Yeah, sorry about the formatting, I didn’t feel like dealing with it when I transferred the data over from ChatGPT.

Bribery, when done intelligently, can be extremely difficult to prove in court.

Many of the accused (on both sides of the transaction) have power, connections, and reputations to uphold. I don’t think it’s too conspiratorial to suggest that the US legal system delivers judgements, let’s say, “inconsistently”, based on factors such as the aforementioned.

Same as it ever was.

Agreed. That’s why I said this in my post:

with ChatGPT in particular you need to be careful to verify the info, of course.

It’s an industry with a long and storied history of corruption, and it’s foolish to believe that that’s magically stopped somehow. It continues to happen to this day.

You can peruse more cases by using your favorite search engine or ChatGPT to search “medical examiners found guilty of taking bribes”, or similar. The information on the cases is not always easy to turn up, and with ChatGPT in particular you need to be careful to verify the info, of course.

Some ChatGPT provided examples:

1. The Bronx Funeral Home Scandal (2015)

In 2015, several funeral directors and medical examiners in the Bronx were arrested and accused of participating in a bribery scheme. Funeral directors allegedly paid bribes to officials at the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office to steer bodies to their funeral homes. In exchange for the payments, the medical examiner’s office would facilitate the release of bodies before proper investigations were completed, often in violation of legal and ethical procedures. This scandal raised concerns about the integrity of the system for handling deceased individuals and led to multiple arrests and charges. 2. Detroit Medical Examiner Corruption (2016)

In 2016, a former assistant medical examiner in Detroit, Dr. L.J. Montague, was implicated in a bribery scheme involving the alteration of autopsy results. Dr. Montague had been involved in improperly handling body evidence and allegedly accepted bribes from funeral homes to provide favorable autopsy reports. In some cases, the reports were changed to cover up the real cause of death, potentially for financial gain or to protect individuals or institutions involved in the deaths. This case drew attention to issues of corruption within the Detroit Medical Examiner’s office. 3. The Pennsylvania “Body-Snatching” Scandal (2006)

In 2006, it was revealed that a Pennsylvania medical examiner, Dr. Cyril Wecht, had been under investigation for charges related to body snatching and bribery. Dr. Wecht, who was known for performing controversial autopsies, was accused of taking bribes and improperly storing bodies for the purpose of selling them for medical research. Wecht was accused of improperly obtaining and retaining bodies for personal gain, and of offering favorable autopsy reports in exchange for compensation. Although Wecht was ultimately acquitted of the charges, the case raised concerns about the potential for bribery and unethical behavior in medical examiner practices. 4. The “Plastic Coffin” Case in New York (2000s)

In the early 2000s, a New York medical examiner, Dr. Charles Hirsch, faced public scrutiny after it was revealed that his office was involved in a widespread bribery scheme linked to the sale of bodies for scientific research. Funeral directors were allegedly paying bribes to medical examiners in exchange for facilitating the release of bodies to be sold to research organizations or anatomical schools. The bodies were often not properly identified or studied for forensic purposes, leading to fears that the system was being exploited for profit. 5. The Georgia Medical Examiner Scandal (2017)

In 2017, Georgia’s former **State Medical Examiner, Dr. Kendrick Brown, faced allegations of corruption and unethical practices. Dr. Brown was suspected of accepting bribes from law enforcement officers and other figures involved in criminal cases, in exchange for altering the results of autopsies to influence investigations. While no formal charges were filed against Brown, the case raised serious questions about the role of medical examiners in criminal justice proceedings and highlighted potential vulnerabilities to corruption.

1. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner Scandal (2014)

In 2014, Dr. Mark Fajardo, a prominent pathologist and deputy medical examiner at the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, was implicated in a scandal where he allegedly falsified autopsy reports. Dr. Fajardo was accused of accepting bribes from a wealthy individual to alter the cause of death in the case of an overdose. The bribery was suspected to have been linked to an attempt to cover up a drug overdose death and turn it into an accident or natural causes, making it easier for the family to collect on insurance. Dr. Fajardo was eventually investigated, but the full scope of the bribery was never completely revealed in public records. 2. The “Foul Play” Investigation in Arkansas (2012)

In 2012, Dr. Ronda Roebuck, a pathologist who worked as a deputy medical examiner in Arkansas, was involved in a case where her autopsy report was allegedly tampered with. The case involved the suspicious death of a woman, which Dr. Roebuck initially ruled a suicide. However, after the deceased’s family raised concerns and a private investigator brought attention to the possible foul play, it was suggested that Roebuck had altered her findings. The family believed that the death was a homicide and that the changes to the autopsy report were made to avoid further legal complications or investigations. Dr. Roebuck later faced scrutiny for her handling of multiple death investigations, and the Arkansas Medical Examiner’s Office faced pressure to overhaul its practices. 3. Corruption and Body-Handling Scandal in Georgia (2017)

In 2017, allegations of corruption surfaced involving the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s Medical Examiner’s Office. Several medical examiners and other officials were suspected of receiving bribes from funeral homes or third-party organizations in exchange for allowing bodies to be released without proper investigation or certification. Funeral directors and medical institutions were believed to have offered financial incentives for the swift release of bodies, avoiding standard procedures such as autopsies in cases where foul play was suspected. This scandal highlighted gaps in accountability within state-run medical examiner systems and raised concerns about the potential for bribery and abuse. 4. The “Death Investigation” Corruption Case in Ohio (2015)

In 2015, it was reported that a Cuyahoga County, Ohio, medical examiner, Dr. Jan Gorniak, faced allegations of corruption and misconduct linked to her professional relationships with funeral homes. Several funeral directors were accused of paying bribes to medical examiner’s office staff to ensure that certain bodies were released without proper death investigations. The bribery was said to be financially motivated, with funeral homes attempting to quickly prepare bodies for burial without waiting for the completion of autopsy reports. Although investigations into the claims continued, Dr. Gorniak was forced to step down from her position as the head of the office amid mounting public pressure. 5. The “Body Broker” Scandal in Las Vegas (2009)

In 2009, Dr. Elizabeth K. Pavlik, a forensic pathologist working for the Clark County Coroner’s Office in Las Vegas, became the focus of a controversial case involving the illegal selling of bodies and body parts. Investigations revealed that several medical professionals, including Dr. Pavlik, had engaged in “body brokering” — the practice of selling body parts for profit. The scheme allegedly involved bribing medical examiners or coroners to release bodies to brokers, who would then illegally distribute body parts for research or commercial purposes. While Pavlik was not directly accused of taking bribes, the scandal brought national attention to potential corruption within the coroner’s office. She was investigated for unethical conduct, and the case shed light on the potential for fraud and bribery in medical examiner offices when financial incentives intersect with body handling. 6. The Alabama Medical Examiner’s Office Scandal (2011)

In Alabama, Dr. William A. “Bill” P. was suspected of taking bribes while working as a medical examiner in the early 2000s. Investigations into the office of the Montgomery County Medical Examiner found discrepancies in autopsy reports and irregularities in body handling. It was suspected that Dr. P. accepted bribes from various law enforcement officials and private individuals to alter cause-of-death reports in cases involving questionable deaths. There were even allegations that these altered reports were part of a larger conspiracy to cover up instances of police brutality. The case became a flashpoint for concerns over corruption in the state’s medical examiner system, but Dr. P. was never formally charged with bribery, though his actions raised serious ethical questions. 7. The “Organ Harvesting” Case in New York (2015)

A major corruption case involving a medical examiner in New York centered on illegal organ harvesting. In 2015, authorities uncovered a scheme where a medical examiner’s office worker in New York City was accused of taking bribes from an organ transplant ring. The worker allegedly provided access to bodies that were meant to be examined for forensic investigations, allowing the bodies to be sold for organ transplants. The medical examiner or coroner allegedly accepted bribes to help facilitate the sale of organs. The corruption was linked to a broader criminal syndicate involved in illegal organ trade and led to significant investigations into the role of medical professionals in such illegal practices. 8. The “Body Mishandling” Scandal in South Carolina (2004)

In South Carolina, Dr. Thomas O. Greene, a forensic pathologist, faced accusations of mishandling bodies and allegedly taking bribes from funeral home operators. The investigation started after a whistleblower reported that Dr. Greene had been

<character limit>

RIP, Marshall. Your novella, Manna (full text), was so impactful for me, as a 20-something at the time you first released it on your website.

You should check out Willam Blum’s “Killing Hope” (pdf link), and/or “America’s Deadliest Export”, by same (pdf link).

“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

Just want to chime in here to let people know that Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead, available on Steam for $20, is a free open source game. You can get the latest builds (both experimental and stable) on github. Free.

I was trying, but it was yet another thing to manage when I already was barely able to keep up with the daily expectations of modern life. Ultimately, though, I am not sure it was that. My body had been adapted to a certain diet for decades by the point I’d given veganism a try, and given what we’re learning about cell memory, I wonder if my body/gut biome was mostly just mad that it had learned to expect nutrients in a certain format and struggled to adapt to the new way. Maybe, given more time, I’d have adapted. I don’t know. I just knew I couldn’t keep going on feeling like that while managing my depression.

Either way, I’m happy enough with my flexitarian diet. I eat very little meat that I didn’t buy on clearance from my local grocer. Saving already-butchered meat that’s imminently destined for the landfill helps me to feel less bad about my animal consumption, though I’m sure some people would say I’m still enabling the meat industry anyway. Some weeks there’s not much clearance meat available, though, and that’s fine. During those times I don’t eat meat, or pull from my freezer. Ultimately I feel that I’ve done more for the environment by choosing to have no children and avoid air travel, given what we know about the emissions numbers. I do own a car, but am working on moving away from using it as much as is possible given my circumstances.

I appreciate your concern, and your candor.

I generally agree that life is worth living, and don’t have any immediate plans to take the sort of drastic action you seem to be supposing. This is a good summation of my situation. I’ve been to therapy, and don’t currently feel that it’s needed. I’m doing well these days, overall, both economically and mentally. I’ve been dealing with my post-teen-angst depression for over 30 years now, and I choose not to medicate against it, as it’s not solely the product of a chemical imbalance, but rather primarily a reflection of the material conditions of humanity at large.

As for humanity being worth saving… we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I won’t cheer on its downfall, or vote for accelerationism, but I’ve yet to see compelling evidence that humanity is valuable to anyone or anything but ourselves.

Why should anyone value what you have to say? Are you just here to expose us to your misanthrope?

I didn’t ask anyone to value what I have to say. I’m here to express myself, just like everyone else. Sorry if I bummed you out.

Become vegan, you’ll feel better

No thank you. I’ve chosen a vegan diet in the past but it didn’t make me feel better about humanity. Worse, even. My physical health suffered, too, so I don’t want to repeat that experiment. I’m fine with my current flexitarian diet.

There was a time, ten or twenty years ago, that I cared; When you could strum those chords on my heart-strings. I used to think that humanity was worth saving. That each human life had some inherent value.

Human life is not inherently more valuable than the cow that died to make the cheeseburger I had for dinner last night. It had a family, too, and probably did less damage to the earth than any of us humans can claim to have done.

I’ve lost patience with my species and their constant bickering and one-upsmanship. Endless competition is tired and trite. I’m bored of it. We’re not each-other’s enemies in any material way other than the ways we’ve created in our own minds, and with our own geopolitical and financial games. We’re one species, and none of us are so valuable as we’d like to think. Frankly, at this point, I’d completely understand if I were one day killed by a foreign adversary intent on teaching my government a lesson. Without consequences, nothing matters.

I hate that this is what I’ve become, but it’s the honest truth of how I’ve come to feel about us. I don’t even know where that leaves me, but something’s got to give. I’ll hold on to hope, but I don’t think we’ve got it in us to come together to save ourselves. We’ll be fighting each-other even as the world burns around us.

Exactly. Actions should never have consequences. That’s how we maintain a free and fair society.

Wow. What an asshole.

I think the chip on your shoulder has a chip on its shoulder.

Perhaps to you the saying is a platitude, but that seems subjective. To someone who hasn’t considered the impacts of their consumption habits, or the ways that different economic systems can serve to reward different patterns of human behavior, it can be a thought provoking statement.

There is no ethical consumption.

If you view ethics as a binary, then sure. If you view ethics as a complex and nuanced spectrum, well, not so much.

Capitalism doesn’t encourage anything.

What a reductionist take, especially considering the paragraph you’d written just above it.

Murc’s Law.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/

This person lost 3 months of work because they couldn’t be assed to backup their data despite having three months to do so.

Never trust an OS, or a piece of software, to protect you. Protect yourself.

I agree, and came in here to say the same thing. I think the data is being skewed by the fact that many (not all, of course) rental properties are subdivided into multiple units (or built that way in the first place). People commenting about how it’s considering modern costs, well, they must not have read the first two sentences of the article:

On paper, owning a home is almost always more expensive than renting — about 14% more, on average, after factoring in expenses like insurance, taxes, and upkeep.

But the difference has grown much more extreme in recent years as just about all homeownership costs have ballooned.

The only way you can arrive at that 14% number is if you’re averaging in multi-unit apartment buildings. Very few, if any, landlords are out there subsidizing their non-family tenants by charging less than the normal costs of ownership. If most landlords are losing money year over year, well… at that point just sell the property.

Looks like someone forgot about the 3-2-1 rule. Teachable moment.

I suspect we’re on the same broad page, but our means are vastly different.

I suspect the same and I appreciate you engaging with me civilly.

Your concerns about the situation being a slippery slope are understandable. We’re discussing things that live on the very edges of basic, modern human morality. I recognize that this creates a lot of unease.

I don’t hate the human. I would not kill baby Hitler if I had a time machine, as baby Hitler was not born evil.

My hate lies with what the human has become, the views the human has developed. I will not tolerate them. If that hatred, of those who outwardly espouse this level of murderous intolerance (and only those who do so), makes me no better than Fuentes, then I suppose I will gladly be that villain, if only so that others can continue to live their lives in peace. The violence and genocide inherent to the fascist ideology must never be allowed to take root. It is an existential threat to global peace that must be shut down with any and every means available. Peaceful means should always be prioritized where possible.

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

• Sir Karl Raimund Popper, speaking on The Paradox Of Tolerance.