News Release Lincoln Police Department

The Lincoln Police Department is investigating a traffic crash at S. 84th Street and Augusta Drive that resulted in the death of a 24-year-old Lincoln man.

On Saturday, at approximately 9:45 PM, a motorcycle was traveling northbound on S. 84th Street when it struck an SUV that was southbound, turning east onto Augusta Drive. 

 The driver of the motorcycle died at the scene.  S. 84th Street between Pioneers and Old Cheney is currently closed as officers investigate the crash. 

The Lincoln Police Department is working to notify the family of the man killed.&nbsp;

The investigation is ongoing and LPD is asking anyone who witnessed the crash to come forward with any information they have regarding the case, including video evidence by calling our non-emergency number at 402-441-6000 or Crime Stoppers at 402-475-3600.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/6/1559737258290.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>News Release Lincoln Police DepartmentThe Lincoln Police Department is investigating a traffic crash at S. 84th Street and Augusta Drive that resulted in the death of a 24-year-old Lincoln man.On Saturday, at approximately 9:45 PM, a motorcycle was traveling northbound on S. 84th Street when it struck an SUV that was southbound, turning east onto Augusta Drive. The driver of the motorcycle died at the scene. S. 84th Street between Pioneers and Old Cheney is currently closed as officers investigate the crash. The Lincoln Police Department is working to notify the family of the man killed.&nbsp;The investigation is ongoing and LPD is asking anyone who witnessed the crash to come forward with any information they have regarding the case, including video evidence by calling our non-emergency number at 402-441-6000 or Crime Stoppers at 402-475-3600.

Motorcyclist killed in Lincoln crash

WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of people rallied on the National Mall and across the United States on Saturday in a renewed push for gun control measures after recent deadly mass shootings from&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/uvalde-school-shooting">Uvalde, Texas</a>, to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/buffalo-supermarket-shooting-442c6d97a073f39f99d006dbba40f64b">Buffalo, New York</a>, that activists say should compel Congress to act.

“Enough is enough,” District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser told the second March for Our Lives rally in her city. “I speak as a mayor, a mom, and I speak for millions of Americans and America’s mayors who are demanding that Congress do its job. And its job is to protect us, to protect our children from gun violence.”

Speaker after speaker in Washington called on senators, who are seen as a major impediment to legislation, to act or face being voted out of office, especially given the shock to the nation’s conscience after 19 children and two teachers were killed May 24 at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

“If our government can’t do anything to stop 19 kids from being killed and slaughtered in their own school, and decapitated, it’s time to change who is in government,” said David Hogg, a survivor of the 2018 shooting that killed 17 students and staff at&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/school-shootings-shootings-florida-ap-top-news-fl-state-wire-49734418df1e477681cf36b29faca7da">Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida</a>.

A co-founder of the March For Our Lives organization that was created after that shooting and held its first rally in Washington not long afterward, Hogg led the crowd in chants of “Vote them out.”

Another Parkland survivor and group co-founder, X Gonzalez, delivered an impassioned, profanity-laced plea to Congress for change. “We are being murdered,” they screamed and implored Congress to “act your age, not your shoe size.”

Added Yolanda King, granddaughter of Martin Luther King Jr.: “This time is different because this isn’t about politics. It’s about morality. Not right and left, but right and wrong, and that doesn’t just mean thoughts and prayers. That means courage and action.”

Manuel Oliver, whose son, Joaquin, was killed in the Parkland shooting, called on students “to avoid going back to school until our elected leaders stop avoiding the crisis of gun violence in America and start acting to save our lives.”

Hundreds gathered at an amphitheater in Parkland, where Debra Hixon, whose husband, high school athletic director Chris Hixon, died in the shooting, said it is “all too easy” for young men to walk into stores and buy weapons.

“Going home to an empty bed and an empty seat at the table is a constant reminder that he is gone,” said Hixon, who now serves as a school board member. “We weren’t done making memories, sharing dreams and living life together. Gun violence ripped that away from my family.”

In San Antonio, about 85 miles east of Uvalde, marchers chanted “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the NRA has got to go.” A man who said he helped to organize the rally, Frank Ruiz, called for gun reform laws similar to those enacted in Florida after the Parkland shooting that focused on raising the age for purchasing certain firearms and flagging those with mental health issues.

The U.S. House has passed bills to raise the age limit to buy semi-automatic weapons and establish federal “red flag” laws. A bipartisan group of senators had hoped to reach agreement this week on a framework for addressing the issue and held talks Friday, but no deal was announced.

President Joe Biden, who was in California when the Washington rally began, said his message to demonstrators was “keep marching” and added that he is “mildly optimistic” about legislative negotiations to address gun violence. Biden recently delivered an impassioned address to the nation in which he called for several steps, including raising the age limit for buying assault-style weapons.

In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams, who campaigned on reining in violence in the nation’s largest city, joined state Attorney General Letitia James,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-new-york-manhattan-national-rifle-association-gun-a8067cfd9a6bfe03edd3c0f2efa9e3a2">who is suing the National Rifle Association</a>, in leading activists across the Brooklyn Bridge.

“Nothing happens in this country until young people stand up — not politicians,” James said.

Joining the call for change were hundreds of people who rallied in a park outside the courthouse in Portland, Maine, before they marched through the Old Port and gathered outside of City Hall. At one point, they chanted, “Hey, hey, hey, NRA. How many kids did you kill today.”

John Wuesthoff, a retired lawyer in Portland, said he was waving an American flag during the rally as a reminder that gun control is “not un-American.”

“It’s very American to have reasonable regulations to save the lives of our children,” he said.

Hundreds of protesters in Milwaukee marched from the county courthouse to the city’s Deer District, where last month 21 people were injured in shootings on the night of an NBA playoff game. Organizer Tatiana Washington, whose aunt was killed by gun violence in 2017, said this year’s march is particularly significant to Milwaukee residents.

“A lot of us are still very heavily thinking about the mass shooting that occurred after the Bucks game,” Washington said. “We shouldn’t be scared to go watch our team in the playoffs and live in fear that we’re going to be shot at.”

The passion that the issue stirs was clear in Washington when a young man jumped the barricade and tried to rush the stage before being intercepted by security. The incident caused a brief panic as people began to scatter.

Organizers hoped the second March for Our Lives rally would draw as many as 50,000 people to the Washington Monument, though the crowd seemed closer to 30,000. The 2018 event attracted more than 200,000 people, but the focus this time was on smaller marches at an estimated 300 locations.

The youth-led movement created after the Parkland shooting successfully pressured the Republican-dominated Florida state government to enact sweeping gun control changes. The group did not match that at the national level, but has persisted in advocating for gun restrictions since then, as well as participating in voter registration drives.

Survivors of mass shootings and other incidents of gun violence have lobbied legislators and testified on Capitol Hill this week. Among them was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-texas-violence-gun-government-and-politics-4e9fd73d179e2448d80271abbe016fd4">Miah Cerrillo, an 11-year-old girl who survived the shooting</a>&nbsp;at Robb Elementary. She described for lawmakers how she covered herself with a dead classmate’s blood to avoid being shot.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1654991563265.png" alt="Rally at at the National Mall on Saturday photo courtesy March for our Lives" />
 <figcaption>Rally at at the National Mall on Saturday photo courtesy March for our Lives</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of people rallied on the National Mall and across the United States on Saturday in a renewed push for gun control measures after recent deadly mass shootings from&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/uvalde-school-shooting">Uvalde, Texas</a>, to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/buffalo-supermarket-shooting-442c6d97a073f39f99d006dbba40f64b">Buffalo, New York</a>, that activists say should compel Congress to act.“Enough is enough,” District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser told the second March for Our Lives rally in her city. “I speak as a mayor, a mom, and I speak for millions of Americans and America’s mayors who are demanding that Congress do its job. And its job is to protect us, to protect our children from gun violence.”<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">So proud to stand with my sister resisters at the Omaha March for Our Lives event. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WearOrange?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WearOrange</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DontLookAway?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DontLookAway</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EndGunViolence?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EndGunViolence</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MomsDemand?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MomsDemand</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Everytown?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Everytown</a> <a href="https://t.co/BL3mcWBJyU">pic.twitter.com/BL3mcWBJyU</a>&mdash; Fed Up Mom (@StevieMack1) <a href="https://twitter.com/StevieMack1/status/1535750937540808706?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Speaker after speaker in Washington called on senators, who are seen as a major impediment to legislation, to act or face being voted out of office, especially given the shock to the nation’s conscience after 19 children and two teachers were killed May 24 at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.“If our government can’t do anything to stop 19 kids from being killed and slaughtered in their own school, and decapitated, it’s time to change who is in government,” said David Hogg, a survivor of the 2018 shooting that killed 17 students and staff at&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/school-shootings-shootings-florida-ap-top-news-fl-state-wire-49734418df1e477681cf36b29faca7da">Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida</a>.A co-founder of the March For Our Lives organization that was created after that shooting and held its first rally in Washington not long afterward, Hogg led the crowd in chants of “Vote them out.”Another Parkland survivor and group co-founder, X Gonzalez, delivered an impassioned, profanity-laced plea to Congress for change. “We are being murdered,” they screamed and implored Congress to “act your age, not your shoe size.”Added Yolanda King, granddaughter of Martin Luther King Jr.: “This time is different because this isn’t about politics. It’s about morality. Not right and left, but right and wrong, and that doesn’t just mean thoughts and prayers. That means courage and action.”<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1654991535181.png" alt="Photo courtesy AFT Union" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy AFT Union</figcaption>
 </figure>Manuel Oliver, whose son, Joaquin, was killed in the Parkland shooting, called on students “to avoid going back to school until our elected leaders stop avoiding the crisis of gun violence in America and start acting to save our lives.”Hundreds gathered at an amphitheater in Parkland, where Debra Hixon, whose husband, high school athletic director Chris Hixon, died in the shooting, said it is “all too easy” for young men to walk into stores and buy weapons.“Going home to an empty bed and an empty seat at the table is a constant reminder that he is gone,” said Hixon, who now serves as a school board member. “We weren’t done making memories, sharing dreams and living life together. Gun violence ripped that away from my family.”In San Antonio, about 85 miles east of Uvalde, marchers chanted “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the NRA has got to go.” A man who said he helped to organize the rally, Frank Ruiz, called for gun reform laws similar to those enacted in Florida after the Parkland shooting that focused on raising the age for purchasing certain firearms and flagging those with mental health issues.The U.S. House has passed bills to raise the age limit to buy semi-automatic weapons and establish federal “red flag” laws. A bipartisan group of senators had hoped to reach agreement this week on a framework for addressing the issue and held talks Friday, but no deal was announced.President Joe Biden, who was in California when the Washington rally began, said his message to demonstrators was “keep marching” and added that he is “mildly optimistic” about legislative negotiations to address gun violence. Biden recently delivered an impassioned address to the nation in which he called for several steps, including raising the age limit for buying assault-style weapons.In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams, who campaigned on reining in violence in the nation’s largest city, joined state Attorney General Letitia James,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-new-york-manhattan-national-rifle-association-gun-a8067cfd9a6bfe03edd3c0f2efa9e3a2">who is suing the National Rifle Association</a>, in leading activists across the Brooklyn Bridge.“Nothing happens in this country until young people stand up — not politicians,” James said.Joining the call for change were hundreds of people who rallied in a park outside the courthouse in Portland, Maine, before they marched through the Old Port and gathered outside of City Hall. At one point, they chanted, “Hey, hey, hey, NRA. How many kids did you kill today.”John Wuesthoff, a retired lawyer in Portland, said he was waving an American flag during the rally as a reminder that gun control is “not un-American.”“It’s very American to have reasonable regulations to save the lives of our children,” he said.Hundreds of protesters in Milwaukee marched from the county courthouse to the city’s Deer District, where last month 21 people were injured in shootings on the night of an NBA playoff game. Organizer Tatiana Washington, whose aunt was killed by gun violence in 2017, said this year’s march is particularly significant to Milwaukee residents.“A lot of us are still very heavily thinking about the mass shooting that occurred after the Bucks game,” Washington said. “We shouldn’t be scared to go watch our team in the playoffs and live in fear that we’re going to be shot at.”The passion that the issue stirs was clear in Washington when a young man jumped the barricade and tried to rush the stage before being intercepted by security. The incident caused a brief panic as people began to scatter.Organizers hoped the second March for Our Lives rally would draw as many as 50,000 people to the Washington Monument, though the crowd seemed closer to 30,000. The 2018 event attracted more than 200,000 people, but the focus this time was on smaller marches at an estimated 300 locations.The youth-led movement created after the Parkland shooting successfully pressured the Republican-dominated Florida state government to enact sweeping gun control changes. The group did not match that at the national level, but has persisted in advocating for gun restrictions since then, as well as participating in voter registration drives.Survivors of mass shootings and other incidents of gun violence have lobbied legislators and testified on Capitol Hill this week. Among them was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-texas-violence-gun-government-and-politics-4e9fd73d179e2448d80271abbe016fd4">Miah Cerrillo, an 11-year-old girl who survived the shooting</a>&nbsp;at Robb Elementary. She described for lawmakers how she covered herself with a dead classmate’s blood to avoid being shot.

Protesters in Nebraska, across US demand action on gun laws

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — As the nation awaits a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a Mississippi law that calls for banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, LGBTQ advocates are pushing to codify protections for same-sex marriage in states throughout the country.

Since the leak of a draft opinion alluded to the court potentially overturning abortion rights, concerns have grown over whether justices could next move to reverse other decisions that rely on the “right to privacy” that the court outlined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nearly 50 years ago.

The leaked opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, explicitly says the decision concerns abortion and no other rights.

But legal experts&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-us-supreme-court-right-to-privacy-6e1d7ee2a6d26bef09392971fd4948b5">have speculated</a>&nbsp;that similar logic could be used to reverse other decisions, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case in which the court ruled same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

“We need states across this country to say, ‘We see you. You exist. You deserve respect. And you deserve protections, because your relationship is no different than any other,’” said Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the landmark case, who is now a Democratic candidate trying to become an Ohio state lawmaker.

Before the Supreme Court struck down bans and legalized same-sex marriage, 31 states had enacted laws banning same-sex couples from marrying. The laws have not been in effect since courts ruled them unconstitutional, but they remain on the books in most of those states.

For years they were considered defunct and attracted little attention, but the shifting composition of the Supreme Court has led several states to remove them from their statutes and constitutions. Virginia and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/couples-weddings-elections-reno-us-supreme-court-967b5c868e4f3ec91a3a66115eb8e556">Nevada</a>&nbsp;repealed their defunct bans in 2020 and New Jersey codified marriage rights for same-sex couples in 2021.

“We should all be worried about our other fundamental rights that have been obtained through the courts over the last decade or so,” said Utah state Sen. Derek Kitchen, a Democrat and the state’s only LGBTQ lawmaker said on the steps of the statehouse on Tuesday.

Kitchen and New Jersey Assemblyman Don Guardian, a Republican, want more states to remove the same-sex marriage bans from their laws and codify rights for LGBTQ couples to prepare for a worst-case scenario in which the Supreme Court decides to overturn the 2015 same-sex marriage decision.

“I would very concerned for any state that doesn’t take up the same type of legislation now before the court rules (on abortion) so they can protect their LGBTQ+ residents that have gotten married,” said Guardian, who is gay.

Though the New Jersey law passed with bipartisan support, similar moves to codify same-sex marriage rights could face uphill battles in Republican-led legislatures that have begun to revisit LGBTQ issues with newfound zeal.

Some have moved to limit LGBTQ subject matter from school curriculums and regulate healthcare for transgender youth. At least a dozen, including Utah, have passed laws limiting participation in sports for transgender youth.

Kitchen likened the state same-sex marriage bans to “trigger laws” that many Republican-led states have enacted to prepare for a scenario in which Roe v. Wade is overturned and states can resume limiting abortions.

Kitchen hasn’t talked to the Republicans who lead the Utah Legislature, but said he’s optimistic same-sex marriage has been embraced widely enough in Utah that codifying protections for LGBTQ couples will win widespread support.

“Utah is a family friendly state. We support families we know how important it is to provide stable units for children to grow,” he said.

Kitchen added: “We have already decided as a community that marriage equality is a value that we care about. So yes, this is something that does have a chance of passing in Utah.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1654779398677.png" alt="Photo courtesy&nbsp;Utah Sen. Derek Kitchen" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy&nbsp;Utah Sen. Derek Kitchen</figcaption>
 </figure>SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — As the nation awaits a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a Mississippi law that calls for banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, LGBTQ advocates are pushing to codify protections for same-sex marriage in states throughout the country.Since the leak of a draft opinion alluded to the court potentially overturning abortion rights, concerns have grown over whether justices could next move to reverse other decisions that rely on the “right to privacy” that the court outlined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nearly 50 years ago.The leaked opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, explicitly says the decision concerns abortion and no other rights.But legal experts&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-us-supreme-court-right-to-privacy-6e1d7ee2a6d26bef09392971fd4948b5">have speculated</a>&nbsp;that similar logic could be used to reverse other decisions, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case in which the court ruled same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.“We need states across this country to say, ‘We see you. You exist. You deserve respect. And you deserve protections, because your relationship is no different than any other,’” said Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the landmark case, who is now a Democratic candidate trying to become an Ohio state lawmaker.Before the Supreme Court struck down bans and legalized same-sex marriage, 31 states had enacted laws banning same-sex couples from marrying. The laws have not been in effect since courts ruled them unconstitutional, but they remain on the books in most of those states.For years they were considered defunct and attracted little attention, but the shifting composition of the Supreme Court has led several states to remove them from their statutes and constitutions. Virginia and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/couples-weddings-elections-reno-us-supreme-court-967b5c868e4f3ec91a3a66115eb8e556">Nevada</a>&nbsp;repealed their defunct bans in 2020 and New Jersey codified marriage rights for same-sex couples in 2021.“We should all be worried about our other fundamental rights that have been obtained through the courts over the last decade or so,” said Utah state Sen. Derek Kitchen, a Democrat and the state’s only LGBTQ lawmaker said on the steps of the statehouse on Tuesday.Kitchen and New Jersey Assemblyman Don Guardian, a Republican, want more states to remove the same-sex marriage bans from their laws and codify rights for LGBTQ couples to prepare for a worst-case scenario in which the Supreme Court decides to overturn the 2015 same-sex marriage decision.“I would very concerned for any state that doesn’t take up the same type of legislation now before the court rules (on abortion) so they can protect their LGBTQ+ residents that have gotten married,” said Guardian, who is gay.Though the New Jersey law passed with bipartisan support, similar moves to codify same-sex marriage rights could face uphill battles in Republican-led legislatures that have begun to revisit LGBTQ issues with newfound zeal.Some have moved to limit LGBTQ subject matter from school curriculums and regulate healthcare for transgender youth. At least a dozen, including Utah, have passed laws limiting participation in sports for transgender youth.Kitchen likened the state same-sex marriage bans to “trigger laws” that many Republican-led states have enacted to prepare for a scenario in which Roe v. Wade is overturned and states can resume limiting abortions.Kitchen hasn’t talked to the Republicans who lead the Utah Legislature, but said he’s optimistic same-sex marriage has been embraced widely enough in Utah that codifying protections for LGBTQ couples will win widespread support.“Utah is a family friendly state. We support families we know how important it is to provide stable units for children to grow,” he said.Kitchen added: “We have already decided as a community that marriage equality is a value that we care about. So yes, this is something that does have a chance of passing in Utah.”

Same-sex marriage advocates push for post-Roe protections

By MICHAEL J. KLEIN <a href="https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430">The Conversation</a>

A spate of high-profile <a href="https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database/">mass shootings in the U.S.</a> has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-make-prime-time-address-calling-gun-reform-legislation-rcna31665">ban on so-called assault weapons</a> – covering the types of guns used in both the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-mass-shootings-are-happening-at-grocery-stores-13-of-shooters-are-motivated-by-racial-hatred-criminologists-find-183098">Buffalo grocery attack</a> and that on an <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/27/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-timeline/">elementary school in Uvalde, Texas</a>.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-gun-violence-in-america/">noted in his June 2, 2022, speech</a>
 addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in
 Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as 
part of the <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt">Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act</a>.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of 
semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only
 after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of 
weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire">sunset provision</a>” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear 
beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare 
what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the 
prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma
 surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study <a href="https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2019/01000/Changes_in_US_mass_shooting_deaths_associated_with.2.aspx">analyzing the data</a> in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44126.pdf">defined by the FBI</a> as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the
 assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings
 in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today. 

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily 
rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – 
such as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/18/us/five-children-killed-as-gunman-attacks-a-california-school.html">killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989</a> and a <a href="https://www.ktvu.com/news/101-california-street-shooting-sparked-change-in-gun-laws">1993 San Francisco office attack</a> that left eight victims dead – <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/04/biden-assault-weapons-ban/">provided the impetus</a> behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the 
number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the 
annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/columbine-high-school-shootings">Columbine High School massacre</a>
 – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 
to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and
 deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass 
shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 
2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the 
last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths 
attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 
10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the 
prohibition on assault weapons.

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass 
shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons 
ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from 
mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related 
fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths. 

Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on 
this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in 
place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 
through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths
 that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.

And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives 
that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass 
shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of 
our selected data sources: the <a href="https://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/">Los Angeles Times</a>, <a href="https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america">Stanford University</a>, and <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/">Mother Jones magazine</a>.

Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal 
definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire 
spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons. 

It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively 
say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass 
shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of 
deadly incidents in the years since.

Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of 
these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political 
extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in 
sales, and the recent rise in hate groups. 

Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-gun-violence-in-america/">claim that the rate of mass shootings</a>
 during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to
 rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true.

As the U.S. looks toward a solution to the country’s epidemic of mass
 shootings, it is difficult to say conclusively that reinstating the 
assault weapons ban would have a profound impact, especially given the 
growth in sales in the 18 years in which Americans have been allowed to 
purchase and stockpile such weapons. But given that many of the 
high-profile mass shooters in recent years purchased their weapons <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/uvalde-shooter-bought-gun-legally/">less than one year</a> <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/15/florida-shooting-suspect-bought-gun-legally-authorities-say/340606002/">before committing their acts</a>, the evidence suggests that it might.

Michael J. Klein is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at New York University.

By MICHAEL J. KLEIN <a href="https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430">The Conversation</a>A spate of high-profile <a href="https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database/">mass shootings in the U.S.</a> has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-make-prime-time-address-calling-gun-reform-legislation-rcna31665">ban on so-called assault weapons</a> – covering the types of guns used in both the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-mass-shootings-are-happening-at-grocery-stores-13-of-shooters-are-motivated-by-racial-hatred-criminologists-find-183098">Buffalo grocery attack</a> and that on an <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/27/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-timeline/">elementary school in Uvalde, Texas</a>.Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-gun-violence-in-america/">noted in his June 2, 2022, speech</a>
 addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in
 Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as 
part of the <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt">Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act</a>. That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of 
semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only
 after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of 
weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire">sunset provision</a>” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear 
beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare 
what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the 
prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma
 surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study <a href="https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2019/01000/Changes_in_US_mass_shooting_deaths_associated_with.2.aspx">analyzing the data</a> in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44126.pdf">defined by the FBI</a> as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1654967199130.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Before the 1994 ban: From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the
 assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings
 in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today. Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily 
rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – 
such as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/18/us/five-children-killed-as-gunman-attacks-a-california-school.html">killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989</a> and a <a href="https://www.ktvu.com/news/101-california-street-shooting-sparked-change-in-gun-laws">1993 San Francisco office attack</a> that left eight victims dead – <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/04/biden-assault-weapons-ban/">provided the impetus</a> behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.During the 1994-2004 ban: In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the 
number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the 
annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/columbine-high-school-shootings">Columbine High School massacre</a>
 – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 
to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and
 deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.From 2004 onward:The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass 
shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 
2004.Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the 
last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths 
attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 
10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the 
prohibition on assault weapons.<h2>Saving hundreds of lives</h2>We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass 
shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons 
ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from 
mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related 
fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths. <div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Adding evidence to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GunViolence?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GunViolence</a> debate. New work presented at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AAST2018?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AAST2018</a> by <a href="https://twitter.com/nyulangone?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nyulangone</a> faculty shows that during the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AssaultWeapon?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AssaultWeapon</a> ban <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MassShooting?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MassShooting</a> related deaths were 70% less likely to occur. <a href="https://t.co/wgYApAFwhm">pic.twitter.com/wgYApAFwhm</a>&mdash; AAST (@traumadoctors) <a href="https://twitter.com/traumadoctors/status/1044981284022484994?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div>Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on 
this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in 
place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 
through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths
 that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives 
that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass 
shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of 
our selected data sources: the <a href="https://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/">Los Angeles Times</a>, <a href="https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america">Stanford University</a>, and <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/">Mother Jones magazine</a>. Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal 
definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire 
spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons. <h2>Cause or correlation?</h2>It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively 
say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass 
shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of 
deadly incidents in the years since.Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of 
these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political 
extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in 
sales, and the recent rise in hate groups. Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-gun-violence-in-america/">claim that the rate of mass shootings</a>
 during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to
 rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true.As the U.S. looks toward a solution to the country’s epidemic of mass
 shootings, it is difficult to say conclusively that reinstating the 
assault weapons ban would have a profound impact, especially given the 
growth in sales in the 18 years in which Americans have been allowed to 
purchase and stockpile such weapons. But given that many of the 
high-profile mass shooters in recent years purchased their weapons <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/uvalde-shooter-bought-gun-legally/">less than one year</a> <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/15/florida-shooting-suspect-bought-gun-legally-authorities-say/340606002/">before committing their acts</a>, the evidence suggests that it might.<div><iframe src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184430/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1" height="1"></iframe></div>Michael J. Klein is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at New York University.

STUDY: Did '94 assault weapons ban bring down mass shootings? 

NEW YORK (AP) — The nationwide average price for a gallon of gasoline has topped $5 for the first time ever.

Auto club AAA said the average price on Saturday was $5.00. Motorists in some parts of the country, especially California, are paying far above that.

The national average price has jumped 19 cents in just the past week, and it’s up $1.93 from this time last year.

There are several reasons for the surge in gasoline prices.

Americans typically drive more starting around Memorial Day, so demand is up. Global oil prices are rising, compounded by sanctions against Russia, a leading oil producer, because of its war against Ukraine. And there are limits on refining capacity in the United States because some refineries shut down during the pandemic.

Add it all up, and the cost of filling up is draining money from Americans who are facing the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/key-inflation-report-highest-level-in-four-decades-c0248c5b5705cd1523d3dab3771983b4">highest rate of inflation in 40 years</a>.

California has the highest average price, at $6.43, according to AAA. The lowest average is Mississippi, at $4.52.

While this is the first time breaking the $5 barrier, it’s still not a record when inflation is taken into account. Gas peaked at $4.11 a gallon in July 2008, which would be equal to about $5.40 a gallon today.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1654949375429.png" alt="The national average price has jumped 19 cents in just the past week, and it’s up $1.93 from this time last year.-Google image" />
 <figcaption>The national average price has jumped 19 cents in just the past week, and it’s up $1.93 from this time last year.-Google image</figcaption>
 </figure>NEW YORK (AP) — The nationwide average price for a gallon of gasoline has topped $5 for the first time ever.Auto club AAA said the average price on Saturday was $5.00. Motorists in some parts of the country, especially California, are paying far above that.The national average price has jumped 19 cents in just the past week, and it’s up $1.93 from this time last year.There are several reasons for the surge in gasoline prices.Americans typically drive more starting around Memorial Day, so demand is up. Global oil prices are rising, compounded by sanctions against Russia, a leading oil producer, because of its war against Ukraine. And there are limits on refining capacity in the United States because some refineries shut down during the pandemic.Add it all up, and the cost of filling up is draining money from Americans who are facing the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/key-inflation-report-highest-level-in-four-decades-c0248c5b5705cd1523d3dab3771983b4">highest rate of inflation in 40 years</a>.California has the highest average price, at $6.43, according to AAA. The lowest average is Mississippi, at $4.52.While this is the first time breaking the $5 barrier, it’s still not a record when inflation is taken into account. Gas peaked at $4.11 a gallon in July 2008, which would be equal to about $5.40 a gallon today.

$5 gas is here: AAA says nationwide average hits new high

NEW YORK (AP) — An estimated 20 million people watched Thursday night’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-riot-hearing-67ec5f32b1dd050a24c3312570fa6c67">hearing of the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection</a>&nbsp;at the U.S. Capitol.

The figures released Friday by the Nielsen Company include viewers from 12 television networks that aired the rare primetime hearing, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX Business Network.

The numbers do not include online viewers or those who watched on PBS.

The hearing, which aired from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the U.S. East Coast, made many elements of the ongoing investigation public for the first time, including a never-before-seen 12-minute video of extremist groups leading the deadly siege, and startling testimony from President Donald Trump’s inner circle.

By comparison, the opening day of each of the Trump impeachment trials drew about 11 million viewers. Those aired during the day on fewer networks, but the far higher figures from Thursday suggest that the primetime experiment succeeded in capturing national attention in a way usually reserved for live sporting events.

Fox News, which did not air the hearings, drew nearly 3 million viewers for the same two hours.

Last week’s highest rated television shows, the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/queen-elizabeth-ii-golden-state-warriors-boston-celtics-nba-entertainment-291d392d21615ed5f089f0dc8926de21">first two games of the NBA finals</a>&nbsp;on ABC, each had between 11 million and 12 million viewers.

The hearing promised: New footage. New testimony. New and damning revelations designed to eliminate all doubt. Hired to package it all for the airwaves: A former network news president. 

The time slot: 8 p.m. on the East Coast, once a plum spot for the most significant television programming in the land.

Presented in prime time and carefully calibrated for a TV-viewing audience (itself increasingly an anachronism),&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-capitol-riot-hearings-live-updates-eefb79f2cffb705f04bf43ea164db20f">the debut of the Jan. 6 hearings</a>&nbsp;was, in essence, a summer rerun. Designed as a riveting legislative docudrama about an event that most of the country saw live 18 months ago, it tried mightily to break new narrative ground in a nation of short attention spans and endless distractions.

But did it? Can it? Even with gripping, violent video and the integrity of American democracy potentially at stake, can a shiny, weeks-long production that prosecutes with yesterday’s news — news that has been watched, processed and argued over ad nauseam — punch through the static and make a difference today?

“The idea of a televised investigative proceeding maybe feels a little obsolete when so many people already had so much access to what happened,” said&nbsp;<a href="https://mcs.umbc.edu/rebecca-adelman/" target="_blank">Rebecca Adelman,</a>&nbsp;professor and chair of media and communication studies at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “This is a population that by all evidence is fatigued by a lot of things. I’m not sure how much sustained attention anyone has left at this point.”

That’s why the hearings needed one key thing most legislative committees lack: a professional TV executive — someone who could arrange and curate violent amateur and surveillance video, 3D motion graphics, eyewitness testimony and depositions into a storyline built to echo.

Enter James Goldston, the former president of ABC News. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/06/06/jan-6-committee-adviser-james-goldston" target="_blank">language Axios used in reporting his involvement</a>&nbsp;was instructive. Goldston, it said, would approach Thursday night’s hearing “as if it were a blockbuster investigative special” with “the makings of a national event.”

Those are not often words you hear about a committee hearing. They’re the words of showmanship — something politics has always had, actual governance less so.

During the media-savvy (for its era) Kennedy administration, the historian&nbsp;<a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-J-Boorstin" target="_blank">Daniel J. Boorstin</a>&nbsp;famously coined the term&nbsp;<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/pseudo-event" target="_blank">“pseudo-event”</a>&nbsp;— an event conducted expressly for the purpose of being noticed. While that isn’t the case with the Jan. 6 hearings — actual governance is taking place — the buildup and presentation makes it easy to conclude otherwise.

Could it be that this is the only way to grab the public’s attention? After all, since Jan. 6, 2021, much of America has moved on to fresh worries.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seized on some of those in a series of tweets attacking the committee. “When’s the prime-time hearing,” he asked in six tweets, followed by “on $5 per gallon gas,” “on baby formula shortages,” “on record crime in Democrat-run cities,” “on the left’s 2020 riots,” “on record high grocery prices,” “on Democrats attacking parental rights at school board meetings” and&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1535043984342515720" target="_blank">“on threats against Supreme Court Justices and their families.”</a>

By many appearances, the country is operating as it was before the insurrection.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-news-michael-pence-coronavirus-pandemic-united-states-fd23e8bf43a035689e6a3d3f3bd06e58">Joe Biden was inaugurated as scheduled</a>&nbsp;14 days after the insurrection. No evidence of election fraud surfaced. The pandemic ebbed. People are talking about guns and gas prices and Russia — not its interference in U.S. elections, but its invasion of Ukraine.

All of this, of course, belies the fact that the Capitol riot undermined the sanctity and security of the democratic process. After more than 200 years in which the peaceful transfer of power was taken for granted in America, it suddenly and very violently wasn’t.

And yet, in this meme-soaked era when loud events fade from the consciousness and are replaced by other loud events within days, it apparently takes what is essentially a Very Special Episode of Congress, packaged up like a documentary brimming with video clips and text-message screengrabs, to get the public’s attention.

The masses of Donald Trump supporters and opponents who have dug in their heels on both sides — those who think this is ridiculous political posturing and those who insist that day represented an existential threat to democracy — may not be the target audience. More likely, it is Americans who retain an open mind and have kind of moved on; who could use a reminder in the most American way possible: by being presented with an on-screen drama to consume. (Unless you watch Fox News prime time, which vociferously&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1535052658780024832" target="_blank">refused to air it,</a>&nbsp;though other Fox platforms did).

High-profile public legislative hearings about the workings of government — from the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/army-mccarthy-hearings" target="_blank">Army-McCarthy hearings</a>&nbsp;in 1954 to the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/arts/television/impeachment-watergate.html" target="_blank">Watergate hearings</a>&nbsp;in 1973 to the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987 — have a history of drawing the nation’s attention and being their era’s version of must-see government TV.

But all those came in the days when a “phone” was something that made calls and was plugged into the wall — well before the era of media fragmentation produced by the internet and, a decade later, the rise of social media and content creation in your pocket.

The raw material presented Thursday night was at times banal and procedural (depositions, speeches). But at times (the violent and profane video montage, the eyewitness testimony of Capitol police officer Caroline Edwards), it felt compelling, terrifying and immediate.

“We’ve lost the line! We’ve lost the line!” viewers heard one Capitol police officer shout as he was being attacked by rioters. Yelled another, terror in his voice: “Officer down!” And this chilling shout, from the background of one scene of chaos: “We’re coming!”

Then the production values took center stage — a perfectly timed voiceover of Trump saying, “They were peaceful people” and “the love in the air, I’ve never seen anything like it” before the sequence fades out.

These are surely the moments that will be cannibalized on social in coming hours and days. So much of political discourse happens online these days, and what was once must-see TV is now on your phone, on demand. Content producers on TikTok and Twitter and Instagram are driving the moments to remember. And if this was a produced TV show, those will be its tiny offspring.

“People will be making their own spinoffs, a few seconds at a time,” said&nbsp;<a href="https://newhouse.syr.edu/people/robert-thompson" target="_blank">Robert Thompson,</a>&nbsp;director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. “Now ... we’re in the age of developing stories as an interactive video game, where you take the coverage of that day and you turn it into a meme and get 30 million viewers. I think that’s how a lot of people are going to experience these hearings.”

So check out your social media feeds, 2022-style, for the next phase of this drama — political and entertaining and unsettling all at once, and aggressively, messily American.

“We watched the preseason. We watched the season. And now this is behind the scenes in `American Politics: The Sport,’” said&nbsp;<a href="https://www1.wne.edu/arts-and-sciences/faculty.cfm?uid=46" target="_blank">John Baick,</a>&nbsp;a historian at Western New England University. “I don’t think anyone’s going to remember where they were when they watched the Capitol investigations.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1654827329216.jpeg" alt="In Thursday's prime-time hearing, lawmakers said the siege was no accident but an “attempted coup."" />
 <figcaption>In Thursday's prime-time hearing, lawmakers said the siege was no accident but an “attempted coup."</figcaption>
 </figure>NEW YORK (AP) — An estimated 20 million people watched Thursday night’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-riot-hearing-67ec5f32b1dd050a24c3312570fa6c67">hearing of the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection</a>&nbsp;at the U.S. Capitol.The figures released Friday by the Nielsen Company include viewers from 12 television networks that aired the rare primetime hearing, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX Business Network.<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hZ0yNe3cFx4?start=857" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>The numbers do not include online viewers or those who watched on PBS.The hearing, which aired from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the U.S. East Coast, made many elements of the ongoing investigation public for the first time, including a never-before-seen 12-minute video of extremist groups leading the deadly siege, and startling testimony from President Donald Trump’s inner circle.By comparison, the opening day of each of the Trump impeachment trials drew about 11 million viewers. Those aired during the day on fewer networks, but the far higher figures from Thursday suggest that the primetime experiment succeeded in capturing national attention in a way usually reserved for live sporting events.Fox News, which did not air the hearings, drew nearly 3 million viewers for the same two hours.Last week’s highest rated television shows, the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/queen-elizabeth-ii-golden-state-warriors-boston-celtics-nba-entertainment-291d392d21615ed5f089f0dc8926de21">first two games of the NBA finals</a>&nbsp;on ABC, each had between 11 million and 12 million viewers.The hearing promised: New footage. New testimony. New and damning revelations designed to eliminate all doubt. Hired to package it all for the airwaves: A former network news president. The time slot: 8 p.m. on the East Coast, once a plum spot for the most significant television programming in the land.Presented in prime time and carefully calibrated for a TV-viewing audience (itself increasingly an anachronism),&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-capitol-riot-hearings-live-updates-eefb79f2cffb705f04bf43ea164db20f">the debut of the Jan. 6 hearings</a>&nbsp;was, in essence, a summer rerun. Designed as a riveting legislative docudrama about an event that most of the country saw live 18 months ago, it tried mightily to break new narrative ground in a nation of short attention spans and endless distractions.But did it? Can it? Even with gripping, violent video and the integrity of American democracy potentially at stake, can a shiny, weeks-long production that prosecutes with yesterday’s news — news that has been watched, processed and argued over ad nauseam — punch through the static and make a difference today?“The idea of a televised investigative proceeding maybe feels a little obsolete when so many people already had so much access to what happened,” said&nbsp;<a href="https://mcs.umbc.edu/rebecca-adelman/" target="_blank">Rebecca Adelman,</a>&nbsp;professor and chair of media and communication studies at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “This is a population that by all evidence is fatigued by a lot of things. I’m not sure how much sustained attention anyone has left at this point.”That’s why the hearings needed one key thing most legislative committees lack: a professional TV executive — someone who could arrange and curate violent amateur and surveillance video, 3D motion graphics, eyewitness testimony and depositions into a storyline built to echo.Enter James Goldston, the former president of ABC News. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/06/06/jan-6-committee-adviser-james-goldston" target="_blank">language Axios used in reporting his involvement</a>&nbsp;was instructive. Goldston, it said, would approach Thursday night’s hearing “as if it were a blockbuster investigative special” with “the makings of a national event.”Those are not often words you hear about a committee hearing. They’re the words of showmanship — something politics has always had, actual governance less so.During the media-savvy (for its era) Kennedy administration, the historian&nbsp;<a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-J-Boorstin" target="_blank">Daniel J. Boorstin</a>&nbsp;famously coined the term&nbsp;<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/pseudo-event" target="_blank">“pseudo-event”</a>&nbsp;— an event conducted expressly for the purpose of being noticed. While that isn’t the case with the Jan. 6 hearings — actual governance is taking place — the buildup and presentation makes it easy to conclude otherwise.Could it be that this is the only way to grab the public’s attention? After all, since Jan. 6, 2021, much of America has moved on to fresh worries.Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seized on some of those in a series of tweets attacking the committee. “When’s the prime-time hearing,” he asked in six tweets, followed by “on $5 per gallon gas,” “on baby formula shortages,” “on record crime in Democrat-run cities,” “on the left’s 2020 riots,” “on record high grocery prices,” “on Democrats attacking parental rights at school board meetings” and&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1535043984342515720" target="_blank">“on threats against Supreme Court Justices and their families.”</a>By many appearances, the country is operating as it was before the insurrection.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-news-michael-pence-coronavirus-pandemic-united-states-fd23e8bf43a035689e6a3d3f3bd06e58">Joe Biden was inaugurated as scheduled</a>&nbsp;14 days after the insurrection. No evidence of election fraud surfaced. The pandemic ebbed. People are talking about guns and gas prices and Russia — not its interference in U.S. elections, but its invasion of Ukraine.All of this, of course, belies the fact that the Capitol riot undermined the sanctity and security of the democratic process. After more than 200 years in which the peaceful transfer of power was taken for granted in America, it suddenly and very violently wasn’t.And yet, in this meme-soaked era when loud events fade from the consciousness and are replaced by other loud events within days, it apparently takes what is essentially a Very Special Episode of Congress, packaged up like a documentary brimming with video clips and text-message screengrabs, to get the public’s attention.And that public is ... who, exactly?The masses of Donald Trump supporters and opponents who have dug in their heels on both sides — those who think this is ridiculous political posturing and those who insist that day represented an existential threat to democracy — may not be the target audience. More likely, it is Americans who retain an open mind and have kind of moved on; who could use a reminder in the most American way possible: by being presented with an on-screen drama to consume. (Unless you watch Fox News prime time, which vociferously&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1535052658780024832" target="_blank">refused to air it,</a>&nbsp;though other Fox platforms did).High-profile public legislative hearings about the workings of government — from the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/army-mccarthy-hearings" target="_blank">Army-McCarthy hearings</a>&nbsp;in 1954 to the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/arts/television/impeachment-watergate.html" target="_blank">Watergate hearings</a>&nbsp;in 1973 to the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987 — have a history of drawing the nation’s attention and being their era’s version of must-see government TV.But all those came in the days when a “phone” was something that made calls and was plugged into the wall — well before the era of media fragmentation produced by the internet and, a decade later, the rise of social media and content creation in your pocket.The raw material presented Thursday night was at times banal and procedural (depositions, speeches). But at times (the violent and profane video montage, the eyewitness testimony of Capitol police officer Caroline Edwards), it felt compelling, terrifying and immediate.“We’ve lost the line! We’ve lost the line!” viewers heard one Capitol police officer shout as he was being attacked by rioters. Yelled another, terror in his voice: “Officer down!” And this chilling shout, from the background of one scene of chaos: “We’re coming!”Then the production values took center stage — a perfectly timed voiceover of Trump saying, “They were peaceful people” and “the love in the air, I’ve never seen anything like it” before the sequence fades out.These are surely the moments that will be cannibalized on social in coming hours and days. So much of political discourse happens online these days, and what was once must-see TV is now on your phone, on demand. Content producers on TikTok and Twitter and Instagram are driving the moments to remember. And if this was a produced TV show, those will be its tiny offspring.“People will be making their own spinoffs, a few seconds at a time,” said&nbsp;<a href="https://newhouse.syr.edu/people/robert-thompson" target="_blank">Robert Thompson,</a>&nbsp;director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. “Now ... we’re in the age of developing stories as an interactive video game, where you take the coverage of that day and you turn it into a meme and get 30 million viewers. I think that’s how a lot of people are going to experience these hearings.”So check out your social media feeds, 2022-style, for the next phase of this drama — political and entertaining and unsettling all at once, and aggressively, messily American.“We watched the preseason. We watched the season. And now this is behind the scenes in `American Politics: The Sport,’” said&nbsp;<a href="https://www1.wne.edu/arts-and-sciences/faculty.cfm?uid=46" target="_blank">John Baick,</a>&nbsp;a historian at Western New England University. “I don’t think anyone’s going to remember where they were when they watched the Capitol investigations.”

🎥20 million on 12 networks watch primetime hearing of House 1/6 panel

By SCOTT CARLSON North Platte Post

LINCOLN, Neb.-Chaos ensued in the moments following a crash on O Street in Lincoln on Memorial Day weekend, and in the chaos, a father was told that his daughter had been killed, when she was, in fact, alive.

The crash happened at around 10:47 p.m. on May 29 during an informally organized "Americruise" event.

Police said a black Ford Taurus, driven by Kyvell Stark, 18, was westbound on O St. when he struck a white eastbound Toyota Corolla driven by Emily Siebenhor, 20.

Police said, after the initial impact, both vehicles left the roadway and came to rest on the north sidewalk on the west side of the intersection of O and 52nd Streets, where numerous bystanders had gathered to observe the cruise event.

At least 20 bystanders suffered injuries.

Police said Siebenhor and her passenger, Edith Hermosillo, 22, were both pronounced dead at the scene.

It was determined that Stark had been traveling at around 90 mph and was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the crash. He's been charged with two counts of manslaughter,&nbsp;and two counts of driving under the influence with serious bodily injury

Among the 20 bystanders that were injured was&nbsp;Hannah Wadiso, 18, a recent graduate of Lincoln Southeast High School.

Wadiso was one of two people who were pinned beneath the Taurus. Wadiso was transported to a Lincoln hospital with serious injuries.

Someone at the scene of the crash contacted Wadiso's father,&nbsp;Tesfaye Alibe, and told him his daughter had been involved in the crash.

Alibe immediately responded to the scene and approached one of the vehicles that had been involved. Police said officers had just been attempting life-saving measures on the individual in the vehicle when Alibe approached them and told them it was Wadiso.

Lincoln police Chief Teresa Ewins said the officer confirmed to Alibe that the person in the vehicle was deceased.&nbsp;

Early the next morning, Alibe received another call telling him Wadiso was alive but in critical condition. She remains hospitalized with serious injuries.

On Friday, Chief Ewings issued a statement on the events:

We want to share with you some information I was just made aware of yesterday afternoon regarding the devastating Memorial Day weekend crash here in Lincoln that has since been reported on by the media.

While evaluating our response to the fatal crash that occurred at 52nd and ‘O’ Street on Sunday, May 29th we discovered a devastating miscommunication with a family member at the scene.

The family member, Tesfaye Alibe, was called to the scene by a bystander who told him his daughter, Hannah, was hit by a vehicle. When Mr. Alibe arrived, he ran to one of the cars involved in the crash, pointed to one of the deceased, and told the officers it was his daughter. The officers, who had just been performing life-saving measures, confirmed she had not survived.

Mr. Alibe stayed on scene with officers and as additional information was gathered on his daughter, it was determined she was not one of the young women killed in the vehicle. Hannah was one of the bystanders injured in the crash and had been taken to the hospital where she was in critical condition with life-threatening injuries.

We recognize the grief this tragic misunderstanding caused for all involved. We continue to work with Mr. Alibe and have acknowledged our sincere regret. We are grateful to report Hannah’s condition is improving and hope for the continued improvement of the 19 additional victims.

<a href="https://northplattepost.com/posts/2ddcec21-000f-4ace-b19e-4250120d6629">&nbsp;&nbsp;Download The Post app for iOs or Android</a>

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/3/1648608202824.jpg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>By SCOTT CARLSON North Platte PostLINCOLN, Neb.-Chaos ensued in the moments following a crash on O Street in Lincoln on Memorial Day weekend, and in the chaos, a father was told that his daughter had been killed, when she was, in fact, alive.The crash happened at around 10:47 p.m. on May 29 during an informally organized "Americruise" event.Police said a black Ford Taurus, driven by Kyvell Stark, 18, was westbound on O St. when he struck a white eastbound Toyota Corolla driven by Emily Siebenhor, 20.Police said, after the initial impact, both vehicles left the roadway and came to rest on the north sidewalk on the west side of the intersection of O and 52nd Streets, where numerous bystanders had gathered to observe the cruise event.At least 20 bystanders suffered injuries.Police said Siebenhor and her passenger, Edith Hermosillo, 22, were both pronounced dead at the scene.It was determined that Stark had been traveling at around 90 mph and was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the crash. He's been charged with two counts of manslaughter,&nbsp;and two counts of driving under the influence with serious bodily injuryAmong the 20 bystanders that were injured was&nbsp;Hannah Wadiso, 18, a recent graduate of Lincoln Southeast High School.Wadiso was one of two people who were pinned beneath the Taurus. Wadiso was transported to a Lincoln hospital with serious injuries.Someone at the scene of the crash contacted Wadiso's father,&nbsp;Tesfaye Alibe, and told him his daughter had been involved in the crash.Alibe immediately responded to the scene and approached one of the vehicles that had been involved. Police said officers had just been attempting life-saving measures on the individual in the vehicle when Alibe approached them and told them it was Wadiso.Lincoln police Chief Teresa Ewins said the officer confirmed to Alibe that the person in the vehicle was deceased.&nbsp;Early the next morning, Alibe received another call telling him Wadiso was alive but in critical condition. She remains hospitalized with serious injuries.On Friday, Chief Ewings issued a statement on the events:We want to share with you some information I was just made aware of yesterday afternoon regarding the devastating Memorial Day weekend crash here in Lincoln that has since been reported on by the media.While evaluating our response to the fatal crash that occurred at 52nd and ‘O’ Street on Sunday, May 29th we discovered a devastating miscommunication with a family member at the scene. The family member, Tesfaye Alibe, was called to the scene by a bystander who told him his daughter, Hannah, was hit by a vehicle. When Mr. Alibe arrived, he ran to one of the cars involved in the crash, pointed to one of the deceased, and told the officers it was his daughter. The officers, who had just been performing life-saving measures, confirmed she had not survived.Mr. Alibe stayed on scene with officers and as additional information was gathered on his daughter, it was determined she was not one of the young women killed in the vehicle. Hannah was one of the bystanders injured in the crash and had been taken to the hospital where she was in critical condition with life-threatening injuries.We recognize the grief this tragic misunderstanding caused for all involved. We continue to work with Mr. Alibe and have acknowledged our sincere regret. We are grateful to report Hannah’s condition is improving and hope for the continued improvement of the 19 additional victims.<a href="https://northplattepost.com/posts/2ddcec21-000f-4ace-b19e-4250120d6629">&nbsp;&nbsp;Download The Post app for iOs or Android</a><figure>
 <img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Rl_HrHnoJPHQVu2KpseEVBXAeYRCSmiOIYF0ibSex_Qy6OksRKdSSenal5arIkygJ9PaAwsoBdpb6i_QtLfgQ4r26xzfYVX5JZ1yMT8sli77LfcongmQsgbQgivZpi6f6GcHg81tf9Tom462aA" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>

Lincoln Chief apologizes to father who was told daughter died in crash

By ALLISON WINTER <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/u-s-house-ag-panel-mulls-safety-net-changes-in-farm-bill-amid-soaring-costs/">States Newsroom</a>

WASHINGTON —&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Members of the 
U.S. House Agriculture Committee are&nbsp;considering how to help farmers 
struggling with rising costs for fertilizer, fuel, seeds and chemicals —
 the unfortunate harvest of the war in Ukraine, strains on the global 
supply system, inflation and severe weather.

A panel of the committee heard from agricultural economists Thursday,
 as lawmakers debate how to structure the federal&nbsp; safety net in the 
next farm bill, due when current programs expire in 2023.

The debate comes as traditional corn, soy and wheat farmers straddle 
both sides of inflation and the economic effects from the war in 
Ukraine. They’re seeing both huge increases in prices for their crops 
and soaring costs for everything they have to purchase to plant them.

“Since 2018, when the last farm bill was written, farmers have 
experienced the economic impacts of a trade war with China, marketing 
and supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic,&nbsp; historic weather 
events and now extreme volatility in commodity and input markets,” said 
Rep. Cheri Bustos, an Illinois Democrat and the chairwoman of the 
subcommittee that oversees farm commodities.

“This all has implications for the next farm bill,” Bustos added.

Rep. Glenn Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said he wants to pay 
special consideration to the margins for farmers as members work on the 
next farm bill. Thompson is the top Republican on the Agriculture 
Committee and could helm the farm bill process if Republicans take 
control of the House.

“The bottom line is that agriculture is a business, and at the end of
 the day, it is not what you bring in but the margin you are left with,”
 said Thompson. “I have tremendous concerns with where we are headed 
right now.”

The farm bill includes long-standing safety net programs that offer 
some risk protection and financial support to American farmers.

That includes crop insurance and farm commodity programs, which pay 
farmers if crop prices drop. But the programs don’t account for the 
current challenge for farmers of rising costs for fuel, fertilizer, 
pesticides, and seeds.

Economists suggested lawmakers consider pilot programs geared to aid farmers struggling in those margins.

“Input costs are increasing and with inflation, you’re going to have 
intense pressure where that safety net will be weakened,” said Ronald 
Rainey, director of the University of Arkansas System Division of 
Agriculture.

The big commodity crops, especially corn and wheat, are seeing high 
prices — due in part to disruption of a global market that usually has 
Ukraine and Russia as important players.

Anticipated prices for the 2022 U.S. wheat crop are 50 percent higher
 than they were in January, according to Joseph Janzen, an agricultural 
economist at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

Futures prices for corn and soybean prices are also on the rise: 30 percent for corn and 20 percent higher for soybeans.

But agricultural economists told lawmakers that the sky-high prices 
may give a false impression, since farmers are also paying more than 
ever for fertilizer and fuel. The benchmark prices on crude oil and U.S.
 fertilizer prices approximately tripled between January 2021 and March 
2022.

Russia and Belarus are also major fertilizer producers and exporters.
 Those input prices are expected to stay high for the next few years.

“What we know is going to happen, is prices are going to decline but 
input prices are going to stay up for a while, they always do. And that 
is going to leave people in a cost-price squeeze,” said Joe Outlaw, 
co-director of the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&amp;M 
University.

The high fertilizer and energy prices have both short and long-term 
effects for agriculture. If farmers respond by planting less and using 
less fertilizer, they will have a smaller harvest — bringing in less 
income for their farms and potentially exacerbating rising food costs.

Every five years lawmakers have to reauthorize the farm bill — a 
laborious process to re-examine the policy and funding structure for 
federal agriculture and food assistance programs.

The farm bill is unique in that it&nbsp;provides “mandatory” funding for 
many of the programs it authorizes, so the programs do not have to go 
through the congressional appropriations process every year. As such, 
farm bill authorization is a complex and contentious process, as 
lawmakers debate how and where to spend more money.

Most lawmakers at the subcommittee hearing Thursday did not call for a
 major overhaul of the longstanding safety net for farm commodities.

“Our main approach to writing a new farm bill should be a cautious 
one,” said Rep. Rick Allen, a Georgia Republican, noting how chaotic the
 past few years have been for agriculture and the economy. “We should 
not make major changes unless we are able to fully evaluate the 
consequences of those changes.”

But some said they should consider more flexibility and innovation in
 farm programs to try to address&nbsp; mounting challenges from drought, 
severe weather and climate change.&nbsp;For instance, more than half of 
Arizona is in severe drought and an additional 10 percent is enduring 
extreme drought.

“I have never seen conditions like this with no relief in sight. We 
have something that has to be overcome, and we can’t do it by half 
measures,” said Rep. Tom O’ Halleran, an Arizona Democrat.

In addition to the commodity programs, the farm bill includes crop 
insurance, conservation programs and food assistance programs. The bulk 
of farm bill spending goes to food programs, like the supplemental 
nutrition assistance program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) for 
low-income individuals and families.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1654867864276.png" alt="Farmers told members of the U.S. House agriculture panel they are struggling with rising costs for fuel, fertilizer and other inputs (Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capital Dispatch)." />
 <figcaption>Farmers told members of the U.S. House agriculture panel they are struggling with rising costs for fuel, fertilizer and other inputs (Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capital Dispatch).</figcaption>
 </figure>By ALLISON WINTER <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/u-s-house-ag-panel-mulls-safety-net-changes-in-farm-bill-amid-soaring-costs/">States Newsroom</a>WASHINGTON —&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Members of the 
U.S. House Agriculture Committee are&nbsp;considering how to help farmers 
struggling with rising costs for fertilizer, fuel, seeds and chemicals —
 the unfortunate harvest of the war in Ukraine, strains on the global 
supply system, inflation and severe weather.A panel of the committee heard from agricultural economists Thursday,
 as lawmakers debate how to structure the federal&nbsp; safety net in the 
next farm bill, due when current programs expire in 2023.The debate comes as traditional corn, soy and wheat farmers straddle 
both sides of inflation and the economic effects from the war in 
Ukraine. They’re seeing both huge increases in prices for their crops 
and soaring costs for everything they have to purchase to plant them.“Since 2018, when the last farm bill was written, farmers have 
experienced the economic impacts of a trade war with China, marketing 
and supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic,&nbsp; historic weather 
events and now extreme volatility in commodity and input markets,” said 
Rep. Cheri Bustos, an Illinois Democrat and the chairwoman of the 
subcommittee that oversees farm commodities.“This all has implications for the next farm bill,” Bustos added.Rep. Glenn Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said he wants to pay 
special consideration to the margins for farmers as members work on the 
next farm bill. Thompson is the top Republican on the Agriculture 
Committee and could helm the farm bill process if Republicans take 
control of the House.“The bottom line is that agriculture is a business, and at the end of
 the day, it is not what you bring in but the margin you are left with,”
 said Thompson. “I have tremendous concerns with where we are headed 
right now.”<h2>Holes in the safety net</h2>The farm bill includes long-standing safety net programs that offer 
some risk protection and financial support to American farmers.That includes crop insurance and farm commodity programs, which pay 
farmers if crop prices drop. But the programs don’t account for the 
current challenge for farmers of rising costs for fuel, fertilizer, 
pesticides, and seeds.Economists suggested lawmakers consider pilot programs geared to aid farmers struggling in those margins.“Input costs are increasing and with inflation, you’re going to have 
intense pressure where that safety net will be weakened,” said Ronald 
Rainey, director of the University of Arkansas System Division of 
Agriculture.The big commodity crops, especially corn and wheat, are seeing high 
prices — due in part to disruption of a global market that usually has 
Ukraine and Russia as important players.Anticipated prices for the 2022 U.S. wheat crop are 50 percent higher
 than they were in January, according to Joseph Janzen, an agricultural 
economist at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.Futures prices for corn and soybean prices are also on the rise: 30 percent for corn and 20 percent higher for soybeans.But agricultural economists told lawmakers that the sky-high prices 
may give a false impression, since farmers are also paying more than 
ever for fertilizer and fuel. The benchmark prices on crude oil and U.S.
 fertilizer prices approximately tripled between January 2021 and March 
2022.Russia and Belarus are also major fertilizer producers and exporters.
 Those input prices are expected to stay high for the next few years.“What we know is going to happen, is prices are going to decline but 
input prices are going to stay up for a while, they always do. And that 
is going to leave people in a cost-price squeeze,” said Joe Outlaw, 
co-director of the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&amp;M 
University.The high fertilizer and energy prices have both short and long-term 
effects for agriculture. If farmers respond by planting less and using 
less fertilizer, they will have a smaller harvest — bringing in less 
income for their farms and potentially exacerbating rising food costs.<h2>Farm bill process</h2>Every five years lawmakers have to reauthorize the farm bill — a 
laborious process to re-examine the policy and funding structure for 
federal agriculture and food assistance programs.The farm bill is unique in that it&nbsp;provides “mandatory” funding for 
many of the programs it authorizes, so the programs do not have to go 
through the congressional appropriations process every year. As such, 
farm bill authorization is a complex and contentious process, as 
lawmakers debate how and where to spend more money.Most lawmakers at the subcommittee hearing Thursday did not call for a
 major overhaul of the longstanding safety net for farm commodities.“Our main approach to writing a new farm bill should be a cautious 
one,” said Rep. Rick Allen, a Georgia Republican, noting how chaotic the
 past few years have been for agriculture and the economy. “We should 
not make major changes unless we are able to fully evaluate the 
consequences of those changes.”But some said they should consider more flexibility and innovation in
 farm programs to try to address&nbsp; mounting challenges from drought, 
severe weather and climate change.&nbsp;For instance, more than half of 
Arizona is in severe drought and an additional 10 percent is enduring 
extreme drought.“I have never seen conditions like this with no relief in sight. We 
have something that has to be overcome, and we can’t do it by half 
measures,” said Rep. Tom O’ Halleran, an Arizona Democrat.In addition to the commodity programs, the farm bill includes crop 
insurance, conservation programs and food assistance programs. The bulk 
of farm bill spending goes to food programs, like the supplemental 
nutrition assistance program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) for 
low-income individuals and families.

House panel mulls safety net changes in farm bill amid soaring costs

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is lifting its requirement that international air travelers to the U.S. take a COVID-19 test within a day before boarding their flights, easing one of the last remaining government mandates meant to contain the spread of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus</a>.

A senior administration official said the mandate expires Sunday at 12:01 a.m. EDT, saying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that it’s no longer necessary. The official, speaking Friday on the condition of anonymity to preview the formal announcement, said that the agency would reevaluate the need for the testing requirement every 90 days and that it could be reinstated if a troubling new variant emerges.

The Biden administration put in place&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-business-air-travel-travel-e327b9d85a6dc81f07e226b937fe7097">the testing requirement</a>&nbsp;last year, as it moved away from restrictions that banned nonessential travel from several dozen countries — most of Europe, China, Brazil, South Africa, India and Iran — and instead focuses on classifying individuals by the risk they pose to others. It came in conjunction with a requirement that foreign, non-immigrant adults traveling to the United States need to be fully vaccinated, with only limited exceptions.

The initial mandate allowed those who were fully vaccinated to show proof of a negative test within three days of travel, while unvaccinated people had to present a test taken within one day of travel.

In November, as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-new-variant-omicron-explainer-116ef818ac4a8e7bc23bb28d6511ecad">the highly transmissible omicron variant</a>&nbsp;swept the world,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-travel-lifestyle-health-a5fabb683083f8cf733761f89caf4899">the Biden administration toughened the requirement</a>&nbsp;and required all travelers, regardless of vaccination status, to test within a day of travel to the U.S.

Airline and tourism groups have been pressing the administration for months to eliminate the testing requirement, saying it is discouraging people from booking international trips. Many other countries have lifted their testing requirements for fully vaccinated and boosted travelers in a bit to increase tourism.

In February,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-business-travel-business-travel-10f20ef571fdfb2ca23ac07719869987">the groups argued the testing requirement was obsolete</a>&nbsp;because of the high number of omicron cases already in every state, higher vaccinations rates and new treatments for the virus.

“I’m glad CDC suspended the burdensome coronavirus testing requirement for international travelers, and I’ll continue to do all I can to support the strong recovery of our hospitality industry,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said in a statement.

The lifting of the requirement comes six weeks after a federal judge ended the CDC’s mask requirement for mass transit, including trains, planes, buses and transit hubs, saying the agency exceeded its authority. The Biden administration is appealing that ruling, saying it aims to protect the CDC’s ability to respond to future health emergencies.The official said the CDC will continue to recommend COVID-19 testing prior to air travel of any kind as a safety precaution-

The official said the CDC will continue to recommend COVID-19 testing prior to air travel of any kind as a safety precaution.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1618925513372.png" alt="The CDC will continue to recommend COVID-19 testing prior to air travel of any kind as a safety precaution-photo Kansas City International Airport" />
 <figcaption>The CDC will continue to recommend COVID-19 testing prior to air travel of any kind as a safety precaution-photo Kansas City International Airport</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is lifting its requirement that international air travelers to the U.S. take a COVID-19 test within a day before boarding their flights, easing one of the last remaining government mandates meant to contain the spread of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus</a>.A senior administration official said the mandate expires Sunday at 12:01 a.m. EDT, saying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that it’s no longer necessary. The official, speaking Friday on the condition of anonymity to preview the formal announcement, said that the agency would reevaluate the need for the testing requirement every 90 days and that it could be reinstated if a troubling new variant emerges.The Biden administration put in place&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-business-air-travel-travel-e327b9d85a6dc81f07e226b937fe7097">the testing requirement</a>&nbsp;last year, as it moved away from restrictions that banned nonessential travel from several dozen countries — most of Europe, China, Brazil, South Africa, India and Iran — and instead focuses on classifying individuals by the risk they pose to others. It came in conjunction with a requirement that foreign, non-immigrant adults traveling to the United States need to be fully vaccinated, with only limited exceptions.The initial mandate allowed those who were fully vaccinated to show proof of a negative test within three days of travel, while unvaccinated people had to present a test taken within one day of travel.In November, as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-new-variant-omicron-explainer-116ef818ac4a8e7bc23bb28d6511ecad">the highly transmissible omicron variant</a>&nbsp;swept the world,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-travel-lifestyle-health-a5fabb683083f8cf733761f89caf4899">the Biden administration toughened the requirement</a>&nbsp;and required all travelers, regardless of vaccination status, to test within a day of travel to the U.S.Airline and tourism groups have been pressing the administration for months to eliminate the testing requirement, saying it is discouraging people from booking international trips. Many other countries have lifted their testing requirements for fully vaccinated and boosted travelers in a bit to increase tourism.In February,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-business-travel-business-travel-10f20ef571fdfb2ca23ac07719869987">the groups argued the testing requirement was obsolete</a>&nbsp;because of the high number of omicron cases already in every state, higher vaccinations rates and new treatments for the virus.“I’m glad CDC suspended the burdensome coronavirus testing requirement for international travelers, and I’ll continue to do all I can to support the strong recovery of our hospitality industry,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said in a statement.The lifting of the requirement comes six weeks after a federal judge ended the CDC’s mask requirement for mass transit, including trains, planes, buses and transit hubs, saying the agency exceeded its authority. The Biden administration is appealing that ruling, saying it aims to protect the CDC’s ability to respond to future health emergencies.The official said the CDC will continue to recommend COVID-19 testing prior to air travel of any kind as a safety precaution-The official said the CDC will continue to recommend COVID-19 testing prior to air travel of any kind as a safety precaution.

US lifts COVID-19 test requirement for international travel

Blackshirt Feeders in Dundy County would hold 100,000 cattle

By PAUL HAMMEL <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/06/10/states-largest-feedlot-gets-countys-ok-despite-worries-about-whether-bigger-is-better/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN
 — The state’s largest feedlot project is moving forward following an 
emotional, marathon public meeting in southwest Nebraska’s Dundy County.

But
 the 100,000-head Blackshirt Feeders feedlot project will have to comply
 with at least 10 conditions, tied to concerns about odor, dust and 
runoff of manure, under the conditional use permit given 3-0 approval 
Monday by the Dundy County Board.

“Myself
 and the team are pretty excited,” said Eric Behlke, a native of 
Benkelman and one of three Canadian veterinarians who specialize in 
feedlots behind the project.

Behlke called county approval the “first big hurdle” for the $65-million project. It is projected to employ
 85 workers and consume up to 10 million bushels of corn a year when 
fully completed. It will be built in stages over a couple of years.

Not
 everyone is enthused about the project. Concerns have been raised about
 nitrate contamination of local aquifers, whether there’s adequate 
groundwater to support such a huge feedlot and whether such a big 
operation will force out smaller, family-run feedlots in the area.

It poses a question many in agriculture face: “Do you get bigger, or get out?”

The
 Blackshirt Feeders site is about 15 miles north of Benkelman, near the 
Dundy-Chase County line. Monday’s nearly six-hour county board meeting 
had followed <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/05/02/proposal-to-build-states-largest-feedlot-hits-snag-but-now-headed-for-another-chance/">a series of full-house hearings</a> over several months on the project.

“It
 was very controversial,” said Richard Bartholomew of Benkelman, vice 
chairman of the county board. “It pitted neighbors against neighbors and
 family members against family members.”

Bartholomew,
 who has questioned whether “bigger is better,” said he’d rather see 
five new, family-run feedlots of 20,000 cattle each than one corporate 
facility holding 100,000 head. He said county zoning rules basically 
dictated a “yes” vote by county board members if the facility complied 
with all zoning requirements.

The
 water situation, Bartholomew said, is a concern to everyone. He said he
 lives near the nitrate filtration plant that Benkelman had to install 
to ensure a safe drinking water supply for that community of 960.

But
 Behlke said the design of the feedlot will make it “one of the most 
environmentally friendly facilities in Nebraska and even nationally.”

“We have gone to the nth degree to prevent groundwater problems and runoff,” he said.

The
 feedlot will be the first of its size in the U.S., according to Behlke,
 to be built on a base of “roller compacted concrete” instead of dirt. 
Lagoons will also be lined with the substance, he said.

The
 concrete surface, Behlke said, will make it easier to scrape and clean 
the feedlot and can better keep runoff from leaching into the soil.

&nbsp;“It greatly reduces flies, dust and odor,” he added.

The manure will be used as fertilizer on 
area fields. There will be plenty of it — a feedlot steer can produce 75
 pounds of manure a day, though about 90% of it is water, according to 
the University of Massachusetts.

Behlke
 said the plans for the feedlot must now win approval from the Nebraska 
Department of Environment and Energy. And the Upper Republican Natural 
Resources District must sign off on Blackshirt’s water usage, which will
 require the project to retire about six center-pivot irrigation systems
 nearby to shift the water rights.

Behlke said construction could begin as soon as this winter, if the weather cooperates.

The
 five-member Dundy County Planning Commission had recommended approval 
of a conditional use permit for the Blackshirt Feeders project with 13 
conditions. Those conditions were amended into 10 by the county board. 
They are:

<h2>Blackshirt Feeders in Dundy County would hold 100,000 cattle</h2>By PAUL HAMMEL <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/06/10/states-largest-feedlot-gets-countys-ok-despite-worries-about-whether-bigger-is-better/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN
 — The state’s largest feedlot project is moving forward following an 
emotional, marathon public meeting in southwest Nebraska’s Dundy County.But
 the 100,000-head Blackshirt Feeders feedlot project will have to comply
 with at least 10 conditions, tied to concerns about odor, dust and 
runoff of manure, under the conditional use permit given 3-0 approval 
Monday by the Dundy County Board.“Myself
 and the team are pretty excited,” said Eric Behlke, a native of 
Benkelman and one of three Canadian veterinarians who specialize in 
feedlots behind the project.Behlke called county approval the “first big hurdle” for the $65-million project. It is projected to employ
 85 workers and consume up to 10 million bushels of corn a year when 
fully completed. It will be built in stages over a couple of years.<h2>Not all enthused</h2>Not
 everyone is enthused about the project. Concerns have been raised about
 nitrate contamination of local aquifers, whether there’s adequate 
groundwater to support such a huge feedlot and whether such a big 
operation will force out smaller, family-run feedlots in the area.It poses a question many in agriculture face: “Do you get bigger, or get out?”The
 Blackshirt Feeders site is about 15 miles north of Benkelman, near the 
Dundy-Chase County line. Monday’s nearly six-hour county board meeting 
had followed <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/05/02/proposal-to-build-states-largest-feedlot-hits-snag-but-now-headed-for-another-chance/">a series of full-house hearings</a> over several months on the project.<h2>Neighbor pitted against neighbor</h2>“It
 was very controversial,” said Richard Bartholomew of Benkelman, vice 
chairman of the county board. “It pitted neighbors against neighbors and
 family members against family members.”Bartholomew,
 who has questioned whether “bigger is better,” said he’d rather see 
five new, family-run feedlots of 20,000 cattle each than one corporate 
facility holding 100,000 head. He said county zoning rules basically 
dictated a “yes” vote by county board members if the facility complied 
with all zoning requirements.The
 water situation, Bartholomew said, is a concern to everyone. He said he
 lives near the nitrate filtration plant that Benkelman had to install 
to ensure a safe drinking water supply for that community of 960.But
 Behlke said the design of the feedlot will make it “one of the most 
environmentally friendly facilities in Nebraska and even nationally.”<h2>The ‘nth’ degree</h2>“We have gone to the nth degree to prevent groundwater problems and runoff,” he said.The
 feedlot will be the first of its size in the U.S., according to Behlke,
 to be built on a base of “roller compacted concrete” instead of dirt. 
Lagoons will also be lined with the substance, he said.The
 concrete surface, Behlke said, will make it easier to scrape and clean 
the feedlot and can better keep runoff from leaching into the soil.&nbsp;“It greatly reduces flies, dust and odor,” he added.The manure will be used as fertilizer on 
area fields. There will be plenty of it — a feedlot steer can produce 75
 pounds of manure a day, though about 90% of it is water, according to 
the University of Massachusetts.Behlke
 said the plans for the feedlot must now win approval from the Nebraska 
Department of Environment and Energy. And the Upper Republican Natural 
Resources District must sign off on Blackshirt’s water usage, which will
 require the project to retire about six center-pivot irrigation systems
 nearby to shift the water rights.<h2>Ten conditions</h2>Behlke said construction could begin as soon as this winter, if the weather cooperates.The
 five-member Dundy County Planning Commission had recommended approval 
of a conditional use permit for the Blackshirt Feeders project with 13 
conditions. Those conditions were amended into 10 by the county board. 
They are:<ol>
 <li> Contingent upon an NDEE approval.</li><li> Separation 
distances are subject to NDEE finding that the facility is an aerobic 
facility; otherwise, if anaerobic, then the separation distances need to
 be re-examined.</li><li> There must be a fly and dust mitigation plan in place.</li><li> The applicant shall have a road maintenance agreement with Dundy County prior to beginning construction.</li><li> The facility will 
not be converted to a standard feedlot with dirt pens without modifying 
the conditional use permit and having a new public hearing.</li><li> No dead animals shall be composted on the property.</li><li> All water runoff 
and liquid waste shall be contained on site as proposed, and all grades 
shall be such as to create positive drainage from parts of the facility.</li><li> The applicant shall provide an annual report and forward all complaints to Dundy County for review.&nbsp;</li><li> The applicant 
shall pay the defense deductible for NIRMA’s representation of the 
county if litigation should arise in regard to the conditional use 
permit.</li><li> Pending NRD approval and/or water accessibility.</li>
 </ol>