Bill Quick and Megan McArdle seem to have an interesting debate about resident work hours going on on their blogs. I personally believe that resident work hours are often onerous beyond any need for patient care, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a disaster in and of itself. I believe that the long work hours are, in fact, not a problem, but a symptom of the real problem, which is the total control residency programs have over medical licensure and board certification. This control can be misused in many ways, like making residents work long hours for cheap; to me, however, the greater misuse of that control is the ability of residency program directors to demand unethical and arguably criminal behavior from their residents.

Yeah, I bet that got your attention. What am I talking about? Well, here’s my story.

While in medical school, I was the second author of a national presentation on the law and ethics of informed consent in emergency situations (Prehospital use of Tissue Plasminogen Activator, Pamela Grim et al, presented at the 1988 meeting of the University Association for Emergency Medicine). In order to help create that presentation, I studied the law of informed consent from many perspectives. As such, I feel that I was, and to a lesser extent still am, well versed in the legal and ethical requirements of obtaining informed consent for medical procedures.

One of the main tenets of obtaining informed consent is the requirement that the patient, or the patient’s guardian be informed about all significant risks to a procedure. There are some exceptions for emergencies, and a few other situations, under the “doctrine of implied consent,” but, in general, patients rely on their doctors to inform them, and doctors have an obligation to do so. Contrary to some opinions, it is not the job of a physician to talk the patients into whatever cockamamie procedure happens to generate the highest reimbursements.

For anesthesiologists, for example, what constitutes a “significant risk” is often a matter of disagreement but it’s very hard to make the argument that THE most common cause of lawsuits against anesthesiologists should not be considered a “significant risk.” On the other end of the spectrum, it’s very hard to argue that death, which, though rare, is a particularly horrible consequence of general and spinal anesthesia, is not a significant risk.

After graduating from medical school, I took a residency spot at the UCLA department of Anesthesia. I made an effort to meet my responsibilities regarding informed consent, and it was there that I eventually realized that there was a problem. After obtaining consent for various procedures, I was often told that I could not tell patients the risks I had just told them. There seemed to be no set of risks that I was allowed to tell patients. In particular, Dr. Michael Sopher, the residency program head, specifically told me that I could not tell patients about the risks of dental damage (the number one source of lawsuits against anesthesiologists) because dental damage “wasn’t a significant risk.” He told me that I could not inform patients about the risk of death because “it was too rare.”

A quick aside: although I believe that death is a significant risk even if the chance of death is rare, the sad fact is that death from anesthetic misadventure was all too common at UCLA. I am aware of two children who died prematurely while under anesthesia at UCLA during the less-than-a-year that I was there. One child was not my patient, but I understand it was a healthy child who suffered an arrest while under, and simply died for “no reason.”

The other child was one of my patients, assigned to me when I had been a resident for about two months. This two year old child had a congenital heart defect, and essential tachycardia, with baseline hypoxia. Because of that tachycardia, my attending elected not to give the child pre-induction atropine. When the child was induced, he had an apparently vagal response to intubation, had a short period of bradycardia, and got even more hypoxic. This was followed by asystole. He was coded, and his heart came back, but the child never woke up. An EEG two days later was flat. If the child had been atropinized, I believe he might have survived the procedure (a hernia repair, for anyone who is interested).

It was bad enough that these children died. What was completely mind-boggling was that there was no M&M (morbidity and mortality conference) related to those deaths. In the case of "my" patient who died: once it became obvious that the resident (me) could not be blamed for the death, it was as if the death never happened. (It was the attending's plan that had gone wrong, and the attending never had a chance to leave the OR after induction since the plan went wrong so quickly.) In neither case was there a serious investigation into the cause of death, nor any attempt to generate lessons learned. Yes, I learned something – always atropinize children before induction of general anesthesia – but my attending and I should have presented that mismanaged case to the rest of the department, in an effort to prevent future mishaps. I probably should have learned something from the death of the healthy child who died for "no reason," but that death was also never presented at M&M. Draw your own conclusions. That sort of pretending that bad things didn't really happen had echoes in other cases, such as the "intentional, despicable and unprofessional" actions surrounding damage to Ms. Denise DeSoto. (last link added 03/26/2011)

Back to the main story. Dr. Sopher told me that I would bear no legal responsibility for failure to inform of the risks of anesthesia because “I guarantee you, no one has ever been sued for that.” Another attending, Dr. Blockmaans, told me “you can’t tell old people the risks of anesthesia …. old people just can’t handle it.” Finally, I was asked by the residency program director that if a patient refused a surgery based on what I had told him, “don’t you realize that you would be responsible?” The implication was clear to me then, and I trust it is clear to you now.

Of course, every one of the quoted statements above is mistaken, and was mistaken at the time. It is relevant to note that, since I left UCLA, UCLA, UCI, UCSD, and UCSF have all had suspension or cancellation of programs after medical research or practice was done without proper informed consent. In UCLA’s case, the Westwood VA (partially administered by UCLA, with physicians who work at both UCLA and at the Westwood VA) had it’s human research approval suspended because they had conducted research on people not only without their consent, but allegedly over the express refusal of at least one patient (I can't find a reference for that last part, but I believe that's what led the VA to suspend human research).

Due to my expressed difference of opinion about what constituted proper informed consent, I made multiple appointments with my residency program director to watch him obtain informed consent. He missed every appointment, and I never saw him obtain any consents.

It is also relevant to note, that, before I left UCLA, I encountered a patient who had apparently been advised by her surgeon, Dr. Susan Love, to bring a tape recorder with her to her preoperative meeting with the anesthesia department. I never spoke to Dr. Love about this, so I don’t know her motivation behind that recommendation, but it is my guess that Dr. Love also understood that the consent obtained by the department of anesthesia was not truly informed.


I also encountered what I eventually realized was “Hollywood-style” medicine. In one case, I personally witnessed the director of the pain management program, Dr. Anthony Nyurges, berate one of my postoperative patients to the point of tears when she requested Demerol (as opposed to other narcotics) for her pain (this patient was a former drug abuser, and knew her narcotics). I don’t believe in Demerol, but this same physician, on the same service, in the same hospital, in the same month, authorized very large doses of Demerol, on an ongoing basis (i.e. not immediately post-op) for a “powerful” Los Angeles figure when that patient had no objective signs of pain. Demerol is generally considered to have one of the greatest euphorogenic to analgesic ratio of any common narcotic (i.e. it makes people feel “happy” out of proportion to it’s pain-killing properties), and is therefore a drug generally favored by people who want to get high, and disfavored by people who are in actual pain.

I admit, and am glad, that I did not fit into the UCLA anesthesia residency program. I resigned from that program.

Unbeknownst to me at the time, federal agencies were also finding fault with University of California informed consent procedures while I was struggling to convince my superiors at UCLA of the importance of informed consent. Here is a list of publicized scandals revolving around informed consent in the University of California System:

UCLA: From the LA times:
• 1993: UCLA informed consent procedures had already been criticized by federal regulators, and had been changed in response to federal requirements. Even so, a 1993 law review article by Dr. Jay Katz of Yale, “tore into the new [informed consent] form that UCLA created in response to the government's [earlier] requirements, still finding it misleading, vague and inadequate.”

• March 1994: Dr. Michael Gitlin and Dr. Keith Nuechterlein of UCLA were officially reprimanded by the NIH in March of 1994 for issues with the procedure used to obtain informed consent. Procedures used to obtain informed consent, presumably approved by the UCLA IRB, were described as “immoral from the perspective of informed consent, because (they) were deceiving subjects” in an article about this in the LA times. The research for which Drs Gitlin and Neuchterlien apparently did not obtain informed consent may have been responsible for the suicide of Tony Lamadrid, one of the research subjects.

(addendum: Mr. LaMadrid, apparently unknown to him, was a research subject in an experimental protocol designed to assay the pharmacokinetics of drugs for schitzophrenia. According to the father of one of the surviving members of the Nuechterliein-Gitlin study, Mr. Lamadrid, a previously well-compensated adult, and apparently unaware that he was in the study, drifted into decompensated schitzophrenia as his meds were replaced with placebos. Mr. Lamadrid then told his "counsellor," who apparently was, in reality, a research monitor, that he was planning to kill himself. Nothing was done, Mr. Lamadrid's meds were not restarted, and Mr. Lamadrid went home and killed himself.

Further, according to this same source, the existence of a federally-required advocate whose presence might have prevented such an outcome had been fraudulently certified by someone in the office of the Chancellor of UCLA. In other words, a ghost UCLA employee had been created and certified to exist, but was later found out never to have been real.

You may wish to keep those items in mind as you read the next sentence)

• September 1994: According to the LA times, “from all appearances, the controversy over the Nuechterlein-Gitlin study hasn't caused any deep soul-searching at UCLA.”

• March 1999: The West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center (which shares physicians, staff, research, etc with UCLA) had it’s authorization to conduct human research suspended after continuing allegations of failure to obtain informed consent for studies. I can’t find documentation for the following assertion, but I believe that, in this case, at least one person was alleged to have been the subject of medical experimentation even after expressly refusing to be part of a research protocol.


UCI (From the Orange County Register):
• May 1995: Three doctors at UCI Center for Reproductive Health accused of stealing eggs from an Orange County patient without her consent and transferring them to another woman, who delivered a baby boy. Eventually, doctors resign from university, two flee country and clinic closes. More than 100 women are victims.

Years later, (the rest of this paragraph is not from the OC register) I worked with a former trustee of the University of California who told me why he had resigned his trusteeship. According to him, up until the time the reproductive endocrinology staff fled the country, the trustees had been planning to back them to the hilt, not because of contractual obligations, a sense that they had been unfairly accused, or a commitment to their employees, but because of the money brought in by the reproductive endocrinology clinic. When the department fled the country to avoid federal prosecution, the point was moot, but this trustee resigned anyway.

• 1996: Researcher Dr. John Hiserodt treated cancer patients with unapproved doses of experimental vaccine, grew human tissues without required federal and university approval, and injected experimental compound not approved for human use into brain of Miami girl dying from cancer.
• June 1997: UCI Medical Center tissue and organ bank closed after finding employee has personal relationship with president of company that does business with the bank. Hundreds of human-tissue specimens had to be destroyed because of poor record-keeping and storage.
• December 1998: UCI officials say 27 dying cancer patients in clinical trials may have been improperly charged thousands of dollars. At least nine others were encouraged to make donations to get loved ones into trials. UCI offers refunds of $1,450 to $4,000.
• September 1998: Associate clinical professor Dr. Darryl See resigns after university inquiry concludes he used patients' blood samples in two unapproved research projects on AIDS and chronic fatigue syndrome. He later publishes a study, purportedly based on his UCI research, that is used to sell nutritional supplements.
• August 1999: UCI suspends the director of the medical school's Willed Body Program, Christopher S. Brown, after finding evidence that he sold donated bodies. UCI fires him in September.

UC San Diego:
• 1995: Dr. Ricardo Asch, as well as Drs. Jose Balmaceda and Sergio Stone, and their employee, Dr. Jane Frederick, of UCSD, are sued by three different parties alleging unapproved use of human eggs for zoology research, and transfer to other childless couples without the consent or knowledge of the egg “donor.” I don’t have the results of those lawsuits.


Again, the above cases are simply the ones that made the papers. I know of more.

My point? Residency programs have far too much power over their residents, and can generally act with impunity towards them. This causes problems. Just this month, I became aware of a woman who came to UCLA with chest pain in late May 2002, was sedated for the pain, and WHILE SEDATED AND ALONE was then induced to give consent for entry into a cardiology research protocol.
This wasn't a resuscitation situation, or apparently even much of an urgent situation. This woman's caretaker had simply gone out to the car to get a few things, and, in the interim, the sedated woman "gave consent" to be entered into a research protocol. This same woman eventually sustained so much heart damage that she wound up getting a heart transplant. It’s my bet that the resident or fellow who got the "consent" for research felt that he was under pressure to enroll people in the study, and that it wasn’t such a great idea to wait for family members or for the patient to no longer be sedated. Long work hours aren’t the worst effect of the control training programs have over their trainees. Not by a long shot.

Oh yeah ... since I'm naming names, I might as well put up my own name. For those who don't want to deal with the challenge of figuring out who I am ... my name is Peter T. Banos, MD, MBA. I got the MBA a few years after leaving UCLA; graduated from the University of Chicago in 1999, with concentrations in entrepreneurship and finance. And yes, I have met Megan McArdle.

Via email, I just got a request to sign this petition opposing a new INS rule allowing the INS to issue 30-day tourist visas (instead of the usual 6-month tourist visas).

Personally, I think that restricting tourist visas from foreign countries is completely reasonable during this time of crisis. Yes, I know that many people find it convenient to come to the US for six months, and, ordinarily, I think that’s great. In general, I am all for unrestricted tourism; there’s plenty of room, and, as long as visitors don’t become a public charge, I think it’s great that they come and spend money.

This isn’t, however, a time for “in general.” In February 1993, and again on September 11, 2001, it became blindingly obvious that there is a well-organized, dangerous group of people out there who are TRYING TO KILL US. All of us. Any of us. Whichever of us they can get. Letting almost everyone in on a six-month visa makes it easier for terrorists to come here, plan an attack, and carry it out.

Some would say that there is a case to be made for the complete elimination of tourist visas until the threat from foreign terrorists continues. Limiting tourist visa durations to one month is a compromise. If tourist visa durations are shortened, and enforcement procedures are improved to make visitors check in every month, then perhaps it will be harder for the next batch of terrorists to successfully organize the next terrorist attack. People who want to stay longer will probably have to check in with the INS every month. In a worst-likely-case-scenario, potential tourists will have to visit Canada or Mexico once a month. The INS will still be able to grant 6-month or longer tourist visas, if necessary. And, of course, this new 30-day rule will have no effect on student, work or business visas, or on legal immigration.

The petition organizers point out that the 30-day rule may invite retaliation from other governments. To me, that putative willingness of other governments to restrict US citizens is a feedback mechanism that will reduce the chance that the INS will apply the 30-day rule to everyone or in an unreasonable manner. The existence of such a feedback mechanism is another argument to adopt the 30-day rule.

Maybe it’ll work. Maybe it won’t. If it has a reasonable chance of preventing another terrorist attack, then it’s worth a try.

Should INS officials have the discretion to decide who gets a 1-month visa and who gets a 6-month visa? Given the abysmal record of the INS in keeping terrorists out, the answer seems to be a clear “no.” There’s just one problem: there’s nobody else to do it. So, by default, the INS gets the job.


The petition for the repeal of the 30-day rule points out that the new rule affects tourists from all over the world. The September 11 terrorists did not come to the US directly from Saudi Arabia, but from various countries in Europe. Lest someone think that there are no longer any potential terrorists in Europe, I present this picture FROM BERLIN:




Someone IN BERLIN dressed up the little girl as a weapon. Someone IN BERLIN thought it was a good idea to portray that child as nothing more than an expendable dynamite holder, destined to be reduced to little shreds of cooling meat after completing her terrorist mission. Allowing that person into the US for six full months is madness, even though that person is in Europe.

There are no rights, constitutional or otherwise, diminished by this new rule. Based on my review of the petition website, and a scan of some of the comments, the organizers and signatories make no argument that the 30-day rule would hinder or would not affect the war on terrorism. The tradeoff opposed by the petition organizers seems to be simply this: the US government is demanding that some non-citizens on pleasure trips get less bang for their travel buck, so that thousands of US citizens are less likely to be horribly slaughtered. I am shocked and saddened that so many people are unwilling to at least give that tradeoff a try.

UPDATE:
Holy smokes. According to this LA Times article, the INS has cited airlines 6,000 times for not ensuring that people who entered the US with NO visa actually left the country. Seems that the INS has a lot of fronts to cover.

Via the perfesser, I just read something that upset me just a little bit here. In particular, I disagree with the combination of this line:

"I don't think the United States should allow dual-citizenship at all. Not ever. Not with Australia, not with Canada, not with Israel, not with Mexico. Not with anyone."

With the absence, even of acknowledgement, of this line:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." (US constitution, Amendment XIV, 1868)

And this one:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X 1791)


Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s perfectly valid to think that the United States should not allow dual citizenship. It’s just that such a concept breaks into two parts: (1) not allowing native-born citizens, or those already citizens, to pick up another citizenship, and (2) requiring foreign-born persons who seek naturalization to give up their birth citizenship.

Any argument regarding not allowing native-born citizens, or those already citizens, to pick up another citizenship should, in my mind, address the right of the government to remove the citizenship of one who is already a citizen. The constitution does not authorize this; hence, the government cannot do this. The Supreme Court is on my side on this one; check out Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967). Another interesting, relevant case is Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952).

It is clear to me that the government does not have the right to remove a person’s citizenship, and certainly not for obtaining another citizenship. The US government is created by the people, aka "We the people of the United States ...." (preamble, US constitution). What the people choose to believe, and particularly to whom the people choose to bear allegiance, is not for the federal government to decide or punish. I was born with US citizenship, and that citizenship is mine to do with as I will. It wasn’t given to me by the government; it is part of who I am, simply because I was born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If I choose to obtain another citizenship, there is nothing the government can do about it; the power to remove my citizenship is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. If the government could simply remove American citizenship, then it would be much easier to quash dissent or disagreement.

That said, I perceive that there may be a good argument to be made regarding requiring foreign-born persons who seek naturalization to give up their birth citizenship. It seems that some people , including myself, believe that there is a brewing problem with some people who have American citizenship, but who never really became “Americans.”

I believe that there is one attribute that differentiates Americans from the population of every other country on earth: the love of freedom over all else. Though many have colonized this continent, the norms of our nation were established by people who, in their own minds at least, were willing to risk their lives for the freedom to worship as they pleased. Our independence of Kings was established by a decade of slow, tortuous, uncertain battles, before the advent of antibiotics or nylon, by people who preferred to fight in freezing, wet, deadly conditions rather than consign their children to subjecthood. One of our great national quotes, aimed at the American population that didn’t wish to fight, and that would soon become Canadian or English, speaks to that very concept:

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." (Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776)

If you don’t have that love of freedom, you are not what I would call an American. If you are willing to trade your freedom for money, or security, or anything else, you are not an American. If you already have American citizenship, there’s nothing to be done about that, but, like Sam Adams, I sincerely wish that you would go away.

Fortunately, however, at least a plurality who are raised here do believe in freedom. I think that there is a cultural meme here that is passed down from generation to generation, regardless of one's ancestry. It is likely that there are also genetic components to the desire for freedom, but the culture itself seems to be enough to ensure that there is a plurality of Americans who believe in freedom. I wish it were more, but, again, there’s nothing I, or anyone else, can do about it. And that’s as it should be.

It’s clear to me, however, that the people of other nations, raised in different cultures, don’t feel the same way as often as do native-born-and-raised Americans. Canadians, similar to Americans in so many other ways, have traditionally been much less likely to riot, protest, fight, or kill for their freedom. I think it’s because their country was descended from the forbears to whom Samuel Adams spoke. Throughout their history, Mexicans have tolerated repressive, thuggish governments that are exactly what Americans have not tolerated. Yes, I know that there’s an uprising in Chiapas, and I believe that the Zapatistas are trying, in their own way, to fight for freedom, but they get precious little support from the general population of Mexicans. I mention Canada and Mexico simply because they are so close to the US; to the best of my knowledge, there is not one other country on earth in which ordinary people have so often been willing to lay down their work, pick up weapons, and fight, kill, and risk death for what they (sometimes incorrectly) perceive as freedom. Rather than an appeal to king, country, rodina, or god, a (sometimes bogus) appeal to freedom is what motivates us to fight. From the American Revolution to both sides of the American Civil war, from the Lincoln Brigades to today’s militia movement, Americans fight for perceived freedom far more frequently than the people of any other land. Unfortunately, another way to say exactly the same thing is that the people of other countries are generally less interested in fighting for freedom than are Americans. And therein lies the reason to ask newly naturalized citizens to give up their citizenship to the mother country.

In a perfect world, I would like citizenship to be available only to those who believe in freedom. I think that’s the motivation underlying the offering of political asylum in the US; if you’ve fought for freedom hard enough to attract the unwelcome attention of the authorities, then you’re our kind of person. However, I think that asking people to give up their allegiance to their homeland in exchange for American citizenship is another reasonable sorting mechanism. If your home is less free than the US, and you are not willing to renounce that less-free country, then you really shouldn’t be a citizen here. You obviously value something more than freedom. If you come from a country that is more free than the United States (I don’t believe such a country exists; if I thought it did, I would go there tomorrow), then you clearly are willing to give up freedom to come here, and, again, you are the kind of person who really should not be a citizen here.

As opposed to the situation of taking away the citizenship of native-born Americans, putting conditions on naturalization is perfectly constitutional. The US Constitution, article 1, section 8, states that “The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” and that pretty much gives Congress the right to do whatever it wants in this area.

Just a few other quick points: while I would like to see citizenship more tightly restricted than it is now, I also believe in open borders with no welfare. I believe anyone should be able to come here, participate in our economy, and succeed or fail based on their own efforts. They just shouldn’t be allowed to vote without evidence that they love liberty greater than wealth. And, for me, having open borders does not imply that we keep them open to everyone in times of conflict, i.e. I think it would be perfectly rational to evict all non-citizen male muslim arabs between the ages of 18 to 34, until the end of the current war on terror. But those are blogs for another day.

Yeah, so maybe some officers and employees of Andersen shredded some documents. Maybe they did engage in some criminal activity. But to indict the entire company? Did congress indict the entire Marine Corps after Ollie North lied to them and authorized document shredding? Was anyone indicted after Hillary Clinton ordered the shredding of Vince Foster's documents in the Rose Law Firm, and of Health Care Task Force documents that were the target of a court probe? If obstuction of justice is the issue, was the FBI indicted after the Branch Davidian's door "disappeared?" It's pretty clear that the Justice Department is applying a different standard to private organizations than the one they have applied to govenmental organizations.

The market, all by itself, has already punished all of Andersen Accounting. There is already an incentive for officers of private organizations to be their "brother's keepers." Why add criminal prosecution of people who were't connected to the shredding? Particularly when government officials in similar circumstances face neither market retaliation nor criminal charges?

Because they can, that's why.

OK, I’ve had it for now with writing about the police state. Don’t think that I didn’t notice the fact that the feds are too concerned with exerting their authority over us to bother pulling the visas of foreigners who (1) are dead and (2) have flown planes into the WTC. That story has been covered to death; I really don’t have anything to add.

So, today’s blog is about a cool aircraft concept: the zero-roll gyrocopter. There are two companies that have been working on this concept: CarterCopters and the Groen Brothers. The CarterCopter achieves zero-roll liftoff by (1) spinning up the main rotor on the ground, while cancelling out the tortsional forces with the landing gear of the grounded aircraft, (2) storing the rotational energy in the rotor with the aid of rotor weights which turn the rotor into a gyroscopic energy storage device and (3) lifting off and achieving autorotation before the energy stored in the rotor dissipates. The Groen Brothers plan to achieve zero-roll takeoff by (1) turning the rotor with ramjets at takeoff then (2) lifting off and achieving autorotation before turning off the ramjets.

From what I can tell, the CarterCopter seems like a much more elegant design. No ramjets on the rotor means no fuel supply to pump into the spinning rotor, no need for ramjet maintenance, and no ramjet noise. Further, the CarterCopter team has already achieved reproducible zero-roll takeoff.

The other cool concept of the CarterCopter team, which the Groen Brothers don’t seem to be replicating, is the concept of slowing rotor speed in flight and generating lift with fixed wings. Current rotor wing aircraft have a limit on forward speed because the spinning rotor tip travels through the air faster on one side (the advancing edge) than on the other side (the retreating edge). At relatively low speeds, this leads to asymmetrical lift; the faster part of the rotor generates more lift than the slower part of the rotor, and steps must be taken to prevent the craft from tipping over. At high speeds, the advancing tip speed relative to the fuselage, plus the airspeed of the entire craft relative to the air, add up to a rotor tip speed that is much faster than the craft is traveling through the air. This exposes the advancing tip to more turbulence, even, in the extreme case, to mach buffeting. If the CarterCopter team can slow the rotor rotational speed enough, then this problem shouldn’t show up until much higher speeds, and so the aircraft can travel faster.

So all this adds up to a zero-roll, fast, efficient aircraft. Think you’d want one of those? I know I would. And I bet a lot of other people would too. I therefore nominate the improved gyrocopter, from whatever source, as my pick for the technology most likely to get us the Jetson’s-style flying car.

Next (probably tomorrow): the cheap, high-capacity AN2. Costs $50,000 to buy and $160/hour to run, holds up to 14 passengers and 2 crew, needs 492 feet to take off, and is barred by the FAA from any useful task in the US (damn, my hatred of the feds slips in again).

Horrible updates to March 5ths post

Yes, I know that this blog has a predictable side. You can rely on me to come down on the anti-police-state side of any police state story. And I was going to write about something different today, namely Cartercopters and innovative aircraft in general. You can still check out cartercopters by looking at the link on the left.

And then I read this website: man arrested for “public drunkenness.” He was at home drinking a beer; police knocked on his door, he answered the door, and then was arrested for being drunk in public. Read the web site. I have no idea what is true and what is false on that web site, but, if true, it’s pretty damning.

placeholder

Megan McArdle still doesn’t have any multivariate regressions on her site, but she does have a clear description of how moral hazard can lead to economically inefficient investment decisions. She relates this to the social security privatization debate.

For me, the bottom line is that current social security goes to fund government, which is just about the least economically efficient use possible. Even so, I am willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that the government can offer a “return” of 1.25% on social security money. That’s 25% of the lowball estimate of US equity returns. Moral hazard would have to decrease average equity returns by 75% before a privatized social security system became a worse deal than the current system.

Apropos of a discussion I had with a cousin of mine this afternoon, I want to pose the question: when does an organization go bad? It seems to me that there is a continuum between organizations that are so bad that just joining makes you morally suspect, and those that are so good that one is compelled to give its members the benefit of the doubt beyond what you would give others.

The Nazi party, al-Qaeda, and the KKK would be organizations on one end of the continuum. If you know that someone has joined those organizations, you are justified in surmising that the person is more evil than average.

Contrawise, joining any fire department implies that one is, if not actually on a higher moral plane, at least entitled to more of the benefit of the doubt than average. I personally feel the same way about Salvation Army officers. Those organizations have a reputation of doing good, for few rewards, and (especially for firemen) at great personal risk. Therefore, it’s a safe bet that anyone who joins is likely to be more selfless and giving, and perhaps even good, than the general public.

So this is what I’m thinking about: where are the borders between one type of organization and another? In particular, when does an organization stop being morally neutral and become so bad that joining it implies some sort of moral failing? It seems that there are two influential and important organizations which are drifting into just such immorality as we watch. Ironically, membership in both those organizations has been thought of as “good” in the past, but is rapidly becoming an indication of evil.

Those two groups are the Catholic Bishopric and the FBI. I’m going to write about the FBI first, because I might not have time to address both, and I’m more concerned with the FBI, since I have to pay for it even as it degenerates into a modern version of the SS.

In recent years, the FBI has been responsible for almost every type of crime which past generations might have expected it to fight:

Mass murder. Try mass incineration of men, women and children, live on international TV, at Waco, followed by a multi-year coverup of same.

Home assault. Look at Ruby Ridge. (An aside: While I'm on the topic of home assault and incineration, I also suggest that you look up the death of James Beck, who was burned to death in his home as homes on either side of him were doused with water. The embers were bulldozed within 48 hours. The ATF, but not the FBI, was involved).

Espionage on behalf of the Russians (before and after the fall of the evil empire). Done by FBI special agent Robert Hansen.

Perjury, false imprisonment, and knowing protection of murderers. All done in the case of Joseph Salvati, set up by the FBI, and imprisoned for 30 years for a murder he didn’t commit, so that the FBI could protect Joseph "the Animal" Barboza. Barboza, now thought to be the real killer, was one of the FBI’s informants, and Salvati spent 30 years in jail to cover up the FBI’s connection with him.

Random street violence. There’s an example of that on this very blog, just a few posts down.

False imprisonment and perjury (if Wen Ho Lee was innocent) or setting free communist spies (if Wen Ho Lee was guilty). Check.

The FBI was too busy committing all these crimes to stop terrorists, even those they knew about, from getting into the United States. The FBI was even too busy to pay attention to pleas from a Minnesota flight school to check out Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the flight school’s students.

It is perfectly clear that the FBI has already sullied its reputation to the point that honest citizens should question anything they say. When, however, is the organization bad enough to sully the reputation of everyone who joins it? This goes back to the conversation I was having with my cousin, described at the top of this post. The cousin is thinking about joining the FBI.

While I love my cousin, and I know he is a decent, honest, gentle young man, I would loose respect for him if he was to knowingly join an evil organization. Again, I refer to the top of this post: if my cousin joined the Nazi party, I would know that there was something wrong with him. If he joined any fire department (something he’s talked about as an alternative to the FBI), I would know that he was a better person than I give him credit for, and certainly a better person than I am. So what about the FBI?

My cousin says, perfectly reasonably, that he thinks the FBI has made mistakes, but that it’s basically committed to good, and that he wants to make it better from the inside. I know that he believes what he is saying, and that makes me think that most of the young people who join the FBI this year can also believe the same thing. However, at some point, it must become clear to any observer that the FBI is beyond redemption, and making it “better” from the inside is likely to be as effective as trying to make a traveling minstrel show out of the 1940’s einsatzgruppen. When it’s that obvious, then anyone who joins can safely be said to be evil.

So when does that time come? How many crimes and coverups does an organization have to commit before it’s obvious that there’s a problem? More difficult to answer: how many crimes have to be committed before it must be obvious to the 22 year old young people who make up the junior ranks, and hence an indictment of the character of those who do join? I know from personal experience that 22 year old men are pretty clueless; I look back on my 22nd year, and count myself lucky to have survived at all. A lot of the kids who join any organization, honest or corrupt, don’t really know what they are getting into. But, again, at some point, it must become obvious, even to 22 year olds, that there’s a problem. Mustn’t it?

I suggested to my cousin that, if he wants to become a peace officer (note that I did NOT say law enforcement officer) that he move to Texas, join a Texas agency, and work on becoming a Texas Ranger. They seem squeaky-clean.

Well, if you have any thoughts on this topic, please comment. Like the blog says, I’m trying to make sense, and maybe others are as well.

I finally put a comment system on this blog. Yes, I probably should have done this earlier, but this is a work-in-progress, and I'm learning as I go. I want to encourage anyone who wants to comment to do so. Thank you.

I’ve never been to Zimbabwe, or, indeed, to any of sub-sahran Africa. What I know about Africa is scant; it’s certainly less than what I don’t know about the continent.

Even so, however, something struck me as wrong with this article from the LA Times today, Resettled and Happy in Zimbabwe. The title portrays the spirit of this piece on the day of Zimbabwean national elections.

Somehow, the LA Times seems to have glossed over points made in this story U.S. Assails Zimbabwe Ruling Party ....On the eve of elections in Zimbabwe, the State Department accused the country's ruling party of resorting to violence, intimidation and manipulation to ensure President Robert Mugabe's re-election.. Then there's Thousands Can't Vote in Zimbabwe. Let's not forget this, HUNGER BECOMES THE GRIM REALITY FOR MANY, and Mugabe facing unrest over food shortages, probably caused by this:Zimbabwe farmers flee, start over. Then there's this: Blair calls behavior of Zimbabwe's leader outrageous .

I could go on for pages, but the point is made. I think. Based strictly on the sheer volume and variety of stories about how Zimbabwe is descending into a violent, hungry dictatorship, I have serious doubts about the LA Times version. That leads me to wonder: why is the LA Times propping up the US image of a brutal dictator? What could they possibly have to gain? Does anyone out there know?

Update: LittleGreenFootballs has an interesting post on further LA Times perfidy.

Surprise, surprise, the most horrible example of prosecutorial misconduct comes from the fair city of Chicago. William Heirens, then a bright high school student, and since the first prisoner in Illinois to get a college degree behind bars, was charged with triple murder in 1946. He was injected with sodium pentothal, and, WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE PENTOTHAL made a “confession” that eventually led to his conviction. There were “inconsistencies” in the physical evidence presented, and prosecutors admitted that they would have had a hard time convicting him without the “confessions.” Though another man had already confessed to the murders, Heirens is still in prison, now 78 years old.

For those of you who haven’t seen someone injected with sodium pentothal, let me try to explain the problem here. Sodium pentothal, aka “truth serum” makes people tell the truth only in the comic book world. Here in the real world, it does NOT make people tell the truth. In low doses, sodium pentothal can make people babble incoherently, and frequently repeat whatever they are told (an event called "echolalia"). Imagine being bone-tired, drunk, and stoned, all at once. What someone says under the influence of sodium pentothal has as much relation to the truth as what you would expect to come out of the mouth of someone who’s been awake for 48 hours, just finished with a fifth of scotch, and on his tenth doobie.

To convict someone on the basis of a “confession” extracted under sodium pentothal is something that I would have associated with the Spanish inquisition, or the Salem witch courts, had they known about barbiturates back then. Even though I grew up in Chicago, it still surprises me that the Chicago PD and district attorney was, and continues to be, so depraved.


UPDATE:
Oh no. This sort of thing is still going on. I don't know what drugs Charles Thomas Sell is going to be put on, but whatever drug it is an "antipsychotic" in just about the same way sodium penothal is a "truth serum." Another name for most classes of antipsychotic drugs is "major depressants." These drugs basically slow you down. Yes, some people function better when they are slowed down, but to pretend that injecting criminial defendants with these drugs won't have an effect on their ability to defend themselves .... well, history will be the judge, I suppose.

UPDATE 2: It's worse. Dr. Sell isn't being medicated because he's a danger to self or others, but because he's "delusional." The court below held that Dr. Sell was “delusional” because he:
(i) thought there was a government plot to cover up illegal behavior by corrupt individuals to spread HIV worldwide;
(ii) thought there was a government effort to cover up defendant’s knowledge of the government’s culpability in the Waco deaths, where defendant was summoned to serve at that time as an Army Reservist; and
(iii) thought he should go to Bosnia, and that if he was prevented from going there then somebody wanted a lot of American boys dead.

So, he's being medicated because he doesn't trust the government.

Nonuniformed FBI agent in an unmarked car stops an innocent eagle scout and shoots him in the face. FBI claims this was in the process of hunting down a bank robber who happened to be driving the same kind of car, though the FBI has yet to identify exactly what bank was robbed, what kind of car the “robber” was driving, or anything else. FBI agents on the scene don’t call for medical help, but wait for the eagle scout to die (according to a WBAL Ron Smith Show radio interview with the father of the driver of the car; can’t find a link right now); when he doesn't oblige, they finally call for help from local paramedics.

It is evident from the story that the eagle scout and his girlfriend were trapped by the FBI, and that some FBI agent felt safe enough to WALK to their car and shoot the eagle scout.

The FBI has released no information about the shooting, including any corroborative evidence concerning the existence of the “bank robber,” the name of the shooter, the reason for the shooting, the reason for not calling paramedics right away, the reason for leaving cover to approach the car with the supposed dangerous “bank robber” in it, the reason the license plate of the car was not run to determine if the car was likely involved in a bank robbery, or the disciplinary actions taken or contemplated against the shooter. A government official wounded or killed someone, and the first instinct of the FBI is to cover up for him.

At the very least, this shooting was negligent discharge of a firearm, which is a crime. It’s too early to tell, but for all we know, this might wind up being a case of murder in the first degree (yes, I know murder requires malice aforethought; the lack of information supplied by the FBI implies, to me, that such malice might have existed. And yes, I know the eagle scout is still alive; that, too, might change). Even though it is clear the FBI agent committed a crime, it is certain that no criminal prosecutions will be forthcoming against him or her.

I generally welcome emails to help me make sense of the things I write about. I don’t need any such emails about this case. We live in a police state, where our very lives are at the mercy of government officials, and it’s only through fortuitous circumstances (like the eagle scout not dying as he lay on the sidewalk without medical attention, and the responsible FBI agent hesitating to put a “throwdown” in the car) that the true nature of the police state is documented.

UPDATE:
The shooter is FBI Special Agent Christopher Braga. Agent Braga is on paid administrative leave, at his request, since the shooting March 1 of Joseph C. Schultz. Note: paid admin leave, not suspension.

The practitioners of what we call “high risk” medical specialties, such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and obstetrics, regularly create more value than almost any other professionals. For example, a good trauma surgeon, at the expense of a knife, some string, needles, and OR time, can create, for his patient, the opportunity to live for decades longer than fate might have otherwise decreed. Whatever such a saved patient creates for the rest of his life is possible only because of the work done by the surgeon. Multiply that by a few cases a night for forty years, and the value created by each surgeon really adds up.

Specialty physicians give away to their patients most of the value they create, asking only a few thousand dollars in exchange for making continued life possible, but enough value remains that specialists have traditionally been able to make a comfortable living. Even the small sums medical specialists charge, however, are now overshadowed by the amounts they pay to lawyers (via insurance companies).

It makes sense that lawyers would want to get a share of the value created by physicians. Who wouldn’t? Medical specialists make not-inconsiderable salaries. On the other hand, medical school is long, intense, and expensive. Practicing specialty medicine correctly is a difficult skill that requires constant updating of a physician’s knowledge. So it really doesn’t surprise me that lawyers would want to capture that value without having to go through medical school.

The part that saddens me is that our laws and procedures are becoming more and more arranged to make that possible. Huge jury awards for “malpractice” don’t punish bad physicians so much as they are a lawyer tax, collected on occasions dictated by the unavoidable vagaries of fate, on working doctors.

Some surgeons have noticed this, and have retired or gone into other fields. That’s a documentable result of lawyers claiming for themselves value that they didn’t create. What’s not so obvious, however, is the talented, intelligent people who would have been surgeons who have, instead, become tort lawyers or other parasites. The number of US medical school applications has dropped by 10% a year for half a decade now, and anecdotal evidence suggests that the quality of applicants has dropped even more precipitously.

Fifteen years from now, the young person who is starting medical school this September may be the surgeon you need after you get hit by a bus. Money is only part of the motivation to be a doctor, but does it make sense to reduce the expected income of that future surgeon, in order to pay a lawyer who will contribute nothing to the chance you survive that impact with the bus? Aren’t you just a little bit concerned that such a practice will reduce the chances that the very strongest potential medical students will become trauma surgeons in the first place? Reducing the lawyer tax might be a first step to saving your life.

DENVER, COLORADO -- The Department of Justice announced that Benny Bailey of Denver, Colorado, formerly a Deputy United States Marshal for the District of Colorado, was indicted today by a federal grand jury in a two-count indictment charging him with perjury and false statements. If convicted, Bailey faces on each count up to five years in prison and a fine of not more than $250,000.

According to the indictment, Bailey helped supervise the jury in the 1997 trial of Timothy McVeigh, who had been charged with bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. After the McVeigh trial concluded in June, 1997, Bailey became involved in an intimate relationship with an alternate juror from the trial. In 1998 the trial court and, subsequently, defense counsel for McVeigh, received anonymous facsimiles alleging that Bailey and the alternate juror had an intimate relationship during the McVeigh trial and that Bailey attempted to influence the outcome of the trial by persuading this juror of McVeigh's guilt. As a result of these anonymous facsimiles, the U.S. Marshals Service and the McVeigh trial judge investigated whether or not any improprieties had occurred between Bailey and any of the McVeigh jurors.


The baliff in charge of the McVeigh jurors is thought to have an a relationship with one of the jurors WHILE THE TRIAL WAS GOING ON. This might just be a love story, or it might be the fed's way of learning about jury deliberations as they were going on. If it's the latter, then ... well, the implications are clear.

This one really does justice to the theme of this blog:

Use a Gun, Get a Ticker
Why should taxpayers shell out a million bucks for a crook's transplant?

BY COLLIN LEVEY
Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
…. (an inmate in California) serving 14 years for armed robbery, last month received a $913,000 heart transplant at the top-flight Stanford medical center, paid for by the state's taxpayers. Statistically speaking, he now has a 74% chance of living through the next five years of his incarceration. Here's hoping he opts for the low-cholesterol meal plan on the prison menu.

This is something I’ve been thinking about for years, in one context or other. When I was an intern, I once had a patient who had been through five, (5), no that’s not a misprint, FIVE heart transplants. (Truth-in-blogging: this was well over a decade ago, so I can't remember whether this man had already had 5 transplants, or was on his fourth heading to his fifth. I am certain, however, that he'd had more than one transplant already) He was in my ICU with shortness of breath as his latest heart was failing. He probably would have had chest pains, except that he was working on a transplanted heart, and there were no pain fibers running from the heart to his brain. This man was (1) Obese and (2) just done with a cigarette when he rolled in. He also admitted to eating whatever he wanted (i.e. steak) when he was outside. Meanwhile, it’s a guarantee that the general public was paying for his care one way or another. Given the cost-shifting that goes on at major academic medical centers, either Medicare, healthy insurance customers, or the University Endowment was taking a major kick in the teeth for the benefit of a man who was making almost no effort to reduce his need for another transplant. I doubt it was the University Endowment.

I have a T-shirt from the Charity Hospital Emergency Medical Services in New Orleans. The T-shirt says “The life you save … may take your own.” That’s not just a slogan. Many of the patients at any urban medical center would, if they weren’t restrained, casually kill and rob the doctors who are loosing sleep to keep them alive. There was a mass shooting at the LA County ER in 1992 or 1993. Simple assault by people who are alive only because their victims kept them so, happens every day.

And now this case from the California Prison System. I have worked as a prison doc, and I spent a lot of my time behind the walls thinking about issues like this.


So here’s the common thread about which I’m trying to make sense: under what circumstances should “society” pay for the health care of people who are, through their own fault, a net drain or a net danger to society? How do we as a “society” make those decisions? I actually have an answer, and it’s one that the transplant surgeons are going to hate. Actually, I’m not too happy with my answer either, for reasons I’ll get to below.

My answer to the question about what we owe to the irresponsible and the dangerous? Nothing. Let them die. The irresponsible have already demonstrated that they don’t value their own lives enough to give up smoking or red meat.

The dangerous are even worse: they don’t value life enough even to give up shooting sprees and violent crime. I mean, I might be able to speculate that nicotine is physically addictive, so smokers might really value life, and yet be unable to stop smoking (though I doubt it). I am unable to concede that being willing to criminally fire off a gun into a crowd of strangers is in any way compatible with a respect for life. (note to hyper-critical readers: I said criminally fire a gun. I am not talking about acts of war, defense of life or property, or any justifiable, non-criminal shooting). Our bank robber, though he may not have actually killed anyone, probably demonstrated that he was willing to do so by waving a gun around and threatening everyone within earshot that he would kill them if they didn’t cooperate.

Meanwhile, it’s a good guess that the people who are paying for multiple heart transplants could find a use for that money that would buy them something they cared about, whether it be a college education for the kids or a kickin’ Fender Stratocaster. By taking money from people who might be a little happier with it, to pay for the extended life of someone who doesn’t value life anyway, we are making the general public a little worse off, and not making anyone really better off.

Well, someone is better off when we fund all sorts of transplants, and that brings me to why the transplant surgeons won’t be happy with what I just wrote. It’s an open secret among physicians that a plurality of transplant recipients, particularly on the West Coast, have blown out their own organs. Yes, I know, the CDC claims that hepatitis C is the largest reason for liver transplants, but I don’t think that tells the whole story. These people with hep C who develop liver failure tend to be exactly NOT the kind of person who developed hep C from some minor mistake, took care of himself, and then, unfortunately, got sick. Rather, the transplant recipients tend to be the ones who were alcoholics who happened to get hep C. As for kidney transplants, I have it on extremely good authority (i.e. a famous nephrologist) that approximately 85% of people on dialysis are on it because of "poor control" of hypertension or diabetes, i.e. (though this is NOT how the nephrologist put it) they just don't bother to take their pills. I’ve never seen a study that would prove or disprove what I just said, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt (though I did work in the ORs of two major liver-transplant programs, and I have anecdotal evidence from the UCLA liver transplant program for my belief. For those who don’t know, UCLA has been America’s largest liver transplant program, and may still be).


So why am I not happy with my “let ‘em all die” stance? There’s actually a very simple reason, and anyone who has read my earlier posts might have already guessed it. OK, here it is. The bottom line is that, particularly in trying to identify who is dangerous, I don’t trust the state to get it right. What if the “bank robber” who inspired this post was framed? What if he was just convicted by mistake? What if he was prosecuted on circumstantial evidence by a racist DA who was desperate to convict ANYONE, in order to cover up a previous wrongful prosecution? (see below for my very own take on what seems to be just such a case). If so, then we’ve taken away an innocent man’s ability to provide for his own healthcare. Under those circumstances, we (meaning, yes, you and me and all voters) really owe it to him to keep him alive at least until he can clear his name.

Well, as usual, you know the name of this blog. If you want to help me make sense of it, feel free to email.

The UC Irvine parking department has struck again!! Stay tuned for Kyra's rant about them!

What I believe to be an alternately misleading and just plain wrong letter in the LA Times today:

Myths Aside, Death Row Isn't Filled With Innocents


By JOSHUA MARQUIS
The recent conventional wisdom presumption that the nation's death rows are packed with innocent men and women is dead wrong …. It turns out, however, that the states with the highest reversal rates are also among the states that seek the death penalty the least and spend the most defending accused murderers ….
Most (death penalty reversals in Oregon) were for "faulty jury instructions" or other hyper-procedural errors ….

Well, of course the states with the highest reversal rates are those that spend the most defending accused murderers. If you accuse and convict someone of murder, and then spend nothing to defend him or appeal a conviction, it’s a pretty good bet that there won’t be a reversal.

And why does Mr. Marquis think that “faulty jury instructions” to the jurors who vote to convict are not related to actual innocence. For example, it’s been my experience that most people don’t understand that, should they become jurors, they need to make a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict. Rather, it seems that most people use the standard of “well, whatever evidence is easy for the state to present has to be good enough to get a conviction, otherwise all criminals will go free.” If jurors are not properly disabused of their incorrect ideas, and convict when the law says they shouldn’t, it is proper for us to act as if the convicted was really guilty?

Marquis goes on to praise a bill that would “restrict DNA testing to those for whom tests could establish innocence.” Yes, that’s probably the efficient thing to do, and it would probably threaten DA records as little as possible. If the purpose of our system of justice is only to protect DAs, then we should restrict DNA testing. I, on the other hand, believe that our system of justice exists to punish only those for whom guilt is certain beyond a reasonable doubt. If new technology or evidence is likely to throw a reasonable doubt on a conviction, then the convict should get a new trial. If we, the people, make a mistaken conviction because we couldn’t know any better, that might be forgivable. If we continue to uphold a mistaken conviction because we just don’t want to be bothered to find out an easily-verifiable fact, then we are guilty of at least false arrest, and possibly murder.

Marquis’s last paragraph says it all, from his point of view:
“We have far more to fear from guilty people wrongly freed by the courts than from that tiny number wrongfully imprisoned and the even smaller number of them who actually are innocent.”

Does the justice system exist only to decrease our fears, or does it exist to punish / deter / remove criminals? When we imprison innocent men only to assuage our fear of crime, we won’t actually reduce crime, though DAs will trumpet that imprisonment as a reason to feel safe. To the extent that imprisonment works at all, it works only if we ACTUALLY IMPRISON THE RIGHT PEOPLE, and not simply close cases because it’s convenient to do so.

Well, you know the title of the blog. If there’s anyone who wants to help me make sense of this, feel free to email me.

From the USS Clueless:
Man Tried in Brother's Rape Case

E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Version

Subscribe to The Post





The Associated Press
Sunday, February 24, 2002; 7:28 PM

HOUMA, La. –– A man was expected to stand trial Monday for a rape his brother was wrongly convicted of committing 19 years ago.

DNA testing that cleared Clyde Charles also showed that there was a one-in-71,400 chance that his brother Marlo Charles was the rapist.



To summarize the case for when the AP link is gone: Clyde Charles was convicted of rape in 1981, then cleared of rape by DNA technology. In the course of clearing him, the district attorney apparently found that Clyde’s brother, Marlo, had a 1/71,400 chance of being the rapist. This is AFTER the rape victim had (wrongly) identified Clyde as being the rapist. So, the victim did NOT identify Marlo as the rapist, and DNA happens to indicate that there is a 1/71,400 chance that Marlo committed the rape. Based on this, the DA decided to charge Marlo with rape.

DenBeste is spot-on in his analysis of the racial motivation behind this insane prosecution. I've lived in New Orleans for about one and a half years, and I have good friends there. There is no doubt in my mind: racism in Louisiana is out of control. It's not just that the whites hate the blacks, the blacks hate the whites, and everyone hates the Vietnamese. (in case you didn't know, there's a large contingent of Vietnamese ex-refugees who have settled down on the Gulf of Mexico). It's that so many people allow their hatred of the other groups to obliterate whatever good sense they have when it comes down to evaluating individual members of each group.

New Orleans itself is one of the most integrated cities in the US. There are practically no geographical divisions between the races and socioeconomic groups. When I lived there, I lived across the street from the CEO of one of the largest banks in the state, kitty-corner from a local crack house, and two blocks from a small island of slums. Even so, the races and socioeconomic groups don’t mix. I would bet everything I owned that the banker never went to the crack house, and that the slumdwellers never hung out in the banker’s house, even though they could look into each other’s windows. (the banker had a 12-foot high wall around his place, but you could see into his house from any two-story building around the wall).

By contrast, Chicago, IL is the least integrated city I’ve ever lived in. And it’s just about as racist.

I currently live near Los Angeles, which more integrated than Chicago, but less so than New Orleans. LA hosted the Rodney King riots of 1992.

So what’s the message here? Living in or near the riparian valleys of the heartland makes you racist? Having the races segregated is the best solution? Integration really helps? I don’t know. All I know is that racism is real, and that it interferes with intelligent assessment of each individual. Maybe pointing it out (in case it wasn’t clear what I was doing) will help encourage people to think of each other as individuals when appropriate.

E-mails detail Indiana Guard 'ghosts'

By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

'Ghost soldiers' inflate Guard numbers
Misconduct marks Guard command


WASHINGTON — Evidence continues to grow that National Guard units across the country are undermanned and have faked their troop level reports to Washington for years in order to protect their flow of federal money and to hide their inability to retain troops.



Surprise surprise, bureaucrats turn out to be crooks when they think no one is watching. Even military officers are just ordinary crooks in times of peace.

I’m from Chicago, so I’ve thought a lot about the kind of people who create ghost payrolls, and more about the kind who tolerate it. Creating ghost payrolls is simple enough to understand; the perpetrators get more money that they don’t have to share with real employees.

What’s harder to understand is the people who know about these scams but don’t benefit and don’t mind. As a former Chicagoan, I’ve been in that situation. What is it about otherwise normal people who have their tax money taken from them and stolen, and who just don’t care?

My thought: I think that the members of the general public who tolerate corruption somehow convince themselves that they are in on the gag. For me, this is most clear in Chicago, IL. Chicago was home to a crooked House Ways and Means Chairman named Dan Rostenkowski who was eventually convicted of (among other things) defrauding the federal government (and thus the Chicago taxpayers) of millions of dollars. In Chicago, Mr. Rostenkowski became a hero after coming home from his time in the federal prison. Somehow, people convinced themselves that Mr. Rostenkowski was their friend after it came to light that he was stealing their money for himself. This was even true among people who didn't gain from Mr. Rostenkowski's activities. Bizzare. It was part gross misunderstanding of economics (people didn't realize that the pork Mr. R. brought home to them was something that they paid for in higher taxes and higher prices) and mass insanity (the people who did get the pork were a large enough "rah-rah" section that even people who gained nothing from Mr. R. thought he must have been a good guy. After all, thousands of hoodlums can't be wrong.)

As shown by this story, however, the military seems to have an “off” switch for this type of behavior. When the nation is at war, military corruption suddenly seems a lot less acceptable. In fact, it’s worth noting that the ghost troop scheme, though probably flourishing for decades, became newsworthy only when the nation went to war (though an undeclared war). I don’t think that civilian government scams ever gain the kind of perceived importance that gives enough urgency to make a national story about even low level corruption.

So is the military less corrupt than civilians? Probably not, but the tolerance for military corruption is probably temporarily depressed by the war. At least I hope so.

Couple jailed for Christmas lights

Flores and her husband, Tony, last year violated a code requiring Christmas decorations to be removed 19 days after the holiday. They were still on the home in April .... Angelica said the lights stayed up because Tony had been injured at work and she was afraid to climb up a ladder and remove them .... She was stunned last week when three police officers handcuffed them.

Nuff said.

People I just don't understand: El Al passenger flies with gun to New York

I mean, it makes perfect sense to me that a passenger would fly with a gun. I think it would make the airlines safer if everyone would fly armed. Of course, that argument has been hashed back and forth on many web sites, so I won't go into it here.

What amazes me is this part of the story: "When he arrived at the hotel he started to sweat when he found his personal handgun in his luggage," the spokesman said. "He went right away to the consulate."

OK, so this guy got from Israel to the US with a gun. Once in the US -- albeit in a hoplophobic part of the US -- he realized he had the gun. So he contacts the Israeli government for help? Why? While in the US, he's not subject to Israeli law. He hadn't been charged with any crime in the US for which he'd need help in finding a lawyer. He was safely away from the mindless airport security goons who would have confiscated his gun if they'd known he had it. Why involve the government in this?

Of course, he might have wanted advice as to how to get the gun back home. Even then, however, an American would likely think that he would be better off contacting the airline, and asking about how best to pack the gun for a return journey home. As an American, it's hard for me to seriously consider asking the government for help when I don't absolutely have to.

On the other hand, the Israeli government hasn't immolated a nonviolent church group of citizens on suspicion of having guns. I suppose that's the difference.

Police officials said Monday that they expect demonstrations at this week's World Economic Forum will be mostly peaceful, but they plan to strictly enforce a century-old law barring groups of demonstrators from wearing masks.

Check out the above link, then ask yourself how the ban on masks is compatible with this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As long as people wearing masks are peaceable, then what difference does it make what they are wearing? I am not arguing for the right to commit crimes while masked, but it seems to me that the banning of masks allows for the intimidation of protesters above and beyond the law. For the same reason that I believe in not allowing your precinct captain to see your ballot card, I believe that you should be allowed to protest anonymously if you feel you need to. The government already has too much power to destroy it's citizens on a whim; hiding thier identity is one of the few protections protesters have from a little extralegal punishment for thier beliefs.