Write an article based on this summary:

– President Obama today cast the budget fight today as a choice between jet owners and ordinary Americans at his press conference. Some reactions: Greg Sargent, Washington Post: "He was clearly out to pick a major public fight with Republicans over tax cuts for the rich. Obama mounted a surprisingly aggressive moral case for ending high end tax cuts, casting it as a test of our society’s priorities, and argued—crucially—that anyone who fails to support ending them is fundamentally unserious about the deficit." Larry Kudlow, National Review: "Basically his message today was class-warfare, soak-the-rich. Somehow, Democrats are for your kids but Republicans are for your fat cats. It’s so tiresome. It will never sell." Steve Benen, Washington Monthly: Obama "did a very effective job at putting Republicans in a box. Either policymakers accept a balance approach, Obama argued, or the GOP will be exposed as deficit frauds who care about protecting the rich at the expense of everyone else." Robert Frank, Wall Street Journal: "Obama has a new term for the people he wants to tax more: jet owners. ... The problem is that most of the people that would be subject to the higher taxes the president wants aren’t likely to be private-jet owners. Someone earning $250,000 a year—among those scheduled for a tax increase in 2012—is unlikely to afford a jet—or even a few charter trips on a jet."

The primary goal of President Obama’s presser, which just wrapped up, was obvious: He was clearly out to pick a major public fight with Republicans over tax cuts for the rich. Obama mounted a surprisingly aggressive moral case for ending high end tax cuts, casting it as a test of our society’s priorities, and argued — crucially — that anyone who fails to support ending them is fundamentally unserious about the deficit.

 He also went out of his way to highlight GOP opposition to raising revenues by ending a perk for corporate jet owners. This proposal would raise only $3 billion, which means it’s trivial in the larger scheme of things, and Obama’s mention of it seemed deliberately designed to provoke howls of outrage and cries of “class warfare” from Republicans — with the obvious goal of maneuvering Republicans into the role of arch defenders of the interests of the wealthy.

 Obama is picking this fight in order to reframe the deficit and debt ceiling debate as a battle not over government spending — losing turf for Dems — but over who has the most balanced priorities and who is really working in the interests of the whole country.

 Here’s the key quote, which mentions the corporate jet tax break no less than three times:

 If we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we keep the tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we have to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. These are the choices we have to make...

 The Republicans say they want to reduce the deficit. Every single observer who’s not an elected official or politican says we can’t reduce our deficit in the scale and scope we need to without having a balanced approach that looks at everything. Democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our consituencies that we may not like. And we’ve shown a willingness to do that for the greater good...

 If you are a wealthy CEO or hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they’ve ver been. They’re lower than they’ve been since the 1950s. And you can afford it. You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet. You’ll just have to pay a little more...My believe is that the Republican leadership in Congress will hopefully sooner rather than later come to the conclusion that they need to make the right decisions for the country, that everybody else has been willing to move off their maximalist position. They need to do the same. My expectation is that they’ll do the responsible thing.

 In another key moment, Obama seemed to draw a line against cost-shifting to seniors to solve the Medicare problem. He said:

 We’re gonna have to look at entitlements. And that’s always difficult politically. But I’ve been willing to say we need to see where we can reduce the cost of health care spending and Medicare and Medicaid in the out years. Not by shifting costs on to seniors, as some have proposed, but rather by actually reducing those costs.

 While there’s good reason for skepticism that the final deal won’t contain some kind of cost shifting, it was good to hear Obama lay down that marker in those terms.

 More broadly, Obama stopped just short of saying he would not accept a final deficit deal without a high end tax hike. But his presser made it clear that he will will relitigate this fight and make it central to the campaign. And while we should keep in mind that Obama did ultimately cut a deal on the high-end tax cuts last time around, those who are hoping he will continue to make a strong moral argument in favor of ending them should be pleased by what they heard. ||||| As I wrote yesterday, Democrats are obsessed with repealing the Bush tax cuts, especially the upper-end. They could use a 12-Step program and a Higher Power.

 President Obama, after signing an extension of the Bush tax cuts last December, relapsed once again at his news conference today. It was the usual bashing of millionaires and billionaires, oil companies, corporate jets (made by Cessna and Hawker-Beechcraft), and investment funds.

 Plus, the president says there’s only about $1 trillion of spending cuts over ten years. Pardon me for being cynical for thinking much of that is phony baloney.

 So the whole debt-ceiling business is going nowhere. Republicans correctly reject tax hikes and the president isn’t yet digging in on spending. There’s no majority in the House for a $600 billion tax hike, and I hope there never is.

 What we have now is certainly not a growth package to perk up the sputtering, less-than 2 percent economy, with its 9.1 percent unemployment rate. No mention at all of a real business-tax-reform overhaul.

 On the plus side, the president did seem to side with Boeing in the NLRB dispute about adding jobs in South Carolina and the state of Washington. Obama said companies should be able to relocate anywhere in the United States.

 But basically his message today was class-warfare, soak-the-rich. Somehow, Democrats are for your kids but Republicans are for your fat cats. It’s so tiresome. It will never sell.

 Obama is in political trouble and he knows it. ||||| By Steve Benen

 President Obama is obviously aware of the fact that congressional Republicans are demanding a massive debt-reduction plan, but expect the deal not to bring in an additional penny in revenue.

 At a White House press conference this morning, the president did a very effective job at putting Republicans in a box. Either policymakers accept a balance approach, Obama argued, or the GOP will be exposed as deficit frauds who care about protecting the rich at the expense of everyone else. Greg Sargent ran this transcript from the event:

 “If we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we keep the tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we have to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. These are the choices we have to make…. “The Republicans say they want to reduce the deficit. Every single observer who’s not an elected official or politician says we can’t reduce our deficit in the scale and scope we need to without having a balanced approach that looks at everything. Democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our constituencies that we may not like. And we’ve shown a willingness to do that for the greater good…. “If you are a wealthy CEO or hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they’ve ever been. They’re lower than they’ve been since the 1950s. And you can afford it. You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet. You’ll just have to pay a little more…. My belief is that the Republican leadership in Congress will hopefully sooner rather than later come to the conclusion that they need to make the right decisions for the country, that everybody else has been willing to move off their maximalist position. They need to do the same. My expectation is that they’ll do the responsible thing.”

 The White House message is obviously taking shape. Obama and his team want the public to know the administration is committed to debt reduction and tough choices, which will include calling on broad sacrifice, but which will protect key investments in education and health care. Republicans, on the other hand, aren’t really committed to debt reduction if they’re only willing to look at one side of the budget ledger, aren’t especially concerned about education and health care, and will fight to the death to ensure the wealthy don’t have to sacrifice at all.

 The phrase of the morning is “corporate-jet owner.” I started keeping count of how many times the president used the phrase, and I think I noticed four separate instances. The point was to highlight a $3 billion perk available to those who buy these jets — a perk Republicans won’t touch because it would count as a (cue scary music) tax increase.

 As the process continues, the White House message to the public will be pretty straightforward: we can have a major debt-reduction deal if only Republicans weren’t fighting so hard to protect corporate-jet owners. Why, the argument will go, won’t the GOP look out for students and seniors the way it looks out for the fat cats in the Cessna? |||||


Write an article based on this summary:

– Last year, an American artist living in Germany bought Rosa Parks' dilapidated home in Detroit and reassembled it in Berlin as an art project. Now Ryan Mendoza says it's time for the home to return to the US, per the Detroit Free Press. He cites the recent racial violence in Virginia and the rippling effects of the removal of Confederate statues around the US, making the case that Parks' home would provide a powerful counterpoint. "There are very, very few monuments to the civil rights movement," he tells the Free Press. The big hitch, however, is getting someone, or some institution, to pay for its relocation. Mendoza says that Detroit's cultural institutions don't seem interested, raising the prospect that the home could end up in a museum elsewhere in the country. So far, one group—the Nash Family Foundation in New York—has pledged up to $40,000, but while other institutions have expressed interest in displaying the 21-by-21-foot-long home, actual monetary offers aren't following. Mendoza says he's spent about $130,000 to move and restore the house, though the interior work isn't yet complete. "I'm fond of the house," he tells NBC News, "but this house has to go back to the United States, and now is the time." (The late founder of Little Caesar's quietly paid Parks' rent for years.)

Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE Artist Ryan Mendoza saved Rosa Parks' old Detroit home from demolition by moving it to Germany. Now, he explains why he wants to return the house to America. Video by By Frank Witsil, DFP. Wochit

 Artist Ryan Mendoza poses in front of the rebuilt house of Rosa Parks in Berlin on April 6, 2017. (Photo: Markus Schreiber, Associated Press)

 DETROIT — The American artist who saved a Detroit home that civil rights icon Rosa Parks once lived in by moving it to Germany last year now wants to bring it back to Detroit.

 “If you look at the current situation in America, you have all of these monuments to the Confederacy — which are monuments to slavery,” the 45-year-old artist, Ryan Mendoza, said in an interview Sunday with the Detroit Free Press. “There are very, very few monuments to the civil rights movement, which is antithetical to that.”

 But, Mendoza said, Detroit's cultural institutions, so far, have shown little interest in bringing the house back. Instead, the house may likely end up in a museum or venue elsewhere in the U.S. — such as Washington, D.C., or New York.

 The artist, who lives in Germany, said it is time for Parks' home to return to the U.S. as communities here debate what should happen to Confederate monuments and memorials, and some fear that white nationalism is on the rise.

 More: When Rosa Parks was robbed, Little Caesars's founder stepped up

 More: Artist brings new beginning for Rosa Parks' Detroit home

 In the aftermath of the deadly clash in Charlottesville, Va., and plans for more rallies, there is a sense that moving the home back to America could serve as a reminder of what Parks — and others — went through in their fight for more justice and equality.

 From the beginning, Mendoza said he planned to showcase Parks' rebuilt home in Europe — and then return it to the U.S.

 About a year ago, the dilapidated home on South Deacon Street faced demolition, but its facade was removed so it could be shipped to Europe and refashioned into artwork and put on display in Berlin to give people a more intimate sense of who Parks was.

 Rosa Parks is shown during her 90th birthday celebration with family and friends Feb. 13, 2003, in Detroit. (Photo: Detroit Free Press)

 Parks, a soft-spoken seamstress, became an international civil rights icon after being arrested for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in 1955 in Montgomery, Ala.

 The bus — No. 2857, which was assigned to the Cleveland Avenue route — has been restored and is now at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.

 “Her memory, her legacy will never die,” Rhea McCauley said last year of Parks, her aunt, as the home facade was being packed up and sent to Mendoza's Berlin studio. “It is an important lesson for the entire country.”

 So far, Mendoza said, one foundation, the Nash Family Foundation, based in New York, has committed up to $40,000 to ship it back to the U.S., and dozens of museums he has contacted have been receptive to his appeals to display it.

 Mendoza said he has spent more than $130,000, much of that from the sale of his other artwork, to disassemble, move and rebuild the small home, which is about 21 feet wide and 21 feet long. He's now working on the home's interior.

 In addition to foundation and museum support, Mendoza said, the vice chancellor of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, who visited the house about a month ago, is helping to champion his efforts to return the house to the U.S.

 Mendoza said the German official even wrote a letter to former first lady Michelle Obama. It is significant that Parks' former Detroit home found a place of honor in a country whose leaders once supported a belief in a master race and practiced genocide.

 Berlin, the German capital, has been the backdrop for important speeches. President John F. Kennedy gave his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" address and President Ronald Reagan implored Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," referring to the Berlin Wall.

 There also is a Rosa Parks school in Berlin, as well as a Martin Luther King school and kindergarten. King visited the divided city in 1964, giving speeches to crowds on both sides of the Berlin Wall.

 In Berlin, Mendoza said that the house has been visited by thousands of people, including some American celebrities.

 Rhea McCauley, family member of Rosa Parks, listens to a speaker at an event outside of Rosa Parks' old home in Detroit on Sunday, Sept. 25, 2016. (Photo: Nate Smallwood, Detroit Free Press)

 Parks left the South in 1957 and came to Detroit to stay with family. She first settled at the home on South Deacon Street, McCauley said, adding she was one of 13 children and other relatives who also lived there.

 Parks later moved to a home on Wildemere on the city's west side. In 1994, she was assaulted and robbed by an intruder. She then moved to an apartment in Riverfront Towers in downtown where she lived until her death in 2005.

 In 2010, the Deacon Street home had fallen into disrepair. The city issued a demolition order.

 The Rosa Parks Family Foundation, founded by McCauley, bought the house on South Deacon Street in November 2014 for $500 from the Detroit Land Bank Authority with the hopes of restoring it.

 Mendoza, a painter from New York who moved to Europe at 20, learned about the Parks house through McCauley after he worked on the "The White House" project, in which he dismantled an abandoned house in Detroit and re-created it in Europe as artwork.

 That project, however, also angered some of the people who lived near the home's crumbling remains, which stood for six months after the facade was stripped off. That house, near 8 Mile and Livernois, was eventually demolished.

 Mendoza said the Parks' home is something that should be remembered.

 ”I brought it out of context so it could be made visible,” he said. "As an artist, you have to put a spotlight on something so it can be made visible."

 Contributing: The Associated Press. Follow Frank Witsil on Twitter: @fwitsil

 Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2xhcSXG ||||| Rosa Parks’ House, Now in Germany, Looks to Come Home

 When Rosa Parks’ old home was threatened to be demolished, Ryan Mendoza paid to have it taken down and shipped to Germany. He’s now trying to find a new home for this home, back in the U.S. |||||


Write a summary based on this article:

Higher education just got cheaper — for one course.National Louis University on Tuesday will offer a Groupon for a graduate-level introduction to teaching course, officials said.With the Groupon, prospective students can save nearly 60 percent on tuition for the single, three-credit course and earn credit toward a graduate degree, said Jocelyn Zivin, the vice president of marketing and communications for the Chicago-based, private university."There are all kinds of factors in the K-12 world that are really discouraging teachers and people seeking teaching degrees," Zivin said. "We'd like (potential students) to understand what the realities are, whether you are committed to this profession ... and see if you have what it takes."This is the first time an academic university has used the website as an effort to boost student interest, said Julie Mossler, Groupon's communications director.The course, tailored for people with no exposure or experience with teaching, is specifically structured for the Groupon deal and is open to anybody with an undergraduate degree, she said. National Louis will offer the course only at its Chicago campus, 122 S. Michigan Ave."We wanted the course to cover the broad and deep landscape of teaching," Zivin said.Regular tuition for the course is $2,232. Groupon will offer it for $950, officials said. The Groupon will go live Tuesday and will be available until Wednesday or until it sells out. Only 25 slots will be available, and the deal will tip at 15, Zivin said. The class will meet for three hours on Monday evenings, from late September to December.Although the course will count toward a graduate degree, it's only worth three of the 36 credits students need to graduate, Zivin said. Prospective students will need to go through the school's regular admissions process to take further courses."Part of our mission at National Louis, since the university's founding 125 years ago, is to identify people of talent who want to be teachers," she said. "This is an innovative way to deliver on that mission and reach those folks." ||||| A private, Chicago-based institution will be the first to put forth a deeply discounted deal on tuition via Groupon.

 In an effort to bolster interest in its graduate teaching program, National Louis University will offer would-be teachers a Groupon for nearly 60% off tuition of an entry-level graduate teaching course.

 The deal, set to go live Tuesday, will discount the cost for the three-credit introductory course from $2,232 to $950. The offer is open to as many as 25 buyers, who must possess an undergraduate degree to participate. Students will need to complete another 33 credits at full price to earn a graduate degree.

 The deal will tip with 15 buyers and run through Wednesday, Julie Mossler, Groupon's communications director, confirmed.

 "There are all kinds of factors in the K-12 world that are really discouraging teachers and people seeking teaching degrees," Jocelyn Zivin, vice president of marketing and communications for National Louis, told the Chicago Tribune.

 The idea behind the deal, she says, is to encourage prospective teachers to "understand what the realities are, whether you are committed to this profession ... and see if you have what it takes."

 The IPO-in-waiting Groupon, on the other hand, sees this new genre of deal as an experimental step in the right direction, whether it tips or not.

 "This is… an opportunity for our subscribers to take the first step toward what could be a new career," Mossler says. "National Louis joins an innovative list of merchants who were the first in their industry to experiment with collective buying power, and do it on Groupon."

 Image courtesy of Flickr, swanksalot |||||

– Is Groupon the future of financial aid? Probably not, but National Louis University is taking the site for a spin, offering prospective grad students almost 60% off its introduction to teaching course, the Chicago Tribune reports. The course is specifically designed for Groupon, and assumes students have no prior teaching experience. It’s open to anyone with an undergrad degree, but if students want to take more courses they’ll have to go through the normal admissions process. “There are all kinds of factors in the K-12 world that are really discouraging,” the school’s VP of marketing says. “We'd like (potential students) to understand what the realities are, whether you are committed to this profession ... and see if you have what it takes.” The Groupon deal goes live today: It offers the $2,232 course for $950 and will run until tomorrow, or until 25 people sign up, according to Mashable. Once students complete the class, they'll have three of the 36 credits they need for a degree.


Here is a news article: Getty Images Elon Musk

 A statement from Tesla’s board members on Wednesday raises further questions following the shock tweet from Elon Musk that he wants to take the auto maker private.

 The brief news release from Tesla board members—Brad Buss, Robyn Denholm, Ira Ehrenpreis, Antonio Gracias, Linda Johnson Rice, and James Murdoch—consisted of three sentences:

 Last week, Elon opened a discussion with the board about taking the company private. This included discussion as to how being private could better serve Tesla’s long-term interests, and also addressed the funding for this to occur. The board has met several times over the last week and is taking the appropriate next steps to evaluate this.

 Two board members, venture capital investor Steve Jurvetson as well as Musk’s brother, Kimbal Musk, didn’t sign on to the statement. (Jurvetson has taken leave from Tesla after being accused of sexual harassment.)

 The statement from members of Tesla Inc.’s TSLA, +5.77% board does show there was a discussion of how he could fund such a bid. But the board’s statement leaves open the crucial question of whether they were satisfied that—as Musk’s surprise tweet put it—he had enough backing to assert “funding secured.”

 At $420 a share, the price at which Musk tweeted he was considering setting the bid, the deal would be valued at $72 billion before debt.

 Related: A Tesla buyout would be the largest in history—by a wide margin

 Tesla shares were down more than 1% early Wednesday, after surging by about 11% on Tuesday. The electric-car maker’s stock has climbed by 21% so far this year. By comparison, the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +3.29% is set for a year-to-date gain of 3.5%, the S&P 500 index SPX, +3.43% is on track for a return of 6.8%, while the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, +4.26% has advanced by more than 14% so far this year, according to FactSet data. Tesla’s run-up comes despite the company being a consistent target of investors aiming to short the its stock, or bet against Tesla’s shares rising.

 Another crucial question raised by the statement is the timing. “Last week” predates Tesla’s filing on Monday of its 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which didn’t mention such discussions.

 News of a takeover would certainly be considered material, yet it wasn’t disclosed until Musk’s tweet on Tuesday.

 Another question is what the “appropriate next steps” are, though that’s probably the imminent formation of a committee to evaluate the bid.

 What was left out of the statement also is worth considering. For instance, there was no indication that the board was satisfied with either Musk’s method or timing for announcing the approach, though they didn’t rebuke him, either.

 Murdoch also sits on the board of News Corp., which owns MarketWatch, the publisher of this report.

 Related: Did Elon Musk break any laws with his going-private tweet?

 Want news about Europe delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to MarketWatch's free Europe Daily newsletter. Sign up here. ||||| Several independent directors of Tesla Inc.’s board said Wednesday it has met several times over the past week to discuss Chief Executive Elon Musk’s proposal to take the electric-car maker private in what would be the biggest buyout in history.

 “Last week, Elon opened a discussion with the board about taking the company private,” according to a statement from several board members. The talks included how being a private company could “better serve Tesla’s long-term interests, and also addressed the funding for this to occur,”... ||||| Image copyright Getty Images

 Tesla's board has confirmed that it will consider the proposal by chief executive Elon Musk to take it private.

 A statement was issued by six members of the electric carmaker's board after Mr Musk tweeted to say he had the funding to de-list the company.

 The board had "met several times over the last week" to discuss going private, the statement said.

 They said this "included discussion as to how being private could better serve Tesla's long-term interests".

 Mr Musk said in his tweet on Tuesday that shareholders would be offered $420 (£326) per share, valuing the business at more than $70bn.

 This would make it the biggest deal of its kind, surpassing the purchase of utility TXU Corp in 2007 for $44bn by a consortium.

 The brief statement by six of the nine board directors said Mr Musk had "opened a discussion" about taking the company private last week.

 The discussions "addressed the funding for this to occur", the six directors added. They did not include Mr Musk, his brother Kimbal Musk, and Steve Jurvetson, a venture capitalist.

 'Irregular' announcement

 The board statement came amid questions about how Mr Musk opted to disclose the possible de-listing to investors.

 While companies are allowed to make announcements via social media, typically they also make a simultaneous regulatory filing, said Andrew M Calamari, a partner at the law firm Finn Dixon & Herling and former director of the New York office of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US market regulator.

 "Just in terms of the style of this, it strikes me as very irregular," Mr Calamari said.

 "It also raises questions about his intent," he added. "Was he in earnest in what he's saying, or does he have some other motive" like influencing the stock price.

 Tesla shares reached a peak of $368 after Mr Musk's tweets on Tuesday, before trading on the stock market was halted.

 Trades resumed later that afternoon, after the company published an email from Mr Musk to employees elaborating on the plans.

 Tesla shares surged close to their all-time high of $385, which they touched almost a year ago, but fluctuated on Wednesday after the board members issued their statement.

 'Wild swings'

 In the staff memo, Mr Musk explained why he wanted to take the company private.

 "As a public company, we are subject to wild swings in our stock price that can be a major distraction for everyone working at Tesla, all of whom are shareholders," he wrote.

 "Being public also subjects us to the quarterly earnings cycle that puts enormous pressure on Tesla to make decisions that may be right for a given quarter, but not necessarily right for the long term," he wrote.

 He added that the company was "the most shorted stock in the history of the stock market" - a trading strategy which assumes share prices will fall - so "being public means that there are large numbers of people who have the incentive to attack the company".

 Those traders are likely to have lost money when the share price rose on the announcement about a delisting.

 Questions continue

 Mr Musk already owns 20% of the company. He said his intention in taking the company private was not to increase his personal holding and his plan would give existing investors the option to retain their shares.

 Regulators are likely to be interested in what evidence exists - such as agreements with investors or banks - for Mr Musk's claim that funding was "secured", Mr Calamari said.

 The Securities and Exchange Commission, the US market regulator, has inquired about the issue, the Wall Street Journal reported.

 The structure of the deal also remains ambiguous, said Adam C Pritchard, professor of securities law at the University of Michigan.

 If more than 2,000 investors opt to retain their shares, then the firm would be subject to the disclosure rules of a public company, he added.

 "Intuitively it doesn't make sense because it would still be a public entity, and the public entity status is what is apparently objectionable to Musk," Mr Pritchard said.

 Steven Kaplan, a University of Chicago professor who researches private equity, said it would be difficult for Mr Musk to raise the necessary finance when Tesla has still not made a profit.

 "The company is cash-flow negative. How do you use any debt on a company that is cash-flow negative?" he said. |||||
A summary of this is?

– Elon Musk wasn't blowing smoke. The BBC reports on a three-sentence statement issued by six of Tesla's nine board members saying the board had "met several times over the last week" to discuss Musk's proposal to take the company private, which he announced via an unexpected tweet Tuesday. The talks "included discussion as to how being private could better serve Tesla's long-term interests" and the statement ends by saying the board "is taking the appropriate next steps to evaluate this." The three board members who did not sign the statement are Musk, brother Kimbal Musk, and a board member who is on leave, reports the Wall Street Journal. At MarketWatch, Steve Goldstein flags some unresolved points: The statement didn't elaborate on Musk's claim of "funding secured" and raised but didn't answer a question of timing. "'Last week' predates Tesla's filing on Monday of its 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which didn't mention such discussions. News of a takeover would certainly be considered material," he writes. Shares of Tesla are currently down about 1%.


Summarize this article:

Wisconsin voters will head to the polls Tuesday to decide whether to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R) and install Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) in his place.

 The recall election has drawn massive amounts of national attention and money — $63.5 million and counting, to be exact. Walker enters Election Day as a slight favorite, with even Democrats acknowledging privately that a Barrett win at this point would be an upset. Of course, upsets happen.

 With the national spotlight so firmly fixed on Tuesday’s election — the Fix believes Tuesday’s vote is the second most important and influential race of 2012 aside from the presidential — the stakes for a number of players on both sides are absolutely massive.

 Below is a breakdown of who will be made — or broken — by what happens Tuesday in the Badger State.

 ●Scott Walker. No one has more to gain or lose than Walker. A defeat at the ballot box would, obviously, be a major setback for a politician widely viewed as a rising star when he was elected in 2010. Coming back from such a high-profile defeat — particularly one that came about 18 months after his initial statewide victory — would be decidedly difficult. If Walker wins, however, he will immediately become a national conservative hero (even more than he already is). He would be cast as the guy who stood on principle, stared down the best that Democrats could throw at him and emerged victorious. Don’t be surprised to hear some Walker 2016 or Walker 2020 presidential chatter if the governor can pull off a victory.

 ●Organized labor. If Walker has the highest stakes in the recall vote, the labor movement is a close second. Walker’s bill stripping public-sector unions of their collective-bargaining rights last year triggered a national outcry from labor, which viewed the Wisconsin law as the first step down a slippery slope of workers’ rights being forfeited. While there’s no doubt that the effort to recall Walker wouldn’t have happened without the energy and organization of the labor movement, unions also largely backed Barrett’s primary opponent — a move that some Democrats believe cost them precious time and money to make the case against the incumbent. If Walker survives on the heels of labor’s defeat in the 2011 recall effort to take over the Wisconsin Senate (it came up a seat short) and a failed attempt to unseat then-Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) in a 2010 primary, there will be lots — and lots — of questions asked about whether unions retain the political power they once did.

 ●President Obama. The Democratic National Committee and the White House have gone out of their way to make clear just how much financial and organizational support they have lent to Barrett’s effort. (DNC officials say more than $1.4 million has been directed to Wisconsin in the 2012 cycle so far.) They touted the fact that DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz traveled to the state last month to aid Barrett and that former president Bill Clinton stumped with the Democratic nominee last week. But some in Wisconsin — and Washington — are unhappy that the president himself decided not to campaign in the Badger State. (One party strategist noted that Obama had time to endorse in a House primary in New Jersey late last week but not to come to Wisconsin.) If Walker wins, not only will Obama get blamed for not doing more — which is always a difficult debate to referee — but there also will be plenty written about how the recall results bode poorly for Obama’s chances in Wisconsin in the fall.

 ●Tom Barrett. Barrett is the forgotten man in all of this, but he’s got a lot on the line, too. A former member of Congress, Barrett is now in his third run for governor (he lost in the Democratic primary in 2002 and then to Walker in 2010). A trifecta of gubernatorial defeats would amount to the end (or darn close) of Barrett’s statewide ambitions.

 ●Bill Clinton. The recall election is nothing but upside for the former president. If Barrett wins, the after-action analysis will almost certainly focus on Bubba’s last-minute campaigning for the party’s nominee. If Barrett loses, no one will blame Clinton — concluding that he did the best he could but not even his popularity could drag the Democrat across the line. Wisconsin is just another reminder that in politics, it’s much easier to be a former president than a current one. ||||| DE PERE, Wis. — President Obama holds multiple paths to re-election, with a handful of battleground states being able to slip away without leading to his defeat. But each possible outcome on his campaign map has always shared a common trait: winning Wisconsin.

 A Republican resurgence here, which has burst into full view as the party determinedly defends its sitting governor in a rare recall election, is spilling into the presidential race. The result is poised to shape the general election fight between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney, who intends to add Wisconsin to his list of targeted states.

 The president is bracing for a difficult set of challenges, which began last week when an uptick in the unemployment rate provided a fresh reminder of the beleaguered domestic economy and the deepening financial uncertainties abroad. A Republican victory here could set off a wave of adjustments in the lineup of swing states. Even before the outcome of Tuesday’s vote is known, Democrats are warning that Wisconsin is far from a surefire win in November.

 “We are tremendously polarized,” Mike Tate, the Wisconsin Democratic chairman, said in an interview on Sunday. “We’re going to remain a very competitive state heading into the fall.”

 While the presidential campaign is well under way across the country, the contest has been overshadowed here by the effort to recall Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican. The election, a culmination of more than a year of bitter unrest, has created a combustible political climate that defies easy characterization in the five months leading up to the general election.

 But Mr. Romney is within striking distance of Mr. Obama in Wisconsin, according to several public and private polls and interviews with strategists in both parties, and he intends to start building a campaign operation off the robust get-out-the-vote machinery assembled for Mr. Walker. The decision by the Romney campaign to try to contest Wisconsin is the first sign that Republicans are eager to expand their targets of opportunity and compete on terrain that not long ago seemed squarely on Mr. Obama’s side.

 “If we win on Tuesday, this is going to be a shot in the arm and adrenaline that we didn’t expect to have,” said former Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, a Republican who is seeking the party’s nomination to run for Senate. “It is going to spark fervor in the presidential race.”

 Mr. Obama has purposefully tried to keep his distance from the recall fight, which has unfolded with all the intensity and acrimony of a presidential campaign within the borders of Wisconsin. The mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett, is the Democratic candidate trying to replace Mr. Walker, who ignited a furor by cutting collective bargaining rights for most of the state’s public workers. It is a rematch of the 2010 governor’s race, which Mr. Barrett lost to Mr. Walker.

 The White House has showed tepid support for the recall. Democratic advisers thought the effort would take time and money away from the presidential campaign and poison the pool of independent voters who were a key part of Mr. Obama’s success here four years ago, when he carried the state by 14 points and swept 59 of 72 counties.

 The president, who campaigned for Mr. Barrett two years ago, has been conspicuously absent this time. His aides argued that he had a full plate and did not have time to come. But Republicans were quick to point out that Mr. Obama was only a helicopter ride on Marine One away from the state on Friday when he visited Minneapolis, and again on Saturday after spending the morning in his old neighborhood in Chicago.

 “He couldn’t drive 15 miles and show his face here?” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, who spent the weekend in his native Wisconsin to stir the pot and campaign for Mr. Walker. “There are going to be a lot of Democrats in Wisconsin who are going to be pretty disappointed with their president who did not come in and help out.”

 While there was more talk of Mr. Obama’s absence among Republicans than Democrats here, several Democratic officials said the president was wise to stay away.

 “He’s got a very big job as president,” said former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat and one of Mr. Obama’s earliest supporters four years ago. “As important as the recall is, in the big picture, it’s much more important to get Barack Obama re-elected.”

 The recall election has created bruised feelings and deepened the partisan divide in the state, which was on full display Sunday at the Zirbel Dairy Farms near De Pere, in northeast Wisconsin, where both candidates in the recall race crossed paths as they courted voters.

 At the Brown County Dairy Breakfast, a celebration that drew hundreds of people here on a sun-splashed morning, Laurie Gilson groaned aloud from her spot in line when she looked up and saw that Mr. Walker was dishing out scrambled eggs and conversation. She snapped to her sister: “I just can’t look at him. He’d better not say hi to me.” |||||

– Tomorrow, Wisconsinites will decide whether to keep Gov. Scott Walker or boot him in favor of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in what Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post is calling "the second most important and influential race of 2012 aside from the presidential," with "absolutely massive" stakes. Here's what you need to know as the clock ticks down: Two polls released yesterday show the race virtually tied—Walker leads in each, but by thin margins. He's up 50-47 in one, 53-47 in the other, but both are within the margin of error, Reuters reports. It's all about turnout now: "If Democrats turn out in the numbers they did in 2008, Tom Barrett will win a surprise victory. If they don't, Walker will survive," the head of Public Policy Polling says. The agency managing the election is predicting turnout somewhere between 60% and 65%—above 2010's 49.7%, but below 2008's 69.2% "If there's any state that epitomizes what the permanent campaign feels like, it's this one," observes David Catanese of Politico. This will be the seventh time Wisconsin has gone to the polls in the last 14 months, thanks to various recalls. All those campaigns are expensive: Through May 21, $110 million had been spent on political ads. President Obama will be closely watching the results, because he's counting on Wisconsin in November, the New York Times points out. "A Republican victory here could set off a wave of adjustments in the lineup of swing states." If Scott Walker wins, Cillizza expects to hear presidential rumblings surrounding him. A lot is on the line for Barrett, too; this would be his third gubernatorial defeat, likely ending his statewide ambitions. Organized labor has a lot to lose, too. A Walker win would be both an affirmation of his anti-union policies, and a signal that unions have lost their political juice; they opposed Barrett in the primary, and lost there, too.


News article:

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

 DENVER -- Officers pursued a stolen tractor towing an attachment through central Denver Friday night. The chase is believed to have began near City Park and ended in Lower Downtown.

 The tractor was stolen from a Denver Water facility at 1600 West 12th Avenue in the Lincoln Park neighborhood.

 We are working with @DenverPolice regarding their investigation into the stolen tractor Friday night. Any additional questions regarding this investigation should be directed to them at this time. Thank you. — Denver Water (@DenverWater) July 21, 2018

 Videos show a number of Denver Police Department vehicles pursuing the tractor, which could be seen driving on busy city streets and sidewalks. One clip shows the tractor crossing Park Avenue.

 The pursuit ended near 15th and Market Streets in LoDo. The Denver Police Department said two of its officers were taken to the hospital with injuries. By Saturday morning, both had been treated and released.

 One witness said the pursuit ended when a police cruiser hit the tractor head-on. The impact was strong enough to make the police vehicle's airbags deploy. The witness reported that immediately after, the officer who had been driving the wrecked cruiser used a Taser to subdue the tractor driver.

 Another witness reported the male suspect was apprehended and placed in an ambulance.

 "It could've definitely been a lot worse, for sure," he said.

 The second witness also described the actions of the officer who rammed their vehicle into the tractor, ending the pursuit.

 "Him doing that and going for it -- that takes a lot of dedication," he said.

 Police said officers did not fire their guns.

 Police have not released the suspect's identity as the investigation is ongoing.

 FOX31 and Channel 2 have reached out to the DPD for details regarding the circumstances of the chase.

 This story will be updated as authorities make more information available.

 For alerts on the latest breaking news, download our app for iPhone and Android. ||||| A local hospital is treating two police officers who sustained injuries on Friday night after a dramatic pursuit of a stolen tractor swerving through downtown Denver, officials reported.

 The tractor, which was pulling some kind of farm equipment, struck several cars and buildings as it caromed through streets, Denver police spokesman Tyrone Campbell said later at a press conference.

 More than a dozen police cars and a helicopter pursued the vehicle. Only when a police cruiser rammed it did the tractor stop. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Imagine looking outside and seeing over a dozen cop cars chasing ... a tractor. That was the scene in Denver last night when a stolen tractor towing an attachment smashed into cars and buildings as it plowed through downtown, the Huffington Post reports. Addie Hooper, 20, was visiting from Texas with family when she looked out a restaurant window onto Market Street and saw a police SUV crash into the tractor: "We were just like, 'Woah, that's crazy!" Hooper tells the Denver Post. Police vehicles rushed the scene and officers jumped out with guns drawn. "We thought they were going to shoot him," she adds. Instead, officers Tased the driver and made sure he was carted off by ambulance. Two officers sustained non-life-threatening injuries, and no reports have emerged of injured pedestrians. "It could've definitely been a lot worse," a witness tells KDVR. No more details have emerged, but police say the slow-speed chase began around City Park and concluded downtown, where officers rammed the tractor to protect pedestrians. Among Twitter videos, this one seems to capture it best. (Read about the easiest suspect chase ever.)


Here’s a research finding that should surprise no one: The men most likely to harass women online … are the men most likely to have their own problems.

 That bit of validation comes courtesy Michael Kasumovic and Jeffrey Kuznekoff, researchers at the University of New South Wales and Miami University, respectively. For their latest study, published in the journal PLOS One last week, the duo watched how men treated women during 163 plays of the video game Halo 3.

 [The only guide to Gamergate you’ll ever need to read]

 As they watched the games play out and tracked the comments that players made to each other, the researchers observed that — no matter their skill level, or how the game went — men tended to be pretty cordial to each other. Male players who were good at the game also tended to pay compliments to other male and female players.

 Some male players, however — the ones who were less-skilled at the game, and performing worse relative their peers — made frequent, nasty comments to the female gamers. In other words, sexist dudes are literally losers.

 A chart from the Halo study that shows how nice male gamers were to other males (dotted line) and females (solid line) during gameplay. Men always treat each other about the same. But the better a player gets, the more likely he is to be nice to ladies. (Kasumovic et al)

 In today’s online environment, alas, this is not an idle observation. According to a recent Pew report, 40 percent of Internet users have personally experienced harassment. While both genders are frequent victims of this abuse, women tend to get the worst of it: They are “particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment and stalking,” Pew said.

 [Online harassment isn’t just a women’s issue — it hurts guys, too]

 I asked Kasumovic, the lead author on the study, how applicable his findings were in other online or offline settings. In other words, how much of this derives from human nature, and how much of it relates to the unique demands of first-person shooters?

 Kasumovic argues that video games actually make incredible proxies for studying real-life behavior — Halo 3, especially.

 There are three things you should know about the game, for the purpose of understanding this study: (1) players are anonymous, and the possibility of “policing individual behavior is almost impossible”; (2) they only encounter each other a few times in passing — it’s very possible to hurl an expletive at another player, and never “see” him or her again; and (3) finally, and perhaps predictably, the sex-ratio of players is biased pretty heavily toward men. (A 2014 survey of gender ratios on Reddit found that r/halo was over 95 percent male.)

 That should sound a whole lot like a lot of other, frequently sexist online spaces: Think Twitter. Or Reddit. Or 4chan.

 [Everything you need to know about 4chan, the Internet’s own bogeyman]

 In each of these environments, Kasumovic suggests, a recent influx of female participants has disrupted a pre-existing social hierarchy. That’s okay for the guys at the top — but for the guys at the bottom, who stand to lose more status, that’s very threatening. (It’s also in keeping with the evolutionary framework on anti-lady hostility, which suggests sexism is a kind of Neanderthal defense mechanism for low-status, non-dominant men trying to maintain a shaky grip on their particular cave’s supply of women.)

 “As men often rely on aggression to maintain their dominant social status,” Kasumovic writes, “the increase in hostility towards a woman by lower-status males may be an attempt to disregard a female’s performance and suppress her disturbance on the hierarchy to retain their social rank.”

 In other words, like your mother always said, bullies just feel bad about themselves.

 This does not, alas, suggest any solutions for on- or offline sexism, or any hope that it will ever really end. (“There are so many more questions we’ve already begun to to ask and our results are looking really interesting,” Kasumovic said.)

 Until then, ladies, Facebook and Pinterest are your friends! Those are, for better or worse, two of the online spaces where this type of sex-ratio imbalance isn’t much of a problem: Women on both sites solidly outnumber men.

 Liked that? Try these! ||||| Abstract Gender inequality and sexist behaviour is prevalent in almost all workplaces and rampant in online environments. Although there is much research dedicated to understanding sexist behaviour, we have almost no insight into what triggers this behaviour and the individuals that initiate it. Although social constructionist theory argues that sexism is a response towards women entering a male dominated arena, this perspective doesn’t explain why only a subset of males behave in this way. We argue that a clearer understanding of sexist behaviour can be gained through an evolutionary perspective that considers evolved differences in intra-sexual competition. We hypothesised that female-initiated disruption of a male hierarchy incites hostile behaviour from poor performing males who stand to lose the most status. To test this hypothesis, we used an online first-person shooter video game that removes signals of dominance but provides information on gender, individual performance, and skill. We show that lower-skilled players were more hostile towards a female-voiced teammate, especially when performing poorly. In contrast, lower-skilled players behaved submissively towards a male-voiced player in the identical scenario. This difference in gender-directed behaviour became more extreme with poorer focal-player performance. We suggest that low-status males increase female-directed hostility to minimize the loss of status as a consequence of hierarchical reconfiguration resulting from the entrance of a woman into the competitive arena. Higher-skilled players, in contrast, were more positive towards a female relative to a male teammate. As higher-skilled players have less to fear from hierarchical reorganization, we argue that these males behave more positively in an attempt to support and garner a female player’s attention. Our results provide the clearest picture of inter-sexual competition to date, highlighting the importance of considering an evolutionary perspective when exploring the factors that affect male hostility towards women.

 Citation: Kasumovic MM, Kuznekoff JH (2015) Insights into Sexism: Male Status and Performance Moderates Female-Directed Hostile and Amicable Behaviour. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131613. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131613 Editor: Giovanni Ponti, Universidad de Alicante, ITALY Received: January 17, 2015; Accepted: June 3, 2015; Published: July 15, 2015 Copyright: © 2015 Kasumovic, Kuznekoff. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Data Availability: Data are available as Supporting Information. Funding: This research was supported by an ARC DECRA Fellowship (DE120100214) to MMK. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 Introduction Gender equality is currently one of the most hotly discussed topics across all scientific disciplines, political and religious ideologies, and workplaces [1–3]. Although many scientific discussions explore how we can overcome gender inequalities [3,4], they highlight how little we know about the factors that trigger sexist behaviour and the individuals that instigate it. Understanding these factors is absolutely necessary to attaining equality. Although many sociologists and feminists argue that sexism can only be explored through social constructionist theory [5,6], such a view assumes that sexist behaviour is solely determined by social and cultural environments, ignoring biological variation. From the same perspective, a biological approach alone ignores the importance of social interactions. We argue that a much clearer understanding of sexist behaviour is reached using evolutionary theory as it incorporates both a social and biological perspective [7]. From an evolutionary perspective, intrasexual competition is common and is one of the strongest forces shaping sex differences [8]. This is also true in humans and the fact that direct conflicts were largely fought by men [9] can help explain sex differences in body structure [10,11]. In a similar manner, these biological sex differences also shaped sex-specific competitive strategies. As a man’s access to resources and mates (i.e. fitness) is determined by his position in a hierarchy [12–14], it is important for men to understand and navigate dominance hierarchies enforced through overt signals of dominance [15]. In contrast, there is no evidence that a woman’s fitness is determined by her position in a hierarchy, making overt hierarchical navigation less important. In addition, because direct conflicts are relatively more costly for women [16], women generally use more subtle competitive strategies that reduce the social status of rivals and minimize retaliation [17,18]. The sexes thus differ in how social hierarchies are navigated, and the correlation between the placement within a hierarchy and fitness. Despite these historical sex-differences in competition, men and women currently interact and compete for the same professional positions and accolades [2,3]. The modern competitive environment has shifted in such a way that individual status is determined by performance metrics largely unrelated to physical differences. Nonetheless, gender differences in perceptions of hierarchies and behaviours associated with negotiating them could potentially explain the increased hostility women experience in competitive scenarios. Nowhere is this more apparent than in online environments where physical differences are inconsequential, yet women receive more than four-times the negative comments from men [19,20]. Video games perfectly blend biologically and socially-constructed competitive environments thus providing a unique opportunity to probe how intersexual competition shapes individual behaviours and attitudes in humans. For example, a recent survey by the Entertainment Software Association states men and women are equally likely to play competitive video games [21]. Because these aggressive virtual competitions can evoke meaningful neural [22,23], physiological [24,25], and behavioural [26,27] outcomes, these outcomes may parallel those seen in actual physical competitions, although the competitions do not require physical superiority since outcomes are determined by response times and cognitive capacity rather than physical strength. Nonetheless, video games remain a bastion of sexual stereotypes and inequality for several reasons. First, men are often graphically depicted as aggressive and hypermasculine, while women are portrayed in an overly sexualized manner [28,29] and are more often depicted as damsels in distress [30]. Second, anecdotal evidence suggests that men play more online competitive games than women (or at least that women may avoid speaking while playing) suggesting that some games may be considered ‘boys games’. The sexualized environment combined with men being the overwhelming vocal majority suggests an environment not unlike many current work environments where women can represent as little as 10% of the professional work force (e.g., electrical engineering, [31]). This suggests that competitive online video games may represent a common phenomenon that women encounter. Additionally, it reinforces the fact that women are entering a male-dominated competitive arena where they must compete in a direct fashion along an overt dominance hierarchy, rather than the more indirect route accustomed to through evolutionary history. To explore social constructionist and evolutionary explanations for sexist behaviour, we examine how individual performance and social standing affect female-directed male behaviour using an online first-person shooter video game, Halo 3 (see methods for greater details regarding the game). According to social constructionist theory, men behave in a sexist manner towards women to remove them from a male-dominated arena (i.e. backlash) [6]. Social constructionist theory thus predicts that focal male players should be relatively more negative and less positive towards a female (outgroup member) compared to a male-voiced teammate when encountered regardless of the focal player’s in-game performance or status. In contrast, evolutionary theory suggests that sexist behaviour is in response to a threat to a male’s position in the hierarchy, which if reduced, limits his access to potential mates. Evolutionary theory thus predicts that a male’s behaviour should be moderated by status and performance, such that only lower-status males that have the most to lose with a hierarchical reorganization by the introduction of a female competitor will be hostile towards female players. It also predicts that higher-status males should decrease the frequency of negative comments and increase their frequency of positive comments as female-voiced players represent a potential mate. Evolutionary theory also makes a secondary prediction regarding male-male interactions: the frequency of positive and negative comments should follow a typical hierarchical response such that poorer performance and lower status should evoke submissive behaviour (more positive and fewer negative statements).

 Materials and Methods Ethics Statement Neither written nor verbal consent to participate in this study was collected by the authors specifically because all individuals that participated in the study were anonymous (as players use pseudonyms) and had already agreed to the terms of Xbox Live (which state that conversations can be recorded). Because of these aspects, and that data for this study was obtained from a prior study, the Ohio University Institutional Review Board (IRB) determined that this study was exempt from IRB review under Category 4, research involving collection or study of existing data. Video Game Used In multiplayer first-person shooters like Halo 3, teams cooperate to kill members of the opposing team outside of a dedicated storyline such as that seen in a single player campaign within the game. As a result, the multiplayer games can be argued to be direct competitions outside of any sexualized storyline or content as they are only associated with the goal of eliminating opponents. Killing opponents results in a positive outcome for the team, while dying results in a negative outcome. In addition, improved performance within a game allows players to attain higher ranks and improve their skill rating, a long-term measurement of player status (i.e. dominance) that is publicly exhibited. We examine how individuals behave toward a male or female-voiced teammate as a function of positive (number of kills) and negative (number of deaths) player performance, as well as player status (maximum skill achieved). A secondary benefit of using Halo 3 is that players are covered head-to-toe with armor and identified by armor color, rather than facial features or body type. Additionally, player controlled avatars are not the hypersexualized males normally seen in many other video games, hopefully decreasing the overt sexism seen in most online competitive games and minimizing the effect of the game environment. Data Collection Data collection involved analyzing video recordings generated from Kuznekoff and Rose’s (2013) original study. In that study, the authors played in and recorded actual multiplayer matches of the video game Halo 3. The audio/video output of an Xbox 360 console was routed to a television and to a digital video converter connected to a computer. The converter allowed each multiplayer match to be recorded as a video file to the computer, capturing exactly what the researcher experienced while in the game. In addition, the researchers connected an audio playback device to the Xbox controller, which allowed them to broadcast pre-recorded audio clips to other players, as if they were speaking to each other through the real-time voice channel. Three Xbox LIVE (XBL) accounts were created and assigned to a respective experimental manipulation: control, male, and female. The control condition simply played in matches of Halo 3 as one normally would; however, this condition did not use the real-time voice channel to communicate with other players, and as a result, was not further analyzed here. For the male and female manipulations, the researchers also played in the matches as expected, but also developed a list of roughly a dozen phrases that were recorded separately by a male and female voice (S1 Text). These phrases were broadcast, during the games, to other players using the real-time voice channel. These prerecorded phrases were identical in the male and female condition, harmless in nature, and designed to be inoffensive. Phrases included: ‘I like this map’, ‘nice shot there’, ‘I had fun playing that game’, ‘I think I just saw a couple of them heading this way’, and ‘that was a good game everyone’. In the Halo 3 XBL matchmaking system, up to 8 individuals (4 on each team) are matched up against other players, by the system, according to their skill level. While players may form a party of up to four people beforehand, players have no control over the other players assigned to that game by the matchmaking system. The player skill level is an objective indicator (determined by an undisclosed algorithm by the developer) of how good or bad that particular player is in the specific playlist selected. This skill level ranges from 1–50, with a higher score indicating a greater skill level. While being matched, players can leave the game up until the game starts and any vacancies may be filled with other players before starting. During the matches, we broadcasted the pre-recorded audio clips to other players at appropriate times (S1 Text). For example, before the game would actually start, it would be appropriate to say ‘I like this map’; however, using that statement at the end of the game would make little sense and perhaps confuse other players. In every case, the audio clips could primarily be heard by teammates, and on occasion by opponents (if they were close enough to the experimental player). All the players on both teams could communicate with one another in the post-game lobby. Each multiplayer match was recorded as a separate video file and generally included not only what the player saw, but also what they said (i.e., pre-recorded audio statements) and how other players reacted. Coding Following the original data collection, and using the suggestions for future research identified by Kuznekoff and Rose (2013) as a starting point, the current study focused on individual gamers instead of each overall game. First, we only used the recordings from the male and female manipulations in which other players spoke. Following this selection phase, the selected video files (N = 126) were then transcribed by a professional transcription company (www.pacifictranslation.com.au) by individuals blind to the true purpose of the study and the experimental manipulations used. The authors randomly spot-checked 10% of the files for accuracy. One independent coder and one of the authors coded the comments each player made. Coders were provided with a codebook that explained the coding procedures. Both coders looked for comments and questions that appeared to be directed toward the experimental player and classified them as positive, negative, or neutral. Comments and questions in the positive categories were those that coders perceived as supportive or friendly, while those in the negative categories were those that the coders perceived to be aggressive or condescending (S2 Text). Comments and questions were considered neutral if they did not fall in one of the previous categories. For analyses, we collapsed questions and comments of each type (negative, positive and neutral) to increase our power. We also explored whether the negative statements in the female manipulation could be considered hostile sexism [32]. In order to calculate intercoder reliability (ICR) statistics, 10% of the total transcript files (N = 263), one file for each individual player/participant, were randomly selected and coded by both coders. Cohen’s kappa was calculated for each category and kappa values between 0.61 and 0.80 represent substantial agreement [33]. The kappa values for each coding category in this study are as follows: 0.85 for negative comments, 0.72 for positive comments, 0.99 for negative questions, 0.88 for positive questions, and 0.93 for neutral statements. Game and Player Data In addition to coding comments made by focal players, we also examined focal-player performance for the games they played in. These data included the overall game outcome (i.e., win or loss) from the perspective of the focal player, the focal player’s maximum skill level achieved, and the focal player’s number of kills and deaths. Lastly, these performance statistics were also recorded for the experimentally controlled player, which allowed us to calculate a relative performance metric for each focal player (focal player value—experimental player value). The skill level is calculated automatically by the Halo 3 matchmaking system, which analyzes the performance of the player in each game and adjusts that player’s skill level over time. This skill level provides a standard metric by which player skill (i.e. dominance) can be compared against each other. Statistical analyses We examined whether the number of positive, negative and neutral statements by a player were correlated with the outcome of the game, the experimental manipulation, and individual performance metrics (number of kills, deaths, and the maximum skill level achieved). We also added interactions between manipulations and the three performance metrics as we hypothesized that performance would differentially affect behaviour of focal individuals in the different manipulations. Rather than individual performance alone, we also examined whether positive, negative and neutral statements were correlated with performance of the focal player relative to the experimental player (i.e. the experimenter controlled player). For this examination, we created a model with the experimental manipulation and each of the relative performance metrics. We also added the interactions between the manipulation and each of the relative performance metrics. We used separate GLMs with a Poisson distribution and a log link to test the six models regarding positive, negative, and neutral statements outlined above. To examine whether individual performance relative to the experimental player was correlated with the use of sexist statements, we used a GLM with a binomial distribution and a logit link. All statistics were completed in R 3.1.1, mean values are followed with the standard error, and we provide standardized beta coefficients for significant effects. We used the effects package [34] to plot the predicted responses in all our figures. Data are available as supplementary information (S1 Dataset) and the data and R script are on Github (https://github.com/latrodektus/VG_Sexism).

 Discussion The goal of this study was to examine the moderating effect of performance and skill on the frequency of positive and negative statements towards a female- or male-voiced teammate in an online first-person shooter video game—a metric providing insight into sexism. We found that skill determined the frequency of positive and negative statements spoken towards both male- and female-voiced teammates. In addition, poorer performance (fewer kills and more deaths) resulted in more negative statements specifically in the female-voiced manipulation. We thus argue that our results best support an evolutionary explanation of female-directed aggression. Low-status males that have the most to lose due to a hierarchical reconfiguration are responding to the threat female competitors pose. High-status males with the least to fear were more positive, suggesting they were switching to a supportive, and potentially, mate attraction role. Our results are particularly important because the ecological design observed players in their natural state rather than in a laboratory or other foreign environment. The large online community of players using pseudonyms means that policing individual behaviour is almost impossible. Individuals thus generally behave expressively and honestly since there is no fear of retribution. Additionally, our use of an online environment avoided certain biases that can occur with human research, specifically the social desirability bias, where participants engage in or report more pro-social behaviour and under report or refrain from anti-social behaviour. Our study thus provides a unique perspective into female-directed hostility. While playing with male teammates, men generally follow rules associated with navigating hierarchies. Skill did not moderate focal player positivity towards a male-voiced teammate, but higher skilled individuals were less negative. In addition, when performing poorly, players increased the number of positive and neutral statements (Table 1), and were generally less negative towards a male-voiced teammate (Fig 3). As decreased cooperation or behaviours that lead to failure are often punished by teammates [35,36], the increase of positive and neutral statements and relatively less-frequent use of negative statements suggests poor-performing, lower-skilled males are demonstrating submissive behaviour towards a male-voiced teammate. Males behaved in the opposite manner when playing with a female-voiced teammate. Overall, the female-voiced manipulation experienced a greater frequency of negative comments, but female-directed negativity decreased as focal-player performance improved (Fig 3). In addition, focal-player skill further moderated player behaviour with the lowest-skilled males behaving less positively towards a female voice. Focal players also increased the use of positive statements as their skill increased (Figs 1 & 2). Taken together, these results suggest that it is lower-skilled poorer-performing males that are significantly more hostile towards females, and higher-skilled focal players are more supportive. Our results support an evolutionary argument for why low-status, low-performing males are hostile towards female competitors. Dominance is tightly linked to fitness in men as studies from hunter-gatherer societies demonstrate that dominance rank increases fitness through offspring number [14] and resource availability [12]. Even in modern day society, dominance and not attractiveness is associated with college male mating success [13]. Low-status and low-performing males have the most to lose as a consequence of the hierarchical reconfiguration due to the entry of a competitive woman. As men often rely on aggression to maintain their dominant social status [37], the increase in hostility towards a woman by lower-status males may be an attempt to disregard a female’s performance and suppress her disturbance on the hierarchy to retain their social rank. This idea is reinforced by the fact that higher-skilled males that should not feel threatened by a female increased their number of positive comments. Apart from restructuring the hierarchy, a high status female poses a secondary threat to relatively lower status males: as women are attracted to dominance [13], a high-status female is less likely to find lower-status males attractive. We argue that a secondary benefit of increased female-directed hostility is that it simultaneously decreases a female’s confidence and perception of her self-worth (i.e. negging) while simultaneously increasing the perception of him being a dominant (i.e. socially valuable) mate. Higher-skilled (i.e. more dominant) males do not behave in this manner as there is no need for them to reinforce their dominance to maintain their attractiveness. Although there is no direct evidence in the literature that negative behaviour towards females increases a male’s mating opportunity, our results provide an interesting testable hypothesis requiring further investigation. There are two alternative social explanations for our results. First, players could be responding to the novelty of having a female voiced teammate in a male-dominated environment. Indeed, a female speaking while playing first-person shooter games is rare as none of the 189 players recorded were female. However, novelty is not the driver of the differences in behaviour as performance and skill mediated the number of positive and negative statements. Second, individuals may simply be responding more aggressively towards individuals with a higher pitched voice (a female in this case), as dominance is predictable by voice pitch [38]. Although we cannot rule out this possibility, it’s still in line with our finding that individuals feel more threatened by lower-status individuals. Our study demonstrates that video games offer a unique opportunity to examine variation in sexist behaviours and the situations that result in changes in sexist attitudes. By demonstrating that female-directed hostility primarily originates from low-status, poorer-performing males, our results suggest that a way to counter it may be through teaching young males that losing to the opposite sex is not socially debilitating. This can be most easily done using video games as the gaming population is nearly equally split between men (52%) and women (48%) [21]. However, given that there is a general bias in game preferences between the sexes [39], first-person shooters largely remain male-biased communities not unlike some male dominated work and study environments (e.g., the technology sector, engineering, the mining industry) where women experience greater frequencies of sexist behaviour. The idea that videogames may be reinforcing such gender segregation as the norm for many teenagers is troubling given the fact that a significant proportion of them are gamers. Such ideas have the potential to spill over in real-life interactions [40] and promote socially unacceptable behaviours such as sexism.

 Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Khandis Blake, Rob Brooks, Miriam Capper, Tom Denson, Barnaby Dixson, and the rest of the Sex Lab at UNSW Australia for their helpful comments. We would also like to thank the two anonymours reviewers for their helpful insight. This research was supported by a DECRA fellowship from the Australian Research Council to MMK.

 Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: JK MK. Performed the experiments: JK. Analyzed the data: MK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JK MK. Wrote the paper: JK MK. |||||

Write a summary.

– Like low-status Neanderthals, contemporary men who aren't exactly winners—literally, when it comes to playing video games—are more likely to harass women online, new research cited in the Washington Post finds. Scientists who conducted the study published in Plos One played 163 games of Halo as either male-voiced players or female-voiced players (82 female, 81 male) with remote teammates and opponents. The study gauged a remote player's skill by measuring such factors like kills and deaths. Researchers found men were typically cordial to players they believed to be male, and that more skilled men who kicked first-shooter butt were less likely to direct negative comments toward female-voiced players than their less skilled male counterparts. But lamer players tended to take their frustrations out on female players with more frequent, caustic comments. A lead author notes that gaming provides the perfect breeding ground for this kind of behavior: After all, the Post notes, players can remain anonymous, they may never run into an online teammate or opponent again, and it's a significantly male-biased recreation. Females threaten gamers' "pre-existing social hierarchy"; the guys at the bottom of the virtual totem pole feel threatened and therefore become more threatening to those they think they can quash the easiest. "As men often rely on aggression to maintain their dominant social status, the increase in hostility towards a woman by lower-status males may be an attempt to disregard a female's performance and suppress her disturbance on the hierarchy to retain their social rank," the study notes. Such gamer communities mirror male-dominated industries—such as engineering or the tech field—and may promote sexist actions in real life, scientists warn.


After almost six months in a coma, Bobbi Kristina Brown died on Sunday, July 26. She was 22 years old.

 Brown had been hospitalized since Jan. 31. The aspiring singer was found unresponsive by her boyfriend, Nick Gordon, in a bathtub at her Roswell, Georgia, home. She was placed in a medically induced coma at the time to deal with swelling of the brain.

 In March, the daughter of Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown was moved to a rehab facility near Atlanta; however, on June 24, her condition worsened. Her family made the decision to transfer her to Peachtree Christian Hospice to live out the rest of her days peacefully.

 The Houston family released a statement to the media Sunday evening to confirm the death of Bobbi Kristina Brown.

 “Bobbi Kristina Brown passed away on Sunday, July 26, 2015, surrounded by her family. She is finally at peace in the arms of God. We want to again thank everyone for their tremendous amount of love and support these last few months.”

 Since news broke, countless celebrities and friends of Brown have taken to Twitter to offer their condolences. Take a look at some of the messages:

 Rest in Heaven Bobbi Kristina Brown. Official statement from the Whitney Houston Estate: pic.twitter.com/0iDBOwxziL — Legacy Recordings (@SonyLegacyRecs) July 27, 2015

 You kept telling me life wasn't the same without MommyIn all this pain and every tear shed I find a… https://t.co/iXYjTlge6f — Monica (@MonicaBrown) July 27, 2015

 Rest in heaven #BobbiKristina — Taraji P. Henson (@TherealTaraji) July 27, 2015

 RIP Bobbi Kristina — Reggie Bush (@ReggieBush) July 27, 2015

 “Motherhood changes you… you don’t live for you, you’re living for your children” Whitney Houston #RIP Bobbi Kristina pic.twitter.com/fbAMrH4xwP — Sherri Shepherd (@SherriEShepherd) July 27, 2015

 My heart goes out to bobby brown and the rest of the family — Jermaine Dupri (@jermainedupri) July 27, 2015

 Love to you Bobbi Kristina . We love you B. Brown!! — ErykahBadoula (@fatbellybella) July 27, 2015 ||||| Bobby Brown 'Comforted' that Bobbi Kristina Is Reunited with Her Mom Whitney Houston, Says Source

 Before the world learned about Bobbi Kristina Brown's death , her father Bobby Brown spent his Sunday connecting with family members to share the news.A Brown relative tells PEOPLE that Bobby began contacting loved ones to tell them the news shortly after Bobbi Kristina died on Sunday."He is holding it together more than you'd expect," the source said of Bobbi Kristina's grieving father. "He knew it was coming. Of course he's very emotional, but at the same time, he knows that Krissy is in a better place now."He is taking comfort in the fact that she's with her mother, and that there will be no more sadness or pain. She is at peace. He knows that, and is taking comfort in that."Bobby traveled back to Atlanta from his home in California shortly after the birth of his new daughter Bodhi Jameson Rein, to continue his vigil by Bobbi Kristina's side.Bobbi Kristina's death came nearly six months after she was found unresponsive in a bathtub in her Roswell, Georgia, home on Jan. 31. She never fully regained consciousness and was being kept on life support following her near-drowning. In March she was moved to a long-term care facility in the Atlanta area.In June, she was transferred to hospice after her condition "continued to deteriorate," Pat Houston said in a statement on behalf of the Houston family at the time."We thank everyone for their support and prayers," Pat, who is married to Whitney Houston's brother Gary, said. "She is in God's hands now."News of Bobbi Kristina's passing was confirmed to PEOPLE via a statement from the Houston family."Bobbi Kristina Brown passed away July 26, 2015, surrounded by her family," the statement says. "She is finally at peace in the arms of God. We want to again thank everyone for their tremendous amount of love and support during these last few months." ||||| My prayers are with Cissy Houston, Bobby Brown, and the entire family and love ones of Bobbi Christina. So sad. May God grant her peace. ||||| 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. ||||| ATLANTA (AP) — Authorities say an autopsy will be needed to evaluate what led to the death of Bobbi Kristina Brown, daughter of singer Whitney Houston.

 FILE - In this Sept. 1, 2009 file photo, singer Whitney Houston, right, sings with her daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown during a performance on "Good Morning America" in Central Park in New York. Brown died... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this Feb. 12, 2011, file photo, singer Whitney Houston, left, and daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown arrive at an event in Beverly Hills, Calif. Brown, who was in hospice after months of receiving... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this Aug. 16, 2012, file photo, Bobbi Kristina Brown attends the Los Angeles premiere of "Sparkle" at Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles. The daughter of the late singer and entertainer... (Associated Press)

 In a statement Monday morning, the Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office says the time that elapsed from when she was found unresponsive until her death Sunday will "complicate" its effort to reconstruct what happened.

 Bobbi Kristina died Sunday at Peachtree Christian Hospice in Duluth, Georgia, about six months after she was found Jan. 31, face-down and unresponsive in a bathtub in her suburban Atlanta townhome. She was 22.

 A police report described it as a drowning.

 The medical examiner says interpreting autopsy findings will also be challenging, but said it could be helpful to address questions about what caused her to become unresponsive.

 Bobbi Kristina was the only child of Houston and singer Bobby Brown. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– Condolences are continuing to pour in over the death of Bobbi Kristina Brown, the 22-year-old only child of Whitney Houston who passed away yesterday in Duluth, Ga., after being unconscious for nearly six months. Brown's father, Bobby Brown, has reportedly found some peace in the midst of his grief. "He is taking comfort in the fact that she's with her mother, and that there will be no more sadness or pain," a source tells People. Singer Monica echoed similar sentiments. "You kept telling me life wasn't the same without Mommy," she writes on Instagram. "In all this pain and every tear shed I find a small bit of peace knowing that your [sic] with her again." Houston passed away in February 2012 after being found in a hotel bathtub. Viola Davis was one of many who offered prayers for the Houston and Brown families. "May #BobbiKristina, rest peacefully with her mother in heaven," she tweeted this morning. Oprah Winfrey, Kylie Jenner, Perez Hilton, Taraji P. Henson, and the Rev. Al Sharpton also offered their condolences. "My prayers are with Cissy Houston, Bobby Brown, and the entire family and love ones of Bobbi Christina," Sharpton tweeted. "So sad. May God grant her peace." The Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office will conduct an autopsy, the AP reports, although the length of time Brown spent unconscious will "complicate" its efforts.