Fla. jury awards $300 million in ex-smoker’s suit

By CHRISTINE ARMARIO (AP)

November 19, 2009

MIAMI — A South Florida jury on Thursday ordered Philip Morris USA to pay $300 million to a former smoker, agreeing that the tobacco company’s negligence was the cause of her emphysema.

The award for Cindy Naugle, 61, is the largest to date among thousands of lawsuits filed in the state against tobacco companies.

"Cindy admitted her fault to the jury," her attorney, Robert W. Kelley, said in a statement. "But Philip Morris refused to accept any responsibility for her emphysema, even though she was an addicted customer for 25 years."

The award amounts to $56 million in compensatory and $244 million in punitive damages against Richmond, Virginia-based Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc. The company said it will seek further review of the verdict by the Broward County jury…

The case is one of 8,000 lawsuits filed against tobacco companies by Florida smokers and their families.

Attorneys for Naugle, the sister of a former Fort Lauderdale mayor, said it’s the largest Florida tobacco verdict to date.

"The jury saw her condition," Todd Falzone, who also represented Naugle, said in a statement. "We think that they felt it. She needed to rest for five minutes to catch her breath after making the 7 step walk to the witness stand."

Naugle started smoking in 1968 when she was 20 because she thought they [sic] "made her look older." After several attempts to quit, she stopped smoking in 1993 with the aid of a nicotine patch.

She requires 24-hour oxygen and must travel in a wheelchair because walking leaves her exhausted, her attorneys said.

Falzone said Naugle spends every minute "as if she were drowning."

The smokers’ lawsuits have been working their way through Florida courts since the state Supreme Court in 2006 voided a $145 billion class-action jury award against tobacco companies. The court said each smoker’s case had to be decided individually, but let stand that jury’s findings that tobacco companies knowingly sold dangerous products and hid risks from the public.

"Large verdicts encourage other large verdicts," said Richard A. Daynard, professor of law at Northeastern University and chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project. "I think Philip Morris has finally met its match in Florida. This gives jurors permission to fully compensate plaintiffs for all the harm they suffered and to express their moral outrage at the industry’s behavior."

The original Florida lawsuit was filed in 1994 by a Miami Beach pediatrician, Dr. Howard Engle, who had smoked for decades and couldn’t quit. The class of smokers was estimated at up to 700,000 when the giant $145 billion award was issued in 2000.

So it turns out what causes emphysema is “negligence” from tobacco companies?

You learn something new every day.

Still, it’s yet another glittering milestone in the brilliant intellectual history of the denizens of Palm Beach.

"The jury saw her condition," Todd Falzone, who also represented Naugle, said in a statement. "We think that they felt it. She needed to rest for five minutes to catch her breath after making the 7 step walk to the witness stand."

Well, as long as they “felt it,” why not award this poor victim all of the extorted allotted $145 billion dollars?

After all, who can place a value on human suffering?

Naugle started smoking in 1968 when she was 20 because she thought they [sic] "made her look older."

Shouldn’t Ms. Naugle sue the movie industry and television, as well?

Falzone said Naugle spends every minute "as if she were drowning."

Just imagine the juicy jury award awaiting Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Report: 20-somethings can go 2 years between Paps

By Lauran Neergaard, AP Medical Writer

November 20, 2009

WASHINGTON – First mammograms. Now — in an apparent coincidence — Pap smears.

New guidelines by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say most women in their 20s can have a Pap smear every two years instead of annually to catch slow-growing cervical cancer.

The change comes amid a separate debate over when regular mammograms to detect breast cancer should begin. The timing of the Pap guidelines is coincidence, said ACOG, which began reviewing its recommendations in late 2007 and published the update Friday in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The guidelines also say:

- Routine Paps should start at age 21. Previously, ACOG had urged a first Pap either within three years of first sexual intercourse or at age 21.

- Women 30 and older should wait three years between Paps once they’ve had three consecutive clear tests. Other national guidelines have long recommended the three-year interval; ACOG had previously backed a two- to three-year wait…

Paps can spot pre-cancerous changes in the cervix in time to prevent invasive cancer, and widespread use has halved cervical cancer rates in the U.S. in recent decades. About 11,270 new cases will be diagnosed this year, and about 4,070 women will die from it, according to American Cancer Society estimates.

Half of women diagnosed with cervical cancer have never had a Pap, and another 10 percent haven’t had one in five years…

First they came for the mammograms, but because I didn’t need a mammogram…

Well, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says, this is undoubtedly just a coincidence.

There couldn’t possibly be a concerted effort on the part of the federal government to cut some corners to save some healthcare dollars. They would never do that.

Still, won’t an erosion of trust in our public health officials be another consequence of nationalizing the US healthcare system?

Once the government has an incentive to cut costs, who is going to believe their pronouncements on things like mammograms and pap smears?

The public health officials will lose all of their authority. How can we be sure they’re telling us what is best, and not just what is most cost effective?

By the way, didn’t Mr. Obama’s mother, Stanley, die from cervical/uterine cancer? Albeit at age 52.

Dems fight over funds left from bailout

Victoria Mcgrane Fri Nov 20

Congressional Democrats could be careening toward a head-on collision with the White House over $200 billion in leftover bailout money — money that Republicans think should simply be returned to taxpayers.

The Treasury Department is pushing for fiscal prudence and wants to use the money to pay down the deficit and keep a small rainy-day fund in case of economic catastrophe.

But Democrats are salivating over the possibility of $200 billion in unspent money.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut wants dough to fund job-creation legislation. Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants to direct $2 billion of repaid Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to loans for unemployed homeowners so they can avoid foreclosure. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California admits that “there’s a good bit of interest” in spreading the money around to various economic projects.

And Senate Democrats want to put a big chunk — say, $40 billion — toward loans to small businesses.

Republicans, who regret ever voting for the $700 billion bailout in the first place, are moving in for the kill, convinced that a deficit-weary nation would thank them for pulling the plug on the great bank bailout of 2008.

“We don’t need it anymore, and the American people never liked it. Let’s just do away with it,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during a hearing Thursday.

The White House realizes its goals clash with Democrats in Congress.

“As people on the Hill realize that there was money allocated and not spent, it becomes attractive. We need to find ways to make that less attractive,” said a senior administration official.

News reports in recent weeks and sources close to Treasury indicate that Geithner and his team are leaning toward extending the bailout fund beyond its Dec. 31 expiration date while putting some of the funds toward the deficit. But administration officials pushed back against those reports Thursday, stressing that no decisions have been made and that an announcement on the issue is far from imminent…

Gee, we didn’t see this coming.

When have Democrats ever allowed any excess money to be ‘returned to the US taxpayers.’ (Hint: never.)

And, of course, after a pretense of strenuously objecting Mr. Obama will let Frank and Pelosi have their way.

In fact, we are probably already seeing that this is in the works:

News reports in recent weeks and sources close to Treasury indicate that Geithner and his team are leaning toward extending the bailout fund beyond its Dec. 31 expiration date while putting some of the funds toward the deficit. But administration officials pushed back against those reports Thursday, stressing that no decisions have been made and that an announcement on the issue is far from imminent.

Note how suddenly it is just “putting some of the money towards the deficit.” And, worse still, they are stressing that no decision has been made. Nor will it be made anytime soon.

Now that Mr. Obama is back from China, he no longer has to pretend to be serious about lowering the deficit.

AP IMPACT: Some lawmakers send few to academies

By Brian Witte, Associated Press Writer

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – As the nation’s military academies try to recruit more minorities, they aren’t getting much help from members of Congress from big-city districts with large numbers of blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

From New York to Chicago to Los Angeles, lawmakers from heavily minority areas rank at or near the bottom in the number of students they have nominated for appointment to West Point, the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Air Force Academy, according to an Associated Press review of records from the past five years.

High school students applying to the academies must be nominated by a member of Congress or another high-ranking federal official. Congressional nominations account for about 75 percent of all students at the academies.

Academy records obtained by the AP through the Freedom of Information Act show that lawmakers in roughly half of the 435 House districts nominated more than 100 students each during the five-year period.

But Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York City, chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, nominated only four students, the lowest among House members who served the entire five-year period. Rep. Charles Rangel, whose New York City district includes Harlem, was second-lowest, with eight nominations. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose San Francisco district is 29 percent Asian, was also near the bottom, with 19.

In fact, the bottom 20 House members were all from districts where whites make up less than a majority.

"It’s beyond my imagination how someone that has the ability to nominate doesn’t do it," Craig Duchossois said last December at his final meeting as chairman of the Naval Academy’s Board of Visitors.

He noted what an academy appointment means: a free four-year education and a guaranteed job as an officer for at least five years after graduation.

Velazquez, Rangel and Pelosi would not comment or did not return calls.

Academy leaders and some on Capitol Hill do not put all the blame on the politicians, pointing out that some districts might have a shortage of qualified candidates, either because students have not gotten the necessary academic preparation from their struggling schools, they are unaware of the opportunity, or they are uninterested.

But while the burden is ultimately on students to apply, academy leaders and others said elected officials should be doing more to publicize the opportunity by doing such things as visiting schools.

The academies have approached dozens of members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss attracting more minority students.

Also, the military recently put together a how-to booklet on minority recruiting and sent it to all congressional offices, said Charles Garcia, chairman of the Air Force Academy’s board of visitors.

In addition, the Air Force Academy has begun flying in congressional staff members from districts with few minority nominations for lessons on recruiting, Garcia said…

Rangel, Velazquez and most of the rest of the lawmakers who have made the fewest nominations have been among the loudest critics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether that is a factor in their low number of nominations is unclear…

It’s not "unclear" to us.

Of course there could be several other factors involved in this, but that “most of the rest of the lawmakers who have made the fewest nominations have been among the loudest critics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” would seem to indicate that their radical anti-military sentiments are quite a large factor.

Indeed, that would seem to be the most obvious explantion here. But instead the AP is claiming that minorities are still not getting an equal opportunity to attend the service academies because of bad schools and social injustice in general.

It can’t simply be that radical leftwing Congressmen don’t want to send young men and women to ’study war.’

After all, we know exactly what Mr. Rangel thinks about the military: It’s only for people who are too stupid to have any other options.

As we noted back on November 27, 2006, Mr. Rangel was quoted by the Washington Times as saying:

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq."

Besides, Mr. Rangel doesn’t want volunteers going into the armed forces. He still wants to bring back the draft.

And maybe we are growing cynical, but we can’t help but wonder about the AP’s sudden interest in ‘diversity’ in our military academies.

[The chairman of the Naval Academy's Board of Visitors] noted what an academy appointment means: a free four-year education and a guaranteed job as an officer for at least five years after graduation.

Wasn’t that more or less what Major Hasan received?

(Granted he was not educated at a military academy. But he got far more than a free undergraduate degree.)

We suspect the AP trotted out these academy records to remind us how important ‘diversity’ is to ‘our strength.’

(Thanks to Franco for the heads up.)

Military experiment seeks to predict PTSD

By Alicia Chang, AP Science Writer

November 20, 2009

TWENTYNINE PALMS, Calif. – Two days before shipping off to war, Marine Pfc. Jesse Sheets sat inside a trailer in the Mojave Desert, his gaze fixed on a computer that flashed a rhythmic pulse of contrasting images.

Smiling kids embracing a soldier. A dog sniffing blood oozing from a corpse. Movie star Cameron Diaz posing sideways in a midriff top. Troops cowering for safety during an ambush.

A doctor tracked his stress levels and counted the number of times he blinked. Electrode wires dangled from his left eye and right pinky finger.

Sheets is part of a military experiment to try to predict who’s most at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder. Understanding underlying triggers might help reduce the burden of those who return psychologically wounded — if they can get early help.

PTSD is a crippling condition that can emerge after a terrifying event — car accident, sexual assault, terrorist attack or combat. It’s thought to affect as many as one in five veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Military doctors have been mystified as to why certain warfighters exposed to bombings and bloodshed develop paralyzing stress symptoms while others who witness the same trauma shake it off.

Studies on veterans and civilians point to some clues. Childhood abuse, history of mental illness and severity of trauma seem to raise a person’s risk. Having a social net and a coping strategy appear to offer some protection.

However, none of the factors explored so far are reliable predictors.

"Right now, we can’t determine with certainty who will and who won’t develop PTSD," said Paula Schnurr, deputy executive director of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. "Perhaps with better measures, we can get closer."

Earlier this year, a quarterly publication from the national PTSD center found that studies to date have looked at only "a narrow band of the potential risk and resilience predictors" and that more work beyond surveys was needed.

New PTSD studies are using technology to try to get at the answer. Select Marine and Army units are undergoing a battery of physical and mental tests before deployment including genetic testing, brain imaging and stress exams. They are followed in war zones and upon return.

There’s an urgency to detect early signs. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, more than 1.8 million U.S. troops have fought in Afghanistan or Iraq. The Obama administration is weighing whether to increase forces in Afghanistan where violence has escalated in recent months…

Cmdr. Bryan Schumacher, the 1st Marine Division’s top doctor, said the purpose of studying PTSD triggers is not to bar someone from service. If it turns out that something can be done to prevent it, those vulnerable could get special training to reduce their risk, he said.

Similar research is ongoing 1,300 miles away at the University of Texas at Austin where scientists have collected detailed health data from 178 soldiers from nearby Fort Hood who recently came back from Iraq. The base was the scene of a massacre on Nov. 5 when an Army psychiatrist opened fire, killing 13 people and wounding dozens more.

The shooting has not affected the research, which enrolled first-time deployed soldiers. Unlike the Marines, the soldiers filled out monthly questionnaires online while in combat that tracked their experiences such as whether they saw a roadside bomb go off or knew of a wounded buddy.

Before deployment, soldiers submitted a DNA sample, had an MRI scan of their brain and inhaled carbon dioxide as part of a stress reaction test.

Early results suggest soldiers who reacted more strongly to the CO2 test and who were exposed to more stress in the field showed greater PTSD symptoms, said chief researcher Michael Telch, of UT Austin’s Laboratory for the Study of Anxiety Disorders…

Navy corpsman Benjamin Reinhardt was recently trained to look for signs of PTSD in 20 Marines attached to a mortar platoon. He likened his job to a school nurse. Marines confide in him about their innermost struggles. He thinks he can spot when someone is not himself.

"I tend to be reasonably observant with people’s personalities. I can see changes," said the 21-year-old from upstate New York.

He added: "I hope none of us become PTSD casualties." …

Let’s say we question the AP’s sudden interest in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

We suspect that this article is intended to reinforce the media’s preferred explanation for Mr. Hasan’s murder spree.

PTSD is a crippling condition that can emerge after a terrifying event — car accident, sexual assault, terrorist attack or combat.

Since Major Hasan never experienced any of these things first hand, our media must find ways to expand the list of causes.

Never mind that the more we learn about Mr. Hasan, the more it becomes clear it was simply a pre-planned act of Islamic terrorism.

Something that now takes place somewhere just about every day of the year.

Lawmakers Call Ft. Hood Shootings ‘Terrorism’

By DAVID JOHNSTON

November 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee on Thursday opened the first public hearings into the Fort Hood shootings, with several legislators asserting that the incident in which 13 people were killed was a terrorist attack by a homegrown extremist who may have slipped past law enforcement and military authorities.

Hours later at a Pentagon news conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced that former Army Secretary Togo West and a former chief of naval operations, Vernon Clark, would lead a broad Pentagon review of the circumstances surrounding the shootings in which 13 people were killed and 43 were injured.

Mr. Gates said the 45-day review would look into how the military identifies service members who might be a threat to others and how well military bases are equipped to respond to such incidents.

At the Congressional hearings, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who is chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said that the Nov. 5 shootings allegedly carried out by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was a “homegrown terrorist attack” and that law enforcement and military agencies may have failed to act appropriately.

“The purpose of our investigation is to determine whether that attack could have been prevented, whether the federal agencies and employees involved missed signals or failed to connect the dots in a way that enabled Hasan to carry out his deadly plan,” Mr. Lieberman said. “If we find such negligence we will make recommendations to guarantee, as best we can, that they never occur again.”

But Mr. Lieberman’s hearing made only limited headway because the Obama administration has refused his requests for witnesses from the F.B.I. and Defense Department. Mr. Lieberman said he had spoken with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Mr. Gates, who told him they would cooperate with his inquiry, but did not want to compromise the criminal investigation.

As a result, Mr. Lieberman proceeded with several non-government experts and former officials, including Frances Fragos Townsend, formerly the homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush. She expressed concern that “political correctness,” and fear of intruding on Major Hasan’s free speech rights, may have interfered with the sharing of information earlier this year, when an F.B.I.-led counterterrorism team examined his e-mail exchanges with Anwar al-Awlaki, a well-known radical cleric, but found nothing amiss…

Clearly the New York Times is offended at Mr. Lieberman and other lawmakers calling Major Hasan "a home grown" terrorist. Indeed, they are probably far more outraged at such language than they are at Mr. Hasan’s rampage.

But Mr. Lieberman’s hearing made only limited headway because the Obama administration has refused his requests for witnesses from the F.B.I. and Defense Department.

We realize it’s tiresome to constantly make Bush versus Obama comparisons.

But just imagine what this article’s headline and lede (lead) would have been if this had happened with President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales in charge.

Subpoenas would be issued by the usual suspects in Congress. And our media watchdogs and the rest of the left would be having massive, round the clock conniptions.

200 Web sites spread al-Qaida’s message in English

By Donna Abu-nasr And Lee Keath, Associated Press Writers Fri Nov 20

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Increasing numbers of English-language Web sites are spreading al-Qaida’s message to Muslims in the West. They translate writings and sermons once largely out of reach of English readers and often feature charismatic clerics like Anwar al-Awlaki, who exchanged dozens of e-mails with the Army psychiatrist accused of the Fort Hood shootings…

"If you look at the most influential documents in terms of homegrown terrorism cases, it’s not training manuals on building bombs," Kohlmann said. "The most influential documents are the ones that are written by theological advisers, some of whom are not even official al-Qaida members."

Most of the radical Islamic sites are not run or directed by al-Qaida, but they provide a powerful tool for recruiting sympathizers to its cause of jihad, or holy war, against the United States, experts who track the activity said.

The number of English-language sites sympathetic to al-Qaida has risen from about 30 seven years ago to more than 200 recently, said Abdulmanam Almushawah, head of a Saudi government program called Assakeena, which works to combat militant Islamic Web sites.

In contrast, Arabic-language radical sites have dropped to around 50, down from 1,000 seven years ago, because of efforts by governments around the world to shut them down, he said.

Al-Qaida has long tried to reach a Western audience. Videotaped messages from its leader, Osama bin Laden, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri usually have English subtitles. But translations of writings and sermons that form the theological grounding for al-Qaida’s ideology, along with preachers like al-Awlaki, mostly eliminate the language barrier…

Members of a group of Canadian Muslims arrested in 2006 for allegedly forming a training camp and plotting bombing attacks in Toronto listened to his online calls for jihad, according to the case against them in court. According to prosecutors, an al-Awlaki sermon on jihad was among the numerous materials — including videos of beheadings — found on the computers of five men convicted in December of plotting attacks on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey…

U.S. intelligence officials declined comment on the spread of English-language jihadist Web sites.

Such sites are expected to follow closely the upcoming trials of Hasan and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is accused of being a top architect of the 9/11 attacks, said Rita Katz, head of the U.S. based SITE Intelligence Group, which follows on line militant traffic…

Many of the sites post speeches by English-speaking clerics like al-Awlaki or, more often, translations of sermons and lectures by Arabic-speaking clerics…

While al-Awlaki has become popular, "other, more prominent and influential Arabic-speaking jihadist sheikhs … have had their works and speeches translated into English and other languages. Their works tend to be used more often by the jihadist community to justify violence," she said in an e-mail interview. Al-Awlaki "fills a void in that he can directly interact, understand and communicate with English-speaking jihadists in a way that Arabic-speaking clerics cannot."

Almushawah says most of the servers for the sites are in Britain, but they can be run from anywhere and most of them are operated and receive content from the U.S. Most of the clerics who appear on them are in the Arab world with some in France and England…

Saudi Arabia set up its Assakeena program after authorities found that 70 percent of al-Qaida sympathizers were drawn to the group through the Internet. In the campaign, government-backed preachers monitor 400 radical Islamic web sites and inject a more moderate message on the sites.

The campaigners also directly contact and dialogue with militants they encounter on the Web, conversations that can take weeks or months. Of 2,631 militants contacted by the group, 1,170 withdrew their support for radicals, according to the campaign. About a fifth of the militants were from Europe and North American, and the rest from Arab countries.

Assakeena — the name is Arabic for "Tranquility from God" — is part of other hearts-and-minds programs the kingdom launched to complement its crackdown on al-Qaida after the group carried out a series of attacks on foreigners and oil infrastructure in 2004.

Of course this is yet another effort on the part of our media masters to try to explain how Mr. Hasan was led astray by some radical Muslim extremists who do not preach the true Muslim faith.

Meanwhile, you can bet that this survey of 200 sites does not include those purportedly respectable mainstream domains like Ask The Imam or Islam Question And Answer, which have for many years now done their part to spread the message of the ‘Religion Of Peace.’

Such as this delightful little fatwa from those holy men at Islam Question and Answer, which we posted back in December 2007:

(Click to enlarge)

Is it better to do a voluntary Hajj or to donate to the mujaahideen who are fighting for the sake of Allaah?

Question:

I have done the obligatory Hajj, praise be to Allaah, and I have done ‘umrah. Is it better for me to travel for ‘umrah, or to give this money in charity to the mujaahideen who are fighting for the sake of Allaah?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Both travelling for ‘umrah and spending for the sake of Allaah are good deeds, but the benefit of ‘umrah is limited to the one who does it, whereas the benefit of spending on jihad is more far-reaching, so spending on that is more appropriate and takes precedence. 

And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. End quote. 

Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas 

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan.

Remember, to go on a Hajj is supposed to be the single most religious obligation for a Muslim.

And yet the Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas declare that giving money to Islamic jihadists is an even more sacred duty.

But they aren’t promoting terrorism.

Not at all.

Fla. jury awards $300 million in ex-smoker’s suit

By CHRISTINE ARMARIO (AP)

MIAMI — A South Florida jury on Thursday ordered Philip Morris USA to pay $300 million to a former smoker, agreeing that the tobacco company’s negligence was the cause of her emphysema.

The award for Cindy Naugle, 61, is the largest to date among thousands of lawsuits filed in the state against tobacco companies.

"Cindy admitted her fault to the jury," her attorney, Robert W. Kelley, said in a statement. "But Philip Morris refused to accept any responsibility for her emphysema, even though she was an addicted customer for 25 years."

The award amounts to $56 million in compensatory and $244 million in punitive damages against Richmond, Virginia-based Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc. The company said it will seek further review of the verdict by the Broward County jury…

The case is one of 8,000 lawsuits filed against tobacco companies by Florida smokers and their families.

Attorneys for Naugle, the sister of a former Fort Lauderdale mayor, said it’s the largest Florida tobacco verdict to date.

"The jury saw her condition," Todd Falzone, who also represented Naugle, said in a statement. "We think that they felt it. She needed to rest for five minutes to catch her breath after making the 7 step walk to the witness stand."

Naugle started smoking in 1968 when she was 20 because she thought they [sic] "made her look older." After several attempts to quit, she stopped smoking in 1993 with the aid of a nicotine patch.

She requires 24-hour oxygen and must travel in a wheelchair because walking leaves her exhausted, her attorneys said.

Falzone said Naugle spends every minute "as if she were drowning."

The smokers’ lawsuits have been working their way through Florida courts since the state Supreme Court in 2006 voided a $145 billion class-action jury award against tobacco companies. The court said each smoker’s case had to be decided individually, but let stand that jury’s findings that tobacco companies knowingly sold dangerous products and hid risks from the public.

"Large verdicts encourage other large verdicts," said Richard A. Daynard, professor of law at Northeastern University and chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project. "I think Philip Morris has finally met its match in Florida. This gives jurors permission to fully compensate plaintiffs for all the harm they suffered and to express their moral outrage at the industry’s behavior."

The original Florida lawsuit was filed in 1994 by a Miami Beach pediatrician, Dr. Howard Engle, who had smoked for decades and couldn’t quit. The class of smokers was estimated at up to 700,000 when the giant $145 billion award was issued in 2000.

So it turns out emphysema is caused by the “negligence” of tobacco companies?

You learn something new every day.

Still, it’s yet another glittering milestone in the brilliant intellectual history of the denizens of Palm Beach.

"The jury saw her condition," Todd Falzone, who also represented Naugle, said in a statement. "We think that they felt it. She needed to rest for five minutes to catch her breath after making the 7 step walk to the witness stand."

Well, as long as they “felt it,” why not award this poor victim all of the extorted allotted $145 billion dollars?

After all, who can place a value on human suffering?

Naugle started smoking in 1968 when she was 20 because she thought they [sic] "made her look older."

Shouldn’t Ms. Naugle sue the movie industry and television, as well?

Falzone said Naugle spends every minute "as if she were drowning."

Just imagine the juicy jury award awaiting Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Subscribe

Please forward widely to friends and on social-networking sites   Free Lynne Stewart!         Lynne Stewart speaking at a mass protest against the Iraq war. To send Lynne a letter, write: Lynne Stewart 53504-054 MCC-NY 150 Park Row New York, NY NY 10007 Lynne Stewart was sent to prison today. People throughout the United States and around the world recognize this as a great miscarriage of justice. Her indictment was an outrage. So too was her conviction. The fact that this seventy year old veteran civil rights attorney has been sent to prison is a crime itself. She is serving a 28 month sentence although the Court of Appeals has remanded her case back to the original trial court with the hope that her sentence will be lengthened. The Bush Justice Department had sought a 30 year sentence. "Lynne Stewart should be set free," stated Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition. "Her conviction is part of an-going war against civil rights and particularly against the Arab-American and Muslim community. With her jailing the government is sending a definite and chilling message to all the attorneys in this country – ‘do not represent Arab people and or Muslims.’ In recent weeks the government has seized mosques in the United States at the same time as they have implanted agent provocateurs and set up sting operations and carried out FBI assassinations targeting the American Muslim community and its leaders." The irony and hypocrisy of Lynne Stewart’s imprisonment can’t be overlooked. This admired civil rights attorney who is struggling with cancer is sent to prison while the Bush attorneys who authorized and instructed the most sadistic torture occupy comfortable positions as law professors and serve as judges on the federal bench. It is they who should be disbarred, prosecuted and sent to prison. The ANSWER Coalition is planning major actions protesting the Afghanistan and Iraq war on Saturday March 20. We will also be demanding an end to the persecution and repression of the Arab and Muslim communities. Lynne Stewart has marched with us and spoken at these major protests in past years. In spite of the threat of prison hanging over her, Lynne Stewart always marched in defense others especially the Iraqi, Afghan and Palestinian people. On this March 20, 2010 people marching together will now also demand Free Lynne Stewart! Lynne Stewart in her own words  The following is excerpted from an interview that Lynne Stewart did with Pacifica’s Democracy Now just prior to her imprisonment. She explains key features of her case. LYNNE STEWART: I represented Sheikh Omar at trial—that was in 1995—along with Ramsey Clark and Abdeen Jabara. I was lead trial counsel. He was convicted in September of ‘95, sentenced to a life prison plus a hundred years, or some sort—one of the usual outlandish sentences. We continued, all three of us, to visit him while he was in jail—he was a political client; that means that he is targeted by the government—and because it is so important to prisoners to be able to have access to their lawyers. Sometime in 1998, I think maybe it was, they imposed severe restrictions on him. That is, his ability to communicate with the outside world, to have interviews, to be able to even call his family, was limited by something called special administrative measures. The lawyers were asked to sign on for these special administrative measures and warned that if these measures were not adhered to, they could indeed lose contact with their client—in other words, be removed from his case. In 2000, I visited the sheikh, and he asked me to make a press release. This press release had to do with the current status of an organization that at that point was basically defunct, the Gama’a al-Islamiyya. And I agreed to do that. In May of—maybe it was later than that. Sometime in 2000, I made the press release. Interestingly enough, we found out later that the Clinton administration, under Janet Reno, had the option to prosecute me, and they declined to do so, based on the notion that without lawyers like me or the late Bill Kunstler or many that I could name, the cause of justice is not well served. They need the gadflies. So, at any rate, they made me sign onto the agreement again not to do this. They did not stop me from representing him. I continued to represent him. And it was only after 9/11, in April of 2002, that John Ashcroft came to New York, announced the indictment of me, my paralegal and the interpreter for the case, on grounds of materially aiding a terrorist organization. One of the footnotes to the case, of course, is that Ashcroft also appeared on nationwide television with Letterman that night ballyhooing the great work of Bush’s Justice Department in indicting and making the world safe from terrorism. The course of the case followed. We tried the case in 2005 to a jury, of course sitting not ten blocks from the World Trade Center, and an anonymous jury, I might add, which I think went a long way to contribute to our convictions. And all three of us were convicted. Since that time, the appeals process has followed. The appeal was argued almost two years ago, and the opinion just came like a—actually like a thunderclap yesterday. And to just put it in perspective, I think, it comes hard on the heels of Holder’s announcement that they are bringing the men from Guantanamo to New York to be tried.

---

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
http://www.answercoalition.org/
info@internationalanswer.org
National Office in Washington DC: 202-265-1948
New York City: 212-694-8720
Los Angeles: 213-251-1025
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
Chicago: 773-463-0311

Click here to unsubscribe from the ANSWER e-mail list.
If this message was forwared to you and you’d like to receive future ANSWER updates,
Click here to subscribe.

Of course it is the usual claptrap from the communists at ANSWER, especially when one of their own is finally imprisoned.

But isn’t it odd to hear that Mr. Clinton “had the option” to prosecute this traitor, but chose not too.

On second thought, maybe it isn’t so odd after all.

Doug Hoffman, Conservative Party congressional candidate in New York’s 23rd district, leaves the voting booth at the town hall in Lake Placid, N.Y. on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2009.

VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23

GOUVERNEUR, NY – The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus – tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines.

Cathleen Rogers, the Democratic Elections Commissioner in Hamilton County stated that they discovered a problem with their voting machines the week prior to the election and that the "virus" was fixed by a Technical Support representative from Dominion, the manufacturer.  The Dominion/Sequoia Voting Systems representative "reprogrammed" their machines in time for them to use in the Nov. 3rd Special Election. None of the machines (from the same manufacturer) used in the other counties within the 23rd district were looked at nor were they recertified after the "reprogramming" that occurred in Hamilton County.

Republican Commissioner Judith Peck refused to speculate on whether the code that governs the counts could have been tampered with.  She indicated that "as far as I know, the machine in question was not functioning properly and was repaired" by the technician.

Commissioners in other counties have stated that they were not made aware of the virus issue in Hamilton County.  In Jefferson County, inspectors from four districts claim that "human error" resulted in their "mistakenly" entering 0 votes for Hoffman in several districts, resulting in Owens leading Jefferson County on election night though the recanvas of the computer counts now show that Hoffman is leading.  Jefferson County has not conducted a manual paper ballot recount.

In St. Lawrence County, machines in Louisville, Waddington, Claire, and Rossie "broke" early in the voting process on election day.  Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept "freezing up… like Windows does all the time," and that they experienced several paper jams as well.  The voted ballots that could not be scanned were placed in an Emergency Lock Box and re-scanned later at the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections.  Election officials in St. Lawrence County were given no advance knowledge of a potential virus in the system.

At least one County official thus far has raised concern that it’s possible that ALL of the machines used in the NY-23 election had the ‘virus’ but only a few malfunctioned as a result.  The counts from any district that used the ImageCast machines are suspect due to "the virus" discovered in Hamilton County, last-minute "reprogramming" by Dominion workers, and security flaws in the systems themselves.  A manual paper-ballot recount of the vote could resolve computer vote accuracy questions.

Frank Hoar, an attorney for the Democratic Party, initially ordered the impound of malfunctioning machines but released the order on Nov. 5th so that Bill Owens could be sworn in to Congress in time to vote on the House Health bill on November 7th.  Pahler said that once the impound order was released they opened the locked ballot box and had the ballots scanned.  Pahler also stated that after they were able to get data from the malfunctioning machines, they did a hand-count of the ballots as well to ensure that the counts matched.  Even though not required to, both commissioners in St. Lawrence County agreed that the manual count was necessary due to the malfunctions

The machines themselves are languishing at the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections until after the election results have been certified to the state on November 28th, 2009.  Pahler indicated that they have not yet been able to examine the machines to determine why they malfunctioned.   A qualified technician would be able to verify the presence of a virus in the computers, but, other than the infected machines, no security precautions were taken to ensure chain of custody on the remaining computerized voting machines utilized in the 23rd district.

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative candidate in this election says that he was forced to concede after having been given erroneous election results on Nov. 3rd, in particular from Oswego County.  Oswego County’s election night results were off by over 1,000 votes. Hoffman claims that the "chaos" on which Oswego County chairs blame the errors and "inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results… sounds like a tactic right from the ACORN playbook."

Some County Election officials are stating that the errors, referred to by Hoffman, are standard election-night chaos and not the result of conspiracy or tampering. Whether the erroneous results are computer error, or tampering, significant doubt now exists with regard to the accuracy of the vote counts from November 3rd.

Hoffman is raising funds for a possible legal challenge to the results and requesting that the Boards of Election hand-count every vote.  On Tuesday, he "unconceded" the race.  In light of the current concerns over the accuracy of the machine-counted votes, Hoffman may now have a legitimate reason to contest the election results.

Of further note, the models of ImageCast machines used in the districts have a slot through which the paper ballot is deposited into a secure holding tank underneath the machine after the ballot is scanned by the machine.  The problem is that the slot is readily accessible to the voter (or poll worker) to stuff manually.  10 voted ballots could be deposited in the slot for every one voter… and if the electronic count was compromised, the "paper backup" would be useless.

The ImageCast machines have one more significant and scary flaw: USB ports.  USB ports allow various devices to be attached to a computer in order to input information, connect a device, add wireless network capability and so on.  Wireless network devices and USB storage devices can (and are) made small enough to fit into a regular wristwatch or bracelet.

Through either type of device, software hacks or remote control of the voting machine could be implemented or a virus introduced.  Since standard count audits are only done on 3% of the machines unless there is a malfunction, a functional hack or software change could adjust election counts with the County or State Boards of Election none the wiser.

The paper ballots have not been counted by the County Boards of Elections except in the 4 districts where the known computer malfunctions occurred.  The remaining districts performed a mandatory 3% spot check of the computer results but have not manually counted the remainder of the paper ballots and do not intend to.

The paper ballots themselves are another issue of concern to many voters.  Unlike the traditional pull-lever voting machine that tallies its votes mechanically, the ballots used by the scanning system exist as a voted ballot after the fact.  New York State law currently has no provision for those ballots to remain in public view to assure voters that they have not been tampered with.

Privacy concerns exist in many districts as well.  State guidelines say that the voter is supposed to be issued a privacy sleeve to cover the ballot so that no one may see the voted ballot and thus how a voter voted.  The state also suggests a large booth that allows the voter to fill out the ballot in privacy but many voters complained that the district they voted in offered no privacy sleeve and that the area they were supposed to complete the ballot in was not private.

Erik Dunk, a Jefferson County resident, voted in Henderson, NY.  He said that the process was very nervewracking and that his voted ballot was not only in plain view after he completed it but that the workers took the ballot from him and fed it into the ImageCast machine themselves – removing what little privacy remained in the voting process and casting even more doubt on the security of the process.

Despite continued assurances from the manufacturer that the system is unhackable, reliable, easy to use, private, and secure; a stream of lawsuits, allegations of voter fraud, and machine failures against Sequoia from other congressional districts continue to contradict their statements.

The manufacturer of the machines, Dominion/Sequoia Voting Systems is the same company that Dan Rather accused of causing over 50,000 votes to go uncounted in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida due to intentional oversight.  Rather’s report claimed that Sequoia was well aware of the issues but proceeded into the election utilizing an inferior product and told election workers and technicians to "ignore the problems.

New York election officials are in a corner.  While there is significant evidence of malfunction with the new voting machines that were in use in the 23rd District and the accuracy of the recorded votes, the State had no choice but to use them.  A Federal Court order demanded that New York have the machines in place and use them or be found in violation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 which requires that all polling locations have handicapped-accessible voting machines with a variety of options available so that anyone may use the machine to vote.

You would think that this virus, in addition to some of the other irregularities noted – such as Mr. Hoffman getting zero votes in a couple precincts – should guarantee some sort of re-count.

Or do only losing Democrats get re-counts?

Sen. Reid’s Government-Run Health Plan Requires a Monthly Abortion Fee

Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 19th, 2009

Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan.

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan.  Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan.  It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.”  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

Leader Reid’s 2,074-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  The National Right to Life Committee has called the Reid abortion language “completely unacceptable.” The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.  The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats.  The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange.  The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree.  House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

Gee, we didn’t see this coming. (Actually, this is even more outrageous than we imagined it would be.)

Obviously, unlike what Mr. Obama claims, the question of abortion isn’t above the pay grade for Kathleen Sebelius.

John Edwards

AP Poll: Support for curbs on malpractice lawsuits

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and TREVOR TOMPSON (AP)

November 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — Most Americans want Congress to deal with malpractice lawsuits driving up the cost of medical care, says an Associated Press poll.

Yet Democrats are reluctant to press forward on an issue that would upset a valuable political constituency — trial lawyers — even if President Barack Obama says he’s open to changes.

The AP poll found that 54 percent of Americans favor making it harder to sue doctors and hospitals for mistakes taking care of patients, while 32 percent are opposed. The rest are undecided or don’t know.

Support for limits on malpractice lawsuits cuts across political lines, with 58 percent of independents and 61 percent of Republicans in favor. Democrats are more divided. Still, 47 percent said they favor making it harder to sue, while 37 percent are opposed.

The survey was conducted by Stanford University with the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Limits on jury awards in malpractice cases could reduce the federal deficit by $54 billion over 10 years, says the Congressional Budget Office, because doctors caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients would order up fewer tests to guard against being sued…

In the poll, 59 percent said they thought at least half the tests doctors order are unnecessary, ordered only because of fear of lawsuits.

The issue pits two of the most powerful lobbies in Washington against each other: doctors and trial lawyers.

Doctors complain that fear of frivolous lawsuits prompts them to practice defensive medicine, running up costs. They say malpractice insurance premiums are so high in parts of the country that some doctors avoid certain areas, even relocate.

Lawyers argue that limits on lawsuits infringe on the constitutional right of each citizen to have his or her day in court. And they point out that 44,000 to 98,000 people die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors — from misdiagnosis to getting the wrong medication — a glaring problem for a country that prides itself on the world’s most advanced medical care.

The poll suggests that patients see medical errors as fairly common. Twelve percent of those who’d been in the hospital in the past five years — and 10 percent of those who’d been to the doctor in that time period — said they thought there had been a mistake in their treatment. People were more forgiving of errors in the doctor’s office than in hospitals…

Some trial lawyers took issue with the AP survey, saying the poll question did not fully address the harm patients suffer from medical malpractice.

"If (people) knew about the frequency of medical errors, we believe they would have answered this question very differently," said Linda Lipsen, a top lobbyist for the American Association for Justice, which represents lawyers.

The poll was based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,502 adults from Oct. 29 to Nov. 8. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The interviews were conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Stanford University’s participation was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that conducts research on the health care system.

By the way, that this poll was conducted by the decidedly partisan Robert Johnson Foundation.

As we have previously noted, the Robert Johnson Foundation wants to ‘tax the rich’ to pay for nationalized healthcare. But they do make at least a show of supporting tort reform.

Which perhaps explains why the Associated Press published a poll that for once doesn’t help the Democrats.

Live by the biased poll takers, die by the biased poll takers.

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Stagnating Temperatures

By Gerald Traufetter

11/19/2009

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents…

The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year…

The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility…

Just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill…

The controversy sends confusing and mixed messages to the lay public. Why is there such a vigorous debate over climate change, even though it isn’t getting warmer at the moment? And how can it be that scientists cannot even arrive at a consensus on changes in temperatures, even though temperatures are constantly being measured? …

Climatologists use their computer models to draw temperature curves that continue well into the future. They predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, no one really knows what exactly the world climate will look like in the not-so-distant future, that is, in 2015, 2030 or 2050.

This is because it is not just human influence but natural factors that affect the Earth’s climate. For instance, currents in the world’s oceans are subject to certain cycles, as is solar activity. Major volcanic eruptions can also curb rising temperatures in the medium term…

The fact is that the sun is weakening slightly. Its radiation activity is currently at a minimum, as evidenced by the small number of sunspots on its surface. According to calculations performed by a group of NASA scientists led by David Rind, which were recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, this reduced solar activity is the most important cause of stagnating global warming.

Latif, on the other hand, attributes the stagnation to so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). This phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean allows a larger volume of cold deep-sea water to rise to the surface at the equator. According to Latif, this has a significant cooling effect on the Earth’s atmosphere…

Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years…

The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years. "That resumption could come as a bit of a jolt," says Hadley climatologist Adam Scaife, explaining that natural cyclical warming would then be augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions…

Well, it’s not like they can predict the weather.

Santa Claus, also known as Patrick Farmer, at Santa Claus House in North Pole, Alaska Wednesday Nov. 18, 2009, holds letters from children sent this year that the U.S. Postal Service says they will no longer deliver. Citing privacy concerns, postal officials say that generically addressed letters to ‘Santa Claus, North Pole’ will no longer be forwarded to volunteers in the Alaska town as has been done for years.

Popular Santa letter program ends in Alaska

By Rachel D’oro, Associated Press Writer

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Starry-eyed children writing letters to the jolly man at the North Pole this holiday season likely won’t get a response from Santa Claus or his helpers.

The U.S. Postal Service is dropping a popular national program begun in 1954 in the small Alaska town of North Pole, where volunteers open and respond to thousands of letters addressed to Santa each year. Replies come with North Pole postmarks.

Last year, a postal worker in Maryland recognized an Operation Santa volunteer there as a registered sex offender. The postal worker interceded before the individual could answer a child’s letter, but the Postal Service viewed the episode as a big enough scare to tighten rules in such programs nationwide.

People in North Pole are incensed by the change, likening the Postal Service to the Grinch trying to steal Christmas. The letter program is a revered holiday tradition in North Pole, where light posts are curved and striped like candy canes and streets have names such as Kris Kringle Drive and Santa Claus Lane. Volunteers in the letter program even sign the response letters as Santa’s elves and helpers.

North Pole Mayor Doug Isaacson agreed that caution is necessary to protect children. But he’s outraged North Pole program should be affected by a sex offender’s actions on the East Coast — and he thinks it’s wrong that locals just found out about the change in recent days.

"It’s Grinchlike that the Postal Service never informed all the little elves before the fact," he said. "They’ve been working on this for how long?"

The Postal Service began restricting its policies in such programs in 2006, including requiring volunteers to show identification.

But the Maryland incident involving the sex offender prompted additional changes, even forcing the agency to briefly suspend the Operation Santa program last year in New York and Chicago.

The agency now prohibits volunteers from having access to children’s family names and addresses, said spokeswoman Sue Brennan. The Postal Service instead redacts the last name and addresses on each letter and replaces the addresses with codes that match computerized addresses known only to the post office — and leaves it up to individual post offices if they want to go through the time-consuming effort to shield the information.

Anchorage-based agency spokeswoman Pamela Moody said dealing with the tighter restrictions is not feasible in Alaska.

"It’s always been a good program, but we’re in different times and concerned for the privacy of the information," she said.

Moody stressed that kids around the world can still send letters to Santa Claus. The Postal Service still runs the giant Operation Santa Program in which children around the world can have their letters to Santa answered, and the restrictions do not affect private organizations running their own letter efforts.

But what will change are the generically addressed letters to "Santa Claus, North Pole" that for years have been forwarded to volunteers in the Alaska town. That program will stop, unless changes are made before Christmas.

Losing the Santa-letter cache is a blow to the community of 2,100 people, who pride themselves on their Christmas ties. Huge tourist attractions here include an everything-Christmas store, Santa Claus House, and the post office, where visitors can get a hand-stamped postmark on their postcards and packages if they ask for it…

Santa Claus House, built like a Swiss chalet and chock full of all items Christmas, sells more than 100,000 letters from Santa and one of the lures is the postmark.

Operations manager Paul Brown believes his business will be affected under changes to the volunteer Santa letter program because tens of thousands of letters are addressed to Santa Claus House, North Pole, Alaska.

Those letters will still be forwarded to volunteers but it’s unclear yet if anything will be done with them. Those intercepted by the postal service will probably eventually be shredded…

So, to review. The US Post Office, which just reported losing another $3.8 billion dollars last year is cutting a program in Alaska that costs them nothing, but which certainly garners them a lot of goodwill. (And never mind the seasonal jobs that will be lost.)

And why are they ending the program in Alaska? Because someone saw one purported sex offender among volunteer – in Maryland? (Before he wrote any letters.) One person?

And the sex offender was actually involved in a completely different program, Operation Santa, a program that the Post Office stresses it will continue:

Moody stressed that kids around the world can still send letters to Santa Claus. The Postal Service still runs the giant Operation Santa Program in which children around the world can have their letters to Santa answered…

In this program the volunteer “adopts” a letter to Santa from a child from a poor neighborhood, and sends back a gift to the poor child.

Doesn’t that sound just as susceptible to abuse, if not more? But perhaps because of its income retribution aspect, the Post Office is allowed to go on.

According to the New York Times:

Operation Santa began in 1912, strictly with postal worker involvement. In the 1940s, the public got to answer letters. Similar programs exist in post offices in Newark, Washington, Los Angeles and Dallas, among other places. New York’s is by far the biggest one, attracting around 500,000 letters a year. Something like 3,000 people a day show up to participate.

But somehow writing back letters from the North Pole isn’t “feasible” in Alaska.

Is the Post Office trying to punish Sarah Palin?

Maybe someone should tell them she is no longer governor.

Water is pumped out of New Orleans’ flooded Lower 9th Ward after Hurricane Katrina.

Katrina negligence ruling may cost feds

November 19, 2009

NEW ORLEANS — The federal government could be vulnerable to billions of dollars in claims after a judge ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers’ failure to properly maintain a navigation channel led to massive flooding in Hurricane Katrina.

U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval on Wednesday awarded seven plaintiffs $720,000, but the government could eventually be forced to pay much more. The ruling should give more than 100,000 other individuals, businesses and government entities a better shot at claiming damages.

Duval sided with six residents and one business who argued the Army Corps’ shoddy oversight of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet led to the flooding of New Orleans’ Lower 9th Ward and neighboring St. Bernard Parish. He said, however, the corps couldn’t be held liable for the flooding of eastern New Orleans, where two of the plaintiffs lived…

Duval referred to the corps’ approach to maintaining the channel as “monumental negligence.”

Joe Bruno, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, said the ruling underscored the Army Corps’ long history of not properly protecting the New Orleans region.

“It’s high time we look at the way these guys do business and do a full re-evaluation of the way it does business,” Bruno said…

During trial testimony, government lawyers and experts argued the levee system was overwhelmed by the massive storm, and levee breaches couldn’t solely be blamed on the shipping channel dug in the 1960s as a short-cut between the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans.

The corps had also unsuccessfully argued that it is immune from liability because the channel is part of New Orleans’ flood control system.

In his 156-page ruling, Duval said he was “utterly convinced” that the corps’ failure to shore up the channel “doomed the channel to grow to two to three times its design width” and that “created a more forceful frontal wave attack on the levee” that protected St. Bernard and the Lower 9th Ward.

“The Corps had an opportunity to take a myriad of actions to alleviate this deterioration or rehabilitate this deterioration and failed to do so,” Duval said. “Clearly the expression ‘talk is cheap’ applies here.”

Ahead of Duval’s ruling, experts had said it would likely have consequences for the way the Army Corps does business nationwide.

Pierce O’Donnell, another lead plaintiffs lawyer, said the ruling was the “first time ever the Army Corps has been held liable for damages for a major catastrophe that it caused.”

The plaintiffs lawyers would like Congress to set up a compensation fund to speed up payments to the thousands of others whose claims must still be heard in court…

The lawsuit was the first major case against the federal government over Katrina flooding to go to trial. A decision rested with Duval because a jury cannot try a case against the federal government.

This preposterous ruling seems to prove to us that talk isn’t cheap. At least not Judge Duval’s obviously expert opinings.

Still, isn’t this wonderful news? Now hundreds of thousands of people will be able to exact payment from the US taxpayer for damages caused by a hurricane striking a city that is below sea level and surrounded on three sides by water.

Putting aside for a moment all of the local corruption down in New Orleans, which surely was an obstacle to the US Army Corp of Engineers – this is still the US Army.

Or military is usually the only organization that people can point to when they want to cite something run by the government that does a good job.

But just think, if even the US Army can’t be trusted to maintain a few levees in New Orleans – what is going to happen when the government takes over the massive burden of healthcare for the entire nation? (And how many lawsuits will there be when they fail?)

By the way, you may not recognize the name of the judge in this case, Stanwood Richardson Duval, Jr.

He is best known for having issued an injunction in 2000 which barred Louisiana from issuing "Choose Life" vanity license plates, which the legislature had approved in 1999.

Judge Duval ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood of America, which claimed that the the plates violated the First Amendment. Judge Duval’s opinion was unanimously reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans on April 13, 2005.

Needless to say, Judge Duval is a Bill Clinton appointee.