Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
More news from the University of California:
By now, the news of University of California police spraying quietly sitting students with military-grade pepper spray at the UC Davis campus is well known. I have a few things I'd like to say about that.
Firstly, at the ground level, it's pretty clear that this action was unnecessary, brutal, counterproductive, and even unconstitutional.
The students who would eventually be tear gassed were posing no threat, and, at most, were a minor annoyance. The students were, it is true, sitting on a sidewalk, but they certainly weren't blocking movement along that sidewalk. People were simply stepping over the students to get to and fro. There's even a picture of the UC Davis police officer, who would eventually spray the students, doing exactly that. Were the students annoying? Sure. Were they seriously impeding traffic? Apparently not. Sure, if someone in a wheelchair had tried to get by, and if the students had refused to part to allow that person to get by, then perhaps there would have been a stronger case against the students … but, to the best of my knowledge, there was no one in a wheelchair in the area, and my guess is that the students would have made a path for any such disabled person. In the absence of any actual impeding of traffic, I am at a loss to see how the complaint that the students were “impeding traffic” could really be reasonable. Further, if the students really needed to be moved (a point which is far from clear) then there is no reason to believe that the UC Davis police could not have moved those students in the traditional manner, by dragging them off.
So, the UC Davis police eventually used military-grade pepper spray on these sitting, unresisting students. How is that not brutal? The UC Davis police caused pain and suffering for no reason beyond their own enjoyment. The pepper spray did not break up the students, nor cause them to flee, nor had any visible positive impact on public order. “Brutal” and “sadistic” seem like reasonable descriptions of the police action under these circumstances.
So, what were the effects of this UC Davis action? Perhaps most obviously, they've created the precedent that the introduction and use of military-grade weaponry is appropriate at these student protests. As above, that's a precedent that never had to be made. I would classify the creation of such a precedent as “counterproductive” at best. More to the point, it's a precedent that could easily be the foundation of some large scale bloodshed to come.
There's the constitutional issue. The UC Davis police action was cruel. For the use of military-grade weaponry on a bunch of peaceful protesters, the word “cruel” is perhaps not strong enough, but it's certainly accurate. The UC Davis police action was unusual. If it weren't unusual, people around the world wouldn't be talking about it now. And it was punishment. The UC Davis police action caused pain and suffering, which is a pretty good example of punishment. In my copy of the Constitution, the 8th Amendment pretty clearly forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe the Constitution to which the UC Davis police officers swore an oath didn't include that 8th amendment.
And then there's the UC Davis Chancellor handling of this whole issue. The Chancellor of a University of California campus is the highest ranking authority on the campus. It's the Chancellor's job to be responsible for everything that happens on the campus. Either the presence of a large number of student protesters on campus, or the fact that the UC Davis police generated a plan to use military-grade weapons on the peaceful students should have caused the Chancellor to be present. Both events together certainly demanded the presence of the Chancellor, if at all possible. Instead, Chancellor Katehi was absent from this whole event, and only came out of the woodwork later, to try to affix blame to anyone but her. That certainly fits with a pattern I've discussed before on this blog, in which University of California personnel claim and accept payment for performing a service, then don't actually provide the service. Is it too much to ask that someone who is paid to be the Chancellor at UC Davis actually does some Chancelloring (is that a word? Well, it is now) when large scale protests and the use of military-grade weapons occur on campus? Obviously, the answer is yes, it is too much to ask.
If you've read the rest of this blog, you will already have guessed that I was surprised by exactly none of the disgusting behaviors evinced by University of California personnel in this instance. You will also have noticed that, no matter what the University of California does, whether it be stealing children, running fake clinical programs, stealing cadavers, engaging in large scale fraud and embezzlement, or more, nothing serious ever happens to address or correct those actions. Based on previous history, I therefore offer this prediction of what will happen as a result of these events at UC Davis: nothing serious. Probably no one will loose their job, and certainly not their pension, there will be no criminal charges filed, and the next scandal will roll right along without being slowed down by any concern on the part of University personnel about University punishment for their actions.
By now, the news of University of California police spraying quietly sitting students with military-grade pepper spray at the UC Davis campus is well known. I have a few things I'd like to say about that.
Firstly, at the ground level, it's pretty clear that this action was unnecessary, brutal, counterproductive, and even unconstitutional.
The students who would eventually be tear gassed were posing no threat, and, at most, were a minor annoyance. The students were, it is true, sitting on a sidewalk, but they certainly weren't blocking movement along that sidewalk. People were simply stepping over the students to get to and fro. There's even a picture of the UC Davis police officer, who would eventually spray the students, doing exactly that. Were the students annoying? Sure. Were they seriously impeding traffic? Apparently not. Sure, if someone in a wheelchair had tried to get by, and if the students had refused to part to allow that person to get by, then perhaps there would have been a stronger case against the students … but, to the best of my knowledge, there was no one in a wheelchair in the area, and my guess is that the students would have made a path for any such disabled person. In the absence of any actual impeding of traffic, I am at a loss to see how the complaint that the students were “impeding traffic” could really be reasonable. Further, if the students really needed to be moved (a point which is far from clear) then there is no reason to believe that the UC Davis police could not have moved those students in the traditional manner, by dragging them off.
So, the UC Davis police eventually used military-grade pepper spray on these sitting, unresisting students. How is that not brutal? The UC Davis police caused pain and suffering for no reason beyond their own enjoyment. The pepper spray did not break up the students, nor cause them to flee, nor had any visible positive impact on public order. “Brutal” and “sadistic” seem like reasonable descriptions of the police action under these circumstances.
So, what were the effects of this UC Davis action? Perhaps most obviously, they've created the precedent that the introduction and use of military-grade weaponry is appropriate at these student protests. As above, that's a precedent that never had to be made. I would classify the creation of such a precedent as “counterproductive” at best. More to the point, it's a precedent that could easily be the foundation of some large scale bloodshed to come.
There's the constitutional issue. The UC Davis police action was cruel. For the use of military-grade weaponry on a bunch of peaceful protesters, the word “cruel” is perhaps not strong enough, but it's certainly accurate. The UC Davis police action was unusual. If it weren't unusual, people around the world wouldn't be talking about it now. And it was punishment. The UC Davis police action caused pain and suffering, which is a pretty good example of punishment. In my copy of the Constitution, the 8th Amendment pretty clearly forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe the Constitution to which the UC Davis police officers swore an oath didn't include that 8th amendment.
And then there's the UC Davis Chancellor handling of this whole issue. The Chancellor of a University of California campus is the highest ranking authority on the campus. It's the Chancellor's job to be responsible for everything that happens on the campus. Either the presence of a large number of student protesters on campus, or the fact that the UC Davis police generated a plan to use military-grade weapons on the peaceful students should have caused the Chancellor to be present. Both events together certainly demanded the presence of the Chancellor, if at all possible. Instead, Chancellor Katehi was absent from this whole event, and only came out of the woodwork later, to try to affix blame to anyone but her. That certainly fits with a pattern I've discussed before on this blog, in which University of California personnel claim and accept payment for performing a service, then don't actually provide the service. Is it too much to ask that someone who is paid to be the Chancellor at UC Davis actually does some Chancelloring (is that a word? Well, it is now) when large scale protests and the use of military-grade weapons occur on campus? Obviously, the answer is yes, it is too much to ask.
If you've read the rest of this blog, you will already have guessed that I was surprised by exactly none of the disgusting behaviors evinced by University of California personnel in this instance. You will also have noticed that, no matter what the University of California does, whether it be stealing children, running fake clinical programs, stealing cadavers, engaging in large scale fraud and embezzlement, or more, nothing serious ever happens to address or correct those actions. Based on previous history, I therefore offer this prediction of what will happen as a result of these events at UC Davis: nothing serious. Probably no one will loose their job, and certainly not their pension, there will be no criminal charges filed, and the next scandal will roll right along without being slowed down by any concern on the part of University personnel about University punishment for their actions.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Friday, September 09, 2011
Yet another data point:
Doctors Behaving Badly: FDA says UCLA cardiology chief botched clinical trial
In this case, the billing-for-services-not-actually-provided is obvious. The UCLA cardiology chief in question was paid to monitor the health of his patients, ensure their rights were protected, ensure that record keeping sufficient to maintain the usefulness of study results was done, and more. Allegedly, none of those things were done.
The omerta part is pretty obvious too. One patient died, and one underwent multiple hospitalizations while in a clinical study -- and no one told the institutional review board nor the study sponsor for a year. The study continued during that time.
As at the top of this post: just another data point.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Multi million dollar embezzlement, mass death in a fake transplant program, lethal research without the knowledge or consent of the research subjects, consorting with Yakuza, selling people's children, selling cadavers just wasn't enough. Now connections to terrorism.
Update: if the facts of the lawsuit described here are true, then someone at UC Berkeley may also be getting a good laugh over recent events.
Another update: and then there's this.
Another addition: and then there's the University non-punishment of the "Irvine 11," students from UC Irvine and UC Riverside who disrupted a speech by the Israeli Ambassador Oren in 2010. The University did nothing substantial to stop or punish that behavior. By contrast, the local DA, a grand jury, and eventually a regular jury, all agreed that the "Irvine 11" behavior was so egregious as to warrant 10 criminal convictions, as described here.
Another addition: an interesting article, relevant to the rest of this post, here: California's Most Anti-Semitic College
I bet someone got a good laugh over the fact that university personnel funded a meeting with Hamas (!) partly by diverting money from Jewish donor groups.
Also, there is fairly explicit evidence of how the omerta upon which I've remarked before gets started. University personnel allegedly directed everyone involved in this event, from undergraduate students to University staff, to lie to their families (parents) and to US and foreign government officials (INS / border guards) regarding the trip. That's a pretty good clue as to what motivates omerta at the University of California.
Really. I thought I had lost the ability to be amazed by the news from the University of California. Every time I think that, they just step up their game. How do they keep on thinking up such new and horrible things to do?
Update: if the facts of the lawsuit described here are true, then someone at UC Berkeley may also be getting a good laugh over recent events.
Another update: and then there's this.
Another addition: and then there's the University non-punishment of the "Irvine 11," students from UC Irvine and UC Riverside who disrupted a speech by the Israeli Ambassador Oren in 2010. The University did nothing substantial to stop or punish that behavior. By contrast, the local DA, a grand jury, and eventually a regular jury, all agreed that the "Irvine 11" behavior was so egregious as to warrant 10 criminal convictions, as described here.
Another addition: an interesting article, relevant to the rest of this post, here: California's Most Anti-Semitic College
Saturday, April 16, 2011
I've been thinking about this post for a couple of weeks now, dreading the day that this post would come out of me. Today is that day.
By the way, there was one person on the UCLA staff who let C know that a transplant really was not forthcoming at UCLA. If that person is reading this, this paragraph is for you: C got your message, and understood it. She just didn't want to believe the message, however. She desperately wanted to believe that she really was going to get a liver soon, and that the extra time it would take to look another transplant program was not justified. Just so you know why C appeared to ignore your message until, as it turned out, it was too late.
This isn't at all the blog post I was imagining over the last few weeks, since I cannot find the words to write that post that's been growing in my head. I just want to scream at the insanity of this all, and the words for that screaming just do not exist.
A few hours ago, a friend called me to tell me that his sister had died. The sister was 29. In this post, I will refer to her as "C."
For the last few weeks, I've known that call was on it's way. I've been wanting to scream at the world against the insanity of it all, and my loudest voice is this blog .... but I couldn't put my thoughts up on the web, lest C happen to read them. Now, I guess, it's too late to matter.
In comments to an earlier post on this blog, I had written that I was certain that, somewhere out there, there was someone who had seen the pattern I've seen at the University of California, avoided the University as a result, and perhaps avoided an early death. In fact, I had someone particular in mind. That someone was C, a young lady who had liver cancer, diagnosed 6 years ago. For 6 years (SIX YEARS!!!) she was metastasis free, and could have had a transplant. Her Kaiser hepatologist (UCLA trained, BTW) didn't get her on a transplant list. Eventually, after she and her family, encouraged by doctors they knew (apparently including me) pushed for her to get on a transplant list, she wound up on the "transplant list" at UCLA. She told me all about how Dr. Ted Busatil, head of liver transplant surgery at UCLA, assured her that he was going to get her a liver. And yet, for approximately a year and a half on this "transplant list," evaluations were done. Bills were generated, and paid. She had doctor's visits, and tests, and scans, and workups ... and no transplant.
Really, after all that time, something was wrong. UCLA transplanted Yakuza, and alcoholics, and criminals, and not this sweet, innocent girl.
I pointed out to the family that something was not quite right, and I may have had some small part in helping them start looking for a program that would perform an actual transplant. C wound up on what I believe was a real transplant list elsewhere, and was, I believe, on track to have an actual transplant instead of just evaluations for a transplant that would never come. She had advanced imaging which showed she still had no metastasis, and was ready to finally have a real transplant. I understand she was thinking about life after a transplant, and planning a future wedding (that last part is hearsay. C never personally told me herself about planning a wedding. Girl stuff, I suppose).
Then, about two weeks ago, C developed hip pain. She went to the hospital, and an X ray showed a femoral mass. Biopsy results indicated it was a metastasis. Unlike Mickey Mantle, C would never get a transplant with a metastasis ... and that's when I first started thinking about the what-ifs. If she'd only gotten that transplant before that metastasis, if she'd only started to look elsewhere for a liver earlier, events would have been different. Once I knew about the mass, however, I knew that the what-ifs were pointless. I knew what was coming. This blog post started in my head at that time, but I've kept it inside until now.
Tonight, C died. Age 29. She was part of that same pattern I've mentioned elsewhere on this blog. Services were billed, and revenue was generated, and the complete service (a transplant) was never done. Her family and her insurance paid for years for pre-transplant evaluations, with no transplant. And eventually, suddenly, it was too late to do a transplant anywhere at all.
There are no words to express the sorrow I feel for this needless early death. There are likewise no words to express my anger about the way she was convinced for years (YEARS!!) not to look elsewhere for a transplant, and to just continue the same medically pointless (but financially lucrative) medical evaluations that would never lead to a transplant.
By the way, there was one person on the UCLA staff who let C know that a transplant really was not forthcoming at UCLA. If that person is reading this, this paragraph is for you: C got your message, and understood it. She just didn't want to believe the message, however. She desperately wanted to believe that she really was going to get a liver soon, and that the extra time it would take to look another transplant program was not justified. Just so you know why C appeared to ignore your message until, as it turned out, it was too late.
This isn't at all the blog post I was imagining over the last few weeks, since I cannot find the words to write that post that's been growing in my head. I just want to scream at the insanity of this all, and the words for that screaming just do not exist.
Still, though this post is not the scream I wish I could generate, it may at least be a warning to some readers. If you are reading this blog, and you know C ... well, you've probably already absorbed the warning that I think is obvious in this tale. If I see you at the funeral, I plan not to bring up that warning, since I think everyone at the funeral will have already had their eyes opened. For the rest of you, those who still need a warning: consider this your warning. I still believe that this blog may do some good by convincing some sick person out there to do their due diligence when selecting a medical center, and perhaps finding a medical center where the NIH has not made a finding that the personnel have a "culture of noncompliance with the law."
Good luck. And Godspeed, C.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The university's action, the judge said, was "intentional, despicable and unprofessional."
Medical Center Suit Bungled, Regents Admit
Monday, January 10, 2011
Standing up for freedom in the face of heartbreaking tragedy:
"This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative."
John Green, father of Christina Green, discussing Christina's murder by Jared Lee Loughner just two days previous.
Plenty of other people have said it, and my own poor comment really amounts to nothing compared to Mr. Green's resolute, calm, and eloquent defense of freedom in the face of the worst possible event a parent can face. Still, I add my voice to those recognizing Mr. John Green:
Mr. Green is a better man than I. I've dedicated this blog to trying to make sense of it all ... and Mr. Green, even after his sudden roller coaster ride into hell, makes more sense out of tragedy than I could ever imagine. He's an inspiration to us all. Further, with his few words, he may have just done more to thwart the destruction of the Republic than all but a handful of men in history. God bless you, Mr. Green.
"This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative."
John Green, father of Christina Green, discussing Christina's murder by Jared Lee Loughner just two days previous.
Plenty of other people have said it, and my own poor comment really amounts to nothing compared to Mr. Green's resolute, calm, and eloquent defense of freedom in the face of the worst possible event a parent can face. Still, I add my voice to those recognizing Mr. John Green:
Mr. Green is a better man than I. I've dedicated this blog to trying to make sense of it all ... and Mr. Green, even after his sudden roller coaster ride into hell, makes more sense out of tragedy than I could ever imagine. He's an inspiration to us all. Further, with his few words, he may have just done more to thwart the destruction of the Republic than all but a handful of men in history. God bless you, Mr. Green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)