text:
By Sally Milano, USTA.com
It was a big weekend for all four U.S. junior teams competing at the North/Central American and Caribbean Final, May 8-10 in Montreal, as the 16-and-under Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup by BNP Paribas teams and the 14-and-under boys' and girls' World Junior Tennis teams qualified for the world finals.
In Junior Davis Cup play, William Blumberg, a 16-year-old from Greenwich, Conn., John McNally, a 15-year-old from Cincinnati, and Nathan Ponwith, a 16-year-old from Scottsdale, Ariz., took the top qualifying position, going 3-0 against Mexico, Guatemala and Canada, with Blumberg winning all three of his singles matches.
The Junior Fed Cup team of Usue Arconada, 15, from College Park, Md., Sofia Kenin, 15, from Pembroke Pines, Fla., and Raveena Kingsley, 15, from Parkton, Md., also won all three of its matches to finish first among the same countries, with Kenin and Kingsley each winning their two singles matches.
In World Junior Tennis play, 14-year-old Elysia Bolton of Lake Forest, Ill., 14-year-old Rachel Lim of Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., and 13-year-old Claire Liu of Thousand Oaks, Calif., went undefeated against Canada, Guatemala and Mexico to take the girls' top qualifying position. Liu and Lim each won three singles matches, while Liu added three doubles victories.
On the boys' side, 14-year-old Andrew Fenty of Washington, D.C., 14-year-old Keenan Mayo of Roseville, Calif., and 13-year-old Steven Sun of Glen Cove, N.Y., went 2-1 to grab the second qualifying spot, beating the Dominican Republic and Mexico but losing to first-place Canada, with Sun going 3-0 in singles.
Click here to view the full qualifying results from this weekend.
The Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup world finals will take place Sept. 23-28 in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, and the boys' and girls' World Junior Tennis finals will be held Aug. 4-9 in Prostejov, Czech Republic.
Overall, the U.S. has won six World Junior Tennis girls' titles (1992, 2007-10, 2013), four World Junior Tennis boys' titles (2002-03, 2008, 2012), two Junior Davis Cup titles (1999, 2008) and two Junior Fed cup titles (2008, 2012).
Former U.S. junior international team members include Jim Courier, Andy Roddick, James Blake, Lindsay Davenport and Sloane Stephens. Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have also represented their countries in junior international team competition.


text: Search results Subscribe to an always-updated RSS feed. 20 items matching your search terms. Filter the results. Item type Select All/None Blog Entry Web Page Event Folder Link News Item Message Board Comment Forum Collection New items since Yesterday Last week Last month Ever Sort by relevance · date (newest first) · alphabetically LibrePlanet 2015: Free Software Everywhere (Cambridge, MA) by Jeanne Rasata — published Sep 19, 2014 — filed under: Conference LibrePlanet is an annual conference for free software enthusiasts. LibrePlanet brings together software developers, policy experts, activists and computer users to learn skills, share accomplishments and face challenges to software freedom. Newcomers are always welcome, and LibrePlanet 2015 will feature programming for all ages and experience levels. Located in FSF Events 2013 Seattle GNU/Linux Conference (SeaGL) by Jeanne Rasata — published Oct 08, 2013 — filed under: Conference Seattle, WA - Seattle Central Community College Located in FSF Events Fórum Permanente em Prol do Software Livre no Paraná. by Jeanne Rasata — published Nov 20, 2013 — filed under: Conference Curitiba, Brazil - auditório do Fórum Ambientalista do Paraná, Rua Gaspar Carrilho Júnior, 001, Jardim Schaffer Located in FSF Events GNU Radio Conference: September 15--19, Washington, DC by Jeanne Rasata — published Apr 18, 2014 — filed under: Conference Washington, DC - District Architecture Center, 421 7th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004 Located in FSF Events GNU Hackers' Meeting (Munich, Germany) by Jeanne Rasata — published May 01, 2014 — filed under: Conference Munich, Germany - Technische Universität München Located in FSF Events November 2016: Photos from Las Palmas, GNU Health Social Medicine Award at GNU Health Con by Jeanne Rasata — last modified Feb 02, 2017 07:17 AM — filed under: award, RMS Photos, Conference Located in Blogs / RMS The FSF's 30th Birthday Party (Boston, MA) by Jeanne Rasata — published Aug 12, 2015 — last modified Oct 02, 2015 06:42 PM — filed under: FSF 30th, Conference, RMS Speech Boston, MA - CIC Boston, 50 Milk St, Boston, MA 02109---a few blocks from the FSF office Located in FSF Events Richard Stallman to deliver Free Software Awards at LibrePlanet 2017 by Jeanne Rasata — published Feb 23, 2017 — last modified Feb 23, 2017 07:07 AM — filed under: Conference, RMS Speech Cambrige, MA Located in FSF Events John Sullivan - "Debian and the FSF Working Together to Advance Free Software" (Portland, OR) by Jeanne Rasata — published Aug 07, 2014 — filed under: John Speech, Conference Portland, OR - Room 328, Smith Memorial Student Union, Portland State University Located in FSF Events Event - "GNU Health Con 2016" (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) by Jeanne Rasata — published Aug 18, 2016 — last modified Aug 18, 2016 05:56 AM — filed under: Conference Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain Located in FSF Events Next 10 items » 1 2

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Capcom • Action & adventure
+Offers in-app purchases.
Thanks to the support of all the fans, we at Capcom are proud to announce the release of Mega Man 10! Now fans of all ages can enjoy the newest entry into this historic 8-bit franchise. As a special service to new players, we added an Easy Mode - a first for a classic Mega Man game! We also have some special treats in store for all the fans. This time you can play as Proto Man and try out Time Attack Mode from the beginning. You can also watch play-through videos from players all over the world. There are no refunds for this item. For more information, see www.xbox.com/live/accounts.
Published by
Developed by
INTI CREATES Co., LTD.
Release date
Playable on
- Xbox One
- Xbox Series X|S
- Xbox Live


text:
A Pricey Vacation
We have been visiting Ocean City since 1991. We make two nice trips each spring and fall for two or three days.
This last trip may be our last visit. As everyone knows, prices have been going up and up and we have hit our limit. Gas to get to OC didn't kill us, it was the food. Our motel, granted we stayed on the boardwalk around 17th Street, cost $360 bucks for two nights. A bit high. And our keycard door, what a joke. It was a hollow cored door that had been busted open at least twice, since we could see the hollow wood inside. And it rattled in the wind when the staircase was opened, but it was only a door.
And food. A lunch Sunday for $45 bucks (two appetizers, one salad and two cokes). An ice cream cone for $4 bucks. And a $20 pizza delivered to our room that night.
Monday we had breakfast in the room for $10 with butter and bread to take home. A snack at Grottos Pizza for $21. A funnel cake and pretzel for $8. And an all-you-care to eat for $82 for our final meal. That's $190 for two people to eat.
Yes, we didn't go to McDonalds or anything, but this is our vacation and we went to nice, normal places. It's just food around here is way too high. You all need to worry about the costs of vacationing people or OC will soon be losing many visitors.
Times our tough for OC businesses I'm sure, but if people like us stop coming to town, you will not have a business.
Greg Pacienza
Greensburg, Pa.
Janine Kuchinka
Irwin, Pa.
Generous Community
I recently had the opportunity to participate in the Police Unity Tour because of the generosity of many individuals in our community.
The Unity Tour is a three-day bicycle ride from Virginia Beach to Washington D.C., which raises money for the Law Enforcement Memorial and the families of the fallen police officers who were killed in the line-of-duty in 2007.
I wanted to thank the people that sponsored me and made this ride possible for me, including the OC FOP Lodge 10, Jim Nooney, Whisker's Pub of OP, Forrest Insulation, Inc., ABC Refrigeration, Inc., Mitch Scott, Three Brothers of OC, David Gaskill, Esq, Bull on the Beach, Carolyn Beatty, John Moses and the many other individuals who supported me during this difficult endeavor.
Once again, I am amazed by the charitable hearts in our community.
Kathy McCauley
Ocean City
Just The Facts
How do you get accused of stalking someone you have not seen or talked to in over a year?
I was recently served with a police peace order at work to stay away from Patricia Ilczuk-Lavanceau. A peace order is a temporary order, like a restraining order, a judge can issue until a hearing is held in court to determine the facts of the case. In all the stalking cases I have heard of, the person files a complaint with the police department. They investigate to see if there is a pattern of stalking. They report their finding to the judge and then he decides whether to issue the peace order. None of the above happened.
You would have thought I had a long criminal history of stalking the way they fast tracked this peace order in one day. Someone pulled some strings considering I have no police record. I'm a press photographer and Maryland licensed real estate agent. I know Judge Daniel Mumford, and this woman must have told him one good story about me. He would not waste the court's time on a weak case of stalking. The story she told Judge Mumford could not have been the story she told Judge Gerald Purnell in court when I was present. As soon as Ilczuk-Lavanceau told Judge Purnell the stalking events, he said "what? You have not seen or talked to Mr. Leukel in over a year. Case dismissed, peace order cancelled."
I told the judge this woman and I have a running dispute over disc jockey equipment. Ken Barnett and I started a DJ business years ago. I bought the equipment. We stored the equipment at Ken's garage in Ocean Pines. Ken died two years ago. Ilczuk-Lavanceau took care of Ken's affairs. I told her I needed to get the DJ equipment out of Ken's garage. She kept putting me off and then finally sent me a lawyer letter that she was not going to give the equipment back. The judge asked her about the equipment. She said it's stored in a barn. Judge Purnell told me I should file something with the court to get the equipment back. This was a joke of a case filed to make me spend money on a lawyer. She did a good job of it. The first hearing was postponed a week because she showed up without an attorney. More money spent on a lawyer and now more money to get my DJ equipment back.
I need to set the record straight about my relationship with Ilczuk-Lavanceau. This would not normally be the forum to do this, but my character is being damaged by her. I first met her five years ago when she called Ken and I to ask us to do some free DJ parties for her. We donated several thousand dollars of our services and time to her events. I thought that her and her husband were friends. I saw in the newspaper that her husband died. I went to the funeral to pay respects for Ken and I. I walked in a few minutes late and the service had started. She stands up and says 'stop call 911 I want him out of here,' pointing to me. I leave. Then I heard from friends that she is telling people I am stalking her. I say that I have not seen or talked to that lady in over a year.
Two days later, police serve me with a peace order to stay away from her. I have been in Ocean City for over 25 years and donated over 500 hours of my time and helped raise lots of money for charities and served as president of local non-profit groups. This is the thanks I get for helping out her and other non-profits groups.
George Leukel III
Ocean City
Shelter Grateful For Community Support
The Worcester County Humane Society would like to thank everyone who made the "Board Walkin' for Pets" a great success. We had almost 300 registered walkers and raised nearly $36,000. The money raised from this event is necessary to keep the shelter running. The funds raised from this event help pay for the everyday costs for many homeless cats and dogs that call the shelter home.
There are many people to thank for the event's great success. Thank you to our event sponsors: ABBA Bail Bonds, Anthony's Beer Wine & Deli, Applebee's of West OC, Barefoot Mailman, Captains Galley II, Donald's Duck Shoppe, Food Lion of West OC, Harbourside Refrigeration, House Pawz, Johnson-McKee Animal Hospital, Ocean City Animal Hospital, Ocean City Taxi, Purple Moose Saloon, Red Sun Custom Apparel, Ryan Haley, Realtor of Compass Resort, Sinepuxent Substance Abuse Services, Inc., World Gym and Harrison's Harbor Watch Restaurant, which always generously opens its lobby doors and provide coffee and tea. We would also like to thank Debbie Dickerson and Brian K. Hall of Smooth Jazz 97.1 for providing music and emceeing the event; Edy's ice cream for providing Frosty Paws to our four-legged friends; Pepsi of Salisbury for providing soda and water; and Layton's Dip 'n Donuts of 16th Street for providing donuts.
Thank you to all local businesses who donated prizes for our top pledge collectors: This year's grand prize winner is Dale Pfeiffer, raising over $5,000; first place, Megan Bren; second place, Scott and Cathy Fornwalt; third place, World Gym; fourth place, Lori Martin of House Pawz; fifth place, Sally and David Jones; sixth place, Michael Musk; seventh place, Tanya Donaldson; eight place, Brian LaVorgna and Stephen Decatur Student Government Association; ninth place, Anna Ramsburg; 10th place, Teza Gonzalez; Kid's Prize, Summer Brenner; Cutest Cat, Lette Weinrich and Whip; and everyone who participated in the walk.
This event wouldn't be possible without all the volunteers who helped at the Boardwalk and those who stay at the shelter. Thank you for your dedication and hard work. We couldn't do it without you.
I would also like to remind everyone that summer is here and pets should not be left in the car. On a 78-degree day, a parked car can reach 160 degrees in minutes. Even opening windows in the shade won't prevent a dog from overheating. So, when the mercury rises, it is safest to leave your pets at home.
Please visit us on Eagle's Nest Road and consider opening your heart and home to a homeless pet. The shelter has many cute little kittens waiting for a new home. If interested in volunteering, please stop by the shelter and speak with a volunteer. Our furry friends are always in need of newspapers, blankets, Purina products, toys and treats. The shelter is open Monday to Saturday, 11 a.m.-3 p.m. Thank you and we hope to see everyone at next year's event.
Kristy Haley
(The writer is the event organizer.)


text:
|Page tools: Print Page Print All
4 For the purpose of compiling the estimates in this publication, data for businesses as recorded on the ABS Business Register (ABSBR) contribute via one of two categories (or 'streams') in accordance with significance and collection related characteristics.
Completely enumerated (CE) stream:
5 The completely enumerated stream consists of directly collected survey data for those units recorded on the ABSBR as having employment greater than 300, plus additional economically significant units in the Profiled Population and units significant to small state estimates.
Generalised regression estimation stream:
6 The generalised regression estimation stream comprises directly collected data for those sampled units which are not in the CE stream and have turnover, in aggregate, above the bottom 2.5 percentile of BAS sales for that industry, or are identified as employing businesses (based on ATO information).
Business Activity Statement (BAS) stream:
7 The reader should exercise caution interpreting the estimates relating to the number of Construction businesses, as this survey excludes businesses that contributed in aggregate less than 2.5% of Business Activity Statement (BAS) turnover and had zero employment.
8 This stream, comprising of 103,506 businesses is not in the scope of the Private Sector Construction Industry survey. Of the 103,506 businesses not eligible for selection, Construction services accounted for 69,236 businesses, Building construction 29,760 and Heavy and civil engineering 4,510.
9 Estimates for each of the selected industries were produced by aggregating the contributing data streams.
Document Selection
These documents will be presented in a new window.


text:
Shade Tulip Small
Regular price $139.00 AUD
Regular priceUnit price per
Sale price
The lightshades are made from natural rattan using traditional weaving techniques providing beautiful functional pieces with a textural feel. These lights look great layered together.
Small: 36 x 36H cm
Made in Java, Indonesia
Please note this is a shade only - no electrical hardware attached, consult with your electrician for installation.
If this item is on Backorder, the current lead time for new orders is 8-12 weeks. *If we happen to have them available earlier we will let you know.


text:
Friends Season 1 Episode 11 : The One with Mrs. Bing
Chandler's flamboyant romance-novelist mother (Morgan Fairchild) comes to New York for a visit, and Joey catches Ross making the mistake of kissing her in a restaurant, after getting himself drunk when he sees Rachel bring Paolo. Monica and Phoebe see a guy who they like who's passing the street when Monica shouts after him the guy turns and is hit by a car. They both fight for him while he is in the coma.
Episode Guide
Season 01
Season 02
Season 03
Season 04
Season 05
Season 06
Season 07
Season 08
Season 09
Season 10


text:
In honor of those Disney fans heading to Tent Fest in Walt Disney World this weekend, I got the great suggestion to chat a bit about Disney s'mores!
S'mores on Demand
There are two restaurants that currently have fun s'mores desserts on the menu; the first is more of a kid-friendly version, while the second will satisfy any of our many grown-up marshmallow cravings:
Le Cellier's colorful s'mores-on-a-stick has been a go-to kids' dessert for years, and it never fails to impress. "Built" with a graham cracker, chocolate, and ice cream base, the "wow" factor comes with a sprinkle-y marshmallow topping it all off.
The 50's Prime Time Cafe s'mores dessert is a more "gourmet" offering — mostly because they can use a blow torch to make it — but the fun of having those ooey gooey marshmallows arrive on your table [Read more…]


text:
(CNN) -- CNN hosted a Democratic debate Thursday evening on the campus of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. CNN.com users tuned in to see if Hillary Clinton would recover from the last Democratic debate and what questions, if any, would unravel the candidates this time.
Joe Sabah says he is voting for the first woman who runs for president because he believes men are "war-minded."
Moments after the debates began, e-mails from viewers around the country began flooding in. Respondents took issue with the debate's opening focus on Clinton and Obama, and with the candidates' lengthy responses.
I-Reporters also pointed out some of the debate's key moments. Below are some of their e-mails, edited for length and clarity.
Carole Menard of Eagle Lake, California
I think that the real points of this debate were better answered by the candidates who were NOT Clinton, Obama, or Edwards but those candidates who believe in the Constitution and the rights of the people, not "I am the answer to our problems."
Theland Treadway of Auburn, California
I am currently viewing the follow-up program to tonight's Democratic presidential debate. Just now, 53 minutes into this follow-up program, is the first time I have seen or heard anything that Senator Biden had to say. In my mind, he was the strongest debater and the most likely Democrat I could vote for.
Bob Booney of Oakland, California
Barack "Rubric of Rhetoric" Obama needs to find his alter ego "Joe Alabama." Use the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid. Partner with Hillary on healthcare, give us an eight-point plan, red and white tie, bolder stripes, strong and aggressive. I want to see you, Mom and Michelle in a photo. We are America and the world.
Krishna Pillalamarri of Bel Air, Maryland
8:08 - Okay, finally it started.
8:11 - Obama says "American People" want straight answers for tough questions. I am going to see if he follows that prescription himself, if/when he is asked a tough question.
8:20 - Biden stopped his answer short in midstream, when Blitzer interrupted him. Great!
8:22 - But Edwards went on and on, as Blitzer tried to cut him short.
8:26 - Biden: Hell, no - I won't support any of these candidates (in jest) - great answer!
8:29 - Answering a question on drivers' licenses, Obama went all over the lot, forcing Blitzer to repeat the question.
8:48 - Dodd answered "National Security", as more important than say Pakistan respecting Human Rights. Surprising. Though a comfortable red state response.
9:01 - Edwards gave a great answer to NAFTA question. Clinton's answer was very good too. She admitted NAFTA didn't quite do what it was supposed to do, and said it has to be revisited.
9:10 - Richardson scored with a very good response to Yucca Mountain waste storage issue.
9:22 - Now the candidates are sitting! Wow! Appreciate that they did the transition during a commercial break and didn't waste any time sashaying on the stage.
9:25 - A woman (whose son already did three tours of duty in Iraq) from the audience asked a great question - ideal for Kucinich. Biden answered first. Got a good response.
Happy Birthday, Bill Richardson! (November 15, 1947) Not only a birthday, but a big-60!
9:37 - Kucinich got his call for impeachment.
10:08 - A fun question for Clinton - do you prefer Diamonds or Pearls! What a silly question! (Clinton said - why not both!) Oh, that was the last question, in the spirit of the regular newscaster, which conclude with a "good news" or funny story.
Andrew Tossetti of Amherst, Massachusetts
Kucinich is a consistent thinker. Specifically, he voted against the Patriot Act as well as the war, two things we as a nation are perhaps regretting and are at the forefront of modern political topics. This kind of foresight is essential in a leader. "What if we had a president who got it right from the beginning?" he asks. This was a powerful thing to say that needed to be said. He is indeed worthy to be our president, the son of a truck driver who worked his way up while not abandoning very important moral and humanistic considerations.
As a voter, I am encouraged by the overall field. Biden has a great sense of humor; Clinton is assertive, Obama commanding. My dream ticket is Kucinich for president and a toss up between Clinton, Obama and Edwards for vice.
Charles Bean of Eureka, California
I would like to have heard more from Biden, Mitchell, Kucinich or Dodd. Most people know about Clinton, Obama and Edwards. The first four I named represent more of the public in my thinking. We just don't hear much from them during the debates, as usual.
Kathe Randle of Polson, Montana
Joe Biden won this one! He is logical, factual, knowledgeable -- and all the other candidates keep saying they agree with Joe. Why doesn't he get any coverage?
Pam Melton of Mount Juliet, Tennessee
I have watched almost all of the presidential debates, and I have been extremely disappointed at the amount of time that is spent on what the candidates think of each other. I could care less if anyone thinks that Mrs. Clinton is playing the gender card -- that's one of those things that we voters need to decide for ourselves based on her answers and her actions. I had really hoped that CNN would avoid those kinds of questions; unfortunately, you spent at least half the first hour on that stuff. I want to hear them talk about their stands on the issues. When they are actually asked issue questions, I have no problem understanding what their positions are.
Michael McCaddon of Fort Belvoir, Virginia
As a supporter of the democratic party, I find the diversity of candidates refreshing. However, I find it more important to focus on the candidates who are directly answering posed questions; Senator Biden and Governor Richardson have done so eloquently. These observations have shifted my thoughts that supporting one of the top 3 candidates in order to ensure a democratic presidency toward supporting a candidate who does not evade questions by stating their policy on related or unrelated topics. After this debate I will be much more inclined to research the policies of Sen. Biden and Gov. Richardson because one of them will likely receive my vote in my home state of Arizona.
Ahmed Naguib of Chicago, Illinois
The question regarding supporting issuing driving licenses to illegal immigrants is a poor question and distracts from the actual problem. Like Sen. Obama said, he's not issuing driving licenses for immigrants to come to the US to drive, but more of a public safety issue. Answering yes to the question does not and should not translate into supporting illegal immigration.
Paula Hyatt of Austin, Texas
Finally a question is specifically addressed to Dennis Kucinich, 37 minutes into the debate. We have barely heard from Biden, Dodd, or Richards. I want to hear from more than Hillary, Edwards, and Obama. Give each candidate equal time, quit deciding for us who is going to be the candidate.
Gary Sales of New York, New York
The candidates all talk strongly about shutting down foreign trade when the imports are tainted or illegal, but what will they say to the American families who work for the American companies that suddenly find themselves out of work when these companies shut down?
Dion Harrison of Rockville, Maryland
We should have a series of debates that focus on a single issue at a time. These sound bytes of resolutions lose their depth. All these candidates are very intelligent individuals that have a wealth of knowledge that could help the American public unify on a strong answer and also become better educated on the rationale behind each candidate's argument.
John Lundin of San Diego, California
Bill Richardson has dominated the debate and has expressed himself eloquently and demonstrated his experience and grasp of the problems facing the country. I'm not a Richardson supporter, but if your question is who "won" the debate, it is unquestionably Gov. Bill Richardson.
Sam Sussman of Englewood, Ohio
I personally want to know where these presidential candidates are planning to get the money for "free health care" and, as Edwards said in the myspace.com interview on national television, "free education?". Also, what do these candidates plan to do about the tasering that police are doing? E-mail to a friend


text:
Marines Plan Troop Cuts, Command Headquarters Relocations by 2017
Gen. McKenzie cites reduced budget's risks in preview of quadrennial review.
Budget cuts will force the Marine Corps to trim the "strategy-driven" force design it had envisioned and shift toward reduced troop strength and the elimination of a three-star command headquarters, a key planning officer said on Thursday.
Marine Maj. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr., the Marines' point man on the Defense Department's Quadrennial Review being prepared for release in February, said his year-old structure review group had settled on 186,000 as the best troop strength for the Marines, but that the 2011 Budget Control Act required dropping it down to 182,000.
McKenzie spoke at a Navy League breakfast in Arlington, Va., about what to expect in the fifth QDR. "The Marines express our strategy in end strength, in human beings that we deliver to the battlefield, not equipment," he said. He said the force has averaged around 196,000 since the Vietnam era, but rose to 202,000 for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The cut from the current 194,000 troops would be accomplished by 2017, he said, adding under questioning that if sequestration continued, the "lowest risk band" option the Corps could stomach would be 174,000.
That smaller force would require a "1-to-2 dwell force ratio," assigning Marines to six months of deployment, followed by 12 at home. "We're the only service that accepts this ratio as a steady state," McKenzie said. "The young members like it, but the officers who have families don't." Reserves would draw down from 39,600 to 38,500 but still be available as a crucial "shock absorber" for the smaller Marine Corps, he added.
The Marines' probable contribution to the QDR -- which ultimately is the responsibility of the Office of the Defense Secretary -- would also involve cutting tanks and artillery, as well as doing away with a three-star expeditionary force headquarters command currently in Camp LeJeune, N.C., and consolidating it with one East Coast headquarters in Norfolk, Va. The new command would complement an expeditionary task force headquarters in Okinawa, Japan, and one based in Camp Pendleton, Calif., that is deployable anywhere. "That's a significant change," he said.
What will be deemphasized, he said, are long-term stabilization activities such as cooperative threat-response exercises with allies.
McKenzie said the Pentagon's planned pivot to Asia will not be slowed by the new force design, adding that any coming action in the Mediterranean region, such as Syria, can be handled by forward-positioned forces in Spain and Africa. "The coin of the realm" for a Marine Expeditionary unit is that it is forward- deployed, but it can't be everywhere," he said. "If we had to go to a major conflict, we'd be all in -- everybody goes, no rotation" and activities elsewhere would not happen.
The controversial F-35 joint fighter jet would remain "a highest priority" on the QDR, he said. "It is on track, and I'm comfortable with the design," he added. "It is a versatile platform and has a deterrent effect on the enemy."
McKenzie also backed the amphibious combat vehicle, saying the commandant will soon make decisions on its design, affordability and desirable speed.
"Many think the QDR [has] had marginal impact," McKenzie said, adding that the Obama administration's recent internal Strategic Choices and Management Review "ate into some of our time" that should have begun in January. But the coming document will benefit from that earlier work, and will be supplemented 90 days later, he said, by an assessment by the National Defense Panel led by former Defense Secretary William Perry and retired Gen. John Abizaid. Ordinarily, that panel "grades the QDR," he said, but "this time it will be a parallel effort."


text:
Our almonds are lightly roasted to perfection in small batches locally to ensure freshness. These delicious roasted almonds are a major source of essential fatty acids. They provide the basis for the healthy production of the male hormones that are important in regulating a man's sex drive. Not only are almonds delicious, they offer lower LDL cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease.
These power-packed snack nuts are high in monounsaturated fats (the good kind of fat) and are an excellent source of magnesium, manganese and vitamin E. They are packed with antioxidants and provide protection against diabetes and free radicals. Thanks to the healthy fats, which help you lose weight, and the incredible protein in our organic almonds, you will strengthen your bones, improve your blood circulation and build your muscles.
No related recipes found


text:
Lockheed Martin Wins Contract To Develop Weapons Grade Fiber Laser For U.S. Army Field Test
24 Apr, 2014, 10:00 ET
BOTHELL, Wash., April 24, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Army has awarded Lockheed Martin a $25 million contract to design, build and test a 60-kilowatt electric laser to be integrated and tested in a truck-mounted weapon system demonstrator. The laser weapon is designed to significantly improve the warfighters' ability to counter rockets, artillery, mortars and unmanned aerial threats.
Under a contract managed by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command's Technical Center, the Lockheed Martin-provided laser will be integrated on the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD). This ruggedized laser builds on the corporation's work under the current Robust Electric Laser Initiative (RELI) contract for the Army.
"Lockheed Martin continues to advance its high-energy fiber laser technology to provide a proven, affordable weapon architecture that supports the size, weight, and power constraints our customers face," said Paula Hartley, vice president of Advanced Product Solutions for Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training business. "Our solution is much smaller, lighter and more electrically efficient than others in the market and can bring tremendous value to the Army and other military customers."
The corporation's electric laser system implements multiple compact, rugged fiber laser modules to generate a high power output beam with excellent beam quality and high electrical efficiency. A unique spectral beam combining process is used to combine many fiber lasers into a single beam of light that retains the high beam quality of the individual fiber modules while reaching the 60 kilowatt mark.
Earlier this year, Lockheed Martin announced it had demonstrated a 30-kilowatt fiber laser, the highest power ever documented while retaining beam quality and electrical efficiency. The internally funded research and development demonstration was achieved by combining many fiber lasers into a single, near-perfect quality beam of light—all while using approximately 50 percent less electricity than alternative solid-state laser technologies.
This successful demonstration marked a significant milestone on the path to deploying a mission-relevant laser weapon system for a wide range of air, land and sea military platforms.
Lockheed Martin has specialized in directed energy laser weapon system development for the past 30 years and purchased Aculight in 2008 to further strengthen its offerings at every level—from pioneering research to solid prototyping and flexible manufacturing.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 113,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's net sales for 2013 were $45.4 billion.
For additional information, visit our website: http://www.lockheedmartin.com
SOURCE Lockheed Martin


text: Contrast Security is the world's leading provider of security technology that enables software applications to protect themselves against cyberattacks, heralding the new era of self-protecting software. Contrast's patented deep security instrumentation is the breakthrough technology that enables highly accurate assessment and always-on protection of an entire application portfolio, without disruptive scanning or expensive security experts. Only Contrast has sensors that work actively inside applications to uncover vulnerabilities, prevent data breaches, and secure the entire enterprise from development, to operations, to production.


text:
8: Red spiders
|Red Spiders
Title text: They are six-legged spiders
This comic is the first in an arc of comics, spaced out over 3 years (so far), in which Red Spiders are seen attacking humans. Its objective is not to be funny, philosophical, or scientifically interesting; it just tells a story, in a Questionable Content-esque way.
Interestingly, the red spiders actually more closely resemble opiliones, the order of arachnids that includes the Daddy Longlegs, and which are actually more closely related to mites than to spiders.
Of course, the number of legs is incorrect.
The full series of Red Spiders comics:
- 8: Red Spiders, this one
- 43: Red Spiders 2, in which the spiders begin building.
- 47: Counter-Red Spiders, in which the humans begin a counter-offensive.
- 126: Red Spiders Cometh, in which the spiders attack a city.
- 427: Bad Timing, in which, in a style more typical to xkcd, the spiders attack a couple in the middle of a serious relationship discussion in a hot-air balloon.
- 442: xkcd Loves the Discovery Channel, in which it appears briefly in the 14th panel crawling over a cube
- [Many six-legged red spiders standing on and hanging from cuboids. The cuboids hang in the air with no visible means of support. Some of the spiders have made a bridge out of themselves.]
- This was the 8th comic originally posted to LiveJournal.
- The previous was 13: Canyon.
- The next was 6: Irony.
- Original title: "Spiders"
- Original Randall quote: "They're not spiders; they have six legs!"
- This was one of the thirteen first comics posted to LiveJournal within 12 minutes on Friday September 30, 2005.
- This comic was posted on xkcd when the web site opened on Sunday the 1st of January 2006.
- It was posted along with all 41 comics posted before that on LiveJournal as well as a few others.
- The latter explaining why the numbers of these 41 LiveJournal comics ranges from 1-44.
- One of the original drawings drawn on checkered paper.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
In addition to 8 - Red spiders, Red spiders also appear in comic 42 - Red Spiders 2 and 126 - Red Spiders Cometh and are referenced in 77 - Counter-Red Spiders J-beda (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The "cuboids" always reminded me of how I picture the "stars" in the Battle Room in Ender's Game -- mwburden 184.108.40.206 22:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The drawing is reminiscent of M.C.Escher style, isn't it ? 18.104.22.168 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
But why *RED* spiders, or is there some reference that I am just too dense to fathom? 184.108.40.206 06:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, mites are also 8-legged, so the below two comments aren't totally correct. ClashTheBunny (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I came to this page to say there is an actual insect known colloquially as red spiders. Dad was telling me about how his azalea plants got something powdery on them which he took to the nursery for identification. The nursery guy freaked out and said it was a highly contagious mite infestation ('get that stuff away from here!'). Even though they are a mite they are sometimes known as red spiders. So I guess these 6-legged "spiders" are a thing. - loudwhitenoise 22.214.171.124 02:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetranychus_urticae "common names include red spider mite" Mike (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Runescape has 6-legged "Deadly Red Spiders" (http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Deadly_red_spider) Mountain Hikes (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The spiders in the upper centre of the drawing are cooperating to form a bridge between two cubes. This is behaviour more commonly seen in ants which are six-legged. Many species of ant are red. However, there are spiders that cooperate. Out of some 45,000 known species of spiders, 23 are known to be social (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_spider). One of the most studied social spiders is Anelosimus eximius which is a red spider (http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160122-meet-the-spiders-that-have-formed-armies-50000-strong). --DP9000 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


text:
Quick links: New York Hot Dogs | Cat Food Concoction | Chocolates for Dogs | Pink Champagne Cake | Verdict
Fire up some Billy Joel and get ready for some NYC action. I actually really like Oliver and Company, even though it is one of Disney's lowest rated films. It also has really great food, especially if you're a cat or dog!
There is some food in the movie that we didn't make because it was featured in other movies. For the bread recipe when they steal bread from a truck,
see Stromboli's French Bread from Pinocchio.
For the dog biscuits that they give Fagin,
see the Kanine Krunchie recipe from 101 Dalmatians
Stolen NYC Hot Dogs
Dodger is one sly dog. He tricks Oliver distract the hot dog cart guy and in turn steals the yummy hot dogs.
To make this more authentic, I recommend using Sabrett Hot Dogs. If you can't come by those, at least use all beef franks.
- 4-8 All Beef Hot Dogs
- 4-8 Hot Dog Buns
- Mustard
- Any other toppings
- Boil a pot of water
- After it has reached boiling point, put the dogs in the pot and take it off the heat.
- Cover the pot and let the dogs steam for 6-8 minutes
- Place toppings on.
- If you have a steamer, you may use that to steam the buns.
Jenny's Cat Food Concoction
If you have a cat, you'll love this recipe. When Jenny first gets Oliver, she brings him back to her giant house and makes a who-know-what concoction to give to him.
You see some sort of cereal or bran, eggs, and a bunch of messy dishes. Fortunately, when I made it, I didn't make as big of mess as she did.
- 1 can mackerel
- 1 egg yolk
- 1/3 cup oats
- 1/3 cup evaporated milk
- 1 bag of cat treats
- 1/4 cup whipped cream
- Mix oats and evaporated in bowl.
- Once mixed, add egg and mackerel
- Add Cat treats and mix until blended
- Top with whipped cream (or don't)
Chocolates for Dogs
I know, I know, chocolate is really bad for dogs. But we see Georgette eating chocolates from a heart-shaped box and doing yoga.
I searched and found that Carob, a chocolate substitute, and its cleared by ASPCA as non-toxic for dogs. So we made some molded chocolates filled with peanut butter. Our dog loved them! We also made some milk-chocolate candies for us too 🙂
- 1 Bag Carob
- 1/2 cup milk
- 3 tbs peanut butter
- Heat up the milk over a very low heat
- Add the carob chips a little bit at a time
- Stir vigorously with wooden spoon.
- Once all the chips are added, you might need to add a couple more splashes of milk until the carob is creamy
- Let the carob cool a bit
- Fill candy mold 1/2-3/4 way full with the carob
- Place peanut butter in a pastry bag (or a plastic bag with its corner cut)
- Squeeze a little dab of peanut butter on top of the carob in each mold. About the size of a big pea.
- Cover the peanut butter and fill rest of mold with carob
- Place in freezer for about an hour or until the carob solidifies. You may also place in fridge, but wait longer for the solidification.
- You might need to hold the pan off the stove a bit if it gets too hot and you start to smell it burn.
- For milk chocolate, melt the milk chocolate in a microwave on a low heat, stirring every 30 seconds, or melt in a double boiler. Follow the rest of the instructions. You may place anything you wish in the middle of the chocolates. I put in Nutella and raspberry jam.
Pink Champagne Cake
At the end of the movie, everything is good and every is around Jenny as they celebrate her birthday.
Being super rich, she probably had a fancy cake (even though you only see a generic pink cake). How do you make a fancy cake? With champagne of course! This is a somewhat difficult and time consuming recipe. Just a head's up.
There is also chocolate, strawberry and vanilla ice cream shown in the movie. This cake pair well with Neapolitan ice cream! So pick some of that up from the store.
- 2 cups (480 ml) champagne, pink champagne or sparkling wine
- 2½ cups (280 grams) sifted Self-Rising Flour
- 2 cups (400 grams) granulated sugar
- ½ cup (1 stick/113 grams) unsalted butter, at room temperature
- ¼ cup (48 grams) shortening
- ¼ cup (56 grams) vegetable oil
- ½ cup (120 ml) champagne reduction
- ½ cup (120 ml) buttermilk, at room temperature
- ¾ cup (180 grams) egg whites (about 6), at room temperature
- ½ teaspoon (2.5 ml) pure almond extract
- ½ teaspoon (2.5 ml) pure vanilla extract
- Extra flour and shortening to prepare cake pans
- 1 cup raspberry jam
- 2 containers of buttercream frosting
- Red food coloring to dye the frosting
- In a medium heavy saucepan over medium-high heat, bring champagne to a boil.
- Boil until reduced to ½ cup, about 15 minutes.
- Remove from heat; set aside to cool completely.
- Meanwhile, arrange oven rack in lower third of oven and preheat oven to 350ºF.
- Grease three 8-inch round with shortening or oil.
- Line bottoms with parchment or wax paper cut to fit the size of pans.
- Grease paper linings and dust lined pans with flour, tapping out the excess.
- Set aside.
- Mix self-rising flour and sugar until well combined and aerated.
- Add butter, shortening and oil and mix until thoroughly combined.
- Mixture will be very thick.
- In a 2-cup glass liquid measuring cup, whisk together champagne reduction, buttermilk, egg whites and extracts using a fork until well blended.
- Slowly add half of the liquid mixture to the batter and mix.
- Then beat until thoroughly combined, scraping down the sides of bowl as necessary with rubber spatula, about 2 minutes.
- Add remaining liquid mixture and beat just until smooth and thoroughly combined, again scraping down the sides of bowl as necessary.
- Using rubber spatula, scrape and pour batter into prepared pans dividing evenly (a little over 2 cups of batter per cake pan).
- Smooth tops evenly with rubber spatula and then rap each pan on counter surface 2 to 3 times to expel any air bubbles. This step will create a nice level cake.
- Bake in preheated oven until a toothpick inserted into center comes out clean, about 25 to 30 minutes.
- Cool cakes in pans on wire racks for 10 minutes.
- Run thin metal spatula around edges of each cake to loosen, then invert onto wire rack and peel away parchment or wax paper.
- Turn right side up onto wire racks (using an additional rack to flip) and cool completely or wrap while still warm to retain moisture.
- Wrap each cake layer tightly in plastic food wrap and keep at room temperature until ready to fill and frost.
- Mix a couple drops of food coloring into the frosting to turn it into a nice pink color.
- Use a scant ¾ cup frosting between each layer.
- After frosting each the bottom and middle layer, pipe a simple ¼-inch border of buttercream around the perimeter of the cake to act as a dam to prevent the filling from going over the edge of the cake layer.
- Following this, lightly spoon about 4 tablespoons of the Raspberry Filling on top of the buttercream in the center. Using a small angled metal spatula, carefully spread the filling outward to the dam border of buttercream.
- Carefully place the next cake layer on top and press down gently.
- Proceed to frost the cake as desired with remaining buttercream.
- Use a scant ¾ cup frosting between each layer and then proceed to frost the cake with a "crumb coat" or thin coat, but not too thin.
- The cake should have good coverage and you should not see the cake peeking through the frosting.
- Next, assemble your pastry bag with coupler and tip.
- Fill pastry bag and twist closed.
- Make sure your hands are not too warm or your buttercream will get too soft. You are now ready to pipe roses!
- To pipe roses, start at the bottom and work around the cake to complete a full circle of roses. T
- o pipe each rose, start in the center of where you want your rose to be. T
- hen pipe in a circular fashion counter-clockwise going around the center point once or twice depending on the size of roses you desire.
- The roses don't need to be perfect!
- This is what is so great about piping swirled roses as they look lovely shabby and chic.
- It is best to end in the same place each time and I like to end at the top right side of each rose.
- Once you complete the first row around the cake, continue with the next row and then the top. To fill in any gaps, I like to pipe small stars or flourishes that contour the rose swirls. Rose Cakes are the best. So simple, but so stunning!
Source: http://wickedgoodkitchen.com/pink-champagne-velvet-layer-cake/
Will it make you get the Street Saviore Faire?
Overall, this was a really good haul. Hot Dogs were great, the cake was one of the best cakes I've ever had, and if you were a cat, I'm sure you'd love the concoction. The dog chocolates were pretty disgusting for humans. I don't really like carob. But my dog loved them. But the milk chocolate candies were amazing.
Hot Dogs – 7/10
Jenny's Concoction – 3/10 (for humans) 10/10 (for cats)
Dog Chocolates – 3/10 (for humans) 10/10 (for dogs) Human Chocolates – 10/10
Pink Champagne Cakes – 10/10


text:
The Origins of Labour Day
The fight of the Toronto printers had a second, lasting legacy. The parades held in support of the Nine-Hour Movement and the printers' strike led to an annual celebration.
In a time when the news of labour "strife" is dominated by unemployment and complaints about the disruptive power of unions, history provides a useful perspective on a time when working people had to fight to work less than 12 hours a day. The "Nine-Hour Movement" began in Hamilton, Ontario, and then spread to Toronto where its demands were taken up by the Toronto Printer's Union.
In 1869 the union sent a petition to their employers requesting a weekly reduction in hours per week to 58, placing itself in the forefront of the industrialized world in the fight for shorter hours. Their request was refused outright by the owners of the printing shops, most vehemently by George Brown of the Globe.
By 1872 the union's stand had hardened from a request to a demand and a threat to strike. The employers called the demand for a shorter workweek "foolish", "absurd" and "unreasonable." As a result, on March 25, 1872 the printers went on strike.
On April 14 a demonstration was held to show solidarity among the workers of Toronto. A parade of some 2000 workers marched through the city, headed by two marching bands. By the time that the parade reached Queen's Park, the sympathetic crowd had grown to 10,000.
The employers fought the strikers by bringing in replacement workers from small towns. George Brown launched a counterattack by launching a legal action against the union for "conspiracy." Brown's action revealed the astonishing fact that according to the laws of Canada union activity was indeed considered a criminal offense. Under the law, which dated back to 1792, police arrested and jailed the 24 members of the strike committee.
As history tells it, however, Brown had overplayed his hand. Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald had been watching the Nine-Hour Movement with curious interest, "his big nose sensitively keen," wrote historian Donald Creighton, "like an animal's for any scent of profit or danger." The scent of profit came from the fact that Macdonald's old Liberal rival George Brown had made himself a hated man among the workers of Canada.
Macdonald was quick to capitalize. In Ottawa, he spoke to a crowd at city hall, promising to wipe the "barbarous laws" restricting labour from the books. Macdonald then came to the rescue of the imprisoned men and on June 14 passed a Trade Union Act, which legalized and protected union activity. Macdonald's move not only embarrassed his rival Brown but also earned him the enduring support of the working class.
For the strikers themselves, the short-term effects were very damaging. Many lost their jobs and were forced to leave Toronto. The long-term effects, however, were positive. After 1872 almost all union demands included the 54-hour week. Thus the Toronto printers were pioneers of the shorter workweek in North America. The movement did not reach places such as Chicago or New York until the turn of the century.
The fight of the Toronto printers had a second, lasting legacy. The parades held in support of the Nine-Hour Movement and the printers' strike led to an annual celebration. In 1882 American labour leader Peter J. McGuire witnessed one of these labour festivals in Toronto. Inspired, he returned to New York and organized the first American "labour day" on September 5 of the same year.
Throughout the 1880s pressure built in Canada to declare a national labour holiday and on July 23, 1894 the government of Sir John Thompson passed a law making Labour Day official. A huge Labour Day parade took place in Winnipeg that year. It stretched some 5 kilometres. The tradition of a Labour Day celebration quickly spread across Canada and the continent. It had all begun in Toronto with the brave stand of the printers' union.
James Marsh is editor in chief of The Canadian Encyclopedia.
First published in the National Post and CanWest newspaper chain, now featured on The Canadian Encyclopedia.
Leave a reply
Fields marked with * are required


text:
Hi Chinners, happy Tuesday! Remember how last month I found out that I had elevated liver enzymes? So basically, there was one liver count test where the high average was supposed to be like 30.. and mine was 120. Yeah, about that. So I really don't drink, maybe prior to going on Metformin, once a week, a glass of wine or two. I do know that I'm the cheapest date in the world in that it takes me only one glass of wine to get a buzz, and I'm super easily affected by caffeine. All of these things can point to a sensitive liver, which clearly I haz. (HELP ME! MY BLOGGING IS TURNING ME INTO A LOLCAT!)
Under my awesome doctor's orders, we decided to do a liver detox and re-test my liver enzymes after six weeks. The six week mark is fast approaching, so I ordered the Metagenics Clear Change Program – 10 Day. I specifically waited to start the cleanse until after FitBloggin', because I didn't want to have any issues with my stomach while doing things like bouncing around on mini-trampolines or trying out crossfit for the first time. On Saturday, I made a very expensive Whole Foods trip and stocked up on organic pears, apples, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, broccoli, beets, carrots, rice cakes and organic, unfiltered, unsweetened apple juice. In addition to ingredients you provide yourself, you drink a "medical shake" a few times daily.
The food part of the detox basically involves a vegan, whole foods diet from days one through three with some milk substitutes and rice allowed, and then on day four, you start getting more hardcore with no rice, no milk substitutes and no meat. Days five to seven are what have me shaking in my boots – those are days where I can only eat "Cruciferous vegetables", aka, the fart-bombs of veggie-land; broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, cabbage and greens. Oh my. Thankfully on those days I can still have some beans and my lovely organic apples and pears, but YIKES. I get HANGRY when I'm hungry, so this should be interesting.
So far I've been feeling okay. Days one through two were easy, though I had to watch it to "remember" I couldn't eat certain things. Thankfully I love vegetables, so eating like a rabbit isn't really unpleasant for me. However, today has been a little more dicey, as I started taking the detoxification capsules and shakes, and I'm feeling kind of run down and sluggish. Not to mention I've got some interesting stomach things going on, but as my handy little program guide tells me, these types of signals are all just signs that the program is working. Of course the few hardest days happen RIGHT WHEN OUR AIR CONDITIONER BREAKS AND IT'S GOING TO BE 104 DEGREES. Murphy's law, right? Such is life…
So now that you know what's up with me and my liver, tell me — have you ever tried a detox or a cleanse? What was it like? Did you experience any amazing after effects?


text:
United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963)
Argued: April 21, 1963
Argued: April 22, 1963
Decided: June 17, 1963
U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963)
United States v. Muniz
No. 464
Argued April 22-23, 1963
Decided June 17, 1963
A federal prisoner can sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover damages from the United States for personal injuries sustained during confinement in a federal prison and resulting from the negligence of a government employee. Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, distinguished. Pp. 374 U. S. 150-166.
305 F.2d 253, 285, affirmed.
S. 163 It is also possible that litigation will damage prison discipline, as the Government most vigorously argues. However, we have been shown no evidence that these possibilities have become actualities in the many States allowing suits against jailers, or the smaller number allowing recovery directly against the States themselves. See notes 15 and | 15 and ; Ellison v. United States, No. 1003, D.C.W.D.N.C., July 26, 1951.
[Footnote 5]
August 2, 1946, c. 753, 60 Stat. 812.
[Footnote 6]
To ensure transfer of private claims to the courts, Congress prohibited introduction of private bills for claims cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, § 131, 60 Stat. 831, 2 U.S.C. § 190g.
[Footnote 7]
Act of August 13, 1935, 49 Stat. 2132; Act of August 26, 1935, 49 Stat. 2182; Act of March 7, 1936, 49 Stat. 2233; Act of March 7, 1936, 49 Stat. 2234; Act of June 11, 1937, 50 Stat. 986; Act of June 15, 1937, 50 Stat 993; Act of June 29, 1937, 50 Stat. 1011; Act of July 19, 1937, 50 Stat. 1036; Act of April 13, 1938, 52 Stat. 1293; Act of July 15, 1939, 53 Stat. 1473; Act of August 5, 1939, 53 Stat. 1501; Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 955; Act of November 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 971; Act of February 10, 1942, 56 Stat. 1101; Act of February 18, 1942, 56 Stat. 1112; Act of June 6, 1942, 56 Stat. 1180; Act of December 17, 1942, 56 Stat. 1244; Act of February 22, 1944, 58 Stat. 948; Act of May 29, 1944, 58 Stat. 982; Act of December 20, 1944, 58 Stat. 1070; Act of July 25, 1946, 60 Stat. 1264.
[Footnote 8]
The Government already had consented to suits upon admiralty and maritime torts involving government vessels in the Suits in Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. 525, 46 U.S.C. §§ 741-752, and the Public Vessels Act, 43 Stat. 1112, 46 U.S.C. §§ 781-790.
[Footnote 9]
In a few bills, an exception was made for claims arising out of negligent treatment in government hospitals. No such exception was made in the Act, and sovereign immunity was clearly waived as to such claims. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 348 U. S. 110.
Three exceptions would have barred recovery under the Act where comprehensive compensation schemes were in effect: (1) claims covered by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act; (2) claims for personal injuries incurred by military personnel on active duty; and (3) claims for destruction of personal property belonging to military personnel on active duty covered by predecessors of the Military Personnel Claims Act of 1945. The three applicable compensation statutes have been held to be exclusive: (1) Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427; Sasse v. United States, 201 F.2d 871 (C.A.7th Cir.); but cf. Parr v. United States, 172 F.2d 462 (C.A.10th Cir.); (2) Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135 (at least to the extent of service-connected injuries of active duty personnel); and (3) Preferred Ins. Co. v. United States, 222 F.2d 942 (C.A.9th Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 837.
Exceptions relating to the administration of laws by the SEC and FTC or to the effect of an Act of Congress or an Executive Order no longer appear, but are subsumed under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), which excludes claims based
"upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid. . . ."
Other than the exception for prisoners' claims, discussed in the text, the only remaining exceptions having no counterpart in the present Act barred liability for governmental activity relating to flood control, harbor and river work, and irrigation projects. To the extent that these activities constitute "discretionary function[s]," the exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) still preserves government immunity. United States v. Ure, 225 F.2d 709 (C.A.9th Cir.); Coates v. United States, 181 F.2d 816 (C.A.8th Cir.); McGillic v. United States, 153 F. Supp. 565.
[Footnote 10]
H.R. 17168, 71st Cong., 3d Sess.; S. 211, 72d Cong., 1st Sess.; S. 4567, 72d Cong., 1st Sess.; H.R. 5065, 72d Cong., 1st Sess.; S. 1833, 73d Cong., 1st Sess.; S. 1043, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.
[Footnote 11]
The House Report accompanied H.R. 181, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., which related only to tort claims. The Federal Tort Claims Act passed at the Second Session of the Seventy-ninth Congress as Title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 was virtually identical to H.R. 181, except that there was no limitation of liability.
[Footnote 12]
N.Y.Laws 1929, c. 467, provided, in part:
"The state hereby waives its immunity from liability for the torts of its officers and employees and consents to have its liability for such torts determined in accordance with the same rules of law as apply to an action in the supreme court against an individual or a corporation, and the state hereby assumes liability for such acts, and jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the court of claims to hear and determine all claims against the state to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injury caused by the misfeasance or negligence of the officers or employees of the state while acting as such officer or employee. . . ."
The laws of the other three States to which Congress referred, California, Arizona, and Illinois, conferred jurisdiction upon the state courts to hear suits against the state governments for negligence. Cal.Stat.1893, c. 45; Ariz.Laws 1912, c. 59; Ill.Laws 1917, p. 325. However, the state courts did not construe the grant of jurisdiction as a waiver of sovereign immunity and continued to find the Government immune at least when it was acting in a governmental, rather than a proprietary, capacity. E.g., Denning v. State, 123 Cal. 316, 55 P. 1000; State v. Sharp, 21 Ariz. 424, 189 P. 631; Monahan v. State, 10 C.C.R. 10 (Ill.Ct. of Claims).
The House Report does not make this distinction apparent, nor, for that matter, does the report refer with any particularity to the laws of any State.
[Footnote 13]
E.g., Paige v. State, 269 N.Y. 352, 199 N.E. 617 (1936); White v. State, 260 App.Div. 413, 23 N.Y.S.2d 526, aff'd, 285 N.Y. 728, 34 N.E.2d 896 (1941). The remedy was limited to some extent, however, since a "civil death" statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 510, precluded suit while the person was still in prison.
At the time Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act, Illinois had just amended its laws and waived its sovereign immunity in tort suits. Ill.Laws 1945, p. 660 (now Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, c. 37, § 439.8). Under this amendment, Illinois prisoners were permitted to recover against the State for negligently caused injuries incurred in prison. E.g., Moore v. State, 21 C.C.R. 282 (Ill.Ct. of Claims). This change in Illinois law occurred after H.R.Rep. No. 1287, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., was prepared, and was not brought to Congress' attention.
[Footnote 14]
It is true, as the Government points out, that Congress has, since 1946, passed private bills for the relief of federal prisoners. E.g., Act of June 21, 1955, 69 Stat. A30; Act of June 29, 1956, 70 Stat. A97. Since § 131 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 2 U.S.C. § 190g, does not permit such bills if recovery is available under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress' passage of private bills must, the Government argues, be taken as congressional approval of the decisions barring suit by federal prisoners. However, the construction given an Act of the Seventy-ninth Congress by the Eighty-fourth Congress is not determinative, Rainwater v. United States, 356 U. S. 590, 356 U. S. 593, and the acquiescence of subsequent Congresses does not of necessity constitute approval. "We do not expect Congress to make an affirmative move every time a lower court indulges in an erroneous interpretation." Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., 332 U. S. 524, 332 U. S. 534.
[Footnote 15]
See cases collected at 14 A.L.R.2d 353; see also Woody, Recovery by Federal Prisoners under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 36 Wash.L.Rev. 338, 353, n. 83.
[Footnote 16]
New York, see note 12 supra; Illinois, see note 13 supra; North Carolina, N.C.Gen.Stat., 1958, § 143-291; Ivey v. North Carolina Prison Dept., 252 N.C. 615, 114 S.E.2d 812; Washington, Wash.Laws 1961, c. 136, RCWA 4.92.090.
[Footnote 17]
The predecessor of 18 U.S.C. § 4126 provided compensation in 1946 only for prisoners working for Federal Prison Industries, Inc. Only 20% of all federal prisoners were so engaged. 1957 Rep. Atty. Gen. 409. And even those prisoners would not have been covered for injuries sustained outside working hours. In 1961, Congress extended compensation
"to inmates or their dependents for injuries suffered in any industry or in any work activity in connection with the maintenance or operation of the institution where confined."
18 U.S.C. § 4126, as amended, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 681. Even this broadened coverage fails to reach roughly 10% of the prisoners who are physically unable to work. 1957 Rep. Atty. Gen. 409. And, in any event, the compensation system still fails to provide for nonwork injuries, contrary to that applicable to military personnel. Finally, the alteration of a compensation scheme 15 years after Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act does not provide reliable insight into the then existing congressional intent.
[Footnote 18]
See note 7 supra.
[Footnote 19]
One suggestion was that Kansas might find a 10 to 1 guard to prisoner ratio necessary, while Alabama would be satisfied with 30 to 1; thus the wardens of penitentiaries at Leavenworth and Atlanta would have to shape their conduct to different state standards. It would seem more probable, however, that no State has so carefully delineated the boundary between negligence and reasonable care, and that, in any event, wardens would assign the number of guards they could afford or thought necessary, rather than the number that might satisfy state concepts of due care.
[Footnote 20]
See Van Zuch v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 468.
[Footnote 21]
See Sigmon v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 906.
[Footnote 22]
See Lack v. United States, 262 F.2d 167 (C.A.8th Cir.).
[Footnote 23]
See, e.g., Morton v. United States, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 228 F.2d 431.
[Footnote 24]
[Footnote 25]
Though there are a number of instances in which federal courts have declined to review matters of internal prison discipline and administration, frequently upon application for habeas corpus, they have reviewed serious charges of deprivation of constitutional rights, e.g., Pierce v. La Vallee, 293 F.2d 233 (C.A.2d Cir.); Sewell v. Pegelow, 291 F.2d 196 (C.A.4th Cir.). See also Panella v. United States, 216 F.2d 622 (C.A.2d Cir.) (U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, Lexington, Ky.); Coffin v. Reichard, 143 F.2d 443, 155 A.L.R. 143 (C.A.6th Cir.) (U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, Lexington, Ky.).
[Footnote 26]
18 U.S.C. § 4042 provides:
"The Bureau of Prisons, under the direction of the Attorney General, shall --"
"(1) have charge of the management and regulation of all Federal penal and correctional institutions;"
"(2) provide suitable quarters and provide for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States, or held as witnesses or otherwise;"
"(3) provide for the protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States."
[Footnote 27]
Respondent Muniz suggests that a federal law should be developed, since some federal prisons are within federal enclaves. The suggestion is impractical, since some prisons are not within enclaves, and is forestalled by 45 Stat. 54, 16 U.S.C. § 457, which provides:
"In the case of the death of any person by the neglect or wrongful act of another within a national park or other place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within the exterior boundaries of any State, such right of action shall exist as though the place were under the jurisdiction of the State within whose exterior boundaries such place may be; and in any action brought to recover on account of injuries sustained in any such place, the rights of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State within the exterior boundaries of which it may be."
See, e.g., Stokes v. Adair, 265 F.2d 662 (C.A.4th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 816.
[Footnote 28]
See, e.g., Holytz v. Milwaukee, 17 Wis.2d 26, 115 N.W.2d 618; Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist., 55 Cal. 2d 211, 11 Cal. Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457; Williams v. Detroit, 364 Mich. 231, 111 N.W.2d 1; Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill. 2d 11, 163 N.E.2d 89; Hargrove v. Cocoa Beach, 96 So. 2d 130 (Fla.).
[Footnote 29]
See Pound, The Tort Claims Act: Reason or History? 30 NACCA L.J. ___ (1963).
S. 150fn16|>16, supra.
In addition, Congress has taken steps to protect the Government from liability that would seriously handicap efficient government operations. We do not intimate any opinion upon their applicability to these complaints, since no such issue is presented for our review. We simply note that the Government is not without defenses. Most important, the Government is relieved from liability on
"Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused."
28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). (Emphasis added.) [Footnote 23] Also, the Government is not liable for the intentional torts of its employees, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), for which prisoners might be especially tempted to initiate retributive litigation. [Footnote 24] We are confident that district judges, sitting without a jury as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2402, will be able to dispose of complaints intelligently without undue
Page 374 U. S. 164
harm coming to our federal prisons. [Footnote 25] Federal rules of procedure are not so inflexible that clearly frivolous suits need embarrass prison officials or burden United States Attorneys' offices.
One last point remains. Jailers in some States are not liable to their prisoners. For example, several States have decided that a warden in charge of a penitentiary, Carder v. Steiner, 225 Md. 271, 170 A.2d 220, or a sheriff in charge of a county jail, Bush v. Babb, 23 Ill.App.2d 285, 162 N.E.2d 594, is immune from suit because he exercises a quasi-judicial function requiring the use of discretion. Another has decided that the master of a house of correction has no duty of care toward his prisoners which would make him liable for his negligence. O'Hare v. Jones, 161 Mass. 391, 37 N.E. 371. And there are overtones in these decisions suggesting that liability is also denied because of the fear that prison discipline would otherwise be undermined. Such cases should be persuasive. Just as we refused to import the "casuistries of municipal liability for torts" in Indian Towing, so we think it improper to limit suits by federal prisoners because of restrictive state rules of immunity. Whether a discretionary function is involved is a matter to be decided under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), rather than under state rules relating to political, judicial, quasi-judicial, and ministerial functions. And the duty of care owed by the Bureau of Prisons to federal prisoners
Page 374 U. S. 165
is fixed by 18 U.S.C. § 4042, independent of an inconsistent state rule. [Footnote 26] Finally, having decided that discipline in the federal prisons will not be so seriously impaired that all recovery should be denied for negligently inflicted injuries, we should not at the same time make recovery depend upon a State's decision to the contrary. [Footnote 27]
The Federal Tort Claims Act provides much-needed relief to those suffering injury from the negligence of government employees. We should not, at the same time that state courts are striving to mitigate the hardships caused by sovereign immunity, [Footnote 28] narrow the remedies provided
Page 374 U. S. 166
by Congress. [Footnote 29] As we said in Rayonier, Inc., v. United States, supra, at 352 U. S. 320,
"There is no justification for this Court to read exemptions into the Act beyond those provided by Congress. If the Act is to be altered, that is a function for the same body that adopted it."
MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[Footnote 1]
28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.
[Footnote 2]
The orders of the District Court were initially reversed by a panel of three judges, one judge dissenting. 305 F.2d 253, 285. On rehearing en banc, the panel decisions were upheld. 305 F.2d 264, 287.
[Footnote 3]
James v. United States, 280 F.2d 428 (C.A.8th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 845; Lack v. United States, 262 F.2d 167 (C.A.8th Cir.); Jones v. United States, 249 F.2d 864 (C.A.7th Cir.).
[Footnote 4]
James v. United States, 280 F.2d 428 (C.A.8th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 845; Lack v. United States, 262 F.2d 167 (C.A.8th Cir.); Jones v. United States, 249 F.2d 864 (C.A.7th Cir.); Berman v. United States, 170 F. Supp. 107; Golub v. United States, Civil No. 148-117, D.C.S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 1959; Collins v. United States, No. T-1509, D.C.D.Kansas, Jan. 29, 1958; Trostle v. United States, No. 1493, D.C.W.D.Mo., Feb. 20, 1958; Van Zuch v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 468; Shew v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 1; Sigmon v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 906
U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963) United States v. Muniz No. 464 Argued April 22-23, 1963 Decided June 17, 1963 374 U.S. 150 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOI THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus A federal prisoner can sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover damages from the United States for personal injuries sustained during confinement in a federal prison and resulting from the negligence of a government employee. Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, distinguished. Pp. 374 U. S. 150-166. 305 F.2d 253, 285, affirmed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether a person can sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act [Footnote 1] to recover damages from the United States Government for personal injuries sustained during confinement in a federal prison, by reason of the negligence of a government employee. For reasons to be developed below, we hold that such suits are within the purview of the Act. This litigation, brought here by the Government as a single case, arises from two separate suits for personal injuries brought by respondents Henry Winston and Carlos Muniz in the United States District Court for the Page 374 U. S. 151 Southern District of New York. Both sought damages for personal injuries suffered while they were confined in federal prisons. The district judge granted the Government's motions to dismiss in both cases on the ground that such suits were not permitted by the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed, four judges dissenting. 305 F.2d 264, 287. [Footnote 2] Because the decision below involves an important question in the construction of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and because two Courts of Appeals had previously reached a contrary result, [Footnote 3] we granted certiorari. 371 U.S. 919. Winston alleged that, in April, 1959, while he was confined in the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, he began suffering dizziness, loss of balance, and difficulty with his vision. Upon Winston's initial complaint, the prison medical officer's diagnosis was borderline hypertension; the treatment, a reduction in weight. Winston's symptoms nevertheless recurred with increasing severity over the next nine months; he was unable to keep his balance and fell frequently. He also began to suffer periodic loss of vision. Despite repeated complaints to the prison officers, Winston was given no further treatment, except some dramamine for his dizziness. In January, 1960, Winston's attorney became alarmed by his condition, and had him examined by a consulting physician. In February, 1960, an operation successfully removed the benign brain tumor which had caused Winston's difficulties, but his sight could not be saved. Page 374 U. S. 152 Winston alleged that the negligence of the prison employees was responsible for the delay in diagnosis and removal of the tumor and caused his blindness. Respondent Muniz alleged that he was, in August, 1959, a prisoner in a federal correctional institution in Danbury, Connecticut. On the afternoon of August 24, Muniz was outside one of the institution's dormitories when he was struck by an inmate, and then pursued by 12 inmates into another dormitory. A prison guard, apparently choosing to confine the altercation instead of interceding, locked the dormitory. The 12 inmates who had chased Muniz into the dormitory set upon him, beating him with chairs and sticks until he was unconscious. Muniz sustained a fractured skull and ultimately lost the vision of his right eye. He alleged that the prison officials were negligent in failing to provide enough guards to prevent the assaults leading to his injuries, and in letting prisoners, some of whom were mentally abnormal, intermingle without adequate supervision. Whether respondents are entitled to maintain these suits requires us to determine what Congress intended when it passed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946. This question would not appear at first glance to pose serious difficulty. Congress used neither intricate nor restrictive language in waiving the Government's sovereign immunity. It gave the District Courts jurisdiction "of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, . . . for . . . personal injury . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Page 374 U. S. 153 The Act also provides that the "United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Congress qualified this general waiver of immunity in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 by excepting from the Act claims arising from certain government activity, such as transmission of postal matter, assessment of taxes, imposition of a quarantine, or operation of the Panama Canal. None of the exceptions precludes suit against the Government by federal prisoners for injuries sustained in prison. So far as it appears from the face of the Act, Congress has clearly consented to suits such as those involved in the case at bar. Whether a claim could be made out would depend upon whether a private individual under like circumstances would be liable under state law, but prisoners are at least not prohibited from suing. Since a number of lower courts have nevertheless reached a contrary conclusion, [Footnote 4] largely in reliance upon our decision in Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, we deem it appropriate to make a more detailed investigation into the intent of Congress. An examination of the legislative history of the Act reinforces our conclusion that Congress intended to permit such suits. For a number of reasons, it appears that Congress was well aware of claims by federal prisoners, Page 374 U. S. 154 and that its failure to exclude them from the provisions of the Act in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 was deliberate. First, the Federal Tort Claims Act, as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, [Footnote 5] was designed not only to avoid injustice to those having meritorious claims hitherto barred by sovereign immunity, but to eliminate the burden on Congress of investigating and passing upon private bills seeking individual relief. See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 346 U. S. 24-25; Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, 340 U. S. 139-140. [Footnote 6] The task of screening these bills was substantial. See, e.g., 74 Cong.Rec. 6868. Private claim bills introduced in the Sixty-eighth through the Seventy-eighth Congresses averaged 2,000 or more per Congress, roughly 20% of which were enacted. H.R.Rep. No. 1287, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. Among the private claim bills were a number submitted on behalf of federal prisoners, of which, between 1935 and 1946, Congress passed 21. [Footnote 7] The much larger number of private bills that must have been introduced were therefore among those adding to Congress' burdens. In these circumstances, it cannot be assumed that Congress was unaware of their presence. Page 374 U. S. 155 A second indication that Congress was conscious of claims by federal prisoners is found in the prior versions of the Act. Efforts to permit tort suits against the Government began in 1925 with the introduction of H.R. 12178, 68th Cong., 2d Sess. [Footnote 8] Thereafter, at least one bill was introduced in every Congress, with the exception of the Seventy-fifth, until the present Act was passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress in 1946. Though the provisions of these bills underwent change during the intervening 21 years, the similarities are noteworthy. With the amendment of S. 1912 in the Sixty-ninth Congress, First Session, for example, came the first specific exceptions to the general waiver of sovereign immunity. Two of those exceptions, relating to postal matters and taxation, were cast in language virtually identical to that used in the Act ultimately passed 20 years later. And, as exceptions were added over the years, most relieved the Government from liability in the same circumstances as the present Act. Only a few exceptions were at one time proposed and later dropped, without counterpart in the present Act. [Footnote 9] One such exception related to claims by federal Page 374 U. S. 156 prisoners. Six of the 31 bills introduced in Congress between 1925 and 1946 either barred prisoners from suing while in federal prison or precluded suit upon any claim for injury to or death of a prisoner. [Footnote 10] That such an exception was absent from the Act itself is significant in view of the consistent course of development of the bills proposed over the years and the marked reliance by each succeeding Congress upon the language of the earlier bills. We therefore feel that the want of an exception for prisoners' claims reflects a deliberate choice, rather than an inadvertent omission. Finally, the Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary made explicit reference to the laws of four States, which had relaxed, to differing degrees, the rule Page 374 U. S. 157 of sovereign immunity. [Footnote 11] H.R.Rep. No. 1287, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. The report noted that such "legislation does not appear to have had any detrimental or undesirable effect." Id. at 3. [Footnote 12] In one of those four States, New York, it was well settled by 1946 that persons could recover for injuries sustained in prison. [Footnote 13] Congressional Page 374 U. S. 158 equanimity in the face of such liability further strengthens the conclusion that Congress intended to permit suits by federal prisoners. Considering the plain import of the statutory language, the number of prisoners' claims among the individual applications for private bills leading to the passage of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the frequent mention of a prisoner claims exception in proposed bills, and the reference, among others, to New York law, which permitted recovery by prisoners, we believe it is clear that Congress intended to waive sovereign immunity in cases arising from prisoners' claims. [Footnote 14] Page 374 U. S. 159 The Government argues nevertheless that we should imply an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. For one thing, the Government urges that our decision in Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, controls. For another, it maintains that the impact of liability upon prison discipline would so seriously impair the administration of our prisons that Congress could not have intended such an "extreme" result. The Court held in Feres v. United States that a soldier could not sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries which "arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service." 340 U.S. at 340 U. S. 146. Among the principal reasons articulated for doing so were: (1) the absence of an analogous or parallel liability, on the part of either an individual or a State; no individual has power to mobilize a militia, no State had been held liable to its militiamen; (2) the presence of a comprehensive compensation system for service personnel; (3) the dearth of private bills from the military; (4) the distinctly federal relationship of the soldier to his superiors and the Government, which should not be disturbed by state laws; and (5) the variations in state law to which soldiers would be subjected, involuntarily, since they have no choice in where they go. Although we find no occasion to question Feres, so far as military claims are concerned, the reasons for that decision are not compelling here. First, the Government's liability is no longer restricted to circumstances in which government bodies have traditionally been responsible for misconduct of their employees. The Act extends to novel and unprecedented forms of liability as well. Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61; Rayonier, Inc., v. United States, 352 U. S. 315. And in any event, an analogous form of liability exists. A number of States have allowed prisoners to recover from their jailers for negligently caused Page 374 U. S. 160 injuries, [Footnote 15] and several States have allowed such recovery against themselves. [Footnote 16] Second, the presence of a compensation system, persuasive in Feres, does not of necessity preclude a suit for negligence. In United States v. Brown, 348 U. S. 110, a veteran sought damages for negligent treatment in a Veterans Administration Hospital aggravating a service-incurred injury. The veteran received additional compensation for the aggravation of the injury, even though he was no longer on active duty. The Court nonetheless held that he could bring suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Also, the compensation system in effect for prisoners in 1946 was not comprehensive. It provided compensation only for injuries incurred while engaged in prison industries. Neither Winston nor Muniz would have been covered. [Footnote 17] Page 374 U. S. 161 Third, private bills were never a problem in the military, Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, 340 U. S. 140, as Congress might have thought them to be in the case of prisoners. [Footnote 18] Admittedly, the remaining reasons for the decision in Feres, flowing from the impact of state law upon a federal establishment, could have relevance to the prisons, as well as the armed forces. The variations in state law may to some extent hamper uniform administration of federal prisons, as it was feared they would hamper the military. And the prisoners' opportunities to recover may be affected by differences in state law over which they have no control, a position shared by service personnel whose location is determined by government order, rather than personal volition. So far as uniformity of operation is concerned, however, we have been given few concrete examples of how variations in personal injury law would impair the prison system. [Footnote 19] We are told not that the Government will be judged under too high a standard, but under too many. This seems more a matter of conjecture than of reality. The published decisions in which prisoners have sought damages have related more to the precautions necessary to protect a kitchen worker from getting steel wool in his fingers, [Footnote 20] to protect a prisoner from an exploding emery wheel, [Footnote 21] or to protect a prisoner Page 374 U. S. 162 from falling off a ladder, [Footnote 22] than to some delicate matter of prison administration. Even a matter such as improper medical treatment can be judged under the varying state laws of malpractice without violent dislocation of prison routine. Cf. Panella v. United States, 216 F.2d 622 (C.A.2d Cir.). Without more definite indication of the risks of harm from diversity, we conclude that the prison system will not be disrupted by the application of Connecticut law in one case and Indiana law in another to decide whether the Government should be liable to a prisoner for the negligence of its employees. Finally, though the Government expresses some concern that the nonuniform right to recover will prejudice prisoners, it nonetheless seems clear that no recovery would prejudice them even more. In the last analysis, Feres seems best explained by the "peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors, the effects of the maintenance of such suits on discipline, and the extreme results that might obtain if suits under the Tort Claims Act were allowed for negligent orders given or negligent acts committed in the course of military duty. . . ." United States v. Brown, 348 U. S. 110, 348 U. S. 112. We also are reluctant to believe that the possible abuses stemming from prisoners' suits are so serious that all chance of recovery should be denied. It is possible, as the Government suggests, that frivolous suits will be brought, designed only to harass or, more sinister, discover details of prison security useful in planning an escape. And it is possible that the Government will be subjected to the burden of pretrial preparation, discovery, and trial even though it prevails on the merits. This seems an inescapable concomitant of any form of liability. 15 and
Search This Case


text:
Come take a look at the world of biotechnology
School Group Tours
Biotechnology is now impacting everything from the medicines we use to the food we eat. We would like to invite you and your school groups to visit our newest science facility on the A-State campus and learn about some of the exciting new discoveries in the area of biotechnology that are going on right here at the Arkansas Biosciences Institute-A-State!
This is a two part science module geared towards middle and high school-aged students. This experience is intended to give your students an opportunity to see the workings of an active, high tech, research facility and to learn with a hands-on demo how scientists get DNA out of food we eat!
This is an 1 1/2 hour tour where your students (maximum of 30) will be divided into two small groups for a tour and science demo.
Part 1
The tour of our new, state-of-the-art Arkansas Biosciences Institute at A-State will expose your students to biotechnology research focused at the interface of agriculture, medicine and health. Your students will get a guided tour of the ABI that will include a birds-eye view of our transgenic plant facility and several of our laboratories as well as an overview of the on-going research at the ABI that is dedicated to improving the lives and health of all Arkansans.
Part 2
A hands-on-demonstration will introduce your students to some very basic molecular biology principles scientists use to extract DNA out of strawberries. This is an opportunity to take a fun exercise and give the students a practical application that integrates concepts from chemistry, biology and mathematics to pull DNA out of some common food that we eat.
Complete the Tour ABI Application >>