A new one just begun.
It's already twelve o'clock somewhere.
Happy-Happy!
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saddam, The Ultimate Lawyer Joke
Over on Overlawyered yesterday, Supremacy Claus reminded readers that Saddam Hussein was (among so many other things) a lawyer.
Here it is, right in his official state biography from the Iraqi News Agency.
Sadly, given the state of the justice system in North Carolina, he probably would've fit right in.
Here it is, right in his official state biography from the Iraqi News Agency.
Sadly, given the state of the justice system in North Carolina, he probably would've fit right in.
Nifong, The NC State Bar, And Conflicted Interests
I'm not going to spend a lot of time online this morning. Yesterday, (apart from intermittantly sparing with Roch about the ground rules for this blog) I spent the better part of the day logging online the CME (Continuing Medical Education) I've been working on over the last few months (while out on medical leave). You can mail it all in. But it takes a long time to get your certificates. I've got to start re-credentialling for assignments soon, so it's best to go the quicker route. The laptop was smoking yesterday.
In the wake of LASIK surgery, I've been trying to adapt to the "Monovision"(one far eye and one near eye) I opted to try. Working on a few questions/pages a day is one thing. But spending hours online yesterday pulling it all together and literally connecting all the dots was problematic. Focusing was difficult . . . I kept having to move my head or cock my face to one side to focus on the workbooks and/or computer. Last night, I had THE WORST kind of right eyeball headache. I'm gonna give it a while longer to adjust, but if this keep up, we'll be doing the other eye. I'll gladly surrender to reading glasses.
As an aside, yesterday we got good news about my new kitty, Sabine (who was diagnosed with a clotting disorder last week), from the vet. When they put her under anesthesia and snipped a nail, it clotted in less than three minutes. So they did the spay. She tolerated the procedure well and should be home on Tuesday morning.
Anyway, late last night I came across this CNN article on the Nifong debacle: "Ethics charges filed against the prosecutor at the center of the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case might constitute a conflict of interest that forces him off the case, legal experts said."
According to the article, Nifong could recuse himself . . . or the presiding judge could remove him from the case (the argument being that he's gonna have a hard time being an advocate for the "victim" in this case when his conduct in the same case is what is under fire).
A thread (on the subject of the Bar Complaint against Nifong) over at Ed's on the 28th started out fairly well, but then quickly/typically deteriorated into a partisian verbalslugfest over the proper use of the word "Democrat" as a noun and/or adjective. (And for the record, Roch, this is exactly the kind of USELESS deflection from the issues at hand that I've been talking about). I excerpt the one comment I submitted before realizing the conversation had deteriorated beyond repair.
"I woke up this morning wondering if the move by the State Bar is intended to head off a move by the State Legislature to provide the NC Attorney General with more power to police errant/evil DA's (a power the office currently does not have).
The idea was gaining some grass-roots steam immediately prior to the Bar's announcement, and the AG's office issued a statement that it would more or less welcome the additional duty. My own recent conversation with an associate attorney there gave me the impression that they are just as frustrated by having their hands tied in egregious cases as WeThePeople are.
The wagons remain firmly circled. The scales are tilted and the blindfold is off.
Afternoon Update: The NC Conference of District Attorneys has called for Nifong to step down. If he does, perhaps the public outrage will dampen down (because the new DA is going to ditch this case as fast as he/she can) and they can keep on doing whateverthehades they want to without any legislative or outside scrutiny.
Unscrutinized power is everything.
In the wake of LASIK surgery, I've been trying to adapt to the "Monovision"(one far eye and one near eye) I opted to try. Working on a few questions/pages a day is one thing. But spending hours online yesterday pulling it all together and literally connecting all the dots was problematic. Focusing was difficult . . . I kept having to move my head or cock my face to one side to focus on the workbooks and/or computer. Last night, I had THE WORST kind of right eyeball headache. I'm gonna give it a while longer to adjust, but if this keep up, we'll be doing the other eye. I'll gladly surrender to reading glasses.
As an aside, yesterday we got good news about my new kitty, Sabine (who was diagnosed with a clotting disorder last week), from the vet. When they put her under anesthesia and snipped a nail, it clotted in less than three minutes. So they did the spay. She tolerated the procedure well and should be home on Tuesday morning.
Anyway, late last night I came across this CNN article on the Nifong debacle: "Ethics charges filed against the prosecutor at the center of the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case might constitute a conflict of interest that forces him off the case, legal experts said."
According to the article, Nifong could recuse himself . . . or the presiding judge could remove him from the case (the argument being that he's gonna have a hard time being an advocate for the "victim" in this case when his conduct in the same case is what is under fire).
A thread (on the subject of the Bar Complaint against Nifong) over at Ed's on the 28th started out fairly well, but then quickly/typically deteriorated into a partisian verbalslugfest over the proper use of the word "Democrat" as a noun and/or adjective. (And for the record, Roch, this is exactly the kind of USELESS deflection from the issues at hand that I've been talking about). I excerpt the one comment I submitted before realizing the conversation had deteriorated beyond repair.
"I woke up this morning wondering if the move by the State Bar is intended to head off a move by the State Legislature to provide the NC Attorney General with more power to police errant/evil DA's (a power the office currently does not have).
The idea was gaining some grass-roots steam immediately prior to the Bar's announcement, and the AG's office issued a statement that it would more or less welcome the additional duty. My own recent conversation with an associate attorney there gave me the impression that they are just as frustrated by having their hands tied in egregious cases as WeThePeople are.
Wendell Sawyer brought up the interesting possibility of ordinary citizens filing affidavits (and initiating hearings to remove Nifong from office) over on Sam's blog . . . ala NC General Statute 7A-66."
I am working on my own project related to that statute. It is too premature to post my efforts/work/results so far. But let's just say, the first round was predictable and disappointing.The wagons remain firmly circled. The scales are tilted and the blindfold is off.
Afternoon Update: The NC Conference of District Attorneys has called for Nifong to step down. If he does, perhaps the public outrage will dampen down (because the new DA is going to ditch this case as fast as he/she can) and they can keep on doing whateverthehades they want to without any legislative or outside scrutiny.
Unscrutinized power is everything.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
An Edwards Oldie But Goodie Set To Music
Hysterical video on YouTube. Hat tip to Joe who hat-tipped to Fred. And I hat tip Bubba, who posted the video (sans Julie Andrews) a while back.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Ding Dong . . .
. . . Saddam is dead.
Sayeth the Virgin Nazi: "NO VIRGINS FOR YOU!"
Saturday morning, before the coffee addendum: More CNN coverage. And much wailing/knashing of journalistic teeth over at JR's about whether or not to publish video or still images of the swinging. My immediate reaction to the question (which I did not post there) was, "So. Loving pictures of dead infants in the art section are fine. But the image of a dead dictator ("news" under any definition of the word) is off limits? What exactly is stopping you now?"
The image of another dead child comes to mind. One burned into my brain from years ago. A tiny infant, fallen on a stoop beside the body of its dead parent. The baby's face pinched and frozen in a horrific grimace . . . as it died gasping for good air. Skin bleached white. Mouth cracked and open.
The work of a murderous tyrant. Last night, as he mocked the clerics of Allah, the tyrant paid for the deed. It won't upset me at all to see the pictures. And it won't bother me if I don't.
It's done. Good riddance.
Sayeth the Virgin Nazi: "NO VIRGINS FOR YOU!"
Saturday morning, before the coffee addendum: More CNN coverage. And much wailing/knashing of journalistic teeth over at JR's about whether or not to publish video or still images of the swinging. My immediate reaction to the question (which I did not post there) was, "So. Loving pictures of dead infants in the art section are fine. But the image of a dead dictator ("news" under any definition of the word) is off limits? What exactly is stopping you now?"
The image of another dead child comes to mind. One burned into my brain from years ago. A tiny infant, fallen on a stoop beside the body of its dead parent. The baby's face pinched and frozen in a horrific grimace . . . as it died gasping for good air. Skin bleached white. Mouth cracked and open.
The work of a murderous tyrant. Last night, as he mocked the clerics of Allah, the tyrant paid for the deed. It won't upset me at all to see the pictures. And it won't bother me if I don't.
It's done. Good riddance.
Suckers!
It's been a long day (full of medical appointments - trying to get the ducks in a row to go back to work), and I was not planning to come back online. I also took my new kitty to the vet to spay yesterday, and found out today that she has hemophilia. We're proceeding with the spay tomorrow . . . gingerly and with our fingers crossed.
One of my Yas and I were in the kitchen making dinner . . . preparing an oyster stew (which she and one of my other Yas would later eat and I would offer to TJ the cat) . . . watching the news (Ford's repose and Saddam's imminent date to meet Allah) . . . when loandbehold the talkinghead announced that John Edwards had resigned from his position as Director of the UNC Poverty Center!?!
I'd excerpt what Law School Dean, Jack Boger, said in a letter announcing Deputy Director Marion Crain's appointment to Edwards' position, but it's a law school we're dealing with and I don't want to be sued for anything:).
As the talkinghead casually tossed-off the news, mouths dropped. Knowing looks were exchanged. Muffled, unflattering descriptive terms were uttered.
Back during Edwards' first run, I was of the strong opinion that he should've resigned his Senate seat . . . because God knows the Senator forgot all about everyone and everything else back in North Carolina after he announced he was going to run. Edwards, whose then-website bragged that he was going to be the most accessible Senator ever, was pretty hard to find/pin down. His various offices were notoriously hard to deal with . . . or get anything out of. He was the king of political correctedness . . . and was careful to take no position that might upset the applecarts of those writing the campaign checks. Everything took second place to that campaign . . . especially ordinary constituents.
And maybe, just maybe, if Edwards had attended more Senate Intelligence Committee meetings, he might have asked more questions and voted against invading Iraq.
But this move floors me. The Poverty Center was virtually created for Edwards (capitalizing on his "favorite son" status) by the State of North Carolina as a platform for his "Two Americas" melding into one theme. He can't run and "Direct" at the same time? It certainly should not be as time consuming as being a US Senator . . . and I KNOW his schedule was already pretty flexible (he's been running for President without admitting he was running since the last election). Besides, everyone else in this campaign is probably gonna have a job.
Now he's bailing.
Bubba, commenting at Ed Cone's (on another Edwards thread) had this to say about Edwards before the announcement:
"I think Edwards is right when he talks about "Two Americas". It's just his definition of those groups that's faulty. One of the "Two Americas" is the Users and Abusers group, to which he is a charter member. The other is everyone else."
That comment immediately came to mind when I heard the news of Edwards' bail-out on the Poverty Center.
We here in NC have been played for suckers once again.
One of my Yas and I were in the kitchen making dinner . . . preparing an oyster stew (which she and one of my other Yas would later eat and I would offer to TJ the cat) . . . watching the news (Ford's repose and Saddam's imminent date to meet Allah) . . . when loandbehold the talkinghead announced that John Edwards had resigned from his position as Director of the UNC Poverty Center!?!
I'd excerpt what Law School Dean, Jack Boger, said in a letter announcing Deputy Director Marion Crain's appointment to Edwards' position, but it's a law school we're dealing with and I don't want to be sued for anything:).
As the talkinghead casually tossed-off the news, mouths dropped. Knowing looks were exchanged. Muffled, unflattering descriptive terms were uttered.
Back during Edwards' first run, I was of the strong opinion that he should've resigned his Senate seat . . . because God knows the Senator forgot all about everyone and everything else back in North Carolina after he announced he was going to run. Edwards, whose then-website bragged that he was going to be the most accessible Senator ever, was pretty hard to find/pin down. His various offices were notoriously hard to deal with . . . or get anything out of. He was the king of political correctedness . . . and was careful to take no position that might upset the applecarts of those writing the campaign checks. Everything took second place to that campaign . . . especially ordinary constituents.
And maybe, just maybe, if Edwards had attended more Senate Intelligence Committee meetings, he might have asked more questions and voted against invading Iraq.
But this move floors me. The Poverty Center was virtually created for Edwards (capitalizing on his "favorite son" status) by the State of North Carolina as a platform for his "Two Americas" melding into one theme. He can't run and "Direct" at the same time? It certainly should not be as time consuming as being a US Senator . . . and I KNOW his schedule was already pretty flexible (he's been running for President without admitting he was running since the last election). Besides, everyone else in this campaign is probably gonna have a job.
Now he's bailing.
Bubba, commenting at Ed Cone's (on another Edwards thread) had this to say about Edwards before the announcement:
"I think Edwards is right when he talks about "Two Americas". It's just his definition of those groups that's faulty. One of the "Two Americas" is the Users and Abusers group, to which he is a charter member. The other is everyone else."
That comment immediately came to mind when I heard the news of Edwards' bail-out on the Poverty Center.
We here in NC have been played for suckers once again.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Nailing Nifong
According to the News & Observer: "The N.C. State Bar is seeking to discipline Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong for pre-trial statements he made to the media about the criminal investigation involving Duke University’s lacrosse team."
I am, quite frankly, amazed that the Bar is doing anything. In my own case, the Bar condoned (with silence and inaction) Randolph Hospital lawyers filing false answers on behalf of their clients in discovery . . . as well as my own lawyer's gross fiduciary negligence.
On the flip side of the Nifong case, it's also just fine with the NC Bar for District Attorneys to completely ignore citizens who wish to swear out criminal complaints.
Of course, my case hasn't gotten boatloads of embarassing national news attention . . . heaping loads of humiliation on North Carolina's sorry legal state.
The Bar complaint "concludes that Nifong should have known his conduct was "prejudicial to the administration of justice" and that "Nifong engaged in conduct involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
This seems a prelude to ousting Nifong from office . . . ala NC General Statute 7A-66.
In this case, I think local residents of Durham ought to beat the Bar (which has been asleep) to this punch, and file their own affidavits with the Clerk of Court. Anyone can apparently do it.
Why wait on the State Bar?
It's time for ordinary citizens to take back the law from those in supervisory/regulatory positions who have, for so long, allowed corruption to stand.
As an aside, a physician recuriter called me tonight . . . and "presented" the open Pediatric position with Randolph Hospital (about the umpteenth time I've been called about this one).
Let's just say I was honest with the recruiter.
It's hard not to throw things.
I am, quite frankly, amazed that the Bar is doing anything. In my own case, the Bar condoned (with silence and inaction) Randolph Hospital lawyers filing false answers on behalf of their clients in discovery . . . as well as my own lawyer's gross fiduciary negligence.
On the flip side of the Nifong case, it's also just fine with the NC Bar for District Attorneys to completely ignore citizens who wish to swear out criminal complaints.
Of course, my case hasn't gotten boatloads of embarassing national news attention . . . heaping loads of humiliation on North Carolina's sorry legal state.
The Bar complaint "concludes that Nifong should have known his conduct was "prejudicial to the administration of justice" and that "Nifong engaged in conduct involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
This seems a prelude to ousting Nifong from office . . . ala NC General Statute 7A-66.
In this case, I think local residents of Durham ought to beat the Bar (which has been asleep) to this punch, and file their own affidavits with the Clerk of Court. Anyone can apparently do it.
Why wait on the State Bar?
It's time for ordinary citizens to take back the law from those in supervisory/regulatory positions who have, for so long, allowed corruption to stand.
As an aside, a physician recuriter called me tonight . . . and "presented" the open Pediatric position with Randolph Hospital (about the umpteenth time I've been called about this one).
Let's just say I was honest with the recruiter.
It's hard not to throw things.
Edwards And The City Of New Orleans: The Disappearing Media Thunder Blues
Former trial lawyer, one-term NC Senator and failed 2004 Democratic Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards is (once again) in the Presidential race.
John Edward, you say? Oh. No. Not that one.
This one. Yawn. (Mark, I meant to say six-hundred-sixty-six kinds of evil.)
I wondered all day yesterday if the much bally-hooed "false start" on Edwards' website was acutally a calculated smoothmove to garner more attention in the wake of President Ford's death (which rained on the parade of Edward's carefully-scripted plans for a holiday media blitz).
The comparison between the two men is fascinating . . . and a more than a little ironic. Real "ordinary guy" Ford's major ambition (after paying his dues for 13 terms and twenty-five years as a Congressman) was to be Speaker of the House. He did not initally want to be President - or seek the office. Kennedy wannabe Edwards has been running for President since the day he barely warmed his NC Senate seat.
I also wonder if Edwards could've found the Ninth Ward of New Orleans on a map before deciding to announce there.
I bet James Brown could ("The Godfather of Soul's" last "appearance" at the Apollo today means more media thunder moving away from the Edwards' road-show).
Other local GSO-area bloggers are, of course, very enamoured of Edwards (and will, no doubt, work the blogosphere very hard to put him in the White House . . . whether they admit it or not). Converge South apparently was a strategy-plotting/book-selling & blogging credentials pumping/(Democratic)"community-building" love fest.
But hey, it wasn't political at all.
Most everyone knows how I feel about Mr. Edwards peculiar brand of state-sponsorship-of-a-perpetual-soap-box-especially-made-for- campaigning,"rock-star" public service.
Previous thoughts are here. More are sure to come. But today he's just not worth it.
John Edward, you say? Oh. No. Not that one.
This one. Yawn. (Mark, I meant to say six-hundred-sixty-six kinds of evil.)
I wondered all day yesterday if the much bally-hooed "false start" on Edwards' website was acutally a calculated smoothmove to garner more attention in the wake of President Ford's death (which rained on the parade of Edward's carefully-scripted plans for a holiday media blitz).
The comparison between the two men is fascinating . . . and a more than a little ironic. Real "ordinary guy" Ford's major ambition (after paying his dues for 13 terms and twenty-five years as a Congressman) was to be Speaker of the House. He did not initally want to be President - or seek the office. Kennedy wannabe Edwards has been running for President since the day he barely warmed his NC Senate seat.
I also wonder if Edwards could've found the Ninth Ward of New Orleans on a map before deciding to announce there.
I bet James Brown could ("The Godfather of Soul's" last "appearance" at the Apollo today means more media thunder moving away from the Edwards' road-show).
Other local GSO-area bloggers are, of course, very enamoured of Edwards (and will, no doubt, work the blogosphere very hard to put him in the White House . . . whether they admit it or not). Converge South apparently was a strategy-plotting/book-selling & blogging credentials pumping/(Democratic)"community-building" love fest.
But hey, it wasn't political at all.
Most everyone knows how I feel about Mr. Edwards peculiar brand of state-sponsorship-of-a-perpetual-soap-box-especially-made-for- campaigning,"rock-star" public service.
Previous thoughts are here. More are sure to come. But today he's just not worth it.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
An Honorable Man
Gerald Ford, 38th President of the United States, the only US President who was not elected to the office, and the one President who showed the rest how it could and should be done, passed away last night. He was 93.
His beloved wife, Betty offered the following, "His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country."
May flights of angels sing this good and honorable man to his rest.
Late Afternoon Addendum: Here's a nice CNN link with ordinary Americans offering their memories of (or encounters with) President Ford . . . who endeared himself to many of his countrymen & women for being an "ordinary guy" . . . "a Ford, not a Lincoln".
His beloved wife, Betty offered the following, "His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country."
May flights of angels sing this good and honorable man to his rest.
Late Afternoon Addendum: Here's a nice CNN link with ordinary Americans offering their memories of (or encounters with) President Ford . . . who endeared himself to many of his countrymen & women for being an "ordinary guy" . . . "a Ford, not a Lincoln".
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
The Secret Handshake Of The HysterSisters
It's Christmas Time at my house. All of the high-school Yas are in, and I am holding court as their Queen.
My YaYa name is "Queen Moonlight Dancing Naked on the Railroad Tressle".
All of the Yas have special names. But those names are a secret unless they want to share.
Two of my Yas have had hysterectomies. I have been introduced to a new website called Hyster-Sisters.com. I have also been taught the secret handshake of the Hyster-Sisters which I cannot reveal because it's secret.
We have donned hats and/or masks, lighted small fires, held sacred and ancient ceremonies with special adult European beverages (that one of the Yas brought through US Customs) beneath the YaYa Chandelier stuffed with Beanie Baby Birds in the kitchen. One of these beverages was green and tasted like NyQuil.
Alas, I saw no fairies. But then again, my "mono"vision has been somewhat blurred since surgery. Still getting used to it.
There was a lot of laugher and goodwill towards everything and everyone.
Disclaimer: No laws were broken. Nothing remotely cultish. There was a black cat on the periphery, but she was merely observing. My VooDoo doll from New Orleans remained parked (mine - purchased in 1994 at the French Market - is a lot bigger and scarier than the one pictured in the link).
I cannot reveal the details of these sacred and ancient ceremonies.
Because they're secret.
We exchanged Christmas gifts last night. One of my gifts consisted of two tiny silver boxes (depicting Popes John Paul 2 and Benedict on the lids) with tiny roasaries inside. They came from Venice. Very sweet.
We went to Laddie and Dukes in GSO today for a late lunch.
I had Shepard's Pie. Yum.
We getting ready to use the fire pit on the back porch for more special YaYa ceremonies . . . the details of which I cannot reveal.
Because they're secret.
We will likely end the evening with a movie . . . we're leaning towards "Last Holiday" starring another Queen (Latifah).
"Dear George, Remember no man is a failure who has friends.
Thanks for the wings! Love, Clarence".
I have very special friends. They are my angels. And I am rich indeed.
My YaYa name is "Queen Moonlight Dancing Naked on the Railroad Tressle".
All of the Yas have special names. But those names are a secret unless they want to share.
Two of my Yas have had hysterectomies. I have been introduced to a new website called Hyster-Sisters.com. I have also been taught the secret handshake of the Hyster-Sisters which I cannot reveal because it's secret.
We have donned hats and/or masks, lighted small fires, held sacred and ancient ceremonies with special adult European beverages (that one of the Yas brought through US Customs) beneath the YaYa Chandelier stuffed with Beanie Baby Birds in the kitchen. One of these beverages was green and tasted like NyQuil.
Alas, I saw no fairies. But then again, my "mono"vision has been somewhat blurred since surgery. Still getting used to it.
There was a lot of laugher and goodwill towards everything and everyone.
Disclaimer: No laws were broken. Nothing remotely cultish. There was a black cat on the periphery, but she was merely observing. My VooDoo doll from New Orleans remained parked (mine - purchased in 1994 at the French Market - is a lot bigger and scarier than the one pictured in the link).
I cannot reveal the details of these sacred and ancient ceremonies.
Because they're secret.
We exchanged Christmas gifts last night. One of my gifts consisted of two tiny silver boxes (depicting Popes John Paul 2 and Benedict on the lids) with tiny roasaries inside. They came from Venice. Very sweet.
We went to Laddie and Dukes in GSO today for a late lunch.
I had Shepard's Pie. Yum.
We getting ready to use the fire pit on the back porch for more special YaYa ceremonies . . . the details of which I cannot reveal.
Because they're secret.
We will likely end the evening with a movie . . . we're leaning towards "Last Holiday" starring another Queen (Latifah).
"Dear George, Remember no man is a failure who has friends.
Thanks for the wings! Love, Clarence".
I have very special friends. They are my angels. And I am rich indeed.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Hearing Longfellow's Christmas Bells
On Christmas Day 1863, as the American Civil War raged, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow penned a poem destined to morph into one of our most beloved Christmas carols. The poem was originally entitled, "Christmas Bells". It was re-arranged (most modern hymnals exclude two of the seven verses that specifically pertain to the war), and set to music by John Baptiste Calkin in 1872.
The following is a brief recounting of the story and tragedy behind "I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day".
In the summer of 1861 (the same year "the war of Northern Aggression" began) Longfellow's second wife, Fanny died in a freakish fire. It had been a very hot summer, and she had been attempting to seal an envelope containing the recently shorn curls of the couple's young daughter, Edith. Burning wax fell on . . . and ignited . . . her cotton dress. She ran away from the children (to protect them) and straight to her beloved husband. Ironically, the rush of a cool summer breeze that she had longed for only the day before fueled the fire, completely engulfing Fanny Longfellow in flames. Longfellow himself was severely burned trying to extinguish the fire with a too-small throw rug. Fanny passed away the next day.
Longfellow was inconsolable. The first Christmas after Fanny's death, the following entry was made in his journal: "How inexpressibly sad are all holidays." A year after that, he wrote, "I can make no record of these days. Better leave them wrapped in silence. Perhaps someday God will give me peace . . . A merry Christmas' say the children, but that is no more for me."
More dark days were to come. Longfellow's son, Charles, a lieutenant in the Union Army suffered a crippling injury on the battlefield in late 1863. Longfellow penned "The Christmas Bells" during his son's long convalescence.
I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along
The unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Till, ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime
A chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Then from each black accursed mouth
The cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound
The carols drowned
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn
The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And in despair I bowed my head,
"There is no peace on earth," I said.
"For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep,
"God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men!"
God is not dead. He does not sleep. Wrong shall fail. Right shall prevail. Peace on earth is gonna happen.
When you take the time to listen to those lyrics, it's pretty powerful stuff. And who among us has not had at least one crappy Christmas . . . when we needed a message like that . . . when we really needed to hear those bells?
I am a huge fan of the "Touched by an Angel" series, now gone from CBS. I used to call it "my angel show" and nothing short of a life-threatening emergency could peel me away from my spot in front of the TV at 8 o'clock on Sunday night. In one fourth season episode, the angels actually used Longfellow's poem and the carol to teach a curmudgeonly and despondent Mark Twain ("Sam" to "angel-girl" Monica) a lesson or two.
The message of Longfellow's "Christmas Bells" . . . of hope and goodwill in the face of war and despair still rings true today.
There are two Longfellow quotes I like, and it seems a good time to share:
"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."
And . . .
"Perserverance is a great element of success. If you only knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody."
One can only hope:)
Happy Christmas 2006.
The following is a brief recounting of the story and tragedy behind "I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day".
In the summer of 1861 (the same year "the war of Northern Aggression" began) Longfellow's second wife, Fanny died in a freakish fire. It had been a very hot summer, and she had been attempting to seal an envelope containing the recently shorn curls of the couple's young daughter, Edith. Burning wax fell on . . . and ignited . . . her cotton dress. She ran away from the children (to protect them) and straight to her beloved husband. Ironically, the rush of a cool summer breeze that she had longed for only the day before fueled the fire, completely engulfing Fanny Longfellow in flames. Longfellow himself was severely burned trying to extinguish the fire with a too-small throw rug. Fanny passed away the next day.
Longfellow was inconsolable. The first Christmas after Fanny's death, the following entry was made in his journal: "How inexpressibly sad are all holidays." A year after that, he wrote, "I can make no record of these days. Better leave them wrapped in silence. Perhaps someday God will give me peace . . . A merry Christmas' say the children, but that is no more for me."
More dark days were to come. Longfellow's son, Charles, a lieutenant in the Union Army suffered a crippling injury on the battlefield in late 1863. Longfellow penned "The Christmas Bells" during his son's long convalescence.
I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along
The unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Till, ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime
A chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Then from each black accursed mouth
The cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound
The carols drowned
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn
The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And in despair I bowed my head,
"There is no peace on earth," I said.
"For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep,
"God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men!"
God is not dead. He does not sleep. Wrong shall fail. Right shall prevail. Peace on earth is gonna happen.
When you take the time to listen to those lyrics, it's pretty powerful stuff. And who among us has not had at least one crappy Christmas . . . when we needed a message like that . . . when we really needed to hear those bells?
I am a huge fan of the "Touched by an Angel" series, now gone from CBS. I used to call it "my angel show" and nothing short of a life-threatening emergency could peel me away from my spot in front of the TV at 8 o'clock on Sunday night. In one fourth season episode, the angels actually used Longfellow's poem and the carol to teach a curmudgeonly and despondent Mark Twain ("Sam" to "angel-girl" Monica) a lesson or two.
The message of Longfellow's "Christmas Bells" . . . of hope and goodwill in the face of war and despair still rings true today.
There are two Longfellow quotes I like, and it seems a good time to share:
"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."
And . . .
"Perserverance is a great element of success. If you only knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody."
One can only hope:)
Happy Christmas 2006.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
The "Shine The Lights" Story
Yesterday, commenting on another shrewd analysis of the sorry state of GSO city government, I told Joe Gurarino that he was one of the lights in an otherise dark world. I told him to "shine on". In my almost two years in the local blogosphere, I've been amazed at where (and from whom) I've found encouragement and support . . . and who has slammed the door in my face.
To those who have slammed that door (while asking everyone else, "How can I help?"), I feel the need to take the role of a Dickens' ghost and say (rattling the chains), Your actions do not match your words and expressed ideals. Sometimes "need" is not a function of socioeconomic class or race/national origin or anything else that you think might grab the headlines this time of year. Sometimes it's just a matter of doing your job the way it's supposed to be done.
I digress. This summer, I was browsing through "The Master's Loft" in Winston-Salem (there use to be one in Greensboro, but it closed), when I spotted a simple white-lighted Cross in the window. It was about three feet high. I promptly scarfed it up . . . planning to display it this Christmas in the "Amityville" window over my front porch (which is currently adorned with a Moravian Star). Alas, getting to this window is problematic, and I forgot all about placing the Cross above the porch (and switching out the star . . . which hangs there all year . . . because the window is so hard to get to) before I had surgery.
I did not decorate this year. I usually have a lighted (red white & blue) wreath on the garage, and an enormous silver Christmas tree (in honor of my Grandmother Ercie's aluminum tree), and a Snoopy Flying Ace inflatable in the front yard. The lampost and mailbox and birdhouses are all adorned with bows (the birdhouses actually get tiny stockings).
I also usually have a small nativity scene on the mantle in the den . . . my favorite is one I bought the glorious Christmas I spent in New Orleans . . . three black children are dressed as the Holy Family. It's precious.
Last year I decorated, but my heart just was not in it (what with it being the first Christmas without Dad). And this year, I just did not feel like it . . . physically or emotionally.
I only just put up a Christmas Wreath on the front door yesterday. The high-school Yas are all coming in tomorrow, and my house will be Grand-Central for a few days. I felt I had to do something. So I plugged in one candle in a front-porch window, and the Moravian Star in the Amityville window, and that was it . . . a minimalist Christmas.
When I closed the front door, I saw the Cross peeking out from the corner of the dining room. I had forgotten all about it. Knowing full well there was no way I could get it (in my pseudo-blind and still stiff/sore state) up to the porch window, I pondered about where to put it. As I fiddled with the Cross I noted a small tag attached. It was a note from the craftsman, and I thought I would share it here:
The "Shine The Lights" Story
Matthew 5:16, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
The lighted cross that you have purchased was designed by a native of Winston-Salem, NC, Pamela Hairston (shinethelights@yahoo.com). For years, she was saddened by celebrating Christmas and Easter with past traditions of trees, Easter bunnies and malls and yearned for a more spiritual expression for what Christ has done for us. A lighted cross, she thought, was the perfect message for the world today.
She placed the first lighted cross in her window during the Christmas season and someone came to the door and asked, "Where did you purchase your decorated cross?" Encouraged and supported by her Aunt and Mom, production began and is now a wonderful hand-crafted gift to honor the Lord.
The lighted cross is representative of "The True Light Of The World", our Lord and Savior, Jesus. He is the Christ of Christmas and Lord of all Christians who are now called to shine the light of the Gospel by sharing the message of salvation to those who are lost. And also, by the life of love we live.
To God Be ALL The Glory!!!
These hand-crafted crosses are designed to joyfully proclaim the Gospel by shining the light of Jesus's love in your home and business. Let's remember Jesus not only at Christmas, but also throughout the year . . . In everything give thanks to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For He Alone Is Lord!!!
Matthew 5:14, "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid."
Not having a lot of options, I placed the Cross on my kitchen table . . . in front of one of the huge picture windows that look out on the street and up to my mountain view (it's actually a glorified hill). I turned off the lights and plugged in the Cross. Like magic, the glow spread across the yard and throughout my kitchen. The cats instantly quieted, and gazed upon it as if hypnotized.
I walked outside and noted that the Cross perfectly offset the candle in the window and the star.
The minimalist Christmas works for me. And it served to remind me of what I need to pull out of the corner, and put front and center.
*On that note, here's a tip: To anyone in the neighborhood who has never attended the Moravian Christmas Eve Love Feast at Home Moravian Church in Winston-Salem (see worship services), it is the most beautiful service I have ever attended any Christmas anywhere (I am partial to the last service . . . featuring the men's choir). It's too late this year, but I also recommend the Candle Tea . . . held the first two weekends of every December at the Single Brother's House in Old Salem. I've gone almost every year since I was a wee toddler.
Jesus Christ is the Reason for this season, His Life and Love are it's Greatest Gift.
Deal with it:)
To those who have slammed that door (while asking everyone else, "How can I help?"), I feel the need to take the role of a Dickens' ghost and say (rattling the chains), Your actions do not match your words and expressed ideals. Sometimes "need" is not a function of socioeconomic class or race/national origin or anything else that you think might grab the headlines this time of year. Sometimes it's just a matter of doing your job the way it's supposed to be done.
I digress. This summer, I was browsing through "The Master's Loft" in Winston-Salem (there use to be one in Greensboro, but it closed), when I spotted a simple white-lighted Cross in the window. It was about three feet high. I promptly scarfed it up . . . planning to display it this Christmas in the "Amityville" window over my front porch (which is currently adorned with a Moravian Star). Alas, getting to this window is problematic, and I forgot all about placing the Cross above the porch (and switching out the star . . . which hangs there all year . . . because the window is so hard to get to) before I had surgery.
I did not decorate this year. I usually have a lighted (red white & blue) wreath on the garage, and an enormous silver Christmas tree (in honor of my Grandmother Ercie's aluminum tree), and a Snoopy Flying Ace inflatable in the front yard. The lampost and mailbox and birdhouses are all adorned with bows (the birdhouses actually get tiny stockings).
I also usually have a small nativity scene on the mantle in the den . . . my favorite is one I bought the glorious Christmas I spent in New Orleans . . . three black children are dressed as the Holy Family. It's precious.
Last year I decorated, but my heart just was not in it (what with it being the first Christmas without Dad). And this year, I just did not feel like it . . . physically or emotionally.
I only just put up a Christmas Wreath on the front door yesterday. The high-school Yas are all coming in tomorrow, and my house will be Grand-Central for a few days. I felt I had to do something. So I plugged in one candle in a front-porch window, and the Moravian Star in the Amityville window, and that was it . . . a minimalist Christmas.
When I closed the front door, I saw the Cross peeking out from the corner of the dining room. I had forgotten all about it. Knowing full well there was no way I could get it (in my pseudo-blind and still stiff/sore state) up to the porch window, I pondered about where to put it. As I fiddled with the Cross I noted a small tag attached. It was a note from the craftsman, and I thought I would share it here:
The "Shine The Lights" Story
Matthew 5:16, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
The lighted cross that you have purchased was designed by a native of Winston-Salem, NC, Pamela Hairston (shinethelights@yahoo.com). For years, she was saddened by celebrating Christmas and Easter with past traditions of trees, Easter bunnies and malls and yearned for a more spiritual expression for what Christ has done for us. A lighted cross, she thought, was the perfect message for the world today.
She placed the first lighted cross in her window during the Christmas season and someone came to the door and asked, "Where did you purchase your decorated cross?" Encouraged and supported by her Aunt and Mom, production began and is now a wonderful hand-crafted gift to honor the Lord.
The lighted cross is representative of "The True Light Of The World", our Lord and Savior, Jesus. He is the Christ of Christmas and Lord of all Christians who are now called to shine the light of the Gospel by sharing the message of salvation to those who are lost. And also, by the life of love we live.
To God Be ALL The Glory!!!
These hand-crafted crosses are designed to joyfully proclaim the Gospel by shining the light of Jesus's love in your home and business. Let's remember Jesus not only at Christmas, but also throughout the year . . . In everything give thanks to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For He Alone Is Lord!!!
Matthew 5:14, "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid."
Not having a lot of options, I placed the Cross on my kitchen table . . . in front of one of the huge picture windows that look out on the street and up to my mountain view (it's actually a glorified hill). I turned off the lights and plugged in the Cross. Like magic, the glow spread across the yard and throughout my kitchen. The cats instantly quieted, and gazed upon it as if hypnotized.
I walked outside and noted that the Cross perfectly offset the candle in the window and the star.
The minimalist Christmas works for me. And it served to remind me of what I need to pull out of the corner, and put front and center.
*On that note, here's a tip: To anyone in the neighborhood who has never attended the Moravian Christmas Eve Love Feast at Home Moravian Church in Winston-Salem (see worship services), it is the most beautiful service I have ever attended any Christmas anywhere (I am partial to the last service . . . featuring the men's choir). It's too late this year, but I also recommend the Candle Tea . . . held the first two weekends of every December at the Single Brother's House in Old Salem. I've gone almost every year since I was a wee toddler.
Jesus Christ is the Reason for this season, His Life and Love are it's Greatest Gift.
Deal with it:)
Friday, December 22, 2006
It Happened One Christmas
Tonight, between eye drop applications, I am adjusting to my newly-acquired monovision (one "near" eye and one "far" eye). Right now, I'm turning my head a lot. It's really cool.
At this moment, on i TV there is an interesting (and apparently obscure) 1977 "remake" of "It's A Wonderful Life" (the Capra classic simply being the world's greatest movie ever), starring Marlo Thomas as Mary Bailey Hatch . . . a female Jimmy Stewart/George Bailey. The movie is called "It Happened One Christmas".
I've never seen this version. But I know how it ends:) The angel gets her wings.
At this moment, on i TV there is an interesting (and apparently obscure) 1977 "remake" of "It's A Wonderful Life" (the Capra classic simply being the world's greatest movie ever), starring Marlo Thomas as Mary Bailey Hatch . . . a female Jimmy Stewart/George Bailey. The movie is called "It Happened One Christmas".
I've never seen this version. But I know how it ends:) The angel gets her wings.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
The Christmas Card
This past June I mused (very gratefully) on the grace and courage of a young Mother and Church Deaconess opening up to fellow church members about a sensitive subject . . . the circumstances surrounding her daughter's birth at Randolph Hospital . . . a very unpopular subject in the circles of Asheboro's elite (where Scrooges and Grinches and Mister Potters abound).
Of course, I'm referencing Scrooge's nature before he was visited by spirits . . . and The Grinch before he "stole" Christmas (not) and his small heart grew three sizes in one day.
What happened in June constituted "An Early Christmas Card".
This afternoon, my mailbox gifted me with the real thing.
Now, I will take that in my Inbox any day.
She's a beauty (I actually caught a glimpse of her singing at a church event I reluctantly attended this past Sunday). I will add this card (number eight if I'm not mistaken) to the collection . . . and say a prayer tonight to thank God I was there and could help.
I would do it again. Despite everything.
Another medical procedure looms tomorrow, and I have no idea how I will feel or if I will be back online before Christmas.
So, just in case I'm not, it seems like a good time to quote Snoopy, The Flying Ace (to the Red Baron), and say, "Merry Christmas, my friend(s)!".
If we're fighting, it will have to wait.
And may "God Bless Us, Everyone".
Of course, I'm referencing Scrooge's nature before he was visited by spirits . . . and The Grinch before he "stole" Christmas (not) and his small heart grew three sizes in one day.
What happened in June constituted "An Early Christmas Card".
This afternoon, my mailbox gifted me with the real thing.
Now, I will take that in my Inbox any day.
She's a beauty (I actually caught a glimpse of her singing at a church event I reluctantly attended this past Sunday). I will add this card (number eight if I'm not mistaken) to the collection . . . and say a prayer tonight to thank God I was there and could help.
I would do it again. Despite everything.
Another medical procedure looms tomorrow, and I have no idea how I will feel or if I will be back online before Christmas.
So, just in case I'm not, it seems like a good time to quote Snoopy, The Flying Ace (to the Red Baron), and say, "Merry Christmas, my friend(s)!".
If we're fighting, it will have to wait.
And may "God Bless Us, Everyone".
North Carolina, The "Wonderland" Of Justice And Journalism
Thoroughly disgusted with the state of journalism (particularly the "citizen" kind) and justice in North Carolina, and in the wake of being "side-coned" (and daring to talk about it), I was not going to post for a while. Besides, after tomorrow, I'll be trying not to rub my eyes anyway.
But William Anderson at Lew Rockwell.com threw a monkey-wrench in that notion. He's got a great article up today entitled "Duke, Durham and Dishonor". In it, he rips the no-account justice system in North Carolina a new one. And he links another article, "The Earl of Dook, or the Continuing State of Justice in North Carolina". Remember the farce of justice that was the "Little Rascals" Trial? Anderson also links KC Johnson's "Durham In Wonderland" blog.
Sayeth Anderson: "Thus, someone is lying, and that lying has taken place in a court of law in official circumstances where the penalities for lying include prison." Stand in line, fella.
Anderson also laments the failure of the powers-that-be (specifically the MSM/press, the Attorney General and the legislature) to do something, ANYTHING, to reign in the absolute power of NC DA's . . . who so often put something besides justice first.
I'll note that these columnists and bloggers are not North Carolinians. In fact, they're "damned Yankees" (smiling, with tongue-firmly-in-cheek). They're also absolutely right.
But William Anderson at Lew Rockwell.com threw a monkey-wrench in that notion. He's got a great article up today entitled "Duke, Durham and Dishonor". In it, he rips the no-account justice system in North Carolina a new one. And he links another article, "The Earl of Dook, or the Continuing State of Justice in North Carolina". Remember the farce of justice that was the "Little Rascals" Trial? Anderson also links KC Johnson's "Durham In Wonderland" blog.
Sayeth Anderson: "Thus, someone is lying, and that lying has taken place in a court of law in official circumstances where the penalities for lying include prison." Stand in line, fella.
Anderson also laments the failure of the powers-that-be (specifically the MSM/press, the Attorney General and the legislature) to do something, ANYTHING, to reign in the absolute power of NC DA's . . . who so often put something besides justice first.
I'll note that these columnists and bloggers are not North Carolinians. In fact, they're "damned Yankees" (smiling, with tongue-firmly-in-cheek). They're also absolutely right.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Side-Coned
My original plan with this blog was to get up one or two good/detailed posts a day on matters pertinent to medicine, law and politics . . . particularly as it relates to local and state matters and specifically as it reflects on my case (for perjury/contempt/fraud) against two local "non-profit" hospital executives.
As an example, I've been meaning to post a kind of rebuttal to "The President's Message" published in the North Carolina Medical Board's quarterly "Forum". Dr. Moffatt spoke of civility and duty in a little ditty entitled, "On Collegiality". Haven't gotten around to taking this fluff piece apart. But I will.
Occasionally, to lighten things up, I post something just for fun. For instance, my horoscope today says that "it's time to pay back a debt or acknowledge your gratitude to someone". That's fodder for a great blogpost. I think I will work on that this week.
I digress. My original plans for regular posting were thwarted because of a disruption in The Force. What was originally planned as a two-month medical sabbatical (sinus surgery to correct a job botched at Randolph, as well as a well-earned vacation) has extended to four months and three surgeries. I am recovering well from the removal of "the plumbing" last month, and am scheduled for LASIK eye surgery in Pinehurst (with the world-renowned, Dr. Martin) on Thursday.
I get to wear an eye patch for Christmas (I'm a compulsive eye-rubber). Then I get to see the world through a new eye (I'm only having one done). I will have a "near" eye and a "far" eye.
By the way, Merry Christmas and if you don't want to be wished one, "deal with it" (a whole nuther topic).
One of my Ya's said that, if I got anything else done, I would need to join a "surgery self-help group". Another wryly commented that it was just the equivalent of a "40-year" tune up".
Whatever. These things needed to be done. They're done. In the meantime, I've slept a lot, and adopted another cat, and worked on CME (hours and hours which I need to register while I'm out). I'm currently wrestling with the notion of taking another month or two off before I resume work. I've read about women taking year-long sabbaticals just to go to the beach and write. Now there's an idea.
At any rate, the point that I'm trying to get to is that sometimes I get sidetracked
This week I got side-coned. It started when I jumped into the fray on a post at Sam's (also known as "The Conservative Alternative"). As I understand it (and let's be clear, it's my understanding), Sam developed the blog as a counter-weight to all of the left-leaning blogs in the GSO blogosphere.
Politically, I'm an Independent and (I think) a moderate. I'm also a Christian (a "lapsed Baptist") who thinks a lot of the "political correctedness" regarding the day-to-day practice and application of my faith & heritage (which must defer at all times to everyone else's so as not to "offend") is hooey. But I find myself siding a great deal with Sam/Bubba/MeBlogin/Brenda/Joe, etc. A lot of the time, when I jump in (and I don't as much as I used to), it's not so much about the issue at hand, as the way I see people being treated/ganged-up-on when they express a dissenting (usually "conservative") opinion.
Mama says that from the time I was a little girl, I was a sucker for strays and underdogs.
I still find the "batshit crazy" tossed by Cone at judicial candidate, Rachel Hunter (immediately prior to the election), morally and journalistically repugnant. The lowest of lows. There is no defense and no justification. It's one of those times, when you delete the comment (as opposed to crossing it out) and offer an unconditional apology.
Anyway, here's the thread (at Sam's): "It's About the Power . . . Not The Children (Stupid)". I'm not going to reiterate any of what I said there, here.
The background to this story though, lies in my Inbox. I wanted to get on with my own posting on my own blog. But at the same time I was doing blog-battle with Stew and Roch at Sam's . . . Ed Cone and I were going at it in e-mails. I referenced some of those e-mails in the thread at Sam's.
I've given this a great deal of thought. What's been going on isn't exactly "private". As I don't want to be accused of "lying" (a sore spot) or taking anything out of context, I've decided to publish the exchange here . . . in the form of a conversation. It is, after all, nothing that I/he has not said before. It will be like a thread. I'll even color code the comments with "blue" and "red" (get it?). I'm fairly certain I have not missed anything and all the dates/times are correct, but I've done this very quickly (as I have many more productive things to do today).
The title of the first thread is "Stop Please".
Ed (12/13, 10:11 pm): From CA: "...their take is that I’m just in it for the money." Not my take. Quit putting words in my mouth, please. I don't recall taking newspaper quotes out of context either.
Mary (12/13, 11:04 pm): I suggest you go back and read your own threads. As I recall, you and/or Roch quoted the statements I made to the N&R immediately after the settlement . . . statements I made whilst unaware that executives had lied under Oath - and I had been swindled . . . as some kind of "evidence" that my motives were suspect, you most certainly took those comments out of context. I know your take. You're not interested, you don't care. It's well-established.
Ed (12/14, 7:37 am): What you recall is not in question. you are making affirmative statements about my views, and your statements are incorrect.
As an example, I've been meaning to post a kind of rebuttal to "The President's Message" published in the North Carolina Medical Board's quarterly "Forum". Dr. Moffatt spoke of civility and duty in a little ditty entitled, "On Collegiality". Haven't gotten around to taking this fluff piece apart. But I will.
Occasionally, to lighten things up, I post something just for fun. For instance, my horoscope today says that "it's time to pay back a debt or acknowledge your gratitude to someone". That's fodder for a great blogpost. I think I will work on that this week.
I digress. My original plans for regular posting were thwarted because of a disruption in The Force. What was originally planned as a two-month medical sabbatical (sinus surgery to correct a job botched at Randolph, as well as a well-earned vacation) has extended to four months and three surgeries. I am recovering well from the removal of "the plumbing" last month, and am scheduled for LASIK eye surgery in Pinehurst (with the world-renowned, Dr. Martin) on Thursday.
I get to wear an eye patch for Christmas (I'm a compulsive eye-rubber). Then I get to see the world through a new eye (I'm only having one done). I will have a "near" eye and a "far" eye.
By the way, Merry Christmas and if you don't want to be wished one, "deal with it" (a whole nuther topic).
One of my Ya's said that, if I got anything else done, I would need to join a "surgery self-help group". Another wryly commented that it was just the equivalent of a "40-year" tune up".
Whatever. These things needed to be done. They're done. In the meantime, I've slept a lot, and adopted another cat, and worked on CME (hours and hours which I need to register while I'm out). I'm currently wrestling with the notion of taking another month or two off before I resume work. I've read about women taking year-long sabbaticals just to go to the beach and write. Now there's an idea.
At any rate, the point that I'm trying to get to is that sometimes I get sidetracked
This week I got side-coned. It started when I jumped into the fray on a post at Sam's (also known as "The Conservative Alternative"). As I understand it (and let's be clear, it's my understanding), Sam developed the blog as a counter-weight to all of the left-leaning blogs in the GSO blogosphere.
Politically, I'm an Independent and (I think) a moderate. I'm also a Christian (a "lapsed Baptist") who thinks a lot of the "political correctedness" regarding the day-to-day practice and application of my faith & heritage (which must defer at all times to everyone else's so as not to "offend") is hooey. But I find myself siding a great deal with Sam/Bubba/MeBlogin/Brenda/Joe, etc. A lot of the time, when I jump in (and I don't as much as I used to), it's not so much about the issue at hand, as the way I see people being treated/ganged-up-on when they express a dissenting (usually "conservative") opinion.
Mama says that from the time I was a little girl, I was a sucker for strays and underdogs.
I still find the "batshit crazy" tossed by Cone at judicial candidate, Rachel Hunter (immediately prior to the election), morally and journalistically repugnant. The lowest of lows. There is no defense and no justification. It's one of those times, when you delete the comment (as opposed to crossing it out) and offer an unconditional apology.
Anyway, here's the thread (at Sam's): "It's About the Power . . . Not The Children (Stupid)". I'm not going to reiterate any of what I said there, here.
The background to this story though, lies in my Inbox. I wanted to get on with my own posting on my own blog. But at the same time I was doing blog-battle with Stew and Roch at Sam's . . . Ed Cone and I were going at it in e-mails. I referenced some of those e-mails in the thread at Sam's.
I've given this a great deal of thought. What's been going on isn't exactly "private". As I don't want to be accused of "lying" (a sore spot) or taking anything out of context, I've decided to publish the exchange here . . . in the form of a conversation. It is, after all, nothing that I/he has not said before. It will be like a thread. I'll even color code the comments with "blue" and "red" (get it?). I'm fairly certain I have not missed anything and all the dates/times are correct, but I've done this very quickly (as I have many more productive things to do today).
The title of the first thread is "Stop Please".
Ed (12/13, 10:11 pm): From CA: "...their take is that I’m just in it for the money." Not my take. Quit putting words in my mouth, please. I don't recall taking newspaper quotes out of context either.
Mary (12/13, 11:04 pm): I suggest you go back and read your own threads. As I recall, you and/or Roch quoted the statements I made to the N&R immediately after the settlement . . . statements I made whilst unaware that executives had lied under Oath - and I had been swindled . . . as some kind of "evidence" that my motives were suspect, you most certainly took those comments out of context. I know your take. You're not interested, you don't care. It's well-established.
Ed (12/14, 7:37 am): What you recall is not in question. you are making affirmative statements about my views, and your statements are incorrect.
Mary (12/14, 8:37 am): "Quit putting words in my mouth", yet what I recall is not in question? So you were just having some fun at my expense? Even better. Tell you what Ed, you just keep tossing those softballs to Elizabeth Edwards (could that have anything to do with upping your own profile?). And I'll keep asking her trial-lawyer, millionaire husband (he who "supports" young people selling portions of their lives to government service programs to wipe out their educational debt) where he was when he could've helped me out.
Ed (12/14, 10:44 am): Edwardses: You’re entitled to your opinions. I’m asking you to quit mischaracterizing my views, namely, that my “take is that [you are] just in it for the money." You say a lot of nasty things about me. That’s your choice, but I would ask that you stick to the facts when doing so.
Mary (12/14, 11:57 am): Re: the Edwardses. Yes, I certainly am. What happened to the theory that one has no real blogging credentials without their own blog? And I/others have repeatedly asked you (and some of your friends) to re-examine and tone down the behavior that makes some of the rest of us so angry/frustrated/exasperated. My observations are honest. I don't like the way you operate. My choice is to say so. You refuse to acknowledge that your name alone has given you a huge advantage over the rest of us (particularly in terms of your relationship with the N&R and the political elite who run this state - as the very links you cited in the latest EE fluffball demonstrate). You pontificate about "community" and inclusiveness", yet provoke and bait and polarize and push commentators who disagree with you into corners . . .. you incite/encourage "gang-ups" (the reason the whole "coning" nickname took off) . . . and then pull the "who me?" act. Everybody's opinion and contributions matter . . . but not really. And you're the guy who has resorted to the "nasty" & despicable . .. . ala "batshit crazy" (directed at a woman with a brain tumor no less). I'd offer that "reaping what you sow" is biblical, but I'd get another "keep religion out of everything" lecture. I came to you for help and was treated like snark bait. I'd ask you how I'm "mischaracterizing" your views . . . specifically as they pertain to my case (as that is what started this round). But that would continue this conversation.
Ed (12/14, 11:50 pm): I write a personal weblog. I’ve never said otherwise. It’s not a community site. It’s inclusive in that anyone can comment, but it’s not there to make people feel warm and fuzzy. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? You sure dish out a lot of invective for someone who wants to be treated with kid gloves.
Mary (12/14, 2:23 pm): Your personal weblog sure has gotten a lot of traffic diverted to it from the N&R. "Cooperative relationships" between people and organizations on the "in" are wonderful things. And yes, for a while, I did have you confused with someone else. No more. Congratulations. It took some work on your part. But I'm not confused anymore. I've never asked to be treated with kid gloves. But I give as good as I get. I sense that is what you cannot stand. Someone who will not just take the hits and back down . .. . but keeps on coming. The GSO blogosphere is splintering into factions . . . rather than growing into a community. Part of that is to be expected as the blogosphere grows and more newbies come into to ether. But the responsibility for a lot of what is going on in the GSO "community" lies at the feet of its "High Priest" and "King". As long as "the King" keeps asking for feedback, he will get it. And as long as you keep dishing out the "batshit crazies", don't complain when someone puts words in your mouth. Their words are probably nicer. Now STOP. Please.
Ed (12/14, 2:36 pm): I don’t get much traffic from the N&R, actually. I was blogging long before they got into the game, and I would imagine that I send them a lot more traffic than they send me. You sense wrong – I don’t mind disagreement or pushback. It’s just when you make stuff up that I have a problem. Connie Mack Jr is a nut. His wife ran a nutty campaign and showed herself to be utterly unfit to sit as a judge. Deal with it. If you think that gives the right to lie, so be it. It’s your crediblity on the line.
Mary (12/14, 5:07 pm): We've had this conversation already. On the matter of credibility, your threads speak for themselves. I haven't made anything up ("what you recall is not in question"). And, I'll note that even though you started . . . and continued . . . this "conversation", you never bothered to tell me exactly how I've mischaracterized your views. You just called me a liar (pushing that button) and ran. But I'm used to it. People jump through a lot of hoops and take great pains to answer your questions. I know I did. On the other hand, you generally have a hard time answering a question. Rachel lost, Ed. She's battling cancer. The very least you could do is be a gracious winner. In the loosing, Ms. Hunter may ultimately be able to help more people. Like I said, when you keep dishing it out, do not complain when people push back. Deal with it.
Ed (12/14, 5:23 pm): I was quite clear about the mischaracterization in the first email: you said my take is that you are just in it for the money, but that is not my take. I have not mentioned Rachel at my blog since the election wrap-up, so I don’t know what the “gracious winner” thing is about. Furthermore, I’ve allowed Connie to continue posting his off-topic, semi-coherent comments, without comment of my own. I wish Rachel well in her health battle, and urged others to be kind about it during the campaign, but nonetheless recognized her use of the condition as a campaigning point as the tawdry trick that it was. Again, I don’t complain when people push back. I did email you to ask you to stop misprepresenting my views.
Mary (12/14, 5:44 pm): Answer the question, Ed. Or STOP pestering my inbox. In the interest of not "mischaracterizing" your views about my case (it is my case we're talking about), WHAT are your views? WHAT is your take? I quote: "Connie Mack Jr. is a nut. His wife ran a nutty campaign and showed herself utterly unfit to sit as a judge." First, somewhere around 600,000 North Carolinians didn't see it that way. And second, the statement itself (which you have now repeated on several occasions) proves that you "don't gracious winner thing is about". Third on the one hand, you "wish Rachel well in her health battle" - the mere mention of which is a "tawdry trick" (never mind the double standard that the Edwardes can talk all they want about the death of Wade or Elizabeth's breast cancer and be praised for it) . . . you "urged others to be kind" . . . yet on the other hand, it was just fine to fling the "batshit crazy" and it's a-okay to keep calling Connie and Rachel, "nuts". I'm pushing back, Ed. And you're not just complaining. At this point you're whining.
Ed (12/14, 6:25 pm): The question was, how did you misrepresent my views. it's been answered clearly from the start. i have no interest in opening another long conversation about your case. You chose me as the target of endless invective and constant comments, not the other way around. Bledsoe lives in your own town, he won't touch your story. sam and joe are your online buds, they don't pick up the banner. i've allowed you unlimited space to explain it, yet i'm your bogeyman. I'm sorry i can't give you what you need.
Mary (12/14, 8:38 pm): "Endless invective and constant comments"? That's amusing coming from the man who invented coning. As I have told you before, I've attempted contact with Bledsoe once (through his website/"blog" . . . which a number of people have noted he does not man). I've not met him or spoken to him, so I have no idea what he thinks about me/my case. The intent of the attempted contact was not so much for Jerry to pick up the banner and write the book (I think I'll be the one to do that). It was more to get some insight on writing . . . and what the hell is going on with the journalists here. On the other hand, I've gotten a fairly good picture of that from his work on other stories. Not a pretty picture (again). As you also well know, Jerry's bag is crime, not medicine. Of course, we've hashed this before. You just had to get in the dig. Sam's specialties (as offered on his firm's website) and my problem don't mesh. Besides, I'm done spending thousands on attorneys when I'm the victim of a series of crimes (and shouldn't be the one who needs the attorney). So excuse me if I keep raising hell about the despicable treatment DA's in North Carolina can dish out to citizens. Joe has said on his blog that he does not doubt my story. And he has offered sympathetic thoughts in private e-mail correspondence. I understand that, as a physician practicing solo in the area, Joe has a lot to loose if the same friends of the same people who came after me set their sights on him. I would not see anyone else go through what I have. Therefore I have not asked for his help. In allowing me the "unlimited space" to explain, you took fairly unlimited liberty to diss. I have opinions about that. If you want to blame anyone, look in the mirror. And if you haven't noticed, I don't press that "publish" bar at your blog too often these days. This time I did not ask you for anything, Ed. Just like JR, you've made it clear what your limitations are. If you did not want to open the conversation, you should not have sent me the first e-mail. The question (one of several presented here that you will not touch) was, "How did I misrepresent your views about my case?" That IS what we're talking about. I said that your take was that I was only in it for the money (based on my recollections of visits to your blog . . . which "are not in question"). You have not answered the question. Yet you're in the Inbox again. You will not answer the question. So STOP.
There was nothing in the Inbox the next morning, and I breathed a small sigh of relief. But the "debate" at Sam's still raged. I decided to visit his blog only once a day (so as not to be accused of making "endless and investive" comments . . . and to slow down/possibly mute the nastiness that I knew was coming . . . sure enough, Roch delivered).
After these exchanges, I often feel as if the life has been sucked out of me.
Lo and behold, Ed was back in my Inbox on the 17th. The title of this "thread" is "Not Accurate".
Ed (12/17, 9:02 pm): By saying what you recall is not in question, i did not mean that you recall correctly. I meant that your recollection is not the point, the facts are the point. I do not believe you are in it just for the money. That is the misstatement of my views. you say that's what i think, it's not what i think.
Mary (12/17, 10:52 pm): I recall the facts just fine. I was there. On the receiving end. And the pummeling you & Roch (and company) dished out almost destroyed any hope I had left. I'm sure you're both very proud of that. Whatever you think, (like JR) you've made it clear that, as both a journalist and GSO's most "prominent" blogger (with the boatloads of personal and professional connections your name provides), you will not help (I'm supposed to call Bledsoe). You're the son of a physician, and you will not help. You're a Father who would've expected me to do what I did had it been your child's life in danger, but you will not help. You're a citizen/journalist who says that open government and public accountability are important, but you will not help. You're a Democrat who insists your party and your candidates (that includes a trial lawyer who has proposed programs very similar to the one I got burned in) are there for the little guys/gals whose lives are irrevocably altered by corruption and bad government, but you will not help. I'm not in it for the money, but you will not help. To top it all off, for some unknown reason, you're concerned about my take on your take on my case. You call me a "liar" . . . Roch attacks my "integrity" . . . while you dodge questions right and left. And you both seem to think (after the hell I've been through) I'm gonna respond favorably to that? Some "community", this blogosphere. This Christmas will be my eighth as an outcast in my own hometown . . . because of events that defy medical ethics, justice and reason. Come January (once my medical leave is up) I have no idea what I'm going to do or where I'm going to go (because in turning to the blogging world as a last resort, I've put everything out there and signed my name). That's not okay. But I'm dealing with it. As it stands, you are not welcome in my Inbox. Go away. I mean it.
Ed (12/18, 7:47 am): Mary, I regret that you took that initial conversation the way you did. I certainly did not wish you ill. You've lived with your story for years -- it was new to me and others, and what you took as hostility about a sensitive subject was meant as serious questioning in routine, brusque web style. In the current discussion, I am responding to a specific statement, and I'm not dodging any questions: you published a comment saying that my view is that you are just in it for the money, that is not my view. I have said this clearly several times. Nothing I say seems likely to change your view of me, which I regret. For examply, when I suggest in all sincerity that you contact an investigative journalist in your hometown, you see it as a taunt, etc. It is not a taunt. I don't know you. I don't have harsh personal feelings toward you. I have chosen not to drag this out into another protracted public battle, yet you continue to fight me in public, and now you tell me to stop private communication, which I will do.
Mary (12/18, 8:36 am): Your "routine, brusque web style" is the problem, Ed. It's the reason you have so many "fans" these days who feel the same way I do. Some have decided to openly call you on it (the very reason Sam's blog exits). As you say, DEAL WITH IT. In this current "discussion", in which you have called me a liar, and (apparently) teamed up with Roch (both online and off) to attack my integrity (I purposely have gone back to the thread at Sam's that started this intrusion only once a day . . . to avoid spending hours boxing shadows for naught), you are still making excuses. Perhaps the problem is not so much "the facts" in this or any other conversation (which amounts to parsing over words), but your writing (instead of mine - which you originally viciously attacked) and the way you come off in many of your on-line "discussions". If I've misunderstood your "specific" meaning and intent (as I apparently have if I take you at your word now), that would seem to be your problem, not mine. Words are cheap - yours at this point especially so. With regard to this public "fight" (which is really just me expressing my opinions about the way you operate - based on my own sad experience), we are so unequally matched in terms of connections and resources and readership that I do not understand why you care. I am not going to change my opinion until you change the way you do business. As much as I despise liars (the real kind), I hate hypocrisy more. So we are at an impasse, and you really need to stay out of my Inbox.
My last retort was published at Sam's.
The point of putting this up is not to "get even" with Ed Cone (who, for the record, as a blogger-king-high priest-journalist-"friend"-whatever, I have given up on), but to make the point that blogging is getting a very bad rap because of stuff like this. As I related at Sam's this morning, a national columnist I've chatted up (who thinks I have an important story to tell . . . to a "sober and discerning audience") doesn't know what to make of blogging . . . and likened it to a bunch of blow-hards in a bar shouting each other down . . . getting nowhere . . . and accomplishing nothing. My response to him was as follows:
"Not all of us are anonymous. I'm not. I sign my name.
Your bar analogy is a good one. I agree that a lot of bloggers are just blowing hot air . . . and (particularly the anonymous ones) accomplishing nothing. Bloggers had some success early in the 2004 campaign (ala Howard Dean) . . . and later in triggering the oust of Dan Rather from CBS . . . but it appears to me that most are now resting on those "laurels" . . . and jockeying for position. The "citizen journalism" angle is not really panning out except perhaps in rare circumstances at the "hyper-local" level (for the record this alludes to the admirable job Joe and Brenda and Trouble and others are doing in keeping the heat on the GPD fiasco). It's an argument I've made multiple times in multiple posts.
I think that most people do not know about JCAHO and our medical boards and the like . . . and do not care . . . because the MSM doesn't tell them these stories. Besides, I think people are numb to anything but the most sensational. Corruption is expected."
I'm gonna keep looking for that "discerning audience". I know they're out here. And I know they want more from their government and their journalists . . . and their doctors and their lawyers.
And those pesky, loud-mouthed bloggers.
They're not getting it.
12/19/06 Editorial Note: I have had some time to come back this morning and scan this post for syntax and typo errors . . . the ones I've found have been corrected. Anyone scanning the "comments" section can see that Ed Cone has asked me to take this post (specifically the e-mails) down, as he considers them "private".
Mr. Cone is a journalist. There are three words that usually preface any communication (with journalists/lawyers/whatever) not intended for publication/distribution and those words are "Off the Record". These words are offered at the beginning of a correspondence or communication, not the end. These e-mails were not identified as "Off the Record" or even "Confidential" when the dual-coning started. They are not, in any way, privileged.
As I have indicated in my last response to Mr. Cone, I have played by the rules, done everything I was supposed to do, and gone everywhere (and to everyone) I was supposed to go. The loud and clear message I have gotten (including from him), is that none of it matters. Those who break the rules and the law thrive, the powers-that-be most certainly do not care, and I am supposed to just "deal with it".
I don't like that message.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Public Citizen Report Underscores How Our Medical Board And JCAHO Really Operate
A week or so ago, I was chatting up a lawyer acquaintance of mine about my case for perjury contempt and fraud against Randolph Hospital administrators, Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin.
It's fairly cut and dried: These two very well-paid hospital executives lied repeatedly under Oath in interrogatories (written answers to questions that fly back and forth during discovery) about the "confidentiality" of their "non-profit" books and salaries . . . KNOWING that the answers they were giving were false. They did not provide the information even after a local judge ordered them to provide it. And they negotiated a settlement on the lie.
Not one law enforcement agency or regulatory body has called them on it. I have not even been allowed to swear out a formal complaint.
So much for the letter of US & IRS Code and NC General Statute. And open public records? Are you kidding?
My friend, like many lawyers before, opined that my case was a matter for the NC Attorney General, Roy Cooper (who has so far denied he has any jurisdiction over the hospital), and the SBI. Of course, my friend also opined that "telling the truth under Oath may be the back-bone of our legal system", but "perjury is rarely prosecuted unless there's something in it for the prosecutor" . My case was probably not "high profile" enough to induce law enforcement to take action. After all, I'm not Bill Clinton or Martha Stewart or Lil'Kim . . . or even one of Jim Black's cronies (where would one start with the links?).
But during the course of the conversation, my pal also opined that "the North Carolina Medical Board regulates hospitals" . . . and also offered that the IRS and/or JCAHO (the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospital Associations) could've "shut them down" and/or "taken away their non-profit status" for something like this.
My friend (I would remind you, a lawyer) offered these opinions up in an "everybody knows that" kind of fashion.
I was dumbfounded.
My friend was (respectfully and kindly) educated in very short order. The NC Attorney General (like the local DA) has dodged this case like the plague. The SBI will not get involved unless the DA or AG asks them to . . . and citizens do not have a way to directly petition for intervention (or Nifong would have been handed his hat long ago). The IRS did not answer corresponsdence for over three years . . . and when I did finally meet with them (this year) . . . they told me they would not be able to keep me updated on any investigation (criminal or civil) they might launch (which could take years). As for JCAHO shutting a hospital down, does anyone recall them doing that to any hospital anywhere? JCAHO is in the business of accrediting hospitals . . . of making the rules that everyone then tap-dances around. It's BIG BUSINESS for a lot of people and it's how the bread is buttered.
During the legal wars, one of the things that upset Bob and Steve mightily was my recounting of a pediatric ventilator being place under a tarp and rolled behind a nursery door to avoid any scrutiny by JCAHO teams members during a Randolph re-accreditation survey (conducted shortly after I got canned). One of my primary beefs with the hospital brass (which played out in the neonatal case in which I intervened . . . known in the "business" as a sentinel event) was that no one should be touching the dials of that ventilator (purchased shortly after my arrival at Randolph) unless they had the proper training and/or had maintained their CME.
Now in an emergency, if you're it and only it, you do what you gotta do. But if help is available, you pick up the phone.
The night the nurses called me in, a family practioner with no particular special training in neonatology besides a NRP Instructor certificate . . . as opposed to a residency (three years specialty training) in Pediatrics or a fellowship (three more years in the care of sick infants) in Neonatology . . . was in way over his head and refusing to ask for the help he needed . . . putting a newborn's life in grave danger. The nurses (pretty savy ladies) were terrified the baby would die before transport without appropriate intervention.
Of course, to use the neonatal/pediatric venitilator, one must first appreciate that a patient needs one.
I suppose I could've just stayed in bed. I probably would have been better off. I didn't. I did my job and afterwards raised holy hell (in a properly filed peer review complaint) about what went down. There was no excuse. What had happened was totally unacceptable. A travesty of medicine.
What happened after that was a travesty of accountability and justice.
Instead of addressing this "quality of care" matter like responsible professionals, the easy way for Bob and Steve to avoid the issue altogether was to fire the doctor making the fuss (who dared stand against their threats to keep her mouth shut), and roll the ventilator behind a door.
The hospital was ultimately re-accredited. No problem. JCAHO team members admitted to me . . . during a "confidential (NOT)" public information interview . . . that JCAHO has no mechanism in place to discipline hospital administrators who behaved badly.
The hospital and the Medical Board barely slapped the FP in this case on the hand.
On the other hand, I lost my job and my practice . . . for the sin of reporting the case to medical peer review.
But we don't need whistle-blower protection for medical providers in this state.
Where the NC Medical Board is concerned, despite the fact that hospitals now "own" many, many doctors in this state . . . and that hospital policy and procedure can have a profound influence over what a doctor does . . . the state of North Carolina and its Medical Board have not deemed it at all necessary to bring hospitals into some kind of clear disciplinary fold. You can file a complaint against a physician for virutally anything . . . and he/she is compelled by law and license to answer. Not so for a hospital.
Until this year, the NC Medical Board did not have the power to refer matters outside of its jurisdiction (i.e. complaints against someone besides a doctor) to the appropriate authorities. An obscure section of the new law (NC House Bill 1301) says (GS 90-16h), "If investigative information in the possession of the Board, its employees, or agents indicates that a crime may have been committed, the Board shall report the information to the appropriate law enforcement agency".
It remains to be seen if this new tool to refer crimes to appropriate jurisdictions will be applied to anyone except physicians.
In my own case against Randolph Hospital officials, I am informed perjury has no statute of limitations in North Carolina.
Any questions? Public Citizen provides a nice little service that "rates" the job that medical boards do in protecting the public. It is based on a 2006 report of their Health Research Group. and notes that most states provide no information on hospital disciplinary action at all. This is because in most states, hospitals and their lobby have a very powerful influence over lawmakers. Money talks.
North Carolina's report card is here. The recommendations made for improvement are as follows (please see number 8):
1. The physician profile should be independently verified by an outside source.
2. The board should specify the number of state investigations open for relevant doctors.
3. The site should include actions taken by other states.
4. The site should state how regularly it updates board orders.
5. The site should post updates within 2 weeks of each board meeting.
6. The site should post emergency disciplinary actions even sooner than regular actions.
7. The site should specify how long it maintains its state action archives.
8. The state should provide hospital disciplinary action information.
9. The state should provide information on malpractice payouts.
10. The state should provide information on criminal convictions.
11. The state should provide information on federal disciplinary actions.
12. The site should permit a search by the physician's hospital affiliation.
13. The site should provide a consumer FAQ or the equivalent that explains how to find and understand disciplinary information about physicians.
That's it kiddies. Today's lesson for how the world of medical regulation really works (the message being, it doesn't) is over.
It's fairly cut and dried: These two very well-paid hospital executives lied repeatedly under Oath in interrogatories (written answers to questions that fly back and forth during discovery) about the "confidentiality" of their "non-profit" books and salaries . . . KNOWING that the answers they were giving were false. They did not provide the information even after a local judge ordered them to provide it. And they negotiated a settlement on the lie.
Not one law enforcement agency or regulatory body has called them on it. I have not even been allowed to swear out a formal complaint.
So much for the letter of US & IRS Code and NC General Statute. And open public records? Are you kidding?
My friend, like many lawyers before, opined that my case was a matter for the NC Attorney General, Roy Cooper (who has so far denied he has any jurisdiction over the hospital), and the SBI. Of course, my friend also opined that "telling the truth under Oath may be the back-bone of our legal system", but "perjury is rarely prosecuted unless there's something in it for the prosecutor" . My case was probably not "high profile" enough to induce law enforcement to take action. After all, I'm not Bill Clinton or Martha Stewart or Lil'Kim . . . or even one of Jim Black's cronies (where would one start with the links?).
But during the course of the conversation, my pal also opined that "the North Carolina Medical Board regulates hospitals" . . . and also offered that the IRS and/or JCAHO (the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospital Associations) could've "shut them down" and/or "taken away their non-profit status" for something like this.
My friend (I would remind you, a lawyer) offered these opinions up in an "everybody knows that" kind of fashion.
I was dumbfounded.
My friend was (respectfully and kindly) educated in very short order. The NC Attorney General (like the local DA) has dodged this case like the plague. The SBI will not get involved unless the DA or AG asks them to . . . and citizens do not have a way to directly petition for intervention (or Nifong would have been handed his hat long ago). The IRS did not answer corresponsdence for over three years . . . and when I did finally meet with them (this year) . . . they told me they would not be able to keep me updated on any investigation (criminal or civil) they might launch (which could take years). As for JCAHO shutting a hospital down, does anyone recall them doing that to any hospital anywhere? JCAHO is in the business of accrediting hospitals . . . of making the rules that everyone then tap-dances around. It's BIG BUSINESS for a lot of people and it's how the bread is buttered.
During the legal wars, one of the things that upset Bob and Steve mightily was my recounting of a pediatric ventilator being place under a tarp and rolled behind a nursery door to avoid any scrutiny by JCAHO teams members during a Randolph re-accreditation survey (conducted shortly after I got canned). One of my primary beefs with the hospital brass (which played out in the neonatal case in which I intervened . . . known in the "business" as a sentinel event) was that no one should be touching the dials of that ventilator (purchased shortly after my arrival at Randolph) unless they had the proper training and/or had maintained their CME.
Now in an emergency, if you're it and only it, you do what you gotta do. But if help is available, you pick up the phone.
The night the nurses called me in, a family practioner with no particular special training in neonatology besides a NRP Instructor certificate . . . as opposed to a residency (three years specialty training) in Pediatrics or a fellowship (three more years in the care of sick infants) in Neonatology . . . was in way over his head and refusing to ask for the help he needed . . . putting a newborn's life in grave danger. The nurses (pretty savy ladies) were terrified the baby would die before transport without appropriate intervention.
Of course, to use the neonatal/pediatric venitilator, one must first appreciate that a patient needs one.
I suppose I could've just stayed in bed. I probably would have been better off. I didn't. I did my job and afterwards raised holy hell (in a properly filed peer review complaint) about what went down. There was no excuse. What had happened was totally unacceptable. A travesty of medicine.
What happened after that was a travesty of accountability and justice.
Instead of addressing this "quality of care" matter like responsible professionals, the easy way for Bob and Steve to avoid the issue altogether was to fire the doctor making the fuss (who dared stand against their threats to keep her mouth shut), and roll the ventilator behind a door.
The hospital was ultimately re-accredited. No problem. JCAHO team members admitted to me . . . during a "confidential (NOT)" public information interview . . . that JCAHO has no mechanism in place to discipline hospital administrators who behaved badly.
The hospital and the Medical Board barely slapped the FP in this case on the hand.
On the other hand, I lost my job and my practice . . . for the sin of reporting the case to medical peer review.
But we don't need whistle-blower protection for medical providers in this state.
Where the NC Medical Board is concerned, despite the fact that hospitals now "own" many, many doctors in this state . . . and that hospital policy and procedure can have a profound influence over what a doctor does . . . the state of North Carolina and its Medical Board have not deemed it at all necessary to bring hospitals into some kind of clear disciplinary fold. You can file a complaint against a physician for virutally anything . . . and he/she is compelled by law and license to answer. Not so for a hospital.
Until this year, the NC Medical Board did not have the power to refer matters outside of its jurisdiction (i.e. complaints against someone besides a doctor) to the appropriate authorities. An obscure section of the new law (NC House Bill 1301) says (GS 90-16h), "If investigative information in the possession of the Board, its employees, or agents indicates that a crime may have been committed, the Board shall report the information to the appropriate law enforcement agency".
It remains to be seen if this new tool to refer crimes to appropriate jurisdictions will be applied to anyone except physicians.
In my own case against Randolph Hospital officials, I am informed perjury has no statute of limitations in North Carolina.
Any questions? Public Citizen provides a nice little service that "rates" the job that medical boards do in protecting the public. It is based on a 2006 report of their Health Research Group. and notes that most states provide no information on hospital disciplinary action at all. This is because in most states, hospitals and their lobby have a very powerful influence over lawmakers. Money talks.
North Carolina's report card is here. The recommendations made for improvement are as follows (please see number 8):
1. The physician profile should be independently verified by an outside source.
2. The board should specify the number of state investigations open for relevant doctors.
3. The site should include actions taken by other states.
4. The site should state how regularly it updates board orders.
5. The site should post updates within 2 weeks of each board meeting.
6. The site should post emergency disciplinary actions even sooner than regular actions.
7. The site should specify how long it maintains its state action archives.
8. The state should provide hospital disciplinary action information.
9. The state should provide information on malpractice payouts.
10. The state should provide information on criminal convictions.
11. The state should provide information on federal disciplinary actions.
12. The site should permit a search by the physician's hospital affiliation.
13. The site should provide a consumer FAQ or the equivalent that explains how to find and understand disciplinary information about physicians.
That's it kiddies. Today's lesson for how the world of medical regulation really works (the message being, it doesn't) is over.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Billy And Ruth
As someone who has the greatest respect and affection for the lives and works of Billy and Ruth Graham (a strong influence in a Southern Baptist childhood), this beautifully written article in the News & Observer made me want to weep.
From the article: "It is a struggle worthy of the Old Testament, pitting brother against brother, son against mother, and leaving the famous father, the Rev. Billy Graham, trapped in the middle, pondering what to do.
Retired and almost blind at 88, the evangelist is sitting in his modest log house on a mountaintop in Western North Carolina and listening to a family friend describe where Franklin Graham, heir to his father's worldwide ministry, wants to bury his parents.
Billy's wife, Ruth Bell Graham, is listening too, curled up in a hospital bed on this bleak November evening. At 86 years and 100 pounds, she suffers from degeneration of the spine, which keeps her in constant pain. In a nightgown and pearl earrings, she stares up at the longtime friend on her right, her face and mind alert. On her left sits her younger son, Ned, 48, who has taken care of her and Billy for four years, and Ned's wife, Christina.
Events will unfold quickly in the days afterward: more meetings, prayers and a notarized document that Ruth signed before six witnesses.
But at this moment everyone's attention is on the visitor, crime novelist Patricia Cornwell, who is talking about a memorial library that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, headed by Franklin, is building in Charlotte."
At issue is whether or not the Grahams will be buried in Charlotte, at Franklin's new library complex . . . or at "The Cove" religious training center they founded and built in the mountains near Montreat (just off I-40, east of Asheville).
"Nestled in forests of poplar and Southern pine, invisible from the highway except for a single gray steeple, the 1,500-acre Cove was Ruth's project from its beginning in 1984. She believed that people working hard for Christ needed a place where they could idle in a rocking chair, stare at the mountains, and find new energy to continue their work. Her husband and his board agreed, setting up the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.
When Ruth was supervising construction at the Cove, she paid particular attention to the chapel, a spare yet elegant stone edifice built by local laborers.
She arranged six arched, clear glass windows on each side of the sanctuary so that visitors would always see outside. She asked that the floors be made of native pine and the chandeliers of cast iron from Asheville. On the sanctuary's back walls she hung two damask banners summing up Billy's ministry and what she considered hers, the first quoting Jesus saying, "Go Ye Unto All the World" and the other, "Come Unto Me and I Will Give You Rest."
A few hundred yards from those banners is the quiet, leafy spot where Ruth intends to be buried."
After the lawsuits were "resolved" in 2001, and in the wake of 9/11 . . . desperate for some spiritual respite from a world gone completely mad . . . I visited the Cove. I sat in the empty chapel with glorious mountains visible all around (through the massive windows that Ruth was wise enough to leave spare). I visited the site where a guide told me the Grahams would be buried.
There are no words.
According to the article, Ruth's other children, led by youngest son, Ned, encouraged her to make her wishes known in a notarized document and she did: "Since it is impossible for me to be buried at my 'first home' in China, my next choice is the beautiful mountains of Western North Carolina which I have loved and where I have lived for the past 60 years."
In the article, Ned speaks reverently of his parents. "His parents are finally home together most days now. They eat supper watching old movies like "The Sound of Music" and listening to Ned or Christina read the Bible. Ned has chosen stories about decision-making and God's solace in troubled times.
Billy Graham sits next to Ruth's bed for long periods, stroking her arms and face."
While I also have great respect for Franklin Graham . . . particularly his work through the medical relief organization, Samaritan's Purse, this time I've gotta say, Leave your Daddy be. Don't make him choose.
Your brother, Ned, is right, "There never would have been a Billy Graham without a Ruth Graham."
Listen to your Mother.
From the article: "It is a struggle worthy of the Old Testament, pitting brother against brother, son against mother, and leaving the famous father, the Rev. Billy Graham, trapped in the middle, pondering what to do.
Retired and almost blind at 88, the evangelist is sitting in his modest log house on a mountaintop in Western North Carolina and listening to a family friend describe where Franklin Graham, heir to his father's worldwide ministry, wants to bury his parents.
Billy's wife, Ruth Bell Graham, is listening too, curled up in a hospital bed on this bleak November evening. At 86 years and 100 pounds, she suffers from degeneration of the spine, which keeps her in constant pain. In a nightgown and pearl earrings, she stares up at the longtime friend on her right, her face and mind alert. On her left sits her younger son, Ned, 48, who has taken care of her and Billy for four years, and Ned's wife, Christina.
Events will unfold quickly in the days afterward: more meetings, prayers and a notarized document that Ruth signed before six witnesses.
But at this moment everyone's attention is on the visitor, crime novelist Patricia Cornwell, who is talking about a memorial library that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, headed by Franklin, is building in Charlotte."
At issue is whether or not the Grahams will be buried in Charlotte, at Franklin's new library complex . . . or at "The Cove" religious training center they founded and built in the mountains near Montreat (just off I-40, east of Asheville).
"Nestled in forests of poplar and Southern pine, invisible from the highway except for a single gray steeple, the 1,500-acre Cove was Ruth's project from its beginning in 1984. She believed that people working hard for Christ needed a place where they could idle in a rocking chair, stare at the mountains, and find new energy to continue their work. Her husband and his board agreed, setting up the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.
When Ruth was supervising construction at the Cove, she paid particular attention to the chapel, a spare yet elegant stone edifice built by local laborers.
She arranged six arched, clear glass windows on each side of the sanctuary so that visitors would always see outside. She asked that the floors be made of native pine and the chandeliers of cast iron from Asheville. On the sanctuary's back walls she hung two damask banners summing up Billy's ministry and what she considered hers, the first quoting Jesus saying, "Go Ye Unto All the World" and the other, "Come Unto Me and I Will Give You Rest."
A few hundred yards from those banners is the quiet, leafy spot where Ruth intends to be buried."
After the lawsuits were "resolved" in 2001, and in the wake of 9/11 . . . desperate for some spiritual respite from a world gone completely mad . . . I visited the Cove. I sat in the empty chapel with glorious mountains visible all around (through the massive windows that Ruth was wise enough to leave spare). I visited the site where a guide told me the Grahams would be buried.
There are no words.
According to the article, Ruth's other children, led by youngest son, Ned, encouraged her to make her wishes known in a notarized document and she did: "Since it is impossible for me to be buried at my 'first home' in China, my next choice is the beautiful mountains of Western North Carolina which I have loved and where I have lived for the past 60 years."
In the article, Ned speaks reverently of his parents. "His parents are finally home together most days now. They eat supper watching old movies like "The Sound of Music" and listening to Ned or Christina read the Bible. Ned has chosen stories about decision-making and God's solace in troubled times.
Billy Graham sits next to Ruth's bed for long periods, stroking her arms and face."
While I also have great respect for Franklin Graham . . . particularly his work through the medical relief organization, Samaritan's Purse, this time I've gotta say, Leave your Daddy be. Don't make him choose.
Your brother, Ned, is right, "There never would have been a Billy Graham without a Ruth Graham."
Listen to your Mother.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Puppetmaster
Jim Black himself was kind enough to answer the question I posed to Mark Binker on Capitol Beat.
His office released a letter today. The complete text is at Capitol Beat. "Black said he wants to play a different role, offering advice and helping to "determine where we go from here, including who will be the next Speaker."
No strings attached, of course. And nothing really changes.
His office released a letter today. The complete text is at Capitol Beat. "Black said he wants to play a different role, offering advice and helping to "determine where we go from here, including who will be the next Speaker."
No strings attached, of course. And nothing really changes.
Questions About Oversight Of "Non-Profits" Answered By The NC Center For NonProfits
The North Carolina Center for NonProfits is an organization I found through a Google Search.
The (number of) lawyers I have consulted about my case (for perjury/contempt/fraud/sundry misdemenors against well-paid Randolph Hospital executives Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin) have ALL opined that the criminal complaint I filed with the Randolph County District Attorney's office three years ago . . . a complaint I re-drafted and re-filed in late 2005 with Randolph County Sheriff, Litchard Hurley and Police Chief, Gary Mason . . . should have been referred to the NC Attorney General's office and the SBI for a thorough investigation.
Instead Garland Yates buried the case and killed the SBI investigation before it could start. Our state's champion of justice for "the little people", Attorney General Roy Cooper ("working hard to protect the people of our state from crimes and scams"), has insisted he does not have any jurisdiction.
This has never made any sense, as the NC Secretary of State licenses non-profits into existance, and the Departments of Health and Human Services (both at the Federal and State levels) supposedly regulate and oversee the activities of healthcare organizations. Plus there's that whole thing about victims' rights and open government .
In fact, a few well-placed phone calls on the part of US DHHS officials in 1998 might have prevented what happened to me. Of course, it took the Feds nearly nine months to figure out what their contracts acutally said.
On a whim, I fired off an e-mail to the Center. With just a day or two, I got this response:
Hello, Dr. Johnson.
Thanks for contacting the N.C. Center for Nonprofits.
Please see my answers to your questions below. I hope the information is helpful.
Adrienne Knowles
Technical Assistance Director
From: Dr. Mary Johnson
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006
To: Jenny Spiker
Subject: Questions
I have some general questions about non-profits in NC. I found your organization via a Google search.
First, through what department are they registered/licensed/chartered? The Secretary of State? Yes, nonprofits, like businesses, are incorporated through the Secretary of State's office. You can look up organizations and find information on the process of incorporation on the Secretary's website: http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporations/ThePage.aspx http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporations/ThePage.aspx?404;http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/soskb/CSearch.asp. Click on one of the Search categories in the sidebar on the left side of the page for find a particular organization. After incorporating, the organization must seek tax-exempt status from the IRS.
What are the NC statutes that apply directly to the governance of non-profits? The N.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act, General Statutes,Chapter 55A: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_55A.html covers general regulations for nonprofits, and Statute 131F covers charitable solicitations: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_55A.html. There are other general laws that apply to nonprofits, such as those related to employment or fraud and there is legislation on lobbying and political activity.
What branch of state government has jurisdiction if a non-profit misbehaves legally or ethically? In other words, who does the oversight?
The State Attorney General's Office (1-877-5-NO-SCAM) investigates serious complaints against nonprofits and prosecutes cases in which an organization's activities are in question. The Center recommends that anyone with a grievance go directly to the board chair and/or director of the organization first to ask questions or voice concerns.
How does the IRS factor into oversight?
The IRS is the agency that grants and can revoke tax-exempt status. The Tax-Exempt Office's help desk phone is 877-829-5500. You would have to ask them how they become involved in a complaint. I don't have that information. Organizations with annual revenue of at least $25,000 must file reports on income and expenditures with the IRS each year and would investigate anything that seemed questionable on the reports. 990s are public information and available online at www.guidestar.org. You have to sign in on the Guidestar website, but you don't have to pay, and you can search for the 990 of any filing organization (although the latest filing might not be available yet). Organizations are required to provide these to anyone who asks as well, along with their documents of incorporation and tax-exempt ruling letter.
Thank you,
Mary Johnson, M.D.
I found it interesting that Ms. Knowles mentioned Guidestar . . . as that is how I originally figured out the scam Bob and Steve worked at settlement . . . hiding their records and doctors' salaries . . . and shorting me literally hundreds of thousands of dollars . . . along with any reasonable chance of picking up the pieces and coming home.
In their book, the best way to keep "the business" for yourself is to lie . . . and lie . . . and lie some more. Let that be a lesson to any doctor who does business with those two.
Bottom line (especially for all of GSO bloggers out there who sing the praises and extol the ethics of the Democratic Party), Mr. Cooper does have jurisdiction in this case. He has dodged it. Why "IS" that?
Guess what Roy's office can expect just in time for Christmas?
I so hope he runs for Governor. I'll be at that campaign.
The (number of) lawyers I have consulted about my case (for perjury/contempt/fraud/sundry misdemenors against well-paid Randolph Hospital executives Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin) have ALL opined that the criminal complaint I filed with the Randolph County District Attorney's office three years ago . . . a complaint I re-drafted and re-filed in late 2005 with Randolph County Sheriff, Litchard Hurley and Police Chief, Gary Mason . . . should have been referred to the NC Attorney General's office and the SBI for a thorough investigation.
Instead Garland Yates buried the case and killed the SBI investigation before it could start. Our state's champion of justice for "the little people", Attorney General Roy Cooper ("working hard to protect the people of our state from crimes and scams"), has insisted he does not have any jurisdiction.
This has never made any sense, as the NC Secretary of State licenses non-profits into existance, and the Departments of Health and Human Services (both at the Federal and State levels) supposedly regulate and oversee the activities of healthcare organizations. Plus there's that whole thing about victims' rights and open government .
In fact, a few well-placed phone calls on the part of US DHHS officials in 1998 might have prevented what happened to me. Of course, it took the Feds nearly nine months to figure out what their contracts acutally said.
On a whim, I fired off an e-mail to the Center. With just a day or two, I got this response:
Hello, Dr. Johnson.
Thanks for contacting the N.C. Center for Nonprofits.
Please see my answers to your questions below. I hope the information is helpful.
Adrienne Knowles
Technical Assistance Director
From: Dr. Mary Johnson
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006
To: Jenny Spiker
Subject: Questions
I have some general questions about non-profits in NC. I found your organization via a Google search.
First, through what department are they registered/licensed/chartered? The Secretary of State? Yes, nonprofits, like businesses, are incorporated through the Secretary of State's office. You can look up organizations and find information on the process of incorporation on the Secretary's website: http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporations/ThePage.aspx http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporations/ThePage.aspx?404;http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/soskb/CSearch.asp. Click on one of the Search categories in the sidebar on the left side of the page for find a particular organization. After incorporating, the organization must seek tax-exempt status from the IRS.
What are the NC statutes that apply directly to the governance of non-profits? The N.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act, General Statutes,Chapter 55A: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_55A.html covers general regulations for nonprofits, and Statute 131F covers charitable solicitations: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_55A.html. There are other general laws that apply to nonprofits, such as those related to employment or fraud and there is legislation on lobbying and political activity.
What branch of state government has jurisdiction if a non-profit misbehaves legally or ethically? In other words, who does the oversight?
The State Attorney General's Office (1-877-5-NO-SCAM) investigates serious complaints against nonprofits and prosecutes cases in which an organization's activities are in question. The Center recommends that anyone with a grievance go directly to the board chair and/or director of the organization first to ask questions or voice concerns.
How does the IRS factor into oversight?
The IRS is the agency that grants and can revoke tax-exempt status. The Tax-Exempt Office's help desk phone is 877-829-5500. You would have to ask them how they become involved in a complaint. I don't have that information. Organizations with annual revenue of at least $25,000 must file reports on income and expenditures with the IRS each year and would investigate anything that seemed questionable on the reports. 990s are public information and available online at www.guidestar.org. You have to sign in on the Guidestar website, but you don't have to pay, and you can search for the 990 of any filing organization (although the latest filing might not be available yet). Organizations are required to provide these to anyone who asks as well, along with their documents of incorporation and tax-exempt ruling letter.
Thank you,
Mary Johnson, M.D.
I found it interesting that Ms. Knowles mentioned Guidestar . . . as that is how I originally figured out the scam Bob and Steve worked at settlement . . . hiding their records and doctors' salaries . . . and shorting me literally hundreds of thousands of dollars . . . along with any reasonable chance of picking up the pieces and coming home.
In their book, the best way to keep "the business" for yourself is to lie . . . and lie . . . and lie some more. Let that be a lesson to any doctor who does business with those two.
Bottom line (especially for all of GSO bloggers out there who sing the praises and extol the ethics of the Democratic Party), Mr. Cooper does have jurisdiction in this case. He has dodged it. Why "IS" that?
Guess what Roy's office can expect just in time for Christmas?
I so hope he runs for Governor. I'll be at that campaign.
A Closed Meeting At Vinnie's
From a recent comment I made (on the GPD mess) at Guarino's: A short time ago, in a small town whose name I will not divulge, my Mother and I were having lunch at a local restaurant. Our booth was immediately adjacent to four men who were obviously "city fathers" and who had met for lunch to "informally" discuss town business (no "quorum" and no pesky public scrutiny). They were not particularly shy about it. We sat there and listened to them plot and scheme . . . and work out who was going to call and lean on who.
Make no mistake, this is how the world is really run. The GSO PD is, alas, far from "unique".
That post came to mind this morning as I did my morning blog-run and discovered (on Cone's Word Up) that embattled NC Speaker of the House, Jim Black . . . re-elected by the tiniest of margins . . . had announced to friends & cronies that he would not seek another term as Speaker.
He made the announcement in a "closed meeting" last night at Vinnie's Steakhouse and Tavern . . . bringing images of The Sopranos to mind.
I blinked a couple of times when I read Cone's post . . . and, despite subsequently reading the stories posted in the Charlotte and Raleigh newspapers, did not really believe it to be true until I checked Mark Binker's blog.
A whole lot of credit goes to Democratic consultant, Joe Sinsheimer, the man behind the now-defunct website, "Jim Black Must Go" (I'd link it, but it's gone).
"Sinsheimer started the Web site late last year to put pressure on Black to step down because of ethics problems. He had said when he first posted the Web site that he would not take it down until Black resigned, or was removed, from his leadership post. Sinsheimer had not demanded that Black leave the state House altogether."
Joe changed his mind about keeping the website up as public outcry resulted in a series of state and federal investigations . . . investigations which took down several of Black's cronies . . . investigation which have the potential to put handcuffs on "Mr. Speaker" himself. "I believe there is a strong chance that Black will get indicted based on prosecutors’ statements during the Geddings trial and the Decker plea agreement," Sinsheimer said. He felt he had done enough and it was time to let go and let justice to take its course.
When he shut the website down, Joe asked Governor Easley to intervene . . . by asking the Attorney General to investigate and indict Black.
Like that was gonna happen. Easley would not even express an opinion about the Speaker's race.
The question begs now, will Black stepping aside really mean anything? Or will Black simply slither into a behind-the-scenes puppetmaster role . . . potentially more ominous and dangerous and problematic to police?
Binker thinks this will depend on who takes Black's place. It will be interesting to see if legislators loyal to Black will shift that loyalty to one of his cronies.
I guess we'll shortly find out what got discussed at the "closed meeing" at Vinnie's.
Make no mistake, this is how the world is really run. The GSO PD is, alas, far from "unique".
That post came to mind this morning as I did my morning blog-run and discovered (on Cone's Word Up) that embattled NC Speaker of the House, Jim Black . . . re-elected by the tiniest of margins . . . had announced to friends & cronies that he would not seek another term as Speaker.
He made the announcement in a "closed meeting" last night at Vinnie's Steakhouse and Tavern . . . bringing images of The Sopranos to mind.
I blinked a couple of times when I read Cone's post . . . and, despite subsequently reading the stories posted in the Charlotte and Raleigh newspapers, did not really believe it to be true until I checked Mark Binker's blog.
A whole lot of credit goes to Democratic consultant, Joe Sinsheimer, the man behind the now-defunct website, "Jim Black Must Go" (I'd link it, but it's gone).
"Sinsheimer started the Web site late last year to put pressure on Black to step down because of ethics problems. He had said when he first posted the Web site that he would not take it down until Black resigned, or was removed, from his leadership post. Sinsheimer had not demanded that Black leave the state House altogether."
Joe changed his mind about keeping the website up as public outcry resulted in a series of state and federal investigations . . . investigations which took down several of Black's cronies . . . investigation which have the potential to put handcuffs on "Mr. Speaker" himself. "I believe there is a strong chance that Black will get indicted based on prosecutors’ statements during the Geddings trial and the Decker plea agreement," Sinsheimer said. He felt he had done enough and it was time to let go and let justice to take its course.
When he shut the website down, Joe asked Governor Easley to intervene . . . by asking the Attorney General to investigate and indict Black.
Like that was gonna happen. Easley would not even express an opinion about the Speaker's race.
The question begs now, will Black stepping aside really mean anything? Or will Black simply slither into a behind-the-scenes puppetmaster role . . . potentially more ominous and dangerous and problematic to police?
Binker thinks this will depend on who takes Black's place. It will be interesting to see if legislators loyal to Black will shift that loyalty to one of his cronies.
I guess we'll shortly find out what got discussed at the "closed meeing" at Vinnie's.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Caternal Instincts
This summer I was adopted by a starving stray kitten . . . who strolled up to me as I was headed to work one morning and literally jumped into my arms . . . then my car . . . then my heart.
My heart had been empty for a while . . . since my beloved fifteen-year-old black "witch cat", Morgan, lost her battle with thyroid and heart disease. I had decided not to fill the void unless there were definite signs from God.
Excerpt from a June post: "The kitten has been christened "Tom". He is about eight-weeks old according to the vet and is a grey pseudo long hair - with some tabby markings and what looks to be some Maine Coon in him. He has really big paws and a "squirrel tail". Two signs from God made me take him in (plus a nudge from last weekend's monster rains - which I doubt he would have survived). First, he literally jumped into my arms (I had him on the trunk of my car trying to check his nether-end to see what "it" was). And second, when I put him in the car (with great trepidation - because I have never had a cat that travelled well), he sat very quietly on the front seat, crossed his paws and looked up at me like, "Where are we going?". He travels like a dream."
Tom was quickly re-dubbed "TJ" by one of my Yas (in honor of Pops). He's growing into his feet like a fuzzy weed (the funniest things are the tufts of fur between his toes that magnify the size of his feet) and he rules the house. He's never had any medical problems (unless you count his understandably unfavorable reaction to being neutered). He does not go outdoors.
I've noted that TJ seemed lonely . . . and sometimes bored . . . despite having more toys (and attention with me being home on medical leave) than most children. He alternated between being a lovable purring furball on my pillow to the devil with a squirrel tail.
Since being "spayed" myself, a few weeks ago, I've re-discovered my maternal instincts. For now it will have to be served by cats.
With that in mind, I decided TJ needed a realcat-companion. I also decided that "it" needed to be black and a she and about the same age as TJ (so she'd be harder to bully). I made inquiries with the local Humane Societies before I had surgery . . . and actually found a kitty I was thinking about adopting . . . but she seemed too young to take on TJ. As it happens, the brother of one my extended Yas, contacted me right after I had surgery, and offered me one of his 40 or 50 cats. He was willing to wait until I felt up to completing the adoption.
Sabine (according to one source, from the Latin meaning "history") was introduced to the household last week. She is jet-black without a speck of white on her. She actually looks a lot like Morgan. I followed all the "good pet parent" instructions about a slow introduction. She saw the vet herself (and was tested for the BigBad Feline Leukemia Virus) before I allowed her to mingle with TJ. Over the weekend, feeding bowls and litter boxes were shifted. Rooms were briefly re-arranged. So far between eating and peeing/pooping, she likes to stay under chairs/beds or on the bottom shelf of cabinets, but the introduction has been less stressful than I imagined it would be. TJ has seemed to want to play more than anything else. Miss Sabine will have none of it. There have been some minor skirmishes and hissing and such. But nothing serious. At this particular moment, as I type, we have a truce . . . with one cat on either side of the den and me in the middle (as "alpha cat"). They are slowly finding their way to brother and sisterhood.
As part of the dance of introduction, I had to move my plants around. The plants live outside on the front and back porchs in the summer, but in the winter I usually sequester them in one of the bathrooms . . . away from cats and visiting children.
Alas, TJ loves to eat the tops/flowers off any plant. Nothing is safe . . . not the roses or flowers I got after my medical procedures . . . not my "chiapet" ivy . . . not my Christmas cactus . . . and especially not my (favorite) purple shamrocks. He devours them. I have literally pulled entire stems out of his mouth & esophagus, he gulps them down so fast.
He's eaten the tops off my shamrocks before (he goes straight for that planter whenever he gets into the bathroom). But not in large amounts. And I had previously noted no problems. But I'm not moving so fast these days, and this time (before I caught him) he had eaten the top off of every single stem in one elongated planter I had placed in the master bath (and forgot to close the door). He was so darned cute when he got caught plundering the emblem of Ireland that I actually took a picture. Afterwards, I cleaned up the mess and moved the plant back out of his reach/orbit and did not give it another thought.
But next day (Sunday, of course) , TJ seemed to be in severe pain . . . he was very irritable and listless . . . and as he laid on the cat tree in the kitchen window you could see his whole body tense with stomach cramps. He did not eat his breakfast, but he did not vomit. His stools and urine appeared normal.
Worried, I got on the Internet, and to my horror discovered that shamrocks are very toxic to cats. The renal pathology that can result is actually very similar to that of ethylene glycol (antifreeze) intoxication. The one detailed article I found was somewhat re-assuring in that it seemed an animal would have to eat a helluva lot of shamrocks to cause kidney damage, but Mommy was still frightened by what she read. The doctor in her took over, and she pulled out her stethoscope and prodded his sore tummy and checked his gums. He did not like the close inspection.
Over the course of the day, TJ slowly got better . . . kept drinking/peeing/pooping . . . and ate his dinner. But he still was having cramps. He did not want to be touched.
So on Sunday night, TJ's Mommy called the vet. Fortunately Randolph Animal Hospital (not to be confused with the Randolph People Hospital that treated Mommy so abhorantly), is covered by a 24-7 emergency animal clinic in Greensboro. I called the number and a real live vet-person-nurse-tech-whatever answered the phone. We discussed TJ's symptoms . . . she ran it by the vet-on-call . . . and gave me the number for "animal poison control". After the chat, I felt safe enough to wait until morning.
This morning, TJ was up and playful, wanting to eat. But we went to the vet anyway (I just got my driving privileges back - for short distances). He got some bloodwork (all normal), and sub-cutaneous fluids and a cat-dose of Carafate. Normally an angel at the vet's, he was VERY pissed off this time (of course the last time he visited a vet, be lost his nuggets). He is currently napping on the chair beside me. And he seems almost back to normal.
Sabine, who had the house to herself all morning, is not quite sure what to think about that.
Mommy is tired and sore.
My vets and I have joked in the past that there is not much difference between veternary medicine and pediatrics . . . "children" and their parents.
My "children" are going to get some cat-grass for Christmas.
My heart had been empty for a while . . . since my beloved fifteen-year-old black "witch cat", Morgan, lost her battle with thyroid and heart disease. I had decided not to fill the void unless there were definite signs from God.
Excerpt from a June post: "The kitten has been christened "Tom". He is about eight-weeks old according to the vet and is a grey pseudo long hair - with some tabby markings and what looks to be some Maine Coon in him. He has really big paws and a "squirrel tail". Two signs from God made me take him in (plus a nudge from last weekend's monster rains - which I doubt he would have survived). First, he literally jumped into my arms (I had him on the trunk of my car trying to check his nether-end to see what "it" was). And second, when I put him in the car (with great trepidation - because I have never had a cat that travelled well), he sat very quietly on the front seat, crossed his paws and looked up at me like, "Where are we going?". He travels like a dream."
Tom was quickly re-dubbed "TJ" by one of my Yas (in honor of Pops). He's growing into his feet like a fuzzy weed (the funniest things are the tufts of fur between his toes that magnify the size of his feet) and he rules the house. He's never had any medical problems (unless you count his understandably unfavorable reaction to being neutered). He does not go outdoors.
I've noted that TJ seemed lonely . . . and sometimes bored . . . despite having more toys (and attention with me being home on medical leave) than most children. He alternated between being a lovable purring furball on my pillow to the devil with a squirrel tail.
Since being "spayed" myself, a few weeks ago, I've re-discovered my maternal instincts. For now it will have to be served by cats.
With that in mind, I decided TJ needed a realcat-companion. I also decided that "it" needed to be black and a she and about the same age as TJ (so she'd be harder to bully). I made inquiries with the local Humane Societies before I had surgery . . . and actually found a kitty I was thinking about adopting . . . but she seemed too young to take on TJ. As it happens, the brother of one my extended Yas, contacted me right after I had surgery, and offered me one of his 40 or 50 cats. He was willing to wait until I felt up to completing the adoption.
Sabine (according to one source, from the Latin meaning "history") was introduced to the household last week. She is jet-black without a speck of white on her. She actually looks a lot like Morgan. I followed all the "good pet parent" instructions about a slow introduction. She saw the vet herself (and was tested for the BigBad Feline Leukemia Virus) before I allowed her to mingle with TJ. Over the weekend, feeding bowls and litter boxes were shifted. Rooms were briefly re-arranged. So far between eating and peeing/pooping, she likes to stay under chairs/beds or on the bottom shelf of cabinets, but the introduction has been less stressful than I imagined it would be. TJ has seemed to want to play more than anything else. Miss Sabine will have none of it. There have been some minor skirmishes and hissing and such. But nothing serious. At this particular moment, as I type, we have a truce . . . with one cat on either side of the den and me in the middle (as "alpha cat"). They are slowly finding their way to brother and sisterhood.
As part of the dance of introduction, I had to move my plants around. The plants live outside on the front and back porchs in the summer, but in the winter I usually sequester them in one of the bathrooms . . . away from cats and visiting children.
Alas, TJ loves to eat the tops/flowers off any plant. Nothing is safe . . . not the roses or flowers I got after my medical procedures . . . not my "chiapet" ivy . . . not my Christmas cactus . . . and especially not my (favorite) purple shamrocks. He devours them. I have literally pulled entire stems out of his mouth & esophagus, he gulps them down so fast.
He's eaten the tops off my shamrocks before (he goes straight for that planter whenever he gets into the bathroom). But not in large amounts. And I had previously noted no problems. But I'm not moving so fast these days, and this time (before I caught him) he had eaten the top off of every single stem in one elongated planter I had placed in the master bath (and forgot to close the door). He was so darned cute when he got caught plundering the emblem of Ireland that I actually took a picture. Afterwards, I cleaned up the mess and moved the plant back out of his reach/orbit and did not give it another thought.
But next day (Sunday, of course) , TJ seemed to be in severe pain . . . he was very irritable and listless . . . and as he laid on the cat tree in the kitchen window you could see his whole body tense with stomach cramps. He did not eat his breakfast, but he did not vomit. His stools and urine appeared normal.
Worried, I got on the Internet, and to my horror discovered that shamrocks are very toxic to cats. The renal pathology that can result is actually very similar to that of ethylene glycol (antifreeze) intoxication. The one detailed article I found was somewhat re-assuring in that it seemed an animal would have to eat a helluva lot of shamrocks to cause kidney damage, but Mommy was still frightened by what she read. The doctor in her took over, and she pulled out her stethoscope and prodded his sore tummy and checked his gums. He did not like the close inspection.
Over the course of the day, TJ slowly got better . . . kept drinking/peeing/pooping . . . and ate his dinner. But he still was having cramps. He did not want to be touched.
So on Sunday night, TJ's Mommy called the vet. Fortunately Randolph Animal Hospital (not to be confused with the Randolph People Hospital that treated Mommy so abhorantly), is covered by a 24-7 emergency animal clinic in Greensboro. I called the number and a real live vet-person-nurse-tech-whatever answered the phone. We discussed TJ's symptoms . . . she ran it by the vet-on-call . . . and gave me the number for "animal poison control". After the chat, I felt safe enough to wait until morning.
This morning, TJ was up and playful, wanting to eat. But we went to the vet anyway (I just got my driving privileges back - for short distances). He got some bloodwork (all normal), and sub-cutaneous fluids and a cat-dose of Carafate. Normally an angel at the vet's, he was VERY pissed off this time (of course the last time he visited a vet, be lost his nuggets). He is currently napping on the chair beside me. And he seems almost back to normal.
Sabine, who had the house to herself all morning, is not quite sure what to think about that.
Mommy is tired and sore.
My vets and I have joked in the past that there is not much difference between veternary medicine and pediatrics . . . "children" and their parents.
My "children" are going to get some cat-grass for Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
