I admit it - I was far too easily distracted by news of veteran actor Randy Quaid’s arrest today on charges of intent to defraud.  I was conducting research for the topic of this blog and was hoping to find something that hadn’t already been “done to death” by the media regarding the G 20 summit that’s currently in full swing.  I realized how frustrated I was over the same old, same old “he said, she said” accusations that rule today’s political headlines.  I realized I was burned out.  Then it occurred to me the dangers of being burned out. 

If our collective society realizes it’s burned out, sick of the bickering and accusations between this country’s leaders, we run the risk of losing what little control we have over important issues that affect not only us, but our children and grandchildren too.  By allowing ourselves to become non-plussed, we’re basically throwing our hands up and declaring an “Ugh! Fight it out on Capital Hill!  I’m going on a Starbucks run!”  And it’s when we leave these elected officials, many of whom are clearly lacking in any sense of self-decorum, self-respect and self-restraint, to do as they will with their very selfish motives.  It’s almost as though the political machine has become too big to rein in - and that’s dangerous too. 

It’s not as though John Q. Citizen is asleep at the wheel, he’s just tired.  He’s tired of sixteen sentence replies to questions that simply require a “yes” or “no” answer.  He’s sick of the very real issues that demand solutions being strong-armed onto the back burner so that room’s made for accusations of everything from racism to media-inspired political brawls.  Whether or not he’s Republican, Democrat or something in between just doesn’t matter anymore - and that is yet another danger.  This country’s built on freedoms - the freedom to proudly declare one’s political views, the freedom to demand changes and expect not only those demands be heard, but be addressed with real solutions and the freedom to kick political butt when the leaders become worse than two and three year old siblings fighting for the last Yoo Hoo in the fridge.

As my Grandma used to say, “Someone’s gotten a bit too big for her britches”.  I think I learned my lesson after the first couple times of being on the receiving end of her evil eye and fair warning of noticing my britches.  Maybe it’s time for a few evil eyes and declarations of my own towards those who have clearly outgrown their political britches.

.

Could it be that the big mystery is finally solved over who fathered Rielle Hunter’s child?  Maybe.  Several media outlets are reporting a secret DNA test was performed on a bit of John Edward’s biological matter and it proves with certainty that he indeed fathered this little girl.

This is all happening as a federal grand jury is deciding whether or not hush money was paid to Hunter two years ago as well as who knew about it if was paid.  Both Hunter and Andrew Young have testified over the past few weeks.  Young is the one who took the fall when the story broke and announced he was the father of this child, despite the potential of jeopardizing his own marriage.  That was his last public appearance and statement since 2007.  Even as he approached the courthouse, he had no comment over his role in this cover-up, if there was one.  Lawyers for both Young and Hunter have said their clients are fully cooperating in the investigation.

The grand jury is investigating whether campaign funds from Edwards’ run as the Republican candidate for vice president were used to pay Hunter to keep quiet about who fathered her now-two year old daughter, Frances.  It’s also seeking to find out the truth about whether or not payments for “videography” were legitimate.

This, of course, reopens the question of what Elizabeth Edwards might now do.  Many have said she was simply waiting for confirmation before filing divorce papers.  Other, however, insist she intends to stand by her man.  This has all taken place as she’s struggled with cancer.

If the grand jury determines the money given to Hunter was done so illegally, Edwards could be facing jail time.  Even worse, the good deed he convinced Young to do could also land his former confidant in jail too, even though that’s unlikely.

There are reports Edwards will be making a public announcement about his paternity.  In the meantime, all eyes are on the missus and are waiting to see what she does, or rather, what she doesn’t do.

If a cleaner environment means fewer jobs and higher power bills, this week’s National Clean Energy Summit

.

that’s being held in Las Vegas is in big trouble as it attempts to bring the benefits of updated environmental policies to the forefront.

A recent Gallup poll revealed 41% of Americans surveyed believe the media has exaggerated global warming.  Twelve months ago, that number was 35%.  Republicans appear to be the most suspicious of media intentions.  66% of Republicans insist the media has ulterior motives, while only 20% of Dems say they’re prone to take the media reports as truth.  A whopping 61% believe the effects of global warming haven’t even begun to occur; these percentages were at 52% this time last year.

So why the sudden distrust?  Two words: the economy.  Too many folks believe greed is behind the push for environmental clean-up efforts.  Jerry Taylor, who works with the free-market advocate, Cato Institution, said, “We’re in the midst of one of the deepest recessions since the Great Depression and people suspect environmental policies that prices tags that are not inconsequential”.   To say there’s a skeptical public is an understatement.

Even with 40% of those polled who believe the environment takes precedence over the economy, it’s clear there’s a shift in priorities in this country.   Economic growth, most believe, should be top priority.

As Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll says in reference to the non-plussed attitude this new poll reveals, “Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts…yet, for all that, it hasn’t worked”.  Of course, there are those who disagree with the Gallup Poll’s numbers and insist on seeing the formulas used to “get to this place”.  Not that it matters; several other polls conducted in the past several months show growing percentages of those who are adamant about not paying higher utility bills that are required for cleaner energy sources.  The sentiment seems to be, “Not now.  Maybe later, but not now.”

The summit will last throughout the week and has many state political leaders in attendance.

.

Saturday marks the 35^th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s resignation.  On August 8, 1974, after having denied any involvement in the infamous Watergate scandal, and under pressure from nearly every politician in Washington, Richard Milhous Nixon officially became the first president in United States History to resign from the highest office in the country.  Gerald Ford was sworn in the next day to take over the role of US President.

The Watergate Scandal had already begun to taint the waters during the 1972 presidential elections; still, Nixon was re-elected in a landslide against his Democrat opponent, Senator George McGovern of South Dakota.  By this time, five men had already been arrested in the middle of the night for their attempts to break into the DNC headquarters at Watergate Hotel in D.C., a large sum of money in the form of a campaign check for Nixon appeared in the bank account of one of the burglars and the FBI had already determined the attempted break-in was a result of a large spy and sabotage effort ordered by Nixon.  The American public either didn’t care or didn’t believe the accusations that were beginning to surface.

Among other illegal activities, the office of a psychiatrist, who had been providing counseling services to a former defense analyst, Daniel Ellsberg, was burglarized and his confidential medical records stolen.  Ellsberg was the first one who leaked the scandal that would eventually and permanently taint politics.

In an address in November, 1973, President Nixon announced to the American public, “I’m not a crook” and once again reiterated his innocence.  Still, he chose to resign nine months later.  After President Ford assumed the role of president, he pardoned Nixon of all charges relating to the Watergate case.  In his announcement, he said, “… I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.”; and in one fell swoop, the former president was absolved.

Former President Nixon died in April, 1994.

.

Mississippi  is a beautiful state, no doubt.  It offers a slower-paced life, complete with everything others associate with southern living: sweet tea, too-hot summers and mosquitoes that you swear are on steroids.  Still, for so many who were born and raised in the Magnolia State, to even consider somewhere else home would feel like a betrayal.

Unless, of course, you’re one of the scandalous legal minds who are now calling a federal prison home.  In a post a year ago, Dickie Scruggs had just been sentenced to five years in federal prison for bribery and other crimes.  Today revealed yet another player in this convoluted scheme who’s anticipating a portion of his own life being spent behind bars.  Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter pleaded guilty to a federal charge of obstruction of justice.  It all stems from former Pascagoula attorney Dickie Scruggs receiving an unfair advantage in a case that went before DeLaughter where millions of dollars were at stake.  Scruggs, along with Joey Langston, another Mississippi attorney, teamed up with a former Hinds County, MS district attorney who was also once DeLaughter’s boss.  Ed Peters agreed to approach DeLaughter on Scruggs’ behalf and promise him an appointment to the federal courts if he would rule in favor of Scruggs.  Former Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) is Scruggs’s brother-in-law and his name was used in the negotiations.  It should be noted Senator Lott played no role in this and was not aware of his name being used to further another’s career.  Lott recommended another candidate for that position.

The case before DeLaughter was between Scruggs and his former partner, William Roberts Wilson, Jr.  Wilson claimed Scruggs stole money the two earned in the multi-million dollar asbestos lawsuits.  He further accused Scruggs of using the stolen money to finance the historical tobacco lawsuits that resulted in new laws being written across the country.  Although Wilson had a solid case, it did no good and DeLaughter ruled in Scruggs’s behalf. 

He was charged last year and has been on administrative leave with pay, which is more than $104,000.00 per year.  That all changed this week and he’s now facing up to twenty years in prison.

If the name Bobby DeLaughter sounds familiar, it’s likely because he was the prosecutor who was responsible for ensuring Byron De La Beckwith was finally held responsible for the 1963 murder of NAACP field secretary Medgar Evers.  In the film “Ghosts of Mississippi”, Alec Baldwin portrayed him.

Governor Haley Barbour is now in the process of appointing another to serve out the remainder of DeLaughter’s term.

What would you do if you were a nurse and pro-life advocate but was ordered into surgery to assist in an

.

abortion?  If you were told the patient’s life hung in the balance and your refusal to do your job would further jeopardize the patient, would that make a difference?  And what if the pregnancy was already twenty-two weeks along; would that complicate matters even more?

This is exactly what happened to a nurse in Brooklyn, NY.  Shortly after arriving at Cedars-Sinai hospital for her scheduled shift, she was ordered to provide assistance in an abortion.  In a federal lawsuit, Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo claims not only was she forced to go against her morals and religious beliefs, but that the abortion wasn’t necessary, at least at the time it was completed.  The lawsuit goes on to say that she pleaded with the physicians to find another nurse who wasn’t so opposed to the procedure but was told if she didn’t accompany the surgeon into the operating room, she could very well lose her job due to patient neglect.  Against her beliefs, she did as she was told.  Now she’s fighting back.

Her lawsuit  says that she put in writing her vehement opposition to abortion and declared she would in no way participate in any abortion procedures.  If that’s the case, the question begging an answer is why wouldn’t the hospital select another nurse to assist?  And if what this nurse claims in her lawsuit that the procedure wasn’t a matter of life and death, what about the patient?  Was she told it was her life or the baby’s?  If the nurse’s lawyers can prove it wasn’t absolutely necessary, odds are, Cedars-Sinai is looking at another lawsuit, this time, from the patient.  Assuming the patient wanted the baby she was carrying - after all, she was already twenty-two weeks along - this woman must now live the fact an abortion she didn’t want was forced upon her by a doctor who chose to decide for her.

Cenzon-DeCarlo has federal “conscience rules” on her side.  Before leaving office, President Bush changed the laws for hospitals that received federal funding.  In short, unless and until a medical facility agreed to respect its workers’ religious and moral beliefs for controversial procedures, it would receive no federal funds.  As of now, these rules are in place; however, many expect President Obama to modify these restrictions, especially since Health and Human Services is accepting ideas regarding proposed changes.

In the meantime, this nurse continues her employment at the hospital.  The lawsuit is asking, among other things, she be allowed to once again work the overtime hours that were suddenly given to co-workers.

.

Ft. Myers Beach, FL has a storm brewing - and it’s not a hurricane.  The city chose to take advantage of a clause in the contracts all city leaders must sign and release its town manager “without cause”.  Sounds simple enough, except the city did give cause and that cause is what has many wondering if a lawsuit isn’t looming.

The town manager, Scott Janke, was ousted by the town council because he’s married to a porn star.  Although some may find that distasteful, the fact is, he hasn’t broken the law.  By a vote of 5-0, the council made what it’s referring to as a “judgment” call and released what the citizens say was an excellent manager.  In fact, even the town council says he’s been a good manager; but can no longer be “effective” and his choice in a spouse is sure to cause disruption should he continue in his current role.   Perhaps the disruption is of their own making, despite the mayor’s declaration of the media attention being proof of their predictions.  In fact, none of us would have ever heard of Scott Janke had this town council decided to “live and let live”.  After all, they’ve been married for over a year.

Mayor Larry Kiker says he considers the Jankes’ his friends and noted he gave Janke the courtesy of a phone call prior to the meeting, however, did not invite him to attend.  One council member said Janke’s wife’s profession brought an “inaccurate” image to the area.  It’s important to note she lived in this area for an extended amount of time prior to marrying Janke and there were no concerns of inaccurate images then.

Janke is expected to receive a severance package, worth about $50,000, along with continued health benefits.

Kiker says there are “possibly no legal ramifications” involved with the council’s decision and that they had to decide what was in the best interest of the town.  Perhaps the town’s best interests are served by a group of leaders who aren’t so judgmental and who make decisions only when they’re certain there are no legal ramifications.

After notorious time delays on everything from how to handle the North Korean crisis to new state laws, a new senate bill is being fast-tracked in an effort to get the fines rolling in for those who “refuse” health care.

The new bill, if passed, will fine Americans who refuse to buy medical insurance, much like state laws now fine automobile drivers with insufficient or no insurance.  This is incredibly dangerous on a number of fronts.  With the potential of $1000 fines annually for people who don’t have or can’t afford medical insurance, it’s unclear as to what the purpose will serve.  For the now 50 million-plus Americans with no health insurance, it’s certainly not because anyone is refusing it.  It’s simply not an option when there are groceries to buy and mortgages to cover.  Who determines what “affordable” is remains to be seen as well and hasn’t been addressed, at least in the media, to sufficiently answer this and other questions.

With the estimated $36 billion dollars in fines the government expects to collect over the next decade, where exactly will these dollars go?  Will they go into a pool to cover those who can’t afford what the government is calling affordable?  Will these funds be used to offset any of these additional burdens on the mother with two kids and barely enough to cover the bases before being forced to buy an “across the board” medical insurance policy?  For a tax system that’s been broken for years, it hardly seems realistic to expect these fines to be collected via the IRS, which will be responsible for collecting these fines.

With the clever name our equally clever political leaders have devised, “Shared Responsibility Payments”, the fines will be based on what the government defines as “affordable basic medical coverage”.  It’s the basic medical coverage now that’s responsible for 66% of all bankruptcies being filed in this country.  It’s insufficient even when folks aren’t being forced to buy it and certainly not enough to keep people from going bankrupt.

And the saving grace?  A government exemption for hardship cases. Again, who exactly will define hardship cases?  Whoever it is will have a tall order to fill with unemployment numbers that continue to climb, despite reassurances from these same government leaders that the recession is on the decline.  Will a family who’s lost not only their jobs, but their homes and every possession they’ve worked for be enough to justify a hardship case?  If so, look out - the line will definitely be long for those wishing to apply for the exemptions.  Take a look around - there are few, if any, who can’t identify someone they personally know who have lost everything.

Medical insurance, or the lack of it, is certainly a priority in this country.  But it stands to reason that a decline in unemployment will greatly reduce those who have no health insurance, homes,  groceries or automobiles to get to those jobs.  Americans refusing medical insurance?  That’s doubtful.  It’s more like Americans refusing to allow the government to shove insufficient medical insurance that will serve very little purpose down their throats, especially when there are clothes to buy for the school year, food to put on the table and utilities that require immediate attention.

It appears the sanctions the world has placed on North Korea have fallen short.  It’s now suspected the country is preparing to launch another “test” missile that has Hawaii in its crosshairs.  It’s believed if it is fired, it will be done in the first week of July.  With Independence Day such an important part of the American way, many military officials believe it will be North Korea’s ideal opportunity.  These same military officials still believe the missile hasn’t been perfected and will fall a solid five hundred miles short of the islands; however, it’s difficult to say this with any sense of certainty.  And now it gets worse:

There’s a North Korean ship, the Kang Nam that the U.S. is tracking via satellite that left its port on Wednesday.  It’s supposed to be carrying weapons material, which of course is in direct violation of these latest global sanctions.  The military is calling the ship a “repeat offender” since it’s been used in the past to transport nuclear and other damaging materials that can be used should North Korea decide to take on the world.  Other countries are tracking this vessel as well.

What’s so disturbing is the promise made by North Korean leaders that any attempts to thwart its vessels’ missions will be met with a “1000 fold” retaliation effort.  You have to ask yourself, “Do we really know for sure what North Korea is up to and what it has at the ready to back up these threats?”  It could be all talk, then again….

Bottom line is that it took less than one week for North Korea to thumb its nose at these latest sanctions.  As many believed, these threats are falling as short as its current nuclear missile reach.  This small country simply isn’t intimidated.  Hopefully, there won’t be so much time wasted on sanctions that serve no purpose and a more definitive solution can be found that will eliminate the threat this country continues to be.  Although this might leave only one solution, hopefully, it won’t come to a full-scale war, despite North Korea’s apparent insistence that it’s acceptable as far as it’s concerned.

Links to lawyer & lawyers

Is it a full moon?  Two women serving on their respective city’s board of supervisors have found themselves in less than ideal positions this week. 

Barbara Wagner, a Glastonbury, CN councilwoman was arrested for driving while intoxicated a few days ago.  She’s recorded on video as threatening the arresting officers and warning them that she’s the one who approves their salary increases.  She accused one officer who attempted to interview her as being rude, even though the video might indicate otherwise.  After she sobered up, she penned a letter to the city’s Police Chief.  In her letter, she expressed deep regret for her behavior and conduct and said she was embarrassed.  She assured Chief Thomas Sweeney of her intent to redeem herself.  She’s requested admittance into a state alcohol rehabilitation program that’s made available to first time offenders.  If she is granted access to the program and successfully completes treatment, the charges will be dropped.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, another city councilwoman is having her own problems with accusations of illegal activities.  Monica Conyers, whose husband John has been a U.S. representative since 1964, is doing her best to avoid the media and its questions regarding pay-offs from an out of state contractor.  She’s supposedly “Council Member A” in documents that accuse her of taking more than $6,000 for a vote in 2007 that gave a $47 million dollar contract to a company in Houston.  The company, Synagro Technologies, recycles sludge from a wastewater treatment plant.  One Synagro contractor has already pleaded guilty to bribery.  Ray Jackson testified that he gave the money to Conyers.  He will be sentenced later this month. 

There have been no charges for Conyers, although she fully expects to be charged.  This will be a high price for a mere $6,000 pay-off, especially for a contract that was worth close to $50 million.  Hardly worth it, no doubt.  Her husband, who’s nearly forty years her senior, is certainly wondering why she would take such a risk that jeopardized not only her career, but his too.