'He is in good spirits'

'No official should have that power'

'Investigators literally found drugs on the pouch where' Biden allegedly had his gun

'George Soros is a person who knows what’s at stake'

Cuomo's campaign has $565‚000 so far

Dr. Ratio is one of the strongest Imaginary characters in all of Honkai Star Rail and everyone gets him for free! Strong Imaginary characters are hard to come by‚ so you’ll want to build Dr. Ratio correctly to maximize his DPS output with the right Light Cone and Relics. Currently‚ the only Imaginary character in Honkai Star Rail that isn’t a 5-Star is Yukong‚ so most players will appreciate having Dr. Ratio on their roster. He specializes in single-target damage since he’s a Hunt character‚ but he can carry you through most situations with the right build and team composition. Best Dr. Ratio Light Cone Best Relics for Dr. Ratio Best Planar Ornaments for Dr. Ratio Dr. Ratio Stat Priority Dr. Ratio Team Compositions Dr. Ratio Skills and Eidolons Best Light Cones for Dr. Ratio in Honkai Star Rail Image: Hoyoverse As per usual‚ the absolute best Light Cone for Dr. Ratio is his signature “Baptism of Pure Thou...

The Pokemon games have all seen their fair share of bugs‚ glitches‚ and exploits. The latest is a Duplication glitch‚ and while it’s a little tricky to do‚ the results are worth it. Here’s how to do the Item Duplication glitch in Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. Related: How to get Alolan form Pokemon in the Indigo Disk How to duplicate Items and Pokemon in Pokemon Scarlet and Violet I must preface this guide by saying that this trick could be fixed by Gamefreak at any time‚ and you perform it at your own risk.  You can use this trick to duplicate any item a Pokemon can hold‚ including Battle Items and Balls. This same trick can be used to clone Pokemon as well. You will need to have these specific Pokemon in your party to perform the glitch: A Level 100 Ditto with the Limber ability holding a Choice Scarf A Pokemon with a move that steals items. I use a Gardevoir that knows Trick‚ but any Pokemon that knows T...

My foray into the workforce was a minimum-wage job making pizzas and washing dishes at Pizza Hut. The money I earned supported my spending as a new driver and taught me how to budget and save for the future. And the experience I gained—everything from teamwork to customer service to safety standards—has stuck with me throughout my career. If I were growing up in California today‚ though‚ that same job opportunity probably wouldn’t exist. As a 16-year-old without experience‚ I couldn’t produce $20 per hour of value for Pizza Hut—or probably any company. But $20 per hour is where Assembly Bill 1228 in California sets the bar for fast-food workers. After factoring in mandatory employment taxes‚ that comes out to more than $48‚000 per year for a full-time employee. Not surprisingly‚ multiple Pizza Hut franchises announced they are laying off 1‚200 delivery drivers. These drivers are likely just the first of potentially thousands more fast-food workers who will lose their jobs. Like me‚ most Americans start out earning the minimum wage. And like me‚ most Americans are not capable of producing over $48‚000 in value right out of the gate. Mandating that employers pay workers more than they can produce raises the bar on employment‚ excluding those who cannot reach it yet. When lawmakers attempt to “help” lower-wage workers by mandating higher minimum wages‚ they often end up causing more harm than good. As the late economist and commentator Walter Williams warned about minimum wage laws‚ “intentions have no effect on outcomes.” The unintended negative outcomes of increases in the minimum wage are well documented. Multiple analyses from the Congressional Budget Office estimate that large increases in the federal minimum wage would: Cost hundreds or thousands or millions of jobs. Drive up prices‚ interest rates‚ and federal deficits. Reduce total family incomes and cause hundreds of thousands of workers who lose their jobs to drop out of the labor force permanently. Individuals with little education‚ disabilities‚ criminal records‚ and limited English are most likely to lose their jobs‚ as are teens. A study by the Employment Policies Institute found that the 40% increase in the minimum wage in 2009 contributed to a 15.5% decline in employment among workers with less than a high school diploma and an 9% decline in teen employment (which rose to 30%). Minimum wage jobs aren’t meant to be careers or family-supporting jobs‚ but they nevertheless play a crucial role as a stepping stone into more advanced and higher-paying employment. The individuals who have initial job opportunities cut off by precipitous hikes in the minimum wage suffer lifelong consequences. Workers who hold part-time jobs as teens have higher earnings than their peers who didn’t have part-time jobs. Further‚ individuals exposed to high minimum wages have lower future earnings. Another consequence of minimum wage hikes is higher prices‚ because when employers have to pay workers more to do the same thing‚ they have to raise their prices. When New York City increased its minimum wage from $13 to $15‚ most restaurants said they raised their prices and many reported losing repeat customers. Fewer customers means fewer workers are needed. Even more seasoned workers who retain their jobs could be worse off despite receiving a pay raise. That’s because restaurants in California could also adjust to the $20 minimum wage by cutting worker hours‚ eliminating benefits like health insurance and imposing on-demand scheduling. California lawmakers may think that mandating higher wages could help address issues like housing unaffordability‚ high crime rates‚ homelessness‚ and rising costs‚ but the evidence shows it could have the opposite effect. That’s because laws can’t create higher incomes; they only can redistribute incomes. The only way workers can achieve lasting real wage gains is by becoming more productive. To that end‚ state policymakers should eliminate unnecessary licensing requirements so that people don’t need a costly license to braid hair or arrange flowers. Federal lawmakers should end the government’s monopoly on registered apprenticeships so that more people can get paid while being trained for successful careers. And all levels of government should remove unnecessary regulations so that more of businesses’ estimated $12‚800 per employee in annual regulatory costs could go toward higher wages and investments in workers. Such policy changes may not poll as well as a $20 minimum wage‚ but they’ll actually help workers. And isn’t that the goal? This commentary originally was distributed by Tribune News Service Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post 1‚200 Pizza Hut Drivers Among First Victims of California’s $20 Minimum Wage Folly appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Electric vehicle drivers in the Chicago area have recently struggled to charge their vehicles amid frigid temperatures‚ contradicting the assertions of some EV proponents suggesting that fears about performance in inclement conditions are overblown. Dozens of EV drivers reportedly lined up at EV charging stations to juice up their vehicles in Oak Brook‚ Illinois‚ but the bitter cold that has blanketed the area made that task effectively impossible‚ according to Fox 32‚ a local media outlet. Several organizations that promote EVs—a product that the Biden administration is pushing aggressively as part of its climate agenda—have previously suggested that concerns over diminished EV and battery performance in cold weather are inflated‚ but the experiences of drivers in Oak Brook seem to belie that notion. “Nothing. No juice. Still on zero percent‚” Tyler Beard‚ who had been attempting to recharge his Tesla at an Oak Brook Tesla supercharging station since Sunday afternoon‚ told Fox 32. “And this is like three hours being out here after being out here three hours yesterday.” Kevin Sumrak‚ another EV driver living in the Chicago area‚ arrived at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport to discover that his EV had run out of charge while he was away‚ according to Fox 32. “This is crazy. It’s a disaster. Seriously‚” Tesla owner Chalis Mizelle told Fox 32. Mizelle eventually had to abandon her EV and have a friend pick her up after realizing that her car would not charge. Mizelle was not the only driver that opted to abandon their EV at a Chicago-area charging station‚ as abandoned EVs littered charging stations around the Chicago area‚ according to Fox 32. The Chicago region is currently experiencing a prolonged cold spell‚ with temperatures expected to stay well below freezing through Sunday; Tuesday saw temperatures as low as 4 degrees Fahrenheit‚ according to AccuWeather. The experiences of Beard‚ Sumrak‚ Mizelle‚ and other Chicago-area EV owners may come as a surprise to some proponents of EVs that have previously said cold weather is not a major cause for concern in terms of EV performance and charging. On Monday‚ Energy5‚ a green energy company‚ released a blog post focused on “debunking misconceptions about cold weather” as it relates to EVs. In the blog‚ the company laid out its rebuttals to several “myths” about EV performance and cold weather‚ asserting that “cold weather does not prevent EV charging” and that “EVs are equipped with advanced battery management systems designed to mitigate the effects of cold weather.” The suggestion that “EVs don’t work in the cold weather” is akin to a “myth‚” according to a November 2023 blog post published by the Arcadia Center‚ an environmental organization. In January of 2022‚ the Environmental Defense Fund asserted that “EV battery tech is getting better every year especially in cold weather” in a write-up it posted to address a “snowstorm of misinformation” about EVs. The Biden administration is spending vast amounts of taxpayer funds‚ including $7.5 billion to establish a nationwide charging network‚ and aggressively regulating the auto market to advance its goal of having EVs make up 50% of new vehicle sales by 2030. Despite these initiatives‚ the EV market appears to be faltering: Consumer demand is not growing as quickly as expected‚ manufacturers are losing large amounts of money on their EV product lines‚ and executives are starting to back off of near-term EV commitments. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Chicago EV Charging Fiasco Appears to Pierce Proponents’ Claims About Performance in Bitter Cold appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court unceremoniously denied review Tuesday in a case that would have clarified once and for all whether separating bathrooms based on biological sex violates either Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 or the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Now‚ the nation must wait with bated breath for publication of the Department of Education’s final Title IX rule. That Biden administration rule promises to upend decades of sex equality in education by allowing students in a federally funded school to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity‚ rather than their biological sex. In the case Martinsville School District v. A.C.‚ a biological girl who “identified” as a boy sought access to the boys’ restrooms at her middle school. Per the policy of Indiana’s Martinsville school district‚ the girl’s requests were denied; however‚ she was permitted access to a single-use‚ gender-neutral bathroom. Unsatisfied‚ the student filed a lawsuit‚ claiming that the school district’s bathroom policy was discriminatory and a violation of civil rights and constitutional law. Both the federal trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit enjoined the school district’s policy and permitted the student’s bathroom access according to her gender identity. In increasing measure‚ however‚ challenges to educational institutions such as those in the Martinsville case have resulted in widely varied outcomes across the country. The en banc 11th Circuit Court of Appeals‚ for example‚ has held that neither Title IX nor the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause deprives schools of the ability to maintain bathrooms separated by biological sex. But both the 4th and 7th Circuits have held the opposite‚ concluding that both Title IX and the equal protection clause prohibit schools from denying students access to bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. Many court watchers credit one particular Supreme Court decision as the pebble that triggered an avalanche of legal battles over the meaning of “sex” in federal law: the 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County‚ Georgia. In an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch‚ the court in Bostock interpreted the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964‚ which prohibits employment discrimination‚ to include “gender identity.” In excoriating the majority of justices in Bostock for “legislating‚” instead of “interpreting‚” Justice Samuel Alito in a dissenting opinion predicted future challenges like those in the Martinsville case‚ writing: What the Court has done today—interpreting discrimination because of ‘sex’ to encompass discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity—is virtually certain to have far-reaching consequences. Over 100 federal statutes prohibit discrimination because of sex. …  The briefs in these cases have called to our attention the potential effects that the Court’s reasoning may have under some of these laws‚ but the Court waves those considerations aside. As to Title VII itself‚ the Court dismisses questions about ‘bathrooms‚ locker rooms‚ or anything else of the kind.’ … And it declines to say anything about other statutes whose terms mirror Title VII’s. The Court’s brusque refusal to consider the consequences of its reasoning is irresponsible. … Before issuing today’s radical decision‚ the Court should have given some thought to where its decision would lead. As the briefing in these cases has warned‚ the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion‚ freedom of speech‚ and personal privacy and safety.   Martinsville School District v. A.C. seemed to be an ideal vehicle to remedy the Bostock dilemma. In fact‚ the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals‚ in issuing its decision on behalf of the transgender student‚ wrote: “Litigation over transgender rights is occurring all over the country‚ and we assume that at some point the Supreme Court will step in with more guidance than it has furnished so far.” Alas‚ the public—and federal courts—must wait a little longer for that guidance. The Supreme Court appears generally allergic to transgender-related issues‚ having regularly turned down similar disputes. The high court declined to take up a student’s challenge to a Virginia school bathroom policy in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board in 2021. Last year‚ the court declined to intervene to enforce West Virginia’s ban on transgender athletes. And in June‚ it declined to disturb a ruling favoring a transgender-identifying man who claimed he was deprived by the government of his hormone treatment while in jail. But there may still be time for clarification during this Supreme Court term on the parameters of transgender “rights” under state and federal law. Still pending in petitions for review before the high court are four more cases implicating gender identity. One is a challenge to a state court’s removal of a self-identified transgender child from the care of fit Christian parents because of their refusal to accept the minor child’s gender identity. The other two cases ask the court to determine whether parents have a constitutional right to secure experimental “gender- affirming care” (genital surgery‚ cross-sex hormones‚ and puberty blockers) for their minor children in the states of Tennessee and Kentucky. In the final case‚ a group of parents is asking the court to determine whether a public school’s policy is unconstitutional in hiding information about the expressed gender identity of minor school children from their parents. Around the time that the Supreme Court’s term winds down in June‚ the Biden administration will release its much anticipated Title IX rule—expanding long-standing protections for girls and young women in K-12 schools and college institutions to any boy or young man who identifies as a woman. At that point‚ the Supreme Court may have no choice but to finally weigh in. The sooner the better. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Supreme Court Denies Review in Critical Trans Bathroom Case That Could Have Clarified Title IX appeared first on The Daily Signal.