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. ||||| FILE - In this April 30, 1992 file photo Los Angeles police form a line to prevent a crowd from going into a building in a day of fires and looting in Los Angeles. After more than 25 years, authorities... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this April 30, 1992 file photo Los Angeles police form a line to prevent a crowd from going into a building in a day of fires and looting in Los Angeles. After more than 25 years, authorities... (Associated Press)

 LOS ANGELES (AP) — A victim of the 1992 riots in Los Angeles whose identity was a mystery for 25 years now has a name: Armando Ortiz Hernandez.

 The 18-year-old Hernandez was recently identified through fingerprints, Los Angeles County coroner's spokesman Ed Winter said Friday.

 Hernandez died of "inhalation of smoke, soot, carbon monoxide and thermal burns," Winter said. His body was found May 2, 1992, inside an auto parts shop that was set ablaze during the riots in South Los Angeles.

 Investigators have said they were able to lift a single fingerprint from Hernandez's left middle finger. The coroner's office did not immediately respond to questions Friday about whether Hernandez's fingerprints had been run through databases previously.

 Attempts to reach Hernandez's family members on Friday were unsuccessful.

 The looting and violence that would turn into one of the deadliest race riots in American history was sparked after a jury acquitted four white police officers in the beating of black motorist Rodney King. Video shot by a citizen captured officers repeatedly striking, kicking and using a stun gun on King, even after he was on the ground.

 A total of 53 people were killed and more than 2,000 injured during several days of violence.

 ___

 Follow Michael Balsamo on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1 . |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– After 25 years, the final unidentified body from the 1992 Los Angeles riots has a name, the Los Angeles Times reports. The body of 18-year-old Armando Ortiz Hernandez was found in a Pep Boys on May 2, 1992. According to the AP, authorities say he died of "inhalation of smoke, soot, carbon monoxide, and thermal burns." Hernandez's body was so badly burned coroners only had some of his teeth and a partial print from one finger to try to figure out his identity. Authorities continued to try to find a match for the print over the years, and finally an FBI squad that typically focuses on disaster victims found one. Hernandez, who until Friday was known only as John Doe No. 80, was identified thanks to a couple of minor arrests prior to his death. His only known relative, a sister living in Mexico, was notified. Hernandez was buried in a mass grave with other unclaimed bodies. Because the Pep Boys had been set on fire, his death was ruled a homicide. It remains one of the 23 unsolved homicides related to the riots, which left 53 people dead and more than 2,000 injured. The deadliest riots in US history started after a jury acquitted four white police officers accused of beating Rodney King, a black motorist.


Here is a news article: Angelina Jolie Wows the Crowd at Comic-Con

 Email This Actress Actress Angelina Jolie was a showstopper at the annual fan convention Comic-Con in San Diego, California on Thursday, The Huffington Post reports. The gorgeous brunette delighted fans when she took the stage in a skintight leather jacket, form-fitting black pencil skirt, and open-toe black heels.

 Jolie, 35, joined 'Salt' co-star Liev Schreiber for a panel on their upcoming film. The actress revealed she fell on set and was pretty freaked out when she couldn't hear anything, UsWeekly reports. "I thought I'd had a concussion, but I had forgotten that I had my earplugs in from [shooting] the gun!" she said.She also talked about the weapons she used while shooting 'Salt': "I got to play with just about everything," she said, "including using a fire extinguisher in a way I'd never used it."When she compared her new movie to past films she's done like 'Wanted' and the 'Tomb Raider' series, she said, "My style got meaner and harder and darker, it wasn't as pretty. I think this is a better action movie than the ones I've done." ||||| Kevin Winter/Getty Images

 While Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have been making the lovey-dovey rounds in support of her new film Salt (next stop, today at Comic-Con!), their attorneys have been working to kill—at least temporarily—another round of bogus breakup rumors.

 This morning, while the power couple presumably snoozed away in L.A., their lawyers in London accepted an undisclosed settlement (earmarked for charity, of course), from the British tab News of the World for making "false and intrusive allegations."

 Brangelina called in the dogs after the rag published a story back on Jan. 24 purporting the pair had met with a Los Angeles divorce lawyer to quietly divide their assets, hash out a custody deal and financially provide for their six children in advance of what the tab claimed was going to be a messy separation.

 Fail.

 While the newspaper hastily removed from the offending article from its website, it refused to acknowledge the information was untrue. In turn, the Brangelina's-divorcing rumor gained plenty of traction around the world, and no doubt caused the couple plenty of agita.

 "When the News of the World failed to publicly retract the allegations and apologize for them—thereby leaving their readers in the dark as to the true position—the couple felt they had no alternative than to sue," their attorney, Keith Schilling, said in a statement. "Today's victory marks the end of the litigation brought by Brad and Angelina."

 Unshockingly, aside from confirming the settlement, the News of the World didn't have much to say about their trip to the legal woodshed.

 ________

 She kicked ass in court. Now check out our list of Angelina's Kick Ass Movies. |||||
A summary of this is?

– Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have won a settlement from the News of the World after taking the British tabloid to court for publishing "false and intrusive allegations" that they were breaking up, E! reports. The paper reported the pair had met with a divorce lawyer in LA. The settlement, the amount of which wasn't disclosed, will go to charity. "When the News of the World failed to publicly retract the allegations and apologize for them—thereby leaving their readers in the dark as to the true position—the couple felt they had no alternative than to sue," the couple's lawyer said. To read more about Angelina, who wowed the geeks at Comic-Con in San Diego last night, click here.


Summarize this article:

“You have the migration because Syria is such a disaster. And now I hear we want to take in 200,000 Syrians, right? And they could be, listen, they could be ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. I don’t know.”

 — Donald Trump, campaign rally, Keene, N.H., Sept, 30, 2015

 “So when I heard 10,000 and 3,000, a number, you know, from one of you — I’d say all right. But now we’re talking about 200,000. Obama is getting carried away again with this whole thing about immigration. And now we hear 200,000 and it could very well be ISIS.”

 — Trump, interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,”, Oct. 1

 “Obama wants to — listen to this — he wants to take in 200,000. You know, 200,000. That’s like an army. Now I’m looking the other day. It’s all men. Like, where are the women? They’re very strong men. Why aren’t they back there fighting for their country?”

 — Trump, campaign event in Franklin, Tenn., Oct. 3

 “Now I hear we want to take in 200,000. We don’t know where they’re coming from. We don’t know who they are. They could be ISIS. It could be the great Trojan Horse…. And I’m saying we’re going to take in 200,000 people that we have no idea where they come from?”

 — Trump, interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Oct. 4

 Like a broken record, businessman Donald J. Trump keeps repeating a statistic with little basis in fact — that the Obama administration wants to accept 200,000 refugees from Syria.

 Our colleagues at FactCheck.org and PolitiFact have already weighed in with fact checks, but given that Trump keeps saying this, we figured it was worth putting the question to the Pinocchio test.

 The Facts

 We do not know where Trump gets his numbers — his campaign rarely responds to fact check queries — but the only thing close to a 200,000 figure is an announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry that the United States was prepared to boost the number of total refugees accepted in 2016, from 70,000 to 85,000. Then, in 2017, Kerry said that 100,000 would be accepted.

 That adds up to 185,000 over two years. But this would be the total number of refugees, not the number of refugees from Syria.

 By law, the president every fiscal year sets the maximum number of refugees the United States can accept in a year. Over the past decade, the annual limit has been between 70,000 and 80,000, according to the Congressional Research Service. So, 100,000 in 2017 would be a big jump, assuming Obama goes through with the pledge to authorize that level.

 But for Syria, Obama has only directed the United States to accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next year. That’s an increase of six times from 2015, but it’s hardly the flood that Trump worries about. In fact, in the interview with MSNBC, Trump indicated he would be fine with just 10,000.

 So his worries appear to be based on a misunderstanding.

 As Emily Litella would say, “Oh, that’s different. Never mind.”

 The Pinocchio Test

 Trump needs to quit using the 200,000 figure for the number of Syrians the administration has signaled it would accept — and reporters need to challenge him when he repeats it. In the meantime he earns Four Pinocchios.

 Four Pinocchios

 (About our rating scale)

 Send us facts to check by filling out this form

 Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook ||||| Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 America has just lived through another presidential campaign week dominated by Donald Trump’s racist lies. Here’s a partial list of false statements: The United States is about to take in 250,000 Syrian refugees; African-Americans are responsible for most white homicides; and during the 9/11 attacks, “thousands and thousands” of people in an unnamed “Arab” community in New Jersey “were cheering as that building was coming down.”

 In the Republican field, Mr. Trump has distinguished himself as fastest to dive to the bottom. If it’s a lie too vile to utter aloud, count on Mr. Trump to say it, often. It wins him airtime, and retweets through the roof.

 This phenomenon is in fact nothing new. Politicians targeting minorities, foreigners or women have always existed in the culture. And every generation or so, at least one demagogue surfaces to fan those flames.

 Here’s Donald Trump on Sunday: “When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country, we don’t know if they’re ISIS, we don’t know if it’s a Trojan horse. And I definitely want a database and other checks and balances. We want to go with watch lists. We want to go with databases. And we have no choice. We have no idea who’s being sent in here. This could be the — it’s probably not, but it could be the great Trojan horse of all time, where they come in.”

 Photo

 Here’s Joseph McCarthy in 1950: “Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down — they are truly down.”

 Here’s Donald Trump last Tuesday: “We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

 Here’s George Wallace in 1963: “We must redefine our heritage, re-school our thoughts in the lessons our forefathers knew so well, in order to function and to grow and to prosper. We can no longer hide our head in the sand and tell ourselves that the ideology of our free fathers is not being attacked and is not being threatened by another idea ... for it is.”

 Mr. Trump relies on social media to spread his views. This is convenient because there’s no need to respond to questions about his fabrications. That makes it imperative that other forms of media challenge him.

 Instead, as Mr. Trump stays at the top of the Republican field, it’s become a full-time job just running down falsehoods like the phony crime statistics he tweeted, which came from a white supremacist group.

 Yet Mr. Trump is regularly rewarded with free TV time, where he talks right over anyone challenging him, and doubles down when called out on his lies.

 This isn’t about shutting off Mr. Trump’s bullhorn. His right to spew nonsense is protected by the Constitution, but the public doesn’t need to swallow it. History teaches that failing to hold a demagogue to account is a dangerous act. It’s no easy task for journalists to interrupt Mr. Trump with the facts, but it’s an important one. ||||| THE GROWING ugliness of Donald Trump’s campaign poses a challenge to us all. We have seen the likes of him before, in the United States and elsewhere: narcissistic bullies who rise to prominence by spreading lies, appealing to fears and stoking hatred. Such people are dangerous.

 Like many Americans, our first inclination was to ignore Mr. Trump. The Huffington Post, you may recall, announced that it would feature him in its Entertainment section, not in its coverage of politics. He was a buffoon, a disseminator of ludicrous rumors about President Obama’s birthplace. He lacked the qualifications, experience or knowledge to be president. He was running to promote his brand. We wouldn’t give him the satisfaction.

 Our assessment of Mr. Trump was correct, but the tactical response was not. His popular support has hung steady at about 30 percent of Republicans, and his candidacy has tugged the debate toward divisiveness as his bigotry has drawn cheers and many of his rivals have strove to mimic him. Now some detractors opt again to disregard his lies, but for a different reason: Criticism from establishment politicians and tough questions from establishment journalists, it is feared, will only fuel his self-portrayal as the truth-telling outsider.

 That may be so, but it cannot justify silence. Just in the past few days, Mr. Trump has repeated the lie that President Obama intends to admit 200,000 Syrian refugees; the correct number is 10,000. He spreads the lie that thousands of American Muslims openly celebrated the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center; in fact, there were no such celebrations. He tweeted a false statistic that blacks are responsible for 81 percent of murders of white victims; in fact, 82 percent of whites are killed by whites.

 These are not random errors. All of them appeal to the basest instincts in supporters; they reinforce fears and prejudices. All of them, Mr. Trump knows by now even if he did not know when he first stated them, are false, but he does not care. The amplification of the lies is accompanied by growing intolerance in his campaign, with Mr. Trump praising supporters for beating a protestor, crudely denigrating anyone who challenges him and penning reporters into designated zones so that they cannot speak with his followers. And all of this matches the brutality of his policies: mass deportation of longtime U.S. residents, torture of foreign detainees, expulsion even of refugees who are here legally .

 A few candidates, such as former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have spoken out against some of Mr. Trump’s more outlandish comments. Many more, sadly, duck and cover, hoping to avoid Mr. Trump’s insults or to ingratiate themselves with his backers. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is probably the most egregious of these second-rate flatterers, but he’s far from alone. Asked about the mythical cheering crowds, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, “I think if it had happened, I would remember it, but, you know, there could be things I forget, too.”

 No, that is not something Mr. Christie would have forgotten, and he ought to say so. Other Republican leaders should speak up too: the speaker of the House and majority leader of the Senate, for example, and former president George W. Bush. The more reticent such leaders are, the more successfully Mr. Trump can brand their party and, to a disturbing extent, the nation with his demagoguery. The only way to beat a bully is to stand up to him. |||||

– This may not displease Donald Trump, but he has most definitely drawn the ire of two media establishment heavyweights over recent comments on three issues in particular—his claim that big crowds were cheering the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey, that President Obama plans to bring in at least 200,000 Syrian refugees, and that African Americans are behind most white homicides. All are lies, say the newspapers, and both back up their use of that word. A sample of their scathing editorials: Washington Post: "The growing ugliness of Donald Trump's campaign poses a challenge to us all," write the editors. Trump is deliberately spreading lies and appealing "to the basest instincts in supporters," as "narcissistic bullies" always do. It's time for the virtual silence from his fellow candidates and GOP leaders to end. "The only way to beat a bully is to stand up to him." Full editorial is here. New York Times: The editorial draws comparisons between Trump's "racist lies" to statements uttered by the likes of Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace. "His right to spew nonsense is protected by the Constitution, but the public doesn’t need to swallow it," write the editors. "History teaches that failing to hold a demagogue to account is a dangerous act. It’s no easy task for journalists to interrupt Mr. Trump with the facts, but it’s an important one." Full editorial is here.


Here is a news article: A study from the US National Institutes of Health presents some of the most precise human data yet on whether cutting carbs or fat has the most benefits for losing body fat. In a paper published August 13 in Cell Metabolism, the researchers show how, contrary to popular claims, restricting dietary fat can lead to greater body fat loss than carb restriction, even though a low-carb diet reduces insulin and increases fat burning.

 Since 2003, Kevin Hall, PhD--a physicist turned metabolism researcher at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases--has been using data from dozens of controlled feeding studies conducted over decades of nutrition research to build mathematical models of how different nutrients affect human metabolism and body weight.

 He noticed that despite claims about carbohydrate versus fat restriction for weight loss, nobody had ever measured what would happen if carbs were selectively cut from the diet while fat remained at a baseline or vice versa. His model simulations showed that only the carb-restricted diet would lead to changes in the amount of fat burned by the body, whereas the reduced-fat diet would lead to greater overall body fat loss, but he needed the human data to back it up.

 "A lot of people have very strong opinions about what matters for weight loss, and the physiological data upon which those beliefs are based are sometimes lacking," Hall says. "I wanted to rigorously test the theory that carbohydrate restriction is particularly effective for losing body fat since this idea has been influencing many people's decisions about their diets."

 Studying the effects of diet on weight loss is often confounded by the difficulty in measuring what people actually eat--participants may not adhere to meal plans, misjudge amounts, or are not truthful in follow-up surveys. To counter this, Hall and colleagues confined 19 consenting adults with obesity to a metabolic ward for a pair of 2-week periods, over the course of which every morsel of food eaten was closely monitored and controlled.

 To keep the variables simple, the two observation periods were like two sides of a balance scale: during the first period, 30% of baseline calories were cut through carb restriction alone, while fat intake remained the same. During the second period the conditions were reversed. Each day, the researchers measured how much fat each participant ate and burned and used this information to calculate the rate of body fat loss.

 At the end of the two dieting periods, the mathematical model proved to be correct. Body fat lost with dietary fat restriction was greater compared with carbohydrate restriction, even though more fat was burned with the low-carb diet. However, over prolonged periods the model predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences between diets that are equal in calories but varying widely in their ratio of carbohydrate to fat.

 "There is one set of beliefs that says all calories are exactly equal when it comes to body fat loss and there's another that says carbohydrate calories are particularly fattening, so cutting those should lead to more fat loss," Hall says. "Our results showed that, actually, not all calories are created equal when it comes to body fat loss, but over the long term, it's pretty close."

 Hall does caution against making sweeping conclusions about how to diet from this study. The study's purpose was to explore the physiology of how equal calorie reductions of fat versus carbs affect the human body. The research is limited by its sample size; only 19 people could be enrolled due to the expense of such research and the restrictiveness of the carefully controlled protocol. However, this study clearly reaches statistical significance. In addition,, the menu that the participants followed does not emulate normal dieting and does not account for what diet would be easier to eat over extended periods.

 "We are trying to do very careful studies in humans to better understand the underlying physiology that will one day be able to help generate better recommendations about day-to-day dieting," Hall says. "But there is currently a gap between our understanding of the physiology and our ability to make effective diet recommendations for lasting weight loss."

 Hall recommends that for now, the best diet is the one that you can stick to. His lab will next investigate how reduced-carbohydrate and reduced-fat diets affect the brain's reward circuitry, as well as its response to food stimuli. He hopes these results might inform why people respond differently to different diets.

 ###

 This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

 Cell Metabolism, Hall et al.: "Calorie for calorie, dietary fat restriction results in more body fat loss than carbohydrate restriction in people with obesity" http://dx. doi. org/ 10. 1016/ j. cmet. 2015. 07. 021 ||||| NIH study finds cutting dietary fat reduces body fat more than cutting carbs

 In a recent study, restricting dietary fat led to body fat loss at a rate 68 percent higher than cutting the same number of carbohydrate calories when adults with obesity ate strictly controlled diets. Carb restriction lowered production of the fat-regulating hormone insulin and increased fat burning as expected, whereas fat restriction had no observed changes in insulin production or fat burning. The research was conducted at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), part of the National Institutes of Health. Results were published August 13 in Cell Metabolism .

 “Compared to the reduced-fat diet, the reduced-carb diet was particularly effective at lowering insulin secretion and increasing fat burning, resulting in significant body fat loss,” said Kevin Hall, Ph.D., NIDDK senior investigator and lead study author. “But interestingly, study participants lost even more body fat during the fat-restricted diet, as it resulted in a greater imbalance between the fat eaten and fat burned. These findings counter the theory that body fat loss necessarily requires decreasing insulin, thereby increasing the release of stored fat from fat tissue and increasing the amount of fat burned by the body.”

 The researchers studied 19 non-diabetic men and women with obesity in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Participants stayed in the unit 24 hours per day for two extended visits, eating the same food and doing the same activities. For the first five days of each visit they ate a baseline balanced diet. Then for six days, they were fed diets containing 30 percent fewer calories, achieved by cutting either only total carbs or total fat from the baseline diet, while eating the same amount of protein. They switched diets during the second visit.

 The researchers had previously simulated the study with a math model of human metabolism, whose body fat predictions matched the data later collected in the study. When simulating what might happen over longer periods, the model predicted relatively small differences in body fat loss with widely varying ratios of carbs to fat. Those results suggest the body may eventually minimize differences in body fat loss when diets have the same number of calories. More research is needed to assess the physiological effects of fat and carb reduction in the long term.

 “This NIH study provides invaluable evidence on how different types of calories affect metabolism and body composition,” said NIDDK Director Griffin P. Rodgers, M.D. “The more we learn about the complicated topic of weight loss, the better we can find ways to help people manage their health.”

 More than two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese. Maintaining a healthy weight can help prevent complications related to overweight and obesity such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death.

 “Our data tell us that when it comes to body fat loss, not all diet calories are exactly equal,” Hall said. “But the real world is more complicated than a research lab, and if you have obesity and want to lose weight, it may be more important to consider which type of diet you’ll be most likely to stick to over time.”

 The NIDDK, a component of the NIH, conducts and supports research on diabetes and other endocrine and metabolic diseases; digestive diseases, nutrition and obesity; and kidney, urologic and hematologic diseases. Spanning the full spectrum of medicine and afflicting people of all ages and ethnic groups, these diseases encompass some of the most common, severe and disabling conditions affecting Americans. For more information about the NIDDK and its programs, visit http://www.niddk.nih.gov.

 About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

 NIH...Turning Discovery Into Health® |||||
A summary of this is?

– Think carbs are a dieter's enemy? It turns out restricting one's fat intake leads to a 68% greater loss of body fat than restricting the same amount of calories through carbohydrates in obese adults on strictly controlled diets—and this is in spite of the fact that a low-carb diet reduces insulin and increases fat burning. So says a physicist turned metabolism researcher at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases who wanted to test a mathematical model he devised that projected similar results. Reporting in the journal Cell Metabolism, Kevin Hall says that while many believe that cutting carbs reduces fat faster, none had actually tested the impact of cutting carbs while keeping fat at a base line or vice versa. So he checked 19 consenting non-diabetic adults with obesity into to a metabolic ward for two 2-week periods, controlling and accounting for every single bite they ate. As his model predicted, people lost more body fat when their dietary fat was restricted than when carbs were, even though a low-carb diet does indeed burn more fat. But his model also predicted that in the long term, these differences would become less pronounced for diets that have the same number of calories, according to the press release. "Over the long term, it's pretty close," Hall says. He used data from dozens of controlled feeding studies from decades of nutrition research to develop the model, but he cautions that the study is both small and highly controlled, meaning people's unrestricted diets may cause them to eat differently. "The real world is more complicated than a research lab, and if you have obesity and want to lose weight, it may be more important to consider which type of diet you’ll be most likely to stick to over time," he tells the National Institutes of Health. (See how carbs mess with our metabolism.)


Write a summary based on this article:

UPDATE: JC Penney has since apologized for the wierd tweets. "Oops...Sorry for the typos. We were #TweetingWithMittens. Wasn't it supposed to be colder? Enjoy the game! #GoTeamUSA" Sounds like a cover up to us. What do you think?

 JC Penney has become a hot topic on social media after the retailer posted a tweet that made absolutely no sense and seemed to be written by someone typing under the influence. "Who kkmew theis was ghiong tob e a baweball ghamle. #lowsscorinh 5_0" read the tweet posted on Sunday evening. Presumably the post was in connection to the Super Bowl, however, whoever wrote it clearly had no idea what they were tweeting about. There has been no comment from the store's account.

 JC Penney's 'drunk tweet' has provoked some hilarious comments on the twittesphere. "Umm,@jcpenney, the intern you have doing your tweets is drunk," Tweeted one user. "If you need proof of how underperforming this brand is...RT @jcpenney," tweeted another. "Hacked by Macy's RT @jcpenney" suggested someone else. "Uhh..go home @jcpenney. Your social media person is drunk," tweeted one user. "Maybe @jcpenney's super creative Super Bowl ad strategy is alcohol."

 The controversy comes just two days after TIME reported that JCPenney was raising its prices in order to slash them again for Valentines Day. s. “They had us up all night changing the prices on everything,” one J.C. Penney jewelry salesperson told the magazine. The outdated retailer has been accused of the tactic known as "price anchoring" for years. "Toughdown Seadawks!! Is sSeattle going toa runaway wit h this??" they just tweeted, with no explanation of the previous comment.

 Toughdown Seadawks!! Is sSeattle going toa runaway wit h this??? — JCPenney (@jcpenney) February 3, 2014

 Who is writing these tweets? #drunktweeting RT @jcpenney: Who kkmew theis was ghiong tob e a baweball ghamle. #lowsscorinh 5_0 — Christine Oliver (@ChristineOliver) February 2, 2014

 Umm,@jcpenney, the intern you have doing your tweets is drunk. — Beth Szabo (@PolkaDotFoxTrot) February 2, 2014 ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more |||||

– JCPenney, drunk tweeter? Nah, it turns out the company's retail Twitter account was just pulling our collective leg—and attracting a little attention—by tweeting silly things, AdWeek reports. But it's kinda funny to see how the tweets drew the Doritos and Kia social media teams into taking potshots: JCPenney: Who kkmew theis was ghiong tob e a baweball ghamle. #lowsscorinh 5_0 JCPenney: Toughdown Seadawks!! Is sSeattle going toa runaway wit h this??? Kia: Hey @jcpenney need a designated driver? Doritos: Slow down, @jcpenney. Have some #Doritos . JCPenney: Oops...Sorry for the typos. We were #TweetingWithMittens . Wasn't it supposed to be colder? Enjoy the game! #GoTeamUSA. Yes, it was all to promote mittens. Very clever, JCP. But they're not always so funny: The Twitter stunt comes right after the retailer raised prices just to lower them for Valentine's Day, reports Latin Times. JCPenney has been accused of such "price anchoring" several times over the years.


Theo Wargo/Getty Images

 Ozzy Osbourne sounds ready to bite somebody's head off.

 The British rock god released a statement saying he was "disgusted" by a Kansas-based church's choice to perform his music on the steps of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday.

 "I am sickened and disgusted by the use of 'Crazy Train' to promote messages of hate and evil by a 'church,'" said Ozzy, referring to the iconic song off 1980's Blizzard of Ozz.

 And lest you think he was peeved about the organist playing Randy Rhoades' riff in the choir loft, read on...

 MORE: Twitter War! Kelly Osbourne defends mum from "devil" Dannii Minogue

 The church in question is Westboro Baptist Church, a group known less for its choir than for its noisy, anti-gay protests staged at the funerals of U.S. soldiers, regardless of the fallen's sexual orientation.

 The small congregation, which chants things like "You're Going to Hell" and other feel-bad sentiments because it somehow associates dead soldiers with homosexuality in general, has garnered more attention now that their activities have turned into a free speech debate.

 The father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, whose funeral attracted Westboro protesters, was awarded $5 million after suing the group and its founder Fred Phelps for emotional distress. The church appealed the ruling and the case is now going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

 Which is where two of Phelps' adult daughters quoted Ozzy in song, singing, "You're going straight to hell on your crazy train." They looked pretty pleased with themselves for thinking that one up, too.

 Maybe something from Ozzy's Diary of a Mad Man would have been more appropriate.

 PHOTOS: The Big Picture ||||| The seed for this crawl was a list of every host in the Wayback Machine

 This crawl was run at a level 1 (URLs including their embeds, plus the URLs of all outbound links including their embeds)

 The WARC files associated with this crawl are not currently available to the general public. ||||| Ozzy Osbourne Furious at Anti-Gay Church

 Email This Ozzy Osbourne is bearing down on the infamous Westboro Baptist Church for using his song 'Crazy Train' during protests of gays in the military,

 After the small church used his 1980 hit at a demonstration on Thursday at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Prince of Darkness couldn't hold his tongue any longer.

 "I'm sickened and disgusted by the use of 'Crazy Train' to promote messages of hate and evil by a 'church,'" Ozzy said in a statement. Ozzy Osbourne is bearing down on the infamous Westboro Baptist Church for using his song 'Crazy Train' during protests of gays in the military, E! Online reports.After the small church used his 1980 hit at a demonstration on Thursday at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Prince of Darkness couldn't hold his tongue any longer."I'm sickened and disgusted by the use of 'Crazy Train' to promote messages of hate and evil by a 'church,'" Ozzy said in a statement.

 Crazy, but that's how it goes

 Millions of people living as foes

 Maybe it's not too late

 To learn how to love

 And forget how to hate

 The Kansas-based church was in Washington because the Supreme Court is set to review a ruling that awarded $5 million to the family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, whose funeral Westboro protested. The church appealed, and now it's going to the high court.At this week's protests, church members turned Ozzy's song into a hate-mongering chant: "You're going straight to hell on your crazy train."Of course, the song doesn't contain such lyrics . Instead, the metal hit is a plea for tolerance and understanding. The first line: |||||

Write a summary.

– Add Ozzy Osbourne to the list of people who are not happy with the Westboro Baptist Church. The group, infamous for staging anti-gay protests at military funerals and chanting things like “You’re going to hell,” played one of Ozzy’s songs on the steps of the US Supreme Court. “I am sickened and disgusted by the use of 'Crazy Train' to promote messages of hate and evil by a 'church,'” Osbourne said in a statement. The group seems to like singing, “You're going straight to hell on your crazy train," E! reports, but PopEater notes that such a line doesn't actually exist in the song—although, ironically, the line "Learn how to love, and forget how to hate" does. Click here for more. Want to see a softer side of Ozzy? Watch him cover a John Lennon song here.


Article:
A man ate 40 knives in two months in Amritsar in Punjab because "he felt like eating them".

 The matter came to light when he went to the doctor complaining of low appetite, weight loss and stomach pains.

 A 5-member team conducted a 5-hour surgery on Sunday to remove the metal from his body. The man is now stable.

 Shocking story from Amritsar! Man eats 40 knives, lives to tell tale; said to the doctor "I felt like eating them" pic.twitter.com/TaLrk6oHQj — ANI (@ANI_news) August 20, 2016

 5-member team located knives in body, surgery took 5 hours. Man ate these knives for over 2 months (graphic content) pic.twitter.com/Zazh8oUnqG — ANI (@ANI_news) August 20, 2016

 When asked the reason for eating the knives, the man told his doctors that he felt like eating them. "This was very unnerving. Have never witnessed something like this in my career as a doctor," said Dr Jitendra Malhotra, a member of the team who performed the surgery. ||||| AMRITSAR: In one of the rare cases, a team of doctors here successfully removed 40 knives from a patient's stomach.While talking to mediapersons here on Friday, Dr Jatinder Malhotra, managing director of The Corporate Hospital, informed that a police head constable Jarnail Singh (name changed), 42, was admitted in the hospital with complaint of stomach pain and weakness."Patient's ultrasound revealed a growth in his stomach. To confirm the diagnosis, an endoscopy was done which showed a few metallic knives inside the stomach," Dr malhotra said."After that a CT Scan of the abdomen was done, which showed multiple knives inside the stomach," He further said.When inquired from the patient, it was revealed that he had some sort of psychological problem, because of which he had swallowed 40 knives of different sizes in last two months.A team of surgeons, physicians and critical-care doctors operated upon the patient. The team included Dr B B Goyal, Dr Rajinder Rajan, Dr Arti Malhotra and Dr Anita besides Dr Jatinder himself.He said a few knives were opened up, a few were broken due to rust, while a few were lying closed.“In my 20 years of practice, this is the most dreadful surgery I have ever seen or done,” said Jatinder, adding that the head constable was out of danger now.A few knives were opened up, a few were broken due to rust, while a few were lying closed inside the stomach. ||||| “When we began the diagnosis, we found the cause of the pain puzzling. We did an ultrasound, which revealed some solid mass in his stomach, shaped like cancer,” he said.

 “The patient then told us he had an uncontrollable urge to eat knives. What is astonishing is that he had been eating knives [(for) the past two months.

 “This was very unnerving, I have not witnessed something like this in my career as a doctor.” |||||Summary:

– A 42-year-old police constable came into an Indian hospital complaining of stomach pain, the Times of India reports. According to the Telegraph, an ultrasound showed a mass doctors believed to be cancer. The reality was much more disturbing. An endoscopy revealed the mass to be a whole bunch of knives. On Sunday, doctors performed surgery, removing 40 knives from the man's stomach, News 18 reports. Dr. Jitinder Malhotra calls the five-hour operation the "most dreadful surgery" he's ever performed. The unnamed man had apparently been eating the knives for two months because he felt like it and enjoyed the taste. Doctors say he's suffering from some sort of psychological problem. "This was very unnerving," the Telegraph quotes Malhotra as saying. "I have not witnessed something like this in my career as a doctor." Despite recently having 40 knives of various sizes piling up in his stomach, the man is expected to be OK.


Article:
"These claims are absolutely false," Zamir Kabulov, head of the Russian foreign ministry's department responsible for Afghanistan and the Kremlin's special envoy in the country, told RIA Novosti state news agency.

 "These fabrications are designed, as we have repeatedly underlined, to justify the failure of the US military and politicians in the Afghan campaign. There is no other explanation," AFP quoted Kabulov as saying.

 NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, US General Curtis Scaparrotti, who also heads the US military's European Command, told lawmakers in Washington on Thursday that he had witnessed Russia's influence grow in many regions, including in Afghanistan.

 In a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Scaparrotti said Moscow was "perhaps" supplying the Taliban.

 In February, General John Nicholson, the US commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, testified that Russia is encouraging the Taliban and providing them with diplomatic cover in a bid to undermine US influence and defeat NATO.

 Kabulov in 2015 said that Russia was exchanging information with the Taliban and saw shared interest with them when it comes to fighting the Daesh (ISIS or ISIL) terror group.

 Russia considers the Taliban a terrorist group and it is banned in the country, along with the Daesh.

 Taliban fighters on Thursday captured Afghanistan's strategic district of Sangin, where US and British forces suffered heavy casualties until it was handed over to Afghan personnel. ||||| Top US general in Europe says Russia might be supplying the Taliban

 Commander of the U.S. European Command Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti testifies during a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday, March 23, 2017. In answer to questioning about Russian support for insurgents and terror groups, Scaparrotti said Russia and the Taliban are growing increasingly close, suggesting that the Kremlin might even be supplying the Taliban.

 The top U.S. general in Europe told lawmakers Thursday that Russia and the Taliban are growing increasingly close, suggesting that the Kremlin might even be supplying the insurgent group.

 Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, who is also the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, did not elaborate to the Senate Armed Services Committee on what type of equipment the Taliban might have received or when.

 Any type of material support, however, would be a significant escalation of Russia's involvement with the Taliban; it has said in the past that it maintains only limited communication with the group.

 "I've seen the influence of Russia of late, increased influence in terms of association and perhaps even supply to the Taliban," Scaparrotti said.

 Much to the chagrin of U.S. officials and military officers, Russia has justified its communications with the Taliban by saying the insurgent group is fighting the Islamic State in Afghanistan, not the U.S.-backed Afghan government.

 Army Gen. John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has decried Russia's contact with the Taliban, saying that it has given cover to a group that has worked for years to undermine the United States and the government in Kabul. Russia fought its own bloody war of attrition in Afghanistan in the 1980s, pulling out after suffering heavy losses from U.S.-supplied insurgents.

 "This public legitimacy that Russia lends to the Taliban is not based on fact," Nicholson told reporters in December.

 On Thursday, the district center of Sangin in Afghanistan's restive south province of Helmand was overrun by the Taliban after months of heavy fighting with Afghan forces backed by U.S. air support. In recent months, the Taliban has steadily increased control over large swaths of the country, prompting Nicholson to suggest that thousands more troops are needed to help better train the Afghan military and reverse the "stalemate" in the country. His assessment was subsequently echoed by Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of U.S. Central Command.

 Currently, about 5,000 NATO troops are in the country, in addition to the 8,400-strong American presence. U.S. forces primarily support the Afghans through training and airstrikes while small contingents of Special Operations forces continue to conduct counterterrorism missions against the network of terrorist groups still located in the country.

  ||||| Russia may be influencing and supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan, the top U.S. general in Europe said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday.

 Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, who also serves as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, told Senators that Russia’s role in Afghanistan seemed to be growing, according to Reuters.

 "I've seen the influence of Russia of late — increased influence in terms of association and perhaps even supply to the Taliban," Gen. Scaparrotti said.

 Afghan National Army commandos in Helmand province on Oct. 9, 2016. NOOR MOHAMMAD / AFP - Getty Images

 The news comes in the wake of the Taliban’s reported capture of the hotly contested town of Sangin in Afghanistan on Thursday, the location of a number of U.S. and British fatalities inside the deadly Helmand Province.

 Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi shared a statement on Thursday that claimed the Taliban had captured Sangin’s district center, according to the Associated Press.

 But that claim has been refuted by coalition forces.

 American Army Capt. William K. Salvin, spokesman for NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan, pushed back, alleging that Afghan forces still controlled the town but had simply moved its district center.

 “This move to a new district center had been planned for some time,” Salvin said, noting that U.S. Forces assisted with the move and helped destroy buildings and inoperable vehicles to leave nothing usable behind.

 “The only thing they left to the Taliban is rubble and dirt,” he added.

 Related: ISIS Claims Kabul Hospital Attack But Taliban Remains Main Threat

 The American military and NATO forces handed over control of Sangin to the Afghan military in 2013. Nineteen members of the American military have died maintaining the region since 2006, according to Operation Enduring Freedom statistics, and British forces lost more than a hundred soldiers in the town alone.

 Russia, meanwhile, has largely been absent in the country since the Soviet Union fought a disastrous war there in the 1980s. But their renewed interest in the region, Scaparrotti said, seems to be growing.

 Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month and told Senators that Russia was overtly attempting to legitimize the Taliban via a false narrative that they were fighting ISIS.

 He added that he had received reports that Russia was also providing “support to the Taliban.”

 The general called this “surprising” as “the Taliban have evolved over the years into a narco-insurgency and one that engages in extensive criminal activity, narcotics, kidnapping, illegal mining and other forms of criminal activity to fund their operations.”

 Nicholson also noted that Russia had met with the Taliban in Moscow to discuss the future of Afghanistan, but hadn’t extended an invitation to the Afghan government.

 Nicholson previously said the Afghan and U.S. forces “are in a stalemate” and requested “a few thousand” more soldiers to help train, advise and assist the local military. ||||| WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. general in Europe said on Thursday that he had seen Russian influence on Afghan Taliban insurgents growing and raised the possibility that Moscow was helping supply the militants, whose reach is expanding in southern Afghanistan.

 Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, General Curtis Scaparrotti speaks during a news conference in Tallinn, Estonia, March 14, 2017. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins

 “I’ve seen the influence of Russia of late - increased influence in terms of association and perhaps even supply to the Taliban,” Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, who is also NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

 RECOMMENDED STORIES FROM REUTERS:

 How Russia sold its oil jewel - without saying who bought it

 Kremlin says Kiev tarnishing Eurovision with Russia ban

 Ukraine accuses Russia of 'state terrorism'

 He did not elaborate on what kinds of supplies might be headed to the Taliban or how direct Russia’s role might be.

 Moscow has been critical of the United States over its handling of the war in Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union fought a bloody and disastrous war of its own in the 1980s.

 But Russian officials have denied they provide aid to the insurgents, who are contesting large swaths of territory and inflicting heavy casualties, and say their limited contacts are aimed at bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

 According to U.S. estimates, government forces control less than 60 percent of Afghanistan, with almost half the country either contested or under control of the insurgents, who are seeking to reimpose Islamic law after their 2001 ouster.

 Underlying the insurgents’ growing strength, Taliban fighters have captured the strategic district of Sangin in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, officials said on Thursday.

 The top U.S. commander in the country, General John Nicholson, said last month that Afghanistan was in a “stalemate” and that thousands more international troops would be needed to boost the existing NATO-led training and advisory mission.

 Scaparrotti said the stakes were high. More than 1,800 American troops have been killed in fighting since the war began in 2001.

 “NATO and the United States, in my view, must win in Afghanistan,” he said.

 Taliban officials have told Reuters that the group has had significant contacts with Moscow since at least 2007, adding that Russian involvement did not extend beyond “moral and political support.” |||||Summary:

– There's been lots in the news about Russia lately, and a high-ranking US Army general just added to the mix—this time regarding the country's involvement with the Taliban. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the supreme allied commander of Europe for NATO, told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday that he's noticed an uptick in Russian influence on the insurgent group in Afghanistan, and he raised the possibility that Moscow is giving the group supplies, reports Reuters. Russia and the Taliban deflected any insinuation that their relationship has ventured into equipment provisions, with Taliban officials telling Reuters that Russia has offered only "moral and political support." As for Russia's take on a possible supply chain: "Absolutely false," a Russian Foreign Ministry rep told RIA Novosti, via the Tasnim Iranian news agency. As Stars and Stripes notes, Russia has tried to evade full-on criticism for its Taliban rapport by claiming the militants are going after ISIS, not Afghani forces. However, Army Gen. John Nicholson, in charge of US forces in Afghanistan, has said he rejects the "public legitimacy" that Russia tries to impart on the Taliban. NBC News reports that Scaparrotti's theory comes just hours after reports that the Taliban had taken hold Thursday of the district center of the "hotly contested town" of Sangin, although that hasn't been confirmed. Scaparrotti didn't offer any elaboration on what provisions he thinks may have been offered by the Russians, or when this supposed handover may have taken place.


News article:

Here's a video of upscale men's workwear model Rick Perry accepting a jug of maple syrup at an event in New Hampshire. Now, we're not saying that he's definitely drunk, we're just saying, watch the whole thing. Or, if you don't have time, skip ahead to around 2:20, because that's where it starts getting really drunk. I mean, good. Really good. This is how animated GIFs get made, folks! [via Mother Jones] ||||| WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry raised some eyebrows Friday night with a speech performance in Manchester, N.H., that was unusually expressive.

 A Huffington Post reporter was in the audience for the speech but did not have a chance to review video footage of the Texas governor's remarks until Saturday afternoon when a montage of moments in the speech surfaced on YouTube.

 The video below is not a full version of his remarks. It is a carefully edited montage designed to highlight the giddiest and strangest moments of a roughly 25-minute speech. The owner of the YouTube account, CharlieJohnson1986, did not respond to a message sent to the account.

 But while the video is designed to make Perry look bad, it does capture elements of his speech that were widely remarked upon in the crowd by those who saw the speech.

 "It was different," Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas told HuffPost after the speech.

 A Perry spokesman did not respond to an e-mail Friday night inquiring about Perry's manner, and initially declined to comment on Saturday.

 Update at 9:25 p.m.:

 "The Governor is passionate about the issues he talks about," Perry spokesman Mark Miner said in an email to HuffPost on Saturday night.

 This article has been changed to remove a reference unrelated to the event. It has also been updated to reflect that Rick Perry's spokesman declined to comment Saturday. Mark Miner later offered comment. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Was Rick Perry pie-eyed during a speech to a conservative group in New Hampshire on Friday? In a video that has since gone viral, the candidate adopted an exuberant, jokey style and pulled a lot of funny faces, leading some commentators to believe that the Texas governor was distinctly refreshed. "It was different," the mayor of Manchester told the Huffington Post after the speech. The speech shows that Perry is "passionate about the issues he talks about," a campaign spokeswoman says. "We're not saying that he's definitely drunk, we're just saying, watch the whole thing," muses Max Read at Gawker.


Article:
Soldiers stormed the presidential palace of one of the few established democracies in this corner of Africa and announced Thursday that they had seized control of the country, ousting Mali's president just one month before he was due to step down at the end of his legal term.

 Civilians cheer as mutinous soldiers drive past, in front of a backdrop of burning tires, in Bamako, Mali Wednesday March 21, 2012. Gunshots could still be heard in the Malian capital late Wednesday,... (Associated Press)

 Civilians cheer as mutinous soldiers drive past in Bamako, Mali Wednesday March 21, 2012. Gunshots could still be heard in the Malian capital late Wednesday, hours after angry troops started a mutiny... (Associated Press)

 A soldier participating in a mutiny stands near civilians and burning tires lit in support of the mutiny, in Bamako, Mali Wednesday March 21, 2012. Gunshots could still be heard in the Malian capital... (Associated Press)

 Civilians walk past burning tires lit in support of mutinying soldiers, in Bamako, Mali Wednesday March 21, 2012. Gunshots could still be heard in the Malian capital late Wednesday, hours after angry... (Associated Press)

 Gunfire could be heard ringing throughout the capital, and the mutinous soldiers imposed a nationwide curfew. A flight headed to the capital of Bamako was forced to make a U-turn in the air after the airport closed.

 The soldiers said they are overthrowing the government because of its mishandling of an ethnic Tuareg insurgency in the country's north that began in mid-January. The rebellion grew when fighters who had supported the late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi returned home heavily armed. The unrest has forced tens of thousands to flee, and has prompted fierce criticism of Mali's government.

 Early Thursday, a group of around 20 soldiers in military fatigues were shown on national television crowding around a desk, facing the camera.

 They announced that Mali is now under the control of the military's National Committee for the Reestablishment of Democracy and the Restoration of the State, or CNRDR. They said they were suspending Mali's constitution and dissolving its institutions.

 The soldiers complained that the civilian government had not done enough to combat a rebellion by the ethnic Tuareg separatists, who want to carve out a homeland in the country's northern desert.

 "The CNRDR representing all the elements of the armed forces, defensive forces and security forces has decided to assume its responsibilities and end the incompetent and disavowed regime of (President) Amadou Toumani Toure," they said, reading from a statement. "The objective of the CNRDR does not in any way aim to confiscate power, and we solemnly swear to return power to a democratically elected president as soon as national unity and territorial integrity are established."

 The West African regional bloc ECOWAS said it "strongly condemns the misguided actions of the mutineers."

 The group said it was "all the more reprehensible, coming amidst the ongoing regional and international efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the rebellion in the north of the country."

 The coup is a major setback for one of the region's few established democracies. The ousted president came to power himself in a 1991 coup, but was hailed for handing power to civilians. A decade later, he won the 2002 democratic election. The 63-year-old Toure was due to step down next month after two, five-year terms.

 His whereabouts were unknown on Thursday. Contacted by telephone, a soldier at the palace said that the president's bodyguards had failed to fight the renegade soldiers, who burst in. They searched the grounds looking for him, but could not find Toure.

 The events that culminated in the coup began Wednesday morning at a military camp in the capital, where Defense Minister Gen. Sadio Gassama came for an official visit. In his speech to the troops, the minister failed to address the grievances of the rank-and-file soldiers. The rebellion has claimed the lives of numerous soldiers, and those sent to fight say they are not given sufficient supplies, including arms or food.

 Recruits started firing into the air Wednesday morning. By afternoon, troops had surrounded the state television station in central Bamako, located in southwest Mali, yanking both the television and radio signals off the air for the rest of the day. By Wednesday evening, troops had started rioting at a military garrison located in the northern town of Gao, some 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers) away.

 A freelance journalist from Sweden who was driving to her hotel near the TV station around 4 p.m. Wednesday said that trucks full of soldiers had surrounded the state broadcaster, where they set up machine guns facing the building.

 "They came and started setting up checkpoints. There were military in the streets, stopping people," said Katarina Hoije. "When we reached our hotel which is just in front of the TV station, there were lots of military outside, and more cars kept arriving _ pickup trucks with soldiers on them."

 In Washington, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said: "The situation is currently unclear and unfolding quickly ... There are reports of military forces surrounding the presidential palace and movement of vehicles between the palace and the military barracks."

 The Tuaregs, a traditionally nomadic people spread across the Sahara Desert, have risen up against the central government in Mali several times since the country's independence from France in 1960.

 The newest rebellion launched in mid-January broke years of relative peace, and has been fueled by the return of Tuaregs from Libya who had fought in Gadhafi's army. Refugees have spilled over into four of the countries neighboring Mali due to the uprising.

 Thousands of Tuaregs moved from Mali to Libya over the decades beginning in the 1970s, and many joined special divisions of Gadhafi's military where they earned higher salaries than in Mali. A relationship developed between the Tuareg and Gadhafi, who claimed they had distant blood links.

 When the Gadhafi regime fell last year, Tuareg troops smuggled Gadhafi family members to neighboring Algeria and Niger. After Gadhafi was killed in his hometown of Sirte in October, many Tuaregs no longer felt safe in Libya and began returning to Mali.

 The government has not disclosed how many government soldiers have been killed. The toll is believed to be significant and in February, military widows led a protest, publicly grilling Toure on television over his handling of the rebellion.

 ___

 Associated Press writers Rukmini Callimachi and Michelle Faul in Dakar, Senegal, contributed to this report. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption It is unclear where the president and members of his government are now

 Rebel troops have appeared on Malian state TV to announce they have seized control of the country, hours after attacking the presidential palace.

 The soldiers said a nationwide curfew was in force and that the constitution had been suspended.

 The troops, who staged a mutiny on Wednesday, say the government is not giving them enough arms to tackle a rebellion by ethnic Tuaregs.

 West African regional body Ecowas has condemned the actions of the troops.

 In a statement, it said it had followed the situation with "dismay and mounting concern", describing the behaviour of the mutinous soldiers as "reprehensible" and "misguided".

 Mali troop mutiny Image copyright ORTMTV Image caption It is not clear whether Capt Amadou Sanogo has the support of all Malian forces Mutiny leader Capt Amadou Sanogo (pictured above) has imposed a national curfew

 It follows anger among troops at the government's handling of a Tuareg rebellion in the north

 The whereabouts of President Amadou Toumani Toure are unknown

 A number of ministers have been arrested

 Country has had democratic rule for 20 years Troops in Mali attack palace Mali country profile

 It comes after the renegade troops had staged a mutiny traded gunfire with soldiers loyal to the government.

 A source told the BBC that the foreign minister and a number of other ministers have been arrested.

 On Wednesday the mutineers had taken over the state radio and TV broadcaster in Bamako and took it off air.

 After several hours of footage of traditional Malian music and dancing, a group of soldiers appeared on screen early on Thursday morning, with a caption identifying them as the "Committee for the Re-establishment of Democracy and the Restoration of the State".

 The leader of the mutiny was revealed to be Capt Amadou Sanogo, who appeared briefly to announce the imposition of a national curfew, although he did not specifying the time.

 A spokesman for the renegade soldiers, identified on screen as Lt Amadou Konare, said they had ended the "incompetent regime" of President Amadou Toumani Toure.

 Lt Konare condemned the "inability" of the government to "fight terrorism", and said the soldiers would look to hand over to a democratically elected government.

 There has not yet been any reaction from President Toure to the announcement.

 The BBC's Martin Vogl, in Bamako, said the exact whereabouts of the President Toure were not known.

 However, a loyalist military source close to the president told the AFP news agency on Thursday morning that he was well and in a safe location.

 Our correspondent said it was not clear whether the mutinous soldiers, up to 15 of whom were seen on screen, have complete control of the presidential palace or have the support of all the Malian forces.

 He said an elite force, known as the Red Berets, could still be loyal to President Toure.

 He said Mali has had democratic rule for the last 20 years, during which it has come to be seen as a model which other emerging democracies can look to.

 'Recruits riot in the north'

 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Opposition politician Cheick Oumar Sissoko: ''It was a mutiny, but for me, now it's a coup d'etat''

 The Kenyan government said its foreign minister, Moses Wetangula, and three officials accompanying him are safe in their Bamako hotel after being stranded in Mali.

 They were in the country to attend an African Union meeting.

 The unrest began on Wednesday as the country's defence minister started a tour of military barracks north of the capital.

 Soldiers fired in the air during the inspection, prompting an immediate strengthening of security around the presidential palace.

 Troops are upset with the government's handling of a Tuareg rebellion in the north of the country, and are also reportedly opposed to any potential talks with the rebels.

 There was heavy gunfire in Bamako throughout Wednesday, and armoured vehicles had moved in to protect the presidential palace. Gunshots reportedly continued to ring out overnight.

 A member of the presidential guard described the fighting to AFP.

 Image copyright AP Image caption Residents in Bamako said soldiers were firing into the air overnight in celebration

 "We are in control of the presidential palace. People are shooting towards us and we are returning fire," he said.

 In the northern town of Gao, young recruits were said to have begun rioting at a military base, according to the Associated Press news agency.

 Both the US and France have urged the soldiers and government to resolve their dispute through peaceful means.

 The Tuaregs have forced the army out of several northern towns in recent months.

 A presidential election was due to take place in the country in just under a month.

 The government had so far refused to postpone the poll, despite the unrest involving Tuareg-led rebels. |||||Summary:

– A military coup is under way in Mali, as renegade soldiers stormed the presidential palace in the capital of Bamako today, and soon afterward appeared on state TV to announce that they had booted the president and taken over the country, the BBC reports. The soldiers said they were suspending the constitution, dissolving its institutions and instituting a nationwide curfew. They said they were taking power because of President Amadou Toumani Toure's failure to defeat a rebellion by the Taureg tribes in the north, the AP reports. The military “has decided to assume its responsibilities and end the incompetent and disavowed regime of Amadou Toumani Toure,” the troops said, adding that it “does not in any way aim to confiscate power, and we solemnly swear to return power to a democratically elected president as soon as national unity and territorial integrity are established.” The mutiny comes just a month before Toure was set to leave office legally.


Tragic baby-shampoo heiress Casey Johnson spent the last months of her life in a suicidal drug haze, living in squalor, surrounded by hangers-on and cut off from her family fortune, those close to her said yesterday.

 The 30-year-old Johnson & Johnson scion, who was found dead in LA on Monday, had gone from being in line to a multibillion-dollar fortune to living in a garbage-filled, rented house with no electricity, water or gas — but with rats in the pool — as she battled illness and emotional demons.

 “She was very sick with diabetes and would often fail to take her insulin correctly, and was rushed to the hospital three or four times in the last six months,” a source close to Johnson told The Post.

 Still, while a family source acknowledged that Johnson “had two specific incidents in the last year where she was taken to intensive care with diabetic comas . . . it was nothing to do with not taking her insulin.”

 FROM A ‘SWEET’ BILLIONAIRE CHILD TO LONELY ADDICT

 CINDY ADAMS: CASEY’S TRAGIC FALL

 READ: ALL THAT TWITTERS NOT GOLD IN THE CASE OF TILA TEQUILA

 FLASHBACK: TILA, CASEY ENGAGED

 PHOTOS: LIFE OF CASEY JOHNSON

 “She had an insulin pump that delivered her medicine automatically,” the source insisted.

 “Recently, her diabetes became brittle, or labile, which meant that the insulin was becoming less effective, and her body was developing a tolerance to it. She was always at risk for going into a diabetic coma,” the source said.

 Johnson’s downward spiral began gaining speed late last year. There was an episode in which her former girlfriend Courtenay Semel allegedly set her hair on fire. Johnson was also busted for grand theft for breaking into and swiping items from a friend’s home, and her adopted daughter was wrested away from her by her concerned mother.

 Friends said Johnson coped by self-medicating — popping copious amounts of OxyContin, Klonopin and Adderall, as well as drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy and cocaine.

 Her family persuaded her to go into rehab a few months ago, but she checked out early and refused to go back.

 Things got so bad that in November, Johnson tried to commit suicide, sending a text message to her Semel, saying, “I’ve taken a lot of pills, and I’m going to sleep forever,” friends told The Post.

 Semel — whose father is former Yahoo! CEO Terry Semel — called an ambulance, and Johnson was in the intensive-care unit for three days.

 Her desperate cry for help came not long after close pal Jasmine Lennard accused the hopped-up heiress of breaking into her Los Angeles home and stealing thousands of dollars worth of clothes and jewelry and leaving a vibrator in her bed.

 When Johnson — daughter of New York Jet owner Woody Johnson — was arrested, her anxious mother, Sale Johnson, hoped the incident would drive her to get help, her friends said, but it was in vain.

 “When Casey was arrested for grand theft, her family and her friends thought this would be the catalyst for her to finally get the help she really needed,” one pal said. “They wanted to get her into a psychiatric hospital. But she was bailed out by a friend and went back to her old ways.”

 A friend added, “Her family were giving her tough love and said she was cut off unless she went into [rehab]. They did everything they could to help her, but she wouldn’t help herself.”

 The notorious shopaholic returned to her rented LA home — where she lived without utilities because she was unable to pay her bills — and kept her Porsche hidden in the garage so it couldn’t be repossessed. All the while, the grounds were overrun by vermin.

 “It was like ‘Grey Gardens,’ ” a source told Page Six last month. “There are dirty dishes everywhere and rotting food. There is graffiti on the walls. The pool looks like a swamp.”

 As Johnson sank into a sickening world of drugs, she surrounded herself with an ominous group of lowlifes.

 Neighbors said there was a revolving door of shady-looking characters at Johnson’s house — whose gate was inscribed with the name “Grumblenot.”

 “I saw very trendy, rock-and-roll, seedy types coming in there at all hours of the night,” said a neighbor.

 In her dark pit of drugs and despair, Johnson claimed she had found love — running into the arms of D-lister Tila Tequila.

 The two announced last month that they were engaged to be married in a disturbing online video in which both lay in their underwear — Johnson in a noticeable state of stupefaction.

 “[Tequila] was taking advantage of a sick girl. Casey would never have done that had she been in her right mind,” one friend said. “She looked totally out of it in the video.”

 The last anyone heard from Johnson was in the early morning of Dec. 29, when she posted a tweet on Twitter: “Sweet dreams everyone.”

 Her body was found six days later.

 The Los Angeles Coroner’s Office said an initial autopsy was inconclusive, although there appeared to be no evidence of suicide or trauma to her body.

 As for drugs in the home, there was “an insignificant” amount of prescription pills, law-enforcement sources told TMZ.

 Toxicology tests could take up to six weeks.

 Johnson’s New Jersey-based family yesterday said in a statement that it had arranged for “Casey to be flown back east to her final resting place.” There will be a private funeral service this week.

 They have already set up a memorial fund in her honor with the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, and urged people to donate.

 “Casey struggled throughout her life fighting this disease, and she would want to see all of us continue that fight on her behalf,” the statement said.

 Additional reporting by Tori Richards in Los Angeles

 lukas.alpert@nypost.com

  ||||| **Scroll down for photos**

 British reality show model Jasmine Ferrard had no love lost for her former friend Casey Johnson when Johnson allegedly stole from her and used her vibrator in her bed a few weeks ago, but now that the heiress is dead Jasmine has only kind things to say--to an outlet that routinely pays its sources for stories.

 "Casey was a fragile, beautiful, witty, wonderful girl who was desperately looking for love," Jasmine, 24, told RadarOnline.com. "Did I love her? Yes. I tried so hard to save her but I couldn't."

 The same day she gave Radar an 'exclusive' interview Jasmine spoke to Life & Style about her devastation. Then she threw in a custody offer.

 "Casey always made me promise if anything happened to her I would watch over her baby Ava, and with her family's blessing I will honor that promise," she told the magazine. Casey leaves behind a 3-year-old daughter whom she adopted from Kazakhstan in 2007.

 Jasmine blames Casey's histrionic fiance Tila Tequila for thwarting the Johnson family's attempts to put Casey in rehab. "Tila is a sick, sick girl," she told Radar. Here is Jasmine's Twitter hate screed to Tila:

 In 2005 Jasmine was a contestant on UK's 'Make Me a Supermodel,' where she called judge Rachel Hunter "spotty, finished and fat." She reportedly had an affair with Simon Cowell while he was dating Terri Seymour in 2006. Both Jasmine and Casey have been romantically linked to socialite and Yahoo! heiress Courtenay Semel.

 Here's Jasmine at a party in 2007:

 Here she is with her sister Jessica in 2005:

  ||||| Casey Johnson' Big Money Problems

 Casey Johnson' Big Money Problems

 had some pretty severe financial problems in the months before she died. Johnson was sued for not making lease payments on a Porsche and lost a five-figure lawsuit to a nanny service ... both in the last few months.According to documents obtained by TMZ, Johnson was sued by Porsche in September 2009 for failing to make the $2,300.47/month lease payments on her 2009 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S during the months of June, July and August 2009.She eventually lost the car to Porsche in December.As for the nanny service, the Elizabeth Rose Agency filed a lawsuit in August 2009 claiming Johnson owed them money. The agency won a judgment in December for $20,189.35. ||||| Please confirm your birth date: Please confirm your birth date:

 Please enter a valid date Please enter your full birth year

 This content is restricted. This content is restricted.

 In the last month of her life, Casey Johnson grabbed headlines with a messy engagement to reality star Tila Tequila. How a billionaire socialite wound up in bed with a hardknock stripper, filming soft-core porn on a webcam.

 Before their engagement, both women were minor tabloid figures who sailed into the limelight with sordid, humiliating tales of crime: Tila as the victim of a confusing domestic violence case, and Casey as the accused perpetrator of a scandalous psychosexual theft. When the chips were down, the women found each other—then lost each other, in mysterious circumstances amid a torrent of contradictions.

 Tomorrow I'll sort out the myriad Rashomon-like narratives, villains, heroes, and victims. For now, though, just the facts over the course of the two emotionally-packed months in the lives of four Hollywood sapphists, one football player, and a family billionaires. (Which seems short, but remember: Romeo and Juliet did it in four days.) |||||

Write a summary.

– As the initial autopsy results for Casey Johnson came back inconclusive but with no evidence of suicide, a slew of news—and opinions—about the heiress’s tragic final days also emerges. The latest: Johnson was living in a house filled with garbage and rats in the pool, but with no electricity, water, or gas, friends tell the New York Post. “There are dirty dishes everywhere and rotting food,” one source says. “There is graffiti on the walls. The pool looks like a swamp.” TMZ details the financial problems Johnson was having, including losing her Porsche in December for failing to make the lease payments, and owing a nanny service $20,189.35. Her diabetes was getting worse—a family source says insulin was becoming less effective—and another source says she had been “rushed to the hospital three or four times in the last six months.” One friend says Casey would never have gotten involved with Tila Tequila “had she been in her right mind,” and that the reality star “was taking advantage of a sick girl.” The Huffington Post has an extensive look at model Jasmine Lennard, with whom Johnson was famously feuding before her death—Lennard has now, of course, done a 180 and is offering to take care of the daughter Johnson left behind. Gawker, meanwhile, offers a detailed timeline of Johnson’s quickie romance with Tequila, as well as the various troubles both women were going through as their relationship ran its course.


Bearded men are more likely to be sexist, research has claimed.

 The Australian study interviewed more than 500 men aged 18 to 72, who were divided into facial hair categories (from clean shaven to sporting impressive beards), on their attitudes towards women.

 Researchers found men with facial hair – of any length – were more likely to agree with hostile sexist statements. Around seven out of 10 men participating in the survey had a form of beard or stubble.

 Sexist statements were differentiated by researchers into hostile and benevolent. The hostile statements include derogatory remarks patriarchal views, for example the view women perceive innocent remarks as being sexist.

 Benevolent sexism included actions such as opening doors and insisting on paying for dinner.

 Only a third of the men interviewed did not express some kind of sexist statement, according to the research published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour (CORR).

 The Gay Beards in pictures

 23 show all The Gay Beards in pictures

 1/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 2/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 3/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 4/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 5/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 6/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 7/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 8/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 9/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 10/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 11/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 12/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 13/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 14/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 15/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 16/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 17/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 18/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 19/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 20/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 21/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 22/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 23/23 The Gay Beards in pictures instagram.com/thegaybeards

 Julian Oldmeadow, one of the researchers from the Swinbourne University of Technology, hypnotised beards appealed to “hostile sexist men” as facial hair was perceived symbol of masculinity and dominance.

 “Men holding more patriarchal views may be inclined to reinforce their masculinity and dominance by growing facial hair,” he added. ||||| Source: sevpetro/Shutterstock

 Australian psychologists have discovered that men who grow beards are more sexist than their clean-shaven peers. The researchers had men in the United States and India complete a brief survey about sexist attitudes. Next, they divided the men into two groups—one of clean-shaven men; the other, mustachioed, goateed, and bushy-bearded.

 They then compared the scores of men with no facial hair to those of men with any kind of facial hair—and the hairy men scored higher on measures of hostile sexism but not benevolent sexism.

 Hostile sexist attitudes include the idea that women are inferior to men. Men who score high on measures of hostile sexism more strongly agree with statements such as “Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash," or “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men."

 Benevolent sexism is characterized by protective paternalism and complementary differentiation, and support for statements such as “Women should be cherished and protected by men."

 Writing in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, the researchers argued that other variables cannot fully explain away the relationship between hirsuteness and sexism. According to co-authors Julian Oldmeadow and Barnaby Dixson:

 “After controlling for nationality, age, level, relationship status, and , men with facial hair scored significantly higher on hostile sexism than clean shaven men. Furthermore, hostile sexist attitudes and nationality were the only significant predictors of whether or not men chose to grow facial hair."

 Indian men in the participant group, 86% of whom had facial hair, scored higher on sexism than American men (65% of whom had facial hair). Higher levels of education were associated with more benevolent sexism but less hostile sexism.

 A Mask of Masculinity

 The researchers speculate that men who already hold sexist views may choose to grow out their beards because a hairy face highlights the differences between the sexes: “Facial hair may appeal to hostile sexist males because it maximizes facial masculinity and augments perceived dominance." Previous research has shown that men driven to develop a more muscular physique also hold more sexist attitudes.

 Another possibility is that wearing facial hair causes men to adopt sexist attitudes. In studies, bearded men are generally rated as more masculine, mature, dominant, and aggressive. These social perceptions may lead men with beards to behave according to established masculine norms, and more readily endorse hostile sexist attitudes.

 Dixson’s previous research on male facial hair has shown that men who are clean-shaven or who wear light stubble are considered more attractive than men with beards, and that the current trend for bushy or “hipster” beards may be on the way out due to “negative-frequency-dependent sexual selection,” which describes how traits can plummet in appeal when we encounter them more often.

 Support Rob at patreon.com/psychology and receive bonus podcasts and blogs. ||||| Abstract

 Facial hair, like many masculine secondary sexual traits, plays a significant role in perceptions of an array of sociosexual traits in men. While there is consensus that beards enhance perceptions of masculinity, age, social dominance, and aggressiveness, the perceived attractiveness of facial hair varies greatly across women. Given the ease with which facial hair can be groomed and removed entirely, why should some men retain beards and others choose to remove them? We hypothesized that men with relatively sexist attitudes would be more likely to allow their facial hair to grow than men with less sexist attitudes. Men from the USA (n = 223) and India (n = 309) completed an online survey measuring demographic variables, ambivalent sexism, and facial hair status. After controlling for demographic variables, men with facial hair were significantly higher in hostile sexism than clean-shaven men; hostile sexism was a significant predictor of facial hair status over and above demographic variables; and facial hair was more frequent among ambivalent and hostile sexists than among benevolent and non-sexists. It is suggested that sexist men choose to grow facial hair because it maximizes sexual dimorphism and augments perceived masculinity and dominance. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found men with beards—or any other type of facial hair—were more likely to hold sexist attitudes. Australian researchers gave online surveys to more than 500 men between the ages of 18 and 72 from the US and India, Psychology Today reports. After controlling for everything from nationality to education level to sexual orientation, researchers found men with any type of facial hair scored "significantly higher" in hostile sexism. A hostile sexist would agree with statements such as "Women are inferior to men" and "Women want to keep men on a leash," per Psychology Today. That's opposed to a benevolent sexist, who would agree with statements such as "Women should be protected" and "Men should always pay for dinner." Researchers found no connection between beards and benevolent sexism. Researcher Julian Oldmeadow theorizes "hostile sexist men" grow beards because of what they represent, the Independent reports. “Men holding more patriarchal views may be inclined to reinforce their masculinity and dominance by growing facial hair,” he says. Only one-third of respondents in the study didn't express any sexist attitudes. (But how sexist are men who get a beard transplant?)