But what goes on in this billionaire athlete’s private life and should he be held to account for his action? Not only is Tiger the world’s best golfer, he is one of the best-paid pitchmen for various products. Nike alone pays him some $30 million a year to wear clothing, shoes, and equipment bearing its logo.

Why Tiger did not talk immediately with the authorities is puzzling. Why he continues to refuse to talk to them is an act of defiance. As the old saying goes, something smells rotten in Denmark. Although the press releases say that alcohol was not a factor in the incident, one wonders whether something else was amiss. Could it have been a domestic squabble with his wife over whether he was having an affair, as that bastion of faux news the National Enquirer has been claiming? What was Tiger’s wife doing with a golf club, anyway? Could Tiger have been under the influence of drugs?

Tiger should set the record straight and come clean with exactly what happened. Although he has led a fairy tale life, he is after all only human, like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, he is capable of not exercising the best discretion and judgment at all times. I respect Tiger Woods’ athletic abilities and his work with kids. But he is not above the law. The authorities and investigators should be allowed complete access to Tiger to get at the underlying cause of  Tiger’s bizarre conduct.

What effect will this incident have on Tiger’s career, or perhaps more importantly, on his popularity? When Ted Kennedy left the scene of the accident and disappeared until the following morning after the Chappaquiddick  incident, it nearly ruined his career in the Senate. He had to live under the cloud of suspicion for the rest of his life and that event dashed any realistic chances he had of becoming President, even many years later.

Although Tiger Woods’ actions don’t amount to the seriousness of Ted Kennedy’s, one wonders why he hasn’t be more forthcoming and straightforward with the authorities concerning his accident. Also to be considered is the effect this may have on some of his endorsements. Will some of his endorsements bail out on him, or will Tiger Woods’ almost mythical qualities survive intact?

If nothing else, this incident has turned into a public relations nightmare for Tiger Woods. Will all of his fans forget about this and claim it was a “private affair,” or will they take Tiger down from the pedestal many have put him on? In any event, I believe a thorough investigation should be conducted into the accident – after all, he did damage public and private property – to determine the cause of Tiger’s unusual conduct and whether there are any legal grounds for pressing charges against him.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The judge ruled that the Corps of Engineers had known for more than 40 years that a crucial levee protecting suburban St. Bernard Parish and the Lower 9^th ward neighborhood would be compromised by the deterioration of the channel known as the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. The shipping channel was dug in the 1960s as a shortcut between the gulf of Mexico and New Orleans. The judge awarded the victims/plaintiffs—six residents and one business owner—a total of $719,000 in a suit that was originally filed in April 2006.

The victims argued that the channel had become a “hurricane highway” that funneled storm surges into the city. Without the channel, they argued, the flooding would have been minimal.

According to Pierce O’Donnell, the lead lawyer for the victims, as a result of the ruling, nearly 100,000 New Orleans-area residents and business owners who have filed flood-damage claims with the Army Corps of Engineers are now potentially eligible for payment. O’Donnell was quoted as saying that the judge agreed that Katrina was not a natural disaster, but rather a man-made disaster caused by the Army Corps of Engineers. O’Donnell also stated that his firm had filed a separate class action suit against the United States on behalf of thousands of victims of the flood.

At the trial, attorneys for the government argued that the Army Corps of Engineers was not liable for the post-hurricane flooding because it was immune from civil lawsuits questioning federal flood policy. But the judge hearing the case found that the Corps of Engineers was guilty of “gross negligence” and that superseded any immunity claim.

It is disturbing to know that the federal authorities knew of the inadequacies of the channel for so many years, yet did nothing to shore it up to prevent the loss of lives and tremendous property damage resulting from the levee’s failure. So many lives could have been saved and so much property damage could have been avoided had the Army Corps of Engineers acted responsibly in designing, digging, and maintaining the channel.

The United States government knew of the inadequacy of the channel for four decades, but chose to do nothing significant about it. Even now, some four and a half years after the tragic flooding, New Orleans is far from recovering from the extensive damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. And for those who lost spouses, children, parents, grandparents, and friends as a result of the Army Corps of Engineers “monumental negligence,” no amount of money can take the place of their loved ones.

The United States government has the duty to act responsibly and when it fails to do so, it should be required to adequately compensate the victims of its wrongful conduct in a reasonably timely manner. Unfortunately, for the successful victims in this case, they will probably not see a dime from the United States, as it is anticipated that the United States will appeal the case, which could take years. These people have suffered enough already. The United States should do right by them and promptly pay them the monetary compensation the judge awarded them. Hurricane Katrina was the worst disaster in American history and we should not compound the injury to the innocent victims by requiring them to spend years in court to recover for their losses.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It is obvious that the health care system is in drastic need of an overhaul. Too many people cannot afford health insurance and are relegated to visiting the emergency room when their minor infection festers into a serious, even life-threatening, problem.

The House of Representatives approved its version on the health care bill by a slim 220 for to 215 against. The Senate has narrowly approved the health care bill for debate on the Senate floor, 60 votes for, 39 against. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla) stated on an ABC program, that: “The important thing for the American people to understand is this bill does not fix what is wrong with health care. We are treating symptoms, not the disease. It is really malpractice what we are doing. The problem with healthcare is it costs too much and there is nothing to address that.”

I could not agree with Senator Coburn more. The cost of healthcare is atrocious. Yes, these men and women who serve our medical needs spent many years in college, medical school, internship, and residency, but I always thought that, rather than the mercenary reasons for becoming a doctor (e.g., big money), the student-doctor chose his or her path out of a burning desire to help the sick. While I will not deny the doctor the right to charge his or her fee, I do think that hospital costs area out of control. Imagine being hospitalized overnight for observation and being charged $6.00 for a single aspirin because you have a headache or pain. I think everyone can agree that that is simply outrageous. And you better not bring your own bottle of aspirin with you to the hospital; that is simply forbidden.

And now with all the expensive machines hospitals and clinics have purchased, e.g., CT scanners, MRIs, and others, there is an incentive for the doctor to send the patient for scanning even though it may not be medically necessary. Of course, the doctor will complain about the number of medical malpractice lawsuits being filed and he or she has to practice “defensive medicine,” meaning more useless tests are performed than are medically necessary.

Be that as it may, it is clear that some sort of national health care program is necessary to ensure that every American has access to quality health care at a reasonable fee. If they disparingly call it the “public option” so be it. But without giving Americans a health program that they can afford and that will cover them regardless of their health condition, including preexisting conditions, our emergency rooms will continue to be flooded with people with no insurance who are severely ill.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Some people are opposed to the public trial of Mohammed and his henchmen in a public court of law on the basis it will give Mohammed a soap box upon which to spew his hateful rhetoric against the United States and promote his belief in “jihad,” or holy war. But that argument is similar to those made during the Nuremberg trials of Nazi officials following World War II for their roles in the Jewish Holocaust. Rules of trial procedure prohibit Mohammed and his colleagues from using the trial as a public forum in which to air their hatred and extremist views. And if he wishes to voice his extremist and hateful speech against the United States, let him—the jury will know what to make of his extremist views and how to deal with him.

9/11 was the worst tragedy ever committed by terrorists against the United States. Thousands of people lost their lives on 9/11, including the hundreds of brave firemen bearing “FDNY” equipment who went into the buildings to save lives, only to lose their own when the buildings collapsed.

Instead of trying the case in a public trial in a civilian court open for all to see, including the survivors and the press, authorities had the option of trying the terrorists in front of a military tribunal. Some people argue that we should not give Mohammed and his gang the kind of rights we apply to American citizens when they are charged with a crime. The answer is that the United States is a civilized country, and giving Mohammed et al. the same rights we give any criminal shows that the United States respects the rule of law. And trying the terrorists in a open civilian court will expose Mohammed and his followers for the extremists and cowards they really are.

Questions will be raised as to the admissibility of some evidence. The CIA has admitted to having used some brutal interrogation methods, including “waterboarding”—a technique that simulates drowning—to get information out of the suspected terrorists. Whether any evidence that was obtained improperly is admissible in court will be an issue for the judge to decide.

We should provide Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his fellow henchmen with a fair trial according to established United States court procedures. They are the terrorists, not the United States. We must rise above the guttural hatred we all feel toward the terrorists and give them a fair trial and opportunity to present their defense, if they have any justification for what they did. There is no doubt in my mind that a fair and impartial jury will come to one conclusion: that Mohammed and his colleagues are guilty of masterminding and implementing one of the worst terrorist atrocities in recent history.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On May 31, 2009, anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder shot and killed in cold-blood Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of the doctor’s church. The reason for the killing: Dr. Tiller provided abortions to women who wanted them, whether it was a matter of pure choice or the pregnancy posed a threat of harm to the woman. Dr. Tiller was a specialist in late-term abortions.

On Monday, November 9, 2009, Roeder confessed to an Associate Press reporter that he killed Dr. Tiller, stating that he killed Tiller “to protect unborn children.” Roeder said he had no regrets because “pre-born children were in imminent danger.” Scott Roeder chose to be a vigilante and take the law into his own hands when he killed Dr. Tiller. Now Roeder is charged with first-degree murder, with his trial set for January 2010. In the jail interview with AP, Roeder said that he didn’t consider his actions murder and that he had no intention of changing his plea of not guilty to guilty. Roeder apparently plans to use a “necessity” defense at his trial, arguing that he killed Dr. Tiller to prevent a greater harm.

Roeder’s confession came on the same day that several fervently opposed anti-abortionists released their  “Defensive Action Statement 3^rd Edition,” that proclaims any force that can be used to defend the life of a “born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.” The statement was signed by 21 anti-abortionists, and demands that Roeder’s jurors be allowed to consider the question of when life begins in deciding whether lethal force was justified.

We cannot choose which laws we will obey and which laws we will ignore without regard for the consequences. If you want to drive 95 mph on the freeway, fine—but don’t be surprised when you see the flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror. The fact that you’re a professional NASCAR driver used to traveling 200 mph in a group of cars mere feet from each other does not give you the right to ignore the speed limit. Likewise, if you don’t agree with a woman’s right to an abortion, you cannot kill abortion providers and expect to get away Scot-free.

If you do not agree with a law, the proper thing to do is to contact your state and federal representatives and senators and urge them to support a bill to change it. Another method to change a law is to go to court and challenge its constitutionality, irregularities in its enactment, or other reason that negates the law. If you don’t agree with the lower court’s decision, you have the right to appeal the case. But when the United States Supreme Court rules against you and no further appeals are possible, you cannot take the law into your hands, regardless of your beliefs, religious or otherwise.

If people were allowed to pick and choose which laws they feel are reasonable and should be followed, and which laws are repugnant to their beliefs and don’t need to be followed, America would be in a constant state of anarchy.  Even if you don’t agree with a law, you must follow it or be prepared to face the consequences.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Hasan was trained by the army as a psychiatrist to help soldiers returning from abroad deal with the mental stress of combat. By some reports, however, the horror stories he heard and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) he witnessed first hand ultimately changed him too. Hasan reportedly turned against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was becoming a more devout Muslim. In the coming months, Hasan’s life will be dissected, his computers searched to see whether he was the author of posts likening suicide bombers to heroic army soldiers who give their lives to save others.  Prior to being sent to Fort Hood to await deployment to Afghanistan, Hasan had spent six years at Walter Reed Hospital, where he was described as being a quiet, polite, yet lonely man, and he received a poor performance evaluation.

Ironically, the massacre occurred only miles from Kileen, Texas—where  Hasan lived in an apartment—and  which was the scene of one of the most deadly shootings in American history when George Hennard crashed his truck into a Libby’s cafeteria and began randomly shooting people in 1991. In all, Hennard killed 23 people and wounded 20. Also ironic is the report that Hasan spent some time at Virginia Tech, the site of an April, 2007 massacre in which 32 people were killed and many others wounded by senior English major Seung-Hui Cho.

Psychiatrists and other mental health providers who deal with people who have suffered a serious tragedy or been in lengthy highly stressful, even life-or-death, situations are often affected deeply by their clients’ ordeals. Psychiatry as a profession has one of the highest rates of suicide, alcoholism, and substance abuse among its practitioners than most professions.

In an August 2007 article in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, the author states that, because of the stress of their work, mental health providers are more likely than others to experience depression and other disorders. The article points out, however, that most depressed psychiatrists would not seek the help of a fellow psychiatrist but are more likely to self-prescribe antidepressants. Studies of depressed persons have unequivocally concluded that a combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy (“talk therapy”) is the best method for treating most depression. However, depressed psychiatrists do not want to seek out mental health care from another psychiatrist for a number of reasons, particularly to keep a clean record for malpractice insurance rates and to avoid the stigma of being labeled as having a mental illness. After all, what mentally-ill patient would want to be treated by a psychiatrist with depression or other mental disorder?

Never was the saying “Physician heal thyself” more appropriate than in this case, especially when considered with the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath, which admonishes healers, “First, do no harm.” My heart goes out to the families of the killed soldiers and the wounded soldiers who thought that nothing could be safer than being on the biggest military base in the United States.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I loved America, I loved the political process, and had dreams of one day becoming a Congressman or even a Senator. Since I had been born outside of the United States, I was barred by the Constitution from becoming President.  The mood of campaign headquarters was delirious.  It was a tight race between Bobby Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, Linden Johnson having pulled out of the race several months earlier..

Four hours after the polls closed, Bobby Kennedy claimed victory in the packed Embassy Room of the Ambassador Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. Bobby was supposed to walk through the throng of well-wishers on his way to another gathering of supporters in another room of the Hotel. However, bowing to news reporters facing tight deadlines, a campaign aide convinced Bobby to skip the second speech and instead go through the kitchen and pantry area behind the ballroom to get to the press area. After he finished talking, Bobby started to exit the room when one of his two security guards took him through the kitchen. A gunshot rang out and Bobby fell to the ground, blood gushing from his head where a .22 bullet had penetrated. It was shortly after midnight, June 5, 1968 that he was mortally wounded.

The mood at the local campaign headquarters I was at immediately turned from one of  ebullient joy to one of utter despair. “How could this happen?” we asked each other. Was Bobby dead? Did they catch the assassin?

Kennedy was rushed to Los Angeles’ Good Samaritan Hospital, where he was pronounced dead the following morning. And with his death went many of the dreams of those of us who loved and supported him, who saw good things happening in the next eight years (for we were sure he would be elected President and reelected for a second term).

Who killed Bobby Kennedy? There was speculation that it was a mob-ordered hit because of how hard Bobby had come down on the mafia during his term as Attorney General under his brother John and then under President Johnson. But as hard as the conspiracy-buffs tried to make this into the result of a vast conspiracy, the fact is Robert F. Kennedy was the victim of a single gunshot by a lone gunman, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, a 24-year-old  Christian Palestinian-American who felt betrayed by Bobby’s support for Israel in the June 1967 Six-Day War a year earlier.

By his murderous act, Sirhan Sirhan changed the course of American history even more than Lee Harvey Oswald did when he shot and killed President John F. Kennedy on that November day in Dallas in 1963. If Sirhan had not been successful, Bobby most likely would have been elected President and the nation would be proud once again. Instead we had to live through the Nixon years, the Watergate scandal, wars in the middle East, and hundreds—no, thousands—of tragedies that never should have occurred. One can only dream of the State of the Union had Bobby Kennedy been President for eight years.

What brings up this Commentary on Sirhan Sirhan is that prison authorities want to move him from the state prison in Corcoran, which houses high-risk prisoners such as Charles Manson, to Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga. Sirhan had been housed for years in the protective unit at Corcoran, one of the most isolated units in the state prison system. Sirhan’s attorney initially opposed the move of Sirhan from Corcoran state prison on the basis that Pleasant Valley State Prison would not be able to guarantee Sirhan’s safety, but a spokesman for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said Sirhan had requested the transfer and wants to go to Pleasant Valley.

I am not generally a vengeful person, but the news of Sirhan’s move brought back some deep-seated feelings I felt the night of June 4^th and 5^th of 1968  If Sirhan is at risk for his safety at Pleasant Valley State Prison, so be it. I have no sympathy for the man. He stole my hopes and dreams for a better America when he killed Bobby Kennedy in cold blood. He stole my innocence and I can never forgive him for that.

But I will always remember Bobby Kennedy’s words: “Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Unfortunately, however, the prestige that comes with being a judge often comes at the expense of turning down much more lucrative salaries as practicing attorneys in the private sector. And judges who have served on the bench for a length of time and enjoy their role in resolving disputes do not want to work full-time, but they don’t want to leave the bench for good.

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court earns an annual salary of $217,400. The eight Associate Justices make $208,100 a year. In California, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court earns $228,856 annually, while the six Associate Justices make $218,237. A California Superior Court judge is paid $178,789 a year, while appellate court justices make $204,599 annually.

In the last couple of decades, many of our best and brightest judges have left the bench and become mediators and arbitrators for people who want to avoid the hassles and delays of the traditional legal justice system. Arbitration and mediation are known as Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) and do not adhere strictly to the procedures applicable to the procedures of the formal justice system. In mediation, the retired judge helps the opposing parties to try and reach an agreement that both can live with. In what is known as “binding arbitration,” the retired judge serving as the arbitrator makes a decision that is binding on the parties and cannot be challenged in a court of law except on very limited grounds. The idea behind ADR is making the legal system more accessible to the general public and resolve disputes in a more timely and less costly manner than the traditional court system.

A primary factor in so many judges leaving the bench to go to work for ADR firms or as independent arbitrators and mediators is that ADR judges can earn $500 or more an hour as a private mediator or arbitrator, and often the work is not as arduous as that they experienced sitting on the bench. It is very attractive to a judge sitting on the bench that he or she can make two or three times the amount of money by acting as a mediator or arbitrator without having to work as hard.

The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court and individual states, as well as intermediate appellate court judges, both on the federal and state levels, deserve to be paid a salary commensurate with what they could be making if they were in private practice. Likewise, judges sitting on the Superior Court bench should be paid what a reasonable lawyer in private practice makes. A judge should not be forced to use his or her judicial  position as a stepping stone to a higher payday with a private firm after a couple of years of serving on the court. Rather, judges should be paid fairly to encourage them to stay in the “official” judicial system, where they can dispense justice without having to worry about the bottom line or making their mortgage payments.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In May 1970, six-and-one-half-years since moving in together, Michelle legally changed her last name to Marvin. All was not well with the relationship, however. A month after Michelle had legally changed her name, Lee had her evicted from the Malibu house and later that year he married his childhood sweetheart, Pamela Feeley. Lee was paying Michelle a monthly allowance but terminated those payments in November 1971. In February 1972, Michelle took Lee to court. Her lawyer was the flamboyant “divorce attorney to the stars,” Marvin Mitchelson. They calculated that, during the time they lived together, Lee earned $3.6 million; Michelle’s lawsuit sought half of that.

In December 1976, the Supreme Court of California ruled that Michelle had the right to recover monetary damages if she could prove that she and Lee had an express or implied contract that they would share everything they made during the time they lived together. If there is no such express contract, the courts should inquire into the conduct of the parties to determine whether that conduct demonstrates an implied contract, agreement of partnership, joint venture, or some other tacit understanding between the parties. California’s highest court held that, even in the absence of an express or implied contract,  there were a couple of other more technical grounds on which Michelle could recover if she proved them. The Supreme Court of California stated that damages were recoverable except to the extent that the contract is explicitly based on the consideration of sexual services.

After the contentious and at times salacious trial, Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Arthur Marshall rejected Michelle’s claim for $1.8 million, ruling that there was neither an express nor an implicit contract requiring Lee to share his wealth with her. Judge Marshall did, however, award Michelle $104,000 in “rehabilitative” damages to pay for training so Michelle could return from her status as a companion of a motion picture star to a separate, independent existence. However, Lee appealed that award, and in 1981 the California Court of Appeal overturned the $104,000 award and the California Supreme Court refused to reinstate it.

People who are planning on living together—especially where one has considerably more substantial assets and a higher wage earning power—should hire an experienced family law attorney to prepare a contract for them that, among other things, would address the division of property acquired during the marriage and set a formula for determining how much and how long one cohabitant would have to pay the other “palimony” if they separated. Also, where there is a gross disparity between the parties as to assets and earnings, each potential cohabitant should have their own lawyer review and negotiate the terms of the contract. The need for separate lawyers is so that one party—especially the party with fewer assets and lower income—cannot claim that he or she did not understand the contract and rights he or she was giving away, and that the contract was prepared by the other partner’s lawyer and it would be unfair to enforce the contract under those circumstances.

Ironically, in 1976, the year the California Supreme Court made its decision in Marvin v. Marvin granting the right of an unmarried cohabitant to sue under specified conditions, Michelle began a romance with Dick Van Dyke. This time, she told the Los Angeles Times in 1983, she had a written contract. Michelle died of lung cancer at the age of 75 in the Malibu house she shared with Van Dyke.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Although in the mid-1990s California voters approved a law allowing for the compassionate use of marijuana, the fact that the sale, purchase, and use of marijuana for any purpose is banned by federal law. Accordingly, a patient who could benefit from medical marijuana could not use marijuana to treat his or her condition or risk being arrested on federal charges. All that changed on October 19, 2009, when the Obama administration announced its new policy that it will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers so long as they conform with state laws.

Under the new policy, federal prosecutors were told that it is not an “efficient use of limited federal resources” to arrest people who use or provide medicinal marijuana in strict compliance with state laws. The United States Attorney General sent a memo outlining the new federal policy to federal prosecutors in the 14 states that currently permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Those 14 states are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. California is the only one that allows dispensaries to sell marijuana and advertise their services.

The Obama administration’s stance on medical marijuana is in direct opposition to former President Bush’s hard-line (and hard-headed) approach outlawing the sale, use, or possession of marijuana for any purpose, even if it had been prescribed by a medical doctor to treat an ailment or help patients in chronic pain or who suffered from nausea due to chemotherapy treatments for whom nothing else alleviated their suffering as much as marijuana.

The same day the Obama administration announced its new policy on medicinal marijuana, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that Los Angeles’ ban on new medical marijuana dispensaries was invalid, putting an end to the city’s four-month-old drive to shut down hundreds of the stores. Despite the Obama administration’s decision not to go after medical marijuana users and dispensaries, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley announced that he would be following all state and federal laws, and stated that most dispensaries are selling marijuana for profit in violation of state law.

Of course, medicinal marijuana dispensaries that are using the dispensary as a front for the illegal sale of marijuana or other drugs are still at risk of being prosecuted, as are persons who use marijuana for non-medicinal purposes and are not in strict compliance with state laws and regulations governing the purchase and use of medicinal marijuana.

Just because marijuana can cause some mood changes is no argument for banning the drug for patients who are in severe chronic pain or are prone to suffer severe nausea—especially as a side effect of chemotherapy being administered to a cancer patient. Marijuana is no worse than alcohol, and no doctor’s prescription is needed to buy a pint of Jack Daniels. Marijuana has proven medical effects for certain patients, and such patients should be allowed to use marijuana without having to worry about being rousted by the authorities, taken to jail, put through the criminal system, and sentenced to a term in jail or prison.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.