text:
Lance Armstrong has finally come clean.
After years of bitter and forceful denials, he offered a simple "I'm sorry" to friends and colleagues and then admitted he used performance-enhancing drugs during an extraordinary cycling career that included seven Tour de France victories.
Armstrong confessed to doping during an interview with Oprah Winfrey taped Monday, just a couple of hours after an emotional apology to the staff at the Livestrong charity he founded and was later forced to surrender, a person familiar with the situation told The Associated Press. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the interview is to be broadcast Thursday on Winfrey's network.
The confession was a stunning reversal for the proud athlete and celebrity who sought lavish praise in the court of public opinion and used courtrooms to punish his critics.
For more than a decade, Armstrong dared anybody who challenged his version of events to prove it. Finally, he told the tale himself after promising over the weekend to answer Winfrey's questions "directly, honestly and candidly."
Winfrey was scheduled to appear on "CBS This Morning" on Tuesday morning to discuss the interview. She tweeted shortly after the interview: "Just wrapped with (at)lancearmstrong More than 2 1/2 hours. He came READY!"
The cyclist was stripped of his Tour de France titles, lost most of his endorsements and was forced to leave Livestrong last year after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued a damning, 1,000-page report that accused him of masterminding a long-running doping scheme.
Armstrong started the day with a visit to the headquarters of the Livestrong charity he founded in 1997 and turned into a global force on the strength of his athletic dominance and personal story of surviving testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs and brain.
About 100 Livestrong staff members gathered in a conference room as Armstrong told them "I'm sorry." He choked up during a 20-minute talk, expressing regret for the long-running controversy tied to performance-enhancers had caused, but stopped short of admitting he used them.
Before he was done, several members were in tears when he urged them to continue the charity's mission, helping cancer patients and their families.
"Heartfelt and sincere," is how Livestrong spokeswoman Katherine McLane described his speech.
Armstrong later huddled with almost a dozen people before stepping into a room set up at a downtown Austin hotel for the interview with Winfrey. The group included close friends and lawyers. They exchanged handshakes and smiles, but declined comment and no further details about the interview were released because of confidentiality agreements signed by both camps.
Winfrey has promoted her interview, one of the biggest for OWN since she launched the network in 2011, as a "no-holds barred" session, and after the voluminous USADA report — which included testimony from 11 former teammates — she had plenty of material for questions. USADA chief executive Travis Tygart, a longtime critic of Armstrong's, called the drug regimen practiced while Armstrong led the U.S. Postal Service team "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."
USADA did not respond to requests for comment about Armstrong's confession.
Hein Verbruggen, the former president of the International Cycling Union, said Tuesday he wasn't ready to speak about the confession.
"I haven't seen the interview. It's all guessing," Verbruggen told the AP. "After that, we have an independent commission which I am very confident will find out the truth of these things."
For years, Armstrong went after his critics ruthlessly during his reign as cycling champion. He scolded some in public and didn't hesitate to punish outspoken riders during the race itself. He waged legal battles against still others in court.
At least one of his opponents, the London-based Sunday Times, has already filed a lawsuit to recover about $500,000 it paid him to settle a libel case, and Dallas-based SCA Promotions, which tried to deny Armstrong a promised bonus for a Tour de France win, has threatened to bring another lawsuit seeking to recover more than $7.5 million awarded by an arbitration panel.
In Australia, the government of South Australia state said Tuesday it will seek the repayment of several million dollars in appearance fees paid to Armstrong for competing in the Tour Down Under in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
"We'd be more than happy for Mr. Armstrong to make any repayment of monies to us," South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill said.
Betsy Andreu, the wife of former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu, was one of the first to publicly accuse Armstrong of using performance-enhancing drugs. She called news of Armstrong's confession "very emotional and very sad," and choked up when asked to comment.
"He used to be one of my husband's best friends and because he wouldn't go along with the doping, he got kicked to the side," she said. "Lance could have a positive impact if he tells the truth on everything. He's got to be completely honest."
Betsy Andreu testified in SCA's arbitration case challenging the bonus in 2005, saying Armstrong admitted in an Indiana hospital room in 1996 that he had taken many performance-enhancing drugs, a claim Armstrong vehemently denied.
"It would be nice if he would come out and say the hospital room happened," Andreu said. "That's where it all started."
Former teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping, has filed a federal whistle-blower lawsuit that accused Armstrong of defrauding the U.S. Postal Service. An attorney familiar with Armstrong's legal problems told the AP that the Justice Department is highly likely to join the lawsuit. The False Claims Act lawsuit could result in Armstrong paying a substantial amount of money to the U.S. government. The deadline for the department to join the case is Thursday, though the department could seek an extension if necessary.
According to the attorney, who works outside the government, the lawsuit alleges that Armstrong defrauded the U.S. government based on his years of denying use of performance-enhancing drugs. The attorney spoke on condition of anonymity because the source was not authorized to speak on the record about the matter.
The lawsuit most likely to be influenced by a confession might be the Sunday Times case. Potential perjury charges stemming from Armstrong's sworn testimony in the 2005 arbitration fight would not apply because of the statute of limitations. Armstrong was not deposed during the federal investigation that was closed last year.
Armstrong is said to be worth around $100 million. But most sponsors dropped him after USADA's scathing report — at the cost of tens of millions of dollars — and soon after, he left the board of Livestrong.
After the USADA findings, he was also barred from competing in the elite triathlon or running events he participated in after his cycling career. World Anti-Doping Code rules state his lifetime ban cannot be reduced to less than eight years. WADA and U.S. Anti-Doping officials could agree to reduce the ban further depending on what information Armstrong provides and his level of cooperation.
Litke reported from Chicago. Pete Yost in Washington also contributed to this report


text:
Apr 03, 2015 | Carpet One Floor & Home
We fell in love with this beautiful Frozen inspired child's room that is featured on the cover of the spring issue of our Beautiful Design Made Simple digital magazine. We just had to know more about this design so we asked designer Catherine-Lucie Horber to share her inspiration and more details about this fairy-tale space.
BDMS: What were your clients' needs for this space?
Catherine-Lucie Horber: The main practical needs were to secure additional sleeping accommodations with at least 2 full beds for guests and friends during sleep overs. Storage for a growing girl's needs was also important along with a little play area and inviting reading area.
But the most important requirement from the little client from a design stand point, was to have a feel of FROZEN Disney movie theme; a " princess Elsa" room!
BDMS: Were there any changes to designing this space?
Catherine-Lucie Horber: Sometimes larger spaces are harder to fill, designing a room with a theme without being an official theme that can last another decade was quite challenging but successfully accomplished.
BDMS: Do you have any special considerations or requirements when creating a kids' room?
Catherine-Lucie Horber: Its kind of an automatic reaction to think of the parents as the sole clients but as a designer, I always try to also involve the children. Try to make sure they also feel like the little clients and make them be a part of the process. I find when we do that, it really creates more excitement for them and they actually end up enjoying their space even more and respect it more as they have a better appreciation for it and therefore take care of it better.
In general when i design family spaces, I always try to think LONG TERM needs not just today's but also practicality and function of the spaces and their environments. Family rooms are designed with a much high tolerance threshold for wear in fabric durability, colors etc.. then a formal living room for example.
BDMS: How does the flooring play into your design?
Catherine-Lucie Horber: Flooring was important to be strong and durable so we put a nice bur bur carpet which is still soft on the feet, warmer and hypoallergenic. We also added an extra white shag area rug at the end of the beds to help define the space even further not to mention that it was reflective of snow on the ground.. and gives the room huge texture.
BDMS: What makes this room functional?
Catherine-Lucie Horber: It is functional because of all it has to offer; double beds, only one night stand that is shared which leaves room for a corner chair for reading, two little under window benches for more storage and a nice play table in the middle of the room is the child's favourite go to place. It is also surrounded by a large dresser for clothing and a little library unit for books. Even the choice of colour in all the furniture being a light neutral cream will last a decade as it is completely versatile.
BDMS: Why did you choose these colors?
Catherine-Lucie Horber: The colors on the wall were to represent the Elsa dress and the lilac wall paper in shape of snow flakes was a beautiful complimentary color to it. the rest was all soft and neutral but rich in textures. Those colors were also my little client's favorite ones so it was important to work the space around it.
BDMS: What is your favorite aspect of this room?
Catherine-Lucie Horber: I have to say that I have a weakness for beautiful wallpaper accents and I just love this wallpaper, also the custom headboards with crystal details and the window of custom silk drapes are definitely my top 3 favorite things.
BDMS: What did your client like the most?
Catherine-Lucie Horber: In this case the client was really the child and I think knowing that overall her room felt like a little princess /queen Elsa's palace was the best part of it all as she really believed it!
Designer Catherine-Lucie Horber is the Principal of Royal Interior Design Ltd .The firm provides decorating, staging and renovating services for both small and full scale residential projects throughout the GTA. Catherine is known for creating elegant & affordable design solutions tailored to suit different lifestyles. Find more at royalinteriordesign.ca.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Protect your boat or personal watercraft with boat insurance.
There are plenty of options with your coverage, including roadside assistance, on water towing, total loss replacement, and also covering anything that is attached to your boat. It will also cover any liability issues that may be caused by an accident.
With boat insurance you can cover all kinds of boats, like personal watercraft, jet boats, sailboats, fishing boats or house boats, let us show you the best boat insurance option for your watercraft.


text:
Jadeite Specifications
Product No | 171776 |
Weight | 4.95g (24.75 cts) |
Length | 11.7mm |
Width | 15.4mm |
Depth | 15.4mm |
Shape and Cut | Round (Barrel) |
Colour | Green |
Transparency | Translucent |
Comments | Some non-visible stone lines, does not affect overall outlook. No settings required, string necklace chain through to wear. Barrel inner diameter at 5.3mm. Necklace chain not included. Optional add on necklace chain, choose from our necklace chain collection HERE. |
Remarks | Item includes gift box, jadeite polishing cloth and certificate of guarantee. |
Please Take Note
- Please take some time to read through our full shipping policy before purchase.
- All photos and videos are taken under natural daylight and it is non-edited. Do note that colour may differ from device to device.
- We do our best to provide you with the full descriptions and measurements. Do read them carefully. For conversions of measurements, kindly goggle for the most suitable chart according to your preference.
- All our items is not accompanied with gemological certifications. It would be customer's option to include the certification at an additional charge of US$55. Note that certification will be done at our local reputable gemological institute. Certifications takes about 3-4 working days.
- All items sold at Yokdee Jadeite is guaranteed to be of A-Grade only. Our in-house certificate of guarantee will be accompanied for all purchases. Within 30 days (working and non-working) after received of item, should jadeite be found to be other than of A-Grade, with proof provided to us, we will refund you the full amount.
"Every piece of Jadeite is unique in its own ways, do look through at our collections to see which catches your eyes. We would be more than happy to receive your feedback or enquiries; you may contact us at email@example.com.


text:
Tonight, Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan are set for a one-on-one, 90-minute debate in Danville, Ky. It's the one and only VP candidate debate of the campaign and after what has been conclusively deemed a bad performance by President Obama during the first presidential debate, all eyes are on Biden.
As The New York Times puts it in its preview, Obama's debate performance has raised the stakes for the VP debate. The Times agrees with Politico that one of the first things to watch for is just how agressive Biden comes off.
"Expect Mr. Biden, who is able to deliver cutting sarcasm without seeming angry, to continue to make up for Mr. Obama's passivity at the first debate by accusing Mr. Romney of dissembling about long-held policies," the Times reports.
Politico puts it in less precious terms. It reports:
"Earlier this week, the congenitally quotable South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian predicted that Biden would take 'the old meat-ax' to Ryan — a beating so one-sided that 'the humane society' would have to be called in.
"It's a hope shared by many Democrats — including President Barack Obama himself, who is publicly contrite over his passivity at last week's Denver debate — flabbergasted by the prospect of the president standing by while Romney got away, in their minds, with 90 minutes of lies, mischaracterizations and manufactured positions contrary to his own history."
The Washington Post points out that the expectations for this debate are more tempered. The first presidential debate upended the expectations of Americans. This time around, the expectations are more even: A Pew poll found that 40 percent expected Ryan to win, while 34 percent expected Biden to win.
The Post's Chris Cilizza says that in his mind, "it's Ryan who has more to prove."
He writes:
"Ryan has never — repeat, never — been on a debate stage this (symbolically) big before. And, Ryan's great strength is his reputation as a numbers and policy geek — both great things in a public servant but less great things in a political debater. If Ryan goes too far down a wonky rabbit hole — we wonder what one of those might look like — he could find himself fighting from behind against the much more experienced Biden."
Mark will be helping out our friends at It's All Politics tonight with a live blog. The debate starts at 9 p.m. ET. and it will be aired by all the major networks, including NPR.
We'll leave you with some of the headlines from the around the Web:
-- "Can Biden stop the bleeding?" ( Philadelphia Inquirer)
-- "Why Ryan has edge in VP debate" ( CNN)
-- "Biden expected to be aggressor in VP debate" ( USA Today)
-- "Paul Ryan prepares to face Joe Biden, his toughest debate foe yet" ( Los Angeles Times)
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
On a Friday this is MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm David Greene.
And I'm Renee Montagne. There's lots of anticipation about the government's monthly jobs report that will be released later this morning. Last month's job creation numbers were very disappointing - just 74,000 jobs added to the payroll - far below the recent monthly averages. NPR's John Ydstie joined us to talk about job creation and what it's telling us about the economy. Good morning.
JOHN YDSTIE, BYLINE: Hi, Renee.
MONTAGNE: So, do we expect the numbers will rebound this month from the last report?
YDSTIE: Yeah, there are some signs they will. A big private survey of employers found 175,000 new jobs were added to payrolls in January and surveys of economist show expectations that about 185,000 jobs were created. These are about the average number of jobs created over the past 12 months so they're reasonable expectations.
And remember, even though the governments survey showed far fewer jobs added in December it's only one month's data and the margin of error is 100,000 plus or minus so it many have been a statistical outlier.
MONTAGNE: But there does seem to be concern about the economy. The stock market has had a big sell-off in these first few weeks of the new year. Could the economy be slipping again?
YDSTIE: Yeah, there certainly is concern that some of the rosy expectations of the economy accelerating into 2014 may not be fulfilled. We've seen some disappointing signs that manufacturing is losing steam in the U.S. and in China, which of course is a big export market for the US. And there's also been concern about currency problems in some emerging markets like Turkey and Argentina and investors are pulling money out of those countries.
In the past couple of years China and emerging countries have been helping out the global economy; now there's concern they could become a drag. Another worry is that the Federal Reserve has started pulling back on its big stimulus program, which has supported both the U.S. economy and the global economy. So you're right - there's a nervousness about where we are right now.
MONTAGNE: How about the cold weather and the winter storms in a lot of parts of the country? That must be a disruption for the economy.
YDSTIE: Right. A lot of economists say that was part of the reason for the disappointing job creation in December. Of course, bad weather keeps people home from work, out of the stores and shopping malls, and nobody I know wants to go shopping for a car in a frozen lot where the cars are all covered by snow.
MONTAGNE: Right.
YDSTIE: Not surprisingly, we've seen that in disappointing car sales recently. But of course, the winter will end, we hope, and people who want a car will buy it so the drag will disappear. And, you know, when you look at the last half of last year, the economy really did seem to be gaining speed, even weathering the government shutdown pretty well. So it could be the current gloom will turn into better growth.
MONTAGNE: John, this is also the end of Janet Yellin's first week as the new leader at the Federal Reserve, she's replacing Ben Bernanke. Do you think she might rethink the Fed's winding down of its stimulus because the economy needs another boost?
YDSTIE: You know, I don't think so. Although if today's job report is as disappointing as last months, that could change the calculus. But, I think the Fed really wants to get out of its big bond-buying stimulus program partly because they view it as no longer effective and creating more risks than benefits.
MONTAGNE: Well, John, we'll be talking to you later in the show. Thanks very much.
YDSTIE: You're welcome, Renee.
MONTAGNE: NPR economics correspondent John Ydstie. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
Balkinization   |
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Sobering Numbers: Law Graduates Who Do Not Become Lawyers
Monday, September 19, 2011
Sobering Numbers: Law Graduates Who Do Not Become Lawyers Brian Tamanaha
It goes without saying that people enroll in law school expecting to become lawyers. They might attend law school because they always wanted to become a lawyer, or because the economy is poor and they have no other opportunities. But when they plunk down $150,000 or more in tuition and living expenses for a degree, they do so with the reasonable assumption that they will obtain jobs as lawyers when they get out.
Here is what the website of the David Clarke Law School says: :GRADUATE PLACEMENT: In keeping with our mission of training attorneys for public service careers, a disproportionate number of graduates take positions in that sector. Statistics for the Class of 2010 reveal that 17% took public interest positions, compared to the 2009 national average of 5.7%, and 21% of the class took local or federal government positions, compared to the 2009 national average of 11.4%. Nearly 60% of our graduates accepted jobs in the private sector, with more than half in private practice, particularly at small law firms representing individuals, families and community businesses. 2% are continuing their legal education in advanced degree programs."
The website of NC Central says that 88% of the Class of 2010 is employed and that 65% of employment is in jobs where JD required (another 20% in jobs with "JD preferred").
Also, today's National Journal reports that the University of Illinois is investigating allegations that it misreported LSAT and grade statistics.
It's critical to know how grads starting solo practices and/or small firms report their incomes. A far greater percentage of grads of regional schools than of the most selective schools do still hang out a shingle directly out of law school. (Whether that's a good idea, and whether law school prepares them adequately to do so is of course another issue.) As I understand it, the BLS does not count such folks as "employed" because they are self-employed. I don't know how the law schools count these individuals, or even how they report themselves. Your post seems to imply that they may not be counted in the numbers you present.
I think it's important to note that a good number of law school applicants do not go to law school with the intention of being lawyers. They go with the belief that a JD will make them more generally marketable -- in business, policy or politics. This belief is by and large misplaced, but this pool of students exists all the same. I don't mean either of these points in defense of the law schools' general lack of transparency, rather to indicate that there are in fact complicating factors in the numbers.
I really like your article. It's evident that you have a lot knowledge on this topic. Your points are well made and relatable. Thanks for writing engaging and interesting material.
Split Testing
I really like your article. It's evident that you have a lot knowledge on this topic. Your points are well made and relatable. Thanks for writing engaging and interesting material.
Split Testing
These numbers are supplied by the law schools. Solo practitioners count as "employed in a job requiring a JD," so they are included in the figures I provide (my post was ambiguous on this, as you say).
Thanks for the clarification on the self-employed grads.
I'd also be interested in historical numbers from the law schools -- are these numbers dramatically worse than they used to be, or has the employment picture always been less rosy than most of us believed? I assume there are fluctuations over time, in concert with the economy. In any case, thanks for this post and all your posts on legal education -- very helpful.
The Law School Transparency site has employment numbers for 2007 (on an excel), which is pre-crash, when the legal employment market supposedly was doing well. Although the 2007 numbers are better than the 2009 numbers, they were still dismal at many schools.
I think it's important to note that a good number of law school applicants do not go to law school with the intention of being lawyers. They go with the belief that a JD will make them more generally marketable -- in business, policy or politics. This belief is by and large misplaced, but this pool of students exists all the same.
Any evidence of this? It certainly doesn't match up with my experiences in talking to be people considering going to law school.
This chart is the most important data summary I have seen related to the value proposition of law schools. Thank you for compiling and posting. Bill Henderson
I think it's important to note that a good number of law school applicants do not go to law school with the intention of being lawyers. They go with the belief that a JD will make them more generally marketable -- in business, policy or politics. This belief is by and large misplaced, but this pool of students exists all the same.
Any evidence of this? It certainly doesn't match up with my experiences in talking to be people considering going to law school. My experience is anecdotal and now 16 years old, but my law school class had journalists, doctors, social workers and business people who planned on using law in their work. These folks probably made up between 5% to 10% of the class.
I think it's important to note that a good number of law school applicants do not go to law school with the intention of being lawyers. They go with the belief that a JD will make them more generally marketable -- in business, policy or politics. This belief is by and large misplaced, but this pool of students exists all the same.
Any evidence of this? It certainly doesn't match up with my experiences in talking to be people considering going to law school. My experience is also anecdotal, but based on my 7 years of work as the pre-law advisor at a large public university, where somewhere between 250-350 students and alumni apply to law school each year. The myth persists among them that a law degree is a generally marketable one, not just in law but in business, policy and politics as well. It's a very rough estimate (as I don't keep statistics on my advisees' reasons for going to law school), but I'd guess that at least 1 in 5 believe that a JD is worth pursuing even if they don't want to become lawyers.
That might have made sense 16 years ago, but tuition has more than doubled since. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the many graduates who did not land lawyer jobs in recent years are using their legal knowledge as doctors or in "business." It is important that law schools face the reality of poor employment results head on. For too long we have relied upon old articles of faith and anecdotes to assuage concerns about the fate of graduates.
I just want to clarify that I'm not defending the students who are going to law school thinking that a JD "will open a lot of doors" for them. I spend a lot of time trying to debunk that myth. My point is merely that it persists, as does the larger phenomenon of individuals going to law school for all sorts of "wrong" reasons (i.e., when they haven't researched it enough).
So again, not to argue that the law schools shouldn't be more transparent about their graduates' employment numbers -- they absolutely should. But let's also acknowledge that some (unknown and uncounted) number of people go to law school with either no intention of becoming lawyers, or without a well formed (well researched) intention to do so. In the latter group, there are some (I'd guess a small group, but I really don't know) who not only regret their decision but further choose, rather than suck it up in a firm for a while, not to become lawyers at all.
I concur with Diane and Bart that a significant percentage of students enroll in law school without having any intention of practicing law. And this is not entirely unreasonable. Given that we live in an administrative state, those who aspire to work in politics, business, or even law enforcement can benefit from a law degree.
That being said, I think the point that Brian raises is whether this is a sensible decision given the high cost of law school and that the traditional fallback of working for a law firm will not be available to most students. One partial solution to this problem might be for law schools to expand their part-time programs (thereby allowing more students to pay their way through school and amass less debt) while admitting fewer students into their full-time programs. This won't increase the number of legal jobs, of course, but fewer law students would need to find Biglaw jobs so as to make law school a sound investment.
Mr. Tamanaha,
Please allow me to describe how you, once again, have (I hope) inadvertently overstated the career prospects of law graduates in one of your reports. This is not the first time you have done this, and I sincerely hope these posts of your are not intentionally misleading advertisements for law school. In other words, I hope you are not taking fraudulent, overstated and misleading statistics and presenting them as an indictment of law school in the hopes that they will be accepted, i.e. I hope that your real motive for posting this was not to communicate the statement: "Look, even at a tier 2 75% of the grads work as lawyers" because that 75% number is completely wrong. Here is why. How could LawSchoolTransaprency provide a "jobs requiring JD" percentage that is HIGHER thant he "reported non-zero salaries" percentage? For example, at Loyola Law in LA, of their entire class, only 39.6+1.5=41.1% reported a non-zero salary. http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=loyola&show=salaries&class=2009 Yet we are to believe that 60.3% of the graduates were in jobs that required a bar? http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=loyola&show=charts&class=2009 How could the statistics collecter know that the job required bar passage, but not know what the job pays? What you should do, Mr. Tamanaha, so as to correct the misleading chart you posted above, is to add a line showing "Percentage of graduates with a known salary" which would be the sum of the variables "graduates are represented by salary quartiles" and "graduates are Article III clerks" Otherwise, your chart will do more harm than good. Sincerely, Concerned Citizen
As alluded to above, no US law school makes the most recent data on the number of their graduates currently employed in work requiring a JD available to would-be law students, still less information on how many found work capable of repaying the debt incurred in paying the astronomical fees being asked for in anything less than 25 years. That such information could and should be made available to prospective law students to aid in deciding whether the decision to go to law school is worthwhile is indisputable.
Prof. Campos is gathering signatures for a petition asking that more transparent statistics should be made available by, for example, implementing the proposals of the Law School Transparency Project (on whose statistics Prof. Tamanaha's piece is based). He will not publish it until 100 current law faculty at ABA-accredited law schools have signed it, although any law graduate may sign it. For anyone interested in signing, here's the link: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2011/09/law-school-petition.html
If there are many students who want a law degree for purposes other than practicing law, couldn't law schools meet this demand by offering a one-year program that provides a general background, perhaps combined with later CLE type training that addresses particular specialities.
Surely there is no reason to spend 3 years in law school if you don't intend to practice law.
@Concerned Citien - Tamanaha is using the statistics provided by LST, both LST and Tamanaha recognise that the stats have problems, not least of which are the low reporting rate, the lack of auditing, and the fact that this stats are self-reported and therefore subject to bias, and can be rigged by the schools concerned by hiring graduates during the time when the statistics are collected.
You are quite right to say, however, that the real percentage of those employed in the legal profession is probably much lower.
I agree with the points you have been making about the cost effectiveness of a law school education. When I did my own analysis almost 20 years ago in the Army, no elite private school education made economic sense unless you wanted to work insane hours in a large firm to payoff the mortgage-size debt. As a place for an undergrad student to delay looking for work in the current Great Recession, law school of any type makes absolutely no sense.
Law School Transparency provided Mr. Tamanaha with two statistics (which in the case of Loyola were)
(a) Percentage of graduates with known non-zero salary: 41.5% (b) Percentage of graduates working in a job requiring bar passage, which we're supposed to believe is 60.3%. How does that work exactly? Does the surveyor ask "Does your job require bar passage? Yes. Ok Does your job provide compensation? You don't know? Oh ok I'll count you as someone working as a lawyer with an unknown salary. I hope you find out what your salary is one day." Further, the former is sourced rigorously by LST and so we have to conclude the latter is the one that's wrong. So why did Mr. Tamanaha report the latter without even mentioning this inconsistency? This is not the first time Mr. Tamanaha has reported statistics that he claims indict law schools, but that actually portray law schools in a far more pleasing light than the truth would allow.
Concerned Citizen,
You misunderstand the numbers--the percentage of jobs that require a JD is a subset of those graduates who have jobs. Thus, for example, 50 percent can have jobs, and 100 of those people can be employed in jobs that require a JD. I use these numbers because they are the only ones available. You may be right that the actual numbers are even worse--that law schools are publishing false figures. The problem is that I have no way of knowing that. Setting aside outright fabrication, the main way in which these numbers overstate results is that a certain percentage of the jobs requiring JDs will be temp jobs or part time jobs. The data is not compiled in a way that would allow me to break this out. If there is some way to provide better information, I would be happy to do it. Meanwhile, these employment numbers look quite bad--and that is the message I am trying to send with some factual support.
Of course, there is a better way of gathering and presenting information, and that's the one proposed by LST in their white paper and supported by Campos's LST petition linked to above. Anyone who wants to see this implemented should at least sign the petition, as I suspect Tamanaha already has done.
Pre-law advisers are critically important in getting accurate information to students thinking about law school. I understand that students will not always be persuaded by this information, but they should at least be told about the odds. I also think concrete information about debt--put in a way they can appreciate--is essential. If you have not seen it, please take a look at this post about debt (and if you can, please circulate it among pre-law advisers): http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/08/snapshot-of-law-student-debt-that-every.html Thanks
The big obstacle to getting any law professor to sign that petition is that Campos is organizing it, and he has no credibility. Maybe Tamanaha would do it?
Or maybe Prof. Tamanaha would endorse the petition and lend it some of his credibility. Several of the Campos haters have mentioned him by name as the respectable alternative.
You needn't even visit Campos's site to do it. The email address for signing is here:
lawschoolpetition, at, gmail.com The recommended reforms, which do not require any additional effort by the law schools either in collection or publication, can be seen in Part III of the white paper available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1528862 Dislike of Campos is no excuse.
Brian -
Thanks for the link - yes, I do in fact repeatedly share that debt information (and the source you linked to) with my students, in as many different formats as possible (including linking to your post). And I have certainly seen a number of changes over the last few years among my students: a greater percentage taking time off before applying, a larger number taking the scholarship from the less well know school over full fare at the higher ranked one (when both are regional schools, this makes a lot of sense), and a significant drop in the number of applicants. Most pre-law advisors assume/attest that the students who have stopped applying are the very ones who didn't have a good idea of why they were going in the first place (I think of them as the "I like to argue" crowd). I would not be surprised (or saddened) to see the number of applicants drop even further again this year. But it's also very difficult for 20 or 21-year olds, who have never made any significant financial decision in their lives, to grasp the impact of the numbers. They don't have a feel for the reality of $100,000. It's not unlike low-income people taking on adjustable rate mortgages. The money is so beyond the scale of anything they've had to deal with before that it simply makes no sense. This is why I am grateful for the increased attention in the mainstream media (largely thanks to folks like you, Bill Henderson, LST and even the "scambloggers") to these issues. Last year for the first time, I had several students telling me that they wanted to go immediately to law school but that their parents thought it wasn't a good investment. (In prior years, I've more consistently heard, "I want to wait, but my parents think I should go right away.") Finally, I'm thinking of the parents as my allies rather than as the unseen oppositional force behind my students. And that is a very good thing.
The role of the pre-law advisor is new to me. Back in the late 1940s when I decided I wanted to be an attorney, I made the decision on my own as I was not aware of any such advisor group, assuming one existed back then. My decision was made at a time when the only law school in the Boston area requiring an undergraduate degree for admission was Harvard; there were at least five other law schools in the area that required only two years of college. I do not recall my exact thinking about my decision as there were no lawyers in my extended immigrant family. College and law school tuitions were relatively low compared to today, so that commuter students could help their parents in covering much of the costs. (As I recall, Harvard Law tuition in 1953-4 was $500, the highest in the Boston area. I paid $400 for that year when I was graduated.) There was an attorney who lived in our Roxbury neighborhood in Boston. As a child, I remember seeing him go up my street to a private garage to get his Cadillac to drive to his Boston office. That Cadillac was impressive, as well as the respect with which he was treated. I was of course exposed to Perry Mason books and attorneys portrayed in movies. (We didn't have a TV back then.) The two years of undergraduate pre-legal were a breeze. When law school came, I thought my study habits were quite good. But a practice test cured me of that and I really got on the ball. I learned quite a bit about business, economics and other disciplines from the cases we read on subjects that I had not been exposed to at home growing up. I enjoyed law school, with all its hard work.
Segue to the late 1990s as I planned to close my law office and semi-retire from the practice. I contacted my local high school and offered my services for an after class program for students on what a lawyer does, how to become a lawyer, etc, as many students may not know. Alas, my pro bono effort was rejected. I would have been able to bring in guest lawyers from the Boston area prominent in their fields to speak to and with the students. I don't know if any such after-class programs are offered in high schools today. But I think that would be a good starting place for those who want to go to law school to be lawyers. It might be preferable to a college student preparing to graduate then considering to go to law school, whether to practice law or not. Of course, the pre-law advisor role should be helpful, especially in explaining the economics which is currently a serious problem that I did not face. But I find it difficult understanding why a law school graduate would spend all that time not having the goal to practice law. Yes, the JD looks good on a resume. But I learned fairly quickly after being admitted to the MA bar that I had a lot more learning to do to have a successful career in the law - and it never stops, even in my continuing semi-retirement. (Use it or lose it comes to mind.)
i was one of the fortunate ones in that my parents had the means to send their children through college and beyond. law school was paid for, and i came out of it in 1982 with no debt -- and no job. i ended up hanging a shingle in the town where i went to law school, 1200 miles from home, and struggled for a few years before finding my stride. whether or not i am considered successful now i will leave to others to decide.
when i made the decision to attend law school instead of getting a degree in social work, as i had originally intended, much like several others who have posted here, i thought i was set for life. it would have been nice to know what the real odds were. at this point in my life, with my career beginning to wind down and retirement only a few years off, i do not discourage students from going into law, as it remains an honorable profession, regardless of what certain politicians think. i do not, necessarily, however, encourage students to take on the debt load and headache that the profession has become. i would note that my brother has a law degree and has never practiced, having gone into academics instead. i would be interested on his take on this subject.
Shag and phg,
It's a different world for students today, as you know. Annual tuition at a half dozen schools is now $50,000, and many others are in the $40,000 range. When we went to law school (class of 83 for me, tuition $5000) if was not a life devastating event if things did not work out. Now it is. Diane, Thanks for the information. It's good to hear that the word is getting out through pre-law advisers. Brian
Shag -
Thanks for sharing your experience. I teach a class on the history and politics of legal education, and your brief narrative is an excellent illustration of how much law school admissions have changed in the last 60 or so years. Much more vivid than the more scholarly accounts.
I am a Professor and Assistant Dean for Career Development at Michigan State University College of Law. I appreciate the issues that Prof. Tamanaha has raised in his post and I have the following comments.
Prof. Tamanaha indicates that our "JD required %" is 49.09%. We reported it at 50.8%--the difference being essentially that he included in the denominator those students who didn't report at all. What he did not note is that there is a category of "JD preferred", for which we reported a percentage of 22%. So, between, "JD required" and "JD preferred" we had a total of approximately 73%. If we look deeper into the "JD preferred" category, about half of those students (26 out of 54) were doing legal work as "law clerks," which we conservatively reported as "JD preferred" even though one could make an argument that some or all of them could be classified as "JD required". So, Prof. Tamanaha's conclusions about these numbers (i.e., that only the grads reporting as "JD required" are working as lawyers or doing legal work) are flawed, which is often what happens when you try to draw conclusions from what is essentially still high-level data which has subjective elements. I also want to address the assertion that Prof. Tamanaha makes that this data point is key to analyzing the "value of the [JD] degree". Besides being a flawed data point (as I indicate above) the JD degree does create value for those who do not practice law. For example, 1)the candidate with the JD degree will move closer to the top of the pile of resumes for the non-legal job, a critical benefit in a tight job market; 2) there is often room for greater advancement within the organization for those with JDs (e.g., accounting firms have told me that the JDs are often given priority); and 3) if the non-legal job doesn't work out (layoffs, etc) the person can always use their JD degree to work as a lawyer (whether solo or otherwise). In that same situation, the non-JD has much less to market or use. We receive feedback from grads regularly as to these points. Elliot Spoon
Thank you for your elaboration of MSU's employment numbers. What my post focuses on is the percentage of graduates who acquire jobs "as lawyers." It is therefore not "flawed" to isolate on jobs that "require" a JD. As you know, "JD preferred" jobs are not jobs as lawyers. I understand your desire to count "JD preferred positions" as successful outcomes, but that is not the case for people who attend law school with the expectation of becoming a lawyer. The difference is not just in status, but also in the nature of the work and in the income level.
While it may have been true when you were a law student, it does not "go without saying that people enroll in law school to become lawyers."
When I started in career services in 1992, that was still true. My first questions to 1Ls were: When did you decide to go to law school? How did you make the decision? As the answers became less clear and focused, 10 years later, I added "And when, if at all, have you decided to become a lawyer?" Law school had become random grad school for a significant number of students. Many people believed that they could go to law school and that it would "open every door" as if it were an app on Harry Potter's wand. A startling number of students had never spoken to a lawyer, much less made the decision to practice law. Is there good information available that supports the notion most or all students want to be lawyers, or that they have particular goals in the legal profession? I'd love to see that. It is very easy to project that veterinary students want to become veterinarians. It is much less clear to me that most or all law students want to be lawyers.
When I started law school in 1988, there were a number of people in my section who had not firmly decided they were going to be lawyers. They quickly found out what a problem this is: coming out at the top end of your class takes quite a bit of work, and while it made perfect sense for me to learn the ins and outs of the federal rules of civil procedure -- since I knew clients would soon be paying me to understand them -- people who did not plan on being lawyers did enough to satisfy their curiosity, and to pass the course. All very fine, but outside the very top tier, the decision about whether to be a lawyer at a private firm gets made for you, if you're getting Cs in first year classes.
Is there good information available that supports the notion most or all students want to be lawyers, or that they have particular goals in the legal profession? I'd love to see that.
The students with the greatest ability to become lawyers (i.e. those at the highest ranked law schools) become lawyers in much higher numbers than those with less ability to do so. Absent *at least* some sort of plausible explanation why the pool of students would have different motivation at comparatively priced but differently ranked schools the assumption must be that the pool is homogenous with respect to motivation.
Brad - I think it's simply easier to get a lawyer job out of a brand name school, even if you aren't highly motivated. At the less selective regional schools, you have to take a far greater degree of initiative.
If you are lucky enough to go to one of the highly selective schools, you are being constantly recruited. The path of least resistance for the directionless is to allow oneself to be recruited. At the less selective school, where no one is coming on campus to recruit you, the path of least resistance for the directionless is to go do something else. Or unemployment.
Dear Elliot,
A few notes about the points you raised about the value of the JD degree outside the legal setting, now please keep in mind while these are totally factual they must be considered subjective as to be objective would mean that you are complicit in perpetuating a huge scam on thousands of unsuspecting: 1) Your grads are full of shit. In the real world employers in non-legal fields treat see JDs as pariahs, failures, or overqualified and the only glowing remarks made about its value is in the rejection emails if a student ever receives one. 2) Advancement in accounting firms you say? Oh what does that require first? A fucking accounting degree and significant experience before someone tacks on another degree to differentiate amongst peers? Am I supposed to go become a CPA now and hope that a decade from now my unused law degree will pay off? 3) So you're telling me that I paid 150,000 bucks lost three years of my productive use to end up where I was before? I have the same ability to do something other than law after all of that wasted time & money? Bully for me and the thousands of other people who could make more money begging on the side of the road with less effort than being a solo!!! Tell me, with the kind of sheer brilliance you've displayed from the great lakes in a total display of disconnectedness & parroting of a couple of responses from some of the bigger assclowns amongst the alumni, when do you expect to solve Fermat's last theorem as originally intended? Surely you must be close as some have reported.
I had to weigh in simply to say that as someone in the Lost Generation of law school graduates (May 2010), in the present job market, my JD (from an average tier one school) has proved absolutely worthless to me in securing a non-law-related job. Thus, I now live with my parents and have the joy of fighting with my creditors every 4-6 months over the fact that I literally have $1 in my bank account, no job, few prospects, and 0 ability to make payments on my loan at present.
Thank you, law school. Thank you so much.
It occurred to all those regulation graduates who failed to get occupations as lawyers? We like to envisage that they became advisors at McKinsey, or stockbrokers, or silicon valley entrepreneurs utilising their patent regulation information, or FBI agencies, or other achievement stories. Texas Ranch For Sale achieve better ranch.
Dear Professor Tamanaha,
As a recent law school graduate, I am understandably concerned about the employment data you have reported for my alma mater Touro Law Center. What I do not understand is why there is such a great disparity in employment between 2009 graduates and graduates of Touro from the previous years. For example, in 2008 73% of graduates were employed within nine months in a legal position requiring a J.D.In 2007, it was 74%, 2006, 73%, 2005, 66%, 2004,74% and in 2002,84%. Was the 15.3% "unknown employment status" factored in by you as unemployed? If so, would it not have been more accurate to simply exclude that percentage from your overall calculation? If 15.3% is indeed an "unknown" how can it be assumed that those not reporting are unemployed? It seems from my own research using U.S. News and other student-sponsored sites that the statistics for Touro Law center for the years prior to 2009 are more accurate. Barbara Burke
s there is good information available that supports the view of most students and all want to be lawyers, or have specific goals of the legal profession? I want to see. Students with the greatest opportunity to become lawyers (those in the highest ranks of law schools) are lawyers in many more than those with less capacity to do so. Absent * at least * some sort of explanation as to why the pool of students have different motivations with fair prices, but otherwise ranked schools, the assumption must be that the pool is homogeneous in terms of motivation.Eden GoldBuy Eden GoldCheap Eden GoldEden EternalEden Eternal GoldEden Eternal Review
Cheap Tera GoldTera Power LevelingTera AccountTera ItemsRS Gold
Humor is a psychological exercise and can be acquired by long-term training and awareness. Therefore, the continuous improvement of the ability to obuy eden gold
eden gold cheap eden goldbserve things,
I've written a book that may help some of the students that have commented here.
It's called "How To Avoid the Law School Trap and Achieve Lasting Success in the 21st Century." You can see the book at: www.avoidthelawschooltrap.com and click through to preview on Amazon. I give affordable resources to gain alternative executive skills to law that are aimed to bulletproof your career whether you practice law or not. I also tell law schools to get with it and start offering alternative executive skills and certifiations(like executive sales and business development, leadership, communication and strategic analysis) so their graduates will be marketable in other positions besides just legal positions. If you read the book, I'd appreciate your comments. Paula A. Argento, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.com
You provides a very nice post to us. Its really very helpful to me to find result on search engine. Hope to hear more good information from your side.
Law tuition London
Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that, this is magnificent blog. workers compensation lawyer
That might have made sense 16 years ago, but tuition has more than doubled since. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the many graduates who did not land lawyer jobs in recent years are using their legal knowledge as doctors or in "business." It is important that law schools face the reality of poor employment results head on. For too long we have relied upon old articles of faith and anecdotes to assuage concerns about the fate of graduates.
Ah, I meant to quote the person above, seems blogger does not like the formatting.
Anyway, take a look at Graduate Job.com for more legal graduate jobs in singapore thanks so much i like very so much your post حلي الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورتة حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
This obvious point bears repeating because members of the legal academy frequently assert that a law degree is a plus for all kinds of careers. Setting aside the plausibility of this assertion--it is dubious at these prices--students expect that at the very least they will become lawyers.
http://www.meizu-mx5.com/ fangyanting20151030 true religion jeans north face jackets ray ban sunglasses gucci nike air force 1 moncler outlet cheap nba jerseys louis vuitton outlet oakley sunglasses louis vuitton outlet canada goose jackets christian louboutin uk tiffany and co jewelry oakley mulberry outlet the north face uk ralph lauren outlet louis vuitton handbags the north face air max 2015 roshe run nfl jerseys wholesale the north face outlet michael kors handbags clearance ugg boots coach outlet michael kors factory outlet michael kors outlet clearance coach outlet online ralph lauren uk |
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin's Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |


text:
The Friday offer from President Obama's campaign to Mitt Romney — that if the GOP presidential candidate releases his tax returns for the past five years, it won't attack him for not releasing more — was immediately rejected by the Romney campaign.
But the give-and-take keeps Romney on the defensive, and promises to keep the issue of Romney's taxes going for weeks to come.
In case you missed it, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina wrote an open letter to Matt Rhoades, his counterpart with the Romney campaign. An excerpt:
"Governor Romney apparently fears that the more he offers, the more our campaign will demand that he provide. So I am prepared to provide assurances on just that point: if the Governor will release five years of returns, I commit in turn that we will not criticize him for not releasing more — neither in ads nor in other public communications or commentary for the rest of the campaign.
"This request for the release of five years, covering the complete returns for 2007-2012, is surely not unreasonable. Other Presidential candidates have released more, including the Governor's father who provided 12 years of returns."
Rhoades essentially responded with "drop dead," although he used a few more words:
"It is clear that President Obama wants nothing more than to talk about Governor Romney's tax returns instead of the issues that matter to voters, like putting Americans back to work, fixing the economy and reining in spending.
"If Governor Romney's tax returns are the core message of your campaign, there will be ample time for President Obama to discuss them over the next 81 days.
"In the meantime, Governor Romney will continue to lay out his plans for a stronger middle class, to save Medicare, to put work back into welfare, and help the 23 million Americans struggling to find work in the Obama economy.
"See you in Denver."
Denver, of course, is the site of the first presidential debate on Oct. 3.
Both campaigns will likely find many supporters for their positions. Recent polls suggest voters are split on the tax return issue.
For instance, Gallup had a July poll indicating that 54 percent of those surveyed wanted Romney to release more tax returns; but 37 percent said he shouldn't. Among Republicans, that figure was 65 percent. A Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in August of voters in Wisconsin, Colorado and Virginia showed similar results.
For Romney, the offer from Messina doesn't really change the dynamics. He has adamantly refused to release any more tax returns beyond the 2010 return he has already made public, and the 2011 return he has pledged to release. Releasing more taxes now would just make it appear that he was caving in to pressure from Obama.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Saturday, October 26, 2024
Team Coach:
Company Affiliation:
Community Grants1 Members
Fundraising Progress $10,020
Fundraising Goal $2,500
We Walk to Save Lives!
2024 Houston Heart Walk
Community Grants
We're a relentless force! Now imagine how much stronger we'll be working as a team! Heart disease is still the no. 1 killer and stroke ranks no. 5 in our nation.
View More
We are walking together - not only for our own health, but also for yours. And for the health of our parents, our children, and our grandchildren.
The Heart Walk is a time of celebration, joy, and inspiration. It's also an event where people work together to support one single goal - to create a world free of heart disease and stroke.
This year, as we celebrate the Centennial of the American Heart Assocation, we will move into our second century with Bold Hearts focused on the work ahead while celebrating our lifesaving history with those who have made it possible. This relentless pursuit will continue until heart disease and stroke no longer exist.
Be a relentless force. Be a supporter of critical research. Be a lifesaver. Be a part of an unstoppable team. Join us now and walk to save lives.
Team Progress
of Goal
Team Honor Roll
Aramco Community Grants
Becky Kyles
Top Donors
Aramco Community Grants
Becky Kyles


text:
German christmas pyramid Santa giving out X-mas presents, height 28 cm / 11 inch, natural with tealights, original Erzgebirge by Richard Glaesser Seiffen
In stock - worldwide delivery
2 years product warranty
Manufacturer | Richard Glässer Seiffen |
Weight gross: | 1.5 kg |
Height: | 28 cm/11.0 inch |
Width: | 22 cm/8.7 inch |
Depth: | 22 cm/8.7 inch |
Material | Wood |
Origin | Made in Germany |
The company was founded in 1932 by Richard Glaesser in Seiffen in the German Erzgebirge. The company manufactures traditional Christmas decorations from Seiffen, like Christmas pyramids, candle arches, smokers and nutcrackers. Richard Glaesser paid particular attention that his products are of the highest quality and that his figures have a friendly appearance. Figures from the Christmas story, fairy tales, as well as miners and angels from our mining traditions were used on Christmas pyramids and candle holders. Especially popular motifs are from the Christian Christmas story, from fairy tales and children's books, but also miners in our mining tradition. The Glaesser company is a significant of pyramid manufacturer. Particularly well known are the blue pyramids with gates of heaven, the advent houses or the six and eight sided terraced pyramids.


text:
This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Scott Simon. This week, an art dealer named Glafira Rosales pleaded guilty to wire fraud, money laundering and tax evasion after she admitted that she sold paintings that she claimed were by Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Willem de Kooning to a couple of Manhattan galleries.
They were actually painted by an artist living in Queens. Those paintings sold for $80 million. I'm joined now from New York by Jerry Saltz, senior art critic for New York magazine. Thanks very much for being with us.
JERRY SALTZ: Thanks.
SIMON: So shouldn't sophisticated Manhattan galleries know the difference between fake Jackson Pollock and real?
SALTZ: Well, boom, you usually would expect a gallery, in particular the oldest, most reputable gallery in the United States, Knoedler, would kind of do due diligence when they heard a story as cockamamie, far-fetched, and unbelievable as this.
SIMON: Now don't hold yourself back. Somebody had to schlep these paintings in to the gallery, right? And what was the story?
SALTZ: My understanding is this Miss Rosales suddenly turned up 63 masterpieces, big names only - hmm. All of them came from - when they asked the name of the collector it was Mr. X. And then they changed it to much more complete Mr. X Junior. This is like an email you get from Nigeria twice a day. And here was the claim of the provenance, and in our brainy art world language that means where did the paintings come from, who else has owned them?
Here's the quote: A foreign collector who was of Eastern European descent and wished to remain anonymous and had inherited the works from a relative. If anyone listening to this would buy art based on that story, you should go to jail. You're just being dumb.
SIMON: Well, these had to be pretty convincing in appearance, right?
SALTZ: Well, look, I can imagine that faking a Pollock by somebody that's pretty good at it could do it. Have I been fooled? Absolutely. Do I know? No. Look, if you are an art dealer at Knoedler, you have an ethical failure of will, intentional or sociopathically unintentional, to research those paintings before you dare try to pass them off as real, let alone start selling and profiting from them.
SIMON: Now, we'll note, Mr. Pei, the artist living then in Queens, I guess has returned to China, how he hasn't been charged because it's not as crime to paint something that looks like it might be by Jackson Pollock, right?
SALTZ: No. Everybody at home, go do it. If you have a great one, Jerry Saltz at New York magazine, send me a picture. I'm good for 125 bucks. I'll pay. I swear.
SIMON: But Mr. Pei has to be a pretty good artist, so I'm wondering what makes a Jackson Pollock, a real Jackson Pollock worth so much money?
SALTZ: Mr. Pei has a skill set that allowed him to replicate, fairly accurately, evidently, the skill sets of some other abstract expressionists from the 1940s and '50s in America. That does not mean he could invent something. In a way, you have to think about Pollock as inventing fire, as inventing something that's been with us, Scott, since the beginning, the drip.
No one had ever thought to deploy the drip as anything other than an accidental, you know, drip. And Pollock, when he first made his first drip painting in 1948 or '9, he looked at his wife. Instead of saying is this a good painting, he said to her: Is this a painting? He didn't even know if this still fit in the category of art.
I just think those paintings put off more energy than went into making them, and that's one of the definitions of art.
SIMON: Jerry Saltz is the art critic of New York magazine. Thanks so much.
SALTZ: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
The Campagnolo Record mechanical groupset has always been associated with the greatest cycling successes in pro and amateur races the world over. These victories achieved by this racing bike groupset over the years are a testament to the extreme quality of craftsmanship, technology and fine materials that have always made it stand out as a distinctive product. With the Record 11 Medium Cage Rear Derailleur and Campagnolo quality, you can be sure that victory will be within reach.
- Carbon fiber front plate with lightening holes and cage, alloy fixing bolts
- Campagnolo Ultra-Shift parallelogram maximizes stiffness, shifting speed and precision
- Lightweight technopolymer pulleys in sintered material
- Compatible with Potenza and model year 2015 and newer Chorus, Record and Super Record
- Not compatible with pre-2015 Campagnolo drivetrains
- Drivetrain Speeds: 11
- Cage Length: Medium
- Chain Wrap Capacity (teeth): 37 teeth
- Largest Cog: 32
Part Numbers
Option | UPC | MPN |
Carbon / 11-speed | 08050046166651 | RD18-RE1M |


text:
Thank you for reading this LFS book. We hope that you have found this book helpful and have learned more about the system creation process.
Now that the LFS system is installed, you may be wondering "What next?" To answer that question, we have compiled a list of resources for you.
Bugs and security notices are reported regularly for all software. Since an LFS system is compiled from source, it is up to you to keep abreast of such reports. There are several online resources that track such reports, some of which are shown below:
CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team)
CERT has a mailing list that publishes security alerts concerning various operating systems and applications. Subscription information is available at http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/signup.html.
Bugtraq is a full-disclosure computer security mailing list. It publishes newly discovered security issues, and occasionally potential fixes for them. Subscription information is available at http://www.securityfocus.com/archive.
Beyond Linux From Scratch
The Beyond Linux From Scratch book covers installation procedures for a wide range of software beyond the scope of the LFS Book. The BLFS project is located at https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/systemd/.
LFS Hints
The LFS Hints are a collection of educational documents submitted by volunteers in the LFS community. The hints are available at https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/.
Mailing lists
There are several LFS mailing lists you may subscribe to if you are in need of help, want to stay current with the latest developments, want to contribute to the project, and more. See Chapter 1 - Mailing Lists for more information.
The Linux Documentation Project
The goal of The Linux Documentation Project (TLDP) is to collaborate on all of the issues of Linux documentation. The TLDP features a large collection of HOWTOs, guides, and man pages. It is located at http://www.tldp.org/.


text:
[World Cup] Argentina reaches World Cup semis with Belgium win
By 정주원Published : July 6, 2014 - 09:46
Gonzalo Higuain's first goal of this World Cup sent Argentina into the semifinals on Saturday with a 1-0 win over a disappointing Belgium.
Argentina, which hadn't advanced past the World Cup quarterfinals since 1990, controlled the match after Higuain's eighth minute goal, more due to disciplined defending than sparkling attack.
The Napoli striker fired home Angel Di Maria's deflected pass just inside the area, beating Belgium goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois with a low shot to the far corner of the goal as he turned.
"Since the first game of this World Cup I said I was calm, that the goals would come. It came and at an important moment," Higuain said. "It's been so many years since we made it to the semifinals. Now we did."
Higuain came close to making it 2-0 in the second half when his shot smashed into the crossbar. Lionel Messi missed a chance to score his fifth goal of the tournament when he failed to beat Courtois on a counterattack.
Belgium lacked the creativity to find a way past Argentina's disciplined defense, and created few clear chances apart from a pair of headers by Kevin Mirallas and Marouane Fellaini.
Belgium's most creative player, Eden Hazard, had little impact on the game beyond receiving a yellow card for a studs-first challenge on Lucas Biglia. Hazard cut a disconsolate figure as he was substiuted by Nacer Chadli in the 75th.
Argentina's next opponent will be the winner of the last quarterfinal between the Netherlands and Costa Rica, who were playing later Saturday in Salvador.
Long after the game, thousands of Argentine fans flocked to one section of the Estadio Nacional to celebrate the team's best World Cup performance in 24 years.
Argentina was knocked out in the quarterfinals in the previous two World Cups, both times by Germany. The last time it reached the semifinals was in Italy 1990, when Diego Maradona led the team to the final, which it lost 1-0 to West Germany.
Argentina has won every match in Brazil with a single goal. But unlike in previous games, the Albiceleste put in a solid performance over 90 minutes in Brasilia, frustrating the Belgians with a near-flawless defense, bolstered by strong performances from central midfielders Javier Mascherano and Lucas Biglia.
The team looked in control even after Di Maria _ the team's most influential player in Brazil aside from Messi _ was substituted by Enzo Perez in the 33rd minute. The winger had appeared to hurt his right leg while shooting five minutes earlier.
Argentina took the lead when Di Maria, picking up a pass from Messi, cut in from the right and tried to find fullback Pablo Zabaleta, but his pass bounced off Jan Vertonghen into Higuain's path.
The Napoli striker avenged himself for a string of mediocre performances in Brazil and was Argentina's best player before being substituted by Fernando Gago in the 81st.
"Higuain has the class to put the ball where he wants it. There is nothing we could do about it," Courtois said about the goal.
Startled by the early goal, the Red Devils didn't cause any danger in Argentina's penalty area until the 42nd minute when Kevin Mirallas headed Vertonghen's cross just wide of Sergio Romero's right post.
Meanwhile Argentina looked dangerous on the counterattack, with Higuain cutting up the Belgian defense with runs down the center.
Fifteen minutes after the break, Vertonghen once again sent a precise cross from the left flank but Fellani headed it over the crossbar.
Despite the loss, Belgium coach Marc Wilmots said he was not impressed by the Argentines, calling them "just an ordinary team."
"I think if we had equalized in the last few minutes, they are dead, they are finished," Wilmots said. (AP)


text:
Given many of your comments on yesterday's post, it seems that neutral is in the eye of the beholder. I chose a deep smokey blue-based purple as what I called "my version of a neutral" for the Background Dress. I suppose what I meant by that is this is a color I could certainly see as the background in said Background Dress. Just think of the various colored scarves you could pair with it - blue, red, mustard, black, burgundy.
Many of you responded excitedly to this idea of creating your own neutral. As Casey said,
We've been boxed into the idea that "neutrals" are things like shades of white/cream, black, gray, brown, navy, etc. But if you don't like the standard bunch of neutrals or find that they don't work in your wardrobe, who is to say that you can't make your own set of neutrals? I've been slowly working towards doing just that in my own wardrobe: medium blues, gray, purple, etc. Those have become my more flattering "base" pieces, and I'm finding that I actually use them more than garments that are in conventional "neutrals"!Others gave surprising choices for their neutrals: Mikhaela says chartreuse, for Vix it's aqua.
Sara respectfully disagreed with all this neutral willy-nillyness.
I love the purple double knit, but in my opinion, it isn't a neutral. A colour that suits you certainly belongs in your wardrobe, but a neutral is a colour that you could wear everyday and that you could even wear head to toe. My go to neutrals are black, white and tan, which I love to combine with splashes of colour (colours that suit me, such as coral, turquoise, purple, plum, all shades of green). I think you could wear black everyday and never look the same, depending on the style of garments you choose and how you accessorize them. If you wore purple or plum everyday, it would be too monotone. Green is a colour that looks great with my skintone and haircolour, but if I wore it head to toe, I would look like an elf!I think that's an interesting litmus test for what a neutral is: would you wear it head to toe? Black is the only color I would wear head-to-toe, and indeed it is my traditional neutral of choice. (I don't go for browns, grays, or navys for some reason.) But, then again, ivory is a nice neutral and I would never wear it head to toe unless I was getting married again (aka never!).
Though it may not be the most practical or conservative method of wardrobe-planning, I continue to feel inspired by this idea of trying nontraditional colors as neutrals in my wardrobe.
What do you think? Can more electric colors be neutrals? Or is that a stretch? What are your neutrals?
Can't wait to hear your thoughts on this!
P.S. Definitely check out the Pantone site for fantastic color inspiration!


text:
Product Return Policy
At Studio Gear Cosmetics, our goal is to ensure your complete satisfaction with your purchase. If, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied with your purchase from our website, you can return it to Studio Gear within 30 days of purchase date. Claims for missing items or items damaged in transit must be received within two business days of receipt of merchandise. (Please see further below for return timing information)
You have the option of exchanging the item(s) or receiving a refund for the full amount of the item purchased. Refunds on returned items will be issued in the same payment form as tendered at the time of purchase. If payment was made by credit card, once we receive the product we will credit your account. Please allow 7-10 days for a credit to appear on your credit card statement. If payment was made by check, the refund check will be issued after 10 business days from the date of purchase.
To Return a Product(s):
- Securely wrap the package and send your return to the address below via Fed Ex, UPS or insured Parcel Post from the US Postal Services for your protection and to ensure prompt credit. Studio Gear is not responsible for returned articles lost during transit.
- Be sure to include your complete contact info with your return including your name, address, phone number, email address, and studiogearcosmetics.com order number.
All returns should be addressed to:
Studio Gear Cosmetics
Attention: Returns
Please note the following return timing guidelines for Studiogearcosmetics.com.
30 Days from Original Purchase:
- Studio Gear will refund 100% of the product cost.
- Studio Gear offers a 50% credit for use on studiogearcosmetics.com or a 50% exchange of equal sale value.
- Studio Gear offers 25% of the sale in credit for use on studiogearcosmetics.com or a 25% exchange of equal sale value.
- Studio Gear will not recognize any refunds or return requests after 90 days.
- Customers will be responsible for any postage required to return the item(s), unless it was an error on our part.


text:
Braced for a fight, President Barack Obama on Wednesday unveiled the most sweeping proposals for curbing gun violence in two decades, pressing a reluctant Congress to pass universal background checks and bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.
A month after that horrific massacre — and a day after New York's governor signed into law the toughest gun control law in the nation and the first since Newtown — Obama also used his presidential powers to enact 23 measures that don't require the backing of lawmakers.
The president's executive actions include ordering federal agencies to make more data available for background checks, appointing a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and directing the Centers for Disease Control to research gun violence.
But the president, speaking at White House ceremony, focused his attention on the divided Congress, saying only lawmakers could enact the most effective measures for preventing more mass shootings.
"To make a real and lasting difference, Congress must act," Obama said. "And Congress must act soon."
For full politics coverage, visit NBCNews.com.
The president vowed to use "whatever weight this office holds" to press lawmakers into action on his $500 million plan. He is also calling for improvements in school safety, including putting 1,000 police officers in schools and bolstering mental health care by training more health professionals to deal with young people who may be at risk.
U.S. & World
The National Rifle Association promptly took issue with Obama's proposals, and even supportive lawmakers said the president's gun control measures face long odds in Congress.
"Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation," the NRA said in a statement. "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."
House Speaker John Boehner's office was non-committal to the president's package, but signaled no urgency to act on the legislative proposals. "House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. "And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said ahead of Obama's presentation that he didn't know whether an assault weapons ban could pass the Senate, but said there are some measures that can, such as improved background checks.
"There are some who say nothing will pass. I disagree with that," Leahy, D-Vt., told students at Georgetown University Law Center. "What I'm interested in is what we can get."
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Obama's package "thoughtful recommendations" and said the Senate would consider legislation addressing gun violence early this year.
"The tragedy at Sandy Hook was just the latest sad reminder that we are not doing enough to protect our citizens - especially our children - from gun violence and a culture of violence, and all options should be on the table moving forward," he said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus dismissed Obama's measures as "an executive power grab."
"He paid lip service to our fundamental constitutional rights," Priebus said of the president, "but took actions that disregard the Second Amendment and the legislative process."
Acknowledging the tough fight ahead, Obama said there will be pundits, politicians and special interest groups that will seek to "gin up fear" that the White House wants to take away the right to own a gun.
"Behind the scenes, they'll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever," he said. "The only way we will be able to change is if their audience, their constituents, their membership says this time must be different, that this time we must do something to protect our communities and our kids."
The president was flanked by children who wrote him letters about gun violence in the weeks following the Newtown shooting. Families of those killed in the massacre, as well as survivors of the shooting, were also in the audience, along with law enforcement officers and congressional lawmakers.
"This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe," Obama said. "This is how we will be judged."
Seeking to expand the impetus for addressing gun violence beyond the Newtown shooting, the president said more than 900 Americans have been killed by guns in the month since the elementary school massacre.
"Every day we wait, the number will keep growing," he said.
The White House has signaled that Obama could launch a campaign to boost public support for his proposals. Nearly six in 10 Americans want stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, with majorities favoring a nationwide ban on military-style, rapid-fire weapons and limits on gun violence depicted in video games, movies and TV shows, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
A lopsided 84 percent of adults would like to see the establishment of a federal standard for background checks for people buying guns at gun shows, the poll showed.
The president based his proposals on recommendations from an administration-wide task force led by Vice President Joe Biden. His plan marks the most comprehensive effort to address gun violence since Congress passed the 1994 ban on high-grade, military-style assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004, and Obama wants lawmakers to renew and expand it.
Other measures Obama wants Congress to take up include limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring background checks for all gun buyers in an attempt to close the so-called "gun-show loophole" that allows people to buy guns at trade shows and over the Internet without submitting to background checks.
Obama also intends to seek confirmation for B. Todd Jones, who has served as acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives since 2011.
The president's plan does little to address violent images in video games, movies and entertainment, beyond asking the CDC to study their impact on gun crimes. Some pro-gun lawmakers who are open to addressing stricter arms legislation have insisted they would do so only in tandem with recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment.
The president's long list of executive orders also include:
— Ordering tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks and requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
— Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands.
— Requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
— Giving schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers.
— Giving communities grants to institute programs to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them.