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

Novak Djokovic and being above the law

MIAMI, FL - In times of a world pandemic still going on and a very strong polarization and politization of trivial topics, being anti-vaxxer is definitely a concept I not only don’t understand, but ultimately, I don’t agree upon and most importantly, one which I’m actively against to.

At this point into the pandemic, I don’t want to fall into the temptation of explaining what experts in the field of science, biology, virology, immunology, etc, have said during all this time regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine against COVID-19 but, well, here I go: it is safe and it is highly effective. For details, go to the experts’ platforms all over the specialized Internet portals.

Said that, to me is absolutely unthinkable that a professional athlete, a number one in his sport, an example for the youth, a role model in all what the word entails, is so vocal about his position against science. As a matter of fact, it’s sad, very sad.

Fortunately, he doesn’t represent the majority of the top athletes in the world; unfortunately, he is the top athlete in his sport.

Now, Australia has shown a principle that, directly or indirectly we break more than it should be broken and that is: nobody is above the law, period. You can be good in what you do, or you can be the best in what you do, or you can be even be the cream of the top in what you do, which is the case with Djokovic, with lots of fame and fortune, but, you’re not above the law and Australia has shown that’s the case.

Thanks, Australia, for leading by example, for letting everybody know that the law is the law no matter who you are.

Kudos for the land of kangaroos!

Originally reported by Ricardo Martinez

Three Georgia men sentenced to life in prison for 'chilling' Arbery murder

Jan 7 (Reuters) - A Georgia judge sentenced Travis McMichael and his father Gregory McMichael on Friday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for what he called the "chilling" 2020 murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man running through their mostly white neighborhood in the southern U.S. state.

Judge Timothy Walmsley also gave a life sentence to their neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan but ruled that he could seek parole after 30 years in prison, the minimum sentence allowed for murder under Georgia law.

Echoing comments made by Arbery's anguished relatives earlier in the hearing at Glynn County Superior Court, the judge condemned the three men for what he described as their mistake of failing to see Arbery as just another neighbor.

He said he gave the McMichaels the harshest sentence available in part because of their "callous" words and actions captured on a cellphone video that sparked national outrage when it became public in the summer of 2020.

"It was a chilling, truly disturbing scene," the judge said of the frame in the video where McMichael begins to lift his shotgun at Arbery while the 25-year-old is about 20 feet away. "I kept coming back to the terror that must have been in the mind of the young man running through Satilla Shores."

In November, a jury found Gregory McMichael, 66, his son Travis McMichael, 35, and their neighbor Bryan, 52, guilty of murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal intent to commit a felony.

The judge agreed with prosecutors and Arbery's relatives that the three men, who are white, had "assumed the worst" about Arbery, who he said was "hunted down and shot, and he was killed because individuals here in this courtroom took the law into their own hands."

Earlier, Arbery's family told the court they believed that racial stereotyping led to the killing of the avid jogger, who grew up and still lived across the highway from the Satilla Shores neighborhood where he died. Defense lawyers had pleaded leniency, saying none of the three men ever intended for Arbery to be killed, and that the maximum punishment should be reserved only for the "worst of the worst" offenders.

Before the judge's ruling, Jasmine Arbery addressed the court in a quavering voice to offer a poetic celebration of her younger brother's Blackness, which she said was mistaken for something frightening by his attackers.

"He had dark skin that glistened in the sunlight like gold. He had curly hair; he would often like to twist it. Ahmaud had a broad nose and the color of his eyes was filled with melanin," she said. "These are the qualities that made these men assume Ahmaud was a dangerous criminal. To me, those qualities reflected a young man full of life and energy who looked like me and the people I love."

JUDGE QUOTES ARBERY'S MOTHER

Linda Dunikoski, the lead prosecutor, had argued for the maximum sentence for just the two McMichaels for what she called "a demonstrated pattern of vigilantism." Pointing to Gregory McMichael's former work as an investigator in the local prosecutor's office, she said father and son acted as if they were above the law.

Defense lawyer Kevin Gough had argued for leniency for Bryan because he was the only one of the three who was unarmed when he pursued Arbery.

Attorneys for the three men have said they will appeal the convictions. The men also face a federal trial in February on hate-crime charges, accused of violating Arbery's civil rights by attacking him because of his "race and color."

The state case hinged on whether the defendants, under a now-repealed Georgia law permitting citizen arrests, had a right to confront Arbery on a hunch he was fleeing after committing a crime. In the end the jury was not swayed by tearful testimony from Travis McMichael, the only defendant to take the stand, that he shot only in self-defense.

Arbery was jogging through the leafy Satilla Shores neighborhood on the afternoon of Feb. 23 when the McMichaels decided to grab their guns, jump in a pickup truck and give chase.

Bryan joined the chase in his own pickup truck after it passed his driveway, and pulled out his cellphone to record Travis McMichael firing a shotgun at Arbery at close range. Arbery had nothing on him besides his running clothes and sneakers.

The video fueled national protests against racism in the criminal justice system when it emerged months later and it became clear that none of the men involved had yet been arrested after a local prosecutor concluded the killing was justified.

"They chose to target my son because they didn't want him in their community," Wanda Cooper-Jones, Arbery's mother, told the court on Friday. "When they couldn't sufficiently scare him or intimidate him, they killed him."

In his sentencing, the judge quoted the mother's remarks, saying they struck him as "very true."

"At minimum, Ahmaud Arbery should force us to consider expanding our definition of what a neighbor may be and how we treat them," the judge said.

Originally reported by Jonathan Allen in New York for Reuters®; Additional reporting by Rich McKay in Atlanta; Editing by Alistair Bell and Daniel Wallis

Judge resigns over racist home video capturing N-word use

Lafayette City Court Judge Michelle Odinet resigned Friday, weeks after a video surfaced that depicted her using racist remarks as she and her family watched security footage of an attempted burglary at their home.

“I take full responsibility for the hurtful words used to describe the individual who burglarized the vehicles at my home. I am sorry for the pain that I have caused my community and ask for your forgiveness, as my words did not foster the public’s confidence and integrity for the judiciary,” Odinet said in a letter submitted to the Louisiana Supreme Court filed by her attorney Dane Ciolino.

Ciolino told HuffPost Odinet “understands that this is the end of her public service, but only the beginning of what she must to do to earn the forgiveness of the community.”

Odinet confirmed the video, published by The Current on Dec. 13, was shot in her home. It depicts a television showing security footage of a burglary as several voices laugh and recap the incident while repeatedly using the N-word. Ciolino told The New York Times Odinet was one of the voices heard using a slur in the video.

After the video surfaced, Odinet asked for "forgiveness and understanding", claiming she had taken a sedative at the time of the video and had “zero recollection” of the incident. She requested an unpaid leave ob absence before being temporarily disqualified from the bench.

Ciolino told HuffPost Odinet, who has four adult children, is “humiliated, embarrassed and sorry for what she has done and the trouble that she has caused to her community.”

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.