The Future Is Now: What We Imagined for 2013 — 10 Years Ago










Predicting the future is hard, but that doesn’t stop us from trying. We’re Wired, after all.


Ten years ago, we boldly declared that we’d be living with phones on our wrists, data-driven goggles on our eyes and gadgets that would safety-test our food for us. Turns out, a lot of the things Sonia Zjawinski conceptualized in our “Living in 2013” feature way back in 2003 were remarkably close to what we’ve seen. We even got the iPhone right (sort of).


And so, as we look back on life in 2013 circa 2003, we’re going to spin it forward once again to tell you what life will be like in 2023.





Mat Honan is a senior writer for Wired's Gadget Lab and the co-founder of the Knight-Batten award-winning Longshot magazine.

Read more by Mat Honan

Follow @mat on Twitter.



Read More..

Playboy Hugh Hefner marries his ‘runaway bride’






LOS ANGELES (AP) — Hugh Hefner is celebrating the new year as a married man once again.


The 86-year-old Playboy magazine founder exchanged vows with his “runaway bride,” Crystal Harris, at a private Playboy Mansion ceremony on New Year’s Eve. Harris, a 26-year-old “Playmate of the Month” in 2009, broke off a previous engagement to Hefner just before they were to be married in 2011.






Playboy said on Tuesday that the couple celebrated at a New Year’s Eve party at the mansion with guests that included comic Jon Lovitz, Gene Simmons of KISS and baseball star Evan Longoria.


The bride wore a strapless gown in soft pink, Hefner a black tux. Hefner’s been married twice before but lived the single life between 1959 and 1989.


Entertainment News Headlines – Yahoo! News





Title Post: Playboy Hugh Hefner marries his ‘runaway bride’
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment




Read More..

Study Suggests Lower Death Risk for the Overweight





A century ago, Elsie Scheel was the perfect woman. So said a 1912 article in The New York Times about how Miss Scheel, 24, was chosen by the “medical examiner of the 400 'co-eds'” at Cornell University as a woman “whose very presence bespeaks perfect health.”




Miss Scheel, however, was hardly model-thin. At 5-foot-7 and 171 pounds, she would, by today's medical standards, be clearly overweight. (Her body mass index was 27; 25 to 29.9 is overweight.)


But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people.


The report, although not the first to suggest this relationship between B.M.I. and mortality, is by far the largest and most carefully done, analyzing nearly 100 studies, experts said.


But don’t scrap those New Year’s weight-loss resolutions and start gorging on fried Belgian waffles or triple cheeseburgers.


Experts not involved in the research said it suggested that overweight people need not panic unless they have other indicators of poor health and that depending on where fat is in the body, it might be protective or even nutritional for older or sicker people. But over all, piling on pounds and becoming more than slightly obese remains dangerous.


“We wouldn’t want people to think, ‘Well, I can take a pass and gain more weight,'” said Dr. George Blackburn, associate director of Harvard Medical School’s nutrition division.


Rather, he and others said, the report, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, suggests that B.M.I., a ratio of height to weight, should not be the only indicator of healthy weight.


“Body mass index is an imperfect measure of the risk of mortality,” and factors like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar must be considered, said Dr. Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.


Dr. Steven Heymsfield, executive director of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that for overweight people, if indicators like cholesterol “are in the abnormal range, then that weight is affecting you,” but that if indicators are normal, there’s no reason to “go on a crash diet.”


Experts also said the data suggested that the definition of "normal" B.M.I., 18.5 to 24.9, should be revised, excluding its lowest weights, which might be too thin.


The study did show that the two highest obesity categories (B.M.I. of 35 and up) are at high risk. “Once you have higher obesity, the fat’s in the fire,” Dr. Blackburn said.


But experts also suggested that concepts of fat be refined.


"Fat per se is not as bad as we thought," said Dr. Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, professor of Medicine and Public Health at the University of California, Irvine. "What is bad is a type of fat that is inside your belly. Non-belly fat, underneath your skin in your thigh and your butt area — these are not necessarily bad." He added that, to a point, extra fat is accompanied by extra muscle, which can be healthy.


Still, it is possible that overweight or somewhat obese people are less likely to die because they, or their doctors, have identified other conditions associated with weight gain, like high cholesterol or diabetes.


“You’re more likely to be in your doctor’s office and more likely to be treated,” said Dr. Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association and a professor at University of Colorado.


Some experts said fat could be protective in some cases, although that is unproven and debated. The study did find that people 65 and over had no greater mortality risk even at high obesity.


“There’s something about extra body fat when you’re older that is providing some reserve,” Dr. Eckel said.


And studies on specific illnesses, like heart and kidney disease, have found an “obesity paradox,” that heavier patients are less likely to die.


Still, death is not everything. Even if "being overweight doesn't increase your risk of dying," Dr. Klein said, it "does increase your risk of having diabetes" or other conditions.


Ultimately, said the study’s lead author, Katherine Flegal, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “the best weight might depend on the situation you’re in.”


Take the perfect woman, Elsie Scheel, in whose "physical makeup there is not a single defect," the Times article said. This woman who "has never been ill and doesn't know what fear is" loved sports and didn't consume candy, coffee or tea. But she also ate only three meals every two days, and loved beefsteak.


Maybe such seeming contradictions made sense against the societal inconsistencies of that time. After all, her post-college plans involved tilling her father’s farm, but “if she were a man, she would study mechanical engineering.”


Read More..

A Bigger Tax Bite for Most Households Under Senate Plan





WASHINGTON — Only the most affluent American households would pay higher income taxes this year under the terms of a deal that passed the Senate early Tuesday morning, but most households would face higher payroll taxes because the deal does not extend a two-year-old tax break.




The legislation, which still must overcome resistance exhibited on Tuesday by House Republicans, would grant most Americans an instant reversal of the income tax increases that took effect with the arrival of the new year. Only about 0.7 percent of households would be subject to an income tax increase this year, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. The increases would apply almost exclusively to households making at least half a million dollars, the center estimated in an analysis published Tuesday.


But the Senate’s decision not to reverse a scheduled increase in the payroll tax that finances Social Security, while widely expected, still means that about 77 percent of households would pay a larger share of income to the federal government this year, according to the center’s analysis.


The tax this year would increase by two percentage points, to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent, on all earned income up to $113,700.


Indeed, for most lower- and middle-income households, the payroll tax increase most likely would equal or exceed the value of the income tax savings. A household earning $50,000 in 2013, roughly the national median, would avoid paying about $1,000 more in income taxes — but still pay about $1,000 more in payroll taxes.


The timing and outcome of a House vote was unclear on Tuesday evening.


Sabrina Garcia, a 35-year-old accounting assistant from Quincy, Mass., who together with her husband made about $102,000 last year, said the payroll tax increase equated to “about $200 a month for my family. That’s a lot of money for us. It means we will have to cut back.” She said in an e-mail exchange that she most likely would postpone buying a new computer. “And forget about being able to save money,” she added.


The deal would impose larger tax increases on those who make the most. It would raise taxes in two different ways, by restoring limits on the amounts of income affluent Americans can shelter from federal taxation, and by restoring a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent. The current rate is 35 percent.


For married couples filing jointly, the deduction limits apply to income above $300,000, while the top tax rate kicks in above $450,000. But both numbers are somewhat misleading, because “income” in this context is a technical term, referring only to the portion of income subject to taxation after exemptions and deductions.


Few households with actual incomes of less than half a million dollars would face a tax increase. The Tax Policy Center calculated that less than 5 percent of families earning $200,000 to $500,000 would actually pay more.


The size of those increases would be much smaller than President Obama originally proposed. The net effect, according to the center’s estimates, is that the top 1 percent of households would see an average income tax increase this year of $62,000 rather than $94,000.“The high-income people really are doing very well in this compared to what the president wanted to do,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.


The Senate deal would impose fewer limits on deductions than the White House plan. It also would tax income from dividends at a flat rate of 20 percent, rather than the same marginal rate as earned income. And there’s another important point, often misunderstood: Affluent households would pay the new 39.6 percent rate only on income above $450,000. They and everyone else would still pay lower rates on income below that threshold.


Households making $500,000 to $1 million would pay an additional $6,700 in taxes on average. Those making more than $1 million would pay an additional $123,000 on average.


Read More..

'Fiscal cliff' deal pleases few; House unlikely to vote Monday

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says he and the White House have made agreements on a "fiscal cliff" solution.









WASHINGTON – Details of the emerging “fiscal cliff” deal ricocheted through the Capitol on Monday, appearing to please almost no one from either political party, as President Obama urged negotiators toward a conclusion. A House vote appears unlikely on Monday, even if a deal is finished.


The contours of the agreement between Vice President Joe Biden and the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, put into sharp focus the compromises that need to be stomached if a deal was to be struck. The outcome remained uncertain as the country prepared to go off the “fiscal cliff.”


Even if agreement could be reached to have a Senate vote before the midnight deadline, when taxes on all Americans would rise if nothing was done, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was unlikely to call a vote in the House until Tuesday. 








“We are very, very close,” said an upbeat McConnell on the Senate floor after Obama spoke on the White House grounds and called on the country to urge lawmakers to finish. “We can do this.”


QUIZ: How much do you know about the fiscal cliff?


The emerging deal would raise taxes on income and investments for wealthier Americans – those  households making more than $450,000 a year or individuals earning more than $400,000– although the two sides remain at odds over the automatic spending cuts that make up part of the “fiscal cliff.”


McConnell and Biden continued talking throughout the afternoon Monday, as lawmakers prepared to hunker down for a long New Year’s Eve under the dome. A final deal could be voted on first by the Senate, possibly late Monday.


One result became increasingly clear, though: With many issues still unresolved, Washington was poised to continue the partisan budget battles that have defined recent years well into 2013.


As the sun began to set over the capital on a chilly winter day, rank-and-file lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, bristled at what they were being asked to accept.


The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the hardscrabble Nevada deal-maker who stepped aside for Biden to negotiate with McConnell, offered a view of the level of concern. A revolving door of lawmakers came and went throughout the day.


Liberal Democrats objected that the White House was ceding too much to Republican demands and missing the opportunity for a broader budget deal. Conservative Republicans were upset at being asked to raise tax rates without reducing the deficit with steep cuts.


PHOTOS: Notable moments of the 2012 presidential election


“Republicans should kill the compromise if there are no spending cuts,” said Erick Erikson, the conservative founder of the influential Red State blog, in a tweet.


Both parties were under enormous pressure from their political bases not to give in to what some, including Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a liberal leader, characterized as simply a “bad deal.”


More than $660 billion in revenue would be raised – far less than the target Obama first set in talks with congressional leaders. The president sought $1.6 trillion in new revenue from a large deficit-reduction package, and at least $800 billion in earlier talks with Republicans over a deal on tax increases.


The agreement would set the top tax rates at 39.6% for income above $450,000 for households and $400,000 for individuals, which is a narrower definition of who is wealthy than Obama once sought, according to a source who was not authorized to discuss the negotiations. The president won reelection campaigning on asking those who earn above $250,000 to contribute more in taxes.


Investment income tax rates would also rise for those higher-income households, from the historic low 15% rate on capital gains and dividends to a new 20% rate. The president had sought to tax dividends at the same rate as ordinary income, and his earlier offer sought to initiate those taxes at the lower $250,000 income threshold.


The estate tax, which has been a key sticking point throughout the weekend of negotiations, appears to have been settled. The agreement splits the difference, setting the new rate at 40% on estates valued at more than $5 million – a compromise between today’s 35% rate and the 45% rate Democrats sought on estates of $3.5 million or more.


Americans would benefit from an extension of long-term unemployment benefits, which expired over the weekend, for one full year.


One area that hewed closer to Democratic priorities was Obama’s proposal to reinstate the phaseout of personal exemption tax credits and itemized deductions on upper-income households. They had been in place before the George W. Bush-era tax cuts began in 2001, but were done away with over the past decade and would fully expire, with the rest of the tax breaks, on New Year’s Eve.





Read More..

The Best of Exploration: Top 8 Stories of Space Exploration in 2012

Our recap of the year’s best exploratory exploits continues today with a look at the biggest developments in space exploration. 2012 saw the stunning debut of new spacecraft (Curiosity), the continued contributions of geriatric ones (Voyager), and the first full year since the end of the Space Shuttle program. Casey Dreier of The Planetary Society nominated 8 particularly meaningful developments from the last twelve months.



Image: Dreier’s pick for image of the year, a Cassini photograph of Saturn’s north pole through an infrared filter. (Credit: NASA / JPL / SSI / Emily Lakdawalla)


Read More..

Green Day to get back on road in March






NEW YORK (Reuters) – The members of Green Day said on Monday they will return to the road in March after the punk rock band canceled its fall club tour and postponed later dates as frontman Billie Joe Armstrong underwent treatment for substance abuse.


“We want to thank everyone for hanging in with us for the last few months,” the band members said in a statement on their website. “We are very excited to hit the road and see all of you again, though we regret having to cancel more shows.”






Armstrong, lead singer and guitarist for the Grammy-winning rock band, sought substance abuse treatment in September following an angry, guitar-smashing on-stage outburst in Las Vegas. The details of his addiction were never specified.


Armstrong, 40, added to the website posting with a note on Instagram, saying:


“Dear friends … I just want to thank you all for the love and support you’ve shown for the past few months. Believe me, it hasn’t gone unnoticed and I’m eternally grateful to have such an amazing set of friends and family.


“I’m getting better every day,” he said. “So now, without further ado, the show must go on. We can’t wait to get on the road and live out loud! Our passion has only grown stronger.”


The tour will begin in Chicago on March 28, with dates in Pittsburgh, New York, Toronto and other cities up through April 12 in Quebec City.


The band said it would announce additional West Coast dates in early 2013.


Tickets for the postponed shows will be honored at the new dates, Green Day said. Tickets for canceled shows will be refunded at the point of purchase.


In November the band moved up the release date of “iTrĂ©!,” part of an ambitious trilogy of albums that marks their first collection of new music since 2009, to December 11 from its original date of January 15, in part to make up for the canceled and postponed dates.


The California-based punk rock band, formed in the late 1980s, has sold more than 65 million records worldwide and won five Grammys, including best alternative album for its 1994 major-label debut, “Dookie,” and best rock album for “American Idiot” and “21st Century Breakdown.”


(Reporting by Chris Michaud; Editing by Jill Serjeant and Bill Trott)


Music News Headlines – Yahoo! News





Title Post: Green Day to get back on road in March
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment




Read More..

Well: Managing Diabetes, Then Told of Cancer

Nine years ago, Brenda Gray, a former schoolteacher in North Carolina, discovered she had Type 2 diabetes.

Since then, she has learned to manage the disease, diligently taking her medicine and keeping tabs on her blood sugar. But in September, she was told she had skin cancer, and her diabetes spun out of control.

Ms. Gray started an aggressive course of treatment that included radiation therapy. But the treatments weakened her and destroyed her appetite. Unable to eat, she developed dangerously low blood-sugar levels, and about two months ago, Ms. Gray’s daughter had to rush her to a hospital.

“She found me in bed shaking and sweating,” said Ms. Gray, who is 62 and lives in Durham. “When I got to the hospital, they couldn’t understand how I was still standing.”

Cancer and diabetes are two of the leading killers in America. Each can be a devastating diagnosis in its own right, but researchers are finding that the two often occur together. By some estimates, as many as one in five cancer patients also has diabetes.

In a recent joint report, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association noted that people with Type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of developing cancers of the liver, pancreas, colon and bladder. Researchers with the National Cancer Institute released a similar report last year, which found greater rates of cancer among diabetics, as well as an elevated risk of dying from cancer.

Experts say it is clear from accumulating clinical data that the two share some biological links. The problem results from simple demographics as well: with the rapid rise in Type 2 diabetes and a growing population of cancer survivors, the two diseases are coinciding more frequently in older patients.

“We are going to see a lot greater numbers of people with both diseases,” said Edward Giovannucci, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and an author of the joint report. “By some estimates, the link between diabetes and cancer may quantitatively become even more important than the link between smoking and cancer.”

Already, oncologists say, it is not uncommon to encounter patients struggling to balance cancer treatments with insulin shots and diabetes drugs. Because cancer is generally seen as the more lethal of the two diseases, patients often make it the priority.

“Although cancer is no longer generally a death sentence, for many patients, they see it as that no matter what you say,” said Dr. June McKoy, a geriatric oncologist at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “Suddenly, they put their diabetes on the back burner, and they focus on the cancer.” But high blood sugar can damage kidneys and blood vessels, strain the immune system and worsen cancer prognosis.

Researchers say that the link between the two diseases is complex and driven by many factors. Typically, though, it is diabetes that sets the stage for cancer. “Most cancers don’t cause diabetes,” said Dr. Pankaj Shah, an endocrinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Mostly diabetes increases the risk of cancer.”

Type 2 diabetes is often preceded by chronically high insulin levels and high blood sugar, fertile conditions for cancer. Insulin is known to fuel cell growth, and cancer cells consume glucose out of proportion to other nutrients. The two diseases share many risk factors as well, including obesity, poor diet, physical inactivity, smoking and advanced age.

Another factor that complicates the relationship is the treatments given to patients. Diabetes drugs can have an impact on cancer prognosis and vice versa. Type 2 diabetics treated with the drug metformin, for example, develop cancer less frequently than diabetics given other medications. A number of clinical trials are now under way to see how well the drug performs as a cancer treatment.

Drugs used against cancer, on the other hand, tend to worsen diabetes. Chemotherapy can wreak havoc on blood sugar levels, and glucocorticoids, which are widely prescribed to alleviate nausea in cancer patients, promote insulin resistance, said Dr. Lorraine L. Lipscombe of Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.

Dr. Lipscombe was the lead author of a large study last month that found that breast cancer survivors were 20 percent more likely to receive a diabetes diagnosis than other women. The study found evidence that glucocorticoids and chemotherapy may hasten the onset of diabetes.

“They don’t cause diabetes in everyone, but they can bring out or unmask it in people who might already be vulnerable,” she said.

For diabetics who are used to tightly monitoring their blood sugar levels, the impact of cancer drugs can be alarming. Rigoberto Cortes, 71, a former metal worker in Chicago, has had Type 2 diabetes for over two decades. A year ago, he was told he had Stage 3 colon cancer.

“When I started chemotherapy, my sugar level was going way up and way down like never before,” he said. “I kept asking my oncologist what I should do.”

Mr. Cortes said his oncologist was not very concerned by the blood sugar swings. He eventually got a second opinion and switched doctors. He also lost weight and changed his eating habits, which helped minimize his blood sugar swings.

Although every case is different, the general strategy in treating such patients should be to get the cancer under control first, said Dr. Shah at the Mayo Clinic.

“Diabetes treatment essentially is given to prevent long-term complications,” he added.

At some hospitals, oncologists may take responsibility for managing blood sugar and other diabetes concerns in their cancer patients. But ideally, treatments should be coordinated by a team that includes a certified diabetes educator.

“They go over diet with the patient, review their medication, review their insulin,” said Dr. McKoy of Northwestern. “They can play a big role.”

For a diabetic trying to navigate the world of cancer, or a cancer patient navigating the world of diabetes, such interventions can be crucial. In a study published in October, Dr. McKoy and her colleagues looked at several years of health records for over 200,000 people with Type II diabetes who developed cancer.

Those who underwent a diabetes counseling session after their cancer diagnosis — consisting of two sessions a week for four to six weeks — were more likely to receives tests of hemoglobin A1c levels, a barometer of how well blood sugar has been controlled over time, and to take care of their blood sugar levels. As a result, they had fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital admissions and lower health care costs.

Ms. Gray, the former schoolteacher in Durham, learned this firsthand. After her recent emergency, she worked with a diabetes educator at Duke University Hospital. Ms. Gray learned tips and strategies to balance the two diseases, including ways to keep her blood sugar normal when cancer treatments ruin her appetite.

“I came into the hospital and they got me back on track,” she said. “I was just so focused on the cancer. It changed everything. But I’ve learned how to face this.”

Read More..

A Year of Market Gains, Despite Political Turmoil


A year ago, some thought 2012 was destined to be the year that the euro zone — and maybe even the entire European Union — broke up. The banks that supported their governments, and that in turn depended on those same governments for bailouts if they went broke, were deemed to be particularly vulnerable to disaster.


It did not happen, and while the euro zone countries hardly solved their economic problems, the Continent’s stock markets turned out to be good investments in 2012, with bank shares among the best performers. The same could be said about the United States, where the broad stock market posted double-digit gains and Bank of America shares doubled in 2012, albeit from a very depressed level.


Over all, the Standard & Poor’s Euro 350-stock index was up 13 percent for the year, measured in euros, and more than 15 percent measured in dollars. The S.& P. 500 wound up the year with a gain of 13 percent.


It may have been typical of 2012 that it was politician and central bankers — not economic news or corporate developments — that dominated investor attention. As the year ended, the difference was that it was Washington, not Europe, where the squabbles were taking place.


For much of the year, it appeared that the European squabbles were leading nowhere, and by midsummer, markets were pessimistic about the outcome. Finally, Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, took decisive action to assure that the banks — and the governments that depended on them — would have access to funds. That did not turn around recessionary conditions in much of the euro zone, but it was enough to turn around financial markets. Prices of government bonds in many of the most troubled countries began to rise. Those who bet that Europe would solve its problems did well in the financial markets.


The accompanying charts show the performance of stocks in 10 economic sectors in both Europe and the United States, both in 2012 and since Oct. 9, 2007, the day that world stock markets peaked before what would turn out to be a world recession and credit crisis.


What stands out is how well financial stocks and consumer discretionary stocks did during 2012. The latter stocks are things purchased by consumers that are likely to do better when the economy is improving. In the United States, the two best such stocks in the S.& P. 500 were PulteGroup, a homebuilder, and Whirlpool, an appliance maker.


But while Europe did better in 2012, it remains much farther from recovering all of the losses experienced since the 2007 peak. The American index is just 9 percent lower than that, while the European index is about a third below where it was then. The only sectors that have completely made up their losses on both sides of the Atlantic are health care and consumer staples. In the United States, the consumer discretionary and information technology sectors have also done so, although the latter sector’s performance is largely because of Apple, whose shares are more than three times as high as they were in 2007.


Read More..

Sens. Feinstein, Graham clash on gun control









If Washington’s effort to reach a deal on the "fiscal cliff" looks daunting, just wait for the debate over what to do about mass shootings like the one that killed 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.


Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) clashed sharply over Feinstein’s proposal to ban military-style assault weapons.


“The question comes, what do we do about the growing sophistication of military weapons on the streets of our cities?” Feinstein said. 





“When you have someone walking in and slaying, in the most brutal way, 6-year olds, something is really wrong,” said Feinstein, who has made gun control a key issue since her days as president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978 when her colleague Harvey Milk and the city’s mayor, George Moscone, were shot and killed in City Hall by a rival politician.


PHOTOS: Notable moments of the 2012 presidential election


Feinstein has proposed a prohibition on the type of semi-automatic rifles used in the Newtown shooting and other recent mass killings, adding that her bill would be much tougher than the loophole-ridden assault weapons ban in place from 1994-2004. Assault rifles already in circulation would remain legal, but the owners would have to register them and become licensed. Her bill also would ban high-capacity magazines.


Limiting guns is precisely the wrong answer, Graham responded.


Crime is at record lows in part because guns are more widespread than ever, he said. He endorsed the proposal by the National Rifle Assn. to put armed guards in every school. He said he owns an AR-15, the type of semi-automatic rifled used by Adam Lanza in the Newtown school shooting.


“What she is proposing is a massive intervention,” Graham said. “Gun sales are up, and crime is down.  You’re not going to be able to stop mass murderers with no criminal record just by taking my AR-15 and making me pay $200 and get my fingerprints and say I can’t buy another one.


"The best solution to protect children is to have somebody there to stop the shooter, not get everybody’s gun in the country."


Feinstein responded that there was an armed guard at Columbine High School in 1999, but he was unable to “stop the shooters,” Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who killed 15 people and wounded 23.


Appearing on NBC’s "Meet the Press," President Obama, who supports an assault weapons ban, said such measures could only be enacted if the public puts pressure on Congress.


“We're not going to get this done unless the American people decide it's important,” Obama said.


“And so this is not going to be simply a matter of me spending political capital," Obama said. "One of the things that you learn, having now been in this office for four years, is the old adage of Abraham Lincoln's -- that with public opinion there's nothing you can't do and without public opinion there's very little you can get done in this town.”


Obama said he would make a series of proposals and put “my full weight behind it … but ultimately the way this is going to happen is because the American people say, ‘That's right. We are willing to make different choices for the country and we support those in Congress who are willing to take those actions.’ And will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance.”


The day of the Newtown shootings, he said, “was the worst day of my presidency.”


But the question is “whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away.”


Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook


ken.dilanian@latimes.com





Read More..