# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a dramatic election night President Donald Trump's Republican Party retained control of the Senate and the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives.

The Democrats gained more than the 23 seats they needed to take control of the House. It is the first time the party has held the majority in the lower house of Congress for eight years. The loss of the House will make it harder for President Trump to push his policies forward.

What this all means for Trump

Meanwhile, the Republicans have kept control of the Senate, the upper chamber of Congress, and will increase their majority. They gained Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota from the Democrats, while the Democrats gained seats in Nevada and Arizona.

As it happened

Key takeaways so far

A really simple guide to the mid-terms

There was talk before the election of a rising "blue wave" - Democrats increasing their vote share across the country.

The Democrats increased their vote share in 239 districts, but they didn't win all of them. In West Virginia's 3rd district, there was a 20% swing towards the Democrats, but the seat still went to Republican Carol Miller.

One Democrat who substantially increased her party's share was Sharice Davids, the joint-first Native American Congresswoman. She improved the Democrats' vote by 13% to win Kansas' 3rd district.

The Republicans raised their vote share in just 67 districts.

There will be more women in the House than in any previous year, while the total number of women in Congress overall will be at a record high after the mid-terms, overtaking the current tally of 107.
Click on the box below for detailed results, provided by AP. Switch between the Senate, House and Governor tabs to see the state of each map, and click on states or districts to explore vote counts in individual races. What do the midterm results mean for women in Congress?
High turnout

The 2018 mid-terms is set to be historical for voter turnout. With just a few seats left to be re-counted, 49.2% of those allowed to vote have done so.

This is higher than any year since 1914. In 2014, just 37% of those eligible voted.

Some 115 million votes were cast in the House in 2018, according to estimates by the US Elections Project, up from 83 million in 2014.
How the mid-term elections broke records
Democrat gains

In the House, Democrats increased their vote share in hundreds of seats, with vote share dropping in just 47 seats.

Boundary changes also helped them, as changes in Pennsylvania saw them gain four seats in the state, compared to 2016.

They also gained two seats in the southern tip of Florida, a classic swing state.

Who voted how?

Compared with the last Congressional election in 2016, Republicans lost support in those counties with the most university-educated white women.

While minorities are much more likely to vote Democrat.

And in rural areas, there was strong support for Republican candidates.

President Trump's core constituencies of white working class voters also appear to have turned out for the party in House races.
Produced by Daniel Dunford, Tom Calver, Will Dahlgreen, Maryam Ahmed, Nassos Stylianou, Ed Lowther, Clara Guibourg, John Walton and Irene de la Torre Arenas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live results: Winners, losers and too close to call

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a dramatic election night President Donald Trump's Republican Party retained control of the Senate and the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. The Democrats gained more than the 23 seats they needed to take control of the House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In October of 2017, actress Alyssa Milano posted a tweet imploring her followers to respond with "me too" if they'd ever been sexually harassed or assaulted. By noon of the following day, the #metoo hashtag hit over 1.2 million tweets. Milano immediately informed her followers of an earlier Me Too Movement and Good Morning America identified its founder as civil rights activist Tarana Burke.

But ever since Burke was identified as the creator of the Me Too Movement, there has been a deliberate effort to diminish her work and efforts of the Black women anti-rape activists that came before her.

Supporters were offended when Time magazine named Me Too 'Silence Breakers' as 2017 Person of the Year, while crediting Burke with creating the Me Too Movement in 2006 but failing to put her on the front cover.

In August, The New York Times released a book taking credit for starting the Me Too Movement with its explosive 2017 investigative report on Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein's sexual crimes.

The Los Angeles Times recently credited Alyssa Milano for kicking off the Me Too Movement with a single tweet, though the actress has made efforts to rightfully credit Burke.

After actress Asia Argento was accused of paying hush money to silence sexual assault violations in August, Burke publicly urged followers not to abandon Me Too depsite the media's continued hyperfocus on celebrities. Argento was one the first women to publicly accuse defamed producer Harvey Weinstein of rape, in a 2017 article penned by Ronan Farrow for The New Yorker and during a speech at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival.

Despite the media's whitewashing, Burke maintains Me Too is a movement for and by Black women. In an article published by The Gaurdian, Burke described the movement as unrecognizable and claimed it is no longer centered on survivors of sexual violence. She expressed concerns the media framed the movement as a witch hunt targeting prominent men.

This movement has been called a watershed moment, but some days I wake up feeling that all the evidence points to the contrary.

Since #MeToo went viral, several men in Hollywood have been ousted from positions of power. In September, the Chairman and CEO of CBS Corporation Les Moonves resigned in September following several allegations of sexual misconduct. The same month, comedian Bill Cosby was sentenced to three to 10 years in prison for drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand. However, Weinstein remains free on $1M cash bail as he awaits trial for rape.

We have yet to determine the Me Too Movements long-term impact on society, including enforceable legislation to protect the most vulnerable victims. If Me Too continues to lack diversity, it will be due to rampant media bias that does not support equality. Anti-rape activism will exist as it has since our nation was founded, but the Me Too Movement will never progress if we ignore its roots and exclude those the movement was created to help.

I cover the entertainment industry from a much-needed feminist perspective. I am here to disrupt the narrative. I wrote, produced and directed a short film about domestic violence and sexual assault based on my life. Now, I am most known for my feminist pop culture opinion e...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Hollywood Get 'MeToo' Right In 2019?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In October of 2017, actress Alyssa Milano posted a tweet imploring her followers to respond with "me too" if they'd ever been sexually harassed or assaulted. By noon of the following day, the #metoo hashtag hit over 1.2 million tweets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - An enraged Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted Thursday's confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as "the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics."

His voice rising with anger, the South Carolina Republican ripped into Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing them of destroying Kavanaugh's life for political gain, "to hold this seat and hope you win in 2020."

To Kavanaugh, Graham cynically said, "You're looking for a fair process - you came to the wrong town, my friend."

Graham's outburst late in the eight-hour hearing was one of the most tense exchanges during a day filled with drama, emotion and partisan sniping, all playing out before a live national television audience.

Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party 36 years ago, testifies during his US Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. (Photo: Pool photo by Saul Loeb)

The day's most riveting moments were provided by the hearing's star witnesses - psychology researcher and professor Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh himself.

Describing herself as "terrified," Ford told the committee she is "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party in Maryland more than three decades ago.

A few hours later, an angry, defiant and at times tearful Kavanaugh insisted he is innocent and complained that his name and family have been "totally and permanently destroyed" by the allegations.

The sexual assault charges have imperiled Kavanaugh's nomination to a seat on the nation's highest court.

The 21 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee - 17 men and four women - will decide whether his nomination even gets to the Senate floor for a vote.

The committee members, comprised of 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, are expected to vote along party lines. And at Thursday's hearing, partisanship was on full display before either Ford or Kavanaugh uttered their first words to the committee.

In his opening statement, the committee's chairman, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, blasted Democrats, particularly Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, for waiting "until only at the eleventh hour" to turn over to the FBI a letter in which Ford alleged that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

Grassley defended the way Republicans have handled the allegations, insisting his staff immediately began an investigation when Ford's accusations became public. But, "every step of the way, the Democratic side refused to participate in what should've been a bipartisan investigation," he said.

Feinstein, the committee's top Democrat, defended her decision not to initially reveal Ford's allegations, noting that Ford had sent her a letter detailing the claims but asking that they remain confidential.

"I held it confidential, up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward," Feinstein said.

For her part, Feinstein complained of a "rush to judgment" by Republicans and an "unwillingness to take these kinds of allegations at face value."

"This is not a trial for Dr. Ford," she said. "It's a job interview for Judge Kavanaugh."

The partisan sparring went on and on for much of the Senate hearing.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, took the opportunity not only to defend Ford but to attack President Donald Trump, who nominated Kavanaugh to the high court.

Citing a litany of policy grievances, Hirono said Trump separates children from their parents, takes health-care protections away from Americans and "nominates and stands behind a man who commits a horrible act."

Moments after the hearing, Trump tweeted his support for Kavanaugh and urged senators to vote.

Tweeted Trump: "Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats' search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!"

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., applauded Ford's courage for coming forward with her allegations and noted that he was on the committee in 1991 when it held hearings on Anita Hill's charges of sexual harassment against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

"The Senate failed Anita Hill," Leahy said.

Other Democrats on the committee also lauded Ford - "I believe you," Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said emphatically - while Republicans doubted that Kavanaugh was the attacker she described.

Several GOP senators looked visibly upset as Kavanaugh gave his tearful rebuttal.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, appeared to be blinking back tears. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., let out a sigh, then pursed his lips.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, charged that the committee could have investigated Ford's allegations in a way that protected her privacy, but was prohibited from doing so because Feinstein failed to make the panel aware of them. Instead, he said, either Feinstein or her staff leaked her letter to the press.

"I did not hide Dr. Ford's allegations, I did not leak her story - she asked me to hold it confidential, and I kept it confidential as she asked," Feinstein shot back.

After conferring with aides, Feinstein said also said her staff did not give Ford's letter to the press.

During a break in the hearing, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, made it clear that he found Kavanaugh believable and that he intended to vote for his confirmation.

"I don't know how you can listen to him and not realize that he's what he says he is," he told reporters.

Asked if he thought Kavanaugh would be confirmed, Hatch said, "I sure do. It may be a party-line vote. But he'll get confirmed."
Eliza Collins of USA TODAY contributed to this story.
More: Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

More: Here's the polygraph test Christine Blasey Ford took on her allegations against Kavanaugh

More: Brett Kavanaugh's 1982 calendar being used as evidence against sexual assault allegations

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2Q8MrN8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senators take partisan punches at each other throughout 8-hour Ford, Kavanaugh hearing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - An enraged Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted Thursday's confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as "the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics." His voice rising with anger, the South Carolina Republican ripped into Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing them of destroying Kavanaugh's life for political gain, "to hold this seat and hope you win in 2020."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thai cave rescue: Rescuer praises Wild Boars' resilience - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to NPR Politics Podcast podcast

Politics isn't always red or blue. Lately, it has been green.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., plans to introduce legislation on Friday to decriminalize marijuana on the federal level, adding a high-profile advocate in the effort to decriminalize, legalize and normalize marijuana use in America.

Schumer's legislation would remove marijuana from the list of scheduled substances under a 1970 law that classifies marijuana as dangerous as heroin for legal and regulatory purposes.

It would establish funding for women- and minority-owned marijuana businesses, require more research on the drug's public health impact, and maintain federal authority to regulate commercial advertising, similar to existing regulations for tobacco and alcohol.

"If smoking marijuana doesn't hurt anybody else, why shouldn't we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?" Schumer told Vice News Tonight on HBO in a Thursday interview previewing his bill. To drive home that point, Schumer also agreed to sign a bong.

The move is coming on 4/20, the unofficial holiday celebrating marijuana use and culture.

Schumer's support is the latest indicator of the green wave affecting American politics, with growing support across the political spectrum to change the way the federal government sees marijuana.

Former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, made headlines last week after he announced he was joining the board of a marijuana company and would now help advocate for legalization policies, swiftly reversing a lifetime of opposition to the drug.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., took a baby step in that direction last week by introducing legislation to permanently decriminalize hemp, a nonpsychoactive byproduct of cannabis, that has been a boom for Kentucky farmers in recent years.

The reversals are fueled by a growing number of states that are successfully experimenting with changing marijuana laws - and enjoying the revenue they are bringing in to help their cash-strapped states. Colorado voted to legalize the drug for recreational use in 2012, and there is essentially no lingering political dispute anymore about its merits from either party there.

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., waged a battle against the Trump administration this year after Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded an Obama-era memorandum that advised federal law enforcement to deprioritize marijuana for prosecution. Gardner held up Trump's nominees for the Justice Department until he received a personal assurance from the president that his administration would not crack down on states that have legalized marijuana.

Gardner is also drafting bipartisan legislation that would make it clear that states have the right to determine their own marijuana laws without federal interference.

Across the aisle, liberal lawmakers are likewise flocking to co-sponsor bills to roll back marijuana restrictions. On Thursday, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, became a co-sponsor of New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker's bill to legalize marijuana and let people convicted in the past of marijuana possession get their criminal records expunged. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is already a co-sponsor.

The three are all possible 2020 presidential contenders - another indicator of which way politicians see the country moving when it comes to marijuana policy.

Thirty states and the District of Columbia have already passed laws legalizing marijuana in some form, such as for medical use. Nine of those states and D.C. have gone a step further to legalize the drug for purely recreational purposes.

Marijuana is also making health care advances this week. The Associated Press reported that a group of U.S. health experts on Thursday endorsed the use of a medicine made from the marijuana plant to treat seizures in children. If the Food and Drug Administration follows the group's recommendation, it would become the first drug derived from the cannabis plant to win federal approval in the country.

The culture shift is also changing the way people celebrate 4/20. Revelers are trading in secret parties and furtive passes for public celebrations. USA Today reports that Denver is anticipating tens of thousands of people to gather Friday for what is considered "the world's largest 420 celebration."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On 4/20, Chuck Schumer To Introduce Bill To Decriminalize Marijuana

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to NPR Politics Podcast podcast Politics isn't always red or blue. Lately, it has been green. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., plans to introduce legislation on Friday to decriminalize marijuana on the federal level, adding a high-profile advocate in the effort to decriminalize, legalize and normalize marijuana use in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Academy is dedicated to the health and well-being of all children - no matter where they or their parents were born. Through its advocacy at the federal level, the AAP advances policies that support, protect and promote immigrant child health.

Family Separation & Detention

In May 2018, the Trump administration announced a new policy that forcibly separated children and parents at the border, a practice that the administration had already been carrying out for months as a way to deter families from migrating to the United States. The Academy was a leading voice in strongly opposing this policy and its detrimental consequences for children's health.

The AAP also urges that family detention is not the solution for family separation. In 2017, the AAP published a policy statement, recommending that no child should be placed in detention, and that even short periods of detention can cause psychological trauma and long-term mental health risks.

Visit this for more information and resources on the Academy's federal advocacy efforts relating to family separation and detention.

Public Charge

A public charge proposal issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could harm immigrant families' willingness to access nutrition support, housing assistance, and health care.

Public charge is a test used to determine if someone can become a permanent U.S. resident. If the rule takes effect, the federal government would consider whether an immigrant has used or is likely to use public benefits, including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and housing assistance. It also contains an income threshold such that a family of four making less than $63,000 (250% of the federal poverty level) would find it much more difficult to obtain a green card or visa than a higher income family.

In the United States, one in four children lives in an immigrant family. Many of these children rely on health insurance programs and nutrition assistance programs to grow up healthy. The new proposal could force immigrant parents to choose between keeping their families together in this country or accessing vital health, housing and nutrition programs to stay healthy.

Visit this for more information and resources on the Academy's federal advocacy efforts relating to public charge.

Additional Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Academy is dedicated to the health and well-being of all children - no matter where they or their parents were born. Through its advocacy at the federal level, the AAP advances policies that support, protect and promote immigrant child health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The European Sting - Critical News & Insights on European Politics, Economy, Foreign Affairs, Business & Technology - europeansting.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
G20 leaders met in Buenos Aires on 30 November and 1 December 2018

They adopted a declaration focusing on the future of work, infrastructure for development, a sustainable food future and on gender equality.

Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, and Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the summit. Argentina's President, Mauricio Macri, hosted the summit.

The EU was an important advocate of multilateralism and the international rules-based trade at the summit.

The 2018 edition marked the 10th anniversary of an international forum setup to better coordinate economic and financial policies in response to the global crisis in 2008.

The summit was also an opportunity to build a positive trade agenda and to reconfirm political support among G20 leaders to reform the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in order to improve its efficiency and functioning.

"The system is currently falling short of its objectives and there is room for improvement. We therefore support the necessary reform of the WTO to improve its functioning. We will review progress at our next summit."
G20 Leaders' Declaration, Buenos Aires

Global challenges were also on the agenda. Leaders focused on the fight against climate change.

They noted the outcome of the last IPCC report ahead of the COP24 meeting in December 2018. Signatories of the Paris Agreement reconfirmed their commitment to its full implementation

They also discussed sustainable development, including the 2030 agenda and sustainable development goals. They confirmed they will continue to work together to seek a consensus-based solution to address the impacts of the digitalisation of the economy on the international tax system with an update in 2019 and a final report by 2020.

The G20 leaders condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. They committed to the full implementation of The Hamburg G20 Leaders Statement on Countering Terrorism.

"We will step up our efforts in fighting terrorist and proliferation financing, and money laundering. We urge the digital industry to work together to fight exploitation of the internet and social media for terrorist purposes."
G20 Leaders' Declaration, Buenos Aires

EU coordination meeting

The leaders of the EU countries present at the G20 held their coordination meeting in the margins of the summit. In the context of the killing of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, they agreed the urgent need to establish what happened on 2 October 2018.

Ahead of the summit, President Tusk urged the G20 leaders to address pressing issues such as trade wars and the Russian aggression in Ukraine:

"I see no reason why the G20 leaders shouldn't have a meaningful discussion about solving these problems. Especially because all the instruments lie in their hands. The only condition is good will. We also cannot underestimate other issues which remain difficult for some leaders, such as human rights, freedom of press and basic safety of journalists."
Remarks by President Donald Tusk ahead of the G20 summit

About the G20 presidency

Argentina currently holds the G20's presidency. Its theme is "building consensus for fair and sustainable development' with 4 key priorities:

the future of work

infrastructure for development

food security

gender equality

The previous G20 summit took place in Hamburg in July 2017:

Background

The G20 brings together 19 countries plus the EU. G20 members account for over 80% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP) and they host almost two-thirds of the world's population.

The G20 was established in 2008 amidst the global financial crisis to increase international economic cooperation. Since then, G20 members have been meeting annually to discuss a wide range of issues related to economic and financial cooperation.

The EU as a G20 member

The European Union is a full member of the G20 alongside four of its member states: France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. In addition, Spain is a permanent invitee of the G20.

The EU has its own seat at the G20 table as it is one of the largest global economic areas with specific competences in trade matters, economic policy and financial regulation, development, energy and climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Main results of G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
G20 leaders met in Buenos Aires on 30 November and 1 December 2018 They adopted a declaration focusing on the future of work, infrastructure for development, a sustainable food future and on gender equality. Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, and Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the summit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Kokito, Wake Up!': Owners Recall Flight That Left Dog Dead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When an attendant on a United Airlines flight from Houston to New York City told Catelina Robledo and her daughter to put their dog in an overhead compartment because its carrier was partially blocking an aisle,...

# data[].attributes.headline
House votes to end government shutdown, sending legislation to Trump

# data[].attributes.subject
House votes to end government shutdown, sending legislation to Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
January 22, 2018
Congress voted late Monday to reopen the government after a three-day shutdown, sending President Trump a short-term spending bill that passed after Senate Republican leaders pledged to act on immigration policy next month.

The House joined the Senate in passing the bill to fund the government through Feb. 8, reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program and roll back several health-care taxes. It passed 81-18 in the Senate and 266-150 in the House.

"I'm glad we can finally get back to work here," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after the vote. He called the shutdown a "manufactured crisis" characterized by "damaging partisan theatrics."

The breakthrough came Monday after Senate Democrats bowed to pressure to reopen the government, joining Republicans in backing an immigration and spending compromise that was quickly denounced by liberals and immigration activists.

Roughly 60 hours after government funding lapsed, a bipartisan group of negotiators in the Senate prevailed with leadership and trading Democratic support for reopening the government for a commitment by Republicans to hold a vote resolving the status of young undocumented immigrants by mid-February.

President Trump welcomed Democrats' decision to relent and said the administration would "work toward solving the problem of very unfair illegal immigration."

View Graphic

"I am pleased that Democrats in Congress have come to their senses," he added in a statement.

But the resolution of the three-day stalemate exposed a growing rift between two groups of Democratic senators: those facing tough reelection campaigns in states Trump won, and those courting liberal voters ahead of possible 2020 presidential bids.
[Government shutdown foreshadows a 2018 of inaction and gridlock]
Channeling rage from immigration activists, the possible 2020 candidates were highly critical of their leaders' willingness to trust that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will allow an immigration vote after Feb. 8 if senators cannot strike a deal before then.

"I believe it's been a false choice that's been presented" between keeping the government open and resolving the DACA issue, said Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), who voted no. "I believe we can do both."

A majority of Democrats had forced the shutdown with demands for a vote on legislation to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients, known as "dreamers," from deportation after Trump canceled the program. The final bill did not include these protections, nor any specific guarantee of a vote.

Other possible White House contenders who voted against the bill included Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Democratic and independent senators who relented in the standoff said they did not necessarily trust McConnell, but had faith that the bipartisan negotiators, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), would force him to abide by his commitments.

"Frankly, our trust is more with our colleagues, that they will hold him accountable," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who is up for reelection this year in a state Trump won.

"A commitment this public, with this much fanfare - that's kind of hard to back away from just three weeks from now," said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who sided with Democrats on Friday in the vote that produced the shutdown.

Collins, Flake and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) helped broker the agreement, with Flake and Graham shuttling between huddles with McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) for much of the weekend. During bipartisan meetings in Collins's office, senators had to use a "talking stick" to avoid unproductive crosstalk. They eventually switched to a basketball, according to Manchin, because it was easier to toss back and forth.

McConnell had said Sunday night and Monday morning that it was his "intention" to take up legislation addressing DACA, border security and other issues if Democrats agreed to fund the government until Feb. 8.

"This immigration debate will have a level playing field at the outset and an amendment process that is fair to all sides," he said Monday.
[House Republicans are unusually united that the shutdown is Democrats' fault]
The effects of the shutdown over the weekend were relatively muted: halting trash pickup on National Park Service property, canceling military reservists' drill plans, switching off some government employees' cellphones.

But the shutdown's continuing into Monday meant that hundreds of thousands of workers stayed home and key federal agencies were affected. Federal contractors will see payments delayed, and the Internal Revenue Service will slow its preparations for the coming tax season.

Senators did not extract a promise from McConnell that would pave the way for an immigration bill's passage through the House or its approval by Trump.

Still, some Democratic senators said the deal created the conditions for success.

"You have to be optimistic that we are trusting each other and trusting the process we are putting in place and that over the next 17 days, we will get to a bill that can get a commanding vote in the Senate, not just barely pass," Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) said.

This, combined with legislation to address a bevy of other issues - long-term spending levels, disaster relief and funding for opioid treatment and community health centers - "would create unstoppable pressure on the House," he said.

Advocates for "dreamers" were less convinced.

Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) blasted his Democratic colleagues in the Senate for shortchanging Latino voters, an increasingly critical voting bloc for the party.

"If the Republicans said we are ending same-sex marriage, but we promise Democrats a vote later; or we approve of oil drilling in every national park, but you'll have a vote later - do you think the Democrats would say yes? This shows me that when it comes to immigrants, Latinos and their families, Democrats are still not willing to go to the mat to allow people in my community to live in our country legally," said Gutierrez, one of Capitol Hill's most vocal advocates for "dreamers," in a statement.

A top liberal political strategist on immigration issues spoke for many of those in an uproar after the vote.

"We're pissed off. We're not naive to the politics. But give me a f-----g break. They do something heroic Friday night they climb down Monday morning," the strategist said.

Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he hoped to be "celebrating" with DACA recipients after a possible victory in three weeks.

"To all the 'dreamers' watching today: Don't give up," he said on the Senate floor. "I know your lives are hanging in the balance."

The vote to end debate on the spending bill came together quickly after Collins and several other senators said they wanted a firmer, more detailed commitment from McConnell.

"It would be helpful if the language were a little bit stronger because the level of tension is so high," Collins told reporters outside her office.

A Republican aide involved in the talks said that McConnell and his team were considering putting their plan in document form with more detail as a way of convincing some Democrats to support the short-term bill.

Ahead of the vote to end debate, Schumer warned McConnell to keep his word.
[Shutdown dynamics highlight the state of politics on Trump's anniversary]
"I expect the majority leader to fulfill his commitment to the Senate, to me and to the bipartisan group, and abide by this agreement. If he does not . . . he will have breached the trust of not only the Democratic senators, but members of his own party as well," Schumer said.

Still, the relief among senators upon reaching a deal was palpable. As the voting began, Schumer shouted from his seated position. "Lindsey! Thank you, my friend," he said as Graham approached and shook his hand. "We wouldn't be here without you."

With the negotiations focused on the Senate, Trump remained on the sidelines for much of the weekend, using Twitter to interject his opinions.

Democrats are acting at the behest of their "far left base" in advocating for "dreamers," he argued Monday morning.

"The Democrats are turning down services and security for citizens in favor of services and security for noncitizens. Not good!" Trump wrote on Twitter.
Read more at PowerPost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
House votes to end government shutdown, sending legislation to Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
January 22, 2018 Congress voted late Monday to reopen the government after a three-day shutdown, sending President Trump a short-term spending bill that passed after Senate Republican leaders pledged to act on immigration policy next month. The House joined the Senate in passing the bill to fund the government through Feb.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today we are releasing our 2018 Year In Review, highlighting the top ways people around the world connected with their communities on Facebook.

First, people made their voices heard about issues that matter to them:

International Women's Day: For the second year in a row, International Women's Day on March 8 was the #1 most talked about moment of the year. But in 2018, IWD conversation was about more than the day itself. Women and men around the world discussed a wide range of topics, issues and causes related to women.

March for Our Lives: Survivors of the violence in Parkland, Florida announced the March for Our Lives movement on February 18, which drove conversation and action around the world. Over the next month, more than 1 million people showed interest in attending a Facebook Event for March for Our Lives, and more than $2.5 million was raised through Facebook Fundraisers.

Civic Engagement: The Brazilian Presidential Election on October 7 and the US Midterm Elections on November 6 were top moments for conversation about voting and elections.

We also saw communities join together in celebration of global moments in culture:

World Cup: More than 383 million soccer fans from around the world took to Facebook to cheer on their favorite teams through 2.3 billion posts, comments, reactions and shares. France's World Cup victory on July 15 and England's Semi-Final match against Croatia on July 11 were two of the top most-discussed moments of the year.

Super Bowl 52: The Philadelphia Eagles secured their first Super Bowl win against the New England Patriots on February 4. More than 62 million people turned to Facebook following Tom Brady's incomplete Hail Mary pass at the end of the game, and Justin Timberlake's halftime performance paying tribute to Prince.

The Royal Wedding: The much-anticipated nuptials between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on May 19 connected 42 million people on Facebook who about posted about the ceremony, the newlyweds, and the pomp and circumstance.

Finally, people came to Facebook to honor prominent figures who have had a significant impact around the world:

Nelson Mandela 100: July 18 marked 100 years since Nelson Mandela was born, and millions of people came to Facebook to celebrate Mandela's life of dedication to human rights and social justice.

Keeping Legacies Alive: The world lost many influential and inspirational people in 2018. From musical icons Aretha Franklin, Avicii, and Dolores O'Riordan of The Cranberries, to scientific visionaries like Stephen Hawking, influential storytellers like Anthony Bourdain and Hollywood stars like Burt Reynolds. People around the world shared millions of posts on Facebook to memorialize the global impact and work of these individuals.

Your Year In Review
Starting on December 10, you may see a personalized Year in Review video in your News Feed. This video aims to show special moments from 2018 that you've shared or been tagged in, and compiles them in a short video that can be edited and shared. See your video at facebook.com/memories.

Methodology
The top moments of this year's Year In Review were determined by gathering a list of the top keywords by volume mentioned in a single day on Facebook between January 1 and November 11, 2018. To identify which topics were unique to 2018, we compared these keywords to the previous year's maximum single-day volume. This means that keywords like Mother's Day and Halloween, which typically represent the top moments every year, do not repeatedly appear at the top of the list.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today we are releasing our 2018 Year In Review, highlighting the top ways people around the world connected with their communities on Facebook. First, people made their voices heard about issues that matter to them: International Women's Day: For the second year in a row, International Women's Day on March 8 was the #1 most talked about moment of the year.

# data[].attributes.headline
So far this year, crime and murder are trending down in America’s biggest cities

# data[].attributes.subject
So far this year, crime and murder are trending down in America’s biggest cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you keep a close eye on the news, 2018 has probably felt like a nonstop nightmare. But there's some good news: In major American cities, the crime and murder rates appear to have dropped so far this year.

A new report by the Brennan Center for Justice looks at the murder rates for 29 of the 30 largest cities in the US, as well as the crime rates for 19 of the 30 largest cities. (Data was not available for some cities.) It then used the trends in the year so far to project what the rate will be for the entire year, giving us a preliminary look at crime and murder in 2018.

The murder rate for 2018 is projected to be 7.6 percent lower than 2017, largely thanks to "sharp declines" in "San Francisco (-35.0 percent), Chicago (-23.2 percent), and Baltimore (-20.9 percent)," according to the report.

But some cities, like Washington, DC, and Austin, Texas, are projected to see increases. So there's some local variation.

The overall crime rate for 2018, meanwhile, is projected to fall by 2.9 percent compared to 2017. "If this estimate holds, this group of cities will experience the lowest crime rate this year since at least 1990," the report found. (Again, with some local variation.)

This would be the second year of good news, as Brennan's recent reports have estimated that crime and murder rates also fell in 2017. That stands in contrast to an increase in the murder rates in 2015 and 2016, but reflects a decades-long trend toward less crime and murder in the US.

Brennan has been putting out these reports over the past few years to give a more up-to-date estimate of crime trends. The FBI releases a national report of crime statistics each year, but it typically comes with a big delay; the full report for 2017, for example, still isn't out yet, although it's expected to come out any day now.

"We think there is a lot of misinformation on crime and crime rates," Inimai Chettiar, director of the justice program at the Brennan Center, told me.

"Certain politicians put out all sorts [of claims] on crime that not only tend to alarm the public, but also bring out really bad and unnecessary policy changes," she added, citing mass incarceration and an immigration crackdown. "Before we're even having those policy debates about what needs to be done to solve the problem, we need to make sure whether there actually is a problem or not."

Brennan's numbers are projections, so they might not be completely accurate, and they'll be updated as the group gets more data. But until we get the FBI's full national crime data for 2018 in the late summer or fall of next year, the Brennan report is the best we have to go by.

And it's good news.

Murders may not be on the rise after all

2015 and 2016's increases in the murder rate got a lot of attention, with President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions often bringing them up in speeches to justify "tough on crime" policies. But before they've been able to implement such policies and let them take root (especially in local and state jurisdictions, where federal policymakers have very limited power), these rates appear to be coming down.

"The notion that the Justice Department and the White House singlehandedly control the thousands of police departments that are doing the actual work of combating crime is not exactly fair," Ames Grawert, one of the Brennan researchers, told me.

Criminologists still aren't sure why murder in particular appeared to spike so much in 2015 and 2016. Some argued that there might have been a "Ferguson effect," named after the city in Missouri that exploded into protests over the police shooting of Michael Brown: Due to protests against police brutality over the past few years, police were, the theory goes, scared off from proactive policing, emboldening criminals.

Other experts argued a different kind of Ferguson effect: Widely reported incidents of police brutality and racial disparities in police use of force led to elevated distrust in law enforcement, which makes it much harder for police to solve and prevent crimes.

Yet many criminologists cautioned that it's also possible 2015 and 2016's increases were blips in the data, not a new long-term trend. This isn't unprecedented; in 2005 and 2006, the murder rate in the US increased before continuing its long-term decline - to new record lows - in the ensuing years.

"We're not even sure if these are actual, real increases and decreases," Chettiar said, "because the way we're looking at the data is that 2015 and 2016 were just blips, and then it's going back down in 2017 and 2018 - which means it's relatively stable, and crime is bottoming out."

Since the murder rate in particular is generally low, it's prone to big statistical fluctuations. As one example, Brennan found that Las Vegas saw a 23.5 percent spike in its murder rate in 2017, but that was due to the mass shooting at a country music concert there that killed 58 people. A single event, albeit a very bad one, led to a dramatic shift in the murder rate.

That's why criminologists generally demand several years of data before they declare a significant crime trend.

It now looks possible - though we'll need more years of data to confirm - that 2015 and 2016 were replays of 2005 and 2006. If that holds, then perhaps the US isn't in the middle of the "American carnage" that Trump has warned about.

For more on what works to combat crime and violence, read Vox's explainer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
So far this year, crime and murder are trending down in America's biggest cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you keep a close eye on the news, 2018 has probably felt like a nonstop nightmare. But there's some good news: In major American cities, the crime and murder rates appear to have dropped so far this year.

# data[].attributes.headline
US Coal On Track For Record Capacity Decline, Closing 15.4 Gigawatts

# data[].attributes.subject
US Coal On Track For Record Capacity Decline, Closing 15.4 Gigawatts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The closure of coal-fired power plants across the United States is currently on track to set a new record this year, with at least 22 plants in 14 states worth 15.4 gigawatts (GW) going dark, according to a new report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) currently expects a total of 15.4 GW of coal-fired capacity to close during 2018 - made up of 44 units at 22 plants in 14 states across the United States. Already this year 11 GW has been closed, and IEEFA expects the trend to continue through to the end of the year, "easily" exceeding the record 14.7 GW worth of coal-fired generation capacity which was closed in 2015.

"The competitive environment for coal-fired power in the generation marketplace is becoming ever more challenging as the price of renewables continues to fall and as natural gas prices are expected to remain low for the foreseeable future," said Seth Feaster, and IEEFA data analyst and author of the report.

Further, the IEEFA expects an additional 21.4 GW of coal-fired capacity closing over the next six years. This will bring the total coal-fired capacity closed between 2018 and 2024 to 36.7 GW - made up of 117 units. This will cut the country's 246 GW coal-fired power fleet by 15% through to 2024.

In 2018, coal plant closures have taken place or are expected to take place in Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Among those expected to be particularly hard-hit by the transition away from coal-fired generation are coal-plant economies in the Ohio River Valley, with employees from FirstEnergy Solutions, Murray Energy, and Westmoreland Coal expected to be among those affected - although this is just a snapshot from a particular region, and not restricted solely to this region or these companies.

What's interesting - especially if we look at the reality for the coal industry on the ground, as compared to the political hot-air that takes up so much space - is that there is an incredible dichotomy between what politicians are saying and who is actually in control, and the decisions they are making. I spoke to the report's author, Seth Feaster, via email about this discrepancy between political promises and on-the-ground reality.

"The power markets are a vast, largely economic-based system run with several levels of state and federal involvement and many, many financially-interested players with tremendous clout and deep pockets - from utilities and transmission companies; companies providing the fuel - including the oil and gas industry - to the public ratepayers, commercial enterprises, and public entities that pay for power," Feaster explained. "Such a system is not easily changed because of a policy whim that would inflict great economic costs to the vast majority of the players, including the public that most state governments have some fiduciary duty to in regulating electric rates.

"Meanwhile, the coal industry, while it may loom large in the imagination and in some small regions of the country, is actually quite small, both in terms of jobs and its overall economic contribution nationally."

This last is potentially the most telling reality for the coal industry. As can be seen by the government's own numbers leaked in January, swings and shifts in coal employment is measured in the hundreds of people, nothing more.

Which raises the question - who is eating coal's lunch? A report from May by researchers from North Carolina State University and the University of Colorado Boulder showed that, rather than putting the blame for coal's decline at the feet of the renewable energy industry and the attendant government support it received, it is actually the declining price of natural gas which is primarily responsible for coal's reversal in the US energy mix.

However, for Seth Feaster, he believes "This is a false dichotomy because the short answer is: it's both" renewable energy and natural gas causing coal's decline. Feaster continued, highlighting three parts to a longer answer that explains coal's decline and the rise of natural gas and renewables.

"It's renewables and gas, each independently undercutting the economics of coal generation," Feaster explained.
"In some parts of the country, like in the Ohio Valley, it's low-cost gas from fracking. Nationally, as we say in the report, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects natural gas' share of electric generation to be 35% in 2018 and 2019, up from 28% just five years ago. The technology disruption that is fracking (a combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, really) only started to have a meaningful impact about 10 years ago, so this has been a rapid change. Utilities are building new gas-fired plants - they expect gas prices to remain low for years; the plants are relatively inexpensive to build and run."In other parts of the country, especially the Great Plains states, it's wind (mostly), but the impact of solar generation is starting to grow. Wind generation has been growing fast in states from Texas to North Dakota (where the best wind resources are), and wind undercuts coal on price in the power markets, so almost all the wind generation is used, and its market share has been surging. In at least four states (Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota), wind now accounts for 30% or more of each state's annual electric generation."
This last was highlighted in April by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) in its U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2017 report. Overall, wind power generated 6.3% of US electricity in 2017, but in these four states - Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota - wind was generating over 30% of capacity, while 14 states are generating over 10% of their electricity from wind. Earlier this month, however, new figures from the US Government's own Energy Information Administration (EIA) showed that wind and solar generation combined for at least 20% of total generation in a total of 10 US states.

The EIA highlighted more specifics about wind generation in the US, including the fact that Iowa acquired 36.8% of its electricity from wind in 2017. Further, in some months during 2017, wind accounted for more than 50% of in-state electricity generation in both Iowa and Kansas.

"It's renewables and gas working together undercutting the economics of coal," Feaster continued.
"Wind and solar are a lot less "intermittent" than most people think, especially when spread across large areas and at large, utility-scale projects. But they do ramp up and down - and gas generation happens to be well suited to ramp up or down across the day to complement the output of renewables. Coal (and nuclear power) are simply not able to ramp up and down across the day the way gas turbines can; they work best when run continuously - and coal plants in particular suffer greater wear and tear, especially since many are already decades old, when run this way."
"Longer-term, renewables and storage are a threat to gas," Feaster concluded.
"When renewables are paired with storage to smooth out the ups and downs, it not only undercuts the economics of coal, it's starting to undercut the economics of natural gas generation in some places too. It's already starting at the marginal cases: some analysts say that there will be few if any natural gas "peaker" plants - those only used at times of maximum demand during the highest demand times of the year - built west of the Colorado, because the cost of solar plus storage has fallen so fast. Renewables and storage have other benefits for the grid as well, including fast response and grid resiliency, increasing the value of adding them beyond just the simple economics of low-cost generation."The cost of wind, solar and storage continue to fall, a trend that means they will only be getting more competitive against coal and gas in the future."

Tags: coal fired plant closures, coal industry, coal plant closures, IEEFA, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, united states, US, us coal

About the Author

Joshua S Hill I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I also write for Fantasy Book Review (.co.uk), and can be found writing articles for a variety of other sites. Check me out at about.me for more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US Coal On Track For Record Capacity Decline, Closing 15.4 Gigawatts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The closure of coal-fired power plants across the United States is currently on track to set a new record this year, with at least 22 plants in 14 states worth 15.4 gigawatts (GW) going dark, according to a new report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
black men are succeeding in america (opinion) - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report shows that the percentage of black men in poverty has fallen and their share in the middle class has risen, write W. Bradford Wilcox, Wendy R. Wang, and Ronald B. Mincy.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Ozone Hole Could Heal in Our Lifetimes, UN Reports

# data[].attributes.subject
The Ozone Hole Could Heal in Our Lifetimes, UN Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the world gets its act together, it can actually solve big problems. Case in point: The ozone hole, which if everything goes according to plan could be healed up by the 2060s, according to a new report from the United Nations.

According to the report, a decades-old international treaty to ban ozone-depleting chemicals has led to their decline and "much more severe ozone depletion in the polar regions has been avoided." There's still work to be done, but this definitely falls into the Good News category.

"We're at the turnaround point," Paul Newman, a scientist who helps run NASA's Ozone Watch and chaired the UN report, told Earther.

The report is put out every four years, and this is its fifth iteration. It tracks a 1980s-era environmental problem we're still feeling the effects of today. The ozone hole is driven by a number of chemicals that were commonly found in aerosol cans, air conditioners, and refrigerators, called chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Those chemicals unleash chlorine in the stratosphere, which in turn can break apart ozone molecules. When that happens, more ultraviolet light from the sun makes it to the surface, increasing the risk of bad things like skin cancer. The problem was particularly noticeable over Antarctica, where an ozone hole began to form each spring.

Scientists identified the chemicals as problematic, and policymakers actually acted on it. The Montreal Protocol was inked in 1987. After 30 years, the ozone hole still continues to be an annual occurrence. But the new report definitively adds to a 2016 study showing the ozone hole has been on the mend since 2000. If all goes according to plan, ozone levels in the region could return to pre-hole conditions within 40 years.

In other regions where ozone depletion has been less severe, the return to normalcy could come even sooner. The Arctic and mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere could get there by the 2030s, and the mid-latitudes in the southern hemisphere could reach 1980s levels of ozone by mid-century.

To reach that timeline of ozone recovery, the world is going to have to keep working to reduce other ozone-depleting chemicals and not throw a wrench into the recovery process in other ways. On a few levels, there are some warning signs scientists are watching.

The first is a mysterious uptick in CFC-11, a chemical that was banned under the Montreal Protocol. Though outlawed, research published earlier this year showed that it's been on the rise since 2012. Most signs point to China as the culprit of the illicit emissions, and it will have to be stopped to keep the recovery on track.

Another factor is what happens with the fight to curb global warming. The ozone hole and climate change are by and large separate problems, but they do overlap a bit. The warming effect in the lower atmosphere associated with increased greenhouse gases also leads to cooling in the stratosphere, which sits about 6-12 miles above the planet's surface. That can slow down the ozone-depleting process, which could expedite recovery in some locations.

At the same time,the report notes that increased warming due to greenhouse gases changes planetary circulation in the atmosphere in ways that can lead to less ozone in the tropics and more in the Arctic and mid-latitudes. So curbing greenhouse gas emissions-including the ones produced by ozone-depleting chemicals' replacements -is still probably, you know, a good idea.

The last issue is perhaps the most unnerving one because we know so little about it. The report raises concerns of what would happen if the world or even a rogue state decided to cool the planet by sending tiny particles up into the stratosphere. The process, known as geoengineering, is wrought with potential consequences here on the ground and likely would be in the stratosphere, too.

"The problem with that is our level of knowledge of natural levels of particle in stratosphere is not that high," Newman said. "Geoengineering presents quite the challenge by perturbing natural levels of particles in stratosphere on top of that impact on ozone."

So, let's maybe not do that and instead keep trying to mend the ozone hole and solve global warming here on the ground.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ozone Hole Could Heal in Our Lifetimes, UN Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the world gets its act together, it can actually solve big problems. Case in point: The ozone hole, which if everything goes according to plan could be healed up by the 2060s, according to a new report from the United Nations.

# data[].attributes.headline
America’s incarceration rate is at a two-decade low

# data[].attributes.subject
America’s incarceration rate is at a two-decade low

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. incarceration rate fell in 2016 to its lowest level in 20 years, according to new data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the statistical arm of the Department of Justice. Despite the decline, the United States incarcerates a larger share of its population than any other country.

At the end of 2016, there were about 2.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., including 1.5 million under the jurisdiction of federal and state prisons and roughly 741,000 in the custody of locally run jails. That amounts to a nationwide incarceration rate of 860 prison or jail inmates for every 100,000 adults ages 18 and older.

The nation's incarceration rate peaked at 1,000 inmates per 100,000 adults during the three-year period between 2006 and 2008. It has declined every year since then and is now at its lowest point since 1996, when there were 830 inmates per 100,000 adults.

The number of inmates in the U.S. has also gone down in recent years, though not as sharply as the incarceration rate (which takes population change into account). The estimated 2,162,400 inmates who were in prison or jail at the end of 2016 were the fewest since 2004, when there were 2,136,600 inmates. The prison and jail population peaked in 2008 at 2,310,300.

A variety of factors help explain why U.S. incarceration trends have been on a downward trajectory. Crime rates have declined sharply in recent decades despite an uptick in the violent crime rate between 2014 and 2016, according to FBI data. As crime has declined, so have arrests: The nationwide arrest rate has fallen steadily in recent years and is well below where it was in the 1990s, according to BJS.

Changes in prosecution and judicial sentencing patterns, as well as criminal laws, also may play a role in the declining number and share of people behind bars. Recent reductions in prison sentences for thousands of inmates who were serving time for drug-related crimes, for example, have driven a substantial decline in the federal prison population. That, in turn, has contributed to the broader decline in the overall incarcerated population.

Despite these downward trends, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, according to the World Prison Brief, a database maintained by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London. The database compares incarceration rates across more than 200 countries and territories using publicly available data for each jurisdiction. (It's important to note that the World Prison Brief's U.S. data differ in some ways from the BJS data above. While BJS emphasizes the number of inmates per 100,000 adults ages 18 and older, for example, the World Prison Brief measures each country's incarceration rate as the number of inmates per 100,000 people of any age. It also counts jail inmates in a slightly different way.)

The World Prison Brief's data put the U.S. incarceration rate at 655 inmates per 100,000 people, which is nearly 7% higher than the rate of the next-closest country, El Salvador (614 inmates per 100,000 people), and far higher than the rates of other heavily populated nations, including Russia (415 inmates per 100,000 people) and Brazil (324 per 100,000). Incarceration rates in Western Europe are less than a quarter of the U.S. rate: In England and Wales, there are 142 inmates for every 100,000 people, while France and Germany incarcerate 102 and 77 people, respectively, for every 100,000 residents.

In addition to its high rate of incarceration, the U.S. also has the largest overall number of people behind bars. The more than 2 million jail and prison inmates in the U.S. are far more than are reported in China (approximately 1.6 million inmates) and Brazil (about 673,000 inmates). In China and some other countries, however, data limitations make direct comparisons with the U.S. tricky. The World Prison Brief notes, for instance, that China's total excludes inmates being held in "administrative detention" - a type of confinement that may house more than 650,000 additional people. Adding an additional 650,000 inmates to China's total would place it ahead of the U.S. in terms of total incarcerated population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. incarceration rate is at its lowest in 20 years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. incarceration rate fell in 2016 to its lowest level in 20 years, according to new data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the statistical arm of the Department of Justice. Despite the decline, the United States incarcerates a larger share of its population than any other country.