"Grad Sues College for $70,000 Because She Can't Find a Job"

From Fox News:

She has given new meaning to a class-action lawsuit.

Trina Thompson gave it the old college try, but couldn't find work. Now she thinks her sheepskin wasn't worth her time, and is suing her alma mater for her money back.

The Monroe College grad wants the $70,000 she spent on tuition because she hasn't found gainful employment since earning her bachelor's degree in April, according to a suit filed in Bronx Supreme Court on July 24.

The 27-year-old alleges the business-oriented Bronx school hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain, and has not done enough to find her a job.

The information-technology student blames Monroe's Office of Career Advancement for not providing her with the leads and career advice it promised.

"They have not tried hard enough to help me," the frustrated Bronx resident wrote about the school in her lawsuit. . . . .

Obama science adviser thinks that Trees Legal Should Have Standing to Sue in Court

Cass Sunstein has argued in favor of animals having the right to sue so I suppose that it is only fair that trees being able to sue also.

Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights.

The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.

Giving “natural objects” -- like trees -- standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.

“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.

“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.

According to Holdren and the Ehrlichs, the notion of legal standing for inanimate objects would not be as unprecedented as it might sound. “The legal machinery and the basic legal notions needed to control pollution are already in existence,” they wrote. . . .

Why aren't the health benefits of coffee advertised more?

I was talking yesterday to one of the great PR people in DC, Janet Fallon, about the health benefits of coffee,

"Coffee a top source of healthy antioxidants"

"Researchers have found strong evidence that coffee reduces the risk of several serious ailments, including diabetes, heart disease and cirrhosis of the liver."

"Drinking coffee protects against an eyelid spasm that can lead to blindness"

"Prevents gout"

Her question was one that I was disappointed that I hadn't already asked myself: If so, why don't the coffee companies advertise this? The only answer that I have to her question is that if they raise health benefits, they might also have to get into issues such as this:

"U.S. scientists say they`ve determined a single cup of coffee might cause a heart attack in some people within an hour of drinking it."

Coffee companies could face liability if someone had a heart attack and they started drinking coffee for the health benefits.

UPDATE: As Janet correctly points out to me, these concerns haven't stopped red wine makers from advertising the benefits from drinking their wine.

Massive Fraud in Asbestos Claims

The WSJ (March 8) reports that:

A retired epidemiologist from the Centers for Disease Control testified there were no more than 28,000 medically plausible cases of asbestosis in the U.S. male population between 1989 and 2001. Grace was hit with more than 200,000 claims over that period.

In another instance, a doctor presented a study involving 807 X-rays from Grace claimants. Doctors hired by the plaintiffs lawyers had found evidence of asbestosis in about 80% of those X-rays. In a double-blind study in which doctors didn't know the purpose of the work, they found evidence in only 7% of X-rays. . . .

"no more than 28,000 medically plausible cases"? That is an absolute maximum. The 200,000 cases are against just one company. Obviously, there must have been more cases brought than those 200,000. In any case, this implies a falsification rate of at least 86 percent.