Wednesday, August 24, 2005

My Trip to EA Sports for the IGDA meeting

I orignally shared this with my good friend Jody (check out Ms. May's site!), but I thought it was cool enough to present here..I returned from EA Sports Headquarters in Redwood City. Who are they? EA Sports makes Madden NFL 2006, Tiger Woods Golf, The Sims Online, and other games. I was invited to a meeting of The Silcon Valley Chapter of the International Game Developers Association.

Who?

IGDA www.igda.org is a large worldwide group of people who make, market, finance, run corporations that make, or just are interested in computer and video games --- I'm in it now. I collected about 23 business cards! I also met people who can totally help me inprove my simulation games. The groups is about what you'd expect: mostly men, and mostly nerdy, and mostly Stanford grads. (We were only 5 miles from what we locally call "The Farm")

But what I didn't expect was the racial diversity. That was so cool! It's also a GREAT window into "what's coming next" in other words, the folks at this party are working on a lot of games and devices you will see in the very near future, and mostly on cell phones and PDA's (Personal Data Assistants, like Blackberry). A very cutting edge group. I was really jazzed to be a part of it.

I even met a person who's with a firm that does "motion capture." That's where they record your movements to create an animated character, like in Jurrasic Park or Lord of The Rings. She said I could sign up for free time!

Sunday, August 21, 2005

3 Years Old Girl / 33 Year Old Woman - It's Still The Shoes

Saturday, Mom and I went to visit my step-cousin Michelle and her adorable daughters six-year-old Kiyana and three-year-old Alana. Mom went shopping for clothes for the little ones and Alana could not have been happier. She put on one of the dresses and immediately went to pick out matching shoes and a purse from her closet. Then she came over, sat next to me, and said "Like my shoes?"

I had an immediate flashback to the previous night, when I was at Bix and met Rachel and Alex
(See "Good People / Bad People, below). One of the comments Alex made before we started talking happened when I turned to look in her direction. She kicked up her leg and said "Like my shoes?" When I realized this, I almost fainted.

-- I'm not a geneticist, but there's got to be something to this. Regardless, if a girl or woman asks you to comment about her shoes, do so in kind and tell her they're wonderful!

I think I realized that no matter how old we get, the innocent child in us never goes away.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

An Open Letter to Oakland Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente

August 20, 2005

The Hon. Ignacio De La Fuente
President
Oakland City Council
Vice Chair
Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority


Dear Ignacio,

Today, I happened to pick up the Sunday August 21st SF Chronicle
Sporting Green to read Tom Fitzgerald's article on the Raiders PSL
problem. I noticed -- much to my surprise as I was not contacted --
that you made a remark about my idea for a Coliseum Surcharge Program.
(see: http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com/raiders.psl.ticket.problem.htm)
I'm not bothered by the remark as much as I am the misspelling of my
name -- they wrote "Zenon" rather than "Zennie" and for the second
time, requiring another correction -- but the fact that you said "I
don't listen to his ideas" recalled a painful chapter in my
occupational life and that was my time with the City of Oakland.

For me it all started as an intern with the City of Oakland's Office of
Economic Development in 1987. During that time, I created a giant
spreadsheet system such that one could evaluate the fiscal and economic
impact of any redevelopment project and project area in the State of
California. I was told by one person "You have three problems: You're
young, gifted, and black."

When I was Economic Advisor to Elihu Harris -- actually a bright spot
in an otherwise dim period -- he rejected my idea and groundwork for a
"Sega GameWorks" development in downtown Oakland. Now, Elihu's a
member of my company's advisory board, and he said "I wish I'd listened
to you about that." Why? Because the GameWorks facilities in places
like Las Vegas are very successful establishments.

When Elihu tried to place me at the Coliseum as he was leaving office,
you told him you didn't want me there. So, Robert Bobb placed me at
Economic Development in 1999, and from there, I went on to establish
the Oakland Alameda County Sports Commission, head the Super Bowl XXXIV
Bidding Committee, and came close -- we did get a good number of NFL
owner votes -- to doing the impossible: landing the 2005 Super Bowl for
Oakland. I might add that during that time, you stood as an impediment
-- until you realized that I (as you told me) "was generating the only
positive press The Coliseum had."

While I was in Oakland, I had to deal with people who didn't listen,
politicians who were jealous that I couldn't be "controlled" (you were
one of them), harrassment by executives who didn't understand how I
could amass such media attention or contacts, and employees who just
didn't have a "winning" attitude. Through all of this, I created
Oakland's Super Bowl Bid, and used very creative financing and
political techniques to help consitutuents and developers. I convinced
the develpers of Times Square's Renovation to come to Oakland, and of
course, I brought Forest City here as well, but not to do housing.

Over the years, I've created a number of ideas, from "Phasing" -- my
concept that would have generated more money for the Oakland
Revelopment Agency -- to The Oakland Downtown Coalition. In the
Phasing example, your legal counsel did state that I found a true
loophole in redevelopment law -- that loophole still exists today. Of
course, you didn't listen.

I've told you how to establish a naming rights marketing strategy for
not just the facility but the Coliseum Complex. I've explained that a
number of "punch list" items on the Coliseum's renovation for the
Raiders were not done -- and are still not done today.

I've put up with your attempt to ask Oakland Business people about my
Super Bowl Sponsorship Concept -- one that Mike Lynch, the head of
VISA's Worldwide Sponsorship Division, said was innovative and can add
value to what they do (and they're an NFL Sponsor) -- without ONCE
asking me about it. You didn't know what you were doing, and yet was
trying to explain something I created. A terrible mistake.

I've put up with your needless coddling of SMG. I've put up with the
ill--considered decision to let SMG run the Coliseum's marketing effort
(what's SMG doing, putting money in your campaign?) I've put up with
your allowing Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty to use the
Coliseum Authority and SMG for his own purposes. I've put up with the
very impossible position you've placed your Executive Director in, with
little resources and staff. I've even put up with how anyone could not
go to the Alameda County Grand Jury and report these matters....Hmm...

Now, I'm in the best two years of my professional life. I run an
Internet company that's over two years old and am currently making as
much money as you, and will surpass you soon. I've established a new
niche market and am able to implement my ideas without being blocked by
those who are insecure, jealous, racist, or just plain unhappy. When I
need to make more money, I simply learn more and implement the
web-based concept. Pretty dangerous, ah? I'm also in an industry of
very bright and very ambitious people. I love what I do.

But what I also love is that I can donate to political campaigns, and
just for the heck of it. I'm not in need of some development contract
-- I just want a better world and a better Oakland. I've given over
$1,500 thus far, and while that's small now, it's going to get bigger.
At this point, I'm not inclined to invest in any campaign you're
heading.

One campaign I might be interested in is one that involves improving
the Oakland Coliseum. As long as the Coliseum is in the state of
disarray it's in, I'll always be a critic, and I might add that in an
Internet age, being a critic of The Coliseum Authority is good for
Sports Business Simulations.

Sincerely,

Zennie


Zennie Abraham
Chairman and CEO
Sports Business Simulations
"Learn to Run"
www.sbs-world.com
510-444-4037 (o)
510-387-9809 (c)
zennie@sportsbusinesssims.com

Good People / Bad People

After some thought, I decided to make this more of a diary. I've had some interesting experiences I want to share. For example, I went out last night (8-19-2005) and to visit "Bix," a great restaurant near North Beach in San Francisco. (And beautiful, too! Click this link!) Mom's visiting and I spent so much time with her, that I wanted to just plain hang out.

Well, the real story is that I invited Mom to see this show that's a tribute to The Rat Pack, but she didn't want to go, sadly.

Anyway, I went there and just wanted to listen to this jazz band. But as I stood there, a very attractive white woman kept trying to get my attention. Eventually, she just plain old said "Nice band, huh?" So, I walked over to talk to her -- not much of a trip; about six feet in distance.

I had noticed she was with someone, so I really didn't expect anything. The three of us - her name's Rachel and her boyfriend's name is Alex -- had a series of great talks. They're both British, but met here via family members. But there was a woman who would walk over periodically. Her name was Debbie. Now, I thought Debbie was rather attractive, but I was just feeling out the entire situation. Debbie spent a lot of energy talking to Rachel's boyfriend and so much so that -- considering her body language -- I thought she was trying to pick up on him. I even caught her taking a look at me, then rolled her eyes up when I looked at her.

My feeling about Debbie was that she was "hunting" and for white guys. My beef is that some people stupidly judge others by race and based on that determine who's attractive. For example, some African American women tell me I look a bit like Tae Diggs -- moreover, some white and Asian women say that, too.

In my life I've noticed that the more a woman's used to dating black men, the more she makes such comparisons. It's a good gauge.

After I decided to ignore her, Debbie manuevered over next to me. We eventually talked. Debbie's new to the Bay Area, and from Nerw York City. She works for Wells. It turns out that we both know two friends of mine: Frank and Roberta. They've had an on again, off again relationship. So that revalation launched a new conversation. But right in the middle of it, she just turned and started talking to these two white guys standing about six feet away. Frankly, I thought the guys were gay.

I thought Debbie's act was terribly rude, and something only done because she's not interested in me because I'm black. That's not an excusable reason for that. My friend Beth, for example, has a great way of making you feel important, even if she's interested in someone else. A good heart, she has. In that context, Debbie's behavior just plain got me. We were having a great conversation and knew the same people. Then "poof."

Fortunately, Rachel and Alex invited me to join them at a table for dinner. On the way, I said to Debbie -- in front of the two guys -- that she was totally rude. No -- I didn't yell. I just said it very plainly. Then I walked off with Rachel and Alex. They were very supportive, considering we just met. Rachel offered that she struck up a conversation with me because she thought I was attractive. Hey, guys like to have their ego's stroked too, especially by lovely women!

We had a great time with at dinner, and I did give them my card. I hope they stay in touch.

But as we were talking and eating, we would notice Debbie at the bar talking with the two guys. Eventually, they left -- she was alone at the bar. No one came over to talk with her. I thought that was sad. I felt that was God's work. I hope she learned something. Had she been nicer, she could have had a great time with us, and left with new friends instead of being left alone.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

"Confidential" UK Policy Memo on Iraq - Must Read

Read it carefully and note the date. Read it again and again..then pass it on. It has this paragraph:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of ter-
rorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record.
"

---the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy.

I wonder how this got out into the open?? Why did it take so long?

Well, here you go....

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



The Secret Downing Street Memo
-----
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Rich-
ards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a
genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on
extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried
and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or over-
whelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale
was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of ter-
rorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little
discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4
August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to
Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus
belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option.
Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement
were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
2
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering
from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime.
No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was
January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had
made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam
was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would
also help with the legal justifi cation for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were
three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The fi rst and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be diffi cult. The situation
might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in
the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was produc-
ing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right,
people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether
we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the fi rst, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing
to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse
and urban warfi ghting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added
the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a
winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK
differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play
hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of mili-
tary action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to
decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It
would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a
fuller picture of US planning before we could take any fi rm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we
were considering a range of options.
3
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this
operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contri-
butions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly
work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and
of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal
advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT

Zennie's Back Into Blogging

After a long layoff becaue of my stepfather's passing, I'm back in the business of blogging on Zennie's Zeitgeist. My life's changed a lot and I've gained a new perspective because of my stepdad's passing, and my improved relationship with my Dad. My Mom's a gem, and going through a hard time, but she -- and I -- will make it.

You're going to see a post with information that spurred me to re-start the blog. As I write this, I'm watching CNN, and I can;t' tell you how surprised I am that this information is not on their news.

The short version is the discovery of a memo written by a UK policy advisor on June 23, 2002 and about Iraq, Saddam, and the US and UK. It explains:

1) That Iraq's possible WMD supply was LESS than that for Lybia, and other Middle Eastern countries.

2) That US intelligence policy was made to fit around the desire to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. That's not a missprint.

There's more in the next post....

Saturday, March 19, 2005

The Passing of Chester Yerger Jr. Or a lesson in how Fayette Piedmont Hospital can engineer the death of a loved one.

My stepfather, Chester Yerger Jr. was found to have prostate cancer in 2003. It actually happened in that a blood clot formed in his left leg. He was given a kind of hormonal therapy and released, but with subsequent treatments, or so I am told.

After a few months, the entire problem resurfaced in October -- the blood clot in his leg, but this time two blood clots in his lungs. He was sent to Piedmont hospital, remained for about two weeks, and then sent home. On Thanksgiving he was active and walking, though weak. He used a walker to get around.

On Christmas, he was still weak, and didn't use the walker as much; he was content to sit and watch TV -- a lot of football (GO BEARS!)

Anyway, when I returned in early February, he was still sitting in his chair, but would go to sleep more. His breathing was weird. On February 4th, Mom took him to the hospital where it was found that he had an irregular heartbeat. He was treated for what turned out to be 10 days and released.

Someone talked Mom into having him in a hospice program called Odyssey. But he was only in this home hospice care program for about a week.

When I came to Atlanta - Fayetteville, GA this time on Wednesday March 9th, he was in a special bed set up next to his bed. He was with an oxygen tube. Then, at about 8 PM the night I arrived, he started wheezing and coffing -- as the night wore on, it sounded like he was drowning.

We called the hospice nurse.

She said, "You're watching a person who's dying." (No kidding) She said this four times. "There's nothing you can do."

I disagreed with her and called 911.

They took him to the closest hospital: Fayette-Piedmont Hospital in Fayetteville, GA (Fayette County). Here, they said he had pneumonia.

When Mom and I arrived, the hospital Chaplain came out and we thought the worst. But he was just there to introduce himself. He was with two physicians and two of the ambulance crew and a nurse. They asked us a set of questions regarding what kind of care we wanted for my step dad.

We said that we wanted them to do everything to keep him alive. What was interesting to me is that they asked my Mom this question three times and in three different ways. Had I not been there, and given how upset she was, she might have given three different answers.

Instead, once she understood what they were asking, and with my warning to them to ask the same question and not play “tricks,” she gave them the same answer. Finally, she signed a contract that – we believed – was to bind the hospital to our wish to keep my stepfather alive.

What they did when we first got him here (and placed him in ICU) was to pump the fluid out of his lungs that built up. Then, doctor Larry Vaughn put him on Calodex for the cancer.

What upset me at first was that the Dr. ordered the nurses to take him off the narcotics he had in his system and as they did he shook in pain, with no one other than me and Mom to see him in the room, with no nurse or physician present. So, I went to ask what's going on.

The nurses were not even watching his vital sign monitor.

The nurses said that the physician was evaluating him without the narcs. I said, "Isn't someone supposed to be there to monitor him?" They said "Good point."

So, I personally got the doctor off the phone and had him come in the room. He said, “I’m on a call.” My response was “Five seconds.”

When Dr. Vaughn came into the room, he explained that he needed to take the narcs out to see how the "patient's" resperatory system responded and that sometimes it's better for them to breath without the narcs. I explained that the reason I was questioning him is that his own nurses were saying that he should have been in the room. Dr. Vaughn said -- after a long pause -- "They were being honest."

I also asked for a second cancer opinion. They called in a Doctor Jonathan Bender, MD. But this was not the person I asked for. I requested a Dr. Kamwashi (misspelled name here) He said that there was little that could be done, and that I should look up "Hormone-Resistant Prostate Cancer” So I did -- in fact I collected about 200 pages of information starting on Thursday and through Friday and stayed up until 4 AM Saturday morning.

I called Dr Bender -- who was more concerned that I called his cell phone than what I had to say -- Saturday morning. It was because I found information online about how his condition could be treated, where Bender TOLD ME it was not treatable. Keep that in mind.

See: http://www.prostatepointers.org/prostate/leibowitz/leib20.html

And: http://www.prostate-cancer.org/aboutus/acomplsh.html

And: http://www.phoenix5.org/advanced/UCSFtreatments.html

What caught my eye was Dr, Leibowitz finding that:

He presented in February 1995 with a PSA of about 2400. He had obvious metastases to bone and lung. He was treated with 13 months of triple hormone blockade, then about 18 months of Proscar maintenance therapy. His PSA was unmeasurable when we stopped triple blockade, and slowly rose on Proscar alone to 23.51. He was treated with "The Magnificent Seven" protocol (triple hormone blockade, Aredia, T/E/D), and his PSA became unmeasurable again. At present, his only medicines are once a month Aredia and daily Proscar maintenance therapy. He is OFF triple blockade; and has been off Taxotere since 12/4/97. His PSA is still unmeasurable, and his testosterone level is returning to normal.

The FDA as a subsititute, I learned, approved Zometa, for Aredia.
When I presented this information to Bender, he claimed that Potite, the first cancer doctor for Chester at Piedmont Hospital, said this was done. They've not seen his medical records, so Bender's only going on what Potite told him.

Finally on Saturday, they got a room ready for him -- Room 337. By Friday and through Saturday, there was improvement by my observation: 1) his arm movements were less frantic 2) he would occasionally eat and talk two sentences each day, not just moaning, 3) there was no wheezing and the drowning sound was gone.

The one problem was constant pain, which caused him to moan and moan. We figured maybe there was not enough pain remedy, so they did give him some. And that seemed to work. I must add that through this entire episode when he arrived at the hospital, he was not talking.

On Saturday, and after continuing treatments to suck the mucus out of his lunges, he would say a few sentences – “Hey Baby” to my Mom, for example. But he also explained in a strained voice where his pain was. First, he said it was all over on Friday. But on Saturday he was more specific. He pointed to his groin and to his leg, where there was a blood clot before. It had not hurt for a while, until after he arrived at the hospital this trip.

But even with that, we left Saturday night with better feeling.

Today, he was -- it seemed better -- he ate for my Mom. I walked in and he raised his hand. But for some reason at about 1 PM he seemed to wheeze again and he would wail his arms, which he does when he’s in pain...,and moan.

Then at 3 PM the moaning continued and he at times looked like he was in a catatonic state, then would come out of it. It turned out that they gave him a new pain patch called Duragesic and placed it on his left upper pec area. There seems to be a correlation between that and his current state.

I just talked to my Mom while writing to this point on Sunday evening; they took the patch off him. He was still in his semi catatonic state.

As I wrote to this point last Sunday March 13th , they had him on antibiotics rocephin and zithromax for his pneumonia; the Calodex was stopped when Dr. Vauhn discovered that my Step Dad’s prostate cancer was hormone-resistant. He learned this from Dr. Bender, but no alternative was applied.

Meanwhile, my stepfather slowly emerged from the state he was in. At points on Sunday night he would follow you around the room with his eyes. I felt there was improvement.

Dr, Vaughn admitted this to me during an argument he and I had over how they were treating my stepfather on Sunday, March 13th. When I asked Dr. Vaughn why my step dad could not talk and why he was in so much pain, he responded haughtily “Have you ever had a cold?”

Not appreciating unstructured and illogical debate, I quickly reminded him that the minor cold in no way compares to pneumonia, which I’ve never had. I explained that all I wanted was data: his blood count is this; it was that, and so on. Instead, what I got from Dr. Vaughn was a rather rambling lecture on God and the scriptures that I did not ask for or need. So, to make him think I agreed and after a heated and draining argument, I just listened to what he said and responded little.

He -- like Bender -- was trying to get me to accept that Chester was going to die. But the point is that they signed an agreement to do everything to keep Chester alive. They were not supposed to give us silly “God v. Science” lectures or not try – which is what they did. And what I got when I asked questions were God and Science lectures most of the time.

Some of the nurses explained that “doctors are God” in the South and don’t like to be questioned. My response was consistently that we were trying to save his life, not kill him – to not ask questions and not try is to kill Chester. By Sunday, and before what happened, I was convinced that they were trying to kill him.

For example, there was a breath treatment that Dr. Vaughn had ordered to be administered every 4 hours and as needed at night. I calculated that his mucus would accumulate to a point where it impacted his breathing every 2 hours and 23 minutes. After my and Mom’s constant calling for treatment, the mucus buildup slowed to 2 hours and 45 minutes by Sunday. A clear sign of improvement.

But on Monday, two things happened, both tragic and hospital actions. Dr. Bender ordered his antibiotics stopped, and his breathing treatment frequency was just “as needed” – with the argument that they were not working. They were working.

But what the hospital tried to do all along was push him over the cliff. In other words they tried to kill him, and developed a rationale for doing so.

They figured that we weren’t’ going to question them. In fact, Dr. Bender asked my Mom what I thought – even though I wasn’t in the room. I later informed him that my feeling – that Chester could be saved and given a longer life, even if he lives just for another month – remained. Neither he nor Larry Vaughn had convinced me. I told them that we wanted Chester to live and if we had another week or month, great. At least try.

The doctors not only didn’t try, but also gave some of the dumbest reasons for not trying. Like his age of 82 – so what? The contract we had with the hospital directed them TO SAVE CHESTER, not play the debate game with their patients, or their patients' loved ones like me and Mom.

In fact, it was getting to the point where I simply didn’t like Dr. Bender and to reflect this, I would only call him John. Not doctor. John seemed to have an argument – and not a good one – for everything. What really pissed me off and sent up my red flag was his assertion that the previous doctor “tried all of that” I mentioned in the research I uncovered, even as he admitted he didn’t see Chester’s medical records. He was just trying to cover for Dr. Potite. Trying to save his ass.

I was more certain than ever that they were trying to kill him. To get Chester out of what was going to be a long hospital stay. So, by Tuesday, I was trying like heck to get another cancer doctor involved and get Bender off the case. But by then, the doctors informed Mom that Chester wasn’t going to make it.

Strangely, I had a dream that if we placed Vick’s Vapor Rub on his chest that it would loosen his mucus and help clear his lungs – much as was done for me when I had terminal asthma as a small boy. So, I left for the hospital to help Mom (in fact, I felt like I lived at the hospital) and when I got there, asked the nurses for Vick’s. They didn’t have any.

But they did encourage me – the nurses – to go and get some. So I did. I applied it while Mom covered his chest with towels. And by nighfall, it worked. I got the suction tube, and got the stuff out of his mouth, and with his help. Chester knew what we were trying to do and would try and – with his weakened condition – spit out what he could. But he could barely eat.

On, on eating. He could not chew with ease let alone swallow. He would hold the food at the roof of his mouth. So, to get him to eat, we ordered his food pureed – we Mom and I, not the doctors. Then later we asked them to give him food via some kind of injection. Remember this is part of the contract of keeping him alive.

They were either slow to do this on the weekend, or did it on Wednesday March 16th --- and after his condition had worsened via the hospital’s other actions of taking away his antibiotics and breathing treatments. Both of which we asked to be reapplied. That was enough to push him over the edge.

But the final last straw was after they said he wasn’t going to make it. I got on the plane to come back to California – unsuccessful at getting a flight out later the following week so I could stay.

As soon as my plane landed in San Francisco, I got a call from Mom that he was still alive and now he had a fever, which the hospital declined to treat. For me that was it. I called the hospital and said to explain to Dr. Bender that if he so much as stepped near my step dad, I was going to have him arrested.

Then, about three hours later, Mom called and told me Chester passed away.

For me, the best satisfaction is the legal and binding punishment of Fayette Piedmont Hospital in the name of Chester H. Yerger Jr.