Yesterday, the Ohio House of Representatives passed House Bill 203 by a 62-27 vote. Sponsored by state Representative Terry Johnson (R-90), HB 203 seeks to make important common sense improvements to Ohio’s current concealed carry and self-defense laws including the following:
Boy, aren't these young people lucky not to have these internships? It is fortunately that the Obama administration is protecting them. As someone who has had a lot of interns over the years, the notion of paying interns is nice, but they might as well insist on getting paid by their universities to attend there. Internships often take a lot more work on the part of those running them then on the students produce. From the New York Post:They work until 11 at night, lug 40-pound garment bags throughout the city and get scolded for not adhering tape to mood boards correctly. And yet being a Condé Nast intern remains one of the most coveted, sought-after unpaid jobs in town.
To an aspiring media-ite, a Condé internship is a stiletto stacked in prestige wrapped in promises of opportunity. It is a fancy incubator for future media power players: Fashion designer Whitney Port, author Lauren Conrad and beauty blogger Emily Weiss all got their start interning at the media mammoth. So you can imagine the surprise when, last month, Condé Nast announced it was terminating its internship program. Starting in 2014, Condé publications including Vogue, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair will no longer give students the opportunity to toil — and learn — in their hallowed halls. The bold decision came on the heels of a lawsuit filed in June 2012 by two former Condé interns: Matthew Leib, who interned at The New Yorker in 2009 and 2010, and Lauren Ballinger, who worked at W magazine in 2009. The two sued the media conglomerate for failing to pay them minimum wage . . .“The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law do not allow employers to allow workers to work for free — even if the workers give their consent,” says Leib and Ballinger’s attorney, Rachel Bien at Outten & Golden. . . .
Apparently, the Democrats now have the 51 votes they need to eliminate the filibuster
and they are going to push for it soon. My newest piece at the New York Post starts this way:President Obama’s timing could have been better. Only two weeks ago in Texas, at a fundraiser, he bragged about “remaking the courts.”
Obama told the audience: “In addition to the Supreme Court, we’ve been able to nominate and confirm judges of extraordinary quality all across the country on federal benches. We’re actually, when it comes to the district court, matching the pace of previous presidents. When it comes to the appellate court, we’re just a little bit behind, and we’re just going to keep on focused on it.” This was quite a change from June, when he accused Republicans of “cynically” engaging in “unprecedented” obstruction of judicial nominations. The president made those charges when he nominated three judges to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins. With Republicans filibustering these nominations over the last three weeks, Democrats are now threatening to deploy the “nuclear option” — in effect, ending the ability of senators to filibuster court nominations. On Monday, after the vote to break the filibuster on Wilkins failed, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) warned: “The talk about changing the cloture rules for judicial nominations will no longer be just talk. There will be action.” But this is all political rhetoric; the complaints are exaggerated. In fact, . . .UPDATE: Compare Obama's statements to the fundraiser two weeks ago to the his statement today. From The Hill newspaper:[Obama] said “enough is enough” and applauded Senate Democrats for changing the body’s rules to prevent a filibuster on nominations other than to the Supreme Court.
“I support the step that a majority of Senators took to change the way Washington does business,” Obama said. “I realize neither party has been blameless for these tactics ... But today's pattern of obstruction just isn't normal.” . . .
Bill Barnwell has a very detailed discussion
of the numbers. One would think that with all the discussion these days about the barbarianism in football and the claims of suicides being blamed on the sport, the life expectancy of players would be quite short.
Click to make larger
The Washington Post has this headline: "Wealthy nations pledged billions to help the poor adapt to climate change. Where did it all go?" 2010-2012: The first $35 billion in climate aid. Between 2010 and 2012, the world's wealthy nations say they provided $35 billion to help poorer countries adjust to climate change, as promised at Copenhagen.
(You can see a full breakdown of these pledges from the World Resources Institute here
.) . . .The United States, for instance, says it provided $7.5 billion
in "fast start" climate finance between 2010 and 2012, spread out across more than a hundred countries. . . .Poorer nations have pressed for more aid to help adapt, particularly since they both face greater risks but are also less responsible for the carbon-dioxide emissions currently in the atmosphere. . . .Look, I don't think that a warmer planet would on net be very beneficial, but assuming that you believe that it is bad, what is this "less responsible" claim? Compare CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP for the US
. In 2008, CO2 KG per dollar of GDP was 126 percent higher in China than the US. Earlier data for all countries is available here
So exactly why would it matter for stopping crime whether gun dealers do their inventories once a month or once every quarter? Obviously doing inventories more frequently is more costly. But suppose that gun dealers report any stolen guns more quickly. What exactly will the government do with this information that will help solve crime? The point here is more quickly to "shine light on an often unseen corner of the gun market." Clearly the goal is just to make getting a gun more costly, not to lower crime rates. From The Hill newspaper:Police have a hard time tracking firearms that disappear from gun shops, which “just feeds the sort of already large and existing secondary market on guns,” said Sam Hoover, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
It is unclear precisely what the draft regulations, drawn up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and under review at the White House’s regulations office, would do. . . . The draft rule was sent to the White House five months after the ATF completed a report
that found that more than 190,000 firearms were estimated to have been lost or stolen last year. The report was one of 23 executive actions President Obama announced in January to reduce gun violence in the wake of last year’s shooting in Newtown, Conn. That report helped to shine light on an often unseen corner of the gun market, supporters of stricter gun laws say. . . .
Last week, Honolulu City Councilman Stanley Chang (District 4) introduced Resolution 13-280 calling on Congress to enact federal legislation to implement President Obama’s “Now is the Time” plan. This “plan” includes a broad spectrum of anti-gun policies including strict magazine capacity restrictions and bans on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles.
Johnny Jarriel was working his shift in the back office of a gas station in Douglasville, Ga. when a robber armed with a gun and pepper spray attacked him. The criminal sprayed Jarriel with the pepper spray, then put a gun to his head and forced him to the ground while threatening his life and demanding cash. Jarriel told the robber that the store’s safe was in another part of the business, then, while the criminal was distracted, Jarriel retrieved a gun and fired at his attacker, causing the robber to flee.
Unfortunately, a few days after the incident, Jarriel’s employer fired him for violating the store’s no guns policy. Despite his termination, Jarriel, a Right-to-Carry permit holder, told a local media outlet, “I would not change a thing; I would change nothing.”
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was once asked by NBC's David Gregory how much he was willing to spend to spread his vision for gun control to every corner of the nation."I think I have an obligation as an American and as a citizen, as a human being, to help others. Smoking is gonna kill a billion people this century. I put $600 million of my own money into trying to stop the tobacco companies ... That's one issue. Who knows with this?"
The ATF would not comment on the draft rule, since it has not yet been released to the public, but a description provided by the White House asserts that it would target cases where guns go missing “in transit.”
After an impassioned debate, the Ohio House of Representatives on Wednesday approved legislation that would make sweeping changes to the state's concealed weapons laws, including a so called "stand your ground" self defense provision.
A law that injects technology into the gun debate has lain dormant for more than 10 years. Now it may be about to wake up.In 2002, New Jersey passed a law saying that once technology is available to prevent a gun from being used by an unauthorized person, only that type of handgun may be sold in the state.
The 1,800 or so criminals who have killed, robbed or assaulted innocent people with guns in the District of Columbia so far this year were hauled into the police station to be fingerprinted, photographed and to undergo a criminal background check.Now, legal gun owners who have committed no crime are getting the exact same treatment. That is neither constitutional, nor fair.The latest gun control scheme that starts on Jan. 1 will force every legal firearm owner in the nation's capital to go in person to police headquarters to renew their registration certificates.
Gonzaga University says it will hold its first meeting to discuss the school's ban on firearms on December 3rd.The meeting comes after a recent incident in which two students displayed a handgun while confronting a home intruder. That is against policy because they live in a university managed apartment. The two students have been placed on probation.
Republicans and Independents have long been strongly against Obamacare, but if even the majority of Democrats turn against it, can congressional Democrats really keep supporting it? Obama's approval rating is now down solidly below 40 percent. The fact that even support among Democrats is heading down to near 50 percent shows the problem that Obamacare is facing. From CBS News:Thirty-seven percent now approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, down from 46 percent in October
-- a nine point drop in just a month. Mr. Obama's disapproval rating is 57 percent -- the highest level for this president in CBS News Polls. . . . Republicans are nearly unanimous in their disapproval of the law, and now more than two-thirds of independents agree. Almost six in ten Democrats continue to support the law, but their support has dropped 16 points from last month - from 74 percent in October to 58 percent today. Support has dropped 11 points among independents and five points among Republicans. . . .