Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Boy rescued above waterfall not scared _ at first

SNOHOMISH, Wash. (AP) ? A 13-year-old boy rescued at the top of a 270-foot waterfall in Washington state says he just wanted to cool off, but soon found himself stuck precariously on a rock for hours as crews tried to reach him.

"I wanted to go in ... just to wade a little bit," William Hickman said at a news conference Monday where he was joined by the people who staged the dramatic, middle-of the night operation.

It had been warm earlier in the day Saturday, and Hickman said he and his 9-year-old brother thought they could get in a quick dip.

"I was pretty determined to go swimming, to get in the water," he said.

But the whitewater swept him over a 10-foot waterfall. He managed to pull himself onto a narrow rock shelf just before the main falls.

In the water, Hickman said he just focused on keeping his feet pointed downstream, like a character in a book from the popular "Pendragon" series he once read.

That advice may have helped save his life.

The current pushed him toward a narrow rock shelf just above Wallace Falls northeast of Seattle, and he was able to scramble out to wait for rescuers.

He stayed there, cold and wet, for the next eight and a half hours. His father shouted encouragement, telling him he was going to be OK. Crews later tossed him blankets, energy bars and fruit snacks.

Hickman said he wasn't frightened, at first. He said that once he finished coughing up the water he had swallowed, he realized how precarious his situation was.

"I wasn't really scared until after I got on top of the rock," the boy said. "I was shocked that I landed there, that I was not going to go down and die."

Officials released a video Monday of the rescue operation.

The video shot by a volunteer rescuer, shows Hickman huddled on a narrow, sloping rock shelf with his back to the water just above the popular hiking attraction.

One roped-up rescuer cautiously makes his way to the boy using an aluminum ladder as a foothold, and then guides him up a rock wall to safety.

Rescuers first tried to reach him by helicopter, but the rock overhanging the shelf prevented them from dropping straight down. Instead, a helicopter crew dropped two rescuers 200 yards below him.

The rescuers climbed above the rock overhang, and then worked as a team ? one rappelling down, the other belaying, a system by which rescuers use ropes to lower people. Their goal was just to reach the boy and place him in a harness that would keep him safe until others arrived, said Deputy Bill Quistorf, chief pilot for the Snohomish County sheriff's air support unit.

As one rescuer rappelled down, he tried to swing under the overhang. His rope, rubbing against the rock, snapped, and he plunged into the whitewater. Only his secondary rope saved him from going over the big falls, and he made it to shore with minor injuries.

Other rescuers hiked up the trail, and arrived to find the boy standing on the rock, wet and hypothermic. They set up a rigging that would allow them to rescue him, including a 24-foot aluminum ladder placed horizontally across the river and secured with several ropes.

The video shows the ladder secured to the shore on one end and suspended in the water under the rock ledge by two ropes on the other end. The rescuer who reached the boy uses it as a foothold, helps him rope up and then helps him climb up the rock wall.

The 10 rescuers camped with him overnight, and a sheriff's office helicopter flew them down off the mountain at 6 a.m. Sunday. There was no place for the helicopter to land to pick them up, so the boy and the rescuers rode on a platform hanging from a cable 80 feet below the helicopter.

His mother, Heather Hickman, got a phone call from his dad Sunday morning.

"Their dad said, 'I got something to tell you about last night, we almost lost William.' I told him he will never take my sons to a river again," Heather Hickman said. "He could've died, we could be having a totally different conversation right now."

___

Johnson can be reached at https://twitter.com/GeneAPseattle

shell houston open ray allen mega millions winners

States back Montana in Citizens United campaign finance fight | The ...

By Chris McGreal, The Guardian
Monday, May 21, 2012 20:26 EDT

?

Nearly half of US states have thrown their weight behind a legal defence of local laws restricting corporate money in politics by asking the supreme court to revisit its widely-criticised ban on similar national legislation.

The states filed a brief with the supreme court on Monday in support of a century-old law in Montana ? the Corrupt Practices Act ? against companies pumping money into elections.

The law was struck down by a Montana court following the US supreme court ruling two years ago in the Citizens United case, which lifted most restrictions on corporations spending money on political advertising. However, the Montana supreme court has since upheld the state law, putting it in conflict with the Citizens United ruling.

If the supreme court agrees to take up the case, it is not likely to overturn Citizens United, but it could hand down a decision that would give state legislatures greater leeway in limiting corporate money in politics.

The states argue that corporate money can have an even more corroding effect at a local level than on national politics.

The Montana supreme court ruled that the ban was justified because of a history in the state of powerful corporate interests, copper mining companies, distorting politics with money. The ban was passed by a referendum in 1912.

That position has been challenged by a conservative interest group, American Tradition Partnership, which has asked the US supreme court to overturn the Montana ruling. The court blocked its implementation in February and is now considering whether to hear arguments in the case or simply issue a ruling reversing the Montana judgement.

In a submission to the supreme court on Monday, attorneys general from 22 states and Washington, DC representing both major parties called for the Montana law to be upheld.

?The Montana law at issue here, like many other state laws regulating corporate campaign expenditures in state and local elections, is sharply different from the federal law struck down in Citizens United, and the Court need not revise its ruling in Citizens United in order to sustain the challenged Montana law,? wrote New York?s attorney-general, Eric Schneiderman, in the brief.

The challenge over the Montana action has been backed by Senator John McCain, who authored the campaign finance law struck down by the US supreme court in Citizens United. In that ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy?s majority opinion said that money does not ?give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption?.

In his brief in the Montana case, McCain argued that there is already evidence since the Citizens United ruling that large sums of money thrown into the political process is having a corrupting effect.

?A problem does exist. Evidence from the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles has demonstrated that so-called independent expenditures create a strong potential for corruption and the perception thereof. The news confirms, daily, that existing campaign finance rules purporting to provide for ?independence? and ?disclosure? in fact provide neither.

?Regulatory filings show that much of the funding for independent expenditures comes from shell companies, pass-through entities, and non-profit organizations that conceal the true source of the individuals and companies supporting them,? said McCain?s brief.

But ATP said in its petition to the supreme court said there is no evidence Citizens United has corrupted the political process and that Montana?s history of past abuses has no bearing on the law today.

?Citizens United has not proven unworkable, as evidenced by those who have exercised their liberty under it. Lower courts, except for the decision below, have uniformly followed this court?s holding, and legislatures and government agencies, with few exceptions, have implemented the protections of Citizens United,? it said.

?Is this court going to limit the right of speakers to engage in core political speech because they spend huge sums in doing so? Or because the state they happen to be in had corruption problems, or a corporation employed a lot of people, over a century ago? Or because the same corporation owned a lot of newspapers in the state in the 1950s? Or because the state they happen to be in has few people, a tradition of low-cost elections, or considerable candidate-voter contact??

Two of the supreme court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have welcomed the opportunity to revisit the Citizens United case.?Montana?s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court?s decision in Citizens United ? make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ?do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,?? Ginsburg wrote.

She added that a further supreme court hearing ?will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates? allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway?.

guardian.co.uk ? Guardian News and Media 2012

[Money in politics photo via Shuttershock]

Chris McGreal, The Guardian

?

?

?

?

?

safety not guaranteed lifehouse al gore la dodgers supreme court lawrence o donnell magic johnson