Hospitals and options

MIAMI-DADE, FL - When a family member or a dear friend is sick, even worse, when it's an emergency and you have to rush to the hospital with said family member or friend, stress and despair start to reign your life, hopefully for a few days, unfortunately it usually lasts a lot more, directly proportionate with the age and previous health conditions of the patient.

It's disheartening enough being in such position when you have to take care of your elderly, injured, family member or friend; but if on top of that the personnel at the hospital, the bureaucracy, the irregularities of different departments of the health center flourish during that time, things get really disturbing.

Not only the fact that your family member is suffering, but for you having to endure poor performance of some of the nurses, or directors, or chiefs of department, or any other people involved in the recovering of your loved one, the situation tends to be, at times, unbearable.

My experience has been every time I have spent some time either on the hospital bed or being company of someone else, that we're going to find people from every part of the spectrum: great professional, others than suck, great facilities, other things not that great; amazing organization, other times, not that much.

The point I try to make is no matter where or when you get to a health center, you have two options: one, pick a fight with every other person you encounter, no matter if that person is a janitor or a neurosurgeon; a nurse, or a physical therapist.

The other option would be to focus on the good people (that you indeed will find) and work things around if you find them uncomfortable or even in detriment, according to your assessment of the circumstances, of the health of either you or the person you're taking care of.

In the meantime, do something useful, read a book or do some research online, while waiting in the cafeteria. After that, entertain yourself with some fun and don't forget to be happy!

Written by Ricardo Martinez

The judge who tossed mask mandate misunderstood public health law, legal experts say

When U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle tossed out the federal government's transportation mask mandate on Monday, she relied in part on her interpretation of the term "sanitation."

The 10-letter word can be found in the Public Health Service Act, a sprawling 1944 law that gave the federal government certain powers to respond to public health emergencies.

The Biden administration relied on a piece of the Public Health Service Act to defend its COVID-19 mask mandate on airplanes and other forms of mass transit.

Specifically, the law says that if the government is trying to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, it can "provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary."

The administration argued that masks qualified as "sanitation" under the law, but Mizelle disagreed, opting for a much narrower definition of the term that would exclude measures like face coverings. Legal experts say her interpretation missed the mark.

"If one of my students turned in this opinion as their final exam, I don't know if I would agree that they had gotten the analysis correct," said Erin Fuse Brown, a law professor at Georgia State University.

"It reads like someone who had decided the case and then tried to dress it up as legal reasoning without actually doing the legal reasoning," she added.

What counts as 'sanitation'?

In her opinion, Mizelle says that a common way judges decide the meaning of words in laws is to look up dictionary definitions that were contemporaneous with the passage of the law. In this instance, that's 1944.

Mizelle says "sanitation" could have been taken to mean either actively cleaning something or measures to keep something clean, but ultimately settles on the former definition.

"Wearing a mask cleans nothing. At most, it traps virus droplets," Mizelle wrote. "But it neither 'sanitizes' the person wearing the mask nor 'sanitizes' the conveyances."

Mizelle says her reading is bolstered by the fact that other words listed alongside "sanitation" in the 1944 law — such as "fumigation" or "pest extermination" — refer specifically to cleaning something or trying to wipe out a disease.

But Fuse Brown says that while this understanding of "sanitation" may be true for lay people, it's not how the term is used in the public health field or understood by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the mandate.

"Sanitation was just the old way in public health parlance of taking traditional public health steps to prevent the spread of disease," she said.

She suggested the opinion will make it harder for the Biden administration to control the spread of COVID-19.Fuse Brown points to the widespread mask-wearing during the 1918 influenza outbreak, which came roughly two and a half decades before the passage of the Public Health Service Act.

"The reasoning is poor, but it also has really drastic and dire consequences for public health, which is the part that makes it not just a joke, but it actually makes it really frightening," she said.

The opinion could have lasting effects on the CDC's authority

Mizelle's opinion also restricts the CDC's ability to respond to public health emergencies in ways it deems appropriate, and if the opinion is upheld by a federal appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts warn it could hobble the government's ability to control future outbreaks.

"If this particular type of opinion took on greater precedential value as it rises up through the court system, if that happens, it's big trouble for CDC down the road," said James Hodge, a law professor at Arizona State University.

Mizelle also criticized the agency for not following standard rule-making procedures before instituting the mandate. Hodge said she misunderstood how the federal government operates during a national public health emergency. Mizelle substituted her own definition of "sanitation," Hodge said, brushing aside a legal norm known as "agency deference" that compels judges to yield to the interpretation of federal agencies when a law's language is unclear.

"This is really a serious deviation from not just what we're trying to do to protect the public's health, but a misstatement of federal authority in emergencies to a great degree," Hodge said.

Fuse Brown agreed, suggesting the opinion amounted to a "breathtaking amount of political judicial activism" that "should chill us all."

"Even if we're skeptical about agencies or even about Congress's ability to make good judgments in this ... time, we certainly do not want these decisions to be in the hands of a single unelected judge," she said.

NPR's Pien Huang contributed reporting to this story.

Is it posible to be dumber than this?

MIAMI, FL - Being an alumnus from Harvard University, being a seasoned debater since his teen years, proudly a Supreme Court contender and not less important and relevant, a US Senator, there is no reason or  explanation in the whole wide world to be so dumb.

Wait, could it be a posible explanation a political interest? Or political gain? Maybe money interest somehow?

The Republican Senator from Texas Ted Cruz said that Biden announcement of his pick for SCOTUS, a black woman, is "offensive" to the rest of the population. He argues that only 6% of the US population is "black women" therefore, the "offense" is for the rest 94% of the population.

There is so much to unpack here that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, offensive for whom? The white privileged men that have been the picked options almost since the beginning of the SCOTUS? or is Senator Cruz pretending to compare the social representation that white men have had against black people or more specifically black women? or he's not aware of the significance of having a minority represented in such a high platform as the SCOTUS? or he just forgot that he, himself, is part of a minority taking into consideration that his own father was cuban, meaning he is latino by heritage?

I really don't know what to think other that the confusion or ill-intention or ignorance or pure evil of this Senator is something worthy of deep psychological analysis or I would say, simply enough reason to vote him out because he seems to be really mentally unstable.

Reported by Ricardo Martinez

A witness corroborated the claim that Rep. Matt Gaetz was told in 2017 he'd had sex with a minor

A witness has confirmed to federal prosecutors that Rep. Matt Gaetz was informed in 2017 that he'd had sex with a minor, sources told The Daily Beast.

In a letter obtained by The Daily Beast in April 2021, Gaetz's associate Joel Greenberg said he discovered a girl he and the congressman had engaged in "sexual activities" with was 17 at the time.

"Immediately I called the congressman and warned him to stay clear of this person and informed him she was underage," Greenberg wrote, according to the outlet. He added Gaetz was "equally shocked and disturbed by this revelation" and that "there was no further contact with this individual until after her 18th birthday."

According to The Daily Beast, someone else was in the room when Greenberg called Gaetz to convey that information: Joe Ellicott, Greenberg's close friend and a former employee at the Seminole County tax office. Both men are now cooperating with federal investigators in the sex-crimes probe into Gaetz.

Ellicott's decision to cooperate is likely bad news for the embattled Florida congressman, who has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in connection to the sex-trafficking probe.

"After nearly a year of false rumors, not a shred of evidence has implicated Congressman Gaetz in wrongdoing," his chief of staff told Insider on Thursday. "We remain focused on our work representing Floridians."

Among other things, Ellicott and Greenberg reportedly exchanged text messages via the encrypted messaging app Signal, in which Ellicott disclosed that a woman they both were associated with "knew [the minor] was underage the whole time, had sex with her, and they both went to see other guys."

Greenberg pleaded guilty to sex trafficking in May and agreed to cooperate fully with the government on other investigations. Ellicott agreed to cooperate this week and will plead guilty to two federal crimes — conspiracy to commit wire fraud and distribution of a controlled substance — in a case separate from the Gaetz investigation, ABC News reported.

No charges have been brought against Gaetz, but several recent developments indicate the investigation is heating up. Among other things, Gaetz's ex-girlfriend testified before a federal grand jury earlier this month. NBC News reported that the ex, whose name Insider is withholding to protect her privacy, has been talking to prosecutors for months and was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony.

NBC also said prosecutors are investigating whether Gaetz sex-trafficked the 17-year-old; if he violated the Mann Act, which prohibits the transportation of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose" across state lines; or if he obstructed justice. Gaetz has denied all three claims.

With respect to the obstruction probe, investigators are said to be scrutinizing a three-way call after the investigation started between Gaetz, his ex, and another woman who was cooperating with federal authorities and who was reportedly recording the phone call. NBC reported that authorities suspect Gaetz of obstructing justice during that conversation; he's denied the allegation.

An attorney for Ellicott declined to comment on reporting about his client's cooperation deal. A spokesperson for Gaetz and a lawyer representing Greenberg did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Read the original article on Business Insider