes Trump's policies will threaten the well-being of all Americans. "After discussions with my constituents, I do not feel that I can contribute to normalization of the president-elect's divisive rhetoric by participating in the inauguration." Michigan A spokesman for Rep. John Conyers told The Hill that he will not attend the inauguration. Conyers, who took office in 1965, is the longest-serving House member and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison said in a tweet, "I will not celebrate a man who preaches a politics of division and hate. I won't be attending Donald Trump's inauguration." Missouri A spokesman for Rep. William Lacy Clay told the St. Louis Dispatch last week that the congressman will spend Inauguration Day back in St. Louis, speaking with school kids. New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman will host an interfaith prayer vigil on Friday in lieu of her attendance at the inauguration. “The constituents of the New Jersey’s Twelfth District is a cross section of the many groups and millions of Americans that this incoming Administration has turned its back on," Watson Coleman said in a news release. "Our nation is founded on democracy and inclusion that unfortunately our president-elect refuses to represent." Rep. Donald M. Payne Jr. said he will skip the inauguration because he "will not celebrate his swearing-in to an office that he has proven unfit to hold.” "His actions and statements have consistently been below the dignity of the office, and there’s no indication that will change. Donald Trump will be our president, and I will work with him if my values permit, and if doing so is in the best interest of my constituents and the nation," Payne said in a statement. "But I will not celebrate his swearing-in to an office that he has proven unfit to hold." New York Rep. José Serrano tweeted last week that he will not attend the ceremony. Since then, several more House members from New York have announced they will not go, including Jerry Nadler, Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velazquez. Rep. Yvette Clarke joined the inauguration boycott to support Lewis, tweeting "When you insult @repjohnlewis, you insult America." Rep. Grace Meng said: "I will work with Mr. Trump whenever possible, but this weekend I march.” Rep. Louise Slaughter described Lewis as “like a brother to me” and said she would not attend. North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield said that he could not "in good conscious attend the inaugural ceremony for President-elect Donald Trump." Butterfield said on Twitter that Trump was divisive and "I believe it would be hurtful to my constituents for me to attend the inauguration." Rep. Alma Adams said she would be "staying home to continue working toward our priorities and to meet with constituents, many of whom are fearful of what lies ahead." Ohio Showing solidarity with Lewis, Rep. Marcia Fudge said she would stay in Cleveland on Friday. Oregon Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Kurt Schrader, told Oregon Public Radio that they will attend anti-Trump events instead of going to the inauguration. Blumenauer, who claims to have attended every inauguration since he took office two decades ago, said this one was “not a productive use of my time.” Rep. Peter DeFazio said he usually avoids inaugurations and Friday will be no exception. Pennsylvania Citing the Affordable Care Act repeal, Russian hacking and Lewis, Rep. Dwight Evans tweeted that he would not attend the inauguration. Rep. Mike Doyle said he also would skip the inauguration and cited Trump's attacks on Lewis in a tweet. Rep. Brendan Boyle said on Facebook he couldn't celebrate something he believed "is a grave mistake." Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro said he'd stick around D.C. to welcome constituents who were coming for the inauguration but he wouldn't attend the event himself. "Every American should respect the office of the presidency and the fact that Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States. But winning an election does not mean a man can show contempt for millions of Americans and then expect those very people to celebrate him," Castro said in a statement. Rep. Lloyd Doggett said also wouldn't be attending the inauguration. "I cannot participate in the inauguration of a person who calls women 'dogs,' " said Rep. Al Green. I will not be attending the inauguration this Friday. Read my statement here. pic.twitter.com/4gt6AA4u16 — Lloyd Doggett (@RepLloydDoggett) January 17, 2017 Rep. Filemon Vela announced Thursday he wouldn't attend the inauguration following some the harassment of migrant students from his district in Washington and Trump's announcement of his final cabinet pick Friday. By nominating former Georgia governor Sonny Perdue to the post of secretary of Agriculture Trump completed his cabinet without one Hispanic. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer said on Twitter he would not be attending the inauguration for a variety of reasons, including the alleged Russian hacking of election emails. I just told hundreds of my constituents that I will not be attending the Inauguration Ceremony this coming Friday. Here is what I said: pic.twitter.com/YLJz5OWjXe — Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) January 16, 2017 Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal said she will not attend the inauguration. She will be in Washington for an immigration roundtable Friday and for the Women's March on Saturday. Rep. Adam Smith said that he also won't attend the inauguration, but it isn't anything against Trump — though he said he has plenty of issues with Trump's proposals and statements. Instead, Smith said he's skipping because "I’d prefer to be home." This isn't the first time he's skipped an inauguration either; according to The Stranger he's only attended two inaugurations in the 10 terms he's been in Congress. Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen told WMC Action News 5 that while he "would love to attend the inauguration" he wasn't going to because "this president semi-elect does not deserve to be President of the United States. He has not exhibited the characteristics and the values that we hold dear." Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan, citing Russian hacking and offensive Trump tweets, said he will not be at the ceremony. After reading classified Russian hacking doc & @realDonaldTrump offensive tweets to @repjohnlewis I will not be attending the Inauguration. pic.twitter.com/wrEeGfqjrZ — Rep. Mark Pocan (@repmarkpocan) January 15, 2017 But there are some Democrats who say they'll be there despite their concerns about the president-elect. Wisconsin Rep. Gwen Moore said she'd be at the inauguration because she wanted to be the face of resistance. “I support my colleagues in their decision to boycott the Presidential Inauguration, but knowing how he operates, I suspect President-elect Donald Trump will use this expression of free speech as an excuse to bypass Democrats and to push his extreme agenda with utter impunity. With that in mind, I refuse to be a pawn in the president-elect’s efforts to rally support from congressional Republicans," Moore said in a statement. "As a proud Democrat, I want President-elect Trump to see me front and center as he’s sworn in. I want him to see exactly what his opposition looks like. When he sees me, I want him to see The Resistance." Texas Rep. Gene Green said that he would be attending the inauguration and he cited the fact that Trump’s general election opponent would be. “I will attend the Inaugural ceremony to observe the peaceful transfer of authority in our government. I am attending for the same reasons that Secretary Clinton decided to attend — patriotism and a deep commitment to our Republic, not to endorse President-Elect Trump.” But Arizona freshman Rep.Tom O’Halleran announced he'd be there and did not bring up any of Trump's past comments or proposals. Instead, the Republican-turned-Democrat cited his desire to work with "anyone, regardless of party, to move our country forward.” “The peaceful transfer of power from one president to another is a hallmark of our democracy,” said O’Halleran. “I will be attending the inauguration this week, and I will maintain my open door policy to work with anyone, regardless of party, to move our country forward.” Contributing: The (Louisville) Courier-Journal, The (East Brunswick, N.J.) Home News Tribune. Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2jSL44Y ||||| Story highlights A historian who met with Donald Trump said the President-elect wants to pen his speech himself "He told me he's excited to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom on his first night," Douglas Brinkley said West Palm Beach, Florida (CNN) President-elect Donald Trump is turning his attention Thursday to crafting a "short" but impactful inaugural address designed not to overly burden the thousands of supporters expected to attend next month's ceremony. "He wants to write the inaugural himself," said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, who met with Trump Wednesday to discuss, among other things, the upcoming speech on January 20th. Trump was expected to spend at least part of his day Thursday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, working on the speech, according to officials. "He doesn't want it to be long," Brinkley said on CNN. "He would like it to be a shorter one. He doesn't want people standing out in the cold." Trump, who initially chafed at the rigid formality of delivering speeches from a Teleprompter, is mindful of the inaugural's role in setting the tone for his upcoming administration, officials say. Until now, his highest-profile speech came at this summer's Republican National Convention. That address was darker in tone, warning of a deteriorating society and touting his ability to fix the country's problems. Read More ||||| With fewer than 100 hours until Donald J. Trump is inaugurated as the next president of the United States, Boris Epshteyn, the communications director for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, is “totally crazed.” Of all the painful tasks Trump loyalists have taken on over the 19 months of his meteoric political rise, Epshteyn’s is by far the strangest: to explain why it’s no big deal that the country’s first celebrity president—a man preoccupied by Hollywood, obsessed with movies, with talent, with glitz—will enter office in the least star-studded inauguration in recent memory. Hell, even George W. Bush managed to get Ricky Martin to saunter down the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, crooning “Do you really want it?” But fear not, for Epshteyn has a compelling series of alternate-universe talking points at his disposal, intended to convince you that no, Trump really does not want it. And luckily for the soon-to-be POTUS, Epshteyn is as skilled a spin master as Trump could ever want after his campaign stint as a “senior adviser” and frequent TV pundit trained him, through trial and error, to hardly ever veer off a script of platitudes that make “Make America Great Again!” sound specific. “Our message has been, and my completely full-hearted, convinced belief is that this inaugural, just like the campaign was and just like the presidency will be, is about the American people,” he told me. “That’s what this inaugural’s all about. So, do I—am I worried about the celebrities or certain ones that aren’t showing? No, but we have a lot of great performers coming—Lee Greenwood, Toby Keith, 3 Doors Down—and you know what? We have the biggest celebrity in the world, and that’s the American people.” It was Martin Luther King Day and we were in the gloomy confines of the L’Enfant Plaza food court in Southwest Washington, a venue for which Epshteyn was entirely overdressed in his carefully tailored suit and Murano glass cufflinks resembling glittering marbles, which he obtained in Venice. In his mid-thirties (he implored me to “guess” when I asked him to confirm his age), he’s tall and broad, with thinning dark hair and a calm demeanor, even amid the chaos that has become his daily life. Trump cast the media as his enemy throughout the campaign and transition, but Epshteyn—like Kellyanne Conway and others on staff—has always been an affable presence in the green rooms, makeup chairs, and after parties where press members and political operatives sometimes meet and superficially interact. And it’s on cable news, where Epshteyn can be seen on a near constant loop, that he’s lately been dispensing this snappy argument: “You know, this is not Woodstock. It’s not Summer Jam. It’s not a concert. It’s not about celebrities.” It’s not—it’s instead become about their absence. Trump’s inability so far to secure even one legitimate star for his big day has been a delight to his political foes, who need every opportunity for comfort that they can get in this time of grave uncertainty. For his fans, well, this is just another example of the lamestream elites being out of touch with real America. How’d Katy Perry work out for Hillary, after all? Or Beyoncé, with her polka dotted pantsuit? Still, Trump’s entire existence is a protracted quest for approval from the powerful, the famous and the good looking. To accept the conceit that he doesn’t care who’s on his guest list is to ignore 30-plus years of evidence that, in fact, that’s all that matters to him. “We’re going to have a very, very elegant day,” the president-elect said during his press conference last week. “The 20th is going to be something that will be very, very special; very beautiful. And I think we’re going to have massive crowds because we have a movement.” But the day Epshteyn and I met for this article, the B Street Band—that’d be a cover of Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band—pulled out of its scheduled performance, citing “respect and gratitude” to The Boss, a liberal Democrat who adamantly opposed Trump’s candidacy. And they weren’t the only ones to acquire stage fright. Andrea Bocelli, whose soaring tenor often boomed through the stadiums where Trump held his campaign rallies, backed out of his tentatively planned concert after his fans expressed outrage—although Thomas Barrack, the inaugural committee’s chair, claimed it was Trump who told him you’re fired. Jennifer Holliday, of Dreamgirls fame, canceled her appearance after reading a story, published by The Daily Beast, explaining that her gay fanbase was dismayed by her decision to sing for the president-elect. She apologized for what she called “a lapse in judgment” adding, “my only choice must now be to stand with the LGBT Community and to state unequivocally that I WILL NOT PERFORM FOR THE WELCOME CONCERT OR FOR ANY OF THE INAUGURATION FESTIVITIES!” Throughout Trump’s rallies, Elton John’s music—specifically “Tiny Dancer”—played continually, as often as half a dozen times in a single afternoon. And the Donald knows Elton socially, once taking to his Trump University blog to congratulate the singer on his marriage to another man. It made a bit of sense, then, when Anthony Scaramucci, a transition official, said John would be performing. “This will be the first American president in U.S. history that enters the White House with a pro-gay-rights stance,” he said. “Elton John is going to be doing our concert on the mall for the inauguration.” But Scaramucci’s claim was quickly swatted down by Elton’s own publicist, Fran Curtis, who said, “Incorrect. He will NOT be performing.” Which leaves the Radio City Rockettes, the Talladega College Marching Tornadoes, Jackie Evancho, a former contestant on America’s Got Talent, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to go along with Keith, Greenwood and 3 Doors Down. For comparison, Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration featured Aretha Franklin, Beyoncé, Stevie Wonder, and Springsteen (the real one, not a cover band). “It’s the mainstream media who focuses [on the negative],” Epshteyn said dismissively. “It’s a mistake in perspective. A perspective of, ‘Well, XYZ said they’re not gonna perform’—Well, that’s like me saying ‘I’m not gonna play quarterback for the Giants.’ No one’s asking me!” He’s not receptive to the concept that people who voted for a former reality TV star who sold his own line of steaks and cologne might in fact be enamored by celebrity. “What does a coal worker in Pennsylvania, what does a mom in Florida, what do they care about?” he asked. “Do we really think they care about whoever’s sipping champagne cocktails in the Hamptons or mojitos? No. Now, having said that, we’ve got amazing events, very beautiful celebrations are planned.” Epshteyn’s journey to the center of Trump’s orbit begins, like Trump’s victory might’ve, in Moscow. He was raised there until 1993, when he immigrated to Princeton, New Jersey, with his father, who he said is a scientist, and mother, a real-estate agent. He describes his family as Jewish refugees and doesn’t have much by way of a sense of humor about the coincidence of his Russian heritage and the claims that the country meddled in the U.S. election that made his boss president. “I was 11,” he said, sternly, when asked about any connections he might have to Russia now. He added that rumors, like one that he’s a Russian spy, which have been floated on Democratic message boards, are “offensive.” Asked how he reconciles his Jewish faith with the enthusiastic support of some anti-Semites for the incoming president, he denied the premise. “If you look at my Twitter and the things the left has said about me, it’s as bad if not worse,” he said, “and I’ve had family who died in the Holocaust.” He added, “I know that the president-elect is somebody who’s accepting, uniting, kind, obviously he’s got members of his family who are Jewish—his daughter is Jewish, his son-in-law’s Jewish, his grandkids are Jewish, and to me personally, I cannot express the amount of support and positivity that I’ve experienced from the president-elect.” Growing up, he said, his family was apolitical and it wasn’t until law school at Georgetown, where he also studied for undergrad, that he arrived at his conservative worldview. “I found myself, in a lot of the courses I was taking, taking a more conservative viewpoint,” he said. “I believe that there’s no country like America that gives you the kind of opportunities you’re gonna have here.” Georgetown was also formative in another way; it was there that he met Eric Trump, who didn’t respond to an email requesting an interview for this article. Epshteyn described Eric as merely a friendly acquaintance, but their relationship surely aided him throughout the campaign, where staffers were often thrown from the moving train amid ego clashes and backstabbing. He describes Eric as, “determined, resolute, smart, social—just a wonderful, wonderful guy.” Since college, he added, they’ve “gotten closer.” While still a student, in 2006, Epshteyn co-authored a book with his now-wife and mother of his infant son, Lauren Tanick Epshteyn (née Lauren Gorlin Tanick), titled Where to Date In D.C., a guide to restaurants in the District, reviewed from a his-and-hers perspective. In the entry for Union Station, Epshteyn wrote, “In an election campaign, a new strategy that changes everything is called a Silver Bullet. Well, boys, this is your Silver Bullet, your moment to shine and show your girl that you are for real.” He suggests taking your date to Union Station under the guise of obtaining pizza, only to board a train to New York for real pizza, which is an objectively fine idea. In another section, Epshteyn advises readers that at Rosa Mexicano, “start off with a pomegranate margarita for your date and a Corona for you.” Tanick-Epshteyn, who does mobile ad sales strategy for Google, now writes under the pen name Lane Everett. In 2015, she released A Northern Gentleman, a work of historical fiction that follows a “handsome and quick witted” protagonist called Drucker May through his odyssey of reinvention and self-discovery in 1890. Boris Epshteyn’s own journey into politics came during a sabbatical from his two-year stint at a New York City law firm, when he worked as a communications aide for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. He says he spent time with Sarah Palin in Alaska and at the Virginia headquarters, where he was part of the VP rapid response team. “That was a time in our country that was difficult for Republicans,” he told me. In 2009, he joined West America Securities, an investment firm which The New York Times reported had a prickly relationship with regulators, and in 2016, TGP Securities, his current investment firm, was the subject of a suit which charged that Epshteyn and his partner had failed to deliver on an agreement for which they were paid $100,000. According to the Times, Epshteyn “boasted about his clout in the Republican Party and frequent television appearances” in an attempt to draw the plaintiff’s business, even telling them to “Google him and watch his videos.” That kind of Trumpian confidence can be gleaned outside of business deals, too. He often sounds like his boss, overselling mundane things or unremarkable people as “wonderful” or “unbelievable.” Lately, he’s good at keeping himself in line—“Being an attorney helps,” he told me. “The legal training goes a long way, because it’s all about messaging, right?”—but in 2014, he was forced to undergo anger management training after getting into a bar fight in Arizona and he sometimes struggled to discipline himself over the course of the campaign, resulting in the wrong kind of headlines. He infamously claimed Russia didn’t seize Crimea, which is objectively false, and he said Obama rigged the 2008 election despite a total lack of supporting evidence. That was par for the course for a Trump surrogate, of course, which does not list strong adherence to the facts in its job description. But what sets Epshteyn apart is a kind of professionalism. Corey Lewandowski cried into his beer in front of a New York Times reporter and Scottie Nell Hughes relented to introspection in front of this one. Epshteyn, in contrast, is not prone to glimpses of his humanity. He’s a loyal soldier, first and foremost, concerned with #MAGA. “We’re here to represent the president-elect and the vice president-elect,” he told me. “So anything I’m doing, including this conversation, I’m here representing them and I’m always thinking about making sure that everything I do reflects well on those who I work for, because I’m all in. I’m all in.” But back to the show. “The balls are going to be amazing! The Make America Great Again ceremony on Thursday, we did a walk-through yesterday at the Lincoln Memorial, people can just show up to this celebration, that’s where Lee Greenwood will be, that’s where 3 Doors Down will be. It is going to be a production and a setting like nothing anyone’s ever seen!” He added, “We ask all Americans, from the area, from Washington, Virginia, Maryland, from everywhere, all over the world, come and witness this! Be together with us!” ||||| WASHINGTON — Officials are putting the final touches on what will be nearly a week of celebrations for Donald J. Trump’s inauguration as president on Friday. But pomp and circumstance does not come cheap. Here’s a peek at the dollars and cents behind the events in Washington. How much will it cost? The price of Inauguration Day and the week leading up to it could top $200 million, based on the cost of inaugurations past and estimates by officials planning the week’s events. Costs could fluctuate depending on the weather on Inauguration Day and the size of the crowd that turns out. Who foots the bill? In bureaucratic terms, the costs are shared by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the federal government, and state and local governments. Put more simply: Private donors and taxpayers split the bill. What is the Presidential Inaugural Committee, and where does it get its money? The committee comprises friends and loyal donors of Mr. Trump’s. With a staff of several hundred people, it plans all of the eye-catching events of the week, including inaugural balls, a concert on the eve of the swearing-in, and a series of private dinners for the president and his incoming administration. The group then raises money from private donors to cover the costs. ||||| Clinton, who lost the chance to become the first female president, is expected to maintain ‘a stiff upper lip’ when witnessing Trump take the oath of office Friday It is the day she expected to make history as America’s first female president. Instead Hillary Clinton will undergo a special kind of torture on Friday when she stands just yards from the spot where Donald Trump takes the oath of office. Women's March on Washington set to be one of America's biggest protests Read more Clinton, 69, who lost to Trump in the most bitterly divisive election in modern times, will be present at his inauguration in Washington alongside her husband, former president Bill Clinton. In a Shakespearean twist, she will watch silently with cameras trained on her as the man she denounced as unfit for office, and who threatened to jail her, claims the crown for which she strived for so long. “It has to be an emotionally difficult day, but she won’t give any outward sign,” said Robert Shrum, a Democratic party consultant. “She will have a stiff upper lip.” She will not be the first losing candidate to be so close yet so far on the riser at the US Capitol. Outgoing vice-presidents Richard Nixon in 1961 and Al Gore in 2001 watched close up as the men who beat them by agonisingly narrow margins were sworn in. Shrum, who worked for Gore, who won the popular vote but lost the electoral college after a dispute settled at the supreme court, said: “He behaved extraordinarily well because he thought it was important for the country. I think Hillary Clinton will behave perfectly.” Clinton and her campaign knew the stakes in the election against celebrity billionaire Trump were unusually high. “I’m the last thing standing between you and the apocalypse,” she told the New York Times in October. Her surprise defeat on 8 November was therefore shattering, and she has only made a handful of public appearances since her emotional concession speech the following day. A night of shattered dreams: inside election day with Hillary Clinton Read more Her efforts to recover have included walking her dog in the woods near her home in Chappaqua, north of New York City, where several supporters have chanced upon her and taken photos with her. She told a gathering of donors that FBI director James Comey’s late intervention was crucial to the outcome. Last month Clinton resumed political duties, speaking at an unveiling ceremony for a portrait of the retiring Senate minority leader, Harry Reid. “This is not exactly the speech at the Capitol I hoped to be giving after the election,” she said. A group of tearful young women thanked her. The Clintons and their daughter, Chelsea, attended the final performance of The Color Purple on Broadway, to standing ovations. Then Clinton joined other former secretaries of state for the opening of a diplomacy centre at the state department. There has even been media speculation over a potential run for mayor of New York. Clinton knows well the theatre of inaugurations. She attended those for her husband in 1993 and 1997 and looked on as Barack Obama, who defeated her in the Democratic primary, took office in 2009. But she and many others believed 2017 would bring her turn to be centre stage. Grace Bennett, editor and publisher of Inside Chappaqua, who met the former fist lady recently, said she was “proud” of Clinton’s decision to attend Trump’s big day. “I think it was probably a tough call. It’s a classy move. It tells you a lot about what she’s made of. She can rise above her own disappointment and loss and be a witness to history with a different set of eyes from Trump supporters.” ||||| If you’re in Washington D.C., there is both ticketed and non-ticketed viewing locations for the ceremony. | Getty Everything you need to know about Donald Trump’s inauguration When is the inauguration? Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States on January 20. The ceremony is scheduled to start at 11:30 a.m., with a musical prelude beforehand. Afterward, President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are slated to participate in the traditional inaugural parade, which is scheduled to start at 3 p.m. Where can I watch the inauguration? If you’re in Washington D.C., there is both ticketed and non-ticketed viewing locations for the ceremony. Security gates will open at 6 a.m. Tickets were distributed by members of Congress and the inaugural committee. If you’re not in Washington, major broadcast and cable networks will show the ceremony, and POLITICO will stream the ceremony . The parade route will follow Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol to the White House, and much of it will be open to the public and unticketed. It will pass right past Donald Trump’s hotel in the Old Post Office. Who is going to be at the inauguration? Besides Trump, his family and the Obamas, several living ex-presidents will be in attendance. Jimmy Carter was the first to say he will attend , and so will George W. Bush. Former Vice President Dick Cheney also said he will be there. Both former President Bill Clinton and 2016 presidential election nominee Hillary Clinton are also slated to attend . A George H. W. Bush spokesman said he will not be there, citing health concerns. Prominent faith leaders like Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan and the Reverend Franklin Graham will also be there. Donald Trump encouraged his supporters to set an “all time record” for attendance, but planners are expecting about 800,000 people, well below President Obama’s first inaugural. Who is going to perform at inauguration? The list thus far lacks the star power of events past. Three Doors Down and Toby Keith have also been added to the lineup, joining some of the Rockettes, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and “America’s Got Talent” runner-up Jackie Evancho, who will sing the national anthem. For his part, Trump tweeted that he didn’t want any celebrities, writing : “the so-called ‘A’ list celebrities are all wanting tixs to the inauguration, but look what they did for Hillary, NOTHING. I want the PEOPLE!” Tom Barrack, the chair of the inaugural committee also told reporters that there will be a “soft sensuality” for the inauguration with a “much more poetic cadence.” What’s the order of the ceremony at inauguration? The ceremony opens with the call to order from Sen. Roy Blunt, followed by readings and invocations and music from the Missouri State University chorale. Mike Pence will then take the Vice Presidential oath of office, administered by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir performs, and then Donald Trump takes the presidential oath of office, administered by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump will give his inaugural address, followed by more readings and a benediction and close with the national anthem. The complete program is here . What should we expect for Trump’s inauguration speech? Donald Trump tapped Stephen Miller to pen his much-anticipated speech. Miller frequently served as the warm-up act on the campaign trail for Trump. Early discussions of the speech focused on structural problems within the country and setting an agenda for Trump’s first 100 days and beyond. What about the parade? The inaugural committee announced the parade lineup in late December, which includes high school bands, police troops and civic groups found across the country. The statement also said that all branches of the military will be represented. A minor controversy broke out over the parade’s announcer. Charlie Brotman, an 89-year-old who has announced every inaugural parade since President Dwight D. Eisenhower's second term, was replaced by Trump’s inaugural committee. Brotman is instead “Announcer Chairmen Emeritus.” What is the rest of the inauguration weekend schedule? The inauguration festivities are not confined to just the day-of events. Trump will attend a wreath laying ceremony at Arlington National Ceremony on January 19 and then host a “Make America Great Again! Welcome Celebration” at the Lincoln Memorial that evening, which is open to the public. After his inauguration, Trump will attend inaugural balls that evening — but only three, a sharp decline when compared to President Obama in 2009. "The balls are kind of a confusing quagmire because the states themselves have their own celebratory events," Barrack told ABC News . "We'll have basically three balls. Two in the [Washington] Convention Center, one called the Commander in Chief ball, which is a traditional military ball. And then we'll have a series of private dinners." The new president will also attend a national prayer service at Washington National Cathedral on January 21. There’s also plenty of unofficial events taking place. Three separate pro-Trump biker groups are organizing rallies honoring the new president, and there’s a litany of unofficial inaugural balls. The weekend is also expected to draw a lot of anti-Trump protests. The largest is expected to be the Women’s March on Washington. Organizers of the march predicted 200,000 people will attend in a permit application . Other rallies, both pro and anti-Trump, predict anywhere from 100 to 50,000 attendees. What will President Obama do at inauguration? President Obama and Donald Trump will meet at the White House prior to the latter’s inauguration, according to Barrack. The pair will ride with their wives to the inauguration from the White House. After the inauguration, Obama and his family will take one final flight on Air Force One to an as-of-yet-announced destination, which is customary. I live in D.C. and want to avoid the crowds. What’s shut down during inauguration? Much of downtown D.C. will be closed for inauguration events. Closures in the “red zone” start at noon on January 18 and won’t reopen until the January 23. Green zone streets become restricted to D.C. residents and businesses the morning of January 19. Additional streets around Capitol Hill, the Lincoln Memorial, Union Station, the convention center and the National Cathedral will be closed at various times during the weekend for inaugural events. Five of the Metro’s stations - Archives, Mt. Vernon Square, Federal Triangle, Smithsonian and Pentagon, will be shut down on Inauguration Day. Metro says that there will be frequent service on all lines from opening until 9 p.m.

– As Donald Trump is officially sworn in as America's 45th president, his vanquished rival will have an up close and personal view of the proceedings. Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, will stand only yards away from Trump during his inauguration, with cameras trained on her, in what the Guardian describes as "a special kind of torture" for the woman who hoped to be the first female US president. Other things to expect from the day: The Washington Post lays out the plan for what it calls "a relatively low-key affair" to be stretched over three days (President Obama's inauguration lasted five). Trump will give a short speech, per CNN, to be followed by one of the shortest inauguration parades on record. The New York Times explores the cost of the whole shindig, including up to $100 million in security, and where the money will come from. Politico describes the order of Trump's swearing-in ceremony, with performances by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and America's Got Talent runner-up Jackie Evancho. Toby Keith, 3 Doors Down, Lee Greenwood, and the Rockettes will also perform at inauguration events. Few celebrities are expected to be among the 800,000 people to attend alongside Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, but a Presidential Inaugural Committee rep tells the Daily Beast that "we have the biggest celebrity in the world." No, he doesn't mean Taylor Swift. USA Today names several Democrats who are boycotting the event, some of whom plan to attend the Women's March on Washington on Saturday. Former inaugural announcer Charlie Brotman won't be there, either.

Growth acceleration in old trees has scientists rethinking the rules of aging As people age, we become weaker, less effective and more fragile. Not so when it comes to trees, according to a study co-authored by researchers out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. In fact, not only do they not get weaker, but they continue to grow at an even faster rate and process carbon dioxide even better than their younger counterparts. In order to find out why, researchers examined the aggregated biomass growth measurements of 673,046 trees belonging to 403 species from various temperate and tropical regions across every continent minus Antarctica. They found that for just about every species, the larger the trees got, the faster they proceeded to grow. Some specimens grew so fast that they were able to add the size-equivalent of an entire other mid-sized tree in a single year. “Looking at data from whole forests — that is, all trees in a forest considered together as a unit — it is often found that forest productivity declines with the age of the forest, but that does not mean that the growth of the oldest trees declines,” said UNL biologist Sabrina Russo. “What turns out to be key to understanding tree growth is to examine the growth pattern of each individual, not just the forest stand as a whole.” All plants play a role in cycling carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere. But, given their massive size, older trees play a disproportionately large role in the carbon cycle. The same conclusions that found the accelerated growth rates also help scientists understand the carbon cycle on a global scale. “About 50 percent of a tree’s wood is carbon, so a rapidly growing, large, old tree can remove huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, through an enormous photosynthetic flux — far more than a younger, smaller tree can,” Russo said. Altogether, the findings go against our fundamental understanding of aging in the plant and animal world. Still, older, fast-growing trees are not immune to more conventional signs of aging. As they grow older, their leaves process carbon dioxide less efficiently, although this is mitigated by an older tree’s much larger canopy and leaf area. According to the authors: “The apparent paradoxes of individual tree growth increasing with tree size despite declining leaf-level and stand-level productivity can be explained, respectively, by increases in a tree’s total leaf area that outpace declines in productivity per unit of leaf area and, among other factors, age-related reductions in population density.” ||||| The world's biggest trees, such as this large Scots pine in southern Spain, are also the world's fastest-growing trees, according to an analysis of 403 tree species spanning six continents. Like a fairy-tale beanstalk, a tree can grow and grow until it scrapes the sky. Instead of slowing down as the centuries add up, old trees speed up their growth, according to a study published today (Jan. 15) in the journal Nature. "Trees keep growing like crazy throughout their life span," said Nate Stephenson, lead study author and a forest ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Three Rivers, Calif. The results of the survey of 403 tree species around the world suggest that trees never suffer the ill effects of old age. In animals, cells change and break down over a lifetime, eventually causing death. But trees seem free from this growth limit, called senescence. Instead, only disease, insects, fire or accidents such as lightning will kill a tree, Stephenson said. (He forgot to mention logging, of course.) "They never stop," he said. "Every year, they are always putting on more weight than before." [Related: What Is the World's Largest Tree?] Missing trees for the forest The findings turn conventional forestry wisdom on its head. It had always been suspected, but never proven, that older trees grow more slowly than young trees. The evidence came from measuring carbon trapped by forests. Overall, a forest full of whippersnappers sucked more carbon from the atmosphere than a same-sized acreage filled by elderly trees. (Trees store carbon in their tissues, such as wood, bark and leaves.) So scientists assumed the older trees were growing more slowly, because they "ate" less carbon. "But these early data weren't measuring individual trees, and that's where the rub comes in," said Todd Dawson, a forest biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study. "People had this misconception because forests showed a decline in productivity as they grew older. But this is a really fun finding because it says, 'Hey, wait a minute — that isn't the case.'" Stephenson's study isn't the first to suggest this premise was wrong. One finding, published in 2010, revealed California's towering coast redwoods keep racing skyward throughout their several-thousand-year life span. This discovery is what pushed Stephenson to pull out a long-dormant file from his 20-year-old work on California's giant sequoias. "It seemed like the [giant sequoias] never slowed their growth rate," Stephenson said. "This study in 2010 nudged me to bring people together and address this issue." 670,000 trees can't be wrong Gathering forestry experts from six continents, Stephenson and his collaborators tested whether trees really grow more slowly with age. They looked at more than 670,000 tropical and temperate trees, and found that for more than 90 percent of species, the trees kept growing throughout their entire life span, gaining weight as the years progressed. Each species grows at its own rate, but the biggest, oldest trees can swell their wood, bark and leaf mass by 1,300 lbs. (about 600 kilograms) in one year, the researchers report. A western white pine in Kings Canyon National Park, Calif., towers over USGS ecologist Nathan Stephenson. Credit: Rob Hayden "I think one of the reasons [the idea that older trees grew more slowly] had such staying power is because it's what humans do," Stephenson said. "We start growing slowly, then reach adolescence and have a growth spurt, then slow down again," he told LiveScience. But as the new findings show, "trees reach that adolescent growth spurt and never stop," Stephenson said. The findings do not mean scientists need to rejigger their models for how forests remove carbon from the atmosphere, though. As earlier research shows, on a forest-wide scale, younger forests capture more carbon — simply because there are more trees per square mile. Storing carbon But on a tree-by-tree basis, ancient giants are much more effective at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than young trees. "We realize now the big, old trees are the ones pulling carbon most rapidly out of the atmosphere," Stephenson said. "This maybe puts an exclamation point on the importance of maintaining big, old trees." Dawson said more research could reveal whether managing forests so they contain more old trees would help trap more carbon (making the forest a carbon sink). "Foresters have always assumed you need to be managing for young age, because young trees grow faster than old trees, but they didn't know trees keep growing," Dawson told LiveScience. "If you want a forest to be a carbon sink, you may want to manage it to make sure you always have a lot of older trees in it." Email Becky Oskin or follow her @beckyoskin. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience. ||||| The world's biggest trees - such as this large western white pine in the Sierra Nevada - are also the fastest-growing trees, according to a new study. (Rob Hayden) Scientists who gathered decades of measurements from hundreds of thousands of trees all over the world are punching a hole in the common assumption that large, old trees are biologically pretty much over the hill. To the contrary, researchers found that the senior trees have rapid growth rates and keep capturing carbon – lots of it. "The growth rate just keeps increasing as trees get bigger," said study leader Nate Stephenson, a California-based research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The findings, published Wednesday in a letter in the journal Nature, are based on repeated measurements of 673,046 trees belonging to 403 species across every forested continent. The 38 authors said that extraordinary growth was not limited to a few standout species, like giant sequoias. "Rather, rapid growth in giant trees is the global norm and can exceed [1,300 pounds] per year in the largest individuals," they wrote. The productivity of individual leaves – that is, the amount of mass a tree adds per unit of leaf area – does decline with age. "But the thing is that old trees have so much more leaf area than a little tree, they more than compensate for that decline in productivity," Stephenson said. It’s well known that large trees are good at locking up carbon, preventing it from escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. But the research suggests that the big guys are not just storing carbon. They are fixing large amounts of it with continued rapid growth, every year adding a little more mass to their trunks, limbs and leaves. At the high end, the authors said a single big tree can in one year add the same amount of carbon to a forest as is stored in an entire mid-sized tree. "It’s the equivalent of managing a sports team," Stephenson said. "You need to know who your star players are. It turns out they’re not the 20-year-olds. They’re the 90-year-olds." In old growth plots in the western U.S., the authors said the largest trees comprised 6% of the forest but contributed a third of the annual growth in forest mass. That does not mean, however, that on a forest level old stands capture more carbon overall than young stands. Young forests are denser, with more trees, and when old trees die, they release carbon back into the atmosphere. Stephenson and Adrian Das, a USGS coauthor, got the idea for the study after observing rapid growth rates in big trees in Sierra Nevada research plots. They wanted to know whether the same was true elsewhere. So they put out a call for data. Researchers from around the world responded, providing diameter measurements that had periodically been taken of the same large trees, in some cases over decades. The measurements were then used to figure increases in the trees’ overall mass. "We already knew it’s important to conserve old trees for the species that depend on them," Stephenson said. "I just think this adds a little bit of extra emphasis. Not only do they lock up a lot of carbon, they’re really good at pulling carbon out of the atmosphere." bettina.boxall@latimes.com Twitter: @boxall

– Conventional wisdom about forestry has been chopped down and sent through the chipper by new research that shows large, old trees grow much faster than their younger counterparts—and speed up their growth as they age, becoming stronger as the years go by. Researchers studied measurements of more than 670,000 trees from 403 species on every continent but Antarctica and were amazed to find that the accelerated growth happened in almost every species, with some old trees growing so fast they added mass to their trunks and limbs equivalent to a whole mid-sized tree every year, the National Monitor reports. The study suggests that trees simply don't suffer decline in old age, but are killed only by things like disease, insects, lightning—or loggers, LiveScience notes. In some old-growth American forests, the biggest trees comprised 6% of the forest but accounted for a third of the growth. The study has huge implications for forest management and carbon capture, the lead researcher, a US Geological Survey forest ecologist, tells the Los Angeles Times. "It’s the equivalent of managing a sports team," he says. "You need to know who your star players are. It turns out they’re not the 20-year-olds. They’re the 90-year-olds."

Continuing coverage In recent years, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported about persistent problems experienced by the state Department of Corrections in obtaining drugs to be used to carry out executions. The AJC subsequently covered last year’s passage of a state law that shields from the public and the courts details about the provider of the lethal injection drug, the qualifications of the execution team and details about the drug. The newspaper also covered court challenges to the secrecy statute. Rhonda Cook, who has covered the death penalty and criminal justice issues for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution for almost 25 years, including more than a dozen executions as a media witness, was in Jackson Tuesday to witness Wellons’ execution. ||||| JACKSON, Ga. (AP) — A Georgia inmate convicted of rape and murder has become the first person to be executed in the U.S. since the botched lethal injection of a prisoner in Oklahoma in April. Fifty-nine-year-old Marcus Wellons was executed by injection Tuesday night after last-minute appeals were denied. A corrections spokesman says he was pronounced dead at 11:56 p.m., more than an hour after the procedure began. The execution seemed to go smoothly with no noticeable complications. Wellons was convicted and sentenced to die in 1993 for the 1989 death of his 15-year-old neighbor, India Roberts, a high school sophomore from the Atlanta suburbs. Authorities say Wellons raped and strangled the teen. Roberts' body was found in a wooded area near the apartment building. Georgia uses one drug — the sedative pentobarbital — for executions. Oklahoma uses three. ||||| Convicted killers in Georgia and Missouri were executed late Tuesday about an hour apart, marking the first executions in the U.S. since the botched lethal injection of an Oklahoma prisoner in April. Shortly before midnight in Georgia, Marcus Wellons, 59, was executed by lethal injection after a last-minute appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied. Wellons was sentenced to death for the 1989 rape and murder of 15-year-old India Roberts. Witnesses at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson reported that he apologized to his victim's family and asked for a prayer. An hour later in Missouri, John Winfield, 46, was executed for killing two women who were friends of his ex-girlfriend, whom he shot and blinded in the assault. His death sentence went forward after Gov. Jay Nixon said late Tuesday that he had denied Winfield's request for clemency. “The jury in this case properly found that these heinous crimes warranted the death penalty, and my denial of clemency upholds the jury’s decision,” Nixon said in a statement. After Winfield was pronounced dead shortly after midnight in Missouri, the state attorney general issued a statement. "Nearly two decades have passed since John Winfield’s cowardly acts of rage and jealously changed the lives of three families forever," wrote Chris Koster. "He brutally murdered two defenseless young women, one in front of her children, and attempted to murder the mother of his own children, leaving her permanently disabled." Wellons and Winfield both had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the secrecy laws in their states as a reason to stay their executions because of the undisclosed drug cocktails that would be used to kill them. Secrecy laws like Georgia's and Missouri's have come under especially heavy scrutiny from death penalty opponents after Oklahoma inmate Clayton Lockett writhed and groaned before his death in April. Oklahoma officials had injected Lockett with a secretive, experimental cocktail administered by an execution team whose identities and qualifications were shielded by a secrecy law. Wellons' legal team had argued that it was being unconstitutionally blocked from learning more about the quality of the drug to be used on its client and the qualifications of the officials administering it. Three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected those arguments earlier Tuesday, though one judge, Charles Wilson, wrote that Georgia's secrecy law had a "disturbing circularity problem." Since it was Wellons' responsibility to prove that the state's execution plans were likely to cause an unacceptable amount of harm, Wilson wrote, "How could he when the state has passed a law prohibiting him from learning about the compound it plans to use to execute him?" Wilson added that judges, too, would have difficulty examining the legality of the state's executions without more information on how they were being carried out. Despite those concerns, he cleared the way for Wellons' execution. The U.S. Supreme Court has not fully considered any cases involving state execution secrecy laws, which death penalty opponents argue violate their clients' protections from cruel and unusual punishment and their 1st Amendment right to crucial government information about their cases. Meanwhile, in Missouri, Winfield suddenly faced imminent execution after a federal appeals court removed a stay of execution Tuesday, leading to an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, a federal judge had issued the stay for Winfield's execution over concerns that state prison officials had improperly hampered his request for clemency to the state's governor. Winfield's attorneys said state officials had threatened a prison employee who planned to formally praise Winfield's character and conduct in prison. Winfield was convicted of shooting three women, killing two of them, Arthea Sanders and Shawnee Murphy, in 1996. The full 8th Circuit court threw out the judge's hold 6 to 4, with another judge not participating, clearing the way for Winfield's execution to go ahead after midnight. In the majority opinion, the court wrote that because the prison employee eventually made his declaration in support of clemency anyway, there was no longer a problem. The decision led Winfield's attorneys to make an emergency appeal to Alito. “John Winfield is a model prisoner who is trusted by prison guards and serves as a positive role model for younger prisoners," Joe Luby, Winfield's attorney, said in a statement, adding: "We are hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will reinstate the stay so that Mr. Winfield’s clemency obstruction claim can be fully and fairly adjudicated." Winfield’s attorneys also attacked the state’s execution secrecy laws. Follow @MattDPearce for national news

– The nation's unofficial moratorium on the death penalty is over. Georgia executed 59-year-old murderer Marcus Wellons tonight with a dose of pentobarbital, reports the AP. Wellons is the first inmate put to death since Oklahoma's botched execution of Clayton Lockett in April. Wellons' attorneys had cited Lockett's death as they sought to stop the procedure, arguing that Georgia must reveal where it got its lethal drug so the quality could be evaluated, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. None of his lawyers' last-minute appeals—at the US Supreme Court, the state Supreme Court, and a federal appeals court in Atlanta—were successful for Wellons, who raped and murdered 15-year-old neighbor India Roberts in 1989. A corrections spokesman says he was pronounced dead just before midnight, and the execution appeared to go smoothly. An hour after Wellons was executed, Missouri put John Winfield, 46, to death by lethal injection for the murder of two women, reports the Los Angeles Times. The inmate, who shot and blinded his ex-girlfriend in the same attack, had an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court rejected.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A Chinese scientist at the center of an ethical storm over what he claims are the world’s first genetically edited babies said on Wednesday he is proud of his work and revealed there was a second “potential” pregnancy as part of the research. He Jiankui, an associate professor at Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, addressed a packed hall of around 700 people attending the Human Genome Editing Summit at the University of Hong Kong. “For this case, I feel proud. I feel proudest,” He said, when challenged by several peers at the conference. Asked whether there were any other edited gene pregnancies as part of his trials, He said there was another “potential” pregnancy and replied “yes” to a follow-up question as to whether it was a “chemical pregnancy”, which refers to an early-stage miscarriage. It was unclear whether the pregnancy had ended or not. He, who said his work was self-funded, shrugged off concerns that the research was conducted in secrecy, explaining that he had engaged the scientific community over the past three years. “This study has been submitted to a scientific journal for review,” He said. He did not name the journal and said his university was unaware of his study. In videos posted online this week, He said he used a gene-editing technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 to alter the embryonic genes of twin girls born this month. Scientist He Jiankui attends the International Summit on Human Genome Editing at the University of Hong Kong in Hong Kong, China November 28, 2018. REUTERS/Stringer He said gene editing would help protect the girls from infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. But scientists and the Chinese government have denounced the work that He said he carried out, and a hospital linked to his research suggested its ethical approval had been forged. The conference moderator, Robin Lovell-Badge, said the summit organizers were unaware of the story until it broke this week. CRISPR-Cas9 is a technology that allows scientists to essentially cut and paste DNA, raising hope of genetic fixes for disease. However, there are concerns about safety and ethics. (Graphic explaining CRISPR gene editing technique, tmsnrt.rs/2ReKG1R) The Chinese Society for Cell Biology in a statement on Tuesday strongly condemned any application of gene editing on human embryos for reproductive purposes and said that it was against the law and medical ethics of China. More than 100 scientists, most in China, said in an open letter on Tuesday the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology to edit the genes of human embryos was dangerous and unjustified. “Pandora’s box has been opened,” they said. Slideshow (2 Images) INFORMED CONSENT He, who said he was against gene enhancement, said eight couples were initially enrolled for his study while one dropped out. The criteria required the father to be HIV positive and the mother to be HIV negative. Scientists at the conference pressed He to prove that those taking part in the trial were aware of all the risks involved in the process. He said that all the participants had a “good education background” and went through two rounds of discussions with him and his team. A 23-page English translation of an informed consent form for the potential mother said that the costs of the procedure covered by the team would be up to 280,000 yuan ($40,200) per couple. The consent form mentions multiple risks, but there is little detail on potential complications of the gene-editing process itself, including for the child. It does not mention that such an experiment has never been done before. David Baltimore, President Emeritus and the Robert Andrews Millikan Professor of Biology at the California Institute of Technology, spoke after He’s speech, saying it was irresponsible to have proceeded until safety issues were in order. “I don’t think it has been a transparent process. Only found out about it after it happened and the children were born,” Baltimore said. He Jiankui said his results could be used for millions of people with inherited diseases. He said he would monitor the two newborns for the next 18 years and hoped they would support continued monitoring thereafter. Shenzhen Harmonicare Medical Holdings Limited (1509.HK), named as being involved in He’s project in China’s clinical trial registry, sought to distance itself by stating the hospital never participated in any operations relating to the gene-edited babies and no related delivery had taken place. In a statement to the Hong Kong stock exchange on Tuesday, the group said preliminary investigations indicated the signatures on the application form circulated on the internet are “suspected to have been forged, and no relevant meeting of the Medical Ethics Committee of the hospital in fact took place”. The Guangdong province Health Commission announced on its website on Wednesday that it and Shenzhen city had set up a joint team to investigate the case. ||||| Image copyright AFP Image caption Prof He's university has denied any knowledge of the research, which has not been peer-reviewed A Chinese scientist who claims to have created the world's first genetically edited babies has defended his work. Speaking at a genome summit in Hong Kong, He Jiankui said he was "proud" of altering the genes of twin girls so they could not contract HIV. His work, which he announced earlier this week, has not been verified. Many scientists have condemned his announcement. Such gene-editing work is banned in most countries, including China. Professor He's university - the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen - said it was unaware of the research project and would launch an investigation. It said Mr He had been on unpaid leave since February. Prof He confirmed the university was not aware, adding he had funded the experiment by himself. What has the scientist claimed? Prof He announced earlier this week that he had altered the DNA of embryos - twin girls - to prevent them from contracting HIV. On Wednesday, he spoke at the Human Genome Editing Summit at the University of Hong Kong for the first time about his work since the uproar. He revealed that the twin girls - known as "Lulu" and "Nana" - were "born normal and healthy", adding that there were plans to monitor the twins over the next 18 years. He explained that eight couples - comprised of HIV-positive fathers and HIV-negative mothers - had signed up voluntarily for the experiment; one couple later dropped out. Image copyright EPA Image caption Prof He has defended his work after widespread condemnation by the scientific community Prof He also said that the study had been submitted to a scientific journal for review, though he did not name the journal. He also said that "another potential pregnancy" of a gene-edited embryo was in its early stages. But he apologised that his research "was leaked unexpectedly", and added: "The clinical trial was paused due to the current situation." What do experts make of the claim? By Robin Brant, BBC News, Hong Kong No-one really knew if he was going to show. The auditorium was packed by the time He Jiankui walked on stage. This is the man who says he has given China a world first. The handful of experts I spoke to, after they'd sat and listened to him, said they believed him. They believe this happened. But the big, big problem was that his speech and answers afterwards were scant on detail. At times he was evasive, failing to give anything like the detail about his work - what he did, how he did it, who knew - that is required of any scientific project wishing to be regarded as credible. He talked about the stigma attached to HIV/Aids in China and how important the family is to society, but he didn't give the names of "some experts" he claimed had reviewed his work and offered feedback. Why is it this controversial? The Crispr gene editing tool he claims to have used is not new to the scientific world, and was first discovered in 2012. It works by using "molecular scissors" to alter a very specific strand of DNA - either cutting it out, replacing it or tweaking it. Gene editing could potentially help avoid heritable diseases by deleting or changing troublesome coding in embryos. But experts worry meddling with the genome of an embryo could cause harm not only to the individual but also future generations that inherit these same changes. Prof He's recent claims were widely criticised by other scientists. Hundreds of Chinese scientists also signed a letter on social media condemning the research, saying they were "resolutely" opposed to it. "If true, this experiment is monstrous. Gene editing itself is experimental and is still associated with off-target mutations, capable of causing genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer," Prof Julian Savulescu, an ethics expert at the University of Oxford, told the BBC. "This experiment exposes healthy normal children to risks of gene editing for no real necessary benefit." Many countries, including the UK, have laws that prevent the use of genome editing in embryos for assisted reproduction in humans. Scientists can do gene editing research on discarded IVF embryos, as long as they are destroyed immediately afterwards and not used to make a baby. Prof He's experiment is prohibited under Chinese laws, Deputy Minister of Science and Technology Xu Nanping told state media. China allows in-vitro human embryonic stem cell research for a maximum period of 14 days, Mr Xu clarified. ||||| Facing Backlash, Chinese Scientist Defends Gene-Editing Research On Babies Enlarge this image toggle caption Kin Cheung/AP Kin Cheung/AP Updated at 6:15 a.m. ET The scientist who stunned the world by claiming he created the first genetically modified babies defended his actions publicly for the first time on Wednesday, saying that editing the genes of the twin girls while they were embryos would protect them from contracting HIV. He Jiankui of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, addressed hundreds of scientists gathered at an international gene- editing summit in Hong Kong that has been rocked by ethical questions swirling around his research. Earlier, He surprised the scientists just as they were gathering for the meeting with his claim, which he outlined in a series of YouTube videos. With the announcement, He bypassed scientific norms of first subjecting his experiment to scrutiny by other scientists. "First, I must apologize that this result was leaked unexpectedly," He told some 700 attendees. "This study has been submitted to a scientific journal for review." He faced a skeptical, incensed audience at the 2nd International Summit On Human Genome Editing, which was organized to try to reach a global consensus on whether, how and when it might be permissible to create children from genetically altered human embryos. In yet another unsettling revelation, He said that "there is another potential pregnancy" involving a gene-edited embryo, but that it is still at an early stage. As soon as He finished his initial 15-minute presentation, American Nobel Prize-winning biologist David Baltimore, who chairs the conference, got up to speak. Baltimore noted that scientists had agreed that it would be irresponsible to try to create genetically modified babies until there was much more research to make sure it was necessary and safe and until a consensus had been reached that it was prudent. "I don't think it has been a transparent process," Baltimore said. "We've only found out about it after it's happened and the children are born. I personally don't think it was medically necessary." "I think there has been a failure of self-regulation by the scientific community because of a lack of transparency," he added. University of Wisconsin bioethicist Alta Charo, who helped organize the summit, issued an even harsher critique of He's work, calling it "misguided, premature, unnecessary and largely useless." "The children were already at virtually no risk of contracting HIV, because it was the father and not the mother who was infected," she said. "The patients were given a consent form that falsely stated this was an AIDS vaccine trial and which conflated research with therapy by claiming they were 'likely' to benefit," Charo said. "In fact, there is not only very little chance these babies would be in need of a benefit, given their low risk, but there is no way to evaluate if this indeed conferred any benefit." Enlarge this image toggle caption Kin Cheung/AP Kin Cheung/AP She spoke after Harvard Medical School Dean George Daley alluded to He's claims as "missteps" that he worried might set back a highly promising field of research. "Scientists who go rogue carry a deep, deep cost to the scientific community," Daley said. Still, Daley argued that He's experiment shouldn't tar the potential work of other scientists. "Just because the first steps into a new technology are missteps doesn't mean we shouldn't step back, restart and think about a plausible and responsible path forward," Daley said. "The fact that the first instance came forward as a misstep should in no way leave us to stick our heads in the sand and not consider the very, very positive efforts that could come forward," Daley said. "I hope we just don't stick our heads in the sand." Daley stressed that the world hasn't reached a scientific consensus on how to ethically and safely use new gene-editing techniques to modify embryos that become babies. But Daley argued that a consensus was emerging that "if we can solve the scientific challenges, it may be a moral imperative that it should be permitted." The most likely first legitimate use of gene-edited embryos would be to prevent serious genetic disorders for which there are no alternatives, Daley said. "Solving and assessing these deep issues [is] essential," Daley says. Daley also defended the fact that scientists have long relied on self-regulation to prevent the abuse of new technologies. He's claims represented "a major failure" that called for much stronger regulation and possibly a moratorium on such research, Daley said. "I do think the principle of self-regulation is defensible." He and his colleagues say they used the gene-editing technique CRISPR to make changes in day-old embryos in a gene called CCR5. The CCR5 gene enables HIV to enter and infect immune system cells. Scientists have long searched for ways to block this pathway to protect people from HIV. However, critics say there are many other ways to protect people against HIV and expressed bafflement at why He would chose this as the first scenario to try creating genetically modified human babies. A group of 122 Chinese scientists issued a statement calling He's actions "crazy" and his claims "a huge blow to the global reputation and development of Chinese science." He is now facing investigation by a local medical ethics board to see whether his experiment broke Chinese laws or regulations. The university where He worked issued a statement that officials were "deeply shocked" by the experiment, which it stressed was conducted elsewhere. He, the statement says, has been on unpaid leave from the university. In a statement posted Tuesday morning, China's National Health Commission said it had "immediately requested the Guangdong Provincial Health Commission to seriously investigate and verify" He's claims. CRISPR enables scientists to make precise changes in DNA much more easily than before. The technique is revolutionizing scientific research and raising high hopes for major breakthroughs, including preventing and treating many diseases. But making changes in human DNA that could be passed down from generation to generation has long been considered off-limits. One reason is that a mistake could introduce a new disease that could be passed down for generations. Another is that it could open the door to "designer babies" — children that are modified for nonmedical reasons, such as to be taller, stronger or smarter. Other scientists have previously used CRISPR to edit genes in human embryos and are continuing to explore ways to correct genetic defects in embryos. At the summit, Paula Amato of the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland Ore., said her group planned to try to correct defects that increase the risk for breast cancer and Huntington's disease. "If this ... process is ultimately determined to be safe, why wouldn't we want to do this?" she said. But no one had ever attempt to implant edited embryos into a woman's womb to allow them to develop into babies, and other scientists still maintain that it is far too early to be trying that. ||||| He Jiankui, a Chinese researcher, center, speaks during the Human Genome Editing Conference in Hong Kong, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2018. He made his first public comments about his claim to have helped make... (Associated Press) He Jiankui, a Chinese researcher, center, speaks during the Human Genome Editing Conference in Hong Kong, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2018. He made his first public comments about his claim to have helped make the world's first gene-edited babies. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung) (Associated Press) HONG KONG (AP) — A Chinese researcher who claims to have helped make the world's first genetically edited babies says a second pregnancy may be underway. The researcher, He Jiankui of Shenzhen, revealed the possible pregnancy Wednesday while making his first public comments about his controversial work at an international conference in Hong Kong. He claims to have altered the DNA of twin girls born earlier this month to try to make them resistant to infection with the AIDS virus. Mainstream scientists have condemned the experiment, and universities and government groups are investigating. The second potential pregnancy is in a very early stage and needs more time to be monitored to see if it will last, He said. Leading scientists said there are now even more reasons to worry, and more questions than answers, after He's talk. The leader of the conference called the experiment "irresponsible" and evidence that the scientific community had failed to regulate itself to prevent premature efforts to alter DNA. Altering DNA before or at the time of conception is highly controversial because the changes can be inherited and might harm other genes. It's banned in some countries including the United States except for lab research. He defended his choice of HIV, rather than a fatal inherited disease, as a test case for gene editing, and insisted the girls could benefit from it. "They need this protection since a vaccine is not available," He said. Scientists weren't buying it. "This is a truly unacceptable development," said Jennifer Doudna, a University of California-Berkeley scientist and one of the inventors of the CRISPR gene-editing tool that He said he used. "I'm grateful that he appeared today, but I don't think that we heard answers. We still need to understand the motivation for this." Doudna is paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports AP's Health & Science Department. "I feel more disturbed now," said David Liu of Harvard and MIT's Broad Institute, and inventor of a variation of the gene-editing tool. "It's an appalling example of what not to do about a promising technology that has great potential to benefit society. I hope it never happens again." There is no independent confirmation of He's claim and he has not yet published in any scientific journal where it would be vetted by experts. At the conference, He failed or refused to answer many questions including who paid for his work, how he ensured that participants understood potential risks and benefits, and why he kept his work secret until after it was done. After He spoke, David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate from the California Institute of Technology and a leader of the conference, said He's work "would still be considered irresponsible" because it did not meet criteria many scientists agreed on several years ago before gene editing could be considered. "I personally don't think that it was medically necessary. The choice of the diseases that we heard discussions about earlier today are much more pressing" than trying to prevent HIV infection this way, Baltimore said. The case shows "there has been a failure of self-regulation by the scientific community" and said the conference committee would meet and issue a statement on Thursday about the future of the field, Baltimore said. Before He's talk, Dr. George Daley, Harvard Medical School's dean and one of the conference organizers, warned against a backlash to gene editing because of He's experiment. Just because the first case may have been a misstep "should in no way, I think, lead us to stick our heads in the sand and not consider the very, very positive aspects that could come forth by a more responsible pathway," Daley said. "Scientists who go rogue ... it carries a deep, deep cost to the scientific community," Daley said. Regulators have been swift to condemn the experiment as unethical and unscientific. The National Health Commission has ordered local officials in Guangdong province to investigate He's actions, and his employer, Southern University of Science and Technology of China, is investigating as well. On Tuesday, Qui Renzong of the Chinese Academy of Social Science criticized the decision to let He speak at the conference, saying the claim "should not be on our agenda" until it has been reviewed by independent experts. Whether He violated reproductive medicine laws in China has been unclear; Qui contends that it did, but said, "the problem is, there's no penalty." He called on the United Nations to convene a meeting to discuss heritable gene editing to promote international agreement on when it might be OK. Meanwhile, more American scientists said they had contact with He and were aware of or suspected what he was doing. Dr. Matthew Porteus, a genetics researcher at Stanford University, where He did postdoctoral research, said He told him in February that he intended to try human gene editing. Porteus said he discouraged He and told him "that it was irresponsible, that he could risk the entire field of gene editing by doing this in a cavalier fashion." Dr. William Hurlbut, a Stanford ethicist, said he has "spent many hours" talking with He over the last two years about situations where gene editing might be appropriate. "I knew his early work. I knew where he was heading," Hurlbut said. When he saw He four or five weeks ago, He did not say he had tried or achieved pregnancy with edited embryos but "I strongly suspected" it, Hurlbut said. "I disagree with the notion of stepping out of the general consensus of the scientific community," Hurlbut said. If the science is not considered ready or safe enough, "it's going to create misunderstanding, discordance and distrust." ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

– The Chinese researcher who has rattled the scientific world with his claim that he created the world's first genetically edited babies spoke publicly for the first time Wednesday, and he made a revelation, though an unclear one at that. While speaking at the Human Genome Editing Summit in Hong Kong, He Jiankui was asked if his trials included other pregnancies like that which resulted in the birth of twins Lulu and Nana, whose DNA he claims to have altered to make them resistant to HIV. The answer was yes, but it's murky: The AP reports he said the pregnancy was in its early weeks and therefore unclear if it will last. Reuters describes He as calling it a "potential" pregnancy but then answering in the affirmative when asked if it was a "chemical pregnancy," which means an early miscarriage. Reuters reports the status of the pregnancy is unclear. "I feel proudest," He said of his work. The BBC reports that He said seven couples—in each case the father was HIV-positive—voluntarily agreed to participate in his trial, and that he zeroed in on HIV, rather than a fatal inherited disease, because no vaccine exists for it. But a bioethicist points out to NPR that the twins' risk of inheriting HIV was next to nil because the mother was not infected. An ethics expert was one of many condemning the choice: "This experiment exposes healthy normal children to risks of gene editing for no real necessary benefit." The DNA changes are inheritable: As NPR puts it, "a mistake could introduce a new disease that could be passed down for generations." Officials in China's Guangdong province, as well as He's employer, Southern University of Science and Technology of China, are investigating.

Mladen Antonov / AFP - Getty Images file A woman holds a banner demanding a ban over human genes patents during a protest outside the Supreme Court in Washington on April 15. Can someone else patent your genes? The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule some time this month on that question – a suit filed against Myriad Genetics for its patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, which raise the risk of breast, ovarian and certain other cancers. Opponents of patenting human DNA say a ruling in favor of Myriad will mean companies can own your genes, even though experts say it's more complicated than that. The patents set off a cascade of effects, opponents argue: it gives the company a monopoly on the test that can identify whether patients have the BRCA mutations so other companies can't offer their own tests as a second opinion. There's also no one to compete with the Myriad's $3,000 price tag on the test. Myriad has long argued that it's not patenting anyone's genes. Instead, the company says, it separates them from the rest of the DNA and creates lab-made copies -- and that's what is patented and used in the test. The company has also licensed a few medical centers to run second-opinion tests. But some say that regardless of how the court decides, it's likely the average person won't really be affected in any obvious, immediate way. Myriad's first 20-year patent on the genes runs out next year, although patent experts say the company has a variety of opportunities to extend that by a few years. “Even if the patents are thrown out today, that doesn’t make the test available” since it would take time for other companies to develop a test, said John Conley, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who’s taken a special interest in the case. “The patents are going to expire before any competitors could come into the field anyway. “This case would have been a lot more important had it been decided 10 or 12 years ago," he added. "A lot of things have happened in law and science since then." The science has now moved far beyond the clunky, whole-gene sequencing method that Myriad uses so it's becoming less relevant. Companies can now sequence your entire genome for you, and in a few years they might even be able to interpret the information in a meaningful way. Others are working from the opposite end – breaking the DNA sequences up into smaller, more digestible bits for analysis. Myriad, the University of Utah and the U.S. government’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences filed an application for the first patent on the BRCA gene mutations in 1994. The Patent and Trademark Office granted the patent on BRCA1 mutations in 1997. Another patent, on BRCA2, was granted in 1998. In the years since, it’s become clear that dozens and dozens of mutations affect a person’s breast cancer risk, and each patient has his or her own combination. But Myriad’s test remains a very important one, and its role was highlighted last month when actress Angelina Jolie said she’d had both breasts removed after finding out that her genetic inheritance gave her an 83 percent chance of developing breast cancer. Myriad’s been strict in protecting its patents and access to the test for the most significant breast and ovarian cancer mutations. The Association for Molecular Pathology and American Civil Liberties Union led a batch of lawsuits asking that no one be allowed to patent human genes. “Myriad has a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes themselves. If Myriad had simply patented a test, then other scientists and laboratories could offer alternative testing on these genes,” the ACLU says on its website. “But because it has patented the genes themselves, Myriad has the right to control all research and testing on or involving the BRCA genes.” Myriad denies this. “No one can patent anyone’s genes. Genes consist of DNA that is naturally occurring in a person’s body and as products of nature are not patentable,” the company says on its website. “In order to unravel the mysteries of what genes do, researchers have had to separate them from the rest of the DNA by producing man-made copies of only that portion of the gene that provides instructions for making proteins (only about 2 percent of the total DNA in your body). These man-made copies, called ‘isolated DNA,’ are unique chemical compositions not found in nature or the human body.” The lawsuits say this is splitting hairs, since to do anything with human genes you first have to make copies of the DNA. “A disease-causing mutation means the same thing for the patient irrespective of whether a gene is examined inside or outside the patient’s body,” said Mary Williams, executive director of the Association for Molecular Pathology. This is one of the decisions the Supreme Court is going to have to make. In oral arguments in April, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Sotomayor asked if DNA was akin to the flour, sugar and other ingredients used in baking. Gregory Castanias, Myriad’s lawyer, said an analogy to a baseball bat was more like it. “A baseball bat doesn’t exist until it’s isolated from a tree,” he said. “But that’s still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat.” According to the ACLU, the patent office has granted patents on thousands of genes – adding up to 20 percent of all identified human genes. “A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents,” it argues. While a Supreme Court ruling against Myriad wouldn't automatically affect the other patents, says ACLU lead attorney Sandra Park, other companies would be unlikely to try to enforce theirs any longer. "If they do seek to enforce, then that patent could be challenged in court citing to the ruling against Myriad," she said. A ruling against Myriad would make genetic testing cheaper and more available, says Dr. Harry Ostrer, director of the Molecular Pathology Laboratory at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, and one of the individuals involved in the suit. “It’ll give people more choices with regard to genetic testing,” he told NBC News. “It won’t be a question of Myriad’s way or no way. I think it’ll drive down the cost of genetic testing. It will help to contain the cost of health care and hopefully will increase the utilization of genetic testing.” Most Americans who might get genetic tests are covered by health insurance. The tests have to be ordered by doctors, and people without health insurance are far less likely to see a doctor in the first place. Few people are paying for these tests out of pocket, and few would notice any effects from the ruling. Science is already changing how doctors use patients' genetic information, in far more profound ways than a patent will affect. That said, the ACLU says Myriad's enforcement of its patent rights have held up development of lifesaving cancer therapies that target a patient's specific genetic mutations - an experimental class of drugs called PARP inhibitors is an example. The Food and Drug Administration requires approval of the gene test that goes with the associated targeted therapy, and Myriad only sought that approval for the first time last month. "Patents on the BRCA genes have stopped laboratories from providing testing that include analysis of those genes with other genes connected to breast and ovarian cancer risk. University of Washington wants to offer such testing to patients, but cannot, due to the patents," Park adds. Ostrer says his lab is working on a comprehensive, one-step test for people wanting to know their full genetic breast cancer risk. “We would like to develop a genetic analysis where we sequence not only BRCA1 and BRCA2 but all other genes that raise the risk of breast cancer,” Ostrer says. Robert Cook-Deegan, a public-policy professor at Duke University’s Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, says that’s where the market is headed, anyway. “The writing on the wall is quite clear. It makes no sense right now to be testing for just two genes,” he said. Only a small percentage of the population needs to worry about the BRCA genes, Cook-Deegan noted. “It’s somewhere, at the most, 5 percent to 10 percent of people who get those cancers because of inherited risk,” he said. And Cook-Deegan says other court rulings have made it clear that previous patents on genetic material were too broad. “I think it does matter what court says and how broadly it says it,” Cook-Deegan said. It will affect not patients, but business decisions about getting into the genetic testing market, he predicted. Conley says Myriad’s made it clear that it’s moving beyond the idea of holding and guarding a patent and gene test as a business model. “Myriad executives have made public comments about new business enterprises in Europe that are going to rely on databases, not patents,” Conley said. “There aren’t many companies that are situated just like Myriad is now, with a large business based on one or a couple of single gene patents. It’s pretty unique.” Twenty years of exclusive rights to genetic testing have given the company a lot of data. “They built up a huge database correlating gene mutations with health effects,” Conley noted. For now, all sides have to sit tight. The Supreme Court is due to issue its ruling before it goes on summer recess at the end of the month, and for now, rulings are scheduled to come on Mondays, and possibly on Thursday, June 13. The Court’s been known to add days to its schedule, though – last year’s ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health reform law came on the last possible day. Either way, the decision may call for a drink, says Ostrer. “I am planning to go drinking with my buddies from the ACLU once the ruling comes down,” he said. Related: This story was originally published on ||||| Story highlights Unanimous ruling a compromise; court says synthetic material, cDNA, can be patented Actress Angelina Jolie drove attention to the issue involving breast cancer Issue was whether "products of nature" could be treated similarly to human inventions Company at center of case says decision upheld a key claim on synthetic DNA The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that human genes cannot be patented. But in something of a compromise, all nine justices said while the naturally occurring isolated biological material itself is not patentable, a synthetic version of the gene material may be patented. Legal and medical experts believe the decision will have a lasting impact on genetic testing, likely making varieties more widely available and more affordable. The overriding legal question addressed was whether "products of nature" can be treated the same as "human-made" inventions, allowing them to be held as the exclusive intellectual property of individuals and companies. The broader issue involved 21st century conflicts over cutting-edge medical science, the power of business and individual legal rights, and how their convergence might influcence decisionmaking over how people and medicine manage the prospect and reality of certain diseases, like cancer. The issue has deeply divided the scientific and business communities. But it was a blockbuster celebrity, actress Angelina Jolie who brought it to the public in announcing last month that she underwent a double mastectomy following a genetic test. The Supreme Court case involves Myriad Genetics, a Utah-based company that was sued over its claim of patents relating to two types of biological material that it identified -- BRCA1 and BRCA2, whose mutations are linked to increased hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Since Myriad owns the patent on breast cancer genes, it was the only company that could perform tests for potential abnormalities It says 1 million patients have benefited from its "BRAC Analysis" technology, and that about 250,000 such tests are performed yearly. An initial test catches most problems, but the company also offers a second called BART to detect the rest, a diagnostic that can cost several thousand dollars. Jolie had Myriad's breast cancer test. Plaintiffs and testing Among those challenging the Myriad patents were sisters Eileen Kelly and Kathleen Maxian. Kelly was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40. The initial BRCA test proved negative, meaning her family members were not likely at risk. But Maxian later developed ovarian cancer. The second BART testing proved positive, meaning the siblings carried the cancer-causing mutation all along. Money was not an issue for them, but Kelly and Maxian, along with a coalition of physician groups and genetic counselors say Myriad has not made the BART tests widely available for patients without a strong family history of these kinds of cancers. Breast cancer survivor Lisbeth Ceriani was another plaintiff. She faced having to pay thousands for Myriad's test to see if she had a mutation for ovarian cancer. Because of cost, she waited 18 months before she could afford it, learning she carried a mutation, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented plaintiffs. All sides agree the science of isolating the building blocks of life is no easy task. Myriad has said it has spent several years and hundreds of millions of dollars in its research. But the issue of patenting has divided the scientific and business communities. A history of patent protection In the past 31 years, 20 percent of the human genome has been protected under U.S. patents. On one side of the Myriad case, scientists and companies argued patents encourage medical innovation and investment that saves lives. On the other, patient rights groups and civil libertarians countered the patent holders were "holding hostage" the diagnostic care and access of information available to high-risk patients. Outside the court during oral arguments in April, several protesters held signs, such as "Your corporate greed is killing my friends" and "My genes are not property." The patent system was created more than two centuries ago with a dual purpose. One is to offer temporary financial incentives for those at the ground floor of innovative products like the combustible engine and the X-ray machine. The second is to ensure one company does not hold a lifetime monopoly that might discourage competition and consumer affordability. All patent submissions rely on a complex reading of applicable laws, distinguishing between abstract ideas and principles, and more tangible scientific discoveries and principles. The Supreme Court ruling The Supreme Court has long allowed patent protection for the creation of a new process or use for natural products. Whether "isolating" or "extracting" genes themselves qualifies for such protection became the central argument. The justices took the position offered by the Obama administration -- DNA itself is not patentable but so-called "cDNA" can be. Complementary DNA is artificially synthesized from the genetic template, and engineered to produce gene clones. Use of this protein-isolating procedure, known as "tagging," is especially important in mapping and cataloguing the vast human genome. "Genes and the information they encode are not patent-eligible under [federal law] simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material," said Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the 9-0 court opinion. "Myriad did not create anything," said Thomas. "To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention." But Thomas said, "cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments." Reaction to the decision The American Civil Liberties Union said the decision represents a major shift in patent law and overturns established policy. "Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them. Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued." Dr. Harry Ostrer, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said the decision will not undermine the genetically engineered drug industry and expects the costs of tests to fall. "I'm thrilled. We can offer BRCA 1 and 2 testing to low-income women without concerns about how it will be paid for," he said. Jolie also hoped for a meaningful impact. "I hope that this ruling will lead to more women at risk of breast cancer being able to get access to gene testing and to take control of their lives, not just in the U.S. but around the world -- whatever their means and whatever their background," she said. Peter D. Meldrum, president and chief executive officer of Myriad, said in a statement the company believed the court "appropriately upheld our claims on cDNA" The ruling, he added "underscored the patent eligibility of our method claims, ensuring strong intellectual property protection for our BRACAnalysis test moving forward." Investors in Myriad were pleased with the ruling with the stock soaring as much as 9% before settling back but still higher. The case is Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (12-398).

– Sorry, corporate America, you can't own our genes. The Supreme Court declared that unanimously today, ruling against Utah-based Myriad Genetics, which holds patents on a pair of genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. But in something of a compromise, the court ruled that while it was unconstitutional to patent "products of nature," it was fine to patent synthetic, human-designed genes, CNN reports. What does all this mean for you? Well, probably nothing right now, experts tell MSNBC. Patients rights groups had argued that allowing the patents gave companies like Myriad a monopoly on certain tests and fix prices. But "the patents are going to expire before any competitors could come into the field anyway," a law professor says. "This case would have been a lot more important had it been decided 10 or 12 years ago." The court has also in the past allowed techniques using natural ingredients, so while Myriad can't patent a gene, it might be able to patent its specific cancer test.

Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| We've detected that JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Would you like to proceed to legacy Twitter? Yes ||||| New York Giants defensive lineman A.J. Francis went on a Twitter tirade Monday after claiming that the Transportation Security Administration went through his suitcase and left open the urn carrying his mother's ashes. Carrie Leanne Francis died on June 26 at 46 years old, according to a post on her son's Instagram account. A.J. Francis posted a picture Monday of his clothes covered with what appeared to be ashes after his return from a week in Arkansas and California celebrating the life of his mother. "Hey you pieces of s**** at @TSA next time you a******* feel the need to go thru my mother's ashes for no reason, make sure you close it back so her remains aren't spilled on all my clothes... the least you pieces of garbage can do is your f****** job," he said in a tweet. AskTSA, the Twitter service arm for TSA, responded to Francis' complaints with an explanation, apology and condolences. 2: Our officers are trained to handle your carry-on and checked property with care. Out of respect for the deceased, under no circumstances should the container be opened. Please accept our apologies and our condolences. https://t.co/dlf0Ci6Fh3 https://t.co/wLxp0Wphg9 — AskTSA (@AskTSA) July 9, 2018 Francis did not accept their apology. Instead, he again cursed at the agency before telling several media outlets that he wasn't commenting on the situation. Francis, 28, played six games last season for the Washington Redskins and recorded 18 tackles. He previously spent time with the Miami Dolphins and Seattle Seahawks. The University of Maryland product spent the past two season with the Redskins. He signed as a free agent with the Giants earlier this year. Giants veterans are due to report to training camp on July 25. ||||| Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

– New York Giants player AJ Francis says a TSA employee spilled his mother's ashes while performing a bag check on his checked luggage, ESPN reports. The defensive lineman called out the agency on Twitter Monday, posting a picture of ash-covered clothing along with a profanity-laced tweet that read in part, "next time you ... feel the need to go thru my mother’s ashes for no reason, make sure you close it back so her remains aren’t spilled on all my clothes." The TSA replied from its @AskTSA account, apologizing and noting, "Our officers are trained to handle your carry-on and checked property with care. Out of respect for the deceased, under no circumstances should the container be opened." Francis wasn't satisfied, continuing the unhappy tweets, though he noted he didn't want anyone fired—he just wants "TSA to be cognizant [of its] own internal idiocy." "I dont even care that they checked it... they were just being cautious, & I can understand that," he posted at one point. "But to not ensure that it won’t spill back into my bag after you put it back in is ... asinine & irresponsible." Twitter users expressed support and sympathy, with some sharing their own similar stories, though others wondered why he had checked the ashes rather than carrying them onto the plane. "To carry ashes on the plane you have to have a death certificate which is still being mailed to me... so do me a favor and shut ... up about things you don’t know," he replied to one such person, while also noting that the container of ashes was larger than 4oz. Finally, he said to another person asking, "I’m 6’5 330 and people know who I am and talk to me every single time I go to the airport and I didn’t want to talk to dozens of strangers about my mother’s death last week... is that good enough for you?"

The Queen has broken her silence about the potential break-up of the United Kingdom by warning Scots to think “very carefully about the future” before casting their votes in the independence referendum. With only four days to go to the polls and the contest on a knife edge, the monarch made a hugely significant intervention by stating she hoped Scots would consider closely what their “important” votes would mean. Buckingham Palace insiders insisted her remarks were politically neutral but on Sunday night they were being viewed as the clearest sign yet she hopes for a No vote on Thursday. Henry Bellingham, a Tory MP, said Royal observers would be “in no doubt about her views.” The Queen's comments were made after she broke her usual protocol and spoke with well-wishers outside the church she attends near Balmoral Castle. In an extremely rare move, police invited press to observe the exchanges after she and other members of the Royal Family left a service that had included a prayer asking God “to save us from false choices”. Her exhortation to “think carefully” came after Prince Harry said on Saturday that “only the British could have pulled off” the Invictus Games for injured service personnel and he would love to keep the event in the UK, including hosting it in Glasgow. Buckingham Palace has previously rejected calls from Labour and Tory MPs for the Queen to say something, insisting she would not intervene, as she did in 1977 when Scotland and Wales were voting on devolved national assemblies. She used one of her Silver Jubilee speeches to deliver a clear warning against breaking up the realm, saying: "I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland.” However, Alex Salmond appeared to suggest last week she supported Scottish independence by stating she would be “proud” to be “Queen of Scots”. The Queen is currently on her annual holiday at Balmoral, in Aberdeenshire, where she is expected to remain for another three weeks. She and other members of the Royal Family attend around 20 Sunday services per year at Crathie Kirk, a small Church of Scotland parish church, and visitors often gather outside to see them come and go. Although she usually walks between her car and the church without speaking to bystanders, she decided to do so after she left the church on the final Sunday before the referendum. Unusually, a police sergeant invited members of the press waiting 200 yards away to come up to the church to see the royal party depart, enabling them to hear her exchanges. She was photographed in conversation with a small group of three four Scots, and a similar number of English visitors. It is understood a well-wisher joked they were not going to mention the referendum, in response to which she remarked: “You have an important vote on Thursday.” The Queen, who was dressed in green with a black handbag, is then reported to have said: “Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future.” Asked what the Queen had said to the group, a woman who asked not to be named, replied: "She was lovely and said she hoped everybody would think very carefully about the referendum this week". The Rev Ken MacKenzie, the minister at Crathie, said he did not hear what the Queen had said, but confirmed that it was unusual for her to speak to members of the public when coming or going from the kirk. He added: “The Queen did go on a bit of a walkabout, which is a really quite unusual thing for her to do. I don’t know what she said, but I heard something similar reported. I think it was a recognition of the fact that this was an important time for the nation.” Donald Stewart, a photographer who covers royal visits to the kirk, said the last time he could remember being invited to photograph the Royal Family leaving the church was in 2006 on the first anniversary of the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. The Queen was at church with the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, who are known as the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland, the Duke of York and the Duke of Cambridge, who is known as Earl of Strathearn north of the Border. The others did not speak to the public. They had earlier heard the Rev Prof David Fergusson, the guest preacher at the kirk, speak of the need for reconciliation between the two sides in the debate whatever the outcome of the vote. A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “We would never comment on a private interchange." An insider added the comment was “completely spontaneous” and in response to a remark from the crowd. "Clearly the Queen being the most experienced of the lot of us knows where the line is drawn and in some ways it reinforces her view that it is for the Scottish people to decide,” the insider said. But Mr Bellingham, was a Coalition Foreign minister from 2010 to 2012, said: “Anyone who has been a follower of the queen has said over the years should be in no doubt about her views, her incredible support for the Union.” Simon Danczuk, a Labour MP, said: “She means that the people of Scotland should stay with England and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am pleased that she has made a contribution to the discussion.” But a spokesman for the pro-separation Yes Scotland campaign said: “Her Majesty is echoing the message from Yes Scotland to all voters – to think very carefully about this one opportunity that Scotland will have on Thursday to choose our future. “Of course, Buckingham Palace has been at pains to stress that the Queen has no position on the independence referendum.” The pro-UK Better Together campaign declined to comment. ||||| GLASGOW Scotland Thousands of independence supporters took to the streets of Scotland's largest city, Glasgow, on Sunday as polls showed the rival camps running desperately close just five days before a referendum which could bring the break-up of the United Kingdom. Separatist and unionist leaders worked across the country to woo undecided voters among the four million people Scots and Scotland residents who will vote on their future on Thursday. Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond, who has spearheaded the drive for independence, said he was confident the "Yes" campaign would win. "We're not aiming to win by one vote. We're aiming to achieve a substantial majority if we can," he said on the BBC. Alistair Darling, a former British finance minister and leader of the "Better Together" campaign, warned that if Scots vote to split from the United Kingdom, it would be an irreversible decision that would bring economic doom and gloom. With promises from British political leaders of greater powers for Scotland in the event of a "No" vote, Scots could have the best of both worlds, Darling said. And Queen Elizabeth, coming out of a Sunday morning church service near her Scottish residence Balmoral, told a well-wisher she hoped Scots would think very carefully about the future. In Glasgow, the blue badges of the "Yes" to independence campaign dominated central Buchanan Street, with a convoy of cars driving through the downtown waving "Yes" banners and tooting horns. Buskers also sang in support of independence and a bagpipe-and-drum band drew a large crowd. The Glasgow vote will be crucial to the result, given the city's size. Thousands of people marched to the BBC headquarters, complaining that the state-run broadcaster was biased against the "Yes" campaign. "We pay our license fees. We don't want them to favour us - we were just marching for an impartial state broadcaster," said Liz, a teacher. Salmond has frequently accused the BBC - which could be carved up if Scotland votes for independence - of siding with the unionists. A BBC spokesperson said the corporation has been "rigorously impartial". But the incident showed the high emotions and divisions stirred by the referendum, which could result in the end of the 307-year-old union with England and the break-up of the United Kingdom. "No one wants to forget what we achieved together during the two World Wars. But where's the vision for the future?" said Ian, an IT manager from Glasgow who had been on the march. Independence supporters say it is time for Scotland to choose its own leaders and rule itself, free of control from London and politicians they say ignore their views and needs. "No" campaigners say Scotland is more secure and prosperous as part of the United Kingdom and the end of the union would destroy three centuries of bonds and shared history as well as bring in economic and financial hardship. More than 4 million Scots as well as English and foreign residents, from the Highands and Islands to Glasgow's gritty inner city estates, are eligible to vote. The question on the ballot paper will ask simply: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Out of four new polls, three showed those in favour of maintaining the union with a lead of between 2 and 8 percentage points. But an ICM poll conducted over the Internet showed supporters of independence in the lead with 54 percent and unionists on 46 percent. RELOCATION PLANS Last week, Scottish–based banks including RBS (RBS.L) said they had plans to relocate should independence happen, big retailers spoke of possible price rises north of the border and Germany's Deutsche Bank warned of economic meltdown. Salmond has dismissed this as a London-contrived campaign of bullying and scare-mongering. However, the pound had dropped on market concerns of a "Yes" victory and investors have pulled billions out of British financial assets. The biggest financial question is what currency an independent Scotland would use. Salmond insists it would keep the pound in a currency union with the rump UK, but Prime Minister David Cameron and others have ruled this out. Until September, all polls but one in 2013 had shown the unionists with a comfortable lead. But such is the gravity of the situation that finance minister George Osborne cancelled a trip to the G20 meeting in Australia after the vote. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney will leave the G20 meeting early. The Queen's comment was taken by unionists as a sign of support for Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom. A Buckingham Palace source stressed that the queen was constitutionally above politics and would express no view. Salmond has said she should stay on as Queen of Scots if independence happens. Meanwhile the head of the Church of Scotland appealed for Scots to put their differences aside and reconcile after the referendum, whatever the outcome. In a nationally-broadcast sermon at Edinburgh’s St. Mary's Episcopal Cathedral, Reverend John Chalmers urged Scots to vote. But he added: "The real success of next Thursday will be that...every voice will continue to play its part in shaping the kind of Scotland that people in Scotland vote for," he said. (Additional reporting by Guy Faulconbridge, Writing by Angus MacSwan, Editing by Ralph Boulton) ||||| The Queen made a rare intervention on the political stage when she expressed the hope that voters will "think very carefully about the future" before the Scottish independence referendum on Thursday. As David Cameron prepares to issue a warning in Scotland that a vote for independence will lead to a permanent split from the UK, campaigners for the union welcomed the Queen's remarks as a reminder of the monumental decision facing voters in Scotland. The comments by the Queen came as she left Crathie Kirk near her Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire after the Sunday morning service. The Queen told a well-wisher: "Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future." The Queen's remarks were interpreted by no campaigners as helpful to their cause. They were seen to tally with a warning the prime minister will deliver in Scotland on Monday, on his final visit north of the border before Thursday's vote, that a vote for independence would lead to an irrevocable break with the UK. The prime minister will say: "This is a once-and-for-all decision. If Scotland votes yes, the UK will split, and we will go our separate ways for ever." Downing Street sources said that Cameron would also have a positive message about the benefits of remaining in the UK. He may refer to a decision by David Beckham to put his name to a long list of celebrities, actors and cultural figures who have signed an open letter urging Scotland to vote no. Organised by the TV historians Tom Holland and Dan Snow, their "stay with us" campaign is due to hold a vigil in Trafalgar Square, London, tonight. A series of opinion polls confirmed the two campaigns are in effect neck and neck. An Opinium poll for the Observer found that no was six points ahead with 53% to 47% for yes. A further poll by Panelbase for the Sunday Times put the two campaigns only two points apart at 51% for no and 49% for yes. A further ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph gave yes a more dramatic lead of 54% to 46%, but its significance was played down since its sample was only 700, under the normal threshold of 1,000 voters. Alex Salmond said that the "extraordinary manifestations" of support he has encountered during a whistle-stop tour of Scottish towns and cities over the past 72 hours has convinced him he is on the verge of a historic victory that would lead to the collapse of the 307-year-old union. Pointing to the Scottish National Party's shock landslide victory in the 2011 Holyrood elections, where it won the first overall majority since devolution in 1999, the first minister told the Guardian: "I sense a momentum which is much greater than that. I experienced that campaign and I knew what was happening – it was great but I see now on the streets of Scotland today – the east end of Glasgow and Dumfries where 500 people arrived out of nowhere to campaign on the bridge over the Nith – these are extraordinary manifestations of people mobilised because they sense the momentum for Scotland; this time of opportunity, this chance of a lifetime." Salmond had earlier moved to reassure traditionalists when he said the "Queen and her successors" would remain as head of state in an independent Scotland. He told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1: "We want to see Her Majesty the Queen as Queen of the Scots. That is a fantastic title and a fantastic prospect." The Queen indicated that she is fully seized of the historic importance of the referendum when she spoke about the vote outside Crathie Kirk after a well-wisher joked that they would not mention the referendum. The Queen, who remains above the political fray as a constitutional monarch, observed the proprieties of not endorsing either side in the referendum. A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "We never comment on private exchanges or conversations. We just reiterate what the Queen has always said: she maintains her constitutional impartiality. As the Queen has always said, this is a matter for the people of Scotland." But the Queen's remarks were warmly welcomed in private by the pro-UK side, who are keen to impress on voters that they will make an irrevocable decision if they vote for independence. In his address, the prime minister will say: "This is a decision that could break up our family of nations and rip Scotland from the rest of the UK. And we must be very clear. There's no going back from this. No re-run." The remarks by the Queen came after the palace insisted last week that the monarch, who spends every summer at her Balmoral estate and whose mother was Scottish, was remaining above the fray in the referendum. This followed reports that the Queen was horrified by the prospect that her kingdom may be broken up. Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, weighed in last week when he said it "might be handy" if the Queen intervened on behalf of the pro-UK side. Some campaigners for the union have pointed out that in 1977, the year of her silver jubilee, the Queen said in a speech in Westminster Hall: "I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Salmond insisted that a yes vote was thriving because of a "joyful, liberating and empowering" grassroots campaign. But the yes campaign came under heavy attack after hundreds of pro-independence protesters marched to the BBC Scotland headquarters in Glasgow calling the BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, a "liar", and demanding he be sacked. Robinson clashed with Salmond last week after the BBC journalist pressed the first minister over threats by banks to leave Scotland. The crowd accused the BBC of "killing democracy", claiming in one large banner that Robinson was "a totally corrupt journalist these days, typical of the British Biased Corporation". Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former head of communications, tweeted: "had my run-ins with BBC, but organised protests like the one going on now is beyond Tebbit, and not far off Putin. Vote YES for intimidation". Further evidence about the deep misgivings of the UK's largest companies emerged after 78% of company chairmen in FTSE 100 companies said independence would damage the economy, according to a poll by the executive consultancy Korn Ferry. Only a third of the 28 chairmen polled said they were "fully prepared" for a yes vote. The centre-right Centre for Policy Studies thinktank warned that Scotland faced a £14bn black hole in its budget, because of an expected slump in North Sea oil forecasts and "the probable flight of a large proportion of the financial services sector from Scotland." • This article was amended on 15 September 2014. It mistakenly described Tom Holland as an actor. He is, among other things, a TV historian. This has been corrected.

– With just a few days to go before Scotland votes on independence, Queen Elizabeth II has spoken out on the issue for the first time. In what opponents of independence have interpreted as a statement of firm support for their No campaign, the monarch told a well-wisher outside a Scottish church that people should "think very carefully about the future" before voting, the Guardian reports. The queen—who will remain in place as Scotland's monarch however the vote goes—is on vacation at her Balmoral estate in Scotland and is expected to be there for the next three weeks. Supporters of the pro-independence Yes campaign say the monarch's remarks were politically neutral. "Her Majesty is echoing the message from Yes Scotland to all voters—to think very carefully about this one opportunity that Scotland will have on Thursday to choose our future," a spokesman tells the Telegraph. Both sides held large rallies over the weekend, with polls showing Yes and No neck and neck, reports Reuters. Pro-independence leader Alex Salmond accuses the British establishment of panicking as the Yes side gains momentum, while the No campaign warns of economic uncertainty and possible breakdown if Scotland splits from the UK.

Click for larger image Credit: Getty Images The Navy SEAL who says he killed Osama bin Laden is unemployed and waiting for disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In an exclusive story for Esquire by Phil Bronstein of the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Shooter adds many details to what already is known about the death of the al-Qaida leader. His name is withheld to protect his identity. The Shooter told Bronstein, CIR’s executive chairman, that he alone killed the terrorist leader, recounting minute details of those brief seconds. As the second Navy SEAL up a staircase, he saw bin Laden inside a room. “For me it was a snapshot of a target ID, definitely him,” he said. “Even in our kill houses where we train, there are targets with his face on them. This was repetition and muscle memory. That’s him, boom, done.” But perhaps the Shooter’s most explosive revelation is that nearly six months after leaving the military, he feels abandoned by the government. Physically aching and psychologically wrecked after hundreds of combat missions, he left the military a few years short of the retirement requirement with no pension and no job. "Navy SEALs go through a highly demanding selection process. They are selected for physical, mental and psychological qualities that are exceptional. The fact that this hero, with these qualities, cannot find employment is shocking to me," said retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command. Like 820,000 other veterans, the Shooter has a disability claim that is stuck in a seemingly interminable backlog at the VA, where the average wait time currently exceeds nine months, based on the agency’s own data. The speedier special track for Special Forces veterans appears to have eluded him, and so his neck, back and eye injuries remain uncompensated, removing a chance for a modicum of financial stability. Since a required medical exam in August, which he said he attended in full dress uniform including his gold SEAL Trident and combat awards, the Shooter’s only communication from the VA has been computer-generated form letters. “It is our sincere desire to decide your case promptly. However, as we have a great number of claims, action on yours may be delayed,” reads one letter dated Dec. 10. “If we need anything else from you, we will contact you, so there is no need to contact us.” The fact that even bin Laden’s killer has to wait for his benefits “just underscores how much you’re squandering the talents of the generation,” said Paul Rieckhoff, founder and CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “There is a widespread frustration with the inability of veterans to get their benefits when they come home, and that includes SEALS,” he added. The VA did not immediately return calls seeking comment. In an interview, Col. Tim Nye, spokesman for the U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., said the Shooter was treated according to military regulations. He did not deserve a pension, Nye said, because he served for 16 years, not the required 20. “Those are the rules that are in place, and he was well aware of those,” Nye said. “Clearly, the best of the best, he has done everything that was asked of him and more – but that’s what he signed up to do.” But in the U.S. Capitol, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee from both parties expressed concern. “We obviously owe him a lot, and we’ve got to find a way to help folks who serve a long time but less than the retirement age and find some way for them to transition,” said Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who leads the committee. One of the country’s most prominent veterans, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, “The country owes him its gratitude and the benefits we can provide him to assist him in anyway possible.” Late Monday, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced that he would be holding hearings next month on what he called "a broken claims system." "It is simply not acceptable for any veteran to wait many months or years for the benefits that they are entitled to receive," Sanders, chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said in a statement. According to the Shooter’s account of the May 2011 mission, bin Laden stood in front of him, an AK-47 within reach. The terrorist, he said, pushed his youngest wife, Amal, in front of him in the pitch-black room. The Navy SEAL, wearing night-vision goggles, had to raise his gun higher than he expected before shooting three bullets into bin Laden’s forehead at close range. “He looked confused. And way taller than I was expecting,” the Shooter said. In that moment, the Shooter said he felt a deep inner conflict, about whether he had done the right thing by killing the world’s most wanted man. “I remember as I watched him breathe out the last part of air, I thought: Is this the best thing I’ve done, or the worst thing I’ve ever done?” he said. “His forehead was gruesome. It was split open in a shape of a V. I could see his brains spilling out over his face. The American public doesn’t want to know what that looks like.” The Shooter’s account differs from other descriptions of bin Laden’s death and contradicts some statements by Matt Bissonnette, another member of Navy SEAL Team 6. In his book, “No Easy Day,” Bissonnette said he stood directly behind the SEAL team’s point man when the point man shot bin Laden. According to the Shooter, the point man took a shot or two at bin Laden when bin Laden peeked around a curtain in the hallway a floor above them, but even after that the terrorist leader was still standing and moving. The point man was not in the room when bin Laden was killed, the Shooter said, because he had tackled two women into the hallway, believing they were wearing suicide vests. “It was the most heroic thing I’ve ever seen,” he said. Addressing the differences, CIR Executive Director Robert J. Rosenthal said: “The Shooter’s version of events is not the only one out there. But we believe his version of events is the most credible.” The Shooter does not dispute Bissonnette’s account that Bissonnette entered the third-floor room after bin Laden already was fatally wounded, and along with another SEAL, continued to fire shots into the al-Qaida leader until his body was torn apart. Together with Bronstein, the Shooter saw “Zero Dark Thirty,” the Oscar-nominated film by Kathryn Bigelow about the killing of bin Laden. While Bigelow “Hollywooded it up some,” most of the Shooter’s criticisms of the film were minor. The stairs inside bin Laden’s compound were not properly configured, he said, and none of the SEALs uttered the al-Qaida leader’s name. “The mission in the damn movie took way too long,” the Shooter said. But the portrayal of “Maya,” the CIA operative who identified the complex where bin Laden was hiding, was right on target, he said, adding, “They made her a tough woman, which she is.” The Shooter said the CIA operative broke down in tears at the sight of bin Laden’s body back at the Afghanistan base and that he gave her his magazine, which still contained 27 shots, as a souvenir. “We looked down and I asked, ‘Is that your guy?’ ” he said. After the raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, the Shooter served one more deployment in Afghanistan and then left the military. “I wanted to see my children graduate and get married,” he said. He hoped to sleep through the night for the first time in years. “I was burned out,” he said. “And I realized that when I stopped getting an adrenaline rush from gunfights, it was time to go.” Brandon Webb, a former course manager for the U.S. Navy SEAL sniper program, said the Shooter’s inability to earn his pension was perplexing, representing a failure of both the system and the sailor. “I find it very strange that this SEAL took it upon himself to leave the Navy when he could have stayed in another four years and retired,” Webb said. “Something is not right here.” The VA offers five years of virtually free health care for every veteran honorably discharged after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, even when he or she leaves the military early. But the Shooter told Bronstein that none of the counselors who came to SEAL Command told him that. That coverage also would not extend to his family. “Families aren’t being cared for,” said Barbara Cohoon, deputy director of government relations for the National Military Family Association. Her group, based in Virginia, is expected to testify Wednesday before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee to push for increased access to health care, particularly mental health services, for military families. “Oftentimes, they lose their support systems the moment a service member leaves the military,” she said. Nationwide, VA documents show that nearly 681,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans discharged from the military have not sought health care from the VA. According to a study last year from the Urban Institute, 291,000 are uninsured – with neither private health insurance nor VA coverage. The Shooter says his disability claim is less about the money it would provide than the right to free health care it would bring. While the VA now provides five years of virtually free health care to all honorably discharged Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, they can face bureaucratic nightmares later on if their conditions are not deemed service-connected. Despite 16 years serving his country, the Shooter says he has never accessed – or been informed of – unique services available to Special Forces veterans, including an effort called the Care Coalition launched by Special Operations Command in 2005. The Shooter also says he has seen no evidence that he has been routed through a special track for disability claims that the Department of Veterans Affairs set up for Special Forces veterans in 2009. Under this policy, if a veteran files a disability claim based on involvement in a secret mission, VA claims examiners are supposed to turn files over to a special liaison at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., where Special Operations Command is located. The move was meant to speed processing of claims by Special Forces veterans, who had difficulty proving their injuries were caused by military service because of the classified nature of their work. Now out of the military, the Shooter has separated from his wife, but the two still live together for financial reasons. Since the raid in Abbottabad, the story says, “he has trained his children to hide in their bathtub at the first sign of a problem as the safest, most fortified place in their house.” He keeps a shotgun on the armoire and a knife on the dresser. The military provides no protection. Nye, the spokesman for U.S. Special Operation’s Command, said that if the Shooter was concerned for his safety, he should have not spoken to the media. “He’s made himself a public figure,” Nye said. “That doesn’t track that well.” Bobby Caina Calvan contributed to this report from Washington. ||||| In light of the controversial claims in Seymour Hersh's new story on the death of Osama bin Laden, here is "The Shooter," Phil Bronstein's definitive account of the SEAL Team 6 operation that killed the al Qaeda leader, from the March 2013 issue. (Originally kept anonymous to protect him and his family, "the Shooter" has since the story's publication identified himself as SEAL veteran Robert O'Neill.) *** This article was published in the March 2013 issue. Phil Bronstein is the former editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and currently serves as executive chairman of the Center for Investigative Reporting. This piece was reported in cooperation with CIR. Note: A correction is appended to the end of this story. *** The man who shot and killed Osama bin Laden sat in a wicker chair in my backyard, wondering how he was going to feed his wife and kids or pay for their medical care. It was a mild spring day, April 2012, and our small group, including a few of his friends and family, was shielded from the sun by the patchwork shadows of maple trees. But the Shooter was sweating as he talked about his uncertain future, his plans to leave the Navy and SEAL Team 6. He stood up several times with an apologetic gripe about the heat, leaving a perspiration stain on the seat-back cushion. He paced. I didn't know him well enough then to tell whether a glass of his favorite single malt, Lagavulin, was making him less or more edgy. We would end up intimately familiar with each other's lives. We'd have dinners, lots of Scotch. He's played with my kids and my dogs and been a hilarious, engaging gentleman around my wife. In my yard, the Shooter told his story about joining the Navy at nineteen, after a girl broke his heart. To escape, he almost by accident found himself in a Navy recruiter's office. "He asked me what I was going to do with my life. I told him I wanted to be a sniper. "He said, 'Hey, we have snipers.' "I said, 'Seriously, dude. You do not have snipers in the Navy.' But he brought me into his office and it was a pretty sweet deal. I signed up on a whim." "That's the reason Al Qaeda has been decimated," he joked, "because she broke my fucking heart." I would come to know about the Shooter's hundreds of combat missions, his twelve long-term SEAL-team deployments, his thirty-plus kills of enemy combatants, often eyeball to eyeball. And we would talk for hours about the mission to get bin Laden and about how, over the celebrated corpse in front of them on a tarp in a hangar in Jalalabad, he had given the magazine from his rifle with all but three lethally spent bullets left in it to the female CIA analyst whose dogged intel work and intuition led the fighters into that night. When I was first around him, as he talked I would always try to imagine the Shooter geared up and a foot away from bin Laden, whose life ended in the next moment with three shots to the center of his forehead. But my mind insisted on rendering the picture like a bad Photoshop job — Mao's head superimposed on the Yangtze, or tourists taking photos with cardboard presidents outside the White House. Bin Laden was, after all, the man CIA director Leon Panetta called "the most infamous terrorist in our time," who devoured inordinate amounts of our collective cultural imagery for more than a decade. The number-one celebrity of evil. And the man in my backyard blew his lights out. ST6 in particular is an enterprise requiring extraordinary teamwork, combined with more kinds of support in the field than any other unit in the history of the U.S. military. Similarly, NASA marshaled thousands of people to put a man on the moon, and history records that Neil Armstrong first set his foot there, not the equally talented Buzz Aldrin. Enough people connected to the SEALs and the bin Laden mission have confirmed for me that the Shooter was the "number two" behind the raid's point man going up the stairs to bin Laden's third-floor residence, and that he is the one who rolled through the bedroom door solo and confronted the surprisingly tall terrorist pushing his youngest wife, Amal, in front of him through the pitch-black room. The Shooter had to raise his gun higher than he expected. The point man is the only one besides the Shooter who could verify the kill shots firsthand, and he did just that to another SEAL I spoke with. But even the point man was not in the room then, having tackled two women into the hallway, a crucial and heroic decision given that everyone living in the house was presumed to be wearing a suicide vest. But a series of confidential conversations, detailed descriptions of mission debriefs, and other evidence make it clear: The Shooter's is the most definitive account of those crucial few seconds, and his account, corroborated by multiple sources, establishes him as the last man to see Osama bin Laden alive. Not in dispute is the fact that others have claimed that they shot bin Laden when he was already dead, and a number of team members apparently did just that. What is much harder to understand is that a man with hundreds of successful war missions, one of the most decorated combat veterans of our age, who capped his career by terminating bin Laden, has no landing pad in civilian life. Back in April, he and some of his SEAL Team 6 colleagues had formed the skeleton of a company to help them transition out of the service. In my yard, he showed everyone his business-card mock-ups. There was only a subtle inside joke reference to their team in the company name. Unlike former SEAL Team 6 member Matt Bissonnette (No Easy Day), they do not rush to write books or step forward publicly, because that violates the code of the "quiet professional." Someone suggested they might sell customized sunglasses and other accessories special operators often invent and use in the field. It strains credulity that for a commando team leader who never got a single one of his men hurt on a mission, sunglasses would be his best option. And it's a simple truth that those who have been most exposed to harrowing danger for the longest time during our recent unending wars now find themselves adrift in civilian life, trying desperately to adjust, often scrambling just to make ends meet. At the time, the Shooter's uncle had reached out to an executive at Electronic Arts, hoping that the company might need help with video-game scenarios once the Shooter retired. But the uncle cannot mention his nephew's distinguishing feature as the one who put down bin Laden. Secrecy is a thick blanket over our Special Forces that inelegantly covers them, technically forever. The twenty-three SEALs who flew into Pakistan that night were directed by their command the day they got back stateside about acting and speaking as though it had never happened. "Right now we are pretty stacked with consultants," the video-game man responded. "Thirty active and recently retired guys" for one game: Medal of Honor Warfighter. In fact, seven active-duty Team 6 SEALs would later be punished for advising EA while still in the Navy and supposedly revealing classified information. (One retired SEAL, a participant in the bin Laden raid, was also involved.) With the focus and precision he's learned, the Shooter waits and watches for the right way to exit, and adapt. Despite his foggy future, his past is deeply impressive. This is a man who is very pleased about his record of service to his country and has earned the respect of his peers. "He's taken monumental risks," says the Shooter's dad, struggling to contain the frustration that roughs the edges of his deep pride in his son. "But he's unable to reap any reward." It's not that there isn't one. The U.S. government put a $25 million bounty on bin Laden that no one is likely to collect. Certainly not the SEALs who went on the mission nor the support and intelligence experts who helped make it all possible. Technology is the key to success in this case more than people, Washington officials have said. The Shooter doesn't care about that. "I'm not religious, but I always felt I was put on the earth to do something specific. After that mission, I knew what it was." Others also knew, from the commander-in-chief on down. The bin Laden shooting was a staple of presidential-campaign brags. One big-budget movie, several books, and a whole drawerful of documentaries and TV films have fortified the brave images of the Shooter and his ST6 Red Squadron members. There is commerce attached to the mission, and people are capitalizing. Just not the triggerman. While others collect, he is cautious and careful not to dishonor anyone. His manners come at his own expense. "No one who fights for this country overseas should ever have to fight for a job," Barack Obama said last Veterans' Day, "or a roof over their head, or the care that they have earned when they come home." But the Shooter will discover soon enough that when he leaves after sixteen years in the Navy, his body filled with scar tissue, arthritis, tendonitis, eye damage, and blown disks, here is what he gets from his employer and a grateful nation: Nothing. No pension, no healthcare for his wife and kids, no protection for himself or his family. Since Abbottabad, he has trained his children to hide in their bathtub at the first sign of a problem as the safest, most fortified place in their house. His wife is familiar enough with the shotgun on their armoire to use it. She knows to sit on the bed, the weapon's butt braced against the wall, and precisely what angle to shoot out through the bedroom door, if necessary. A knife is also on the dresser should she need a backup. Then there is the "bolt" bag of clothes, food, and other provisions for the family meant to last them two weeks in hiding. "Personally," his wife told me recently, "I feel more threatened by a potential retaliatory terror attack on our community than I did eight years ago," when her husband joined ST6. When the White House identified SEAL Team 6 as those responsible, camera crews swarmed into their Virginia Beach neighborhood, taking shots of the SEALs' homes. After bin Laden's face appeared on their TV in the days after the killing, the Shooter cautioned his older child not to mention the Al Qaeda leader's name ever again "to anybody. It's a bad name, a curse name." His kid started referring to him instead as "Poopyface." It's a story he told affectionately on that April afternoon visit to my home. He loves his kids and tears up only when he talks about saying goodbye to them before each and every deployment. "It's so much easier when they're asleep," he says, "and I can just kiss them, wondering if this is the last time." He's thrilled to show video of his oldest in kick-boxing class. And he calls his wife "the perfect mother." In fact, the couple is officially separated, a common occurrence in ST6. SEAL marriages can be perilous. Husbands and fathers have been mostly away from their families since 9/11. But the Shooter and his wife continue to share a house on very friendly, even loving terms, largely to save money. "We're actually looking into changing my name," the wife says. "Changing the kids' names, taking my husband's name off the house, paying off our cars. Essentially deleting him from our lives, but for safety reasons. We still love each other." When the family asked about any kind of government protection should the Shooter's name come out, they were advised that they could go into a witness-protection-like program. Just as soon as the Department of Defense creates one. "They [SEAL command] told me they could get me a job driving a beer truck in Milwaukee" under an assumed identity. Like Mafia snitches, they would not be able to contact their families or friends. "We'd lose everything." "These guys have millions of dollars' worth of knowledge and training in their heads," says one of the group at my house, a former SEAL and mentor to the Shooter and others looking to make the transition out of what's officially called the Naval Special Warfare Development Group. "All sorts of executive function skills. That shouldn't go to waste." The mentor himself took a familiar route — through Blackwater, then to the CIA, in both organizations as a paramilitary operator in Afghanistan. Private security still seems like the smoothest job path, though many of these guys, including the Shooter, do not want to carry a gun ever again for professional use. The deaths of two contractors in Benghazi, both former SEALs the mentor knew, remind him that the battlefield risks do not go away. By the time the Shooter visited me that first time in April, I had come to know more of the human face of what's called Tier One Special Operations, in addition to the extraordinary skill and icy resolve. It is a privileged, consuming, and concerning look inside one of the most insular clubs on earth. And I understood that he would face a world very different from the supportive one President Obama described at Arlington National Cemetery a few months before. As I watched the Shooter navigate obstacles very different from the ones he faced so expertly in four war zones around the globe, I wondered: Is this how America treats its heroes? The ones President Obama called "the best of the best"? The ones Vice-President Biden called "the finest warriors in the history of the world"? The Shooter's gear. 1 APRIL 2011: THE MISSION The reason we knew this was a special mission, the Shooter said as our interviews about the bin Laden operation began, is because we'd just finished an Afghanistan deployment and were on a training trip, diving in Miami, when a few of us got recalled to the Command in Virginia Beach. Another ST6 team was on official standby — normally that's the team that blows out for a contingency operation. But they were not chosen, to better cloak what was going to happen. There was so much going on — the Libya thing, the Arab Spring. We knew something good was going to go down. We didn't know how good. The first day's briefing, they actually kind of lied to us, being very vague. They mentioned underwater cables because of the earthquake in Japan or some craziness. They hinted at Libya. They said it was a compound somewhere in a bowl and we were going to have two aircraft get us there and we don't know how many are inside but we have to get something out. You won't have any air support. I assumed it was WMD, a nuke, because why else are they sending us to Libya? Every question the Red Squadron ST6 members asked was answered with, "Well, we can't tell you that." Or: "We don't know." It was also weird that the entire Red Squadron was in town, but they kicked everyone out of the briefing except those guys who were going, twenty-three and four backups. We'd leave the room to get coffee and stuff, and the other guys were like, "Well, what are you guys doing?" We were telling them, "I have no idea." The Shooter was a mission team leader. Almost everyone chosen had a one or two ranking in the squadron, the most experienced guys. The group was split into four tactical teams, with the Shooter as leader of the external-security group — the dog, Cairo, two snipers, and a CIA interpreter to keep whoever might show up in the area out of the internal action. The group left Virginia on a Sunday morning, April 10, to drive to the CIA's Harvey Point, North Carolina, center for another briefing and the start of training. The Master Chief was saying JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] would be there, the Secretary of Defense might be there, the Pak/Afghan CIA desk, too. That's when the wheels started spinning for me: This is big. I've had some close calls with death, bullets flying past my head. Even just driving, weird stuff. Every time, I would tell my mother, "There's no way I'm going to die, because I'm here to do something." I've been saying that for twenty years. I don't know what it is, but it's something important. By Monday the team was assembled in a big classroom inside a one-story building. They actually had security sitting outside. No one else was allowed in. A JSOC general, Pak/Afghan and other D.C. officials, and the ST6 commanding officer were there. The SEAL commander, cool as ever, said, "Okay, we're as close as we've ever been to UBL." And that was it. He kind of looked at us and we looked at him and nodded. There was none of that cheering bullshit. We were thinking, Yeah, okay, good. It's about time that we kill this motherfucker. It was simple. This is what I came for. Jealousies aside, one of us is going to have the best chance of killing this guy. During the daylong briefing, the SEALs heard how the government found the compound in Abbottabad, how they were watching it, analyzing it, why they believed bin Laden might be there. He, UBL, had become known as the Pacer, the tall guy in satellite imagery who neither left nor mixed with the others. It was the CIA woman, now immortalized in books and movies, who gave the briefing. "Yeah," she told us. "We got him. This is him. This is my life's work. I'm positive." By then, government and military officials had been considering four options. They were either going to bomb the piss out of the compound with two-thousand-pound ordnance, they were going to send us in, do some kind of joint thing with the Pakis, or try what was called a "hammer throw," where a drone flies by and chucks one fucking bomb at the guy. But they didn't want any collateral damage. And they wanted to make sure he was dead and not in a cave or a safe room. After the group settled into "motel-like" rooms, with common areas that had TVs and a kitchen, the team started strategizing with a model of the compound on a large table. Then they drove to a full-scale mock-up for a walk-through. The next day the helos came and we started doing iteration training based on how we wanted to hit it. Once I realized what was going on, I actually moved myself to one of the assault teams, even if I was no longer a team leader. We didn't need that many guys on the exterior team, and I'll go fast-rope on the roof with what I started calling the Martyrs Brigade, because as soon as we landed, I figured the house was going to blow up. But we were also going to be the guys in there first to kill him. One sniper would also be on the roof to lean over and try to take a shot upside down. The rest of the team would rope again down to the third-floor windows and get your gun up fast because he's probably standing there with his gun. If you fell, it would suck. If the group made it inside, there were other issues. I've been in houses before with IEDs in them designed to blow everything up. They'd hang them in the middle of the room so it's a bigger explosion. I was usually the guy to joke around when we were planning these things — we all dick around a lot. But I was like, "Hey guys, we have to take this fucking serious. There's a 90 percent chance this is a one-way mission. We're gonna die, so let's do this right." The discussions went on, almost a luxury. We're used to going on the fly, five, six nights a week on deployment. Here's your target, we're leaving in twenty minutes. Come up with a plan. This compound was pretty easy, though we had no clue about the inside layout. The group reviewed contingencies: How do we handle cars? What if a helo went down? What do we do if the helo doors don't open? Shit like that. The first helicopter was going to land in front of the house. We were going to put our external security out and our bird was going to go back up and we'd fast-rope onto the roof. So we'd have one assault team from the other chopper coming up the stairs, and we'd be going down. It was March 2012, a blossoming time of year in the capital of the free world. The intimate dinner party was already under way at a stylish split-level apartment one block from the Washington Hilton. The hostess was a military contractor, and there was a lobbyist there, along with another young woman, a Capitol Hill veteran. The Shooter's mentor was behind the kitchen counter, putting a final grill-sauce flair on some huge slabs of red meat when four men, all of them imposing and fit, came through the front door. The Shooter is thick, like a power lifter, with an audacious set of tattoos. He can be curt and dismissive as his default, but also wickedly funny. It's instantly easy to see why he's considered both a rebellious, pushy pain in the ass by his command and even some of his colleagues, but also a natural leader. An outgoing, charismatic, and determined alpha male in the ultimate alpha crowd. He and his three friends were all active ST6 members that night, though none of the others present had been on the bin Laden mission. This was my first face-to-face meeting with the Shooter, following several phone conversations and much checking on my journalism background, especially in war zones. In a corner, pouring drinks, he and I established some rules. He would consider talking to me only after his last, upcoming four-month deployment to Afghanistan had ended and he had exited the Navy. And he would not go public; he would not be named. That would be counter to the team's code, and it would also put a huge "kill me" target on his back. During the dinner, he told mostly personal stories and took care not to talk in terms of operational security: the deal about the gun magazine and the CIA analyst, the experience of eyeballing bin Laden. "Three of us were driving to our first briefing on the mission," he said. "We were thinking maybe it was Libya, but we knew there would be very high-level brass there. One of my guys says, 'I bet it's bin Laden.'" Another guy told the Shooter, "If it's Osama bin Laden, dude, I will suck yo' dick." "So after I shoot UBL, I bring him over to see his body. 'Okay,' I told him, 'now is as good a time as any.'" The group talked about hairy moments during other missions, stories soldiers and foreign correspondents enjoy swapping. But from the start something was obvious, not just about the Shooter but about his fellow SEALs, too: These men who had heroically faced death and exercised extraordinary violence in almost continuous battle for years on end were fearful of life after war. This is a problem that is becoming more critical as the "best of the best" start leaving the most extended wartime careers in the history of the United States. And it is a problem not just for these men and their families but for the American government, which has come to rely heavily on a steady stream of Tier One special operators (including the Army's Delta Force and the Air Force's 24th Special Tactics Squadron) — men of rarefied toughness and training like these — to maintain a sense of international security in an asymmetrical battlefield. The American way of war has changed radically in the past decade, so that in the future, "boots on the ground" will more and more mean special operators. Which means that there will be increasing numbers of vets in the Shooter's circumstance: abandoned, with limited choices. That night, one of the Shooter's comrades, lantern-jawed, articulate, with a serious academic pedigree, told me: "I've seen a lot of combat, been in some pretty grisly circumstances. But the thing that scares me the most after fifteen years in the SEALs? "Civilian life." <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB410/" target="_blank">National Security Archive</a> 2. "100 PERCENT, HE'S ON THE THIRD FLOOR." The Shooter and the rest of the team made one last night run on the mock-up of the compound in North Carolina, then drove back to their homes and headquarters in Virginia for a brief break. There were goodbyes to his wife and sleeping children. Normally she'd say, 'I'm fine, just go.' This time there was nothing fine about her. Like this would be the last time we'd see each other. Saying goodbye is just horrible. I don't even want to talk about it... this is the last time I'm going to see these children. The Shooter had bought himself $350 Prada sunglasses over the weekend, and much less expensive gifts for his kids. Which makes me a horrible father. But really, he just figured he'd die with some style on. And think of the ad campaign: "If you only have one day to live..." When we got to Nevada a few days later, where the team trained on another full-scale compound model, but this one crudely fashioned from shipping containers, we turned the corner, saw the helos we'd actually use, and I started laughing. I told the guys, "The odds just changed. There's a 90 percent chance we'll survive." They asked why. I said, "I didn't know they were sending us to war on a fucking Decepticon." For the mission, they'd be slipping through the night in the latest model of stealth Black Hawk helicopters. There were days more training, run after run, punctuated by briefings by military brass. They asked us if we were ready. We told them, "Yeah, absolutely. This is going to be easy." This was ultimately an assault mission like hundreds he'd been on, different in only one respect. A critical moment for the mission came when the tireless SEAL Red Team Squadron leader briefed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and Pentagon undersecretary Mike Vickers. He was going to sell it right then. Not just to his superiors but, through them, to the president. We're all in uniform to look professional, and our CO, working on no sleep for days, hit it out of the park. There's no doubt in my mind we're going to go because of his presentation. The group discussed what would happen if they were surrounded by Pakistani troops. We would surrender. The original plan was to have Vice-President Biden fly to Islamabad and negotiate our release with Pakistan's president. This is hearsay, but I understand Obama said, Hell no. My guys are not surrendering. What do we need to rain hell on the Pakistani military? That was the one time in my life I was thinking, I am fucking voting for this guy. I had a picture of him lying in bed at night, thinking, You're not fucking with my guys. Like, he's thinking about us. We got word that we'd be scrambling jets on the border to back us up. An Ambien, a C-17 cargo-plane ride, a short stop in Germany, and they were in Afghanistan. At Jalalabad, the Shooter saw the CIA analyst pacing. She asked me why I was so calm. I told her, We do this every night. We go to a house, we fuck with some people, and we leave. This is just a longer flight. She looked at me and said, "One hundred percent he's on the third floor. So get to there if you can." She was probably 90 percent sure, and her emotion pushed that to 100. Another SEAL squadron, which was already in Afghanistan and would have normally been the assaulters, were very welcoming to us. They would form the Quick Reaction Force flying in behind, on the 47's. The Red Team visitors stayed in "transient" housing. During the day, the group would work with our gear, work out. Nighttime was poker and refreshments, or what is called "fellowship," while they waited for a go from Obama himself. On the treadmill, the Shooter listened to "Red Nation" by the rapper Game. It's about leaving blood on the ground. We were the Red Team and we were going to leave some blood. Other guys ginned up some mixed-martial-arts practice or stretched over foam rollers to keep their joints in good shape. We all wrote letters. I had my shitty little room and I'm sitting on my Pelican case with all my gear, a manila envelope on my bed, and I'm writing letters to my kids. They were to be delivered in case of my death, something for them to read when they're thirty-five. I have no idea what I said except I'm explaining everything, that it was a noble mission and I hope we got him. I'm saying I wish I could be there for them. And the tears are hitting the page, because we all knew that none of us were coming back alive. It was either death or a Pakistani prison, where we'd be raped for the rest of our lives. He gave the letters to an intel guy not on the mission, with instructions. He would shred them if he made it back. You write it, it's horrible, you hand it off, and it's like, Okay, that part's over. And I'm back, ready to roll. By early September of last year, the Shooter was out, officially. Retired. He had survived his last deployment, and there was a barbecue near his house to celebrate with about thirty close friends from "the community." The Redskins were on, his favorite team, and there was lots of Commando ale, brewed by a former SEAL. "I left SEALs on Friday," he said the next time I saw him. It was a little more than thirty-six months before the official retirement requirement of twenty years of service. "My health care for me and my family stopped at midnight Friday night. I asked if there was some transition from my Tricare to Blue Cross Blue Shield. They said no. You're out of the service, your coverage is over. Thanks for your sixteen years. Go fuck yourself." The government does provide 180 days of transitional health-care benefits, but the Shooter is eligible only if he agrees to remain on active duty "in a support role," or become a reservist. Either way, his life would not be his own. Instead, he'll buy private insurance for $486 a month, but some treatments that relieve his wartime pains, like $120 for weekly chiropractic care, are out-of-pocket. Like many vets, he will have to wait at least eight months to have his disability claims adjudicated. Or even longer. The average wait time nationally is more than nine months, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting. Getty Images Pete Souza/The White House 3."HEY, MAN, I JUST SHOT A WOMAN." Waiting in Jalalabad, the teams were getting feedback from Washington. Gates didn't want to do this, Hillary didn't want to do that. The Shooter still thought, We'd train, spin up, then spin down. They'd eventually tank the op and just bomb it. But then the word came to Vice Admiral William McRaven, head of Joint Special Operations Command. The mission was on, originally for April 30, the night of the White House Correspondents' dinner in Washington. McRaven figured it would look bad if all sorts of officials got up and left the dinner in front of the press. So he came up with a cover story about the weather so we could launch on Sunday, May 1, instead. There was one last briefing and an awesome speech from McRaven comparing the looming raid and its fighters to the movie Hoosiers. Then they're gathered by a fire pit, suiting up. Just before he got on the chopper to leave for Abbottabad, the Shooter called his dad. I didn't know where he was, but I found out later he was in a Walmart parking lot. I said, "Hey, it's time to go to work," and I'm thinking, I'm calling for the last time. I thought there was a good chance of dying. He knew something significant was up, though he didn't know what. The Shooter could hear him start to tear up. He told me later that he sat in his pickup in that parking lot for an hour and couldn't get out of the car. The Red Team and members of the other squad hugged one another instead of the usual handshakes before they boarded their separate aircraft. The hangars had huge stadium lights pointing outward so no one from the outside could see what was going on. I took one last piss on the bushes. Ninety minutes in the chopper to get from Jalalabad to Abbottabad. The Shooter noted when the bird turned right, into Pakistani airspace. I was sitting next to the commanding officer, and he's relaying everything to McRaven. I was counting back and forth to a thousand to pass the time. It's a long flight, but we brought these collapsible camping chairs, so we're not uncomfortable. But it's getting old and you're ready to go and you don't want your legs falling asleep. Every fifteen minutes they'd tell us we hadn't been painted [made by Pakistani radar]. I remember banking to the south, which meant we were getting ready to hit. We had about another fifteen minutes. Instead of counting, for some reason I said to myself the George Bush 9/11 quote: Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended. I could just hear his voice, and that was neat. I started saying it again and again to myself. Then I started to get pumped up. I'm like: This is so on. I was concerned for the two [MH-47 Chinook] big-boat choppers crossing the Pakistani border forty-five minutes after we did, both full of my guys from the other squadron, the backup and extraction group. The 47's have some awesome antiradar shit on them, too. But it's still a school bus flying into a sovereign nation. If the Pakistanis don't like it, they can send a jet in to shoot them down. Flying in, we were all just sort of in our own world. My biggest concern was having to piss really bad and then having to get off in a fight needing to pee. We actually had these things made for us, like a combination collapsible dog bowl and diaper. I still have mine; I never used it. I used one of my water bottles instead. I forgot until later that when I shot bin Laden in the face, I had a bottle of piss in my pocket. I would have pissed my pants rather than trying to fight with a full bladder. Above the compound, the Shooter could hear only his helo pilot in the flight noise. "Dash 1 going around" meant the other chopper was circling back around. I thought they'd taken fire and were just moving. I didn't realize they crashed right then. But our pilot did. He put our five perimeter guys out, went up, and went right back down outside the compound, so we knew something was wrong. We weren't sure what the fuck it was. We opened the doors, and I looked out. The area looked different than where we trained because we're in Pakistan now. There are the lights, the city. There's a golf course. And we're, This is some serious Navy SEAL shit we're going to do. This is so badass. My foot hit the ground and I was still running [the Bush quote] in my head. I don't care if I die right now. This is so awesome. There was concern, but no fear. I was carrying a big-ass sledgehammer to blow through a wall if we had to. There was a gate on the northeast corner and we went right to that. We put a breaching charge on it, clacked it, and the door peeled like a tin can. But it was a fake gate with a wall behind it. That was good, because we knew that someone was defending themselves. There's something good here. We walked down the main long wall to get to the driveway to breach the door there. We were about to blow that next door on the north end when one of the guys from the bird that crashed came around the other side and opened it. So we were moving down the driveway and I looked to the left. The compound was exactly the same. The mock-up had been dead-on. To actually be there and see the house with the three stories, the blacked-out windows, high walls, and barbed wire — and I'm actually in that security driveway with the carport, just like the satellite photos. I was like, This is really cool I'm here. While we were in the carport, I heard gunfire from two different places nearby. In one flurry, a SEAL shot Abrar al-Kuwaiti, the brother of bin Laden's courier, and his wife, Bushra. One of our guys involved told me, "Jesus, these women are jumping in front of these guys. They're trying to martyr themselves. Another sign that this is a serious place. Even if bin Laden isn't here, someone important is." We crossed to the south side of the main building. There the Shooter ran into another team member, who told him, "Hey, man, I just shot a woman." He was worried. I told him not to be. "We should be thinking about the mission, not about going to jail." For the Shooter personally, bin Laden was one bookend in a black-ops career that was coming to an end. But the road to Abbottabad was long, starting with the guys who tried and failed to make it into the SEALs in the first place. Up to 80 percent of applicants wash out, and some almost die trying. In fact, during the Shooter's Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training in the mid-nineties, the torture-chamber menu of physical and emotional resistance and resolve required to get into the SEALs, there was actually a death and resurrection. "One of the tests is they make you dive to the bottom of a pool and tie five knots," the Shooter says. "One guy got to the fifth knot and blacked out underwater. We pulled him up and he was, like, dead. They made the class face the fence while they tried to resuscitate him. The first words as he spit out water were 'Did I pass? Did I tie the fifth knot?' The instructor told him, 'We didn't want to find out if you could tie the knots, you asshole, we wanted to know how hard you'd push yourself. You killed yourself. You passed.'" "I've been drown-proofed once, and it does suck," the Shooter says. Then there is Green Team, the lead-heavy door of entry for SEAL Team 6. Half of the men who are already hardened SEALs don't make it through. "They get in your mind and make you think fast and make decisions during high stress." There have been SEAL teams since the Kennedy years, when they got their first real workout against the Vietcong around Da Nang and in the Mekong Delta, and even during periods of relative peace since Vietnam, SEAL teams have been deployed around the world. But at no time have they been more active than in the period since 2001, in the longest war ever fought by Americans. If the surge in Iraq ordered by President Bush in 2007 was at all successful, that success is owed significantly to the night-shift work done by SEAL Team 6. "We would go kill high-value targets every night," the Shooter tells me. He and other ST6 members who would later be on the Abbottabad trip lived in rough huts with mud floors and cots. "But we were completely disrupting Al Qaeda and other Iraqi networks. If we only killed five or six guys a night, we were wasting our time. We knew this was the greatest moment of our operational lives." From Al Asad to Ramadi to Baghdad to Baquba — Al Qaeda central at the time — the SEALs had latitude to go after "everyone we thought we had to kill. That's really a major reason the surge was going so well, because terrorists were dying strategically." During one raid, accompanied by two dogs, the Shooter says that he and his team wiped out "an entire spiderweb network." Villagers told Iraqi newspapers the next day that "Ninjas came with lions." It is important to him to stress that no women or children were killed in that raid. He also insists that when it came to interrogation, repetitive questioning and leveraging fear was as aggressive as he'd go. "When we first started the war in Iraq, we were using Metallica music to soften people up before we interrogated them," the Shooter says. "Metallica got wind of this and they said, 'Hey, please don't use our music because we don't want to promote violence.' I thought, Dude, you have an album called Kill 'Em All. "But we stopped using their music, and then a band called Demon Hunter got in touch and said, 'We're all about promoting what you do.' They sent us CDs and patches. I wore my Demon Hunter patch on every mission. I wore it when I blasted bin Laden." On deployment in Afghanistan or Iraq, they would "eat, work out, play Xbox, study languages, do schoolwork." And watch the biker series Sons of Anarchy, Entourage, and three or four seasons of The Shield. They were rural high school football stars, backwoods game hunters, and Ivy League graduates thrown together by a serious devotion to the cause, and to the action. Accessories, upbringing, and cultural tastes were just preamble, though, to the real work. As for the Shooter, he jokes that his choice in life was to "go to the SEALs or go to jail." Not that he would have ever found himself behind bars, but he points out traits that all SEALs seem to have in common: the willingness to live beyond the edge, and to do anything, and the resolve to never quit. The bin Laden mission was far from the most dangerous of his career. Once, he was pinned down near Asadabad, Afghanistan, while the SEALs were trying to disrupt Al Qaeda supply lines used to ambush Americans. "Bullets flew between my gun and my face," he says, just as he was inserting some of his favorite Copenhagen chew and then open-field sprinting to retrieve some special equipment he had dropped. That fight ended when he called in air strikes along the eastern Afghan border to light up the enemy. Opening a closet door once, team members found a boy inside. "The natural response was 'C'mon kid.' Then, boom, he blows himself up. Suicide bombers are fast. Other rooms and other places, "we'd go in and a guy would be sleeping. Up against the wall were his cologne, deodorant, soap, suicide vest, AK-47, and grenades." He's also had to collect body parts of his close friends, most notably when a SEAL team chopper was shot down in Afghanistan's Kunar province in June 2005, killing eight SEALs. "We go to a lot of funerals." But for all the big battle boasts that become a sort of currency among SEALs, the Shooter has a deep fondness for the comedy that comes from being around the bunch of guys who are the only people in the world with whom you have so much in common and the only people in the world who can know exactly what you do for a living. "I realized when I joined I had to be a better shot and step up my humor. These guys were hilarious." There are the now-famous pranks with a giant dildo — they called it the Staff of Power — discovered during training in an abandoned Miami building. SEALs would find photos of it inserted into their gas masks or at the bottom of a barrel of animal crackers they were eating. Goats were put in their personal cages at ST6 headquarters. Uniforms were borrowed and dyed pink. Boots were glued to the floor. Flash-bang grenades went off in their gear. The area near the Shooter's cage was such a target for outlandish stunts that it was called the Gaza Strip. Even in action, with all their high state of expertise and readiness, "we're normal people. We fall off ladders, land on the wrong roof, get bitten by dogs." In Iraq, a breacher was putting a charge on a door to blow it off its hinges when he mistakenly leaned against the doorbell. He quickly took off the charge and the target opened the door. We were like, "You rang the fucking doorbell?!" Maybe we should try that more often, the Shooter thought to himself. The dead can also be funny, as long as it's not your guys. "In Afghanistan we were cutting away the clothes on this dead dude to see if he had a suicide vest on, only to find that he had a huge dick, down to his knees. From then on, we called him Abu Dujan Holmes. And then there was the time that the Shooter shit himself on a tandem jump with a huge SEAL who outweighed him by sixty pounds. "The goddamn main chute yanked so hard he slipped two disks in his neck and I filled my socks with human feces. I told him, 'Hey, dude, this is a horrible day.' He said if I went to our reserve chute, 'you're gonna fucking kill me.' He was that convinced his head was going to rip off his body. "Okay, so I'm flying this broken chute, shitting my pants with this near-dead guy connected to me. And we eat shit on the landing. We're lying there and the chute is dragging us across the ground. I hear him go, 'Yeah, that's my last jump for today.' And I said, 'That's cool. Can I borrow your boxers?' "We jumped the next day." The Shooter's willingness to endure comes from a deep personal well of confidence and drive that seems to also describe every one of his peers. But his odyssey through countless outposts in Afghanistan and Iraq to skydives into the Indian Ocean — situations that are always strewn with violence and with his own death always imminent — is grounded by a sense of deep confederacy. "I'm lucky to be with these guys. I'm not going to let them down. I was going to go in for a few years, but then I met these other guys and stuck around because of them." He and one buddy made their first kills at exactly the same time, in Ramadi. Shared bloodletting is as much a bonding agent as shared blood. After Team 6 SEAL Adam Brown was killed in March 2010, Brown's squadron members approached the dead man's kids at the funeral. They were screaming and inconsolable. "You may have lost a father," one of them said, "but you've gained twenty fathers." Most of those SEALs would be killed the next year when their helicopter was shot down in eastern Wardak province. The Shooter feels both the losses and connections no less keenly now that he's out. "One of my closest friends in the world I've been with in SEAL Team 6 the whole time," he says. The Shooter's friend is also looking for a viable exit from the Navy. As he prepared to deploy again, he agreed to talk with me on the condition that I not identify him. "My wife doesn't want me to stay in one more minute than I have to," he says. But he's several years away from official retirement. "I agree that civilian life is scary. And I've got a family to take care of. Most of us have nothing to offer the public. We can track down and kill the enemy really well, but that's it. "If I get killed on this next deployment, I know my family will be taken care of." (The Navy does offer decent life-insurance policies at low rates.) "College will be paid for, they'll be fine. "But if I come back alive and retire, I won't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out for the rest of my life. Sad to say, it's better if I get killed." 4."IS THIS THE BEST THING I'VE EVER DONE, OR THE WORST?" When we entered the main building, there was a hallway with rooms off to the side. Dead ahead is the door to go upstairs. There were women screaming downstairs. They saw the others get shot, so they were upset. I saw a girl, about five, crying in the corner, first room on the right as we were going in. I went, picked her up, and brought her to another woman in the room on the left so she didn't have to be just with us. She seemed too out of it to be scared. There had to be fifteen people downstairs, all sleeping together in that one room. Two dead bodies were also in there. Normally, the SEALs have a support or communications guy who watches the women and children. But this was a pared-down mission intended strictly for an assault, without that extra help. We didn't really have anyone that could stay back. So we're looking down the hallway at the door to the stairwell. I figured this was the only door to get upstairs, which means the people upstairs can't get down. If there had been another way up, we would have found it by then. We were at a standstill on the ground floor, waiting for the breacher to do his work. We'd always assumed we'd be surrounded at some point. You see the videos of him walking around and he's got all those jihadis. But they weren't prepared. They got all complacent. The guys that could shoot shot, but we were on top of them so fast. Right then, I heard one of the guys talking about something, blah, blah, blah, the helo crashed. I asked, What helo crashed? He said it was in the yard. And I said, Bullshit! We're never getting out of here now. We have to kill this guy. I thought we'd have to steal cars and drive to Islamabad. Because the other option was to stick around and wait for the Pakistani military to show up. Hopefully, we don't shoot it out with them. We're going to end up in prison here, with someone negotiating for us, and that's just bad. That's when I got concerned. I've thought about death before, when I've been pinned down for an hour getting shot at. And I wondered what it was going to feel like taking one of those in the face. How long was it going to hurt? But I didn't think about that here. One of the snipers who'd seen the disabled helo approached just before they went into the main building. He said, "Hey, dude, they've got an awesome mock-up of our helo in their yard." I said, "No, dude. They shot one of ours down." He said, "Okay, that makes more sense than the shit I was saying." The breacher had to blast the door twice for it to open. We started rolling up. Team members didn't need much communication, or any orders, once they were on line. We're reading each other every second. We've gotten so good at war, we didn't need anything more. I was about five guys back on the stairway when I saw the point man holding up. He'd seen Khalid, bin Laden's [twenty-three-year-old] son. I heard him whisper, "Khalid... come here..." in Arabic, then in Pashto. He used his name. That confused Khalid. He's probably thinking, "I just heard shitty Arabic and shitty Pashto. Who the fuck is this?" He leaned out, armed with an AK, and he got blasted by the point man. That call-out was one of the best combat moves I've ever seen. Khalid had on a white T-shirt and, like, white pajama pants. He was the last line of security. I remember thinking then: I wish we could live through this night, because this is amazing. I was still expecting all kinds of funky shit like escape slides or safe rooms. The point man moved past doors on the second floor and the four or five guys in front of me started to peel off to clear those rooms, which is always how the flow works. We're just clearing as we go, watching our backs. They step over and past Khalid, who's dead on the stairs. The point man, at that time, saw a guy on the third floor, peeking around a curtain in front of the hallway. Bin Laden was the only adult male left to find. The point man took a shot, maybe two, and the man upstairs disappeared back into a room. I didn't see that because I was looking back. I don't think he hit him. He thinks he might have. So there's the point man on the stairs, waiting for someone to move into the number-two position. Originally I was five or six man, but the train flowed off to clear the second floor. So I roll up behind him. He told me later, "I knew I had some ass," meaning somebody to back him up. I turn around and look. There's nobody else coming up. On the third floor, there were two chicks yelling at us and the point man was yelling at them and he said to me, "Hey, we need to get moving. These bitches is getting truculent." I remember saying to myself, Truculent? Really? Love that word. I kept looking behind us, and there was still no one else there. By then we realized we weren't getting more guys. We had to move, because bin Laden is now going to be grabbing some weapon because he's getting shot at. I had my hand on the point man's shoulder and squeezed, a signal to go. The two of us went up. On the third floor, he tackled the two women in the hallway right outside the first door on the right, moving them past it just enough. He thought he was going to absorb the blast of suicide vests; he was going to kill himself so I could get the shot. It was the most heroic thing I've ever seen. I rolled past him into the room, just inside the doorway. There was bin Laden standing there. He had his hands on a woman's shoulders, pushing her ahead, not exactly toward me but by me, in the direction of the hallway commotion. It was his youngest wife, Amal. The SEALs had nightscopes, but it was coal-black for bin Laden and the other residents. He can hear but he can't see. He looked confused. And way taller than I was expecting. He had a cap on and didn't appear to be hit. I can't tell you 100 percent, but he was standing and moving. He was holding her in front of him. Maybe as a shield, I don't know. For me, it was a snapshot of a target ID, definitely him. Even in our kill houses where we train, there are targets with his face on them. This was repetition and muscle memory. That's him, boom, done. I thought in that first instant how skinny he was, how tall and how short his beard was, all at once. He was wearing one of those white hats, but he had, like, an almost shaved head. Like a crew cut. I remember all that registering. I was amazed how tall he was, taller than all of us, and it didn't seem like he would be, because all those guys were always smaller than you think. I'm just looking at him from right here [he moves his hand out from his face about ten inches]. He's got a gun on a shelf right there, the short AK he's famous for. And he's moving forward. I don't know if she's got a vest and she's being pushed to martyr them both. He's got a gun within reach. He's a threat. I need to get a head shot so he won't have a chance to clack himself off [blow himself up]. In that second, I shot him, two times in the forehead. Bap! Bap! The second time as he's going down. He crumpled onto the floor in front of his bed and I hit him again, Bap! same place. That time I used my EOTech red-dot holo sight. He was dead. Not moving. His tongue was out. I watched him take his last breaths, just a reflex breath. And I remember as I watched him breathe out the last part of air, I thought: Is this the best thing I've ever done, or the worst thing I've ever done? This is real and that's him. Holy shit. Everybody wanted him dead, but nobody wanted to say, Hey, you're going to kill this guy. It was just sort of understood that's what we wanted to do. His forehead was gruesome. It was split open in the shape of a V. I could see his brains spilling out over his face. The American public doesn't want to know what that looks like. Amal turned back, and she was screaming, first at bin Laden and then at me. She came at me like she wanted to fight me, or that she wanted to die instead of him. So I put her on the bed, bound with zip ties. Then I realized that bin Laden's youngest son, who is about two or three, was standing there on the other side of the bed. I didn't want to hurt him, because I'm not a savage. There was a lot of screaming, he was crying, just in shock. I didn't like that he was scared. He's a kid, and had nothing to do with this. I picked him up and put him next to his mother. I put some water on his face. The point man came in and zip-tied the other two women he'd grabbed. The third-floor action and killing took maybe fifteen seconds. The Shooter's oldest child calls the place his dad worked "Crapghanistan," maybe because his deployments meant he regularly missed Christmases, birthdays, and other holidays. "Our marriage was definitely a casualty of his career," says the Shooter's wife. They are officially split but still live together. Separate bedrooms, low overhead. "Somewhere along the line we lost track of each other." She holds his priorities partially responsible: SEAL first, father second, husband third. This part of the Shooter's story is, as his wife puts it, "unique to us but unfortunately not unique in the community." SEAL operators are gone up to three hundred days a year. And when they're not in theater, they're training or soaking in the company of their buds in the absorbing clubhouse atmosphere of ST6 headquarters. "We can't talk with anyone else about what we do," the Shooter says, "or about anything else other than maybe skydiving and broken spleens. When it comes to socializing, it's really tight." His wife understands that "so much of their survival is dependent on the fact that their friends and their jobs are so intertwined." And that "we lived our lives under a veil of secrecy." SEAL Team 6 spouses are nicknamed the Pink Squadron, because the women also rely on their hermetic connections to other wives. When you have no idea where your husband is or what he's doing, other than that it's mortally dangerous, and you can't discuss it — not even with your own mother — your world can feel desperately small. But his wife's concerns, and her own narrative, convey a faithfulness that extends beyond marital fidelity. She has comforted him when he was "inconsolable" after a mission in which he shot the parents of a boy in a crossfire. "He was reliving it, as a dad himself, when he was telling me." Not long after, she tended to him when she found him heavily sedated with an open bottle of Ambien and his pistol nearby. The command had mandatory psych evaluations. During one of those, the Shooter told the psychologist, "I was having suicidal thoughts and drinking too much." The doctor's response? "He told me this was normal for SEALs after combat deployment. He told me I should just drink less and not hurt anybody." The Shooter's wife is indignant. "That's not normal!" Though she knows that "every time you send your husband off to war, you get a slightly different person back." The alone times are deeply trying. Several years ago, a SEAL friend had died in a helicopter crash. The Shooter's wife had just been to his funeral, consoling his widow. The Shooter was on the same deployment, and she had not heard anything about his status. "I came home and was inside holding our infant child. Our front door is all glass, and I see a man in a khaki uniform coming up the steps. All I could do was think, I'd better put the baby down because I'm going to faint. So I set the baby on the floor and answered the door. It was a neighbor with a baby bib I'd dropped outside. I swore at him and slammed the door in his face." It was four days more before she heard that her husband was safe. Given all of that, she has a surprising equanimity about her life. Talking with them separately, the couple's love for each other is evident and deep. "We've grown so much together," she says. "We'll always be best friends. I'll love him till the day I die." She remains in awe of "the level of brilliance these men have. To be surrounded by that caliber of people is something I'll always be grateful for." Her husband's retirement has been no less jarring for her. "He gave so much to his country, and now it seems he's left in the dust. I feel there's no support, not just for my family but for other families in the community. I honestly have nobody I can go to or talk to. Nor do I feel my husband has gotten much for what he's accomplished in his career." Exactly what, if any, responsibility should the government have to her family? The loss of income and insurance and no pension aside, she can no longer walk onto the local base if she feels a threat to her family. They've surrendered their military IDs. If something were to happen, the Shooter has instructed her to take the kids to the base gate anyway and demand to see the commanding officer, or someone from the SEAL team. "He said someone will come get us." Because of the mission, she says that "my family is always going to be at risk. It's just a matter of finding coping strategies." The Shooter still dips his hand in his pocket when they're in a store, checking for a knife in case there's an emergency. He also keeps his eyes on the exits. He's lost some vision, he can't get his neck straight for any period of time. Right now, she's just waiting to see what he creates for himself in this new life. And she's waiting to see how he replaces even the $60,000 a year he was making (with special pay bonuses for different activities). Or how they can afford private health insurance that covers spinal injections she needs for her own sports injuries. "This is new to us, not having the team." 5."WE ALL DID IT." Within another fifteen seconds, other team members started coming in the room. Here, the Shooter demurs about whether subsequent SEALs also fired into bin Laden's body. He's not feeding raw meat to what is an increasingly strict government focus on the etiquette of these missions. But I would have done it if I'd come in the room later. I knew I was going to shoot him if I saw him, regardless. I even joked about that with the guys before we were there. "I don't give a shit if you kill him — if I come in the room, I'm shooting his ass. I don't care if he's deader than fried chicken." In the compound, I thought about getting my camera, and I knew we needed to take pictures and ID him. We had a saying, "You kill him, you clean him." But I was just in a little bit of a zone. I had to actually ask one of my friends who came into the room, "Hey, what do we do now?" He said, "Now we go find the computers." And I remember saying, "Yes! I'm back! Got it!" Because I was almost stunned. Then I just wanted to go get out of the house. We all had a DNA test kit, but I knew another team would be in there to do all that. So I went down to the second floor where the offices were, the media center. We started breaking apart the computer hard drives, cracking the towers. We were looking for thumb drives and disks, throwing them into our net bags. In each computer room, there was a bed. Under the beds were these huge duffel bags, and I'm pulling them out, looking for whatever. At first I thought they were filled with vacuum-sealed rib-eye steaks. I thought, They're in this for the long haul. They've got all this food. Then, wait a minute. This is raw opium. These drugs are everywhere. It was pretty funny to see that. Altogether, he helped clean three rooms on the second floor. The Shooter did not see bin Laden's body again until he and the point man helped two others carry it, already bagged, down the building's hallways and out into the courtyard by the front gate. I saw a sniper buddy of mine down there and I told him, "That's our guy. Hold on to him." Others took the corpse to the surviving Black Hawk. With one helo down, the Shooter was relieved to hear the sound of the 47 Chinook transports arriving. His exfil (extraction) flight out was on one of the 47's, which had almost been blown out of the sky by the SEALs' own explosive charges, set to destroy the downed Black Hawk. One backup SEAL Team 6 member on the flight asked who'd killed UBL. I said I fucking killed him. He's from New York and says, "No shit. On behalf of my family, thank you." And I thought: Wow, I've got a Navy SEAL telling me thanks? "You probably thought you'd never hear this," someone piped through the intercom system over an hour into the return flight, "but welcome back to Afghanistan." Back at the Jalalabad base, we pulled bin Laden out of the bag to show McRaven and the CIA. That's when McRaven had a tall SEAL lie down next to bin Laden to assess his height, along with other, slightly more scientific identity tests. With the body laid out and under inspection, you could see more gunshot wounds to bin Laden's chest and legs. While they were still checking the body, I brought the agency woman over. I still had all my stuff on. We looked down and I asked, "Is that your guy?" She was crying. That's when I took my magazine out of my gun and gave it to her as a souvenir. Twenty-seven bullets left in it. "I hope you have room in your backpack for this." That was the last time I saw her. From there, the team accompanied the body to nearby Bagram Airfield. During the next few hours, the thought that hit me was "This is awesome. This is great. We lived. This is perfect. We just did it all." The moment truly struck at Bagram when I'm eating a breakfast sandwich, standing near bin Laden's body, looking at a big-screen TV with the president announcing the raid. I'm sitting there watching him, looking at the body, looking at the president, eating a sausage-egg-cheese-and-extra-bacon sandwich thinking, "How the fuck did I get here? This is too much." I still didn't know if it would be good or bad. The good was having done something great for my country, for the guys, for the people of New York. It was closure. An honor to be there. I never expected people to be screaming "U.S.A.!" with Geraldo outside the White House. The bad part was security. He was their prophet, basically. Now we killed him and I have to worry about this forever. Al Qaeda, especially these days, is 99 percent talk. But that 1 percent of the time they do shit, it's bad. They're capable of horrific things. We listened to the Al Qaeda phone calls where one guy is saying, "We gotta find out who ratted on bin Laden." The other guy says, "I heard he did it to himself. He was locked up in that house with three wives." Funny terrorists. At Bagram, the point man asked, "Hey, was he hit when you went into the room? I thought I shot him in the head and his cap flew off." I said I didn't know, but he was still walking and he had his hat on. The point man was like "Okay. No big deal." By then we had showered and were having some refreshments. We weren't comparing dicks. I've been in a lot of battles with this guy. He's a fucking amazing warrior, the most honorable, truthful dude I know. I trust him with my life. The Shooter said he and the point man participated in a shooters-only debrief with military officials around a trash can in Jalalabad and then a long session at Bagram Airfield, but they left some details ambiguous. The point man said he took two shots and thought one may have hit bin Laden. He said his number two went into the room "and finished him off as he was circling the drain." This was not exactly as it had gone down, but everyone seemed satisfied. Early government versions of the shooting talked about bin Laden using his wife as protection and being shot by a SEAL inside the room. But subsequent accounts, from officials and others like Bissonnette, further muddied the story and obscured the facts. What the two SEALs did discuss after the action was why there'd been a short gap before more assaulters joined them on the third floor. "Where was everybody else?" the point man asked. I told him we just ran thin. Guys went left and right on the second floor and it was just us. Everything happened really fast. Everybody did their jobs. Any team member would have done exactly what I did. At Jalalabad, as we got off the plane there was an air crew there, guys who fix helicopters. They hugged me and knew I'd killed him. I don't know how the hell word spread that fast. McRaven himself came over to me, very emotional. He grabbed me across the back of my neck like a proud father and gave me a hug. He knew what had happened, too. Not long after, a senior government official had an unofficial phone call with the mentor. "Your boy was the one," the mentor says he was told. The Shooter was alternately shocked and pleased to know that word got back to the States before I did. "Who killed bin Laden?" was the first question, and then the name just flies. And it was the Shooter who, when an Obama administration official asked for details during the president's private visit with the bin Laden team at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, said "We all did it." The SEAL standing next to the Shooter would say later, "Man, I was dying to tell him it was you." From the moment reporters started getting urgent texts hours before President Obama's official announcement on May 1, 2011, the bin Laden mission exploded into public view. Suddenly, a brilliant spotlight was shining where shadows had ruled for decades. TV trucks descended on the SEAL Team 6 community in Virginia Beach, showing their homes and hangouts. "The big mission changed a lot of attitudes around the command," the Shooter says. "There were suspicions about whether anyone was selling out." It had begun "when we were still in the Jalalabad hangar with our shit on. There was a lot of 'Don't let this go to your head, don't talk to anyone,' not even our own Red Team guys who hadn't gone with us." The assaulters "were immediately put in a box, like a time-out," says the Shooter's close friend, who was not on the mission. "'Don't open your mouth.' I would have flown them to Tahoe for a week." But even with the SEALs' strong history of institutional modesty, there was no unringing this bell. The potential for public fame was too great, and suspicion was high inside SEAL Team 6. The Shooter was among those reprimanded for going out to a bar to celebrate the night they got back home. And he was supposed to report for work the next morning, but instead took the day off to spend with his kids. Twenty-four hours later came the offer of witness protection, driving the beer truck in Milwaukee. "That was the best idea on the table for security." "Maybe some courtesy eyes-on checks" of his home, he thought. "Send some Seabees over to put in a heavier, metal-reinforced front door. Install some sensors or something. But there was literally nothing." He considered whether to get a gun permit for life outside the perimeter. The SEALs are proud of being ready for "anything and everything." But when it came to his family's safety? "I don't have the resources." With gossip and finger-pointing continuing over the mission, the Shooter made a decision "to show I wasn't a douchebag, that I'm still part of this team and believe in what we're doing." He re-upped for another four-month deployment. It would be in the brutal cold of Afghanistan's winter. But he had already decided this would be his last deployment, his SEAL Team 6 sayonara. "I wanted to see my children graduate and get married." He hoped to be able to sleep through the night for the first time in years. "I was burned out," he says. "And I realized that when I stopped getting an adrenaline rush from gunfights, it was time to go." May 1, 2012, the first anniversary of the bin Laden mission. The Shooter is getting ready to go play with his kids at a water park. He's watching CNN. "They were saying, 'So now we're taking viewer e-mails. Do you remember where you were when you found out Osama bin Laden was dead?' And I was thinking: Of course I remember. I was in his bedroom looking down at his body." The standing ovation of a country in love with its secret warriors had devolved into a news quiz, even as new generations of SEALs are preparing for sacrifice in the Horn of Africa, Iran, perhaps Mexico. The Shooter himself, an essential part of the team helping keep us safe since 9/11, is now on his own. He is enjoying his family, finally, and won't be kissing his kids goodbye as though it were the last time and suiting up for the battlefield ever again. But when he officially separates from the Navy three months later, where do his sixteen years of training and preparedness go on his résumé? Who in the outside world understands the executive skills and keen psychological fortitude he and his First Tier colleagues have absorbed into their DNA? Who is even allowed to know? And where can he go to get any of these questions answered? There is a Transition Assistance Program in the military, but it's largely remedial level, rote advice of marginal value: Wear a tie to interviews, not your Corfam (black shiny service) shoes. Try not to sneeze in anyone's coffee. There is also a program at MacDill Air Force Base designed to help Special Ops vets navigate various bureaucracies. And the VA does offer five years of health care benefits—through VA physicians and hospitals—for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but it offers nothing for the shooter's family. "It's criminal to me that these guys walk out the door naked," says retired Marine major general Mike Myatt. "They're the greatest of their generation; they know how to get things done. If I were a Fortune 500 company, I'd try to get my hands on any one of them." The general is standing in the mezzanine of the Marines Memorial building he runs in San Francisco. He's had to expand the memorial around the corner due to so many deaths over the past eleven years of war. He is furious about the high unemployment rate among returning infantrymen, as well as homelessness, PTSD, and the other plagues of new veterans. General Myatt believes "the U.S. military is the best in the world at transitioning from civilian to military life and the worst in the world at transitioning back." And that, he acknowledges, doesn't even begin to consider the separate and distinct travesty visited on the Shooter and his comrades. The Special Operations men are special beyond their operations. "These guys are self-actualizers," says a retired rear admiral and former SEAL I spoke with. "Top of the pyramid. If they wanted to build companies, they could. They can do anything they put their minds to. That's how smart they are." But what's available to these superskilled retiring public servants? "Pretty much nothing," says the admiral. "It's 'Thank you for your service, good luck.'" One third-generation military man who has worked both inside and outside government, and who has fought for vets for decades, is sympathetic to the problem. But he notes that the Pentagon is dealing with two hundred thousand new veterans a year, compared with perhaps a few dozen SEALs. "Can and should the DOD spend the extra effort it would take to help the superelite guys get with exactly the kind of employers they should have? Investment bankers, say, value that competition, drive, and discipline, not to mention people with security clearances. They [Tier One vets] should be plugged in at executive levels. Any employers who think about it would want to hire these people." For officials, however, everyone signing out of war is a hero, and even for the masses of retirees, programs are sporadic and often ineffectual. Michelle Obama and Jill Biden have both made transitioning vets a personal cause, though these efforts are largely gestural and don't reach nearly high enough for the skill sets of a member of SEAL Team 6. The Virginia-based Navy SEAL Foundation has a variety of supportive programs for the families of SEALs, and the foundation spends $3.2 million a year maintaining them. But as yet they have no real method or programs for upper-level job placement of their most practiced constituency. A businessman associated with the foundation says he understands that there is a need the foundation does not fill. "This is an ongoing thing where lots of people seem to want to help but no one has ever really done it effectively because our community is so small. No one's ever cracked it. And there real-ly needs to be an education effort well before they separate [from the service] to tell them, 'The world you're about to enter is very different than the one you've been operating in the last fifteen or twenty years.'" One former SEAL I spoke with is a Harvard MBA and now a very successful Wall Street trader whose career path is precisely the kind of example that should be evangelized to outgoing SEALs. His own life reflects that "SpecOps guys could be hugely value-added" to civilian companies, though he says business schools — degrees in general — might be an important step. "It would be great to get a panel of CEOs together who are ready to help these guys get hired." Some big companies do have veteran-outreach specialists — former SEAL Harry Wingo fills that role at Google. But these individual and scattered shots still do not provide what is needed: a comprehensive battle plan. In San Francisco recently, I talked about the Special Ops issue with Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and venture capitalist and Orbitz chairman Jeff Clarke. Both are very interested in offering a business luminary hand to help clandestine operators make their final jump. There is enthusiastic consensus among the business and military people I have canvassed that this kind of outside help is required, perhaps a new nonprofit financed and driven by the Costolos and Clarkes of the world. Even before he retired, the Shooter's new business plan dissolved when the SEAL Team 6 members who formed it decided to go in different directions, each casting for a civilian professional life that's challenging and rewarding. The stark realities of post-SEAL life can make even the blood of brothers turn a little cold. "I still have the same bills I had in the Navy," the Shooter tells me when we talk in September 2012. But no money at all coming in, from anywhere. "I just want to be able to pay all those bills, take care of my kids, and work from there," he says. "I'd like to take the things I learned and help other people in any way I can." In the last few months, the Shooter has put together some work that involves a kind of discreet consulting for select audiences. But it's a per-event deal, and he's not sure how secure or long-term it will be. And he wants to be much more involved in making the post — SEAL Team 6 transition for others less uncertain. The December suicide of one SEAL commander in Afghanistan and the combat death of another — a friend — while rescuing an American doctor from the Taliban underscore his urgent desire to make a difference on behalf of his friends. He imagines traveling back to other parts of the world for a few days at a time to do dynamic surveys for businesses looking to put offices in countries that are not entirely safe, or to protect employees they already have in place. But he is emphatic: He does not want to carry a gun. "I've fought all the fights. I don't have a need for excitement anymore. Honestly." After all, when you've killed the world's most wanted man, not everything should have to be a battle. "They torture the shit out of people in this movie, don't they? Everyone is chained to something." The Shooter is sitting next to me at a local movie theater in January, watching Zero Dark Thirty for the first time. He laughs at the beginning of the film about the bin Laden hunt when the screen reads, "Based on firsthand accounts of actual events." His uncle, who is also with us, along with the mentor and the Shooter's wife, had asked him earlier whether he'd seen the film already. "I saw the original," the Shooter said. As the action moves toward the mission itself, I ask the Shooter whether his heart is beating faster. "No," he says matter-of-factly. But when a SEAL Team 6 movie character yells, "Breacher!" for someone to blow one of the doors of the Abbottabad compound, the Shooter says loudly, "Are you fucking kidding me? Shut up!" He explains afterward that no one would ever yell, "Breacher!" during an assault. Deadly silence is standard practice, a fist to the helmet sufficient signal for a SEAL with explosive packets to go to work. During the shooting sequence, which passes, like the real one, in a flash, his fingers form a steeple under his chin and his focus is intense. But his criticisms at dinner afterward are minor. "The tattoo scene was horrible," he says about a moment in the film when the ST6 assault group is lounging in Afghanistan waiting to go. "Those guys had little skulls or something instead of having some real ink that goes up to here." He points to his shoulder blade. "It was fun to watch. There was just little stuff. The helos turned the wrong way [toward the target], and they talked way, way too much [during the assault itself]. If someone was waiting for you, they could track your movements that way." The tactics on the screen "sucked," he says, and "the mission in the damn movie took way too long" compared with the actual event. The stairs inside bin Laden's building were configured inaccurately. A dog in the film was a German shepherd; the real one was a Belgian Malinois who'd previously been shot in the chest and survived. And there's no talking on the choppers in real life. There was also no whispered calling out of bin Laden as the SEALs stared up the third-floor stairwell toward his bedroom. "When Osama went down, it was chaos, people screaming. No one called his name." "They Hollywooded it up some." The portrayal of the chief CIA human bloodhound, "Maya," based on a real woman whose iron-willed assurance about the compound and its residents moved a government to action, was "awesome" says the Shooter. "They made her a tough woman, which she is." The Shooter and the mentor joke with each other about the latest thermal/night-vision eyewear used in the movie, which didn't exist when the older man was a SEAL. "Dude, what the fuck? How come I never got my four-eye goggles?" "We have those." "Are you kidding me?" "SEAL Team 6, baby." They laugh, at themselves as much as at each other. The Shooter seems smoothed out, untroubled, as relaxed as I've seen him. But the conversation turns dark when they discuss the portrayal of the other CIA operative, Jennifer Matthews, who was among seven people killed in 2009 when a suicide bomber was allowed into one of their black-ops stations in Afghanistan. They both knew at least one of the paramilitary contractors who perished with her. The supper table is suddenly flooded with the surge of strong emotions. Anguish, really, though they both hide it well. This is not a movie. It's real life, where death is final and threats last forever. The blood is your own, not fake splatter and explosive squibs. Movies, books, lore — we all helped make these men brilliant assassins in the name of liberty, lifted them up on our shoulders as unique and exquisitely trained heroes, then left them alone in the shadows of their past. Uncertainty will never be far away for the Shooter. His government may have shut the door on him, but he is required to live inside the consequences of his former career. One line from the film kept resonating in my head. An actor playing a CIA station chief warns Maya about jihadi vengeance. "Once you're on their list," he says, "you never get off." Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the extent of the five-year health care benefits offered to cover veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs offers comprehensive health care to eligible veterans during that period, though not to their families. In light of this change, we have also revised an earlier passage in the story referring to the shooter's post-service benefits. Also, the original version of this story did not include a few sentences that ran in the issue printed last week. They have now been restored. PLUS: David Granger on 'The Shooter' in D.C. ||||| “The Shooter,” today’s story about the Navy SEAL who says he killed Osama bin Laden, was published in cooperation with Esquire. It is part of the Center for Investigative Reporting’s ongoing coverage of the challenges veterans face after leaving military service. Phil Bronstein, CIR's executive chairman and a longtime journalist, met the Shooter more than a year ago. Over the course of the last year, they have had a series of interviews and, recently, the Shooter agreed that his powerful story could be told, but his identity could not be revealed. We agreed to protect his identity because of the inherent risks to the Shooter and his family if he were to be named. We realize that by publishing this story, his identity may be revealed, but our agreement with him is that we will take no part in that unless he chooses to come forward. CIR has a strict policy against using anonymous sources – unless the information is deemed to have overwhelming news value and it is determined that the information cannot be told any other way. We believe the Shooter’s story met the test of newsworthiness, even though we could not persuade other sources with firsthand knowledge to corroborate his retelling of the story. This is his story and his story alone. After conducting interviews with the Shooter and other military personnel who were familiar with the events surrounding the raid, Bronstein became convinced that the Shooter had the most definitive account of those crucial few seconds when bin Laden was killed. The Shooter’s version of events is not the only one. In the book “No Easy Day,” a member of Navy SEAL Team 6, since identified in published reports as Matt Bissonnette, wrote that another unnamed SEAL fired the fatal shots – although Bissonnette acknowledges that he did not witness the actual shooting. The book was written under the pen name Mark Owen. There is a broader story here. Many of the issues the Shooter has faced upon re-entry into the civilian world, while exceptional because of his membership in SEAL Team 6, are similar to those many veterans face when leaving the service. While we cannot use his name, we can tell his story – through words and video – to reach those who need to hear it. Less than 1 percent of Americans are active in the military, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. Volunteers make up our armed forces fighting our wars abroad. Their service time, and especially their involvement in combat, does not simply dissipate into vague memory when they are physically removed from that danger. The aftermath of war stays with them. At CIR, we believe that telling the stories of veterans and exposing problems they face when they come home is important and relevant to all of us as Americans. There are solutions, but if the problems veterans face lie hidden, removed from our national dialogue, they will never be solved. ||||| This article was published in the March 2013 issue. Phil Bronstein is the former editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and currently serves as executive chairman of the Center for Investigative Reporting. This piece was reported in cooperation with CIR. Note: A correction is appended to the end of this story. The man who shot and killed Osama bin Laden sat in a wicker chair in my backyard, wondering how he was going to feed his wife and kids or pay for their medical care. It was a mild spring day, April 2012, and our small group, including a few of his friends and family, was shielded from the sun by the patchwork shadows of maple trees. But the Shooter was sweating as he talked about his uncertain future, his plans to leave the Navy and SEAL Team 6. He stood up several times with an apologetic gripe about the heat, leaving a perspiration stain on the seat-back cushion. He paced. I didn't know him well enough then to tell whether a glass of his favorite single malt, Lagavulin, was making him less or more edgy. We would end up intimately familiar with each other's lives. We'd have dinners, lots of Scotch. He's played with my kids and my dogs and been a hilarious, engaging gentleman around my wife. In my yard, the Shooter told his story about joining the Navy at nineteen, after a girl broke his heart. To escape, he almost by accident found himself in a Navy recruiter's office. "He asked me what I was going to do with my life. I told him I wanted to be a sniper. "He said, 'Hey, we have snipers.' "I said, 'Seriously, dude. You do not have snipers in the Navy.' But he brought me into his office and it was a pretty sweet deal. I signed up on a whim." "That's the reason Al Qaeda has been decimated," he joked, "because she broke my fucking heart." I would come to know about the Shooter's hundreds of combat missions, his twelve long-term SEAL-team deployments, his thirty-plus kills of enemy combatants, often eyeball to eyeball. And we would talk for hours about the mission to get bin Laden and about how, over the celebrated corpse in front of them on a tarp in a hangar in Jalalabad, he had given the magazine from his rifle with all but three lethally spent bullets left in it to the female CIA analyst whose dogged intel work and intuition led the fighters into that night. When I was first around him, as he talked I would always try to imagine the Shooter geared up and a foot away from bin Laden, whose life ended in the next moment with three shots to the center of his forehead. But my mind insisted on rendering the picture like a bad Photoshop job — Mao's head superimposed on the Yangtze, or tourists taking photos with cardboard presidents outside the White House. Bin Laden was, after all, the man CIA director Leon Panetta called "the most infamous terrorist in our time," who devoured inordinate amounts of our collective cultural imagery for more than a decade. The number-one celebrity of evil. And the man in my backyard blew his lights out. ST6 in particular is an enterprise requiring extraordinary teamwork, combined with more kinds of support in the field than any other unit in the history of the U.S. military. Similarly, NASA marshaled thousands of people to put a man on the moon, and history records that Neil Armstrong first set his foot there, not the equally talented Buzz Aldrin. Enough people connected to the SEALs and the bin Laden mission have confirmed for me that the Shooter was the "number two" behind the raid's point man going up the stairs to bin Laden's third-floor residence, and that he is the one who rolled through the bedroom door solo and confronted the surprisingly tall terrorist pushing his youngest wife, Amal, in front of him through the pitch-black room. The Shooter had to raise his gun higher than he expected. The point man is the only one besides the Shooter who could verify the kill shots firsthand, and he did just that to another SEAL I spoke with. But even the point man was not in the room then, having tackled two women into the hallway, a crucial and heroic decision given that everyone living in the house was presumed to be wearing a suicide vest. But a series of confidential conversations, detailed descriptions of mission debriefs, and other evidence make it clear: The Shooter's is the most definitive account of those crucial few seconds, and his account, corroborated by multiple sources, establishes him as the last man to see Osama bin Laden alive. Not in dispute is the fact that others have claimed that they shot bin Laden when he was already dead, and a number of team members apparently did just that. What is much harder to understand is that a man with hundreds of successful war missions, one of the most decorated combat veterans of our age, who capped his career by terminating bin Laden, has no landing pad in civilian life. Back in April, he and some of his SEAL Team 6 colleagues had formed the skeleton of a company to help them transition out of the service. In my yard, he showed everyone his business-card mock-ups. There was only a subtle inside joke reference to their team in the company name. Unlike former SEAL Team 6 member Matt Bissonnette (No Easy Day), they do not rush to write books or step forward publicly, because that violates the code of the "quiet professional." Someone suggested they might sell customized sunglasses and other accessories special operators often invent and use in the field. It strains credulity that for a commando team leader who never got a single one of his men hurt on a mission, sunglasses would be his best option. And it's a simple truth that those who have been most exposed to harrowing danger for the longest time during our recent unending wars now find themselves adrift in civilian life, trying desperately to adjust, often scrambling just to make ends meet. At the time, the Shooter's uncle had reached out to an executive at Electronic Arts, hoping that the company might need help with video-game scenarios once the Shooter retired. But the uncle cannot mention his nephew's distinguishing feature as the one who put down bin Laden. Secrecy is a thick blanket over our Special Forces that inelegantly covers them, technically forever. The twenty-three SEALs who flew into Pakistan that night were directed by their command the day they got back stateside about acting and speaking as though it had never happened. "Right now we are pretty stacked with consultants," the video-game man responded. "Thirty active and recently retired guys" for one game: Medal of Honor Warfighter. In fact, seven active-duty Team 6 SEALs would later be punished for advising EA while still in the Navy and supposedly revealing classified information. (One retired SEAL, a participant in the bin Laden raid, was also involved.) With the focus and precision he's learned, the Shooter waits and watches for the right way to exit, and adapt. Despite his foggy future, his past is deeply impressive. This is a man who is very pleased about his record of service to his country and has earned the respect of his peers. "He's taken monumental risks," says the Shooter's dad, struggling to contain the frustration that roughs the edges of his deep pride in his son. "But he's unable to reap any reward." It's not that there isn't one. The U.S. government put a $25 million bounty on bin Laden that no one is likely to collect. Certainly not the SEALs who went on the mission nor the support and intelligence experts who helped make it all possible. Technology is the key to success in this case more than people, Washington officials have said. The Shooter doesn't care about that. "I'm not religious, but I always felt I was put on the earth to do something specific. After that mission, I knew what it was." Others also knew, from the commander-in-chief on down. The bin Laden shooting was a staple of presidential-campaign brags. One big-budget movie, several books, and a whole drawerful of documentaries and TV films have fortified the brave images of the Shooter and his ST6 Red Squadron members. There is commerce attached to the mission, and people are capitalizing. Just not the triggerman. While others collect, he is cautious and careful not to dishonor anyone. His manners come at his own expense. "No one who fights for this country overseas should ever have to fight for a job," Barack Obama said last Veterans' Day, "or a roof over their head, or the care that they have earned when they come home." But the Shooter will discover soon enough that when he leaves after sixteen years in the Navy, his body filled with scar tissue, arthritis, tendonitis, eye damage, and blown disks, here is what he gets from his employer and a grateful nation: Nothing. No pension, no healthcare for his wife and kids, no protection for himself or his family. Since Abbottabad, he has trained his children to hide in their bathtub at the first sign of a problem as the safest, most fortified place in their house. His wife is familiar enough with the shotgun on their armoire to use it. She knows to sit on the bed, the weapon's butt braced against the wall, and precisely what angle to shoot out through the bedroom door, if necessary. A knife is also on the dresser should she need a backup. Then there is the "bolt" bag of clothes, food, and other provisions for the family meant to last them two weeks in hiding. "Personally," his wife told me recently, "I feel more threatened by a potential retaliatory terror attack on our community than I did eight years ago," when her husband joined ST6. When the White House identified SEAL Team 6 as those responsible, camera crews swarmed into their Virginia Beach neighborhood, taking shots of the SEALs' homes. After bin Laden's face appeared on their TV in the days after the killing, the Shooter cautioned his older child not to mention the Al Qaeda leader's name ever again "to anybody. It's a bad name, a curse name." His kid started referring to him instead as "Poopyface." It's a story he told affectionately on that April afternoon visit to my home. He loves his kids and tears up only when he talks about saying goodbye to them before each and every deployment. "It's so much easier when they're asleep," he says, "and I can just kiss them, wondering if this is the last time." He's thrilled to show video of his oldest in kick-boxing class. And he calls his wife "the perfect mother." In fact, the couple is officially separated, a common occurrence in ST6. SEAL marriages can be perilous. Husbands and fathers have been mostly away from their families since 9/11. But the Shooter and his wife continue to share a house on very friendly, even loving terms, largely to save money. "We're actually looking into changing my name," the wife says. "Changing the kids' names, taking my husband's name off the house, paying off our cars. Essentially deleting him from our lives, but for safety reasons. We still love each other." When the family asked about any kind of government protection should the Shooter's name come out, they were advised that they could go into a witness-protection-like program. Just as soon as the Department of Defense creates one. "They [SEAL command] told me they could get me a job driving a beer truck in Milwaukee" under an assumed identity. Like Mafia snitches, they would not be able to contact their families or friends. "We'd lose everything." "These guys have millions of dollars' worth of knowledge and training in their heads," says one of the group at my house, a former SEAL and mentor to the Shooter and others looking to make the transition out of what's officially called the Naval Special Warfare Development Group. "All sorts of executive function skills. That shouldn't go to waste." The mentor himself took a familiar route — through Blackwater, then to the CIA, in both organizations as a paramilitary operator in Afghanistan. Private security still seems like the smoothest job path, though many of these guys, including the Shooter, do not want to carry a gun ever again for professional use. The deaths of two contractors in Benghazi, both former SEALs the mentor knew, remind him that the battlefield risks do not go away. By the time the Shooter visited me that first time in April, I had come to know more of the human face of what's called Tier One Special Operations, in addition to the extraordinary skill and icy resolve. It is a privileged, consuming, and concerning look inside one of the most insular clubs on earth. And I understood that he would face a world very different from the supportive one President Obama described at Arlington National Cemetery a few months before. As I watched the Shooter navigate obstacles very different from the ones he faced so expertly in four war zones around the globe, I wondered: Is this how America treats its heroes? The ones President Obama called "the best of the best"? The ones Vice-President Biden called "the finest warriors in the history of the world"? The Shooter's gear. 1 APRIL 2011: THE MISSION The reason we knew this was a special mission, the Shooter said as our interviews about the bin Laden operation began, is because we'd just finished an Afghanistan deployment and were on a training trip, diving in Miami, when a few of us got recalled to the Command in Virginia Beach. Another ST6 team was on official standby — normally that's the team that blows out for a contingency operation. But they were not chosen, to better cloak what was going to happen. There was so much going on — the Libya thing, the Arab Spring. We knew something good was going to go down. We didn't know how good. The first day's briefing, they actually kind of lied to us, being very vague. They mentioned underwater cables because of the earthquake in Japan or some craziness. They hinted at Libya. They said it was a compound somewhere in a bowl and we were going to have two aircraft get us there and we don't know how many are inside but we have to get something out. You won't have any air support. I assumed it was WMD, a nuke, because why else are they sending us to Libya? Every question the Red Squadron ST6 members asked was answered with, "Well, we can't tell you that." Or: "We don't know." It was also weird that the entire Red Squadron was in town, but they kicked everyone out of the briefing except those guys who were going, twenty-three and four backups. We'd leave the room to get coffee and stuff, and the other guys were like, "Well, what are you guys doing?" We were telling them, "I have no idea." The Shooter was a mission team leader. Almost everyone chosen had a one or two ranking in the squadron, the most experienced guys. The group was split into four tactical teams, with the Shooter as leader of the external-security group — the dog, Cairo, two snipers, and a CIA interpreter to keep whoever might show up in the area out of the internal action. The group left Virginia on a Sunday morning, April 10, to drive to the CIA's Harvey Point, North Carolina, center for another briefing and the start of training. The Master Chief was saying JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] would be there, the Secretary of Defense might be there, the Pak/Afghan CIA desk, too. That's when the wheels started spinning for me: This is big. I've had some close calls with death, bullets flying past my head. Even just driving, weird stuff. Every time, I would tell my mother, "There's no way I'm going to die, because I'm here to do something." I've been saying that for twenty years. I don't know what it is, but it's something important. By Monday the team was assembled in a big classroom inside a one-story building. They actually had security sitting outside. No one else was allowed in. A JSOC general, Pak/Afghan and other D.C. officials, and the ST6 commanding officer were there. The SEAL commander, cool as ever, said, "Okay, we're as close as we've ever been to UBL." And that was it. He kind of looked at us and we looked at him and nodded. There was none of that cheering bullshit. We were thinking, Yeah, okay, good. It's about time that we kill this motherfucker. It was simple. This is what I came for. Jealousies aside, one of us is going to have the best chance of killing this guy. During the daylong briefing, the SEALs heard how the government found the compound in Abbottabad, how they were watching it, analyzing it, why they believed bin Laden might be there. He, UBL, had become known as the Pacer, the tall guy in satellite imagery who neither left nor mixed with the others. It was the CIA woman, now immortalized in books and movies, who gave the briefing. "Yeah," she told us. "We got him. This is him. This is my life's work. I'm positive." By then, government and military officials had been considering four options. They were either going to bomb the piss out of the compound with two-thousand-pound ordnance, they were going to send us in, do some kind of joint thing with the Pakis, or try what was called a "hammer throw," where a drone flies by and chucks one fucking bomb at the guy. But they didn't want any collateral damage. And they wanted to make sure he was dead and not in a cave or a safe room. After the group settled into "motel-like" rooms, with common areas that had TVs and a kitchen, the team started strategizing with a model of the compound on a large table. Then they drove to a full-scale mock-up for a walk-through. The next day the helos came and we started doing iteration training based on how we wanted to hit it. Once I realized what was going on, I actually moved myself to one of the assault teams, even if I was no longer a team leader. We didn't need that many guys on the exterior team, and I'll go fast-rope on the roof with what I started calling the Martyrs Brigade, because as soon as we landed, I figured the house was going to blow up. But we were also going to be the guys in there first to kill him. One sniper would also be on the roof to lean over and try to take a shot upside down. The rest of the team would rope again down to the third-floor windows and get your gun up fast because he's probably standing there with his gun. If you fell, it would suck. If the group made it inside, there were other issues. I've been in houses before with IEDs in them designed to blow everything up. They'd hang them in the middle of the room so it's a bigger explosion. I was usually the guy to joke around when we were planning these things — we all dick around a lot. But I was like, "Hey guys, we have to take this fucking serious. There's a 90 percent chance this is a one-way mission. We're gonna die, so let's do this right." The discussions went on, almost a luxury. We're used to going on the fly, five, six nights a week on deployment. Here's your target, we're leaving in twenty minutes. Come up with a plan. This compound was pretty easy, though we had no clue about the inside layout. The group reviewed contingencies: How do we handle cars? What if a helo went down? What do we do if the helo doors don't open? Shit like that. The first helicopter was going to land in front of the house. We were going to put our external security out and our bird was going to go back up and we'd fast-rope onto the roof. So we'd have one assault team from the other chopper coming up the stairs, and we'd be going down. It was March 2012, a blossoming time of year in the capital of the free world. The intimate dinner party was already under way at a stylish split-level apartment one block from the Washington Hilton. The hostess was a military contractor, and there was a lobbyist there, along with another young woman, a Capitol Hill veteran. The Shooter's mentor was behind the kitchen counter, putting a final grill-sauce flair on some huge slabs of red meat when four men, all of them imposing and fit, came through the front door. The Shooter is thick, like a power lifter, with an audacious set of tattoos. He can be curt and dismissive as his default, but also wickedly funny. It's instantly easy to see why he's considered both a rebellious, pushy pain in the ass by his command and even some of his colleagues, but also a natural leader. An outgoing, charismatic, and determined alpha male in the ultimate alpha crowd. He and his three friends were all active ST6 members that night, though none of the others present had been on the bin Laden mission. This was my first face-to-face meeting with the Shooter, following several phone conversations and much checking on my journalism background, especially in war zones. In a corner, pouring drinks, he and I established some rules. He would consider talking to me only after his last, upcoming four-month deployment to Afghanistan had ended and he had exited the Navy. And he would not go public; he would not be named. That would be counter to the team's code, and it would also put a huge "kill me" target on his back. During the dinner, he told mostly personal stories and took care not to talk in terms of operational security: the deal about the gun magazine and the CIA analyst, the experience of eyeballing bin Laden. "Three of us were driving to our first briefing on the mission," he said. "We were thinking maybe it was Libya, but we knew there would be very high-level brass there. One of my guys says, 'I bet it's bin Laden.'" Another guy told the Shooter, "If it's Osama bin Laden, dude, I will suck yo' dick." "So after I shoot UBL, I bring him over to see his body. 'Okay,' I told him, 'now is as good a time as any.'" The group talked about hairy moments during other missions, stories soldiers and foreign correspondents enjoy swapping. But from the start something was obvious, not just about the Shooter but about his fellow SEALs, too: These men who had heroically faced death and exercised extraordinary violence in almost continuous battle for years on end were fearful of life after war. This is a problem that is becoming more critical as the "best of the best" start leaving the most extended wartime careers in the history of the United States. And it is a problem not just for these men and their families but for the American government, which has come to rely heavily on a steady stream of Tier One special operators (including the Army's Delta Force and the Air Force's 24th Special Tactics Squadron) — men of rarefied toughness and training like these — to maintain a sense of international security in an asymmetrical battlefield. The American way of war has changed radically in the past decade, so that in the future, "boots on the ground" will more and more mean special operators. Which means that there will be increasing numbers of vets in the Shooter's circumstance: abandoned, with limited choices. That night, one of the Shooter's comrades, lantern-jawed, articulate, with a serious academic pedigree, told me: "I've seen a lot of combat, been in some pretty grisly circumstances. But the thing that scares me the most after fifteen years in the SEALs? "Civilian life." 2. "100 PERCENT, HE'S ON THE THIRD FLOOR." The Shooter and the rest of the team made one last night run on the mock-up of the compound in North Carolina, then drove back to their homes and headquarters in Virginia for a brief break. There were goodbyes to his wife and sleeping children. Normally she'd say, 'I'm fine, just go.' This time there was nothing fine about her. Like this would be the last time we'd see each other. Saying goodbye is just horrible. I don't even want to talk about it... this is the last time I'm going to see these children. The Shooter had bought himself $350 Prada sunglasses over the weekend, and much less expensive gifts for his kids. Which makes me a horrible father. But really, he just figured he'd die with some style on. And think of the ad campaign: "If you only have one day to live..." When we got to Nevada a few days later, where the team trained on another full-scale compound model, but this one crudely fashioned from shipping containers, we turned the corner, saw the helos we'd actually use, and I started laughing. I told the guys, "The odds just changed. There's a 90 percent chance we'll survive." They asked why. I said, "I didn't know they were sending us to war on a fucking Decepticon." For the mission, they'd be slipping through the night in the latest model of stealth Black Hawk helicopters. There were days more training, run after run, punctuated by briefings by military brass. They asked us if we were ready. We told them, "Yeah, absolutely. This is going to be easy." This was ultimately an assault mission like hundreds he'd been on, different in only one respect. A critical moment for the mission came when the tireless SEAL Red Team Squadron leader briefed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and Pentagon undersecretary Mike Vickers. He was going to sell it right then. Not just to his superiors but, through them, to the president. We're all in uniform to look professional, and our CO, working on no sleep for days, hit it out of the park. There's no doubt in my mind we're going to go because of his presentation. The group discussed what would happen if they were surrounded by Pakistani troops. We would surrender. The original plan was to have Vice-President Biden fly to Islamabad and negotiate our release with Pakistan's president. This is hearsay, but I understand Obama said, Hell no. My guys are not surrendering. What do we need to rain hell on the Pakistani military? That was the one time in my life I was thinking, I am fucking voting for this guy. I had a picture of him lying in bed at night, thinking, You're not fucking with my guys. Like, he's thinking about us. We got word that we'd be scrambling jets on the border to back us up. An Ambien, a C-17 cargo-plane ride, a short stop in Germany, and they were in Afghanistan. At Jalalabad, the Shooter saw the CIA analyst pacing. She asked me why I was so calm. I told her, We do this every night. We go to a house, we fuck with some people, and we leave. This is just a longer flight. She looked at me and said, "One hundred percent he's on the third floor. So get to there if you can." She was probably 90 percent sure, and her emotion pushed that to 100. Another SEAL squadron, which was already in Afghanistan and would have normally been the assaulters, were very welcoming to us. They would form the Quick Reaction Force flying in behind, on the 47's. The Red Team visitors stayed in "transient" housing. During the day, the group would work with our gear, work out. Nighttime was poker and refreshments, or what is called "fellowship," while they waited for a go from Obama himself. On the treadmill, the Shooter listened to "Red Nation" by the rapper Game. It's about leaving blood on the ground. We were the Red Team and we were going to leave some blood. Other guys ginned up some mixed-martial-arts practice or stretched over foam rollers to keep their joints in good shape. We all wrote letters. I had my shitty little room and I'm sitting on my Pelican case with all my gear, a manila envelope on my bed, and I'm writing letters to my kids. They were to be delivered in case of my death, something for them to read when they're thirty-five. I have no idea what I said except I'm explaining everything, that it was a noble mission and I hope we got him. I'm saying I wish I could be there for them. And the tears are hitting the page, because we all knew that none of us were coming back alive. It was either death or a Pakistani prison, where we'd be raped for the rest of our lives. He gave the letters to an intel guy not on the mission, with instructions. He would shred them if he made it back. You write it, it's horrible, you hand it off, and it's like, Okay, that part's over. And I'm back, ready to roll. By early September of last year, the Shooter was out, officially. Retired. He had survived his last deployment, and there was a barbecue near his house to celebrate with about thirty close friends from "the community." The Redskins were on, his favorite team, and there was lots of Commando ale, brewed by a former SEAL. "I left SEALs on Friday," he said the next time I saw him. It was a little more than thirty-six months before the official retirement requirement of twenty years of service. "My health care for me and my family stopped at midnight Friday night. I asked if there was some transition from my Tricare to Blue Cross Blue Shield. They said no. You're out of the service, your coverage is over. Thanks for your sixteen years. Go fuck yourself." The government does provide 180 days of transitional health-care benefits, but the Shooter is eligible only if he agrees to remain on active duty "in a support role," or become a reservist. Either way, his life would not be his own. Instead, he'll buy private insurance for $486 a month, but some treatments that relieve his wartime pains, like $120 for weekly chiropractic care, are out-of-pocket. Like many vets, he will have to wait at least eight months to have his disability claims adjudicated. Or even longer. The average wait time nationally is more than nine months, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting. The Center for Investigative Reporting's interactive map of U.S. veterans still waiting for help due to backlogged disability claims. Anyone who leaves early also gets no pension, so he is without income. Even if he had stayed in for the full twenty, his pension would have been half his base pay: $2,197 a month. The same as a member of the Navy choir. Still, on this early fall weekend, he does not want to commit to publishing any information from or about him. The book by a friend and fellow ST6 member, Matt Bissonnette, who claims to have shot bin Laden in the chest when the Al Qaeda leader was already down and bleeding profusely, will go on sale in a few days. The Department of Defense was threatening legal action over breach of confidentiality agreements and revelation of supposedly classified material. And the Shooter refuses to identify Bissonnette by name or confirm that he is the colleague who wrote the book. "I still want him and his family to be safe no matter what," he says. "If he didn't want [his name] out, I shouldn't either. That is my thinking, anyway." Many in the community are also infuriated, the Shooter says. "There's a shitstorm around this." It has also come to his attention that Bissonnette's account tends to gloss over — if not erase — the Shooter's central role in bin Laden's death. "I don't know why he'd do that," the Shooter says. Almost since the mission was done, the Shooter himself was suspected by the SEAL command and other team members of being the one who was writing a book, the one who would be first to market, spinning gold off Abbottabad. CIA and FBI officials called to ask whether he was going to appear with Bissonnette on 60 Minutes. When it became clear that he wasn't the opportunist, there was an official effort at apology from his superiors and some individual SEALs. The Shooter had long ago decided not to write a book out of the gate, though he is keenly aware that Bissonnette's book will make millions. There is still loyalty and safety to consider. He also wanted to see how Bissonnette fared with his colleagues, the U.S. government, and others. Bissonnette's pseudonym — Mark Owen — lasted about a day before his real name surfaced and was promptly posted on a jihadi Web site. But it was his official separation from the Navy that convinced the Shooter that he should get his story down somewhere, both for history and for a potential "greater good," to both humanize his warrior friends as something more complex than Jason Bourne cartoon superheroes, and call attention to what retiring SEALs don't get in their complex bargain with their country. The White House/Flickr The scene in the Situation Room on May 1, 2011. 3."HEY, MAN, I JUST SHOT A WOMAN." Waiting in Jalalabad, the teams were getting feedback from Washington. Gates didn't want to do this, Hillary didn't want to do that. The Shooter still thought, We'd train, spin up, then spin down. They'd eventually tank the op and just bomb it. But then the word came to Vice Admiral William McRaven, head of Joint Special Operations Command. The mission was on, originally for April 30, the night of the White House Correspondents' dinner in Washington. McRaven figured it would look bad if all sorts of officials got up and left the dinner in front of the press. So he came up with a cover story about the weather so we could launch on Sunday, May 1, instead. There was one last briefing and an awesome speech from McRaven comparing the looming raid and its fighters to the movie Hoosiers. Then they're gathered by a fire pit, suiting up. Just before he got on the chopper to leave for Abbottabad, the Shooter called his dad. I didn't know where he was, but I found out later he was in a Walmart parking lot. I said, "Hey, it's time to go to work," and I'm thinking, I'm calling for the last time. I thought there was a good chance of dying. He knew something significant was up, though he didn't know what. The Shooter could hear him start to tear up. He told me later that he sat in his pickup in that parking lot for an hour and couldn't get out of the car. The Red Team and members of the other squad hugged one another instead of the usual handshakes before they boarded their separate aircraft. The hangars had huge stadium lights pointing outward so no one from the outside could see what was going on. I took one last piss on the bushes. Ninety minutes in the chopper to get from Jalalabad to Abbottabad. The Shooter noted when the bird turned right, into Pakistani airspace. I was sitting next to the commanding officer, and he's relaying everything to McRaven. I was counting back and forth to a thousand to pass the time. It's a long flight, but we brought these collapsible camping chairs, so we're not uncomfortable. But it's getting old and you're ready to go and you don't want your legs falling asleep. Every fifteen minutes they'd tell us we hadn't been painted [made by Pakistani radar]. I remember banking to the south, which meant we were getting ready to hit. We had about another fifteen minutes. Instead of counting, for some reason I said to myself the George Bush 9/11 quote: Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended. I could just hear his voice, and that was neat. I started saying it again and again to myself. Then I started to get pumped up. I'm like: This is so on. I was concerned for the two [MH-47 Chinook] big-boat choppers crossing the Pakistani border forty-five minutes after we did, both full of my guys from the other squadron, the backup and extraction group. The 47's have some awesome antiradar shit on them, too. But it's still a school bus flying into a sovereign nation. If the Pakistanis don't like it, they can send a jet in to shoot them down. Flying in, we were all just sort of in our own world. My biggest concern was having to piss really bad and then having to get off in a fight needing to pee. We actually had these things made for us, like a combination collapsible dog bowl and diaper. I still have mine; I never used it. I used one of my water bottles instead. I forgot until later that when I shot bin Laden in the face, I had a bottle of piss in my pocket. I would have pissed my pants rather than trying to fight with a full bladder. Above the compound, the Shooter could hear only his helo pilot in the flight noise. "Dash 1 going around" meant the other chopper was circling back around. I thought they'd taken fire and were just moving. I didn't realize they crashed right then. But our pilot did. He put our five perimeter guys out, went up, and went right back down outside the compound, so we knew something was wrong. We weren't sure what the fuck it was. We opened the doors, and I looked out. The area looked different than where we trained because we're in Pakistan now. There are the lights, the city. There's a golf course. And we're, This is some serious Navy SEAL shit we're going to do. This is so badass. My foot hit the ground and I was still running [the Bush quote] in my head. I don't care if I die right now. This is so awesome. There was concern, but no fear. I was carrying a big-ass sledgehammer to blow through a wall if we had to. There was a gate on the northeast corner and we went right to that. We put a breaching charge on it, clacked it, and the door peeled like a tin can. But it was a fake gate with a wall behind it. That was good, because we knew that someone was defending themselves. There's something good here. We walked down the main long wall to get to the driveway to breach the door there. We were about to blow that next door on the north end when one of the guys from the bird that crashed came around the other side and opened it. So we were moving down the driveway and I looked to the left. The compound was exactly the same. The mock-up had been dead-on. To actually be there and see the house with the three stories, the blacked-out windows, high walls, and barbed wire — and I'm actually in that security driveway with the carport, just like the satellite photos. I was like, This is really cool I'm here. While we were in the carport, I heard gunfire from two different places nearby. In one flurry, a SEAL shot Abrar al-Kuwaiti, the brother of bin Laden's courier, and his wife, Bushra. One of our guys involved told me, "Jesus, these women are jumping in front of these guys. They're trying to martyr themselves. Another sign that this is a serious place. Even if bin Laden isn't here, someone important is." We crossed to the south side of the main building. There the Shooter ran into another team member, who told him, "Hey, man, I just shot a woman." He was worried. I told him not to be. "We should be thinking about the mission, not about going to jail." For the Shooter personally, bin Laden was one bookend in a black-ops career that was coming to an end. But the road to Abbottabad was long, starting with the guys who tried and failed to make it into the SEALs in the first place. Up to 80 percent of applicants wash out, and some almost die trying. In fact, during the Shooter's Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training in the mid-nineties, the torture-chamber menu of physical and emotional resistance and resolve required to get into the SEALs, there was actually a death and resurrection. "One of the tests is they make you dive to the bottom of a pool and tie five knots," the Shooter says. "One guy got to the fifth knot and blacked out underwater. We pulled him up and he was, like, dead. They made the class face the fence while they tried to resuscitate him. The first words as he spit out water were 'Did I pass? Did I tie the fifth knot?' The instructor told him, 'We didn't want to find out if you could tie the knots, you asshole, we wanted to know how hard you'd push yourself. You killed yourself. You passed.'" "I've been drown-proofed once, and it does suck," the Shooter says. Then there is Green Team, the lead-heavy door of entry for SEAL Team 6. Half of the men who are already hardened SEALs don't make it through. "They get in your mind and make you think fast and make decisions during high stress." There have been SEAL teams since the Kennedy years, when they got their first real workout against the Vietcong around Da Nang and in the Mekong Delta, and even during periods of relative peace since Vietnam, SEAL teams have been deployed around the world. But at no time have they been more active than in the period since 2001, in the longest war ever fought by Americans. If the surge in Iraq ordered by President Bush in 2007 was at all successful, that success is owed significantly to the night-shift work done by SEAL Team 6. "We would go kill high-value targets every night," the Shooter tells me. He and other ST6 members who would later be on the Abbottabad trip lived in rough huts with mud floors and cots. "But we were completely disrupting Al Qaeda and other Iraqi networks. If we only killed five or six guys a night, we were wasting our time. We knew this was the greatest moment of our operational lives." From Al Asad to Ramadi to Baghdad to Baquba — Al Qaeda central at the time — the SEALs had latitude to go after "everyone we thought we had to kill. That's really a major reason the surge was going so well, because terrorists were dying strategically." During one raid, accompanied by two dogs, the Shooter says that he and his team wiped out "an entire spiderweb network." Villagers told Iraqi newspapers the next day that "Ninjas came with lions." It is important to him to stress that no women or children were killed in that raid. He also insists that when it came to interrogation, repetitive questioning and leveraging fear was as aggressive as he'd go. "When we first started the war in Iraq, we were using Metallica music to soften people up before we interrogated them," the Shooter says. "Metallica got wind of this and they said, 'Hey, please don't use our music because we don't want to promote violence.' I thought, Dude, you have an album called Kill 'Em All. "But we stopped using their music, and then a band called Demon Hunter got in touch and said, 'We're all about promoting what you do.' They sent us CDs and patches. I wore my Demon Hunter patch on every mission. I wore it when I blasted bin Laden." On deployment in Afghanistan or Iraq, they would "eat, work out, play Xbox, study languages, do schoolwork." And watch the biker series Sons of Anarchy, Entourage, and three or four seasons of The Shield. They were rural high school football stars, backwoods game hunters, and Ivy League graduates thrown together by a serious devotion to the cause, and to the action. Accessories, upbringing, and cultural tastes were just preamble, though, to the real work. As for the Shooter, he jokes that his choice in life was to "go to the SEALs or go to jail." Not that he would have ever found himself behind bars, but he points out traits that all SEALs seem to have in common: the willingness to live beyond the edge, and to do anything, and the resolve to never quit. The bin Laden mission was far from the most dangerous of his career. Once, he was pinned down near Asadabad, Afghanistan, while the SEALs were trying to disrupt Al Qaeda supply lines used to ambush Americans. "Bullets flew between my gun and my face," he says, just as he was inserting some of his favorite Copenhagen chew and then open-field sprinting to retrieve some special equipment he had dropped. That fight ended when he called in air strikes along the eastern Afghan border to light up the enemy. Opening a closet door once, team members found a boy inside. "The natural response was 'C'mon kid.' Then, boom, he blows himself up. Suicide bombers are fast. Other rooms and other places, "we'd go in and a guy would be sleeping. Up against the wall were his cologne, deodorant, soap, suicide vest, AK-47, and grenades." He's also had to collect body parts of his close friends, most notably when a SEAL team chopper was shot down in Afghanistan's Kunar province in June 2005, killing eight SEALs. "We go to a lot of funerals." But for all the big battle boasts that become a sort of currency among SEALs, the Shooter has a deep fondness for the comedy that comes from being around the bunch of guys who are the only people in the world with whom you have so much in common and the only people in the world who can know exactly what you do for a living. "I realized when I joined I had to be a better shot and step up my humor. These guys were hilarious." There are the now-famous pranks with a giant dildo — they called it the Staff of Power — discovered during training in an abandoned Miami building. SEALs would find photos of it inserted into their gas masks or at the bottom of a barrel of animal crackers they were eating. Goats were put in their personal cages at ST6 headquarters. Uniforms were borrowed and dyed pink. Boots were glued to the floor. Flash-bang grenades went off in their gear. The area near the Shooter's cage was such a target for outlandish stunts that it was called the Gaza Strip. Even in action, with all their high state of expertise and readiness, "we're normal people. We fall off ladders, land on the wrong roof, get bitten by dogs." In Iraq, a breacher was putting a charge on a door to blow it off its hinges when he mistakenly leaned against the doorbell. He quickly took off the charge and the target opened the door. We were like, "You rang the fucking doorbell?!" Maybe we should try that more often, the Shooter thought to himself. The dead can also be funny, as long as it's not your guys. "In Afghanistan we were cutting away the clothes on this dead dude to see if he had a suicide vest on, only to find that he had a huge dick, down to his knees. From then on, we called him Abu Dujan Holmes. And then there was the time that the Shooter shit himself on a tandem jump with a huge SEAL who outweighed him by sixty pounds. "The goddamn main chute yanked so hard he slipped two disks in his neck and I filled my socks with human feces. I told him, 'Hey, dude, this is a horrible day.' He said if I went to our reserve chute, 'you're gonna fucking kill me.' He was that convinced his head was going to rip off his body. "Okay, so I'm flying this broken chute, shitting my pants with this near-dead guy connected to me. And we eat shit on the landing. We're lying there and the chute is dragging us across the ground. I hear him go, 'Yeah, that's my last jump for today.' And I said, 'That's cool. Can I borrow your boxers?' "We jumped the next day." The Shooter's willingness to endure comes from a deep personal well of confidence and drive that seems to also describe every one of his peers. But his odyssey through countless outposts in Afghanistan and Iraq to skydives into the Indian Ocean — situations that are always strewn with violence and with his own death always imminent — is grounded by a sense of deep confederacy. "I'm lucky to be with these guys. I'm not going to let them down. I was going to go in for a few years, but then I met these other guys and stuck around because of them." He and one buddy made their first kills at exactly the same time, in Ramadi. Shared bloodletting is as much a bonding agent as shared blood. After Team 6 SEAL Adam Brown was killed in March 2010, Brown's squadron members approached the dead man's kids at the funeral. They were screaming and inconsolable. "You may have lost a father," one of them said, "but you've gained twenty fathers." Most of those SEALs would be killed the next year when their helicopter was shot down in eastern Wardak province. The Shooter feels both the losses and connections no less keenly now that he's out. "One of my closest friends in the world I've been with in SEAL Team 6 the whole time," he says. The Shooter's friend is also looking for a viable exit from the Navy. As he prepared to deploy again, he agreed to talk with me on the condition that I not identify him. "My wife doesn't want me to stay in one more minute than I have to," he says. But he's several years away from official retirement. "I agree that civilian life is scary. And I've got a family to take care of. Most of us have nothing to offer the public. We can track down and kill the enemy really well, but that's it. "If I get killed on this next deployment, I know my family will be taken care of." (The Navy does offer decent life-insurance policies at low rates.) "College will be paid for, they'll be fine. "But if I come back alive and retire, I won't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out for the rest of my life. Sad to say, it's better if I get killed." 4."IS THIS THE BEST THING I'VE EVER DONE, OR THE WORST?" When we entered the main building, there was a hallway with rooms off to the side. Dead ahead is the door to go upstairs. There were women screaming downstairs. They saw the others get shot, so they were upset. I saw a girl, about five, crying in the corner, first room on the right as we were going in. I went, picked her up, and brought her to another woman in the room on the left so she didn't have to be just with us. She seemed too out of it to be scared. There had to be fifteen people downstairs, all sleeping together in that one room. Two dead bodies were also in there. Normally, the SEALs have a support or communications guy who watches the women and children. But this was a pared-down mission intended strictly for an assault, without that extra help. We didn't really have anyone that could stay back. So we're looking down the hallway at the door to the stairwell. I figured this was the only door to get upstairs, which means the people upstairs can't get down. If there had been another way up, we would have found it by then. We were at a standstill on the ground floor, waiting for the breacher to do his work. We'd always assumed we'd be surrounded at some point. You see the videos of him walking around and he's got all those jihadis. But they weren't prepared. They got all complacent. The guys that could shoot shot, but we were on top of them so fast. Right then, I heard one of the guys talking about something, blah, blah, blah, the helo crashed. I asked, What helo crashed? He said it was in the yard. And I said, Bullshit! We're never getting out of here now. We have to kill this guy. I thought we'd have to steal cars and drive to Islamabad. Because the other option was to stick around and wait for the Pakistani military to show up. Hopefully, we don't shoot it out with them. We're going to end up in prison here, with someone negotiating for us, and that's just bad. That's when I got concerned. I've thought about death before, when I've been pinned down for an hour getting shot at. And I wondered what it was going to feel like taking one of those in the face. How long was it going to hurt? But I didn't think about that here. One of the snipers who'd seen the disabled helo approached just before they went into the main building. He said, "Hey, dude, they've got an awesome mock-up of our helo in their yard." I said, "No, dude. They shot one of ours down." He said, "Okay, that makes more sense than the shit I was saying." The breacher had to blast the door twice for it to open. We started rolling up. Team members didn't need much communication, or any orders, once they were on line. We're reading each other every second. We've gotten so good at war, we didn't need anything more. I was about five guys back on the stairway when I saw the point man holding up. He'd seen Khalid, bin Laden's [twenty-three-year-old] son. I heard him whisper, "Khalid... come here..." in Arabic, then in Pashto. He used his name. That confused Khalid. He's probably thinking, "I just heard shitty Arabic and shitty Pashto. Who the fuck is this?" He leaned out, armed with an AK, and he got blasted by the point man. That call-out was one of the best combat moves I've ever seen. Khalid had on a white T-shirt and, like, white pajama pants. He was the last line of security. I remember thinking then: I wish we could live through this night, because this is amazing. I was still expecting all kinds of funky shit like escape slides or safe rooms. The point man moved past doors on the second floor and the four or five guys in front of me started to peel off to clear those rooms, which is always how the flow works. We're just clearing as we go, watching our backs. They step over and past Khalid, who's dead on the stairs. The point man, at that time, saw a guy on the third floor, peeking around a curtain in front of the hallway. Bin Laden was the only adult male left to find. The point man took a shot, maybe two, and the man upstairs disappeared back into a room. I didn't see that because I was looking back. I don't think he hit him. He thinks he might have. So there's the point man on the stairs, waiting for someone to move into the number-two position. Originally I was five or six man, but the train flowed off to clear the second floor. So I roll up behind him. He told me later, "I knew I had some ass," meaning somebody to back him up. I turn around and look. There's nobody else coming up. On the third floor, there were two chicks yelling at us and the point man was yelling at them and he said to me, "Hey, we need to get moving. These bitches is getting truculent." I remember saying to myself, Truculent? Really? Love that word. I kept looking behind us, and there was still no one else there. By then we realized we weren't getting more guys. We had to move, because bin Laden is now going to be grabbing some weapon because he's getting shot at. I had my hand on the point man's shoulder and squeezed, a signal to go. The two of us went up. On the third floor, he tackled the two women in the hallway right outside the first door on the right, moving them past it just enough. He thought he was going to absorb the blast of suicide vests; he was going to kill himself so I could get the shot. It was the most heroic thing I've ever seen. I rolled past him into the room, just inside the doorway. There was bin Laden standing there. He had his hands on a woman's shoulders, pushing her ahead, not exactly toward me but by me, in the direction of the hallway commotion. It was his youngest wife, Amal. The SEALs had nightscopes, but it was coal-black for bin Laden and the other residents. He can hear but he can't see. He looked confused. And way taller than I was expecting. He had a cap on and didn't appear to be hit. I can't tell you 100 percent, but he was standing and moving. He was holding her in front of him. Maybe as a shield, I don't know. For me, it was a snapshot of a target ID, definitely him. Even in our kill houses where we train, there are targets with his face on them. This was repetition and muscle memory. That's him, boom, done. I thought in that first instant how skinny he was, how tall and how short his beard was, all at once. He was wearing one of those white hats, but he had, like, an almost shaved head. Like a crew cut. I remember all that registering. I was amazed how tall he was, taller than all of us, and it didn't seem like he would be, because all those guys were always smaller than you think. I'm just looking at him from right here [he moves his hand out from his face about ten inches]. He's got a gun on a shelf right there, the short AK he's famous for. And he's moving forward. I don't know if she's got a vest and she's being pushed to martyr them both. He's got a gun within reach. He's a threat. I need to get a head shot so he won't have a chance to clack himself off [blow himself up]. In that second, I shot him, two times in the forehead. Bap! Bap! The second time as he's going down. He crumpled onto the floor in front of his bed and I hit him again, Bap! same place. That time I used my EOTech red-dot holo sight. He was dead. Not moving. His tongue was out. I watched him take his last breaths, just a reflex breath. And I remember as I watched him breathe out the last part of air, I thought: Is this the best thing I've ever done, or the worst thing I've ever done? This is real and that's him. Holy shit. Everybody wanted him dead, but nobody wanted to say, Hey, you're going to kill this guy. It was just sort of understood that's what we wanted to do. His forehead was gruesome. It was split open in the shape of a V. I could see his brains spilling out over his face. The American public doesn't want to know what that looks like. Amal turned back, and she was screaming, first at bin Laden and then at me. She came at me like she wanted to fight me, or that she wanted to die instead of him. So I put her on the bed, bound with zip ties. Then I realized that bin Laden's youngest son, who is about two or three, was standing there on the other side of the bed. I didn't want to hurt him, because I'm not a savage. There was a lot of screaming, he was crying, just in shock. I didn't like that he was scared. He's a kid, and had nothing to do with this. I picked him up and put him next to his mother. I put some water on his face. The point man came in and zip-tied the other two women he'd grabbed. The third-floor action and killing took maybe fifteen seconds. The Shooter's oldest child calls the place his dad worked "Crapghanistan," maybe because his deployments meant he regularly missed Christmases, birthdays, and other holidays. "Our marriage was definitely a casualty of his career," says the Shooter's wife. They are officially split but still live together. Separate bedrooms, low overhead. "Somewhere along the line we lost track of each other." She holds his priorities partially responsible: SEAL first, father second, husband third. This part of the Shooter's story is, as his wife puts it, "unique to us but unfortunately not unique in the community." SEAL operators are gone up to three hundred days a year. And when they're not in theater, they're training or soaking in the company of their buds in the absorbing clubhouse atmosphere of ST6 headquarters. "We can't talk with anyone else about what we do," the Shooter says, "or about anything else other than maybe skydiving and broken spleens. When it comes to socializing, it's really tight." His wife understands that "so much of their survival is dependent on the fact that their friends and their jobs are so intertwined." And that "we lived our lives under a veil of secrecy." SEAL Team 6 spouses are nicknamed the Pink Squadron, because the women also rely on their hermetic connections to other wives. When you have no idea where your husband is or what he's doing, other than that it's mortally dangerous, and you can't discuss it — not even with your own mother — your world can feel desperately small. But his wife's concerns, and her own narrative, convey a faithfulness that extends beyond marital fidelity. She has comforted him when he was "inconsolable" after a mission in which he shot the parents of a boy in a crossfire. "He was reliving it, as a dad himself, when he was telling me." Not long after, she tended to him when she found him heavily sedated with an open bottle of Ambien and his pistol nearby. The command had mandatory psych evaluations. During one of those, the Shooter told the psychologist, "I was having suicidal thoughts and drinking too much." The doctor's response? "He told me this was normal for SEALs after combat deployment. He told me I should just drink less and not hurt anybody." The Shooter's wife is indignant. "That's not normal!" Though she knows that "every time you send your husband off to war, you get a slightly different person back." The alone times are deeply trying. Several years ago, a SEAL friend had died in a helicopter crash. The Shooter's wife had just been to his funeral, consoling his widow. The Shooter was on the same deployment, and she had not heard anything about his status. "I came home and was inside holding our infant child. Our front door is all glass, and I see a man in a khaki uniform coming up the steps. All I could do was think, I'd better put the baby down because I'm going to faint. So I set the baby on the floor and answered the door. It was a neighbor with a baby bib I'd dropped outside. I swore at him and slammed the door in his face." It was four days more before she heard that her husband was safe. Given all of that, she has a surprising equanimity about her life. Talking with them separately, the couple's love for each other is evident and deep. "We've grown so much together," she says. "We'll always be best friends. I'll love him till the day I die." She remains in awe of "the level of brilliance these men have. To be surrounded by that caliber of people is something I'll always be grateful for." Her husband's retirement has been no less jarring for her. "He gave so much to his country, and now it seems he's left in the dust. I feel there's no support, not just for my family but for other families in the community. I honestly have nobody I can go to or talk to. Nor do I feel my husband has gotten much for what he's accomplished in his career." Exactly what, if any, responsibility should the government have to her family? The loss of income and insurance and no pension aside, she can no longer walk onto the local base if she feels a threat to her family. They've surrendered their military IDs. If something were to happen, the Shooter has instructed her to take the kids to the base gate anyway and demand to see the commanding officer, or someone from the SEAL team. "He said someone will come get us." Because of the mission, she says that "my family is always going to be at risk. It's just a matter of finding coping strategies." The Shooter still dips his hand in his pocket when they're in a store, checking for a knife in case there's an emergency. He also keeps his eyes on the exits. He's lost some vision, he can't get his neck straight for any period of time. Right now, she's just waiting to see what he creates for himself in this new life. And she's waiting to see how he replaces even the $60,000 a year he was making (with special pay bonuses for different activities). Or how they can afford private health insurance that covers spinal injections she needs for her own sports injuries. "This is new to us, not having the team." 5."WE ALL DID IT." Within another fifteen seconds, other team members started coming in the room. Here, the Shooter demurs about whether subsequent SEALs also fired into bin Laden's body. He's not feeding raw meat to what is an increasingly strict government focus on the etiquette of these missions. But I would have done it if I'd come in the room later. I knew I was going to shoot him if I saw him, regardless. I even joked about that with the guys before we were there. "I don't give a shit if you kill him — if I come in the room, I'm shooting his ass. I don't care if he's deader than fried chicken." In the compound, I thought about getting my camera, and I knew we needed to take pictures and ID him. We had a saying, "You kill him, you clean him." But I was just in a little bit of a zone. I had to actually ask one of my friends who came into the room, "Hey, what do we do now?" He said, "Now we go find the computers." And I remember saying, "Yes! I'm back! Got it!" Because I was almost stunned. Then I just wanted to go get out of the house. We all had a DNA test kit, but I knew another team would be in there to do all that. So I went down to the second floor where the offices were, the media center. We started breaking apart the computer hard drives, cracking the towers. We were looking for thumb drives and disks, throwing them into our net bags. In each computer room, there was a bed. Under the beds were these huge duffel bags, and I'm pulling them out, looking for whatever. At first I thought they were filled with vacuum-sealed rib-eye steaks. I thought, They're in this for the long haul. They've got all this food. Then, wait a minute. This is raw opium. These drugs are everywhere. It was pretty funny to see that. Altogether, he helped clean three rooms on the second floor. The Shooter did not see bin Laden's body again until he and the point man helped two others carry it, already bagged, down the building's hallways and out into the courtyard by the front gate. I saw a sniper buddy of mine down there and I told him, "That's our guy. Hold on to him." Others took the corpse to the surviving Black Hawk. With one helo down, the Shooter was relieved to hear the sound of the 47 Chinook transports arriving. His exfil (extraction) flight out was on one of the 47's, which had almost been blown out of the sky by the SEALs' own explosive charges, set to destroy the downed Black Hawk. One backup SEAL Team 6 member on the flight asked who'd killed UBL. I said I fucking killed him. He's from New York and says, "No shit. On behalf of my family, thank you." And I thought: Wow, I've got a Navy SEAL telling me thanks? "You probably thought you'd never hear this," someone piped through the intercom system over an hour into the return flight, "but welcome back to Afghanistan." Back at the Jalalabad base, we pulled bin Laden out of the bag to show McRaven and the CIA. That's when McRaven had a tall SEAL lie down next to bin Laden to assess his height, along with other, slightly more scientific identity tests. With the body laid out and under inspection, you could see more gunshot wounds to bin Laden's chest and legs. While they were still checking the body, I brought the agency woman over. I still had all my stuff on. We looked down and I asked, "Is that your guy?" She was crying. That's when I took my magazine out of my gun and gave it to her as a souvenir. Twenty-seven bullets left in it. "I hope you have room in your backpack for this." That was the last time I saw her. From there, the team accompanied the body to nearby Bagram Airfield. During the next few hours, the thought that hit me was "This is awesome. This is great. We lived. This is perfect. We just did it all." The moment truly struck at Bagram when I'm eating a breakfast sandwich, standing near bin Laden's body, looking at a big-screen TV with the president announcing the raid. I'm sitting there watching him, looking at the body, looking at the president, eating a sausage-egg-cheese-and-extra-bacon sandwich thinking, "How the fuck did I get here? This is too much." I still didn't know if it would be good or bad. The good was having done something great for my country, for the guys, for the people of New York. It was closure. An honor to be there. I never expected people to be screaming "U.S.A.!" with Geraldo outside the White House. The bad part was security. He was their prophet, basically. Now we killed him and I have to worry about this forever. Al Qaeda, especially these days, is 99 percent talk. But that 1 percent of the time they do shit, it's bad. They're capable of horrific things. We listened to the Al Qaeda phone calls where one guy is saying, "We gotta find out who ratted on bin Laden." The other guy says, "I heard he did it to himself. He was locked up in that house with three wives." Funny terrorists. At Bagram, the point man asked, "Hey, was he hit when you went into the room? I thought I shot him in the head and his cap flew off." I said I didn't know, but he was still walking and he had his hat on. The point man was like "Okay. No big deal." By then we had showered and were having some refreshments. We weren't comparing dicks. I've been in a lot of battles with this guy. He's a fucking amazing warrior, the most honorable, truthful dude I know. I trust him with my life. The Shooter said he and the point man participated in a shooters-only debrief with military officials around a trash can in Jalalabad and then a long session at Bagram Airfield, but they left some details ambiguous. The point man said he took two shots and thought one may have hit bin Laden. He said his number two went into the room "and finished him off as he was circling the drain." This was not exactly as it had gone down, but everyone seemed satisfied. Early government versions of the shooting talked about bin Laden using his wife as protection and being shot by a SEAL inside the room. But subsequent accounts, from officials and others like Bissonnette, further muddied the story and obscured the facts. What the two SEALs did discuss after the action was why there'd been a short gap before more assaulters joined them on the third floor. "Where was everybody else?" the point man asked. I told him we just ran thin. Guys went left and right on the second floor and it was just us. Everything happened really fast. Everybody did their jobs. Any team member would have done exactly what I did. At Jalalabad, as we got off the plane there was an air crew there, guys who fix helicopters. They hugged me and knew I'd killed him. I don't know how the hell word spread that fast. McRaven himself came over to me, very emotional. He grabbed me across the back of my neck like a proud father and gave me a hug. He knew what had happened, too. Not long after, a senior government official had an unofficial phone call with the mentor. "Your boy was the one," the mentor says he was told. The Shooter was alternately shocked and pleased to know that word got back to the States before I did. "Who killed bin Laden?" was the first question, and then the name just flies. And it was the Shooter who, when an Obama administration official asked for details during the president's private visit with the bin Laden team at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, said "We all did it." The SEAL standing next to the Shooter would say later, "Man, I was dying to tell him it was you." From the moment reporters started getting urgent texts hours before President Obama's official announcement on May 1, 2011, the bin Laden mission exploded into public view. Suddenly, a brilliant spotlight was shining where shadows had ruled for decades. TV trucks descended on the SEAL Team 6 community in Virginia Beach, showing their homes and hangouts. "The big mission changed a lot of attitudes around the command," the Shooter says. "There were suspicions about whether anyone was selling out." It had begun "when we were still in the Jalalabad hangar with our shit on. There was a lot of 'Don't let this go to your head, don't talk to anyone,' not even our own Red Team guys who hadn't gone with us." The assaulters "were immediately put in a box, like a time-out," says the Shooter's close friend, who was not on the mission. "'Don't open your mouth.' I would have flown them to Tahoe for a week." But even with the SEALs' strong history of institutional modesty, there was no unringing this bell. The potential for public fame was too great, and suspicion was high inside SEAL Team 6. The Shooter was among those reprimanded for going out to a bar to celebrate the night they got back home. And he was supposed to report for work the next morning, but instead took the day off to spend with his kids. Twenty-four hours later came the offer of witness protection, driving the beer truck in Milwaukee. "That was the best idea on the table for security." "Maybe some courtesy eyes-on checks" of his home, he thought. "Send some Seabees over to put in a heavier, metal-reinforced front door. Install some sensors or something. But there was literally nothing." He considered whether to get a gun permit for life outside the perimeter. The SEALs are proud of being ready for "anything and everything." But when it came to his family's safety? "I don't have the resources." With gossip and finger-pointing continuing over the mission, the Shooter made a decision "to show I wasn't a douchebag, that I'm still part of this team and believe in what we're doing." He re-upped for another four-month deployment. It would be in the brutal cold of Afghanistan's winter. But he had already decided this would be his last deployment, his SEAL Team 6 sayonara. "I wanted to see my children graduate and get married." He hoped to be able to sleep through the night for the first time in years. "I was burned out," he says. "And I realized that when I stopped getting an adrenaline rush from gunfights, it was time to go." May 1, 2012, the first anniversary of the bin Laden mission. The Shooter is getting ready to go play with his kids at a water park. He's watching CNN. "They were saying, 'So now we're taking viewer e-mails. Do you remember where you were when you found out Osama bin Laden was dead?' And I was thinking: Of course I remember. I was in his bedroom looking down at his body." The standing ovation of a country in love with its secret warriors had devolved into a news quiz, even as new generations of SEALs are preparing for sacrifice in the Horn of Africa, Iran, perhaps Mexico. The Shooter himself, an essential part of the team helping keep us safe since 9/11, is now on his own. He is enjoying his family, finally, and won't be kissing his kids goodbye as though it were the last time and suiting up for the battlefield ever again. But when he officially separates from the Navy three months later, where do his sixteen years of training and preparedness go on his résumé? Who in the outside world understands the executive skills and keen psychological fortitude he and his First Tier colleagues have absorbed into their DNA? Who is even allowed to know? And where can he go to get any of these questions answered? There is a Transition Assistance Program in the military, but it's largely remedial level, rote advice of marginal value: Wear a tie to interviews, not your Corfam (black shiny service) shoes. Try not to sneeze in anyone's coffee. There is also a program at MacDill Air Force Base designed to help Special Ops vets navigate various bureaucracies. And the VA does offer five years of health care benefits—through VA physicians and hospitals—for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but it offers nothing for the shooter's family. "It's criminal to me that these guys walk out the door naked," says retired Marine major general Mike Myatt. "They're the greatest of their generation; they know how to get things done. If I were a Fortune 500 company, I'd try to get my hands on any one of them." The general is standing in the mezzanine of the Marines Memorial building he runs in San Francisco. He's had to expand the memorial around the corner due to so many deaths over the past eleven years of war. He is furious about the high unemployment rate among returning infantrymen, as well as homelessness, PTSD, and the other plagues of new veterans. General Myatt believes "the U.S. military is the best in the world at transitioning from civilian to military life and the worst in the world at transitioning back." And that, he acknowledges, doesn't even begin to consider the separate and distinct travesty visited on the Shooter and his comrades. The Special Operations men are special beyond their operations. "These guys are self-actualizers," says a retired rear admiral and former SEAL I spoke with. "Top of the pyramid. If they wanted to build companies, they could. They can do anything they put their minds to. That's how smart they are." But what's available to these superskilled retiring public servants? "Pretty much nothing," says the admiral. "It's 'Thank you for your service, good luck.'" One third-generation military man who has worked both inside and outside government, and who has fought for vets for decades, is sympathetic to the problem. But he notes that the Pentagon is dealing with two hundred thousand new veterans a year, compared with perhaps a few dozen SEALs. "Can and should the DOD spend the extra effort it would take to help the superelite guys get with exactly the kind of employers they should have? Investment bankers, say, value that competition, drive, and discipline, not to mention people with security clearances. They [Tier One vets] should be plugged in at executive levels. Any employers who think about it would want to hire these people." For officials, however, everyone signing out of war is a hero, and even for the masses of retirees, programs are sporadic and often ineffectual. Michelle Obama and Jill Biden have both made transitioning vets a personal cause, though these efforts are largely gestural and don't reach nearly high enough for the skill sets of a member of SEAL Team 6. The Virginia-based Navy SEAL Foundation has a variety of supportive programs for the families of SEALs, and the foundation spends $3.2 million a year maintaining them. But as yet they have no real method or programs for upper-level job placement of their most practiced constituency. A businessman associated with the foundation says he understands that there is a need the foundation does not fill. "This is an ongoing thing where lots of people seem to want to help but no one has ever really done it effectively because our community is so small. No one's ever cracked it. And there real-ly needs to be an education effort well before they separate [from the service] to tell them, 'The world you're about to enter is very different than the one you've been operating in the last fifteen or twenty years.'" One former SEAL I spoke with is a Harvard MBA and now a very successful Wall Street trader whose career path is precisely the kind of example that should be evangelized to outgoing SEALs. His own life reflects that "SpecOps guys could be hugely value-added" to civilian companies, though he says business schools — degrees in general — might be an important step. "It would be great to get a panel of CEOs together who are ready to help these guys get hired." Some big companies do have veteran-outreach specialists — former SEAL Harry Wingo fills that role at Google. But these individual and scattered shots still do not provide what is needed: a comprehensive battle plan. In San Francisco recently, I talked about the Special Ops issue with Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and venture capitalist and Orbitz chairman Jeff Clarke. Both are very interested in offering a business luminary hand to help clandestine operators make their final jump. There is enthusiastic consensus among the business and military people I have canvassed that this kind of outside help is required, perhaps a new nonprofit financed and driven by the Costolos and Clarkes of the world. Even before he retired, the Shooter's new business plan dissolved when the SEAL Team 6 members who formed it decided to go in different directions, each casting for a civilian professional life that's challenging and rewarding. The stark realities of post-SEAL life can make even the blood of brothers turn a little cold. "I still have the same bills I had in the Navy," the Shooter tells me when we talk in September 2012. But no money at all coming in, from anywhere. "I just want to be able to pay all those bills, take care of my kids, and work from there," he says. "I'd like to take the things I learned and help other people in any way I can." In the last few months, the Shooter has put together some work that involves a kind of discreet consulting for select audiences. But it's a per-event deal, and he's not sure how secure or long-term it will be. And he wants to be much more involved in making the post — SEAL Team 6 transition for others less uncertain. The December suicide of one SEAL commander in Afghanistan and the combat death of another — a friend — while rescuing an American doctor from the Taliban underscore his urgent desire to make a difference on behalf of his friends. He imagines traveling back to other parts of the world for a few days at a time to do dynamic surveys for businesses looking to put offices in countries that are not entirely safe, or to protect employees they already have in place. But he is emphatic: He does not want to carry a gun. "I've fought all the fights. I don't have a need for excitement anymore. Honestly." After all, when you've killed the world's most wanted man, not everything should have to be a battle. "They torture the shit out of people in this movie, don't they? Everyone is chained to something." The Shooter is sitting next to me at a local movie theater in January, watching Zero Dark Thirty for the first time. He laughs at the beginning of the film about the bin Laden hunt when the screen reads, "Based on firsthand accounts of actual events." His uncle, who is also with us, along with the mentor and the Shooter's wife, had asked him earlier whether he'd seen the film already. "I saw the original," the Shooter said. As the action moves toward the mission itself, I ask the Shooter whether his heart is beating faster. "No," he says matter-of-factly. But when a SEAL Team 6 movie character yells, "Breacher!" for someone to blow one of the doors of the Abbottabad compound, the Shooter says loudly, "Are you fucking kidding me? Shut up!" He explains afterward that no one would ever yell, "Breacher!" during an assault. Deadly silence is standard practice, a fist to the helmet sufficient signal for a SEAL with explosive packets to go to work. During the shooting sequence, which passes, like the real one, in a flash, his fingers form a steeple under his chin and his focus is intense. But his criticisms at dinner afterward are minor. "The tattoo scene was horrible," he says about a moment in the film when the ST6 assault group is lounging in Afghanistan waiting to go. "Those guys had little skulls or something instead of having some real ink that goes up to here." He points to his shoulder blade. "It was fun to watch. There was just little stuff. The helos turned the wrong way [toward the target], and they talked way, way too much [during the assault itself]. If someone was waiting for you, they could track your movements that way." The tactics on the screen "sucked," he says, and "the mission in the damn movie took way too long" compared with the actual event. The stairs inside bin Laden's building were configured inaccurately. A dog in the film was a German shepherd; the real one was a Belgian Malinois who'd previously been shot in the chest and survived. And there's no talking on the choppers in real life. There was also no whispered calling out of bin Laden as the SEALs stared up the third-floor stairwell toward his bedroom. "When Osama went down, it was chaos, people screaming. No one called his name." "They Hollywooded it up some." The portrayal of the chief CIA human bloodhound, "Maya," based on a real woman whose iron-willed assurance about the compound and its residents moved a government to action, was "awesome" says the Shooter. "They made her a tough woman, which she is." The Shooter and the mentor joke with each other about the latest thermal/night-vision eyewear used in the movie, which didn't exist when the older man was a SEAL. "Dude, what the fuck? How come I never got my four-eye goggles?" "We have those." "Are you kidding me?" "SEAL Team 6, baby." They laugh, at themselves as much as at each other. The Shooter seems smoothed out, untroubled, as relaxed as I've seen him. But the conversation turns dark when they discuss the portrayal of the other CIA operative, Jennifer Matthews, who was among seven people killed in 2009 when a suicide bomber was allowed into one of their black-ops stations in Afghanistan. They both knew at least one of the paramilitary contractors who perished with her. The supper table is suddenly flooded with the surge of strong emotions. Anguish, really, though they both hide it well. This is not a movie. It's real life, where death is final and threats last forever. The blood is your own, not fake splatter and explosive squibs. Movies, books, lore — we all helped make these men brilliant assassins in the name of liberty, lifted them up on our shoulders as unique and exquisitely trained heroes, then left them alone in the shadows of their past. Uncertainty will never be far away for the Shooter. His government may have shut the door on him, but he is required to live inside the consequences of his former career. One line from the film kept resonating in my head. An actor playing a CIA station chief warns Maya about jihadi vengeance. "Once you're on their list," he says, "you never get off." Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the extent of the five-year health care benefits offered to cover veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs offers comprehensive health care to eligible veterans during that period, though not to their families. In light of this change, we have also revised an earlier passage in the story referring to the shooter’s post-service benefits. Also, the original version of this story did not include a few sentences that ran in the issue printed last week. They have now been restored. PLUS: David Granger on 'The Shooter' in D.C.

– In what will likely be the day's second-biggest talker, Esquire and the Center for Investigative Reporting have published an interview with the SEAL Team 6 member who shot Osama bin Laden. Phil Bronstein, the executive chair of CIR, spent a year talking to the anonymous shooter (referred to as "the Shooter"), ultimately producing a nearly 15,000-word piece titled, "The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden ... Is Screwed." The headline encapsulates the two-fold nature of the piece: recounting the "most definitive account" (verified by a number of sources, including other SEALS) "of those crucial few seconds" in which the Shooter put three bullets into bin Laden's head; and tackling this incongruity: "that a man with hundreds of successful war missions, one of the most decorated combat veterans of our age, who capped his [16-year] career by terminating bin Laden, has no landing pad in civilian life." Bronstein catalogs the absent opportunities, like the $25 million bounty on bin Laden's head that won't go to the team and the movies and books from which it won't benefit; and the single offer from SEAL command that he could drive a beer truck in Milwaukee under a new identity. And while a private security job might be a valid route, "many of these guys, including the Shooter, do not want to carry a gun ever again for professional use." Bronstein also catalogs what the Shooter lacks: pension (he left service 36 months short of the necessary 20 years), healthcare (though he battles arthritis, eye damage, tendonitis, and blown disks), protection for his family (from a retaliatory attack), disability benefits (he's waiting), a healthy marriage (he and his wife have split, under the pressure of a job that took him away as many as 300 days a year), and communication from the VA (computer-generated form letters aside). And as CIR's executive director explains in an editor's note, while the Shooter faces "exceptional" issues upon his re-entry to society, they're "similar to those many veterans face when leaving the service." See the full piece for many more fascinating details, or read about an unusual development at the site of bin Laden's assassination.

View Photo Gallery: Meet the Route 29 Batman. Police pulled a man over on Route 29 in Silver Spring last week because of a problem with his plates. This would not ordinarily make international news, but the car was a black Lamborghini, the license plate was the Batman symbol, and the driver was Batman, dressed head-to-toe in full superhero regalia. HOLY MOVING VIOLATION! It didn’t take long before images of the Dark Knight’s encounter with law enforcement began turning up in Facebook news feeds, on CNN and the London tabloids. The episode even made it into Jimmy Fallon’s monologue on NBC earlier this week. Jokers emerged instantaneously too. “Let him do his job,” one commenter urged on the Post Web site. “Batman has expensive taste,” noted another. Meanwhile, questions about Batman’s identity mounted: “Did they make him take off his mask?” someone asked. No, they did not. Even Montgomery County police honor a superhero code of conduct, just like the Howard County officers who once helped him with a flat bat tire. Batman told officers his real name was not Bruce Wayne but Lenny B. Robinson, and that his real tags were in the car. (He was not ticketed then, but has been before for a heavy bat foot.) The Caped Crusader is a businessman from Baltimore County who visits sick children in hospitals, handing out Batman paraphernalia to up-and-coming superheros who first need to beat cancer and other wretched diseases. “I’m just doing it for the kids,” he says. But in light of him going viral — “Gotham City is on the verge of chaos,” Anderson Cooper informed CNN viewers — I asked him whether I could unveil the man behind the mask. He acquiesced but suggested I do so by accompanying him to the cancer ward at Children’s National Medical Center in Northwest Washington for a superhero party thrown by the Hope for Henry organization. On Monday, he pulled up in his black Lambo with yellow Batman symbols on the doors, the floor mats, the headrests — pretty much everywhere — and he was dressed in his heavy leather and neoprene uniform that he bought from a professional costume maker. He carried two large bags of Batman books, rubber Batman symbol bracelets and various other toys up to the front desk, where the check-in attendant asked him his name. “Batman,” he said. Lenny B. Robinson and Wonder Woman (Leslie Vincent from Cast of Thousands) visit patients at the annual Hope for Henry Superhero Celebration at Georgetown University Hospital. (Allen Goldberg) The check-in attendant asked for identification. Batman said it was in his Batmobile. The check-in attendant, just doing her job, asked for his real name. “Lenny,” he announced. “B, as in Batman. Robinson.” It took Batman approximately 20 minutes to reach the elevators. He stopped to hand out Batman toys to every child he saw, picking them up for pictures, asking them how they were feeling. LaTon Dicks snapped a photo of Batman standing behind her son DeLeon in his wheelchair. She’d recognized the Batmobile on her way in to the hospital. Like everyone else, she’d seen a TV report on him being stopped by the police and protested, “You can’t pull over Batman.” When Batman finally reached the elevator for the slow ride up to the cancer ward, I could see his face already sweating behind the mask. He told me he loses 5 to 6 pounds in water weight when he wears the superhero uniform. He paid $5,000 for it. He spends $25,000 a year of his own money on Batman toys and memorabilia. He signs every book, hat, T-shirt and backpack he hands out — Batman. Batman is 48. He is a self-made success and has the bank account to prove it. He recently sold, for a pile of cash, a commercial cleaning business that he started as a teenager. He became interested in Batman through his son Brandon, who was obsessed with the caped crusader when he was little. “I used to call him Batman,” he told me. “His obsession became my obsession.” Batman began visiting Baltimore area hospitals in 2001, sometimes with his now teenage son Brandon playing Robin. Once other hospitals and charities heard about his car and his cape, Batman was put on superhero speed dial for children’s causes around the region. He visits sick kids at least couple times a month, sometimes more often. He visits schools, too, to talk about bullying. He does not do birthday parties. His superhero work is limited to doing good deeds, part of a maturation process in his own life. In his earlier years, he acknowledges that he sometimes displayed an unsuperhero-like temper and got into occasional trouble with the law for fights and other confrontations. Putting on the Batman uniform changes and steadies him. “Eventually, it sinks in and you become him,” Batman told me. “It feels like I have a responsibility that’s beyond a normal person. And that responsibility is to be there for the kids, to be strong for them, and to make them smile as much as I can.” He understands that might sound corny, but he doesn’t care. View Photo Gallery: Five things you can learn from a superhero. Batman stepped off the elevator on the fourth floor of Children’s. Spider-Man and Wonder Woman were there too — both professional actors from talent agencies, on the clock. He picked up a little boy and said, “I have a present for you.” He shook hands with a father and handed him a yellow rubber Batman bracelet, saying, “This will bring you good luck.” The father said, “We need good luck.” The parents always say that. Batman asked each child his or her name. He lifted up almost every child. Many were weak, their hair thin from chemo. He always told them, “I have a present for you.” When a little girl ran away, perhaps a bit scared, Batman said, “That’s the story of Batman’s love life.” (He is divorced.) Batman overheard a mother tell someone that her toddler was going home the next day, and holding the toddler, and hugging him gently, Batman said, “I’m really glad you are feeling better.” Stephanie Broadhead of California, Md., was leaning against the wall while her 10-year-old daughter Claire was having her face drawn by an artist. Claire has leukemia. Batman stopped by to marvel at the picture and hand Claire some gifts. “This makes a very hard thing to deal with a little easier,” Claire’s mom said. Superhero visits to hospitals let kids be kids in a scary, adult place, but the activities are indeed therapeutic, too, the chief doctor on the cancer floor told me. “These visits provide an immediate boost for these kids,”said Jeffrey Dome, the oncology division chief at Children’s. “Some of these children have to stay for weeks or months at a time. That wears down the children and it wears down the family. You have to keep up morale. A visit from a superhero is sort of like a fantasy in the middle of all this hard-core therapy.” As Batman wandered around from child to child, I asked him, “Isn’t this hard?” His children are healthy. My children are healthy. “We are very lucky,” he said. “All I can say is we are very, very lucky.” The party began winding down. Spider-Man changed out of his costume. Wonder Woman changed out of hers. They said goodbye to Batman, still working the floor, as he posed for a photo with a patient’s father. The father thanked Batman and said, “I saw you on the news — Route 29.” “I think everyone saw me on Route 29,” Batman acknowledged. He asked the nurses at the front desk whether there were any children who couldn’t come out of their rooms to see him. Assured that there weren’t, Batman headed back down to his Batmobile, followed by the mother of a baby girl with cancer and her healthy 4-year-old son, whose only goal in life at that moment was to see the Batmobile. When the boy saw the car, I thought his eyeballs were going to separate from his body. (Batman is actually in the process of having a just-like-the-movies Batmobile built for $250,000, but it’s not ready yet.) Batman revved the engines and blasted the audio system — the Batman theme song. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, Batman! He revved the engine some more. The little boy didn’t want to say goodbye, but his mom told him, “Batman needs to go fight the bad guys.” The little boy cried. “I want to go help him fight the bad guys,” he said. His mom said, “You need to go help your sister fight cancer.” Batman sped away. More on this story: Photos: Batman brightens spirits of hospitalized children Video: Dashboard-camera view of Batman getting pulled over Batman pulled over in Silver Spring Q&A with Batman: Gas mileage, motivation, heroes and more More from Rosenwald, Md. Who’s the Md. priest who denied Communion to a lesbian? U-Md. students share their secrets ‘Toy Man’ reflects on Woody Woodpecker, little pianos, Yo-Yos Follow Mike Rosenwald Bookmark the Rosenwald, Md. blog home Follow Rosenwald, Md. on twitter Sign up for Rosenwald, Md. RSS Feed ||||| Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

– When Maryland cops pulled over Batman on a traffic stop last week, photos of the incident quickly went viral. So who was the grown man decked out head to toe in Batman gear and driving a black Lamborghini with Batman tags instead of plates? It turns out to be a pretty nice story, as Michael S. Rosenwald of the Washington Post explains. This Batman is Lenny B. Robinson, a 48-year-old self-made rich guy who spends much of his time visiting kids sick with cancer as Batman and giving them gifts he paid for himself. The profile includes this quote from Robinson, who says playing the part has helped his own maturation. “Eventually, it sinks in and you become him,” he says of donning the uniform. “It feels like I have a responsibility that’s beyond a normal person. And that responsibility is to be there for the kids, to be strong for them, and to make them smile as much as I can.” It's not a fleeting pastime: Robinson is having a custom-made Batmobile built for $250,000.

American student Gabrielle Turnquest was called to the Bar of England and Wales after passing her exams at just 18. The average lawyer undertakes the Bar Professional Training Course when they are 27. However, the young high-flyer will not go on to work in the UK as she wants to return to her native America to qualify as a lawyer there. But her success means she is also called to the Bahamas Bar, the country of her parents, and she hopes to work there. Gabrielle took the course, at the University of Law, along with her sister Kandi, who also passed her exams but at the ripe old age of 22. The teenager, who is originally from Windermere, Florida, hopes eventually to be a fashion law specialist. She said: “I am honoured to be the youngest person to pass the Bar exams but, really, I was not aware at the time what the average age was. “I didn’t fully realise the impact of it.” Gabrielle has already made history at her previous university, Liberty University in Virginia, where she was the youngest person to finish an undergraduate degree there, in psychology, at the age of 16. If the youngster wanted to work as a barrister in the UK she would still have to carry out a pupillage at a chambers for at least a year and then be granted a tenancy. Traditionally, a trainee lawyer had to be 21 to be eligible for the call to The Bar but that was scrapped in 2009 with the introduction of the Bar Training Regulations. Nigel Savage, President and Provost at The University of Law, said: "The growing globalisation of law firms and the need for more international expertise means that it is becoming increasingly more important for young legal professionals to have experience across different legal markets if they are going to maximise the number of job opportunities that are available to them.” ||||| More relevant to you To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.

– This is not the kind of bar most teenagers are interested in getting access to: Gabrielle Turnquest, an 18-year-old from Florida, has become the youngest person ever to be called to the bar in England and Wales. Turnquest got her undergraduate degree at Liberty University in Virginia at age 16, received her graduate diploma in law at age 17, and just passed the Bar Professional Training Course at the University of Law in England, reports the Lawyer. The average course graduate is 27. "I am honored to be the youngest person to pass the Bar exams but, really, I was not aware at the time what the average age was," she says, per the Telegraph. “I didn’t fully realize the impact of it.” But Turnquest doesn't actually want to practice law in the UK (she did the course alongside her 22-year-old sister). She plans to return to the US to take the multistate bar exam, then do another degree at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising in an effort to eventually specialize in fashion law.

FILE - In this May 2002 file photo, Panera Bread Co. CEO Ron Shaich stands behind a counter at a location in St. Louis. On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, Shaich said he plans to stay on as chief executive... (Associated Press) FILE - In this May 2002 file photo, Panera Bread Co. CEO Ron Shaich stands behind a counter at a location in St. Louis. On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, Shaich said he plans to stay on as chief executive after the sale of his company. He added that customers shouldn’t see any changes as a result of the... (Associated Press) NEW YORK (AP) — Panera Bread fans shouldn't see any changes as a result of the chain's sale, according to its founder and CEO, who is staying on as its leader. The sale to JAB Holdings for more than $7 billion will allow management to focus on transformational efforts including the expansion of delivery and digital ordering, said CEO Ron Shaich. JAB also owns Peet's Coffee & Tea, Krispy Kreme Doughnuts and Keurig Green Mountain. Panera also said Wednesday that its sales rose 5.3 percent at established, company-owned locations in the first quarter, outperforming the broader restaurant industry. Here's what Shaich had to say Wednesday morning in a phone interview after the deal was announced, lightly edited for length and clarity. Q: How did this deal come about? A: We weren't looking for this. Panera's on an extraordinary run. That performance has been because we always operated in the context of long-term strategy. (JAB) are people who share those values. Many of these deals happen when people feel weak. We're doing this from a position of strength. Q: Why is this deal good for customers? A: I've been a public company CEO for over 20 years — longer than Cal Ripken played baseball. I spent 20 percent of that time explaining what I just did, and 20 percent of the time explaining what I'm about to do. This is about competitive advantage. It gives us the ability to focus intensely on our strategic plan. Q: What can people expect to change in Panera restaurants as a result of this deal? A: JAB has got about 12 people in their holding company. They're long-term private investors, they're not operators. I would say you can expect nothing different. Q: What's the biggest challenge for the restaurant industry right now? A: I never talk about the industry. My job is building a competitive advantage for Panera, literally getting customers to walk past the competition. Q: You also sold Au Bon Pain in 1999. Do you still stop in at Au Bon Pain restaurants and think about what you'd do differently? A: The folks that run Au Bon Pain are very old friends. The CEO for many years is the woman who introduced me to my wife. I try to avoid commenting on friends. Q: You're 63. How much longer do you think you'll stay on as CEO? A: I'm here and I'm doing this. They'll need to carry me out with my boots on. ___ Follow Candice Choi at www.twitter.com/candicechoi ||||| FILE - In this March 8, 2010, file photo, an employee passes an order to a customer at a Panera Bread store in Brookline, Mass. Panera is being acquired by Europe’s JAB Holding Co. for more than $7 billion.... (Associated Press) FILE - In this March 8, 2010, file photo, an employee passes an order to a customer at a Panera Bread store in Brookline, Mass. Panera is being acquired by Europe’s JAB Holding Co. for more than $7 billion. JAB is better known for the growing stable of brands it owns, including a controlling stake in... (Associated Press) FILE - In this March 8, 2010, file photo, an employee passes an order to a customer at a Panera Bread store in Brookline, Mass. Panera is being acquired by Europe’s JAB Holding Co. for more than $7 billion. JAB is better known for the growing stable of brands it owns, including a controlling stake in... (Associated Press) FILE - In this March 8, 2010, file photo, an employee passes an order to a customer at a Panera Bread store in Brookline, Mass. Panera is being acquired by Europe’s JAB Holding Co. for more than $7 billion.... (Associated Press) ST. LOUIS (AP) — Panera is being acquired by Europe's JAB Holding Co. for more than $7 billion. JAB is better known for the growing stable of brands it owns or has a big stake in, including Peet's Coffee & Tea, Caribou Coffee Co., Stumptown Coffee and Keurig Green Mountain and Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. For days there have been rumors of a deal for Panera, with one of the companies reportedly interested being Starbucks Corp. On Wednesday, the St. Louis sandwich and soup chain revealed that it was actually JAB, an investment fund based in Luxemburg that has quietly become a Starbucks rival. "Our success for shareholders is the byproduct of our commitment to long-term decision making and operating in the interest of all stakeholders, including guests, associates, and franchisees," said Panera founder and CEO Ron Shaich. "We believe this transaction with JAB offers the best way to continue to operate with this approach. We are pleased to join with JAB, a private investor with an equally long-term perspective, as well as a deep commitment to our strategic plan." Shaich opened a Boston cookie store in the early 1980s and expanded to more than 2,000 bakery-cafes with annual revenue of $5 billion in sales. JAB will pay $315 per Panera Bread Co. share. That's a 14.5 percent premium to the company's Tuesday closing price of $274. The transaction, which includes approximately $340 million of debt, is expected to close in the third quarter. It still needs the approval of Panera shareholders. Once the deal is complete, Panera will become privately held company. Shares of Panera jumped more than 12 percent before the opening bell Wednesday.

– Panera, meet Krispy Kreme. The sandwich-and-soup chain Panera is being acquired by Europe's JAB Holding for more than $7 billion, reports the AP. JAB is better known for the growing stable of brands it owns or has a big stake in, including Peet's Coffee & Tea, Caribou Coffee, Keurig Green Mountain, and Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. Rumors of a deal for Panera have been swirling for days, with Starbucks one of the companies reportedly interested. On Wednesday, the St. Louis chain revealed that it was actually JAB, an investment fund based in Luxemburg that has quietly become a Starbucks rival. In a separate Q&A with the AP, Panera founder and CEO Ron Shaich says that he plans to stay on as CEO and that customers should see no difference. Shaich opened a Boston cookie store in the early 1980s and expanded to more than 2,000 bakery-cafes with annual revenue of $5 billion in sales. JAB will pay $315 per Panera Bread Co. share. That's a 14.5% premium to the company's Tuesday closing price of $274. The transaction, which includes approximately $340 million of debt, is expected to close in the third quarter. It still needs the approval of Panera shareholders. Once the deal is complete, Panera will become a privately held company.

Sen. Ted Cruz, (R-Texas), said on the Senate floor Tuesday he would stand against the president's health care law "until I'm no longer able to stand." (The Washington Post) Sen. Ted Cruz, (R-Texas), said on the Senate floor Tuesday he would stand against the president's health care law "until I'm no longer able to stand." (The Washington Post) Continuing his vow to keep speaking against the new federal health-care law "until I am no longer able to stand," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) continued with his marathon speech modeled on old-fashioned filibusters Tuesday evening in hopes of slowing debate over a short-term spending measure. "I rise today in opposition to Obamacare," Cruz announced as he began his remarks Tuesday afternoon, saying he would be speaking on behalf of millions of Texans and Americans opposed to the new health-care law. "A great many Texans, a great many Americans feel they do not have a voice, and so I hope to play some very small role in providing the voice," he said. (Watch: Highlights from Cruz's marathon speech (so far) ) Shortly after 8 p.m., Cruz announced he would begin reading "bedtime stories" to his two young daughters, who he said were back home in Texas watching with his wife. Cruz started with the Bible, quoting from "King Solomon's Wise Words" from the Book of Proverbs. Then he read the Dr. Seuss classic, "Green Eggs and Ham," in its entirety, noting that it was one of his favorite children's books. When he was done reading, Cruz told his daughters: "I love with you all my heart. It's bed time, give mommy a hug and a kiss, brush your teeth, say your prayers and daddy's going to be home soon to read to you in person." By holding the floor, Cruz and his allies are launching what most Americans know as a traditional filibuster, or the practice of holding the chamber for several hours on end by speaking continuously, an exercise perhaps best epitomized by actor Jimmy Stewart in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." But even if Cruz were physically capable of speaking for more than 24 hours -- the longest filibuster in U.S. history is 24 hours, 18 minutes by the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (S.C.) and other Southern senators opposed to civil rights laws -- there are already parliamentary procedures in place that dictate that Cruz will have to yield the floor by Wednesday afternoon at the latest. At that point, the Senate is scheduled to hold a key procedural test vote that is near certain to pass with bipartisan support. Cruz, a freshman senator, was joined in his efforts by several other Republican senators, including Mike Lee (Utah), David Vitter (La.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). Paul even sent a callout on Twitter asking supporters to send him questions that he said he would ask Cruz later on the Senate floor. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who is running for an open U.S. Senate seat next year, also visited the Senate to watch Cruz speak. Aides to the senators gave no sense of when Cruz and his allies would conclude, but Cruz is likely angling to match the duration of two other recent filibusters. One, led by Paul in March, lasted nearly 13 hours, while a filibuster by Texas Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis in June lasted just under 11 hours. After a little more than two hours, Cruz had discussed an unusual mix of subjects, ranging from opposition to the health-care law; the unemployment rate among African American teenagers; how his father, Rafael Cruz, used to make green eggs and ham for breakfast; a recent awards show acceptance speech by actor Ashton Kutcher; and the fast-food restaurants Denny's, Benihana and White Castle. When he yielded briefly to take questions, the other senators would give extended remarks on their opposition to the health-care law and then ask Cruz questions that set up the Texas senator to continue his remarks. Meanwhile junior Democratic senators, who by tradition are tasked with presiding over the chamber, sat at the front of the room watching the exchange. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) sat in the chair watching intently, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was seen using an iPad. Cruz and Lee have vowed to use whatever Senate procedural tactics are available to slow debate on the legislation. Their marathon speech is the culmination of a strategy they began developing in the summer, when Lee started looking for allies in a move to defund the health-care law by using annual spending bills for federal agencies as potential leverage. Last week, the House passed a spending measure that would continue funding government operations by also defunding Obamacare, thus avoiding a government shutdown. The bill is now in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has vowed to remove language defunding the law before calling a final vote. Cruz and his allies are hoping to stop Reid from doing so. But Cruz and Lee have clashed with other Senate Republicans, who strongly objected to their plans in the days leading up to the start of the marathon speech. During their weekly luncheon earlier Tuesday, fellow Republicans urged Cruz to stand down and agree to quickly pass the spending measure and send it back to the House for potential amendments, according to two senators in the room. Cruz refused the request, the senators said, meaning the Senate likely will have to continue debating the measure through the weekend, giving the House just a few hours to pass a new spending bill by the Oct. 1 deadline or face a government shutdown. Asked as he left the lunch how long he planned to speak on the Senate floor, Cruz told reporters: "We shall see." Moments later, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told reporters that he disagreed with Lee's assertions that there is considerable grass-roots support to defund the health-care law. "There’s a lot of people upset on both sides, and I just don’t believe anybody benefits from shutting the government down, and certainly Republicans don’t. We learned that in 1995," Hatch said, referring to the last time congressional Republicans clashed with a Democratic president over federal spending. “We’re in the minority, we have to find a way of standing up for our principles without immolating ourselves in front of everybody, in a way when we don’t have the votes to do it," he said. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he also agreed with other Republicans that the Senate should move quickly to pass the spending measure and return it to the House. "My own view is that it would be to the advantage of our colleagues in the House, who are in the majority, to shorten the process, and if the majority leader were to ask us to shorten the process, I would not object," McConnell told reporters. "If the House doesn't get what we send over there until Monday, they're in a pretty tough spot," McConnell said later. "My own view is the House, having passed a bill that I really like and that I support, I hate to put them in a tough spot." Rosalind S. Helderman and Lori Montgomery contributed to this report. 1 of 53 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Ted Cruz exits the presidential race View Photos Looking back at the Texas senator’s presidential bid. Caption Looking back at the Texas senator’s presidential bid. May 3, 2016 Sen. Ted Cruz speaks with his wife, Heidi, by his side during a primary night campaign event in Indianapolis. Cruz ended his presidential campaign, eliminating the biggest impediment to Donald Trump’s march to the Republican nomination. Darron Cummings/AP Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. More on this story: The Fix: How McConnell and Cornyn burst Ted Cruz's bubble Cruz happy to be outcast in the showdown shutdown Federal workers could lose pay if the government shuts down ||||| Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Tuesday promised to speak until he can't stand up anymore, which launched an immediate debate on whether his speech is a filibuster or just a really long speech. Cruz's defenders said the speech about the need to defund ObamaCare is a filibuster. But Democrats repeated throughout the day that it's just a really long speech. So which is it? It depends who you ask — parliamentary experts say there is no precise definition of "filibuster." ADVERTISEMENT Many see a filibuster as talking on the Senate floor for an extended period of time in order to prevent action on measure. If that's the case, Cruz's speech today seems to fall short, because regardless of his remarks, the Senate will vote by Wednesday on whether to end debate on a motion to proceed to the House-passed continuing resolution.In other words, he can talk and talk, but that vote will happen on Wednesday at the latest because Senate Democrats filed cloture on the motion to proceed. Under Senate rules, filing for cloture sets up a firm vote after two days.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made it clear today that this is his preferred definition of "filibuster.""I want to disabuse everyone," Reid said this morning. "There will be no filibuster today. Filibusters stop people from voting, and we are going to vote tomorrow."But some say the term "filibuster" can be used to describe any dilatory tactic that delays the legislative process. If that's the case, Cruz's comments can be seen as a filibuster, because his opposition to moving ahead with the bill is preventing senators from reaching a unanimous consent agreement to vote earlier on ending debate on the motion to proceed.The Senate's own website seems to agree that any delaying tactic is a filibuster. The website defines the word as an "informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions."So while Cruz didn't start his remarks by saying he is filibustering the continuing resolution, experts say he can make that claim. And then, people can disagree with that claim.Under Senate rules, Reid's decision on Monday to file cloture on the motion to proceed means two days must pass before a vote on the motion is held. That vote would be on whether to end debate on the motion to proceed.If the vote succeeds on Wednesday, that will start a 30-hour clock, and when that time expires, a vote on the actual motion to proceed is due.The two-day and 30-hour timelines are firm, but senators can always agree by unanimous consent to speed them up when everyone agrees. This week, many Senate Republicans were seeking to do just that, to give House Republicans more time to deal with the Senate-passed resolution. ||||| Tea party conservative Sen. Ted Cruz on Tuesday vowed to speak in opposition to President Barack Obama's health care law until he's "no longer able to stand," even though fellow Republicans privately urged him to back down from his filibuster for fear of a possible government shutdown in a week. This image from Senate video show Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaking on the Senate floor at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013. Cruz says he will speak until he's no longer able to... (Associated Press) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. returns to his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013, after speaking on the floor of the Senate. In a break with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas,... (Associated Press) This image from Senate video show Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaking on the Senate floor at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013. Cruz says he will speak until he's no longer able to... (Associated Press) "This grand experiment is simply not working," the Texas freshman told a largely empty chamber of the president's signature domestic issue. "It is time to make D.C. listen." Egged on by conservative groups, the potential 2016 presidential candidate excoriated Republicans and Democrats in his criticism of the three-year-old health care law and Congress' willingness to gut the law. Cruz supports the House-passed bill that would avert a government shutdown and defund Obamacare, as do many Republicans. However, they lack the votes to stop Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., from moving ahead on the measure, stripping the health care provision and sending the spending bill back to the House. That didn't stop Cruz' quixotic filibuster. Standing on the Senate floor, with conservative Sen. Mike Lee of Utah nearby, Cruz talked about the American revolution, Washington critics and the impact of the health care law. "The chattering class is quick to discipline anyone who doesn't fall in line," complained Cruz, who led a small band of opponents within Republican ranks. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the GOP's No. 2, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, opposed Cruz' tactic, and numerous Republicans stood with their leadership rather than Cruz. Sen. John Thune, the third-ranking Republican, declined to state his position. "I think we'd all be hard-pressed to explain why we were opposed to a bill that we're in favor of," McConnell told reporters. "And invoking cloture on a bill that defunds Obamacare, it doesn't raise taxes, and respects the Budget Control Act strikes me as a no brainer." One Senate Republican said McConnell had suggested in a meeting of rank and file senators that they not speak as long as the rules permit on the legislation, for fear it would give them little time to try to turn the political tables on Democrats or to avoid a possible shutdown. The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private. "Delaying the opportunity for the House to send something back, it seems, plays right into the hands of Senate Democrats," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said. "If I'm Harry (Reid), what I'd hope would happen is you wait until the very last minute to send something over to the House." Asked whether there were any efforts in the GOP meeting to persuade Cruz and Lee to speed up Senate debate, Corker said, "The discussion came up about the advantage of having House Republicans weigh in again. And there were two senators who did not like that idea, not to name who they are." The bill would keep the government operating until Dec. 15 and gut Obamacare. Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, said the chamber may come out in favor of a smaller patch for bankrolling the government than the one envisioned in the House bill. The idea would be to get Congress working sooner than mid-December on a more sweeping piece of legislation _ known as an omnibus spending bill _ that he hopes would reverse some automatic spending cuts known as sequestration. Despite Cruz' effort, a test vote was set for Wednesday. Reid had filed a motion to proceed to the measure, and under Senate rules lawmakers will vote even if Cruz speaks for hours and keeps the Senate in session overnight. Delaying tactics could push a final vote into the weekend, just days before the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1. The Cruz filibuster, which began at 2:41 p.m., echoed the effort of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who waged a nearly 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan's nomination for CIA director over the president's authority to use drones in the United States. The Senate eventually confirmed Brennan. Outside conservative groups that have been targeting Republican incumbents implored their members to call lawmakers and demand that they stand with Cruz and his attack on Obamacare. "This is the ultimate betrayal," the Senate Conservatives Fund said of McConnell and Cornyn in an email Tuesday morning. They pressed their members to "melt the phones," arguing that "we can't let these turncoats force millions of Americans into this liberal train wreck." The Club for Growth and the Madison Project also pressed lawmakers to back Cruz' effort. The issue has roiled the Republican Party, exacerbating the divide between tea party conservatives and GOP incumbents who repeatedly have voted against the health care law but now find themselves on the defensive. Republican senators said defunding Obamacare simply won't happen with a Democratic president and Democrats controlling the Senate. "It will be a cold day in Gila Bend, Ariz., before we defund Obamacare," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the party's 2008 presidential nominee. "A very cold day. In fact there may be a snowstorm. ... I know how this movie ends. I don't know all the scenes before it ends, but I know how it ends. We don't defund Obamacare." Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said that as long as Obama has the power to veto legislation, "the fate of that bill is pretty much in his control, and we know what he's going to do." ___ Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Alan Fram, David Espo and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report. ||||| Ted Cruz finally released his grip on the Senate floor after more than 21 hours of speaking about the need to defund Obamacare. The Texas Republican seized control of the Senate floor on Tuesday about 2:42 p.m. vowing to “speak in support of defunding Obamacare until I am no longer able to stand.” Cruz could have spoken all the way up to a 1 p.m. procedural vote on moving spending bill forward, but he relented at noon. Text Size - + reset Top 10 Cruz floor quotes Debt ceiling: By the numbers “It is my it intention to accept the end of this at noon,” Cruz said. After his 20th hour holding the floor, Cruz asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to come to the floor to listen to a pair of requests that sparked a bizarre exchange. Cruz asked to waive Wednesday’s vote and move a high-stakes procedural vote to Friday rather than Saturday to allow more people to watch. “I think it is better for this country that this vote is visible,” Cruz said. “Sticking it on Saturday in the middle in the middle of football games would disserve that objective.” Reid ignored Cruz’s requests and asked for far more time to be yielded back to allow the House more time to consider what the Senate will send back. “There’s a possibility that they may not accept what we send them and they may want to send us something back,” Reid said. Cruz cut off Reid, accusing him of “making a speech” rather than asking Cruz a question. Despite his Ironman stand on the floor of the upper chamber, Cruz could not stop a Senate already in motion from eventually returning a clean continuing resolution to the House scant days before a government shutdown is scheduled to take effect on Oct. 1. Under Senate rules, the latest the upper chamber could take the first procedural vote on a House spending bill that defunds Obamacare is 1 p.m. on Wednesday — a reality Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) broadcast to the world Tuesday morning when he opened the Senate and again on Wednesday. (PHOTOS: Longest filibusters in history) “This is not a filibuster. This is an agreement that he and I made that he could talk,” Reid said Wednesday. In other words, from the beginning it was all over save for the theatrics. But Cruz offered plenty Tuesday by holding the Senate floor for hours about why Obamacare should cease to exist. He was flanked at times by Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jim Risch of Idaho, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky, who recommended Cruz wear comfortable shoes and not eat food on national television. Cruz touched on a wide variety of subjects during his marathon, from Dr. Seuss to college kids’ inability to find White Castle burgers during the wee hours because of Obamacare. He read tweets from constituents and related stories from a “lost generation” of young people plagued by the Affordable Care Act. (PHOTOS: Key quotes from Ted Cruz) He also read bedtime stories to his children, who he said were at home watching him on C-SPAN. One was the Seuss tale “Green Eggs and Ham.” Cruz was even joined by Democrats, including Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, who pointedly questioned Cruz both Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Kaine sparred with Cruz for 30 minutes and argued some voters had sent people to Washington to preserve Obamacare. Kaine won his Senate seat in 2012 by besting former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who had staked his election on repeal. Durbin on Tuesday explained why he voted for the health care law and argued the law made it easier for one of his constituents to qualify for Medicaid. Durbin asked if — given Cruz’s Ivy League education — he knew he did not have the votes to defund Obamacare in the Senate. (WATCH: Cruz’s speech: 10 colorful quotes) “Certainly the senator realizes that it takes 60 votes,” Durbin told Cruz. “I would note that I’m quite familiar with what is necessary to defund Obamacare,” Cruz shot back. Cruz bashed his colleagues in Washington for accepting that stopping Obamacare is impossible and charged that the outcome of the drama in the Senate this week is predetermined, comparing it to professional wrestling. He also dinged anonymous staffers and Republican lawmakers for criticizing him in the press, yet also divulged a conversation between Lee and an anonymous House member. According to Cruz, that lawmaker told Lee of the House sending over its defund bill: “You guys should be grateful. We gave you your vote.” (QUIZ: Do you know Ted Cruz?) “Why should we feel gratitude for a vote that’s destined to lose?” Cruz asked of other Republicans, referring to Reid’s procedural upper-hand. “Symbolic votes are great for getting elected.” A potential 2016 presidential candidate, Cruz is playing to the GOP base as much as he is bashing business as usual inside the Capitol. He said some lawmakers are too concerned with hitting the D.C. cocktail circuit, taking show votes and giving speeches to change the way Washington works, asking at one point: “Where is the outrage?” “A lot of members of this body have — at least so far — not showed up to battle,” Cruz said, repeatedly referring to the empty chairs in the Senate chamber while he talked. “The chattering class is quick to discipline anyone who doesn’t fall in line.” (Also on POLITICO: Hillary Clinton defends Obamacare, slams defunding efforts) Cruz said his speech was meant to “celebrate” the American democratic system and that if senators listened to their constituents back home, he and his conservative allies truly could win. “The vote would be 100-0 to defund Obamacare,” he said

– It's filibuster-y, but apparently not a filibuster. Sen. Ted Cruz took the Senate floor about 2:40pm Eastern today and promised to speak against ObamaCare until he is "no longer able to stand," reports AP. It sounds like an "old-fashioned talking filibuster," says the Washington Post, although, technically speaking, it's not a filibuster in the eyes of many parliamentarians. The Hill explains: A filibuster holds the promise of a lawmaker speaking long enough to block a vote, but that can't happen here. No matter what Cruz does, the Senate will vote on a procedural motion tomorrow on the House resolution that defunds ObamaCare. "I want to disabuse everyone," said Harry Reid before Cruz started. "There will be no filibuster today. Filibusters stop people from voting, and we are going to vote tomorrow." But even if it amounts to nothing more than a really long speech, Cruz is taking advantage. "I rise today in opposition to ObamaCare,” he began. "This grand experiment is simply not working. It is time to make DC listen." Fellow conservative Mike Lee of Utah gave Cruz his first break after about an hour. Politico's take: "A potential 2016 presidential candidate, Cruz is playing to the GOP base as much as he is bashing business as usual inside the Capitol."

ADVERTISEMENT In the run-up to his endorsement, Erickson, who writes for the political website Red State , said he wouldn’t follow former GOP candidate Herman Cain with a non-endorsement.Earlier this month, Cain endorsed “the people.” But speaking Monday on his WSB radio show, Erickson did something similar, endorsing “a great fireball from the sky annihilating us all.”Still, Erickson said he hoped Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stayed in the race because they had the best chances of rallying the conservative base against Romney.Erickson has been one of the leading critics of Romney from the right. Last November he wrote a post titled “Mitt Romney as the nominee: Conservatism dies,wins.”“Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee,” he wrote at the time. “And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process.”As a result, many speculated that Erickson would throw his weight behind either Santorum or Gingrich, which would have given a significant boost to either campaign entering a week filled with lower-profile primaries and caucuses.But Erickson has been highly critical of all the remaining candidates, saying the only reason Romney was seen as the eventual nominee was because “the other candidates, right now, are a pretty pathetic lot.”Erickson has at various times said Ron Paul should be excluded based on the controversial newsletters that bear his name, called Santorum a “big-government conservative” and said it would be “insanity” to nominate Gingrich, who in the past has supported the individual mandate.Speaking Monday, Erickson called for a “pox on all their houses.”“I doubt any of them can beat Barack Obama unless the economy gets worse, and I don’t want to be in a position of rooting for a bad economy,” he said.Erickson said he’s hoping for a brokered convention, where some other candidate might emerge in a last-ditch effort to derail the Romney campaign. ||||| As I said back in December, I have no plans to endorse a candidate for President of the United States. I wrote, at the time, “I would prefer instead to tell you exactly what I think about each of the candidates, good or bad, and let the chips fall where they may.” Since then, I have routinely been asked who I would endorse. Today, after a lot of reflection on this race, I can honestly say my position has not changed and I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades’ sweet meteor of death than any of the candidates left in the race. Only the sweet meteor of death seems capable of stopping both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I can take the easy way out and not endorse because while I recognize politics necessitates compromise, I would have to compromise my intellectual honesty too much to choose any of the remaining candidates. Tonight, on my radio show, I put my weight behind the sweet meteor of death. You can listen to my reasons why here. The Republican Party is putting itself in the hands of the economy. With Mitt Romney as the nominee, we will be forced to hope for a deteriorating economy because, while I will vote for him and think he is vastly better than Barack Obama, the fact is he has made no case for himself against Barack Obama except that he can do a better job on the economy. And let’s be clear — no Republican should hope or appear to be hoping for a deteriorating economy. It’s just that with no other justification for his election other than electability based on the ability to fix the economy, if the economy fixes itself, suddenly there is no justification for Mitt Romney’s electability. My sincere and honest hope is that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stay in the race as long as possible to deny MItt Romney enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination. I do not think either Santorum or Gingrich have much of a better shot against Barack Obama, but I do think they are at least running on bigger ideas than Mitt Romney — ideas that still translate and survive an improving economy. For months I have said I am for “Not Romney.” It is not because I think either Gingrich or Santorum have a better shot at winning than Romney, but because I still hold out hope for a broker convention to save us from ourselves. I may be a Republican, and at one time an elected Republican, but I have always needed more than just a letter of the alphabet next to someone’s name to get me excited. Newt Gingrich excites because he picks fights with all the people I think need to be fought, including Mitt Romney. God bless him for that. But I am under no illusion that makes him capable of beating Barack Obama without a deteriorating economy. Rick Santorum excites me because, while I think he is a big government and compassionate conservative, he is willing to defend traditional mores in this country in a way few are. HIs bold stand for faith and tradition is honest and refreshing, but it also makes for a massive liability in a general election when he has so little to show voters on other fronts. As for Romney, he does not excite me and has largely run his campaign making sure conservatives know he can get the nomination without them. That’s all well and good, but he certainly should not expect me or other conservatives to do anything for him in the general election other than, hopefully it won’t just be me, showing up to vote for him. That’s about all I plan to do for the man. I’ll support the Republican nominee for President. I’ll defend him from meritless attacks and I will oppose Barack Obama. Any one of our candidates is better than Barack Obama. But God help us if any one of them is the nominee. Until we reach the magic number 1144, which is the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination, I hold out hope that someone or some meteor saves us from ourselves. Loading ... more stories ||||| Meet The Candidates! Current State Of The National Race: 'All Dead Inside Now' still commands an insurmountable advantage over all. Obama edges both Mitt and Gingrich; Mitt gaining more ground over Gingrich. Despair not. A new candidate has thrown his enormous bulk into the field. A Mr. SMOD. Campaign announcement materials received by AOSHQ are below the fold. SluShop courtesy of Slublog Industries, Inc. "Howdy! I am an enormous chunk of rock hurtling through space for now, but hoping for a chance to profoundly change the world for the better. I want to stop the partisan sniping and bickering of rivals that characterizes the political process. And I want you to never have to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again. My platform: Death. To expunge. The annihilation of all life on Earth. Some say I am naive and doomed to failure, since bacteria, certain ocean creatures, and some insects will surely survive my planet-wracking onslaught. I concede that my critics may technically have a point. But the truth is, I've always been a 'half-a-loaf-of-bread-is-better-than-none' kind of guy." SMOD: An End To Politics As Usual. Forever. This Candidate Has Been Endorsed By The Sierra Club™ Oh, my. My, my. Hm. I like how he said, "Howdy." That connects powerfully to a) the Heartland demographic who b) wants the world to end suddenly in violent chaos as soon as possible. Shrewd. Very well played. Well! Looks like All Dead Inside seems to have some competition now, eh Morons! Oh, this is going to be a lively race indeed. We will be sure to keep you updated as to Mr. SMOD's progress. We're going to be guessing his trajectory and selling squares for placing bets on the impact location at the Amazon store. The top prize will be that you were right about something just before death. That will be a very nifty moment for you. On to our regularly scheduled Meet The Candidates Revival Post. In 2010, we ran an occasional showcase for Moron-approved House and Senate candidates and hey why not, let's do it again. In the comments below, please name the candidates running for national office that you like, preferably from your state, but not necessarily, if they're really that exciting to you. I will compile a list of your recommendations and try to showcase one or two of them on a weekly or biweekly basis. If you could include a little url or two in there to help me out research-wise that would be great, because there are going to be a lot of these and it's already a pretty time-consuming project. If you're too embarrassed to publicly admit who you are supporting, you may email me directly at laura w tips AT hot mail DOOT COOM. SluShop and Post-inspiration courtesy of Slublog Industries, Inc.

– RedState.com editor Erick Erickson has finally endorsed a presidential candidate: The Sweet Meteor of Death, a joke candidate put forward by political blog Ace of Spades HQ. "You could presume that being a conservative of course I would choose something like a great fireball coming from the sky annihilating us all because women and minorities are hardest hit," Erickson quipped on his radio show. But no, the real reason is simply that he can't stand the current field. "I've decided a pox on all their houses, they're all terrible," the influential blogger said. "I feel like a man without a country." Erickson has been a vocal Mitt Romney critic, so many had expected him to throw his weight behind Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, the Hill reports. But in a blog post, Erickson explained that he doubts either can beat President Obama, so he wants to see a brokered convention. "I hold out hope that someone or some meteor saves us from ourselves."

Jamie Foxx caused a stir with fans when he joked about Bruce Jenner's transition to female. (Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images) The iHeartRadio Music Awards got off to a bumpy start Sunday night, as host Jamie Foxx went after Bruce Jenner — and his alleged transition into a woman — in his opening monologue. "We have some groundbreaking performances here, too, tonight. We got Bruce Jenner, who will be here doing some musical performances. He's doing a his-and-her duet all by himself." "Look," Foxx added. "I'm just busting your balls while I still can." Of course, his comments did not go over well with viewers at home. Boo! Shame on you #iHeartAwards for allowing @iamjamiefoxx to be transphobic on national television! Those #BruceJenner jokes were wrong!!! — Perez Hilton (@PerezHilton) March 30, 2015 Totally unacceptable for the @iHeartRadio awards and Jamie Foxx to poke fun of Bruce Jenner for his gender change. SICKENING! — chelsea. (@_chelbell24) March 30, 2015 Jamie Foxx's transphobic jokes at the iHeartRadio about Bruce Jenner were gross, glad they didn't garner much laughs — Loki's Banphrionsa (@ReinaAtlantico) March 30, 2015 I guess iHeart Radio didn't think they had to cut Jamie Foxx's transphobic joke? — warisdis (@EYEEMOJI) March 30, 2015 I guess iHeart Radio didn't think they had to cut Jamie Foxx's transphobic joke? — warisdis (@EYEEMOJI) March 30, 2015 Oh yay, Jamie Foxx with the a few grossly transphobic Bruce Jenner jokes. Great way to kick off the #iHeartAwards. Blecch. — Eric (@MrEAnders) March 30, 2015 Jamie Foxx just made a terrible, disgusting joke about Bruce Jenner's rumored transition on this trash awards show. — Lauren Nostro (@laurennostro) March 30, 2015 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1CoQpWc ||||| Jamie Foxx is in hot water after making a joke about Bruce Jenner's alleged transition into a woman at the iHeartRadio Music Awards Sunday night. "We got Bruce Jenner will be here doing some musical performances. He's doing a his-and-her duet all by himself." That awkward, nearly silent response probably wasn't exactly what Foxx was hoping to get from the audience there. And it got even worse as soon as he added this... "I'm just busting your balls while I still can. Give it up!" Yeah, bad. Just... bad. As you probably already guessed, viewers on social media were anything but pleased with Foxx's comments, with some even accusing the actor of transphobia. And even worse - Jenner's youngest daughter, Kylie, was scheduled to make an appearance at the show, though it's unclear if she showed up. Of course, Jenner has yet to comment on the alleged gender transition. But he will reportedly address it on this season of his family's reality show, "Keeping Up with the Kardashians." As of late Sunday night, there has been no comment from Foxx, iHeartMedia and Jenner. MORE FROM THE 2015 iHeartRadio MUSIC AWARDS: Check out the red carpet looks: ||||| Justin Timberlake was sure to save the best for last during his lengthy iHeartRadio Awards acceptance speech for the Innovator Award on Sunday. After spending some time encouraging his young fans to embrace being different, as well as thanking his mother and management team, the 34-year-old ended his speech with a touching (and funny) shout-out to his pregnant wife, Jessica Biel. "Lastly, you can't have innovation without creation, so finally I want to thank my best friend, my favorite collaborator, my wife Jessica at home who's watching," Timberlake said. "Honey, I can't wait to see our greatest creation yet. Don't worry, Daddy's heading home right now to innovate by learning how to change a poopy diaper and get my swaddle on." ||||| Replying to @RAtheRuggedMan @RAtheRuggedMan C'mon people now a days are sensitive about everything, anything people do or say they get offended or think it's racist

– Jamie Foxx made the ill-advised choice last night to joke about Bruce Jenner's rumored transition to female during his opening monologue as host of the iHeartRadio Music Awards, and the reaction was swift. "We have some groundbreaking performances here, too, tonight. We got Bruce Jenner, who will be here doing some musical performances. He's doing a his-and-her duet all by himself," Foxx said. As USA Today notes, reactions included this from Perez Hilton: "Boo! Shame on you #iHeartAwards for allowing @iamjamiefoxx to be transphobic on national television!" There are many more similar Twitter responses where that came from, and AOL notes that the live audience responded with "awkward" near-silence. Of course, Foxx also has his defenders; sample tweet: "people mad at JAMIE FOXX for making BRUCE JENNER jokes? Calling the jokes 'TRANSPHOBIC'. WTF is that? I think you people are 'HUMORPHOBIC.'" (Click to watch a much sweeter moment from last night's awards show.)

People celebrate the capture in Tripoli of Moammar Gadhafi's son and one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, at the rebel-held town of Benghazi, Libya, early Monday, Aug. 22, 2011. Libyan rebels raced... (Associated Press) Heavy clashes have broken out near Moammar Gadhafi's compound in the Libyan capital. Rebel spokesman Mohammed Abdel-Rahman says that tanks emerged from the complex, known as Bab al-Aziziya, early Monday and began firing. An Associated Press reporter at the nearby Rixos Hotel where foreign journalists are staying could hear gunfire and loud explosions that have been going on for more than 30 minutes. No further details were immediately available on the fighting. Abdel-Rahman says that Gadhafi troops remain a threat to rebels advanced into the city Sunday, and that as long as Gadhafi remains on the run the "danger is still there." THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) _ Euphoric Libyan rebels took control of most of Tripoli in a lightning advance Sunday, celebrating the victory in Green Square, the symbolic heart of Moammar Gadhafi's regime. Gadhafi's defenders quickly melted away as his 42-year rule crumbled, but the leader's whereabouts were unknown and pockets of resistance remained. State TV broadcast Gadhafi's bitter pleas for Libyans to defend his regime. Opposition fighters captured his son and one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, who along with his father faces charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. Another son was under house arrest. "It's over, frizz-head," chanted hundreds of jubilant men and women massed in Green Square, using a mocking nickname of the curly-haired Gadhafi. The revelers fired shots in the air, clapped and waved the rebels' tricolor flag. Some set fire to the green flag of Gadhafi's regime and shot holes in a poster with the leader's image. The startling rebel breakthrough, after a long deadlock in Libya's 6-month-old civil war, was the culmination of a closely coordinated plan by rebels, NATO and anti-Gadhafi residents inside Tripoli, rebel leaders said. Rebel fighters from the west swept over 20 miles (30 kilometers) in a matter of hours Sunday, taking town after town and overwhelming a major military base as residents poured out to cheer them. At the same time, Tripoli residents secretly armed by rebels rose up. When rebels reached the gates of Tripoli, the special battalion entrusted by Gadhafi with guarding the capital promptly surrendered. The reason: Its commander, whose brother had been executed by Gadhafi years ago, was secretly loyal to the rebellion, a senior rebel official Fathi al-Baja told The Associated Press. Al-Baja, the head of the rebels' political committee, said the opposition's National Transitional Council had been working on the offensive for the past three months, coordinating with NATO and rebels within Tripoli. Sleeper cells were set up in the capital, armed by rebel smugglers. On Thursday and Friday, NATO intensified strikes inside the capital, and on Saturday, the sleeper cells began to rise up. President Barack Obama said Libya is "slipping from the grasp of a tyrant" and urged Gadhafi to relinquish power to prevent more bloodshed. "The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people," Obama said in a statement from Martha's Vineyard, where he's vacationing. He promised to work closely with rebels. By the early hours of Monday, opposition fighters controlled most of the capital. The seizure of Green Square held profound symbolic value _ the plaza was the scene of pro-Gadhafi rallies organized by the regime almost every night, and Gadhafi delivered speeches to his loyalists from the historic Red Fort that overlooks the square. Rebels and Tripoli residents set up checkpoints around the city, though pockets of pro-Gadhafi fighters remained. In one area, AP reporters with the rebels were stopped and told to take a different route because of regime snipers nearby. Abdel-Hakim Shugafa, a 26-year-old rebel fighter, said he was stunned by how easy it was. He saw only about 20 minutes of gunbattles as he and his fellow fighters pushed into the capital at nightfall. "I expect Libya to be better," said Shugafa, part of a team guarding the National Bank near Green Square. "He (Gadhafi) oppressed everything in the country _ health and education. Now we can build a better Libya." In a series of angry and defiant audio messages broadcast on state television, Gadhafi called on his supporters to march in the streets of the capital and "purify it" of "the rats." He was not shown in the messages. His defiance raised the possibility of a last-ditch fight over the capital, home to 2 million people. Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim claimed the regime has "thousands and thousands of fighters" and vowed: "We will fight. We have whole cities on our sides. They are coming en masse to protect Tripoli to join the fight." But it seemed that significant parts of Gadhafi's regime and military were abandoning him. His prime minister, Al-Baghdadi Al-Mahmoudi, fled to a hotel in the Tunisian city of Djerba, said Guma el-Gamaty, a London-based rebel spokesman. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Gadhafi's regime was "clearly crumbling" and that the time to create a new democratic Libya has arrived. It was a stunning reversal for Gadhafi, who earlier this month had seemed to have a firm grip on his stronghold in the western part of Libya, despite months of NATO airstrikes on his military. Rebels had been unable to make any advances for weeks, bogged down on the main fronts with regime troops in the east and center of the country. Gadhafi is the Arab world's longest-ruling, most erratic, most grimly fascinating leader _ presiding for 42 years over this North African desert nation with vast oil reserves and just 6 million people. For years, he was an international pariah blamed for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. After years of denial, Gadhafi's Libya acknowledged responsibility, agreed to pay up to $10 million to relatives of each victim, and the Libyan rule declared he would dismantle his weapons of mass destruction program. That eased him back into the international community. But on February 22, days after the uprising against him began, Gadhafi gave a televised speech vowing to hunt down protesters "inch by inch, room by room, home by home, alleyway by alleyway." The speech caused a furor that helped fuel the armed rebellion against him and it has been since mocked in songs and spoofs across the Arab world. As the rebel force advanced on Tripoli on Sunday, taking town after town, thousands of jubilant civilians rushed out of their homes to cheer the long convoys of pickup trucks packed with fighters shooting in the air. One man grabbed a rebel flag that had been draped over the hood of a slow-moving car and kissed it, overcome with emotion. Akram Ammar, 26, fled his hometown of Tripoli in March and on Sunday was among the rebel fighters pouring back in. "It is a happiness you can't describe but also some fear. It will take us time to clear the entire city. I expect a long time for Libyans to get used to the new system and the new democracy," he said, dressed in camouflage pants and black shirt and sporting the long beard of a conservative Muslim. "But in the end it will be better." The rebels' leadership council, based in the eastern city of Benghazi, sent out mobile text messages to Tripoli residents, proclaiming, "Long live Free Libya" and urging them to protect public property. Internet service returned to the capital for the first time in six months. The day's first breakthrough came when hundreds of rebels fought their way into a major symbol of the Gadhafi regime _ the base of the elite 32nd Brigade commanded by Gadhafi's son, Khamis. Fighters said they met little resistance. They were 16 miles from the big prize, Tripoli. Hundreds of rebels cheered wildly and danced as they took over the compound filled with eucalyptus trees, raising their tricolor from the front gate and tearing down a large billboard of Gadhafi. From a huge warehouse, they loaded their trucks with hundreds of crates of rockets, artillery shells and large-caliber ammunition. One group started up a tank, drove it out of the gate, crushing the median of the main highway and driving off toward Tripoli. The rebels also freed more than 300 prisoners from a regime lockup, most of them arrested during the heavy crackdown on the uprising in towns west of Tripoli. The fighters and the prisoners _ many looking weak and dazed and showing scars and bruises from beatings _ embraced and wept with joy. "We were sitting in our cells when all of a sudden we heard lots of gunfire and people yelling 'God is great.' We didn't know what was happening, and then we saw rebels running in and saying 'We're on your side.' And they let us out," said 23-year-old Majid al-Hodeiri. He said he was captured four months ago by Gadhafi's forces crushing the uprising in his home city of Zawiya. He said he was beaten and tortured while under detention. From the military base, the convoy sped toward the capital. Mahmoud al-Ghwei, 20 and unarmed, said he had just came along with a friend for the ride . "It's a great feeling. For all these years, we wanted freedom and Gadhafi kept it from us. Now we're going to get rid of Gadhafi and get our freedom," he said. The uprising against Gadhafi broke out in mid-February, and anti-regime protests quickly spread. A brutal regime crackdown quickly transformed the protests into an armed rebellion. Rebels seized Libya's east, setting up an internationally recognized transitional government there, and two pockets in the west, the port city of Misrata and the Nafusa mountain range. Gadhafi clung to the remaining territory, and for months neither side had been able to break the other. In early August, however, rebels launched an offensive from the Nafusa Mountains, intending to open a new, western front to break the deadlock. They fought their way down to the Mediterranean coastal plain, backed by NATO airstrikes, and captured the strategic city of Zawiya. Rebel fighters who spoke to relatives in Tripoli by phone said hundreds rushed into the streets in anti-regime protests in several neighborhoods on Sunday. "We received weapons by sea from Benghazi. They sent us weapons in boats," said Ibrahim Turki, a rebel in the Tripoli neighborhood of Tajoura, which saw heavy fighting the past two days. "Without their weapons, we would not have been able to stand in the face of the mighty power of Gadhafi forces." Thousands celebrated in the streets of Benghazi, the rebels' de facto capital hundreds of miles to the east. Firing guns into the air and shooting fireworks, they cheered and waved the rebel tricolor flags, dancing and singing in the city's main square. When rebels moved in, the regime unit guarding the capital, known as the Mohammed Megrayef battalion, surrendered and its commander ordered its troops to put down their arms. Al-Baja, the rebel official, said that the commander, Barani Eshkal, had secretly defected earlier to the rebels, embittered by the 1986 execution of his brother, who had joined a coup attempt against Gadhafi. Eshkal also pointed out to the rebels the hiding place of Gadhafi's son Seif al-Islam in a hotel, al-Baja said. Rebel chief Mustafa Abdel-Jalil in Benghazi confirmed to the AP that the rebels captured Seif but refused to give details. In the Netherlands, the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said his office would talk to the rebels on Monday about Seif al-Islam's transfer for trial. "It is time for justice, not revenge," Moreno-Ocampo told the AP. Seif al-Islam, his father and Libya's intelligence chief were indicted earlier this year for allegedly ordering, planning and participating in illegal attacks on civilians in the early days of the violent crackdown on anti-regime protesters. Another son, Mohammed, was under house arrest. Mohammed, who is in charge of Libyan telecommunications, appeared on the Arabic satellite channel Al-Jazeera, saying his house was surrounded by armed rebels. "They have guaranteed my safety. I have always wanted good for all Libyans and was always on the side of God," he said. Close to the end of the interview, there was the sound of heavy gunfire and Mohammed said rebels had entered his house before the phone line cut off. ___ Hadeel Al-Shalchi in Cairo contributed to this report. ||||| Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Seif al-Islam, his father and Libya's intelligence chief were indicted earlier this year for allegedly ordering, planning and participating in illegal attacks on civilians in the early days of the violent crackdown on anti-regime protesters. In the Netherlands, the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said his office would talk to the rebels on Monday about Seif al-Islam's transfer for trial. "It is time for justice, not revenge," Moreno-Ocampo told the AP. 'Time for justice, not revenge' Citing a source close to Gadhafi's inner circle, NBC News reported that Seif al-Islam had tried to flee Tripoli while disguised as a women. "Whether or not Gadhafi reads the tea leaves the same way is the big question," the official said. Referring to news that Gadhafi's sons Seif al-Islam, his onetime heir apparent, and Mohammed had been arrested and were in rebel custody, the U.S. official said, "We could be watching the game changer unfolding." As international news agencies broadcast video of huge crowds celebrating in Benghazi, the rebels' eastern headquarters, a U.S. official told NBC News that "the battle for Tripoli is clearly under way, and what has often seemed impossible — the fall of Gadhafi — may now be attainable." NBC News was not able to independently confirm the reports. Other top officials were reported to be fleeing, led by Prime Minister Al Baghdadi AlMahmoudi, who was spotted Monday morning in Jaraba, Tunisia, Al-Jazeera reported. Another major Arabic news agency, Al Arabiya, reported that indications were that Gadhafi may be in Tajoraa Hospital. Al-Jazeera's Arabic-language service reported that officers who had defected to the rebels found Gadhafi overnight near Tajoraa Hospital east of Tripoli. Gadhafi resisted, and two of the officers who tried to arrest him were killed, said the news agency, quoting a military source. "The traitors are paving the way for the occupation forces to be deployed in Tripoli," he said, calling on his supporters to march in the streets of the capital and "purify it" from "the rats." 'Traitors' Gadhafi delivered a series of defiant audio messages on state television Sunday night. He acknowledged that the opposition forces were moving into Tripoli and warned that the city would be turned into another Baghdad. "The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people," the president said. President Barack Obama said in a statement late Sunday from vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Mass., that "Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant" and that Gadhafi's regime "is showing signs of collapsing." Rebel fighters from the west swept over 20 miles in a matter of hours Sunday, taking town after town and overwhelming a major military base as residents poured out to cheer them. At the same time, Tripoli residents secretly armed by rebels rose up. The startling rebel breakthrough, after a long deadlock in Libya's 6-month-old civil war, was the culmination of a closely coordinated plan by rebels, NATO and anti-Gadhafi residents inside Tripoli, rebel leaders said. Hundreds of people remained in the streets of the capital Monday morning. Many of them were armed, and they fired repeatedly at propaganda posters of Gadhafi. Men celebrate the arrival of rebel fighters in Tripoli in the streets of Misrata, Libya, on Monday. Earlier, rebels waving opposition flags and firing into the air drove into Green Square, a symbolic showcase of the government until it was recently used for mass demonstrations in support of Gadhafi. Rebels immediately began calling it Martyrs' Square. Two of Gadhafi's sons were captured by the rebels but the whereabouts of Gadhafi himself, one of the world's longest ruling leaders, were unknown. A rebel spokesman also told Al-Jazeera that some pro-Gadhafi forces were still fighting and controlled 15 to 20 percent of Tripoli. Bab al-Aziziya, a sprawling compound that long served as the command center for the regime, has been heavily damaged by repeated NATO airstrikes over the past five months. Tripoli resident Moammar al-Warfali, whose family home is next to Bab al-Aziziya, said tanks rolled out from the compound after a group of rebels tried to get in. He said there appeared to be only a few tanks belonging to the remaining Gadhafi forces that have not fled or surrendered. Nouri Echtiwi, another rebel spokesman in Tripoli, told Reuters: "Four hours of calm followed the street celebrations. Then tanks and pick-up trucks with heavy machine guns mounted on the back came out of Bab al-Aziziya ... and started firing and shelling. They fired randomly in all directions whenever they heard gunfire." Rebel spokesman Mohammed Abdel-Rahman said tanks emerged from the complex, known as Bab al-Aziziya, and began firing shortly after dawn. Heavy fighting was reported near Moammar Gadhafi's compound Monday as government forces launched a fightback after rebels swept into the heart of the Libyan capital and crowds took to the streets to celebrate what they saw as the end of the dictator's four decades in power. P.J. Crowley, former chief spokesman for the State Department, said in an interview with msnbc TV that the swift takeover of the capital was "simply remarkable." Crowley cautioned that the world community would need to act just as swiftly to ensure stability. The National Transitional Council, a committee formed in March by anti-Gadhafi forces, has been "preparing for this day," but it would have been surprised by the overnight takeover, he said. "They will have to move swiftly," Crowley said, asking: "What will happen to their security services? ... What kind of justice system will we have?" Obama keeps full vacation day after Libya briefing Earlier Sunday, the rebels overran a major military base defending the capital, carted away truckloads of weapons and raced to Tripoli with virtually no resistance. The rebels' surprising and speedy leap forward was packed into just a few dramatic hours. By nightfall, they had advanced more than 20 miles to Gadhafi's stronghold. Thousands of jubilant civilians rushed out of their homes to cheer the long convoys of pickup trucks packed with rebel fighters shooting into the air. Some were hoarse, shouting, "We are coming for you, frizz-head," a mocking nickname for Gadhafi. In villages along the way that fell to the rebels one after another, mosque loudspeakers blared, "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great." "We are going to sacrifice our lives for freedom," Nabil al-Ghowail, 30, a dentist, said as he held a rifle in the streets of Janzour, a suburb just 6 miles west of Tripoli. Heavy gunfire erupted nearby. As town after town fell and Gadhafi forces melted away, the mood turned euphoric. Some shouted: "We are getting to Tripoli tonight." Others were shooting into the air, honking horns and yelling "Allahu Akbar." Once the rebels reached Tripoli, a convoy of more than 10 trucks entered the neighborhood of Ghot Shaal on the western edge of the city and set up checkpoints. The rebels moved on to the neighborhood of Girgash, about a mile and a half from Martyrs Square. They said they came under fire from a sniper on a rooftop in the neighborhood. Sunday's first breakthrough came when hundreds of rebels fought their way into a major symbol of the Gadhafi regime — the base of the elite 32nd Brigade, commanded by Gadhafi's son Khamis. Fighters said they met little resistance. Hundreds of rebels cheered wildly and danced as they took over the compound filled with eucalyptus trees, raising their tricolor from the front gate and tearing down a large billboard of Gadhafi. Inside, they cracked open wooden crates labeled "Libyan Armed Forces" and loaded their trucks with huge quantities of munitions. One of the rebels carried off a tube of grenades, while another carted off two mortars. Across the street, rebels raided a huge warehouse, making off with hundreds of crates of rockets, artillery shells and large-caliber ammunition. The warehouse had once been used to store packaged foods, and in the back, cans of beans were still stacked toward the ceiling. The prisoners had been held in the walled compound, and when the rebels rushed in, they freed more than 300 of them. "We were sitting in our cells when, all of a sudden, we heard lots of gunfire and people yelling 'Allahu Akbar.' We didn't know what was happening, and then we saw rebels running in and saying, 'We're on your side.' And they let us out," said Majid al-Hodeiri, 23, of Zawiya. He said he was captured four months ago by Gadhafi's forces and taken to the base, where he said he was beaten and tortured. Many of the prisoners looked disoriented as they stopped at a gathering place for fighters several miles away from the base. Some had signs of severe beatings. Others were dressed in tattered T-shirts or were barefoot. Crackdown fuels rebellion The uprising against Gadhafi broke out in mid-February, and anti-regime protests quickly spread across the vast desert nation of 6 million people. A brutal regime crackdown quickly transformed the protests into an armed rebellion. Rebels seized Libya's east, setting up an internationally recognized transitional government there, and two pockets in the west, the port city of Misrata and the Nafusa mountain range. Gadhafi clung to the remaining territory, and his forces failed to subdue the rebellion in Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, and in the Nafusa mountains. Since the start of August, thousands of rebel fighters, including many who had fled Gadhafi-held cities, joined an offensive that was launched from the mountains toward the coast. The fighters who had set out from the mountains three weeks ago rushed toward Tripoli on Sunday, starting out at dawn from a village just east of the coastal city of Zawiya. Only a day earlier, the rebels had claimed full control of Zawiya, an anti-regime stronghold of 200,000 people and home to Libya's last functioning oil refinery. Rebels said Saturday that they had launched their first attack on Tripoli in coordination with NATO, and gunbattles and mortar rounds rocked the city. NATO aircraft also made heavier-than-usual bombing runs after nightfall, with loud explosions booming across the city. NATO has conducted airstrikes in Libya since the end of March to fulfill a U.N. mandate calling for military action to protect civilians. Oana Lungescu, a NATO spokeswoman, said the Western alliance would continue to enforce its mandate.

– Automatic gunfire and explosions could be heard early today as tanks rolled out of Moammar Gadhafi's complex in Tripoli and troops loyal to the Libyan strongman continued a last-ditch battle against rebels. Gadhafi's troops remain a threat to rebels who surged into the city yesterday, and "danger is still there," rebel spokesman Mohammed Abdel-Rahman told AP. Earlier, rebels were waving flags and shooting into the air to celebrate their takeover of Tripoli's central Green Square. The war seemed all but over, and President Obama has called on Gadhafi to "relinquish power once and for all." But Gadhafi has not surrendered and his whereabouts are unknown. Gadhafi called on supporters to "kill the rats" in a series of desperate audio messages on state TV last night. Though much of Gadhafi's security and palace guard has reportedly surrendered, forces loyal to him still control some 20% of the city, a rebel leader has told Al-Jazeera. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Gadhafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and the head of Libya's intelligence service for crimes against humanity, reports the BBC. Gadhafi's eldest son has surrendered and Saif al-Islam was captured, according to reports.

PARIS (AP) — Charlie Hebdo's defiant new issue sold out before dawn around Paris on Wednesday, with scuffles at kiosks over dwindling copies of the paper fronting the Prophet Muhammad. In the city still shaken by the deaths of 17 people at the hands of Islamic extremists, a controversial comic who appeared to be praising the men was taken into custody. People queue up to buy the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo newspaper at a newsstand in Paris, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2015. In an emotional act of defiance, Charlie Hebdo resurrected its irreverent and often... (Associated Press) A man leaves after buying the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo newspaper as people queue up at a newsstand in Paris, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2015. In an emotional act of defiance, Charlie Hebdo resurrected its... (Associated Press) CORRECTS SUBJECT - A shopper buys a copy of Charlie Hebdo newspaper at a newsstand in Rennes, western France, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2015. In an emotional act of defiance, Charlie Hebdo resurrected its irreverent... (Associated Press) A banner reading: " Stock shortage for Charlie Hebdo" is placed at a newsstand in Lille, northern France, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2015. In an emotional act of defiance, Charlie Hebdo resurrected its irreverent... (Associated Press) Jean Paul Bierlein reads the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo outside a newsstand in Nice, southeastern France, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2015. In an emotional act of defiance, Charlie Hebdo resurrected its irreverent... (Associated Press) The core of the irreverent newspaper's staff perished a week ago when gunmen stormed its offices, killing 12. Those who survived put out the issue that appeared on newsstands Wednesday, working out of borrowed offices, with a print run of 3 million — more than 50 times the usual circulation. The storming of the newspaper was the opening salvo of three days of terror and bloodshed in the Paris region, ending when security forces killed all three gunmen on Friday. France's government was preparing tougher anti-terrorism measures, and there were growing signs that authorities were ready to use current laws to their fullest extent. Wednesday's detention of Dieudonne for defending terrorism followed a four-year prison sentence involving the same charge for a man in northern France who seemed to defend the attacks in a drunken rant while resisting arrest. French police say as many as six members of a terrorist cell that carried out the Paris attacks may still be at large, including a man seen driving a car registered to the widow of one of the gunmen. The country has deployed 10,000 troops to protect sensitive sites, including Jewish schools and synagogues, mosques and travel hubs. Dieudonne, who popularized an arm gesture that resembles a Nazi salute and who has been convicted repeatedly of racism and anti-Semitism, is no stranger to controversy. His provocative performances were banned last year but he has a core following among many of France's disaffected young people. His Facebook post, which was swiftly deleted, said he felt like "Charlie Coulibaly" — merging the names of Charlie Hebdo and Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who seized a kosher market and killed four hostages, along with a policewoman. Solidarity for Charlie Hebdo, although not uniform, was widespread in France and abroad. On Wednesday, the new issue vanished from kiosks immediately. Some newsstand operators said they expected more copies to arrive on Thursday. One kiosk near the Champs Elysees, open at 6 a.m., was sold out by 6:05. Another, near Saint-Lazar, reported fisticuffs among customers. "Distributing Charlie Hebdo, it warms my heart because we say to ourselves that he is still here, he's never left," said Jean-Baptiste Saidi, a van driver delivering copies well before dawn on Wednesday. ___ Associated Press writers Nicolas Vaux-Montagny and Milos Krivokapic contributed. ||||| PARIS Charlie Hebdo's first edition since an attack by Islamist gunmen sold out within minutes on Wednesday, featuring a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad on a cover that defenders praised as art but critics saw as a new provocation. French readers queued at dawn for copies to support the satirical newspaper, even as al Qaeda's branch in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack last week, saying it ordered the killings because it deemed the weekly had insulted the Prophet. Across the Middle East, Muslim leaders who have denounced the attack in which 12 people died called for calm, while criticizing Charlie Hebdo's decision to publish a fresh caricature of Mohammad. President Francois Hollande visited France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean and said it was ready to support military operations against Islamic State in Iraq "in close cooperation with coalition forces". The U.S. State Department said Secretary of State John Kerry would meet with Hollande in Paris on Friday to offer assistance to France. Also on Wednesday, the Interior Ministry said over 50 cases of people voicing support for terrorism had been registered since the attack on Charlie Hebdo's Paris office and the subsequent killings of a policewoman and four people at a Jewish supermarket. Millions of copies of the "survivors' edition" were printed, dwarfing the usual 60,000 print run. On its cover, a tearful Mohammad holds a "Je suis Charlie" sign under the words "All is forgiven." David Sullo, standing at the end of a queue of two dozen people at a central Paris kiosk, said he had never bought it before. "It's not quite my political stripes, but it's important for me to buy it today and support freedom of expression," he said. Inside, one cartoon showed jihadists saying, "We shouldn't touch Charlie people ... otherwise they will look like martyrs and, once in heaven, these bastards will steal our virgins." This week's edition underlined the irony of how the victims had been commemorated at Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris. "What makes us laugh most is that the bells of Notre-Dame rang in our honor," read an editorial in the newspaper, which emerged from the 1968 counter-culture movement and has long mocked all religions and pillars of the establishment. Prime Minister Manuel Valls, himself a frequent target of the weekly's caricatures, left a cabinet meeting with a copy tucked under his arm. "BATTLE OF PARIS" In a video posted on YouTube, Al Qaeda's Yemen branch said its leadership had ordered last Wednesday's attack on Charlie Hebdo. "As for the blessed Battle of Paris, we, the Organization of al Qaeda al Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula, claim responsibility for this operation as vengeance for the Messenger of God," said Nasser bin Ali al-Ansi, the group's main ideologue in Yemen. Ansi said the strike was the "implementation" of an order by al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. It was not immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the recording. The two brothers who attacked Charlie Hebdo and a third gunman who killed the policewoman and hostages at the kosher supermarket all died in police raids. Defenders praised the cover for upholding the newspaper's satirical mission, proclaiming its right to free speech while maintaining a mournful tone and a peaceful message. Jonathan Jones, art critic for Britain's Guardian newspaper, called the cover "a life-affirming work of art". "Funny people were killed for being funny. This new cover is the only possible response - a response that makes you laugh," he wrote. Belgium's Le Soir wrote, "Not publishing the edition would have been like a second death for the victims." Several German newspapers reprinted the cover. It filled the back page of the top-selling Bild daily, whose columnist Franz Josef Wagner praised it highly. "It is sarcasm, it is biting ridicule ... they are mocking the murderers," he wrote. In the Middle East, it was branded a new provocation that could create a backlash. Publishing the cartoons "shows contempt" for Muslim feelings, said the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestinian lands, Mohammed Hussein. Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Jawad Zarif said serious dialogue with the West would be easier if it respected Muslim sensitivities. "We believe that sanctities need to be respected," he said before nuclear talks in Geneva with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. "We won't be able to engage in a serious dialogue if we start disrespecting each other's values." A court in the southeastern Turkish city of Diyarbakir ruled in favor of blocking four websites that ran the cover. "Those crass people proud of attacking religions are inflaming Islamophobia. This mentality, whatever vehicle it uses, is a threat to world peace," Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan wrote on Twitter. Algeria's independent Arab language daily Echorouk ran its own front page cartoon showing a man carrying a "Je suis Charlie" placard next to an army tank crushing placards from Palestine, Mali, Gaza, Iraq and Syria. Above, the headline reads: "We are all Mohammad". Samir Mahmoud, a retired engineer in Cairo, said the cartoons "have no meaning, they should not affect us. We as Muslims are bigger and stronger than some cartoon". Days after Senegal's President Macky Sall took part in the Paris march, his interior ministry issued a statement on Wednesday banning the "distribution and circulation by all means" of the latest edition of "Charlie Hebdo" and the French daily "Liberation". All proceeds from the sale of this week's edition will go directly to Charlie Hebdo, a windfall for a publication that had been struggling financially. While many French people enthusiastically supported the weekly's decision to put another cartoon of Mohammad on its cover, some expressed concern that it would provoke more tension. Bordeaux mosque rector Tareq Oubrou urged French Muslims not to overreact to the new cartoons. "I don't think the prophet of Islam needs stupid or excited reactions," he told BFM-TV. "Freedom has its downsides and we must live with them." French prosecutors decided to try Dieudonne M'bala M'bala, a French comedian convicted in the past for anti-Semitic comments, on charges of glorifying terrorism for writing on Facebook, "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly", adding the surname of one of the gunmen. France will announce next week a set of anti-terrorism measures, officials said. New resources will be released for surveillance and France could look at widening the policy of isolating radical prisoners. Hollande, the most unpopular French president in survey history over his failure to kickstart the economy, has come out of the crisis well, with 85 percent of French approving of his handling of it, a poll showed on Wednesday. (Additional reporting by Emmanuel Jarry, Valerie Parent and Brian Love in Paris, Sami Aboudi in Dubai, Madeleine Chambers in Berlin, Seyhmus Cakan in Diyarbakir and Reuters correspondents in Europe and the Middle East and Africa; Writing by Ingrid Melander and Tom Heneghan; Editing by David Stamp, Toni Reinhold) ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Hugh Schofield reports from a kiosk in Paris as people queue to buy the latest issue Millions more copies of French weekly Charlie Hebdo are being printed after the first run sold out in hours. The normal print run of 60,000 was extended to five million - a week after Islamist gunmen murdered 12 people at the magazine's offices and five others in subsequent attacks in Paris. The "survivors' issue" has angered some Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad on its cover. A video purportedly from al-Qaeda in Yemen said it planned the Hebdo attack. US state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said they believed the video was authentic but could not determine if its claims were true. The group, AQAP, had previously welcomed the attack, without acknowledging any role in the operation. The gunmen are said to have used earlier publication of images of the Prophet as justification for their attack on the magazine. Charlie Hebdo's latest cover shows a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad weeping while holding a sign saying "I am Charlie", and below the headline "All is forgiven". Image copyright Reuters Image caption People waited for kiosks to open to buy the magazine Image copyright AP Image caption All copies of the magazine were sold out by Wednesday morning at this Paris newsstand Image copyright AP Image caption Some kiosks said they had received dozens of reservation requests "I am Charlie" emerged as a message of support for the magazine following the attack on 7 January, which left eight journalists, including its editor, dead in addition to four others. In a separate attack in Paris two days later, an Islamist gunman killed four Jewish men and took hostages at a kosher shop. The same attacker is believed to have shot a policewoman the day before. 'Charlie is alive' Normally Charlie Hebdo prints 60,000 copies but the planned run increased steadily this week - from one million to three million to five million. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Gerard Biard comforted Renald "Luz" Luzier, who drew the latest cover, at a news conference The "survivors' issue", as the magazine calls it, is available in six languages including English, Arabic and Turkish. Proceeds are going to victims' families. President Francois Hollande has insisted the magazine and its values will continue. "Charlie Hebdo is alive and will live on," he said. "You can assassinate men and women but you will never kill their ideas." Charlie Hebdo's decision to publish another cartoon of the Prophet drew threats from militant Islamist websites and criticism from the Islamic world. Image copyright AFP Image caption On Sunday, about 1.5 million people rallied in Paris in a show of solidarity with the victims The Islamic State (IS) militant group said it was "an extremely stupid act". Meanwhile, a new video apparently from AQAP said the group had planned and financed the Charlie Hebdo attacks in "vengeance for the Prophet". It said it was a "success" that the magazine shootings had "coincided" with the attacks by supermarket gunman Amedy Coulibaly. Analysis: BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner The video purporting to come from AQAP does appear to be genuine but questions remain over just how closely AQAP was really involved in last week's Paris attacks. More than two years have elapsed since Said Kouachi, one of the three gunmen, is believed to have slipped out of Yemen after spending time there with al-Qaeda members, including the extremist preacher Anwar Al-Awlaki. He is mentioned in the video in connection with the attack planning but Al-Awlaki was killed back in 2011 in a US drone strike so, again, that would be a long time to plan such a relatively simple but devastating attack. It is also odd that AQAP have not issued any so-called "martyrdom videos", showing the perpetrators giving their justifications ahead of the raid. These may still be to come but for now it seems the connection between the Paris attackers and AQAP is more one of inspiration, ideology and training rather than close direction and leadership. Were gunmen aided by terror network? Coulibaly had pledged allegiance to IS in a video message while the Charlie Hebdo attackers, Said and Cherif Kouachi, had said they were acting on behalf of AQAP. Coulibaly had said they had co-ordinated the attacks but experts say it is highly unlikely IS and AQAP, rivals in the Middle East, would work together. Meanwhile a lawyer for Said Kouachi's wife, Soumya, has told the BBC she had no idea he was an extremist. He said Kouachi had kissed his wife goodbye and told her he was visiting his brother, because he was unwell, just hours before the Charlie Hebdo attack. "It's beyond her understanding, her world has fallen apart," the lawyer, Antoine Flasaquier, said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Soumya Kouachi's lawyer: "Her husband told her he was going to Paris to see his brother Cherif" Ban on distribution The magazine's release comes after millions - including dozens of world leaders - took part in a unity rally in Paris on Sunday. Outside France, the Washington Post, Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine, Corriere della Sera in Italy and the UK's Guardian are among publications that have shown the latest cartoon. The BBC has published the image in a previous story and in a statement said: "We have made the editorial judgment that the images are central to reporting the story." Why people are buying the magazine Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Why do Parisians say it is important to buy this issue of Charlie Hebdo? Catherine Boniface, Paris: "This issue is symbolic, it represents their persistence, they didn't yield in the face of terror." Read more: In the queue for Charlie Hebdo Read more: Charlie Hebdo's place in French journalism Read more: The issue of depicting the Prophet Muhammad Meanwhile, the interior minister of Senegal - whose president took part in the Paris march - has issued an order banning the distribution of the magazine, according to the national news agency. Comedian arrested Several hundred people attended the funeral on Wednesday of Michel Renaud, who was killed while visiting Charlie Hebdo's offices. Ceremonies were held for seven other victims in France and Israel on Tuesday. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption New mobile phone footage shows the Kouachi brothers opening fire on police Meanwhile, controversial French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala has been arrested for "defending terrorism" after he likened himself to gunman Amedy Coulibaly. A judicial source quoted by AFP news agency said he was due to be released on Wednesday evening but would face trial at a later date. Police are also investigating some 50 people suspected of "condoning terrorism" and 25 cases of people attacking or defacing Muslim places of worship. How the attacks unfolded (all times GMT) Wednesday 7 January 10:30 - Two masked gunmen enter Charlie Hebdo offices, killing 11 people, including the magazine's editor. Shortly after the attack, the gunmen kill a police officer nearby. 10:30 - Two masked gunmen enter Charlie Hebdo offices, killing 11 people, including the magazine's editor. Shortly after the attack, the gunmen kill a police officer nearby. 11:00 - Police lose track of the men after they abandon their getaway car and hijack another vehicle. They are later identified as brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi. Thursday 8 January 08:45 - A lone gunman shoots dead a policewoman and injures a man in the south of Paris. Gunman later identified as Amedy Coulibaly. 08:45 - A lone gunman shoots dead a policewoman and injures a man in the south of Paris. Gunman later identified as Amedy Coulibaly. 10:30 - The Kouachi brothers rob a service station near Villers-Cotterets, in the Aisne region, but disappear again. Friday 9 January 08:30 - Police exchange gunfire with the Kouachi brothers during a car chase on the National 2 highway northeast of Paris. 08:30 - Police exchange gunfire with the Kouachi brothers during a car chase on the National 2 highway northeast of Paris. 10:00 - Police surround the brothers at an industrial building in at Dammartin-en-Goele, 35km (22 miles) from Paris. 12:15 - Coulibaly reappears and takes several people hostage at a kosher supermarket in eastern Paris. Heavily armed police arrive and surround the store. 16:00 - Kouachi brothers come out of the warehouse, firing at police. They are both shot dead. 16:15 - Police storm the kosher supermarket in Paris, killing Coulibaly and rescuing 15 hostages. The bodies of four hostages are recovered. Three days of terror ||||| If you want a physical copy of the magazine this week, here’s how you might – repeat, might – get your hands on one, whether you are in Paris, London or New York The curious paradox is that while about 50 times more copies of Charlie Hebdo will be on sale this week than the last issue, in many places it will still be difficult to track down the French satirical magazine. One of the few agreed facts about the publication plans for the first issue since the attack on the magazine’s offices last week is that 3 million copies will be available, rather than the usual 60,000. At a press conference in Paris on Tuesday the editor-in-chief, Gerard Biard, said French, Italian and Turkish versions of the “survivors’ issue” will be printed, with translations in English, Spanish and Arabic offered in electronic form. Earlier, however, a columnist for the magazine, Patrick Pelloux, had said the edition would be printed in 16 languages in 25 countries. But whatever the language, here’s a brief guide to how you might get a copy. France The magazine is usually available at news stands across France, with a print run of about 60,000 copies. However, demand will soar on Wednesday and for the last couple of days customers have been asking newspaper sellers to set a copy aside. The sellers say they don’t yet know exactly how many copies they will receive, and are telling customers they can’t promise to have enough copies on Wednesday, although further deliveries are apparently promised on Thursday. One newspaper seller in Paris said on Tuesday he couldn’t guarantee being able to set a copy aside because of the uncertainty about the number of magazines he would receive. He said it would make sense to show up as early as possible to find out. US American demand for the magazine is so intense that message boards have sprung up on Reddit, with posters from around the world asking French members to mail copies to the midwest and Italy. Some have recommended subscribing to Charlie Hebdo for around $181 (£119), but it’s unclear if new subscribers will receive the upcoming edition. And bookstores and news stands around New York have been flooded with requests. “I can’t promise you anything,” said Miriam Bridenne, community manager of Albertine, a French-American bookstore in New York’s upper east side neighbourhood. She said “tons of people” had called attempting to reserve copies. “I can’t take any reservations at this time because we don’t know how many we’re going to get.” A clerk at Barnes and Noble in Union Square, one of the busiest book shops in New York City, said the store has never carried the magazine, but that hasn’t stopped dozens of patrons from asking for it. UK About 1,000 copies of this week’s Charlie Hebdo issue are likely to be available in the UK, although mainly from specialist newsagents and foreign language bookshops. Major retailers seem likely to stick to their normal policy of not stocking the satirical weekly. Only about 30 copies of Charlie Hebdo are thought to be sold in the UK in a normal week. UK magazine distributor Comag is understood to have increased this to somewhere between 700 and 1,200 copies for this week’s special edition. London is sometimes described as France’s sixth biggest city, home to an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 French nationals, but despite the demand, Charlie Hebdo’s content is perhaps too much of a risk for the major retailers to consider stocking. WH Smith, one of the UK’s largest sellers of magazines, has no intention of approaching distributors about stocking the title. “It is not a title we normally stock, so it won’t be available in our stores,” said a spokeswoman. Nevertheless, there are still a number of specialist newsagents and bookshops looking to get their hands on copies for their customers. A representative of Good News on Berwick Street, central London, told the Guardian that it has had 100 people a day asking for a copy of this week’s issue, which features cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. “We will be selling it on a first come, first served basis when we get it,” said a member of staff at the French Bookshop in South Kensington. But the satirical magazine will not be available until Friday, two days after its publication in Paris. “It does not cross the channel until Friday,” said a member of staff at the French Bookshop, who added: “We will be selling it on a first-come, first-served basis when we get it.” Canada With about 10 million French speakers Canada would seem a natural destination for copies of the magazine. However, its distributor in the country says they are expecting a total of about 1,000 of the latest issue, the bulk of which will go to retailers in Montreal. Elsewhere it could be tricky. Cathy Ola from a Toronto news stand told the Global News website that the magazine was “very in demand”, with 35 people on a list, some of whom might be disappointed when it arrives next week. LS Distribution North America told the website they are expecting just over 1,000 copies, as against a usual Canadian distribution of about 100. Australia According to MLP, the French press distribution company which works with Charlie Hebdo, the new edition will be available in Australia for the first time. However, sales are likely to be limited, not least after Australia’s federal human rights commissioner warned that many of the magazine’s cartoons would currently be banned under racial discrimination laws. Tim Wilson backed calls for the law to be changed. ABC News quoted him as saying: “Around the world, if you’re going to say you believe in free speech and that people should have the freedom to offend or insult somebody, then the solution cannot be censorship. That is what we have in Australia today. We have a law that makes it unlawful to offend or insult somebody.” eBay And if all else fails? Predictably, a number of sellers – mainly in France – are already offering pre-ordered copies of the magazine for sale on the online auction site. Starting prices are as high as $90 (£59).

– A week after gunmen massacred the satirical publication's staff, defiant Parisians snapped up copies of the new issue of Charlie Hebdo and even scuffled over scarce copies. It sold out within minutes as news kiosks around the city opened at dawn, even though the print run had been increased to 3 million from the usual 60,000. "I've never bought it before, it's not quite my political stripes, but it's important for me to buy it today and support freedom of expression," one man waiting in a long line outside a kiosk in central Paris tells Reuters, which notes that distributors have waived their usual cut for the "survivors' edition" to help support the publication and the families of victims. More: As news kiosks put up signs saying "Charlie Hebdo: none left," at least one outlet said there had been fisticuffs among customers squabbling over copies, the AP reports. This issue is being produced in French, Italian, and Turkish versions, with English, Spanish, and Arabic versions being offered in electronic form, new editor-in-chief Gerard Biard told reporters yesterday, although a columnist earlier said it would be available in 16 languages. Whatever the language, there's strong demand from overseas, with the manager of a French-American bookstore in New York City telling the Guardian that "tons of people" have asked for copies. The cover features a weeping Prophet Muhammad holding an "I Am Charlie" sign under the headline "All Is Forgiven." There are no more depictions of Muhammad inside, though one typically irreverent cartoon features two jihadis in heaven asking where the "70 virgins" are while the slain Charlie Hebdo staff are seen enjoying an orgy in the background. There are fears the cover cartoon could raise tensions further, but supporters call it a tribute to the slain cartoonists, the New York Times reports. "I have no worries about the cover," Renald Luzier, the cartoonist who drew it, told reporters. "We have confidence in people's intelligence, and we have confidence in humor. The people who did this attack, they have no sense of humor." A new video from al-Qaeda in Yemen, meanwhile, was aired today claiming it "chose the target, laid out the plan, and financed the operation" as "vengeance for the prophet," reports the BBC. (More on that here.) New video shows the gunmen boasting of having avenged the prophet.

LODI (CBS13) – It was Laverne Everett’s sister who posted her skydiving video on YouTube to share with family from out-of-state, not knowing that Laverne would become an internet sensation. She is the newest star in the latest video that’s gone viral overnight. “I just wanted to do it,” Laverne said laughing. This daredevil is 81 years old. Laverne, who lives in a modest studio apartment in small California town of Oakdale, says she craves a little excitement once in a while. So in 2011 for her 80th birthday she decided to jump out of a plane, much to the surprise of her family. “They thought I was very brave,” said Laverne. “But, it’s just something I’ve wanted to do for a long time.” Watch our extended interview with Laverne Last May, Laverne did just that at the Sky Dive Lodi Parachute Center in Acampo. Her jump out of that plane, and the moments before, were all caught on tape. “Once you get on that edge, that’s another story,” said Laverne. As you watch the video, you see what appears to be Laverne clutching the plane for dear life, but she says her bad knees actually gave out. Then, the instructor behind her grabs her hand. But looking at the video, it appears that Laverne was being forced out of that plane. She doesn’t see it that way. “No, I don’t look at it that way,” said Laverne. “He knew how bad I wanted to jump.” When she did finally jump, something went terribly wrong and Laverne was suddenly dangling in mid-air. “The upper harness came off, you know. Just slipped down, it was just the lower harness, is all I had.” Laverne says her shirt flew up against her face so she couldn’t see a thing and didn’t realize exactly what happened until she saw the video for herself. The Federal Aviation Administration confirmed Friday it is now investigating the incident. WATCH: Parachute Center Tainted With Accidents, Safety Issues The Parachute Center has had several accidents in recent history. A woman skydiving with the center in 2009 lost control plunged straight toward Highway 99 before slamming into a power pole. Months later, Robbie Bigley and Barb Cutty died while performing a formation jump because their parachutes became entangled. In April, experienced skydiver William Calho plunged to his death in a vineyard. It marked at least the eighth death for the company in 10 years. “Statistically, nationally for the number of jumps we do, we’re as safe as any other place,” said Parachute Center owner Bill Dause following Calho’s death. The FAA has proposed more than $900,000 in fines against his company in the past year and a half for safety concerns with the company’s planes. WATCH: Public Weighs In On 80-Year-Old Skydiving Woman ||||| Laverne Everett may have had 79 previous birthdays, but it's fair to say that this one was probably the worst. To celebrate her 80th last May, the octogenarian chose to go skydiving, something she'd wanted to do for at least ten years. But the jump didn't go as planned, and now her sister has posted the video to YouTube to share, CBS Sacramento reports. VIDEO AT TOP While still on terra firma, Laverne says in the video that she's excited about the jump, which took place at the Parachute Center in Lodi, Calif. But when it's time to take the plunge, she appears to be [understandably] reluctant jump out of the plane, holding on to the sides of the aircraft. The man jumping with her finally frees her hands, and the duo tumbles. But something goes terribly wrong early in the jump. Laverne appears to nearly fall out of the harness, and her partner hangs on to her for dear life. “The upper harness came off, you know," she said in a recent interview with CBS Sacramento, available below. "Just slipped down, it was just the lower harness, is all I had.” Fortunately, the parachute deploys and the pair lands. The video ends with people on the ground rushing over to the aid of the Laverne and her partner. “This happened a long time ago and everything worked as advertised,” Bill Dause, the owner of the Parachute Center, said in a statement to ABC News. “No one got hurt or injured.” But the Parachute Center has had its share of accidents. According to CBS Sacramento, at least eight people have died at the Parachute Center in the last decade, most recently in April. News10 reports that the facility may have to pay $900,000 in fines to the FAA for incidents unrelated to Everett's. Additionally, News10 also reports that the company is facing at least three civil lawsuits. ABC News spoke to the Federal Aviation Administration about this specific incident, so click over there to learn about what the FAA is doing about Everett's jump. According to the United States Parachute Association, 21 fatal skydiving accidents were recorded in the United States in 2010. In 2009, 16 fatal accidents were recorded.

– Octogenarian skydiving won't exactly catch on after this video goes viral. Laverne Everett was celebrating birthday No. 80 with her first skydive when, at the last second, she became reluctant to jump, Huffington Post reports. The man going with her pushed Everett out, and the pair tumbled out over northern California—where she nearly came out of her harness. Her partner held on tight as the pair plummeted toward the Earth. Much to everyone's relief, the chute did finally deploy. But you can see in the video that both skydivers needed comforting on the ground. “The upper harness came off, you know," Everett later told CBS. "Just slipped down, it was just the lower harness, is all I had.” The owner of the Parachute Center in Lodi, Calif., says everything worked "as advertised," but the FAA is investigating, and the center may be facing $900,000 in fines over unrelated incidents.

A Chicago Police officer works at the scene of a shooting on South Kedzie Avenue in August. Police arrested or identified a suspect in 15.4 percent of the 254 homicides committed in the city in the first half of 2018. (Photo: EPA-EFE) CHICAGO – Chicago police solved fewer than one in six homicides committed in the city in the first half of 2018, continuing a troubling decline in the number of perpetrators being brought to justice in one of the nation’s most violent cities, data obtained by USA TODAY shows. Chicago's homicide clearance rate – the percentage of cases in which police arrest or identify a suspect – fell from 17.1 in 2017 to 15.4 during the first six months of 2018, the data shows. If that rate holds through the end of the year, it would be the sixth consecutive annual decline. Police in the nation's third-largest city are having even less success solving nonfatal shootings, according to the data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Police cleared 50 of 900 nonfatal shooting incidents in the first half of 2018, a rate of 5.6 percent. That puts them on pace to solve fewer than 9 percent of nonfatal shooting incidents for the fourth year in a row. Top officials in the department of 13,500 sworn officers say the clearance rate reflects an alarming dynamic in the violent neighborhoods of Chicago's West and South sides: Shooting victims often forego cooperation with authorities to seek retaliation on their own. That fuels more violence, police say, and further erodes trust in law enforcement. Deputy Chief Brendan Deenihan heads the Chicago Police Department’s detective division. He says the victims and offenders are often “interchangeable.” “These are guys who are shooting back and forth at each other on a consistent basis,” Deenihan told USA TODAY. “They're not afraid to go to court and testify. They just want to get even with the people who shot at them.” Falling clearance rates are not just a Chicago problem. The national clearance rate for homicides fell to 59.4 percent in 2016, the lowest since the FBI began tracking them in 1965. In Indianapolis, where the murder rate has surged, the Metropolitan Police command staff have called on outside experts to help with the growing number of unsolved homicides. The Midwest city has seen its clearance rate tumble from 66 percent in 2014 to 40 percent last year, according to an analysis by the Indianapolis Star, a member of the USA TODAY Network. Phoenix saw its homicide clearance rate tumble from 90 percent in 2013 to 57 percent last year. The Phoenix Police Department saw its clearance rate improve several years ago after winning a federal National Institute of Justice grant, but then decline after the grant ran out. The department is hoping to add more detectives soon to bolster its cold case unit. The clearance rate has climbed to 62.3 percent in the first half of 2018. “There hasn't been a significant change in working with witnesses and the community over the years to solve these cases,” Phoenix Police Sgt. Mercedes Fortune said. “We understand the importance of our community partnerships and continue to foster that relationship.” Deputy Chief Brendan Deenihan, who heads the Chicago Police Department's detectives division, says the city's low homicide clearance rate is the result of witnesses of shootings infrequently cooperating with police. (Photo: AP) Clearance rates have been in the spotlight in Chicago, which suffered 650 homicides last year and 762 homicides in 2016, more than any other city in the nation. President Donald Trump has repeatedly lashed out against city leaders over their handling of the violence. The rates have become an issue in the crowded race to replace Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who announced this month he would not run for a third term in the city’s February election. One contender, former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas, has called for increasing the department’s detective pool from 1,000 to 1,200. Homicides are down about 19 percent so far in 2018 compared to the same point last year. The city remains on pace for more than 500 killings for the fourth consecutive year. After a particularly violent weekend last month in which more than 70 people were shot, Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson decried the lack of cooperation from residents in the predominantly low-income, black neighborhoods that suffer most of the city's violence. “You all know who these individuals are. They come into your homes every day, sleep with you every night,” Johnson said. “Grandparents, parents, siblings, significant others – you know who they are.” Seventy-two people were shot during the early August weekend, 12 of them fatally. Police have made only two arrests. More: Unsolved murders: Chicago, other big cities struggle; murder rate a 'national disaster' More: Why Chicago PD can't get more residents to identify gun violence suspects More: At least 72 shot, 13 killed in Chicago over violent summer weekend, police department says Deenihan described a shooting last month allegedly by a repeat gun offender. A 26-year-old man was shot in the foot on the city's West Side. The department’s gunfire-sensing ShotSpotter system helped narrow down the location of the shooter. Police used surveillance cameras to spot a car leaving the area and tracked the vehicle until patrol officers were able to catch up to it. Police say two men in the car pulled into a gas station. They say workers saw 27-year-old Rick Franklin drop what turned out to be a stolen gun near a doughnut display inside the gas station store. But the victim of the shooting refused to cooperate, Deenihan said, so police were able to charge Franklin only with unlawful use of a weapon. Franklin was prohibited from possessing a weapon due to his criminal history. Illinois sentencing guidelines for assault with a deadly weapon call for up to 10 years in prison. The lesser weapons charge carries a maximum of three years. “We had technology and good police work,” Deenihan said. “But you have a victim who was shot that doesn’t want to cooperate, and you have the individual who did the shooting – a repeat gun offender – who is eventually going to be out on the street again.” Deenihan said detectives are used to victims refusing to cooperate. Romell Young, 23, says he knows who shot him in April near his home on the West Side. He told USA TODAY that he didn't cooperate with the police investigation because it would have escalated the spat, made him vulnerable to retaliation and sullied his reputation. “It could have been bad for me because it would (ruin) my name,” Young said. The falling clearance rates coincide with the declining trust in the police department. Long-strained relations between police and the city's African-American community have deteriorated further since the 2015 release of a video that shows the police shooting of a black teen. Police say 17-year-old Laquan McDonald was wielding a retractable knife with a 3-inch blade. The video appears to show that McDonald had turned away from police when Officer Jason Van Dyke opened fire. Van Dyke is now on trial for first-degree murder, aggravated battery and official misconduct. “For our detectives, it’s a grind out there," Deenihan said. "They go out to the scenes. They do their best. “We do live in a society today where people don’t cooperate with the police.” Even before the McDonald shooting, the police department’s relationship in the African-American community had been strained by a long history of police brutality and allegations of heavy-handed tactics in some of the same neighborhoods most impacted by violence. The Rev. Ira Acree, a pastor and activist on the West Side, said blaming residents in violence-plagued neighborhoods for low clearance is “ludicrous” and “offensive.” Acree notes that Chicago police’s relationship with the African-American community has been strained for decades. During the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1990s, conflicts between gangs drove homicide rates higher than those of today. Still, Chicago detectives annually cleared more than 60 percent of killings, according to the FBI. “At some point, the police department has to take some responsibility,” Acree said. Contributing: Jason Pohl of the Arizona Republic Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2Nwvfo4 ||||| Deangelo Norwood was severely injured when he was shot in late July in Chicago. (Whitten Sabbatini/For The Washington Post) Deangelo Norwood had been in the hospital for three days when the detectives appeared, asking questions about the man who had shot him in the stomach, chest and wrist. “Is this the guy?” they asked, holding up a grainy photo. Could be, Norwood said, but he didn’t know the guy and, to be honest, he hadn’t gotten a good look. Nearly a month later, no one has been arrested for the July 30 shooting outside a Chicago liquor store that severely injured Norwood, 30, and killed his brother Omar, 35. “That’s the norm in this city. We live amongst a lot of killers,” Norwood said, adding that the detectives have stopped calling. “Ain’t nobody been locked up. And they ain’t trying to solve nothing.” The Norwood brothers have joined the grim ledger of Chicago violence, part of a wave of summer shootings that has propelled the city, again, to the forefront of the national debate over guns and violence. As of Tuesday, 365 people had been killed in Chicago this year, more than in any other U.S. city. Yet the growing death toll obscures a far larger group of victims — more than 1,600 people who, like Deangelo Norwood, have been shot this year and survived. While homicides routinely go unsolved here, the perpetrators of nonfatal shootings are even less likely to be brought to justice. Since 2010, Chicago police have made arrests in only about 27 percent of homicides, according to a Washington Post analysis of homicide data in more than 50 major U.S. cities — the lowest rate of any city The Post examined. For nonfatal shootings, the arrest rate plummets into the single digits, according to data maintained by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. The latest report shows Chicago police made an arrest in 10 percent of nonfatal shootings in 2014, 7 percent in 2015 and just 5 percent — 1 in 20 — in 2016. Homicide Database: The Washington Post has mapped and analyzed nearly 55,000 homicides since 2007 Omar Norwood was fatally shot in Chicago on July 30. (Family photo) While the numbers in Chicago are particularly abysmal, the pattern appears to hold in other cities. Because no comprehensive national data is available on arrest rates for nonfatal shootings, The Post requested the information from 50 major U.S. cities. Only six provided it and only for select years. In those places, The Post found that nonfatal shootings were less than half as likely as homicides to result in arrests. In Charlotte, for example, police have made arrests in 71 percent of homicides but in just 30 percent of nonfatal shootings since 2013. In Miami, police made arrests in 1 in 3 homicides but in just 1 in 5 nonfatal shootings between 2014 and 2016. And in Omaha, police made arrests in 67 percent of homicides but in just 18 percent of nonfatal shootings in 2016 and 2017. Chicago police officials say they have significantly improved their ability to solve homicides as well as nonfatal shootings by strengthening their relationships with the community. Homicides and nonfatal shootings are both down compared with this time last year. And, police noted, the department had made arrests in 44 percent of homicides committed through mid-August, up from 33 percent during the same period last year. “We have been making considerable investments,” said police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi, noting that the department plans to hire 300 additional homicide detectives by the end of this year, bringing the total to more than 1,200. But in Chicago and throughout the nation, police say the same factors that make it difficult to solve homicides make it difficult to solve nonfatal shootings. Minority communities, which tend to produce the most victims, also tend to distrust police. Witnesses are likely to fear retaliation for “snitching.” And victims may be unwilling to cooperate, because telling the truth about the shooting could implicate them in a crime. “The other night, we had three people shot. They all take themselves to the hospital. They don’t wait for the cops or the ambulance. Then . . . they tell us to go ‘F’ ourselves,” said William Evans, the former police commissioner in Boston, where Boston Magazine last year found that police made arrests in just 4 percent of nonfatal shootings between January 2014 and September 2016. While police say they cannot solve crimes without the cooperation of the public, leaders in the black community say the failure to solve crimes is fueling the distrust — along with a deadly cycle of impunity and retaliation that begets more violence. “These communities have degenerated into a lawless vigilante justice, where people have to get justice on their own terms because the police won’t get it for them,” said the Rev. Marshall Hatch Sr., pastor of New Mount Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church on Chicago’s troubled West Side. “People feel like they’ve got to take the law into their own hands,” he said. * * * Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx (D) agrees with that assessment. Foxx is the first African American woman elected to head the prosecutor’s office that handles Chicago crime, one of the biggest and busiest in the nation. The lack of arrests, she said, leaves thousands of families waiting for a justice that never comes. “It’s heartbreaking,” she said. “Each day that passes, the likelihood of us being able to put together a winning case diminishes.” While witnesses might feel an obligation to cooperate with police after someone has been killed, Foxx said, nonfatal shootings can leave people feeling that it is “more pragmatic to deal with this in the street justice system.” That was how Deshon Hannah saw things four years ago when he was hit with 30 buckshot pellets from a shotgun blast fired by a rival gang member in Chicago’s Back of the Yards neighborhood. Police investigate a scene where multiple people were shot early this month in Chicago. (Tyler LaRiviere/Chicago Sun-Times/AP) “I didn’t want him to go to jail, to be honest,” Hannah, 20, said of his shooter. “I wanted my retaliation. I wanted to shoot the person who shot me.” Hannah, who has since become an anti-violence activist, said he had no interest in cooperating with Chicago police, who he said routinely harassed and mistreated his family, friends and neighbors. The police eventually arrested someone without his help. Scores settled in the street often produce “collateral damage,” further raising the victim count as innocent people are caught in the crossfire, said Eric Russell, a Chicago police-accountability activist. “They’re shooting into crowds. Some of them are high off of drugs and narcotics. They’re reckless,” Russell said this month after 72 people were shot — 12 fatally — in a single Chicago weekend. “If there is a silver lining, thank God these shooters can’t aim,” he said. “These kids are just terrible shots.” Whether a shooting is fatal or nonfatal often comes down to luck: Where the bullet strikes. How quickly someone dials 911. When the ambulance arrives. The distance to the nearest trauma center. Still, policing experts acknowledge that the public — and in some cases the police — tends to focus almost exclusively on fatal shootings. Many cities do not even track how many nonfatal shootings their police handle, much less how many result in arrests. “The homicides get all of the attention and all of the resources,” said Natalie Kroovand Hipple, an Indiana University criminal-justice professor who studies gun violence. Tio Hardiman, a longtime community activist in Chicago, tries to stop violence “on the front end,” before it happens. But in a city with thousands of shootings and hundreds of homicides each year, Hardiman spends most of his time with people who are already victims. “If I’m being straight up, there is a lot of hopelessness,” he said, “and no faith in the police department.” As Hardiman spoke, he stood sweating in a baggy gray suit in a field on the Far South Side where the bodies of two boys had been discovered four days earlier: Darnelle Flowers, 17, and Raysuan Turner, 16. Through a steady stream of anonymous tips, Turner’s family had pieced together their best guess at what happened: They believe that the boys were lured to the neighborhood by two girls, one of whom was angry over a schoolyard dispute, and that after meeting the girls and two unidentified males in a park, the boys were led to the overgrown field, shot and left for dead. Police investigate an Aug. 18 shooting at a Subway in Chicago. (Tyler LaRiviere/Chicago Sun-Times/AP) But making the leap to an arrest has proved frustrating. The tipsters don’t want to be identified. Two witnesses tracked down by a local activist disappeared when it came time to speak with prosecutors. Two people who had been held as persons of interest have been released. “I just hope that somebody has the balls to come forward,” said Turner’s mother, Rayniecia Morris, sliding on sunglasses to hide the tears pooling at the corners of her eyes. “There are people out there who know what happened to my son, and they need to come forward.” * * * On the day they were shot, the Norwood brothers had stopped to buy water and a pack of gum from Ziad Certified Liquor, a market in the Bronzeville area where a hand-painted mural of a black trumpeter gazes down at customers from above the Budweiser cooler. Born to a drug-addicted mother and raised — along with six siblings — by a devoted, diligent grandmother on Chicago’s rough South Side, both were dream chasers who longed to get out. Instead, they got caught up in the chaos. Both went to prison: Deangelo for a stickup and Omar for the unlawful use of a weapon. But things had been going well since they got out. Deangelo had finished his GED and found a job with Divvy, the city’s bike-share program. Omar worked in food service and began taking classes to become an electrician. The brothers talked about pooling their money and opening a juice bar in Chicago’s booming downtown. Then Omar started dating a woman with an ex-boyfriend who also had just gotten out of prison. As the woman waffled between them, Omar and the other man began taunting each other on social media, Deangelo said. He said the shooting occurred when three of the man’s friends spotted the Norwood brothers in the candy aisle of the liquor store. A heated argument led to a fistfight on the sidewalk outside. The Norwoods were winning, Deangelo said — until one of the men pulled out a gun. Police investigate an Aug. 19 shooting in Chicago. (Tyler LaRiviere/Chicago Sun-Times/AP) Omar died instantly, shot in the back of the head. Deangelo crumpled to the ground next to his brother, bleeding from a hole in his chest. During 17 hours of surgery, doctors removed his spleen and part of his liver, leaving his abdomen a patchwork of staples, stitches and scars. He spent weeks in the hospital, then decamped to a small apartment in Indiana to heal. These days, just pulling on socks is a painful, complicated task. Aside from the physical pain, the emotional trauma has left him by turns hopeful and despondent. One minute, he’s making plans to go back to work, save $15,000 and open that juice bar. The next, he’s saying he feels lost without his big brother. “It’s like I’m half dead and half alive,” he said softly. “I’ll never be the same again.” Meanwhile, the shooting plays on a loop in his head. He sees the gun, the muzzle flash, the blood. His brother’s pained expression as he falls. Norwood has relived that moment hundreds of times. But he still can’t come up with anything that would help police find the guy who shot him. Read more: Where killings go unsolved: The areas where killings are common but arrests are rare An unequal justice: Black victims least likely to have killers arrested As killings surge, Chicago police solve fewer homicides

– A "troubling decline" in the number of homicides solved by Chicago police is continuing, USA Today reports. According to data obtained by the paper, the city's homicide clearance rate was 15.4% during the first half of the year, meaning that a suspect was identified or arrested in fewer than one in six cases. The rate for 2017 was 17.1%. As of late August, there had been 365 killings in the nation's third-largest city, per the Washington Post. The clearance rate for nonfatal shootings is far lower at 5.6%, according to USA Today, with just 50 of 900 cases in the first six months of 2018 being cleared (the Post puts the number of nonfatal shootings so far this year at 1,600). "That's the norm in this city. We live amongst a lot of killers," Deangelo Norwood told the Post last month. Norwood was seriously injured and his brother was killed in a July 30 shooting. "Ain't nobody been locked up. And they ain't trying to solve nothing." Officials tell USA Today that part of the problem is the "interchangeable" nature of shooters and victims. "These are guys who are shooting back and forth at each other on a consistent basis," says Deputy Chief Brendan Deenihan. "They just want to get even with the people who shot at them." Homicide clearance rates are falling nationwide, USA Today notes, with the national rate dropping to an all-time low of 59.4% in 2016. As for Chicago, Deenihan says, "We live in a society today where people don't cooperate with the police."

Correction appended Sept. 27, 2016 Dogs don’t wear pants — and it’s hard to know how things would work out if they tried. But one thing is clear: if dogs did wear pants, they would use either a belt or suspenders, but definitely not both. That, in some ways, puts them ahead of us. According to a new study, both domesticated dogs and one species of wild dog do a better job than human beings and chimpanzees of ignoring bad instructions and eliminating unnecessary steps when trying to solve a problem. It’s a difference that says a lot about the social order of all of the species. The study, published in the journal Developmental Science and led by Angie Johnston and Paul Holden of the Yale University Canine Cognition Center, was designed to explore the learning behavior known straightforwardly as overimitation, a feature of our own species far more than any other. When an adult teaches a small child how to, say, solve a puzzle or operate a device like a television, the child will faithfully perform all of the steps nearly all of the time, even when repeated trials plainly show that some of those steps are unnecessary. A landmark 2005 study involving both young chimpanzees and 3- to 4-year-old children revealed that both sets of subjects will go through as many as five steps — some ultimately proving to be unnecessary — to retrieve a reward from a box, with the humans actually performing less well than the chimps at eventually skipping the irrelevant ones. Dogs would need a great deal of training to solve a five-step puzzle, if they ever mastered it at all. For that reason, the Yale researchers decided to keep things simple, presenting both domesticated dogs and wild dingoes with a plastic box that had both a lever on the side and a lid. The box contained a treat and the experimenters first demonstrated to the animals how to move the lever and then lift the lid to get at the reward. The lever, however, was useless and the lid could be opened without it. In some cases the puzzle was made of transparent plastic, revealing both the contents and the box’s internal workings; in other cases it was opaque. As is the case with all dog studies, not every subject was quite up to completing the experiment. “One trial was excluded from analysis for puzzle error (the dog flipped the entire puzzle over),” the researchers wrote. Most of them, however, did get all the way to the end, and the results were both impressive and, for humans, a little humbling. After watching the box being demonstrated, up to 75% of the dogs and dingoes correctly learned and imitated the two-step process to get the treat. It took just four trials, however, for a significant number of them to learn to skip the useless lever, with 59% of the dogs and only 42% of the dingoes continuing to use it. The appearance of the box — clear or transparent — made no difference at all to the dogs. The dingoes — for reasons that were uncertain — actually did a better job of catching wise to the uselessness of the lever when they couldn’t see through the box than when they could. If dogs are more efficient learners than humans, it hardly needs to be said that they are not better learners, and for a species with as elaborate a social system as ours, efficiency in learning is not necessarily a good thing. Johnston points out, for example, that children quickly learn that washing their hands before dinner and brushing their teeth after are not necessary to achieving their focal goal — eating — but their parents insist on it and so they comply. More subtly, once kids are out in the world there are uncountable social conventions — shaking hands, saying “please,” holding a door for the person behind you — that may be irrelevant to getting immediate needs satisfied but are essential to the maintenance of social order. “Although the tendency to copy irrelevant actions may seem silly at first,” said Johnston in a statement accompanying the paper’s release, “it becomes less silly when you consider all of the important but seemingly irrelevant actions that children are successfully able to learn.” From that kind of learning, a complex culture follows. Correction: The original version of this story misstated the journal in which the study appeared. It is Developmental Science. ||||| Photo: Li Kim Goh/Getty Images When my brother and I were younger, one of our favorite winter activities was to go outside with the family dog, make a bunch of snowballs, throw them somewhere in the distance, and then cackle our sadistic little hearts out as the dog ran around trying to find snowballs on the snowy ground. What can I say? Kids are jerks sometimes. To his credit, at least, the dog always got bored of the whole thing pretty quickly. Which, as a matter of fact, speaks to one of science’s newest findings about our canine pals: They have no patience for your human nonsense. Specifically, a study recently published in the journal Developmental Science found that when you give a dog bad directions, it’ll learn pretty quickly to ignore them. For the study, which recruited 40 pet dogs of varying breeds, psychologists from Yale’s Canine Cognition Center placed a treat inside a puzzle, then demonstrated to their subjects how to get it out. In reality, the puzzle was just one step — all the dogs had to do was lift the lid of a box — but the researchers added an extra, unnecessary action to their demo, pushing a lever attached to the box that didn’t actually do anything. To make sure the dogs were really trying to solve the task in front of them, rather than following a perceived command, the study authors then left the room and left the animals to their own devices. The dogs, who each went a couple rounds with the puzzle, proved adept at figuring out not only what they needed to do, but also what they didn’t: As the experiment progressed, they began disregarding the lever, going straight for the step that would get them their treat. The study offers an interesting insight into dog cognition in its own right, but it also has another layer: The authors based their study on a similar one from 2005 that focused on children instead of dogs — and compared to the dogs, the kids weren’t nearly so savvy. Their puzzle was more complicated, but they tended to repeat the experimenters’ actions step for step each time, without ever pausing to think through or weed out the irrelevant ones. It’s a tendency the authors of this latest study refer to as “overimitation,” writing: “This pattern of results suggests that overimitation may be a unique feature of human social learning,” possibly because by uncritically copying what they see, “children generally limit the amount of time they need to spend learning through repeated trial and error.” Or, as lead study author Angie Johnston put it in a statement: “Consider all the important, but seemingly irrelevant, actions that children are successfully able to learn, such as washing their hands and brushing their teeth.” To a little kid who doesn’t yet understand hygiene, those things don’t make much sense — but you learn to do them anyway, and the reasoning comes later. Dogs, on the other hand, don’t stay so trusting. ||||| desc12460-sup-0001-SupInfo.docxWord document, 42.9 KB Figure S1. Proportion of dogs (Figure a) and dingoes (Figure b) using the lever without solving the puzzle (leftmost bar), using the lever and solving the puzzle (middle bar), solving the puzzle without using the lever (rightmost bar) on each trial. Figure S2. Proportion of dogs and dingoes that used the irrelevant lever across trials in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate standard error. Figure S3. Proportion of dogs and dingoes solving the puzzle on opaque and transparent puzzle trials in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate standard error. Figure S4. Latency to solve the puzzle (in seconds) for dogs and dingoes across trials in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate standard error. Figure S5. Proportion of dingoes solving the puzzle across trials 1 and 2 in Experiments 1 and 3. Error bars indicate standard error. Table S1. List of animals, indicating species, owner‐reported breed, sex (Male/Female), age (in years), and the experiment(s) in which each subject's data was included. Dogs listed as “Experiments 1 & 2” only participated in Experiment 1, but their data was used as a comparison for dogs that participated in Experiment 2. Dingoes listed as “Experiments 1 & 3” participated in both experiments, with an 8‐month break in between experiments. Table S2. Estimate (±SE) of fixed effects in generalized linear and linear mixed models predicting subjects’ lever use, solve outcome, and solve latency in Experiments 1‐3. Baselines were set as follows: species = dingo; experiment = Experiment 1; box style = opaque. Table also shows goodness‐of‐fit statistics.

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

Charlotte officials say they are preparing for more protests today following a night of violence over a police officer’s fatal shooting of an African-American man Tuesday in the University City area. The dead man was identified as Keith Lamont Scott, 43. Sixteen police officers were injured overnight in a series of clashes, and there were reports early Wednesday of motorists on Interstate 85 being hurt and their vehicles damaged when protesters threw rocks, bottles and traffic cones off interstate overpasses onto traffic below. The officers hurt suffered mostly minor injuries, though one was hit in the face with a rock, officials said. $20 for 365 Days of Unlimited Digital Access Last chance to take advantage of our best offer of the year! Act now! At a Wednesday news conference, city leaders appealed for calm and promised a thorough investigation. Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts held a Wednesday press conference and urged the community to remain calm and wait for the facts in the case to be released before jumping to conclusions. Her comments came just an hour before one activist group held its own news conference, urging the black community to start an economic boycott of white-owned businesses Charlotte. Roberts says she has been in contact with the governor’s office, the White House and the NAACP, and said the city would work to get out information as quickly as possible, while also dispelling rumors being spread on social media. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said the department is still viewing video from the scene, though the officer involved in the shooting himself was not wearing a camera. Putney said the officer who fired the shots was in plain clothes, wearing a vest and was accompanied by uniformed officers when they approached the victim. It remains unclear whether Scott was pointing a gun at the officer when he was shot, Putney said. The officer was also African-American. Putney added that officers have not found a book at the scene of the shooting, contrary to social media claims that Scott was holding a book. “I can tell you we did not find a book that has been referenced to,” Putney said. “We did find a weapon. The weapon was there and witnesses have corroborated it, beyond just the officers.” Putney said the department would be staffed Wednesday in expectation of more protests, which he believes will be peaceful. “We’ll be prepared for whatever we see...We’re hoping for best but will be prepared for the worst,” he said. SHARE COPY LINK Several hundred people protested a CMPD officer-involved fatal shooting in the University Area that extended from Tuesday evening into Wednesday morning. A dozen police officers were injured in the clashes. The destruction late Tuesday and early Wednesday included blocking all lanes of Interstate 85 and looting a Walmart on North Tryon Street at about 3:30 a.m. The store was closed early Wednesday, with wooden pallets piled in front of the doors and shopping carts blocking the driveway into the lot. Three or more tractor trailer trucks were stopped and looted on Interstate 85, and at least two fires were started on the interstate, as the protesters burned items removed from the trucks. Motorists were reportedly stuck on Interstate 85 for hours at the height of the protests, which ignited at a time when the nation has seen a spate of police shootings of black men, which has led to protests from Ferguson, Mo., to Tulsa to Chicago and started the Black Lives Matter movement. Only one person has been arrested so far, police said. The neighborhood where the incident occurred was quiet Wednesday, aside from a large media presence. SHARE COPY LINK A dozen police officers were injured Tuesday night in a series of clashes. Charlotte’s Tuesday night protests began on Old Concord Road at Bonnie Lane, where a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer fatally shot a man in the parking lot of a University City apartment complex Tuesday afternoon. The officer who fired the fatal shot was CMPD Officer Brentley Vinson, a police statement said. Police said they had been searching for someone who had an outstanding warrant at The Village at College Downs complex on Old Concord Road when they saw Scott leave his car holding a gun. Officers approached Scott after he got back into the car. He emerged from the car again armed with a firearm “and posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers, who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said in a statement. “The officers immediately requested Medic and began performing CPR.” Medic took Scott to Carolinas Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. Scott was not the person officers were searching for to arrest on the outstanding warrants, CMPD Chief Kerr Putney told reporters later. Police said they recovered the firearm Scott was holding. But a woman who said she is Scott’s daughter claimed on a live-streamed video on Facebook that Scott was unarmed when he was shot. The video went viral, with more than 521,000 views by 9:30 p.m. In the video, the woman said her father was sitting in his car reading a book and waiting for the school bus to drop off his son. She claimed that her father was Tasered and then shot four times, and that he was disabled. “IT WAS A BOOK” one protester’s sign read. Police declined to respond directly to the woman’s accusations. A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats. His mother, Vernita Walker of Charleston, SC, said Wednesday her son had seven children. “He was a family man,” she said. “And he was a likeable person. And he loved his wife and his children.” She said she had just talked with her son on the phone that day. In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated. Roberts tweeted early Wednesday: “The community deserves answers and full investigation will ensue. Will be reaching out to community leaders to work together.” The protesters began to gather as night fell, hours after the shooting. They held signs that said “Stop Killing Us” and “Black Lives Matter,” and they chanted “No justice, no peace.” The scene was sometimes chaotic and tense, with water bottles and stones chucked at police lines, but many protesters called for peace and implored their fellow demonstrators not to act violently. A CMPD helicopter circled low over the crowd, shining a bright searchlight on the protesters. Old Concord Road was shut down. Some protesters began to throw water bottles and rocks. Shortly before 11 p.m., police donned gas masks. Soon, clouds of tear gas bloomed in front of their lines. Protesters damaged at least two CMPD vehicles, one cruiser and one SUV, which were removed from the scene. One officer was hit in the face with a rock, CMPD said. Observer news partner WBTV said three of its reporters were hit during the protest, and at least one went to the hospital after a blow to the head. At one point, the crowd began pushing down the ramp from Old Concord to Harris Boulevard West, blocking the road. Police deployed tear gas on that road as well. Not all the interactions were so tense. Around 1 a.m. Wednesday, police were seen handing bottles of water to the several dozen people who were still protesting. Live Blog Protests erupt in Charlotte following fatal officer-involved shooting As is standard procedure with any fatal police shooting, CMPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau will conduct a separate but parallel investigation to determine whether CMPD policies and procedures were followed. Per department protocol, Vinson will be placed on administrative leave. Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to call police at 704-432-TIPS (8477) or Crime Stoppers at 704-334-1600. ||||| CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Family members speak to WCCB, Charlotte’s CW reporter Courtney Francisco following the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Scott was shot and killed by a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police officer on Tuesday, September 20th in northeast Charlotte. Police say officers with the Metro Division Crime Reduction Unit were searching for a suspect with an outstanding warrant on him at The Village at College Downs just before 4pm. Officers say they saw a Scott inside a vehicle in the apartment complex. Scott exited the vehicle armed with a firearm, according to police. Officers say Scott got back into the vehicle and then the officers started to approach Scott. That’s when police say Scott got back out of the vehicle armed with a firearm and posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking him. The officers immediately requested MEDIC and began performing CPR, according to a news release. Scott was pronounced dead on the scene. Police say the officer involved in the shooting is Brentley Vinson. As is standard procedure with any officer involved shooting, Officer Vinson has been placed on paid Administrative Leave. Officer Vinson has been employed with the CMPD since July 21, 2014 and is currently assigned to the Metro Division. Family members say Scott was sitting in a vehicle reading a book while he waited for his son to get off a school bus. Family members claim the book was mistaken as a gun. Protests broke out shortly after the shooting. At 10pm protesters were seen throwing water bottles at police. Around 11pm, police cruisers were being damaged by protesters. Police started deploying tear gas and smoke bombs into the crowd, according to a source. Several officers have been injured in the protests. ||||| Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney said on Sept. 22 that he has no plan to release publicly a video of the deadly encounter with Keith Lamont Scott. (Reuters) For the latest updates from Charlotte, head here. CHARLOTTE — Hours after North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) declared a state of emergency and the National Guard and state troopers moved in, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney resisted calls to release video footage of a police shooting that sparked intense protests in this city. Family members of Keith Lamont Scott have asked to view video of his shooting and that authorities are trying to accommodate them, Putney said. Attorneys for the relatives said they planned to watch it later in the day. One of the attorneys, Justin Bamberg, said during an afternoon news conference that Scott’s wife, Rakeyia Scott, witnessed her husband’s death. “It’s my understanding that his wife saw him get shot and killed,” Bamberg said. “That’s something that she will never, ever forget.” Putney suggested that his department has no imminent plans to release the video footage to the public, and the Scott family’s attorneys made no promises to reveal its contents once they had seen it. “Transparency is in the eye of the beholder,” Putney told reporters. “If you think I’m saying we should display a victim’s worst day for public consumption, that is not the transparency I’m speaking of.” Putney said his department would release the video only “when we believe it is a compelling reason,” but the footage — which, he noted, doesn’t definitively show Scott pointing a gun — probably would not do much to calm the city anyway. “I can tell you this: There’s your truth, my truth and the truth,” Putney said. “Some people have already made up their minds.” Charlotte officials spoke as the city tried to recover from a second night of demonstrations that left several businesses damaged and one man clinging to life. Mayor Jennifer Roberts (D) noted that it had been “a difficult couple of days” for the city, adding: “This is not the Charlotte we know and love.” Although city leaders said Charlotte was open for business, Uptown was more of a ghost town than bustling city center, with some businesses cleaning up and others closing shop. Workers moved quickly to repair damage from the previous night’s protests and were seen mending windows at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and a nearby bank building. Duke Energy, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, which is headquartered here, had told employees to stay home. During the lunch rush, restaurants and coffee shops had few customers. “Today is dead,” said hot-dog vendor Kidane Engida. “It’s like a bank holiday: If the bankers are not working, there’s nobody.” City officials stressed that the business district was safe and secure after a second spasm of overnight unrest. On Wednesday, peaceful protests turned into chaos when demonstrators attempted to follow police in riot gear into a hotel lobby. Officers used tear gas, and then a reporter heard a gunshot and saw a man lying in the street near the hotel entrance. The man, who was not identified, was taken to a hospital with wounds that medics said were “life-threatening.” Officials announced on Twitter that the man had died, then later tweeted that he was on “life support.” Putney said the man was in critical condition Thursday morning. Investigators are reviewing video to determine who shot the man, the chief said, noting that an allegation was made “that one of our officers was involved.” City officials say a man was shot during the second night of demonstrations in Charlotte after police fatally shot a black man outside an apartment complex on Sept. 20. (Cleve Wootson/The Washington Post) The protests stemmed from Tuesday’s fatal police shooting of Scott — putting Charlotte on a growing list of communities across the country that have erupted amid a growing debate on racial bias in policing. Some protesters ignited small fires and shattered hotel windows. Businesses were damaged and looted. Nine civilians were injured, and two police officers suffered “minor” eye injuries and three were treated for “heat issues,” the chief said. There were 44 overnight arrests on charges such as failure to disperse, assault, and breaking and entering, Putney said. More arrests are likely after investigators review surveillance video, he said. Officials weighed the possibility of implementing a curfew Thursday night — though the police chief noted at the morning news conference that “right now, we don’t see the need to shut the city down at a specific hour.” McCrory, the governor, said National Guardsmen were mobilized to help protect buildings and structures, and that state troopers were deployed to control traffic and help local police do their jobs. “As governor,” he said, “I firmly believe that we cannot tolerate any type of violence.” Michael Smith, chief executive of the downtown development corporation Charlotte Center City Partners, said the influx of law enforcement personnel gave him “much greater confidence that we will respond the way we need to” after two nights of chaos. But Corinne Mack, who heads the Charlotte chapter of the NAACP, said the increased police presence could prove problematic. “More police presence is never going to help,” she said. Instead, she said: “More transparency helps.” [Blame, rumor and blood run in Charlotte as protests surge. 1 critically wounded, 4 cops injured.] Law enforcement officials have fatally shot 706 people this year, 163 of them black men, according to a Washington Post database tracking fatal police shootings. A growing divide in public rhetoric over that toll has been fed by a summer of high-profile deaths captured on social media and deadly assaults on police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. The latest encounters — in Charlotte, and Tulsa, where protesters called for the arrest of the officer involved in the fatal shooting of a black man there Friday — come as the presidential race has tightened, and both candidates have offered positions and solutions. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch pleaded again Thursday for protesters to remain peaceful. “For the second day in a row, protests in response to Mr. Scott’s death took place in Charlotte last night,” Lynch, a North Carolina native, said during a news conference. “And for the second day in a row, those protests were marred by violence — this time leaving one person on life support and several individuals injured — an awful reminder that violence often only begets violence.” Lynch called for “those responsible for bringing violence to these demonstrations to stop,” adding, “you’re drowning out the voices of commitment and change and ushering in more tragedy and grief in our communities.” The FBI and the Justice Department are monitoring the situation involving Scott’s death, Lynch said, but federal officials have not launched an investigation. McCrory said Thursday that the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation is leading an independent probe into the shooting. Charlotte police have insisted that Scott had a gun and was posing an “imminent deadly threat” when officers shot him outside an apartment complex near the campus of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Scott’s family, however, said he was unarmed when he was killed and was instead reading a book in his car while waiting for his child to get out of school — a detail that quickly went viral on social media and was seized upon by protesters here. Putney said police recovered a gun and found no book at the scene. The police chief said the officer who shot Scott was in plainclothes, wearing a vest with a police logo, and was accompanied by other officers in full uniform. The plainclothes officer wasn’t wearing a body camera, but the other officers were. [Charlotte mayor: ‘I understand the anger’] Whether authorities can defuse the anger on the streets could hinge on that body-camera footage. The shooting has thrust Charlotte to the forefront of a national debate about access to police body cameras. During an occasionally testy exchange with reporters on Thursday, Putney was asked when the public could expect the release of video showing the fatal shooting. “You shouldn’t expect it to be released,” he said, noting that he did not want to “jeopardize the investigation.” Having watched the footage, Putney said, “the video does not give me absolute definitive visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing a gun. I did not see that in the videos that I’ve reviewed.” Still, he said, “When taken in totality of other evidence, it supports what we’ve heard and the version of the truth about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott.” A new state law effective Oct. 1 forbids police agencies from making body-camera footage public without a court order. “At a time when you’re seeing other states becoming more transparent, North Carolina is taking this tremendous step backward,” said Mike Meno, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina. The violent protests and conflicting accounts in Charlotte prove “just how misguided this new law is,” Meno said, and show exactly why public access to such footage is crucial. [Fatal Force: 706 people have been shot and killed by police in 2016] In a Facebook Live video widely circulated before Tuesday’s protest, a woman who identified herself as Scott’s daughter said officers used a stun gun on him, then shot him four times with their service weapons. She added that Scott was disabled. “My daddy didn’t do nothing; they just pulled up undercover,” she said in the video. By Wednesday afternoon, the video had been taken down. Hours later, Scott’s wife, Rakeyia, released a statement saying the family was “devastated.” “Keith was a loving husband, father, brother and friend who will be deeply missed every day,” she wrote. “As a family, we respect the rights of those who wish to protest, but we ask that people protest peacefully. Please do not hurt people or members of law enforcement, damage property or take things that do not belong to you in the name of protesting.” The family, she said, had “more questions than answers about Keith’s death. Rest assured, we will work diligently to get answers to our questions as quickly as possible.” Bamberg, one of the family’s attorneys, confirmed Thursday that Scott, who had been married for two decades and had seven children, had a disability due to injuries suffered in an accident. He said there were different accounts of the shooting, including some people who say Scott was holding a book and others who said his hands were empty. Bamberg did not agree to release any information after viewing the video of Scott’s death, saying, “My priority is the greater good of this family.” Authorities said the officer who shot Scott is black, and they identified him as Brentley Vinson, who has worked for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police force since July 2014. He was placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation. This city also was the scene of another high-profile police shooting, when officers killed Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott died, in September 2013. Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions. Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four voted to convict him. After a judge declared a mistrial, the state said it would not seek another trial. Ferrell’s family and the city of Charlotte settled a lawsuit stemming from the shooting for a reported $2.25 million. But anger from the 2013 shooting never went away, lurking beneath the surface until Tuesday night, when it exploded again into the open. Jibril Hough, a local activist who organized protests during Kerrick’s trial, said the recent demonstrations stem from lingering frustrations over Ferrell’s shooting. “What you’re seeing is people have been put in that situation for so long and they’re tired of talking,” he said. “They’re tired of talking and talking and candlelight vigils and dialogue and nothing getting done.” Hough said he did not agree with the violent turn the protests have taken. But, he said, there’s a “boiling point” — and some people in Charlotte have reached it. Bever and Berman reported from Washington and Adam Rhew and Wesley Lowery from Charlotte. William Wan, Derek Hawkins and Julie Tate contributed to this report, which has been updated multiple times. ||||| Story highlights Charlotte police say the man had a gun Protesters gather in apartment complex (CNN) [Breaking news alert, posted at 12:37 a.m. ET Wednesday] The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said "approximately 12 officers" have been injured during protests following the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott by a police officer. The department also tweeted that one of its officers was hit in the face with a rock. [Previous story, posted at 11:30 p.m. ET Tuesday] Charlotte, North Carolina, police looking to serve a warrant Tuesday shot and killed a man in the parking lot of an apartment complex. The man was armed but not the man police were looking for, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said in a news release. Read More

– Yet another American city has erupted in protests after a fatal police shooting. Police in Charlotte, NC, say around a dozen officers were injured late Tuesday and early Wednesday after a man was shot and killed in the parking lot of an apartment complex Tuesday afternoon, CNN reports. Police say they were searching for somebody at the complex when they saw Keith Lamont Scott, 43, leave his car holding a gun. Police say Scott—who was not the man they were looking for—was approached by officers after he got back in the car and was shot dead when he emerged from the car with a gun again. Police say Scott "posed an imminent deadly threat," but family members give a very different account of the shooting to WCCB. They say Scott was sitting in his car reading a book while he waited for his son to get off a school bus, and police mistook the book for a weapon. Brentley Vinson, the officer involved in the shooting, has been with the force since 2014 and is on paid administrative leave while the incident is investigated. Sources tell the Charlotte Observer that Vinson, like Scott, is African American. The Washington Post reports that tear gas and rubber bullets were fired during Tuesday night's protests and protesters shut down traffic on I-85 early Wednesday.

London (CNN) -- The biggest fashion show on earth, the royal wedding, got underway in a riot of bright colors, flamboyant fascinators and larger-than-life hats. The Queen cut a particularly cheerful figure in a primrose-yellow double crepe wool coat and matching wool dress by Angela Kelly, with hand-sown beading at the neck in the shape of sunrays. Mother-of-the-bride Carole Middleton's outfit was hotly anticipated, after she reportedly rejected the outfit specially made for her by leading British couturier Lindka Cierach at the eleventh hour. On the day, she opted for an elegant and subtle number from tried-and-trusted couturier Catherine Walker, a French-born designer based in London who was a favorite with Princess Diana. Walker created a sky-blue wool crepe coatdress for her, with matching satin piping and trimming at the waist and cuff, worn over a sky-blue silk shantung "Sydney" day dress with short pleated sleeves and pockets. Mrs. Middleton's hat was by Berkshire-based Jane Corbett. Gallery: What the royal wedding guests wore The Duchess of Cornwall stayed loyal to designer Anna Valentine -- the woman who designed her wedding outfits and is credited with revamping her image. She wore a champagne silk dress and a duck-egg blue and champagne coat with hand-embroidered detailing, teamed with a hat by her favorite milliner, Philip Treacy, and shoes by Jimmy Choo. Queen of fashion Victoria Beckham made an elegant arrival dressed in one of her own autumn/winter creations, specially altered to take account of her baby bump. She cut a demure figure in the knee-length navy number, matched with a pillbox Philip Treacy hat adorned with gravity-defying embellishments, her hair slicked back in a ponytail. Her husband David played it safe in a grey tie and morning suit by Ralph Lauren. He carried a top hat and sported his Order of the British Empire medal -- as well as his trademark designer stubble. Other guests arriving at Westminster Abbey for Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding were more colorful, with bright blues, pinks, yellows and greens scattered throughout the crowd. Chelsy Davy, Prince Harry's on-off girlfriend, set off her blonde good looks in a glamorous off-the-shoulder turquoise two-piece, with a playful bow on the back. The Queen's granddaughter Princess Eugenie wore a less successful aqua-blue number and small feathered hat, while sister Beatrice went for a summery pale peach, teamed with a statement hat. Hats were the big talking point of the day, as many guests jazzed up their formal outfits with creations by milliner-to-the-stars Philip Treacy. Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, socialite and friend of Prince Charles, sported a bright royal blue dress and matching daring teardrop-shaped pillbox hat by British designer Stephen Jones. Meanwhile, Elton John put aside his normally flamboyant style, wearing a bespoke black morning suit brightened only by a cream waistcoat and purple tie. Not to be outdone by the celebrities, British politicians' wives showed off their fashion credentials on the Westminster Abbey red carpet. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's wife, Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, won the vote for most eye-popping headwear, with an enormous exotic red creation topping off a bizarre metallic and black-gauze dress. Prime Minister David Cameron's wife, Samantha Cameron -- known for her good fashion sense -- eschewed a hat for a feathery barrette teamed with a short-sleeved, figure-hugging teal-green number. The prize for bravery, however, went to Foreign Secretary William Hague's wife Ffion, who turned up looking elegant despite being in a wheelchair, following a recent fall that left her with a broken shin. ||||| Focused crawls are collections of frequently-updated webcrawl data from narrow (as opposed to broad or wide) web crawls, often focused on a single domain or subdomain. A Wiltshire milliner has been working to meet a rush of orders for hats from royal wedding guests - including the Royal Family and the Middletons. Vivien Sheriff's team of eight work from a studio based in converted farmhouse buildings in rural Downton. She said at least 50 of their creations would be seen adorning heads at Westminster Abbey on Friday. Ms Sheriff also created the fascinator worn by Kate Middleton on her first official engagement in Anglesey. The 45-year-old hat-maker started her business seven years ago, after developing a "passion for millinery" while working in textiles trading. She describes her work as "individual pieces of art", sometimes inspired by the Wiltshire countryside. "It's particularly beautiful, the colours outside, the rolling Wiltshire hills," she said. "It is inspiring. You want to create beautiful things when you're in a beautiful area." Worldwide audience Heads of state, political and religious leaders, charity bosses and sport and entertainment celebrities are among the 1,900 guests invited to the wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. Ms Sheriff said she "couldn't wait" to see her creations. "It's definitely 50 pieces that we know about [for the wedding], but of course lots of our pieces go into the shops and big stores, so and we don't know who's going to wear them, so there's that element of surprise on the day," she said. Ms Sheriff would not be drawn on newspaper speculation that the bride's mother, Carole, would be wearing one of her designs. "I'm just really sworn to secrecy and I don't talk about who's been here, but I can tell you that we've made lots of pieces for various members of the Royal Family and some of the Middletons," she said. Ms Sheriff said it had become "manic" with television crews from the US, South America and Germany converging on the studio to film her work. "The impact on a relatively small business is huge," she said. She added that with growing interest in hat-wearing for occasions - particularly from overseas - millinery businesses like hers could expand.

– If the press hasn’t been loud enough about the royal wedding, the hats on display are certainly making up for it. So what’s the story behind them? An eight-member team of milliners in southwest England made at least 50 of the hats, including some for the royal family and the Middletons, the BBC reports. The hats are “individual pieces of art,” says Vivien Sheriff, the head of the rural operation. “You want to create beautiful things when you're in a beautiful area.” Meanwhile, the award for craziest hat of the day goes to Miriam Gonzalez Duantez, wife of deputy PM Nick Clegg, for a giant, feathery red piece, CNN says. Check the gallery for that and other highlights.

Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Getty President Obama names new monuments with cheeky hashtag President Barack Obama stopped over in his adopted hometown of Chicago on Thursday afternoon to designate three new national monuments for protection, including the city’s Pullman Park District. “It’s always been a dream of mine to be the first president to designate a national monument in subzero conditions,” he joked after being introduced by his former chief of staff and Mayor Rahm Emanuel at Gwendolyn Brooks College Preparatory Academy. Story Continued Below A White House tweet about the event included the hashtag #ObamaLovesAmerica, a sly reference to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s remark last night, first reported by POLITICO, that he does not “believe that the president loves America.” Obama: “I’m using my powers as President to announce America’s 3 newest National Monuments." #ObamaLovesAmerica pic.twitter.com/ckIlTQgVdP — The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 19, 2015 In addition to the Pullman National Monument, the president also announced the Browns Canyon National Monument in Colorado and the Honouliuli National Monument in Hawaii, which preserves the site of a World War II internment camp. “Going forward, it’s going to be a monument to a painful part of our history so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past,” Obama said. With Thursday’s announcement, the president has now declared 15 national monuments since taking office in 2009. Also in attendance were Illinois’ Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), and Chicago-area Reps. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Bob Dold (R-Ill.). ||||| Photo Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York on Thursday defended his assertion that President Obama did not love America, and said that his criticism of Mr. Obama’s upbringing should not be considered racist because the president was raised by “a white mother.” Mr. Giuliani’s remarks — made at a New York fund-raising event for Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin on Wednesday night and first reported by Politico — set off an uproar. “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Mr. Giuliani said at the event. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country.” Critics suggested that Mr. Giuliani’s description of Mr. Obama’s upbringing reflected a prejudiced view that Mr. Obama was different from other Americans. In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Giuliani dismissed the criticism and said he was describing the worldview that had shaped Mr. Obama’s upbringing. “Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people,” Mr. Giuliani said in the interview. “This isn’t racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.” He also challenged a reporter to find examples of Mr. Obama expressing love for his country. “I’m happy for him to give a speech where he talks about what’s good about America and doesn’t include all the criticism,” Mr. Giuliani said. Mr. Giuliani said his remarks on Wednesday night were in response to a question about what kind of president he would like to see elected in 2016. He responded, he said, by telling the audience that he wanted a leader who was Mr. Obama’s opposite. “I want an American president to raise our spirits again, like a Ronald Reagan,” he said. Mr. Giuliani said he also objected to the president’s comments about the Crusades at the National Prayer Breakfast this month, in which Mr. Obama said that during the Inquisition, people had “committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” “Now we know there’s something wrong with the guy,” Mr. Giuliani said of the president. “I thought that one sort of went off the cliff.’’ He added: “What I don’t find with Obama — this will get me in more trouble again — is a really deep knowledge of history. I think it’s a dilettante’s knowledge of history.” The White House declined to comment. But earlier on Thursday, the deputy press secretary, Eric Schultz, said, “Mr. Giuliani test-drove this line of attack during his fleeting 2007 run for the presidency.” “I was obviously not at the dinner last night, nor did I watch the remarks, so I’m going to leave it to those at the dinner to assess whether or not they were appropriate,’’ Mr. Schultz said. “But I will say I agree with him on one thing he said today, which is that it was a horrible thing to say.”

– Rudy Giuliani, under fire for private-dinner comments that President Obama doesn't love America and wasn't "brought up the way you were brought up," has explained that he wasn't attacking Obama's race, just his upbringing. "Some people thought it was racist—I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people," Giuliani tells the New York Times. "This isn't racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism," he says, challenging the Times to find examples of Obama saying he loves his country "without all the criticism." Obama was "brought up in an atmosphere in which he was taught to be a critic of America," Giuliani tells CNN. "That is a distinction with prior American presidents" like Ronald Reagan, he says, though he admits there have been an "awful lot of patriots who were critics." White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters yesterday that he wasn't going to "pile on" with criticism of Giuliani, though he said he agreed with the former New York City mayor's own description of his remarks as "horrible," the Hill reports. But Politico, which first reported Giuliani's comments, notes that after Obama designated three new national monuments yesterday, a White House tweet had the hashtag #ObamaLovesAmerica.

Significance For many infections, some infected individuals transmit to disproportionately more susceptibles than others, a phenomenon referred to as “superspreading.” Understanding superspreading can facilitate devising individually targeted control measures, which may outperform population-level measures. Superspreading has been described for a recent Ebola virus (EBOV) outbreak, but systematic characterizations of its spatiotemporal dynamics are still lacking. We introduce a statistical framework that allows us to identify core characteristics of EBOV superspreading. We find that the epidemic was largely driven and sustained by superspreadings that are ubiquitous throughout the outbreak and that age is an important demographic predictor for superspreading. Our results highlight the importance of control measures targeted at potential superspreaders and enhance understanding of causes and consequences of superspreading for EBOV. Abstract The unprecedented scale of the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa (2014–2015) has prompted an explosion of efforts to understand the transmission dynamics of the virus and to analyze the performance of possible containment strategies. Models have focused primarily on the reproductive numbers of the disease that represent the average number of secondary infections produced by a random infectious individual. However, these population-level estimates may conflate important systematic variation in the number of cases generated by infected individuals, particularly found in spatially localized transmission and superspreading events. Although superspreading features prominently in first-hand narratives of Ebola transmission, its dynamics have not been systematically characterized, hindering refinements of future epidemic predictions and explorations of targeted interventions. We used Bayesian model inference to integrate individual-level spatial information with other epidemiological data of community-based (undetected within clinical-care systems) cases and to explicitly infer distribution of the cases generated by each infected individual. Our results show that superspreaders play a key role in sustaining onward transmission of the epidemic, and they are responsible for a significant proportion ( ∼ 61%) of the infections. Our results also suggest age as a key demographic predictor for superspreading. We also show that community-based cases may have progressed more rapidly than those notified within clinical-care systems, and most transmission events occurred in a relatively short distance (with median value of 2.51 km). Our results stress the importance of characterizing superspreading of Ebola, enhance our current understanding of its spatiotemporal dynamics, and highlight the potential importance of targeted control measures. The outbreak size of the 2014 Ebola virus (EBOV) epidemic in Western Africa was unprecedented, and control measures failed to contain the epidemic at its early rapidly growing stage (1, 2). Mathematical models played a key role in inferring the transmission dynamics of EBOV (3). Modeling work succeeded in inferring, in particular, the basic reproductive number R 0 (and the time-varying reproductive number, R t ), which represents the average number of secondary cases that may be generated by a given infectious case (e.g., refs. 4⇓–6). Although these parameters encapsulate knowledge about the average transmission potential of the epidemic at the population level, they fail to reflect individual variation in transmission, which may be more informative for devising targeted control measures. An important phenomenon in disease transmission is so-called superspreading, in which certain individuals (i.e., superspreaders) disproportionately infect a large number of secondary cases relative to an “average” infectious individual (whose infectivity may be well-represented by R t ). Mathematically, the distribution of secondary cases is given by the so-called offspring distribution of the virus. The offspring distribution describes not only the average number of new infections, but also the probability that any one infectious individual generated a large or small number of secondary cases. When the offspring distribution has a large right tail, the probability of superspreading events is high. This phenomenon was a key driver of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 (7) and the more recent Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreaks, starting in 2012 (8). Quantifying superspreading is a key step for refining prediction of future epidemics; also, identifying associated risk factors would facilitate implementation of targeted control measures, which may outperform population-level measures (9). Although contact-tracing data has revealed superspreading of EBOV (10, 11), systematic understanding of how EBOV superspreading events varied over space and time is still lacking. For instance, it is unclear how the role of EBOV superspreading varies over the course of the outbreak. We aimed to answer, primarily in a spatiotemporal setting, (i) how superspreading may have impacted overall transmission dynamics, and (ii) what the potential drivers of superspreading are. We attacked these problems by analyzing a dataset with individual-level spatial data (to the level of individual houses; Study Data). Such community-based surveillance data offer a unique window to study localized transmissions of EBOV and complement formal surveillance by detecting cases that did not interface with clinical care. In this work, we built an age-specific spatiotemporal framework, which allowed us to explicitly infer the probability distribution of the number of new cases generated by each infected individual (hereafter, offspring distribution). This framework was applied to the community-based EBOV case dataset and deployed to infer transmission dynamics and identify superspreaders. Specifically, we used Bayesian inferential techniques to synthesize individual-level spatial data (i.e., GPS coordinates), age data, symptoms onset time, and burial time (Study Data), and to impute unobserved infection time and transmission network (Materials and Methods and SI Text). Study Data We analyzed a community-based dataset collected from the Safe and Dignified Burials program conducted by the International Federation of Red Cross, between October 20, 2014, and March 30, 2015, in Western Area (which comprises the capital Freetown and its surrounding area) in Sierra Leone. These data contain GPS locations (collected by mobile phones) of where the bodies of 200 dead who tested positive for Ebola were collected (typically at their homes). Age, sex, time of burial (which was usually performed within 24 h of death), and symptom onset time were also recorded. Symptom onset time was reported retrospectively by next of kin. Results Natural History Parameters. We estimated that R 0 has median value 2.39, with 95% credible interval (C.I.) of [2.05, 2.84] (Fig. 1A). We also estimated the time-varying reproductive number R t (Fig. 1B). The incubation period was estimated to be 6.74 d [1.29, 16.21]. These estimates are broadly consistent with what have been reported (3, 12). Fig. 1. Estimates of reproductive number. (A) Posterior distribution of the basic reproductive number, R 0 . (B) Posterior distribution of the weekly effective reproductive number, R t . Bars represent 95% C.I., and red line connects the medians. The mean of infectious period (i.e., duration from symptoms onset to death/burial) was estimated to be 3.9 d [3.75, 4.0]. Because the transmission tree and times of infection were imputed (Materials and Methods), we were also able to infer the mean generation time of EBOV, which was estimated to be 10.9 d [9.25, 13.01]. Both estimates were lower than that estimated from cases detected within the clinical care system [e.g., mean infectious period 8 d estimated for patients who received clinical care (13) and mean generation time 15.3 d estimated by the WHO (1)]. These discrepancies potentially highlight systematic differences between community-based cases and cases notified in clinical care systems, with terminal community-based cases progressing significantly more rapidly. Superspreading in Space and Time. Fig. 2 A and B show a clear asymmetry in the average number of “offspring” at the individual level, quantifying the impact of superspreading. In particular, it was observed that most secondary cases generated less than one offspring on average. Thus, the epidemic growth appeared to be fueled mostly by only a few superspreaders (i.e., the outliers in the boxplot). A common empirical measure of degree-of-transmission heterogeneity and superspreading is the dispersion parameter k , assuming that the offspring distribution is a negative binomial with variance σ 2 = μ ( 1 + μ / k ) , where μ is the mean (9). Generally speaking, a lower k represents a higher degree of transmission heterogeneity and superspreading; and k < 1 implies substantial superspreading (compared with a geometric distribution, for which k = 1). Our empirical estimate of k of our inferred mean offspring distribution (including index and secondary) was 0.37, and it is higher (i.e., implies less heterogeneity) than an estimate from an observational study in which k was estimated to be 0.16 (10, 11). This discrepancy in the estimate of κ suggests that our estimate of the degree of superspreading may be conservative (Sensitivity Analysis), although it should be noted their estimate was made based on a study in a different geographical region and time frame. By sampling probabilistically consistent transmission networks among infected individuals (Materials and Methods), we were able to identify whether a case was a descendent of superspreaders by performing a backward search of sampled transmission tree from the case − for each case, we first identified its (most recent) direct infector ( I F 1 ) from the sampled tree, from where we could subsequently identify the infector of I F 1 ; We continued this backward searching until we reached an index case [i.e., the root of a (sub)tree]; a superspreader is an ancestor of this case if it happens to be one of the infectors during the backward searching. Fig. 2C shows that a few superspreaders ( ∼ 3% of all of the cases) were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for a substantial proportion (with median 61%) of all of the cases generated, highlighting the key role of these superspreaders in driving the epidemic growth − had the superspreaders been identified and quarantined promptly, a majority of the infections could have been prevented. Fig. 2. (A) Spatial distribution of mean number of offspring resulting from initial cases at the individual level. An infection is classified as an index case if it has a posterior probability of importation (i.e., not infected by any cases in the data) >0.5; otherwise, it is classified as a secondary case. Lat, latitude; Lon, longitude. (B) Distribution of mean number of offspring by different sources of infection. (C) Proportion of infected individuals who are direct and indirect descendants of the first five superspreaders (i.e., first five individuals with highest number of mean offspring; note that the choice of five is arbitrary here). “Any” includes superspreaders who were also the index cases (i.e., the roots of transmission trees). In Fig. 3A, we show the time dependence of superspreading, illustrating that superspreading becomes relatively more important over time (i.e., within ∼ 100 d after the epidemic peak). This figure suggests that, after the initial period of fast growth of the epidemic (i.e., time before peak), superspreaders may be crucial to sustaining and fueling epidemic growth and also prolonging the epidemic duration. Near the end of the epidemic (period 5 in Fig. 3A), most cases did not spread, and superspreading was nonsignificant, as reflected by k > 1. Fig. 3B shows that most of the transmission (including superspreading) occurred over relatively short distances (median 2.51 km), indicating that transmission tends to take place at the local community level. Fig. 3. Spatial and temporal dependence of superspreading. (A) Reported weekly deaths and inferred mean offspring distributions and the corresponding empirical estimates of k at different time periods. The whole time period is divided into five periods − that is, period 1, from the time of first observation to the time of epidemic peak t peak ; period 2, ( t peak , t peak + 20 d ); period 3, ( t peak + 20 , t peak + 50 ); period 4, ( t peak + 50 , t peak + 100 ); and period 5, from t peak + 100 to the time of last observation. Such a dividing was used so that we could use the peak time as a reference point and ensure a similar number of cases in most intervals. (B) Distribution of distance of transmission for all infector–infected pairs. Black dotted line represents the median (2.51 km) of the distribution. Red dotted line represents the median (2.61 km) of the subdistribution in which the infectors are superspreaders (defined as those who has mean offspring more than five here). Heterogeneity of Infectiousness by Age. Although superspreading in EBOV was evident and may be partly attributed to unsafe burial practice during the early stage of the outbreak (14), other drivers (e.g., social contact pattern) of this process remain unclear. In Fig. 4A, as expected, the infectious period had a clear positive relationship with mean offspring number. Despite the clear relationship between infectious period and the magnitude of superspreading, this covariate cannot be used as a predictor of superspreading, because it is not known a priori. More importantly, there is a significant difference in instantaneous infectious hazard exerted by different age groups (Fig. 4B) − cases <15 and >45 appear to have higher instantaneous transmissibility. Our results suggest that the combination of certain age groups (who have high instantaneous hazard) with a long infectious period (at the right tail of the infectious period distribution) constitutes a key driver of superspreading. The discrepancy of transmissibility in age may be rooted in social contact structure (15) or virological linkages (e.g., potential systematic variation among infected individuals) that cannot be established solely by using epidemiological data (16). Fig. 4. Heterogeneity of infectiousness in age. (A) Relation between mean offspring and infectious period. It is worth noting that here an infectious period is strictly referred to the mean of the posterior samples of imputed infectious period of an individual, rather than the assumed universal infectious period distribution. (B) Instantaneous risk exerted by different age groups. Sensitivity Analysis. Underreporting is a ubiquitous feature of epidemiological data (17, 18). In this section, we explore the effect of underreporting on our analysis under two probable scenarios: (i) All unreported cases were circulating in the community and not hospitalized; and (ii) all unreported cases were hospitalized and therefore not reported in our database. In both scenarios, we tested with constant underreporting rates, across the whole study period and region, ranging from a very low (10%) to a very high one (90%). Doing so allowed us to investigate the probable lower and upper bound of our estimates. We also tested with time-varying underreporting rates in both scenarios. Details of how to include underreported cases are provided in Materials and Methods. We focused on investigating the effect on k , R 0 and transmission distance. Fig. 5A shows that, in general, superspreading should have been even more prominent in the presence of underreporting, compared with our estimate. Such a discrepancy suggests that our estimated degree of superspreading is potentially (at most moderately) conservative − for example, at a constant underreporting rate of 90%, the median of k is ∼ 0.27 in scenario 2, moderately lower than 0.37 estimated from the baseline analysis. Underreporting appears to have limited effect on the estimated R 0 , at least up to underreporting rate of 80% (Fig. 5B). Fig. 5 C and D suggest that, although we can be relatively confident about the most probable transmission distance, it is almost certain that we missed some long-distance transmission events. Assuming a time-varying underreporting rate gives rise to similar results (Fig. S1). Fig. 5. Effect of constant underreporting rates on estimates of transmission dynamics. (A) Estimates of k . Bars represent the 95% C.I., and dots represent the median values. (B) Estimates of R 0 . (C) Estimates of most probable distance of transmission. (D) Estimates of median transmission distance. Dotted lines represent the corresponding estimates using our data. At each underreporting rate, 10 independent simulations and corresponding inference were performed (Materials and Methods). Fig. S1. Effect of time-varying underreporting on estimates of transmission dynamics. (A) Estimates of k . Bars represent the 95% C.I., and dots represent the median values. (B) Estimates of R 0 . (C) Estimates of most probable distance of transmission. (D) Estimates of median transmission distance. Dotted lines represent the corresponding estimates using our data. The underreporting rate is assumed to decrease with a step size 10%, from 90 to 10%, in the course of the epidemic: The study period is divided into nine equal intervals, and each interval takes an underreporting rate that is 10% lower than the previous one. Our model assumed an isotropic spatial dispersal (Materials and Methods). Spatial infectivity, however, may depend on the population density − in particular, it may exhibit a gravity-model pattern that is observed in a few disease systems, including Ebola (19⇓–21). Such gravity models scale the distance-dependent infectious challenge acting on the recipients, by incorporating a “local susceptibility” as a function of the population size of the receiving area − that is, a more populated place is prone to a greater movement influx (of cases) and hence a greater effective infectious challenge. Based on the underlying principles of gravity models, we also investigated the effect of population density on these estimates (Fig. S2), using two different formulations in specifying the local susceptibility. First, without taking into account the population density, we may have missed identifying a few prominent superspreaders at the right tail of the offspring distribution and, hence, underestimated superspreading (Fig. S2A). Conversely, it was shown that population density has no significant effect on R 0 (Fig. S2B). Finally, assuming an isotropic dispersal may have slightly biased toward the longer transmission distance (Fig. S2C). Nevertheless, the effects were nonsignificant, mainly due to relatively homogeneous population density where the cases resided (Fig. S3). The parameterization of the incubation period and infectious period were also tested, showing very similar estimates as the baseline case (Tables S1 and S2). We also tested alternative parameterization of priors in Table S3, giving virtually identical results compared with those obtained in the baseline case (see also Materials and Methods). Fig. S2. Testing the assumption of an isotropic spatial dispersal. (A) The distribution of mean offsprings under different scenarios. (B) The distribution of R 0 under different scenarios. (C) The distribution of transmission distance under different scenarios. Here we considered three scenarios. In scenario 1 (base scenario), we assumed an isotropic dispersal and did not take into account the potential effect of population density. We considered in scenarios 2 and 3 that the dispersal kernel value was “moderated” by the relative population density of the 100 m × 100 m grid that a case resides in. Scenarios 2 and 3 differ in how the population density was normalized (to between [ 0,1 ] ) to obtain the discounting factor: In scenario 2, we normalized according to l o g (1 + population density), and in scenario 3, we normalized according to the absolute scale of population density. Fig. S3. Population density and spatial distribution of the cases in the study area. Other than the smaller clusters near the center of the study area, most cases were found in more populated regions. It was noted that the raw grid resolution is 100 m × 100 m (which is too fine to display), and here it is binned into 30 × 30 grids for better visualization. Lat, latitude; Lon, longitude. Table S1. Testing alternative parameterizations of the incubation period Table S2. Testing alternative parameterizations of the infectious period Table S3. Testing alternative uninformative priors Discussion Superspreading is a core process for the transmission of many infections (7, 8). However, the importance of superspreading in driving epidemics varies with context. For instance, its impact depends on how it persists over the course of an epidemic. Quantifying superspreading and identifying scenarios where it is more likely to occur can facilitate refining future epidemics predictions and help in devising targeted intervention strategies that may outperform population-level control measures (9). To date, a systematic understanding of how EBOV has been (super)spreading in the recent outbreak in Western Africa is lacking, particularly in terms of individual-level covariates, and across the spatiotemporal setting. The key contributions of this work are to highlight and quantify the importance of superspreading and to show that it is in some senses systematic. Community-based surveillance data offer a valuable opportunity to study superspreading, by focusing on nonhospitalized cases that may have been involved in superspreading events and not detected by formal surveillance. Here, we introduce a continuous-time spatiotemporal model that integrates individual spatial information with other epidemiological information of community-based cases and deploy it to quantify superspreading and its drivers for EBOV. Our framework enabled us to sample likely realizations of the unobserved transmission network among cases from which the offspring distribution of each case could be inferred, providing explicitly a machinery for understanding superspreading in space and time. Our analysis is broadly consistent with previous work, indicating values of R 0 of 2.39 [2.05, 2.84] for the outbreak in Sierra Leone (in particular, close to the 2.53 estimated in ref. 22). Our results show that EBOV exhibited a prominent superspreading pattern shared by SARS and MERS (7, 8, 23) [e.g., k was estimated to be 0.16 for SARS (9)], which reinforces the finding that superspreading occurred during the recent EBOV outbreak (10). We also extended previous analyses by showing that a substantial proportion of secondary cases were either direct or indirect descendants of a small number of superspreaders, underscoring the importance of superspreading in driving the epidemic − that is, had the superspreaders been identified and quarantined promptly, ∼ 61% of the infections could have been prevented. Furthermore, we show that superspreaders may have particular importance in driving and sustaining the epidemic progression over the course of the outbreak. The increasing relative importance of superspreading over the later stages of the outbreak (Fig. 3A) is consistent with the rising availability of hospital beds (5) − that is, later in the outbreak, most infected individuals were able to get a bed at an Ebola treatment center (ETC) and largely did not further transmit; as a result, those superspreaders in the community who did not make it to ETCs may have played an increasingly important role in sustaining the epidemic by generating more secondary cases. Our results also suggest that Ebola transmission may have disproportionately affected the local community, because we estimate a relatively short transmission distance. This estimated distance has implications for implementation of regional control measures. Identifying individuals who have the profile (socially or culturally) of being at greater risk of causing superspreading events is crucial for implementing targeted interventions. We reveal that age-dependent social contact structure may play an important role in (super)spreading EBOV in the local community. Specifically, our results identify age groups that have higher instantaneous transmissibility and show that cases in the more infectious age groups tend to be superspreaders when combined with a relatively long infectious duration. One plausible explanation, from the social perspective, may be that the young and old are much more likely to have (and infect) lots of visitors, compared to other age groups; a parallel corollary is that the young and old might be more likely to have others caring for them. Also, our results highlight systematic differences between community-based cases and cases notified in clinical care systems, with terminal community-based cases progressing significantly more rapidly. Our results stress the importance of characterizing superspreading of EBOV, enhance current understandings of its spatiotemporal dynamics, and highlight the potential importance of targeted control measures − for example, during the 2014–2015 EBOV epidemic, millions of dollars were spent implementing message strategies about Ebola prevention and control across entire countries; our results suggest that message strategies targeting individuals with higher risk may be useful to prevent superspreading events and the persistence of the outbreak. There are limitations of our results. First of all, although community-based surveillance data complement formal surveillance by detecting cases that did not interface with clinical care, they contain only partial information about the epidemic, with hospitalized cases omitted. Also, it is possible that, by underreporting some community cases who generated subsequent cases, certain reported cases may be falsely attributed as sources of infection for those subsequent cases, overestimating the degree of superspreading. Accordingly, our sensitivity analysis evaluated the impact of these sources of underreporting, showing that our estimated degree of superspreading may in fact be conservative and represents a lower bound − superspreading in EBOV may be even more prominent in reality (Fig. 5). It is also worth noting that, by considering only safe burials, which tend to be less transmissible (relative to those did not receive safe burials) among deaths (14), our estimate of superspreading may have been conservative. Conversely, because it was reported that individuals who eventually died might have a higher intrinsic transmissibility (24), our analysis might bias toward high transmitters by only using death data. Our methodology represents a transmission network-based approach that focused on constructing transmission trees among cases (25⇓⇓–28). Although such an approach captures contacts that caused infections, it does not account for “unsuccessful” contacts that correspond to escaped infections. Future theoretical work will need to include such contacts. Nevertheless, because unsuccessful contacts are not parts of the transmission chain, ignoring them has limited effect on the transmission tree or on many overall topological characteristics (e.g., average number of offspring of an infected case) (25, 28, 29). Finally, although our analysis reveals the importance of age as demographic determinants of superspreading, future work in linking them with virological factors (e.g., age-specific viral loads) may shed further light (16). Materials and Methods Spatiotemporal Transmission Model. We developed a continuous-time spatiotemporal transmission model that allowed us to sample the transmission tree among cases, integrating observed spatial and temporal individual data. This approach allowed us to infer explicitly the mean offspring distribution of each case. Specifically, the total probability of individual j becoming infected during time period [ t , t + d t ] was given by r ( j , t , d t ) = { α + ∑ i ∈ ξ I ( t ) β i × K ( d i j ; η ) } d t + o ( d t ) , [1]where ξ I ( t ) is the set of all infectious individuals at time t , α is the background rate of infection, and β i is the age-specific instantaneous infection hazard of a case in ξ I ( t ) . We allowed five-level β i according to the age—that is, we had β i = β a for age between [ 0 , 15 ] , β b for age between [ 15 , 30 ] , β c for age between [ 30,45 ] , β d for age between [ 45 , 60 ] , and β e for age >60. K ( d i j ; η ) , also known as a dispersal kernel, characterized the dependence of the infectious challenge from infectious i to j as a function of distance d i j between them. Here, we have K ( d i j ; η ) = e x p ( − η d i j ) . After the infection, it was assumed that individual j would go through an incubation period (i.e., time from infection to symptoms onset) and an infectious period (i.e., time from onset to death). The incubation period was assumed to follow a gamma distribution Γ ( a , b ) distribution (where a and b are mean and SD, respectively), and the infectious period followed an exponential distribution with mean c . We assumed the infectiousness started from the symptoms onset time. It was noted that unknown contacts corresponding to escaped infections were not taken into account in our framework, resulting in a likelihood function that accounted for only successful infectious contacts (SI Text) − that is, our approach essentially represented a transmission network-based inference, where the focus was to construct the transmission tree among infected individuals (25⇓⇓–28). Data Augmentation and Model Fit and Validation. We estimated 𝜽 (i.e., the parameter vector) in the Bayesian framework by sampling it from the posterior distribution P ( 𝜽 | x ) , where x is the observed data. Denoting the likelihood by L ( 𝜽 ; x ) , the posterior distribution of 𝜽 is P ( 𝜽 | x ) ∝ L ( 𝜽 ; x ) π ( 𝜽 ) , where π ( 𝜽 ) is prior distribution for 𝜽 . Weak uniform priors for parameters in 𝜽 were used (Table S4). Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques (30) were used to obtain the posterior distribution. The unobserved infection times and transmission network were imputed in the MCMC. Sampled transmission networks were recorded and used to infer the offspring distribution of each case. Details of the likelihood function and the MCMC algorithm are given in SI Text. Model fit was assessed by comparing the observed data with those simulated from the estimated model, suggesting a good fit (Fig. S4). Furthermore, for validating the implementation of our inference procedures, we generated multiple sets of pseudodata from the modal process and demonstrated that we could successfully reestimate the model parameters (Fig. S5). Table S4. Prior and posterior distributions of model parameters Fig. S4. Assessing the model fit. We used the estimated model to simulate (500 times) forward the transmission path and timings of events (i.e., infection time, onset time, and death time). (A) Comparison of the observed weekly temporal distribution of the cases with that summarized from the simulated data. Gray area represents the 95% C.I., and the black dots and line are the observed data, with 5 of 500 random realizations (colored lines) of the simulated epidemics imposed. We compared the temporal autocorrelations (at lag = 1 and lag = 2) of the observed and simulated epidemics. We also compared the peak height, the growth rate before peak, and decay rate after peak between the observed and simulated (the growth and decay rates correspond to the slopes of best-fitted linear lines to the observed or simulated data). Dotted lines represent the values of the summary statistics corresponding to the observed data. (B) Comparison of the observed spatial autocorrelation and the simulated. Here we used two common measures, Moran’s I and Geary’s C indices (33, 34), which range from −1 to 1 (a value close 1 indicates strong clustering and close to −1 indicates strong dispersion). Dotted lines represent the values of the summary statistics corresponding to the observed data. Fig. S5. Checking of the implementation of the inference procedures. We simulated 10 independent pseudodata from the model, with the model parameter values close to the posterior means obtained from fitting with the real dataset. The model is then fitted to each of the simulated datasets, and the resultant posterior distributions of the model parameters are shown. The true values of the model parameters are indicated by the red lines. Testing Underreporting. We divided the observational period into many 3-d-wide intervals. Within each time interval, we had the total number of unreported cases n t ′ = n t / ( 1 − r ) − n t , where n t and r were the observed cases in the interval and the assumed underreporting rate, respectively. Burial times and symptoms-onset time of these unreported cases were drawn from the empirical distribution of the observed cases. Finally, these n t ′ cases were distributed spatially by using the empirical distribution of (normalized) population densities across the study area. We also tested an underreporting rate that decreases with time (Fig. S1). For the scenario that considers unreported hospitalized cases, we drew the time from symptoms onset to hospitalization from the truncated above (at 7 d) empirical infectious period distribution of observed cases, effectively resulting in a shorter infectious period for unreported cases. These artificially generated data were combined with the observed data and fitted with our model. SI Text Likelihood Function. Let E = ( E 1 , E 2 , … , E n ) be the vector of the exposure/infection times of the n = 200 cases, I = ( I 1 , I 2 , … , I n ) the times of becoming infectious, and R = ( R 1 , R 2 , … , R n ) the death times. The epidemic was observed up to time t m a x . The incubation period was assumed to be a two-parameter density function f u ( ⋅ ; a , b ) characterized by parameters a and b ; similarly, for the infectious period (i.e., time from start of infectiousness to death), with density function f w ( ⋅ ; c ) . Finally, let ψ j be the source of infection of case j and 𝝍 be the collection set for n cases. The likelihood of the parameter vector 𝜽 = ( α , β ψ j , η , a , b , c ) given complete data can be expressed as L ( 𝜽 ; E , I , R , 𝝍 ) = ∏ j P ( j , ψ j ) × Q ( E j ) × ∏ j f u ( I j − E j ; a , b ) × ∏ j f w ( R j − I j ; c ) , [S1]where P ( j , ψ j ) = { α , if j is an index case , β ψ j K ( d ψ j j ; η ) , if j infected by a case ψ j , [S2]is the (unnormalized) probability of case j to be an index case of infected by case ψ j , respectively, and Q ( E j ) = e x p ( − ∫ 0 E j { α + ∑ i ∈ ξ I ( t ) β i K ( d i j ; η ) } d t ) , [S3]is the probability of case j to have not been infected up to time E j , where ξ I ( t ) is the set of all infectious individuals at time t . MCMC Algorithm. Parameters in 𝜽 were updated sequentially with a standard random-walk Metropolis–Hastings (M-H) algorithm (30, 31). For example, a new parameter value α ′ was proposed from a normal distribution centered on the current value of α , that is, α ′ = α + N ( 0 , ρ 2 ) [S4]where ρ controls the step size of the random-walk. Elements in infection times vector E were also treated as unobserved model parameters and were imputed in the same manner (30). Approximately 10% of the cases had invalid records of symptom onset time; hence, corresponding elements in I were also imputed similarly. We used (weak) uniform priors with upper bounds for all model parameters, and the maximum of the incubation period was assumed to be 21 d (32). Details of the priors and obtained posteriors are shown in Table S4. Denote ω ψ as the set of eligible candidates for a new source of infection ψ ′ j for j (i.e., ω ψ contains a set of cases whose are infectious at E j ). We propose a new infecting source i ∈ ω ψ to be ψ ′ j with probability p i j ∝ β K ( d i j ; η ) . [S5] Note that the background infection can be accommodated by adding a permanent infectious source presenting an additional challenge of strength α to individual j . A newly proposed source is accepted or rejected depending on the M-H acceptance probability (29). Acknowledgments This work was supported by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Grant OPP1091919; the RAPIDD program of the Science and Technology Directorate Department of Homeland Security and the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health; and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). S.F. was also supported by MRC Career Award in Biostatistics MR/K021680/1. Footnotes Author contributions: M.S.Y.L. designed research; M.S.Y.L., B.D.D., and B.T.G. performed research; M.S.Y.L. analyzed data; and M.S.Y.L., B.D.D., S.F., A.M., A.T., S.R., C.J.E.M., and B.T.G. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1614595114/-/DCSupplemental. Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. ||||| Image copyright Getty Images The majority of cases in the world's largest outbreak of Ebola were caused by a tiny handful of patients, research suggests. The analysis, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows nearly two thirds of cases (61%) were caused by 3% of infected people. The young and old were more likely to have been "super-spreaders". It is hoped understanding their role in spreading the infection will help contain the next outbreak. More than 28,600 people were infected with Ebola during the 2014-15 outbreak in west Africa and around 11,300 people died. How did it spread? The study looked at cases in and around the capital of Sierra Leone, Freetown. By looking at the pattern of where and when cases emerged, the researchers could tell how many people each infected person was passing the deadly virus onto. Prof Steven Riley, one of the researchers at Imperial College London, told the BBC News website: "Most cases had a relatively short infectious period and generated low numbers of secondary infections, whereas a small number had longer infectious periods and generated more infections. "The findings are likely an accurate description of what happened." Image copyright Getty Images Children under 15-years-old and adults over 45 were more likely to be spreading the virus. "My feeling is this may be explained by human behaviour," said Prof Riley. "It may not even be the cases, but the people around them. "I wonder whether it is to do with people coming to care for the young or old." Infection hallmark Super-spreaders have been implicated in other outbreaks, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers). They seem to be a hallmark of emerging infections that are jumping from animal to human hosts. The knowledge could help contain future outbreaks by targeting resources at the super-spreaders. Huge efforts went into contact-tracing during the Ebola outbreak, which could be focused on super-spreaders in the future. The study may also feed into plans to prepare a stockpile of Ebola vaccine. Prof Jonathan Ball, a virologist at the University of Nottingham, told the BBC: "The recent West African outbreak was on an unprecedented scale and many cases, especially those occurring out in the community, appear to have arisen from a surprisingly small number of infected individuals. "Knowing who is most likely to transmit the virus can help in focusing interventions designed to prevent virus spread, and the current study suggests that infected children and the elderly were more likely to pass their virus on. "Whether this was this due to biological or social factors is unclear, and these will be important questions to address if we are to understand how Ebola virus super-spread occurs." The research was a collaboration between Princeton University, Oregon State University, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Imperial College London and the US National Institutes of Health. Follow James on Twitter. ||||| Monrovia, Liberia, was hit hard during the 2014-2015 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. (Zoom Dosso/AFP via Getty Images) They are called superspreaders, the minority of people who are responsible for infecting many others during epidemics of infectious diseases. Perhaps the most famous superspreader was Typhoid Mary, presumed to have infected 51 people, three of whom died, between 1900 and 1907. Now scientists studying how Ebola spread during the 2014-2015 epidemic in West Africa say superspreaders played a bigger role than was previously known, according to findings published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Here's a look at the pandemics that made it to our shores. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post) If superspreading had been completely controlled, almost two-thirds of the infections might have been prevented, scientists said. [How Ebola sped out of control] More than 28,000 confirmed, probable and suspected cases of Ebola were reported in West Africa during the outbreak, including more than 11,000 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. Researchers at Princeton University and Oregon State University conducted a retrospective analysis of the timing and location of 200 community burials between October 2014 and March 2015 in the urban areas around Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone. Using a mathematical model, they reconstructed the transmission network to see what proportion of cases were caused by superspreaders. They estimated that about 3 percent of the people infected were ultimately responsible for infecting about 61 percent of cases. “It’s similar to looking at a blood spatter pattern and figuring out where the shooter was standing,” said Benjamin Dalziel, an assistant professor of population biology at Oregon State University and a co-author of the study. Based on the evidence of disease transmission, that pattern — a small number of individuals responsible for the majority of infections — also holds true in Guinea and Liberia, the other two countries hit hardest by Ebola, Dalziel said. “Superspreading was more important in driving the epidemic than we realized,” he said. [From 2014: CDC: Ebola could infect 1.4 million in West Africa by end of January if trends continue] Superspreaders of Ebola tended to be children younger than 15 or adults between 40 and 55 years old, he said. They were based in the community rather than in health-care facilities, and they continued to spread the disease after many of the people first infected were already in treatment centers, where transmission was much better controlled. Older adults were probably caring for the children. These caregivers were also more likely to be in charge of organizing large funerals, Dalziel said. Researchers said their findings about the importance of superspreaders were conservative because they focused only on people who had been buried safely. Ebola spreads primarily through contact with bodily fluids. During the epidemic, superspreaders were cited in numerous news stories about Ebola’s spread. Often, transmission occurred during caregiving at home and during funeral preparations, especially washing and touching the bodies of loved ones. Researchers said the study provided a new statistical framework that allowed scientists to measure how important superspreaders were in fueling the epidemic. In the future, public health officials should consider asking: “What are the scenarios where superspreading might occur?” Dalziel said. That question might help tailor better methods of controlling an outbreak, he said. Superspreaders have played a role in the spread of several other infectious diseases. During the 2002-2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, superspreading was considered one of the most notable features of the outbreak. In one such event in Hong Kong, a 26-year-old man who was admitted to a hospital for treatment infected 156 people, including hospital staff, patients and visitors. A single superspreader in a busy hospital emergency department also spread MERS, Middle East respiratory syndrome, to 82 people in just three days in May 2015 during an outbreak of the virus in South Korea. The “index patient” was a 68-year-old man who had been to Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar before returning to South Korea. MERS first emerged in humans in 2012 and has been spreading in Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries since then. It is caused by a coronavirus from the same family as SARS. The disease, in which patients develop acute respiratory illness with fever, coughing and breathing problems, has spread to 27 countries and killed up to 40 percent of those infected. Read more: "Ebola was the largest mobilization in CDC history" Ebola's lessons, painfully learned at great cost in dollars and human lives Common weed could help fight deadly superbug More than 350 organizations write Trump to endorse current vaccines' safety

– Scientists are investigating minorities, but it's not how it sounds. So-called "super-spreaders" are a small group of people who, for whatever reason, turn out to be the major driver behind the spread of diseases, and scientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that super-spreaders are more responsible for the Ebola epidemic in West Africa than previously thought. So far they know a few things; Ebola super-spreaders tend to be younger than 15 or in the 40-to-55 age range, for instance. In applying a mathematical model to cases in and near Freetown, Sierra Leone, researchers from Princeton and Oregon State University mapped out a transmission network and ended up with this estimate: Just 3% of sufferers were responsible for 61% of infections, reports the Washington Post. While most cases exhibited short infection periods and didn't infect many others, "a small number had longer infectious periods and generated more infections," one researcher tells the BBC. Now the big question is what makes these people so prone to infect others? It's possible that the major factor is behavioral, with super-spreaders tending to be caregivers who are in more contact with sick people with weakened immune systems. In that case, researchers say the better question might be, "What are the scenarios where super-spreading might occur?" The researchers write that if super-spreaders had "been identified and quarantined promptly" during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak, roughly 17,500 of the 28,600 infections might have been prevented. There were about 11,300 deaths. (These are some of the deadliest viruses known to man.)

Some see protest while others see profit at Occupy Wall Street This T-shirt is one of many protest items for sale online and in Zuccotti Park. Where some see protest, others see profit. Capitalism has sprouted in Zuccotti Park, and one young vendor says he sees no irony in doing a land-office business in OccupyNY merchandise. "I'd be an idiot not to be here," said Mike, aka Concrete Surfer, as he accepted $20 from a Pennsylvania tourist for a T-shirt reading "THE PEOPLE ARE THE POWER." "I'm exercising my First Amendment rights here. It's material with political slogans on it. I made these myself; these are my slogans," he said. We didn't have to ask how business was doing, as a young man purchased Mike's last "FREE THE WAGE SLAVES" hoodie for $35. "It's perfect that I'm over here. I'm leading by example. I'm not working at Starbucks or McDonald's. I don't have to stay on the plantation anymore. I'm a young, black entrepreneur," he said. "I've fired the boss." Meanwhile, protest-inspired merch is flying off the cybershelves of eBay and Amazon. You can get a rhinestone-studded "We are the 99% - 2 Big 2 Fail" tee on eBay, where you'll also find a tee emblazoned with Guy Fawkes' face morphed from Shepard Fairey's Obama portrait for just $12.99. There are buttons, wristbands, bumper stickers, decals, skateboards, piggy banks and even iPhone 4 covers for sale. For bargain-hunters, there's the $3.50 "Occupy Wall Street gift packet" - essentially a shrinkwrapped set of brochures distributed free at Zuccotti. Perhaps those making the biggest profit are the ones selling copies of "The Occupied Wall Street Journal" - the four-page broadsheet published by the protesters and distributed for free. There have been three issues so far, and the first edition is selling for $39.99 on Amazon. Forty-two people have already purchased issues 2 and 3 for $19.99 each on eBay. Judith Lowry, a document expert at the treasured books and print shop Argosy on E. 59th St., told the Daily News, "I would say that they would have some value to future collectors or historians, especially if you have all the issues. Most newspapers, people read and throw out. So whichever survive become valuable." And if OccupyNY foments a real revolution? "Oh, yes, then they would be quite valuable," said Lowry. "Come to think of it, I should go down there and try to get some." An eBay vendor called "New York Scarf" knows sex sells, so he's posted a photo of two protestors in bikinis with his lot of Occupy Wall Street Journals with a free CD of 500 protester photos for $14.99. But all this may be moot if two men seeking to trademark the slogans they had nothing to do with creating get their way. Once they own the trademarks, they could sue anyone else who tries to sell so much as a Magic-Markered tee. Robert Maresca, an injured L.I. ironworker, has filed a trademark application for the phrase "Occupy Wall Street," and Brooklynite Ian McLaughlin has filed to own the trademark "We Are the 99%." He plans to make tote bags, hats, clothing and even umbrellas. Mark Bray, the measured, courteous Rutgers student who is a spokesman for OccupyNY, laughed when told their free newspaper is being sold for $39.99. And if they are not prevented from using the slogans themselves, he has no problem with the merch. "This is not an anti-capitalist movement," said Bray. "We have a wide variety of political perspectives here, all united on one point: economic justice." Look out. Somebody might trademark that. jmolloy@nydailynews.com ||||| The seed for this crawl was a list of every host in the Wayback Machine This crawl was run at a level 1 (URLs including their embeds, plus the URLs of all outbound links including their embeds) The WARC files associated with this crawl are not currently available to the general public.

– High school students who studied instead of watching Jersey Shore say they've been left at a disadvantage by a question on the SAT college entrance exam. The students complain that the essay question, which deals with the nature of reality shows, assumes that all students have a television and watch plenty of trashy reality TV, reports the Washington Post. “I’m proud he doesn’t watch television and then he goes into the one test that really counts and he gets pummeled," one father complained. The question is part of the writing portion of the test and counts toward one third of students' SAT scores. “This is one of those moments when I wish I actually watched TV,” one test-taker said. “I ended up talking about Jacob Riis and how any form of media cannot capture reality objectively. I kinda want to cry right now." Another student told the New York Daily News: ”I guess the kids who watch crap TV did well. I was completely baffled." The director of the SAT program says the question contained enough information for anybody to be able to answer it. "The primary goal of the essay prompt is to give students an opportunity to demonstrate their writing skills,” she said.

When the runaway ghost train rolled into the heart of town and detonated like a bomb, levelling the entire historic central district of pretty Lac-Mégantic, Que., survivors say that life or death depended on where you happened to be standing. A day after the conflagration which destroyed at least 30 buildings, including a packed bar, apartments and all the town’s archives, fire still raged. With one confirmed dead, hope was diminishing for dozens of people who remained missing. Medical officials reported almost no injuries. Those who failed to escape probably did not survive to seek treatment. The town of Lac Megantic where a train carrying crude oil derailed early morning in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, July 6, 2013. THE GLOBE AND MAIL gallery In pictures: The aftermath of the explosive Quebec train derailment In this OPP handout photo from CTV, a train car is seen in a river after a bridge collapse caused a Canadian Pacific train to derail. Ontario Provincial Police via CTV Interactive Interactive: Recent CP train derailments Many of those missing were indoors, such as the patrons of the Musi-Café bar who filled the building when 73 driverless train cars rolled in out of control at 1:15 a.m. ET Saturday morning. Those who were outside when the train failed to negotiate a bend had a chance. Some survivors were out for a smoke. Some were going home after a enjoying a few drinks at a packed bar near the epicentre of the explosion. Others out for a stroll ended up running just a metre or two ahead of a river of fire – tons of burning crude oil flowing down city streets and into the lake. So far, the Surêté du Québec is confirming only one death and refusing to validate reports that anywhere between 50 and 80 people are missing. An officer speaking on condition of anonymity Saturday afternoon told a Globe and Mail reporter he had 50 names on his list. Agence France-Presse put the number at 80. In the final police briefing for Saturday, Lieutenant Guy Lapointe would say only: “There is one confirmed death. But we expect others.” Those who were on the scene when the immense fireball turned buildings into piles of ash have no doubt the death toll will be big. " Everybody who didn’t make it back is dead," predicted Frédérique Mailloux, a 38-year-old stay-at-home mom, who said six of her friends are missing. “I have cried every tear in my body.” Nearly two square kilometres of the downtown were razed, according to Fire Chief Denis Lauzon. “The scene is like one you see after a big forest fire. There are only parts of the buildings left, trees have been completely burnt, there is no grass left, the cars are charred. This is total destruction.” Earlier, provincial police Lt. Michel Brunet told a news conference: “Our investigators are trying to track down family members, so we can’t give the identity of this (dead) person, but at this time we can confirm one person has died.” Mr. Brunet said authorities have been told “many” people have been reported missing. “We’re told some people are missing but they may just be out of town or on vacation,” Mr. Brunet said. “We’re checking all that, so I can’t tell you at the moment whether there are any victims or people who are injured.” Relatives in the tourist town of 6,000 full-time residents were already starting to grieve. At a community centre, Jacques Bolduc and Solange Gaudreault emerged after providing a DNA sample to potentially identify their son, Guy Bolduc, a 23-year-old singer who was performing at the bar. “Our boy wanted so much to live,” Mr. Bolduc told Radio-Canada. “The police told us there is no hope. The train exploded 30 feet from the (Musi-Café) bar.” Bernard Théberge, 44, a cook who lives on the outskirts of Lac-Mégantic, was out with his friends at the Musi-Café, one of the most popular hangouts in town and the last known whereabouts of many of the missing. The Musi-Café is a few metres from where the tracks cross Frontenac Street, Lac-Mégantic’s main street. Mr. Théberge was on the outside patio in front of the café smoking a cigarette when the derailment happened. He heard the train coming and knew right away that something was wrong. “It was going way too fast,” said Mr. Théberge. "I saw a wall of fire go up. People got up on the outside patio. I grabbed my bike, which was just on the railing of the terrasse. I started pedaling and then I stopped and turned around. I saw that there were all those people inside and I knew right away that it would be impossible for them to get out. Mr. Théberge said he tried to go around front to help people escape “but there was just fire everywhere.” "I just pedaled away, but I know a lot of people didn’t make it out. There were maybe 60 people inside. “This is a first. Smoking saved my life,” he said with a voice raspy from the heat and smoke. His right arm was bandaged for the second-degree burns. At a tent at the corner of Frontenac and Lemieux streets in the afternoon, paramedics sat idly in the torrid heat with no one to help. Residents gathered to await news of survivors, which never came. Report Typo/Error ||||| One person has been declared dead after a train derailment in the tight-knit community of Lac-M├ęgantic, Que., sparked explosions and a major blaze. The train, which was carrying crude oil, rolled away overnight after it was parked by an engineer. It derailed in the heart of the small town in Quebec's Eastern Townships, forcing close to 2,000 people from their homes. Share your thoughts and wishes with the community of Lac-M├ęgantic. Tweet #LacMegantic Witnesses reported between five and six explosions overnight in the town of about 6,000 people. The derailment happened at about 1 a.m. ET, about 250 kilometres east of Montreal. About 1,000 people were evacuated from their homes overnight, and several hundred more also left their homes on Saturday afternoon because of air quality concerns. 'ItÔÇÖs like the town has been cut by a knife.'ÔÇöGr├ęgory Gomez del Prado, Quebec provincial police Quebec provincial police confirmed one death on Saturday afternoon, and Sgt. Gr├ęgory Gomez del Prado told CBC it's possible up to 100 people could be missing, although he said it is difficult to pin down an exact number. ÔÇťItÔÇÖs like the town has been cut by a knife,ÔÇŁ he said, referring to the fire that tore through the community's downtown. Quebec premier Pauline Marois offered her support to the community and Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be visiting the area Sunday to assess the damage and meet with officials. Harper sent his thoughts out to the community on Saturday afternoon. He said the government was monitoring the situation and was standing ready to provide extra support. ÔÇťOur thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of those affected by this morning's tragic train derailment," he said in a statement. ÔÇťWe hope evacuees can return to their homes safely and quickly," he said. Death toll expected to rise Police said in a news conference late Saturday that they expected the death toll to rise. "I don't want to get into numbers, what I will say is we do expect we'll have other people who will be found deceased, unfortunately," said Lt. Guy Lapointe, a spokesman with Quebec provincial police. "We also expect that down the line the number of people who are reported missing with regards to people that who have actually lost their lives will much higher in the sense that there will be more people reported missing that people actually found dead." Lapointe refused to give any estimate of people unaccounted for because police are having a difficult time getting a number. "People are calling in reported love ones missing, some people are reported two, three times missing by different members of the family," he said. 'Total mayhem' Zeph Kee, who lives about 30 minutes outside of Lac-M├ęgantic, said he saw a huge fireball coming from the city's downtown early Saturday morning. The area surrounding the explosion site was a popular place on the evenings, and witnesses said the bars and restaurants were bustling with people when the first explosion hit. Kee said one of the bars, which was packed with people enjoying their drinks on the patio, is now gone along with dozens of other buildings and homes that were flattened by the blast. Watch the explosion "It was total mayhem ÔÇŽ people not finding their kids," Kee said. Isabelle Aller, who was visiting the area, says she has been calling her friends ever since the explosion, and they haven't answered their phones. "The more time that passes, the more we are worried," she said. Aller says after the first explosion, some people went to the scene to see what was going on. Several explosions followed afterwards. Train inexplicably rolls away The derailed train belongs to Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway, which owns more than 800 kilometres of track serving Maine, Vermont, Quebec and New Brunswick, according to the company's website. Chairman Edward Burkhardt said an engineer parked the train west of Lac-M├ęgantic before he went to a local hotel for the night. While other details remain unclear, the train rolled away later that night and derailed in the centre of the town. "He had parked the train, so far as we can determine, properly," Burkhardt said, adding that the brakes were properly applied. The company will have to wait for clearance from authorities before they can look for more answers. Burkhardt said that while it's not clear how much oil has been spilled, his company is committed to cleaning up. "We're pledging a complete cleanup and remediation of the area," he said. Mayor holds back tears The teary-eyed mayor of Lac-M├ęgantic, Colette Roy-Laroche, said emergency services are doing everything possible to deal with the crisis. "We have deployed all resources to ensure that we can support our citizens," she said. 'It's terrible. We've never seen anything like it.'ÔÇöClaude B├ędard, Lac-M├ęgantic resident A spokesperson for Quebec's Environment Ministry says 73 rail cars filled with crude oil were involved. At least four of the cars exploded, sending a huge cloud of thick, black smoke into the air. The fire, which can be seen for several kilometres, spread to a number of homes. Authorities say some 30 buildings were affected. "It's dreadful," said Lac-M├ęgantic resident Claude B├ędard. "It's terrible. We've never seen anything like it. The Metro store, Dollarama, everything that was there is gone." Firefighters called in from U.S. More than 150 firefighters, some from as far away as Sherbrooke, Que., and the United States, worked from the early Saturday morning to bring the flames under control. While the fire continued to burn in the afternoon, authorities said it had been contained. A large but as-yet undetermined amount of fuel is also reported to have spilled into the Chaudi├Ęre River. Some residents say the water has turned an orange colour. Mayor Roy-Laroche assured the public that the town's drinking-water supply is safe, and she encouraged residents to limit their water consumption as much as possible. Experts from Environment Quebec were also on the scene to keep an eye on the town's air quality. The cause of the derailment is under investigation. With files from The Canadian Press

– Train cars carrying crude oil through a small town in Quebec derailed last night, setting off huge explosions that forced the evacuation of 1,000 and left several people missing, reports the CBC. About 30 buildings in the heart of Lac Megantic were destroyed by the explosions and resulting fire, reports the Globe and Mail. The town is about 150 miles east of Montreal, and firefighters from the US were at the scene helping. “As mayor, when you see the majority of your downtown destroyed like that, you’ll understand we’re asking how we’re going to survive it,” says Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche. A large amount of oil reportedly spilled into the Chaudiere River, though details on that and most other aspects of the damage were sketchy. At least four cars on the 73-car train exploded, say authorities.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images President Obama walked down an empty corridor to the East Room of the White House on Sunday night to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden. It was like he was walking out of a forgotten dream. Remember that quest we began nearly 10 years ago? Remember “dead or alive”? Obama spoke quickly, recalling the trauma of 9/11 and the unity. “We went to war against al-Qaeda,” he said—waking a memory. That’s right. That’s the enemy. Al-Qaeda is vague and formless and dispersed. The U.S. never waged such a war against such an enemy before. “We went to war against al-Qaeda,” Obama said, and with nearly 10 years of struggle under our belts we realize now what a weighty declaration that is. He spoke of “tireless work” over many years all around the world. But he also took credit—in the form of a half-hinted mystery story that will trickle out over hours and days and years and decades. Among other things, Obama’s announcement of bin Laden’s death will surely be the opening lines of a great historical drama. “Shortly after taking office, “ Obama said, he told CIA Director Leon Panetta to make bin Laden Job One. By last August, the CIA had “a possible lead.” A world of excitement in three words—“it took many months to run this lead to ground.” By now you could feel the clock ticking on justice. Bin Laden’s time was running out. “Finally last month” … “today at my direction” … “killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.” The fact that “no Americans were harmed” closed the loop in cinematic perfection. The world will greet the killing of bin Laden with a mixture of delight, fatigue and cynical objection. Even at home, some may ask how much it matters. Sure, bin Laden was alive, but he wasn’t doing much damage–not compared to the parade of horrors he unfolded in the late 1990s and, worst of all, on Sept. 11, 2001. Why does it matter that he’s gone? It matters because the U.S. put a marker down. “Dead or alive,” in the words of President George W. Bush, when the smell of smoke was still acrid in the nostrils of the nation. This was cowboy rhetoric, the critics later said–but when the President said it, nearly everyone in the country was feeling pretty damn cowboy. It matters because it took a long time. How many distractions have blown past our gaze since bin Laden was Public Enemy No. 1? From the invasion of Iraq to the bombing of Libya; from Somali pirates to the rise of China; from Pelosi to Boehner–the public gaze whipped back and forth like eyeballs at a tennis match. But this tells us that the U.S. can set a goal and reach it. It matters because people had begun to doubt whether American power was truly power; and to ask whether its day was past. In that equation, Osama bin Laden was a unsettling factor, even though his own power was diminished. As long as he was free, the U.S. was failing. It was that simple. Remember bin Laden’s own mathematics: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse,” he said in the aftermath of his attack on the U.S. As long as he was out there, people would see a strong horse. It matters because the more we learn about bin Laden’s story, the better we understand how hard it is to find one human being on a planet of 6 or 7 billion human beings. This was not an easy thing. It’s not surprising that it took 10 years. Most of all, it matters because we have other big, difficult, long-range problems to solve, and we were running out of role models. The fact that this country can still fix a bulls-eye on a difficult target and stay on it for a long, frustrating decade–and win when no one expects it–is big stuff. Maybe that weak horse isn’t so weak after all. Maybe that weak horse is built for the long run. That was the note President Obama sounded at the end of his speech. “America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history.” He continued: We can do these things not just because of our wealth or our power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Then he turned and walked back down the empty corridor, a stronger President of a stronger nation. ||||| In his final moments, Osama bin Laden had a choice — something his victims weren’t given. On the airliners, in the towers, at the Pentagon, innocent people suddenly had no way out. But bin Laden had an option. He could have surrendered. He refused, and the Navy Seals did what they were trained to do. The first head shot surely ended it, but they gave him a “double tap” — a term I hadn’t heard until this morning — to make sure. [Update: This Reuters story says the Seals were ordered to kill, not capture.] This was an extraordinary job by the military and U.S. intelligence. “Justice has been done”: That’s precisely the right tone. No need for cowboy talk or triumphalism. Americans shouldn’t gloat: The message needs to be that this was justice, not vengeance. Bin Laden was a criminal. He brought on this cockamamie war, an imaginary clash of civilizations. He perverted Islamic theology into a justification for the slaughter of innocent people. In his mind, an office building in New York City could be a military target. The people trapped above the impact zone of the airliners on the WTC towers, who had no escape from the flames other than jumping, probably never knew why it happened, who might be behind it. Remember how stunned and baffled we all were on that crystal-clear September morning. Remember the Pentagon belching black smoke that drifted across the Potomac as hundreds of thousands of people fled the capital, many on foot, everyone shocked and confused and horrified. As the president said last night: America was not, and is not, at war with Islam. This was a fantasy war brought on by radical theology. Now there’s one less radical theologian who thinks that killing the innocent somehow advances his cause. It’s ominous that bin Laden was living so openly in a walled compound down the street from Pakistan’s version of West Point. Of course the U.S. didn’t tip the Pakistani government about the impending operation. Obama in his statement last night had kind words for the Pakistanis who helped develop the intelligence leads that led to the discovery of bin Laden’s hiding place. This was a triumph for both countries, he said. But someone has to answer the question about how the world’s top terrorist hid in plain sight. Note that the administration chose the riskier option of trying to capture bin Laden rather than simply taking him out with bombs. They knew he was there and could have obliterated the compound. But it was important to confirm that we had him. This was not just about killing a terrorist; this was about punctuating the narrative of bin Laden and his jihad. This was about closing the book. This is not the end of the story, but it’s a necessary turning point. The U.S. said we’d get this guy. We were true to our word. -- Update: More and more its sounds like Osama bin Laden was roughly as inconspicuous in Abbottabad as Siegfried and Roy are in Las Vegas. Like the tiger-tamers, bin Laden had a fancy compound surrounded by houses a fraction of the size. U.S. officials became suspicious in part because this million-dollar mansion had no Internet or phone connection. Also there were those 18-foot-tall security walls, and the 7-foot privacy wall along the third-floor terrace. The satellite dishes. That whole “terrorist hideout” aesthetic. This was down the street from the Pakistani military academy. So maybe the theory was: No one will find us if we look and act like the Osama bin Laden Brigade right in plain sight in this nice suburb of Islamabad. Another theory: He had friends in high places. Who are not our friends. -- Some questions: What happened to the bodies of the other people killed? What about the other people injured? Did we capture people alive? Notwithstanding what I wrote in my opening paragraph: Did Osama really have the option of surrendering? Or was that the worst case scenarior for U.S. leaders (Gitmo, trial, etc.)? What went wrong, exactly, with the helicopter that had mechanical failure (link is to interesting Marc Ambinder piece on how the operation was conducted and the hush-hush military unit behind it). How do you sneak up on people with helicopters? Or did we have boots on the ground before the choppers roared in? More on the chopper from Mike Allen at Politico: “The helicopter carrying the assault force appeared to stall as it hovered over the compound, producing heart-stopping moments for the officials back in Washington. Aides thought fearfully of “Black Hawk Down” and “Desert One,” the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission. The pilot put the bird down gently in the compound, but couldn’t get it going again. The assault force disembarked. “They went ahead and raided the compound, even though they didn’t know if they would have a ride home,” an official said. The special forces put some bombs on the helicopter and blew it up. Bin Laden resisted the assault force, and was shot in the face during a firefight. With the team still in the compound, the commander on the ground told another commander that they had found Osama bin Laden. Applause erupted in Washington. Reinforcements came and picked up the SEALs, who had scavenged every shred and pixel of possible intelligence material from the house. U.S. forces took photographs of the body, and officials used facial-recognition technology to compare them with known pictures of bin Laden. It was him.” [From Mike’s Playbook email.] Here’s Steve Coll in The New Yorker: “It stretches credulity to think that a mansion of that scale could have been built and occupied by bin Laden for six years without its coming to the attention of anyone in the Pakistani Army.” -- After lunch today I kept thinking about today’s big storry, and a phrase wouldn’t quite leave my brain: “The war is over.” But surely that’s not a purely rational thought. This is no time to throw a parade, right? Listen to what the leaders tell us today: We must remain vigilant. The terrorists are still out there, there could be retaliation any moment. The war goes on. Terror is forever. Except we are due for a war-is-over moment, irrational though it may be. And not sanctioned by superiors. And geopolitically incorrect and whatnot. Gene Robinson has perfectly captured why this moment is special, above and beyond the obvious fact that Public Enemy Number One is dead. Read his piece. “Osama bin Laden was more than a piece of unfinished business. He was a constant, if rarely acknowledged, presence in our lives. He was there when we took off our shoes at the airport, there when we drove past the Pentagon, there when we saw a picture of the New York skyline.... “The changes in our lives will endure, but the man responsible for those changes is gone at last.” ||||| But the wave of further violence that seemed inevitable in those fraught months after 9/11 never materialized within our borders. And what seemed like the horrifying opening offensive in a new and terrifying war stands instead as an isolated case — a passing moment when Al Qaeda seemed to rival fascism and Communism as a potential threat to our civilization, and when Osama bin Laden inspired far more fear and trembling than his actual capabilities deserved. Photo Now the man is dead. This is a triumph for the United States of America, for our soldiers and intelligence operatives, and for the president as well. But it is not quite the triumph that it would have seemed if bin Laden had been captured a decade ago, because those 10 years have taught us that we didn’t need to fear him and his rabble as much as we did, temporarily but intensely, in the weeks when ground zero still smoked. They’ve taught us, instead, that whatever blunders we make (and we have made many), however many advantages we squander (and there has been much squandering), and whatever quagmires we find ourselves lured into, our civilization is not fundamentally threatened by the utopian fantasy politics embodied by groups like Al Qaeda, or the mix of thugs, fools and pseudointellectuals who rally around their banner. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. They can strike us, they can wound us, they can kill us. They can goad us into tactical errors and strategic blunders. But they are not, and never will be, an existential threat. This was not clear immediately after 9/11. On that day, they took us by surprise. They took advantage of our society’s great strength — its openness and freedom, the welcome it gives to immigrants and the presumption of innocence it extends. And in the wake of their attack, we did not know what they were capable of, or how they might follow up their victory. Now we know. We know because bin Laden is finally dead and gone, but in a sense we knew already. We learned the lesson in every day that passed without an attack, in every year that turned, and in the way our eyes turned, gradually but permanently, from the skies and the sky-scrapers back to the ordinary things of life. We learned when the planes landed safely, when the malls stayed open, when the commencements came and went, when one baseball season gave way to another. Day after day, hour after hour, we learned that we were strong and they were weak. One of bin Laden’s most famous quotations (there were not many in his oeuvre) compared the United States and Al Qaeda to racing horses. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse,” he told his acolytes over table talk, “by nature, they will like the strong horse.” In his cracked vision, America was the weak nag, and Al Qaeda the strong destrier. But the last 10 years have taught us differently: In life as well as death, Osama bin Laden was always the weak horse.

– Guess what everybody’s writing about today? Osama bin Laden’s death has rung out through the commentariat. Here’s what they’re saying: The strike “is not quite the triumph it would have seemed a decade ago,” argues Ross Douthat, in a New York Times piece entitled “Death of a Failure.” Because after years without a major attack on the US, we know that “our civilization is not fundamentally threatened by the utopian fantasy politics embodied by groups like al-Qaeda, or the mix of thugs, fools and pseudointellectuals who rally around their banner.” But make no mistake: This matters, argues David Von Drehle for Time. “It matters because the US put a marker down. … It matters because people had begun to doubt whether American power was truly power,” and most of all because “we were running out of role models.” Obama finished his address last night as “a stronger president of a stronger nation.” “Justice has been done,” was precisely the right tone for President Obama to take, writes Joel Achenbach in the Washington Post. “No need for cowboy talk or triumphalism. Americans shouldn’t gloat: The message needs to be that this was justice, not vengeance.” It’s fitting, says Roger Cohen, that bin Laden and the “old Middle East” died at the same time. “Bin Laden thrived on Arab despotism and on the American hypocrisy involved in supporting that repression,” he writes. Now, Obama seems at least somewhat credibly committed to spreading freedom. “Al-Qaeda is not dead—but the first step was the hardest: the breaking of the captive Arab mind.”

CLOSE The Pentagon has apparently spent $28 million dollars on “forest” camouflaged Afghanistan military uniforms rather than give them other patterns that cost nothing. Josh King has the story (@abridgetoland). Buzz60 An Afghan soldier with an appropriate form of uniform. (Photo: Kay Johnson, AP) WASHINGTON — The Pentagon wasted as much as $28 million over the past decade buying uniforms for the Afghan army with a woodland camouflage pattern appropriate for a tiny fraction of that war-torn country, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. The Afghan Defense Minister picked the pricey, privately owned “forest” color pattern over free camouflage schemes owned by the U.S. government, according to an advance copy of the report due out on Wednesday. The scathing, 17-page study notes that “forests cover only 2.1% of Afghanistan’s total land area.” “My concern is what if the minister of defense liked purple, or liked pink?” John Sopko, the special inspector general, told USA TODAY in an interview. “Are we going to buy pink uniforms for soldiers and not ask questions? That’s insane. This is just simply stupid on its face. We wasted $28 million of taxpayers’ money in the name of fashion, because the defense minister thought that that pattern was pretty. So if he thought pink or chartreuse was it, would we have done that?” John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. (Photo: Charles Dharapak, AP) For years, Sopko’s office has scalded the Pentagon for squandering tens of millions of dollars of the $66 billion Congress has appropriated to train, equip and house Afghan security forces. Wednesday’s installment on uniforms was particularly pungent, noting that special tailoring — zippers instead of buttons — boosted the cost of uniforms of already dubious value. The report’s release comes as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis considers sending thousands more U.S. troops to bolster beleaguered Afghan forces in what has become America’s longest war. Afghan troops face a resurgent Taliban insurgency, an offshoot of the Islamic State (ISIS), and other terrorist groups. The Pentagon has spent $93 million on the uniforms since 2007. Switching to a camouflage pattern owned by the U.S. military could save taxpayers as much as $71 million over the next decade, the inspector general found. The Pentagon, in its written response, didn’t quibble with the findings. Instead, in a letter to Sopko, the military acknowledged the need for a cost-benefit analysis “to determine whether there is a more effective alternative, considering both operational environment and cost.” No camouflage for bad decisions Reaction to Sopko’s findings was swift and sharp. “You’d think the Pentagon would have had a good handle on how to pick the right camouflage for uniforms,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican and senior member of the Budget and Finance committees, said in a statement. “Instead, the Defense Department gave up control of the purchase and spent an extra $28 million on the wrong pattern just because someone in Afghanistan liked it. It’s embarrassing and an affront to U.S. taxpayers. Those who wasted money on the wrong camouflage uniforms seem to have lost sight of their common sense.” The decision to buy the woodland-pattern uniform dates to 2007. For the previous five years, Afghan soldiers had been issued a “hodgepodge” of uniforms donated from several nations, according to the report. Early in 2007, the Afghan Defense Ministry decided it needed a “new and distinctive uniform” to set the Afghan army apart. CLOSE The United States is not winning in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Congress on Tuesday, saying he was crafting a new war strategy to brief lawmakers about by mid-July that is widely expected to call for thousands more U.S. troops Time In February 2007, U.S. officials training the Afghan army cruised the internet for camouflage patterns. In an email, the officials “ran across” camouflage from a company called HyperStealth and showed them to Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak. He “liked what he saw,” the report says. By May, Wardak had selected the “Forest” pattern, and U.S. officials made the decision to buy 1,364,602 uniforms and 88,010 extra pairs of pants “without conducting any formal testing to determine the pattern's effectiveness for use in Afghanistan,” according to the report. The report, however, raises questions about the utility of forest camouflage in a country that “on the whole is dry, falling within the Desert or Desert Steppe climate classification,” according to the National Climatic Data Center. Read more: The Pentagon also could have recommended camouflage patterns the military owns but no longer uses. Those uniforms “may have been equally effective in the Afghan environment” and with fewer alterations, like zippers, could have saved as much as $28 million. “We had camouflage patterns,” Sopko said. “Dozens of them. For free!” The inspector general’s report concludes that neither the Pentagon nor the Afghan government knows if the uniform still being issued there is “appropriate to the Afghan environment, or whether it actually hinders their operations by providing a more clearly visible target to the enemy.” Those soldiers may be the ultimate losers in the uniform debacle, Sopko said. “I feel sorry for the poor Afghan soldiers,” Sopko said. “I mean they’re walking around with a target on their backs, ‘Shoot me.’ Because only 2% of the country is forest woodland, and that’s the outfit that the Afghan minister picked.” Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2sRL7qf ||||| Woodland Battle Dress Uniform worn by Afghan commandos (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Dustin Payne) Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Dustin Payne Uniforms used by ANA conventional forces with Spec4ce Forest Uniform pattern. (Defense Department photo by Pfc. David Devich) Photo Credit: Defense Department photo by Pfc. David Devich WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is under fire for spending nearly $28 million procuring camouflage uniforms for the Afghan army, gear suited for environments so rare they account for just 2 percent of Afghanistan's countryside, according to a new watchdog report.The Defense Department organization overseeing efforts to train and equip Afghan forces supervised selection and design of the new proprietary woodland camouflage pattern without proper testing and assessment, according to the report published Wednesday by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.For years, Afghan conventional forces and elite commandos have fielded the U.S. Army’s woodland pattern utility uniforms. In 2007, the Afghan Defense Ministry embarked on a quest to design new uniforms to counter efforts by the Taliban and militants battling government forces to counterfeit the clothing.The new uniform was designed in similar fashion to the current uniform worn by the U.S. Army, called the Army Combat Uniform, but at a much higher cost, the inspector general determined.According to the report, the HyperStealth’s Spec4ce Forest camouflage pattern was chosen by the then-Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak — because he liked what he saw while browsing a website.“This is just simply stupid on its face. We wasted $28 million of taxpayers’ money in the name of fashion, because the defense minister thought that that pattern was pretty. So if he thought pink or chartreuse was it, would we have done that?” said John Sopko, the inspector general, in an interview with USA Today Picking uniform patterns for specific environments requires formal testing and evaluation, a process that can be a “an extremely fussy and demanding experimental design problem,” said Dr. Timothy O’Neill, creator of the camouflage pattern which served as the basis for the Army Combat Uniform. “Desert designs don’t work well in woodland areas and woodland patterns perform poorly in the desert.”The U.S. government already had the rights to multiple camouflage pattern schemes that could have been provided to the Afghan army at no cost.Furthermore, the “DOD was unable to provide documentation demonstrating that the Spec4ce Forest specification was essential to the U.S. government’s requirement, or documentation justifying and approving the Spec4ce Forest requirement in the ANA uniform specification,” the report reads.Propriety uniforms cost significantly more to produce because vendors seeking to supply the Afghan military with its uniform needs are required to “purchase pre-patterned material, or obtain the rights to use the proprietary pattern from HyperStealth or an authorized licensee, according to the report.The new uniforms now cost 40 percent to 43 percent more at about $45 to $80 per set.Sopko has recommended conducting a cost-benefit analysis and consider changing the Afghan camouflage uniforms, which could save taxpayers $70 million over the next 10 years.

– Just one week after defense chief James Mattis told a Senate panel the US is "not winning in Afghanistan," a new report reveals that the US wasted $28 million on the wrong kind of uniforms for Afghan army soldiers. In 2007, the Pentagon allowed the Afghan defense minister to pick expensive woodland-camouflage patterns from a private company rather than free camouflage schemes from the government, reports USA Today. This despite the fact that forest makes up only 2.1% of Afghanistan's land area. The revelation is in a newly released report from Afghan special inspector general John Sopko. “This is just simply stupid on its face," he tells the newspaper. "If he thought pink or chartreuse was it, would we have done that?” A decade ago, US military consultants decided the Afghan army needed a more distinct uniform, in part to make it harder for the Taliban to stage attacks in counterfeit uniforms, reports the Military Times. The consultants showed then-Afghan defense chief Abdul Rahim Wardak pictures of "forest" uniforms they found on the internet, and he "liked what he saw," according to the report. The Pentagon bought more than 1.3 million of the uniforms and 88,000 extra pairs of pants “without conducting any formal testing to determine the pattern's effectiveness for use in Afghanistan.” The report comes at a sensitive time: Afghan troops are in the midst of a multi-front conflict with both the Taliban and an ISIS offshoot, and earlier this month President Trump gave Mattis the authority to increase troop levels.

The major character dying on "The Simpsons" may have been revealed, and we're not clowning around. Fans have been speculating for months on what character would be killed off in the Seasons 26 premiere of "The Simpsons," and now it appears that Krusty the Clown is set for his final act. The show's executive producer Al Jean caused a frenzy when he announced the first episode in the new season of the show would be called "Clown in the Dumps." Jean has also said that the actor who voices the soon-to-be-departed character has won an Emmy for his/her work, something that the voice of Krusty, Dan Castellaneta, has done. Even with the strong evidence that Krusty will take his final bow, Jean still chose to play coy, saying, "I didn’t say I was killing Krusty ... I didn't say I wasn't," during the Television Critics Association press tour, according to Mashable. With that, some of the other characters that are still on the chopping block include: Krusty's dad Rabbi Hyman Krustofski (Jackie Mason), Sideshow Bob (Kelsey Grammer), Bart (Nancy Cartwright), Marge (Julie Kavner), Lisa (Yeardley Smith) and the many characters voiced by Hank Azaria. So whether or not Krusty dies in the end, it appears that Jean will have the last laugh. ||||| FXX said in April that it will air the longest marathon in TV history when it welcomes The Simpsons repeats, and today the network announced that it’ll run August 21 through September 1. During the course of the mega-marathon, FXX will air in chronological order all 25 seasons — 552 episodes — of the Fox animated series that’s the longest-running scripted series in TV history. The Simpsons Movie will be included in the marathon and also will air chronologically within the stunt, after episode No. 400. The marathon begins at 10 AM ET/PT on August 21 and ends at midnight ET/PT on September 1. Related: ‘The Simpsons’ To Debut On FXX With 552-Episode Marathon Reminding TV critics about the stunt at the TCA Summer Press Tour, panelists also walked them through plans for a new interactive digital and online experience that’s billed as the ultimate Simpsons digital experience. Simpsons World — named after, and incorporating, Matt Groening’s published show bible of same name — offers a premium Simpsons fan experience, including access to their entire catalog of full-length episodes for the first time ever via FXNOW App and SimpsonsWorld.com, in October. Related: TCA: FX’s John Landgraf Talks ‘AHS: Freak Show’ & ‘Fargo’, Freshman Renewals, W. Kamau Bell Beginning September 2, FXX will regularly schedule The Simpsons episodes in fringe, primetime and late-night dayparts on weekdays and weekends. Additionally, every Sunday the network will broadcast a thematic mini-marathon consisting of eight Simpsons episodes beginning at 4 PM ET/PT and leading into the 8 PM ET/PT broadcast on Fox. FXX will telecast four thematic marathons per year — the first being a 12-hour Halloween-themed marathon airing Sunday, October 26, when The Simpsons will not air on Fox broadcast network because of World Series coverage. Related: Chase Carey Says ‘The Simpsons’ Opens Digital Opportunities For FXX Simpsons World will give authenticated viewers instant and on-demand access to every single Simpsons via SimpsonsWorld.com, and FXNOW apps for iPhone, iPad, Xbox One, Xbox 360, Android phones and tablets, Smart TVs, and additional set-tops devices. Among the exclusive offerings, viewers will be able to explore Springfield’s characters and locations, the ability for users to curate their own personalized playlists and share their favorite show clips and quotes. “It tracks American history,” FX Networks and FX Productions CEO John Landgraf said this morning of Simpsons World. “Anything that happened on any given day you can find a quote on it.” For a generation of viewers, he said, “The show has something funny to say about everything. People want to find those quotes and shat them. … It’s a place for the consumer to go get it and share it.” Related: FXX Lands ‘The Simpsons’ In Biggest Off-Network Deal In TV History The Simpsons exec producer Al Jean, came to the tour to tout the FXX package. ” I love The Simpsons. I’ve worked there 25 years. It’s more than job — it’s part of my life,” he said, adding that he was “thrilled” cable and non-linear rights had gone to FXX “because of everything they’re going to do with it. … What I’m most excited about is the Simpsons World app. … I don’t want to oversee it, but I think this site is going to provide you with affordable health care… I could not be more thrilled.” Simpsons World does not include The Simpsons footage from its time as an interstitial of The Tracey Ullman Show. But “we are very much working on that now,” FX Networks COO Chuck Saftler said, explaining that Groening controls those rights and their talks are “going in a positive direction.” FXX announced in November that it had landed exclusive cable and VOD/nonlinear rights to The Simpsons, in what was reported to be the priciest off-network pact ever. The enormous size of the deal — which some sources said could each $1 billion if the series keeps producing new seasons — stems from the volume of Simpsons episodes available, which is scheduled to grow to 574 by September 2015. Insiders estimate FXX would be paying about $1.25 million per week, with the length of the agreement said to be at least eight years. The granting of full VOD/non-linear rights to the cable network in conjunction with an off-network agreement, was a headline in itself when the deal was announced. FXNOW, the mobile viewing app of FX Networks, will offer all seasons of The Simpsons that are available on FXX. The 21st Century Fox COO Chase Carey suggested years ago the company could launch a Simpsons cable channel. The Simpsons had been kept away from cable all these years; when it was sold in broadcast syndication in 1993, it was rare for a broadcast animated series — a genre of which TV stations were not too fond — cable TV was in its infancy, and Fox stations secured exclusivity for as long as the show was still airing on Fox, which we’re guessing no one had imagined back then would be 26 years and counting. The Simpsons’ only presence on cable until now had been via 2007′s The Simpsons Movie, to which FX has had the rights. ||||| Soon you’re going to be able to watch every episode of The Simpsons anywhere you want. Cable network FXX, which last year struck a deal to obtain the exclusive cable network rights to the longest-running primetime animated series, is putting The Simpsons archive online, all fully searchable. FXX is launching “Simpsons World,” a new way of getting on-demand Simpsons content. For the first time, viewers can access every episode of the series via their computer or other networked devices. “Authenticated” FX subscribers will have instant access on iPhone, iPad, Xbox One, Xbox 360, Android phones and tablets, Smart TVs, and additional set-tops devices. Viewers will also be able to search for specific quotes, curate their own own personalized playlists, and share their favorite show clips and quotes (non-subscribers will be able to watch the clips, just not full episodes). The site will vastly widen the availability of Simpsons content online. Hulu currently carries a library of classic Simpsons clips, though only the series’ eight most recent episodes are available for viewing on that streaming service. “I don’t want to over-promise, but this website can provide you with affordable health care,” joked longtime Simpsons executive producer Al Jean. Also, as previously announced, The Simpsons is getting the Longest. Marathon. Ever! FXX will air 25 seasons of The Simpsons in a row. That’s 522 episodes. And The Simpsons Movie. According to FXX, this will make it the longest-running marathon in television history—all Simpsons, all the time, 24 hours a day, for 12 days, in chronological order. The marathon begins Aug. 21, so order those cases of Duff now.

– Need to brush up on your Homer-isms or catch up on what’s been going on in Springfield before The Simpsons starts its 26th season in September? Then clear your calendar and prepare to do absolutely nothing for 12 days later this summer: The FXX cable network has announced that its much-anticipated Simpsons marathon is scheduled to start at 10am on Aug. 21, and will air until midnight on Sept. 1, showing every single one of the 552 episodes that make up TV’s longest-running scripted series of all time, reports Deadline. Yep—Every. Single. Episode. In addition to showing all 25 seasons in chronological order, the marathon will also shoehorn in The Simpsons Movie, which will air (chronologically within the series' timeline) after the 400th episode. And don’t have a cow if you miss this animated endurance test: FXX is also uploading all the episodes to its Simpsons World portal, a searchable online archive that can be accessed by FX subscribers on their networked digital devices, according to Entertainment Weekly. “I don’t want to over-promise, but this website can provide you with affordable health care,” a Simpsons executive producer jokes. We’d like that, too, but for now, we’ll stock up on our caffeinated beverages of choice and 64 slices of American cheese to prepare for the upcoming boob-tube bonanza. (And worry about which character might get killed off in the season 26 premiere.)

Image copyright The Sun Buckingham Palace has said it is disappointed that footage from 1933 showing the Queen performing a Nazi salute has been released. The Sun has published the film which shows the Queen aged about seven, with her mother, sister and uncle. The palace said it was "disappointing that film, shot eight decades ago... has been obtained and exploited". The newspaper has refused to say how it got the footage but said it was an "important and interesting story". 'Misleading and dishonest' The black and white footage, which lasts about 17 seconds, shows the Queen playing with a dog on the lawn in the gardens of Balmoral, the Sun says. The Queen Mother then raises her arm in the style of a Nazi salute and, after glancing towards her mother, the Queen mimics the gesture. Prince Edward, the future Edward VIII, is also seen raising his arm. The footage is thought to have been shot in 1933 or 1934, when Hitler was rising to prominence as Fuhrer in Germany but the circumstances in which it was shot are unclear. Image copyright AFP Image caption The Queen recently made a state visit to Germany where she visited a former Nazi concentration camp A Palace source said: "Most people will see these pictures in their proper context and time. This is a family playing and momentarily referencing a gesture many would have seen from contemporary news reels. "No-one at that time had any sense how it would evolve. To imply anything else is misleading and dishonest." 'Fascinating insight' The source added: "The Queen and her family's service and dedication to the welfare of this nation during the war, and the 63 years the Queen has spent building relations between nations and peoples speaks for itself." BBC Royal correspondent Sarah Campbell said Buckingham Palace was not denying the footage was authentic but that there were "questions over how this video has been released". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The Palace says the footage has been "exploited" Who was the man in the video? Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Edward pictured with his wife Wallis Simpson Edward was uncle of the young princess Elizabeth and brother of George VI He briefly became King himself in 1936 but abdicated just 326 days later because of his plans to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson - a marriage government and church figures deemed unacceptable Replaced by George VI, Edward was one of the shortest reigning monarchs in British history In October 1937, Edward and his wife - by now the Duke and Duchess of Windsor - visited Nazi Germany with the idea of discussing becoming a figurehead for an international movement for peace on Hitler's terms During the controversial visit they met Hitler and dined with his deputy, Rudolf Hess Evidence emerged Edward went to the early stages of a concentration camp, although it is not thought evidence of mass murder was made clear to him He moved to France with the Duchess after the war and died there in 1972 Dickie Arbiter, a former Buckingham Palace press secretary, said the Palace would be investigating. "They'll be wondering whether it was in fact something that was held in the Royal Archives at Windsor, or whether it was being held by the Duke of Windsor's estate," he said. "And if it was the Duke of Windsor's estate, then somebody has clearly taken it from the estate and here it is, 82 years later. "But a lot of questions have got to be asked and a lot of questions got to be answered." Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Edward and his wife Wallis Simpson met Adolf Hitler two years before World War Two broke out Sun managing editor Stig Abell said he did not accept Buckingham Palace's accusation that the footage had been "exploited". He said the newspaper had decided to publish the story because it was of great public importance and the involvement of Prince Edward gave it "historical significance". The then Prince of Wales faced numerous accusations of being a Nazi sympathiser and was photographed meeting Hitler in Munich in October 1937. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Royal Correspondent Peter Hunt: "Palace focusing on breach of privacy" Analysis BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt It's an arresting, once private image on the front of a national newspaper. Its publication has prompted Palace officials to talk about a breach of privacy and the Sun to argue it's acting in the national interest. Apart from the obvious anger on one side, it's striking how both sides have talked of the need to put the home movie in its "proper context". From the Palace perspective this is a six-year-old princess who didn't attach any meaning to the gesture. Such an explanation doesn't, of course, explain the thinking of her mother. Those around the royals are also keen to focus on the war record of the then King, Queen and their two daughters. What they're less keen to focus on - and what the Queen would like not to be reminded of - is the behaviour of her uncle. A man, who was briefly King, and whose fascination with Nazi Germany is well documented. Read Peter Hunt's blog here 'Social history' Mr Abell said: "We are not using it to suggest any impropriety on behalf of them. But it is an important and interesting issue, the extent to which the British aristocracy - notably Edward VIII, in this case - in the 1930s, were sympathetic towards fascism. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Sun managing editor Stig Abell: Video "should be shown" "That must be a matter of national and public interest to discuss. And I think this video and this footage animates that very clearly." Mr Abell told the BBC the video was a piece of "social history" and said the paper had set out the context of the time and explained that the Queen and Queen Mother went on to become "heroes" of World War Two. He denied the video had intruded into the Royal Family's privacy. "I think this is a piece of social history. One of the most significant events in our country's history, the Second World War, the rise of Nazism, one of the most pernicious movements in human history, and I think one is entitled to have a look at some of the background to it." He added: "We're very clear. We're of course not suggesting anything improper on behalf of the Queen or the Queen Mum." The Queen was 13 when World War Two broke out and she later served in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service. In June she made a state visit to Germany where she visited the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and met some of the survivors and liberators. ||||| LONDON - Royal officials in Britain expressed anger Saturday that archive film showing Queen Elizabeth performing a Nazi salute as a young girl in the 1930s had been "exploited" by a Murdoch tabloid. The video, obtained by The Sun, shows the queen, aged about six, joining her uncle, Prince Edward, in raising an arm in the grounds of their Scottish vacation home, Balmoral.The previously-unseen footage is thought to have been shot in 1933 or 1934, when Hitler was rising to prominence in Germany. The newspaper, owned by the U.K. division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, ran the story on its front page under the headline "Their royal heilnesses." The newspaper defended its decision to publish the film, saying it was of “immense interest to historians” and would be seen in the context of the period. However, a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: “It is disappointing that film, shot eight decades ago and apparently from Her Majesty’s personal family archive, has been obtained and exploited in this manner." A royal source said: “Most people will see these pictures in their proper context and time. This is a family playing and momentarily referencing a gesture many would have seen from contemporary news reels. “No one at that time had any sense how it would evolve. To imply anything else is misleading and dishonest. The queen is around six years of age at the time and entirely innocent of attaching any meaning to these gestures.” Secret 1933 film shows Edward VIII teaching Nazi salute to Queen. Watch EXCLUSIVE video FREE http://t.co/cfKKZYCjNp pic.twitter.com/NiPG5UiImQ — The Sun (@TheSun) July 17, 2015 The source added: “The queen and her family's service and dedication to the welfare of this nation during the war, and the 63 years she has spent building relations between nations and peoples speaks for itself." The grainy film shows the queen playing with a dog before raising an arm to wave to the camera, ITV News reported. Her mother then makes a Nazi salute, and after glancing towards her mother, the queen mimics the gesture. Prince Edward, who later became King Edward VIII and abdicated in 1936 to marry the American socialite Wallis Simpson, faced accusations of being a Nazi sympathizer. The couple was photographed meeting Hitler in Munich in October 1937, less than two years before the Second World War broke out. "they do not reflect badly on our Queen..They do, however, provide insight into the warped prejudices of Edward VIII" pic.twitter.com/5FbViJmkw3 — Dylan Sharpe (@dylsharpe) July 18, 2015 In an editorial column, the newspaper defended the queen, saying: “These images have been hidden for 82 years. We publish them today, knowing they do not reflect badly on our queen, her late sister or mother in any way. "They do, however, provide a fascinating insight in the warped prejudices of Edward VIII and his friends in that bleak, paranoid, tumultuous decade." Stig Abell, Managing Editor of newspaper, said it was "a matter of national historic significance to explore what was going on in the 30s ahead of the Second World War." He said: "We're not, of course, suggesting anything improper on the part of the queen," adding: "Edward VIII became a Nazi sympathizer in 1936 ... after he abdicated he headed off to Germany briefly in 1937. In 1939 he was talking about his sympathy for Hitler and Germany." "I think this is a matter of historical significance ... from which we shouldn't shy away." ||||| Tabloid’s managing editor, Stig Abell, says reason for releasing leaked footage, apparently shot in 1933 or 1934, is to provide context for attitudes before WW2 The managing editor of the Sun has defended his newspaper’s decision to release leaked footage, apparently shot in 1933 or 1934, showing the Queen perform a Nazi salute as a matter of historical significance. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Sun front page showing a still of footage showing a young Queen performing a Nazi salute with her family at Balmoral. Photograph: TheSun/Twitter/PA The black-and-white footage shows the Queen, then aged six or seven, and her sister Margaret, around three, joining the Queen Mother and her uncle, Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in the signature style of the German fascists. Edward, who later became King Edward VIII and abdicated to marry the American socialite Wallis Simpson, faced numerous accusations of being a Nazi sympathiser. The couple were photographed meeting Hitler in Munich in October 1937, less than two years before the second world war broke out. Buckingham Palace said in a statement that it was disappointing the film – shot eight decades ago – had been exploited, while questions have been raised over how the newspaper obtained the clip, which is apparently from the monarch’s personal family archive. But speaking to the BBC, Stig Abell, managing editor of the Sun, defended the move. He said: “I think the justification is relatively evident - it’s a matter of national historical significance to explore what was going on in the ’30s ahead of the second world war. The Sun was right to publish scoop of the Queen giving a Nazi salute Read more “We’re very clear we’re not, of course, suggesting anything improper on the part of the Queen or indeed the Queen Mum. “It’s very clear Edward VIII, who became a Nazi sympathiser, in ’36 after he abdicated he headed off to Germany briefly. “In ’37 [to] 1939, he was talking about his sympathy for Hitler and Germany, even before his death in 1970 he was saying Hitler was not a bad man. “I think this is a matter of historical significance, I think this is footage that should be shown providing the context is very clear. “We’ve taken a great amount of trouble and care to demonstrate that context at great length in the paper today. This is a matter of historical significance from which we shouldn’t shy away.” The grainy clip, which lasts around 17 seconds, shows the Queen playing with a dog on the lawn in the gardens of Balmoral, the Sun claims, before she raises an arm to wave to the camera with Margaret. The Queen Mother then makes a Nazi salute, and, after glancing towards her mother, the Queen mimics the gesture. Palace criticises Sun over film of Queen giving Nazi salute as a child Read more The Queen Mother repeats the salute, joined by Edward, and Margaret raises her left hand before the two children continue dancing and playing on the grass. A Palace source said: “Most people will see these pictures in their proper context and time. This is a family playing and momentarily referencing a gesture many would have seen from contemporary news reels. “No one at that time had any sense how it would evolve. To imply anything else is misleading and dishonest. The Queen is around six years of age at the time and entirely innocent of attaching any meaning to these gestures. “The Queen and her family’s service and dedication to the welfare of this nation during the war, and the 63 years the Queen has spent building relations between nations and peoples speaks for itself.” Queen's Nazi salute on Sun front page sparks mixed reaction on Twitter Read more The footage is thought to have been shot in 1933 or 1934, when Hitler was rising to prominence in Germany. In its leader column, the Sun said its focus was not on the young child who would become queen, but on her uncle, who was then heir to the throne. The Queen’s former press secretary Dickie Arbiter said there would be great interest in royal circles in finding out how the footage was made public. “They’ll be wondering whether it was in fact something that was held in the Royal Archives at Windsor, or whether it was being held by the Duke of Windsor’s estate,” he told the BBC news. “And if it was the Duke of Windsor’s estate, then somebody has clearly taken it from the estate and here it is, 82 years later. But a lot of questions have got to be asked and a lot of questions got to be answered.” ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites.

– Buckingham Palace is seething today at images in the Sun of a young Queen Elizabeth raising her hand in the Nazi salute. Rupert Murdoch's tabloid obtained a short film clip of the royal family horsing around in 1933 or 1934, when Elizabeth was about 7 years old. In the clip, Elizabeth makes the gesture along with her mother; her uncle, Prince Edward; and her younger sister, Margaret, reports the Guardian. The palace isn't disputing that the family is making the salute but said it is "disappointing that film, shot eight decades ago and apparently from Her Majesty's personal family archive, has been obtained and exploited in this manner," reports NBC News. The Sun defends its decision to publish the images—under the headline "Their Royal Heilnesses"—as a matter of "historical significance." It won't say how it got the film clip. It's all about context, a palace source tells the BBC: "This is a family playing and momentarily referencing a gesture many would have seen from contemporary news reels," says the unnamed official. "No one at that time had any sense how it would evolve. To imply anything else is misleading and dishonest."

Move over salt. Step aside, saturated fat. There’s a new public enemy in the pantry, and it’s … sugar.In a provocative commentary coming out in Thursday’s edition of the journal Nature, Dr. Robert Lustig and two colleagues from UC San Francisco argue that the added sugars in processed foods and drinks are responsible for so many cases of chronic disease and premature deaths that their use ought to be regulated, just like alcohol and tobacco.To those who view sugar as more of a treat than a poison – and especially to libertarian-minded people who oppose government regulation in general – Lustig’s proposal is certainly a nonstarter. Public health advocates have spent years trying to enact a soda tax to discourage consumption of added sugar, and none of their efforts is close to succeeding.But if you set aside both political reality and your sweet tooth, you have to admit that Lustig makes some good points.For starters, he and coauthors Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis of the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF aren’t claiming that sugar should be illegal or removed from the diet completely. They are focused on added sugars, which they define as “any sweetener containing the molecule fructose that is added to food in processing.”In this country, the average American consumes 222 calories worth of sugar from sugar cane and sugar beets each day, along with 165 calories with of sugar from high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture . But the proposed regulations wouldn't make any distinction between these sweeteners -- any caloric sweetener that contains fructose would be subject to scrutiny.Why? Because even the United Nations recognizes that the greatest threat to public health now comes from non- communicable diseases , including diabetes heart disease and cancer . Together, these play a role in more than 35 million deaths each year. And they get a big boost from the choices people make about tobacco, alcohol and diet.Of these three “risk factors,” only tobacco and alcohol are currently subject to regulation, the authors write. Of course, these differ from food in that they are not necessary for survival. But added sugars – and the items made with them – aren’t necessary either.When it comes to alcohol, there are four criteria that justify government regulation, according to the 2003 book “Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity”:* It’s unavoidable in society.* It’s toxic.* It can be abused.* It’s bad for society.“Sugar meets the same criteria,” Lustig and colleagues write, “and we believe that it similarly warrants some form of societal intervention.”The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization says that in 2007, Americans consumed more than 600 calories' worth of added sugar each day. And the damage it does goes beyond supplying empty calories. In fact, it may not be excess fat that causes diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and other manifestations of metabolic syndrome – there’s scientific evidence that suggests sugar itself is to blame. After all, 20% of obese people don’t have these diseases, but 40% of normal-weight people do.“For both alcohol and tobacco, there is robust evidence that gentle ‘supply side’ control strategies which stop far short of all-out prohibition – taxation, distrbution controls, age limits – lower both consumption of the product and the accompanying health harms,” the UCSF trio writes. “Consequently, we propose adding taxes to processed foods that contain any form of added sugars.”Though this is a pipe dream in the U.S. (despite the authors’ attempt to call their proposal “the possible dream”), they do note that Canada and some countries in Europe already impose small taxes on some artificially sweetened foods. Denmark, the country that imposed a “fat tax” last year, is now eyeing a sugar tax as well.Short of taxes, there are other things regulators can do to discourage consumption of added sugar. “States could apply zoning ordinances to control the number of fast-food outlets and convenience stores in low-income communities, and especially around schools,” the authors argue.States could also impose a “drinking age” for buying soda, sports drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages. (The authors suggest age 17.)And how about “a limit – or, ideally, ban – on television commercials for products with added sugars”?At a minimum, the U.S. Food and Drug Administrationcould remove fructose from its list of items Generally Recognized as Safe . That would force food makers to seek an FDA review of products with added sugars.“The food industry knows that it has a problem,” the authors write. “With enough clamour for change, tectonic shifts in policy become powerful.”A link to the commentary (which is behind a paywall) is online here An earlier version of this post said that most added sugar consumed in the U.S. is in the form of high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS. It should have said that Americans consume more HFCS than people in other countries. In 2010, the average American consumed 34.8 pounds of HFCS and 47 pounds of cane and beet sugar, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Return to the Booster Shots blog ||||| SUMMARY Sugar consumption is linked to a rise in non-communicable disease Sugar's effects on the body can be similar to those of alcohol Regulation could include tax, limiting sales during school hours and placing age limits on purchase Last September, the United Nations declared that, for the first time in human history, chronic non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes pose a greater health burden worldwide than do infectious diseases, contributing to 35 million deaths annually. This is not just a problem of the developed world. Every country that has adopted the Western diet — one dominated by low-cost, highly processed food — has witnessed rising rates of obesity and related diseases. There are now 30% more people who are obese than who are undernourished. Economic development means that the populations of low- and middle-income countries are living longer, and therefore are more susceptible to non-communicable diseases; 80% of deaths attributable to them occur in these countries. ILLUSTRATION BY MARK SMITH Many people think that obesity is the root cause of these diseases. But 20% of obese people have normal metabolism and will have a normal lifespan. Conversely, up to 40% of normal-weight people develop the diseases that constitute the metabolic syndrome: diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, cardiovascular disease andnon-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Obesity is not the cause; rather, it is a marker for metabolic dysfunction, which is even more prevalent. The UN announcement targets tobacco, alcohol and diet as the central risk factors in non-communicable disease. Two of these three — tobacco and alcohol — are regulated by governments to protect public health, leaving one of the primary culprits behind this worldwide health crisis unchecked. Of course, regulating food is more complicated — food is required, whereas tobacco and alcohol are non-essential consumables. The key question is: what aspects of the Western diet should be the focus of intervention? In October 2011, Denmark chose to tax foods high in saturated fat, despite the fact that most medical professionals no longer believe that fat is the primary culprit. But now, the country is considering taxing sugar as well — a more plausible and defensible step. Indeed, rather than focusing on fat and salt — the current dietary 'bogeymen' of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the European Food Safety Authority — we believe that attention should be turned to 'added sugar', defined as any sweetener containing the molecule fructose that is added to food in processing. Over the past 50 years, consumption of sugar has tripled worldwide. In the United States, there is fierce controversy over the pervasive use of one particular added sugar — high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It is manufactured from corn syrup (glucose), processed to yield a roughly equal mixture of glucose and fructose. Most other developed countries eschew HFCS, relying on naturally occurring sucrose as an added sugar, which also consists of equal parts glucose and fructose. Authorities consider sugar as 'empty calories' — but there is nothing empty about these calories. A growing body of scientific evidence is showing that fructose can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases1. A little is not a problem, but a lot kills — slowly (see 'Deadly effect'). If international bodies are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose — and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HFCS and sucrose — which pose dangers to individuals and to society as a whole. Table 1: Deadly effect Excessive consumption of fructose can cause many of the same health problems as alcohol. Full table No ordinary commodity In 2003, social psychologist Thomas Babor and his colleagues published a landmark book called Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity, in which they established four criteria, now largely accepted by the public-health community, that justify the regulation of alcohol — unavoidability (or pervasiveness throughout society), toxicity, potential for abuse and negative impact on society2. Sugar meets the same criteria, and we believe that it similarly warrants some form of societal intervention. First, consider unavoidability. Evolutionarily, sugar was available to our ancestors as fruit for only a few months a year (at harvest time), or as honey, which was guarded by bees. But in recent years, sugar has been added to nearly all processed foods, limiting consumer choice3. Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy. In many parts of the world, people are consuming an average of more than 500 calories per day from added sugar alone (see 'The global sugar glut'). SOURCE: FAO Now, let's consider toxicity. A growing body of epidemiological and mechanistic evidence argues that excessive sugar consumption affects human health beyond simply adding calories4. Importantly, sugar induces all of the diseases associated with metabolic syndrome1, 5. This includes: hypertension (fructose increases uric acid, which raises blood pressure); high triglycerides and insulin resistance through synthesis of fat in the liver; diabetes from increased liver glucose production combined with insulin resistance; and the ageing process, caused by damage to lipids, proteins and DNA through non-enzymatic binding of fructose to these molecules. It can also be argued that fructose exerts toxic effects on the liver that are similar to those of alcohol1. This is no surprise, because alcohol is derived from the fermentation of sugar. Some early studies have also linked sugar consumption to human cancer and cognitive decline. Sugar also has clear potential for abuse. Like tobacco and alcohol, it acts on the brain to encourage subsequent intake. There are now numerous studies examining the dependence-producing properties of sugar in humans6. Specifically, sugar dampens the suppression of the hormone ghrelin, which signals hunger to the brain. It also interferes with the normal transport and signalling of the hormone leptin, which helps to produce the feeling of satiety. And it reduces dopamine signalling in the brain's reward centre, thereby decreasing the pleasure derived from food and compelling the individual to consume more1, 6. Finally, consider the negative effects of sugar on society. Passive smoking and drink-driving fatalities provided strong arguments for tobacco and alcohol control, respectively. The long-term economic, health-care and human costs of metabolic syndrome place sugar overconsumption in the same category7. The United States spends $65 billion in lost productivity and $150 billion on health-care resources annually for morbidities associated with metabolic syndrome. Seventy-five per cent of all US health-care dollars are now spent on treating these diseases and their resultant disabilities. Because about 25% of military applicants are now rejected for obesity-related reasons, the past three US surgeons general and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have declared obesity a “threat to national security”. How to intervene How can we reduce sugar consumption? After all, sugar is natural. Sugar is a nutrient. Sugar is pleasure. So too is alcohol, but in both cases, too much of a good thing is toxic. It may be helpful to look to the many generations of international experience with alcohol and tobacco to find models that work8, 9. So far, evidence shows that individually focused approaches, such as school-based interventions that teach children about diet and exercise, demonstrate little efficacy. Conversely, for both alcohol and tobacco, there is robust evidence that gentle 'supply side' control strategies which stop far short of all-out prohibition — taxation, distribution controls, age limits — lower both consumption of the product and the accompanying health harms. Successful interventions share a common end-point: curbing availability2, 8, 9. Taxing alcohol and tobacco products — in the form of special excise duties, value-added taxes and sales taxes — are the most popular and effective ways to reduce smoking and drinking, and in turn, substance abuse and related harms2. Consequently, we propose adding taxes to processed foods that contain any form of added sugars. This would include sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal. Already, Canada and some European countries impose small additional taxes on some sweetened foods. The United States is currently considering a penny-per-ounce soda tax (about 34 cents per litre), which would raise the price of a can by 10–12 cents. Currently, a US citizen consumes an average of 216 litres of soda per year, of which 58% contains sugar. Taxing at a penny an ounce could provide annual revenue in excess of $45 per capita (roughly $14 billion per year); however, this would be unlikely to reduce total consumption. Statistical modelling suggests that the price would have to double to significantly reduce soda consumption — so a $1 can should cost $2 (ref. 10). Other successful tobacco- and alcohol-control strategies limit availability, such as reducing the hours that retailers are open, controlling the location and density of retail markets and limiting who can legally purchase the products2, 9. A reasonable parallel for sugar would tighten licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars that sell sugary products in schools and workplaces. Many schools have removed unhealthy fizzy drinks and candy from vending machines, but often replaced them with juice and sports drinks, which also contain added sugar. States could apply zoning ordinances to control the number of fast-food outlets and convenience stores in low-income communities, and especially around schools, while providing incentives for the establishment of grocery stores and farmer's markets. Another option would be to limit sales during school operation, or to designate an age limit (such as 17) for the purchase of drinks with added sugar, particularly soda. Indeed, parents in South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, recently took this upon themselves by lining up outside convenience stores and blocking children from entering them after school. Why couldn't a public-health directive do the same? The possible dream Government-imposed regulations on the marketing of alcohol to young people have been quite effective, but there is no such approach to sugar-laden products. Even so, the city of San Francisco, California, recently banned the inclusion of toys with unhealthy meals such as some types of fast food. A limit — or, ideally, ban — on television commercials for products with added sugars could further protect children's health. Reduced fructose consumption could also be fostered through changes in subsidization. Promotion of healthy foods in US low-income programmes, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as the food-stamps programme) is an obvious place to start. Unfortunately, the petition by New York City to remove soft drinks from the food-stamp programme was denied by the USDA. “Sugar is cheap, sugar tastes good and sugar sells, so companies have little incentive to change.” Ultimately, food producers and distributors must reduce the amount of sugar added to foods. But sugar is cheap, sugar tastes good and sugar sells, so companies have little incentive to change. Although one institution alone can't turn this juggernaut around, the US Food and Drug Administration could “set the table” for change8. To start, it should consider removing fructose from the Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) list, which allows food manufacturers to add unlimited amounts to any food. Opponents will argue that other nutrients on the GRAS list, such as iron and vitamins A and D, can also be toxic when over-consumed. However, unlike sugar, these substances have no abuse potential. Removal from the GRAS list would send a powerful signal to the European Food Safety Authority and the rest of the world. Regulating sugar will not be easy — particularly in the 'emerging markets' of developing countries where soft drinks are often cheaper than potable water or milk. We recognize that societal intervention to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby, and will require active engagement from all stakeholders. Still, the food industry knows that it has a problem — even vigorous lobbying by fast-food companies couldn't defeat the toy ban in San Francisco. With enough clamour for change, tectonic shifts in policy become possible. Take, for instance, bans on smoking in public places and the use of designated drivers, not to mention airbags in cars and condom dispensers in public bathrooms. These simple measures — which have all been on the battleground of American politics — are now taken for granted as essential tools for our public health and well-being. It's time to turn our attention to sugar. ||||| Contains Nonbinding Recommendations December 2004 Additional copies are available from: Office of Food Additive Safety, HFS-200 Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Food and Drug Administration 5100 Paint Branch Parkway College Park, MD 20740 (Tel) 301-436-1200 (Updated phone: 240-402-1200) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) December 2004 Contains Nonbinding Recommendations This guidance represents the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach can be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative approach, please contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this guidance. If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff, contact the appropriate number listed on the title page of this document. This list of frequently asked questions (FAQ) is intended to be a convenient place to find answers to common questions about the food ingredient classification known as "generally recognized as safe" or "GRAS." This FAQ addresses common questions about the regulatory process and regulatory considerations regarding whether the use of a food substance is GRAS. For more information about the GRAS program, please contact Dr. Paulette Gaynor (301-436-1192)(Updated phone: 240-402-1192) in the Office of Food Additive Safety, or email questions to premarkt@fda.hhs.gov. See additional contact information at the bottom of this page. What does "GRAS" mean? "GRAS" is an acronym for the phrase Generally Recognized As Safe. Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive. For example, substances whose use meets the definition of a pesticide, a dietary ingredient of a dietary supplement, a color additive, a new animal drug, or a substance approved for such use prior to September 6, 1958, are excluded from the definition of food additive. Sections 201(s) and 409 were enacted in 1958 as part of the Food Additives Amendment to the Act. While it is impracticable to list all ingredients whose use is generally recognized as safe, FDA published a partial list of food ingredients whose use is generally recognized as safe to aid the industry's understanding of what did not require approval. What are the criteria for GRAS status? Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Act, and FDA's implementing regulations in 21 CFR 170.3 and 21 CFR 170.30, the use of a food substance may be GRAS either through scientific procedures or, for a substance used in food before 1958, through experience based on common use in food. Under 21 CFR 170.30(b), general recognition of safety through scientific procedures requires the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence as is required to obtain approval of the substance as a food additive and ordinarily is based upon published studies, which may be corroborated by unpublished studies and other data and information. Under 21 CFR 170.30(c) and 170.3(f), general recognition of safety through experience based on common use in foods requires a substantial history of consumption for food use by a significant number of consumers. In what way are the criteria for the use of a substance to be GRAS similar to that for the approved use of a food additive? Regardless of whether the use of a substance is a food additive use or is GRAS, there must be evidence that the substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use. FDA has defined "safe" (21 CFR 170.3(i)) as a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under its intended conditions of use. The specific data and information that demonstrate safety depend on the characteristics of the substance, the estimated dietary intake, and the population that will consume the substance. In what way are the criteria for the use of a substance to be GRAS different from that for the approved use of a food additive? A GRAS substance is distinguished from a food additive on the basis of the common knowledge about the safety of the substance for its intended use. As FDA discussed in a proposed rule to establish a voluntary notification program for GRAS substances (62 Fed. Reg. 18938; April 17, 1997), the data and information relied on to establish the safety of the use of a GRAS substance must be generally available (e.g., through publication in the scientific literature) and there must be a basis to conclude that there is consensus among qualified experts about the safety of the substance for its intended use. Thus, the difference between use of a food additive and use of a GRAS substance relates to the widespread awareness of the data and information about the substance, i.e., who has access to the data and information and who has reviewed those data and information. For a food additive, privately held data and information about the use of the substance are sent by the sponsor to FDA and FDA evaluates those data and information to determine whether they establish that the substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use (21 CFR 171.1). For a GRAS substance, generally available data and information about the use of the substance are known and accepted widely by qualified experts, and there is a basis to conclude that there is consensus among qualified experts that those data and information establish that the substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use. (proposed 170.36 (c)(4)(i)(C)) If an ingredient is GRAS for one use, is it GRAS for all uses? Not necessarily. Under section 201(s) of the Act, it is the use of a substance, rather than the substance itself, that is eligible for the GRAS exemption (62 Fed. Reg. 18939; April 17, 1997). A determination of the safety of the use of an ingredient includes information about the characteristics of the substance, the estimated dietary intake under the intended conditions of use, and the population that will consume the substance (proposed 21 CFR 170.36 (c)(1)(iii)). Dietary intake of a substance depends on the food categories in which it will be used and the level of use in each of those food categories. For information about how FDA estimates dietary intake of a food substance, see FDA's document entitled "Estimating Exposure to Direct Food Additives And Chemical Contaminants in the Diet" Some uses of a food substance are intended for a narrowly defined population, such as newborn infants who consume infant formula as the sole item of the diet; in such a circumstance, there may be special considerations associated with that population but not with general use of the food substance. Is a substance that is used to impart color eligible for classification as GRAS? The short answer is "No." Under section 201(s) of the Act, the GRAS provision applies to the definition of a food additive. There is no corresponding provision in the definition (in section 201(t) of the Act) of a color additive. However, under section 201(t)(1) and 21 CFR 70.3(f), the term color additive means a material that is a dye, pigment, or other substance made by a process of synthesis or similar artifice, or extracted, isolated, or otherwise derived from a vegetable, animal, mineral, or other source, and that is capable (alone or through reaction with another substance) of imparting color when added or applied to a food; except that such term does not include any material which FDA, by regulation, determines is used (or intended to be used) solely for a purpose or purposes other than coloring. Under 21 CFR 70.3(g), a material that otherwise meets the definition of color additive can be exempt from that definition on the basis that it is used or intended to be used solely for a purpose or purposes other than coloring, as long as the material is used in a way that any color imparted is clearly unimportant insofar as the appearance, value, marketability, or consumer acceptability is concerned. Given the construct of section 201(t)(1) of the Act and 21 CFR 70.3(f) and (g), the use of a substance that is capable of imparting color may constitute use as both a color additive and as a food additive or GRAS substance. For example, beta-carotene is both approved for use as a color additive (21 CFR 73.95) and affirmed as GRAS for use as a nutrient (21 CFR 184.1245); in some food products, beta-carotene may be used for both purposes. Is a substance that is used as a dietary ingredient of a dietary supplement eligible for classification as GRAS? Under section 201(s) of the Act, the ingredients whose use is GRAS are excluded from the definition of a food additive. That definition of food additive also specifies that the term "food additive" does not include a dietary ingredient of a dietary supplement described in section 201(ff) of the Act or intended for use in a dietary supplement. Thus, it is meaningless to refer to a GRAS exclusion from the food additive definition for dietary ingredients that are already excluded from that definition. However, some dietary ingredients that may be used in a dietary supplement may also be GRAS for use in a conventional food (e.g., vitamin C; calcium carbonate). Must FDA approve GRAS substances? No. If the use of a food substance is GRAS, it is not subject to the premarket review and approval requirement by FDA. What is GRAS affirmation? GRAS affirmation is a process that FDA developed in the 1970s. In response to concerns raised by new information on cyclamate salts, then-President Nixon directed FDA to re-examine the safety of substances considered to be GRAS. FDA announced that the agency would evaluate, by contemporary standards of the time, the available safety information regarding substances considered to be GRAS. If the revaluation of current data confirmed that use was GRAS, FDA would promulgate a new GRAS regulation, affirming that finding. FDA also established procedures whereby an individual could petition FDA to review the GRAS status of substances that would not have been considered as part of the agency's GRAS review. Does FDA currently have a program to affirm that one or more uses of a food substance are GRAS? In a proposed rule that FDA published in 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 18938; April 17, 1997), FDA explained why the agency could no longer devote resources to the voluntary GRAS affirmation petition process that is described in 21 CFR 170.35(c) and proposed to abolish that process and replace it with a notification procedure. The agency has not yet issued a final rule however, and the petition procedure remains in the agency's regulations. However, at this time FDA is not committing resources to the review of GRAS affirmation petitions. What is the GRAS notification program? The GRAS notification program is a voluntary procedure that is operating under a proposed rule issued in 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 18938; April 17, 1997). The notification program is intended to replace the GRAS affirmation process by providing a mechanism whereby a person may inform FDA of a determination that the use of a substance is GRAS, rather than petition FDA to affirm that the use of a substance is GRAS. The submitted notice includes a "GRAS exemption claim" that includes a succinct description of the substance, the applicable conditions of use, and the statutory basis for the GRAS determination (i.e., through scientific procedures or through experience based on common use in food). A GRAS notice also includes information about the identity and properties of the notified substance and a discussion of the notifier's reasons for concluding that the substance is GRAS for its intended use. If I choose to notify FDA of my GRAS determination, how do I do so? FDA described the procedure for submitting a GRAS notice in the proposed rule to establish the notification procedure (62 Fed. Reg. 18938; April 17, 1997). Because the proposed rule is a lengthy document, our Internet site has a specific link to the part of the proposed rule that describes the procedure. You can find both the complete proposed rule and the link to the procedure on the main page of the GRAS notification program. Where do I send my GRAS notice? You should send your GRAS notice to the Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-255), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740. [Note that our office moved since we issued the proposed rule to establish a GRAS notification procedure and, thus, the address where you should send your GRAS notice is different from the address that we published in the proposed rule that describes the procedure]. If I submit a GRAS notice, how long will it take for me to receive a response from FDA? Our goal is to respond to most GRAS notices within 180 days. If I submit a GRAS notice about a food substance, must I wait until I receive a response from FDA before I market that substance? No. If one is correct in determining that the intended use of an ingredient is GRAS, use of the ingredient is not subject to any legal requirement for FDA review and approval. Your decision to submit a GRAS notice is voluntary, and FDA's response to a GRAS notice is not an approval. You may market a substance that you determine to be GRAS for a particular use without informing FDA or, if FDA is so informed, while FDA is reviewing that information (62 Fed. Reg. 18951; April 17, 1997). We recognize, however, that some firms prefer to know that FDA has reviewed its notice of a GRAS determination, without raising safety or legal issues, before marketing. Does FDA have a list of substances that are used in food on the basis of the GRAS provision? FDA has several lists of GRAS substances. Importantly, these lists are not all-inclusive. Because the use of a GRAS substance is not subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, it is impracticable to list all substances that are used in food on the basis of the GRAS provision. 21 CFR Part 182 contains the remnants of a list, which FDA established in its regulations shortly after passage of the 1958 Food Additives Amendment. The list is organized according to the intended use of these substances. As part of the agency's comprehensive review of GRAS substances in the 1970s, FDA affirmed that the use of some of the ingredients on this original GRAS list is GRAS, and moved the affirmed uses of the substance to 21 CFR Part 184. 21 CFR Part 184 contains a list of substances that FDA affirmed as GRAS as direct food ingredients for general or specific uses. This list derives from the agency's 1970s comprehensive review of GRAS substances and from petitions that FDA received to affirm the GRAS status of particular uses of some food ingredients. 21 CFR Part 186 contains a list of substances that FDA affirmed as GRAS for certain indirect food uses. FDA's Internet site also contains a list of substances that have been the subject of a notice to FDA - i.e., when a firm has notified FDA about its view that a particular use of a substance is GRAS. You can access this summary of GRAS notices, along with FDA's response, from the GRAS Notification Program page.

– Tobacco, alcohol, and ... sugar? Yes, according to professors at UC San Francisco, sugar should be regulated like tobacco and alcohol in order to cut down on ailments like heart disease, high blood pressure, and fatty liver disease, the Los Angeles Times reports. “For both alcohol and tobacco, there is robust evidence that gentle ‘supply side’ control strategies" such as "taxation, distribution controls, [and] age limits" are beneficial to society, they write in the journal Nature. Sugar also "meets the same criteria" as alcohol for government regulation, they say: It's unavoidable, it's toxic, it can be abused, and it's bad for you. Canada and a few European countries are already taxing certain artificially sweetened foods, and Denmark is considering a sugar tax. So the USDA should at least stop listing fructose on its "Generally Recognized as Safe" list, they argue: “The food industry knows that it has a problem. With enough clamour for change, tectonic shifts in policy become powerful.”

Officials are investigating an Austin police officer’s violent arrest of an African-American elementary school teacher who was twice thrown to the ground during a traffic stop for speeding and comments by a second officer who told her police are sometimes wary of blacks because of their “violent tendencies.” Video from the previously unreported June 2015 incident was obtained by the American-Statesman and KVUE-TV this week. The video shows the traffic stop escalating rapidly in the seven seconds from when officer Bryan Richter, who is white, first gives a command to 26-year-old Breaion King to close her car door to when he forcibly removes her from the driver’s seat, pulls her across a vacant parking space and hurls her to the asphalt. Richter wrote in his report of the incident that he acted quickly because King demonstrated an “uncooperative attitude” and was “reaching for the front passenger side of the vehicle.” He didn’t know whether she had a weapon, he wrote. He said King resisted by pulling away from him and wrapping her hands and arms around the steering wheel. Police charged King with resisting arrest, but the Travis County attorney dismissed the case after reviewing the police dashcam video. RAW VIDEO: Click to see police video of Breaion King’s arrest + Rodolfo Gonzalez Breaion King is overcome with emotion as she describes being pulled from her car by an Austin police officer during a ... read more Rodolfo Gonzalez × As King was being driven to jail, a separate police video recorded a conversation between King and officer Patrick Spradlin in which he said whites may be concerned about interacting with blacks because they can appear “intimidating.” The Austin Police Department issued the lowest level of discipline to Richter — counseling and additional training — after Richter’s supervisors looked into his use of force, but his conduct was never formally investigated by internal affairs. Spradlin was not punished for his comments because the department only learned about them after the Statesman began inquiring. In an interview this week, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said the department has opened an administrative review into how Richter’s supervisors evaluated his actions and a separate criminal investigation. Officials are also investigating Spradlin’s comments. But Acevedo said that, under state civil service law, he cannot take disciplinary action beyond a written reprimand against the officers for this incident because it happened more than six months ago. + Rodolfo Gonzalez Breaion King speaks with the Statesman and KVUE-TV about a traffic stop that turned into violent arrest when she was twice ... read more Rodolfo Gonzalez × “After reviewing both videos, I and our leadership team were highly disturbed and disappointed in both the way Ms. King was approached and handled and in the mindset that we saw on display in those videos,” Acevedo said. “But there is another piece, which has caused concerns as to our review process and the systems we have in place.” He said he regrets that he didn’t know about the situation sooner and that he is taking renewed steps to help citizens learn how to respond when they feel mistreated by officers. “We need to help our community overcome the fear or reluctance, which I understand, to file a complaint,” he said. “This is critical if we are to weed out bad officers and bad behavior.” + SCREEN CAPTURE FROM APD VIDEO Officer Bryan Richter flings Breaion King to the ground during her arrest resulting from a 2015 traffic stop. SCREEN CAPTURE FROM APD VIDEO × Neither officer has previous suspensions with the department. REACTION: Police union critical of officer conduct A year later, public scrutiny + SCREEN CAPTURE FROM APD VIDEO After twice being thrown to the ground by an Austin police officer, Breaion King was cuffed and pushed the hood of ... read more SCREEN CAPTURE FROM APD VIDEO × The 2015 case had received no outside scrutiny until prosecutors flagged it in recent weeks. Travis County Attorney David Escamilla said he ordered a resisting arrest charge against King immediately dropped — King paid a $165 fine and court costs for speeding — once he reviewed the videos earlier this year and sent it to felony prosecutors to review Richter’s actions. Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said her office viewed the video about two weeks ago and asked the Austin police Special Investigations Unit, which looks into cases of possible officer misconduct, to assist them. Lehmberg said the case likely will be presented to a grand jury. The emergence of the video comes at an intensely strained time nationally between police and many in the minority community that has played out over the past two years, marked by protests after high-profile controversial police use of lethal force and the recent killings of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, La. Texas officials are still grappling with the aftermath of the Sandra Bland case last year, which made national headlines after she was wrestled to the ground by a state trooper during a traffic stop. Part of the arrest was caught on dashcam video; Bland later committed suicide in a county jail. The officer was fired. VIDEO: Activist calls King arrest video ‘repulsive’ And in Austin, many are still reeling from the February shooting of David Joseph, a naked, unarmed 17-year-old shot and killed by former Officer Geoffrey Freeman after police said Joseph charged at the officer. Freeman was fired, but a grand jury declined to indict him. In an interview this week, King said she is contemplating a lawsuit against the officer and the Austin Police Department and has hired attorneys Broadus Spivey and Erica Grigg to represent her. “When I looked at this video, I was heartbroken because I thought, ‘That would never happen to me because I’m white,’ ” Grigg said. ‘It happened really fast’ King’s account, police reports and dash camera videos help provide a narrative from the incident on the afternoon of June 15, 2015. King, who grew up in Austin and is finishing a master’s degree at Texas State University, said she was driving on a lunch break. Richter said he clocked her Nissan Versa speeding at 50 mph in a 35 mph zone traveling eastbound on Riverside Drive. King got out of her car in a Wendy’s parking lot, and Richter is seen approaching her in the dashcam video. What’s being said is not entirely clear on the video, but Richter wrote in his report that King told him she was going inside for lunch and that he suspected she was trying to elude him because she didn’t appear to have a wallet. He asked her return to her car. King sat in the driver’s seat but kept the door of her car open and her legs and feet outside the car. Richter is heard instructing her to sit fully in the car so that he could close the door. “I did this so that if she decided to exit the vehicle again, it would give me some sort of reaction time to her doing so, versus her being half way out of the vehicle with the door open giving her an easy escape,” he wrote. “At this point I was worried her uncooperative attitude would only escalate once I returned to my vehicle (to write the ticket),” Richter said in his report. REACTION: Austin activists discuss meeting with police chief At that point, the video shows Richter reaching inside and grabbing King, who told police she weighs 112 pounds, as she begins to scream. The car’s horn is blaring during the struggle, and then, King is heard asking Richter, who had been shouting, “Stop resisting!” to allow her to get out on her own. The struggle then continued, and Richter is seen throwing King to the ground. He yells for her to put her hands behind her back. King said in an interview that she struggled to do so as the two continued tussling. The officer is then seen throwing her to the ground again. King said that she did not think Richter gave her an opportunity to respond to his commands. “It happened really fast,” said King, who suffered minor scrapes and bruises and saw a doctor the following day. “I wasn’t given enough time.” RAW VIDEO: Officer tells Breaion King that African-Americans have ‘violent tendencies’ In subsequent videos, King is seen distraught and handcuffed in the back of a police car, yelling at other officers to keep Richter away from her and her property. Spradlin’s comments came as he and King neared the jail and engaged in a conversation about race and police. “Why are so many people afraid of black people,” Spradlin asks King. She replies, “That’s what I want to figure out because I’m not a bad black person.” “I can give you a really good idea why it might be that way,” the officer tells her. “Violent tendencies.” When she asks if he thinks racism still exists, he says, “Let me ask you this. Do you believe it goes both ways?” “Ninety-nine percent of the time, when you hear about stuff like that, it is the black community that is being violent. That’s why a lot of the white people are afraid, and I don’t blame them. There are some guys I look at, and I know it is my job to deal with them, and I know it might go ugly, but that’s the way it goes. “But yeah, some of them, because of their appearance and whatnot, some of them are very intimidating,” he says. VIDEO: Police chief apologizes to Breaion King Austin police policy requires officers to use the minimum amount of force necessary in dealing with suspects. Departmental policy also requires police to maintain an impartial attitude, saying officers “will not express or otherwise manifest any prejudice concerning race, religion, national origin, age, political affiliation, sex or other personal characteristics in the performance of their duties.” More than a year later, King said she remains distraught about what happened and that it has forever changed how she views police. “I’ve become fearful to live my life,” she said. “I would rather stay home. I’ve become afraid of the people who are supposed to protect me and take care of me.” ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. / Updated By Phil Helsel A police chief apologized Thursday to a driver after video emerged showing her being slammed to the ground by an officer during her arrest following a minor traffic stop last year. Austin, Texas Police Chief Art Acevedo apologized to Breaion King during a news conference and pledged a series of administrative investigations and increased training. He said his "heart was sickened and saddened" by the arrest. "I’m sorry that on the day that you were stopped for going 15 miles per hour,” Acevedo said in a public apology. "You were approached in a manner and treated in a manner that is not consistent with the expectations of this police chief, of most of the officers of this police department, and most importantly I think of all of us as human beings." Breaion King during an interview on July 19. RODOLFO GONZALEZ / AP Acevedo said he didn't learn of the videos until Tuesday, when a prosecutor called him after receiving inquiries from the Austin American-Statesman newspaper. The newspaper published the videos Thursday. King, 26, was pulled over on June 15, 2015, for driving 15 miles over the speed limit. The African-American got out of the car and was ordered back inside by the arresting officer, Bryan Richter. After she is asked to put her feet inside the car, the situation dramatically escalates. Richter tells her "stop resisting" and orders her out of the car, and King replies "I’m getting out." The officer then yanks King from the car and slams her to the ground. "Oh my God!" King says in the video. "Why are you doing this to me?" At one point she is stood up, and thrown to the ground again. In a second video showing King being driven to jail by Officer Patrick Spradlin, who is white, King asks Spradlin if he thinks racism still exists and she says she thinks white people have more rights than blacks, and some people are afraid of black people. "Why are so many people afraid of black people?" Spradlin says in response. "I can give you a really good — a really good idea why it might be that way," Spradlin says. "Violent tendencies." "I’m not saying anything, I’m not saying it’s true — I’m not saying that I can prove it or nothing. But 99 percent of the time, when you hear about stuff like that, it is the black community that’s being violent,” Spradlin says. "That’s why a lot of the white people are afraid and I don’t blame them." Breaion King, 26, was pulled over on June 15, 2015, for driving 15 miles over the speed limit. NBC News / Austin Police Department At another point, Spradlin admits that "some of them, because of their appearance and what not, some of them are very intimidating." The conversation is a back-and-forth discussion, and calm. Acevedo called the "mindset" described by Spradlin racist. "I can’t denounce that, what he had to say, any stronger. It was very disturbing to me," Acevedo said. Both officers were taken off law enforcement duties, and the police chief said administrative reviews are being conducted into past conduct by both officers. A criminal investigation is also under way, but the district attorney’s office will determine if charges are appropriate, Acevedo said. After the arrest Richter was given informal discipline and counseling, Acevedo said. The police chief said the case was never brought to his attention, and an administrative investigation is underway to see why the case wasn’t sent to higher ups. "There’s a problem that this was not kicked up to our level back in ’15," he said. The videos came to light amid heightened tensions nationwide and protests over the use of police force against African Americans. Some, like former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, have recently pushed back against the "black lives matter" movement by saying the majority of killings in black communities are carried out by African Americans, not at the hands of police. King was originally arrested and charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest search or transport, NBC affiliate KXAN reported. The case was dismissed in January. Acevedo said police will receive additional training in implicit bias and fair policing, and has asked the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services has offered training resources. The department will also better track arrests for resisting arrest and offenses like public intoxication to see if officers are appropriately stopping and charging people. Acevedo said he doesn’t know Spradlin’s intentions in the back-and-forth conversation and was withholding judgment. "When you look at it there’s a guy that’s trying to have a conversation — I don’t know if he’s trying to be a social scientist, so I can’t get into his heart at this point," Acevedo said. Acevedo called King’s arrest "an incident that should never have occurred." He said he is urging his police officers to look at the videos. "I want them to ask themselves: Am I approaching a 15 mile-per-hour speeding ticket like that?" Acevedo said. "Am I treating somebody because they're speeding to lunch like they just robbed a bank? Is that how I want my loved one treated when they’re in a hurry?"

– Twenty-six-year-old elementary school teacher Breaion King was pulled over for driving 15mph over the speed limit in Austin, Texas, NBC News reports. Moments later, she was being pulled from her car by officer Bryan Richter and thrown to the ground—twice. According to the Austin American-Statesman, the incident happened in June 2015, but video of it didn't surface until this week. King had gotten out of her car during the stop, but Richter told her to get back in and close the door. Seconds later, King was being violently arrested. In his report, Richter said King had an "uncooperative attitude" and may have been reaching for a weapon. But King tells KVUE she was in fear for her life. “I didn't know what was going to happen," she says. "I literally didn't understand what was happening." But that wasn't the end of King's ordeal. On the way to jail, another white officer, Patrick Spradlin, told King, who is black, that police are nervous around black people because of their "violent tendencies." Spradlin said black people can be "very intimidating" in their "appearance" and he doesn't blame white people for being afraid of them. Police chief Art Acevedo apologized to King on Thursday. He says he is "highly disturbed and disappointed" by her treatment and called Spradlin's comments racist. An investigation has been launched into the incident, but because it has been more than six months since it happened, Spradlin and Richter can only be punished with a written reprimand. King had been charged with resisting arrest, but those charges were later dropped.

Eminem disses Donald Trump and his supporters, references everyone from Trayvon Martin to Colin Kaepernick to David Hasselhoff and unleashes a dizzying assault of rhythmic gymnastics with "Campaign Speech," a nearly eight-minute new track posted online Wednesday. "Don't worry I'm working on an album!" the rapper tweeted, linking the song. "Here's something meanwhile." The track includes the Trump attack, "Consider me a dangerous man/ But you should be afraid of this dang candidate/ You say Trump don't kiss ass like a puppet?/ 'Cause he runs his campaign with his own cash for the funding?/ And that's what you wanted?/ A fuckin' loose cannon who's blunt with his hand on the button/ Who doesn't have to answer to no one?/ Great idea!" The song premiered on the rapper's Shade 45 channel on SiriusXM's Sway in the Morning. The rapper also takes aim at the candidate's supporters. "Run the faucet / I'm a dunk a bunch of Trump supporters underwater," Em flows at one point over minimalist swabs of synth. "Snuck up on 'em in Ray-Bans in a gray van with a spray tan." Elsewhere, he throws out one-liners like "stegosaurus, Chuck Norris with a thesaurus" and "Robin Thicke with a throbbin' dick." David Duke, the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and Louisiana senate candidate, weighed in on the song, saying that the rapper has been "poisoning the minds of our youth." He also called him a "puppet of [manager] Paul Rosenberg and [Interscope co-founder] Jimmy Iovine," using a set of three parentheses, an anti-Semitic marker on the Internet meant to draw attention to a person who is Jewish. Eminem is a puppet of (((Paul Rosenberg))) and (((Jimmy Iovine))) - For years Eminem has been poisoning the minds of our youth. #rigged pic.twitter.com/xECYJ0HBsK — David Duke (@DrDavidDuke) October 19, 2016 The opening blitz is one of the rapper's most limber in years: "Jumped out of the second floor of a record store/ With a Treacherous Four cassette and a cassette recorder," he rhymes. "In Ecuador with Edward Norton/ Witness the metamorphosis of a legend growing/ Like an expert swordsman from the Hessian war and/ Hence the origin of the Headless Horseman/ Born with the endorphins of a pathetic orphan." As Mother Jones noted in August, Trump and Eminem weren't always adversaries. In 2004, Eminem threw a party to promote his recently released Encore album and the launch of Shade 45, his channel on SiriusXM. The candidate made a surprise appearance to extol the rapper. "When the Shady Party called and told me there's going to be a convention, I said it's got to be a really big one—and it's got to be right here in New York," Trump said. "Because this is the best city anywhere in the world. Am I right? Of course I'm right. I'm always right — I'm Donald Trump, I'm always right. I know a winner when I see one, and Donald Trump is telling you right now, Slim Shady is a winner. He's got brains, he's got guts, and he's got Donald Trump's vote!" Eminem released his last solo album, The Marshall Mathers LP 2, in 2013. He recently guested on and produced frequent collaborator Skylar Grey's single "Kill For You," and over the summer, he made a surprise appearance during Drake's Detroit show to perform their joint 2009 hit "Forever." Find out insanely great Eminem tracks only hardcore fans know. ||||| Eminem is happy to acknowledge that he's not a great dude, as long as people remember that he's not the absolute worst dude. The legendary rapper has come out of relative hiding with a new track, "Campaign Speech" to call out Donald Trump for being Donald Trump and spit out as many grievances he can over eight minutes — which is a lot. SEE ALSO: Stephen Colbert interviewed Eminem on a Michigan public access show Slim Shady addresses the Republican nominee's supporters to try and figure out their end game. “You say Trump don’t kiss ass like a puppet cause he runs his campaign with his own cash for the funded/ And that’s what you wanted?" he inquires. "That's what you wanted? A fucking loose cannon who's blunt with his hand on the button who doesn't have to answer to no one? Great idea." George Zimmerman and Stacey Dash are among the others subjected to Eminem's ire in the song. Eminem concedes that a Marshall Mathers administration would not be ideal either, and, apparently, focus on an anti-safe sex agenda. At the end of the song, he tries to figure out his own deal, "Why am I such a dick?" Don't worry I'm working on an album! Here's something meanwhile. https://t.co/QX3cdpqFD2 — Marshall Mathers (@Eminem) October 19, 2016 The song is a one-off, but he promises a new album soon and he certainly has plenty to rage against. His last album was 2013's The Marshall Mathers LP2. ||||| Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

– With less than three weeks to the election, Eminem decided it was time to weigh in. Rolling Stone reports the rapper released a nearly 8-minute track Wednesday in which he says of Donald Trump: "You should be afraid of this dang candidate." He goes on in "Campaign Speech" to call Trump a "[expletive] loose cannon who's blunt with his hand on the button," according to Mashable. Beyond Trump, Eminem talks George Zimmerman, Stacey Dash, Trayvon Martin, Colin Kaepernick, David Hasselhoff, Chuck Norris, and Robin Thicke. While Eminem doesn't appear to be a big fan of Trump, the Republican candidate appeared to be a big fan of his, at least in 2004 when he said this: "Donald Trump is telling you right now, Slim Shady is a winner. He's got brains, he's got guts, and he's got Donald Trump's vote."

Robert De Niro is a daddy again for the sixth time. The 68-year-old actor and his wife Grace Hightower, 56, had a daughter via surrogate on Friday and while a new baby is always cause for celebration, the span between De Niro's oldest and his youngest is 40 years. Helen Grace was a healthy 7 pounds, 2 ounces and certainly the De Niro's have the right to conduct their childbearing however they would like. Certainly their 13-year-old son Eliot will be happy to have a sibling in his house. The problem is De Niro is the same age as many grandfathers. When a woman has a baby at an older age, she is often taken to task as "too old" or "bad for the baby" or any number of other things, so why don't men get the same scrutiny? Advertisement ||||| Robert De Niro is a daddy again for the sixth time. The 68-year-old actor and his wife Grace Hightower, 56, had a daughter via surrogate on Friday and while a new baby is always cause for celebration, the span between De Niro's oldest and his youngest is 40 years. Helen Grace was a healthy 7 pounds, 2 ounces and certainly the De Niro's have the right to conduct their childbearing however they would like. Certainly their 13-year-old son Eliot will be happy to have a sibling in his house. The problem is De Niro is the same age as many grandfathers. When a woman has a baby at an older age, she is often taken to task as "too old" or "bad for the baby" or any number of other things, so why don't men get the same scrutiny? De Niro's five other children are almost all grown. His daughter Drena, 40, and son Raphael, 35, are with former wife Diahnne Abbott and then he has 16-year-old twin sons Julian and Aaron, born via surrogate with ex-girlfriend Toukie Smith. Finally there is Eliot. The fact is, De Niro could live to be 90 and his daughter could know him for only 23 years. Personally, that is my biggest problem with older people becoming parents. When you lose a parent young, you never get to know them as well as you might have otherwise. With De Niro the energy factor is likely not as big a deal given his wife is younger and she has many older siblings to help care for her. And since money is also not an object, they can certainly afford round-the-clock care if they need it. Really, it is a factor of time. New babies take enormous energy and time and they also want to know their parents as long as they can. At 68, De Niro could easily have grandchildren the same ages as his youngest four children. Certainly if he were a woman, there would be some judgement. It is not that his decision should be judged, really. It should just be questioned. Is 68 really the ideal age to become a new dad for the sixth time? Do you think a new baby at 68 makes sense? Image via david_shankbone/Flickr

– If a 68-year-old woman had a baby, nearly everyone would scream. But there's not a peep about Robert De Niro's brand-new baby daughter Helen Grace with his 56-year-old wife, Grace Hightower, via surrogate, grumbles Sasha Brown-Worsham in The Stir. Let's get real: He's too old to have a baby now, she notes. He's old enough to be the infant's grandfather, and already has a 40-year-old kid to prove it. Even if the actor lives to be 90, his youngest (of six) will be only 22, and he likely won't be taking her on any ski trips after, say, the age of 80. "Really, it is a factor of time. New babies take enormous energy and time and they also want to know their parents as long as they can," sniffs Brown-Worsham. Click to read her entire argument.

Graham Cluley runs his own award-winning computer security blog at https://www.grahamcluley.com, and is a veteran of the anti-virus industry having worked for a number of security companies since the early 1990s. Now an independent security analyst, he regularly makes media appearances, co-hosts the weekly "Smashing Security" podcast, and is an international public speaker. Follow him on Twitter at @gcluley ||||| The FBI is investigating the NBC News Twitter account hacking committed by perpetrators who posted bogus information about the hijacking of a civilian airliner that supposedly crashed into Ground Zero in New York, officials said Friday night. A posting on the NBC News Twitter profile accompanying the attack indicated the perpetrators may have been members of a new group of cyber pranksters known as "The Script Kiddies," whose main goal appears to be targeting mainstream news organizations. The postings were swiftly taken down minutes after they appeared on the main NBC News Twitter account — a tightly controlled account for which only three NBC News executives have the password. Anchor Brian Williams read a statement on the NBC Nightly News Friday night disclosing the attack, adding that the network was "working with Twitter to correct the situation" and apologizing "for the scare that could have been caused by such a reckless and irresponsible act." FBI officials confirmed Friday night that agents from the bureau's computer crimes unit were investigating the incident — the latest in a string of malicious cyber attacks on government and private companies. So far, bureau officials said, they are still gathering information from NBC and declined to discuss any suspects. But, while committing the Friday afternoon attack, the perpetrators altered the NBC News Twitter profile to say they were from the "The Script Kiddies," anonymous computer pranksters who recently split off from two better-known hacking collectives, "Anonymous" and "LulzSec," both of which have been the targets of aggressive FBI investigations. A prime goal of "The Script Kiddies" appears to be attempting to embarrass news organizations. Just two months ago, the group took credit for a similarly malicious attack on the Fox News Twitter account, in which false information was posted about a fatal shooting of President Obama. "This is a group that has been around for a few months," said Barrett Brown, a Dallas computer maven who has served as a spokesman for Anonymous in the past. "A lot of them don't like the mainstream media. But they could also just be doing this to get attention and increase their street cred." 'Easy' to infiltrate A U.S. government official who specializes in computer security said the attack was one more example of just how vulnerable such accounts are to outside intruders. "The truth is it's relatively easy to get into these accounts," the official said. The cyber hack on the NBC Twitter account — which has about 130,000 followers — seemed timed to spread maximum alarm, coming on the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and on the very day federal and local officials were ramping up security in response to a new terror threat from al-Qaida in Pakistan. "Breaking News! Ground Zero has just been attacked. Flight 5736 has crashed into the site, suspected hijacking. more as the story develops," read the first message that appeared on the NBC News Twitter feed at 5:48 p.m. EDT. A follow-up message four minutes later read: "Flight 4782 is not responding, suspected hijacking. One plane just hit Ground Zero site at 5:47." Then, three minutes later: "This is not a joke. Ground Zero has just been attacked. We're attempting to get reporters on the scene." A moment later another message appeared: "NBCNEWS hacked by The Script Kiddies." Ryan Osborn, the NBC director of social media, said he was monitoring the account at the time and noticed the bogus messages within seconds — and that the password to NBC News' Twitter account had been altered. He immediately contacted Twitter, which shut the account down eight minutes after the tweets appeared. Malicious attachment A spokesman for Twitter declined comment Friday night, saying by email that as a matter of policy, it does not discuss individual user accounts. But at the time of the attack on Fox News, Twitter reportedly indicated that its own own servers had not been broken into; instead, the email account associated with the specific Fox News Twitter feed had been compromised, and from there the hacker or hackers had been able to gain access. The U.S. government official who specializes in cyber security said that a typical scenario for such an attack would be enticing a Twitter user — through a phony email — to download an attachment that contains a "keylogger Trojan" — a form of computer "malware" or virus that penetrates a computer and picks up the repetitive keystrokes of the user, allowing the hackers to figure out the passwords to the Twitter account. Osborn, the NBC News social media director, said he recently received one such suspicious email as Hurricane Irene was approaching New York. The email came from an unknown sender with the subject "Hurricane Alert" and the message: "Ryan, You need to get off TWITTER immediately and protect your family from the hurricane. That is an order." Osborn wrote back "I’m sorry. Who is this?" The sender then replied, "I’m the girl next door" with an attachment. Osborn said he mistakenly clicked on the attachment and it contained a Christmas tree. Msnbc.com is a joint venture of NBC Universal, parent of NBC News, and Microsoft.

– The Script Kiddies have struck again: Hackers with the group got into the NBC News Twitter account and sent a series of fake tweets about a terror attack in New York City, reports the Naked Security blog. The FBI is investigating. The first tweet went up yesterday evening: "Breaking News! Ground Zero has just been attacked. Flight 5736 has crashed into the site, suspected hijacking. more as the story develops." After a few follow-up tweets came another, "NBCNEWS hacked by The Script Kiddies." The group hit Fox News in July in similar fashion, sending out tweets about President Obama getting assassinated. "This is a group that has been around for a few months," Barrett Brown, who has been a spokesman for Anonymous, tells MSNBC. "A lot of them don't like the mainstream media. But they could also just be doing this to get attention and increase their street cred."

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters on Air Force One while in flight from Andrews Air Force Base, Md., to Palm Beach International Airport, Fla., Thursday, April 6, 2017. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (Associated Press) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the U.S. response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria (all times EDT): 9 p.m. The United States has attacked a Syrian air base with roughly 60 cruise missiles in response to a chemical weapons attack it blames on President Bashar Assad. U.S. officials say the Tomahawk missiles were fired from two warships in the Mediterranean Sea, targeting a government-controlled air base in Syria. U.S. officials say Syrian government aircraft killed dozens of civilians by using chlorine mixed with a nerve agent, possibly sarin, earlier this week. The bombing represents President Donald Trump's most dramatic military order since taking office. The Obama administration threatened attacking Assad's forces for previous chemical weapons attacks, but never followed through. ___ 3:10 p.m. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says President Bashar Assad should no longer have a role in governing the Syrian people after this week's chemical attack and the U.S. is evaluating an appropriate response. Tillerson said Thursday there is "no doubt in our minds" that Assad's government was behind the attack that killed dozens of innocent people in rebel-held northern Idlib and is deemed one of the worst attacks in Syria's civil war. Tillerson also issued a warning to Russia that it should "consider carefully" its support of Assad's government. He says the images of dead women and children "horrified all of us" and attacks of this nature cannot be tolerated. Tillerson made his remarks in West Palm Beach, Florida, after welcoming China's President Xi Jinping for a two-day summit with President Donald Trump. ___ 3:05 p.m. President Donald Trump is suggesting that Syrian President Bashar Assad may have to leave power after this week's chemical weapons attack. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said Thursday that what happened in Syria is "a disgrace to humanity." Asked if Assad should go, Trump said, "He's there, and I guess he's running things so something should happen." The president would not discuss what, if anything, the United States might do in response to the deadly chemical attack. He said the attack "shouldn't have happened, and it shouldn't be allowed to happen." Trump said he may talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the situation in Syria. Russia is a key supporter of the Assad government. ||||| The U.S. military launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield early Friday in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began nearly six years ago. The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition. Syria and Russia swiftly denounced the attack, launched at around 3:40 a.m. local time Friday (8:40 p.m. EDT Thursday) from U.S. ships in the eastern Mediterranean. [Russia condemns U.S. missile strike on Syria, suspends key air agreement] Assad called the missile strikes an “unjust and arrogant aggression” and Syrian officials said they would hamper the country’s ability to fight militant groups, Syria’s state news agency reported. Talal al-Barazi, the governor of Homs province that includes the air base, said at least 13 people were killed in the missile strikes, including five soldiers on the base and eight civilians in areas surrounding the facility. The figures could not be independently confirmed. In Moscow, Russia announced it was pulling out of a pact with Washington to share information about warplane missions over Syria, where a U.S.-led coalition is also waging airstrikes on Islamic State targets. Russian President Vladi­mir Putin called for an immediate meeting of the U.N. Security Council, and his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, called the U.S. missile strikes “violations of the norms of international law, and under a far-fetched pretext.” But President Trump said the strike was in the “vital national security interest” of the United States and called on “all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria. And also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.” “We ask for God’s wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world,” he continued. “We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed and we hope that as long as America stands for justice then peace and harmony will in the end prevail.” [U.S. strike against Syria: How did we get here?] The missiles were launched from two Navy destroyers — the USS Ross and USS Porter — in the eastern Mediterranean. They struck an air base called Shayrat in Homs province, which is the site from which the planes that conducted the chemical attack in Idlib are believed to have originated. The targets included air defenses, aircraft, hangars and fuel. (The Washington Post) The U.S. military said initial indications were that the strike had “severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure.” Syrian state TV said a U.S. missile attack hit a number of military targets inside the country, according to the Associated Press. U.S. officials said the Russians, who maintain significant forces in Syria, were given advance warning of the strike. There is a Russian military area at the base that was hit, but the United States took precautions not to strike that area, according to Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. In comparison, the start of the Iraq War in 2003 saw the use of roughly 500 cruise missiles, and 47 were fired at the opening of the anti-Islamic State campaign in Syria in 2014. [These are the missiles the U.S. used in the strike against Syria] The attack may put hundreds of American troops now stationed in Syria in greater danger. They are advising local forces in advance of a major assault on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de facto capital. The decision to strike follows 48 hours of deliberations by U.S. officials and represents a significant break with the previous administration’s reluctance to wade militarily into the Syrian civil war and shift any focus from the campaign against the Islamic State. Senior White House officials met on the issue of Syria on Wednesday evening in a session that lasted into early Thursday, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, have communicated repeatedly since Tuesday’s chemical attack, the officials said. The U.S. Central Command has had plans for striking the Syrian government for years and has significant assets in the region, enabling a quick response once a decision was made. While the Obama White House began operations against the Islamic State in 2014, it backed away from a planned assault on Syrian government sites a year earlier after a similar chemical attack on Syrian civilians. Tuesday’s apparent nerve-agent attack in northern Idlib, with its widely circulated images of lifeless children, appears to have galvanized Trump and some of his top advisers to harden their position against the Syrian leader. The assault adds new complexity to Syria’s prolonged conflict, which includes fighters battling the Syrian government and others focused on combating the Islamic State, which despite over two years of American and allied attacks remains a potent force. [Deadly nerve agent sarin used in Syria attack, Turkish Health Ministry says] Within the administration, some officials urged immediate action against Assad, warning against what one described as “paralysis through analysis.” But others were concerned about second- and third-order effects, including the response of Russia, which also has installed sophisticated air defense systems in Syria, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The Trump administration’s position on the strongman appears to have quickly shifted in the wake of the chemical attack as senior officials voiced new criticism of the Syrian leader. On Thursday night, McMaster predicted the strikes would result in a “big shift on Assad’s calculus. It’s the first time the United States has taken direct military action.” McMaster described a deliberative process inside the White House and on the National Security Council, where three options were examined at the request of the president. He said that Trump made the final decision and that the strikes “clearly indicate the president is willing to take decisive action when called for.” He emphasized, however, that the move did not otherwise alter the U.S. military’s posture in Syria. Earlier Thursday, Tillerson suggested that the United States and other nations would consider somehow removing Assad from power, but he did not say how. Just a few days ago, the White House had said that removing Assad was not realistic, with press secretary Sean Spicer saying it was necessary to accept the “political reality” in Syria. “We are considering an appropriate response for this chemical weapons attack,” Tillerson said in Palm Beach, Fla., where Trump was meeting Thursday with Chinese President Xi Jinping. “It is a serious matter. It requires a serious response,” he said. Speaking later Thursday, Tillerson recalled a 2013 agreement with Syria to hand over its chemical stockpile and for Russia to act as a monitor to ensure Assad did not renege on that deal. “Clearly, Russia has failed in its responsibility on that commitment,” he said. “Either Russia has been complicit or has been incompetent on its ability to deliver.” The summit with the Chinese leader will continue Friday, and some U.S. officials say the strike will also serve as a warning of U.S. willingness to strike North Korea if China does not act to curtail the nuclear ambitions of the government there. [Trump condemns Syria chemical attack and suggests he will act] It was not immediately clear whether Friday’s assault marked the beginning of a broader campaign against the Assad government. While the operation was the first intentional attack on Syrian government targets, the United States accidentally struck a group of Syrian soldiers in eastern Syria last year in what officials concluded was the result of human error. The Obama administration had insisted that Assad could never remain in any postwar Syria, and it supported rebel groups that have tried unsuccessfully to oust him. The United States has a broad arsenal already in the region, including dozens of strike aircraft on the USS George H.W. Bush, an aircraft carrier that is deployed to the Middle East and accompanied by guided-missile destroyers and cruisers that can also launch Tomahawk cruise missiles. Additionally, an amphibious naval force in the region includes the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit with Harrier jets and Cobra gunships. The Pentagon also has scores of aircraft in the region flying operations every day against the Islamic State group, including from Incirlik air base to the north in Turkey. [‘Hospitals were slaughterhouses’: A journey into Syria’s secret torture wards] The attack appears to have involved only missiles. U.S. fighter planes, if used, would have had to contend with a modest web of Syrian air defenses and potentially more-advanced types of surface-to-air missiles provided by Russia. One of Assad’s more prevalent systems, the S-200, was used to target Israeli jets last month, but missiles were intercepted by Israeli defense systems. The S-200 has a range of roughly 186 miles, according to U.S. military documents, and can hit targets flying at altitudes of around 130,000 feet. Russian S-300 and S-400 missiles, located primarily around Khmeimim air base in western Syria, have a shorter range than the S-200 but have more-advanced radar systems and fly considerably faster than their older counterparts used by Syrian forces. The S-300 has a range of roughly 90 miles and could also be used to target incoming U.S. cruise missiles. In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said the operation “sent an important message the United States will no longer stand idly by as Assad, aided and abetted by Putin’s Russia, slaughters innocent Syrians with chemical weapons and barrel bombs.” They also called on the administration to take Assad’s air force out of the fight and follow “through with a new, comprehensive strategy in coordination with our allies and partners to end the conflict in Syria.” David Nakamura in Palm Beach, Fla., and Abby Phillip, Anne Gearan, Carol Morello, David Weigel and Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report. Read more: Trump and his ‘America First’ philosophy face first moral quandary in Syria Mideast divided over U.S. strikes on Syria, much the way it is over the whole war Which chemical weapon was used in Syria? Here’s what investigators know.

– The United States has attacked a Syrian air base with roughly 60 cruise missiles in response to a chemical weapons attack it blames on President Bashar Assad. US officials say the Tomahawk missiles were fired from two warships in the Mediterranean Sea, targeting a government-controlled air base in Syria, reports the AP. The move comes after US officials accused Syrian aircraft of killing dozens of civilians by using chlorine mixed with a nerve agent, possibly sarin, earlier this week. President Trump, who had said the Syrian attack crossed "many, many lines" for him, said Thursday night that it was in the "vital national security interest" of the United States to stop the use of chemical weapons. Syrian state TV reported a US missile attack on a number of military targets and called the attack an "aggression." The Washington Post notes that the US attack brings with it a heightened risk of confrontation with Syria supporters Russia and Iran. Russia initially defended Assad after the civilian deaths, saying that government airstrikes had hit chemical weapons being stored illegally by rebels. But on Thursday, a Kremlin spokesman made a point to say that its support was not "unconditional." Hundreds of US troops are currently stationed in Syria, advising local forces ahead of an assault on the city of Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold.

Homicide Update: Deceased identified as Christy Sheats (42), Taylor Sheats (22), and Madison Sheats (17). — FBCSO Texas (@FBCSO) June 25, 2016 Christy Sheats, 42, was shot & killed by police officer after she shot 2 daughters. Husband/father not hurt. pic.twitter.com/wa1wmVPkaD — Lauren Lea (@LaurenLABC13) June 25, 2016 Neighbors say Taylor Sheats, 22, & Madison Sheats, 17, were killed by their mom on their father's birthday. pic.twitter.com/UOi7DrdHDU — Lauren Lea (@LaurenLABC13) June 25, 2016 A silence continues to hang over a Fort Bend County neighborhood after a shooting rocked the usually quiet street.Fort Bend County Sheriff's deputies say Taylor Sheats, 22, and Madison Sheats, 17, were shot and killed by their mother Christy Sheats, 42, on Friday around 5pm. A Fulshear police officer shot and killed Christy at the home on Remson Hollow Lane when she refused to drop her weapon. Only the husband and father, Jason Sheats, was not harmed.An eyewitness saw Taylor, Madison and Jason running out of their home. According to the eyewitness, the young women were already wounded. The neighbor said Taylor collapsed on the street and he saw Christy come outside with a gun and then go back inside to reload. When she emerged again, she shot Madison in the back, according to the eyewitness.Deputies said a dispute lead up to the shooting."All I saw was the police officer aiming his rifle toward someone and saying 'drop your weapons,' and then afterward another gunshot," explained neighbor Sabeeh Siddiqui. "Soon after that there were a lot of police cars that came."Another neighbor, who said she was close to the family, told abc13 the couple had recently reunited after being separated. She said the shooting happened on Jason's birthday.Friends of the two young women are struggling to come to terms with the shooting."She was just such a sweet girl. She had tons of friends, me and him both. I just can't believe it happened," said a visibly stunned Matthew Wiley about Taylor.Madison was set to be a senior at Seven Lakes High School this fall."She seemed like a nice person. I talked to her a few times," neighbor Faaiz Siddiqui said. "Especially Taylor. She babysat us a few times and my brother got tutor lessons from her. All I can say is they are nice people. There's nothing wrong with them."Madison's close friend, who wanted to stay anonymous, told Eyewitness News that Madison was nice to everyone."Madison brought nothing but happiness to everyone she ever met. She was nice to everyone and she wouldn't have harmed a fly," the friend said.Alick Arnold grew up not far from the Sheats home and said he was a family friend."He (Jason) loved his daughters. They were like best friends for sure," he added. "It crushed him. I know it's hard for the family." ||||| See more of Christy Byrd Sheats on Facebook ||||| Police: Family argument caused mother to shoot, kill daughters Taylor Sheats, 22, was shot to death by her mother in Katy, Texas on Friday, June 25, 2016. (Source: Facebook) Taylor Sheats, 22, was shot to death by her mother in Katy, Texas on Friday, June 25, 2016. (Source: Facebook) Photo: Facebook Taylor Sheats, 22, was shot to death by her mother in Katy, Texas on Friday, June 25, 2016. (Source: Facebook) Taylor Sheats, 22, was shot to death by her mother in Katy, Texas on Friday, June 25, 2016. (Source: Facebook) Photo: Facebook Madison Sheats, 17, was shot to death by her mother in Katy, Texas on Friday, June 25, 2016. (Source: Facebook) Madison Sheats, 17, was shot to death by her mother in Katy, Texas on Friday, June 25, 2016. (Source: Facebook) Photo: Facebook Christy Sheats, 42, shot her daughters to death in Katy, Texas on Friday, June 25, 2016, according to police. (Source: Facebook) Christy Sheats, 42, shot her daughters to death in Katy, Texas on Friday, June 25, 2016, according to police. (Source: Facebook) Photo: Facebook window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({ mode: 'thumbnails-c', container: 'taboola-interstitial-gallery-thumbnails-5', placement: 'Interstitial Gallery Thumbnails 5', target_type: 'mix' }); _taboola.push({flush: true}); Neighbors gather to watch as Fort Bend County Sheriffs department investigates a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Neighbors gather to watch as Fort Bend County Sheriffs department investigates a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Fort Bend County Sheriffs department crime scene members bag a gun for evidence in a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Fort Bend County Sheriffs department crime scene members bag a gun for evidence in a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Fort Bend County Sheriffs department crime scene members bag a gun for evidence in a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Fort Bend County Sheriffs department crime scene members bag a gun for evidence in a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Fort Bend County Sheriffs department crime scene members bag a gun for evidence in a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Fort Bend County Sheriffs department crime scene members bag a gun for evidence in a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({ mode: 'thumbnails-c', container: 'taboola-interstitial-gallery-thumbnails-10', placement: 'Interstitial Gallery Thumbnails 10', target_type: 'mix' }); _taboola.push({flush: true}); Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office crime scene members bag a gun for evidence in a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Christy Sheats, 42, allegedly shot and killed her two daughters, Madison Sheats, 17, and Taylor Sheats, 22, while her husband, Jason Sheats, 45, escaped. Christy Sheats was shot and killed by officers. less Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office crime scene members bag a gun for evidence in a shooting at Blanchard Grove and Remson Hollow, Friday, June 24, 2016, in Katy. Christy Sheats, 42, allegedly shot and killed her ... more Photo: Mike Glenn / Houston Chronicle window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({ mode: 'thumbnails-c', container: 'taboola-interstitial-gallery-thumbnails-12', placement: 'Interstitial Gallery Thumbnails 12', target_type: 'mix' }); _taboola.push({flush: true}); Photo: Facebook Image 1 of / 12 Caption Close Police: Family argument caused mother to shoot, kill daughters 1 / 12 Back to Gallery A Fort Bend County woman shot her two adult daughters Friday - killing one of them at the scene - before she was fatally shot by a responding police officer. On Saturday, the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office identified the mother as Christy Sheats, 42, and her daughters as Taylor Sheats, 22, and Madison Sheats, 17. Later, Fulshear police Facebook page reported one daughter was taken by Lifeflight to the Texas Medical Center and also died. It was unclear Saturday afternoon, which of the victims died at the scene and which was airlifted to the hospital. The incident happened about 5 p.m. along the 6000 block of Remson Hollow in an unincorporated section near Fulshear. When officers arrived to investigate a 911 call of "shots fired," they found two women lying on the street in front of a home in a comfortable, middle class subdivision. A Fulshear police officer shot and killed a third woman at the scene who was holding a pistol. Authorities said it was the mother of the two women on the ground. One of the daughters of the suspected assailant was taken by LifeFlight to the Texas Medical Center where she was in critical condition, said Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls. The Fulshear Police confirmed that the second daughter later died, according to their Facebook page. The motive for the shooting remains under investigation. "It was a family argument that turned into a shooting," Nehls said. "But we're still trying to put the pieces together." As crowds of concerned neighbors began approaching, police quickly blocked off the street where the bodies were found. Austin Enke said he knew the women slightly and had a couple of classes with at least one of them when they attended Seven Lakes High School. "They were always cheerful and never depressed. You never heard anything bad about them," Enke said. Nehls said he did not know if the shooting actually happened inside the family's home or on the street where the bodies were found. Sheriff's records show that deputies had been sent to the family home in the past on more than one occasion. "But as to why we were called here, I don't know," Nehls said. Nehls added he did know if the mother pointed her weapon at the officer or whether she was still pointing it at her daughters when the officer arrived. The sheriff said the father was at home when the shooting occurred. He was not injured but was distraught and taken to be checked out at a local hospital. "He's going through a very difficult time," Nehls said. Although the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office is leading the investigation, other agencies such as the Fulshear police and the Texas Rangers are involved, Nehls said. A Fort Bend County justice of the peace will likely call for an autopsy. If so, the bodies will be taken to Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences or the Galveston County Medical Examiners Office, Nehls said. ||||| Texas Mom Who Killed 2 Daughters Had a 'History of Mental Illness,' Authorities Say Source: Christy Byrd Sheats / Facebook Source: Christy Byrd Sheats / Facebook The Texas woman who killed her two daughters on Friday , before being shot and killed by police herself, allegedly had a history of mental illness, officials say. And she had posted multiple times on social media about her support of firearms.The Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office had been to Christy Sheats' home "for previous altercations" involving Sheats' "mental crisis," sheriff's spokeswoman Caitilin Espinosa tells PEOPLE.She declined to provide more detail about those incidents.On Friday afternoon authorities responded to a tragic scene outside Sheats' home, Espinosa says: The bodies of Sheats' two daughters, 17-year-old Madison and 22-year-old Taylor, were in the street after they'd allegedly fled from their mother when she began firing her gun inside the home.Taylor had already been shot once inside and was shot twice again outside, Espinosa says. Madison was shot once outside.Christy was shot dead by a Fulshear city police officer "before she was able to shoot [Madison] again," Espinosa says. Both daughters died from their injuries.(A Fulshear police representative told PEOPLE on Saturday he did not have information on how the department will handle the officer involved in the shooting, and he said no such information would be released going forward.)While Espinosa says the shooting's motive remains "unknown" and under investigation, Sheriff Troy Nehls said it was "a family argument that turned into a shooting," according to the Houston Chronicle "We're still trying to put the pieces together," Nehls said.One neighbor told ABC13 that Christy and her husband had recently reunited after a separation, and that Friday was his birthday.Christy's husband, the girl's father, was at home when the shooting started but was uninjured, according to the Chronicle. He was taken to a local hospital and is "going through a very difficult time," Nehls said.Christy was an active user on Facebook, and posted multiple times in recent months to express her enthusiasm for firearms – and her distaste for gun control."It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that's exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns," she wrote in March , along with an anti-gun control video.And in January she posted a meme showing a handgun which made fun of President Barack Obama's position on gun control. She captioned it "That's right! #merica."Both Madison and Taylor reportedly worked as babysitters. Madison was a rising high school senior, according to ABC13, and Taylor attended Lone Star College, according to the New York Daily News.The community is reeling from the shooting – and what it must mean for the Sheats family."[The husband] loved his daughters," one family friend told ABC13. "They were like best friends for sure. It crushed him. I know it's hard for the family."A neighbor told ABC13, "All I can say is they are nice people. There's nothing wrong with them."And one of Madison's close friends told the station she "brought nothing but happiness to everyone she ever met. She was nice to everyone and she wouldn't have harmed a fly."In September, Christy posted on Facebook to celebrate "Daughter's Day.""Happy Daughter's Day to my two amazing, sweet, kind, beautiful, intelligent girls," she wrote. "I love and treasure you both more than you could ever possibly know."

– "We're still trying to put the pieces together," said Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls in the aftermath of a Friday shooting that left a Texas mother and her two daughters dead. Among the details trickling out: A sheriff's rep tells People that Christy Sheats, who shot and killed daughters Taylor, 22, and Madison, 17, before being shot and killed by police, had a history of mental illness. Police had visited the home "for previous altercations" related to Sheats' "mental crisis," says the rep. A neighbor tells KTRK the Friday shooting occurred on the birthday of Jason Sheats, father of the daughters. The couple had been estranged, and had recently gotten back together, per the neighbor. He was present, but uninjured. While no motive has been given, "It was a family argument that turned into a shooting," Nehls said, per the Houston Chronicle. Another neighbor tells KTRK that Taylor collapsed after running out of the home; Madison and Jason fled, too. The neighbor reports seeing Christy exit the home with a gun, reenter to allegedly reload, and then emerge and shoot Madison in the back. The rep also tells People a Fulshear city police officer fired at Christy "before she was able to shoot [Madison] again." People flags this September Facebook post by Sheats: "Happy Daughter's Day to my two amazing, sweet, kind, beautiful, intelligent girls. I love and treasure you both more than you could ever possibly know."

U.S. jets and armed drones conducted four more airstrikes against Islamic State positions in northern Iraq on Saturday as President Obama said the American air campaign would not expand beyond the limited objectives he has outlined. All of the air attacks took place in the area of Sinjar, in the northwest part of the country, where militants have surrounded and threatened to kill as many as 40,000 members of the minority Yazidi sect. The U.S. Central Command said that the strikes, which took place in the late morning and midafternoon Eastern time, had destroyed several armored personnel carriers and armed trucks. “All aircraft safely exited the area,” it said. The ongoing strikes, which began Friday, address “immediate” concerns of protecting Americans, besieged minorities and critical infrastructure in the north, Obama said. But comprehensive aid to push back advances by the Sunni Muslim extremists through much of the country over the past two months will require a new Iraqi government, he said. Formation of that government, already delayed beyond a constitutional deadline after elections in the spring, fell further behind as a parliamentary vote scheduled for Sunday was postponed for a day amid internal wrangling among Shiite politicians. Obama’s remarks put in sharp relief his decision in the past week to use airstrikes to keep Iraq from disintegrating and prevent “genocide” against minorities, while maintaining enough leverage to press for an inclusive government that he is convinced is the country’s only long-term salvation. 1 of 42 Full Screen Autoplay Close Aug. 10, 2014 Aug. 9, 2014 Saturday Aug. 7, 2014 Thursday Aug. 5, 2014 Tuesday Aug. 4, 2014 Monday Aug. 3, 2014 Sunday Skip Ad × U.S. airdrops aid to Iraqis fleeing Islamic State forces View Photos Iraqi civilians fled as panic set in with the retreat of Kurdish forces from Islamic State militants. Meanwhile, President Obama approved humanitarian airdrops to besieged Iraqis escaping the Sunni extremists. Caption After being stranded on the parched Mount Sinjar for almost a week and then walking 12 miles to seek refuge in Syria, some of the persecuted civilians were able to safely return to the Kurdish region of Iraq with the help of Syrian Kurdish forces. Aug. 12, 2014 Displaced Iraqis from the Yazidi community gather for food at the Nowruz camp in Derike, Syria. Khalid Mohammed/AP Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. Reconciliation required The administration is pushing for Iraq’s majority Shiites to choose a replacement for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose sectarian governance has led many Iraqi Sunnis to tolerate, and sometimes support, the Sunni Muslim extremists of the Islamic State. Asked how long the airstrikes would continue, Obama said that “the most important timetable that I’m focused on right now is the Iraqi government getting formed and finalized.” “I don’t think we’re going to solve this problem in weeks,” he said on the White House South Lawn before departing for a two-week vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. “I think this is going to take some time.” “What we don’t have yet is a prime minister and a cabinet that can . . . start reaching out to all the various groups and factions inside Iraq and give confidence to populations in the Sunni areas” that the militants are “not the only game in town,” he said. “In order to ensure that Sunni populations reject outright these kinds of incursions,” Obama added, “they’ve got to feel like they’re invested in a broader national government. And right now, they don’t feel that.” In a letter sent to Congress late Friday, Obama said U.S. military operations would be “limited in their scope and duration as necessary to protect American personnel” and to help Iraqi forces aid and rescue besieged minorities. Saturday evening, the Central Command announced it had made a third airdrop of food and water to the stranded Yazidis. A glimpse of desperate plight of Yazidis trapped on the mountaintop, besieged by extremists from the Islamic State in Iraq. Kurdish forces and a human rights organization distributed food and water to those in need on Friday. (Rudaw Kurdish) Despite a growing chorus of voices against Maliki, including Iraq’s leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and many within Maliki’s own party, he has refused to step aside. Former prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari is being floated as a consensus candidate, but there is no sign of an agreement. Tariq Najim, a senior member of Maliki’s party, is also considered a front-runner. As Maliki’s backers rallied in Baghdad’s Firdos Square on Saturday to support a third term for him, Hunain al-Qaddo, a parliamentarian with Maliki’s State of Law Coalition, criticized Washington for linking more comprehensive intervention to the prime minister’s exit. “We shouldn’t tie acting in the interests of the Iraqi people to questions over one person,” he said. Qaddo also criticized the United States for withholding airstrikes until the Kurdish semi- autonomous region came under threat in the past week. “Just focusing this effort on areas around Kurdistan sends a message that the Americans are adopting double standards,” he said. The administration also believes that a new Iraqi prime minister could encourage Sunni Arab states in the region to assist in rallying Sunni Iraqis to fight against the Islamic State. Saudi Arabia and other powerful neighbors have made no secret of their dislike for Maliki and have largely refused to use their influence in Iraq. Once Iraqis resolve their political problems, Obama said, “many of the Sunni countries in the region who have been generally suspicious or wary of the Iraqi government are more likely to join in the fight against [the militants], and that can be extremely helpful. But this is going to be a long-term project.” Military collaboration While politicians continued to argue in Baghdad, there were signs of increasing cooperation between Iraqi security forces and the pesh merga, the military force of the Kurdish regional government. In an unprecedented delivery Friday to Irbil, the Kurdish capital, Iraqi security forces re-supplied the pesh merga with a planeload of ammunition, U.S. defense officials said. Pesh merga forces, which had not been seriously challenged by militant fighters who have torn through Sunni areas, quickly retreated last week from a surprise Islamic State offensive. As the militants advanced toward Irbil, the Obama administration became increasingly concerned about U.S. personnel there at a consulate and at a joint military center operated with the Kurds. Obama announced Thursday that the United States would begin airstrikes against militant positions near Irbil and the area around Sinjar, where the Yazidis have taken refuge on a mountain ridge. The administration has begun internal discussions about sending direct supplies to the pesh merga, although officials denied Kurdish news media reports Saturday that a U.S. shipment of “heavy weapons” had arrived there. But direct U.S. shipment of any weaponry is complicated on several levels. Official military aid and sales of U.S.-made weaponry are made through the Pentagon and State Department on a government-to-government basis. While the Kurds have long favored independence, they remain part of Iraq. At the same time, Iraqi forces use M-4 and M-16 rifles purchased from the United States, while the basic pesh merga weapon is the Russian-made AK-47 assault rifle. The Iraqis have some AK-47s and ammunition, purchased elsewhere, that they can transfer to the pesh merga. The United States has agreed to replenish Iraqi equipment sent to the pesh merga with U.S.-made goods. Direct U.S. supplies, particularly of non-U.S. goods, would probably not come from the Defense Department but would be indirectly obtained and delivered by U.S. intelligence agencies. Humanitarian crisis The Pentagon prepared Saturday for another airdrop of humanitarian supplies to the stranded Yazidis, following one Thursday and a second Friday. Obama placed calls to British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President François Hollande, both of whom agreed to assist the humanitarian effort. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, speaking after a meeting of senior national security officials in London, said that his government would “imminently” carry out its own airdrop of relief, including tents and water, to the Yazidis. British news media said that a Royal Air Force cargo plane would have an escort of U.S. F-18 jets. But attention was primarily focused on how to secure safe passage for the Yazidis off the elevated area called Mount Sinjar, U.S. and British officials said. In a response to a question from reporters Saturday, Obama devoted much of his departure remarks to again defending the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of 2011. “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision,” he said. As he has repeatedly said in the past, Obama recalled that the withdrawal agreement was made by his predecessor, George W. Bush. Many Republican lawmakers and former Bush administration officials have accused Obama of indirectly causing the current chaos in Iraq by failing to amend that agreement so that he could say — prior to the 2012 presidential election campaign — that he had ended the U.S. war there that began with Bush’s 2003 invasion. As he tried to negotiate a residual U.S. force to remain past the December 2011 deadline, neither an invitation from the Iraqi government nor assurances of immunity for U.S. troops from Iraqi prosecution for any alleged offenses were forthcoming, Obama said. Morris reported from Baghdad. ||||| WASHINGTON — President Obama sought to prepare Americans for an extended presence in the skies over Iraq, telling reporters on Saturday that the airstrikes he ordered this week could go on for months as Iraqis try to build a new government. “I don’t think we’re going to solve this problem in weeks,” Mr. Obama said before leaving for a two-week vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. “This is going to be a long-term project.” The president repeated his insistence that the United States would not send ground combat troops back to Iraq. But he pledged that it and other countries would stand with the Iraqi leaders against militants if they built an inclusive government in the months ahead. Mr. Obama said that the “initial goal” of the military intervention was to protect Americans in the country and to help the Iraqi minorities stranded on Sinjar Mountain. “We’re not moving our embassy anytime soon,” he said. “We are going to maintain vigilance and ensure that our people are safe.” But he said the broader effort was intended to help Iraqis meet the threat from the militants over the long term. “The most important time table that I’m focused on right now is the Iraqi government getting formed and finalized,” the president said before boarding Marine One. Mr. Obama described for the first time a more complicated effort to rescue Iraqis stranded on Sinjar Mountain, saying that the American military and others might have to create a safe corridor down the mountain. “The next step, which is going to be complicated logistically, is how can we give people safe passage,” Mr. Obama said. He suggested that helping those people make it to safety would take time. He also said that getting an inclusive Iraqi government formed, and giving all Iraqis a reason to believe that they are represented by that government, would help give Iraqi military forces a reason to fight back against the militants. “There has to be a rebuilding and an understanding of who it is the Iraqi security forces are reporting to, what they are fighting for,” he added. Once that happens, Mr. Obama suggested, the American military, working with the Iraqi and Kurdish fighters, can “engage in some offense.” The president said the military did not immediately required additional funding from Congress to conduct the airstrikes and humanitarian assistance that he had ordered. But he said that could change. “If and when we need additional dollars,” he said, “then we will certainly make that request.”

– While President Obama reiterated today that he won't let the US get dragged back into a ground war in Iraq, he said the newly restarted airstrikes won't be ending anytime soon, reports the New York Times. “I don’t think we’re going to solve this problem in weeks,” Obama said at the White House. “This is going to be a long-term project.” The problem he's referring to is the advance of militants with the Islamic State, or ISIS, and the president again used the word "genocide" to describe the threat faced by fleeing Iraqi minorities. The airstrikes are intended to help them and to protect US personnel in the country. “We’re not moving our embassy anytime soon,” he said. “We are going to maintain vigilance and ensure that our people are safe.” Obama also offered a not-so-subtle incentive for Iraq to finally form a government that brings together, Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, reports the Washington Post. If that happens, the US is prepared to “not just play defense but engage in some offense” to fend off extremists bent on taking over the country, he said. (Click to read about how Obama says he learned a key lesson from US involvement in Libya.)

Democratic Senate nominee Joe Sestak went a long way in his primary fight with Arlen Specter by stressing trust and accountability. So the Delaware County congressman needs to be more forthcoming about his allegation that the White House offered him a job if he would stay out of the race. When asked about the accusation, as he was again Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Sestak says, yes, the offer was made. But he won't say what it was, or who made it. This too-cute-by-half stance may allow him to tout his independence and outsider credentials - important in an anti-incumbent year like this one. But by not being specific, Sestak is covering up what appears to be the ultimate insider deal - and a potential crime. This broad-brush accusation of corruption may be unfair to the Obama administration, but the White House reaps no great sympathy thanks to its inept, infuriatingly vague approach to the issue. For example, here's spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sunday: "[L]awyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing - nothing inappropriate happened." How Nixonian of what was supposed to be the most open administration in history. Let's try this approach instead: Both Sestak and the White House should release full, detailed accounts of their conversations. These accounts should include offers made, if any; the names of those who made the offers; and the names of anyone in the chain of command who was aware of any deals and approved them. Such details might elicit a giant shrug from the electorate, and end the matter. Or they might require further investigation. Either way, voters have a right to the facts. Make it so, Joe. ||||| With Reporting By Julian Hattem As the Republican Party works itself into a lather over the Obama administration's offer of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn) in exchange for him not entering the Pennsylvania Senate primary, seasoned political observers, historians, and lawyers are responding with veritable yawns. American presidential history is littered with quid pro quos, implicit and explicit secret job offers, and backroom deals, so much so that the Sestak offer may be more the norm than the exception to it. "It is completely unexceptional," said Dr. Russell Riley, associate professor and chair of the Miller Center's Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia. "I read some place today that this is evidently illegal, which was shocking news to me. I don't know what the statutes are that would bear on this... it just doesn't seem to me to particularly rise to the level of being newsworthy in the first place and the fact that it's spun out into a scandal has been surprising." George Edwards, a Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M; University, says: "There is no question whatsoever that presidents have often offered people positions to encourage them not to do something or make it awkward for them to do it. Presidents have also offered people back-ups if they ran for an office and lost. All this is old news historically." Historical context, however, often ends up on the back burner when it comes to the scandal de jour. And with the Obama-Sestak exchange the outrage, both faux and earnest, has proven at times deafening. The Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (R-Cali.), is demanding the launch of an investigation. Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have written a letter to the Justice Department calling for the same. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, on Wednesday night suggested the appointment of a special prosecutor. Conservative news outlets have been abuzz. Even Democrats acknowledge that more information should be released, going by the logic that If nothing nefarious took place, then actually revealing that activity shouldn't be a problem. The quickest way to confirm that no criminal statutes were violated -- as the White House insists -- is to simply offer a more detailed explanation. That said, the volume of attention that's been devoted to this episode seems devoid of context. After all, the Obama administration made a similar overture early in office without so much as a peep. When the president offered Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) the post of Commerce Secretary it was under an "agreement" (Gregg's word) that the governor of New Hampshire would appoint a replacement who caucuses with Republicans. Issa's office actually admitted that this deal was as bad as the Sestak exchange to Salon.com on Wednesday night. But no calls for an investigation have transpired. There are countless other examples as well. Governor Ed Rendell told The Hill that he basically did the same thing when he promised to help out former Rep. Joe Hoeffel if he dropped his primary bid for Senate against Bob Casey in 2006. The progressive watchdog group Media Matters, meanwhile, pointed out that President Reagan offered California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa a job in his administration if he dropped out of the Senate primary race in California -- an offer that Hayakawa, like Sestak, rejected. The offers aren't always so explicit. But by today's standards, they could still very well rise to scandal level. Joel Goldstein, professor of law at St. Louis University who has written extensively about the office of the president, noted that in 1976 then-governor Ronald Reagan essentially told Sen, Richard Schweiker that if he supported his primary campaign against Gerald Ford, he'd make him his running mate. Franklin D. Roosevelt, likewise, dangled the vice presidency to John Nance Garner in exchange for Texas's support. Dwight Eisenhower essentially promised Earl Warren a seat on the Supreme Court in exchange for helping secure Republican delegates in California (and to get him out of electoral politics). Back in 2003, it was speculated that President George W. Bush offered a job at the United Nations to Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.) so that he wouldn't run for re-election in a district that had been redrawn following redistricting. Gillman told the Huffington Post that there was "no offer of that nature," merely talks with then-Governor Pataki about the need to consolidate the state's congressional representation. And while he thinks it is "appropriate" for the Ethics Committee to investigate the Sestak offer, Gillman did acknowledge that there have been "other cases of that nature." Indeed, the trend begins early in U.S. history. As Riley notes, President James Monroe "briefly considered making Andrew Jackson the U.S. ambassador to Russia, for purposes of getting him out of the country and deflating any growing Jackson-for-president movement. (Thomas Jefferson objected: "Why, good God, he would breed you a quarrel before he'd been there a month!")" "Using appointed political offices to shape electoral politics has a long provenance," Riley concluded. Even Richard Painter, a lawyer in the Bush administration, wrote on Thursday that: "The allegation that the job offer was somehow a "bribe" in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support" in part because it is "nothing new." So why would the White House cooperate with its critics at all? After all, David Corn, writing for Mother Jones, reported that several ethics lawyers (including Republicans) saw nothing untoward with the president's offer to Sestak. One anonymous lawyer called Issa's argument "crap." And yet, even the president's defenders are making a compelling case that more transparency is needed. For starters, as one top strategist notes, the storyline is "suffocating" the Sestak campaign at a time when it should be reaping the benefits of its primary victory and talking (exclusively) about jobs. Mainly, however, the problem is one of perception. A back-room job offer may be, in the end, business as usual. But that doesn't provide solace or defense for a president who promised to change the way that Washington works. "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington," longtime GOP strategist Ron Kaufman told the New York Times. "But here's the difference -- the times have changed and the ethics have changed and the scrutiny has changed. This is the kind of thing people across America are mad about." ||||| It's no secret that the Obama administration wanted Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) to drop his primary challenge to Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter. But did President Obama's representatives try to entice Sestak into leaving the race by promising him a job? It's a simple question, and one that Sestak already has answered in the affirmative, but the administration continues to treat the issue as much ado about nothing.Actually, it's much ado about something. Yes, political factors often influence appointments in unsavory ways — witness the practice of awarding ambassadorships to campaign contributors. But as Rep. Darrell Issa of Vista, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, points out, a federal statute makes it a crime, punishable by a fine or a year's imprisonment, to offer a job to someone "as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party."We seldom agree with Issa, but in this case we believe his questions deserve a response. Sestak too owes Congress and the public a thorough explanation. After raising the issue when he was challenging Specter, he has turned coy. Now that he's the Democratic nominee, his position is that further details are "for others to talk about.""Others" means the administration, which has been evasive about whether a job was discussed with Sestak, and if so, what it was and who made the overture. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has said that conversations between the administration and Sestak "weren't inappropriate in any way." If that's the case, why not describe those conversations in detail?The administration no doubt thinks that Issa has a partisan agenda and has been carried away by inquisitorial enthusiasm. Not only has he called for an explanation from the White House, he also has asked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether laws were broken. (The department declined, telling Issa that any criminal investigation would be handled by career prosecutors.) But the easiest way to take the wind out of Issa's political sails is to answer his questions. ||||| Tim Shaffer / Reuters U.S. senatorial candidate Joe Sestak If it's true that the White House offered Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak a job to try to clear the Democratic Senate primary for incumbent Arlen Specter, that's disturbing. But not because anyone is "participating in the cover-up of a possible crime." This doesn't sound like a "potentially devastating accusation of political corruption," much less an "impeachable offense," no matter what nonsense Michael Steele or Sean Hannity are peddling. Republicans may be calling for a special prosecutor, and even Democratic Senator Dick Durbin wants to know what happened. But it's called politics, and it's not uncommon. News flash: Sometimes the politics of political appointments and political races can get political. (See 10 races that have Democrats worried for 2010.) No, what's disturbing about the Sestak job offer is that it sounds like uncharacteristically stupid politics. If the White House did try to clear the primary for Specter, it's incredibly lucky it failed. It's hard to see why President Obama's political operatives would have wanted Sestak out of the race, unless there's something we don't know. Maybe they thought Specter would have a much better chance to beat Republican nominee Pat Toomey. But why? If Specter had won the primary, the general race would have been all about him; Republicans would have been desperate for revenge, independents would have been justifiably suspicious of an ideologically flexible, flip-flopping turncoat, and Democrats wouldn't have been fired up after voting against him for decades. With Sestak, the race turns into a basic ideological clash between a standard-issue Democrat and an extremely conservative Republican in a Democratic state. Toomey is undoubtedly bummed. (See 10 races that have Republicans worried for 2010.) Or maybe the White House understood all that but figured Specter was going to be the nominee anyway and wanted to spare him a bloody primary. But again, why make an assumption like that? Really, all Specter had going for him in a Democratic primary was the support of the White House, which was clearly something the White House could control. Some of us recognized a year ago that there was nothing inevitable about a Bush-Cheney and McCain-Palin supporter like Specter in a primary dominated by Democratic diehards. Sometimes administrations try to clear primaries to anoint loyalists. But if the White House thought Specter would be a more reliable ally than Sestak down the road, the White House is loco. Specter, a Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat who loves lone-wolf headlines so much, he refused to vote "guilty" or "not guilty" on President Clinton's impeachment, has made it abundantly clear throughout his career that his only reliable loyalty is to himself. Even during the primary, he pandered to the left by criticizing Obama's policies in Afghanistan. Seriously: Would a notoriously prickly 80-year-old Senator have cared what Obama thought about anything? By contrast, Sestak has been a reliable Democratic vote — and he's only 58, so he could be a reliable Democratic vote for many years. (See the top 10 political defections.) It is true that Specter has been a surprisingly reliable Democrat over the past year, supporting Obama's health care plan (including a public option), Obama's appointees and even the union-backed Employee Free Choice Act, which he had always opposed. But that's precisely because he faced a primary challenge from Sestak! If the White House had lured Sestak out of the race, Specter could have made Obama's life miserable without fear of losing the Democratic nomination — and he would have, because he would have been trying to peel off moderate Republicans and because he's the kind of showboat who loves making people miserable. Ask Anita Hill, or the mistreated staff members who reportedly called him "Mr. Burns" behind his back. Alternative history is all speculation, but Obamacare had zero votes to spare in the Senate, so it's quite possible it would have died if Sestak had taken an Administration job. So color me perplexed. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel isn't known for dumb politics. And the Administration is being so cagey that it's hard not to wonder if there's more to the story. One enticing theory: Maybe back when Specter was still a Republican, the White House promised to try to clear his primary if he agreed to switch parties. A deal for Specter's party affiliation would have been even shadier than the alleged offer for Sestak's withdrawal from the Senate race, but it would have made political sense. The White House would have at least gotten something for the promise, although it still would have been dumb to try to keep the promise. And who knows? Maybe the White House never intended to follow through with a job for Sestak, or offered him something that wasn't available. Maybe they're trying to hide their backroom duplicity, not their criminal complicity. Or maybe someone just misjudged the situation. It's certainly possible. In any case, it doesn't mean that someone needs to get frog-marched out of the White House. If political misjudgment were a crime, the entire Beltway would get indicted. See the top 10 worst Cabinet members.

– Republicans are eager to make a fuss about the job Joe Sestak says he was offered by the Obama administration, with Darrel Issa calling it an “impeachable offense.” So is it a big deal? Here's what pundits are saying: Sure the allegations are disturbing, but impeachment-worthy? Please. “It's called politics,” writes Michael Grunwald of Time . “News flash: Sometimes political appointments and political races can get political.” Indeed, historians tell the Huffington Post that “presidential history is littered with quid pro quos … so much so that the Sestak offer may be more the norm than the exception to it.” But the LA Times disagrees. “It's much ado about something,” it says in an editorial. Normal or not, federal law forbids such quid pro quos. “We seldom agree with Issa,but in this case, we believe his questions deserve a response.” It's particularly important for Sestak, argues the Philadelphia Inquirer, since he spent his entire primary campaign stressing trust and accountability. His current non-responses about the incident are “too-cute-by-half.”

Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, on Tuesday offered a path to avert a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, saying he would allow a vote on a bill solely to fund the agency, followed by a second vote on legislation that would halt President Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration. The move offered Republicans an avenue to break out of an embarrassing impasse as they try to prove their ability to govern as the majority party in Congress. But Mr. McConnell’s proposal hardly settles the matter, and increases the likelihood that Congress will be forced to fashion a short-term spending bill to keep the department open. With financing for the department set to run out Friday, lawmakers engaged in tense brinkmanship over the president’s immigration policies, with Senate Democrats threatening to block Mr. McConnell’s latest maneuver unless Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio also guarantees that the House would accept the proposal. The House last month passed a bill to fund the department, but also repeal Mr. Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration, including a provision that gave legal protections for young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers. Photo “We have to make sure that people understand the bicameral nature of this Congress that we serve in, so to have Senator McConnell just pass the ball over to the House isn’t going to do the trick,” said Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the minority leader. “Unless Boehner is in on the deal, it won’t happen.” In the high-stakes standoff, Mr. Reid showed that even in the minority, Senate Democrats are willing to employ the same tactics they deplored when Republicans used them just months before when Democrats controlled the chamber. Democrats are gambling that by staying unified, they can force Mr. McConnell — who promised to run a Senate that could be effective and still leave a conservative imprint on policy making — into a corner. But the maneuver could backfire, if voters blame Democrats for filibustering the very spending bill for which they have been asking. Advertisement Continue reading the main story On Monday, in what he described as an attempt to get the Senate “unstuck,” Mr. McConnell introduced a separate bill — based on a proposal by Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine — that would gut Mr. Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration, but not repeal the protections for the young undocumented immigrants. Senate Republican leadership had hoped that the two-vote plan, which would allow Republicans to express their displeasure with Mr. Obama’s immigration policies, would generate enough political support to avert a partial shutdown, for which many of them believed Republicans would be blamed. “As I’ve said many times, we should not shut down the Department of Homeland Security,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. “Recent polling shows that the majority of the American people would blame Republicans, and not Democrats, so it hurts us politically. But it also harms our ability to enforce our borders and do the work that the Department of Homeland Security does.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story The next move now rests with the House, whose members were returning to the Capitol on Tuesday evening, but were not expected to have a sense of their own path forward at least until after a closed-door conference meeting Wednesday morning. But many conservative House members are likely to balk at any legislation that funds the Homeland Security Department without also fighting Mr. Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration. “The speaker has been clear: The House has acted, and now Senate Democrats need to stop hiding,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner. “Will they continue to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security or not?” Adding to the tension on immigration and the funding stalemate, the president on Tuesday issued his first veto during this Congress, rejecting legislation to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a bill Republicans had made one of their top legislative showcases. “I think truly the House doesn’t know yet what they’re going to do,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who said he would support a bill to fund the Homeland Security agency. Among conservatives, the backlash was swift, with many accusing Senate Republican leaders of caving to their Democratic counterparts and Mr. Obama. “For those keeping score: Obama vetoes Keystone XL and McConnell caves on DHS funding,” Erick Erickson, the conservative commentator, wrote on Twitter. “GOP is just pretending to be in charge of Congress.” Mr. McConnell seemed eager to offer a solution — and keep the promise of no government shutdowns he made right after Republicans retook the Senate majority in November — and push the dilemma back on Mr. Boehner and his conference. “Do you want to fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year so we’re fully up and running and capable of dealing with all the threats that we have around the world, including those against us here at home, and would you also like to express your disagreement with the president’s overreach last November?” Mr. McConnell said. “This gives us an opportunity to do both.” But after weeks of clamoring for a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department with no other attached provisions, Senate Democrats insisted that Mr. McConnell’s proposal was not good enough without similar assurances from Mr. Boehner. “Without Speaker Boehner saying that he will fully fund Homeland Security, Senator McConnell’s offer does not get the department funded,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. The Democratic response appeared intended to gauge just what Mr. Boehner can move through the House, where his conservative members have already vocally opposed any funding bill that does not also fight the president’s recent immigration actions. The Senate could still go along with Mr. McConnell’s proposal, but top aides expressed skepticism about the more hard-line House members being able to accept the deal, and suggested that the immediate outcome looked increasingly like a short-term funding measure for the agency. A short-term funding measure, however, while staving off a partial shutdown, seems destined to please no one — and simply postpone the fight for a few months. “A clean CR? Even Republicans are saying that is unacceptable,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “That means we have to revisit this in 60 days and the department is going to be diminished in its capacity to protect America in the interim.” And from Ms. Collins: “I believe we have to fully fund the department for the remainder of the fiscal year and that doing a temporary funding would only put us in the same situation a few months from now.” ||||| Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is shifting tactics, saying Tuesday he is willing to allow a vote on a “clean” bill funding the Department of Homeland Security that would prevent a shutdown. The Kentucky Republican said the legislation would be stripped of language attacking President Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration. That move has set up a fight with House Republicans, with fewer than 80 hours to the DHS shutdown deadline. “I’ve indicated to [Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] that I’d be happy to have his cooperation to advance the consideration of a clean DHS bill, which would carry us through until Sept. 30,” McConnell told reporters after a GOP conference meeting. “With Democratic cooperation on a position they have been advocating for the last two months, we could have that vote very quickly.” McConnell said he would be willing to vote on the clean measure before considering a separate bill that would prohibit the administration from implementing Obama’s executive actions shielding the immediate family members of citizens and permanent legal residents from deportation. The new strategy from McConnell raises pressure on Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and sets in motion a legislative chess game with Reid. Even though McConnell’s plan would appear to give Senate Democrats exactly what they want, Reid said he first wanted assurances from Boehner that the bill would pass the House. “Unless the Speaker is in on the proposal — of course we have to make sure that we can get a bill to the president, not that we send a hot potato to Boehner,” Reid said. “That doesn’t do the trick,” he said of McConnell’s proposal. It is far from clear that Boehner can win a majority of House Republican votes for a clean Homeland Security funding bill. The Speaker is scheduled to hold a crucial meeting of his conference Wednesday morning. “The Speaker has been clear: The House has acted, and now Senate Democrats need to stop hiding. Will they continue to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security or not?” said Michael Steel, Boehner’s spokesman. Asked whether his boss warned Boehner of the new tack, McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said, “I don’t have any readouts about their meetings. They update each other all the time.” The GOP leaders have different considerations. McConnell has his eye on November 2016 and retaining his new majority in the upper chamber against a tough map. Boehner isn’t worried about losing the House, which would require Democrats to win 30 seats; what he has to worry about is igniting another Tea Party revolt that has previously threatened his Speakership. Reid’s statement sparked exasperation among Republicans. “Apparently inspired by President Obama’s own over-reach, Sen. Reid is now shamelessly threatening to filibuster a clean Homeland Security funding bill,” said a senior GOP House aide. “Sen. Reid said, ‘Pass a clean funding bill.’ Sen. [Dick] Durbin [D-Ill.] said, ‘Pass a clean funding bill.’ You guys all went to a press conference today where they said, ‘Pass a clean funding bill,’ ” Stewart told reporters. By withholding their support, Democrats can extend the fight in an issue where the clock is now firmly on their side. McConnell’s move suggests he fears his party would take the bigger political hit from a shutdown. He conceded Tuesday that he did not know how the GOP-led House would react. “I don’t know what the House will do but I do think we have a responsibility to act here,” McConnell said. McConnell hopes House Republicans will be placated by his strategy to force Senate Democrats to vote on the 2014 immigration order. It would need 60 votes to pass the Senate, and seven Democrats are on record questioning Obama’s decision to circumvent Congress to protect millions of illegal immigrants. It appears unlikely that most of those Democrats would back the Republican bill, but it could be a tough vote. One of the Democratic centrists, Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), said he would oppose the immigration measure, dismissing it as Republican “gamesmanship.” Another Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) signaled support. Sen. Claire McCaskill's (Mo.) office said that she would vote for cloture on the bill, but wants DHS to be cleanly funded first. Conservative groups pushed Boehner on Tuesday to reject McConnell’s plan, with Heritage Action for America announcing it would count any vote for a clean bill as a negative mark on its legislative scorecard. House conservatives and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) urged the Speaker to hold his ground. “The House of Representatives acted wisely, properly, funding Homeland Security and not allowing activities to be carried out that are unlawful and that Congress has rejected,” Sessions said. “Now, there are some even on the Republican side that say, ‘Oh, gosh, you know the president will blame us even if it’s not our fault and we might as well cave in and give him what he wants.’ ” Other Senate Republicans, however, urged Boehner to embrace McConnell’s plan. “I think it’s a good solution to the problem — you have a debate on whether or not the executive action is good policy, lawful, and you don’t put at risk the funding of DHS at a time when we need all of our defenses up and running,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “I just hope our House colleagues understand that the growing threats against our nation are real. He added, a “shutdown goes badly for us.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the Tea Party firebrand and a leading proponent of reversing Obama’s executive orders with the funding bill, initially declined to comment, telling reporters to contact his office. In a statement later released by his office, he called the new strategy a “mistake.” “Leadership’s current plan — to pass clean DHS funding and separate legislation barring executive amnesty — is a mistake. Congress is obliged to use every constitutional check and balance we have to rein in President Obama’s lawlessness, and that includes both our confirmation authority over nominees and the power of the purse.” This story was updated at 10:58 p.m. — By Alexander Bolton and Rebecca Shabad, Scott Wong contributed. ||||| A tense debate broke out during a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans on Tuesday, a sign of the serious hurdles GOP leaders face ahead of a critical funding deadline for the nation’s chief domestic anti-terrorism agency. According to four senators at the lunch session, a frustrated Sen. Jeff Sessions angrily dismissed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, arguing that his party should be prepared for an all-out battle with Democrats to ratchet up public pressure and force President Barack Obama to drop his immigration policies. But Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican who could face a tough reelection next year, sharply countered that McConnell’s plan was the only option to not hamper law enforcement agencies that rely on money from the Department of Homeland Security. Story Continued Below The dispute between the vulnerable Republican and the Alabama conservative highlights the larger challenges facing McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner. The two are staring at a Friday deadline to avoid a shutdown of DHS but are struggling to balance the demands of immigration hard-liners with Republicans who fear political and practical fallout from DHS shutting down. McConnell has been quiet for weeks about his next steps. But his new proposal on Tuesday — to extend DHS funding through September while advancing a separate plan to block a portion of Obama’s immigration proposal — signaled that he’s nervous a shutdown could damage his party politically. Twenty-four GOP senators are up for reelection next year. Boehner is in an even tighter jam: Any sense that he is caving to the White House could further erode confidence in his leadership among the far right, which is furious at Obama’s immigration push. Boehner has not directly addressed whether he’d put a stand-alone funding bill on the floor, and several Republican leadership sources say they favor several short-term measures to try to keep the heat on the White House. Senate Democrats are refusing to sign on to McConnell’s proposal without a commitment from the speaker to move a “clean” DHS funding bill. But several House Republicans and their top aides have privately told POLITICO that a misstep by Boehner in this legislative skirmish could imperil his speakership. One said that Republicans would weigh trying to remove him from the position if he relents on his promise to fight the president’s unilateral action on immigration “tooth and nail.” “Speaker Boehner has my sympathy in that he has a somewhat divided conference — he has to try to balance all the different influences within his conference,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “He has my sympathies, very tough work.” In a sign of how difficult the path in the House is, one senior House Republican, who is close to party leaders and spoke anonymously to discuss strategy, said the Senate’s plan to send two bills to the House is “a joke.” Several top House Republicans believe the only way a clean funding bill can pass their chamber is if the DHS shuts down and pressure builds for a resolution. For weeks, McConnell and Boehner have been on opposite pages on their strategies to break the immigration-DHS impasse — a sign of how the two men will have to continually reconcile conflicting agendas between the two chambers despite having total control of Congress for the first time in nearly a decade. The problem started after the November election, when Obama, ignoring warnings from GOP leaders, proceeded with a plan to defer deportations and provide work permits to roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants. Struggling for a response, and fearful of a governmentwide shutdown in December, Republicans cut a deal with Democratic leaders to fund the entire government through September — except DHS, whose funding lapses on Feb. 27. House GOP leaders, scrambling to find the votes in their chamber for the December funding package, told their rank and file at the time that their party would have more leverage to force Obama’s hand on immigration when a newly empowered GOP Congress took up the DHS funding bill in February. Last month, the House GOP moved forward with a $39.7 billion package for DHS. But it stood little chance of passing the Senate, where Republicans have 54 seats, six shy of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. The House plan would block not only the 2014 executive action but also the 2012 plan that Obama enacted administratively to shield young illegal immigrants from deportation. House Republican leaders made it clear to their Senate GOP counterparts that they needed to hold multiple votes on their plan, to show the upper chamber was putting up a fight. After Senate Democrats repeatedly blocked the bill from even reaching a debate, McConnell said earlier this month that the next step was “up to” the House. But Boehner pushed back, saying it was in the Senate’s hands, feeding the perception in the Capitol that the two leaders failed to conceive of a plan out of the logjam from the onset. “It seems like McConnell and Boehner aren’t even talking to each other,” one veteran GOP senator said. “It is mind-boggling.” After Senate Democrats blocked the House’s DHS bill on Monday for a fourth time, McConnell proposed a new strategy. He offered a stand-alone bill — not tied to DHS funding — targeting the 2014 executive actions, something that might attract enough Democrats to clear a filibuster but would likely lack enough support to override a veto. And on Tuesday, he told his caucus that he would advance a $39.7 billion funding bill free of immigration language. Jeh Johnson: DHS funding is 'critical' Republican leaders in both chambers hope their sales jobs will be made easier by a recent federal district court order that blocked the 2014 executive actions. That ruling, handed down in Texas, argued the president unlawfully enacted the immigration policies. The Obama administration is seeking a stay of the judge’s decision and is planning to appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in an interview Tuesday that the court case is “really the superior way for us to challenge the president.” McConnell added: “With Democratic cooperation on a position that they’ve been advocating for the last two months, we can have that vote quickly. … I don’t know what’s not to like about this; this is an approach that respects both points of view.” But a clean funding bill, several House Republican aides and lawmakers said, would be politically perilous. House Republicans almost uniformly would prefer a short-term DHS funding bill, which would give Congress the opportunity to revisit the department’s budget as court proceedings chug along. “If you send it to us in two vehicles, then you have people saying, ‘Well, the president’s going to veto one and then sign the other, and then we have nothing to hold over this president’s head,’” the House Republican close to leadership said. Responding to the developments and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s demands that the speaker commit to bringing up a clean funding bill, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel chided the Democratic tactics. “The speaker has been clear: The House has acted, and now Senate Democrats need to stop hiding,” Steel said. “Will they continue to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security or not?” At the Senate GOP lunch Tuesday, Sessions made a similar argument. He faulted the GOP’s messaging on the immigration fight and said the public would pin the blame on Democrats for refusing to debate a controversial policy — and shutting down DHS over the matter. Sessions has been adamant that the party should focus on the economic implications of the president’s immigration policies. “Sen. McConnell has a difficult job, there’s no doubt about that,” Sessions told reporters later. “But I believe that the issue, the constitutional issue, is greater than a lot of people have fully appreciated.” At the lunch, few Republicans jumped to Sessions’ defense. An outspoken foe of Obama’s immigration policies, Utah Sen. Mike Lee, asked pointed questions about McConnell’s strategy but didn’t criticize the leadership plan, senators said. And Ted Cruz, the Texas senator and potential presidential candidate, stayed silent and left the lunch before it ended. Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report. Follow @politico

– Congress has until Friday to either pass a bill to fund Homeland Security or appear completely dysfunctional—and it's not looking great for the former option. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has offered a vote on a "clean bill" to fund the agency, followed by one on President Obama's executive actions on immigration, but Senate Democrats have threatened to block even the clean bill unless John Boehner guarantees that the House GOP will pass a similar bill, reports the New York Times. The Times also notes that the standoff shows that Senate Democrats appear "willing to employ the same tactics they deplored when Republicans used them just months before when Democrats controlled the chamber." Boehner is scheduled to hold a meeting of his conference this morning, and it's not clear whether he'll be able to muster enough votes for a bill that doesn't link Homeland Security funding to immigration, reports the Hill. Sources tell Politico that the GOP split between immigration hardliners and moderates was evident at a meeting of Republican senators yesterday, where Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions argued against McConnell's two-vote plan and called for "all-out battle" with Democrats. Insiders complain that House and Senate GOP leaders appear unable to agree on a strategy. "It seems like McConnell and Boehner aren't even talking to each other," one veteran GOP senator tells Politico. "It is mind-boggling."

Abercrombie becomes the first incumbent to lose a gubernatorial primary in Hawaii By Derrick DePledge & B.J. Reyes 1 / 4 ▶ BRUCE ASATO / BASATO@STARADVERTISER.COM Gov. Neil Abercrombie congratulated opponent David Ige Saturday night at Ige's campaign headquarters in the Varsity Building on University Avenue. Abercrombie pledged to support Ige's general election campaign. ◀ 2 / 4 ▶ JAMM AQUINO Gov. Neil Abercrombie addressed his supporters at his campaign headquarters at Ward Warehouse in Kakaako, concededin the Democratic primary to state Sen. David Ige. ◀ 3 / 4 ▶ BRUCE ASATO / BASATO@STARADVERTISER.COM David Ige supporter Muriel Masumura was overjoyed when the first results showed state Sen. David Ige with a wide lead over Abercrombie. Ige's supporters gathered at his headquarters in the Varsity Building. ◀ 4 / 4 JAMM AQUINO Gov. Neil Abercrombie's campaign spokesperson Randy Iwase reflected the somber mood of the night Saturday at the governor's campaign headquarters at Ward Warehouse in Kakaako. In a historic upset, state Sen. David Ige, who was unknown to many voters six months ago, ousted Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Saturday in the Democratic primary. Ige, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, drubbed Abercrombie 67 percent to 32 percent, an unprecedented repudiation of an incumbent governor in Hawaii. Abercrombie is the first governor since William Quinn, a Republican, to lose re-election in Hawaii since 1962 and the only governor to fall in a primary. Ige will face Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona, a Republican, and former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann, of the Hawaii Independent Party, in the November general election. "When we started this 13 months ago, I probably had more people tell me that I was crazy than really believing that this night could happen," Ige told supporters at his campaign headquarters in Moiliili, describing the vote as "heartwarming for me." Abercrombie, who outspent Ige 10-to-1 and was endorsed by Hawaii-born President Barack Obama and Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell, had trailed in public opinion polls before the primary and had poor job approval ratings for the past three years. But the governor's defeat is startling given the state's economic rebound during his four-year term and recent policy victories on the minimum wage, land conservation at Turtle Bay Resort and marriage equality. The governor, speaking of his four-decade political career, said that "every waking breath that I've taken, every thought that I had before I slept, was for Hawaii and was for you and for all the brothers and sisters over these past 40 years that have given me the privilege and the honor to serve Hawaii's people. "Faith and trust has been placed in me. And I've tried to honor that faith and trust to the very best of my ability. Whatever shortcomings I have, whatever faults that I have, I can guarantee you one of them has never been a failure to give all I can every day that I can for Hawaii." After Abercrombie conceded outside of his campaign headquarters in Kakaako, the governor joined Ige on stage in Moiliili and pledged to help his rival win in November. "You have made a decision tonight, the Democratic Party has made a decision tonight," he said. "The governor's office is the office of the people of Hawaii, and I'm going to do everything I can to see that David Ige occupies that office for all of the people of Hawaii." Dante Carpenter, former chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii and a longtime political ally of the governor, said he was disappointed by the size of the loss. He said the negative perception of the governor over the past few years "appears to have come home to roost. Notwithstanding the fact that, as far as I'm concerned, the governor did what he had to do." Betty Sakihara, a retired school administrative services assistant who lives in Aina Haina, said she likes Ige's experience. She was already looking at perhaps not voting for Abercrombie, but was influenced further by the governor's decision in July to withdraw from three of four debates with Ige scheduled with AARP Hawaii. Sakihara, whose son is a public school teacher, was also motivated by Abercrombie's clashes with teachers early in his term. "Overall, I'm thinking to myself, give David Ige a chance," she said. Beatrice Lemke-Newman, a retired saleswoman who lives in Kapaa on Kauai, said her vote for Ige was influenced by her niece, an elementary school teacher. Like many voters, she did not know very much about the state senator at the start of the campaign. "From watching his interviews and how he handled himself during the debates, I felt more favorably towards him," she said. Lemke-Newman said she has known of Abercrombie since she was a student at the University of Hawaii in the early 1970s. "To tell you the truth, I've never cared for Abercrombie from the start," she said. Other voters were willing to give Abercrombie a second chance. "I just figured he probably got a lot of things started, so I wanted to give him an opportunity to continue what he had started," said Taryn Lau, a social worker who lives in Makiki. "Keep the momentum going." Jerry Burris, a former political columnist and editorial page editor for The Hono-lulu Advertiser, said the primary was more an Abercrombie loss than an Ige win. He said he believes voters were mostly reacting against Abercrombie's personality, not his governance over four years. "Think about it," he said. "He managed to rattle the cages of almost all of his natural constituency: older people, environmentalists, the teachers union. It seems like he almost went after his natural base." Ige, 57, an electrical engineer who grew up in Pearl City, displays a brand of quiet competence in the tradition of former Gov. George Ariyoshi, who had appointed him to fill a state House vacancy in 1985. Both Ariyoshi and former Gov. Ben Cayetano campaigned for the state senator. Many of the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Ino-uye's political allies also supported Ige, in part because of their disappointment that Abercrombie, 76, chose Brian Schatz, his former lieutenant governor, to replace Ino-uye in the Senate instead of U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, Inouye's preferred choice. But Burris cautions that it would be a mistake to credit Ige's victory solely to the flexing of the old guard of Hawaii politics. Abercrombie was unpopular for most of his term and alienated progressive as well as establishment Democrats. While historic, Burris also does not think the primary offers a tactical lesson in how to take down an incumbent governor. "It's a one-off," he said. Ige's pivot to November will have to include a more sophisticated fundraising operation and an upgrade to a campaign staff still unaccustomed to the pressures of a statewide race. Both the Democratic Governors Association and the Republican Governors Association will likely look closely at investing in Hawaii, concerned about -- and, in the GOP's case, tempted by -- the political optics of Democrats losing the governorship in Obama's heavily blue birth state. Aiona led Ige in a hypothetical general election matchup, according to the Hawaii Poll, and the Republican could conceivably take a three-way race with the same 40 percent of the vote he had when he lost to Abercrombie in 2010. "I think the voters should really get to know who David Ige is," Aiona said. "David Ige is really, at least from my assessment of his tenure as a legislator, not too much more different than the current governor in regards to his fiscal policies as well as his social policies. "I think the biggest difference between Ige and the current governor is maybe just a matter of style. And when I stay style, I mean, basically, personality." Hannemann, who lost to Abercrombie in the Democratic primary in 2010, believes he can attract both Democrats and Republicans while appealing to independents who are not comfortable with party labels. "It's a clear message that people are not happy with the direction of the state," he said of the primary. "And they certainly want a leader who is going to be more of a collaborator and someone who is going to listen and respect their concerns and wishes." Abercrombie's loss also shows that campaign money cannot cork a voter revolt. The governor raised more than $5 million and spent most of the money on advertising, polling, consultants and outreach before Election Day. His consultants tried every approach, from "Bucket of Stars," a rich, biographical video produced by filmmaker Edgy Lee, to a radio spot featuring President Obama describing Abercrombie -- who knew the president's parents at the University of Hawaii -- as "ohana to me," to a jaunty television ad that had the governor back behind the wheel of a yellow Checker cab he made famous as a symbol during his early, shoestring campaigns in the 1970s and 1980s. Ige raised about $549,750 and only had enough money to run low-budget TV ads during the final weeks before the vote. In February the Hawaii Poll showed that 61 percent of voters had not heard of or did not know enough about the state senator to form an opinion. A grass-roots campaign helped improve Ige's name recognition, but the Hawaii Poll found in late July that 28 percent of voters still were unfamiliar with him. The Hawaii State Teachers Association, which endorsed Ige after souring on Abercrombie over a contract fight early in the governor's term, spent about $148,580 through late July on TV ads critical of the governor. The University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, which endorsed Abercrombie, spent about $112,090 on radio, TV and mailers on behalf of the governor. Ariyoshi said voters "asked the question -- they were against the governor -- but they asked the question, What about David Ige? Who is he? And I think during the campaign he really came out and very clearly let the people know the kind of person that he is and what his background is and what he believes the future ought to be," he said. "I think that Gov. Abercrombie was talking about all the things that he did -- about the economy and the way he ran the government," Ariyoshi said. "But people are very concerned about Hawaii's future. You take Kakaako for example. The concern was, What's going to happen to Hawaii if our people here can't get accommodated in all the building that's taking place? I heard a lot of people talking about agriculture -- telling me if we are not careful, we may end up having to bring all our food in from the mainland. ... They do not feel the governor was providing any leadership or direction there." Cayetano said he thought Ige's experience as Senate Ways and Means Committee chairman was important to voters. "So fiscally he's pretty conservative, socially he's kind of a liberal," Cayetano said. "I think his approach to fiscal issues resonated with people, for example, on the early childhood education thing. The governor didn't have a plan for where he was going to get the $125 million. David thinks about those kind of things." ------ Staff writer Gary Kubota contributed to this report. ||||| Schatz’s edge in the primary came despite a resounding defeat for his benefactor. | AP Photos Hawaii primary too close to call HONOLULU — The Democratic Senate primary in Hawaii was too close to call Sunday morning, with the incumbent clinging to a slight lead and residents in a pair of storm-ravaged precincts yet to cast their ballots. With all but two of the state’s 247 precincts reporting, Sen. Brian Schatz had a 1,635-vote advantage over Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, 49.3 percent to 48.6 percent, according to The Associated Press. Story Continued Below Schatz’s narrow edge in the Senate primary came despite a resounding defeat for his political benefactor, as Democrats here delivered an overwhelming rebuke to the man who appointed Schatz, Gov. Neil Abercrombie. The governor was defeated by a little-known state senator, David Ige. But the voting isn’t over. The two precincts outstanding weren’t open on Saturday, and the more than 8,000 voters in areas of the Island of Hawaii that suffered the most devastation from Tropical Storm Iselle late last week will have the option of voting by mail over the coming weeks if they didn’t take advantage of early voting. That could lead to a frenzied push by both camps to corral voters in those areas — though Hanabusa would have to win the vast majority of the mail ballots, plus any remaining absentee ballots, to catch Schatz. ( Full primary results here) “If that’s what it comes to, we will get out there,” Schatz told Honolulu’s ABC affiliate, KITV. “I think we’re gonna regroup in the morning. … We feel really good. We’re not quite celebrating because it’s not quite over, but we’re really pleased with our lead.” Hanabusa said she had no idea what would happen in the two remaining precincts but pledged an intense get-out-the-vote effort. “This election is not over. It is far from over,” Hanabusa told supporters Saturday night. “No one’s gonna call this election because anything can happen.” Abercrombie, seeking a second term, was crushed by Ige. Even a late-campaign radio ad by President Barack Obama, who grew up on the islands and remains popular here, couldn’t reverse Abercrombie’s slide. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Ige led 67 percent to 32 percent, more than doubling Abercrombie’s total despite being vastly outspent during the race. ( Also on POLITICO: Pollsters: 'Everything is terrible') “Part of our democracy is the rough-and-tumble of electoral politics,” Abercrombie told staff and supporters in private remarks after his defeat. “I’ll be taking my leave of electoral politics this evening.” Abercrombie quickly threw his support to Ige, telling campaign staff, “We need to work together, stick together, be together to move Hawaii forward, and he can count on me to do that.” But some of his backers worried that Abercrombie’s ouster could embolden Republicans, who have their eye on regaining the seat they held for two terms last decade. “I anticipate that the Republicans, nationally, are smelling blood,” Randy Iwase, the Democratic nominee for governor in 2006, told POLITICO at Abercrombie’s election-night event. ( Also on POLITICO: Obama: No time limit on Iraq action) Unlike the governor’s race, either Schatz or Hanabusa will be a heavy favorite to retain the Senate seat. Abercrombie’s ouster — and the potential for more upheaval with the Senate primary still in doubt — is particularly shocking in a state with a long history of reelecting its officeholders. In fact, Abercrombie — who represented the state in Congress for 20 years before winning the governor’s race four years ago — became the first of the state’s seven governors to serve fewer than two terms since 1962, when its founding governor, William Quinn, lost reelection.

– Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie had name recognition, history, a 10-to-1 spending advantage, and President Obama's endorsement all on his side in last night's Democratic primary. All of which couldn't save him from a stunning 67% to 32% defeat at the hands of state Sen. David Ige, reports the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Abercrombie becomes the state's first incumbent governor to fall in a primary, and only the second to fail to secure re-election. Abercrombie was gracious in defeat, saying, "You have made a decision tonight, the Democratic Party has made a decision tonight. I'm going to do everything I can to see that David Ige occupies (the governor's office) for all of the people of Hawaii." But though Abercrombie was quick to support Ige, his defeat could still open a window, a prominent Democrat tells Politico. "I anticipate that the Republicans, nationally, are smelling blood," says Randy Iwase, the Democrats' 2006 nominee for governor.

In this self portrait taken in Mexico in May 2018, Blanca Orantes-Lopez poses for a photo with her 8-year-old son, Abel Alexander, during the monthlong journey from their hometown of Puerto La Libertad,... (Associated Press) In this self portrait taken in Mexico in May 2018, Blanca Orantes-Lopez poses for a photo with her 8-year-old son, Abel Alexander, during the monthlong journey from their hometown of Puerto La Libertad, El Salvador, to the United States-Mexico border. Orantes, a Salvadoran mother, says she hasn’t spoken... (Associated Press) In this self portrait taken in Mexico in May 2018, Blanca Orantes-Lopez poses for a photo with her 8-year-old son, Abel Alexander, during the monthlong journey from their hometown of Puerto La Libertad, El Salvador, to the United States-Mexico border. Orantes, a Salvadoran mother, says she hasn’t spoken... (Associated Press) In this self portrait taken in Mexico in May 2018, Blanca Orantes-Lopez poses for a photo with her 8-year-old son, Abel Alexander, during the monthlong journey from their hometown of Puerto La Libertad,... (Associated Press) SEATTLE (AP) — The call came at mealtime — an anonymous threat demanding $5,000 or her son's life. So Blanca Orantes-Lopez, her 8-year-old boy and his father packed up and left the Pacific surfing town of Puerto La Libertad in El Salvador and headed for the United States. Two months later, she sits in a federal prison south of Seattle. The boy, Abel Alexander, is in custody at a children's home across the country in upstate New York. She has no idea when she might see him again. "I still haven't been able to talk to him," Orantes told The Associated Press in Spanish as she wept through a telephone interview Monday from the prison. "The most difficult is not seeing him." Her story is emblematic of the 2,000 instances in which President Donald Trump's administration has separated minors from their migrant parents in an effort to deter illegal immigration. The practice has provoked a national uproar fueled by stories of children being torn from their mothers' arms and of parents being deported without their kids. The administration adopted a new "zero tolerance" policy in April designed to curb a wave of Central American migrants who say they are fleeing violence at home. Homeland Security officials now refer all cases of illegal entry for prosecution. Authorities say they are required to remove the children before they can prosecute the parents, but many parents, including Orantes, have remained separated from their children long after being convicted. Trump has both applauded the practice and falsely blamed Democrats for it. "We will not apologize for the job we do or for the job law enforcement does, for doing the job that the American people expect us to do," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told the National Sheriffs' Association in New Orleans. "Illegal actions have and must have consequences. No more free passes, no more get-out-of-jail-free cards." The phone call that prompted Orantes' monthlong journey to the U.S. border was no idle threat, she said. About three years ago, Abel's uncle was kidnapped by extortionists and freed only after the family paid up, according to her attorney, Matt Adams, legal director of the Seattle-based Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. "When they don't get their money, they kill people," said Orantes, 26. This time, the demand was more than they could muster. And they had only a week to pay, she said. She and her son split from the boy's father in Guatemala. He remains in hiding, and Orantes said she does not know where he is. Upon reaching the border, she and Abel found it impossible to apply for asylum at a port of entry, Adams said. "A lot of people are showing up at the border to apply for asylum and are being told, 'We don't have capacity for them,'" Adams said. "It's not like they can just stand in a line for several days, because then the Mexican officials will grab them and deport them. So they're then forced to go through the ravine or the river." That's what they did. The pair crossed illegally into Texas and immediately reported themselves to immigration authorities and requested asylum, Adams said. They were separated so Orantes could be prosecuted. The woman said she was moved to different detention facilities, including in Laredo, Texas, and placed among other desperate, crying mothers. At one point, officials brought Abel to her, she said. "They told me, 'Say bye to him because he's being transferred.' I asked where," she recounted. "They just told me to say bye to him. ... He just started crying, saying, 'Don't leave me, Mom.' "I just said, 'It'll be OK.' That's all I said." Orantes was detained on May 22 with about 20 other people near Roma, Texas, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said. She was convicted of the misdemeanor of unlawfully entering the U.S. and was sentenced to time served — a development she thought would reunify her with Abel. Instead, with detention centers overflowing on the border, she became one of more than 1,600 detainees transferred by ICE to federal prisons. She was sent June 6 to the Federal Detention Center at SeaTac, where she remains with more than 200 other border detainees, waiting to hear whether her asylum request will proceed. The conditions there are better than they were at the immigration jails, she said. Before Trump's policy changes, she likely would not have been prosecuted, but instead allowed to remain with her son and granted an interview to determine whether she had a credible fear of persecution or torture in her home country. If officials found that she did, she and Abel would probably have been released while their immigration case continued. It was weeks before she learned her son's whereabouts, she said. She has not spoken with him. Her attorney said she has no money and is not allowed to make collect calls to the facility in Kingston, New York, where he is held. The boy has been able to call her sister, Maria Orantes, who lives in Maryland and has petitioned for custody, without success. "He doesn't feel well there," Maria Orantes said in a phone interview. "When he calls, he's crying. He doesn't want to be there." The Department of Health and Human Services, whose Office of Refugee Resettlement oversees the placement of migrant children separated from their families, did not immediately return an email seeking comment about why the boy had not been placed with his aunt. Blanca Orantes said she had hoped to live with her sister. "I wanted to work," she said. "Raise my kid. Be a good person, get ahead, have some money and not hide. I thought it would be different." ___ Follow Gene Johnson at https://twitter.com/GeneAPseattle and Manuel Valdes at https://twitter.com/ByManuelValdes . ||||| Sirley Silveira Paixao, right, an immigrant from Brazil seeking asylum, hugs her Chicago based attorney Britt Miller, after a hearing where a federal judge ordered the release of her 10-year-old son Diego... (Associated Press) Sirley Silveira Paixao, right, an immigrant from Brazil seeking asylum, hugs her Chicago based attorney Britt Miller, after a hearing where a federal judge ordered the release of her 10-year-old son Diego from immigration detention, Thursday, July 5, 2018, in Chicago. Silveira Paixao arrived in this... (Associated Press) SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Trump administration asked a judge Friday for more time to reunite families who were separated at the border under its "zero-tolerance" policy to prosecute every person who enters the country illegally. Hours before a hearing in San Diego, the Justice Department filed papers seeking an extension of the deadline, which is July 10 for all parents with children under 5 and July 26 to reunite everyone else. The administration says federal law requires it to ensure that children are safe and that requires more time. Administration officials also say that they won't be able to confirm a child's parentage by the deadline if DNA testing is inconclusive. They will need more time to collect DNA samples or other evidence from parents who have been released from government custody. U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, set the deadline last week, writing that the "situation has reached a crisis level" and that the "chaotic circumstances" were of the government's own making. He scheduled Friday's hearing for an update on compliance with his order. More than 2,000 children were separated from their parents after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in May that the zero tolerance was in full effect, even if it meant splitting families. While parents were criminally prosecuted, children were placed in custody of the Health and Human Services Department. Trump reversed course on June 20 amid an international outcry, saying families should remain together. On Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said less than 3,000 children are believed to have been separated, but that includes kids who may have lost parents along the journey, not just parents who were detained at the border. None had been transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be reunited with their parents. In the court papers, the government said it has identified 101 children under 5 years old who were separated and is the midst of identifying older children. About 40 parents of children in the under-5 age group are in Homeland Security custody and another nine are in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. Jonathan White, a Health and Human Services official, filed a declaration with the court that gives what is perhaps the most detailed account yet of what the government is doing and the hurdles it faces. Its database has some information about the children's parents but wasn't designed to reunify families under the court's deadline. The department has manually reviewed the cases of all 11,800 children in its custody by working nights and weekends, White said. The results of that review are being validated. DNA cheek swab tests on parent and child take nearly a week to complete, said White, who called the risk of placing children with adults who aren't their parents "a real and significant child welfare concern." "The Government does not wish to unnecessarily delay reunifications or burden class members," the Justice Department filing reads. "At the same time, however, the Government has a strong interest in ensuring that any release of a child from Government custody occurs in a manner that ensures the safety of that child." Sabraw's order in the class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union applies to all families who have been separated and includes a halt to any future separations. The ACLU sued in March on behalf of a Congolese woman who was separated from her daughter for five months after seeking asylum at a San Diego border crossing and a Brazilian asylum-seeker who has been separated from her son since an arrest for illegal entry in August near the Texas-New Mexico border. The Congolese woman, identified in court documents as Mrs. L, claimed asylum on Nov. 1, 2017, and four days later was separated from her daughter. The girl, then 6, was sent to a Chicago shelter contracted by Health and Human Services, while the mother was held at a San Diego immigration detention facility until March 6. The administration says the Congolese woman had no documents and was unable to prove she was the girl's mother when she claimed asylum. U.S. authorities confirmed through DNA testing on March 12 that the woman was the girl's mother and the two were reunited. The Brazilian woman, identified as Mrs. C, served nearly a month in jail after her Aug. 26, 2017, arrest for illegal entry near Santa Teresa, New Mexico, and then spent about six months in immigration detention. Her son was also sent to a Chicago shelter the two recently reunited. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. / Updated By Julia Ainsley WASHINGTON — Government lawyers said Friday that they cannot locate the parents of 38 migrant children under the age of 5, as a federal judge indicated he is open to extending the deadline for reuniting nearly 3,000 children separated from their mothers and fathers while crossing the US-Mexico border. In a status hearing with U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California, who ordered the reunification, government lawyers said the Health and Human Services Department would only be able to reunify about half of approximately 100 children under the age of 5 by the court-ordered deadline of July 10. For 19 children, their parents have been released from custody into the U.S. and their whereabouts are unknown. The parents of another 19 children have been deported. "The way [a family separation] is put in the system is not in some aggregable form, so we can’t just run it all," said Sarah Fabian, the Justice Department attorney representing the government before Sabraw. Sabraw said he would agree to delay the deadline for reunifying the youngest children if the government could provide a master list of all children and the status of their parents. Sabraw ordered the administration to share a list of 101 children with the American Civil Liberties Union by Saturday afternoon. The judge scheduled a status conference for 10 a.m. Pacific time on Monday. A government lawyer said she could not attend a status conference over the weekend because she had out-of-town dog-sitting responsibilities. "The government must reunite them," Sabraw said. "It must comply with the time frame unless there is an articulable reason." In a court filing, attorneys for the U.S. government claimed the court mandate for returning all children under 5 to their parents by July 10 and all other children by July 26 does not account for the time required to verify and vet each parent. "The government does not wish to unnecessarily delay reunification," lawyers for the Justice Department said in their response to the court. "At the same time, however, the government has a strong interest in ensuring that any release of a child from government custody occurs in a manner that ensures the safety of the child." Sabraw said he understood the government was acting in "good faith” by raising issues that could affect the timing, but said the “goal here is for reunification” and cautioned that the government should not resort to appealing his decision to reunify. Sabraw said he was prepared to grant additional time if the government could provide a master list of the children under 5 who had been separated from their parents with information on the whereabouts of their parents and any difficulties they may have in locating them. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said Thursday that his agency is using DNA testing to confirm parent-child relationships for nearly 3,000 children. The Justice Department argued that inconclusive DNA tests can delay reunification, as can the work necessary to make sure children are going to parents who are fit to care for them. Alternatively, the court could clarify its mandate by allowing the vetting process to be shortened, the government argued. "If the court concludes that HHS must truncate (the vetting) process to meet court-ordered deadlines, then the court should so order in a manner that provides HHS full clarity," the government lawyers argued in the filing. Sabraw said HHS “should not feel obligated to comply with those internal procedures” that were put in place to match children who had arrived at the border alone because the parents represented in the lawsuit arrived at the border with their children. The response also asked the judge to clarify how many children it should be seeking to reunify. President Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" policy requiring every immigrant crossing the border illegally to be prosecuted and therefore separated from any children went into effect in early May, but HHS interpreted its mandate to mean that children separated before the policy went into effect should also be reunited. Trump signed an executive order June 20 ending separation. The government also argued that it was too difficult to find parents who have already been deported back to their home countries, asking the judge to extend the timeline to find those parents or exclude them from the population who must be reunified. Sabraw also said that his order for the government to reunify children does not mandate how the government releases or detains immigrants. The Trump administration had argued that his order was in conflict with court decisions in 1997 and 2015 that mandated children be released from detention after 20 days and therefore justified their decision to detain them indefinitely.

– President Trump's Justice Department has requested more time to reunite immigrant parents with the children taken from them by ICE at the border. Following a federal judge's order that all children under age 5 be reunited with their parents by July 10—and all others by July 25—lawyers for the government on Friday petitioned for an extension of those deadlines, NBC News reports. US District Judge Dana Sabraw set the deadline last week in a ruling that said the situation has reaching "crisis level." Per the AP, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said Thursday that 3,000 children are believed to have been separated, but that includes kids who may have lost parents along the journey, not just parents who were detained at the border. Azar said DNA testing is being used to determine parent-child relationships but that inconclusive tests can hold up the process. In the Justice Department filing, the government said it has identified 101 children under 5 years old who were separated and is the midst of identifying older children. About 40 parents of children in the under 5 age group are in Homeland Security custody and another nine are in the custody of the US Marshals Service. "The Government does not wish to unnecessarily delay reunifications or burden class members," the Justice Department filing reads. "At the same time, however, the Government has a strong interest in ensuring that any release of a child from Government custody occurs in a manner that ensures the safety of that child."

(FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) – The Massachusetts woman at the center of the Facebook photo scandal at Arlington Cemetery has been fired from her job at a Cape Cod business. Lindsey Stone's employer, Living Independently Forever (LIFE), issued a statement on their Facebook page on Wednesday announcing that they have released the two employees involved in the controversial incident. "We wish to announce that the two employees recently involved in the Arlington Cemetery incident are no longer employees of LIFE. Again, we deeply regret any disrespect to members of the military and their families." LIFE plans to delete any and all comments regarding the incident from their page in an effort to protect their residents, even if the comments were well-intentioned. "We appreciate your concern and understanding as we focus on the care of our community," the organization said. Stone and Jamie Schuh, the other LIFE employee involved in the incident, were placed on unpaid leave immediately following the Facebook post which made national headlines. In the picture, Stone was featured giving an obscene gesture and pretending to yell in front of a sign at Arlington Cemetery which read, "Silence and respect." The Director of Living Independently Forever, Diane Enochs, told FOX 25 that complaints came pouring into the organization regarding the offensive photo via telephone and Facebook commentary. LIFE came under fire after people learned that Stone was on a company trip in Washington, D.C., and the photo was taken by a coworker. Stone and Schuh issued a statement late Tuesday night apologizing for the photo and all the pain that it had caused. "We never meant any disrespect to any of the people nationwide who have served this country and defended our freedom so valiantly," the statement read. Up until the Facebook post, Enochs said Stone had been a "good employee" for the year and a half that she was employed by the organization. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites.

– A word to the wise: Be very wary of what you post on Facebook. Lindsey Stone has lost her job after posting a prank photo taken while visiting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington on Facebook. In the photo, Stone poses next to a sign asking for "silence and respect" and pretends to shout while flipping off the tomb. Stone, and the co-worker who took the photo, "are no longer employees of LIFE," announced the Cape Code company by way of a Facebook post last night—which more than 3,500 people have liked so far. "We deeply regret any disrespect to members of the military and their families," continued the post by Living Independently Forever, which explains that it plans to wipe all comments related to the photo from its Facebook page "to protect our residents." The director of the facility, which provides care for disabled adults, told My Fox Boston that Stone had been a "good employee" during her 18 months of employment.

LOS ANGELES – Nintendo's new 3DS hardware is, in a word, unbelievable. The company didn't talk about how its stunning technology works during Tuesday's brief demo for members of the press. But work it does: Without using special glasses, you can see a deep, rich 3-D display on the top screen of the new Nintendo 3DS portable. __NINTENDO 3DS FEATURES:__Twin screens Top is 3.5-inch 3-D display; bottom is touch panel. Technology Possibly parallel barrier LCD. Cameras Twin cameras on back for 3-D photography. Gyro and motion sensors Should introduce new types of movement-based gameplay. The short, interactive demos Nintendo showed after its conference Monday morning included peeks at new Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil games. A slider on the right-hand side of the screen lets you adjust how "deep" the 3-D effect looks. You can take it all the way down to zero and see the games in 2-D, or you can crank it up. I found about 80 percent intensity was just right for my eyes. When I had the 3-D effect all the way up, I couldn't quite focus on the scene in front of me. (It'll likely be different depending on the individual player.) Konami is producing a version of its hit PlayStation 3 game Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater for the Nintendo 3DS. The demo showed a first-person sequence in which all sorts of crazy things happened to hero Solid Snake, all playing with the 3-D effect: Knives flew at the camera, and a massive alligator snapped its long jaws. In the second half of the demo, Snake walked across a bridge and avoided enemies in his usual style. While we couldn't control him, we could use the analog stick on the 3DS to adjust the camera and see the 3-D scene from many different angles. That analog stick on the side of the unit, by the way, is pretty fantastic. In sharp contrast to the Sony PSP's tiny analog nub, it's a wide, convex pad that lets your thumb sit comfortably inside as you control the game. A standard digital control pad sits below it. The back of the Nintendo 3DS looks ordinary enough. Photo: Jim Merithew/Wired.com Capcom's Resident Evil demo was a bit less involved. It was just a brief cinematic scene showing a few characters talking about something. (Probably zombies: I was too busy checking out the 3-D effects to pay attention to what they were saying.) The graphics, which are much more advanced than you'd expect from Nintendo, left me pretty much in disbelief. They're on a level with Sony's PSP, probably even a little better than that. But the eye-popping 3-D effect makes everything that much richer. The other demo Nintendo showed wasn't a game at all. It was a collection of 3-D scenes from various Nintendo games. Each tableau, like a shoebox diorama, was animated, and we could move the camera around to better see how the 3-D effect made the characters pop. Familiar faces from Mario, Zelda and Pikmin danced and played onscreen while we tilted the camera around. You can only see the 3-D effect if you're looking at the 3DS screen straight on, although there's a good amount of fudge factor there – you can move the unit around quite a bit and still get the effect. It's not as if you have to hold your hands in the exact perfect place. If you tilt the unit away from your face so it's almost at a 180-degree angle, you can still see the 3-D effect. If you tilt it left and right, you'll lose the effect and the picture will go smudgy, like what happens when you remove your glasses during a 3-D movie. Nintendo will surely have actual games on the show floor when the E3 Expo opens later Tuesday. But this quick look made it easy to understand that the new 3DS really does do full-on 3-D without glasses. See Also: ||||| LOS ANGELES — With Microsoft and Sony looking to leap ahead of Nintendo’s Wii motion-control video game technology, Nintendo took off in another direction on Tuesday with a 3-D portable game device. The Nintendo 3DS hand-held device gives the perception of depth in its 3.53-inch screen. But the real selling point is that the device provides three-dimensional images without the need for special viewing glasses or on a specially equipped 3-D television. The device, which was demonstrated here at the Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3, also blurs the lines dividing portable game devices, smartphones and digital cameras. Gamers will be able to shoot 3-D photos and insert them into games. The 3DS will also include a motion sensor and a gyro sensor, similar to technologies included in the Apple iPhone 4 announced last week. Nintendo, which is relying on developers to create games that use those new technologies, did not announce a price or release date for the 3DS. The company also said the 3DS would be capable of playing 3-D movies. It demonstrated several feature films from Disney, DreamWorks and Warner Brothers. To create the 3-D effect, a slightly different image is sent to each eye. The effect works as long as the device is placed directly in front of the eyes, but disappears as soon as the viewer moves to either side. Sony also featured 3-D games at its news conference on Tuesday, but not on its portable PSP device. Rather, the company hopes to exploit its 3-D television business by introducing a wide range of video games developed specifically for 3-D. The games will play on the PlayStation 3 console. “This will be the year of 3-D,” said Jack Tretton, president of Sony Computer Entertainment America, who said 20 3-D game titles would be available for the PS3 by March, including Killzone 3, The Sly Collection, Gran Turismo 5 and MotorStorm: Apocalypse. Sony’s new motion-sensing technology for its game consoles, the PlayStation Move controller, uses a camera, a motion controller and a navigation controller to allow a game player to manipulate both characters and objects without a traditional joystick, similar to the method employed by the Wii. As shown in several demonstrations, players need to make realistic movements — sword swipes or golf swings, for example — to move game play forward. PlayStation Move is to be available Sept. 19. A $100 bundle will include a controller, camera, video game and demonstration disc. The stand-alone controller will be available for $50. Sony expects to have more than 50 games for the PlayStation Move available by Christmas, including EyePet, Sports Champions and LittleBigPlanet 2. On Monday, Microsoft introduced its own motion-control technology at E3, called Kinect. It is to be available Nov. 4. Microsoft has not announced the price.

– Nintendo made a deep splash at E3 last night with the 3DS, a 3D version of its portable system. The device doesn’t require any glasses to produce the illusion of 3D, and can turn the effect off if your eyes ever get tired. It can also play 3D movies and, maybe most impressive of all, take 3D pictures with its built-in camera, the New York Times reports. It also boasts an analogue stick (finally), and iPhone-esque motion controls. Wired is wowed, calling the roll-out stunning. Sony is on the 3D bandwagon, too, but it’s focusing on producing games for 3D televisions. “This will be the year of 3D,” promised the president of Sony America, boasting that the PS3 would have 20 3D titles by March. Sony also unveiled its own movement control scheme—simply called Playstation Move—which uses both Wii-mote-esque controllers, and a camera that the company says will combine to accurately capture players' moves.

OpticsPlanet My preparations for the coming zombie apocalypse came down to one thing: a baseball bat. But this kit from OpticsPlanet makes me think I'm being terribly naive. The Z.E.R.O. (Zombie Extermination, Research, and Operations) Zombie Kit is the mother of all undead survival kits. For a whopping $24,000 you get oodles of tools, protective gear, cases, and weapons accessories. The kit is skimpy on weapons themselves (the company says ammo will run out during the war, so you only get two knives) but tries to make up for it with gunsmithing and laboratory equipment. I really don't think we'll have time to use the pipette shaker and compound microscope while unloading on zombie foot soldiers, but OpticsPlanet thinks we should be searching for a cure to zombie disease while fighting. I won't list the dozens of items in the Z.E.R.O. kit, but some of the interesting tools include a tactical wristwatch that stores ballistics data, the Crimson Trace Full Size Glock Laser Grip, and the Brunton Solaris 62-watt foldable solar panel battery charger. Some of these gadgets may come in handy when civilization collapses. There's also the aluminum OPMOD Battle Mug for both drinking and smashing zombie skulls, two activities that probably go well together. Check out the funny promo vid below. Bottom line: Is the Z.E.R.O. kit worth $24,000? Well, can you put a price on your not-undead life? ||||| Imagine: You half-hear a low, guttural sound from outside as you lay sleeping. You figure it's just your stomach after too much delicious Mexican food... but a sudden thud on the outside wall of the house shakes you from a peaceful slumber. Deep within the primal centers of your brain, you realize the dead have risen to claim our once-peaceful realm. What do you do? What do you need? The dead have risen, and they've returned as something different. Those you were once closest to now hunger for your flesh, and possibly the Mexican food you had for dinner. There is no room for error when dealing with the undead. Our Z.E.R.O. (Zombie Extermination, Research and Operations) Kit takes into account all the different aspects of surviving the looming zombie apocalypse. When the undead hordes rise from their shallow graves to wreak havoc on all decent civilization, you'll need to both fight back (Extermination), and find a cure (Research). Always be prepared. In the new zombie world you can be king of the hill, or the tastiest treat in town. Life Post Zombie Apocalypse is Harsh...Survive it! First, as in any disaster, whether it is a hurricane, blizzard, alien invasion or giant lizard attack, you need basic survival gear. Fighting back will be necessary as well, but you have to survive the elements and everyday hazards before you can mount an offensive. Stanley First Aid treats bite wounds, scratches & more. You're sure to get a few cuts and bruises along the way so you need good first aid. The Stanley Personal Protection Large First Aid Kit will help you stop bleeding and take care of other wounds in no time. Zombies don't have the best eyesight, but their sense of smell is on par with a bloodhound's. There's no scent as irresistibly alluring as blood, so make sure you clean and dress wounds when they happen. In addition to keeping zombie hordes from tracking you, treating wounds will prevent infection. Punching zombies is the most fun you can have, but only with BlackHawk SOLAG Gloves. Preventing scrapes is the best way to keep blood from attracting zombies, so covering exposed skin with protective gear is essential. Blackhawk S.O.L.A.G. KEVLAR® Gloves keep hands safe from normal cuts, and the reinforced stitching stops zombie teeth from ripping through flesh and turning a healthy human into the enemy. Best of all, the molded knuckle protectors let you put a hard jab straight down the gullet of a walking dead monster in the event you're unarmed. Don't Lose Your Head, Don't Miss Your Shot, and Don't Get Lost. Watch It! The 5.11 Tactical Watch helps you take the perfect shot and get moving fast. Knowing your surroundings and where you're going is essential to survival in any setting. Make sure you're wearing the 5.11 Tactical Field Ops Watch, which not only tells time, but also has a digital compass so you know your bearings. The integrated SureShot calculator gives you shooting solutions out to 1000ft so that you don't need to carry one when you're taking headshots out from 300 meters to save a loved one's life. Zombies send panic through the hearts of even the most hardened men, so let the 5.11 Tactical Watch take the guesswork out of your long distance shots. Thermal Vision and Night Vision will prove essential for identifying the zombie menace in darkness. In addition to knowing where you are, seeing what's around you will definitely help you survive when a chomping, cadaverous fiend comes for a reckoning. For late night viewing, the OPMOD PVS-14 Night Vision Scope will let you peer into the darkness. When patrolling your camp in pitch blackness you have to be absolutely certain you can see everything, but at a distance it can be difficult to differentiate between an injured human and a zombie. For this we added the Thermal-Eye X-50 Thermal Imaging Camera. As we all know, rising from the grave expels most of the heat from a zombie, leaving behind only faint warmth in the lower extremities. So if you view a stumbling figure with warm feet and a cold head, you know to take the shot. Just as the 5.11 Tactical Watch lets you calculate elevation compensation for long shots, the thermal imager helps you shoot with the confidence, knowing you're only going to re-kill the undead. No one survives long without batteries. People are going to loot stores for all the batteries they can find when the dead rise, so stock up now with the SureFire 123A Lithium Battery Box. Ten or twenty batteries might be nice to have, but you're not planning on living for just a few months, you're going to live a full lifetime. The included SureFire battery box has FOUR HUNDRED batteries. They're going to prove to be one of the most valuable forms of currency in the post-zombie world. While we only included one box in our Z.E.R.O. Kit, you might want to pick up a couple extra, plenty for yourself and plenty for trading. Just a few boxes could make you one of the richest men in the world! Combine the outstanding charging power of the Solaris with its unique ability to distract zombies. If you do run out of batteries and need to power your kit, a solar charger can become your best friend. Zombies have many horrifying abilities, but the one thing they can't do is blot out the sun, so when you set up the powerful Brunton Solaris 26 Watt Foldable Solar Array you'll enjoy 62 watts of power, which will keep your precious electronics working long after the power grids have shut down. As a side benefit, if a zombie attacks you near the solar charger you can yell out, "Left hand on Green!" and the zombie will forget your brains and focus on completing the task given them. The SureFire Benelli Forend Light for shotguns turns a regular shotgun into a Zombie Destroyer! While the hunger for human flesh overrides nearly all zombie impulses, certain childhood memories will temporarily replace their hunger. This is a short-lived solution though, as zombies can't tell right from left, and the resulting frustration will send them into a rage. Give the Undead Nightmares by Taking the Fight to Them! Once you've gathered your basic survival gear together, you need to think about how you're going to dispatch those creeping, gnawing, nearly unkillable monsters. Your rifle, shotgun and handgun (one gun will not keep you alive long) need to be enhanced for maximum zombie-slaying effectiveness. Let's start with the bread and butter of any zombie-fighter: the shotgun. Zombies are only dangerous at close range, and they often stand idly until a delicious human comes along. If you're clearing a house at night and a zombie steps around a corner you need to see exactly what you're shooting at, and the SureFire Benelli M1-M2 Dedicated 6V Shotgun Forend Flashlight provides a bright 120 lumens of light without changing your grip or weighing down your shotgun. It uses the Lithium 123A batteries from the SureFire Battery Box, so you won't need to worry about power. It's both super durable and powerfully bright. This will give you plenty of light to see those lifeless eyes roll back once you've given your zombie attacker peace. While you need to see if a zombie is hunting you in the blackness of night, to turn the tables and go from hunted to hunter you need the absolute best in rifle scopes and red dot sights. Enter EOTech and their EOTech EXPS2 Holographic Weapon Sight w/ QD Lever. This red dot sight gives you an appropriately zombie-themed reticle, and placing that biohazard design on a ghoulish skull will help steel you to always take the shot without hesitation. Even if you're using the Zombie Stopper for hunting food it will always serve as a reminder that you must be aware of your surroundings. Little known fact: zombies love the woods. If you're hunting deer to feed your family keep in mind that a walking creature of the night could pop out from behind any tree or bush and make a feast of your brain. When a large herd of zombies is converging on your position you may not have time to reload your rifle or shotgun and may need to quickly transition to your sidearm. Since speed is of the essence it's best to have a laser grip on your Glock (the best zombie-slaying handgun). The Viridian Universal Mount Green Laser Pistol Sight w/ Tactical flashlight activates with a normal grip, so you don't need to worry about pressing a button to turn it on. Seeing the red laser on your target ensures you'll never miss a shot. As a side benefit, zombies are drawn to the red light in much the same way a cat is (no surprise, as zombie infection comes from a feline-human hybrid virus). If you run out of ammo you can use this red laser grip to distract the zombies and make your escape! KA-BAR Zombie "Kharon" Folding Knife 2-5698-1 is an excellent last-ditch line of defense against roving undead hordes, but it also serves well as a general purpose outdoor/utility knife. This KA-BAR knife features a sharply angled Tanto-style blade made from AUS 8A stainless steel and taper ground into a keen plain edge that's just 0.113 inches thick. KABAR Zombie "Kharon" Tanto Blade Folder Knife has an ergonomic, slip-resistant GFN-PA66 handle in a bright toxic green color, textured for improved grip, and the knife is equipped with a reversible pocket clip for easy carrying. Like many other folding blade knives by KA-BAR, the Zombie "Kharon" utilizes a lockback mechanism that will securely hold the blade in place when you're not using it. Make those brain-eating baddies think twice about messing with you when you carry the KA BAR Zombie Kharon AUS 8A Steel Folding Pocket Knife. SOG Bowie 2.0 Knives S1T-L are the modern interpretation of the secretly-developed Bowie-style knife in use by Special Forces units during the Vietnam War. These incredibly sharp SOG knives utilize a faceted tip AUS 8 steel blade to hack through anything that stands in their way. Equipped with a scratch-resistant Black TiNi finish, these knives are pleasing to look at but sharp to the touch. SOG Bowie 2.0 knives make use of a smooth, brown leather handle with subtle finger grooves and stellar grip. It's easy to keep your Bowie 2.0 sharp as well, since SOG Specialty Knives has packaged the knife with a leather sheath; the sheath has a removable sharpening stone tucked away in its accessory pouch. From the sculpted crossguard to the precision detailing all over the blade and handle, these knives are sharp looking and sharp, period. When you absolutely have to strike fear in the hearts of your enemies, whether they be branches or people, just flash the SOG Bowie 2.0 Stainless Steel Knife. Trimmed out fully in black, the OPMOD ERC Limited Edition Extreme Rifle Case lets you carry and store your MSR (Modern Sporting Rifle) without fear of scratches, dents, dings, and all the rest. This OPMOD Gun Case is lined with soft brushed Tricot, a scratch-resistant inner lining that will do no harm to the finish on your weapons, and protects its contents with over 2" of soft padding. The OPMOD ERC Extreme MSR Case is made to last, with heavy-duty double stitching, and a water-resistant heavy-duty Nylon shell. Because guns come with gear, the OPMOD Extreme Rifle Case is equipped with plenty of storage, including multiple exterior magazine pouches and a Velcro accessory pocket. A full-length zipper ensures that your rifle will stay sealed up tight inside the gun case. Treat your guns right - give them the best, only from OPMOD! NOTE: Lengths given are for the INTERIOR dimension of the rifle case. The outside length will be approximately 2" longer. Battle Mug PMUG Polymer Edition: The only cup that can take down a zombie. RCBS has reloading gear so tough you could bash out an undead brain and continue reloading immediately. From the RCBS Pro-Melt Furnace, for re-forging your bullets, to their Progressive Press, for getting your bullets into cartridges, you'll be all set for the next nightmarish wave. Don't forget that at any moment a zombie can appear, so if you're sitting by a campfire enjoying a glass of water you may not have your knife or gun in hand. It's best to make sure ANYTHING in your hands is tactically sound, so never drink from a regular cup. Drink from the cup of survivors and champions the world over. The Battle Mug PMUG Polymer Edition is a super strong cup, made from aluminum and features a crenellated base for extra zombie smashing power. You can go from thirst-quenching to death-dealing in less than .45 seconds. We tested that. Search for a Cure or You'll Search for a Grave. Unfortunately, all the gear so far is simply a stop-gap as long as the zombie disease rages on. You can take down thousands or even millions of risen dead and hardly make a dent in the overall undead army. Don't think short term when prepping for the apocalypse. If you want a safe world for your children and grandchildren you must find a cure. For this you need the best laboratory equipment. Test, test and test Again. Three tests should do it, by then you'll have cured the zombie disease. We've included Qorpak Beakers, Labnet Pipettes and a Celestron Professional Stereo Microscope Zoom Lens Halogen Lamp so you can take samples and study the innermost workings of zombies. The destructive nature of their cells might lead you to a better understanding of their life expectancy or how to possibly treat their symptoms so they no longer hunger for human flesh. Properly tamed, a zombie can do the physical labor of 30 men without tiring. You will only be able to determine if a zombie can be tamed through laboratory research. Many hours of grueling arguments, exhaustive research and bite-dodging testing went into developing the selection of zombie survival gear below. The Z.E.R.O. Kit also includes night vision devices, solar chargers, multi tools, tactical vests, sunglasses, and much more. We've completed all this work to give you the best chance of surviving when Death returns to Earth with hell by his side. You only need to do two things: buy the Z.E.R.O. Kit and fight for your life. All the zombie gear in this kit is listed below so you can purchase the items separately, but remember that the kit was very carefully put together to cover all your bases. Each item you choose NOT to buy is one less day you'll live. OpticsPlanet reserves the right to interchange products when they become unavailable.

– If you're like us, you lie awake each night wondering, "Am I properly supplied in the event of a zombie apocalypse?" If your answer to that question is anything other than a resounding, "Yes!" then maybe you should consider getting the ZERO (Zombie Extermination, Research and Operations) kit. For a mere $23,999, Optics Planet will outfit you with an exhaustive array of supplies, including first-aid stuff, weapon accessories, and even lab equipment (so you can look for a cure to the zombie plague, of course), notes CNET. One glaring omission is the guns themselves, but hey, they did include some special knives for when you run out of ammo. We're gonna go out on a limb and say they're not expecting to sell many of these—if you click "Check Availability," the site says, "Will ship before the zombie apocalypse!" But the comments section appears to be taking the list very seriously. "Um, you need to research more into zombies," one person writes. "Zombies DO NOT FEAR KNIVES."

The United States is holding firm in its insistence that Chinese agents sent to covertly round up and pressure Chinese fugitives to head back home must stop. The State Department on Monday refused to comment directly about allegations first reported by the New York Times, but it made clear such activity is not permitted without giving notice to the U.S. attorney general. “It’s a criminal offense, actually, under U.S. law for an individual other than a diplomatic or a consular officer-attaché to act in the United States as a law enforcement agent of a foreign power without that notification,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby. He said the U.S. and China do communicate regularly on what he termed “matters of mutual concern including fugitives and anti-corruption” through the U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation. But he said Washington also has been clear with Chinese officials on how the process must work. “It is incumbent upon them [China] to provide U.S. officials with significant, clear and convincing evidence to allow our law enforcement agencies to proceed with investigations, removals and prosecutions of fugitives,” he said. The Justice Department issued its own warning Monday about any potential covert Chinese operations. “If such unreported activity were to be taking place on U.S. soil, we would vigorously enforce our laws,” said spokesman Marc Raimondi. Earlier Monday, Chinese state media criticized Washington’s moves, calling on U.S. officials to “show sincerity in anti-corruption cooperation with China.” The commentary from Xinhua also said the U.S. order that Chinese agents associated with the country’s anti-corruption campaign, known as “Operation Fox Hunt,” is “regrettable.” Chinese President Xi Jinping’s efforts to hunt down fugitives, some of whom fled with money and other assets, have been popular with the Chinese public. The New York Times reported that since 2014, more than 930 suspects have been repatriated, including more than 70 who have returned voluntarily this year, but that the intimidation tactics being used by Chinese agents have increasingly drawn the ire of U.S. officials. U.S. sources also told The Times that many of the Chinese agents likely entered the U.S. on tourist or trade visas, trying to hide their real intentions. Word of “Operation Fox Hunt” comes amid heightened bilateral tensions and just weeks before President Xi’s state visit to the U.S. Still, given the stakes, New York University School of Law professor Jerome Cohen says both the U.S. and China are likely to handle the disagreement with care. “I don’t think, at this point, we’re likely to see any great ramifications for U.S. business or Chinese business,” he told VOA via Skype. “These are mostly specific problems of limited numbers of individuals.” American officials have refused to disclose the identities or numbers of Chinese being sought, although they acknowledge some are wanted for political crimes. Currently, China and the U.S. have no formal extradition treaty. And senior State Department officials have previously told Chinese state-run media that increased U.S. cooperation will depend on China’s commitment to the rule of law, including providing relevant evidence. But NYU’s Cohen says there could be more at stake. “Besides the human rights questions, are there U.S. reasons for wanting to keep people in the United States because they can provide a source of valuable information? Maybe some of them are already cooperating,” he said. ||||| Neither China’s Ministry of Public Security nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to faxes requesting comment. But Chinese officials have often boasted about their global efforts to hunt economic fugitives, and the state news media has featured reports detailing the aims and successes of Operation Fox Hunt. According to the Chinese news media, Beijing has sent scores of security agents abroad to “persuade” their targets to return home. Just how they accomplish their aims is unclear, and questions have been raised about why a number of suspects, presumably sitting on significant wealth abroad, have willingly returned to China. Liu Dong, a director of Operation Fox Hunt, has said Chinese agents must comply with local laws abroad and that they depend on cooperation with the police in other countries, according to a news report last year. But in a telling admission, he added, “Our principle is thus: Whether or not there is an agreement in place, as long as there is information that there is a criminal suspect, we will chase them over there, we will take our work to them, anywhere.” It is unclear whether the F.B.I. or the Department of Homeland Security has advocated within the Obama administration to have the Chinese agents expelled from the country, but the White House decision to have the State Department issue a warning to the Chinese government about the activities could be one initial step in the process. The F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security are in charge of tracking the activities of foreign government agents inside the United States, and American officials said that both agencies had amassed evidence about the Chinese law enforcement agents by speaking to Chinese expatriates and by monitoring the agents themselves. One American official acknowledged that Chinese agents had been trying to track down Ling Wancheng, a wealthy and politically connected businessman who fled to the United States last year and had been living in a lavish home he owns outside Sacramento. Should he seek political asylum, he could become one of the most damaging defectors in the history of the People’s Republic. Chinese state news media published Interpol alerts in April for 100 people that Beijing described as its most-wanted fugitives worldwide. But experts who have studied the names raised doubts whether the listed men and women are truly the government’s top priority. Among the alleged fugitives, they said, are a former deputy mayor, employees of state-owned enterprises and a history professor, but few if any at the highest echelons of power.

– China has been told that if it wants to bring its fugitives home from the US, it needs to go through proper channels and not send undercover agents on tourist visas to put pressure on them. The Obama administration has warned Beijing about the use of covert agents in the US as part of its anti-corruption campaign, reports the New York Times. Officials tell the Times that as part of what Beijing has dubbed Operation Fox Hunt, teams of agents have been sent to find "economic fugitives" living in the US and persuade them to return to China, using methods including threatening children or grandchildren who are still in the country. An expert at the University of Nottingham's China Policy Institute tells the Times that the use of covert agents to pressure people abroad has a long history under the Chinese Communist Party, which he says see itself as ruling all Chinese people, no matter if they live abroad or have foreign passports. "The party believes if you're of Chinese ancestry then you're Chinese anyway, and if you don't behave like one you're a traitor," he says. The warning on Chinese agents comes weeks before President Xi Jinping visits the US, reports Voice of America, which notes that the US and China have no formal extradition treaty and bringing one in might be on the agenda during Xi's state visit.

Hilary Duff Engaged to Hockey Player Beau or leave a comment of your own See what other readers have to say about this story – It's official: Hilary Duff is engaged to her hockey player boyfriend Mike Comrie.Confirming rumors that the actress, who recently appeared on Gossip Girl, would soon be hearing wedding bells, her rep says that the Edmonton Oilers player, 29, did indeed propose."Hilary Duff and Mike Comrie were engaged this weekend while vacationing in Hawaii," rep Nanci Ryder said Friday. "After having been together for over two years, they are very excited to share this happy news. They are thankful for all of your warm wishes."Early in their courtship, when he was with the New York Islanders, Comrie surprised Duff, 22, with a Mercedes for her birthday Duff, who said she read Hockey for Dummies to better understand her man, became a fixture at his hockey games. She's been spotted in the stands at Oilers games, and also cheered him on when Comrie played for the Ottawa Senators, where she had some famous company in the stands: Carrie Underwood – whose fiancé Mike Fisher also is on the team.Comrie returns the favor by frequently accompanying Duff to film press events and shoots. ||||| Hilary Duff is ready to walk down the aisle! The singer-actress, 22, is engaged to Edmonton Oilers player Mike Comrie, her rep confirms to UsMagazine.com. Check out these stars' blingy engagement rings! The hockey player, 29, popped the question last weekend while the pair were "vacationing in Hawaii," Duff's rep tells Us. "After having been together for over two years, they are very excited to share this happy news," the rep continues. "They are thankful for all of your warm wishes." Shortly after they began dating in 2007, Comrie surprised Duff with a Mercedes-Benz G-class SUV as an early 20th birthday gift. See how young these stars got engaged! "He's a great guy," she told Us last year. "I've never met anyone who could say a bad word about him. He's generous, caring, funny. We just laugh our heads off, which I need in my life ... He's unique. I wouldn't want to be with someone who wasn't unique." Duff told Us they have a surprisingly "natural" relationship. See photos of the most romantic star weddings of 2009 "We both have busy jobs, and we're both very focused people, so that helps," she told Us of their sometimes long-distance relationship. "Since we are apart so much, it's not like one person is at home waiting for the other." Here's hoping Hilary and Mike's engagement doesn't end like these Added Comrie, "We have fun. We both live such different lives, but it's always fun to support each other and spend time when we get to." Duff previously dated rocker Joel Madden and teen star Aaron Carter.

– Hilary Duff and hockey player Mike Comrie are getting married. The 22-year-old actress/singer and the 29-year-old Edmonton Oiler got engaged in Hawaii last weekend, reports US Weekly. "After having been together for over two years, they are very excited to share this happy news," says a rep. Duff, who shows up in the stands in occasion, once fessed up to reading Hockey for Dummies to figure out what was going on, notes People.

The first near miss between passenger plane and a drone has been investigated by air safety inspectors. The UK Airprox Board will publish its findings on Friday following the incident at Heathrow Airport. The owner of the drone has still not been identified raising fears over the potential risks drones could pose to commercial airlines . The incident is expected to be recorded in the report with a risk rating A, defined as a serious risk of collision, which is the highest of five categories. The report, seen by the The Sunday Times, said the pilot of the Airbus A320 spotted the drone, which failed to show up on air traffic control systems, at 2.16pm on July 22 while flying at an altitude of 700ft. Earlier this year the airline pilots' association Balpa demanded better protection for the public against the risks of drones. It wants drones, officially known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), which share airspace with passenger and freight airliners, to meet the same safety standards as piloted aircraft. This would include only being flown by operators with pilot-equivalent training. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Nick Beake reports on what is known about the drone incident at Heathrow An unidentified drone came close to hitting a plane as it landed at Heathrow, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has confirmed. An Airbus A320 pilot reported seeing a helicopter-style drone as the jet was 700 feet off the ground on its approach to the runway at 1416 GMT on 22 July. The CAA has not identified the airline or how close the drone came to the plane, which can carry 180 people. It gave the incident an "A" rating, meaning a "serious risk of collision". This is the highest incident rating the CAA can give. Investigators were unable to identify the drone, which did not appear on air traffic control radar and disappeared after the encounter. Crash warning In May the pilot of an ATR 72 turbo-prop plane reported seeing a helicopter drone only 80 feet away as he approached Southend airport at a height of 1,500 feet. The incidents have prompted a warning from the British Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) that the rapid increase in the number of drones operated by amateur enthusiasts now poses "a real risk" to commercial aircraft. The association's general secretary, Jim McAuslan said drones could cause a repeat of the "Hudson River experience", when a plane was forced to land in water in New York in 2009 after birds were sucked into its engines. Image copyright PA "The risk of a 10 kilogram object hitting a plane is a real one that pilots are very concerned about" he said. "A small drone could be a risky distraction for a pilot coming into land and cause serious damage if they hit one." Sales of drones have increased rapidly, with UK sales running at a rate of between 1,000 and 2,000 every month. They are expected to be very popular as Christmas presents. They cost as little as £35 for a smaller model - more advanced drones capable of carrying a high definition camera and travelling at 45 miles per hour cost almost £3,000. Only a very small minority of people operating drones have attended training courses in how to fly them. 'Common sense' A spokesman for the CAA said it had to depend on people using their common sense when they operated drones. He said the current level of risk should be "kept in perspective" but warned that breaking laws governing the use of drones could potentially threaten commercial aircraft. Image copyright PA Image caption The CAA said it had to depend on people using their common sense when they operated drones "People using unmanned aircraft need to think, use common sense and take responsibility for them", he said. "There are rules which have the force of law and have to be followed." Drones may not be flown higher than 400 feet or further than 500 metres from the operator, and they must not go within 50 metres of people, vehicles or buildings. There are exclusion zones around airports and the approaches to them for drones weighing more than seven kilograms. Mr McAuslan said there was an urgent need for rules to be tightened before much larger unmanned cargo planes - potentially the size of a Boeing 737 - took to the skies.

– An Airbus A320 nearly hit a drone at Britain's Heathrow Airport earlier this year, authorities have revealed. A report from air safety authorities says the pilot was at 700 feet and preparing to land on July 22 when he saw the helicopter-style drone, ITV reports. The owner of the drone was never identified, and Britain's Civil Aviation Authority has given the incident its highest rating, "A" for "serious risk of collision." The drone failed to show up on air traffic control systems at Heathrow, which is the busiest airport in Europe. Authorities haven't said just how close the plane came to hitting the drone, but the British Airline Pilots' Association warns that with the huge rise in drone use by amateurs, it could be only a matter of time before one causes an emergency landing or worse. The risk of a 20-pound drone "hitting a plane is a real one that pilots are very concerned about," a spokesman tells the BBC. "A small drone could be a risky distraction for a pilot coming in to land and cause serious damage if they hit one."

This collaborative project is an extension of the 2016 End of Term project, intended to document the federal government's web presence by archiving government websites and data. As part of this preservation effort, URLs supplied from partner institutions, as well as nominated by the public, will be crawled regularly to provide an on-going view of federal agencies' web and social media presence. Key partners on this effort are the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and the Data Refuge project. This collection is a continuation of the 2016 End of Term web archiving and, as such, is deduplicated against that collection. It allows for the ongoing archiving of publicly nominated websites beyond the "official" end of the End of Term project. Interested members of the public, particularly government information specialists, are invited to submit selected web sites to be included in the collection using the public nomination tool. For more information on partner institutions, web crawling and past End of Term projects, please visit the End of Term Archive. ||||| Hillary Clinton declared herself the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee on Thursday and, looking to the fall election, said that her likely Republican rival, Donald J. Trump, was not qualified to be president. Asked by CNN’s Chris Cuomo whether Mr. Trump was qualified to hold the office they both seek, Mrs. Clinton declared emphatically, “No.” She called the crash of an EgyptAir flight early Thursday an act of terrorism and went on to portray Mr. Trump as dangerously out of step with what a commander in chief would need to do to combat such attacks. She cited his proposal to temporarily bar Muslims from entering American borders, his comments about diminishing the United States’ involvement in NATO and his remarks that he would negotiate directly with the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un, as evidence of how “unmoored” Mr. Trump is on foreign policy. ||||| By Anthony Salvanto, Fred Backus, Sarah Dutton and Jennifer De Pinto Looking ahead to the general election in November, Donald Trump trails both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders among registered voters, although by slightly narrower margins than last month. Hillary Clinton now holds a six-point lead over Donald Trump, down from 10 points a month ago. Trump trails Bernie Sanders by 13 points, down from 17 points. Contentious primary contests on both sides haven't turned off many primary voters from voting for their party's candidate in a likely November match-up between Trump and Clinton, even if these candidates are not their preferred primary choice. Seventy-one percent of Republican voters who did not support Trump in the primaries would still vote for him against Clinton. On the Democratic side, 72 percent of Sanders supporters would vote for Clinton against Donald Trump. Still, most voters are not content with the options of Clinton and Trump: while 46 percent of registered voters would be satisfied with that match-up, 52 percent want more choices. Most Republicans (55 percent) are satisfied, while most Democrats (52 percent) and independents (60 percent) are not. Eight in 10 Sanders supporters would like other choices. The Republican Party and Donald Trump With Trump as the likely Republican presidential nominee, eight in 10 think leaders of the Republican Party should support him even if they disagree with him on important issues, including 62 percent of voters that did not back Trump in the primaries. Last week, Trump met with one of those Republican leaders, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. While Ryan remains unknown to many Republican voters nationwide, more view him favorably than unfavorably. But Trump is more popular and more familiar to Republican voters. Republican voters think party unity is necessary. More than six in 10 think the party needs to be united in order for Trump to win a general election in November. Does the Republican Party Need to Unite Behind Trump in Order to Win? (Among Republican voters) Total Non-Trump Supporters Yes 63% 64% No 31 26 But can Trump unite the GOP? Most Republican voters (64 percent) think he can, but those who did not support Trump in the primaries are far less confident in Trump's ability to bring the party together. And Republicans see their party as in need of unification. Eighty-four percent of Republicans say their party is divided now, and while most are hopeful about the future of the Republican Party, four in 10 are discouraged. Primary voters who backed Trump and those who opposed him view the party's future differently. Most Trump backers (66 percent) are hopeful about it, while most non-Trump supporters are discouraged (66 percent). In contrast, 50 percent of Democratic voters say their party is united (although 48 percent say it's not). Still, 80 percent are hopeful about their party's future, compared to 55 percent of Republican voters who say that about their party. Views on party unity are a reversal of what they were in 2008. Back then, 61 percent of Republican voters said their party was united, compared to just 45 percent of Democrats who felt that way about their party. GOP primary voters themselves are behind Trump. Most say they will support Trump now that he is the likely Republican nominee, including 37 percent who will do so enthusiastically. Voters who didn't support Trump in the primaries are, perhaps not surprisingly, less enthusiastic. Still, 61 percent of GOP primary voters said the process for selecting their nominee has been fair - including most Trump and non-Trump supporters. More than six in 10 voters nationwide are at least somewhat surprised that Donald Trump has emerged as the likely Republican nominee. Democrats are especially likely to be surprised. The Race for the Democratic Nomination Like Republicans, Democrats think party unity is necessary to achieve victory in November. Regardless of whether Clinton or Sanders is the nominee, more than eight in 10 Democratic voters think the party needs to unite behind the nominee in order to win a general election. Majorities of Democrats think that either Democratic candidate will be able to unite the party, but more say that about Clinton (83 percent) than Sanders (68 percent). Hillary Clinton maintains her lead over Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic nomination nationally. She is ahead by seven points. Clinton leads in the delegate count according to CBS News estimates, and the percentage that expects her to be the nominee has risen since last month. Eighty-three percent of Democratic primary voters think Clinton will be the party's nominee, up from 70 percent in April. Even two-thirds of Sanders supporters (67 percent) expect Clinton to capture the nomination, up from 44 percent last month. Sanders does have an enthusiasm advantage. Fifty-two percent of Democratic primary voters would enthusiastically support Sanders if he were the nominee, compared to 44 percent who feel that way about Clinton. Most Democratic primary voters see the long nomination contest as a plus. 59 percent think it will help the eventual nominee because he or she will have been tested and better prepared for a general election, but a third think it will hurt the nominee because the critical statements the candidates have made about each other could weaken them. Both Clinton (60 percent) and Sanders supporters (62 percent) see the length of the nomination process as a positive. This is a reversal from 2008, when Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in the primaries. Back then, when asked a similar question, more than half of Democratic primary voters thought the long nomination fight would hurt their nominee. Impact of Length of Democratic Primaries on the Nominee (Among Democratic primary voters) Now 6/2008 Help 59% 38% Hurt 34 54 Sixty-eight percent of Democratic primary voters say the process for selecting the nominee has been fair, although Sanders voters (53 percent) are less likely to think that than those backing Clinton (84 percent). General Election Match-ups: The Demographics Both Democratic candidates enjoy strong support from liberals, moderates, women, and African Americans. Both candidates also have support among voters under 45, though Sanders' advantage among younger voters is particularly strong. Donald Trump leads his potential Democratic rivals among conservatives, white men, and white voters without a college degree. Men favor Donald Trump against Clinton, though they are divided when Trump faces off against Bernie Sanders. Trump has a 12-point lead among white voters against Hillary Clinton, which shrinks to just three points against Sanders. White women are divided between Trump and Clinton but choose Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump. While Trump and Clinton are even among independents, Trump loses independents by 16 points when matched against Sanders. The Campaign There is diminished enthusiasm about voting. 40 percent of registered voters nationwide are less enthusiastic than usual about voting this year - higher than at any point during the 2012 election, perhaps reflecting a desire for more candidate choices. However, Republicans are more enthusiastic than Democrats and independents, and those who support Trump in the primaries are particularly so -- 56 percent of Trump supporters say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year. Nearly half of Sanders' supporters say they are less enthusiastic this year, perhaps because it now appears unlikely their candidate will receive the Democratic nomination. Voters are following the campaign closely. 60 percent of registered voters are now paying a lot of attention to the presidential campaign, up 3 points from April. Attention is about the same among both Republican and Democratic voters. This poll was conducted by telephone May 13-17, 2016 among a random sample of 1,300 adults nationwide, including 1,109 registered voters. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News and the New York Times by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The poll employed a random digit dial methodology. For the landline sample, a respondent was randomly selected from all adults in the household. For the cell sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish using live interviewers. The data have been weighted to reflect U.S. Census figures on demographic variables. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups may be higher and is available by request. The margin of error includes the effects of standard weighting procedures which enlarge sampling error slightly. The margin of error for the sample of 371 Democratic primary voters is six percentage points. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls. ||||| (CNN) Hillary Clinton labeled her Republican rival Donald Trump "divisive and dangerous" and "unmoored" on Thursday, saying his recent behavior shows he's not qualified to be president. The Democratic presidential front-runner unleashed her sharpest attacks yet on Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, in an exclusive interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo in Park Ridge, Illinois. She pointed to Trump's attacks on British politicians, his willingness to speak with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, his call for the United States to back away from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and his assertion that more countries should have nuclear weapons, and said it "adds up to a very troubling picture." "I know how hard this job is, and I know that we need steadiness as well as strength and smarts in it, and I have concluded he is not qualified to be president of the United States," Clinton said. When asked whether Trump was qualified in April, Clinton told CNN's Jake Tapper , "Well, the voters will have to decide. I'm going to lay out my qualifications to be president." On Thursday, Clinton was particularly critical of Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States, calling the idea "provocative" and saying it sends a "message of disrespect" to important majority-Muslim nations that are U.S. allies. "When you run for president of the United States, the entire world is listening and watching," she said. "So when you say you're going to bar all Muslims, you're sending evidence to the Muslim world, and you're also sending a message to terrorists. ... Donald Trump is essentially being used as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism." Trump later in the afternoon shot back in a statement , saying, "The fact that Hillary thinks the temporary Muslim ban, which she calls the "Muslim ban", promotes terrorism, proves Bernie Sanders was correct when he said she is not qualified to be President." "Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night -- another terrible, but preventable tragedy," the statement added. "She has bad judgment and is unfit to serve as president at this delicate and difficult time in our country's history." Clinton said she's not going to respond to Trump's attacks on her as an "enabler" of her husband Bill Clinton's marital infidelities and treatment of women. "I know that's exactly what he's fishing for, and I'm not going to be responding," she said. Instead, she said, she plans to focus her attacks on Trump on "what he says about other people" -- a cue the pro-Clinton Priorities USA super PAC took in launching its first anti-Trump ads, highlighting insults he has hurled at women. "I'm going after him exactly on those issues and statements that are divisive and dangerous, and I actually think that's what the American people want to see," Clinton said. Clinton also addressed the disappearance of EgyptAir Flight 804, saying the disaster "shines a very bright light on the threat that we face from organized terror groups." "It reinforces the need for American leadership -- the kind of hard, steady leadership that only America can provide," Clinton said. EgyptAir Flight 804 disappeared early Thursday morning with 66 people on board above the waters of the Mediterranean Sea and searches have found the plane's wreckage. Clinton's tense fight with Sanders The Democratic presidential front-runner said that she will be the party's nominee, because she's got an "insurmountable" number of pledged delegates and has received millions more votes overall. "I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done, in effect," she said. "There is no way that I won't be." Clinton wouldn't say whether Sanders was being considered for her running mate and said the Vermont senator needs to "do his part" to unify the party going into November. She highlighted her role in unifying Democrats -- including the 40% of Clinton supporters who had said they wouldn't support Barack Obama if he won the party's nomination -- in 2008, the last close Democratic nominating contest. "That's why the lesson of 2008 -- which was a hard-fought primary, if you remember -- is so pertinent here. Because I did my part, but so did (then-)Sen. Obama," she said. "We went to Unity, New Hampshire, together, appeared together, spoke together, and made it absolutely obvious that I was supporting him, that he was grateful for that support." Sanders' campaign responded to Clinton in a statement later Thursday afternoon. "In the past three weeks, voters in Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon respectfully disagreed with Secretary Clinton," the campaign said. "We expect voters in the remaining eight contests also will disagree. And with almost every national and state poll showing Sen. Sanders doing much, much better than Secretary Clinton against Donald Trump, it is clear that millions of Americans have growing doubts about the Clinton campaign."

– Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are unfit to be president, according to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The candidates traded accusations on Thursday, starting with Clinton, who told CNN's Chris Cuomo that Trump is "unmoored" on foreign policy. "I know how hard this job is, and I know that we need steadiness as well as strength and smarts in it, and I have concluded he is not qualified to be president of the United States," she said, pointing to Trump proposals such as a ban on Muslim immigration and a reduced role for the US in NATO. She was just as direct when talking about the challenge from Bernie Sanders, the New York Times notes. "I will be the nominee of our party, Chris," she said. "There is no way I won't be." Trump soon fired back. "The fact that Hillary thinks the temporary Muslim ban, which she calls the 'Muslim ban,' promotes terrorism proves Bernie Sanders was correct when he said she is not qualified to be president," he said in a campaign press release. "Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night—another terrible, but preventable tragedy," Trump continued. "She has bad judgement and is unfit to serve as President at this delicate and difficult time in our country's history." According to the latest CBS/New York Times poll, Clinton's lead over Trump has narrowed: She leads 47% to 41%, while Sanders leads Trump 51% to 38%. The poll also found that 52% of voters want better options than just Clinton or Trump, though 80% of Republican voters believe it's time for the party to unite behind the presumptive nominee.

(CNN) -- The year was 1890. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky premiered his Sleeping Beauty ballet in St. Petersburg. Vincent van Gogh ended his life, apparently by shooting himself. And Idaho and Wyoming became the 43rd and 44th states of the United States. 1890 is also the year Carmelo Flores Laura was born, or at least, that's what his family and the Bolivian government claim. The Bolivian man, who lives in the town of Frasquia, in the arid highlands of Bolivia, showed CNN government documents that seem to confirm he's 123 years old. The documents include a birth certificate showing his birth date as July 16, 1890. There's also a national identity card with the same birth date. Several media outlets published stories about Flores calling him the oldest man alive. But there appear to be several problems with this claim. For starters, neither the birth certificate nor the national identity card is original. "We were skeptical from the beginning," said Stephen Coles, a professor of gerontology at the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California in Los Angeles. He's also the director of the Gerontology Research Group, an independent organization that tracks, monitors and verifies claims of longevity. "He's not the real thing. Carmelo is not 123 years old despite the documents his family has shown. He was not born in the year 1890." Coles said the first red flag was the fact that Flores is a man. The gerontologist said more than 90% of cases of what his organization categorizes as supercentenarians are women. Jean Louise Calment from France lived to the age of 122. Her case is the longest human lifespan that has been verified with several documents. According to Coles, there are 57 documented and verified cases of people over the age of 110 around the world. Fifty-five are women and two are men. Four other cases are still pending final verification. The Gerontology Research Group has found a document that purportedly shows Flores is actually 107 years old, and not 123. The document is a baptismal certificate. Back in 1890, the Bolivian government didn't record live births or any other demographic data, so it was up to the Catholic Church to register births, deaths and marriages. In any case, the fact that Carmelo Flores Laura has lived for more than a century in the arid highlands of Bolivia at an altitude of more than 12,000 feet is striking. Not only does he walk on his own, but his voice is still commanding. His son Cecilio Flores, who's 65 years old, has to speak loudly in his ear to communicate with him, but his memory seems to be in perfect shape. He doesn't speak Spanish, but his native Aymara, an indigenous language in Bolivia. "I was born here in the highlands," Flores told CNN in Aymara, with his son translating into Spanish. "I was not a mischievous child. I was rather calm. I arrived as a young man in Frasquia and worked as herder and farmer. I was very happy with my wife. We never fought. I never cheated on her and we were both very happy." Flores' wife lived to be over 100 years old. According to family tradition, the secret to a long life is drinking the water that flows down the Illampu Glacier, located not far from Frasquia. Their diet includes no packaged or processed foods, but locally grown plants like barley and quinoa. They hunt a local fox that lives in the Bolivian mountains known regionally as "zorrino." 80 year old becomes oldest to climb Mount Everest Before you get any ideas, the Gerontology Research Group has found that no particular diet, geographical location or kind of water makes people live longer. Coles said it's the genes. "People who have extreme old age have virtually nothing in common. They don't share the same religion, nutrition or exercise routine. They only have one detail in common: they have relatives who have lived a long time and children (who) also tend to live a long time," Coles said. Cecilio Flores said his supercentenarian father had five children, 16 grandchildren and 39 great-grandchildren. "I constantly congratulate my father," he said. "He took care of me when I was little so I'm now taking care of him. Now it's my turn to make sure he's taken care of." Cecilio is the only child of Flores still alive. No one in the Flores family doubts that the patriarch is 123 years old. There seems to be no doubt either when it comes to officials. In fact, the government of Bolivia plans to honor Flores by declaring him "a living heritage" of the Bolivian people. ||||| Off-Ramp ® is a lively weekly look at Southern California through the eyes and ears of radio veteran John Rabe. News, arts, home, life... covering everything that makes life here exciting, enjoyable, and interesting. This week, this story crossed the wires: FRASQUIA, Bolivia (AP) - If Bolivia's public records are correct, Carmelo Flores Laura is the oldest living person ever documented. They say he turned 123 a month ago. The native Aymara lives in a straw-roofed dirt-floor hut in an isolated hamlet near Lake Titicaca at 13,100 feet (4,000 meters), is illiterate, speaks no Spanish and has no teeth. He walks without a cane and doesn't wear glasses. And though he speaks Aymara with a firm voice, one must talk into his ear to be heard. "I see a bit dimly. I had good vision before. But I saw you coming," he tells Associated Press journalists who visit after a local TV report touts him as the world's oldest person. The story has all the elements that make it irresistible to the public ... and journalists. To be fair, the story contains qualifiers like "If Bolivia's public records are correct," but the claim was relatively easily debunked within a few days. UCLA's Dr Stephen Coles, director of the Gerontology Research Group, which investigates these kinds of claims for the Guinness Book of World Records, says he was skeptical from the start, especially because there was no documentary proof dating to the year Laura was supposedly born. "I was immediately suspicious because no man to our knowledge has ever lived past the age of 116, because 90% of people we call super-centenarians are female." He listed other red flags: This gentlemen is illiterate; There's no proof of birth dating to the original time of birth; There's no documentation for this man's age until he applied for a pension (giving him a financial incentive for age exaggeration); There's an alleged Baptismal Record (which, if it exists at all, could be for an entirely different person); There's no current ID; He can still walk at age "123" yo; His oldest child is 67 (that's a huge generation gap). Then, researchers went on the Internet. "There was," Coles said, "to our surprise, a baptismal certificate, which I'm holding in my hand right now." I asked, "Was he born in 1890, like they said?" "Not at all," Coles responded. "Not 1890, but 1906." 107 is nothing to sneeze at, but we'll check back with Carmelo Flores Laura in 16 years. The oldest person in history remains a Frenchwoman, Jeanne Calment, who lived to 122.

– It's the kind of story you really want to believe: According to Bolivia's public records, Carmelo Flores Laura turned 123 years old last month, making him the oldest living person ever documented. CNN, however, advises you take the news with a grain—or spoonful—of salt, this after it actually saw the government documents that establish Flores' July 16, 1890 birth date. It, along with KPCC, runs down five reasons why Flores is probably a good decade or two younger than is being claimed: Though Flores has a birth certificate and a national identity card bearing his birth date, neither are original. Bolivia didn't keep records of live births in 1890. In what CNN describes as a "red flag," Flores is a man. Gerontologist Stephen Coles (who actually looks into these claims for the Guinness Book of World Records) says the lion's share of supercentenarians are women. He notes that just two of the 57 people verified to having lived past 110 are male, with the oldest man on record having lived to 116. The Gerontology Research Group that Coles heads up tracked down what it says is Flores' baptismal certificate—which establishes his age as an impressive but not record-setting 107. He not only still walks at 123, but does so without a cane. His sole living child is 67—that's a pretty significant generation gap. This supercentenarian male, however, has had his impressive age verified.

President Obama departed from the draft of his speech far more than usual on Wednesday during an address on energy policy at Georgetown University. But the ad lib that got the biggest rise from students came when he gave a nod to his energy secretary, the Nobel laureate Steven Chu. “He actually deserved his Nobel Prize,” Mr. Obama quipped. The president’s joke, as the laughing students clearly knew, was on himself. In a month in which Mr. Obama has sent American forces to a third war zone, Libya, the seeming incongruity of his having won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 – less than nine months into his presidency – has been a matter of some discussion once again. As for Mr. Chu, he shared the 1997 prize for physics with two other scientists for their work using laser light to cool and trap atoms. The Nobel committee said the scientists’ advances had enabled closer study of atoms, which could lead to the development of more precise atomic clocks – for use in space navigation, for example – and to the manufacture of diminutive electronic components. Mr. Obama, in naming Mr. Chu as energy secretary, praised him as a leader in the search for alternative and renewable energy sources to arrest climate change; then and on several occasions since, he has cited Mr. Chu’s Nobel Prize. Mr. Obama won his Nobel for what the committee called his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” But coming in October of his first year as president, the announcement shocked Mr. Obama and his top advisers, who foresaw that the award would be widely seen both as premature for a new president and as incongruous with his role as commander in chief of a nation withdrawing from one war, in Iraq, and ramping up another, in Afghanistan. Last week in El Salvador, with news of the allied assault in Libya against the forces of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi stealing attention from Mr. Obama’s five-day visit to Latin America, the president was asked by CNN En Espanol to square his war-making with his peace prize. Mr. Obama acknowledged the apparent irony, as he had in his Nobel acceptance speech in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan. “I’m accustomed to this contradiction, of being both a commander in chief but also somebody who aspires to peace,” he said. In the case of Libya, Mr. Obama noted that the military action was a multinational effort sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. “And,” he said, “I think the American people don’t see any contradiction in somebody who cares about peace also wanting to make sure that people aren’t butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power.” ||||| President Obama gave a speech on energy today, but the most interesting part of the presentation was how much fun Obama had entertaining himself. In addition to laughing for a few seconds at one of his jokes, Obama even sarcastically hinted that he might not have deserved the Nobel Peace Prize he received. Obama praised the intelligence and skills of his Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, and mentioned that “Chu’s the right guy to do this, he’s got a Nobel prize in physics — he actually deserved his Nobel prize.” The audience exploded with laughter. Obama then went on to describe Chu as someone who likes to spend his free time on weekends in the garage figuring out how to extract natural gas. After picturing that image, Obama too couldn’t contain his laughter. Obama’s ability to engage in self-deprecating humor is likely to endear him to many, however, his fiercest critics might have a predictable, although still humorous, response of their own: “finally Obama speaks the truth.” Watch the clip below from today’s speech: Please enable Javascript to watch. (h/t The Blaze)

– President Obama made light of his increasingly controversial Nobel Peace Prize during a speech on energy. He praised the efforts of Energy Secretary Steven Chu before quipping: "Chu’s the right guy to do this, he’s got a Nobel prize in physics—he actually deserved his Nobel prize," reports Mediaite. On weekends, Chu "goes into his garage and he tinkers around and figures how to extract natural gas," Obama told laughing students at Georgetown University. Chu shared the 1997 Nobel for physics, and Obama won his in 2009 while waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He acknowledged the irony when asked about it during his Latin America visit last week, notes the New York Times. "I’m accustomed to this contradiction, of being both a commander in chief but also somebody who aspires to peace," he said, adding: "I think the American people don’t see any contradiction in somebody who cares about peace also wanting to make sure that people aren’t butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power."

What happens when you combine the talents of Russia's ballet bad boy Sergei Polunin, Irish gospel luminary Hozier and photography pop wizard David LaChapelle? Apparently, a whole lot of angsty, sexy, beautiful dancing ensues. LaChapelle directed the new visual interpretation of the Grammy-nominated hit, starring British Royal Ballet vet Polunin performing choreography by Jade Hale-Christofi. The emotive dancer, donning only nude tights and a cluster of tattoos, sautés, tombés and pirouettes through an illuminated empty space. The white room clashes with the dark energy of the bluesy song, making Polunin's stunning dance moves resemble some kind of spiritual possession. Enjoy. ||||| Ukranian ballet dancer Sergei Polunin has performed his stunning visual interpretation of Hozier’s “Take Me To Church” and it’s so good, you have to see it to believe it. Directed by David LaChapelle, the atmospheric video sees the 25-year-old pirouette and sauté to the chart-topping anti-gay oppression anthem, against a beautiful backdrop of a studio amongst the trees. Former British Royal Ballet principal dancer Polunin performs dressed only in nude tights, as sunlight glimmers through the white room’s arched windows, creating a spiritual effect. His passionate four-minute sequence reflects the demons of Hozier’s hit and showcases his impressive artistry and skill. Polunin trained at a gymnastics academy for the age of four to eight, before moving onto the Kyiv State Choreographic Institute and joining the British Royal Ballet School at 13. Sergei Polunin performs a stunning routine to 'Take Me To Church' Notoriously tricky to work with and known as the “bad boy” of ballet, he is currently a principal dancer with Moscow’s Stanislavsky Music Theatre and Russia’s Novosibirsk State Academic Opera and Ballet Theatre. Sergei Polunin is a former British Royal Ballet principal dancer Polunin has starred in Marc Jacobs modelling campaigns and been photographed by Gus Van Sant, as well as featuring in music videos. Sia’s “Elastic Heart” video brought classical dance to her fans, albeit it controversially, with eccentric actor Shia LaBeouf seen performing with 12-year-old Maddie Ziegler. Maddie Ziegler in Sia's 'Elastic Heart' music video Sia’s dancers also dressed in skin-coloured clothes, with the singer-songwriter having to apologise after many viewers claimed the sexual overtones were paedophilic and disturbing. “Maddie and Shia are two of the only actors I felt could play these two warring ‘Sia’ states,” she said in a statement. “My intent was to create some emotional content, not to upset anybody.” If you fancy a new take on the video, check out Bridesmaids star Kristen Wiig’s “special” Grammys rendition. ||||| David Frost David Frost • Bach: The Cello Suites According To Anna Magdalena (Matt Haimovitz) • Bates: Anthology Of Fantastic Zoology (Riccardo Muti & Chicago Symphony Orchestra) • Beethoven: Piano Sonatas, Vol. 5 (Jonathan Biss) • Brahms & Dvořák: Serenades (Boston Symphony Chamber Players) • Fitelberg: Chamber Works (ARC Ensemble) • Ispirare (Melia Watras) • Overtures To Bach (Matt Haimovitz) • Schoenberg: Kol Nidre; Shostakovich: Suite On Verses Of Michelangelo Buonarroti (Ildar Abdrazakov, Alberto Mizrahi, Riccardo Muti, Duain Wolfe, Chicago Symphony Orchestra & Chorus) • Shadow Of Sirius (Jerry F. Junkin & The University Of Texas Wind Ensemble) ||||| Tattooed Ukrainian ballet dancer Sergei Polunin is the star of Hozier’s latest video for his smash hit Take Me To Church. The beautiful video, directed by David LaChapelle, features the 25-year old pirouetting, leaping and twirling around a white church-like studio among the trees. Polunin, a former principal dancer for the British Royal Ballet, gives a passionate performance set to Hozier’s stirring anthem. Take Me To Church reached No. 2 in the Billboard Hot 100 chart (it currently stands at No. 3) and the song tops the Billboard Hot Rocks Songs chart for the 17th week in a row.

– A new video for Hozier's Grammy-nominated hit, "Take Me to Church," features a performance by Ukrainian ballet dancer Sergei Polunin, a former principal dancer for the British Royal Ballet. The tattooed Polunin, 25, is shirtless and almost appears nude, thanks to his flesh-colored, skintight shorts. The video was directed by David LaChapelle, reports Time, which calls it "stunning." That's the word chosen by multiple outlets; the Huffington Post says the dancer "simply slays" the performance. Polunin is currently a principal dancer with Moscow's Stanislavsky Music Theatre and Russia's Novosibirsk State Academic Opera and Ballet Theatre, the Independent reports.

Three webcams were trained on the experiment 24/7. (Phys.org) —As Cyclone Ita hit northern Australia last weekend, a much slower collision occurred in the world's longest-running lab project, The University of Queensland's Pitch Drop Experiment. After a wait of more than 13 years, the ninth drop of pitch collided ever so slowly with the eighth drop in the bottom of the beaker. The experiment was set up in 1927 to demonstrate that solid materials—pitch shatters if hit with a hammer—can flow like liquids. Pitch Drop custodian Professor Andrew White said seven drops had fallen between 1930, when the experiment began, and 1988, at an average of one drop every eight years. "Two things changed after that – the 2000 (eighth) and 2014 (ninth) drop each took about 13 years to fall, and each collided into the decades-old pile of drops in the beaker before it could break away from the funnel," he said. The eighth drop ran into the seventh drop in 2000, but took almost 14 years to tip over. "It was still connected to the ninth drop but almost broke free this year. "The connection had become thin, stressed and light grey – but now that the ninth drop has run into it the whole cycle starts again," Professor White said. The video will load shortly Two-year time lapse of the pitch drop experiment. The stealthy collision is the latest trick by this evasive lump of tar. Until now, no-one has ever seen a drop fall. The former custodian of the experiment, the late Professor John Mainstone, missed observing the drops fall on three occasions – by a day in 1977, by only five minutes in 1988 when it was on display at the World Expo in Brisbane, and in 2000 when a webcam that was recording it missed the crucial moment when the drop fell during a 20-minute power outage. The experiment was subsequently put under constant surveillance, with three webcams trained on it to capture the ninth drop's fall. Nearly 25,000 viewers from 158 countries have registered to keep an eye on the ninth drop through the live web stream at www.theninthwatch.com . Those who were watching when it collided will have their names recorded for posterity. "To determine the actual moment, we're going to analyse the video to see if and when the pitch motion slowed down, and hopefully we can let people know soon," Professor White said. "We look forward to observing what will happen next with the ninth drop. "It may tip over quickly or it might slow right down and take years to break away from the imminent tenth drop," he said. Explore further: Custodian of world's longest running experiment dies ||||| The pitch has dropped - again. This time, the glimpse of a falling blob of tar, also called pitch, represents the first result for the world's longest-running experiment. Sadly however, the glimpse comes too late for a former custodian, who watched over the experiment for more than half a century and died a year ago. Up-and-running since 1930, the experiment is based at the University of Queensland in Australia and seeks to capture blobs of pitch as they drip down, agonisingly slowly, from their parent bulk. It was pipped to the post last year when a similar experiment, set up in 1944 at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, captured the first ever video footage of a blob of pitch dropping . In that instance, the blob separated from its parent bulk. By contrast, the Australian team filmed the collision between the ninth blob ever to fall and the eighth blob, which was sitting at the bottom of their beaker – but the ninth blob is still attached to the pitch above it. Still, the Australian result is important because the experiment has a better set-up, says Stefan Hutzler, a member of the Trinity College Dublin team who used those results to calculate the pitch's viscosity. "Theirs is in a glass container; they measure the temperature, measure the humidity as well," he says. "Ours, we don't really call it an experiment. It was really just sitting there on a shelf, going back to the 1940s." Near miss The fact that both experiments dropped within a year of each other is "just pure luck", says Hutzler. Hot summer weather in Ireland last year may have influenced the timing. The Queensland experiment already features in the Guinness World Records and won an IgNobel prize in 2005. It was set up by physicist Thomas Parnell to illustrate that although pitch appears solid, shattering when hit with a hammer at room temperature, it is actually a very viscous liquid. The eventual result follows several near misses, according to the University of Queensland. John Mainstone, who oversaw the experiment for more than 50 years until his death last August, missed observing the drops fall three times – by a day in 1977, by just five minutes in 1988 and, perhaps most annoying, in 2000, when the webcam that was recording it was hit by a 20-minute power outage. "It's a pity of course that the person in charge died about a year ago, so he never saw the drop," Hutzler says. "He would have enjoyed that." Honey flow The eighth and ninth drops each took about 13 years to fall, says current custodian Andrew White. By contrast, the seven drops that fell between 1930 and 1988 did so faster – at an average rate of one drop every eight years. The next step is to see how long it takes the ninth drop to separate from the pitch above it: "It may tip over quickly or it might slow right down and take years to break away," says White. You can keep an eye on the ninth drop's movements via a live web stream. The University of Queensland says it will work out who was watching when the pitch dropped and record their names for posterity. The drop experiments show that the physics of a drop forming in a viscous material is still not well understood, Hutzler says – although he doesn't think watching pitch for decades is necessarily the best way to study it. Using honey or some other less viscous fluid would give you better statistics. "I think these experiments capture the imagination just because they go on for such a long time," he says. The video of the drop in Dublin quickly went viral on YouTube. "Ironically, you have a very slow event happening, but the news spreads very quickly." If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

– In what is surely one of the most gripping experiments currently underway, scientists in Australia have been watching a beaker containing pitch, a tar derivative, since 1927. The researchers' goal in the planet's longest-running experiment—which holds a place in the Guinness Book of World Records—is to show that solids can flow like liquids. And flow this solid did, with the ninth drop finally occurring at the University of Queensland over the weekend, Phys.org reports. As New Scientist reports, drop No. 9 hasn't actually detached from the pitch above it, but has collided with the eighth drop on the beaker's bottom. Between 1930 and 1988, one drop fell an average of every eight years, says Professor Andrew White. But "the 2000 (eighth) and 2014 (ninth) drop each took about 13 years to fall, and each collided into the decades-old pile of drops in the beaker before it could break away from the funnel," White says, explaining that the eighth drop didn't actually break free until this year. This marks the first time anyone's actually seen a drop occur, thanks to three webcams that are trained on the experiment and streaming a live feed. The scientist who spent 52 years hoping to see one never managed to do so, though there were near misses, including a very-ill-timed webcam outage in 2000. He died in August. (A similar experiment underway in Dublin since 1944 finally caught a drop on camera last year.)

Acknowledging that Europe’s banks still need billions of euros to cushion against a possible default by Greece, the leaders of Germany and France announced on Sunday that they would have a package of reforms by the time leaders of the Group of 20 nations meet in early November. “We are determined to do everything necessary to ensure the recapitalization of Europe’s banks,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said in Berlin after meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. But beyond promising closer coordination of economic policies for the euro zone, the two leaders declined to provide specifics on how the recapitalization would work, or how much money they would commit. The continued uncertainty could unnerve investors who hoped to see the governments take more decisive action. The announcement came on the same day that the governments of France, Belgium and Luxembourg agreed to nationalize part of Dexia, Belgium’s biggest bank, infusing it with billions of euros in taxpayer money after it became the first casualty of the Greek sovereign debt crisis. Government officials had raced to prop up Dexia before global financial markets opened on Monday. Dexia, which had received a bailout in 2008, “is the biggest euro zone bank failure in quite some time,” said Peter Zeihan, vice president of analysis at Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company based in Austin, Tex. “It will force investors and shareholders to take second look at what they thought was stable.” Banks like Dexia have become a flashpoint for European governments as they try to rein in the region’s debt woes without worsening their own finances. Mrs. Merkel, Mr. Sarkozy and others have only recently conceded that European banks may not be as sheltered from the storm as first thought, especially if the sovereign debt situation ensnares larger countries. If that were to happen, other banks in Europe and the United States — as well as the governments themselves — could come under further pressure. But Europe’s leaders remain at odds on how to achieve their goals, including the best way to shore up bank finances. France, for example, wants to pump money from a developing bailout mechanism, the European Financial Stability Facility, into the banks, while Germany insists that the fund should be used only as a last resort, if the banks are not able to raise more money on their own. The International Monetary Fund has estimated that Europe’s banks may need up to 300 billion euros, or about $400 billion, more capital if the debt crisis widens. On Sunday, neither Mrs. Merkel nor Mr. Sarkozy put forth their own figure, saying they needed to consult with other European leaders. But Mrs. Merkel emphasized that European leaders would do “everything necessary” during a series of upcoming meetings, including one involving the 27 European Union leaders this week. The bailout of Dexia comes as both governments are trying to pay down their own countries’ deficits and debts. In France, some officials have sounded the alarm that too big of a bailout for Dexia could menace the nation’s sterling debt rating, a notion the finance minister, Francois Baroin, has been quick to dismiss. Belgium is in a more difficult situation. Its debt is 97.2 percent of gross domestic product, the third highest in the euro zone, after Greece and Italy. Moody’s Investors Service on Friday warned it could downgrade Belgium’s rating if support of Dexia lifted Belgium’s debt and investors started pushing up its borrowing costs. Officials say the bailout of 4 billion euros would not raise its debt much higher. It was the second bailout in three years for Dexia, a lender to European and American cities that got into trouble in 2008 after a huge portfolio of subprime loans it owned went sour. Dexia received billions of euros from France and Belgium, and was the biggest European recipient of loans from the Federal Reserve’s discount window at the time. Dexia, which has global credit exposure of about $700 billion, plans to create a so-called bad bank to house its troubled assets, including billions of euros’ worth of Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Irish debt. On Sunday night, the governments were still haggling over how to split the bill. Belgium will nationalize Dexia’s Belgian consumer bank, at a cost of 4 billion euros, and foot 60.5 percent of a 90 billion euro bill for up to the next 10 years to backstop the bank, which will still retain a swath of toxic assets, including lingering subprime loans and European sovereign debt. France will 36.5 percent of the total, and Luxembourg will pay for the remainder. Meanwhile, Dexia's board was still working to figure out how keep financing flowing to French municipalities where it was a big lender. Dexia’s French municipal financing arm would be split from the group and merged with the French state bank Caisse des Dépôts and the banking arm of the French postal service, Banque Postale. Dexia had almost recovered from its previous stumble when its troubles flared anew in recent weeks. Indeed, just three months ago, Dexia passed a round of stress tests for European banks, although regulators last week ordered a review of those tests to account for a lower value of government debt. This month, banks rapidly started pulling back on lending to Dexia, and Moody’s placed the bank on review for a downgrade. Last week, Dexia’s stock price plunged 42 percent and, as it neared collapse, trading in its shares was halted on Thursday. Dexia’s fortunes, and those of many European banks, remain tethered to what happens to Greece. Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, said in an interview with the Sunday edition of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung “that we assumed in July a level of debt reduction that was too low” for Greece, implying Greece faced difficulties ahead and even more support. Mrs. Merkel, now increasingly concerned about any run on the banking system, told finance ministers and leaders from the World Bank and the I.M.F. last week in Berlin that Germany supported a coordinated bank recapitalization program. Mrs. Merkel does not want to funnel more taxpayer money to the banks before they try going to the markets to raise capital. But she acknowledged in recent meetings in Berlin with World Bank and I.M.F. officials that Germany would not hold back in bolstering the banks if necessary. Failure to do so, she said, would lead to “vastly higher damage.” ||||| * Dexia board approves state rescue package after 14-hour meeting * Dexia to get 4 bln euros for Belgian unit, 90 bln euros of guarantees * Dexia plans French public finance deal with CDC, Banque Postale * Shares to resume trading after news conference, analyst call * CEO defends bank's track record since 2008 bailout By Philip Blenkinsop and Lionel Laurent BRUSSELS/PARIS, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Franco-Belgian bank Dexia agreed early on Monday to the nationalisation of its Belgian banking division and secured 90 billion euros ($121 billion) in state guarantees in a rescue that could pressure other euro zone governments to strengthen their banks. Under the terms of the rescue, Belgium will pay Dexia Group 4 billion euros ($5.4 billion) to buy Dexia Bank Belgium, the largely retail Belgian division, which has 6,000 staff and deposits totalling 80 billion euros from 4 million customers. Dexia also secured state guarantees of up to 90 billion euros to secure borrowing over the next 10 years. Belgium would provide 60.5 percent of these guarantees, France 36.5 percent and Luxembourg 3 percent. Under the rescue plan Dexia will be left with a portfolio of bonds in run-off, which totalled 95.3 billion euros at the end of June and including 7.7 billion euros of junk class and some 7.4 billion euros of mortgage-backed securities. As part of the bank's break-up Dexia is also in talks to sell its Luxembourg unit. A Luxembourg government official said that members of Qatar's royal family were ready to buy the business with the state taking a minority stake. The future of Dexia's other business units remained uncertain, including its stake in Turkish lender Denizbank and its RBC Dexia Investor Services global joint venture with Royal Bank of Canada . Trading in Dexia's shares, which have been suspended since Thursday afternoon, was due to resume later on Monday. Dexia's announcement of the overall rescue deal came after a board meeting that lasted some 14 hours from mid-afternoon on Sunday after France, Belgium and Luxembourg had agreed a rescue plan. The extraordinary meetings at the end of the weekend had echoes of the dismantlement of financial group Fortis in October 2008 by the Netherlands, Belgium and BNP Paribas . Then, shareholders protested at the initial terms offered, and only agreed on improved terms six months later. The governments rushed to support Dexia after it became the first bank to fall victim to the two-year-old euro zone debt crisis, as a credit crunch denied it access to wholesale funds and sent its shares down 42 percent last week. "We found an agreement on the fair division of the costs related to the management of the 'rest bank'," Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme told a news conference in the early hours of Monday. SOVEREIGN CREDIT RATINGS The likely burden of bailing out Dexia led ratings agency Moody's to warn Belgium late on Friday that its Aa1 government bond ratings may fall. The country had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 96.2 percent last year, lower only than Greece and Italy among euro zone members and on a par with bailout recipient Ireland. Finance Minister Didier Reynders said that the deal should not push Belgium's debt-to-GDP ratio above 100 percent. On the French side, Finance Minister Francois Baroin said in a TV interview that the rescue should have no impact on the country's prized AAA credit rating since it was only contributing guarantees and not funds directly. He also said Dexia was a "unique" case and no further bailouts of French banks would be needed. Moody's duly confirmed on Monday that the Dexia rescue would have no impact for now on France's AAA credit rating which still carries a "stable outlook". Dexia, which used short-term funding to finance long-term lending, found credit drying up as the euro zone debt crisis worsened. The problem was exacerbated by the bank's heavy exposure to Greece. Mariani said one of the bank's errors was one of "naivety" in agreeing too easily to governments' requests that banks maintain their exposure to Greece. "We never had a problem of solvency but one of liquidity given our large portfolio of sovereign debt," he said. Dexia has global credit risk exposure of $700 billion - more than twice Greece's GDP - and its rescue has stoked investors' anxieties about the strength of European banks in general. The governments' rescue package came as the leaders of France and Germany agreed that European banks needed to be recapitalised, but papered over differences on how that would happen. Paris wants to tap the euro zone's 440 billion euro ($594 billion) European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) to recapitalise French banks, while Berlin is insisting the fund should be used as a last resort. There were fresh reports over the weekend that big French banks BNP Paribas and Societe Generale might agree to capital injections as part of a Europe-wide plan to boost lenders' financial strength. However, both banks deny such plans. Dexia's board had also instructed the company's chief executive to seek backing from French state bank Caisse des Depots. A consortium of CDC and La Banque Postale, the French post office's banking arm, would ensure the financing of public entities in France. Of further asset sales Mariani did not comment on Denizbank and RBC Dexia but did say that the bank would hold onto Dexia's asset management business and that no sales of Dexia Sabadell in Spain, Dexia Crediop in Italy and DKD in Germany were planned given their sovereign debt holdings.

– Leading Franco-Belgian bank Dexia has agreed to a government rescue plan—making it "the biggest euro zone bank failure in quite some time," one analyst tells the New York Times. The plan will nationalize Dexia's Belgian banking division in a $5.4 billion government buyout; meanwhile, Belgium, France, and Luxembourg are providing the bank with $121 billion in guarantees, Reuters reports. Belgium will cover 60.5% of the guarantees, with France providing 36.5% and Luxembourg the rest. Without access to wholesale funds, Dexia's shares plummeted 42% last week; trading was suspended Thursday until later today. It's not the first time Dexia has needed government help. The news comes as France and Germany promised that plans to protect Europe's banks from a possible Greek default will be ready in time for November's G20 meeting, though neither leader offered details of how such a plan would work.

Key Democrats on Saturday expressed openness to President Donald Trump's proposed wall on the U.S. border with Mexico, a dramatic turnaround for the party as it seeks to extend protections for people who were illegally brought to the U.S. as children. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said early Saturday morning that, in a Friday meeting with the president, he offered to put the wall "on the table" in a potential deal to avoid a government shutdown. Later Saturday, Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a longtime opponent of Trump's wall, told reporters that he would back off his opposition to the president's plan for the barrier, in order to protect recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. "It's not about a wall. We'll build him a wall. Tell us how high you want it. But free the Dreamers," the lawmaker said, according to journalists on Twitter. Earlier this week, Gutierrez told the New York Times that Trump's chief of staff, John Kelly, told the House Hispanic Caucus that "a 50-foot wall from sea to shining sea isn't what we're going to build." Trump later insisted that he had not changed his mind about the wall. During the 2016 election, a wall along the American border with Mexico was a cornerstone of Trump's populist, nationalist pitch to voters, and the idea remains a point of contention in the president's relationship with Congress. Yet Democrats have largely resisted Trump's calls for billions of dollars to build the barrier, and any indication they are willing to budge is likely to anger their liberal base. Schumer revealed his offer to Trump in remarks on the floor of the Senate minutes after the chamber failed to pass legislation that would have averted a shutdown. On Friday, Schumer had a 90-minute meeting with Trump in the Oval Office. Only Kelly and Schumer's chief of staff, Michael Lynch, were in the room with the senator and the president. Afterward, Schumer had a positive take on the meeting, although he did not say a deal was struck. Still, the New York Democrat said Trump had walked away from the proposition. The White House has said that it would prefer addressing immigration issues separately from a measure to fund the government. Saturday afternoon, White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney, in an impromptu press briefing, said Schumer's offer to fund the wall fell well short of the money Trump has been seeking. Mulvaney, citing Kelly, said that Schumer told Trump he would agree to "all the money for the wall," which Trump took to mean the full $20 billion that building a partial border wall is expected to cost. But what Schumer was actually talking about was the $1.6 billion the White House had already sought in an annual appropriations bill. Mulvaney said this misunderstanding reflected Schumer's duplicitous negotiating tactics. "That is not 'all of the money for the wall,' nor was it ever intended to be all the money for the wall," said the budget director, who had a reputation in Congress for being a fiscal conservative. Trump has repeatedly claimed, on the campaign trail and during his presidency, that Mexico would pay for the wall. Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, disputed Mulvaney's account. Schumer's remarks early Saturday morning followed those of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who blamed Democrats for the Senate's failure to approve a bill passed by the Republican-controlled House on Thursday. Schumer, however, rejected that characterization and pointed out that four Republican senators – Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky – voted in earnest against the continuing resolution. The New York Democrat then turned his ire on the president himself. "The blame should crash entirely on President Trump's shoulders," Schumer said. "This will be called the Trump shutdown because there is no one who deserves the blame ... more than President Trump." -CNBC's Christina Wilkie contributed to this report. ||||| Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that in an immigration deal he would like to limit "chain migration" to the nuclear family and build “some form of wall." | Michael Reynolds/Pool/Getty Images Rand Paul proposes guaranteed immigration vote to end shutdown Sen. Rand Paul on Sunday proposed a compromise to reopen the government: a promise to Democrats of a week of votes on immigration at the end of which there's some resolution for the so-called Dreamers brought to the U.S. as children. The Kentucky Republican said he believes the impasse that shut down the government Saturday could end if Republicans were willing to offer a series of votes on immigration, including amendments, in both chambers. Story Continued Below “It's gamesmanship and partisanship. I gave them the answer how you solve this today: Promise, guarantee in writing to the Democrats that there will be one week's debate on immigration and a vote on an immigration bill sometime in the next month in the House and the Senate,” Paul said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Now, when I presented this to those in the Senate ... they were like, 'Oh, no, we want guaranteed passage on a must-pass bill.' Nobody gets a guaranteed passage.” President Donald Trump ordered an end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program last year, giving Congress six months to work out a deal to re-authorize the program, which was established by an executive order of President Barack Obama. The most reliable politics newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. The program gives those who either arrived or stayed in the U.S. illegally as children a chance to stay in the country and an opportunity to get a work permit. Without congressional action, the program will expire March 5. Asked what he would support in an immigration deal, Paul said limiting "chain migration" to the nuclear family and building “some form of wall,” though he called the $20 billion price tag on the proposed wall “outrageous.”

– The government may be stuck in a shutdown, with politicians on both sides of the aisle blaming their colleagues, but at least one Republican senator thinks he has a way to end the stalemate. On Sunday, Rand Paul told CNN's State of the Union that he had presented a compromise plan to his Republican colleagues in the Senate to reopen the government: "I gave them the answer how you solve this today," he said, per Politico. "Promise, guarantee in writing to the Democrats that there will be one week's debate on immigration and a vote on an immigration bill some time in the next month in the House and the Senate,” he said, referring to Democratic demands for some kind of resolution to the issue of young immigrants known as "dreamers." So far, however, Paul said his proposal hasn't been accepted. “Now when I presented this to those in the Senate ... they were, like, 'Oh no, we want guaranteed passage on a must-pass bill.' Nobody gets a guaranteed passage.” Paul also said he would vote to build "some form of wall" but that the current $20 billion price tag for President Trump's proposed wall is "outrageous." Those comments come as some Democrats have appeared to soften on the issue of building a border wall. Right after the government shut down, Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he had offered to put the wall "on the table" in negotiations with President Trump, CNBC reports. But White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney slammed Schumer's offer, saying it would only include $1.6 billion in an annual appropriations bill.

See more of Angela Jeffers on Facebook ||||| A discovery in a car about to be scrapped, inspires an all out search for parents missing something unbelievably precious. "This is something that shouldn't have gone to trash," said Katie Wallace. It was a little gold box, almost overlooked at a scrap yard. "We were processing cars, writing VIN numbers down and I happened to notice it sitting on the dash," said Seth Hutchison. "I just couldn't believe it, I was shocked something, I never wanted to find." A little girl's name, Jeanette Byrd, etched on the front and two dates, her birth and her death. Seth Hutchison knew her ashes were inside. He also found pictures and mementos scattered throughout the car. "I couldn't crush it, there's no way," said Hutchison. A father himself, Hutchison knew someone was missing something precious. "I posted the story, the picture, that we had found this baby's urn," explained Wallace. That post by Hutchison's fiance, reached Angela Jeffers. "Something in my stomach told me I have to find this baby's parents," said Jeffers. And she did. "It was a serious blessing, I thought I had lost my daughter forever," said Sanford Byrd. His daughter died from SIDS at five months old. "It's been a real rough journey, we take it everywhere we go." The urn was in his girlfriend's car when she got in an accident. "At the time, she didn't have her license, so they impounded the car," said Byrd. "They wouldn't allow her to get the baby, said that was property of the car." Hutchison and Wallace felt the same way. "I sat on my couch and I prayed and I cried with that baby to help me find her parents," said Wallace. "This is the way to start off 2015, it's a blessing," said Byrd. "I'm full of joy, I'm so happy that it hurts."

– A man who thought he'd lost the boxed ashes of his deceased infant daughter has them back thanks to the efforts of several strangers in central Ohio. WBNS-TV in Columbus reports a man processing cars bound for a scrap yard spotted the gold box sitting on a vehicle's dashboard. It was etched with the name Jeanette Byrd, along with her birth and death dates. Seth Hutchison realized what was inside: "I couldn't crush it, there's no way," he tells the station. His fiancee posted about the discovery online, inspiring Angela Jeffers to track down the girl's parents. On Wednesday, she took to Facebook to explain that she "spent hours looking for records of this child to find a death certificate with a father's name. After finding a man with the same name on Fb I debated to message him." Message him she did, ultimately reconnecting Sanford Byrd with his girl's remains. Byrd says he thought the ashes were lost for good because the box was in his girlfriend's car when it was involved in an accident. "At the time, she didn't have her license, so they impounded the car," says Byrd. "They wouldn't allow her to get the baby, said that was property of the car." And so he lost something that he had taken "everywhere we go"; Jeanette died from SIDS at five months, and it was a "real rough journey since," he says. Writes Jeffers, "To the Byrd family I hope 2015 is much better than 2014 was for you all." That seems likely: Getting back his child's remains makes him "so happy that it hurts," says Byrd.

We've obtained a copy of Target's notorious internal anti-union propaganda video, which it shows to all new employees in America when they're hired. As far as we know, it can't be found online anywhere else. The 13-minute video, "Think Hard Before You Sign," has the production values and cheesy dialogue of an eighth-grade educational film. It begins with an earnest discussion of Target's business agility, and, at about the 1:50 mark, the anti-union push begins in earnest. Highlights include: The fictional employees' assurance that "you can get more hours" without a union—although a persistent inability to get enough hours to earn a living wage is one of the prime reasons that Target employees in New York are now contemplating joining a union. The repeated reminders that "you have the right" to not sign a union card, pay union dues, or have a union represent you in any way, as if union-busting were a dramatic assertion of a retail employee's fundamental human rights. Target director of labor relations Jim Rowader's outfit and haircut. Hey there, Jim. For a sophisticated multibillion-dollar corporation, Target sure turns out some shitty propaganda. (Though we knew that already.) For perspective on this video and the Target employment situation as a whole from real Target employees, see here or here ||||| On the night of Aug. 9, the rowdy crowd inside Hawk's bar in downtown Madison grew ever quieter as the election results trickled in. Earlier that day, with the nation watching, voters statewide cast their ballots in Wisconsin's eagerly awaited recall elections that threatened the seats of six Republican state senators. Democrats needed to win three of them to regain control of the state Senate and block Republican Gov. Scott Walker's hard-line agenda. But it wasn't to be. Deep into the night, an MSNBC anchor announced that a fourth GOP senator, Alberta Darling of north Milwaukee and the nearby suburbs, had clinched a narrow victory. Haw slipped outside. It wasn't supposed to turn out like this, she thought. Progressives had mobilized damn near every possible supporter they could, phone banking and door knocking and Facebooking and tweeting, and in the end, it still wasn't enough. She thought of all the energy poured into the recall effort, and of her 2-year-old daughter running around the house shouting, "Recall Walker! Recall Walker!" Standing on the sidewalk, she burst into tears. I met Haw and her mother later that night at Hawk's. We sat around chewing over the election results till the bar emptied. Haw, who was wearing a red T-shirt with "Solidarity" emblazoned on the front, said simply, "I feel terrible that we lost." I reminded her what the Democrats had been up against: With one exception, the six districts in play leaned to the right, and all six of those Republicans had won in 2008 despite the Obama frenzy that gripped the state. (He won it by nearly 14 percentage points.) She nodded along with me and then summed her feelings up this way: "I guess it's the best of times and the worst of times." That ambivalence seemed to carry through Wisconsin's historic summer of recalls, which ended on Aug. 16 when a pair of Democratic state senators easily defended their seats from a Republican recall effort. Which is to say, when the dust settled in the Badger State, there was no clear winner. Wisconsin Democrats took five out of the summer's nine recalls, and also won the overall vote count by 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent. They failed, however, in their chief goal: winning enough seats to wrest control of the state Senate majority and so shift the balance of power away from Gov. Walker and his allies in the legislature. That didn't stop Mike Tate, chairman of the state Democratic Party, from crowing that Democrats had clinched the "overall victory." Republicans, meanwhile, cast the results as a vindication of Walker and his Republican game plan. "Wisconsin now emerges from this recall election season with a united Republican majority," Wisconsin GOP chairman Brad Courtney bragged. "[We've] beaten off an attack from national unions and special interests and emerged steadfastly committed to carrying forward a bold job creation agenda." Liberal and conservative media similarly claimed victory. The Nation's John Nichols, the most vocal cheerleader for the Democrats, wrote that their recall wins dealt "a serious blow to [Republican] authority inside the state Capitol." Conservative blogger Owen Robinson was typical when he opined in the West Bend Daily News, "The people decided that they were pretty happy with the direction the Republicans are moving the state and let them retain power in Madison." Can it be both? If not, then who really won in Wisconsin? And what does that portend for the fledgling movement sparked by the labor uprising in February and March? The Union Manpower Machine The night before the Aug. 9 recalls, people clutching stacks of paper and cradling cellphones to their ears spilled out of the Laborers' Local 464 union hall on the north side of Madison. The Democratic Party had moved its phone-banking operation to the union hall to accommodate the waves of volunteers who had turned out to help the six Democrats in the next day's election. The hall itself buzzed with the din of a few dozen conversations, and with volunteer trainers getting the next crop of callers ready for their upcoming three-hour shift. I logged 1,200 miles driving around Wisconsin before the GOP recall elections, and saw the same enthusiasm nearly everywhere I went. It was something to behold, the staggering get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort mounted by the labor unions and the Democratic Party -- at a time of year when many Wisconsinites are normally more preoccupied with last night's Brewers game and heading out to the lake for the weekend. One Sunday afternoon, I tagged along with a savvy, relentless community organizer named Austin Thompson in a mostly black, low- and middle-income neighborhood that locals call "Far North" Milwaukee. At door after door, Thompson stressed the importance of voting in the recalls; by the time I met him, he'd visited some houses five or six times, determined to mobilize a pocket of the city that, he reminded me, barely turned out the vote in the 2010 election. That energy carried right up until the polls closed. Tom Bird, a whip-smart grad student I'd befriended during Madison's labor protests back in February, texted me at 6 p.m. on Election Day from a local union meeting place, "I can't even phone bank because the labor temple is full." Democrats and the unions had thrown everything in the ring. All that GOTV effort paid off -- but for both parties. Forty-four percent of eligible voters in the six state Senate districts cast a ballot on Aug. 9, just shy of the combined turnout for the 2010 governor's race. The GOP's biggest fear -- that a small but motivated base of opponents would come out while their supporters stayed home -- did not happen. "Everybody voted. Ultimately, that probably hurt," Democratic pollster Paul Maslin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "We didn't have that kind of aggrieved-party advantage [we needed]." Nor did Democrats have a big money advantage. Mike McCabe, director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan outfit that tracks money in Badger State politics, said upwards of $40 million was spent on the nine recall races, with both left- and right-leaning groups spending roughly the same amount. By contrast, $3.75 million went into the entire slate of legislative races in 2010. The key difference, McCabe explained, was the wave of "dark money" spent by right-leaning groups, who, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision of 2010, didn't have to disclose their donors. (Left-leaning groups almost entirely disclosed their funders.) Such staggering recall spending, he said, "is so out of whack from everything we've ever seen." Make no mistake: The Democrats and labor unions won the overall GOTV fight. In the nine Senate districts in play this summer, more ballots were cast for Democrats than for Tom Barrett, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, in last November's general election. Sure, Republican turnout was higher than expected, but a majority of the districts at stake were colored red on the political map anyway. "Union money is being matched or outmatched by money from conservative organizations," wrote Slate's Dave Weigel, "but union turnout operations are outmuscling conservatives and the Tea Party." Putting the Cart before the Donkey A week before the Aug. 9 recalls, Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Mike Tate held a national conference call with reporters to deliver some rosy news. Internal polling (always to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt) showed Democrats leading in three races and tied in the remaining three. Tate didn't say so outright, but the swagger in his voice sent a message: We're gonna win this thing. Next stop, Senate majority. When I arrived in Wisconsin four days before the vote, many of the activists, operatives and candidates with whom I talked brimmed with confidence. Polling data from the liberal Daily Kos website showed Democrats ahead in three races, albeit by the narrowest of margins in two of them. "In my mind we get all six," Jessica King, one of the six Democratic challengers, told me on the steps of the Waupun City Hall. (And she would, in fact, unseat the Republican she was facing.) Then, on the eve of the elections, I sensed a subtle shift. A succession of union and Democratic staffers pulled me aside to remind me about what an uphill fight their candidates faced, and how difficult it was going to be to win on GOP turf in the dead of summer. You could feel then that, by trumpeting their chances of ousting three or more senators, left-leaning groups feared that they had put the cart before the donkey (if you will). Suddenly, the bluster was gone, and they were racing to manage expectations. It was too late. When Democrats fell one seat short of winning back the Senate majority, their opponents promptly portrayed what was certainly a victory as an embarrassing loss, a waste of money and manpower, a sign of the left's waning clout. "They came, they spent, they lost," was how one conservative blogger put it. "Unions made Wisconsin a great battleground to send a message to other states that politicians who challenge union power will pay a price," the Wall Street Journal editorial board opined. "The real price was paid by the unions themselves, in the national demonstration of their diminishing power." Never mind that the Republicans had fired the first shot in the summer's recall battle, and that the Democrats had launched their own recall efforts only in response to Republican threats -- a point, it should be added, that Democrats failed to hammer home. And so even though left-leaning groups turned out more voters, won more races, and left Gov. Walker with a razor-thin majority -- and one Republican senator who voted against Walker's anti-union bill and might be willing to work with the Democrats on key issues -- they found themselves losing the messaging war. They had pinned their hopes on instant and total victory, on flipping the Senate, when they just as easily could have kept expectations in check. Such lofty ambitions in the face of very long odds and unfriendly demographics gave Republicans an opening to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Further to the Left -- and Right Matt Thompson leaned back in his chair at the Argus pub just off Capitol Square in Madison, and thought about what came next. (Heavy political discussion in Wisconsin, you might have noticed, is often accompanied by even heavier ales.) Thompson had taken to the streets during the winter labor uprising to protest Walker's anti-union actions, and since then has been a voice in the debate over the future of Wisconsin's re-energized progressive movement, a discussion cultivated on the Twitter hashtag #wiunion. "I just don't want this movement, whatever you want to call it, to fade," he told me. "But if we don't get three seats, I feel like that's gonna hurt our momentum." Thompson was right to worry. With no obvious winner in Wisconsin's summer recalls, it's unclear what comes next for progressives. Many of the Wisconsinites I met told me that they were tired of the attack ads and political fisticuffs; they couldn't wait for the Senate recalls to end so they could get on with their lives. Yet left-leaning groups insist that the nine races were mere previews for the biggest recall of all: Gov. Walker's. There are plenty of reasons why a Walker recall would be a long shot. For starters, only two governors have been recalled in this country's history: North Dakota's Lynn Frazier in 1921 and California's Gray Davis in 2003. Walker's opponents will need to collect upward of 600,000 signatures in 60 days to trigger a recall. And they will have to decide whether to begin collecting signatures in January, the moment Walker is eligible for recall -- he has to have been in office for a full year -- or plan their effort to coincide with the November presidential election. Collecting 600,000 signatures, activists told me, isn't that daunting; 1 million Wisconsinites voted for Walker's opponent in 2010 in an election featuring a mediocre turnout and before anyone knew that Walker wanted to kneecap public-sector unions. But winning a recall election remains a very tall order. If the Senate recalls succeeded at anything, experts say, it was in further polarizing the voters of Wisconsin, widening the chasm between left and right in a state previously known for compromise. (Remember, it was Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson who ushered in BadgerCare, the state's renowned health insurance program for low-income parents and children.) Then there's the recall fatigue felt by many. After weeks of nasty attack ads blanketing the airwaves, some of them peddling outright lies, there was a general feeling that people wanted to get on with their lives. A recent survey by left-leaning Public Policy Polling captured that wariness, with 50 percent of respondents opposing a Walker recall while 47 percent supported it. Any such recall effort would also fall within the shadow of the 2012 presidential race, if not on Election Day itself, raising an important question: Would the Democratic Party and liberal outside groups that spent tens of millions of dollars in Wisconsin this summer siphon money away from defending President Obama or preserving their U.S. Senate majority in a difficult effort to defeat Walker? When you play the angles, a Walker recall looks increasingly unlikely, says Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist. "I think it could happen," he told me, "but between the letdown of not having succeeded fully this time and the competition in 2012, I think it's going to wither away." Progressives at the Crossroads Not if the unions can help it. After returning from Wisconsin, I interviewed Mary Kay Henry, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), at her organization's headquarters just off Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. Henry's spacious office was splashed with colorful maps depicting SEIU membership around the country or various states' positions on issues like anti-gay and right-to-work legislation. She was, Henry said, "incredibly proud of the heroic efforts" of the unions in pushing back against Walker and Wisconsin Republicans, but also "disappointed with the outcome." Most of all, she went on, the big challenge for SEIU and other unions was transforming the Wisconsin uprising into something larger. "I have waited all my life to see what I saw in February," she told me. "And I think the question for us is how do we add oxygen to that?" Henry acknowledged the possibility that a Walker recall election might go forward, but insisted that the key for Wisconsin's progressives was "not to limit [the movement] or narrow it into electoral politics." Instead, she considered it crucial to make sure "it's expanded into a demand for jobs from the private sector in the state, and getting people back to work." She summed things up this way: "I just think we need to expand the fight." Even activists on the ground in Wisconsin don't yet know if that will happen. For the rest of us, their decision either to press on or pack it in will speak volumes about where progressive organizing stands in America, a nation where too many protesters believe it's enough to turn up for a few rallies and then go home, even though the foundations for real mass movements (like Egypt's democracy uprising) are laid years before lasting change occurs. Americans need such a movement, built on economic populism and the dream of shared prosperity. The question is: Are Wisconsin's progressives the first spark in that movement? Or is theirs a flare that is already flickering out? To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

– Oh, Target: Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to hire union actors for your anti-union employee training video. The video, which Gawker dubs “propaganda,” was created in 2003 but made headlines this week when that site made it publicly viewable for the first time. Now Salon reports that the two actors in the video, who play Target employees warning other Target employees about the dangers of signing up for a union, are both union actors and that the video was filmed under the jurisdiction of huge entertainment union AFTRA. "If someone hires me to play a rapist, does it make me a rapist? You take the job, and you're an actor," says Ric Reitz, who plays one of the employees. "Am I pro-union? Absolutely." That said, he did find the content “very awkward” when he got the script, but AFTRA informed him it was perfectly fine to take the job. Target has long fought against labor organizers, and a big development is expected tomorrow when hundreds of workers at a New York store vote on whether to join a union. Click to watch the video.

what's the matter with wisconsin? Tea Party Faces Off With Protesters in Wisconsin Tea party activists headed to Wisconsin today to defend Governor Scott Walker, but the party members were outnumbered by tens of thousands demonstrating against Walker's proposed legislation to roll back pay, benefits, and bargaining rights of state workers. The bill's opponents marched counterclockwise around the state capitol chanting "kill the bill" and "Fox News lies," while tea party activists shouted "recall them all," referring to the Obama-backed Democratic state senators who fled to a Best Western in Illinois to deny Republicans the quorum needed for the proposal to be voted on. That said, the atmosphere at the protests was reportedly "peaceful and friendly." Practically a nice time! Competing Wisconsin protests peaceful, draw thousands [Reuters] Wisconsin GOP, Dem disputes escalate [Politico] ||||| Budget Battle Special Section: Ongoing coverage of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial budget-repair bill and the battle over the 2011-'13 state budget Madison — With no political compromise in sight on Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill, tens of thousands of demonstrators with strong opinions of their own converged Saturday inside and outside the state Capitol to chant, sing, wave signs, beat drums and march for their causes. The march, believed to be the largest gathering at the Capitol since protesters began showing up last week, was huge but peaceful. There were no arrests, according to state officials. The protesters descended on Madison as Walker, through a spokesman, rejected an overture from a Democratic state senator who said public employee unions had agreed to make financial sacrifices contained in the bill in return for the right to bargain collectively. Cullen Werwie, Walker's spokesman, said in a statement that state Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) "should come to work and debate the bill while doing his job in Madison. "Gov. Walker has repeatedly said that we won't negotiate the budget and we can't balance the budget on a hope and a prayer," Werwie said. "That remains true. State and local government need the flexibility to manage this and future budget crises. In addition, as government workers pay a modest amount toward their pension and health care premium, about half the national average, it is fair to give them the choice of additional savings on their union dues." Walker's office reacted in response to Erpenbach, who said he had been informed that state and local public employee unions had agreed to the financial aspects of the measure. Erpenbach's statement was backed by a spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, who confirmed the agreement, and by Marty Beil, the head of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Erpenbach said the offer was "a legitimate and serious offer on the table from local, state and school public employees that balances Gov. Walker's budget." "It would appear that Gov. Walker's only target is the destruction of collective bargaining rights and not solving the state's budget," Erpenbach said. Erpenbach said the next move belonged to Walker. "I don't see this coming to a head until the governor takes a look at this," Erpenbach said. "He has all he needs to balance the budget." State Sen. Mark Miller (D-Middleton) agreed with Erpenbach. "The governor got us into this mess by going too far," Miller said. He said local school districts and city councils across the state had the ability now to bargain with unions as a means of balancing budgets and negotiating cuts. Sen. Jim Holperin (D-Conover) said Democratic senators were to meet in caucus again on Saturday night at an undisclosed location in Illinois. Holperin said the senators expect to remain out of state through the weekend. But he said eventually they will have to make a decision to come back, either with Republicans agreeing to let collective bargaining stay intact, or by senators staying away long enough for the public to have enough time to study the legislation. Pro-Walker protest It was the fifth day of protests over Walker's budget-repair bill but the first day on which a large, organized pro-Walker rally countered the demonstrators. The number of protesters opposed to Walker's bill, however, outnumbered by far the groups representing tea party organizations and other groups backing the governor. All day, there was a heavy security presence around the Capitol. Outside, while groups were parading around the square and shouting slogans, police from multiple jurisdictions, some as far away as Brown County, were watching. State officials said as many as 500 officers were on duty, representing 40 different law enforcement agencies. There were no arrests and no major incidents were reported, said police spokesman Joel DeSpain. "If the eyes of the nation and the world are truly upon us, then I think we've been able to show that democracy can work well, even if those who have passionate views on different sides come together" in competing rallies, DeSpain said. Separated from union-sponsored gatherings by orange plastic barriers, several thousand tea party protesters and others supporting Walker gathered. Many were holding signs supporting the governor. At one area in which both pro- and anti-Walker protesters had gathered, one side chanted, "Kill the bill," while another group yelled, "Pass the bill." Tom Rynders, a Vietnam veteran in town to support Walker, was talking to a Journal Sentinel reporter when a union protester yelled at him, "This is about losing our rights as citizens." Replied Rynders, "I have rights, too." Outside, pro-union protesters walked around the perimeter of the square, shouting their support for public employees. At times, the ambience seemed like Madison's venerable farmer's market on Capitol Square. But once they approached the south side of the Capitol, where the tea party and pro-Walker groups were assembled, the shouting from both sides rose in intensity. Some of the signs read, "Do Your Job" and "The Gravy Train is Over." At 6 feet, 8 inches tall, Jory Mikkonen of Milwaukee stood above the crowd and shouted loudly at the pro-union sympathizers, "Unions go home!" Another protester yelled in response: "Get a degree!" Mikkonen said, "Bring your legislators back, so we can pass the bill." Yet another protester yelled to him, "You're ignorant." "Maybe you should have voted on election day," Mikkonen shot back. Mikkonen, a Marine Corps veteran, said he lost two jobs in manufacturing and now holds three different jobs, including working as a waiter and pizza deliverer, to support himself. "Jobs are hard to come by, but I found something in less than a month," he said. "And these guys want more benefits at our expense." But not all exchanges were so heated. Walker supporter John Poehling, 57, debated intensely but amiably for 10 minutes with a public employee. They shook hands and walked away. "We had a dialogue, but we didn't change each other's mind," Poehling said with a smile. Pete Skaar, 48, said he was a conservative who drove from northeastern Wisconsin to protest Walker's policies. He stood on the square with a sign that read, "Conservative Ashamed of Walker." "I just believe he's taken advantage of the crisis to push his political agenda, just like Obama with health care," Skaar said. Skaar works with the Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles in Peshtigo. He is represented by a state union, the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association, but is not a member. Most of Walker's supporters had left Capitol Square by midafternoon, but not all. In the afternoon, the sound from the dueling protesters was so loud that many of the tea party supporters couldn't hear the speakers. Instead they commiserated about teachers, complained about the missing senators and tried to shout down pro-union demonstrators. Americans for Prosperity Executive Director Tim Phillips told his supporters on Saturday that the country is in the midst of a "revolution of fiscal sanity." He led tea party supporters in a rousing chant of "Do Your Job." "We are going to win. We are going to win our nation and our values," said Phillips. "The eyes of the entire nation are on you today," said Phillips, whose group helped organize the event to back Walker's budget-repair bill. On the other side of the question was Laura Vernon, 57, of Milwaukee, a WEAC member and security officer in Milwaukee Public Schools for 35 years. She told a union rally elsewhere on Capitol Square that schools understand the importance of fighting bullying. "It's my job to fight bullies every day, but we are being bullied," Vernon said. Elsewhere on the square, doctors from numerous hospitals set up a station near the Capitol to provide notes covering public employees' absences, according to The Associated Press. Family physician Lou Sanner, 59, of Madison told the AP that he had given out hundreds of notes. Many of the people he spoke with seemed to be suffering from stress, he said. Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) called on Democrats to return to Madison and said that all Republican senators are within three hours of the Capitol. Fitzgerald emphasized Republicans have no plans to bargain over any aspects of the legislation, and that union officials' statements on Friday that they are willing to bargain on financial aspects don't change a thing. "They (Democratic senators) need to come back and go to work," Fitzgerald said. Fitzgerald also predicted that Republicans would vote unanimously on the bill, even though some members, including Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) have expressed some reservations. State Sen. Rob Cowles (R-Green Bay) said it appeared any legislative activity would have to wait for Tuesday. Monday, he said, is a scheduled furlough day for state employees. Fitzgerald also said that his members continue to be concerned about safety issues. He said that several senators have received threatening e-mails - he said Capitol police have told him not to elaborate - and some senators have had protesters show up at their homes. "(Security) is very much on their minds," Fitzgerald said. ||||| Protesters gather down State Street in Madison, Wis. after a a rally outside the Wisconsin State Capitol on Saturday, Feb. 19, 2011. A few dozen police officers stood between supporters of GOP... (Associated Press) As union supporters launched a sixth day of protests at the Wisconsin Capitol, the state's Republican governor reiterated Sunday that he wouldn't compromise on a bill that would eliminate most of public employees' collective bargaining rights. The controversial measure aimed at easing the Midwestern state's budget woes led to massive protests that started Tuesday and have gained steam each day. An estimated 68,000 people turned out Saturday. All but a few thousand opposed the bill, but the day marked the first time that a significant contingent of Walker supporters showed up to counter-protest. There were no clashes. Hundreds of pro-union protesters gathered inside the Capitol on Sunday, as snow turned into freezing rain that made walking outside the building a challenge. The demonstrators banged on drums and danced in the Capitol Rotunda while they chanted, "This is what Democracy looks like" and "Union busting!" Democratic lawmakers have said they and union members would agree to financial concessions that the Republican governor wants in exchange for allowing workers to keep their collective bargaining rights. But Walker said he wasn't willing to budge, and he expected the bill to pass as is. "We're willing to take this as long as it takes because in the end we're doing the right thing," he told Fox News from Madison. The Wisconsin governor _ elected in November's Republican wave that also gave control of the state Assembly and Senate to Republicans _ says that concessions from public employee unions are needed to deal with the state's projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall and to avoid layoffs of government workers. The bill would require government workers to contribute more to their health care and pension costs and limit collective bargaining to pay increases less than the Consumer Price Index. The dispute is being watched around the country because if Walker prevails in Wisconsin, other conservative Republican governors may try to go after powerful public employee unions as part of their budget-cutting policies. Defeating the Wisconsin bill and others like it is crucial for public-sector unions, an important part of the Democratic Party base. President Barack Obama and other Democrats will need the strong support of unions in the 2012 elections _ especially in key swing states like Wisconsin _ to counter a huge influx of corporate funds allowed under a Supreme Court decision last year. Nearly every major union leader _ both public and private sector _ has united behind an ambitious $30 million plan to stop anti-labor measures in Wisconsin and at least 10 other states. Legislative action on the bill came to a halt Thursday when 14 Democratic state senators fled the state to delay a vote. They remained in hiding Sunday, but Walker told Fox News he thought they would return to work early this week. "Democracy means you show up and participate and they failed to do that," he said. "They're walking out on their job." Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Sunday that the senators weren't likely to come back until the governor was willing to compromise. If all 14 Democratic Senators stay away, there isn't the required quorum to vote on legislation. Erpenbach said he remained at a Chicago hotel and his colleagues were "scattered" out of state. They had a conference call Saturday night, and Erpenbach said they remained united in their effort to stall the bill. "It's trying to slow this train down," he said. "It's making sure that obviously everybody in the state knows what we're dealing with here. It's an opportunity for the governor to calm down, take a step back, realize what he's asking for with this legislation and hopefully come to his senses." Erpenbach said Democrats have reached out to Walker's administration but have not had their phone calls returned. He said it may take a coalition of moderate Republicans in the Senate to try to negotiate an end to the stalemate. One of them, Republican Sen. Dale Schultz has proposed suspending collective bargaining rights temporarily to get through the state's two-year budget, but then restoring them in 2013. That idea was endorsed Sunday by the Wisconsin State Journal, the state's second largest newspaper. Erpenbach called Schultz brave for bucking Walker's administration with the proposal. Asked whether Democrats could accept Schultz's plan, Erpenbach said workers should not lose their rights since they have agreed to make concessions by paying more for their health care and pensions. At the Capitol, former state Democratic Party Chairman Joe Wineke arrived Sunday to join the protest. A former state senator, Wineke said he was impressed by the resolve of the 14 Democratic state senators who are delaying a vote on the bill. "This thing is going to end badly for Scott Walker," Wineke predicted. "He underestimated the resolve of the public." On Sunday, cornerback Charles Woodson, a member of the National Football League Players Association, became the latest Green Bay Packer to back the public employees' cause. NFL owners and the players' union are locked in their own fight over a collective bargaining agreement. Along with Woodson, seven other current and former Packers have expressed support for the protesters. ___ Associated Press writer Dinesh Ramde in Milwaukee contributed to this report. ||||| MacIver News Service | February 19, 2011 12:05pm Updated 2:40pm [Madison, WI] As tens of thousands of public employees skipped work this week to attend protest rallies outside the Wisconsin State Capitol, many wondered if they would face any disciplinary action for unexcused absences. On Saturday, a group of men and women in lab coats purporting to be doctors were handing out medical excuse notes, without examining the 'patients.' "I asked this doctor what he was doing and he told me they were handing out excuses to people who were feeling sick due to emotional, mental or financial distress," said Christian Hartsock. "They never performed an exam--he asked me how I was feeling today and I said I'm from California and I'm not used to the cold, so he handed me a note." Another woman, who wished to remain anonymous, said they were handing out excuses like they were leaflets. "I asked if they were handing out doctors' excuses and a guy said yes and asked me if I needed one," she said. "When I told them I needed one for February 16 and 17th, he wondered if I wanted to come back here for the protests next week." What happened next? "I said, 'sure,' and I received a doctor's note for the 16th through the 25th of February, without a medical exam." The notes read Feb 19, 2011 Patient's name______ Date of birth ____/_____/_____ To Whom it May Concern: This is confirm I have seen and evaluated the above named patient. Please excuse from work/school due to a medical condition from ____/____/____ through Please contact me at badgerdoctors@gmail.com if additional information is needed. Thank you. Sincerely, Physician Signature: Physician Name WI license number Based on an examination of the signature and medical license number provided, one of the men handing out these notes was purporting to be James H Shropshire MD, a Clinical Associate Professor at the University Wisconsin Madison. At this time, MacIver News Service is attempting to contact Dr. Shropshire to see if indeed he was the one handing out the notes on the Capitol Square.

– As the Wisconsin protests saw their biggest day yet yesterday, doctors handed out sick notes to workers who needed them to explain absences. Men and women wearing lab coats and claiming to be doctors “were handing out excuses to people who were feeling sick due to emotional, mental, or financial distress,” one witness tells the MacIver Institute; he and others say that no exam was performed before a note was handed out. Meanwhile, protesters were met for the first time by an organized group of people from the opposing side who are for the controversial budget-repair bill, and Gov. Scott Walker refused a proposed compromise. Tens of thousands of demonstrators converged inside and outside the Capitol yesterday, the fifth day of protests, as Democratic senators remained out of the state, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. One Democratic state senator, with backing from public employee unions, said the unions would submit to the financial sacrifices the bill contains as long as they kept their collective bargaining rights, but Walker, through a spokesperson, refused to negotiate. And as protesters yelled slogans like “Kill the bill,” pro-Walker demonstrators responded with slogans including “Pass the bill”—but the protests remained peaceful and no arrests were made. Protests continued today, as Walker reiterated his refusal to compromise, the AP adds, noting that 68,000 people turned out yesterday. Click for more on the Tea Party’s face-off with anti-bill protesters.

Turing Pharmaceuticals sparked nationwide outrage and government investigations when it raised the cost of a generic drug used for AIDS and cancer from $13.50 to $750 a capsule. Today, a San Diego biomedical company today introduced a competitor to that drug that sells for $1 a capsule. Moreover, the company, Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, plans to compete against other manufacturers who sell generic drugs far above their cost. Like Daraprim, these drugs tend to be used in niche markets that don't attract much competition. Turing's drug, Daraprim, is a brand-name formulation of the generic drug pyrimethamine. Turing's CEO, Martin Shkreli, gained notoriety last month when his company acquired the drug and raised the cost by 5,000 percent. Imprimis' version is a combination of pyrimethamine along with another generic, leucovorin, a form of folic acid. Leucovorin helps cancer patients cope with chemotherapy. Turing isn't the first company to suddenly raise the price of a generic drug. Valeant Pharmaceuticals became well-known for the practice. It raised the prices of two heart drugs, Nitropress and Isuprel, by a respective 212 percent and 525 percent immediately upon acquiring them. Valeant also raised the price of the San Diego-originated heartburn drug Zegerid by 550 percent this year, according to Deutsche Bank. Zegerid was developed by San Diego’s Santarus, which was bought in November 2013 for $2.6 billion by Salix Pharmaceuticals. Valeant purchased Salix in March of this year for $11 billion. Valeant's actions provoked a storm of opposition, including criticism from those inside the pharmaceutical industry. Politicians joined the fray, including Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont who calls himself a democratic socialist. But Turing took the practice to a previously unheard-of level, Imprimis CEO Mark L Baum said in a Thursday interview. Baum said the response of Imprimis provides a market-based answer to exorbitant drug pricing. Pharmaceutical companies typically respond to complaints about high prices by saying much of the price represents recovery of the cost of expensive research. That is Shrekli's explanation for the price increase, that the money helps pay for bringing innovative new drugs to market, and provides a financial incentive to bring more existing drugs to market that right now aren't sold because there's not enough profit. "We spend more than 50% of our revenue on R&D;," Shkreli said on Twitter in response to criticism. "Please get your facts straight before lumping us in with others." Turing also says it offers major price discounts for patients in such programs as Medicaid, selling for as low as $1 a bottle. However, a company that buys a generic drug didn't pay for the research, and pays much less than if the drug had still been under patent. Industry groups such as PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, have condemned the practice. Mark L. Baum, Imprimis CEO.— Imprimis Pharmaceuticals + Read Caption Share Photo    ✉ Joe Panetta, CEO of the San Diego-based life science trade group Biocom, said the Imprimis announcement was good news. Panetta said the actions of companies like Turing were counterproductive. "There was no justification for it other than profit," Panetta said. "If they were truly recovering the cost of research or investing in new, innovative drugs, you could begin to justify the increase in cost." Monopoly challenged Turing could raise the price of its drug so drastically because it was the only seller of pyrimethamine, which is used to treat toxoplasmosis and other infections. Toxoplasmosis is dangerous for people with weakened immune systems, such as those with HIV disease and chemotherapy. Pyrimethamine is generic, meaning that any qualified drug maker could introduce a competitor. However, it occupies a niche market, and its previously low price meant that other companies didn't see a market opportunity. With its huge price hike, Turing changed that picture. Imprimis said it now offers customizable compounded formulations of pyrimethamine and leucovorin in in capsules for as low as $99 for a bottle of 100 capsules. For more information, visit www.imprimiscares.com. There's a limitation, Baum said: The formulation is not FDA-approved, and can legally only be sold through a doctor's prescription to a specific individual. The specific ingredients are FDA-approved, Baum said, and its compounding operations are FDA-inspected. Filing for FDA approval of the compound itself would take years and millions of dollars, Baum said. By not filing, Imprimis can keep prices down and make a significant profit, even for less than $1 a capsule, Baum said in a Thursday interview. The company has formed a division called Imprimis Cares to make special formulations including such high-priced generic drugs, he said. The division serves all 50 states, he said, and many more drugs are forthcoming. "This is the tip of the iceberg," Baum said. Imprimis sells drugs for use in the eye and for urologic applications. Its ophthalmic products offer formulations of generic drugs made so they can either be injected into the eye, or require fewer applications of eye drops. The injectable products are intended to reduce the need for patient-administered eye drops, improving compliance. Avoiding hurdles Imprimis has found a legitimate way around the cost and regulatory hurdles to competition, said Ed Silverman, a veteran pharmaceutical industry observer. Silverman runs the longstanding Pharmalot blog, which recently moved to Stat, the Boston Globe's new life science Web site. Silverman said it would be even better if Imprimis had registered its compounding operation with the FDA, which would give doctors and patients a higher measure of confidence. Dr. Sherry Franklin, a Solana Beach pediatric endocrinologist, said she feels more comfortable prescribing compounded formulations that are FDA-approved. While the FDA inspects facilities to ensure they use good manufacturing practices, the compounded drugs themselves are not approved. However, Franklin said she understands that requiring FDA approval of the compounded drug is time-consuming and expensive, and that makes competition more difficult. "It's a conundrum," Franklin said. While complaints about high-priced drugs are long-standing, what's new is that the prices of formerly inexpensive drugs are now being raised, which may make them unaffordable, Franklin said. For example, she said the rising cost of doxycycline, used to treat acne, makes it impractical for that indication. The price has reportedly increased in recent years by 600 percent or more. "The bottom line is the price of drugs in the United States of America is ridiculous," Franklin said. "We are paying the cost for other nations to get medications. I think it's reached a point where we can't continue to do this." ||||| (Reuters) - A specialty drugmaker said it would sell for less than $1 a version of Daraprim, an anti-infective drug at the heart of allegations of "price gouging" involving Turing Pharmaceuticals after it hiked the price by over 5,000 percent to $750 a pill. The 62-year-old Daraprim is sold in the United States by the tiny Turing, whose controversial CEO Martin Shkreli has become the face of industry profiteering after bumping up the drug's price to $750 from $13.50 a pill after buying it in August. San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals Inc said on Thursday it was offering a customizable compounded formulation of the costly drug in the form of an oral capsule. The company develops compounded medications for prescription drugs that do not meet the specific needs of a patient. Unlike Daraprim, Imprimis's formulation in itself is not FDA approved, and can only be used when prescribed by a doctor for a particular patient. Daraprim is used to fight toxoplasmosis, the second leading cause of death from foodborne illness in the country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which estimates about one million people in the U.S. are infected annually with the parasite. The United States has no price controls on medicines even though such caps are common in Europe. Last week, Canada's Valeant Pharmaceutical International Inc disclosed that its pricing and other practices were under investigation by federal prosecutors in New York and Massachusetts. Valeant has attracted attention with several high-profile drug price hikes, including that of heart medication Isuprel, which it has increased eightfold since acquiring it in 2013. U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Democratic lawmakers have criticized price hikes in the U.S. drug industry, triggering a selloff in the life sciences sector. (Reporting by Natalie Grover in Bengaluru; Editing by Don Sebastian) ||||| TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Stepping into the furor over eye-popping price spikes for old generic medicines, a maker of compounded drugs will begin selling $1 doses of Daraprim, whose price recently was jacked up to $750 per pill by Turing Pharmaceuticals. This photo courtesy of Joel Morillo of Passage Productions shows a technician inside Imprimis Pharmaceuticals in Irvine, Calif. Imprimis Pharmaceuticals Inc., which mixes approved drug ingredients to... (Associated Press) San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals Inc., which mixes approved drug ingredients to fill individual patient prescriptions, said Thursday it will supply capsules containing Daraprim's active ingredients, pyrimethamine and leucovorin, for $99 for a 100-capsule bottle, via its site: www.imprimiscares.com. The 3 1/2-year-old drug compounding firm also plans to start making inexpensive versions of other generic drugs whose prices have skyrocketed, Chief Executive Mark Baum told The Associated Press. "We are looking at all of these cases where the sole-source generic companies are jacking the price way up," Baum said in an interview. "There'll be many more of these" compounded drugs coming in the near future. The high price of prescription medicines in the U.S. — from drugs for cancer and rare diseases that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year down to once-cheap generic drugs now costing many times their old price — has become a hot issue in the 2016 presidential race. News that Turing, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. and other drugmakers have bought rights to old, cheap medicines that are the only treatment for serious diseases and then hiked prices severalfold has angered patients. It's triggered government investigations, politicians' proposals to fight "price gouging," heavy media scrutiny and a big slump in biotech stock prices. At the eye of the storm is former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, head of Turing Pharmaceuticals, scorned last month for buying rights to and then increasing by more than 5,000 percent the price of Daraprim, a 62-year old drug with no competition. The startup drugmaker paid Impax Laboratories $55 million in August for rights to Daraprim, which treats a rare parasitic infection called toxoplasmosis that mainly strikes pregnant women, cancer patients and AIDS patients. Imprimis, which primarily makes compounded drugs to treat cataracts and urological conditions, will work with health insurers and prescription benefit managers in each state to make its new capsules and other compounded generic medicines widely available, Baum said. "We're geared up. We're ready to go as soon as the orders come in," he said. Compounded drugs are typically made to fill a doctor's prescription for an individual patient, sometimes because the mass-produced version is in short supply or completely unavailable and sometimes to allow for customized formulations or dosages. Compounders don't need Food and Drug Administration approval to do that, unlike drugmakers making huge batches of drugs on complex production lines. Baum said Imprimis will produce its pyrimethamine/leucovorin capsules, using bulk ingredients from manufacturing plants approved by the FDA, at its own facilities in Allen, Texas; Folcroft, Pennsylvania; Irvine, California, and Randolph, New Jersey. Turing's Shkreli, under fire from all sides, said late last month that he would lower the price of Daraprim, but hasn't so far. A Turing spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment Thursday but recently noted the company is capping patient copayments at $10. ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson https://twitter.com/lindaj_onpharma ||||| Ordering from our FDA-Registered Outsourcing Facility? Order online today. Click here Ordering from our patient specific pharmacy? An account is required to prescribe through our MaxRx Prescriber Portal. Ready to start prescribing? Account Setup Account Login If you are currently not a prescriber, please click here to setup an account with our pharmacy. ||||| Imprimis Pharmaceuticals to Make Compounded and Customizable Formulation of Pyrimethamine and Leucovorin Available for Physicians to Prescribe for their Patients as an Alternative to Daraprim® Imprimis forms Imprimis Cares to help combat the high prices of sole source legacy generic drugs SAN DIEGO, Oct. 22, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMMY), a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of proprietary compounded drug therapies, today announced it has made available a customizable compounded formulation of pyrimethamine and leucovorin available for physicians to consider prescribing for their patients as a low cost alternative to Daraprim®. Last month, Turing Pharmaceuticals LLC, the sole supplier of Daraprim, increased the price of this prescription drug from $13.50 per tablet to a reported $750.00 per tablet. The FDA-approved label for Daraprim indicates that it is prescribed for toxoplasmosis and other types of infections. Toxoplasmosis can be of major concern for patients with weakened immune systems such as patients with HIV/AIDS, pregnant women and children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pyrimethamine works to block folic acid synthesis in the parasite T. gondii, the cause of toxoplasmosis, and leucovorin helps to reverse the negative effects on bone marrow caused by this mechanism of action. Imprimis is now offering customizable compounded formulations of pyrimethamine and leucovorin in oral capsules starting as low as $99.00 for a 100 count bottle, or at a cost of under a dollar per capsule. Compounded medications may be appropriate for prescription when a commercially-available medicine does not meet the specific needs of a patient. For ordering information, please visit www.imprimiscares.com. Mark L. Baum, CEO of Imprimis stated, "It is indisputable that generic drug prices have soared recently. While we have seen an increase in costs associated with regulatory compliance, recent generic drug price increases have made us concerned and caused us to take positive action to address an opportunity to help a needy patient population. While we respect Turing's right to charge patients and insurance companies whatever it believes is appropriate, there may be more cost-effective compounded options for medications, such as Daraprim, for patients, physicians, insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers to consider. This is not the first time a sole supply generic drug – especially one that has been approved for use as long as Daraprim – has had its price increased suddenly and to a level that may make it unaffordable. In response to this recent case and others that we will soon identify, Imprimis is forming a new program called Imprimis Cares which is aligned to our corporate mission of making novel and customizable medicines available to physicians and patients today at accessible prices." Mr. Baum added, "Today, some drug prices are simply out of control and we believe we may be able to help control costs by offering compounded alternatives to several sole source legacy generic drugs. Imprimis Cares and its team of compounding pharmacists will work with physicians and their patients to ensure they have affordable access to the medicines they need from the over 7,800 generic FDA-approved drugs. Imprimis Cares, available in all 50 states, will work with all third party insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and buying groups to offer its patient specific customizable compounded drug formulations at prices that ensure accessibility and that provide a reasonable profit for Imprimis. We are here to serve our patients and their physicians. We believe that when we do a great job serving our customers, our shareholders will also benefit." Imprimis' finished compounded drug formulations do not have an FDA-approval label for recommended use. Imprimis compounded formulations are not FDA approved and may only be prescribed pursuant to a physician prescription for an individually identified patient consistent with federal and state laws governing compounded drug formulations. Daraprim® is a registered trademark of Turing Pharmaceuticals LLC. Imprimis is not affiliated with Turing Pharmaceuticals LLC nor Daraprim®. Daraprim® is an FDA-approved drug. Please consult with your physician regarding which prescription options are most suitable for your specific needs. ABOUT IMPRIMIS PHARMACEUTICALS San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMMY) is a national leader in the development, production and dispensing of novel compounded pharmaceuticals. The company's business primarily consists of four therapeutic segments including ophthalmology, urology, sinus and integrative medicine. Imprimis dispenses compounded pharmaceuticals in all 50 states from four facilities located in California, Texas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. For more information about Imprimis, please visit the corporate website at www.ImprimisPharma.com. SAFE HARBOR This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any statements in this release that are not historical facts may be considered such "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties which may cause results to differ materially and adversely from the statements contained herein. Some of the potential risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from those predicted include risks and uncertainties related to Imprimis' ability to make commercially available its compounded formulations and technologies in a timely manner or at all; physician interest in prescribing its formulations; risks related to its compounding pharmacy operations; its ability to enter into other strategic alliances, including arrangements with pharmacies, physicians and healthcare organizations for the development and distribution of its formulations; its ability to obtain intellectual property protection for its assets; its ability to accurately estimate its expenses and cash burn, and raise additional funds when necessary; risks related to research and development activities; the projected size of the potential market for its technologies and formulations; unexpected new data, safety and technical issues; regulatory and market developments impacting compounding pharmacies, outsourcing facilities and the pharmaceutical industry; competition; and market conditions. These and additional risks and uncertainties are more fully described in Imprimis' filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K and its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Such documents may be read free of charge on the SEC's web site at www.sec.gov. Undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. Except as required by law, Imprimis undertakes no obligation to update any forward looking statements to reflect new information, events or circumstances after the date they are made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. CONTACTS John Saharek jsaharek@imprimispharma.com 858.704.4298 Media Contact Georgette Pascale Pascale Communications, LLC Georgette@pascalecommunications.com 412.526.1756 Investor Contact: Bonnie Ortega bortega@imprimispharma.com 858.704.4587 Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20150108/167712LOGO SOURCE Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

– Martin Shkreli has been hemming and hawing about dropping the price of his company's toxoplasmosis drug since he raised it 5,000% in August, but it may be a moot point: A San Diego drug compounding company is now offering its own version of pyrimethamine for $1 a pill, a far cry from the $750 a pill Shkreli's Turing Pharmaceuticals has been charging for Daraprim, the San Diego Tribune reports. Imprimis Pharmaceuticals also plans on taking on other companies "jacking the price up" on meds in niche markets with little or no competition, Imprimis CEO Mark Baum tells the AP. "While we respect Turing's right to charge patients and insurance companies whatever it believes is appropriate, there may be more cost-effective compounded options for medications such as Daraprim," Baum says in a press release. The Imprimis version of pyrimethamine is combined with leucovorin, a type of folic acid cancer patients take to alleviate chemo's effects, the Tribune notes. There's one caveat, per Baum: The drug's combined form doesn't have FDA approval (which can take years), though the individual ingredients do. As such, the only way the formulation can be legally obtained is via a doctor's prescription for the compound, per Reuters. By avoiding the long FDA approval process—and the millions of dollars that would need to go into that—Imprimis can keep costs low and actually turn a "significant profit," the Tribune adds. The company's new Imprimis Cares division will oversee the generic drugs it creates, Baum says, adding, "This is the tip of the iceberg." (Does this mean Bernie Sanders would accept a donation from Baum?)

Hours before the Congressional Democrats met with Mr. Obama, they had expressed alarm publicly to reporters that the emerging proposal seemed too reliant on deep spending cuts compared to new revenue. In private, some vented their criticism at Mr. Obama’s budget director, Jacob J. Lew , during a heated party lunch of Senate Democrats on Thursday. “The president always talked about balance: there had to be some fairness in this, this can’t be all cuts,” said Senator Harry Reid , the Senate majority leader, as he left the meeting with Mr. Lew. “The caucus agrees with that. I hope the president agrees with that, and I’m confident he will.” But the president and Mr. Boehner were moving ahead with their plan, aides said, trying to agree on matters like how much new revenue would be raised, how much would go to deficit reduction, how much to lower tax rates and, perhaps most critical, how to enforce the requirement for new tax revenue through painful consequences for both parties should they be unable to overhaul the tax code in 2012. The White House wants a trigger that would raise taxes on the wealthy; Mr. Boehner wants the potential penalty for inaction to include repeal of the Obama health care law’s mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance after 2014. Officials on all sides of the tense negotiations warned that no firm deal to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion borrowing ceiling was in hand, and tried to play down progress — if only to stave off attempts to change the deal’s shape or to kill it by hard-liners on both sides of the debate. Video “While we are keeping the lines of communication open, there is no ‘deal’ and no progress to report,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner. The White House also denied that any agreement was imminent. Jay Carney , the White House press secretary, said: “There is no deal. We are not close to a deal.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story The same issues that foiled earlier negotiations between Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner remain. Many Republicans oppose abandoning the party’s no-compromise stand against any new taxes, while many Democrats fear a “grand bargain” will undercut their party’s ability in the 2012 campaigns to use Republicans’ support of deep cuts in Medicare , Medicaid and Social Security against them. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. Congressional Democrats already are suggesting the potential Obama-Boehner deal is more tilted toward Republican priorities than a bipartisan plan suggested this week by the so-called Gang of Six senators, three Republicans and three Democrats. House Republicans, too, expressed wariness. While initial reports suggested the emerging plan would appear to meet Republican demands for less reliance on new revenue than Democrats had insisted on, Republicans could be uneasy about accepting a deal tied to higher revenue through tax changes. “The trick on this has always been the tax issue,” one Republican said. Alternative solutions in Congress appeared to be faltering as the Senate on Thursday took up and prepared to reject on Friday a conservative House Republican plan to slash spending by $5.5 trillion, deeper cuts than anything proposed before. A backup plan being prepared in the Senate by Mr. Reid and his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell , the minority leader, was meeting stiff resistance from the House. That plan would allow a debt ceiling increase without the approval of Congress, in effect, but also without the guarantees of deep spending cuts that Republicans wanted in tandem. Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell summoned the Gang of Six — rather, the Gang of Eight with the addition of Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado , a Democrat, and Senator Mike Johanns , Republican of Nebraska — to a meeting on Thursday. Both party leaders were unhappy with the group’s re-emergence this week, and with Mr. Obama’s immediate warm words for the group, because it complicated their own efforts to reach a solution to the debt-limit impasse. As Mr. Boehner called for some action to avert a default, he said Thursday that he was confident that many in the conservative House majority would ultimately be willing to accept some compromise. “At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to act,” Mr. Boehner told reporters. But he also made clear that he was not inclined to take any steps that could be considered a tax increase. “I’ve never voted to raise taxes,” he said, “and I don’t intend to.” ||||| The White House and GOP leaders are discussing a deal worth more than $3 trillion. | AP Photo Dems huddle at White House Furious over a last-ditch attempt by President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner to strike a grand bargain on the debt and deficit, Democratic congressional leaders headed back to the White House Thursday to meet with Obama. The meeting comes as White House and GOP leaders intensified negotiations to reach agreement a package worth more than $3 trillion with changes to entitlements and a promise to do tax reform, according to people familiar with the talks. Story Continued Below No final agreement has been reached, but the two sides are close enough that it has begun to raise alarms among Democrats fearful that White House chief of staff Bill Daley is too willing to give ground to Boehner (R-Ohio) and cut them out of the process. Emerging from a contentious Democratic Caucus meeting, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Obama and Boehner were working toward a “potential agreement” on taxes and spending, a move that has unsettled Democrats on the eve of a crucial August deadline. Underscoring Democratic discontent about the direction of the talks, Reid issued a subtle warning to the president. “What I have to say is this: The president always talked about balance — that there had to be some fairness in this — that this can’t be all cuts, that there has to be a balance,” he said. “That there has to be some revenue in the cuts, my caucus agrees with that — and hope the president sticks with that, and I’m confident he will.” One source said the leaders were told late Wednesday that the administration was “close” to a deal with Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), but other officials familiar with the talks said that assessment was overstating it. Vice President Joe Biden called congressional Democrats to say there was movement toward a large deal but that no agreements had been struck, sources said. Top administration officials were also fanned out across the Hill, meeting with congressional leaders. Boehner took to Twitter to deny a New York Times news alert stating that the GOP was closing in on a deal with the White House. “False,” the speaker wrote. And a source close to Cantor said the majority leader “is not close to or signed off on any deal.” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, said he wasn’t aware of an imminent deal, but that the discussions about a grand bargain “are real.”

– President Obama and John Boehner are reportedly back at the bargaining table, and they could be near a deal to cut the deficit and raise the debt ceiling. The rumored $3 trillion agreement between the administration and top Republicans could include entitlement changes and set plans for tax reform, reports Politico. Stories are conflicting, however. John Boehner has labeled “false” a New York Times piece suggesting a “major budget deal” is approaching—but other insiders say the administration told them as much late yesterday. Meanwhile, the White House press secretary has said the leaders “are not close to a deal.” Still, the reports already have some Democrats concerned that Obama’s chief of staff, Bill Daley, is offering too many concessions. According to the Times piece, the agreement would include new revenue in 2012 through a tax-code overhaul closing loopholes, ditching tax breaks, and lowering taxes for individuals and corporations. Insiders also say the deal would likely contain cuts to Medicare. "I do think there has been a meeting of the minds at least for now … to try and get a grand bargain," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen.

Close Get email notifications on Amir Vera daily! Your notification has been saved. There was a problem saving your notification. Whenever Amir Vera posts new content, you'll get an email delivered to your inbox with a link. Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items. ||||| WASHINGTON — The National Zoo has received calls from the public that the bobcat that escaped Monday may be in an area adjacent to the zoo. The calls indicated that the 25-pound female bobcat Ollie may be in the Woodley Park or Cleveland Park neighborhoods. Meanwhile, D.C. schools have canceled recess at 13 schools near the National Zoo, even though zoo officials say the animal poses no danger to humans. School system spokeswoman Michelle Lerner says the decision to not let students outside on Tuesday was made “out of an abundance of caution.” She declined to comment on how long the policy would stay in place. Zoo spokeswoman Pamela Baker-Masson said she spoke to the school system’s chief operating officer and emphasized that the animal is not dangerous. She says the zoo and the school system will keep in touch as the search for the missing bobcat continues. On Tuesday, a team from the zoo and the Humane Rescue Alliance was dispatched to search the area where Ollie was reportedly spotted. Related Stories Bobcat escapes from National Zoo enclosure Washington, DC News The first choice is to catch her in a blanket, said Baker-Masson. Additionally, they have set up humane traps that look like oversized dog carriers. The Humane Rescue Alliance has darts, as well, but that is not the first choice in catching her, as a darted animal does not go down right away and may run and hide. Baker-Masson said that if Ollie headed toward Rock Creek Park rather than the Woodley Park and Cleveland Park areas, she may never be found. Ollie is believed to have escaped through an opening in the mesh around her enclosure Monday morning. The bobcat was last counted by zookeepers at 7:30 a.m. Monday, but around 10:40 a.m., Ollie couldn’t be found when keepers returned for the morning feeding. Bobcats are native to North America, including the greater Washington area. They prey mostly on small rodents and birds. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Comments WTOP is now using Facebook as our comment platform. Need help? Email us comments Follow @WTOP on Twitter and like us on Facebook. © 2017 WTOP. All Rights Reserved.

– A 25-pound bobcat has sprung herself from the National Zoo in Washington, DC. Ollie went missing Monday morning, probably through an opening in the mesh around her enclosure, reports WTOP. Zoo officials hope she doesn't get into the adjacent Rock Creek Park, which they describe as the perfect place for a bobcat to remain well-fed and undiscovered. Ollie, 7, isn't seen as a threat to humans, though she would likely defend herself if approached. Park-goers, however, probably don't want to leave small pets unattended. Meanwhile, the red panda that escaped last week from the Virginia Zoo in Norfolk? Still missing, reports the Virginian-Pilot.

SEOUL, South Korea — On his first mission to reassure an important American ally, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis met on Thursday with top South Korean officials, who agreed to push ahead with the deployment of a new missile defense system. “Thaad is for defense of our allies’ people, of our troops who are committed to their defense,” Mr. Mattis told reporters, using the acronym for Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, the American antimissile system. It is meant to intercept North Korea’s medium-range missiles. “Were it not for the provocative behavior of North Korea, we would have no need for Thaad out here,” Mr. Mattis added. “There is no other nation that needs to be concerned about Thaad.” South Korea was a logical first stop for Mr. Mattis, who will also visit Japan on the trip. Tensions have risen in the region after Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, proclaimed during his New Year’s Day address that his military was preparing to conduct its first test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. ||||| (CNN) New US Defense Secretary James Mattis on Thursday defended the planned deployment of a missile defense system in South Korea, saying only North Korea had anything to fear from it. After arriving at the Osan Air Base outside Seoul, Mattis said Pyongyang's "provocative behavior" was the only reason the US-developed system was on the agenda. South Korea's decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system, known as THAAD, has drawn sharp criticism from China, which sees it as part of a broader US strategy to extend its military alliance network from Japan all the way down to the South China Sea. "There is no other nation that needs to be concerned about THAAD other than North Korea if they're engaged in something that's offensive," Mattis said. On Thursday afternoon, Mattis met with acting South Korean President Hwang Kyo-ahn in Seoul and reiterated the strength of the US-South Korean alliance. "I talked to President Trump and he wanted to make a very clear statement about the priority that we place on this alliance between our two nations," the US defense chief said. "Our new administration inherits a very strong, trusted relationship between our two countries, and it's our commitment to make it even stronger." Mattis' arrival in South Korea comes at a time of relative quiet from Kim Jong Un's regime , which hasn't tested a ballistic missile since October 20 after firing off projectiles at a record rate earlier in 2016. The question North Korea watchers are asking: How long will Kim keep his missile program grounded? Some analysts expect testing to resume soon. "They have a wonderful tradition of greeting every new US president with a bit of fireworks, sometimes a nuclear test, sometimes ICBM launch, and they're not going to break this tradition," Korean studies professor Andrei Lankov of Kookmin University in Seoul told CNN. But Bruce Bennett of the Rand Corp. think tank said Kim's testing hiatus is focused not on Washington, but on Seoul and the recent impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in a corruption scandal. Her fate is now before South Korea's Constitutional Court. A decision against her could trigger elections earlier than the mandated December 20 deadline. "I believe that North Korea's No. 1 objective between now and the ROK presidential election is to ensure that the new South Korean president will be a progressive and certainly not a conservative," Bennett said, using the acronym for the Republic of Korea. "But any provocations that it commits would give support to conservative candidates," the senior defense analyst said. JUST WATCHED Report: North Korea may test missile soon Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Report: North Korea may test missile soon 02:21 John Delury, a professor at Yonsei University in Seoul, concurs with Bennett to a point, saying Kim is keeping relatively quiet because of the presidential uncertainty in Seoul but also to see what course US President Donald Trump will take. After Kim said in a televised New Year's Day speech that his military is on the brink of testing its first intercontinental ballistic missile -- a rocket that can be equipped with nuclear weapons and is powerful enough to reach any part of the United States -- Trump vowed in a tweet, "It won't happen!" North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2017 But the incoming US leader didn't say how he'd block Kim's missile ambitions. On the campaign trail last year, he said he might be willing to meet the North Korean leader for discussions over a hamburger. Mattis said Thursday he's in South Korea to listen to its leaders before deciding on what strategy the Trump administration will adopt concerning Pyongyang. "I need to get some data from them, I need to get their appreciation of the situation before I start making statements about where I stand," Mattis said. JUST WATCHED What could Trump do about North Korea? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What could Trump do about North Korea? 02:29 "It's hard to anticipate what they do," he said of the North, but he was cautious not to inflame the situation. "We maintained what passes for peace so far to a degree." ||||| Over the past months–and particularly in the days since North Korea’s latest nuclear and satellite tests–there has been a lot of ink spilled on South Korea’s interest in deploying what is known the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. A lot of mainstream coverage of the issue, which has China and South Korea at loggerheads, correctly notes that China is worried about the system, but doesn’t quite get at what exactly THAAD is, what it does, and why its deployment on the Korean peninsula is so threatening to China. China’s anxiety over THAAD has gotten to the point where its ambassador to South Korea would suggest that its implementation would destroy their bilateral relationship in “an instant.” THAAD is a relative recent addition to the United States’ anti-ballistic missile/interceptor toolkit. It entered production in 2008 and is primarily tasked with taking out threatening ballistic missiles in what’s known as their “terminal” phase (the ‘T’ in the acronym). This is actually the first part where a clarification is due. As Jeffrey Lewis recently highlighted in a Foreign Policy column, THAAD, and systems like it, including the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) interceptor, are designed to hit things as they zoom downward toward the earth–not as they go up. This may seem like a trivial point, but Japan made a show of deploying its PAC-3 interceptors in Tokyo ahead of North Korea’s latest satellite launch. Of course, the Kwangmyongsong satellite had a one-way ticket out of the atmosphere and wouldn’t be coming back, making PAC-3, or hypothetically THAAD, useless. (North Korea does have a bunch of short- and medium-range SCUDs that THAAD would be great against, though.) THAAD is particularly well-suited to intercept and destroy short, medium, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. Rod Lyon, in a recent post at the National Interest, helpfully catalogues some of THAAD’s tried-and-tested abilities, which attest to that fact. THAAD’s overall operation is similar to many other missile interceptor and surface-to-air missile systems: an X-Band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar (AN/TPY-2) kicks off THAAD’s interception, detecting the target projectile. THAAD’s fire control and support equipment identifies, verifies, and initiates the launcher. The launcher–a road-mobile erector launcher, to be precise–finally releases the infrared seeker head-equipped THAAD missile which, according to the system’s manufacturer, then uses “kinetic energy to destroy [the] incoming missile.” In plain English, missile meets missile in mid-air; both missiles go “Boom.” There’s a lot more to THAAD’s feature set. The “high altitude” part of the acronym isn’t there for show: THAAD is able to intercept incoming missiles at endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes, with a maximum engagement altitude of roughly 93 miles above the earth’s surface. The missile itself can travel at speeds over Mach 8, placing it in the “hypersonic” category. Indeed, THAAD manufacturer Lockheed Martin is interested in developing an extended range THAAD variant to counter hypersonic glide vehicles, including China’s own WU-14. Keeping this feature set in mind, why is China so upset about a potential THAAD deployment? The answer, I think, has to do more with the monitoring capabilities that are part of the THAAD package. Beijing isn’t, for instance, worried that a THAAD deployment in South Korea would threaten any ballistic missiles it would plausibly fire at the United States–again, THAAD only works against ballistic missiles in the terminal phase and not against inter-continental ones anyway. Lyon evaluates China’s concerns: China’s right to believe that THAAD surveillance data could be transferred to other BMD assets protecting [the continental United States (CONUS)]. Indeed, one of THAAD’s missions would be to strengthen U.S. defenses against the possibility of North Korean ballistic missile attack on CONUS. So it has to be able to transfer data to CONUS-based radars and interceptors. But the United States already has a THAAD battery deployed on Guam, two AN/TPY-2 radars deployed in Japan (at Shariki and Kyogamisaki), space-based assets, plus a range of ship-borne radars and larger land-based radars in other parts of the Pacific theatre. Would a THAAD deployment in South Korea change much? The short answer is that it could improve early tracking of some Chinese missiles, depending on their launch point. Still, that might not make actual interception of those missiles much easier. ICBM warheads move fast. And sophisticated penetration-aids help to confuse missile defenses. So, from the Chinese perspective, a THAAD deployment could shift the strategic stability needle ever so slightly away from its status quo equilibrium and advantage the United States, giving Washington better early warning and tracking of Chinese ICBMs. That, in itself, doesn’t seem like a serious impingement on China’s security or its nuclear deterrent. What’s interesting is reading China’s worries about a THAAD and AN/TPY-2 deployment on the Korean peninsula together with murmurs that Beijing is growing increasingly interested in a launch-on-warning nuclear posture. Does a THAAD deployment affect the credibility of China’s second-strike capabilities by giving the United States a greater early warning edge? Perhaps, but, as Lyon notes above, the difference would be marginal given the AN/TPY-2s already in Japan. Assessing China’s position on THAAD in light of the system’s real capabilities, we should concede that Beijing does have some legitimate reasons to be upset, but I question if the negative implications for China’s security really outweigh the diplomatic cost to the bilateral relationship with South Korea, which had seen a sharp uptick over the past year. Moreover, it’s clear that South Korea’s security would benefit in important ways from a THAAD deployment–Pyongyang’s Toksa, SCUDs, and No Dong missiles would be a lot less threatening. China and South Korea should be able to come to an understanding, but this won’t be possible as long as Beijing holds to its maximalist position on THAAD, refusing to abide a deployment of the interceptor on the peninsula. Are there alternatives? If you ask South Korea and the United States, then the answer is yes: China could change its approach to North Korea, making this THAAD business less necessary in the short-term. I wouldn’t count on that happening anytime soon, despite news of the United States and China making some progress on harsher sanctions.

– Gen. James Mattis is in South Korea, and the new defense secretary has delivered what one analyst calls an "unexpected present" from the Trump administration: clarity on US policy. Mattis arrived in the country Thursday on his first foreign trip in his new role; he'll also visit Japan. He restated the firm US defense commitment to South Korea and addressed controversy over the South's planned deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system, saying North Korea is the only country that has anything to fear from THAAD, CNN reports. China has expressed concern about the US-developed system. Mattis said the system wouldn't be needed at all if it wasn't for the North's provocative behavior. Since taking office, Trump has been issuing orders that upend "longstanding American policy lines," making Mattis' trip and reaffirmation of US commitment to allies an "unexpected present," Go Myong-hyun, an analyst at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul, tells the New York Times. And with more Pyongyang missile launches expected soon, the reassurance will be especially welcome in the South. The North has "a wonderful tradition of greeting every new US president with a bit of fireworks, sometimes a nuclear test, sometimes ICBM launch and they're not going to break this tradition," Korean studies professor Andrei Lankov at Seoul's Kookmin University tells CNN. For further reading, check out the Diplomat's deep dive on what THAAD is and why it's making Beijing so upset.

If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI! ||||| The 9 wildest lines from Trump's news conference But this one takes the cake: 'Russia, if you're listening I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave a whirlwind news conference on Wednesday, vehemently denying that he has any business ties to the Russian government, even while encouraging Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton's private email server. Rumors have swirled for days that the Russian government was behind the hack and release of a trove of embarrassing emails from the Democratic National Committee on the eve of the party's convention — and critics have suggested that the Kremlin dumped the emails to help Trump. Story Continued Below While Russia dominated Trump's Florida news conference on Wednesday morning, the billionaire touched on a head-spinning number of topics, delivering a deluge of sensational statements. Here are his most outrageous lines: 1. To Russian hackers: “It would be interesting to see, I will tell you this, Russia, if you're listening I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” 2. On Vladimir Putin: “I don’t know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me. … I never met Putin.” 3. On Hillary Clinton receiving classified briefings and Anthony Weiner: “Her No. 1 person, Huma Abedin, is married to Anthony Weiner, who’s a sleazeball and pervert. I'm not saying that, that's recorded history. I don't like Huma going home at night and telling Anthony Weiner all of these secrets." 4. On Tim Kaine: “Her running mate Tim Kaine, who by the way did a terrible job in New Jersey — first act he did in New Jersey was ask for a $4 billion tax increase and he was not very popular in New Jersey and he still isn't. ... What? I mean Virginia.” 5. On President Barack Obama: "I think President Obama has been the most ignorant president in our history. His views of the world, as he says, ‘don't jive’ and the world is a mess.” 6. On Hillary Clinton’s lack of news conferences: “The reason is because there is no way she can answer questions because the job she has done is so bad." 7. To NBC News correspondent Katy Tur: “Be quiet, I know you want to, you know, save her.” 8. On Bill Clinton’s speech: “The story told by her husband last night, he left out the most interesting chapter, I won't get into that. The chapter that I really waited for because it was pretty boring, the chapter that I waited for, I never heard and he left it out.” 9. On Putin and the N-word: “Putin has said things over the last year that are really bad things, OK? He mentioned the N-word one time, I was shocked to hear him mention the N-word. You know what the N-word is, right? He mentioned it, I was shocked.” ||||| His comments about Russian hacking came on a day when Obama administration officials were already beginning to develop options for possible retaliation against Russia for the attack on the Democratic National Committee. As is often the case after cyber incidents, the options for responding are limited and can be viewed as seeming too mild or too escalatory. The administration has not publicly accused the Russian government of the Democratic National Committee hacking, or presented evidence to back up such a case. The leaked documents, first published by a hacker who called himself “Guccifer 2.0” and who is now believed to be a character created by Russian intelligence, portrayed some committee officials as favoring Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy while denigrating her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders. The release of the internal party emails and documents led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as chairwoman of the party. Mr. Trump contended on Wednesday that the political uproar over whether Russia was meddling in the election was a “total deflection” from the embarrassing content of the emails. Many Republicans, even some who say they do not support Mr. Trump, say they agree. If Mr. Trump is serious in his call for Russian hacking or exposing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, he would be urging a power often hostile to the United States to violate American law by breaking into a private computer network. He would also be contradicting the Republican platform, adopted last week in Cleveland, saying that cyberespionage “will not be tolerated,” and promising to “respond in kind and in greater magnitude” to all Chinese and Russian cyberattacks. In the past, the Obama administration has stopped short of retaliating against Russia — at least in any public fashion — for its attacks on the State Department and White House unclassified email systems, or on networks used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It never even publicly identified Russian intelligence as the source of those intrusions, though the subject was widely discussed by senior United States officials when they were not speaking for attribution. ||||| In a surprising call for a foreign power to use its hacking abilities to get involved in the U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from the time she was secretary of state. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said to a room full of TV cameras at Trump National Doral. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump said he hopes Russia does have her emails. Clinton’s lawyers had turned over work-related emails, but deleted thousands which she said were about personal matters. “They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there,” he said. “So let's see.” Never miss a local story. Sign up today for a free 30 day free trial of unlimited digital access. SUBSCRIBE NOW A forceful and at times flippant Trump engaged with reporters for about an hour as he bashed Clinton over her emails stored on private servers in her New York home. FBI Director James Comey said earlier this month that Clinton should have known that some of the emails were classified, but concluded there wasn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. Although the Justice Department declined to prosecute, Trump has used the investigation to attack Clinton on the campaign trail and ramped that up Wednesday. Trump said it gave him pause that “crooked Hillary Clinton” deleted 33,000 emails. If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2016 “That gives me a big problem,” Trump said. “After she gets a subpoena! She gets subpoenaed, and she gets rid of 33,000 e-mails? That gives me a problem. Now, if Russia or China or any other country has those e-mails, I mean, to be honest with you, I'd love to see them.” When Katy Tur, an NBC reporter, asked Trump whether he was encouraging a foreign country to hack into emails, Trump snapped back: “Be quiet. I know you want to save her,” a reference to Clinton. The Clinton campaign was quick to respond Wednesday. Said advisor Jake Sullivan: “This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That's not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.” Trump questioned how Clinton could get security briefings when one of her longtime aides is Huma Abedin, wife of Anthony Weiner, a New York congressman who was caught in a sexting scandal. Trump called Weiner “a sleazeball and a pervert.” “I don't like Huma going home at night and telling Anthony Weiner all of these secrets, OK?” Trump said. “So how can Hillary Clinton be briefed on this unbelievably delicate information when it was just proven that she lied and that her server shouldn't have had it and that they're missing 33,000 e-mails and that's just the beginning.” Trump faced several questions about whether he has ties to Russia — which he denied — and his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “I never met Putin,” he said. “I don’t know who Putin is. He said one nice thing to me. He said I’m a genius.” More Videos 0:56 UM quarterback Malik Rosier expounds on what beating Wisconsin would do for Miami Pause 0:34 Power outage affects nearly a dozen Disneyland rides 2:07 Haiti’s child trafficking fight 0:36 Woman causes an estimated $200,000 worth of damage at art exhibit while taking selfie 0:53 Aventura Mall now has a 93-foot tall slide 1:08 'I think this is one of our most complete games thus far,' Landry says 1:13 Meth is stronger, more dangerous than ever 1:04 Brightline's Miami Central Station nears final construction 1:02 Key West Holiday Parade 2017 2:55 Miami Heat's Hassan Whiteside talks about his return to lineup after win over Orlando Magic Video Link copy Embed Code copy Facebook Twitter Email Donald Trump addresses the DNC email controversy Donald Trump called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails at Trump National Doral in South Florida. “Russia, if you are listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said. “I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.” Donald Trump addresses the DNC email controversy Donald Trump called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails at Trump National Doral in South Florida. “Russia, if you are listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said. “I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.” C-SPAN In a separate email controversy, Trump attacked the Democratic National Committee over thousands of leaked emails published by WikiLeaks Friday. Those emails showed its leaders — including party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston — were working to favor Clinton over rival Bernie Sanders. Two days later Wasserman Schultz, who represents a South Florida district in Congress, announced she would step down from her party post. Trump said that Wasserman Schultz “rigged” the race for Clinton. “It was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and believe me, as sure as you're sitting there, Hillary Clinton knew about it,” Trump said. “She knew everything. Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not breathe without speaking and getting approval from Hillary Clinton.” Vice presidential candidate Mike Pence issued a statement Wednesday morning saying that the FBI will get to the bottom of who is behind the hacking. “If it is Russia and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences,” he said. “That said, the Democrats singularly focusing on who might be behind it and not addressing the basic fact that they've been exposed as a party who not only rigs the government, but rigs elections while literally accepting cash for federal appointments is outrageous. The American people now have absolute and further proof of the corruption that exists around Hillary Clinton. It should disqualify her from office, if the media did their job.” 3/7 To be clear, Mr. Trump did not call on, or invite, Russia or anyone else to hack Hillary Clinton’s e-mails today. — Jason Miller (@JasonMillerinDC) July 27, 2016 The Trump briefing was open to the media but not the public, and was one of a few events Trump held in South Florida the past 24 hours, including a fundraising dinner where he served, of course, Trump Steaks. He also held a small group meeting with a few Hispanic leaders where they talked about Cuba, Latin America and how to attract more Hispanics to vote for Trump. At the Doral press conference, Trump touched on a broad range of topics: ▪ He said Clinton’s running mate U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine “did a terrible job in New Jersey. First act he did in New Jersey was ask for a $4 billion tax increase and he's not very popular in New Jersey. And he still isn't. What?” After a reporter corrected Trump about where Kaine lives, Trump then said “I mean Virginia.” ▪ He called President Barack Obama “the most ignorant president in our history.” ▪ He faced a few questions related to the deaths of black men at the hands of police including in Louisiana and Minnesota. Trump defended law enforcement. “If the police do 100,000 great jobs and they have one, either rogue policeman or a cop who was poorly trained or did a bad job, you see that incident on television for weeks,” Trump said. “You don't see the good work that they do but if they make one mistake out of 100,000, out of more than that, it’s on television night after night after night. The police in this country do an amazing job, but likewise I agree and I do mention that all the time.” Miami Herald staff writer Patricia Mazzei contributed to this report. ||||| Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

– Donald Trump had one of his most buzzworthy news conferences yet on Wednesday, fielding questions on Israel, immigration, and the recent police shooting deaths of two black men to Florida's algae problem. But the "most colorful" parts, per the Miami Herald, came when Trump tried to tie together Hillary Clinton's email issues, hacked DNC emails released Friday by WikiLeaks, and Russia, which the Clinton camp says was behind the DNC hack to bolster Trump (an assessment experts have said looks likely, per Politico). "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said, posting a similar tweet a short time later. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” When an NBC reporter prodded Trump on whether he was asking the US' one-time biggest foe to hack Clinton, Trump replied, "That's up to the president" before telling her to "be quiet," per the New York Times. Some on Twitter asked if Trump's request—which the Times called "an extraordinary moment"—amounted to treason, and reaction from Clinton's side was swift. "This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent," adviser Jake Sullivan says. "That's not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue." VP nominee Mike Pence helped Trump double down, adding that Democrats are hyperfocusing on the source rather than "the basic fact that they've been exposed as a party" that "rigs" elections. Politico lists other Trump lines from the presser, including remarks about "sleazeball" and "pervert" Anthony Weiner, noting, "I don't know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me. … I never met Putin."

Story highlights There was less than 1.5 ounces of radioactive cobalt in the truck The suspected thieves are still on the loose and could be sick Authorities say they likely recovered all of the cobalt Experts say cobalt-60 can also be used to make a dirty bomb A pair of thieves in Mexico may have stolen more than they bargained for when they targeted a truck this week. The stolen vehicle was carrying delicate cargo -- a radioactive element used for medical purposes that also can be used to make a so-called dirty bomb. Mexican authorities said they found the stolen truck and recovered likely all of the radioactive cobalt Wednesday in a remote area about 40 km (25 miles) away from where it was taken. The suspected thieves are still on the loose, though authorities expect they could turn up at a clinic suffering symptoms of radiation exposure. The container holding cobalt was found about a kilometer away from the truck and had been opened, said Juan Eibenschutz Hartman, head of Mexico's National Commission for Nuclear Security and Safeguards. There was less than 40 grams (1.4 ounces) of the hazardous material inside. Authorities are guarding the area and have set up a 500-meter perimeter around it, Eibenschutz said. They are evaluating whether any residents were exposed. Cleaning up the area could take weeks, he said, because they don't have robotic equipment they would need to quickly collect the dangerous cobalt. They're coming up with a plan and considering asking for help from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States or Canada. The IAEA announced the theft on Wednesday. Mexican authorities told the IAEA that the truck, which was transporting cobalt-60 from a hospital in Tijuana to a radioactive waste storage center, was stolen Monday in Tepojaco, near Mexico City. An early theory is that the thieves were unaware of what exactly they had taken. "At the time the truck was stolen, the source was properly shielded," the IAEA said. "However, the source could be extremely dangerous to a person if removed from the shielding, or if it was damaged." But Eibenschutz said the truck wasn't properly set up to transport the radioactive material, since it didn't have a GPS for tracking or other necessary equipment. Cobalt-60 is used in radiotherapy and in industrial tools such as leveling devices and thickness gauges. Large sources of cobalt-60 are used to sterilize certain foods, as the gamma rays kill bacteria but don't damage the product, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If released into the environment, the radioactive material can harm people. And experts consider cobalt-60 one of the "candidates" for making dirty bombs. Bombs made with cobalt-60 "pose a threat mainly because even a fraction of a gram emits a huge number of high-energy gamma rays; such material is harmful whether outside or inside the body," according to a 2011 report by the Congressional Research Service. In a speech last year, the IAEA director warned that such a dirty bomb "detonated in a major city could cause mass panic, as well as serious economic and environmental consequences." Preliminary information suggests that the thieves did not know what the truck's cargo was when they stole it, said Jaime Aguirre Gomez, deputy director of radiological security at the National Commission for Nuclear Security and Safeguards. The shielding that protects the cobalt-60 is designed so that the radioactive source is difficult to extract, Aguirre said. The casing is designed not to be opened or perforated easily. The truck and its cargo went missing early Monday after the driver of the white 2007 Volkswagen truck and an assistant had stopped to rest at a gas station, local prosecutor Marcos Morales told CNN. At around 1 a.m. Monday, a man armed with a handgun knocked on the passenger window. When the passenger rolled down his window, the gunman demanded the keys to the vehicle, Morales said. Both the driver and his assistant were taken to an empty lot where they were bound and told not to move. They heard one of the assailants use a walkie-talkie type device or phone to tell someone, "It's done," Morales said. Mexico alerted the IAEA to the theft, following international protocol, Aguirre said. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is assisting with the investigation into the stolen truck, Mexican authorities said. The U.S. government has sensors at border crossings and sea ports to prevent radioactive materials from entering the country. This includes large stationary sensors designed to scan vehicles going through land border crossings as well as pager-size devices carried by agents. Some of this equipment is sensitive enough that it has been set off by people who had recently undergone radiation therapy, according to a U.S. law-enforcement source. According to the Congressional Research Service report, in Thailand in 2000, a disused cobalt-60 source was stored outdoors and bought by two scrap collectors, who took it to a junkyard where it was cut open. Some workers suffered burn-like injuries, and eventually three people died and seven others suffered radiation injuries, the report says. Nearly 2,000 others who lived nearby were exposed to radiation. ||||| A missing shipment of radioactive cobalt-60 was found Wednesday near where the stolen truck transporting the material was abandoned in central Mexico state, the country's nuclear safety director said. This image released Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013 by the National Commission on Nuclear Safety and Safeguards of Mexico's Energy Secretary (CNSNS) shows a piece of machinery that is part of the cargo of a stolen... (Associated Press) This image released Wednesday Dec. 4, 2013 by the National Commission on Nuclear Safety and Safeguards of Mexico's Energy Secretary (CNSNS) shows a piece of machinery that is part of the cargo of a stolen... (Associated Press) This screen shot taken on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013 in Mexico City, from the website of the National Commission on Nuclear Safety and Safeguards of Mexico's Energy Secretary, shows a message asking for... (Associated Press) This image released by the National Commission on Nuclear Safety and Safeguards of Mexico's Energy Secretary (CNSNS) Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013, shows a large box that is part of the cargo of a stolen truck... (Associated Press) The highly radioactive material was found in an empty lot about a kilometer (a half a mile) from Hueypoxtla, an agricultural town of about 4,000 people, but it poses no threat or a need for an evacuation, said Juan Eibenschutz, director general of the National Commission of Nuclear Safety and Safeguards. "Fortunately there are no people where the source of radioactivity is," Eibenschutz said. The cargo truck hauling the extremely dangerous cobalt-60 that had been used in medical equipment was stolen from a gas station early Tuesday, and authorities had put out an alert in six central states and the capital looking for it. Police and the military joined in the hunt. The truck was taking the cobalt to a nuclear waste facility in the state of Mexico, which is adjacent to Mexico City. Eibenschutz said direct exposure to cobalt-60 could result in death within a few minutes. He said hospitals near the area were asked to report if they treat anyone exposed to radioactivity. "This is a radioactive source that is very strong," Eibenschutz told The Associated Press. But, he added, the material poses no threat to human life if kept at least 500 yards (500 meters) away. Eibenschutz didn't know the exact weight of cobalt, but said it was the largest amount stolen in recent memory, and the intensity of the material caused the alert. The material was used in obsolete radiation therapy equipment that is being replaced throughout Mexico's public health system. It was coming from the general hospital in the northern border city of Tijuana, Eibenshutz said. Before the container was found, he said the thieves most likely wanted the white 2007 Volkswagen cargo vehicle with a moveable platform and crane. Eibenschutz said there was nothing to indicate the theft of the cobalt was intentional or in any way intended for an act of terrorism. The truck marked "Transportes Ortiz" left Tijuana on Nov. 28 and was headed to the storage facility when the driver stopped to rest at a gas station in Tepojaco, in Hidalgo state north of Mexico City. The driver, Valentin Escamilla Ortiz, told authorities he was sleeping in the truck when two men with a gun approached about 1:30 a.m. Tuesday. They made him get out, tied his hands and feet and left him in a vacant lot nearby. When he was able to free himself, he ran back to the gas station to get help. On average, a half dozen thefts of radioactive materials are reported in Mexico each year and none have proven to be aimed at the cargo, Eibenschutz said. He said that in all the cases the thieves were after shipping containers or the vehicles. Unintentional thefts of radioactive materials are not uncommon, said an official familiar with cases reported by International Atomic Energy Agency member states, who was not authorized to comment on the case. In some cases, radioactive sources have ended up being sold as scrap, causing serious harm to people who unknowingly come into contact with it. In a Mexican case in the 1970s, one thief died and the other was injured when they opened a container holding radioactive material, he said. The container was junked and sold to a foundry, where it contaminated some steel reinforcement bars made there. Eibenschutz said all foundries in Mexico now have equipment to detect radioactive material. ___ Associated Press writers Emilio Lopez in Pachuca, Mexico; Katherine Corcoran in Mexico City; Alicia A. Caldwell in Washington and George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report.

– Police in Mexico have recovered a container of radioactive material that may have been stolen inadvertently by two thieves who hijacked a truck, reports the AP. Authorities found the abandoned truck in rural central Mexico and the container of cobalt-60 about a half-mile away. It had been opened, and police can't say for sure whether any had been taken, reports CNN. But if their theory is correct that two men stole the truck without having a clue about its cargo, the thieves might be in for some serious health problems if they opened the container without proper protection. "This is a radioactive source that is very strong," says a nuclear safety official in Mexico. The cobalt had been used in medical equipment, and it was being shipped to a nuclear waste site in the state of Mexico, near Mexico City, when the truck was stolen. Because cobalt is an ingredient in so-called dirty bombs, the US Department of Homeland Security is assisting in the investigation.

'House of Carters' Star Rx Drugs Suspected in Death Leslie Carter -- Prescription Drugs Suspected in Death was battling an addiction to prescription medication in the days before her death ... and family members believe she died as a result of an overdose.Sources close to the "" reality star tell TMZ ... the 25-year-old sister ofhad recently moved from Canada to Upstate New York to live with family members while she attempted to kick her addiction.We're told family members had attempted to rid the home of any prescription medication -- including Xanax -- and were hopeful Leslie was on the road to recovery.Sources say family members believed Leslie would be OK to stay alone in the home for roughly an hour yesterday while they ran errands ... but when they returned, Leslie was unconscious.Officials were called to the scene ... but Leslie could not be saved.We're told Leslie's 1-year-old daughter was not at home with Carter at the time of her death. ||||| Credit: Kristy Leibowitz/Getty Images Gone far too soon. Aaron and Nick Carter and their entire family are reeling from news of sister Leslie Carter's shocking Tuesday death. PHOTOS: Stars we lost in 2011 At just 25 years old, the aspiring singer, wife and mom to daughter Alyssa, 10 months, passed away of unknown causes in upstate New York. "The family legitimately doesn't know what happened," a source close to the Carter family tells Us Weekly. "They're still trying to find out." PHOTOS: Most shocking celebrity deaths in Hollywood history Singer Aaron, 24, is "completely blindsided" by the news. Leslie, whose single "Like Wow!" was featured on the Shrek soundtrack in 2001, had four siblings and married Alyssa's dad, Mike, in 2008 "She loved her family, she loved her baby," the source adds of Leslie, whose 1999 debut album was never released. "She was happy stepping away from the show business and just living happily with her family in Canada."

– A prescription drug addiction is suspected in the sudden death of 25-year-old Leslie Carter, the singing sis of Aaron and Backstreet Boy Nick Carter, reports TMZ. Carter, mom of a 10-month-old baby girl, was found dead in an upstate New York home this week. The singer had moved from Canada to New York to live with family members as she tried to kick her addiction, sources told TMZ. She was left alone in the home for a short time, but relatives returned to find her unconscious. The family is "deeply saddened" by Leslie's death, said a statement. Nick Carter said he doesn't plan to cancel upcoming appearances because of the tragedy. "Performing is cathartic to me and I am dedicating the rest of my tour to my sister since she loved to watch me perform," the singer said in a statement. Leslie Carter's single "Like Wow" was featured on the 2001 Shrek soundtrack. Her 1999 debut CD with Dreamworks Records was never released. She leaves behind husband Mike Ashton and their baby, Alyssa.

This guys says the Apple Watch saved his life after detecting an irregular heartbeat 2:06 PM ET Mon, 16 Oct 2017 | 00:59 James Green says an Apple Watch saved his life. Late last week, Green posted an image from the hospital noting that the "stupid lil wrist computer [he] bought 2 years ago" saved his life after it notified him of a spiking heart rate. It turns out, according to Green, that he had a pulmonary embolism, which wasn't just a spiking heart rate but is a blockage of the arteries. Green specifically thanked Heart Watch, an app that can be used to help alert a user when it noticed abnormalities in heart rate. The latest software on Apple Watch, watchOS 4, is capable of identifying similar changes in heart rate and alerting a user. By default, it can ping the wearer if his or her heart rate spikes above 120bmp while it appears he or she is at rest. Apple is also conducting a study with Stanford and telemedicine vendor America Well to see if the watch can be useful in detecting cardiac arrhythmia, a type of abnormal heartbeat that can cause or indicate serious health conditions. Green says he was discharged and sent home after the incident. ||||| Apple Watch Series 4 Choose the Apple Watch that’s right for you. ||||| An Apple Watch notification helped save a man’s life after it alerted him to needing immediate medical attention for a blood clot in his lungs. James Green, a podcast producer and reporter, from Brooklyn, New York, tweeted: “Never thought a stupid lil wrist computer I bought two years ago would save my life. “Saw my heart rate go up, ended up being a pulmonary embolism.” The 28-year-old says he owes his life to the HeartWatch app, which monitors a person’s heart rate constantly throughout the day and notifies them when it goes above or below a certain threshold. He told The Telegraph his doctor was glad he called, telling him that if he had waited any longer “it would have been fatal”. ||||| Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

– In what may be the best unpaid ad Apple could hope for, a Brooklyn man says the company’s smartwatch saved his life. James Green, 28, was wearing an Apple Watch last week when he noticed his heart rate spiking, the Telegraph reports. The warning came courtesy of the HeartWatch app, which tracks a wearer's ticker. "Saw my heart rate go up, ended up being a pulmonary embolism," Green tweeted on Friday. "Never thought a stupid lil wrist computer I bought two years ago would save my life." A blood clot in the lungs can kill quickly, the Telegraph notes. Green, a podcast reporter, says he was at home when got an alert from the app saying his heart rate was above its resting rate even when he was seated. Along with other symptoms, Green, who suffered a pulmonary embolism once before, tells the Telegraph he realized it wasn't a panic attack. A CT scan confirmed his worries, and he was rushed to the hospital and put on blood thinners to "reverse the clot damage," he says. His doctor told him if he had waited longer "it would have been fatal." HeartWatch creator David Walsh calls it “truly humbling" his app played a role. He tells the Telegraph he designed the software two years ago after his father died at age 56 from a heart condition. The latest AppleWatch software alerts wearers if their resting heart rate rises above 120 beats per minute, per CNBC. Apple and Stanford researchers are studying the possibility of software that can track abnormal heart beats, which can be a tip-off to health problems. (At $399, the latest AppleWatch had a glitch.)

President Donald Trump meets with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in the Oval Office of the White House on Wednesday. President Donald Trump meets with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in the Oval Office of the White House on Wednesday. Photo: Evan Vucci/Associated Press Breaking News... WASHINGTON—The European Union delegation meeting with President Donald Trump Wednesday agreed to some concessions in an effort to avoid a trade war with the U.S., according to a European official in the room. The official said European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and his top trade official Cecilia Malmström agreed to work with the U.S. administration to lower industrial tariffs on both sides, increase LNG exports and soy beans to Europe, and align regulatory standards to allow for medical devices to have better market access in Europe, the official said. Both delegations were still fine tuning language in a common statement on car tariffs, the official said. A joint news conference between Mr. Trump and Mr. Juncker was hastily being organized as the meeting was coming to an end. (more to come) Previously... WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump slammed critics of his trade policies on Wednesday, warning they are undermining his negotiating position while American farmers are being “ripped off.” Mr. Trump’s remarks, aimed at critics he didn’t name, came hours ahead of a meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in which trade tensions between the U.S. and the European bloc are expected to dominate. The Europeans come to Washington with potential auto tariffs weighing heavily on their minds. Last week, Mr. Trump threatened “tremendous retribution” if his meeting with the EU officials doesn’t lead to what he considers to be a fair auto-trade deal. In the Oval Office Wednesday, Mr. Trump leaned over and tapped Mr. Juncker’s hand while describing him as a “very smart and a very tough man” who represents the European member states well. “Over the years, the United States has lost hundreds of billions of dollars to the European Union and we just want it to be a level playing field for our farmers, our manufacturers, for everybody,” Mr. Trump added. “We are close partners, allies, not enemies, we have to work together,” Mr. Juncker said. Mr. Trump didn’t respond to questions on whether he will impose auto tariffs but said that “the United States would be very pleased” to create a trade partnership where there are no tariffs, no barriers and no subsidies. Mr. Trump is also scheduled to meet with lawmakers on Wednesday to discuss his administration’s proposed plan to offer $12 billion in aid to farmers hardest hit by retaliatory tariffs imposed by U.S. trading partners. Many lawmakers expressed skepticism that the plan would yield long-term prosperity for American farmers. Mr. Trump insisted on Wednesday that the domestic political pushback accomplishes nothing but delays and hinders his ability to negotiate a deal. “When you have people snipping at your heels during a negotiation, it will only take longer to make a deal, and the deal will never be as good as it could have been with unity,” he said. “Negotiations are going really well, be cool. The end result will be worth it!” Related Video WSJ's Gerald F. Seib looks at the trade deal between Japan and the EU, and explains how President Trump’s trade policy might drive other countries to form their own agreements. Photo: Martin Bureau/Press Pool He wrote, “Are we just going to continue and let our farmers and country get ripped off?” U.S. trading partners are retaliating against Mr. Trump’s decision to order tariffs on imports including metals, clothing and electronics from a broad range of countries, including China, Mexico, Canada and European Union member states. The retaliatory tariffs have already been felt across America’s Farm Belt. China, a huge market for U.S. agricultural exports, has applied tariffs on $34 billion worth of U.S. goods, including soybeans and pork. Canada, Mexico and the EU have also hit back with tariffs of their own. “China is targeting our farmers, who they know I love & respect, as a way of getting me to continue allowing them to take advantage of the U.S.,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter Wednesday. “They are being vicious in what will be their failed attempt. We were being nice - until now!” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue wrote on Twitter late Tuesday that the farm aid package “is clear statement that other nations can’t bully our agricultural producers to force the U.S. to cave in to unfair trade practices & retaliatory tactics.” On Tuesday, many lawmakers from Mr. Trump’s own Republican party criticized the announcement that his administration would offer farmers a one-time aid package, describing it as a bailout lacking any long-term solutions. Republican lawmakers from farm states said they expected to meet Wednesday with Mr. Trump to discuss a pending farm bill and farm aid. Some Republicans are jittery about the potential for political repercussions heading into the November midterm elections. “The action that I’d like to see is resolving this tariff fight and moving forward with trade opportunities, ” said Sen. Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), who chairs the Senate Republican campaign arm for the Senate Republicans. Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser Lawrence Kudlow said Wednesday morning on CBS, “Nobody is really thrilled about this. We’re just trying to protect American agriculture from some of the unfair trading practices.” Ahead of Mr. Trump’s meeting, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem met with lawmakers, seeking insights about how to approach Mr. Trump. Republican lawmakers, who have been hoping to persuade Mr. Trump to step back from the brink, said they urged her to reach an agreement to lower tariffs. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said he and the trade commissioner discussed “how we can come to an agreement to lower tariffs and trade barriers, avoiding the escalation of trade tensions.” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) encouraged her to work with the president to strengthen the trans-Atlantic partnership, including through the reduction of tariffs, a spokeswoman said. While Mr. Trump’s aggressive trade policies with China have been celebrated by members of both the major political parties, his decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the EU, Canada and Mexico have been met with more skepticism. The Trump administration justifies the move on the grounds of national security and a growing trade deficit—arguments those countries dismiss as farcical. Mr. Trump repeatedly complains that the EU imposes 10% tariffs on auto imports, compared with 2.5% imposed by the U.S. He declines to mention the 25% tariffs the U.S. imposes on light trucks, versus the 10% rate in Europe. Mr. Trump recently described the EU as “a foe” on trade. —Siobhan Hughes contributed to this article. ||||| Traders Michael Milano, center, and Robert Oswald, right, work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Wednesday, July 25, 2018. Investors had their eye on Washington ahead of trade talks between... (Associated Press) Traders Michael Milano, center, and Robert Oswald, right, work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Wednesday, July 25, 2018. Investors had their eye on Washington ahead of trade talks between the U.S. and European Union officials. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) (Associated Press) Traders Michael Milano, center, and Robert Oswald, right, work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Wednesday, July 25, 2018. Investors had their eye on Washington ahead of trade talks between the U.S. and European Union officials. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) (Associated Press) Traders Michael Milano, center, and Robert Oswald, right, work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Wednesday, July 25, 2018. Investors had their eye on Washington ahead of trade talks between... (Associated Press) NEW YORK (AP) — The latest on developments in financial markets (all times local): 4 p.m. Stocks snapped higher in late trading following a report that a European delegation had offered some concessions on trade. Major indexes jumped in the last half-hour of trading Wednesday after a mostly listless day of trading. The late surge came after the Wall Street Journal reported that the European delegation agreed to work with the U.S. on lowering industrial tariffs on both sides. Investors were focused on company earnings for most of the day. Hospital operator HCA Healthcare jumped 9.2 percent. General Motors dropped 4.6 percent after lowering its outlook. The S&P 500 index rose 25 points, or 0.9 percent, to 2,846. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 172 points, or 0.7 percent, to 25,414. The Nasdaq composite climbed 91 points, or 1.2 percent, to 7,932, another all-time high. ___ 11:45 a.m. Stocks are edging mostly higher on Wall Street as several big U.S. companies turn in solid earnings reports. Coca-Cola rose 2.1 percent Wednesday, and hospital operator HCA Healthcare jumped 8.2 percent. General Motors dropped 7.1 percent after lowering its profit outlook, mostly due to tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. Tupperware plunged 16 percent after its revenue came up short of estimates. The S&P 500 index rose 5 points, or 0.2 percent, to 2,825. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 41 points, or 0.2 percent, to 25,197. The Nasdaq composite climbed 31 points, or 0.4 percent, to 7,871. Bond prices rose. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.94 percent. ___ 9:35 a.m. Stocks indexes are little changed in early trading on Wall Street, but several companies were making big moves after releasing their quarterly earnings reports. General Motors slumped 6.1 percent early Wednesday after lowering its profit outlook, mostly due to tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. Hospital operator HCA Healthcare jumped 5.6 percent after turning in results that were better than analysts were expecting. Tupperware plunged 13.4 percent after its revenue came up short of estimates. The S&P 500 index slipped 1 point to 2,819. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 80 points, or 0.3 percent, to 25,161. The Nasdaq composite climbed 16 points, or 0.2 percent, to 7,857. Bond prices rose. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.95 percent.

– Stocks snapped higher in late trading following a report that a European delegation had offered some concessions on trade, the AP reports. Major indexes jumped in the last half-hour of trading Wednesday after a mostly listless day of trading. The late surge came after the Wall Street Journal reported that the European delegation agreed to work with the US on lowering industrial tariffs on both sides. Investors were focused on company earnings for most of the day. Hospital operator HCA Healthcare jumped 9.2%. General Motors dropped 4.6% after lowering its outlook. The S&P 500 index rose 25 points, or 0.9%, to 2,846. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 172 points, or 0.7%, to 25,414. The Nasdaq composite climbed 91 points, or 1.2%, to 7,932, another all-time high.

The CIA director quit Nov. 9 after acknowledging an extramarital affair. Involved: Paula Broadwell, a former Army officer, fellow West Point graduate and the co-writer of "All In: The Education of David Petraeus.'' David Petraeus The CIA director quit Nov. 9 after acknowledging an extramarital affair. Involved: Paula Broadwell, a former Army officer, fellow West Point graduate and the co-writer of "All In: The Education of David Petraeus.'' Cliff Owen/AP A scandal that began with the relationship between retired Gen. David Petraeus, the director of the CIA, and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, had mushroomed. Here’s a look at the people mentioned in the case. A scandal that began with the relationship between retired Gen. David Petraeus, the director of the CIA, and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, had mushroomed. Here’s a look at the people mentioned in the case. A scandal that began with the relationship between retired Gen. David Petraeus, the director of the CIA, and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, had mushroomed. Here’s a look at the people mentioned in the case. The Pentagon’s inspector general has cleared the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan of wrongdoing following an investigation into whether he exchanged inappropriate e-mails with the same Tampa socialite involved in the scandal that prompted David H. Petraeus to resign as CIA director, U.S. officials said Tuesday. The FBI uncovered messages from Marine Gen. John R. Allen during its investigation of Petraeus last year. The tenor of some of the e-mails, which senior defense officials described as racy and flirtatious, prompted Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to order a formal inquiry. In a letter sent to Allen on Friday, the inspector general wrote that Allen had not violated military prohibitions against conduct unbecoming an officer, according to the senior U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter on the record. “He was completely exonerated,” one of the officials said. Panetta was informed that the investigation had cleared Allen, according to Pentagon spokesman George Little. “The secretary has complete confidence in the continued leadership of General Allen, who is serving with distinction in Afghanistan,” Little said. Allen exchanged the messages with Jill Kelley, 37, who ingratiated herself with several senior officers at the Tampa headquarters of the U.S. Central Command. Kelley’s complaint to the FBI about another set of messages — ones that were harassing — eventually led to the discovery of an affair between Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell. The FBI determined that Broadwell, for reasons still not clear, had sent Kelley the harassing e-mails. A spokesman for Allen declined to comment. The inspector general’s investigation prompted the White House to place on hold Allen’s nomination to become the supreme allied commander in Europe. Allen is scheduled to relinquish command in Afghanistan early next month, and the Pentagon has not yet requested that the Senate Armed Services Committee reschedule his nomination. Defense officials have said Panetta’s decision to refer the e-mails to the inspector was driven by the content of some of the messages and by a desire to show that the Pentagon was not trying to ignore any potential miscount in the wake of the Petraeus scandal. Although the messages have not been released, some military officials sympathetic to Allen questioned whether Panetta overreacted, placing a cloud over the general’s head at a critical juncture in the Afghan war. A senior defense official said Panetta referred the matter to the inspector general upon the recommendation of civilian and military attorneys. Allen has spent the past few weeks refining his recommendations for the number of U.S. troops that should be withdrawn from Afghanistan this year and the number of forces that should be stationed in the country once the U.S. and NATO combat mission ends in 2014. Senior military and administration officials expect Allen’s preferred options, which have not yet been formally submitted to the Pentagon, to entail more troops than those favored by top civilian aides to President Obama. Allen wants to keep about 9,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, while White House officials are leaning toward a force of 2,500 to 6,000. Although initial reports described the volume of messages between Allen and Kelley as up to 30,000 printed pages, the two exchanged only a few hundred messages over a multi-year period, one of the U.S. officials said. “Some of the messages are not the sort of things you would print in a family newspaper,” the official said. “But that doesn’t mean he violated military regulations by sending and receiving them.” Officials close to Allen have long insisted that he did not have a sexual relationship with Kelley. Allen’s partisans said that Kelley was a close friend to Allen and his wife, Kathy. Many of the messages related to social events or to items Kelley had seen in the news, said a senior official close to Allen. Sometimes she wrote to compliment the general on a television interview, the official said, and sometimes she copied him on a message intended for his wife. “He returns almost every e-mail,” the official said soon after the investigation commenced. “To him, it’s a sign of politeness.” The disclosure that Allen exchanged potentially inappropriate messages with Kelley prompted disbelief among many officers who worked with him. The 6-foot-tall, silver-haired Allen has the demeanor of an avuncular professor, not a hard-bitten Marine prone to flirting and carousing. Allen, a native of Warrenton, Va., was the first Marine to serve as the commandant of midshipmen at the Naval Academy. He spent two years in Iraq’s Anbar province, where he led an effort to reach out to Sunni tribal leaders to try to persuade them to stand against al-Qaeda militants — a shift that helped turn the course of the war in western Iraq. He eventually became Petraeus’s deputy at the Central Command, where his portfolio focused largely on Iran. The job afforded him the opportunity to brief Obama, who grew impressed by the general’s analyses. When Obama appointed Petraeus to head the CIA, Allen was tapped to go to Kabul in 2011. ||||| America Gen. John Allen Cleared In Inquiry Stemming From Petraeus Scandal Enlarge image i Alex Wong / Getty Images Alex Wong / Getty Images Marine Gen. John Allen has been cleared in a misconduct inquiry prompted by the extramarital-affair scandal that led to the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus. The Washington Post, which broke the story, reports: "The messages from Marine Gen. John R. Allen were uncovered by the FBI during its investigation of Petraeus last year. The tenor of some of the e-mails, which senior defense officials described as racy and flirtatious, prompted Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to order a formal inquiry. "In a letter sent to Allen on Friday, the inspector general wrote that Allen had not violated military prohibitions against conduct unbecoming an officer, the senior U.S. officials said. 'He was completely exonerated,' one of the officials said." If you need a refresher, we put together a "who's who" guide to the Petraeus scandal. Here's how we summarized Allen's involvement in the case: "The FBI's investigation that uncovered the emails and revealed the Petraeus-Broadwell affair also led to the discovery of communications between Allen and [Jill] Kelley." Kelley, if you remember, was the one who received emails from Paula Broadwell, the woman who was having an affair with Petraeus. She was the one who took those emails to the FBI. NPR's Tom Bowman reports that the Inspector General found the allegations against Allen to be "unsubstantiated." When the scandal broke, Allen's nomination to head U.S. and NATO forces in Europe was put on hold. Tom tells us that that there is no word on whether that nomination will proceed now that he's been cleared. Earlier today, Kelley gave her first interview since the scandal broke. As Mark reported, she told The Daily Beast that she and Broadwell were not "romantic rivals" and that the number of emails she traded with Allen were in the hundreds not tens of thousands as had been originally reported.

– The scandal centering on Tampa socialite Jill Kelley may have brought down David Petraeus, but another general—John Allen—will survive. The Pentagon's inspector general pored over the trove of emails between Allen and Kelley and concluded that he did nothing unbecoming of an officer, reports the Washington Post. Some of the emails were apparently a little racy, but that was as far as it went. "He was completely exonerated," one US official tells the Post. Allen currently serves as the top US commander in Afghanistan, and his nomination to become head of US and NATO forces in Europe was put on hold when the scandal broke. No word yet on whether the nomination will move forward, reports NPR.

Austin Opheim Died: July 25, 2015 In Loving Memory Austin E. Opheim VISITATION Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:00 - 9:00 P.M. Martin-Mattice Funeral Home Emmetsburg, Iowa SERVICE Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:30 A.M. First United Methodist Church Emmetsburg, Iowa CLERGY Rev. Louie Q. Gallo ORGANIST Rosemary Matthews HONORARY BEARERS Addison and Aidyn Opheim Kyle, Hunter, Holly and Hudson Egdorf Hannah Noethe CASKET BEARERS A.J. Osborn Tony Brown Mitch Preston Chris TenNapel Joe Egdorf Brad Cooke INTERMENT Evergreen Cemetery Emmetsburg, Iowa Austin Eugene Opheim was born October 28, 1982 in Emmetsburg, Iowa to Eugene and Debra Opheim. He was a 2001 graduate of Emmetsburg High School and a graduate of Iowa Lakes Farming Program. On September 3, 2005, Austin was united in marriage to his kindergarten crush, Brandi Egdorf at the Hartley Methodist Church. To this union Addison Ann and Aidyn Austin were born. They created a life together on a farm up the road from his parents. Austin began farming from the moment his baby blue eyes could open. He had a love for farming his whole life. He would complain about the markets or the weather, it was in his blood and he loved every minute of getting dirty. There was never a moment when he would walk in the house all clean. But he always had that smirk on his face that meant one wrong move and you would be covered too. A day never went by when Austin wasn’t outside with his dad or with AJ working on something with Addi or Aidyn keeping a close eye on them. Austin was a loving father who worshipped his kids. They all knew they had him wrapped around their fingers. He worked hard and provided for them for everything they ever needed or wanted. He may not have made it to all their things but he always bragged how he was going to have to lock his little girl away because she was the National Cover Model. He always told his son, “Aidyn, you need to get big so you can take over farming so daddy can retire.” We all knew he would never retire. He loved to work too much. Austin enjoyed fishing, camping, being outdoors, and hunting. He was an avid hunter growing up. During one of his duck hunting weekends he intercepted a phone call from Brandi to her cousin Brad. From that moment of answering that call he asked her on a date and it was all over there. The hunt was over. Austin worked hard but he liked to play harder. He enjoyed going on snowmobiling trips with Chris and Tony to the mountains, to the annual Opheim/Egdorf family vacation in Florida with his brother-law and sister-in-law, where he found his love of “boat trash”. He enjoyed taking his little trips to hotels with his wife and kids. The latest was to the cities where he took Aidyn to his first Twins game on Father’s Day. Austin and Brandi would be celebrating their 10 year anniversary this September and a Jamaica trip was booked. This was their favorite place. Austin passed away Saturday, July 25, 2015 at his home working on the farm with his dad. He is preceded in death by his father, Gene Opheim; his grandparents, Glenn and Margaret Opheim and Vance and LaVonne Cooke. He is survived by his wife of 10 years, Brandi of Cylinder, Iowa; his children, Addison and Aidyn of Cylinder, Iowa; his mother, Deb Opheim of Cylinder, Iowa; a sister, Angie (Larry) Jensen of Spencer; father-in-law and mother-in-law, Mike and Julie Egdorf of Hartley, Iowa; brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Joe and Cindy Egdorf of Humboldt; grandparents, Gary and Joy Hopkins of Laurens, Iowa and Ron and Tylene Egdorf of Sanborn; nephews, Kyle, Hunter and Hudson Egdorf; nieces Holly Egdorf and Hannah Noethe; as well as many, many aunts, uncles and friends. Arrangements by Martin-Mattice Funeral Home Print Obituary View/Sign Guest Book Create Memorial Website ||||| Buy Photo A detailed graphic on how a hog manure it operates and functions. (Photo: The Register)Buy Photo A father and his son who were so close that they were “like glue” were killed Saturday by noxious fumes from a northwest Iowa hog manure pit — the second father and son in the Midwest to die of poisonous manure pit gases this month. Gene Opheim, 58, and his son, Austin Opheim, 32, both of Cylinder, Iowa, were rescued from the pit after the Palo Alto County Sheriff’s Office received a report of two men submerged at 1:50 p.m. Saturday. Both were pronounced dead at a hospital in Emmetsburg. The father and son were both lifelong farmers, and often spent days doing chores, said Barb Wempen, a sister to Gene Opheim who lives in Algona. “(Gene) loved farming, that was his life,” she said. An obituary for Gene Opheim said he made a daily practice of carrying a pocket knife, pliers and a tape measure to make quick fixes around the farm. He enjoyed riding a Goldwing motorcycle. The two were repairing a pump at a hog confinement when a piece of equipment they were using fell into the manure pit, Wempen said. Austin Opheim went into the pit first to retrieve the equipment, and his father followed him after realizing his son had been overcome by gases, Wempen said. Palo Alto County Sheriff Lynn Shultes was not available to speak about the deaths Tuesday. “(Gene) was carrying Austin on his back and bringing him up and he got almost to the top and he got overcome, and down they went,” she said. Deadly in seconds It takes just a few seconds for routine maintenance work in a pig barn to turn deadly, said Daniel Andersen, a water quality and manure management professor at Iowa State University. It’s hydrogen sulfide that can be the deadliest of the gases created when manure decomposes — along with methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide, Andersen said. Large ventilation fans and curtains are used to help ensure the air is safe for people and animals in a pig barn. But farmers can run into trouble when doing maintenance work below the slats — or in pump pit areas, where the manure is accessed to fertilize farm fields. “When you’re working in the animal environment, you’re relatively safe,” Andersen said. “But whenever you’re working below the slats — or where manure is being disturbed — that can be highly dangerous. “Typically, we try to avoid going into the manure pits at all cost for this very reasons,” he said. Something as simple as dropping equipment in the manure can send bubbles of hydrogen sulfide into the air. It’s especially a problem when people are in confined spaces. “When something breaks the surface of the manure or if the person is in the manure, moving around, that causes more hydrogen sulfide to come out of the manure,” Andersen said. “That can cause unconsciousness and untimely death.” Previous pit deaths The Iowa case is not isolated; on July 7 a father and son were killed at a Wisconsin farm while trying to retrieve a broken wheel from a hog manure pit, according to the Bullvine, a news outlet for dairy farmers. In 2007, four Virginia family members and a hired farm hand were killed by gases at a dairy farm while trying to save one another, according to the Washington Post. Tragedy often is multiplied when family, friends and coworkers try to help someone overcome in a manure pit, Andersen said. “Someone else tries to rescue them and is overcome by gas as well,” he said. Andersen recommends caution when working below the slats — and over the manure pit. It’s also dangerous when manure is being agitated before its applied to fields as fertilizer. “I would prefer you use some sort of breathing apparatus,” he said. Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/1SdWy2j ||||| CYLINDER, Iowa (AP) — Authorities say a 58-year-old Iowa man tried to rescue his son who was overcome by fumes in a hog manure pit, but both men later died. The accident occurred Saturday afternoon in the northwest Iowa community of Cylinder. The Palo Alto County Sheriff’s Office says Gene Opheim and his 32-year-old son, Austin, were making repairs when Austin was overcome by the gases. His father then entered the pit to save his son but also was overcome. Fire and rescue personnel were called to the scene. The Sheriff’s Office says the men were removed from the pit and taken to Palo Alto County Hospital in Emmetsburg, where they were pronounced dead. (© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.) ||||| Eugene "Gene" Opheim Died: July 25, 2015 In Loving Memory Eugene "Gene" Opheim VISITATION Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:00 - 9:00 P.M. Martin-Mattice Funeral Home Emmetsburg, Iowa SERVICE Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:30 A.M. First United Methodist Church Emmetsburg, Iowa CLERGY Rev. Louie Q. Gallo HONORARY BEARERS All of Gene’s many friends who touched his life every day. INTERMENT Evergreen Cemetery Emmetsburg, Iowa Eugene Steven Opheim, son of Glenn and Margaret (Koekenhoff) Opheim, was born October 24, 1956 in Emmetsburg, Iowa. He received his education at Emmetsburg Community School. He met the love of his life, Deb, while both were teenagers. He caught her attention by trying to impress her with his green GTO. His endeavors worked, and on August 20, 1977 they married and became soul mates for life. Gene started his working career after graduating from Iowa Lakes Community College with a diesel mechanic degree, working for Hite & Williams John Deere in Emmetsburg and then Muller Eischen Implement in Algona. Gene also worked as a farmhand, but he discovered farming was his real true love. In 1983 he moved HOME with his wife Deb and their two children, Angela and Austin. From this place called HOME, Gene spent his life building a legacy of pride and joy for his family. Gene truly loved everything about farming. But at the end of a long day he loved to hop on his Goldwing and ride, ride, ride - letting the winds blow his troubles away. Occasionally, he even took Deb along - two soul mates riding the winds, always together. Gene loved to tinker, and Deb always had fix-up jobs for him. So over the years he made it a habit to carry his trusty pliers, pocket knife and tape measure. Gene never knew what job he would face that day. On Saturday, July 25, 2015 he was helping his son Austin, with another repair job. This proved to be the last job on earth for Gene. Taken from his pocket that day, Gene’s pliers, pocket knife, and tape measure, which are now in their resting place. He has parked his Goldwing, put on his angel wings, and has taken to the winds. Gene will forever watch over Deb and his family. Fly, Gene, fly. Let the winds blow. Left to cherish his memory is his wife, Debra of Cylinder, Iowa; daughter and son-in-law, Angela and Larry Jensen of Spencer, Iowa; daughter-in-law, Brandi Opheim of Cylinder, Iowa; three grandchildren, Hannah, Addison and Aidyn; brothers, Dale (LuAnn) Opheim of Graettinger, Iowa, Dan (Kim) Opheim of Cylinder, Iowa; sister, Barb Wempen of Algona, Iowa; mother-in-law and father-in-law, Joy and Gary Hopkins; sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law; nieces and nephews; as well as many other relatives and friends. Arrangements by Martin-Mattice Funeral Home Print Obituary View/Sign Guest Book Create Memorial Website

– An Iowa father and son are dead after tangling with a deadly aspect of hog farming: their manure pit. Typically situated below a barn, the manure's noxious fumes don't escape easily, and the hydrogen sulfide—along with methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide—can be a deadly mix. Unfortunately this proved to be the case for the second Midwest father-son duo this month when Iowa farmers Gene and Austin Opheim were repairing a pump and equipment fell into the manure pit. Austin, 32, went into the pit to retrieve it but was quickly overcome by the fumes, and his father, Gene, 58, went in to save him, reports the Des Moines Register. "(Gene) was carrying Austin on his back and bringing him up and he got almost to the top and he got overcome, and down they went," says the sheriff. The pair are described as so close they were "like glue." Earlier this month, another father and son in Wisconsin fell into a similar trap when they tried to retrieve a broken wheel from a hog manure pit. And in 2007, a family of four and a hired hand all died from fumes at a dairy farm. The tragedy multiplies when family members try to step in and help one another, one expert says. In the Opheims' case, fire and rescue were called to the scene and the men were both removed from the pit, and they were later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital, reports CBS Local. In his obituary, Gene is said to have loved farming, and always carried a tape measure, pliers, and pocket knife. Austin's obituary notes that he married his kindergarten crush, Brandi, and leaves two children, Addison and Aidyn. (Another recent death involving manure was more criminal in nature.)

TIANJIN, China — Officials grappling with the toxic fallout from a series of deadly explosions that rocked this northern port city last week found themselves struggling on Thursday to explain thousands of dead fish that washed up on a riverbank less than four miles away from the blast site. News of the die-off coincided with reports that wastewater runoff near the site of the explosions contained hundreds of times as much cyanide as the maximum level allowed by law. Sodium cyanide, a chemical widely used in gold mining operations, can be toxic to humans even in minuscule quantities. The authorities have acknowledged that at least 700 tons of sodium cyanide were stored at the warehouse that exploded on Aug. 12, killing more than 100 people and injuring hundreds more. ||||| SHANGHAI (AP) — The man unveiled as principal owner of the warehouses at the center of deadly blasts in Tianjin also is on the board of a state-owned company that is ultimately controlled by the same powerful entity investigating the explosions, an Associated Press review of public documents found. In this photo taken Friday, Aug. 14, 2015, Chinese men walk through the site of an explosion at a warehouse in northeastern China's Tianjin municipality. The man unveiled as principal owner of the warehouses... (Associated Press) In this photo taken Thursday, Aug. 13, 2015 Chinese men walks through the site of an explosion at a warehouse in northeastern China's Tianjin municipality. The man unveiled as principal owner of the warehouses... (Associated Press) In this photo taken Friday, Aug. 14, 2015, a window shattered by the shockwaves frame the site of an explosion at a warehouse in northeastern China's Tianjin municipality. The man unveiled as principal... (Associated Press) In this photo taken Friday, Aug. 14, 2015, a window shattered by the shockwaves frame the site of an explosion at a warehouse in northeastern China's Tianjin municipality. The man unveiled as principal... (Associated Press) In this photo taken Friday, Aug. 14, 2015, fire fighters work near the site of an explosion at a warehouse in northeastern China's Tianjin municipality. The man unveiled as principal owner of the warehouses... (Associated Press) Corporate filings show that Yu Xuewei, the silent majority shareholder of Ruihai International Logistics, sits on the board of directors of a subsidiary of China Sinochem, one of the country's most influential conglomerates. Like other large state companies, Sinochem is controlled by the State Council, the central authority overseeing the investigation into last week's explosions at Ruihai's chemical warehouses that killed at least 114 people and displaced thousands. Yu's connections hint at the extent of his political network and showcase the complexity of China's political system, in which the entity running an investigation can be linked to the company it is investigating. Major state-owned Chinese companies often are accused of ignoring safety and other regulations, especially Cabinet-level enterprises whose chief executives have a higher status in the ruling Communist Party hierarchy than the regulators who are supposed to oversee them. The subsidiary where Yu serves as a director, Tianjin Port Sinochem Dangerous Goods Logistics Co., also has been accused of violating safety standards at its own hazmat warehouses. The environmental group Greenpeace released an investigation this week saying Tianjin Port Sinochem and its sister company, Sinochem Tianjin Binhai Logistic Corp., operated hazardous chemical warehouses less than 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) from a major highway, schools and residences, in violation of Chinese safety laws. China Sinochem has tried to distance itself from Ruihai. Two days after the explosions it published a statement acknowledging that former staff members worked at Ruihai, but disavowing any deeper links. Sinochem wrote that Ruihai "has no relationship with Sinochem or its affiliated companies" and that former employees had "all long terminated employment" with Sinochem and its affiliates. Current corporate records, however, show that Yu was a director Tianjin Port Sinochem even after he founded Ruihai. Those records, filed with the Administration for Industry and Commerce in Tianjin, were last updated in February and no subsequent changes to the board have been recorded. The majority owner of Sinochem Logistics is Sinochem Tianjin Co., a subsidiary of China Sinochem, AIC records show. Attempts to reach Sinochem for comment Thursday were unsuccessful. No one at Tianjin Port Sinochem answered the phone. Sinochem Tianjin Binhai Logistic Corp. referred questions to the Sinochem Group. Calls, emails and a text message to Sinochem's spokesman were not returned. Yu admitted to using his political influence to get around safety norms in an interview published Wednesday by the state-run Xinhua News Agency, which was granted exclusive access to him in detention. He said he masked his affiliation with Ruihai by registering his 55 percent stake in the name of his wife's cousin. The now-destroyed Ruihai warehouses violated Chinese law because they were less than 600 meters (2,000 feet) from a large housing complex, highway and light rail station — and for other reasons. Ruihai was licensed to warehouse hazardous chemicals only through Oct. 16, 2014, according to Administration for Industry and Commerce records. Ruihai obtained a port license in June 2015 that again allowed them to work with dangerous chemicals, but in the interim handled hazmat without a license, according to Xinhua. Ruihai also failed to file annual reports in 2013 and 2014, according to its filings. Yu owns Ruihai with Dong Shexuan, whose father used to be chief of police at Tianjin Port and put his shares in the name of a schoolmate, according to Xinhua. Both men have been detained by police. Dong told Xinhua, "My connections cover police and fire, and Yu Xuewei's connections cover work safety, port management, customs, maritime affairs, environmental protection." Despite such stark revelations in China's official media, the full web of interlocking interests and ownership behind Ruihai remains murky. The scope of published investigations has been largely restricted to Ruihai's local power network. Reports in Chinese media exploring Ruihai's connection with Sinochem have been censored. Sinochem, founded one year after the People's Republic of China itself was born, has interests in energy, agriculture, chemicals, real estate and financial services. Sinochem said in its latest annual report that it has 50,000 employees and more than 300 subsidiaries. The State Council, China's cabinet, has set up a panel to investigate the accident, which has sparked public outrage at regulatory and safety lapses and gross chemical contamination in one of China's largest cities. In the aftermath of the disaster, the political response has spiraled to the top levels of power. President Xi Jinping and other top leaders of the ruling Communist Party put out a statement calling the blasts "a profound lesson paid with blood" and vowed to punish those responsible, the People's Daily reported Friday. The government has been struggling to manage signs of deep-seated frustration about the powerful and well-connected using their status to flout rules and endanger the public. Media coverage has been tightly monitored and censorship of social media commentary has surged. Many of those impacted were middle-class homeowners who had bought into Beijing's vision of Tianjin as a rising economic gateway to China's northeast. "If our homes are gone how can we have the faith to support and love the party or the country?" said Niu Guijun, who purchased a home near the blast site in 2013. Ruihai's links to the State Council illustrate the overlapping corporate, political and regulatory interests that are the norm in China's one-party system. "Who tries to monitor how the industry works — regulators — government officers who develop safety policy, and also the commercial business owners, all these interests are mixed," said Fu King-wa, an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong's Journalism and Media Studies Center. "I think a lot of people find this a problem, but there's no channel to try and execute reform in a political manner." Yu and the reported frontman for his shares in Ruihai, Li Liang, played roles in at least four other companies, according to Chinese and Hong Kong corporate filings. Though Yu Xuewei's name does not appear in Ruihai's corporate filings in China, Hong Kong records show that he set up a company called Hong Kong Ruihai International Logistics Co. Ltd. in January 2013, less than two months after Ruihai Logistics was registered in Tianjin. Many mainland companies also register in Hong Kong to facilitate trade financing. AIC records also name Yu as a board member of Tianjin Henglu Biopharmaceutical Technology Co. Ltd., which was set up in January 2014 to do development and consulting work and sell chemicals, though not hazardous ones. ___ Associated Press video journalist Paul Traynor contributed to this report from Tianjin. ||||| A posting on the Twitter account of state broadcaster China Central Television showing photos of dead fish washed ashore in Tianjin. Twitter.com More than a week after the Tianjin warehouse explosion that killed at least 114 people, large numbers of dead fish have washed ashore in the northern Chinese city, causing fresh public alarm and inciting fears of greater environmental damage linked to the chemical blast. Photos of thousands of small dead fish on the shore of the Haihe River circulated widely on social media soon after they were published by Chinese state media late Thursday afternoon. One posting was forwarded more than 6,000 times and received 4,300 comments less than three hours after it was published. A posting on Weibo showing dead fish washed ashore in Tianjin. Weibo.com City environmental officials said late Thursday that they didn’t find toxic levels of cyanide from the river during an analysis that afternoon, according to the official Xinhua News Agency. Deng Xiaowen, director of Tianjin’s environmental monitoring bureau, said at a press conference Thursday afternoon that experts were investigating the dead fish but that such incidents were “not rare” during the summer, the state-run China Daily newspaper reported. The fish were found six kilometers away from the blast site, the paper said. About 40 different chemicals were stored at the warehouse, including highly toxic sodium cyanide, according to Xinhua. Photos and videos from the blast site have gone viral since the explosion last Wednesday, although China’s censors have been working overtime to keep control of the online discussion. The move to publish the photos, then, is something of an unexpected move by Chinese state media, which typically follows the authorities’ lead in downplaying the extent of natural disasters in the country. Many Web users on Thursday responded with rage to the images. “If the dead fish are related to the explosion, then this is a regional disaster,” one user wrote on Weibo. “The culprits must be sentenced to death.” –Felicia Sonmez. Follow her on Twitter @feliciasonmez. Note: This item has been updated to reflect Xinhua’s report on the Thursday analysis of cyanide levels in the river.

– Thousands of dead fish have been washing ashore a few miles from Tianjin, site of last week's deadly blast, but Chinese authorities say this is "not rare" in summer and probably nothing to worry about. A lot of people however, are very skeptical: They believe the die-off must be connected to the blast at a warehouse that stored 2,500 tons of dangerous chemicals. "I've never seen anything like it," a freight company manager tells the New York Times. "There has to be a link between the dead fish and the blast. What else could explain the death of so many?" The fish washed up on the banks of the Haihe River, which Chinese authorities say has been tested and doesn't contain toxic levels of cyanide. Photos of the dead fish have gone viral on social media in China, though censors have been doing their best to clamp down on discussion of the disaster, reports the Wall Street Journal. The Communist Party has called the disaster a "profound lesson paid with blood," but despite official condemnation, there's plenty of public anger at how the well-connected owners of the hazardous-chemicals warehouse were able to flout regulations, reports the AP, which went through public documents to discover that the majority owner of Ruihai International Logistics sits on the board of directors of a company controlled by the State Council, which is investigating the disaster. (The warehouse was holding 70 times more sodium cyanide than it was allowed to.)

The death toll from a 7.2-magnitude earthquake that struck the central Philippine island of Bohol on Tuesday rose to 93, as rescuers struggled to reach patients in a collapsed hospital. Centuries-old stone churches crumbled and wide areas were without power. A private guard stands near the damaged Basilica of the Holy Child following a 7.2-magnitude earthquake that hit Cebu city in central Philippines and toppled the bell tower of the Philippines' oldest... (Associated Press) A private guard looks at the rubble near the damaged Basilica of the Holy Child, background, following a 7.2-magnitude earthquake that hit Cebu city in central Philippines and toppled the bell tower of... (Associated Press) Soldiers remove the debris that fell over cars following a 7.2-magnitude earthquake that hit Cebu city in central Philippines Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013. The tremor collapsed buildings, cracked roads and... (Associated Press) Map locates the city of Carmen in the Philippines; 1c x 3 inches; 46.5 mm x 76 mm; (Associated Press) Filipinos stand by a damaged Basilica Del Sto Nino in Cebu, central Philippines Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013. A 7.2-magnitude earthquake collapsed buildings, cracked roads and toppled the bell tower of the... (Associated Press) Damaged cars lie under a rubble outside the GMC Plaza Building in Cebu, central Philippines Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013. A 7.2-magnitude earthquake collapsed buildings, cracked roads and toppled the bell tower... (Associated Press) Residents look at a collapsed portion of the fish port at Pasil in Cebu, central Philippines, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013. A 7.2-magnitude earthquake collapsed buildings, cracked roads and toppled the bell... (Associated Press) Rescuers recover an unidentified man under the rubbles at a fish port in Pasil, Cebu, central Philippines Tuesday Oct. 15, 2013. A 7.2-magnitude earthquake struck in the central Philippines Tuesday morning,... (Associated Press) Doctors treat a woman outside a damaged Vicente Sotto Hospital in Cebu, central Philippines on Tuesday Oct. 15, 2013. A 7.2-magnitude earthquake collapsed buildings, cracked roads and toppled the bell... (Associated Press) Bohol police chief Dennis Agustin said 77 of the deaths came from the province. At least 15 others died in nearby Cebu province and another on Siquijor Island. The quake struck at 8:12 a.m. and was centered about 33 kilometers (20 miles) below Carmen city, where many small buildings collapsed. Many roads and bridges were reported damaged, making rescue operations difficult. But historic churches dating from the Spanish colonial period suffered the most. Among them was the country's oldest, the 16th-century Basilica of the Holy Child in Cebu, which lost its bell tower. Nearly half of a 17th-century limestone church in Loboc town, southwest of Carmen, was reduced to rubble. The highest number of dead _ 18 _ were in the municipality of Loon, 42 kilometers (26 miles) west of Carmen, where an unknown number of patients were trapped inside the Congressman Castillo Memorial Hospital, which partially collapsed. Rescuers were working to reach them, said civil defense spokesman Maj. Reynaldo Balido. As night fell, the entire province was in the dark after the quake cut power supplies. Windy weather and rain also forced back a military rescue helicopter. Authorities were setting up tents for those displaced by the quake, while others who lost their homes moved in with their relatives, Bohol Gov. Edgardo Chatto said. Extensive damage also hit densely populated Cebu city, across a narrow strait from Bohol, causing deaths when a building in the port and the roof of a market area collapsed. The quake set off two stampedes in nearby cities. When it struck, people gathered in a gym in Cebu rushed outside in a panic, crushing five people to death and injuring eight others, said Neil Sanchez, provincial disaster management officer. "We ran out of the building, and outside, we hugged trees because the tremors were so strong," said Vilma Yorong, a provincial government employee in Bohol. "When the shaking stopped, I ran to the street and there I saw several injured people. Some were saying their church has collapsed," she told The Associated Press by phone. As fear set in, Yorong and the others ran up a mountain, afraid a tsunami would follow the quake. "Minutes after the earthquake, people were pushing each other to go up the hill," she said. But the quake was centered inland and did not cause a tsunami. Offices and schools were closed for a national holiday _ the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha _ which may have saved lives. The earthquake also was deeper below the surface than a 6.9-magnitude temblor last year in waters near Negros Island, also in the central Philippines, that killed nearly 100 people. Aledel Cuizon said the quake that caught her in her bedroom sounded like "a huge truck that was approaching and the rumbling sound grew louder as it got closer." She and her neighbors ran outside, where she saw concrete electric poles "swaying like coconut trees." It lasted 15-20 seconds, she said. Cebu city's hospitals quickly moved patients into the streets, basketball courts and parks. Cebu province, about 570 kilometers (350 miles) south of Manila, has a population of more than 2.6 million people. Cebu is the second largest city after Manila. Nearby Bohol has 1.2 million people and is popular among foreigners because of its beach and island resorts and famed Chocolate Hills. President Benigno Aquino III said he would travel to Bohol and Cebu on Wednesday. Regional military commander Lt. Gen. Roy Deveraturda said he recalled soldiers from holiday furlough to respond to the quake. He said it damaged the pier in Tagbilaran, Bohol's provincial capital, and caused some cracks at Cebu's international airport but that navy ships and air force planes could use alternative ports to help out. ___ Associated Press writers Hrvoje Hranjski, Oliver Teves, Teresa Cerojano and Jim Gomez in Manila contributed to this report. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Survivors of the quake have been sleeping in the open, as Jonathan Josephs reports At least 93 people have been reported dead after a magnitude 7.2 earthquake hit the central Philippines. The quake happened at 08:12 (00:12 GMT) on a national holiday. The US Geological Survey said it struck below the island of Bohol, where officials reported most casualties. People were also killed in the province of Cebu. Historic churches were among the many damaged buildings, and stampedes were reported in two cities. At least 69 of those confirmed dead were from Bohol, according to reports citing disaster management officials. Fifteen people are known to have been killed in Cebu, and another was reported dead on the neighbouring island of Siquijor. Dozens of others are also being treated for injuries. Search and rescue operations are being conducted, with rescuers finding themselves hampered by damaged roads. At least five people died when part of a fishing port collapsed in Cebu, and two others were also reported dead when a roof fell at a market. At least three people also died during a stampede at a sports complex in Cebu, provincial disaster chief Neil Sanchez said. "There was panic when the quake happened and there was a rush toward the exit," he told AFP. The tremor triggered power cuts in parts of Bohol, Cebu and neighbouring areas, say reports citing the country's disaster management agency. Officials from Bohol and Cebu have declared a state of emergency in their respective provinces, local media say. An official from the government agency which monitors earthquake activity was quoted as saying that this was the strongest tremor felt in the area in the last 23 years. President Benigno Aquino is expected to visit the affected areas on Wednesday. Image copyright Reuters Image caption A 7.2 quake struck underneath Bohol island, damaging structures like this old church in Loboc town. Image copyright Reuters Image caption A huge crack has appeared in a road in Bohol province as a result of the earthquake. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Damage was also reported in neighbouring Cebu, about an hour away by plane from the capital, Manila. Image copyright AFP Image caption People ran out onto the streets in Cebu - one of the country's major cities. Image copyright AP Image caption A police officer surveys the damage in Cebu city. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Many were also evacuated from buildings, like this hospital in Cebu, where patients were led to safer areas. Image copyright AP Image caption At least five people died when part of this port building collapsed in Cebu. Edgardo Chatto, the governor of Bohol, said a city hall building was damaged on the island. Heavy damage to roads, bridges and historic churches, some dating back to the Spanish colonial period in the 1500s and the 1600s, was also reported in Bohol and Cebu. British man David Venables, who has lived in Cebu for seven years, said it was the strongest quake he had experienced. "It's a very strange and frightening experience when the very foundations of the house and surrounding area shake uncontrollably," he said. Bonita Cabiles, a resident of Mandaue city in Cebu, told the BBC she was woken up when she felt the ground rumbling. She said there was a lot of structural damage in the area, including to the bell tower of the Santo Nino church in Cebu, one of the most well-known churches in the country. It was fortunate that it was a national holiday and the students were not in school, she said. There were reports of aftershocks following the quake. The Philippine Red Cross said in a statement that they had mobilised staff and volunteers to affected areas. Cebu province, with a population of more than 2.6 million, is about an hour away by plane from Manila. Neighbouring Bohol, a favourite of tourists because of its sandy beaches, is a short boat ride away from Cebu.

– A 7.2 quake shook the central Philippines today, killing at least 93 and toppling structures including a hospital and the bell tower at the country's oldest church. The lion's share of those deaths—77 so far—have come on the island of Bohol, which is where the quake's epicenter was located, the AP reports. An unknown number of patients are still trapped within the collapsed hospital in the town of Loon, and rescuers are trying to reach them. The entire province has also lost power. The quake also killed at least 15 people and caused extensive damage in Cebu, the Philippines' second largest city, which is across a narrow strait from Bohol, the BBC reports. When the quake hit, "we ran out of the building, and outside, we hugged trees because the tremors were so strong," a Bohol provincial government employee says. "Minutes after the earthquake, people were pushing each other to go up the hill" out of fears that a tsunami would follow, she says. But the quake was centered far enough inland that it did not cause a tsunami.

We are thrilled to formally introduce you all to the angel we are blessed to have as a son, Mario Armando Lavandeira, III Perez Hilton, Jr. For the first time, we are showing pictures of our little man and Perez is speaking out about why he chose to be a single father. Read all about it HERE: http://www.latimes.com/news/columnone/la-et-perez-hilton-htmlstory-20130321-dto,0,1345400.htmlstory and View and download 40 images of Perez Jr., which can be used free of charge, HERE: http://perezhilton.com/PerezJr THANK YOU for all of your well-wishes and good vibes! We truly appreciate it so much! Big hugs, Perez and Perez, Jr. Tags: baby, dad, father, mario lavandeira, perez hilton, perez hilton jr, son ||||| Once the most hated gossip blogger in Hollywood, Perez Hilton has toned down his nastiness and seeks 'good energy' for his baby boy. The new approach hasn't hurt his popularity. Column One Kinder and gentler: The rumors about Perez Hilton are true Once the most hated gossip blogger in Hollywood, he's toned down the nastiness and seeks 'good energy' for his baby boy. The new approach hasn't hurt his popularity. By Robin Abcarian Photos by Kirk McKoy The sleek man at the door bears no resemblance to the chubby pink-haired troublemaker whose snarky website made him as famous as the celebrities he loved to torment with nicknames like Sluttyienna (Sienna Miller), Potato Head (Rumer Willis) or Maniston (Jennifer Aniston). Advertisement Gone are the schlubby T-shirts and hoodies. A body-skimming gray sweater now conceals rock-hard abs. Gone, too, is the outlandish hair color, replaced by a slightly thinning curly brown mop. His Park LaBrea condo and its Pepto-Bismol-hued room are history. Home these days is a $2-million, five-bedroom Mediterranean retreat, dark and designerly, on the Westside. But most striking is the way he's cradling a 2-week-old baby, a preemie who was born to a secret surrogate four weeks early. During a two-hour interview that involves a long bottle feeding and plenty of new dad tears, he never lets his fragile son out of his arms. Perez Hilton, is that really you? "I don't have to give people nasty nicknames anymore," the 34-year-old blogger said. "I don't have to say people are stupid, or people are fat, or people are ugly. I don't need to draw inappropriate things on photos or out people. I can still be sassy and fun and do my job." MORE: Has Perez Hilton gone soft? There is a new calmness about Hilton, who was for years at the center of a self-created hurricane. Among the lawsuits, the online spats and the occasional punch in the face, Rolling Stone once said he had more beefs than the entire rap community combined. His atrium-like entry offers a clue to his evolution. His last home was dominated by Hilton portraits sent by admirers. Here, a visitor is greeted by large white busts of Buddha, Jesus and Mary, Ganesh and Shiva floating against a dark wall with palm tree silhouettes. "I wanted this to be my sacred space," said the single gay dad, who asked his designers for "spiritual-meets-Miami." Raised Catholic, he will forgo a traditional christening and instead host a blessing ceremony for the baby: "I'll have everybody write down little positive thoughts and intentions and well wishes and keep them all in a box of good energy in his room." Cue the eye-roll emoticon from targets of the ambitious, Miami-born Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., who became the blogger Hollywood loved to hate. He says he started hating himself too: "I ended up becoming someone I didn't want to be." And yet, at the thought of changing a formula that had brought unimagined financial rewards, he felt "almost paralyzed by fear." Would his readers, who loved and loathed his mean-spirited takedowns of high-flying celebrities, turn away? "I'd been doing things a certain way for six years, and if all of a sudden I do a 180 on people, will they stop reading my website?" Hilton wondered. Readership dipped briefly, but to his surprise, the change did not tarnish his brand. Young, college-educated women, his most avid fans, have continued to flock to him. More than 6.3 million people follow him on Twitter. I don't need to be liked, but I need to not be considered the downfall of civilization." — Perez Hilton His original site, which remains his bread and butter, is one of the most visited on the Internet. His media empire also includes mostly snark-free websites devoted to pets (TeddyHilton), children (Perezitos), fashion (CocoPerez) and fitness (FitPerez). "When you factor in tablet and mobile, he's nicely above where he was when he made his karma change," said Henry Copeland of BlogAds, a company that handles Hilton's advertising. Where once he worked at a back table in a Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf on Sunset Boulevard (for the free Wi-Fi), he now has an office and staff. He's co-written books, including a children's story about a boy with pink hair whose travails are redeemed by parental love. He appears every day on Carson Daly's radio show, and has his own syndicated radio show, "Perez Nights Live." The cultural critic Lee Siegel, whose 2008 book, "Against the Machine," explored the social implications of the crudeness unleashed by the Internet, said Hilton's softening tone is in step with the times. "Everyone is living in such economic terror," he said, "they have to be nice." In any case, he added, the celebrity-industrial complex can't exist without a Perez Hilton. "Hollywood has always had this Hedda Hopper-type creature," Siegel said, invoking the once-feared columnist. "Because of the dynamic of the place, celebrity culture wouldn't exist but for its routine deflations. You've got to allow yourself to be deflated or the public won't continue to accept you." For a professional chatterbox, Hilton has been remarkably secretive about the most important development in his life. Though he's never hidden his desire to have children, only his mother, sister, lawyer and business manager knew that he'd found an egg donor and a surrogate last year to carry his biological child. He doesn't know the name of the egg donor, and he won't divulge the name or location of the surrogate. The pregnancy had gone smoothly for eight months. But on Feb. 16, as he was walking into Staples Center with a friend to see Pink in concert, he got a panicked call from the surrogate and her husband. Her water had broken; labor would be induced. The baby wasn't due until March 16. He took a flight out the next morning, with his sister and mother, then arrived breathlessly at the wrong hospital. The town had two hospitals with similar names. He was certain he would miss the birth, but three hours after he arrived at the right place, Mario Armando Lavandeira III entered the world at a healthy 5 pounds, 9 ounces. "He waited for Daddy," Hilton said. A week later, Hilton announced the news on his website. To his surprise, he became the No. 1 trending topic on Twitter: "Maybe people care about me a little?" he said, his voice rising and growing small as he pronounced "little." Apparently so. He is no longer the Perez Hilton who drew the wrath of many gays by outing closeted celebrities, and infuriated paparazzi agencies by helping himself to their photos. He is not the same guy who insulted Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean, or spat an anti-gay slur at Will.i.am. "I feel like it spiraled out of control," Hilton said of the online persona. "It got progressively meaner and bitchier." In 2010, he decided to "aspire higher." The shift occurred after he made an "It Gets Better" video, to help prevent gay teen suicide, and discovered, to his horror, that he was considered one of the biggest bullies on the Internet. Khloe Kardashian, a frequent Hilton target, called him out as her "personal bully" for scrawling words like "tranny" and "fugly" on her photos. And that was one of the nicer responses. So he tried to be positive, like his idol Oprah Winfrey, but he felt as if he'd lost his edge. Eventually, he settled on a new role model: Rosie O'Donnell. "She's a polarizing person, but when people think of her, they don't think she's a bad person or she's mean," Hilton said. "I don't need to be liked, but I need to not be considered the downfall of civilization." Certain celebrities still bring out the claws, though. Chief among them: Singers Chris Brown, whose violent history is catnip for gossips, and Justin Bieber, who seems to be in the throes of a Britney Spears-style paparazzi-driven meltdown. "Justin," Hilton said recently on one of the many videos he posts, "get your act together, or you may be shaving your head real soon!" A passionate music fan whose lavish attention helped put singers Adele, Lady Gaga and Katy Perry on the map, Hilton's biggest flop has been the music deal he signed with Warner Bros. Records for his own label in 2009. This year, he decided to step back from the music business and put all his energy into his websites and something he's been trying to do for years: television. He and his TV producing partner, Steven Grossman of the Collective, are in the midst of pitching a talk show. Grossman said Hilton's evolving persona has "made him more commercial, and less of a risk and less of a loose cannon." Hilton, who had one serious relationship in the last five years, always knew he would have a child by his 35th birthday, which is Saturday. And he has always been prepared to go it alone: "I knew it was going to happen this way because boyfriends and husbands may come and go, but kids are forever. I didn't want to keep waiting." A changing table has been installed in his Pilates room, and the dramatic living room, dominated by a life-size black horse lamp from the designer Moooi, is cluttered with baby-phernalia. To cope with his new baby nerves, he shops online late at night, buying Spanish-language children's books to read to his son, on advice of the pediatrician. "The other day I locked myself in the bathroom and started crying because in addition to my brain feeling loopy, I really have felt super hormonal and emotional," Hilton said, as Mario slept on a nursing pillow in his lap. "Wow, I really am a dad now and it's awesome." MORE FROM ROBIN ABCARIAN: Has Perez Hilton gone soft? Contact the reporter Follow @robinabcarian on Twitter Column One: More great reads from the Los Angeles Times

– For a gossip blogger, Perez Hilton certainly was mysterious about the details of his surprise new baby when the little boy was born last month. Now he opens up, revealing to the Los Angeles Times that his son's name is Mario Armando Lavandeira III and that he was born via surrogate. Perez used an anonymous egg donor, and only his mother, sister, lawyer, and business manager knew about the pregnancy. Little Mario (whom the gossip blogger calls "Perez Jr." on his site) was born four weeks early. Perez, who calls being a dad "awesome," turns 35 Saturday, and he always planned to have a child by that time. He's only been in one serious relationship in the past five years, and says he was prepared to be a single parent: "I knew it was going to happen this way because boyfriends and husbands may come and go, but kids are forever. I didn't want to keep waiting." He also discusses his newfound, and much nicer, online persona: "I don't have to give people nasty nicknames anymore. I don't have to say people are stupid, or people are fat, or people are ugly. I don't need to draw inappropriate things on photos or out people. I can still be sassy and fun and do my job." Click to see more pictures of the baby, whom even we have to admit is pretty cute.

FILE - This July 25, 2016 file photo Astrid Silva of PLAN speaks during the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Silva, who was brought into the United States as a young child,... (Associated Press) FILE - This July 25, 2016 file photo Astrid Silva of PLAN speaks during the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Silva, who was brought into the United States as a young child,... (Associated Press) LAS VEGAS (AP) — An activist who will deliver a Democratic response in Spanish to President Donald Trump's first speech to a joint session of Congress plans to address his administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants and the need for affordable health care. Tuesday's remarks from Astrid Silva, a so-called Dreamer who was brought into the country illegally as a child, will come as Trump's efforts have spread anxiety among immigrants and led many to fear arrest. Former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear will give the Democratic Party's English-language response. "Immigration is obviously very important, but I think people assume immigration is the only issue that Latinos care about," Silva told The Associated Press on Monday. "There are so many things affecting our lives, like health care, LGBTQ rights, women's rights." Silva, 28, came to the U.S. with her parents at age 4 and has lived in Las Vegas since she was 5. She is part of a group of 750,000 immigrants who were brought into the U.S. without authorization as children but later received deportation relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program authorized by former President Barack Obama in 2012. Silva has become a prominent advocate for immigration reform. She spoke during the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July, almost two years after Obama highlighted her story during an address to the nation about a similar deportation relief program for the parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents. "Democrats have done a lot of work in our communities, but I think at the same time there's a lot of fear in our community," said Silva, who during the election season appeared in ads in Spanish for Hillary Clinton. "To be able to speak to our community in Spanish, I think it's really important." Democrats have invited immigrants and foreigners to Trump's speech in an effort to put a face on those who could be hurt by the Republican's policies. Among those who have been invited are the Iraqi-American doctor who discovered elevated levels of lead in the blood of many children living in Flint, Michigan, and a Pakistani-born doctor who delivers critical care to patients in Rhode Island. U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat from Nevada, invited Silva to be her guest. "At a time when immigrants are constantly under attack, Astrid serves as a reminder that we are a country that fights for those who need protection, and one that gives opportunities for all to live up to one's full potential regardless of where you come from," she said. ___ Follow Regina Garcia Cano on Twitter at https://twitter.com/reginagarciakNO. More of her work can be found at https://www.apnews.com/search/ReginaGarciaCano. ||||| “I don’t know how you take $54 billion out without wholesale taking out entire departments,” said Bill Hoagland, a longtime Republican budget aide in the Senate and now a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “You need to control it in the area of the entitlement programs, which he’s taken off the table. It is a proposal, I dare say, that will be dead on arrival even with a Republican Congress.” Speaking to governors at the White House, Mr. Trump said his spending demands would be at the core of the speech he gives Tuesday night to a joint session of Congress. “This budget follows through on my promise to keep Americans safe,” he said, calling it a “public safety and national security” budget that will send a “message to the world in these dangerous times of American strength, security and resolve.” In the first part of the speech, Mr. Trump will recount “promises made and promises kept,” said the aides, who requested anonymity during a briefing with reporters. The rest of the speech will focus on how he will help people with their problems and how he intends to protect the nation. The president’s budget proposals — which were short on detail but are said to exempt not just Medicare and Social Security but also veterans’ benefits and law enforcement efforts — would lead to deep reductions in federal programs that touch millions of lives. The White House signaled that it would begin with agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Internal Revenue Service and social safety-net programs. A budget with no entitlement cuts and one that does not balance most likely has no chance of passing the House, and could be rejected by Senate Republicans as well. Mr. Trump’s proposals are too far to the right in terms of domestic cuts and too far to the left in terms of balance. Their failure could have practical implications for the White House. ||||| A list of 11 key bullet points outlining President Donald Trump’s speech from the White House that was obtained by POLITICO in advance of the address. | Getty White House circulates talking points ahead of speech to Congress President Donald Trump’s highly-anticipated first address to Congress on Tuesday will detail an “optimistic vision” for the nation that vows to push a “bold agenda” on tax and regulatory overhauls, reforms in the workplace and a promise to “sav[e] American families from the disaster of Obamacare.” That’s according to a list of 11 key bullet points outlining Trump’s speech from the White House that was obtained by POLITICO in advance of the address. In it, Trump will also paint his agenda with broad, unifying tones, saying he will “invite Americans of all backgrounds to come together in the service of a stronger, brighter future for our nation.” “All Americans share a desire for safe communities for themselves and their families,” reads one of the points. “All Americans want their children to have access to good schools. And all Americans deserve good jobs that allow them to prosper and dream. For far too many people – “the forgotten men and women” – these fundamental desires have been out of reach for too long.” Here is the outline of Trump’s address, distributed by the White House: Preview of the President’s Address to a Joint Session of Congress • One by one, President Trump has been checking off the promises he made to the American people. He’s doing what he said he was going to do. • In Tuesday night’s speech, he will lay out an optimistic vision for the country that crosses the traditional lines of party, race and socioeconomic status. It will invite Americans of all backgrounds to come together in the service of a stronger, brighter future for our nation. • All Americans share a desire for safe communities for themselves and their families. All Americans want their children to have access to good schools. And all Americans deserve good jobs that allow them to prosper and dream. For far too many people – “the forgotten men and women” – these fundamental desires have been out of reach for too long. • The President will lay out the concrete steps he has already taken to make the American Dream possible for all of our people. • He will talk about how he wants to work with Congress to pass a bold agenda. That will include: • Tax and regulatory reform to get relief to hardworking Americans and American businesses. • Making the workplace better for working parents. • Saving American families from the disaster of Obamacare. • Making sure every child in America has access to a good education. • A great rebuilding of the American military. • Fulfilling our commitments to our veterans and making sure they have access to the care they need. • It will be a speech addressed to ALL Americans AS Americans—not to a coalition of special interests and minor issues. • Americans can expect a speech that is grounded firmly in solving real problems for real people. How can we make sure that every American who needs a good job can get one? How can we get kids who are trapped in failing schools into a better school? How we can keep gangs and drugs and violent crime out of their neighborhoods? • The President will reach out to Americans living in the poorest and most vulnerable communities, and let them know that help is on the way. • He will also speak to the daily challenges of the Middle Class. • He will look to the future and talk about what we can achieve if we come together. • Finally, he will call on Congress to act. He is eager to partner with lawmakers to fix our problems and build on this renewed American spirit. ||||| Here's What To Watch For When Trump Addresses Congress Enlarge this image toggle caption Pool/Getty Images Pool/Getty Images Tuesday night, President Trump will address a joint session of Congress for the first time. After a chaotic first month, it will be a chance for Trump to reset his relationship with voters, who currently give him historically-low approval ratings. It will also be a chance for him to reassure congressional Republicans, whose view of the new administration runs the gamut from optimism to unease. Here are five things to watch for when Trump goes to Capitol Hill on Tuesday. 1. Where we've come and where we're going That's how White House press secretary Sean Spicer described what Trump will discuss on Tuesday night. It may sound vague, but Trump will certainly list his achievements, much as he did in his marathon "I'm not ranting and raving" press conference. He'll present himself as a man of action, who said what he meant and is now making good on his promises. Trump will likely repeat his claim that he "inherited a mess" — even though no president in 20 years has been left a healthier economy. And he'll take credit for everything from a booming stock market to the decisions of American companies like Carrier or Intel to retain U.S. jobs or hire new workers. This weekend, Trump congratulated himself for a drop in the budget deficit after his first month in office. Though, since he hasn't signed any spending bills into law yet, it's hard to see how that had anything to do with him. 2. 'American carnage' or 'renewal of the American spirit?' The speech, like Trump's inaugural address, will be written by Stephen Miller. But the White House says the tone will be very different. The inaugural speech was a dark, dystopian vision of American decline. Its theme was something like "the blowtorch has been passed to a new generation." This one, White House aides say, will be sunny and optimistic — more opportunity, less Armageddon. But previews from Trump aides have not always panned out. For instance, we were told his inaugural address would focus on unity. It didn't. With his approval ratings hovering in the low forties, the White House may have decided that a little more inclusion and a little less divisiveness might help. So far, Trump has been speaking almost exclusively to his base, which is loyal and enthusiastic no matter what he does. But the period of executive orders is over. Trump has done almost all he can unilaterally. If he wants to pass legislation, he will need Congress and in some cases Democratic votes. So watch to see if Trump tries to reach out. 3. Policy details, anyone? Donald Trump is not a policy wonk, so don't expect him to talk specifics about health care or tax reform or infrastructure. But these big set speeches to Congress are about policy guidance, and Republicans want to know where he stands on their big legislative goals. On replacing Obamacare, Republicans have put themselves in a box. If they want to pay for tax cuts, they need to get trillions of dollars from somewhere. There's money to be had in health insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion established by the Affordable Care Act, but if Republicans unravel Obamacare they will be held responsible when millions of people, many of whom voted for Donald Trump, lose their coverage. What guidance will Trump give them? The latest word from the White House is that "the goal is that we make sure that people don't lose their coverage," as deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders put it to ABC's This Week on Sunday. 4. Tax reform or tax cuts? Tax cuts that don't expire after ten years need 60 votes to pass in the Senate. But they have to be paid for. Tax reform, which lowers rates but also gets rid of deductions, could be revenue neutral or even produce revenue that could be used for Trump's big infrastructure program. Is Trump a tax cutter or a tax reformer? He talked about getting rid of deductions during the campaign, but hasn't said much since. All of the Republican tax plans skew their benefits to the wealthy. Will Trump repeat the pledge of his new Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, that the rich will not get an "absolute tax cut." Then there's the border adjustment tax, basically a tax on imports. This is at the heart of Paul Ryan's tax plan and it would raise a lot of money. But the idea has split the GOP business coalition. Retailers like Walmart who rely on imports hate it, while many manufacturers love it. Trump had been critical of the idea, saying in the past that it was "too complicated." But lately he has sounded warmer, saying in a Reuters interview last week, "It could lead to a lot more jobs in the United States." Or Trump might send a signal that "paying for things" is just not necessary. Deficits have been a focus of conservative, small-government Republicans. That's not Donald Trump. 5. How will Democrats react? Probably by sitting on their hands. They are fierce and united in their opposition to Trump. This will be an unusual audience for him, as the president is used to speaking to crowds that love him. On Tuesday, nearly half the crowd will be sullen — if not seething. Democrats are also planning to bring guests who are a rebuke to the president's policies — Muslim refugees, Hispanic immigrants, relatives of victims of gun violence and others. Plus, one of the two official Democratic responses to the speech will be delivered in Spanish by DREAMer and immigration activist Astrid Silva. The other will be delivered by former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat who served in a state with a lot of coal miners, championed by Trump, where Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act extended coverage to hundreds of thousands of people. The message from that pair of responses will be that the Democrats don't have to choose between two groups — minorities and others that have been marginalized historically, and white working-class voters who delivered a victory to Trump. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump's speech to Congress: Lessons from history The state of the union is broken. Or, at least, the state of the State of Union address is broken. Audiences for this annual political tradition have been steadily declining for years. In 1993, 60 million Americans tuned in to watch the new president from Arkansas (Bill Clinton) address Congress. By Barack Obama's last address, the audience was half that. Or maybe American television viewers are simply smart and have figured out that the State of the Union is boring and, frankly, they'd rather spend an hour of their time doing something else. The reason it's boring is that the long list of grand plans that recent presidents have proposed during the speech had very little chance of actually becoming policy. Image copyright EPA An increasingly unconciliatory Congress combined with a deeply partisan media landscape have killed the prospects for significant change here. This means that the gap between State of the Union rhetoric and State of the Union reality has grown ever wider. If government isn't going to do anything anyway, why bother giving them a precious hour of your viewing time? At least that seems to be the thinking of the 30 million Americans who have given up tuning in. Will this year be different? Quite possibly Donald Trump will get a viewing bump on Tuesday night (and if he does, he will almost certainly tell us about it). Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US woman casts a spell to curb President Donald Trump First off, he's Donald Trump. Even in this most formal and scripted of events, there's always the chance he will say something extreme, if only to get our attention. He's good at that. Donald Trump is still pretty good for TV ratings just because he is who he is, unpredictable and different. Secondly, and more importantly, there is more chance now that what we hear on Tuesday evening could actually become law. Mr Trump has both chambers of Congress on his side and he is about to get a conservative judge on to the Supreme Court. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Decoding Trump's top five hand gestures This means government is no longer divided and Republicans are in a mood to please the man who got them all this power. This address is not actually a State of the Union, because in their first year in office presidents are not deemed to have been around long enough to give one. So they give a simple address to Congress instead. That's a technicality and you can ignore it. This is basically the same thing, an expression of the president's agenda and will. So tune in, you may be pleasantly surprised. This address may actually matter, and, in any case, it is unlikely to be boring. ||||| President Donald Trump will be addressing Congress and the nation on Tuesday at 9 p.m. | AP Photo Trump announces guests to Tuesday's address During his first address prime-time address to Congress, President Donald Trump will bolster his agenda with some of the guests accompanying him to Tuesday night's event — the widow of Justice Antonin Scalia and three families who have been victims of violence by undocumented immigrants. Maureen McCarthy Scalia, the widow of Justice Scalia, is slated to attend the event, the White House announced late Monday. Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch last month to replace Scalia, who died in February 2016. Last year, Republicans in Congress blocked President Barack Obama's pick, Merrick Garland, which has left Democrats upset and fighting against Trump's pick. According to the White House, Trump also invited surviving family members of three people who were the victims of violence at the hands of undocumented immigrants. Jessica Davis and Susan Oliver are the widows of California police officers Detective Michael Davis and Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver, who were killed in 2014 by an undocumented immigrant. The two officers have a bill named after them, which aims to increase cooperation between federal and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws. In addition, Jamiel Shaw Sr., whose son, Jamiel Jr., was shot to death in 2008 in Los Angeles by an undocumented immigrant, was also invited. Shaw spoke at the Republican National Convention in July. Several Democratic lawmakers had previously announced they are bring undocumented immigrants to Tuesday night's address. Trump also invited 20-year-old Megan Crowley, whose father founded a pharmaceutical start-up, Novazyme Pharmaceuticals, after she was diagnosed with Pompe disease at 15 months old. She is now a sophomore at Notre Dame University. Denisha Merriweather, a student who struggled with her school work until she applied for the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program that allowed her to go to a private school, will also be in attendance. She was, the White House said, the first member of her family to graduate from high school and college. ||||| Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump reached for poetry and conjured a vision of common national purpose Tuesday during his first address to Congress, shifting his tone from the dark, searing approach of his previous big speeches to the nation. Trump adopted a statesmanlike cadence, hitting notes of inspiration. For once, this most unorthodox of politicians struck a conventional presidential posture as he sought to stabilize his administration after a tumultuous five weeks in office. Though his language was more lofty and unifying than normal, Trump gave little quarter on the substance of his policies on issues ranging from trade, defense, immigration and counterterrorism. The result was a populist, nationalistic prescription that he said would yield "a new chapter of American greatness." "From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations, not burdened by our fears, inspired by the future, not bound by failures of the past, and guided by a vision, not blinded by our doubts," Trump said, from the Speaker's rostrum in the House of Representatives. During a vitriolic campaign and a raucous start to his term, Trump has done little to reach beyond his base of deeply committed voters who revile the kind of political elites that the President was staring down as he spoke on Tuesday. But, beset by the lowest approval ratings of any new commander-in-chief of modern times, Trump made a palpable effort to court voters who didn't support him with an offer to lay down the battles of the past. In fact, his address ticked almost all the boxes of a traditional State of the Union style appearance. 'Embrace this renewal' "I am asking all citizens to embrace this renewal of the American spirit. I am asking all members of Congress to join me in dreaming big, and bold, and daring things for our country," Trump said. "I am asking everyone watching tonight to seize this moment. Believe in yourselves. Believe in your future. And believe, once more, in America." Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress US President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress for the first time on Tuesday, February 28. Behind him, from left, are Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan. Hide Caption 1 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Trump speaks at the beginning of his address. Hide Caption 2 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress A wide view of the House chamber. Hide Caption 3 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Supreme Court justices watch the speech. From left, in front, are John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Hide Caption 4 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Maureen Scalia, the widow of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, is applauded during the speech. Hide Caption 5 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Carryn Owens, center, cries as she is applauded by the chamber during Trump's speech. Owens' husband, Navy SEAL William "Ryan" Owens, recently was killed during a mission in Yemen. "Ryan died as he lived: a warrior and a hero, battling against terrorism and securing our nation," Trump said. The applause lasted over a minute, which Trump said must be a record. Hide Caption 6 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Trump also recognized Megan Crowley, a college student who, at 15 months old, was diagnosed with Pompe disease and wasn't expected to live past age 5. Her father founded a pharmaceutical company to find a cure. "Megan's story is about the unbounded power of a father's love for a daughter," Trump said. "But our slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration keeps too many advances, like the one that saved Megan's life, from reaching those in need." Hide Caption 7 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Muslim activist Fauzia Rizvi, a guest of US Rep. Mark Takano, watches Trump's address. Hide Caption 8 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Members of Trump's Cabinet applaud the President. From left are Defense Secretary James Mattis, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Hide Caption 9 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Trump smiles during his speech, which lasted over an hour. Hide Caption 10 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi listens to the speech. Hide Caption 11 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress The President waves before starting his speech. Hide Caption 12 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Trump is applauded after arriving in the House chamber. Hide Caption 13 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Trump shakes hands with Ryan before starting. Hide Caption 14 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Trump shakes hands on his way through the chamber. Facing the President here are Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, left, and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Hide Caption 15 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Trump stands in the doorway of the House chamber while being introduced. Hide Caption 16 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Pence confers with Ryan before Trump's speech. Hide Caption 17 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress First lady Melania Trump, bottom right, is applauded as she arrives in the chamber. Hide Caption 18 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress US Sen. John McCain, left, talks with US Sen. Lindsey Graham before Trump arrived. Hide Caption 19 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress US Sens. Cory Booker and Bob Menendez arrive in the House chamber. Hide Caption 20 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress Many Democrats wore white as a nod to the women's suffrage movement. Posing for a photo here are, from left, US Reps. Brenda Lawrence, Joyce Beatty, Marcia Fudge and Val Demings. Hide Caption 21 of 22 Photos: President Trump's first address to Congress US Sen. Bernie Sanders arrives for the speech. Hide Caption 22 of 22 It was an uplifting and unifying message that many Americans have rarely heard from Trump, who argued "the time for trivial fights is behind us." While Trump is not solely responsible for the coarsening of political life, his brash, Twitter-fueled approach has rocked the nation's politics. The question now is whether the President was previewing a new, more sober political persona or whether he will return to his old habits. The change in his tone was evident from the first moments of his speech when he condemned the recent spate of threats against Jewish community centers, vandalism at Jewish cemeteries and the shooting of two Indian men in Kansas. He said the violence was a reminder that "while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its very ugly forms." The comment followed heavy criticism of Trump for not addressing such violence. The new President entered the House chamber to thunderous applause and spoke of the "renewal of the American spirit." A senior White House official said Trump wrote the speech himself with input from almost every member of his presidential team of advisers. In the emotional high point of the speech, Trump turned to the first lady's box and acknowledged Carryn Owens, the widow of a US Navy Special operator, William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed in an anti-terror raid in Yemen in the first major military engagement of the new administration. "Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero -- battling against terrorism and securing our nation," Trump said as the House floor erupted in a prolonged standing ovation. Owens, with tears streaming down her face, looked to the Heavens and joined in the applause. Less explosive style welcomed His less explosive presentation style was welcomed by many lawmakers. JUST WATCHED McConnell: American's expect Obamacare repeal Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH McConnell: American's expect Obamacare repeal 01:10 "Donald Trump did indeed become presidential tonight, and I think we'll see that reflected in a higher approval rating," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said on CNN after the speech. "The Donald Trump I heard tonight was a lot more focused and disciplined and subdued, and it was a lot more uneventful in a good way," moderate House Republican Charlie Dent told CNN's Tom LoBianco. "There were not a lot of distractions tonight, this speech was much better than the inaugural speech." North Dakota Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who is up for re-election next year in a state that Trump carried, said the President delivered a "very good speech." "It was delivered with a sense of 'this is who I am, this is what I want to accomplish' and I think the goals are great," she said. "How we get there is the $10,000 question." Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on CNN that Trump's "speeches and the realities are very, very far apart." "Until his reality catches up with his speeches, he's got big trouble," Schumer said. Though his rhetoric was soaring, Trump still struck hardline notes. He overruled national security adviser H.R. McMaster, according to a senior administration official, to warn of "radical Islamic terrorism." Hitting themes familiar from his campaign, Trump vowed to restore "integrity and the rule of law to our borders." "We will soon begin the construction of a great, great wall along our southern border," Trump said, drawing Republican cheers even as he didn't mention his earlier promise that Mexico would pay for construction. "As we speak tonight, we are removing gang members, drug dealers, and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very innocent citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak, and as I promised throughout the campaign" Sending shockwaves through Washington While such language could please conservatives, Trump sent shockwaves through Washington earlier Tuesday by telling reporters he wants to pass an immigration reform bill that could grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US. "The time is right for an immigration bill as long as there is compromise on both sides," Trump said at the White House. But he did not provide further clarity on that position during his address. So far there is little sign that the new President's legislative agenda, which includes repealing and replacing Obamacare, a big tax overhaul, and a $1 trillion infrastructure program , is anywhere near coming to fruition. That explains why he devoted a considerable portion of the address to touting his achievements so far. He argued that his election alone had convinced big firms like Ford, Sprint, SoftBank and Intel to invest billions of job-creating dollars in the US. He noted that stocks have put on $3 trillion in value since his election and claimed to have saved hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, including on the new F-35 jet fighter. Trump said he also kept his word by cutting government regulations, clearing the way for the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines and pulling out of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. The President also laid down clear principles for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, a key policy goal that is threatening to become overwhelmed by the complications of writing health policy. A new system, he said, must retain coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions, should offer plans backed by tax credits and expanded health savings accounts and should preserve Medicaid expansion in the states. Trump also vowed to bring down the high price of drugs "immediately." 'Obamacare is collapsing' "Obamacare is collapsing -- and we must act decisively to protect all Americans," he said, "Action is not a choice -- it is a necessity." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who was instrumental in passing the law, shook her head as Trump condemned it. The President also signaled action on another key piece of his agenda -- tax reform, promising "massive" relief for the middle classes and cuts in corporate tax. Yet Trump also pushed for his $1 trillion infrastructure plan and spoke of his effort to boost military spending. Given that he has also said he will protect entitlements, questions will be asked about how the administration can finance its ambitious plans. Trump's speech was closely watched around the world, given that his pronouncements on foreign policy have caused alarm and confusion. There were, however, few details on national security policy to clear up misconceptions. Trump recommitted himself to a strong "America First" foreign policy, but also backed NATO -- as long as its members pay their dues -- while bemoaning trillions of dollars the US has spent in foreign wars abroad. "My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America," said Trump. "But we know that America is better off when there is less conflict, not more. We must learn from the mistakes of the past. We have seen the war and the destruction that have ravaged and raged throughout the world." Despite some positive reviews for Trump in the room on Tuesday, the official Democratic response by former Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear accused the President of deserting the working people who voted for him by picking a cabinet of millionaires and billionaires. "That's not being our champion. That's being Wall Street's champion," Beshear said. "Real leaders don't spread derision and division. Real leaders strengthen, they unify, they partner, and they offer real solutions instead of ultimatums and blame," said Beshear, accusing Trump of waging war on refugees and immigrants and endangering US security by reaching out to Russia. ||||| Donald Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday is taking on the importance of a State of the Union speech when it comes to U.S. financial markets. For investors relying on more than a year of campaign promises of a pro-growth agenda to push U.S. stocks to record highs, the dollar surging and bond yields climbing, the prime-time speech to House and Senate lawmakers couldn’t come any sooner. “We need to see some details within all the policy talk,” said Sean Simko, who manages $8 billion in fixed-income assets at SEI Investments Co. in Oaks, Pennsylvania. “More specifics in terms of numbers or even a more defined timeline. If there aren’t specifics there, the risk trade might be ending.” Though new life was given to some faltering Trump reflation trades by the president’s promise of a “phenomenal” tax plan earlier this month, investors say more is needed, especially with the administration designating the repeal and replace of Obamacare as its first priority ahead of a tax overhaul. While it isn’t considered a State of the Union address since it falls within Trump’s first year, the initial speech to Congress has been no less important to presidents in the modern era. Barack Obama first spoke before both legislative bodies in February 2009 about the financial crisis. The most important market news of the day. Get our markets daily newsletter. Trump will propose boosting defense spending by $54 billion in his first budget plan and offset that by an equal amount cut from the rest of the government’s discretionary budget, according to administration officials. During a speech to governors Monday, Trump called his plan a "public safety budget" and promised that “we’re going to start spending on infrastructure, big,” without giving details. Since Trump’s election, stocks have showed few signs of slowing down. The S&P 500 has advanced 10 percent, posting 17 record closes in a rally that’s added $2.8 trillion in value to the U.S. equity market. To be sure, fundamentals are playing a part in the market’s gains. The economy has shown signs of accelerating and corporate earnings are predicted to surge 12 percent from last year, a turnaround from the profit declines in 2015 and 2016. “It’s possible that if the market hadn’t been rising so dramatically, we could wait,” said Quincy Krosby, a market strategist at Prudential Financial Inc., which oversees about $1.3 trillion. “But this is a market that’s pretty impatient and wants results.” Adding to the anxiety are differing views on how to proceed on tax reform. House Republicans are considering a border-adjustment tax proposal that shifts the burden from exporters to importers, arguing that it would benefit American manufacturing while providing revenue to make up for losses from reducing corporate-tax rates. Trump has called the plan "too complicated." As the debate grows, traders have reduced bullish wagers on the dollar. The greenback has dropped 3.3 percent since January, after surging 6.5 percent after the Nov. 8 presidential vote, according to the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index. Hedge funds and other large speculators have cut net bullish dollar bets to the least since before the election. “There is only so long the market will bid the dollar higher on the promise of something,” said Stuart Bennett, head of Group-of-10 currency strategy at Banco Santander SA in London. “They will want detail. And if it’s not forthcoming, then it’s a little bit like the boy who cried wolf.” Complacency could be one of the biggest risks, according to John Canally, chief economic strategist at LPL Financial in Boston. The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, a gauge of investor anxiety also known as the VIX, is only two points above its all time low. The VIX, which tracks implied volatility through S&P 500 options, is headed for the lowest yearly average on record. “Everyone is wondering why equity market volatility is so low given the uncertainty out there,” said Canally. “The economy is not in dire need of a tax cut, but maybe his speech could be a catalyst” for an uptick in volatility, he said. Not everyone is convinced. The rally in stocks has been driven by solid earnings and economic data in spite of growing skepticism over Trump’s policies, Tobias Levkovich, Citigroup Inc.’s chief U.S. equity strategist, wrote in a Feb. 24 note. “Fears of a major pullback if President Trump does not outline a ‘phenomenal’ tax program on Feb. 28th may be overdone,” Levkovich said. In the bond market, speculators are holding onto wagers on higher yields, and lower debt prices. David Woo, head of global rates and FX strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said Trump’s desire for a tax plan before the August break means it is likely that the president lays out at least a “skeleton” of the program on Tuesday. If Trump does provide more clarity on his tax and growth plans, that raises the risk that the Federal Reserve will be more willing to increase interest rates, Woo said. Traders currently assign about a 40 percent probability for a hike at the Fed’s March 15 policy meeting. “There is a lot riding on Tuesday,” said Woo. “The consequences for some kind of plan being unveiled will be massive. You will see volatility really going through the roof if he does so.” — With assistance by Lananh Nguyen ||||| President Donald Trump will give his first speech to the U.S. Congress on Tuesday. He is expected to discuss his plan to increase military spending by nearly 10 percent, or $54 billion, offset by equal cuts in non-defense spending. The cuts will likely include large reductions in foreign aid. He told governors on Monday that he would also propose more spending on public safety, including more efforts to stop illegal immigration. And he would call for more spending to rebuild old roadways and airports and reduce taxes. Trump is likely to repeat some of the comments he made last week in a speech before conservatives. He said at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “We will reduce taxes. We will cut your regulations. We will support our police. We will defend our flag. We will rebuild our military. We will take care of our great, great veterans.” Some will watch what tone Trump uses in his speech. Will he reach out to Democrats and others who oppose his policies? Richard Vatz and Gerald Shuster are experts on presidential communication. Neither expects Trump to tone back the strong comments that have marked both his campaign for president and his first 40 days as president. “People have been predicting for a long time that he will change his tone, but it hasn’t happened and I see no reason to think it will now,” Vatz said. Vatz is a professor at Towson University in Maryland. He said the reason Trump is not likely to change is because his supporters like his strong criticism of the news media and Democrats. The downside, Vatz said, is that Trump faces the strongest opposition of any U.S. president since the 1960s. Shuster teaches at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. Shuster does not expect Trump to moderate his language unless he faces a major setback -- such as a failure to carry out his promise to repeal and replace the health plan known as Obamacare. Presidential speeches go back to George Washington Presidents have been giving speeches to Congress since the beginning of the Republic. George Washington, the first president, was also the first president to give a speech to Congress. The U.S. constitution says presidents “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the state of the Union.” But no president since John Kennedy in 1961 has given a State of the Union address during their first year in office. Recent presidents have instead given what is called a speech to a joint session of Congress. In his first speech to Congress in 2009, President Barack Obama said he was sure America would overcome its worst recession in over 70 years. “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before,” Obama said. In 2001, President George W. Bush, a Republican, said America needed to be ready for the unexpected. A little over six months later, America faced its worst terrorist attack ever, killing 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. In 1981, new President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, discussed concerns his policies would hurt low-income Americans. He said, “All those with true need can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts." Five days after the killing of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, President Lyndon Johnson made his first speech to a joint session of Congress. He said, "All I have I would have given gladly not to be standing here today. The greatest leader of our time has been struck down by the foulest deed of our time." Who will watch Trump’s speech? Trump’s speech will be televised live across the United States and in some other nations. The audience watching in the U.S. Capitol will include more than just members of the Senate and House of Representatives. There will be members of his cabinet, Supreme Court justices and news reporters whom Trump calls the “enemy of the people” for stories critical of his administration. Members of Congress also invite “special guests” to watch the speech. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi plans to invite a young immigrant who could be hurt by Trump’s plans to take on illegal immigration. Pelosi also plans to bring a person she says has spoken out about the importance of a free press. Pelosi said Trump has failed to carry out his most important campaign promise. “Five weeks into his administration, President Trump has not introduced a single jobs bill,” she said. But Trump said he is speaking for Americans who have not been treated fairly. “The forgotten men and women of America will be forgotten no longer.” Bruce Alpert reported on this story for VOA Learning English. Hai Do was the editor. We want to hear from you. Write to us in the Comments Section and share your views on our Facebook Page. ___________________________________________________________ Words in This Story regulation - n. an official rule or law that says how something should be done tone - n. a quality, feeling, or attitude expressed by the words that someone uses in speaking state - n. the current condition emerge - v. used to indicate the usually good state or condition of someone or something at the end of an event, process assured - v. be sure something will happen or not happen exempt - n. not affected by some decision, rule or proposal.

– President Trump will deliver his first speech to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night—a traditional address delivered in place of a State of the Union address in a president's first year, though nobody's sure how traditional he plans to keep it. NPR reports that the prime-time speech was written by Stephen Miller, who wrote Trump's inaugural address, though the White House says the tone of this speech will be a lot more optimistic. An administration official tells CNN that Trump wants to speak to the country directly and solve "real problems for real people." A roundup of coverage: A preview of policies Trump delivered to governors on Monday suggests he will use the speech to set out an agenda that includes repeal and replacement of ObamaCare, cuts to federal regulations, and a $54 billion boost in military spending, reports the Los Angeles Times. Politico reports that Trump's special guests at the session will include the widow of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the families of three people who were murdered by undocumented immigrants. The TV audience for the address has been steadily shrinking over the years, but the BBC predicts a big rise in ratings this year, because with both houses of Congress under GOP control, the policies Trump sets out are likely to become law—and with Trump, the speech is "unlikely to be boring." Politico has a list of 11 talking points circulated by the White House ahead of the address. Among them: "It will be a speech addressed to ALL Americans AS Americans—not to a coalition of special interests and minor issues." Astrid Silva, a DREAMer brought to the US illegally as a child, will deliver a Spanish-language Democratic response to the address, the AP reports. Former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear will deliver a response to Trump in English. Congressional Republicans will be looking to Trump for guidance, though the New York Times predicts that his budget proposals, which are expected to leave programs like Medicare and Social Security untouched, will set a "battle for control of Republican ideology" with House Speaker Paul Ryan. Presidential communication expert Richard Vatz tells Voice of America that at this point, Trump is unlikely to tone down the strong comments he has been making since he started running for president. "People have been predicting for a long time that he will change his tone, but it hasn't happened and I see no reason to think it will now," he says. Bloomberg reports that investors are hoping for policy specifics, including on Trump's proposed tax cuts—and if they don't get them, financial markets could be in for a big drop.

MOSCOW — Russia has taken another major step toward restricting its once freewheeling Internet, as President Vladimir V. Putin quietly signed a new law requiring popular online voices to register with the government, a measure that lawyers, Internet pioneers and political activists said Tuesday would give the government a much wider ability to track who said what online. Mr. Putin’s action on Monday, just weeks after he disparaged the Internet as “a special C.I.A. project,” borrowed a page from the restrictive Internet playbooks of many governments around the world that have been steadily smothering online freedoms they once tolerated. The idea that the Internet was at best controlled anarchy and beyond any one nation’s control is fading globally amid determined attempts by more and more governments to tame the web. If innovations like Twitter were hailed as recently as the Arab uprisings as the new public square, governments like those in China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and now Russia are making it clear that they can deploy their tanks on virtual squares, too. China, long a pioneer in using sophisticated technology to filter the Internet, has continually tightened censorship. It has banned all major Western online social media sites, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google, though it seems not to be bothered by Alibaba, its homegrown e-commerce site, which has filed the paperwork for what could be the biggest public stock offering ever. ||||| Story highlights Putin signs off on new law banning swearing in music, film and books Under the law, individuals and businesses can be fined for using foul language It covers live arts and entertainment performances, including plays and concerts New films containing swear words won't get a distribution certificate Thinking about making a film? Better leave out the foul language if you want it to be seen in Russia. The same goes for plays. Even rock stars will need to leave their potty mouths at home. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law Monday that bans swearing at arts, cultural and entertainment events in the country. Any new film containing obscene language won't be granted a distribution certificate, so there's no chance of seeing it at the movie theater. And copies of books, CDs or films containing swearing can only be distributed in a sealed package labeled "Contains obscene language," a Kremlin statement said. According to state news agency ITAR-Tass, individuals caught using foul language face a fine of up to $70, while officials can be fined up to $40 and businesses nearly $1,400. They face a higher fine and a three-month suspension of business for repeated offenses. JUST WATCHED Russia's president annexes ... words Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Russia's president annexes ... words 01:41 JUST WATCHED Russia will enforce anti-gay law Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Russia will enforce anti-gay law 02:47 JUST WATCHED New Russian law bans U.S. adoptions Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH New Russian law bans U.S. adoptions 03:07 Determination of what counts as profane language will be done through "an independent examination," the news agency said. According to the Kremlin, the legislation "bans the use of obscene language when ensuring the rights of Russian citizens to the use of the state language, and protecting and developing language culture." The law could come into effect as soon as July 1, ITAR-Tass said, but it doesn't apply to cultural and artistic works that have already been issued. While some may hail attempts to clean up the nation's language, it will likely be seen by critics as the latest step under Putin's leadership to limit freedom of expression and promote a conservative, nationalist viewpoint. A report by rights group Amnesty International in January highlighted a denial of "basic freedoms" in Russia, which last year introduced a law barring anyone from talking positively about homosexuality in earshot of minors. ||||| Putin's Internet Plan Requires 'Sharing' With Security Services i itoggle caption Alexey Nikolsky/RIO Novosti/Kremlin pool/EPA/Landov Alexey Nikolsky/RIO Novosti/Kremlin pool/EPA/Landov Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new measure that will give the government much greater control over the Internet. Critics say the law is aimed at silencing opposition bloggers and restricting what people can say on social media. It would also force international email providers and social networks to make their users' information available to the Russian security services. Putin sent a chill through many Internet users late last month with this comment at a media forum: "You do know that it all began initially, when the Internet first appeared, as a special CIA project. And this is the way it is developing." I think anything that's published in a blog, that's not to the authorities' liking, can be used against the person who writes the blog. Putin said Americans set the system up so that everything would go through servers in the United States, where intelligence agencies could monitor it. The president's statement came as Russia's parliament was working on a package of bills that would place restrictions on bloggers and websites. Bloggers Must Register "The objective of those laws is to block the Russian Internet from the rest of the world," says Anton Nosik, a popular blogger, "and to shut down the biggest foreign social networks, to block access to foreign social networks for Russian users, and to establish control over networks that are physically based in Russia." One key provision of the law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, would require bloggers to register with the government if their blogs receive more than 3,000 hits a day. Registered bloggers would then be treated like mass media and required to certify the factual accuracy of the information in their blogs, but they wouldn't have the same protections and privileges as other journalists. One of the leading sponsors of the law, Irina Yarovaya, made it clear what lawmakers are aiming for — an end to anonymity on the Internet in Russia. "In principle, anonymity is always deception," she said in an interview earlier this year. "It's a wish to mislead someone. I can't see any reason to raise lying to [the status of] a human virtue or an understanding of what freedom is." The law also gives the government new grounds to press charges against bloggers, including "defamation" and "inciting hatred." New Restrictions For Social Networks Journalist Kirill Martynov says these rather vaguely defined offenses could make it impossible to express meaningful opinions. "I can't incite hatred toward fascists, for example, or I can't criticize police officers," Martynov says. "I think anything that's published in a blog, that's not to the authorities' liking, can be used against the person who writes the blog." Another provision of the law prohibits revealing information about citizens' homes and their personal or family lives. Critics say that provision could be used against anti-corruption bloggers who have revealed embarrassing details about undeclared bank accounts and luxurious homes owned by public officials. Finally, Nosik notes that the law says that all email providers and social networks must store information about users, their posts and their email on servers in Russia. "This is what Russian authorities traditionally request from local platforms, and they are always given that information," he says. "I doubt it strongly that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, or other Google services will ever comply. And if they don't comply, they have to be blocked. That's what the law says."

– Russia's Internet is going to start looking a lot more like China's under a restrictive new law signed by Vladimir Putin, critics say. The measure dubbed the "blogger's law" will remove anonymity from bloggers and declares any website with more than 3,000 daily visitors to be a media outlet required to publish accurate information, but without the legal protections journalists have, the New York Times finds. The law comes just weeks after Putin claimed that the Internet began "as a special CIA project." The law, which comes amid a wider crackdown on the Internet, also requires email providers and social networks to make user information available to Russian security services, NPR reports. "The objective of those laws is to block the Russian Internet from the rest of the world," warns popular blogger Anton Nosik, "and to shut down the biggest foreign social networks, to block access to foreign social networks for Russian users, and to establish control over networks that are physically based in Russia." And bloggers aren't the only ones facing a crackdown: Another law signed by Putin earlier this week bans swearing in movies, TV shows, concerts, and other forms of entertainment, CNN reports. New movies with swearing won't be allowed in cinemas, while copies of older ones will come with warning labels.

Before Tuesday, most legal analysts seemed to agree that the Supreme Court would probably uphold health care reform’s individual mandate — even if the conservative justices had to hold their noses to do it. Just minutes into the oral argument Tuesday, that conventional wisdom fell apart. Text Size - + reset All of the conservative justices asked such tough questions about the individual mandate during Tuesday’s arguments that it’s no longer clear that the Obama administration can get a fifth vote to uphold it. Even Justice Anthony Kennedy — the swing vote everyone was watching — signaled that he has serious doubts about the mandate. That became clear early in the session, when he asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. if the government could require purchase of certain food. “Here the government is saying the federal government has a duty to tell citizens it must act,” Kennedy said. That changes the relationship between the government and the person “in a fundamental way.” And even though Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to agree with the government that all people will consume health care at some point in their lives, he worried that the health care law would open the door to many other mandates. Roberts argued that if the court says Congress can regulate anything people buy just because of how they pay for it, “all bets are off.” Today it is health insurance, he said, and then “something else in the next case.” “Once we accept the principle, I don’t see why Congress’s power is limited,” Roberts said. The most famous hypothetical purchase before Tuesday was broccoli. On Tuesday, the justices peppered Verrilli with questions about the mandatory purchase of cellphones, gym memberships and burial insurance. The tone of the questions has made legal observers more doubtful that the court will uphold the mandate. Sometimes, the justices just ask tough questions to draw out the best defense of the law. But these ones were really tough. “This was a train wreck for the Obama administration,” CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said moments after the arguments ended. “This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.” And SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein — who predicted at a POLITICO Pro panel discussion last week that the court would likely uphold the law — wrote that there was “no fifth vote” yet. “If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive,” Goldstein wrote. “If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone.” This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 1:02 p.m. on March 27, 2012. ||||| OT2018 #15: “Second Best Opinion” The January sitting is over and the Supreme Court will be out of session for a few weeks. But First Mondays keeps on working even when the justices are taking a break. Professors Dan Epps and Leah Litman catch you up on the court’s latest opinions; review the big batch of cert grants, as well as the high-profile petitions the court hasn’t (yet) granted; and play a few fun clips from last week’s arguments. That’s not all—listen to hear us discuss an interesting recent piece by Professor Daniel Hemel on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the value of life tenure, puzzle over why trust fund babies are suddenly looking to the justices for some tax relief, and explain what Justice Neil Gorsuch’s U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit opinions might mean for the court’s recent grant in Rehaif v. United States. And last but not least—Leah goes into Beast Mode as we discuss her favorite topic, the Armed Career Criminal Act, when recapping the unusual 5-4 opinion in Stokeling v. United States. This week at the court The Supreme Court will release orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m. The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference. The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court’s website. Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) UPDATE: On Friday, January 18, the Supreme Court announced that it had removed the case from the February argument calendar and suspended the briefing schedule “pending further order of this Court.” Although the justices will not hear oral argument in the case in February, today’s order does not foreclose the possibility that the case could be argued later in the term, at which point the justices could also potentially review the district court’s decision blocking the government from including the citizenship question on the 2020 census. On February 19, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in U.S. Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a dispute over evidence in a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to reinstate a question about citizenship on the 2020 census. The justices agreed in November to review the case, but they also rejected the government’s request to put the trial in the case on hold. The district court went ahead with the trial, and on Tuesday it issued its decision, blocking the government from using the citizenship question on the census. On January 17, the challengers asked the justices to dismiss the case, telling them that the district court’s ruling “has fundamentally altered the circumstances that were present” when the Supreme Court granted review. Continue reading » Petitions of the week This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the standard for removal of a juror for misconduct during deliberations, a court’s ability to enable a defendant to earn income to pay restitution, and whether a horizontal agreement to boycott a supplier can escape per se condemnation under Section 1 of the Sherman Act under certain circumstances. The petitions of the week are: Sample v. United States 18-759 Issue: Whether a district court may reduce a prison sentence, or impose a probationary term in lieu of imprisonment, to enable a defendant to earn income to pay restitution to his victims. Fattah v. United States 18-763 Issue: Whether, to remove a juror for alleged misconduct during deliberations, a district court must determine that there is no possibility that the allegations of misconduct stem from the juror’s view of the evidence. Anderson News, LLC v. American Media Inc. 18-774 Issue: Whether a horizontal agreement to boycott a supplier can escape per se condemnation under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on the assertion that the conspirators organized the boycott in response to the supplier’s proposed price increase and not for the purpose of reducing competition in the supplier’s market. Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case During yesterday’s argument in Knick v. Township of Scott – the second time the court has heard the case this term – the justices seemed to be looking for a compromise position. The court granted review in the case to decide whether to overrule a 1985 precedent, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, which requires local-government takings plaintiffs to follow the state’s compensation procedures before alleging a taking in federal court. Williamson County is controversial because, as I explained previously, it often prevents local takings plaintiffs from getting into federal court. The court first heard argument in October, before Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench, and ordered supplemental briefing in November, asking for more information on one of the plaintiff’s alternative theories. At yesterday’s argument, the justices seemed to search for a narrow way to limit Williamson County’s effect on local takings plaintiffs without overturning the decision or revisiting the meaning of an unconstitutional taking. Continue reading » Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions Yesterday morning’s argument in Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson was a notable one, as Justice Elena Kagan brought a strong view of the case to the bench and proceeded to dominate the argument. The case involves the removal of litigation from state court to federal court. Under Section 1441 (and predecessor provisions dating back to the 18th century), “the defendant or the defendants” generally has a right to remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the [federal] district courts have original jurisdiction.” In 2005, responding to concerns that state courts have been unduly receptive to class actions, Congress adopted the Class Action Fairness Act (often called the CAFA), which included a variety of provisions designed to make it easier for class-action defendants to remove those cases to federal court. One provision, in Section 1332, granted original federal jurisdiction over most class actions seeking a recovery of more than $5 million. Another provision, in Section 1453, provided that “any defendant” can remove a “class action” as defined in Section 1332. Continue reading » More Posts: Older Posts

– The insta-analysis from today's oral arguments at the Supreme Court doesn't bode well for the health care law, mostly because of Anthony Kennedy's apparent skepticism about the individual mandate. Samples: Jeffrey Toobin, CNN: Today was a "train wreck" for the White House, said the network's legal analyst, according to Business Insider. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong." Tom Goldstein, SCOTUSblog: “Based on the questions posed to Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the state challengers to the individual mandate, it appears that the mandate is in trouble. It is not clear whether it will be struck down, but the questions that the conservative justices posed to Clement were not nearly as pressing as the ones they asked to Solicitor General Verrilli," he writes. "It will be close. Very close." Editor's blog, Talking Points Memo: "A reminder that this sort of tea-leaf reading can be overdone and misleading. But it isn’t necessarily. The current court is a lot more direct in its questioning with fewer rhetorical feints than courts past." Politico: "All of the conservative justices asked such tough questions about the individual mandate during Tuesday’s arguments that it’s no longer clear that the Obama administration can get a fifth vote to uphold it," writes Jennifer Haberkorn and David Nather.

SHOTLIST: SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA. RELEASED 29 JANUARY 2016 SOURCE: COEX AQUARIUM + NO RESALE FOR NON-EDITORIAL PURPOSES + NO ARCHIVES + MANDATORY ON-SCREEN CREDIT: COEX AQUARIUM - VAR sand tiger shark swallowing banded hound shark /// --------------- AFP TEXT STORY: Shark swallows shark in Seoul aquarium Seoul (South Korea) - 30 January 2016 - AFP Visitors to a giant aquarium in Seoul on Friday were presented with the gory aftermath of a territorial dispute between two sharks, which left one dead inside the mouth and gullet of the other. Staff at the COEX aquarium said the fight between a 2.2 meter long sand tiger shark and a banded hound shark half its size broke out on Thursday evening. Size and power won the day, and by the time the aquarium opened Friday, only the tail of the smaller shark was visible -- poking from the jaws of its larger female tank mate. "The sand tiger shark's instincts are to attack if its territory is threatened, especially during breeding periods," a spokesman for the aquarium said. The shark appeared to have swallowed its victim whole, and the spokesman said it would probably regurgitate the hound shark after failing to digest it. "But that could take up to a week," he added. END ||||| SEOUL - An aquarium in South Korea has said its biggest shark has eaten another in what it has described as a “turf war”. In the first such incident at Seoul’s COEX aquarium, an eight-year old female sand tiger shark, some 2.2 meters (7.22 ft) long, is said to slowly eaten a smaller five-year old male shark, about 1.2. meters in length. The attack is said to have happened early Thursday evening and about 10 minutes later, the female was filmed swimming with the body of her tank mate hanging out her mouth. Some 21 hour later only the tip of the tail remained. The aquarium said the tail is expected to stay in the shark’s mouth for about four to five days. Unable to digest the creature, it will then will regurgitate it after about a week, the aquarium added. “Sharks have their own territory. However, sometimes when they bump against each other, they bite out of astonishment,” COEX aquarium PR manager Oh Tae-youp said. “I think the shark swallowed the whole body, because they usually eat it all when they bite the head part.”

– A female shark paid her male roommate the ultimate insult Thursday in a South Korean aquarium: She ate the guy. And when the aquarium reopened Friday, only his tail was sticking out of her mouth. It's unclear why the seven-foot-long sand tiger shark slowly ate the smaller male at Seoul's COEX aquarium, but aquarium PR manager Oh Tae-youp suggests territorial issues. "Sharks have their own territory," he tells Reuters. "However, sometimes when they bump against each other, they bite out of astonishment." He adds that the 8-year-old female likely swallowed the 5-year-old male whole, "because they usually eat it all when they bite the head part." Another spokesman for COEX agrees it could be territorial, because sand tiger sharks get more territorial during breeding periods, per AFP. But he says she'll probably regurgitate the shark because she won't be able to digest him all at once. "But that could take up to a week," he says.

TORONTO - “Outright deception.” “Playing chicken with the justice system.” These are just a couple of the scathing comments Judge William Horkins made as he ripped apart the testimony of the three women who accused former CBC radio star Jian Ghomeshi of sexual assault. The evidence from the three complainants “suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted from outright deception,” the judge said Thursday before finding Ghomeshi not guilty of four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking. “The bedrock of the Crown’s case is tainted and incapable of supporting any clear determination of the truth,” Horkins said. The judge said there was no corroborating evidence and no “smoking gun,” just the complainants’ testimony, which he found to be sorely lacking in credibility. Defence lawyer Marie Henein had cross-examination bombshells waiting for the complainants — information the women hadn’t shared with the police or Crown. The first complainant testified Ghomeshi suddenly yanked on her hair when they were kissing in his car in late 2002. A few days later, she said he abruptly pulled her hair while they were kissing in his home and punched her in the head. Court heard she told police she didn’t have further dealings with Ghomeshi except for writing him one e-mail in anger which she couldn’t recall if she sent. But under cross-examination, she admitted she sent friendly e-mails and a bikini photo of herself to Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults. These e-mails were “bait,” the witness explained, so she could confront her alleged abuser. The second complainant, actress Lucy DeCoutere of Trailer Park Boys fame, the only woman who can be identified in the case, testified Ghomeshi pushed her against a wall, started choking her and slapping her face when they’d been kissing in his bedroom in the summer of 2003. During cross-examination, Henein produced an e-mail the actress sent Ghomeshi hours after the alleged assault in which she expressed a desire to have sex with him. DeCoutere also gave Ghomeshi a hand-written letter that closed with the words: “I love your hands.” The third woman testified that while she was kissing Ghomeshi on a park bench in 2003 he bit her shoulder and squeezed her neck. She waited until just before she was scheduled to testify to let authorities know she masturbated Ghomeshi days after she alleges he attacked her. The judge said he accepted Henein’s “characterization” of the third complainant’s behaviour. “She was clearly ‘playing chicken’ with the justice system. She was prepared to tell half the truth for as long as she might get away with it,” Horkins said. In a statement released Thursday evening, Henein’s law firm said the case was determined on the evidence heard in court, “notwithstanding the unprecedented scrutiny and pressure.” “In our system of justice, that is what must happen in every case regardless of who is accused or what crime is alleged.” It says it’s been a “very long, exhausting and devastating 16 months” for Ghomeshi. Prosecutor Michael Callaghan said the Crown will examine the judgment and consider its position. “As you can imagine, we’re still within the 30-day appeal period,” he said outside the courthouse before a topless female protester jumped in front of him yelling: “Ghomeshi guilty!” spazzano@postmedia.com NOTABLE QUOTES FROM JUDGE BILL HORKINS’ RULING: * “There is no smoking gun. There is only the sworn evidence of each complainant.” * “The act of suppression of the truth will be as damaging to their credibility as a direct lie under oath.” * “The courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants. However, the twists and turns of the complainants’ evidence ... illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that all sexual assault complainants are always truthful.” * On errors and contradictions in the first complainant’s testimony: “One of (her) clear memories was simply, and demonstrably, wrong. She testified that Ghomeshi had a bright yellow Volkswagen ‘Love Bug’ or ‘Disney Car.’ He did not acquire this car until seven months after the event.” She testified that, after the second alleged hair-pulling attack, just listening to Ghomeshi’s voice on the radio “traumatized her.” “A year later, she attached a photo of her wearing a red string bikini. This is not an e-mail she could have simply forgotten about. It reveals conduct completely inconsistent with her assertion that the mere thought of Ghomeshi traumatized her.” * On the fact DeCoutere denied pursuing any kind of relationship with Ghomeshi: “DeCoutere very deliberately chose not to be completely honest with the police. She sent Ghomeshi a photo of her singing “Hit Me Baby One More Time” karaoke duet with him in 2004 Banff festival with the caption, ‘Proof you can’t live without me.’” “She e-mailed Ghomeshi saying she was going to ‘beat the crap’ out of him if they didn’t hang out together in Banff. DeCoutere was ... clearly pursuing Ghomeshi with an interest in spending more time together.” For a mobile version, click here. Ghomeshi Judgment ||||| Former Canadian radio star found not guilty of four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking in first trial to emerge from barrage of allegations Former Canadian radio star Jian Ghomeshi has been acquitted of all charges in the first trial to emerge from the barrage of allegations against the prominent celebrity. After more than a month of deliberation, Judge William Horkins on Thursday found Ghomeshi, 48, not guilty of four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking, dating back to 2002 and 2003. Horkins said prosecutors had failed to establish Ghomeshi’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the three female complainants. The judge said that the crown’s case relied solely on the word of the witnesses. “There is no other evidence to look to determine the truth. There is no tangible evidence. There is no DNA. There is no ‘smoking gun’,” he said. The Ghomeshi case was one of the country’s most high-profile trials in recent memory, and it sparked a national conversation on consent and sexual assault – and prompted fresh questions over the justice system’s ability to address allegations of sexual violence. Jian Ghomeshi verdict could have lasting impact on sexual assault victims Read more Those who work with sexual assault survivors said that Thursday’s decision would have a chilling effect on victims’ willingness to come forward. When they first emerged in the fall of 2014, the accusations stunned the country. Ghomeshi was a rising star at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, celebrated for his thoughtful interviews and socially progressive views. Eventually more than 20 women came forward with allegations of being slapped, punched, bitten, choked or smothered by the radio host. Ghomeshi denied the accusations, pleading not guilty to four charges of sexual assault and another of choking to overcome resistance. Delivering his verdict, Horkins stressed the acquittal was not the same as asserting the events in question never happened. But he said that in the course of the trial it became clear that each witness was “less than full and frank and forthcoming” in their statements to media, police and the court. I dated Jian Ghomeshi, Canada's fallen radio star | Ruth Spencer Read more In his decision Horkins said that “my conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened”. Moments after the judge read his decision, the three complainants left the courtroom with tears in their eyes. Ghomeshi’s mother and sister, who attended every day of the eight-day trial, hugged each other and Ghomeshi and embraced with his defense lawyer Marie Henein. Outside the courtroom, Ghomeshi’s sister Jila read a brief statement from his family. “We are relieved but not surprised by the court decision today. It can only be surprising to those who rushed to judgment before the trial had started and before a single word of evidence had been heard,” she said. As Ghomeshi and his legal team left the courtroom, a group of protesters gathered outside the courthouse chanting: “We believe survivors.” Michael Callaghan, the crown prosecutor, told reporters that he and his team would take the weekend to look at the judgment and consider their position. “We just received the judgment,” he said, noting that they have 30 days to appeal against the ruling. Callaghan’s remarks were interrupted by a topless protester who jumped in front of him, yelling “Ghomeshi’s guilty”. Police quickly tackled the woman to the ground. Jacob Jesin, the lawyer for one of the complainants, read a statement on behalf of his client, who thanked those who supported her during the trial. “I always understood that a conviction would be difficult,” she said in her statement. “The story may not have passed the high legal test for proof (but) it remains my position that the evidence of the substantive issues is truthful.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Jian Ghomeshi leaves court after getting bail on multiple counts of sexual assault in 2014. Photograph: Mark Blinch/Reuters It took Horkin more than an hour to read out his 25-page judgment. In explaining his decision, the judge pointed to the evidence of the three complainants. “Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion. It is this aspect of their evidence that is most troubling to the court.” The judge said the evidence provided by the first complainant – who alleged Ghomeshi forcefully pulled her hair and struck her multiple times on the side of the head in two separate encounters – had initially seemed rational and balanced. But Horkin said that the value of her evidence “suffered irreparable damage” when she was “exposed as a witness willing to withhold relevant information” from the police and the court. “It is clear that she deliberately breached her oath to tell the truth. Her value as a reliable witness is diminished accordingly.” In the case of the second complainant, identified as Lucy DeCoutere after she waived a publication ban on her identity, the judge pointed to inconsistencies in what she told the court and media about allegations that Ghomeshi choked her and slapped her without consent. “It suggests a degree of carelessness with the truth that diminishes the general reliability of the witness,” the judge said. In the case of the third complainant, who testified that Ghomeshi began roughly squeezing her neck as they were kissing on a park bench, the judge pointed to her revelation that she had engaged in sexual activity with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault. She had previously told crown counsel that she had tried to keep her distance from Ghomeshi after the alleged assault, meeting with him only in public, said the judge. “In assessing the credibility of a witness, the active suppression of the truth will be as damaging to their reliability as a direct lie under oath,” said the judge. He also pointed to the exchange of some 5,000 emails between her and DeCoutere after the allegations against Ghomeshi became public, some of which discussed strategies to use in pursuing charges against Ghomeshi. While the women’s “extreme dedication to bringing down Mr Ghomeshi” could reflect the legitimate feelings of victims of abuse, the judge said it raised the need for the court to proceed with caution. Lenore Lukasik-Foss, of the Hamilton Sexual Assault Centre, said she was shocked by the ruling, which was laced with words such as “deception” and “manipulative”. “The kind of language and the examples he was using just demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge around sexual violence and dynamics around abuse that happens between folks who are known to each other,” she said. Lukasik-Foss said her centre had already seen an uptick in the number of survivors reaching out for support in the wake of the decision. “It’s a pretty bleak day.” The high-profile trial gave Canadians an unprecedented glimpse into how the justice system deals with allegations of sexual assault. The portrait that emerged for many was of a flawed system riddled with challenges for complainants, said Lukasik-Foss. “I want rigorous defense. But we see that this is not a system that is equipped to deal with sexual violence,” she said. The trial also underlined the gap between a victim’s memory of traumatic events and the demands of the criminal justice system, said Nicole Pietsch, of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres. Many survivors of sexual trauma attempt to repress their memory, only to face intense questioning – often months or years later – when their case reaches trial. “Most of us can’t recall what we wore to an event last week,” she said. Jian Ghomeshi trial: why the prosecution's case fell apart Read more Asked about the case in a television interview, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau refused to comment but when asked about worries that the verdict may discourage survivors from coming forward in the future, he noted, “I think these are the kinds of discussions we need to be having as a society that values and has respect for women.” Others were more outspoken: Toronto city councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam said that the verdict “would not in any way undermine or repudiate the reality” of the complainants’ experiences. In a statement addressing the three women, she said: “We believe you – and we thank you for inspiring us with your courage by coming forward to tell your story and to fight for the belief that no matter how many years have passed, or how wealthy or well-respected the abuser is, sexual violence will not be tolerated in Canada.” Ghomeshi now faces a second trial in June, stemming from allegations that he touched the buttocks of a former CBC employee and said to her: “I want to hate-fuck you.” Managers of CBC apologised last year to their employees and audience after a damning report concluded they knew of Ghomeshi’s inappropriate behaviour but chose to instead protect the popular radio host. The public broadcaster said that Thursday’s verdict would have no impact on its decision to fire Ghomeshi in 2014. “We stand by this decision.” ||||| Former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges in his sexual assault trial on Thursday, with the judge sharply criticizing the three complainants as "deceptive and manipulative" and advocates charging that the outcome proves the insufficiency of the justice system to address such matters. In a 25-page decision read from the bench, Justice William Horkins of the Ontario Court of Justice said the complainants' credibility was shattered by their continually shifting testimony and last-minute disclosures of information that reframed their relationships with Mr. Ghomeshi. "Each complainant was confronted with a volume of evidence that was contrary to their prior sworn statements and their evidence-in-chief," he said. "Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion. It is this aspect of their evidence that is most troubling to the court." Story continues below advertisement The verdict: Full text of the judge's ruling in the Ghomeshi case Mr. Ghomeshi had faced four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking, after charges were laid in the wake of his high-profile dismissal from CBC in October, 2014. He faces a single count of sexual assault in a separate trial to be heard in June. In his ruling, Justice Horkins said his concerns were manifold, including possible collusion between two complainants, Lucy DeCoutere and the woman identified in the ruling as S.D., who exchanged thousands of electronic messages between October, 2014, and September, 2015. (The identities of S.D. and another complainant, known as L.R., are protected by a publication ban.) Justice Horkins didn't mince words. He wrote: "I find as fact that Ms. DeCoutere attempted to mislead the Court about her continued relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi." He noted ruefully that S.D., despite having met five times with police in the year prior to the trial and being "reminded of the need to be completely honest and accurate," waited until "almost literally the eve of being called to the witness stand" before disclosing that she and Mr. Ghomeshi had had a sexual encounter after the alleged assault. He was also dismissive of L.R. for failing to disclose until cross-examination that she had sent Mr. Ghomeshi beseeching e-mails and a photograph of herself in a bikini more than one year after suffering two alleged assaults at his hand. He noted that "one of the challenges for the prosecution in this case is that the allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi are supported by nothing in addition to the complainants' word […] There is no tangible evidence. There is no DNA. There is no 'smoking gun.' There is only the sworn evidence of each complainant, standing on its own, to be measured against a very exacting standard of proof. This highlights the importance of the assessment of the credibility and the reliability and the overall quality of the evidence." In a statement issued after the verdict, L.R. said she was "never invested in the outcome of the verdict." Speaking outside the courthouse on her behalf, her lawyer, Jacob Jesin, said: "For me, this journey allowed me to face Mr. Ghomeshi and tell my story publicly for the first time. I always understood that a conviction would be difficult." She added that she hoped her decision to come forward and challenge Mr. Ghomeshi in public "gives strength to other victims of sexual assault." Story continues below advertisement Story continues below advertisement Mr. Ghomeshi's counsel issued a statement to the press noting that the case "was determined on the evidence heard in a court of law." The statement added: "This has been a very long and exhausting 16 months for Mr. Ghomeshi. He will take time with his family and close friends to reflect and move forward from what can only be described as a profoundly difficult period in his life." Politicians stood by the women: Shortly before the verdict came down, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair posted a brief essay to Medium.com, titled I Believe Survivors, in which he said that sexual assault "is a crime that is seldom reported and that leads even less frequently to a conviction. This must change and we can all be part of changing this unacceptable reality." As news of the verdict spread, protesters gathered around the front of the Old City Hall courthouse. Chants of "We believe survivors" and "Stop rape now" grew in volume. "I feel let down by the system," Futhi Sikakane said. "Because, once again, we are told that nobody believes us, nobody believes survivors." When Crown counsel Michael Callaghan came outside to address the media, a bare-chested female demonstrator vaulted through the crowd, screaming about misogyny. She was tackled by police and arrested. Later in the day, protesters gathered for a rally at Old City Hall. Dayna Macdonald, who identifies as a survivor of sexual assault, said that, as disappointed as she was about Mr. Ghomeshi's verdict, she was expecting it. "I feel drained of energy because of it," she said. With reports from Mahnoor Yawar and Julien Gignac Story continues below advertisement Ghomeshi ruling: full text

– Ex-CBC broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi on Thursday wrapped up the first of two sexual-assault trials he faces, and the verdict came back not guilty, the Globe and Mail reports. An Ontario judge issued the ruling, clearing Ghomeshi of four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking in incidents said to have taken place with three different women—including Canadian actress Lucy DeCoutere—in late 2002 through the summer of 2003. Ghomeshi, who was fired by the CBC in October 2014, didn't take the stand during the eight-day, judge-only trial and no evidence was put forth by his legal team to directly refute the women's claims. But Judge William Horkins found the complainants were "less than full and frank and forthcoming" and "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth," per the Guardian. That was enough to generate reasonable doubt, he wrote. And the offensive against the complainants was aggressive. Per the Toronto Sun, Ghomeshi's attorneys produced emails the first unnamed woman sent to him a year after two alleged 2002 assaults, including an email with a picture of her in a bikini—which she says she sent to Ghomeshi to "bait" him into talking about the assaults. DeCoutere, meanwhile, says Ghomeshi slapped her and pushed her against a wall, "cutting off my breath." But his lawyers threw in her face a six-page handwritten love letter she had penned to him (which she noted didn't mean the assaults didn't happen). And the third woman hid that she performed a sex act on Ghomeshi after her alleged assault in July 2003—but she said she had simply been embarrassed about it and didn't think it relevant. Ghomeshi's second trial, tied to a charge of sexual assault at work in 2008, is set to start June 6.

Guinness World Records has just confirmed that Scooter, a 30-year-old Siamese from Mansfield, Texas, is the new Oldest living cat. Born March 26, 1986, Scooter lives with his owner Gail Floyd, who was there the day the kitten was born – and he’s been right by her side ever since. As a kitten, Scooter liked to play in Gail’s hair and even became accustomed to riding on her shoulder, going with her wherever she went. Nowadays, nothing has changed. He wakes Gail up every morning at 6 AM, “talking” and jumping around, and is always waiting by the door when she arrives home from work. On Scooter’s longevity, Gail believes keeping him active is what keeps him happy. She says, “He likes to see new places and he likes people.” Scooter has travelled to 45 of the 50 US states with Gail and often pays visits to the nursing home where Gail’s mom lives. Friends of Gail echo her sentiments and describe Scooter as an active cat, full of energy and playful. However, this record-breaking cat’s life has not been without pitfalls. At four weeks he sadly lost his mother, and in October 2014, Scooter broke his leg and has been undergoing medical testing and treatment ever since. Despite his struggles though, his veterinarians say, “Scooter is quite an amazing cat, with a strong will to live.” He enjoys getting blow dried after a bath and his favourite snack is chicken – which he’s treated to every other day. The record-breaking feline claims the title from previous record holder 26-year-old Corduroy (b. 1 August 1989), of Sisters, Oregon. video While impressive, Scooter’s record is still short of the Oldest cat ever — Crème Puff of Austin, TX, who lived 38 years 3 days (more than double the average life expectancy of the species). ||||| MANSFIELD, Texas (AP) — A Siamese cat born during President Ronald Reagan's administration has been named by Guinness World Records as the world's oldest living cat. Guinness says Scooter celebrated his 30th birthday on March 26. He lives in Mansfield, Texas. Owner Gail Floyd attributes Scooter's longevity to staying active. She tells Guinness he keeps busy by traveling and has visited 45 of the 50 states. Some of his favorite activities include getting blow-dried after baths and snacking on chicken every other day. Scooter isn't Guinness' oldest cat of all time, though. That mark belongs to a fellow Texas cat, which lived to be 38.

– A Siamese cat born during President Ronald Reagan's administration has been named by Guinness World Records as the world's oldest living cat, reports the AP. Guinness says Scooter celebrated his 30th birthday on March 26. He lives in Mansfield, Texas. Owner Gail Floyd attributes Scooter's longevity to staying active, and says he keeps busy by traveling and has visited 45 of the 50 states. “He likes to see new places and he likes people," she tells Guinness. Some of his favorite activities include getting blow-dried after baths and snacking on chicken every other day. Scooter isn't Guinness' oldest cat of all time, though. That mark belongs to a fellow Texas cat, which lived to be 38.

UPDATE: Police said Thursday they have arrested a 23-year-old man in connection with the fatal stabbing of a Greenacres woman. Wendy Martinez, 35, was jogging Sept. 18 in Washington, D.C. when a man came up and stabbed her multiple times. Police arrested Anthony Crawford, 23, in connection with the stabbing and have charged him with first-degree murder while armed. Crawford was taken into custody late Wednesday evening by the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. BREAKING: Metro police arrest 23-year-old Anthony Crawford in the murder of Wendy Martinez, a Greenacres woman who was stabbed while jogging in D.C. https://t.co/LBiuE7Pitz @WPTV @WPTVContact5 #Contact5 — Merris Badcock (@MerrisBadcock) September 20, 2018 Martinez was stabbed multiple times on Sept. 18, while jogging near the 1400 block of 11th Street, Northwest, in Washington, D.C. In a press conference Thursday morning, Washington, D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham said the "unsettling" stabbing appears to be random. "We believe there was only one person involved in the assault," Newsham told reporters during a press conference. "We do not have any information to suggest that Wendy knew or had any association with the suspect in this case. We also do not have any information at this point to suggest that it was a robbery, so the motive in this case is unknown. " Newsham described Crawford's criminal history as "extensive," but noted Crawford has no indication of violence in his criminal past. Police are still reviewing Crawford's criminal history and background. Police located Crawford in a park Wednesday night and brought him in for questioning. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser credited neighbors with the fast arrest. Bowser told reporters "outraged" neighbors gave detectives important information in the crucial hours after Martinez was stabbed. The key information helped detectives quickly put the pieces together. Crawford was transported to the hospital with a hand injury and described as not being cooperative with police. EARLIER: GREENACRES, Fla. - A 35-year-old woman stabbed to death while jogging in Washington, D.C. has ties to Greenacres. According to Metropolitan Police Department, Wendy Martinez was jogging near the 1400 block of 11th Street, Northwest on Sept. 18, when a man came up and stabbed her multiple times. Martinez was seen on surveillance video running to a nearby Asian restaurant for help. She was rushed to the hospital but died from her injuries. Family members tell Contact 5’s Crime Investigator Merris Badcock, Martinez was a marathon runner, and ran in the neighborhood often. According to family, Martinez grew up in Greenacres and graduated from Lake Worth High School. After graduation she moved to the D.C. area where she went to college and started her career. Family members provided this photo of Wendy Martinez, one and a half weeks before she was killed. Recent photos of Martinez show she recently got engaged to her fiancé. A family member who did not want to be identified told Contact 5 they were shocked by what happened. “We were planning a wedding, and now we have to plan a funeral,” the woman said. Family members say Martinez will be buried in Greenacres, but they have to wait for police to release her body before they can bring her home. Metro police have released surveillance video of a possible suspect. You can view that video here . The Metropolitan Police Department currently offers a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone that provides information which leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any homicide committed in the District of Columbia. Anyone with information about this case is asked to call the police at 202-727-9099. Additionally, anonymous information may be submitted to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by sending a text message to 50411. UPDATE: Family members of Wendy Martinez are speaking publicly for the first time. Cora Martinez talks about seeing her daughter in her wedding dress just days before she was murdered. https://t.co/LBiuE7Pitz @WPTV @WPTVContact5 #Contact5 pic.twitter.com/Eqbe61GvB3 — Merris Badcock (@MerrisBadcock) September 20, 2018 ||||| A newly-engaged woman was brutally stabbed multiple times while jogging near her Washington, D.C. home Tuesday night. In a desperate attempt to save her own life, 35-year-old Wendy Karina Martinez stumbled into a local Chinese restaurant covered in her own blood. Once inside, Martinez collapsed prompting customers to rush to her side, Chief of Police Peter Newsham explained during a press conference Wednesday. Get push notifications with news, features and more. In surveillance footage obtained from the eatery, bystanders can be seen trying to revive Martinez as they waited for EMS to arrive, Chief Newsham said. Martinez was then transported to a nearby hospital where she was later pronounced dead. Wendy K. Martinez Facebook While the investigation is ongoing, Chief Newsham believes it was a “random attack.” “This is one of those types of unsettling incidents that sometimes happens in large cities, but it seems like a singular incident.” • Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Click here to get breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases in the True Crime Newsletter. Wendy K. Martinez Facebook The suspect, who was captured by a nearby surveillance camera, can be seen fleeing the scene in what appears to be a mustard-colored sweatshirt. “The best thing we can do right now is identify the suspect,” Chief Newsham continued. “We will get to the bottom of this.” The murder weapon — a knife — was recovered near the scene. Also in the press conference, Chief Newsham described Martinez as an “avid runner” who spent most of her evenings jogging around the city. In addition to her athleticism, Martinez served as Chief of Staff of FiscalNote, a privately held software, data, and media company headquartered in Washington, D.C. “The entire FiscalNote family is shocked and deeply saddened to learn that Wendy Martinez, our Chief of Staff, was killed last night,” FiscalNote wrote on Twitter. “Wendy was an invaluable member of our team and a vibrant member of the community. Our thoughts and prayers are with Wendy’s family and friends.” Wendy Karina Martinez and Daniel Hincapie Facebook Martinez was also newly engaged. “Wendy Karina Martinez was the light of our lives. Not only was she an avid runner, but she was a devout Christian, a wonderful friend, and a driven professional,” Martinez’s family said in a statement obtained by NBC 4 Washington. “Everything you hope that a daughter and a friend would be. She was also excited to be planning her upcoming wedding to her fiancé, Daniel Hincapie. They were engaged just last week.” ||||| Watch Queue Queue Watch Queue Queue Remove all Disconnect ||||| Wendy Martinez Wendy Martinez Related Headlines Police searching for suspect in fatal DC stabbing - A D.C. woman stabbed during an evening jog near Logan Circle tragically died after getting engaged last week. Police said 35-year-old Wendy Martinez was randomly attacked just before 8 p.m. Tuesday at 11th Street and P Streets in Northwest D.C. After she was wounded, she tried to run into a Chinese restaurant for help. She was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. RELATED: DC police searching for suspect in Logan Circle deadly stabbing Martinez was the chief of staff for FiscalNote, a 5-year-old government affairs company that describes itself as on a mission to reinvent the way organizations around the world understand the bigger picture. Company officials declined to speak with FOX 5, but issued a statement saying: “The entire FiscalNote family is shocked and deeply saddened to learn that Wendy Martinez, our Chief of Staff, was killed last night. Wendy was an invaluable member of our team and a vibrant member of the community. Our thoughts and prayers are with Wendy’s family and friends.” In a recent profile on thebridgework.com, she was asked how she likes to unwind after work. She told the interviewer that she could be found running around the city or working up a sweat at her favorite local studio. Her LinkedIn resume said she attended the University of Florida and Georgetown University and speaks three languages. She previously worked for the Inter-American Development Bank. On her Twitter account, she recently retweeted a photo of herself volunteering at DC Central Kitchen. In her profile, she describes herself as a “Believer in doing well by doing good.” “We are deeply saddened by this senseless tragedy," Martinez's family said in a statement. "Wendy Karina Martinez was the light of our lives. Not only was she an avid runner, but she was a devout Christian, a wonderful friend, and a driven professional. Everything you hope that a daughter and a friend could be. She was also excited to be planning her upcoming wedding to her fiancé, Daniel Hincapie. They were engaged just last week. “We ask that you respect our privacy as we grieve the passing of her beautiful soul and inform her friends and family of this terrible news. We also want to encourage the community to please contact the police with any information that may lead to finding justice for Wendy. The hotline number to call is 202-727-9099. "Simply put, Wendy was fearfully and wonderfully made! Now we know she has found the one whom her soul loved. (Song of Solomon 3:4)" Police are searching for one suspect in the vicious stabbing. Officials said the suspect is described as a male wearing a mustard-colored shirt, dark-colored pants, white socks and sandals. He fled the scene heading south on 11th Street following the stabbing.

– Police in Washington, DC, are hunting a man believed to have stabbed a woman to death in an apparently random attack. Police say 35-year-old Wendy Karina Martinez was jogging near her home in northwest DC around 8pm Tuesday night when she was fatally stabbed by a man in a mustard-colored shirt, People reports. She managed to get to a nearby Chinese restaurant where she collapsed, bleeding from a wound to the neck. Patrons were unable to save Martinez, who was later pronounced dead at a local hospital. Martinez, chief of staff at government affairs company FiscalNote, was an avid runner who regularly spent her evenings jogging around the city. DC Chief of Police Peter Newsham described the neighborhood as "very safe" and told reporters the killing "is more likely a random act than anything else but we’re going to look at all possibilities." He said police have recovered what they believe is the murder weapon. In a statement, her family described her as "a devout Christian, a wonderful friend, and a driven professional" who got engaged just a week ago, Fox 5 reports. "We were planning a wedding, and now we have to plan a funeral," a relative in Greenacres, Fla., where Martinez grew up, tells WPTV. Police have released surveillance video of the suspected attacker.

Like some illegal experiment in genetic modification, this film grafts the rock anthem to the spirit of the Broadway showtune, to create a mascara'd eunuch, simpering, misshapen, and nowhere near sexy enough to be gay. It is the movie musical version of the jukebox stage show. Doubtless, like The Producers, it will be adapted back into the theatre, some time in 2017, at which time it will be even more bland and tiring. It's a sentimentalised and weirdly humourless movie — targeted at the middle-aged at heart — in which the rock scene is celebrated as a world where the descending model of Stonehenge is always the right size. Rock of Ages Production year: 2012 Country: USA Cert (UK): 12A Runtime: 123 mins Directors: Adam Shankman Cast: Alec Baldwin, Bryan Cranston, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Diego Boneta, Julianne Hough, Malin Akerman, Paul Giamatti, Russell Brand, Tom Cruise More on this film It's 1987 and wannabe rock chick Sherrie (Julianne Hough), as wholesome as Doris Day, comes to LA and meets tousle-haired Drew (Diego Boneta), who dreams of being a stadium god. Romance blossoms and well-known rock standards are reedily belted out – each of them defanged and decaffeinated – as they both get jobs waiting tables at the scuzzy-yet-legendary club the Bourbon, which is hosting a massive farewell gig for superstar Stacey Jaxx, played by Tom Cruise. He is pursued by bespectacled Rolling Stone reporter Constance Sack (Malin Akerman), who sees through his pose but may just need a good old-fashioned rock-god seeing-to. But vengeful conservative-values campaigner Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is trying to shut down the sinful club, to the horror of its raddled owner Dennis (Alec Baldwin) and his goofy assistant Lonny (Russell Brand). Exhibit number one for the prosecution is Russell Brand's Brummie accent, perhaps assumed in honour of Ozzy Osbourne, but which is as stilted and unconvincing as the rest of his turn here; unhappily this talented comic is somehow always misfiring on screen. Rock of Ages is very similar to the much-derided, female-centred movies like Burlesque and Coyote Ugly; the menfolk here are every bit as absurd and lame, although one middle-aged woman is ungallantly and rather humiliatingly treated. Tom Cruise's appearance cheers things up a little bit — a sub-Kurtz figure in his darkened dressing room — but not very much: nowhere near as vinegary as his appearance in Tropic Thunder or indeed his comparable character in Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia. As Dennis broods over his accounts and growls: "Taxes — they're so un-rock'n'roll", it hardly needs pointing out what Beatles number should be played, but isn't, and how complex the politics of rock'n'roll rebellion are. The irony may not be intentional. It really does go on for ages. ||||| A Smell of Wine and Cheap Perfume Review: ‘Rock of Ages,’ a Musical Starring Tom Cruise “Rock of Ages,” a jukebox musical turned junky big-screen attraction about making it in the music biz back when it still existed, is just entertaining enough to keep you from dark thoughts about the state of Hollywood. The movie is too insipid for such hand wringing, in any event, and the attention-grabbing turns by Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand and especially Tom Cruise as a rock-star crazy help enliven its overlong two hours. All singing, some dancing, the movie brings to mind “Glee,” but its truer, superior progenitor is that 1933 Cinderella story, “42nd Street,” the one in which the producer tells the chorine, “You’re going out a youngster, but you’ve got to come back a star!” The chorines this time around are Drew Boley (Diego Boneta) and Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough), who early on meet cute on the Sunset Strip, that asphalt ribbon distinguished by its clubs, eateries, high hopes, low prospects and celebrity deaths that winds through West Hollywood. She’s a little bit country, newly arrived from Flyover, U.S.A.; he’s a little bit hair-metal, with a menial gig at the Bourbon Room and dreams of guitar-rock divinity. The make-believe Bourbon sits next to the Whisky a Go Go although in reality it and the rest of the conspicuously faked Strip were shot in a tricked-out neighborhood in Miami. Mostly, though, the whole thing rests on a, er, bedrock of clichés from Hollywood’s favorite genre: movies about itself. “Rock of Ages,” directed by the former dancer and choreographer Adam Shankman, is based on a musical — nicely described by Lina Lecaro, a Los Angeles scenester, as a “headbangin’-to-the-oldies revue” — that originated in a Hollywood club in 2005 and eventually migrated to Broadway, where it continues to pull in fans at the Helen Hayes. (Mr. Shankman directed the 2007 movie “Hairspray,” which was based on the Broadway musical that was, in another testament to entertainment industry self-cannibalization, based on the 1988 John Waters film.) Like the musical, the movie “Rock of Ages” is set in 1987, the year that “Appetite for Destruction,” the first album from Guns N’ Roses, and Tipper Gore’s book “Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society,” both hit the cultural fray. Written by Justin Theroux, Chris D’Arienzo (who wrote the original show) and Allan Loeb, the movie resurrects these two forgotten events through a pair of opponents: an Axl Rose-like rocker, Stacee Jaxx, played with uncharacteristic heat and an undulating bare torso by Mr. Cruise, and a crusading neo-Puritan, Patricia Whitmore, energetically embodied by an underused Catherine Zeta-Jones. Whitmore has vowed, as part of the campaign to have her husband, Mike (Bryan Cranston), elected mayor, to clean up the Strip. In actuality it was Prince’s album “Purple Rain” that triggered Ms. Gore’s outrage over rock ’n’ raunch, an indignation that led to the Parents Music Resource Center, Senate hearings about dirty minds and government regulation, and eventually her wider pop-cultural attacks. Bringing in Prince would have made the movie listenable, but it would have complicated its white-bread world. That’s less a reference to the picture’s homogeneous racial and ethnic makeup, which debatably reflects that of the music milieu it seeks to replicate. (Mary J. Blige, as Justice, the owner of a strip club, and the character actor Angelo Donato Valderrama, as a club busboy named Chico, are among the movie’s few tokens of diversity.) Rather, this Wonder Bread banality comes from how thoroughly Mr. Shankman has vacuumed his rock-scene simulacrum of anything recognizably rock, including the lust, juice, heat, bad behavior and excesses that characterize its real-life analogue. There isn’t any grit to these people or their art, not a speck of dirt anywhere. It looks like Disneyland and sounds, well, like a bad Broadway musical, with all the power belting and jazz-hand choreography that implies. To put it another way, there’s way too much Journey on the soundtrack, and Foreigner. There’s also an REO Speedwagon ditty, a few from Twisted Sister, Def Leppard and Poison, and at least two hits that were released after 1987 (“More Than Words” and “I Remember You”). All the songs are sung, mostly without shame or distinction, by the actors themselves, who slide into the warbling as if into a conversation. A grizzled, bewigged Mr. Baldwin enunciates through his songs, in the Rex Harrison mold, to play a rock survivor, Dennis Dupree, who runs the Bourbon with his sidekick, Lonny (Mr. Brand). They make their stale buddy routine and romance amusing and, as with the rest of the adults, make the movie bearable. A whispering and writhing Mr. Cruise makes it watchable. “Rock of Ages” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). No sex, few drugs, some rock ’n’ roll. Rock of Ages Opens on Friday nationwide. Directed by Adam Shankman; written by Justin Theroux, Chris D’Arienzo and Allan Loeb, based on the stage musical by Mr. D’Arienzo; director of photography, Bojan Bazelli; edited by Emma E. Hickox; score by Adam Anders and Peer Astrom; choreography by Mia Michaels; production design by Jon Hutman; costumes by Rita Ryack; produced by Matthew Weaver, Scott Prisand, Carl Levin, Tobey Maguire, Garrett Grant and Jennifer Gibgot; released by Warner Brothers Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 57 minutes. WITH: Julianne Hough (Sherrie Christian), Diego Boneta (Drew Boley), Paul Giamatti (Paul Gill), Russell Brand (Lonny), Mary J. Blige (Justice), Angelo Donato Valderrama (Chico), Malin Akerman (Constance Sack), Bryan Cranston (Mike Whitmore), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Patricia Whitmore), Alec Baldwin (Dennis Dupree) and Tom Cruise (Stacee Jaxx). ||||| Photograph by David James/Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. There’s something to be said for the Mamma Mia!-style karaoke musical: big-named performers doing their own singing (with cheerfully differing layers of skill) over a soundtrack of huge pop hits. Watching movie stars tackle the rigors of this genre is like watching them take a trapeze lesson: a lot of humbling comic pratfalls and, if you’re lucky, a few thrilling moments in the air (cf. Meryl Streep’s performance in Mamma Mia!, which, I’m sorry, rules). Adam Shankman’s Rock of Ages, based on the jukebox musical of classic rock anthems, spends very little time airborne, but I respect its pluck. Casting Tom Cruise as a reclusive, possibly deranged ‘80s rock god whose pet baboon brings him Scotch may be the boldest use of the actor since Paul Thomas Anderson made him a rage-fueled motivational speaker in Magnolia. Dana Stevens Dana Stevens is Slate’s movie critic. Not that Cruise’s character, Stacee Jaxx, is onscreen that often in Rock of Ages (co-scripted by Justin Theroux, Allan Loeb, and Chris D’Arienzo, who also wrote the original show). Rather, Stacee is the explicitly phallic pole the rest of the storylines weave around. He’s the lead singer of a band called Arsenal that combines the aggressive machismo of hair metal with the campy theatricality of cabaret. The luxuriantly tattooed Stacee wears backless leather chaps and red light-up codpieces; women faint when he walks by, and his dressing rooms come stocked with lissome groupies, a gong-ringing attendant, and the aforementioned trained baboon. But having reached the level of fame at which he can indulge his every bizarre whim has only made Stacee an isolated, pitiable freak who naps under piles of naked supermodels, mumbles garbled pseudo-profundities in the general direction of rock journalists, and gazes bleakly from the balcony of his suite at the Chateau Marmont. It’s 1987, and Stacee’s band is about to give their last-ever show at the Bourbon Room, a grotty Sunset Strip rock club that’s run by a crusty old hippie, Dennis (Alec Baldwin, curiously irresistible in shaggy Jeff Bridges mode) and his mulleted rocker sidekick Lonny (Russell Brand). The Arsenal show is all that stands between the Bourbon Room and bankruptcy, but Stacee’s oily Machiavellian manager (Paul Giamatti) seems intent on chiseling the house out of its fair share of the take. Meanwhile, the mayor’s prim wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) has launched a Tipper Gore-style campaign to shut down the rock clubs of the Strip, with the legendarily dissolute Bourbon Room at the top of her list. Advertisement Finally, in a bland romantic plot that takes up far more of the film than it ought to, Sherrie (Julianne Hough), an Oklahoma ingénue come to L.A. in search of singing fame, falls for fellow Bourbon Room employee and hair-band aspirant Drew (Diego Boneta), who woos her under the Hollywood sign with an acoustic version of Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin.’ ” (“I can’t believe you just wrote that!” marvels Sherrie.) Hough and Boneta have pipes and perkiness to spare, but watching them belt out “Jukebox Hero” to each other in an LP-filled Tower Records store feels reminiscent of an American Idol medley or an episode of Glee. Attractive young people enthusiastically covering classic rock songs is hardly a commodity in short supply these days, and a little of Sherrie and Drew’s wholesome head banging goes a long way. (I did enjoy some of the details of the lead couple’s third-act slide into despair, including a conversation in which they attempt to one-up each other’s L.A. abjection stories: “I’m a stripper at the Venus Room.” “I’m in a boy band.” “You win.”) Get Slate in your inbox. Once you accept the utter and profound inconsequentiality of Rock of Ages, there’s much to enjoy in it, from Zeta-Jones’ capable hoofing (as a dramatic actress I find her deadeningly dull, but the woman can dance) to Giamatti’s sly performance as a calculating, gray-ponytailed rock impresario. (If only he’d been given a solo song. I would pay a separate admission price to hear Paul Giamatti put over, say, a Judas Priest cover.) In the movie’s most endearingly loopy number, Baldwin and Brand duet on REO Speedwagon’s “I Can’t Fight This Feeling Anymore,” whirling in slo-mo circles around the Bourbon Room back office as they acknowledge their long-suppressed mutual love. It’s a moment that could never have occurred in the 1980s version of this movie (which would probably have starred Patrick Swayze as Stacee Jax), and though the scene is played for laughs, there’s something transportingly romantic about it—they don’t call these songs “power ballads” for nothing.

– Rock of Ages isn't very rock 'n' roll; the adapted stage musical is more like "highly processed cheese," according to Slate's Dana Stevens. Still, it offers some impressive performances—especially from Tom Cruise as a hair-metal deity. Director Adam Shankman "has vacuumed his rock-scene simulacrum of anything recognizably rock, including the lust, juice, heat, bad behavior, and excesses that characterize its real-life analogue," writes Manohla Dargis in the New York Times. "It looks like Disneyland and sounds, well, like a bad Broadway musical, with all the power belting and jazz-hand choreography that implies." It's a "sentimentalized and weirdly humorless movie—targeted at the middle-aged at heart," notes Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian. "The irony may not be intentional. It really does go on for ages." But in Rolling Stone, Peter Travers calls the movie "hugely enjoyable." It's "saved by its music, a tasty brew drawn from Def Leppard, Journey, Foreigner, Bon Jovi," and more. "It's near impossible not to rock along." "Once you accept the utter and profound inconsequentiality of Rock of Ages, there’s much to enjoy in it"—particularly where Tom Cruise is concerned, adds Stevens at Slate. "Cruise goes to a deep, dark, almost deliberately repellent place I’m not sure he’s ever been before."

Hey, where'd you go? We're here, working hard What's going on? As many of you know, we recently re-launched our website. During this process we introduced many new features and changes to the way customers interact with our services. This process has been a learning experience, and you've provided a lot of great feedback on how things work and how they could work better. We value this input and the insights that it's led us to and we want to ensure that as we work, you, our customers, don't feel the growing pains associated with these improvements. For this reason, we've decided that the best way to proceed is to suspend new orders and dedicate the entire team's efforts to creating the next generation of BitInstant. In the short term, we recognize that this may cause our valued customers some inconvenience; it causes inconvenience for us too. In the long run, we are confident that this total commitment to what’s next is the right move. Rest assured that our entire team is working around the clock to bring you a new, improved version of BitInstant. In the meantime, customer service representatives will continue to be available to help you with transactions that have already been initiated. Again, thank you for your patience during this process. Everyone at BitInstant is committed to the future of Bitcoin and we're doing everything we can to get back up and running with a service that streamlines transactions and makes it even easier to buy and sell bitcoins. How long will this take? Well, we aren't sure. We won't be finished tomorrow, but we're working diligently to get this done. Bringing you what's next is a big enough job that literally everyone we have is working on it. As soon as we know, you'll know. In the meantime, we'll be updating this website with new information on the re-launch as frequently as we have news. What if I still have an issue? We're still here to help! Customer service representatives are still manning their keyboards to help you resolve any outstanding issues you might have. If there's something that you need assistance with, please reach out to support@bitinstant.com, and we'll help as quickly as possible! I want to know more! We know you do, but please refrain from sending general inquiries to customer service so they can focus on helping people with transaction issues. If you're looking for more insight and sneak peeks under the hood, sign up for our newsletter above. As we continue to make progress, we'll send updates! ||||| Image copyright BitInstant Image caption The BitInstant Bitcoin exchange is based in New York The operators of two exchanges for the virtual currency Bitcoin have been arrested in the US. The Department of Justice said Robert Faiella, known as BTCKing, and Charlie Shrem from BitInstant.com have both been charged with money laundering. The authorities said the pair were engaged in a scheme to sell more than $1m (£603,000) in bitcoins to users of online drug marketplace the Silk Road. The site was shut down last year and its alleged owner was arrested. Mr Shrem, 24, was arrested on Sunday at New York's JFK airport. He was expected to appear in court on Monday, prosecutors said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption New York's state banking regulator, Benjamin Lawsky: "There are always going to be bad apples in any industry." Mr Faiella, 52, was arrested on Monday at his home in Cape Coral, Florida. Bitcoin exchanges are services that allow users to trade bitcoins for traditional currencies. Mr Shrem is accused of allowing Mr Faiella to use BitInstant to purchase large quantities of bitcoins to sell on to Silk Road users who wanted to anonymously buy drugs. HOW BITCOINS WORK Bitcoin is often referred to as a new kind of currency. But it may be better to think of its units as being virtual tokens that have value because enough people believe they do and there is a finite number of them. Each bitcoin is represented by a unique online registration number. These numbers are created through a process called "mining", which involves a computer solving a difficult mathematical problem with a 64-digit solution. Each time a problem is solved the computer's owner is rewarded with bitcoins. To receive a bitcoin, a user must also have a Bitcoin address - a randomly generated string of 27 to 34 letters and numbers - which acts as a kind of virtual postbox to and from which the bitcoins are sent. Since there is no registry of these addresses, people can use them to protect their anonymity when making a transaction. These addresses are in turn stored in Bitcoin wallets, which are used to manage savings. They operate like privately run bank accounts - with the proviso that if the data is lost, so are the bitcoins contained. The authorities said Mr Shrem was aware that the bitcoins were being used for such purchases, and therefore he was in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. The Act requires financial institutions in the US to alert authorities to any suspicious activity that may suggest money laundering is taking place. Emily Spaven, managing editor of news site Coindesk, told the BBC: "Since the closure of Silk Road and arrest of alleged owner Ross Ulbricht, we always knew more arrests would follow. "It is unfortunate Silk Road continues to make the headlines in association with Bitcoin - this is the dark side of Bitcoin, which the vast majority of digital currency users have no association with." 'Feigning ignorance' Following the arrests, James Hunt, from the US Drug Enforcement Agency, said in a statement: "Hiding behind their computers, both defendants are charged with knowingly contributing to and facilitating anonymous drug sales, earning substantial profits along the way. "Drug law enforcement's job is to investigate and identify those who abet the illicit drug trade at all levels of production and distribution, including those lining their own pockets by feigning ignorance of any wrong doing and turning a blind eye." Mr Shrem was a founding member and vice chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation, a trade group set up to promote Bitcoin as an alternative currency - but following his arrest he has since resigned. "We are surprised and shocked by the news," said a spokesman for the organisation. "As a foundation, we take these allegations seriously and do not condone illegal activity." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Rory Cellan Jones explains how Bitcoin works BitInstant was one of the largest Bitcoin exchanges on the internet. However, the service has been inaccessible for some time, explained Mike Hearn, another member of the Bitcoin Foundation. "Charlie's impact on the Bitcoin community has been hovering near zero for a long time now," Mr Hearn told the BBC via email. "If the allegations are true, it's part of a phase of Bitcoin's life that the project is rapidly leaving behind (and good riddance)." 'Deeply concerned' BitInstant's investors include Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss - the twins who previously sued Mark Zuckerberg claiming he had stolen their idea for Facebook. In a statement issued to the BBC, the twins said: "When we invested in BitInstant in the fall of 2012, its management made a commitment to us that they would abide by all applicable laws - including money laundering laws - and we expected nothing less. "We are obviously deeply concerned about [Mr Shrem's] arrest. We were passive investors in BitInstant and will do everything we can to help law enforcement officials. "We fully support any and all governmental efforts to ensure that money laundering requirements are enforced, and look forward to clearer regulation being implemented on the purchase and sale of bitcoins." Follow Dave Lee on Twitter @DaveLeeBBC ||||| Charlie Shrem, the CEO of Bitcoin exchange company BitInstant and a well-known voice in the virtual currency community, has been charged with scheming to sell and launder $1 million worth of Bitcoin to users of the illegal drug website Silk Road. The criminal complaint, unsealed today in Manhattan federal court, says that the 24-year-old Shrem conspired with Robert Faiella, a 52-year-old who used the handle "BTCKing." Faiella allegedly obtained Bitcoins from Shrem, then sold them anonymously to Silk Road users at a markup through the site. The prosecutors say Shrem was aware of the illegal activity and even bought drugs on Silk Road himself. "Truly innovative business models don’t need to resort to old-fashioned law-breaking, and when Bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act," US Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement. The charges carry a maximum sentence of up to 25 years in prison for Faiella and 30 years for Shrem Faiella and Shrem are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. In addition, Shrem is being charged with one count of willful failure to file a suspicious activity report, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. ||||| UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Southern District of New York U.S. ATTORNEY PREET BHARARA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, January 27, 2013 http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys CONTACT: U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE James Margolin, Jerika Richardson Jennifer Queliz (212) 637-2600 IRS-CI Gregory Tranchina (212) 436-1687 DEA Erin McKenzie-Mulvey (212) 337-2906 MANHATTAN U.S. ATTORNEY ANNOUNCES CHARGES AGAINST BITCOIN EXCHANGERS, INCLUDING CEO OF BITCOIN EXCHANGE COMPANY, FOR SCHEME TO SELL AND LAUNDER OVER $1 MILLION IN BITCOINS RELATED TO SILK ROAD DRUG TRAFFICKING Defendants Sold Bitcoins to be Used to Buy and Sell Illegal Drugs Anonymously on the Silk Road Drug Trafficking Website Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James J. Hunt, the Acting Special-Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and Toni Weirauch, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”), announced the unsealing of criminal charges in Manhattan federal court against ROBERT M. FAIELLA, a/k/a “BTCKing,” an underground Bitcoin exchanger, and CHARLIE SHREM, the Chief Executive Officer and Compliance Officer of a Bitcoin exchange company, for engaging in a scheme to sell over $1 million in Bitcoins to users of “Silk Road,” the underground website that enabled its users to buy and sell illegal drugs anonymously and beyond the reach of law enforcement. Each defendant is charged with conspiring to commit money laundering, and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. SHREM is also charged with willfully failing to file any suspicious activity report regarding FAIELLA’s illegal transactions through the Company, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. SCHREM was arrested yesterday at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, and is expected to be presented in Manhattan federal court later today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman. FAIELLA was arrested today at his residence in Cape Coral, Florida, and is expected to be presented in federal court in the Middle District of Florida. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “As alleged, Robert Faiella and Charlie Shrem schemed to sell over $1 million in Bitcoins to criminals bent on trafficking narcotics on the dark web drug site, Silk Road. Truly innovative business models don’t need to resort to oldfashioned law-breaking, and when Bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act. We will aggressively pursue those who would coopt new forms of currency for illicit purposes.” DEA Acting Special-Agent-in-Charge James J. Hunt said: “The charges announced today depict law enforcement's commitment to identifying those who promote the sale of illegal drugs throughout the world. Hiding behind their computers, both defendants are charged with knowingly contributing to and facilitating anonymous drug sales, earning substantial profits along the way. Drug law enforcement’s job is to investigate and identify those who abet the illicit drug trade at all levels of production and distribution including those lining their own pockets by feigning ignorance of any wrong doing and turning a blind eye.” IRS Special-Agent-in-Charge Toni Weirauch said: “The government has been successful in swiftly identifying those responsible for the design and operation of the ‘Silk Road’ website, as well as those who helped ‘Silk Road’ customers conduct their illegal transactions by facilitating the conversion of their dollars into Bitcoins. This is yet another example of the New York Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force’s proficiency in applying financial investigative resources to the fight against illegal drugs.” According to the allegations contained in the Criminal Complaint unsealed today in Manhattan federal court: From about December 2011 to October 2013, FAIELLA ran an underground Bitcoin exchange on the Silk Road website, a website that served as a sprawling and anonymous black market bazaar where illegal drugs of virtually every variety were bought and sold regularly by the site’s users. Operating under the username “BTCKing,” FAIELLA sold Bitcoins – the only form of payment accepted on Silk Road – to users seeking to buy illegal drugs on the site. Upon receiving orders for Bitcoins from Silk Road users, he filled the orders through a company based in New York, New York (the “Company”). The Company was designed to enable customers to exchange cash for Bitcoins anonymously, that is, without providing any personal identifying information, and it charged a fee for its service. FAIELLA obtained Bitcoins with the Company’s assistance, and then sold the Bitcoins to Silk Road users at a markup. SHREM is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and from about August 2011 until about July 2013, when the Company ceased operating, he was also its Compliance Officer, in charge of ensuring the Company’s compliance with federal and other anti-money laundering (“AML”) laws. SHREM is also the Vice Chairman of a foundation dedicated to promoting the Bitcoin virtual currency system. SHREM, who personally bought drugs on Silk Road, was fully aware that Silk Road was a drug-trafficking website, and through his communications with FAIELLA, SHREM also knew that FAIELLA was operating a Bitcoin exchange service for Silk Road users. Nevertheless, SHREM knowingly facilitated FAIELLA’s business with the Company in order to maintain FAIELLA’s business as a lucrative source of Company revenue. SHREM knowingly allowed 2 FAIELLA to use the Company’s services to buy Bitcoins for his Silk Road customers; personally processed FAIELLA’s orders; gave FAIELLA discounts on his high-volume transactions; failed to file a single suspicious activity report with the United States Treasury Department about FAIELLA’s illicit activity, as he was otherwise required to do in his role as the Company’s Compliance Officer; and deliberately helped FAIELLA circumvent the Company’s AML restrictions, even though it was SHREM’s job to enforce them and even though the Company had registered with the Treasury Department as a money services business. Working together, SHREM and FAIELLA exchanged over $1 million in cash for Bitcoins for the benefit of Silk Road users, so that the users could, in turn, make illegal purchases on Silk Road. In late 2012, when the Company stopped accepting cash payments, FAIELLA ceased doing business with the Company and temporarily shut down his illegal Bitcoin exchange service on Silk Road. FAIELLA resumed operating on Silk Road in April 2013 without the Company’s assistance, and continued to exchange tens of thousands of dollars a week in Bitcoins until the Silk Road website was shut down by law enforcement in October 2013. * * * FAIELLA, 52, of Cape Coral, Florida, and SHREM, 24, of New York, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. SHREM is also charged with one count of willful failure to file a suspicious activity report, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Mr. Bharara praised the outstanding investigative work of the DEA’s New York Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force, which is comprised of agents and officers of the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the New York City Police Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Homeland Security Investigations, the New York State Police, the U. S. Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Marshal Service, New York National Guard, Office of Foreign Assets Control and the New York Department of Taxation and Finance. Mr. Bharara also thanked the FBI’s New York Field Office. Mr. Bharara also noted that the investigation remains ongoing. The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Serrin Turner is in charge of the prosecution, and Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Adams of the Asset Forfeiture Unit is in charge of the forfeiture aspects of the case. 3 The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 14-024 ### 4

– A high-profile arrest in the world of Bitcoin: BitInstant CEO Charlie Shrem, 24, has been arrested and charged with money laundering; the same goes for alleged co-conspirator and "underground Bitcoin exchanger" Robert Faiella (aka BTCKing). Authorities say the two schemed to sell more than $1 million of Bitcoin to users of online drug marketplace Silk Road. Per the criminal complaint, from December 2011 to October 2013, Faiella, 54, sold Bitcoins on the Silk Road website to its users, and then took those orders and filled them using BitInstant. For his part, the complaint says Shrem "personally processed Faiella's orders; gave Faiella discounts on his high-volume transactions ... and deliberately helped Faiella circumvent the Company's anti-money laundering restrictions ... in order to maintain Faiella's business as a lucrative source of Company revenue." Shrem, described by the Verge as "a well-known voice in the virtual currency community," also himself bought drugs on Silk Road, the complaint alleges. The BBC notes that BitInstant is one of the largest online Bitcoin exchanges, and currently appears to be offline. (Click to read a fascinating profile of the supposed mastermind of Silk Road.)