Write an article based on this summary:

– The underlying theme of the GOP race this year seems to be Citizens United, observes Law.com. The Supreme Court decision that led to the creation of super PACs funded by unlimited donations is getting its first real-world test, and the results are hard to miss. Most notably: The super PAC known as Restore Our Future decimated Newt Gingrich with negative ads on behalf of Mitt Romney. As Politico notes, Gingrich called the decision at the time a "great victory for free speech," and while he still supports it, he is also complaining about being "Romney-boated" by his rival's "millionaire friends." Also: Restrictions needed? The Huffington Post gives banner treatment ("We've Created a Monster") to the issue, with Sam Stein writing that some prominent Republicans think that restrictions on super PACs are in order. Among others, it quotes Tom Ridge, who thinks that donations to the groups should be disclosed almost immediately online. "Transparency now, it is the best antiseptic," says the Jon Huntsman ally. Full story here. Montana decision: At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick gives a figurative high-five to the Montana Supreme Court, which last week issued a "stunning" decision that the state could essentially ignore Citizens United and continue to restrict corporate election spending. The court "knows exactly what Justice Kennedy seems to have missed: That corruption is corruption regardless of its packaging, and that it rarely comes with a detailed disclosure label." Full piece here. Overblown issue? The National Journal rounds up conservative opinion and finds little "buyer's remorse" about the ruling. It quotes a GOP consultant who thinks the issue is being exaggerated: “Every cycle there is a new vehicle as the law changed. Campaigns have always run negative ads. The vehicle may be different, but the ads certainly weren’t.” Full story here.

© Stephen Coburn - Fotolia.com

 Note: This story has been updated for clarity.

 Before the Republican winner of the Iowa Caucus had been determined on Tuesday night, Vermont’s independent Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the set of Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, touting a new book and his petition to overturn the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by way of a Constitutional amendment. “Corporations are not people,” Sanders told host and satirist-comedian Stephen Colbert, who portrays a right-leaning pundit on the show. “They do not have freedom of expression rights in terms of buying elections.”

 Sanders has not been standing his ground alone. From the Iowa campaign trail to the Montana Supreme Court, and from New York to California, the wake of Citizens United has rippled across the country this week in a range of political, judicial, and media encounters—a veritable mélange of sudden (and sobering?) reckoning with the ruling that changed the parameters for corporate involvement in American political life.

 Two years ago this month, the high court ruled that corporations have First Amendment free speech rights and that they can make unlimited donations for electioneering, making way for anonymous political spending and the formation of super PACs, which are not limited in how much money they can receive from corporate donors.

 Until now, the only real-world electoral testing ground for the ruling had been the 2010 midterm Congressional elections. But with the semi-official start of the presidential election season in Iowa, the influence of super PACs came rushing to the fore. The New York Times chronicled the demise of Newt Gingrich’s campaign in light of the negative attack adds run by Restore Our Future—the multimillion dollar super PAC that backs Mitt Romney and is run by former Romney aides:

 Democrats and Republicans alike have singled out the $2.8 million-and-counting air deluge as the biggest factor in Mr. Gingrich’s precipitous drop in polls of Iowa voters and Mitt Romney’s corresponding rise, reshaping the critical first contest of the Republican primary season to Mr. Romney’s benefit.

 The ads, which continue to blanket Iowa days before the caucuses here, were created and paid for by people with deep knowledge of the Romney campaign’s strategic thinking, close relationships with Mr. Romney’s most generous donors, and even research on what television viewers like and dislike most about Mr. Romney himself.

 In an article titled “Newt Gingrich Suffers from Super PAC Buyer’s Remorse,” Politico recalled that two years ago Gingrich heralded the Citizens outcome as a “great victory for free speech,” but has now referred to the toll of the Restore Our Future ads as having been “ ‘Romney-boated’ by his chief opponent’s ‘millionaire friends.’ ”:

 Though Gingrich says he still supports the court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, his shift in attitude illustrates the difficulty that the free-wheeling big-money election landscape can pose for politicians—even, and perhaps especially, conservatives who philosophically oppose campaign rules as restrictions on free speech.

 That irony was not lost on Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who told Democracy Now that Gingrich reaped a “certain sweet justice” at the polls. Lessig, the author of a new book entitled Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, is also in favor of amending the Constitution to expunge big-money influence on elections.

 A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

 Subscribe to Corporate Counsel ||||| Despite the political carnage suffered by Republican presidential candidates at the hands of super PACs in Iowa, conservatives show no signs of buyers’ remorse after supporting the Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates for the unlimited campaign money that fueled them.

 Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses were the first presidential battleground where the political world got a look at the game changing power of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that led to the rise of super PACs. But not even Newt Gingrich, who regularly complained about the pounding he took from a pro-Romney super PAC, was backing off his support for the decision.

 Asked on Wednesday on MSNBC if he had any second thoughts about Citizens United after falling victim to the decision’s unintended consequences, he answered, “No, I’m not the victim of that. I’m the victim of one particular person, Mitt Romney, whose staff went out and decided to run a deliberately negative and dishonest campaign.”

 He continued, “This particular approach, I think, has nothing to do with the Citizens United case, it has to do with a bunch of millionaires getting together to run a negative campaign and Gov. Romney refusing to call them off and refusing to be honest about it.”

 Gingrich went on to argue that outside attack groups existed long before the 2010 Citizens United decision, citing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which, in 2004, savaged Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s military record.

 It’s a sentiment that other Republican insiders echoed.

 “Every cycle there is a new vehicle as the law changed,” said a GOP super PAC consultant. “Campaigns have always run negative ads. The vehicle may be different, but the ads certainly weren’t.”

 And, thanks in large part to super PACs, there was no shortage of negative ads. In Iowa, the pro-Romney Restore Our Future PAC spent about $2.7 million on television ads while Romney’s campaign spent about half that amount, according to National Journal's Hotline.

 The same goes for Rick Santorum, albeit on a much smaller scale than his front-running rival. Santorum, who finished second to Romney by eight votes, spent about $4,000 on TV ads in Iowa while the pro-Santorum Red, White and Blue Fund dropped more than half a million dollars in ads to boost the former Pennsylvania senator.

 Meanwhile, fourth- and fifth-place finishers Gingrich and Rick Perry, respectively, dropped more money into Iowa television than the super PACs supporting them did. Perry’s campaign spent almost $4 million on TV while the pro-Perry Make Us Great Again PAC kicked in about $1.5 million. Gingrich, meanwhile, spent almost $950,000 on ads and the super PAC supporting him, Winning Our Future, spent about $265,000.

 The GOP primary, several insiders said, gives Republicans an opportunity to experiment with and sharpen their super PACs as they prepare for a general-election showdown with President Obama, who will have the incumbent’s fundraising advantage.

 “Whoever the Republican nominee is, they are going to be behind in the money game and they’re going to want these super PACs helping the Republican candidate by going after the president,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

 Von Spakovsky, a former FEC member, said he welcomed the super PACs and the increase in political speech they create, arguing that they are a response to the artificially low limits on what candidates themselves can raise.

 GOP super PACs will be particularly useful this summer in the dead zone after the primaries and before the nominating convention when the PACs can begin running ads defining Obama, said Evan Tracey, a George Washington University political communications professor and former media analyst.

 “The problem will be that one of these PACs will do more harm than good,” he said, explaining that there is real danger of a super PAC jumping the nominee’s message and wearing it out.

 Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing. ||||| Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

 On the rare occasions when the world talks to you in stereo, it’s a good idea to set aside your knitting and listen. This week, Americans got their first good look at what super PACs—political organizations that can receive unlimited corporate contributions and make unlimited expenditures for federal candidates—have wrought in Iowa. At the same time, the Montana Supreme Court issued a stunning opinion last Friday, upholding the state’s law limiting corporate election spending. Think of the two as a sort of woofer and tweeter for life in a post-Citizens United world.

 Dahlia Lithwick Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate and hosts the podcast Amicus.

 The impact of the so-called super PAC on the Iowa election has been profound. Just ask Newt Gingrich, who was clobbered by almost a third of the more than $14 million in super-PAC ad money spent in the weeks before the caucus. When the court handed down that decision in 2010, it assumed both that these expenditures would be independent of the candidate’s official campaigns (they’re not; one is financed by Jon Huntsman’s dad) and that disclosure rules would ensure that Americans knew who was buying and selling their elections (we don’t).

 Ruth Marcus has a great piece explaining all the ways in which the super PACs are both coordinating with campaigns and evading federal disclosure requirements. She notes that this was the inevitable consequence of both the Citizens United decision and subsequent lower-court rulings. Whether he meant to or not, she writes, Justice Anthony Kennedy, with his majority opinion in that case, managed to “clear the path for independent expenditure committees backing a particular candidate—and bankrolled by the candidate’s father or run by his former top aides.”

 Advertisement

 Democracy 21 issued a report today questioning whether these candidate-specific super PACs can possibly meet the legal requirements of “total independence” from the campaigns, as required by the language of Citizens United. That’s the problem when you give corporations the same First Amendment rights as citizens. It’s not just that the resulting citizens are louder and meaner than regular people. They also refuse to tell you who they are and how much a gently worn candidate is selling for these days.

 Prof. Richard L. Hasen explained all this back in October, pointing out that the fundamental flaw in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United lay in his assertion that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That sentence opened the door to super PACS and ignored the reality of everything we all know about the corrupting influence of unlimited money on a political campaign.

 Which brings us to the Montana Supreme Court, which more or less announced last week that it would similarly just ignore Justice Kennedy’s pronouncements about money and corruption. The Montana court more or less announced it would uphold that state’s corporate spending ban because they know a lot more about political corruption than Anthony Kennedy does. The Montana law was enacted in 1912 and provides that “a corporation may not make a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." After the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision in 2010, many similar state laws were struck down by the courts or repealed, and a lower court in Montana agreed that the Montana ban was unconstitutional as well, finding that “Citizens United is unequivocal: the government may not prohibit independent and indirect corporate expenditures on political speech.”

 But by a 5-2 margin, Montana’s high court determined that the state law survived “strict scrutiny” because Montana’s unique context and history justified the ban in ways not contemplated by Citizens United. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Mike McGrath dove deep into that history, ranging back over the “tumultuous years … marked by rough contests for political and economic domination primarily in the mining center of Butte, between mining and industrial enterprises controlled by foreign trusts or corporations.” Noting that, back in the last Gilded Age, Montana's wealthy "Copper Kings" bought judges and senators, picked the location of the capital, and owned the media, McGrath pointed to Montana’s vast size, sparse population, low-cost elections, and long history of having its resources plundered by foreign corporate interests to emphasize that the state has a compelling interest in maintaining its ban.

 Advertisement

 McGrath lays it out this way: “The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did. If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy is the State required to throw away its protections?” The majority went out of its way to note that unlimited campaign spending on judicial elections is also having a profoundly damaging effect on judicial integrity all around the country.

 Two justices dissented from this view, insisting that the court was bound to follow the decision in Citizens United. But one of the two dissents, Justice James C. Nelson, unloaded on that Supreme Court decision with Scalia-like levels of derision and scorn. “Corporations are not persons,” writes Nelson. “Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government." Just in case that wasn’t crystal clear, Nelson goes on to add that “while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."

 There’s a lot to love in both the majority opinion and Nelson’s heartfelt dissent. But as Eugene Volokh notes, the opinion practically begs to be overturned at the Supreme Court. (Dissenting Justice Nelson agrees and even says the court will summarily reverse it.) But whereas Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United seemed to be rooted in the thin vapors of his own aspirational First Amendment thinking, the Montana Supreme Court fixed its focus on the actual corrupting influence of the groups suing to overturn the ban. Thus Western Tradition Partnership, the lead plaintiff in the case, merits extra special scorn from the court for circulating a fundraising brochure that said, “If you decide to support this program, no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you made this program possible.” The majority openly accuses WTP of being responsible for “a multi-front attack on both contribution restrictions and the transparency that accompanies campaign disclosure requirements.” The Montana majority, in other words, knows exactly what Justice Kennedy seems to have missed: That corruption is corruption regardless of its packaging, and that it rarely comes with a detailed disclosure label.

 More fundamentally, the majority and one dissenter seem to understand perfectly how much the American people resent being lied to about the burning need for courts to step in to protect the oppressed voices of powerless corporate interests. As Judge Nelson wrote in dissent, “the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping.” ||||| Not long ago Newt Gingrich seemed to be a big fan of super PACs.

 The former House Speaker two years ago called the new legal framework that gave rise to unlimited fundraising by outside groups a “great victory for free speech” and predicted that the biggest of the recent federal court decisions deregulating campaign rules would make “it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents.”

 Text Size -

 +

 reset

 Then he got a taste of the new rules in Iowa.

 After weeks of withering attacks by a super PAC supporting his rival Mitt Romney, Gingrich won’t stop talking about the injustices of unchecked spending — specifically the $3 million spent attacking him. He even coined a name for it, saying he got “Romney-boated” by his chief opponent’s “millionaire friends.”

 Though Gingrich says he still supports the court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, his shift in attitude illustrates the difficulty that the free-wheeling big-money election landscape can pose for politicians — even, and perhaps especially, conservatives who philosophically oppose campaign rules as restrictions on free speech.

 “It’s one thing to oppose regulation in theory, but when they hit the practical reality of millions of dollars of negative ads, they don’t like the way the new system works,” said Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission chairman and top adviser to Sen. John McCain, who authored the seminal 2002 McCain-Feingold bill restricting campaign fundraising and spending.

 Romney, for his part, has also of late bemoaned the rise of super PACs. But he, too, supported one of the landmark Supreme Court decisions that set the stage for the explosion of outside groups, and he even appeared at fundraisers for the super PAC that eviscerated Gingrich.

 McCain-Feingold and other campaign regulations were gutted by a series of federal court rulings in the past few years, capped by the 2010 decisions in cases brought by the conservative groups Citizens United and SpeechNow.org. They paved the way for the new breed of political action committee known as super PACs and other nonprofit groups to raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions for the types of biting attack ads that buffeted Gingrich in the run-up to his disappointing fourth-place finish in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses.

 Gingrich didn’t predict his current predicament a year ago, when he appeared in a video commemorating the Citizens United ruling’s one-year anniversary, saying the decision granted “the right of every citizen, whether you agree or disagree, to get up and be heard, to speak, to have space in politics.”

 He also predicted in an op-ed that the decision would strengthen American democracy “by making it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents.”

 But the former House speaker has repeatedly suggested recently that Romney colluded with an allied super PAC on anti-Gingrich ads, which would violate a provision that was reaffirmed by the courts that bars coordination between campaigns and outside groups.

 Romney is “not telling the American people the truth” when he says he has nothing to do with the attacks from the pro-Romney super PAC, Gingrich charged Monday. “This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC — it’s baloney,” Gingrich said.

 The super PAC in question, Restore Our Future, spent more than $3 million on biting anti-Gingrich ads in Iowa. It’s run by former Romney associates Carl Forti, who was political director of Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign, and Charlie Spies, Romney’s 2008 legal counsel.

 Restore Our Future has wasted no time pursuing Gingrich outside of Iowa, reporting Wednesday that it this week spent $265,000 in Florida on a media buy opposing Gingrich. Meanwhile, the super PAC spent more than $101,500 this week promoting Romney in South Carolina, documents filed Wednesday show. |||||


Write an article based on this summary:

– There’s a new public option in town: free wireless from Google for the holidays. The search giant has partnered to provide WiFi gratis in 47 airports nationwide from now until the middle of January; the generosity even extends to in-flight access on continental Virgin flights, PC World reports. Google would probably like to spread its beneficence across the entire nation, but its partnership with the likes of Time Warner and Boingo doesn’t allow universal coverage. That’s all well and good, but careful readers note that some pretty important national hubs—New York, DC, Chicago—fall outside Google’s range. Enter Microsoft. The software giant and Google nemesis is also in the free-holiday-wireless business, teaming with JiWire to cover an estimated 70% of airports, according to the Atlantic. All you have to do is perform one Bing search for the goodies. Give a hand to the rivals for turning even snow delays into an ad war.

« Well Fargo's Bailout Payback Dilemma | Main | Blame Obama for the Job Losses? »

 JiWire works with between 60% and 70% of all North American passenger airline services and hotel chains."

 competing

 For many holiday travelers, an hour-long wait at the airport presents a critical choice: a couple grande white chocolate lattes or $10-a-day WiFi access? (At least, that's my choice.) This year the (er, my) choice is simple. Google announced that it is giving away free WiFi access in 47 airports until mid-January 2010. Lifehacker reports that users can log in for free, bypass a couple invitations to try out Google Chrome, and browse for free through the inevitable snow delays.But wait! Some key cities -- including Chicago, New York and Washington, DC -- aren't on the list . Is there another way to finagle free Internet from the terminal? Yes , says Lifehacker's servicey team. Microsoft Bing is teaming with JiWire to offer free WiFi in nationwide hotels and airports in exchange for one Bing search. Sounds easy! Media Post reports that " JiWire's venues include New York's JFK, Chicago's Midway and O'Hare airports, and Washington Dulles.Imagine. Microsoft and Google,joining hands to bring you free WiFi in terminals across the country. I love it when capitalism gets into the holiday spirit. ||||| Call it an early holiday gift from Google to millions of airline passengers. Google said will be offering free Wi-Fi to travelers across the United States starting Tuesday at 47 airports. Google says the Wi-Fi will be available until January 15, 2010. Google says it will also extend the free Wi-Fi offer to Virgin America flights within the continental United States.

 For a complete list of participating airports visit Google's dedicated Free Wi-Fi for the Holidays Website.

 The FAA estimates 100 million people will travel back and forth across the country during the holidays, and those hunkered down in airport terminals due to weather delays will likely appreciate the free Wi-Fi.

 Google has partnered with airports across the country, as well as Time Warner Cable, Boingo Wireless, Advanced Wireless Group and many others to offer Wi-Fi. Because Google's partners don't have a presence in all U.S. airports Google's free Wi-Fi won't cover everybody traveling this season.

 Google's move follows a similar free Wi-Fi offer from Yahoo. On Tuesday, Yahoo announced that it would provide free Wi-Fi for an entire year in New York's Times Square.

 Here is breakdown of how Google's free Wi-Fi offer works:

 Get Online For Free

 Airports across the country offering Google's free Wi-Fi include Boston's Logan Airport, Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Las Vegas' McCarran International, Seattle's SeaTac and many others. But there are some notable absences from Google's free Wi-Fi list including major hubs and popular destinations like Chicago O'Hare, LAX in Los Angeles, Minneapolis-St.Paul, Dallas-Fort Worth and all three New York-area airports. On the upside, however, Google says that Seattle and Burbank airports intend to offer free Wi-Fi for an indefinite period as a result of this free Wi-Fi program.

 Contests and the Spirit of Giving

 Starting next Monday, you will be able to win prizes by submitting photos of yourself using free in-flight or airport Wi-Fi during the holidays. Google doesn't specify what the prizes are or what constitutes a winning photo, but it looks like you'll be submitting photos to Picasa, Google's online photo storage and sharing service. To get more details about the photo contest, you have to enter your e-mail to Google's Holiday Wi-Fi Photo Contest page.

 Image Credit: Flickr user mastermaqGoogle is also encouraging free Wi-Fi users to open their hearts and their wallets this year. When you log on to free Wi-Fi from any of the participating hotspots this season, you will be given the option to give back by donating to your choice of three different charities via Google Checkout. Charities include Climate Savers Computing, One Economy Corporation and Engineers Without Borders USA. Google says it will match donations across all the free Wi-Fi hotspots up to $250,000, and the airport that generates the most donations by January 1, 2010 will receive $15,000 to donate to the charity of their choice. Check out Google's charity page for more information.

 The Fine Print

 Taking a closer look at Google's offer there doesn't seem to be much in the way of sneaky catches--unless you consider a request for donations a catch. Google says you will not need to enter any credit card or other payment information to get the free Wi-Fi, but if you usually buy day passes to Wi-Fi services like Boingo watch out when selecting a network. Among your available wireless networks will be paid hotspots and Google's complimentary Wi-Fi, so make sure you choose the free service and save yourself a few dollars. One other thing Google doesn't address in its announcement is whether its gift of free Wi-Fi will be ad supported or not.

 You should also know that Google says it "will have access to some aggregate, non-personally identifiable information." This should not come as a surprise to regular Google users, but if you're squeamish about Google and its data practices then free Wi-Fi may not be the gift for you this year.

 For more information check out Google's free Wi-Fi FAQ page.

 Connect with Ian Paul on Twitter (@ianpaul). |||||


News article:

A record number of people committed suicide last year by jumping off the George Washington Bridge.

 Eighteen people plunged to their deaths from the 212-foot-high span in 2012, compared with the previous high of 13 jumpers in 2010, Port Authority records reveal.

 There also were 43 attempted suicides from the bridge last year — an all-time high, too, law-enforcement sources said.

 The 81-year-old bridge has been suicide central for decades. Its annual number of jumpers typically dwarfs the totals for all other local bridges combined, the sources said.

 A veteran PA police official said the spike might be tied to rough economic times.

 After a cluster of suicides in early May, PA police acting Chief of Department John Ryan ordered that police foot and car patrols be intensified.

 Paul Nunziato, president of the PA Police Benevolent Association, has encouraged the agency to update the closed-circuit television system on the bridge. ||||| FORT LEE — A Port Authority police officer made a dramatic rescue of a man attempting to leap to his death from the George Washington Bridge Tuesday night.

 Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman said that around 10 p.m., Officer Jesse Turano received a report of a potentially suicidal male.

 The man had just walked past a security guard stationed on the eastern end of the bridge and onto its north walkway, ignoring the guard's commands to stop.

 Turano located the man, a 40-year-old Queens resident, and turned on the emergency light on his cruiser to get his attention. Instead of stopping, however, the man sped up, running along the walkway, seeingly intent on making the more than 200-foot plunge into the Hudson River.

 "The man then grabbed the outer railing of the bridge and tried to jump, but Officer Turano grabbed him around the waist while the man was airborne, pulled him back onto the walkway and secured him with handcuffs," Coleman said.

 Medical units were called to the scene, and the man was taken to Bergen Regional Medical Center for evaluation. ||||| FORT LEE — Preventing a man from jumping off the George Washington Bridge is an heroic feat, that’s for sure.

 But when you do it over and over, the word "superhero" comes to mind.

 Port Authority Police Officer Jesse Turano was patrolling the bridge in his cruiser at about 10 p.m. Tuesday, toward the end of his regular shift, when he got a call about a pedestrian who had ignored a security guard’s order not to venture onto the closed walkway on the north side of the bridge’s upper level.

 Turano, a seven-year veteran assigned to the bridge since 2010, cruised the far-right lane, closest to the walkway, where first he encountered the female security guard and then the man who had ignored her order.

 "I asked him to stop several times and he refused," said Turano, 33, who lives in West Milford. "I kept driving, and as I looked at him I got the sense that he was possibly emotionally disturbed. I could just tell by his mannerisms and his behavior."

 In the nick of time, Turano chased down the would-be jumper, grabbed him around the waist and hauled him back to safety just as the man tried to fling himself over the railing.

 Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman said Wednesday that Turano has saved at least four other would-be jumpers on this bridge this year.

 Turano shrugged off the figure and said it wasn’t something he and other officers kept track of.

 Turano said he tried to stop the man by turning on his flashers, and eventually got out of his cruiser and climbed over the railing separating the bridge roadway from the walkway.

 He said he followed the man as he walked at an increasingly brisk pace, his hands in his pockets, clearly trying to keep his distance from the officer. The water side of the walkway is bound by a three-foot masonry wall, topped by a metal railing extending up another couple of feet.

 Turano ordered the man several times to take his hands out of his pockets. When he finally did, the officer rushed him.

 CONNECT WITH US

 On mobile or desktop: • Like The Star-Ledger on Facebook • Follow @starledger on Twitter And check out our redesigned mobile site by visiting NJ.com from any mobile browser.

 "All of a sudden he put his hands on the outer railing," Turano said. "He put his foot on the cement, and he went to kick off the cement, and I just jumped at him. I put my right arm around his waist, then I wrapped my left arm around him, and once I got a secure grip on him I used my body weight to pull him down onto the walkway.

 "I handcuffed him for both of our safety, then called for back up."

 Turano rode in the ambulance with the man to Bergen Regional Medical Center, where he was admitted for psychological evaluation. The man, who was not identified, told Turano he’d been out of work for three years and was tired of looking for a job.

 "He said he had enough and he wanted to kill himself," Turano said. "He kept thanking me and I said the best thanks you can give me is if you get yourself some help."

 The GWB had a record 43 suicide attempts in 2012, 18 of them resulting in death, the New York Post reported in January.

 Bobby Egbert, a spokesman for the Port Authority Policemen’s Benevolent Association, called Turano "an exceptional example of the dedication to duty that these police officers have."

 Turano took it in stride.

 "I guess its always good if you save somebody’s life," he said. "But I don’t really think about it too much."

 RELATED COVERAGE

 • George Washington Bridge saw record 18 suicides in 2012

 • Fatal leap from George Washington Bridge is first of 2013

  |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Port Authority Police Officer Jesse Turano was patrolling the George Washington Bridge Tuesday night when he got a call about a man who had entered a closed walkway, even after a security guard ordered him not to. When he got there, Turano "could just tell by his mannerisms" that the man "was possibly emotionally disturbed," he tells the Star-Ledger. When the man put his hands on the outer railing and braced himself to kick off, Turano sprang into action. "Officer Turano grabbed him around the waist while the man was airborne [and] pulled him back onto the walkway," a Port Authority rep tells NJ.com. All of which might be amazing for some people, but not for Turano—it was the fifth time this year he has stopped a would-be jumper, says the rep. Turano shrugs off any suggestion that he is, in the Star-Ledger's words, a "superhero." "I guess it's always good if you save somebody's life," he says. "But I don't really think about it too much." The jumper, at least, seemed appreciative. "He kept thanking me and I said the best thanks you can give me is if you get yourself some help." The New York Post reports that 2012 saw a record number of suicides on the bridge: 18, as well as 43 attempts.


News article:

Pressure mounts on House GOP to vote on China currency bill By Molly K. Hooper - House Republican leaders are under mounting pressure to pass a China currency bill that is poised to clear the Senate.

 Democratic leaders in the Senate are expected to roundly criticize the House if it does not act on what they are calling a major jobs bill. The currency measure could become a leading issue on the campaign trail in 2012, and anxious Republican rank-and-file members have said they will buck Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) if necessary. China has been accused of undervaluing its currency, the renminbi, which has led to an unfair trade advantage over the U.S.

 Boehner has called the China currency bill "dangerous," but 99 House Republicans voted for such a bill last year in the Democratic-controlled House. Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) voted against it in 2010.

 Republican leadership has warned its members against signing the discharge petition, but GOP lawmakers said that they will join forces with Democrats on the petition if President Obama commits to signing the bill.

 One Midwest GOP lawmaker told The Hill, “I’ll sign it … and others will sign it, if the president agrees to sign the bill.”

 A separate Great Lakes lawmaker added that he wanted to hear the president’s intentions before signing a discharge petition, noting that Obama didn’t state his position at a Thursday afternoon press conference.

 “I’m eager to hear the president’s position on it — will he sign it? I think it’s very important to know whether or not the president of the United States supports an international monetary issue of that magnitude, and I didn’t hear an answer,” the lawmaker said on the condition of anonymity.

 When asked to clarify his position on the bill at the press conference, Obama stated, “I don't want a situation where we're just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that they're probably not going to be upheld by the World Trade Organization, for example, and then suddenly U.S. companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanctions.”

 Obama added, “We've got a — I think we've got a strong case to make, but we've just got to make sure that we do it in a way that's going to be effective.”

 Democratic Rep. Mark Critz (Pa.), who is spearheading the discharge petition on the China currency bill, conceded that Obama’s position is “wishy-washy.” But with the Senate’s momentum, Critz believes that GOP leadership and the president will be forced to act on the matter.

 The Senate bill, buoyed by GOP support, has cleared two procedural hurdles and is expected to clear the upper chamber soon.

 Critz said: “The administration didn’t say emphatically that they were against it. They obviously didn’t come out and say they were all for it either so I can’t predict what this administration’s going to do. I think there’s enough, populist support for doing something. I think it’s sort of a snowball that’s rolling. I don’t know that whatever the administration’s thoughts are, that it’s something they can stop once it gets rolling."

 Critz has gathered 177 signatures for his petition.

 Boehner last week called the bill “dangerous” on separate occasions, and called out Obama for refusing to clarify the White House's policy on the bill.

 The Speaker on Thursday said that “for the Congress of the United States to pass legislation to force the Chinese to do what is arguably very difficult to do, I think is wrong. It's dangerous. You could start a trade war. And a trade war, given the economic uncertainty here and all around the world is, is — it's just very dangerous and we should not be engaged in this.”

 Earlier in the week, Cantor was more circumspect, saying he wanted to hear what the administration thinks of the Senate bill.

 Boehner and Cantor are in a politically tough position. They know that New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who heads the Senate Democratic communications shop and has been working on the China currency matter for years, will hammer House Republicans on the popular bill. Inaction by the House could cause politically vulnerable Republicans to break publicly with their leaders, fracturing the GOP conference as they prepare to retain their new majority in the 2012 elections.

 The situation gives Schumer the upper hand in another way because it strikes at the heart of a House Republican talking point — that the Senate is the graveyard of legislation that would help the ailing economy.

 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a long-time critic of China, is also beating the drum for action. In a release, Pelosi said, "By demanding that China end its manipulation of its currency, we could level the playing field for American workers and businesses, and cut our trade deficit with China — at no cost to taxpayers. Now is the time for the House Republican leadership to stand with American workers by allowing the House to pass the bipartisan China currency bill, and put more Americans back to work."

 Democrats could also use Boehner's words against him. During the contentious debate over funding the government, Boehner last month said, "I have no fear in allowing the House to work its will."

 Boehner, a veteran of the legislative process, appears to have some options. He could move a House bill that is different than the Senate version, putting the onus on the White House to help negotiate a deal between the chambers. That would likely satisfy House Republicans who favor action on China currency while also giving them political cover for their reelection races.

 Last year, 99 House Republicans voted for the currency legislation that passed in a vote of 348-79. Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and other high-ranking Republicans were among the co-sponsors of the bill; Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) also voted for it. Roskam and Upton told The Hill that they have no intention of signing a discharge petition.

 Rogers raised some eyebrows last week when he signed the discharge petition before removing his name the following day.

 Rogers explained to The Hill, “Well, I did it in the spur of the moment. I didn’t realize what it was all about.”

 Asked if leaders applied pressure, Rogers said that “leadership has taken a very strong position — and I sort of consider myself in a leadership role.”

 Critz thinks that Rogers knew exactly what he was doing when he signed the petition: “Obviously that was a shot across somebody’s bow — he’s been around too long. Because you’ve got to walk up ... request it and then sign it."

 The Pennsylvania Democrat intends to continue his attempt to convince reluctant Republicans to sign the petition.

 Fellow Pennsylvania delegation colleagues Reps. Jim Gerlach (R) and Tim Murphy (R) have been strong proponents of the currency bill.

 Gerlach said, however, that he would need to talk to leadership before signing onto a discharge petition.

 “I’d have to talk to our leadership about where they are on this whole thing, where it may go, before I could sign it — but I’m for the bill,” Gerlach told The Hill.

 “I think the Chinese need to be sent a signal that they need to change the way they are trading with us – and I think this bill does that,” Gerlach said.

 A colleague familiar with Murphy’s situation says that he “wants to sign” the discharge petition but is “trying to work it internally because [he is a] team player so he is trying to get it through the normal channels.”

 But an aide in Murphy’s office told The Hill that Murphy “doesn’t plan to sign it because it’s now being used more as a political weapon against Republicans than as a process measure to effect a policy change. The obstacles preventing the U.S. from holding China accountable for currency manipulation aren't found in the House or with Republicans for that matter.”

 That position clashes with a press release that the Pennsylvania Republican issued last month.

 On Sept. 20, Murphy demanded that Congress take up “his bill, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which would hold China accountable for its illegal currency manipulation” that “died due to inaction by the Senate and administration.”

 Murphy cited a report by the Economic Policy Institute that the “U.S.-China trade deficit cost Americans 2.8 million jobs this past decade.”

 “Congress and the White House cannot stand by as factories shutter and millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs continue to disappear. Enacting H.R. 639 would send a message immediately that America intends to remain the largest manufacturing nation in the world,” Murphy said in the statement.

 View Comments House Democrats are attempting to force a floor vote on the legislation through a discharge petition, which requires 218 signatures.Republican leadership has warned its members against signing the discharge petition, but GOP lawmakers said that they will join forces with Democrats on the petition if President Obama commits to signing the bill.One Midwest GOP lawmaker told The Hill, “I’ll sign it … and others will sign it, if the president agrees to sign the bill.”A separate Great Lakes lawmaker added that he wanted to hear the president’s intentions before signing a discharge petition, noting that Obama didn’t state his position at a Thursday afternoon press conference.“I’m eager to hear the president’s position on it — will he sign it? I think it’s very important to know whether or not the president of the United States supports an international monetary issue of that magnitude, and I didn’t hear an answer,” the lawmaker said on the condition of anonymity.When asked to clarify his position on the bill at the press conference, Obama stated, “I don't want a situation where we're just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that they're probably not going to be upheld by the World Trade Organization, for example, and then suddenly U.S. companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanctions.”Obama added, “We've got a — I think we've got a strong case to make, but we've just got to make sure that we do it in a way that's going to be effective.”Democratic Rep. Mark Critz (Pa.), who is spearheading the discharge petition on the China currency bill, conceded that Obama’s position is “wishy-washy.” But with the Senate’s momentum, Critz believes that GOP leadership and the president will be forced to act on the matter.The Senate bill, buoyed by GOP support, has cleared two procedural hurdles and is expected to clear the upper chamber soon.Critz said: “The administration didn’t say emphatically that they were against it. They obviously didn’t come out and say they were all for it either so I can’t predict what this administration’s going to do. I think there’s enough, populist support for doing something. I think it’s sort of a snowball that’s rolling. I don’t know that whatever the administration’s thoughts are, that it’s something they can stop once it gets rolling."Critz has gathered 177 signatures for his petition.Boehner last week called the bill “dangerous” on separate occasions, and called out Obama for refusing to clarify the White House's policy on the bill.The Speaker on Thursday said that “for the Congress of the United States to pass legislation to force the Chinese to do what is arguably very difficult to do, I think is wrong. It's dangerous. You could start a trade war. And a trade war, given the economic uncertainty here and all around the world is, is — it's just very dangerous and we should not be engaged in this.”Earlier in the week, Cantor was more circumspect, saying he wanted to hear what the administration thinks of the Senate bill.Boehner and Cantor are in a politically tough position. They know that New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who heads the Senate Democratic communications shop and has been working on the China currency matter for years, will hammer House Republicans on the popular bill. Inaction by the House could cause politically vulnerable Republicans to break publicly with their leaders, fracturing the GOP conference as they prepare to retain their new majority in the 2012 elections.The situation gives Schumer the upper hand in another way because it strikes at the heart of a House Republican talking point — that the Senate is the graveyard of legislation that would help the ailing economy.House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a long-time critic of China, is also beating the drum for action. In a release, Pelosi said, "By demanding that China end its manipulation of its currency, we could level the playing field for American workers and businesses, and cut our trade deficit with China — at no cost to taxpayers. Now is the time for the House Republican leadership to stand with American workers by allowing the House to pass the bipartisan China currency bill, and put more Americans back to work."Democrats could also use Boehner's words against him. During the contentious debate over funding the government, Boehner last month said, "I have no fear in allowing the House to work its will."Boehner, a veteran of the legislative process, appears to have some options. He could move a House bill that is different than the Senate version, putting the onus on the White House to help negotiate a deal between the chambers. That would likely satisfy House Republicans who favor action on China currency while also giving them political cover for their reelection races.Last year, 99 House Republicans voted for the currency legislation that passed in a vote of 348-79. Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and other high-ranking Republicans were among the co-sponsors of the bill; Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) also voted for it. Roskam and Upton told The Hill that they have no intention of signing a discharge petition.Rogers raised some eyebrows last week when he signed the discharge petition before removing his name the following day.Rogers explained to The Hill, “Well, I did it in the spur of the moment. I didn’t realize what it was all about.”Asked if leaders applied pressure, Rogers said that “leadership has taken a very strong position — and I sort of consider myself in a leadership role.”Critz thinks that Rogers knew exactly what he was doing when he signed the petition: “Obviously that was a shot across somebody’s bow — he’s been around too long. Because you’ve got to walk up ... request it and then sign it."The Pennsylvania Democrat intends to continue his attempt to convince reluctant Republicans to sign the petition.Fellow Pennsylvania delegation colleagues Reps. Jim Gerlach (R) and Tim Murphy (R) have been strong proponents of the currency bill.Gerlach said, however, that he would need to talk to leadership before signing onto a discharge petition.“I’d have to talk to our leadership about where they are on this whole thing, where it may go, before I could sign it — but I’m for the bill,” Gerlach told The Hill.He took issue with the notion that the measure would somehow start a trade war with China.“I think the Chinese need to be sent a signal that they need to change the way they are trading with us – and I think this bill does that,” Gerlach said.A colleague familiar with Murphy’s situation says that he “wants to sign” the discharge petition but is “trying to work it internally because [he is a] team player so he is trying to get it through the normal channels.”But an aide in Murphy’s office told The Hill that Murphy “doesn’t plan to sign it because it’s now being used more as a political weapon against Republicans than as a process measure to effect a policy change. The obstacles preventing the U.S. from holding China accountable for currency manipulation aren't found in the House or with Republicans for that matter.”That position clashes with a press release that the Pennsylvania Republican issued last month.On Sept. 20, Murphy demanded that Congress take up “his bill, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which would hold China accountable for its illegal currency manipulation” that “died due to inaction by the Senate and administration.”Murphy cited a report by the Economic Policy Institute that the “U.S.-China trade deficit cost Americans 2.8 million jobs this past decade.”“Congress and the White House cannot stand by as factories shutter and millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs continue to disappear. Enacting H.R. 639 would send a message immediately that America intends to remain the largest manufacturing nation in the world,” Murphy said in the statement. Source:

 http://thehill.com/homenews/house/186419-pressure-mounts-on-house-gop-to-vote-on-china-bill The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | Opinion View News by Subject:

 Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & Infrastructure ||||| A 100 yuan banknote (R) is placed next to a $100 banknote in this picture illustration taken in Beijing November 7, 2010.

 BEIJING (Reuters) - China warned the United States that it would damage relations, and American jobs, if it forces Beijing to let its currency rise under a law to be voted on in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.

 Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai on Monday underlined Beijing's opposition to the bill, saying it could trigger a trade war and hold back global economic recovery. He said that relations could also be hurt by U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.

 "(The currency bill) in no way represents the reality of the economic and trade relationship between China and the United States, and it might have an adverse impact on the development of the relations between the two countries," he said.

 "Should the proposed legislation become law, the only result would be a trade war between China and the U.S. and that would be a lose-lose situation for both sides," said Cui, who currently heads the China delegation for G20 negotiations.

 China's central bank, and commerce and foreign ministries last week jointly warned that enactment of the proposed currency law could lead to a trade war between the world's two top economies.

 "If this type of situation occurs, of course it would be detrimental to the development of economic and trade relations between China and the U.S. and detrimental to U.S. economic and job growth," Cui said. "At the same time, it would hinder global economic recovery."

 The White House has voiced concerns that the legislation, which calls for tariffs on imports from countries with deliberately undervalued currencies, could violate international trade rules.

 Many economists say China holds down the value of its yuan to give its exporters an edge in global markets.

 Beijing says it is committed to gradual reform of the yuan, which has risen 30 percent against the dollar since 2005.

 U.S. supporters of the bill say the Senate is almost certain to approve it. But the bill faces stronger opposition in the House where it may never face a vote.

 PERSISTENT IRRITANT

 Cui also reiterated China's stance that U.S. arms sales to Taiwan seriously undermine the nation's core interests and would harm ties between Washington and Beijing, weeks after the United States said it would sell $5.85 billion in military hardware to the island China calls a breakaway province.

 The sales to Taiwan have been a persistent irritant in Sino-U.S. ties, adding to economic strains between Washington and Beijing.

 "These arms sales are not consistent with the trend and requirement of peaceful relations currently prevailing across the Taiwan Strait," Cui said. "From a long term perspective, I also don't think it serves the United States' own interests."

 The Obama administration said last week that it is weighing fresh arms sales to Taiwan as part of a sweeping effort to deter any Chinese attack on the island.

 Such supplies would be on top of plans sent to Congress on September 21 to sell new hardware and defense services, including upgrades for Taiwan's 145 F-16 A/B fighter aircraft, bought in 1992.

 Cui said China welcomed a positive and constructive U.S. military presence in the Pacific, but added that "some outside powers" had inflamed tensions in the disputed South China Sea. He did not specify which countries he was referring to.

 "I think some people are stirring up the issue. That is to say, some people don't want to see stability in the region or the development of relations between China and relevant countries," Cui said.

 China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan have conflicting claims of sovereignty over parts of the potentially oil-and gas-rich body of water crossed by key shipping lanes and dotted with uninhabitable small islands, rocks and reefs.

 China's growing military might at sea is triggering regional jitters that have fed into long-standing territorial disputes, but Beijing insists it is merely holding to its centuries-old sovereignty over the waters.

 (Reporting by Michael Martina, Writing by Sui-Lee Wee; Editing by Ken Wills and Jonathan Thatcher) |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– A senior Chinese official warned today that the US is in for a “trade war” if it enacts a Senate bill that would punish China for artificially keeping its currency low. The bill “in no way represents the reality of the economic and trade relationship between China and the US,” a Chinese foreign minister tells Reuters. “The only result would be a trade war … that would be a lose-lose situation for both sides." The bill, which seems all but certain to pass the Senate, would place a tariff on imports from countries that purposely hold down their currency—something China has long been accused of doing to give its manufacturers a competitive edge overseas. But the White House says the bill may violate international trade rules, and John Boehner called it “dangerous,” even as pressure mounts for him to bring it to the floor, the Hill reports.


Summarize this article:

Rapper Eminem performed at the Bonnaroo music festival in Tennessee this weekend, causing panic among concertgoers when one of his songs ended with realistic gunshot sound effects. The hip-hop star’s decision to use the violent sound effects incited a backlash on social media, with many people saying the noises were inappropriate given the prevalence of mass shootings in the U.S.

 In videos uploaded to social media, fans in the crowd can be heard screaming and seen ducking as the gunshot sounds go off at the end of the Eminem’s song “Kill you.” People criticized his decision, with some saying there should have been a warning if potentially traumatizing or triggering sound effects were going to be used.

 Fans defended him on social media, pointing out that he has incorporated gunshot sound effects into his music many times before, including just one week ago at the Governor’s Ball Music Festival in New York City.

 Others pointed out that Eminem wrote the song in 2002, prior to recent mass shootings and defended his choice to use the realistic effects.

 The rapper’s spokesperson said in a statement to TIME:

 “Contrary to inaccurate reports, Eminem does not use gunshot sound effects during his live show. The effect used by Eminem in his set at Bonnaroo was a pyrotechnic concussion which creates a loud boom. He has used this effect — as have hundreds other artists — in his live show for over 10 years, including previous US festival dates in 2018 without complaint.” ||||| Eminem performs on stage during the MTV EMAs 2017 held at The SSE Arena, Wembley on Nov. 12, 2017 in London.

 Eminem is drawing criticism from festival-goers who were frightened and upset over the rapper's use of sound effects that to some fans resembled gunshots during his headlining performance at Bonnaroo Saturday night (June 9).

 Many fans screamed and ducked as a series of loud blasts rang through the crowd during Eminem's performance of "Kill You," from his 2000 album, The Marshall Mathers LP. The nervous reaction arrives at a time when concert-goers are on edge following the deadly mass shooting at last year's Route 91 country music festival in Las Vegas.

 But a spokesman for Eminem told Billboard in an email that "contrary to inaccurate reports, Eminem does not use gunshot sound effects during his live show. The effect used by Eminem in his set at Bonnaroo was a pyrotechnic concussion which creates a loud boom. He has used this effect - as have hundreds of other artists - in his live show for over 10 years, including previous U.S. festival dates, without complaint."

 Social media star Andrea Russett was one of many in attendance at the Manchester, Tenn., festival who was traumatized by the sounds during Eminem's set.

 "I hate to be the one to say it, but being someone who suffers from very mild PTSD, it was EXTREMELY irresponsible and distasteful to end songs w the shot gun sound effect," Russett tweeted. "I have grown up loving eminem and his music but i was extremely triggered to the point of tears."

 She continued, "To hear a gun shot sound effect and see the entire crowd drop to the floor out of instinct is not funny, cute, or amusing. this is the sad reality that we are living. this is not funny or even something to be joked about."

 Some fans came to Eminem's defense, noting that the hip-hop star has used the gunshot sound effects during past performances.

 "Eminem has ended Kill You with the gun shot effects for (at least) 6 years now and this is the first time someone ever complains," one Twitter user pointed out.

 See more reactions on social media below.

 @AndreaRussett @sandwahhh @macykatemusic found this on instagram, the way everyone screams and the camera drops is terrifying pic.twitter.com/mZRwdqoWB4 — Sydney (@Sydneyheight1) June 10, 2018

 i hate to be the one to say it, but being someone who suffers from very mild PTSD, it was EXTREMELY irresponsible and distasteful to end songs w the shot gun sound effect. i have grown up loving eminem and his music but i was extremely triggered to the point of tears. — Andrea Russett (@AndreaRussett) June 10, 2018

 to hear a gun shot sound effect and see the entire crowd drop to the floor out of instinct is not funny, cute, or amusing. this is the sad reality that we are living. this is not funny or even something to be joked about. — Andrea Russett (@AndreaRussett) June 10, 2018

 it just happened again. 3 times. we left the concert area and it still sounds so real from far away and everyone ducked again. we’re all shaking. NOT OKAY EMINEM. — red (@sandwahhh) June 10, 2018

 i was having a good time at eminem’s set then he played a realistic gunshot noise. the whole crowd ducked and i’ve never felt more traumatized and ready to panic. completely inappropriate — red (@sandwahhh) June 10, 2018

 doesn’t matter if eminem has had gun shot effects in the past, the crowd was actually scared and shaken up because of how actually realistic it is — red (@sandwahhh) June 10, 2018

 Not for nothing this isn’t the first festival Eminem has performed this year. No one cared/complained about the gunshot sound effects until little miss princess andrea russett and her friend did. LMAO — babye (@gen_natt) June 10, 2018

 If you can’t handle a sound of a gunshot, do not go to an Eminem concert Andrea Russett — Shay (@HerShayness) June 10, 2018

 So apparently Eminem is performing at Bonnaroo right now and a bunch of younger people are losing their shit because his set included realistic gunshot sound effects. I dunno what song(s) it was from, but it sounds to me like a bunch of people became Eminem fans post 2002. — Trill Walton (@Mooque) June 10, 2018

 are y’all really that mad at eminem over a song from 2002 that has a gun sound effect — j (@arcticsnessa) June 10, 2018

 coming from a performing stand point, i get the effect of sound effects on stage, but there’s a certain point that cross’s the line. i’m one of eminem’s number 1 fans but to hear 3 gun shots coming straight from his set had me scared af. not gonna lie. especially in this world... — M (@macykatemusic) June 10, 2018

 Honestly, fuck Eminem. Added gunshots to his set. Had to leave. So disgusting and distasteful. Shame on you. — Bella Lowery (@helloitsbella) June 10, 2018 ||||| UPDATE: A rep for Eminem gave E! News the following statement, "Contrary to inaccurate reports, Eminem does not use gunshot sound effects during his live show. The effect used by Eminem in his set at Bonnaroo was a pyrotechnic concussion creates a loud boom. He has used this effect—as have hundreds other artists—in his live show for over 10 years, including previous US festival dates in 2018 without complaint."

 ______

 Some Eminem fans were left shaken by his performance at 2018 Bonnaroo music festival in Tennessee because they incorporated sound effects that sounded like gunshots, and the rapper was soon the target of an online backlash.

 While many were quick to point out that his music and concerts have for years incorporated such sounds for years, his set on Saturday triggered panic among others, and later, debate about whether the effects are appropriate in a time when nerves are already frayed in wake of the 2016 Paris nightclub shooting, the 2017 massacre at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas and the 2017 bombing at Ariana Grande's Manchester concert.

 "I hate to be the one to say it, but being someone who suffers from very mild PTSD, it was EXTREMELY irresponsible and distasteful to end songs w the shot gun sound effect. i have grown up loving Eminem and his music but I was extremely triggered to the point of tears," tweeted popular YouTube star Andrea Russett, 22.

 "To hear a gun shot sound effect and see the entire crowd drop to the floor out of instinct is not funny, cute, or amusing," she continued. "This is the sad reality that we are living. this is not funny or even something to be joked about." |||||

– Gunshot sound effects at an outdoor music festival, when memories of last year's Las Vegas concert massacre are still fresh, goes way beyond poor taste, critics told Eminem after his Saturday night set caused panic at the Bonnaroo festival in Tennessee. Witnesses say some fans screamed, ducked, or dropped to the ground after the sounds were heard at the end of "Kill You," Billboard reports. "I hate to be the one to say it, but being someone who suffers from very mild PTSD, it was EXTREMELY irresponsible and distasteful to end songs w the shot gun sound effect," tweeted social media star Andrea Russett. "To hear a gun shot sound effect and see the entire crowd drop to the floor out of instinct is not funny, cute, or amusing," she added, per E! Online. Critics said that after the killing of 58 people in last year's Las Vegas mass shooting and other deadly attacks on concerts, Eminem should at least have warned people there could be gunshot noises during his set. But plenty of fans came to the rapper's defense on social media, arguing that he has used similar sound effects without problems during countless other live performances, including at a New York City music festival just a week ago, Time reports. An Eminem rep said the noises weren't even gunshot effects. "Contrary to inaccurate reports, Eminem does not use gunshot sound effects during his live show. The effect used by Eminem in his set at Bonnaroo was a pyrotechnic concussion (that) creates a loud boom. He has used this effect—as have hundreds other artists—in his live show for over 10 years," a spokesperson said in a statement. (A body was found Friday at a Bonnaroo campsite.)


Here is a news article: A girl lights a candle in memory of the victims of Wednesday's attack on a vocational college in Kerch, Crimea, at the memorial stone with the word Kerch in the Alexander Garden near the Kremlin, Moscow,... (Associated Press)

 A girl lights a candle in memory of the victims of Wednesday's attack on a vocational college in Kerch, Crimea, at the memorial stone with the word Kerch in the Alexander Garden near the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia, Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018. A top official in Crimea says authorities are searching for a possible... (Associated Press)

 MOSCOW (AP) — While Crimean authorities searched for clues that might help explain why a teenager gunned down 20 people at his vocational school before killing himself, the stunned city of Kerch prepared to say farewell to the victims.

 Thousands of residents were expected to attend the funerals of most of the victims Friday. The burials are taking place in mainland Russia, which annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

 Little information has emerged about the 18-year-old gunman, Vladislav Roslyakov. Authorities said they were investigating if he had an accomplice in Wednesday's shotgun massacre at Kerch Polytechnic College.

 Teachers and classmates have described him as a shy person with few friends. A computer taken from the home where Roslyakov lived with his parents revealed little, a Crimean official said Thursday.

 "When they did a search and saw the computer, all information, messages and such had been deleted," Crimean human rights ombudswoman Lyudmila Lubina was quoted as saying by Russian news agency Tass.

 Roslyakov was initially described as the only person involved in the carnage at the school. But Sergei Aksyonov, the Kremlin-appointed head of Crimea, told Russian news agencies Thursday it's still possible the student had help.

 "The point is to find out who was coaching him for this crime," Aksyonov said. "He was acting on his own here, we know that. But this scoundrel could not have prepared this attack on his own, in my opinion, and according to my colleagues."

 Residents brought flowers and toys to a makeshift memorial outside the school on Thursday morning. Many were in tears, struggling to speak.

 The Kerch attack was by far the deadliest carried out by a student in Russia, raising questions about school security. The vocational school had a front desk, but no security guards. Russia's National Guard said Thursday it has now deployed officers and riot police to all schools and colleges in Kerch.

 Wednesday's violence also was the deadliest school attack in Russia since the 2004 Beslan attack by Chechen separatists, which left 333 people dead, many of them children, during a three-day siege. Hundreds of others were wounded.

 As the day wore on Thursday, neither Russian investigators nor other authorities followed up on Aksyonov's comments hinting at a wider attack plot. President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, portrayed the mass shooting in Kerch as a "result of globalization" — forces that were exporting bad practices into Russia.

 Speaking at an international policy conference, Putin compared Roslyakov's assault to the numerous school shootings in the United States. In the past few years, authorities have said several school attacks in Russia allegedly were inspired by gun violence in the U.S.

 Putin said that in his view, teenagers getting guns and going on shooting rampages meant adults had failed to offer them alternatives to violence.

 "Young people with a fragile mental state are creating false heroes for themselves," he said. "That means that all of us, not only in Russia, but in the world on the whole, are reacting poorly to the fast-changing realities."

 Russia has fairly strict gun legislation. Civilians can own only hunting rifles and smoothbore shotguns and must undergo significant background checks. Roslyakov had only recently received a permit to own a shotgun and had bought 150 cartridges just a few days ago, according to local officials.

 Asked about possible plans to further restrict gun ownership in Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the government would wait for the results of the Kerch investigation.

 Since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, Russian authorities repeatedly warned of a terrorism threat from unnamed Ukrainian nationalists and ethnic Tatars, an indigenous Crimean people. But despite acts of public defiance and rallies, both groups haven't engaged in any violent activities in Crimea.

 The death toll in Kerch, excluding Roslyakov, climbed Thursday to 20 after one of the wounded died in a hospital, according to Russian news agency Tass.

 Dozens of people remained hospitalized in Kerch, and at least 10 with severe injuries were being airlifted to top Russian hospitals for surgery, Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova said.

 Most victims died from gunshot wounds, authorities said. Many others had wounds from an improvised explosive device that went off packed with shrapnel. Skvortsova said some victims had their legs or feet blown off.

 "The kids' muscles have been 'minced' with small metal objects," Skvortsova said. "In those who have their organs ripped apart, we are finding metal balls in kidneys, intestines, in blood vessels. That is how powerful the blast was."

 Taisiya Roslyakova, the grandmother of the young man said to have carried out the attack, told the Komsomolskaya Pravda daily Thursday that her grandson was a kind boy who always helped her with chores, unlike his father.

 She said Roslyakov did not have many friends and spent all his time indoors playing computer games. She said she last saw him a week ago when he stopped by and asked if he could take all the family photo albums.

 ___

 Vladimir Isachenkov and Jim Heintz in Moscow contributed. ||||| (CNN) As Russians struggle to come to terms with a horrific US-style school shooting in Crimea, which has left at least 20 people dead and dozens injured, Kremlin-controlled media are blaming the "corrupting influence" of the West for inspiring the attack.

 State television has broadcast shocking images of the rampage, much of it recorded by teenage college students trying to flee the suspected lone gunman, named as 18-year old Vladislav Roslyakov, as he stalked the corridors shooting classmates.

 Broadcaster RT, funded by the Kremlin, has spoken of the "shocking resemblance" between the Kerch attack and the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in the United States.

 It is for investigators to establish a link, RT says. But alongside photographs of the shooters in both incidents, wearing strikingly similar outfits, RT points out that the perpetrators of both attacks were the same age, hit their school cafeterias with explosive devices, killed their classmates and finally committed suicide in their school libraries.

 Medical workers treat injured people outside the college building in Kerch, Crimea.

 In other media, the blame for the Kerch attack was more directly focused.

 Read More ||||| Image copyright AFP Image caption Shocked mourners gathered at a makeshift shrine at the college

 The deadly gun and bomb attack on a college in Crimea "appears to be a result of globalisation", Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

 "On social media, on the internet, we see the creation of entire communities. Everything started with the tragic events in schools in the US," he said.

 Fifteen students and five teachers were killed in Wednesday's attack on the technical college in Kerch.

 Officials named the killer as Vladislav Roslyakov, 18, who took his own life.

 He was a fourth-year student at the college in the city in Crimea - the southern peninsula annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014.

 'People have lost limbs'

 On Wednesday, a huge nail-bomb blast ripped through the college's cafeteria, before the killer stormed through the building, shooting people at close range with a pump-action hunting rifle.

 Russian Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova said the explosion from a home-made device had showered people with shrapnel.

 "Some victims' internal organs were ruptured, we're finding washers and ballbearings in their livers, intestines, blood vessels," she said.

 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Emergency crews respond to the attack

 "Limbs have been amputated - people have lost feet and shins," she said.

 Some of the critically injured were being transferred to hospitals as far away as Moscow.

 The authorities in Crimea have declared three days of mourning. A prayer service was held for the victims at a makeshift shrine near the college.

 Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Prayers were said for the victims near the college in Kerch

 The rampage is the deadliest attack to have taken place in Crimea since the Russian annexation.

 That Russian intervention - condemned by many Western powers - marked the start of a conflict pitting Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine against Ukrainian government forces.

 What happened at the college?

 The perpetrator is said to have run from room to room as he fired. Minutes earlier he had left a rucksack containing the nail-bomb in the cafeteria on the ground floor and detonated it remotely, Russian Channel One TV reported.

 Photos later emerged in Russian media purportedly showing his body in the college library.

 The TV report described a scene of devastation and mass panic after the blast. It said doors and windows were shattered in the entrance hall and on the first floor, above the cafeteria. Some students leapt out of the building from a height of 5m (16ft 5in).

 Investigators later said they had found a second explosive device among the gunman's possessions and that it had been disarmed. He was also reported to have several packs of bullets and home-made petrol bombs.

 BBC Russian spoke to witnesses, including Igor Zakharevsky. "I was at the epicentre of the first explosion, at the entrance, near the buffet," he said.

 "I was in complete shock and one of my classmates started pulling me away. Then I heard several shots at intervals of two or three seconds. After a while there was another explosion."

 Marina, an 18-year-old student at the college, said there was "a massive explosion, the windows began to rattle and everyone started screaming".

 "We bolted out of the classroom and ran. There was complete pandemonium in the corridor," she said. "I saw a girl lying near the wall in an unnatural position, others lying on the floor covered in blood. Shots were being fired every five or six seconds.

 The incident was first described as a "terrorist act", but Russia's investigative committee later reclassified it as "mass murder".

 Image copyright AFP Image caption Fresh flowers for Kerch at Moscow's World War Two Hero Cities memorial

 Spate of attacks

 By Steve Rosenberg, BBC News, Moscow

 Until now, if you had told people in Crimea there had been a mass school shooting, most would have thought you were talking about the United States. Now all that has changed.

 The shooting spree in the Kerch Polytechnic has left the peninsula, annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014, in shock. But should it come as such a surprise?

 There have been five attacks in schools in Russia this year where a number of children were injured.

 In Kerch, questions are already being asked: how did Vladislav Roslyakov manage to obtain a licence for a hunting weapon? And how was he able to launch such a deadly attack on his college?

 What do we know about the alleged gunman?

 His precise motives remain unclear. But there are suggestions the fourth-year student had developed a hostile attitude to the college.

 Russia's RBC TV interviewed a friend who said Roslyakov "hated the technical school very much" and had vowed "revenge" on his teachers.

 Image copyright PA Image caption Russian soldiers were deployed outside the school

 It has emerged that he obtained a gun licence when he was 17. His parents are divorced.

 Classmates said Roslyakov was very reserved and had long ago stopped using social networks.

 College teacher Olga Mikhailichenko said he was "a hard-working student, very quiet". A neighbour was quoted as saying "he had no friends".

 The college prepares students for engineering jobs and is reportedly well-equipped. But some students spoke of lax security there. |||||
A summary of this is?

– After Wednesday's massacre at a vocational school in Crimea, Russians are looking for answers—and some of them are looking toward the West. Vladimir Putin said Thursday that the gun and bomb attack carried out by a student in Kerch "appears to be a result of globalization," the BBC reports. "On social media, on the Internet, we see the creation of entire communities," he said. "Everything started with the tragic events in schools in the US." State-funded broadcaster RT has described the attack as having a "shocking resemblance" to the 1999 Columbine mass shooting, with the attackers in both cases setting off explosives in cafeterias, shooting fellow students, and killing themselves in school libraries. Political analyst Sergey Mikheyev blamed the attack on "Western subculture," CNN reports, which "builds its matrix on the cult of violence," he said on state television. "The one who has a weapon in his hands is right. This is a purely American approach to the matter." The death toll in the Kerch attack reached 20—15 students and five teachers—after one of the injured died Thursday, the AP reports. Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova says most victims died from gunshot wounds, but the shrapnel-packed explosive device caused many horrific injuries, with some victims losing their legs or feet. Few details have been released on attacker Vladislav Roslyakov, an 18-year-old student at the school. (Putin said Thursday that Russians killed in a nuclear strike will "go to heaven" as martyrs.)


News article:

Twelve hours after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning primary defeat the leadership scramble is already shifting into high gear.

 House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions is making an aggressive play for the No. 2 spot. The Texas Republican has been calling and emailing lawmakers seeking support for a potential bid to replace Cantor, according to several sources.

 Text Size -

 +

 reset

 House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, the chamber’s No. 3 Republican, has also been speaking with a lot of members. But McCarthy will not engage in a formal campaign until Cantor makes a decision about whether he will stay in leadership for the duration of his term.

 (WATCH: Inside Cantor's stunning loss)

 Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) and Jeb Hensarling (Texas) are all considered potential contenders for the majority leader position.

 ”I am humbled by the many people who have approached me about serving our Republican Conference in a different capacity in the future,” Hensarling said. “There are many ways to advance the causes of freedom and free enterprise, and I am prayerfully considering the best way I can serve in those efforts.”

 Cantor arrived at the Capitol early Wednesday morning and Republican leadership was scheduled to huddle early today. Cantor’s fate will dominate what will happen on the floor and inside the GOP Conference over the next days and weeks.

 (Full results from Virginia)

 Republicans have been privately jockeying for a seat at the leadership table for months. The positioning wasn’t going to explode into the public until after the midterms but Cantor’s shocking primary loss on Tuesday upended that timetable.

 Several GOP sources said that conservative lawmakers will ask for Cantor to step down immediately as majority leader and that they want to have the leadership battle sooner rather than later. There is no discussion of a challenge to Speaker John Boehner, who has been the subject of speculation about whether he will retire after the election or in the next Congress.

 So far, Cantor has not made an announcement about whether he plans to stay in leadership or step down. Cantor is planning to meet with his unofficial “kitchen cabinet” of closest allies in the House later on Wednesday, according to GOP sources.

 (Also on POLITICO: The GOP leadership scramble)

 House Republican Conference Chairman Steve Scalise and Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam have all but openly declared they are running for the whip slot. Both lawmakers have been reaching out to people, but have not formally announced bids for the slot.

 McMorris Rodgers has signaled interest to her allies in both the majority leader and whip slot. She said she was “talking to a lot of people.” But sources close to her added that she has not yet made a decision to run for majority leader or whip.

 Other potential whips include Sessions and Rep. Tom Price (Ga.).

 If leadership races happen in the near term, it could play well for McCarthy and Roskam, who both already have whip teams in place and have been working to curry favor with lawmakers for months. ||||| House Republicans will meet at 4 p.m. Wednesday, less than 24 hours after Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in his primary race.

 The meeting was announced as the House begins to grapple with one of the most unforeseen instances of the toppling of a congressional leader in recent political history.

 Text Size -

 +

 reset Cantor's concession speech

 As Cantor (R-Va.) meets with aides in his Capitol suite, the leadership scramble is shifting into high gear.

 House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions is making an aggressive play for the No. 2 spot. The Texas Republican has been calling and emailing lawmakers seeking support for a potential bid to replace Cantor, according to several sources and a Sessions aide. He sent out a mass text message Tuesday night seeking support.

 (Full results from Virginia)

 House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, the chamber’s No. 3 Republican, has also been speaking with a lot of members. But McCarthy will not engage in a formal campaign until Cantor makes a decision about whether he will stay in leadership for the duration of his term — one of the biggest unanswered questions on Wednesday.

 The strategy for McCarthy of California is to make his ascension appear to be the most logical choice for Republicans. He and Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, another possible contender for the majority leader position, spoke by phone Tuesday night, according to a GOP source familiar with the conversation. The two have a friendly relationship and discussed the leadership situation. But it is unclear if there was any resolution from the discussion.

 Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) are also considered potential contenders for the majority leader position. Jordan has already made calls to some lawmakers.

 GOP Vice Chair Lynn Jenkins (Kansas) would also consider moving up, according to a GOP source.

 (Also on POLITICO: Cantor loses)

 “I am humbled by the many people who have approached me about serving our Republican Conference in a different capacity in the future,” Hensarling said. “There are many ways to advance the causes of freedom and free enterprise, and I am prayerfully considering the best way I can serve in those efforts.”

 Several GOP sources said that conservative lawmakers could ask for Cantor to step down immediately as majority leader. There is no discussion of a challenge to Speaker John Boehner, who has been the subject of speculation about whether he will retire after the election or in the next Congress.

 For months, there has been intense jockeying among Republicans for a seat at the leadership table — amplified by uncertainty over whether Speaker John Boehner would retain the gavel in the next Congress. The positioning wasn’t going to explode into the public until after the midterms but Cantor’s shocking primary loss on Tuesday upended that timetable.

 (PHOTOS: Scenes from Eric Cantor HQ)

 Cantor arrived at the Capitol early Wednesday morning and addressed his fellow Republican leaders in a private meeting. He was pragmatic about the loss and took it in stride while GOP leaders offered their condolences, according to a source in the meeting. GOP insiders said the Virginia Republican is worried about his staff as many expect that he will step down as leader in the near future.

 Until a formal announcement is made, Cantor’s fate will dominate what will happen on the floor and inside the GOP Conference over the next days and weeks.

 If members ask for Cantor to resign his post this year, it will likely be on a member-by-member basis. Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who has been a consistent critic of Republican leadership, said he would not ask Cantor to step-down early.

 “I don’t think much is going to happen the rest of the year. I haven’t thought about him resigning, he has a job to do and he’s got to finish it up,” said Huelskamp.

 (Also on POLITICO: Nancy Pelosi: "Whole new ballgame")

 Huelskamp led the effort in 2012 to oust Boehner as speaker and has been drumming up opposition since to usher in a new set of GOP leaders.

 So far, Cantor has not made an announcement about whether he plans to stay in leadership or step down. Cantor planned to meet with his unofficial “kitchen cabinet” of closest allies on Wednesday but the huddle was canceled.

 Republican Study Committee Chairman Steve Scalise and Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam have all but openly declared they are running for the whip slot. Both lawmakers have been reaching out to people, but have not formally announced bids for the slot.

 Scalise aggressively began texting and calling members Tuesday evening to begin formulating a whip count, sources said.

 McMorris Rodgers has signaled interest to her allies in both the majority leader and whip slot. She said she was “talking to a lot of people.” But sources close to her added that she has not yet made a decision to run for majority leader or whip.

 Other potential whips include Sessions and Georgia Rep. Tom Price.

 If leadership races happen in the near term, it could play well for McCarthy and Roskam, who both already have whip teams in place and have been working to curry favor with lawmakers for months. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Now that majority leader Eric Cantor is out of the running for the next Congress, who will take his place in the GOP leadership? Politico identifies a number of potential frontrunners, starting with current majority whip Kevin McCarthy of California, who is pretty much guaranteed to seek Cantor's old job, party insiders say. House rules committee chair Pete Sessions of Texas is already looking for allies in a bid to replace Cantor, Politico reports. But Texas' Jeb Hensarling, Ohio's Jim Jordan, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington could offer a conservative-wing challenge. If McCarthy leaves the whip position, get ready for another battle—perhaps between McMorris Rodgers, Pete Roskam of Illinois, and Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who has already officially decided to seek the post following colleagues' urging, Politico notes. Conservatives want Cantor to step down now, paving the way to a leadership debate soon. In the coming days, "you’re going to start hearing that people are seriously considering a run. It will be blown up," says an ex-party leadership staffer. "By the end of the week, we’re going to see who is interested and who is not."