y65a Easy chicken noodle soup recipe is perfect 'comfort food' in winter weatherBy MARK VANCLEAVE and MICHAEL GOLDBERG FERGUS FALLS, Minn. — A jury convicted two men on Friday of charges related to human smuggling for their roles in an international operation that led to the deaths of a family of Indian migrants who froze while trying to cross the Canada-U.S. border during a 2022 blizzard. Harshkumar Ramanlal Patel, 29, an Indian national who prosecutors say went by the alias “Dirty Harry,” and Steve Shand, 50, an American from Florida, were part of a sophisticated illegal operation that has brought increasing numbers of Indians into the U.S., prosecutors said. They were each convicted on four counts related to human smuggling, including conspiracy to bring migrants into the country illegally. “This trial exposed the unthinkable cruelty of human smuggling and of those criminal organizations that value profit and greed over humanity,” Minnesota U.S. Attorney Andy Luger said. In an image released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, shows how the migrants who survived the crossing were terribly inadequately dressed. (U.S. Attorney’s Office via AP) This combination image shows left to right; undated photo released by the Sherburne County Sheriff’s Office shows Harshkumar Patel in Elk River, Minn., and undated photo released by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shows Steve Shand. (AP Photo) The Edward J. Devitt U.S. Courthouse and Federal building is seen, where two men on trial face human smuggling charges, Monday, Nov. 18, 2024, in Fergus Falls, Minn. (AP Photo/Michael Goldberg) FILE – Road signage is posted just outside of Emerson, Manitoba, Jan. 20, 2022. (John Woods/The Canadian Press via AP, File) In an undated image released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, shows items found in a migrant child’s backpack. (U.S. Attorney’s Office via AP) FILE – Road signage is posted just outside of Emerson, Manitoba on Thursday, Jan. 20, 2022. (John Woods/The Canadian Press via AP) In an image released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, shows how the migrants who survived the crossing were terribly inadequately dressed. (U.S. Attorney’s Office via AP) “To earn a few thousand dollars, these traffickers put men, women and children in extraordinary peril leading to the horrific and tragic deaths of an entire family. Because of this unimaginable greed, a father, a mother and two children froze to death in sub-zero temperatures on the Minnesota-Canadian border,” Luger added. The most serious counts carry maximum sentences of up to 20 years in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office told The Associated Press before the trial. But federal sentencing guidelines rely on complicated formulas. Luger said Friday that various factors will be considered in determining what sentences prosecutors will recommend. Federal prosecutors said 39-year-old Jagdish Patel; his wife, Vaishaliben, who was in her mid-30s; their 11-year-old daughter, Vihangi; and 3-year-old son, Dharmik, froze to death Jan. 19, 2022, while trying to cross the border into Minnesota in a scheme Patel and Shand organized. Patel is a common Indian surname, and the victims were not related to Harshkumar Patel. The couple were schoolteachers, local news reports said. The family was fairly well off by local standards, living in a well-kept, two-story house with a front patio and a wide veranda. Experts say illegal immigration from India is driven by everything from political repression to a dysfunctional American immigration system that can take years, if not decades, to navigate legally. Much is rooted in economics and how even low-wage jobs in the West can ignite hopes for a better life. Before the jury’s conviction on Friday, the federal trial in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, saw testimony from an alleged participant in the smuggling ring, a survivor of the treacherous journey across the northern border, border patrol agents and forensic experts. Defense attorneys were pitted against each other, with Shand’s team arguing that he was unwittingly roped into the scheme by Patel. Patel’s lawyers, The Canadian Press reported , said their client had been misidentified. They said “Dirty Hary,” the alleged nickname for Patel found in Shand’s phone, is a different person. Bank records and witness testimony from those who encountered Shand near the border didn’t tie him to the crime, they added. Prosecutors said Patel coordinated the operation while Shand was a driver. Shand was to pick up 11 Indian migrants on the Minnesota side of the border, prosecutors said. Only seven survived the foot crossing. Canadian authorities found two parents and their young children later that morning, dead from the cold. The trial included an inside account of how the international smuggling ring allegedly works and who it targets. Rajinder Singh, 51, testified that he made over $400,000 smuggling over 500 people through the same network that included Patel and Shand. Singh said most of the people he smuggled came from Gujarat state. He said the migrants would often pay smugglers about $100,000 to get them from India to the U.S., where they would work to pay off their debts at low-wage jobs in cities around the country. Singh said the smugglers would run their finances through “hawala,” an informal money transfer system that relies on trust. Related Articles The pipeline of illegal immigration from India has long existed but has increased sharply along the U.S.-Canada border. The U.S. Border Patrol arrested more than 14,000 Indians on the Canadian border in the year ending Sept. 30, which amounted to 60% of all arrests along that border and more than 10 times the number two years ago. By 2022, the Pew Research Center estimates more than 725,000 Indians were living illegally in the U.S., behind only Mexicans and El Salvadorans. Jamie Holt, a Special Agent with Homeland Security Investigations, said the case is a stark reminder of the realities victims of human smuggling face. “Human smuggling is a vile crime that preys on the most vulnerable, exploiting their desperation and dreams for a better life,” Holt said. “The suffering endured by this family is unimaginable and it is our duty to ensure that such atrocities are met with the full force of the law.” One juror Kevin Paul, of Clearwater, Minnesota, told reporters afterward that it was hard for the jurors to see the pictures of the family’s bodies. He said he grew up in North Dakota and is familiar with the kind of conditions that led to their deaths. “It’s pretty brutal,” Paul said. “I couldn’t imagine having to do what they had to do out there in the middle of nowhere.”

— BIRTH NAME: James Earl Carter, Jr. — BORN: Oct. 1, 1924, at the Wise Clinic in Plains, Georgia, the first U.S. president born in a hospital. He would become the first president to live for an entire century . — EDUCATION: Plains High School, Plains, Georgia, 1939-1941; Georgia Southwestern College, Americus, Georgia, 1941-1942; Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1942-1943; U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 1943-1946 (class of 1947); Union College, Schenectady, New York, 1952-1953. — PRESIDENCY: Sworn-in as 39th president of the United States at the age of 52 years, 3 months and 20 days on Jan. 20, 1977, after defeating President Gerald R. Ford in the 1976 general election. Left office on Jan. 20, 1981, following 1980 general election loss to Ronald Reagan. — POST-PRESIDENCY: Launched The Carter Center in 1982. Began volunteering at Habitat for Humanity in 1984. Awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Taught for 37 years at Emory University, where he was granted tenure in 2019, at age 94. — OTHER ELECTED OFFICES: Georgia state senator, 1963-1967; Georgia governor, 1971-1975. — OTHER OCCUPATIONS: Served in U.S. Navy, achieved rank of lieutenant, 1946-53; Farmer, warehouseman, Plains, Georgia, 1953-77. — FAMILY: Wife, Rosalynn Smith Carter , married July 7, 1946 until her death Nov. 19, 2023. They had three sons, John William (Jack), James Earl III (Chip), Donnel Jeffrey (Jeff); a daughter, Amy Lynn; and 11 living grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren. Source: Jimmy Carter Library & Museum

Mailbag Podcast: Lineup decisions, most important player, how real is the defense, and more

None

I contracted a ‘silent killer’ virus in a grave medical error which gave me cancer 34 years later

NoneSACRAMENTO — Before this year’s presidential election slips into gloomy history, we should pause to slam our moldy, undemocratic vote-counting system called the electoral college. If Donald Trump had to win, it’s good that he prevailed in both the archaic electoral college and the national popular vote. The popular vote should always settle who is elected president. Name one other office in America that’s not decided by who gets the most votes — from state governor down to first-grade class president. But the national popular vote doesn’t count for squat in a U.S. presidential election. All that counts is our ancient electoral college system, rooted in the Founders’ appeasement of Southern slave states. It’s beneficial, however, that Trump apparently also won the popular vote. Because now we should be able to hold a rational conversation about the evils of the electoral college without being tagged as poor-loser partisans whining that the Democrat lost despite having been favored by most American voters. There are two bad things about our electoral college system: Big states, little states, it doesn’t matter. If they’re blue or red, their voters are relegated to the cheap seats as distant spectators to the main event being fought in a few purple swing states. The blues and reds are taken for granted and snubbed The candidates don’t hear from California voters about the acute water troubles in our state. But they’re lobbied about manufacturing declines in Michigan and Pennsylvania. It’s an old cliche and true: Squeaky wheels get the government grease. It’s not the electoral college, per se, that’s the culprit. It’s how the electoral votes are awarded by the states. They’re parceled out on a winner-take-all basis. If a candidate carries a state by one vote or 1 million, it’s irrelevant. All the state’s electoral votes go to the popular vote winner. Two small states — Nebraska and Maine — are exceptions. They partially award electoral votes based on who wins in congressional districts. That makes more sense than strict winner-take-all. In California, at least 5.9 million people voted for Republican Trump. They might as well have used their ballots for fireplace kindling. All 54 of the state’s electoral votes will be awarded to Democrat Kamala Harris, who received roughly 9.1 million votes. (When the final count is in, the vote totals will increase slightly.) Same thing in Texas, only vice versa. There, 4.8 million people voted for Harris. But all 40 electoral votes are going to Trump, who was supported by 6.4 million people. Republican voters were effectively disenfranchised in California, as Democrats were in Texas. Polling has shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans — including Californians — want to junk the electoral college system and elect the president by popular vote. A September survey by the Pew Research Center found that 63% of Americans prefer that the presidency be decided by the national popular vote. Conservative Republicans, however, like the status quo — no doubt because two GOP candidates in recent years have won the presidency while losing the popular vote: Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in 2000. But junking the electoral college entirely won’t happen any time soon because it’s politically impossible. It would require a constitutional amendment. And that would need a two-thirds vote by each house of Congress — both about to be controlled by the GOP — plus ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Red state politicians won’t sign off because Republican candidates benefit from the current nonsense. Neither would purple states because they enjoy all the attention and campaign bucks as “battlegrounds.” But there’s a way to reform the system and still retain the electoral college. Just change how the electoral votes are awarded. Parcel them out in proportion to each candidate’s popular vote in the state. In California, Harris got roughly 59% of the vote and Trump 38%. Minority candidates picked up 3%, but I’d shift their tiny amount to the major contenders for electoral vote purposes. Harris would wind up with 33 and Trump with 21. In Texas, Trump would win 23 electoral votes and Harris 17. A proportional allocation system “would make sure that every vote counts and lessen the likelihood that the candidate who loses the popular vote will become president,” UC Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in a recent Sacramento Bee op-ed. Besides Trump and Bush, three presidents were elected in the 1880s while losing the popular vote: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison. “The electoral college was based on the framers’ distrust of majority rule and was a tremendous boost to slave states’ political power,” Chemerinsky told me. The South fretted about the North’s larger population and the Yankees’ political clout. So the founders compromised. Slaves wouldn’t be allowed to vote, but they could count as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of apportioning members of the House of Representatives based on population. That strengthened the South in the electoral college because a state’s number of electors is based mostly on the size of its House delegation. But every state also gets an elector for each senator. And each state is entitled to two, regardless of its size — an allotment designed to dilute the power of big states. I didn’t do all the math, but it’s a safe assumption that Trump still would have won the electoral college vote under a proportional allocation system. Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar, believes the reform could be passed by Congress without amending the Constitution. But first, Americans would need to insist that they elect the president, not the states.