News article:

Story highlights "I believe Hillary Clinton has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time," Scowcroft said

 Despite his long history as a Republican adviser, Scowcroft has shaped Democratic views as well

 (CNN) Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, received an endorsement Wednesday from a heavyweight foreign policy adviser to Republican presidents.

 Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and who worked in the White House of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, said Clinton "brings truly unique experience and perspective to the White House."

 His endorsement was released hours after the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump launched a broad attack on Clinton's experience, honesty and foreign policy experience in a 40-minute speech. Scowcroft directly rebutted Trump's claim that Clinton does not have the temperament to lead, citing her experience working on high-pressure issues such as Iran and Israel.

 "She brings deep expertise in international affairs and a sophisticated understanding of the world, which I believe are essential for the commander-in-chief," Scowcroft said.

 His backing follows that of another prominent Republican in national security circles. Richard Armitage, who served in the State and Defense Departments under George W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan, announced last week that he will vote for Clinton over Trump.

 Read More ||||| 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. ||||| The consequences of American non-intervention in Syria have, in some ways, been as bad as the consequences of American intervention in Iraq, though fewer American lives and dollars have been expended. Yet the realist in Obama has no regrets. Goldberg does future historians a valuable service by setting out in detail the president’s reasoning.

 The president dragged his feet on Syria for three reasons. First, having been elected partly on the strength of his opposition to the Iraq War, he was and remains in principle reluctant to deploy U.S. troops (though not U.S. drones). In 2009, he felt the Pentagon had “jammed” him into approving a troop surge in Afghanistan; four years later, he felt he was being jammed again. Second, he misread the Arab Spring, initially equating protesters in Tunisia and Tahrir Square with Rosa Parks and the “patriots of Boston.”

 Third, Obama regretted succumbing to pressure from his own advisers as well as from European allies to intervene in Libya in 2011. When similar pressures were brought to bear on him over the red line he himself had drawn regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Obama revolted. On August 30, 2013—after consulting only Denis McDonough, his chief of staff—he decided to call off planned air strikes against the Syrian government, telling McDonough of his “long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries.”

 The president’s rationalizations of his U-turn need not detain us (“Assad would place civilians as ‘human shields’ around obvious targets … U.S. missiles would not be fired at chemical-weapons depots, for fear of sending plumes of poison into the air,” and so forth). The point is that if those arguments had been any good, there would have been no need to circumvent his own cabinet and advisers.

 Susan Rice was “shocked.” When he found out that evening, Kerry told a friend: “I just got fucked over.” Even Vice President Joe Biden was on the other side of the argument (“big nations don’t bluff”). The usually loyal Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs, thought it was a mistake. So did the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. So did the king of Jordan. And so, of course, did Hillary Clinton.

 When she later made public her criticism of Obama’s handling of Syria, Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to a senior adviser. It was at this time that the White House went demotic with the facile slogan: “Don’t do stupid shit.” According to Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national-security adviser for strategic communication, “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro–stupid shit?’”

 This, then, was The Moment: Obama’s decision not to carry out his threat against Bashar al-Assad was, we are told, the defining moment of his presidency. “I’m very proud of this moment,” he tells Goldberg. “The overwhelming weight of conventional wisdom and the machinery of our national-security apparatus had gone fairly far. The perception was that my credibility was at stake, that America’s credibility was at stake. And so for me to press the pause button at that moment, I knew, would cost me politically. And the fact that I was able to pull back from the immediate pressures and think through in my own mind what was in America’s interest … was as tough a decision as I’ve made.” ||||| Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks in New York, Wednesday, June 22, 2016. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer) (Associated Press) Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks in New York, Wednesday, June 22, 2016. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer) (Associated Press)

 WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's fierce denunciation of Hillary Clinton on Wednesday was rife with distortion.

 He accused Clinton of announcing a withdrawal from Iraq that wasn't on her watch, pulled numbers out of nowhere on her plan for refugees and went beyond the established facts behind the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in stating starkly that she "left him there to die." In doing so, he assigned her far more influence in the world than she exercised as secretary of state.

 A look at some of his assertions and how they stack up with the facts:

 TRUMP: "In just four years, Secretary Clinton managed to almost single-handedly destabilize the entire Middle East." He blamed her for an invasion of Libya that "handed the country over to ISIS," for making Iran the dominant Islamic power in the region and for supporting regime change in Syria that led to a bloody civil war. He charged that her "disastrous strategy" of announcing a departure date from Iraq created another opening for ISIS there.

 THE FACTS: These statements make only passing acquaintance with reality.

 There was no U.S. invasion of Libya. Clinton initially opposed but then sought credit for the NATO-led air campaign to help rebels overthrow Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. (Trump spoke in support of U.S. intervention at the time.) While the violence destabilized Libya, Islamic State inroads there have been more recent and are largely limited to a small coastal area of the country.

 Arguments about Iranian domination of the Middle East predate Clinton's tenure, going back a decade to the George W. Bush administration's deposing of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq.

 While secretary of state, Clinton supported arming Syria's moderate rebels, but the Islamic State group only arrived later. It's unclear what effect such a policy would have had as President Barack Obama rejected the advice at the time.

 And she had nothing to do with the "disastrous strategy" of giving a departure date from Iraq. It was the George W. Bush administration that announced the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2008.

 ___

 TRUMP: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and his staff "made hundreds and hundreds of requests for security. They were desperate. They needed help. Hillary Clinton's State Department refused them all. She started the war that put them in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die."

 THE FACTS: Trump greatly exaggerates the security requests, not all of which were denied, and gets the history of U.S.-Libyan relations wrong. The reference to security requests appears to reflect the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi's tally of "requests/concerns" related to the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. For many of those, there's no record of denials. And some security upgrades did occur before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed Stevens and three other Americans.

 Clinton did not start the war in Libya. She supported a NATO intervention well after large-scale violence had broken out between Gadhafi's forces and rebels. Nor did the conflict put Stevens or any U.S. diplomat in Libya. The U.S. had maintained a full-fledged embassy there since President George W. Bush re-established diplomatic relations with Gadhafi's government in 2006.

 Several congressional investigations have shown that Clinton had no role in military decisions related to Benghazi, and that it would have been impossible for U.S. armed forces to intervene in time to save Stevens.

 ___

 TRUMP: "Hillary also wants to spend hundreds of billions to resettle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States, on top of the current record level of immigration."

 THE FACTS: For a businessman, Trump is shaky on his numbers. The entire U.S. budget for refugee resettlement is less than $1.2 billion a year — and that includes refugees from Cuba, Bhutan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Even including the value of all future public benefits they might receive — and excluding their contribution to the country through taxes — Trump's assertion about the cost of resettlement is still baffling.

 ___

 TRUMP: "I started off in Brooklyn, New York, not so long ago, with a small loan and built a business that today is worth well over $10 billion."

 THE FACTS: Trump's $1 million loan from his father was just the beginning of his family subsidies, which included a far larger inheritance, loan guarantees and even occasional bailouts — one of which was found to be illegal by New Jersey casino regulators. As for the value of Trump's business, every independent appraisal has found his assets to be worth far less than he says; Forbes says Trump is worth less than half what he claims.

 ___

 TRUMP: "Hillary Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was secretary of state — plus millions more for her foundation. The sultan of Brunei has pushed oppressive Sharia law.

 THE FACTS: Clinton is not sporting Brunei bling.

 In September 2012, she accepted a $58,000 jewelry set with gold, sapphire and diamond earrings, a necklace and bracelet, given by the queen of Brunei when Clinton visited for meetings and to inaugurate an English-language training program, according to the Federal Register. The gift was not to her, but to the United States.

 Federal law prohibits officials from keeping such gifts unless they pay the estimated value to the U.S. government. According to the State Department's protocol office, Clinton chose not to buy the jewelry, and instead turned it over to the General Services Administration — the standard procedure for most gifts from foreign leaders.

 It's true that Brunei is an Islamic nation that observes Sharia law and has been widely criticized for its human rights record, particularly when it comes to gays and lesbians.

 But gift exchanges are standard practice. As with almost all gifts to all officials, the Federal Register notice says "non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. government."

 ___

 TRUMP: "Our trade deficit with China soared 40 percent during Clinton's time as secretary of state."

 THE FACTS: Trump's claim is more than double the actual increase. From late 2008 through 2012, a period coinciding with Clinton's tenure, the trade deficit with China rose 17.6 percent. Trump's campaign may be using data from the end of 2009 through 2013, when the deficit did rise 40 percent, but that does not match up with Clinton's time in office and leaves out a sharp, recession-induced drop in 2009.

 More broadly, the secretary of state is not typically held responsible for the trade deficit, which mostly reflects the health of the U.S. and global economies, the difference in how much the nation spends and saves, and trade policies implemented by the U.S. trade representative.

 ___

 TRUMP: "We are the highest-taxed nation in the world."

 THE FACTS: Closer to the opposite is true.

 The U.S. tax burden is actually one of the lowest among the 34 developed and large emerging-market economies that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

 Taxes made up 26 percent of the total U.S. economy in 2014, according to the OECD. That's far below Sweden's tax burden of 42.7 percent, Britain's 32.6 percent or Germany's 36.1 percent. Only three OECD members had a lower figure: Chile, South Korea and Mexico.

 ___

 TRUMP: "Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth, with no way to screen who they are, what they are, what they believe, where they come from."

 THE FACTS: Clinton has called for the United States to continue to accept refugees, including as many as 65,000 from Syria. But Trump is wrong about Clinton's stance on refugee screening. She's never said she would scale back the current refugee processing system. Under that system, a person's beliefs are not generally a disqualifier for entrance into the U.S. Refugees are checked to make sure they don't have criminal records or have been identified by intelligence agencies as having ties to terrorist organizations.

 ___

 TRUMP: "She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States."

 THE FACTS: It's not true that Clinton's plan would create open borders. Her plan does call for a pathway to citizenship that would allow people currently in the country illegally to stay, but only after going through a series of steps to become a citizen. On enforcement, Clinton has called for focusing on "detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety," but not ending enforcement outright.

 ___

 TRUMP: "We will repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare. It is a total disaster."

 THE FACTS: Job growth has been solid by historical standards since Obama's health care overhaul was signed into law in March 2010. Since then, employers have added nearly 14 million jobs and businesses have been on the longest hiring streak in the post-World War II era. And 2014 and 2015 were the two best years of private-sector hiring since the late 1990s. The unemployment rate, meanwhile, has fallen to 4.7 percent, an 8 ½ year low, from 9.9 percent when the law was passed.

 ___

 TRUMP: "We'll pass massive tax reform to create millions of new jobs and lower taxes for everyone."

 THE FACTS: Trump's proposed tax cuts are indeed massive, but most economists conclude they will create a huge amount of government debt. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan would slash government revenue by $9.5 trillion over the next decade. Trump hasn't specified any offsetting spending cuts or other sources of revenue to make up the difference. That means the tax cuts would balloon the deficit. All that additional government borrowing could push up interest rates, the center concludes, and offset much of the economic benefit of lower taxes.

 ___

 Associated Press writers Christopher S. Rugaber, Chad Day, Michael Biesecker, Eileen Sullivan, Alicia A. Caldwell, Jeff Horwitz, Nancy Benac, Matthew Lee, Jill Colvin and Cal Woodward contributed to this story. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– When you hear the name "Brent Scowcroft," certain things may come to mind, including "retired lieutenant general" and "heavyweight foreign policy adviser" to several GOP presidents, CNN notes. He served as national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George HW Bush, as well as in White House roles during the Nixon, Reagan, and Dubya years. But we can now also add "Hillary Clinton supporter" to his résumé: Just hours after Donald Trump ripped into Clinton during a speech in New York (see the AP's fact-check of it here), the 91-year-old Scowcroft offered his endorsement of the presumptive Democratic nominee, underscoring the trepidation that the GOP establishment has for Trump as its main shot at the White House. "The presidency requires the judgment and knowledge to make tough calls under pressure," Scowcroft said in a statement, per the Los Angeles Times. "[Clinton] has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time." What makes his venture into Dem territory not a 100% surprise: Scowcroft fell somewhat out of favor with the George W. Bush administration when he publicly expressed reservations about the war in Iraq. And as CNN notes, Scowcroft has had an impact on Democratic foreign policy. Even President Obama recently lauded Scowcroft, saying of the man who helped him put together his own security team, "I love that guy," per the Atlantic.


Article:
Imagine you are on a SEPTA bus trying to call home. Your cell phone has no signal. Soon you realize it's not a dead zone, you can't make the call because some guy is zapping your phone with a high-tech device. All because he doesn't think you should be talking in public. NBC10 Investigator Harry Hairston reports. This story was published on February 29, 2012. (Published Thursday, April 26, 2012)

 The NBC10 Investigators tracked down a cell phone zapper who targets people using their cell phones on a SEPTA bus route. Not only does he admit doing it, he thinks it’s a good thing.

 The man, who calls himself Eric, told the NBC10 Investigators, “I guess I’m taking the law into my own hands, and quite frankly, I’m proud of it.”

 Eric says he doesn’t want to hear people talking on their cell phones in public.

 “It’s still pretty irritating, and quite frankly, it’s pretty rude,” said Eric.

 Eric says he’s firing up a cell phone jammer that he bought online to shut down conversations he doesn’t want to hear.

 “A lot of people are extremely loud, no sense of just privacy or anything. When it becomes a bother, that’s when I screw on the antenna and flip the switch,” said Eric.

 An NBC10 employee, who the NBC10 Investigators are calling “Marie,” says she freaked out when she saw the man jamming passengers’ cell phones on her SEPTA bus ride to work.

 “He’s blatantly holding this device that looks like a walkie-talkie with four very thick antennae. I started to watch him and any time somebody started talking on the phone, he would start pressing the button on the side of the device,” said Marie.

 Marie tipped off the NBC10 Investigators who went undercover to catch the cell phone vigilante with a hidden camera.

 Within minutes of boarding the 44 bus, the NBC10 Investigators spotted Eric jamming cell phones. A couple of weeks later, they caught up with him as he got off the bus, and they informed him that the cell phone jamming device is illegal.

 “It is my understanding it is more of a gray area. It is my understanding that it’s illegal to, you know, stop a television signal, a radio signal. You know, it’s my understanding according to the FCC that it’s not illegal to disrupt a cell phone signal,” Eric said.

 But according to federal law, it is illegal to use, own, buy or sell cell phone jammers. The feds say breaking the law could result in jail time and up to a $16,000 fine. Cell phone jammers are illegal because of the public safety concerns.

 Drexel University's Dr. Rob D’Ovidio works with cell phone forensics and electronic crime. D’Ovidio says some cell phone jammers can block GPS, two-way radios and even police radio if they’re close enough.

 “With cell phone jammers, you are limiting all types of communication tools that use the radio frequencies. You have the potential to cause a public safety disaster. Cutting off communication by not only our public officials to their dispatch centers but also cutting off the public’s communication to 911 can be a dangerous thing,” said Dr. D’Ovidio.

 The NBC10 Investigators asked Eric if he was concerned about disrupting someone who is trying to get emergency help.

 “Well, of course if there were such a situation on the bus, I imagine I would be right in the middle of it. And I would imagine that would be a very different situation, of course; I’d imagine I’d be dialing 911 myself," Eric said.

 SEPTA officials say they have been getting a lot of complaints from riders on the 44 bus route about lost calls. But SEPTA insists that riders are safe, adding they’ve tested their system and it would take much more than a handheld jammer to affect it.

 SEPTA says all buses have a panic button. Drivers can also alert police with the digital destination sign on the front of the bus. The transportation authority says it has tested its two-way radio communication and insists cell phone jammers will not affect it. But that doesn’t make Marie feel any better.

 “Every time I see this guy on the bus, I have a mixture of fear and anger. Part of me wants to go up to him and say, ‘Stop doing this, how dare you,’” said Marie.

 Just hours after the NBC10 Investigators told Eric that the cell phone jamming device was illegal, he called to say he did more research and discovered that what they told him was true and he would dispose of the device. ||||| A Philadelphia man was caught red handed this week for using a cell phone jammer to keep his fellow passengers on a public transit bus from using their cell phones.

 "I guess I'm taking the law into my own hands," he told a reporter from NBC10 about the illegal jammer, "and quite frankly, I'm proud of it."

 Teresa Masterson, a writer at NBC10, first encountered the jammer on her morning commute and tipped off NBC Investigators. She told the blog Philebrity:

 While riding the bus, my cell phone signal suddenly went out, which is not normal, and continued to search for a signal for 15 minutes. After a little while, I noticed that everyone else on the bus on his/her cell was having the same problem. Then, I see this guy (pictured at right). He’s openly holding something that looks like a walkie talkie with four antennae in his hand the whole time. Anytime someone would try their cell again, this guy would subtly turn in their direction, press a button and point it at them, then continue reading his book under his creepy hood... I’m pretty sure it was one of those devices that cuts off signals; Jennifer Lopez used one in Enough, so that’s all the scientific analysis I need.

 It should go without saying that such a device is illegal. A jammer, which blocks radio frequencies, isn’t just limited to blocking personal cell phone use, but all communication tools that use these frequencies. What does this mean? Essentially that the jammer that lessens the din of personal conversations on your M-14 bus also has the potential to cut off communication between the driver and dispatch centers or public agencies, which could result in a public safety snafu—or disaster. Jammers also block incoming calls, which means that if used for an extended period you prevent anyone in your vicinity from hearing pressing, even emergency, news.

 But while today’s news and ensuing outrage online is all over a single man, the practice of jamming cell phones is actually much more commonplace on the rails in both New York and Washington DC. I spoke to two such “jammers” this morning on what led them to buy devices, which range from $40 to more than $10,000 on websites like Jammerall.com. Some boast radiuses of as little as 15 feet while others claim they're used on military vehicles and for anti-terrorism maneuvers.

 “They’re the best thing ever,” says one New Jersey to New York daily commuter who carries a jammer on his 40-minute New Jersey Transit ride each morning. He doesn’t keep it on for the entire ride, he says, just when a fellow passenger talks “too loud” or “too long.” “It fits in your pocket - they even make shady ones that look like packs of cigarettes. I’d guess it’s effective for about a 15 ft radius, possibly more,” he says.

 “When I've used it, it’s to cut off a loud talker on the train that's sitting near me.” He says he bought it online from a website that imports the devices from China, where they’re legal and, when asked, told me he’s never felt guilty for keeping his fellow rail riders from conversations. “No guilt,” he says, “Just personal high fives.”

 “I always have a grace period with phone calls,” says another jammer who rides the MARC train into Washington DC,roughly 30-minute ride. “Like if someone is saying ‘Okay, well, I'll be in the office in 10 minutes we can discuss it then,’ I won't jam them. But if you are talking about what you did last night and what kind of curtains to get for the house, then yes. Silenced.”

 Does he feel guilty? Like he’s causing a public disservice? Not so much. “People get super pissed off and bitch about their phones all the time. But I feel it gives me some control against what I believe is becoming an increasingly inconsiderate society.”

 “I am not a threat to public safety,” he says. “I am not putting anyone in danger more than anyone on a subway every morning with no cell reception is in danger.” |||||Summary:

– Riders of Philadelphia's No. 44 bus have been complaining a lot lately of lost cell phone calls, and NBC 10 found out why: A man, whom they identify only as "Eric," is jamming them. Reporters tracked Eric down after an NBC employee saw him using a handheld jamming device on the bus. "I guess I'm taking the law into my own hands, and quite frankly, I'm proud of it," he told them. "A lot of people are extremely loud, no sense of just privacy or anything." Of course, such handheld devices are illegal, and with good reason, experts say: They can block not only cellphones, but radios, GPS devices, and emergency frequencies as well. "You have the potential to cause a public safety disaster," says one expert in electronic crime. But illegal or no, these jammers are catching on; Forbes reports that they're especially common in New York and Washington, DC. "They’re the best thing ever," says one New York commuter and jammer, who says he feels "no guilt, just personal high-fives."


Here is a news article: South Africa's president asked the world to pray for his predecessor, Nelson Mandela, and to keep him in their thoughts. NBC's Rohit Kachroo reports.

 Former South African President Nelson Mandela is "responding positively" to treatment for a recurring lung infection after he was taken to a hospital late Wednesday, the presidency said on Thursday.

 "The doctors advise that former President Nelson Mandela is responding positively to the treatment he is undergoing for a recurring lung infection," the presidency said in a statement. "He remains under treatment and observation in hospital."

 In a statement, the current South African President Jacob Zuma said, “We appeal to the people of South Africa and the world to pray for our beloved Madiba [a nickname for Mandela] and his family and to keep them in their thoughts.”

 “We have full confidence in the medical team and know that they will do everything possible to ensure recovery,” he added. “The Presidency appeals once again for understanding and privacy in order to allow space to the doctors to do their work.”

 Mandela, 94, was taken to a hospital just before midnight local time (6 p.m. ET).

 The statement said that Mandela had the “best possible expert in medical treatment and comfort.”

 Mandela has a history of lung problems dating back to when he contracted tuberculosis as a political prisoner in the notorious Robben Island jail under the apartheid regime.

 Slideshow: Nelson Mandela: A revolutionary's life / View images of civil rights leader Nelson Mandela, who went from anti-apartheid activist to prisoner to South Africa's first black president. Launch slideshow

 'Be strong'

 Jackson Mthembu, a spokesman for the African National Congress, said in a statement that the party once led by Mandela “calls on all South Africans and the world to keep Nelson Mandela in their prayers.”

 “We are confident that the treatment will be successful as he is in professional and competent hands,” he said.

 “During these trying times we wish President Mandela well and for his family to be strong," he added.

 Mandela spent nearly three weeks in a hospital in December for treatment of a lung infection and gallstone surgery.

 This was the longest time he had been hospitalized since being released from captivity as a political prisoner in 1990.

 He was also hospitalized earlier this month for what was described as a "scheduled medical checkup."

 Mandela was president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999, the first president of the country to be elected following the fall of the apartheid system.

 President Barack Obama sent his best wishes to the former leader on Thursday.

 "He is as strong physically as he's been in character and in leadership over so many decades, and hopefully he will ... come out of this latest challenge," Obama told reporters at the White House.

 "When you think of a single individual that embodies the kind of leadership qualities that I think we all aspire to, the first name that comes up is Nelson Mandela. And so we wish him all the very best," Obama said.

 NBC News' Matthew DeLuca and Rohit Kachroo, and Reuters contributed to this report.

 Related:

 Secrecy over Mandela's health fuels concern for South Africa icon

 'Who is my Mandela?' South Africans consider icon's place in a changing world

 This story was originally published on ||||| Story highlights Mandela remains "under treatment and observation," President Jacob Zuma says

 The anti-apartheid icon also was hospitalized earlier this month

 At the time, officials said it was only for a routine checkup

 Mandela, 94, has been treated for a lung infection before

 Former South African President Nelson Mandela is "responding positively" to treatment after he was readmitted to a hospital overnight for a recurring lung infection.

 President Jacob Zuma's office passed along the doctors' assessment of Mandela, the 94-year-old anti-apartheid icon and nation's first black president.

 "He remains under treatment and observation in hospital," Zuma said Thursday.

 Mandela was conscious when he was taken to the hospital just before midnight Wednesday, Zuma's office said.

 It's the second time this month he has been hospitalized. More than two weeks ago, he was taken to a hospital for what officials described as a routine checkup.

 Mandela has become increasingly frail over the years, and has not appeared in public since South Africa hosted the World Cup in 2010.

 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Nelson Mandela, the prisoner-turned-president who reconciled South Africa after the end of apartheid, died on December 5, 2013. He was 95. Hide Caption 1 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela became president of the African National Congress Youth League in 1951. Hide Caption 2 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela poses for a photo, circa 1950. Hide Caption 3 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela poses in boxing gloves in 1952. Hide Caption 4 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela in the office of Mandela & Tambo, a law practice set up in Johannesburg by Mandela and Oliver Tambo to provide free or affordable legal representation to black South Africans. Hide Caption 5 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – From left: Patrick Molaoa, Robert Resha and Mandela walk to the courtroom for their treason trial in Johannesburg. Hide Caption 6 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Nelson and Winnie Mandela raise their fists to salute a cheering crowd upon his 1990 release from Victor Verster Prison. He was still as upright and proud, he would say, as the day he walked into prison 27 years before. Hide Caption 7 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – A jubilant South African holds up a newspaper announcing Mandela's release from prison at an ANC rally in Soweto on February 11, 1990. Two days later, more than 100,000 people attended a rally celebrating his release from jail. Hide Caption 8 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela and Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda arrive at an ANC rally on March 3, 1990, in Lusaka, Zambia. Mandela was elected president of the ANC the next year. Hide Caption 9 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – After his release in 1990, Mandela embarked on a world tour, meeting U.S. President George H.W. Bush at the White House in June. Hide Caption 10 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – At his Soweto home on July 18, 1990, Mandela blows out the candles on his 72nd birthday cake. It was the first birthday he celebrated as a free man since the 1960s. Hide Caption 11 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela and his wife react to supporters during a visit to Brazil at the governor's palace in Rio De Janeiro, on August 1, 1991. Hide Caption 12 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – South African President Frederik de Klerk, right, and Mandela shared a Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 for their work to secure a peaceful transition from apartheid rule. Hide Caption 13 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela votes for the first time in his life on March 26, 1994. Hide Caption 14 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – On April 27, 1994, a long line of people snake toward a polling station in the black township of Soweto outside of Johannesburg in the nation's first all-race elections. Hide Caption 15 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela in Mmabatho for an election rally on March 15, 1994. Hide Caption 16 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela was elected president in the first open election in South African history on April 29, 1994. He's pictured here taking the oath at his inauguration in May, becoming the nation's first black president. Hide Caption 17 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela, left, cheers as Springbok Rugby captain Francois Pienaar holds the Webb Ellis trophy high after winning the World Cup Rugby Championship in Johannesburg on June 24, 1995. Hide Caption 18 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – After one term as president, Mandela stepped down. Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki, at right, was sworn in as his replacement in June 1999. Hide Caption 19 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela sits outside his former prison cell on Robben Island on November 28, 2003, ahead of his AIDS benefit concert at Green Point Stadium in Cape Town. He was sent to the infamous prison five miles off the coast of South Africa, where he spent 18 of his 27 years behind bars. Hide Caption 20 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela shows something to a group of international journalists visiting the Nelson Mandela Foundation in Johannesburg in May 2004. Hide Caption 21 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela sits with his wife, Graca Machel, and his grandchildren at his son's funeral on January 15, 2005. He disclosed that his son, Makgatho Lewanika Mandela, had died of AIDS and said the disease should be given publicity so people would stop viewing it as extraordinary. Hide Caption 22 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – The "46664 Arctic" benefit concert was held in Tromso, Norway, on June 11, 2005. 46664 was Mandela's identification number in prison. Here, artists who performed at the event surround him. Hide Caption 23 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela attends an HIV/AIDs concert in Johannesburg on February 17, 2005. Hide Caption 24 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Former U.S. President Bill Clinton leans down to whisper to former South African President Nelson Mandela during a visit to the Nelson Mandela Foundation on July 19, 2007, in Johannesburg. Hide Caption 25 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – A bronze statue of Mandela was unveiled in Parliament Square in London on August 29, 2007. The 9-foot statue faces the Houses of Parliament. Hide Caption 26 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela leaves the InterContinental Hotel after a photoshoot with celebrity photographer Terry O'Neil on June 26, 2008, in London. Hide Caption 27 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Mandela meets in 2009 with international children as part of his 46664 Foundation. Hide Caption 28 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Nelson Mandela and his third wife, Graca Machel, arrive at the 2010 World Cup before the final match between Netherlands and Spain on July 11, 2010, at Soccer City Stadium in Soweto. Hide Caption 29 of 30 Photos: The evolution of Nelson Mandela The evolution of Nelson Mandela – Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets with Mandela at his home in Qunu, South Africa, on August 6, 2012. Hide Caption 30 of 30

 JUST WATCHED 2012: Nelson Mandela back home Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH 2012: Nelson Mandela back home 02:42

 "Doctors are attending to him, ensuring that he has the best possible expert medical treatment and comfort," Zuma's office said in an earlier statement Thursday.

 "We appeal to the people of South Africa and the world to pray for our beloved Madiba and his family, and to keep them in their thoughts."

 "Madiba" is Mandela's clan name, which is widely used in the nation.

 Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary, said President Barack Obama is being updated on Mandela's health.

 "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the former president and his family," Earnest said.

 Zuma's office did not say to which hospital he was admitted, but renewed calls for his privacy.

 Mandela has been treated for the ailment before. He underwent treatment for a lung infection and had surgery to remove gallstones over the Christmas holiday in 2012, one of his longest hospital stays since his release from prison in 1990.

 He suffered from tuberculosis during his imprisonment and has battled respiratory infections over the years. He also was treated for an acute respiratory infection in 2011, among other recurrent bouts of illness.

 Considered the founding father of South Africa's democracy, Mandela became an international figure when he endured 27 years in prison for fighting apartheid, the country's system of racial segregation.

 In 1993, he and then-South African President F.W. de Klerk jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize.

 Mandela was elected president a year later, serving only one term, as he had promised.

 Despite only rare public appearances in recent years, he retains his popularity and is considered a hero of democracy in the nation. Last year, South Africa launched a new batch of banknotes with a picture of a smiling Mandela on the front, a testament to his iconic status.

 Mandela's impact extends far beyond South African borders. After he left office, he was involved in mediating conflicts from Africa to the Middle East. |||||
A summary of this is?

– Weeks after returning home from the hospital, Nelson Mandela was admitted again last night for a lung infection. South African president Jacob Zuma is calling on the world to offer its support to the 94-year-old icon, NBC News reports: "We appeal to the people of South Africa and the world to pray for our beloved Madiba and his family and to keep them in their thoughts," Zuma said. "We have full confidence in the medical team and know that they will do everything possible to ensure recovery." Mandela, who CNN notes was conscious when admitted last night, was hospitalized for weeks in December with a lung infection and has battled respiratory problems for years.


Study reveals rate of extinction for species in the 20th century has been up to 100 times higher than would have been normal without human impact

 The modern world is experiencing a “sixth great extinction” of animal species even when the lowest estimates of extinction rates are considered, scientists have warned.

 The rate of extinction for species in the 20th century was up to 100 times higher than it would have been without man’s impact, they said.

 Many conservationists have been warning for years that a mass extinction event akin to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs is occurring as humans degrade and destroy habitats.

 But the authors of a study published on Friday said that even when they analysed the most conservative extinction rates, the rate at which vertebrates were being lost forever was far higher than in the last five mass extinctions.

 The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours Read more

 “We were very surprised to see how bad it is,” said Dr Gerardo Ceballos of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “This is very depressing because we used the most conservative rates, and even then they are much higher than the normal extinction rate, really indicating we are having a massive loss of the species.”

 Previous studies have warned that the impact of humans taking land for buildings, farming and timber has been to make species extinct at speeds unprecedented in Earth’s 4.5bn-year history.

 Ceballos said that his study, co-authored by Paul R Ehrlich who famously warned of the impact of humanity’s “population bomb”, employed better knowledge of natural or so-called background extinction rates. He said it was conservative because it looked only at species that had been declared extinct, which due to stringent rules can sometimes take many years after a species has actually gone extinct.

 Under a “natural” rate of extinction, the study said that two species go extinct per 10,000 species per 100 years, rather than the one species that previous work has assumed.

 Modern rates of extinction were eight to 100 times higher , the authors found. For example, 477 vertebrates have gone extinct since 1900, rather than the nine that would be expected at natural rates.

 “It’s really signalling we’ve entered a sixth extinction and it’s driven by man,” said Ceballos.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Noah’s Ark and the General Deluge - a colour lithograph published in New York by Muller and Company, c 1870 by an unknown artist. Photograph: Corbis

 However, Prof Henrique Miguel Pereira, the chair of the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network, said that the new paper did not add anything revolutionarily new.

 “They argue that recent extinction rates are up to 100 times higher than in the past. I think it improves our documentation of the process but it does not yet confirm a sixth mass extinction. I tend to think we have a major biodiversity crisis, but it would take either a fast acceleration of current extinction rates or a couple of centuries at current extinction rates, for the current process to become a sixth mass extinction.”

 The team behind the new analysis said “rapid, greatly intensified efforts” would be needed to stop or slow the extinctions currently underway.

 Ceballos pointed to the Pope Francis’s encyclical on the environment, which was published on Thursday and lamented the loss of the world’s biodiversity, and interventions by Barack Obama, as signs of hope. “These important figures are starting to really grasp the problem,” he said.

 On why people should be worried about the rate of extinctions, he said: “People say that’s really sad, but why does it affect me? There are many reasons we should care. We are the species that are causing the loss of all these other species.”

 But the most important reason, he said, was that by losing species humanity was losing what enabled us to have a “good standard of living”.

 The paper, Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction, was published in the journal Science Advances. ||||| Earth has entered its sixth mass extinction with animals now dying out at 100 times the normal rate, scientists have warned.

 Humans have created a toxic mix of habitat loss, pollution and climate change, which has already led to the loss of at least 77 species of mammals, 140 types of bird since and 34 amphibians since 1500.

 They include creatures like the dodo, Steller’s Sea Cow, the Falkland Islands wolf, the quagga, the Formosan clouded leopard, the Atlas bear, the Caspian tiger and the Cape lion.

 Scientists at Stanford University in the US claim it is the biggest loss of species since the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

 “Without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event," said Professor Paul Ehrlich, at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

 “Species are disappearing up to about 100 times faster than the normal rate between mass extinctions, known as the background rate.

 “Our calculations very likely underestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. There are examples of species all over the world that are essentially the walking dead.”

 Humans were responsible for wiping out the dodo

 Using fossil records and extinction counts from a range of sources, the researchers calculated the normal ‘background rate’ of extinctions and compared it with a conservative estimate of current extinctions.

 Natural population changes in the wild usually lead to two species of mammals dying out every 10,000 years. But the current rate is 114 times that level.

 And humans have been responsible for animal decline going much further back. In the islands of tropical Oceania, up to 1800 bird species are estimated to have gone extinct in the last 2,000 years.

 It is likely that early humans were also responsible for wiping out the huge megafauna which used to live in Australia including a huge giant wombat a marsupial lion and a flesh-eating kangaroo.

 Currently one in four mammals is at risk of going extinct and 41 per cent of amphibians. Many now only survive in captivity.

 A giant wombat which used to live in Australia

 "If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover, and our species itself would likely disappear early on," said lead author Gerardo Ceballos of the Universidad Autónoma de México.

 Professor Ehrlich said that government must start working together to conserve threatened species.

 Despite the gloomy outlook, there is a meaningful way forward, according to Ehrlich and his colleagues.

 "Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species, and to alleviate pressures on their populations - notably habitat loss, over-exploitation for economic gain and climate change," the study's authors write.

 Many types of wolves have become extinct including British and Falkland Island varieties

 Earth has experienced five recognised mass extinctions. The Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction of 443 million years ago saw 83 per cent of sea life wiped out. In the Late Devonian mass extinction which followed 90 million years later three quarters of life on Earth became extinct . The Permian mass extinction of 248 million years ago was nicknamed The Great Dying as 96 per cent of species died out. Then 48 million years later half of Earth’s species were wiped out by climate change and asteroid impacts. The final one marked the end of the dinosaurs.

 Dr Mike Barrett, WWF-UK’s Director of Science and Policy said, ‘These findings echo those of WWF’s Living Planet Report which highlighted a 52 per cent decline in vertebrate populations over the last 40 years.

 "If this trend is not reversed it is easy to see how more extinctions could take place and it is further evidence that we clearly need to do more to protect wildlife and their habitats."

 The research was published in the journal Science Advances.

 10 most endangered species

 South China tiger

 Native to the southern Chinese provinces of Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan and Jiangxi the tiger had a population of 4,000 in the 1950s but it is no thought longer to exist in zoos.

 Sumatran elephant

 As more of Sumatran forest becomes converted for agricultural uses, the elephant has faced a critical loss of habitat. A 2007 study estimated there were less than 2,800 remaining in the wild.

 Amur leopard

 The world's rarest cat is believed to be making a comeback with at least 57 confirmed animals now confirmed Russia. Just 30 animals existed in 2007. But the animal is still vulnerable to hunters.

 Atlantic goliath grouper

 Despite the US issuing a moratorium on hunting the big fish in 1990, the animal remains critically endangered.

 Gulf porpoise

 The Gulf porpoise is now one of the rarest mammals in the world, with a global population estimated at under 100 in 2014. The last remaining porpoises live in North America's Gulf of California and experts expect it to become extinct by 2018.

 Northern bald ibis

 The bird’s natural habitat of North Africa, European and the Middle East has been plagued with war and civil unrest and now only one population exists in Morocco, with just a few hundred remaining.

 Attempts are currently underway in Austria, Spain and Italy to breed the animals for reintroduction into the wild.

 Hawksbill turtle

 The 20,000 strong female population is under severe threat by hunters seeking their brown and gold shells.

 Black rhinoceros

 The black rhino has suffered the most drastic decline in total numbers of all rhino species and was officially declared extinct in the wild in 2011. However a major conservation effort has seen numbers swell to 5,000 and now the animals are kept under armed guard.

 Pygmy three-toed sloth

 Found on Panama's uninhabited Escudo de Veraguas island, a 2012 study found fewer than 80 sloths were still living because of habitat loss by loggers.

 Chinese pangolin

 Used extensively as a food, and for Chinese medicines, the pangolin has declined by 94 per cent since the 1960s. Exact numbers have been difficult to estimate because the creature is solitary and nocturnal. ||||| Abstract The oft-repeated claim that Earth’s biota is entering a sixth “mass extinction” depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the “background” rates prevailing between the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 100 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

 Keywords

 Sixth mass extinction

 vertebrate extinctions

 rates of extinction

 background extinction

 modern vertebrate losses

 INTRODUCTION The loss of biodiversity is one of the most critical current environmental problems, threatening valuable ecosystem services and human well-being (1–7). A growing body of evidence indicates that current species extinction rates are higher than the pre-human background rate (8–15), with hundreds of anthropogenic vertebrate extinctions documented in prehistoric and historic times (16–23). For example, in the islands of tropical Oceania, up to 1800 bird species (most described in the last few decades from subfossil remains) are estimated to have gone extinct in the ~2000 years since human colonization (24). Written records of extinctions of large mammals, birds, and reptiles date back to the 1600s and include species such as the dodo (Raphus cucullatus, extinguished in the 17th century), Steller’s sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas, extinguished in the 18th century), and the Rodrigues giant tortoise (Cylindraspis peltastes, extinguished in the 19th century). More species extinction records date from the 19th century and include numerous species of mammals and birds. Records of extinction for reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, and other organisms have mainly been documented since the beginning of the 20th century (14, 17). Moreover, even in species that are not currently threatened, the extirpation of populations is frequent and widespread, with losses that far outstrip species-level extinctions (18, 25). Population-level extinction directly threatens ecosystem services and is the prelude to species-level extinction (18). Here, we analyze the modern rates of vertebrate species extinction and compare them with a recently computed background rate for mammals (7). We specifically addressed the following questions: (i) Are modern rates of mammal and vertebrate extinctions higher than the highest empirically derived background rates? (ii) How have modern extinction rates in mammals and vertebrates changed through time? (iii) How many years would it have taken for species that went extinct in modern times to have been lost if the background rate had prevailed? These are important issues because the uncertainties about estimates of species loss have led skeptics to question the magnitude of anthropogenic extinctions (26) and because understanding the magnitude of the extinction crisis is relevant for conservation, maintenance of ecosystem services, and public policy. Until recently, most studies of modern extinction rates have been based on indirect estimates derived, for example, on the rates of deforestation and on species-area relationships (11, 14). Problems related to estimating extinction since 1500 AD (that is, modern extinctions) have been widely discussed, and the literature reflects broad agreement among environmental scientists that biases lead to underestimating the number of species that have gone extinct in the past few centuries—the period during which Homo sapiens truly became a major force on the biosphere (1–4, 6–8, 14, 15). However, direct evaluation is complicated by uncertainties in estimating the incidence of extinction in historical time and by methodological difficulties in comparing contemporary extinctions with past ones. Less discussed are assumptions underlying the estimation of background extinction rates. The lower these estimates, the more dramatic current extinction rates will appear by comparison. In nearly all comparisons of modern versus background extinction rates, the background rate has been assumed to be somewhere between 0.1 and 1 species extinction per 10,000 species per 100 years (equal to 0.1 to 1 species extinction per million species per year, a widely used metric known as E/MSY). Those estimates reflect the state of knowledge available from the fossil record in the 1990s (7, 9–13). In a recent analysis, which charted the stratigraphic ranges of thousands of mammal species, extinction rates were measured over intervals ranging from single years to millions of years, and the mean extinction rate and variance were computed for each span of time (7). In this way, the background extinction rate estimated for mammals was estimated at 1.8 E/MSY, here rounded upward conservatively to 2 E/MSY (that is, 2 extinctions per 100 years per 10,000 species). This is double the highest previous rough estimate. Those previously estimated background rates were primarily derived from marine invertebrate fossils, which are likely to have greater species longevity than vertebrates (10, 15). Data deficiencies make it impossible to conduct empirical analyses (as was done for mammals) for non-mammal terrestrial vertebrates; therefore, we assume the background rates of other vertebrates to be similar to those of mammals. This supposition leads to a more conservative assessment of differences between current and past extinction rates for the vertebrates as a whole, compared with using the very low background extinction rate derived from marine invertebrates. The analysis we present here avoids using assumptions such as loss of species predicted from species-area relationships, which can suggest very high extinction rates, and which have raised the possibility that scientists are “alarmists” seeking to exaggerate the impact of humans on the biosphere (26). Here, we ascertain whether even the lowest estimates of the difference between background and contemporary extinction rates still justify the conclusion that people are precipitating a global spasm of biodiversity loss.

 RESULTS Modern and background rates of vertebrate extinctions Modern rates of vertebrate extinction were much higher than a background extinction rate of 2 E/MSY. Among the vertebrate taxa evaluated by the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 338 extinctions have been documented since 1500 [“extinct” (EX), Table 1]. An additional 279 species have become either “extinct in the wild” (EW) or listed as “possibly extinct” (PE), totaling 617 vertebrate species summed over the three categories. Most extinctions have occurred in the last 114 years (that is, since 1900; Table 1). Our estimated “highly conservative” (that is, using data for EX species only) and “conservative” (that is, by including EX, EW, and PE) modern extinction rates for vertebrates varied from 8 to 100 times higher than the background rate (Table 2). This means, for example, that under the 2 E/MSY background rate, 9 vertebrate extinctions would have been expected since 1900; however, under the conservative rate, 468 more vertebrates have gone extinct than would have if the background rate had persisted across all vertebrates under that period. Specifically, these 468 species include 69 mammal species, 80 bird species, 24 reptiles, 146 amphibians, and 158 fish. Table 1 Numbers of species used in the Table 2 calculations of “highly conservative” and “conservative” modern extinction rates based on the IUCN Red List ( 17 ). For the highly conservative rates, only species verified as “extinct” (EX) were included; for the conservative extinction rates, species in the categories “extinct in the wild” (EW) and “possibly extinct” (PE) were also included. View this table: Table 2 Elevation of “highly conservative” and “conservative” modern vertebrate extinction rates above background rate of 2 E/MSY (see table S2 for calculations). For each assessment category, two periods are shown: extinction rates computed from 1500 to the present, and from 1900 to the present. View this table: Variation in modern extinction rates through time Modern extinction rates have increased sharply over the past 200 years (corresponding to the rise of industrial society) and are considerably higher than background rates (Fig. 1). Rates of modern extinctions vary among vertebrate groups (Fig. 1). For example, amphibians, comprising of ~7300 species, show an accelerating rate of extinction: only 34 extinctions have been documented with a high level of certainty since 1500, yet >100 species have likely disappeared since 1980 (17, 23). This may not only reflect real trends but also a shortage of data for groups for which most species are not yet evaluated, such as reptiles and fish (21, 22). Fig. 1 Cumulative vertebrate species recorded as extinct or extinct in the wild by the IUCN (2012). Graphs show the percentage of the number of species evaluated among mammals (5513; 100% of those described), birds (10,425; 100%), reptiles (4414; 44%), amphibians (6414; 88%), fishes (12,457; 38%), and all vertebrates combined (39,223; 59%). Dashed black curve represents the number of extinctions expected under a constant standard background rate of 2 E/MSY. (A) Highly conservative estimate. (B) Conservative estimate. Modern extinctions if background rate had prevailed Our results indicate that modern vertebrate extinctions that occurred since 1500 and 1900 AD would have taken several millennia to occur if the background rate had prevailed. The total number of vertebrate species that went extinct in the last century would have taken about 800 to 10,000 years to disappear under the background rate of 2 E/MSY (Fig. 2). The particularly high losses in the last several decades accentuate the increasing severity of the modern extinction crisis. Fig. 2 Number of years that would have been required for the observed vertebrate species extinctions in the last 114 years to occur under a background rate of 2 E/MSY. Red markers, highly conservative scenario; blue markers, conservative scenario. Note that for all vertebrates, the observed extinctions would have taken between 800 to 10,000 years to disappear, assuming 2 E/MSY. Different classes of vertebrates all show qualitatively similar trends.

 DISCUSSION Arguably the most serious aspect of the environmental crisis is the loss of biodiversity—the other living things with which we share Earth. This affects human well-being by interfering with crucial ecosystem services such as crop pollination and water purification and by destroying humanity’s beautiful, fascinating, and culturally important living companions (4, 5, 15, 27–30). Our analysis shows that current extinction rates vastly exceed natural average background rates, even when (i) the background rate is considered to be double previous estimates and when (ii) data on modern vertebrate extinctions are treated in the most conservative plausible way. We emphasize that our calculations very likely underestimate the severity of the extinction crisis because our aim was to place a realistic “lower bound” on humanity’s impact on biodiversity. Therefore, although biologists cannot say precisely how many species there are, or exactly how many have gone extinct in any time interval, we can confidently conclude that modern extinction rates are exceptionally high, that they are increasing, and that they suggest a mass extinction under way—the sixth of its kind in Earth’s 4.5 billion years of history. A final important point is that we focus exclusively on species, ignoring the extirpation of populations—the units relevant to ecological functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services (4, 5, 29). Population extinction cannot be reliably assessed from the fossil record, precluding any analysis along the lines of that presented here. Also, although it is clear that there are high rates of population extinction (18), existing data are much less reliable and far harder to obtain than those for species, which will remain true for the foreseeable future. Likewise, we have not considered animals other than vertebrates because of data deficiencies. The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history. Our analysis emphasizes that our global society has started to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years. If the currently elevated extinction pace is allowed to continue, humans will soon (in as little as three human lifetimes) be deprived of many biodiversity benefits. On human time scales, this loss would be effectively permanent because in the aftermath of past mass extinctions, the living world took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to rediversify. Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species and to alleviate pressures on their populations—notably habitat loss, overexploitation for economic gain, and climate change (31–33). All of these are related to human population size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among the rich), and economic inequity (6). However, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

 MATERIALS AND METHODS To estimate modern extinction rates, we compiled data on the total number of described species and the number of extinct and possibly extinct vertebrate species from the 2014 IUCN Red List (17). In the IUCN’s list, extinct species can be viewed as the minimum number of actual extinctions during recent human history (that is, since 1500) because it lists species known to be extinct (EX), extinct in the wild (EW), and possibly extinct (PE, a subcategory within “critically endangered” reserved for species thought to be extinct, but not confirmed) (17) (table S1). We used the IUCN data to calculate modern extinction rates in two ways: (i) we estimate a “highly conservative modern extinction rate” by using the data exclusively on species listed as EX, and (ii) we calculate a “conservative extinction rate” by including also both EW and PE species (table S2). Including these latter two categories recognizes that there is only a slim chance that most of the species in those categories can reestablish viable populations in their native habitats. In terms of biological impact and the provision of ecosystem services, we consider EW and PE species to be functionally equivalent to EX species: even if some individuals still exist, their abundances are not sufficient to have a substantial influence on ecological function and processes. The IUCN’s list is considered the authoritative, albeit likely conservative, assessment of the conservation status of plant and animal species. About 1.8 million species have been described since 1758 (when the current nomenclature system was developed), of which 1.3 million are animals (3, 17). Of these animal species, about 39,223 (of the currently counted 66,178) vertebrate species have been formally assessed and reported in the 2014 IUCN Red List (17). In the IUCN sample, mammals, birds, and amphibians have had between 88 and 100% of their known species evaluated, whereas only 44% of reptiles and 38% of fish species have been assessed (Table 1). We focus our comparisons on vertebrates because they are the group for which the most reliable data exist, both fossil and modern. To produce conservative comparisons with modern extinctions, we assumed a background extinction rate of 2 E/MSY as the highest likely baseline average background extinction rate (7); that is, we should expect 2 extinctions per 10,000 vertebrate species per 100 years. That background extinction rate was empirically determined using the exceptionally good fossil records of mammals, combining extinction counts from paleontological databases and published literature on the fossil, subfossil, and historical records (7). Using the resulting high background extinction rate provides a stringent test for assessing whether current modern extinction rates indicate that a mass extinction event is under way. Previous estimates of background extinction rates for other taxa are invariably lower than the mammal-derived estimate of 2 E/MSY used here.

 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1/5/e1400253/DC1 Table S1. Definitions of IUCN categories (17) used to assess modern extinction rates. Table S2. Estimation of modern extinction rates since 1500 and 1900.

 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, so long as the resultant use is not for commercial advantage and provided the original work is properly cited.

 Acknowledgments: We would like to thank B. Young for helping us with the data on “possibly extinct species” published by IUCN. J. Soberon, C. Mendenhall, and J. Pacheco gave valuable suggestions on the manuscript. Funding: This work has been supported by the Programa de apoyo a proyectos de investigación e innovación tecnológica from UNAM. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ||||| Even conservative calculations show the world is in the midst of a sixth mass extinction that's being caused by our species — and is likely to lead to humanity's demise if unchecked, scientists reported Friday.

 The scientists' analysis, published in the open-access journal Science Advances, follows up on more than a decade's worth of warnings about a rapid loss of global biodiversity. Many experts say the loss has risen to the scale seen during five previous global extinction events — the most recent of which occurred 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs died off.

 The claims provide the theme of Elizabeth Kolbert's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "The Sixth Extinction." But such claims have drawn skeptical responses as well. The skeptics say it's difficult to judge the "background rate" of extinctions, as well as the current rate of species extinction.

 Play Facebook

 Twitter

 Google Plus

 Embed Is Earth headed for another mass extinction? 4:40 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog

 Related: Extinction Could Get Worse by 2200, Scientists Say

 The team behind the new study, led by Gerardo Ceballos of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, tried to address such concerns by doubling the commonly cited background rate — going from one species extinction per million species per year to two extinctions. And for the current rate, they turned to a list maintained by the International Union for Conservation of Nature — which they characterized as a conservative accounting.

 Based on those figures, the extinction rate since 1900 has been eight to 100 times higher than the expected background rate, the researchers said. "The particularly high losses in the last several decades accentuate the increasing severity of the modern extinction crisis," they reported.

 "There are examples of species all over the world that are essentially the walking dead," one of the study's co-authors, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, said in a news release.

 The researchers noted that amphibians, which account for 7,300 of the species documented by the IUCN, have been particularly hard-hit. "Only 34 extinctions have been documented with a high level of certainty since 1500, yet [more than] 100 species have likely disappeared since 1980," they said.

 Many of the causes for biodiversity loss have been traced to industrialization, deforestation and other, less obvious human factors. For example, in the case of the amphibians, the wave of extinctions have been traced to the rapid spread of a fatal fungus through global shipping.

 Flash Interactive: See When Species Rose and Fell

 Ceballos warned that the human species itself could eventually fall victim to the sixth extinction.

 "If it is allowed to continue, life would take millions of years to recover, and our species itself would disappear early on," he said.

 Although the report paints a depressing picture, Ceballos and his colleagues hold out a slender ray of hope.

 "Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species, and to alleviate pressures on their populations — notably habitat loss, overexploitation for economic gain and climate change," they write. "All of these are related to human population size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among the rich), and economic inequity. However, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing."

 Update for 10 p.m. ET June 19: In the past, Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg has stirred up controversy by arguing that extinction rates won't be as dire as they've been made out to be. In an email to NBC News, Lomborg said the newly published paper appeared to be "well in line with current assumptions ... namely that humanity is definitely causing more extinctions, likely hundreds of times more than the natural background rate."

 Lomborg said the authors' claim that current extinction rate could be as much as 114 times the background rate "definitely sounds plausible," but he took issue with their assessment of the implications for the future.

 "These extinction rates are not likely to persist for many centuries, if even one century, as richer countries can afford to and do reforest, while they also can afford to embark on ever more serious conservation," Lomborg wrote.

 He said that if you run the numbers, the paper suggests 1,508 vertebrate species could go extinct over the course of the next century. (Assuming that there are 66,178 vertebrate species, the formula is 2*114*66178/10000=1508.).

 "This is definitely a problem, but it is not the eradication of the natural world," Lomborg wrote. "It equates to 2.3 percent of all vertebrates over the next 100 years — after which it is likely the problem will decline rapidly because most countries will be rich and care much for the natural world."

 Related: Pope Francis Urges Revolution to Save Earth

 A tally by the International Union for Conservation of Nature shows trends in the extinction of various groups of animal species. Stanford

 In addition to Ceballos and Ehrlich, the authors of "Accelerated Modern Human-Induced Species Losses: Entering the Sixth Mass Extinction" include Anthony Barnosky, Andres Garcia, Robert Pringle and Todd Palmer. |||||

Write a summary.

– Feeling upbeat? Enough of that: Planet Earth is undergoing a sixth mass extinction that will likely annihilate the human race unless we can curb the trend, scientists say. According to a new paper, the current rate of species extinction outpaces the natural rate far more than anyone knew, NBC News reports. The analysis "employed better knowledge" of Earth's natural extinction rate, the Guardian reports, upping the number from one extinction per million species annually to two extinctions. It then compared that to a current extinction rate that study authors consider conservative. Presto, they got a rate since 1900 that's eight to 100 times worse than the natural one. "We were very surprised to see how bad it is," says study leader Gerardo Ceballos. "This is very depressing." "If it is allowed to continue, life would take millions of years to recover, and our species itself would disappear early on," says Ceballos. But nations can reverse the crisis—which has been linked to deforestation, industrialization, and other human factors—by conserving threatened species and lowering pressures on their populations, the paper says. So far critics seem to buy the paper's basic math but doubt that species extinction will continue at this high rate for centuries. "It is likely the problem will decline rapidly because most countries will be rich and care much for the natural world," writes one environmentalist. Earth has seen five other mass extinctions, including one 443 million years ago that killed off 83% of sea life, and the most recent, which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago, the Telegraph notes.


– Prince William and his wife Kate have released a photo of Princess Charlotte ahead of her 2nd birthday, which People reports will be spent "privately" at home. The photo taken by the Duchess of Cambridge was distributed Monday, one day before Charlotte turns two. It shows Charlotte on the grounds of Anmer Hall, the family's country home, wearing a yellow cardigan sweater decorated with images of sheep, reports the AP. The family is expected to spend more time in London in the coming years. Their London base is at Kensington Palace. Charlotte's older brother, Prince George, 3, plans to attend a London school in September. As for the next big thing for Charlotte, the BBC notes she'll be part of the wedding party for Pippa Middleton's May 20 nuptials.

Expand this summary.

Happy birthday, Princess Charlotte!

 In honor of Charlotte’s second birthday on May 2, proud parents Prince William and Princess Kate released a new photo Monday morning — and it is royally adorable.

 Photographed by her mom Kate in the grounds of the family’s Norfolk home, Anmer Hall in April, Charlotte’s longer hair is held back by a navy bow from one of Kate’s favorite children’s stores, Amaia, and her bright yellow cardigan is suitably spring-like.

 In a statement, her parents said they were “delighted to share” the snap and thanked “everyone for all of the lovely messages they have received, and hope that everyone enjoys this photograph of Princess Charlotte as much as they do.”

 The Duchess of Cambridge/PA Wire

 The little princess’s birthday will be spent at home “privately” where there will be a family celebration. Her big day comes after a public holiday for May Day in the U.K, so her family and friends will have no trouble getting time off to help the royal family toast the little one.

 It has been a big year for Charlotte. She traveled on her first royal tour in September, and the world got their first glimpse at her fun and independent personality during her first public playdate in Canada.

 Pool/Sam Hussein/WireImage

 She also had a memorable (candy-filled!) walk to church on Christmas morning. And the littlest royal is gearing up for another big role when she walks down the aisle as a bridesmaid in aunt Pippa Middleton’s wedding on May 20. Big brother Prince George will join her as a page boy.

 Danny Martindale/WireImage

 Candid portraits have become a tradition for the royal family. For Charlotte’s first birthday, mom Kate got behind the camera to take the sweet pictures, which showed Charlotte playing around the family’s home of Anmer Hall in adorable pink and blue outfits (with matching bows!).

 Source Kensington Royal/Twitter

 Prince George is used to showing off for the camera, too. Last July, he took a cute set of photos to celebrate his third birthday.

 Matt Porteous/PA

 Matt Porteous/Handout via AP

 One snap showed George feeding the family dog, Lupo, ice cream in the garden. In another, the barefoot future king stood on a swing dedicated to his parents “William & Catherine.” A similar shot shows chubby-cheeked George looking directly into the camera.

 And as always, the royal tot’s ensembles sold out immediately following the release of the photos — a fashion effect Charlotte has demonstrated as well! ||||| In this photo released Monday May 1, 2017, by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, showing their daughter Princess Charlotte taken in April 2017 by her mother Kate the Duchess of Cambridge at Anmer Hall in Norfolk, England. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have said they are "delighted" to share this... (Associated Press)

 In this photo released Monday May 1, 2017, by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, showing their daughter Princess Charlotte taken in April 2017 by her mother Kate the Duchess of Cambridge at Anmer Hall... (Associated Press) ||||| Image copyright HRH The Duchess of Cambridge

 A photograph of Princess Charlotte has been released by Kensington Palace to mark her second birthday on Tuesday.

 The picture, taken in April by her mother, the Duchess of Cambridge, shows the princess at the family's home, Anmer Hall, in Norfolk.

 The couple released a similar photograph of Charlotte last year to celebrate her turning one.

 Kensington Palace said they "hope that everyone enjoys this photograph of Princess Charlotte as much as they do".

 In the image, Charlotte is wearing a knitted yellow cardigan with a sheep motif and a navy blue clip in her hair.

 The family is expected to throw a birthday party for the Princess.

 Image copyright PA Image caption The princess was first pictured leaving St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, with her parents

 The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge keep Charlotte out of the public eye, but she was pictured at the Christmas Day church service in the village of Bucklebury in Berkshire.

 Another notable appearance was during the family's tour of Canada, where she was seen several times including at a children's party in Victoria, British Colombia.

 The palace said in a statement: "The Duke and Duchess are very pleased to share this photograph as they celebrate Princess Charlotte's second birthday.

 "Their Royal Highnesses would like to thank everyone for all of the lovely messages they have received."

 Image copyright PA Image caption Prince George pictured enjoying his big brother duties

 Image copyright HRH The Duchess of Cambridge Image caption Photographs taken by the Duchess of Cambridge were also released for the princess's first birthday

 Image copyright HRH The Duchess of Cambridge Image caption Charlotte was seen walking for the first time in this image released to mark her turning one last year

 Princess Charlotte will be a bridesmaid at her aunt Pippa Middleton's wedding later this month. Her brother, George, will be a page boy at the ceremony.

 When Prince William leaves his air ambulance post, the family will spend more time at Kensington Palace as the duke carries more of his royal duties.

 Image copyright PA Image caption Prince George checks on his sister at Charlotte's christening

 Image copyright PA Image caption The princess is largely kept out of the public eye, but was pictured attending a Christmas Day service with her parents and brother

 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Princess Charlotte gives some balloons the royal seal of approval

 Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Prince George and Princess Charlotte accompanied their parents on a tour of Canada, where here they are pictured at a children's party for military families in Victoria

 Image copyright PA Image caption Princess Charlotte and the Duchess of Cambridge during the family's tour of Canada

 Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Charlotte, pictured with her mother in Canada in September 2016

 Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning |||||


– Relations between Eric Holder and House Republicans have been testy for a while, but the attorney general made the case yesterday during a civil-rights speech that he's being treated worse than any of his predecessors. In the speech to Al Sharpton's National Action Network, Mediaite reports that Holder went off script with these lines: “The last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity. If you don’t believe that, you look at the way—forget about me, forget about me. You look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee—has nothing to do with me, forget that. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” Holder was apparently referring to a heated exchange he had with Republican Louie Gohmert of Texas as he testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Real Clear Politics has the transcript: Gohmert: “I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general. But it is important that we have proper oversight ..." Holder: “You don’t want to go there, buddy. You don’t want to go there, OK?” Gohmert: “I don’t want to go there? ... About the contempt?” Holder: "No. You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. I think it was inappropriate. I think it was unjust. But never think that that was not a big deal to me. Don’t ever think that.” The Washington Post notes that Holder also muttered, "Good luck with your asparagus" to Gohmert, a reference to yet another nasty exchange between the two last year. Back then, an annoyed Gohmert apparently misspoke, asserting that "the attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus.” Gohmert wasn't Holder's only critic at yesterday's hearing. Rep. Blake Farenthold said he would ask no questions because Holder should "be in jail." Gohmert, for his part, tells Fox News that he has no personal enmity toward Holder, reports Politico. "It’s a matter of proper oversight and … I don’t think he’s doing his job."

Expand this summary.

Rep. Louie Gohmert insisted Wednesday there is no personal bad blood between him and Attorney General Eric Holder the day after the two got into a contentious exchange in a House hearing, but the Texas Republican said Holder isn’t doing his job.

 “Well, it’s not personal with me. He seems like a likable guy,” Gohmert said on “Fox & Friends” when asked about the tone of the back-and-forth, in which Gohmert pressed Holder for Justice Department documents about an Islamic charity based in Texas.

 Text Size -

 +

 reset Heated exchange between Holder, Gohmert

 But Gohmert said Holder was not carrying out the duties of his position.

 (QUIZ: How well do you know Eric Holder?)

 “He is the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and he is obviously choosing, making personal choices, rather than objective choices, on who he prosecutes and persecutes and who he doesn’t,” Gohmert said. “So it’s not personal. It’s a matter of proper oversight and … I don’t think he’s doing his job. Otherwise, he would produce the documents that allow us to see that.”

 During the Tuesday hearing, the pair shot back and forth at each other about the Islamic charity documents and the Fast and Furious scandal, with Holder pointing his finger at the lawmaker and saying at one point: “You don’t want to go there.” Each said they didn’t need “lectures” from the other. ||||| Attorney General Eric Holder lashed out a bit at Louis Gohmert yesterday during a contentious exchange, snapping, “You don’t want to go there, buddy.” Holder’s clearly steamed about the back-and-forth, and brought it up during a speech he gave Wednesday to Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network. The Justice Department posted the transcript of Holder’s remarks as prepared for delivery, but Holder went off-script a bit to take a shot at the Republican congressman.

 RELATED: Louie Gohmert Reveals Whether It’s ‘Personal’ Between Him and Eric Holder

 Holder touted the work of the Obama administration to “advance the cause of justice,” and said that they’ve managed to succeed “even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive adversity.” He pointed to his treatment yesterday (not mentioning Gohmert by name) as an example.

 “And if you don’t believe that… you look at the way the Attorney General of the Untied States was treated yesterday by a House committee. Had nothing to do with me, forget that. What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

 It wasn’t just Gohmert that roughed Holder up yesterday, Republican Blake Farenthold said he would not ask Holder any questions because he should “be in jail.”

 Watch the video below;

 [photo via screengrab]

 — —

 Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

 Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com |||||


Write a summary based on this article:

Timeline of shooting at Butler High School

 One student was shot and killed at Butler high school early Monday morning after an argument in the hallway. ||||| A North Carolina high school student shot and killed a fellow student during a fight in a crowded school hallway Monday, officials said, prompting a lockdown and generating an atmosphere of chaos and fear as dozens of parents rushed to the school to make sure their children were safe.

 The student accused of firing the fatal shot was arrested quickly as investigators secured the campus at Butler High School in Matthews, about 12 miles (19 kms) southeast of Charlotte, said Matthews Police Department Capt. Stason Tyrrell. Students remained inside with the school on lockdown for about two hours after the shooting.

 The male student who was shot died at a hospital, Tyrrell said. He said the suspect, also male, was quickly taken into custody by a school resource officer as others rushed to the scene as backup. Investigators have the weapon used, but have not said what it is. Neither the suspect nor the victim's names or ages were immediately released.

 "We were able to review the surveillance video of the shooting, which was a fight between the two students," Tyrrell said, describing it as an "isolated incident."

 Tyrrell said the shooting happened in a hallway as crowds of students arrived for the day. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Clayton Wilcox said that many students witnessed the shooting, and counselors and psychologists were available.

 "There were many kids in the hallway when this happened," he said.

 "We're incredibly saddened by the fact that we had a loss of life on one of our campuses today. What makes it doubly difficult is that it was one of our students who was the shooter," he said.

 While police have not confirmed what kind of gun was used, Wilcox said: "I don't know how a young person gets a handgun in the state of North Carolina." He said the system was reviewing its security procedures.

 By late morning, school officials said that the lockdown was lifted and families could pick up students at the main entrance. Classes were proceeding for students who remained on campus. The diverse student body of about 2,000 at the school in North Carolina's most populous county is about one-third white, one-third African-American and one-quarter Hispanic.

 Before the lockdown was lifted, dozens of parents gathered outside of the school to await word on the students. Multiple parents told local television channels that they felt confused and unsure about where to meet with their children.

 Television footage showed students streaming out, with many crying and hugging parents.

 ___

 Follow Drew at www.twitter.com/JonathanLDrew |||||

– A fight in a high school hallway led to an all too familiar outcome Monday morning: a shooting that left a student dead. But Butler High School in Matthews, NC, also is drawing attention for its decision to resume classes less than two hours after the altercation. Police say two male students fought in a crowded hallway as students were arriving for the day, reports the AP. One student shot the other, who died at the hospital, and the alleged shooter is in custody, reports WRAL. A junior at the school tells the Charlotte Observer that students were ordered into the nearest classroom for about 90 minutes, then allowed to proceed to their scheduled class once the lockdown was lifted. “They’re changing classes during an active crime scene,” says one parent critical of the decision to resume a normal school day. It appears to have been optional, however. After police gave the all-clear, the school district informed parents they could pick up their children at the high school, adding that "classes will proceed on campus today for students remaining on campus." Police are still investigating how the shooter was able to bring the gun into the school itself. (Authorities say this would-be school shooter appears to have been foiled by his own gun.)


Article:

A supporter of Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, wears a Trump mask as he dances in the aisle before a town hall Saturday, April 2, 2016, in Rothschild, Wis. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast) (Associated Press)

 RACINE, Wis. (AP) — Following one of the worst weeks of his campaign, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was on defense Saturday as he kicked off a three-day sprint to Wisconsin's primary.

 Trump began the afternoon with a rally in the Milwaukee suburb of Racine, where he defended a series of controversial comments in recent days on NATO, abortion and nuclear weapons.

 "This politics is a tough business," said Trump, whose performance in Tuesday's contest will help determine whether he can seize the Republican nomination without a fight at the convention. "Because you can say things one way and the press will criticize you horribly. You say it another way and the press will criticize you horribly."

 Offstage, Trump expressed regret that he had retweeted an unflattering photo of rival Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi, paired with a glamorous photo of his own wife, Melania, as part of a bitter feud between the two men.

 "Yeah, it was a mistake," he told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. "If I had to do it again, I wouldn't have sent it."

 Among his biggest missteps have been Trump's recent comments on abortion, which have managed to unite both abortion rights activists and opponents in their criticism.

 During a taping of "Face The Nation" on Friday, Trump said he believed that, when it comes to abortion: "The laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." His spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, quickly issued a clarification that Trump meant that laws won't change until he's president and appoints judges who can interpret them differently.

 It was the second time in days that he'd stepped in hot water over the issue. On Wednesday, he'd said women should be punished for getting abortions if they're ever banned — a position the notoriously unapologetic campaign quickly reversed.

 Trump told one audience on Saturday that his words had been repeatedly taken out of context, and complained he was being held to a different standard than his rivals. He called his comments on "Face the Nation" ''perfect" and "so good."

 "They took words out that I said," Trump told the rally, implying CBS had edited his answer about keeping abortion laws as they are. But the video made clear there was no editing in the exchange about abortion and his response was given in full.

 Speaking to a friendlier crowd in Eau Claire Saturday night, Trump said that, on the plus side, he gets millions of dollars worth of free media coverage, "so I can't complain that much."

 Trump's abortion comments raised concerns in the Republican Party about whether his unpopularity with women as measured in preference polling would make him unelectable in a general election match-up against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

 In an apparent effort to address that concern, Trump said his wife will be campaigning with him Monday. His daughter Ivanka, who just had a baby, will also be returning to campaign with him in another week or so, he said.

 Trump's three events Saturday passed peacefully, though some of his supporters waiting in line to enter the Eau Claire rally exchanged harsh words with the several dozen protesters gathered outside.

 ___

 Lemire reported from Wausau and Eau Claire, Wisconsin. ||||| Trump quickly recanted and even told CBS’s John Dickerson that “the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.”

 “This was not real life,” he told me. “This was a hypothetical, so I thought of it in terms of a hypothetical. So that’s where that answer came from, hypothetically.”

 Given his draconian comment, sending women back to back alleys, I had to ask: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion?

 “Such an interesting question,” he said. “So what’s your next question?”

 I pressed, how he could possibly win with 73 percent of women in this country turned off by him?

 He chose another poll, murmuring, “It was 68 percent, actually.”

 Trump doesn’t have a plan to turn it around with women, except to use Ivanka as a character witness and to chant that “nobody respects women more than I do.”

 “I’m just going to be myself,” he said. “That’s all I can do.”

 I asked how he would get past the damage done by his insults about women’s looks.

 “I attack men far more than I attack women,” he said. “And I attack them tougher.”

 Besides, he noted, he gets attacked on his looks, too. “My hair is just fine, but I get attacked on my hair,” he said. “But if I attack someone else on their hair, they’d say, ‘Oh, what a terrible thing to do.’” |||||
What is a summary?

– Maureen Dowd has an unlikely admission from Donald Trump, after a bruising week in which the brash candidate took heat for re-tweeting an unflattering photo of Heidi Cruz: "Yeah, it was a mistake," he tells the New York Times columnist. "If I had to do it again, I wouldn’t have sent it." Of his comments that women who get abortions should be punished, Trump also backtracked, telling Dowd that "this was not real life. This was a hypothetical, so I thought of it in terms of a hypothetical. So that’s where that answer came from, hypothetically." When Dowd wonders whether he was ever involved with anyone who had an abortion when "he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan," he responds thusly: "Such an interesting question. So what’s your next question?" Other un-Trump-like highlights: On his problems with women voters: "Nobody respects women more than I do. I’m just going to be myself. That’s all I can do." On Rosie O'Donnell: "Give me a break, Rosie. I won’t comment on Rosie. I wish her the best. See? In the old days—tell your sister, I’m making progress." (Dowd told Trump he'd lost her sister's vote with the Cruz retweet.) On his hair: It's "phenomenal. My hair is just fine, but I get attacked on my hair. But if I attack someone else on their hair, they’d say, 'Oh, what a terrible thing to do.'" On whether Corey Lewandowski should have just apologized: "You’re right, but from what I understand it wouldn’t have mattered." The softer side of Trump comes as he's campaigning hard in Wisconsin, reports the AP, where he's gotten a rough reception. "This politics is a tough business," Trump told a rally there Saturday. "Because you can say things one way and the press will criticize you horribly. You say it another way and the press will criticize you horribly." The Wisconsin primary is Tuesday.