Day: November 22, 2004

Did Iraqi War Reduce Terrorism in Israel?

The other day I mentioned a study which attempted to quanitify the effect that the war in Iraq had on Palestinian suicide bombers, given that Saddam Hussein had been soliciting such bombings with financial awards — money that was cut off after the United States invaded Iraq.

The study was performed by Walter Schumm at Kansas State University. According to a press release on the study,

Schumm analyzed the consequences of suicide bombing attacks on Israel between March 2001 and August 2004 in his recent study. He found that, on average per month during this period, there were fewer overall casualties after the invasion than before it. Schumm said that as many as 1,100 casualties may have been prevented.

Iraq was only one of a few countries that paid money to families of Palestinians who fought against Israelis, Schumm noted. His primary research question was whether Hussein’s payments served as a motivational incentive that would encourage a greater number of suicide bombings.

If the invasion was successful in reducing the fatalities in Israel, this particular justification for war with Iraq would be validated, Schumm said.

Schumm notes that some potential suicide bombers in Palestine may have just shifted operations to Iraq where they could directly attack U.S. interests and soldiers. The reduction also could have been a result of improved antiterrorism intelligence within Israeli security forces.

Schumm’s findings were accepted for publication in Psychological Reports in October

Like I said before, I’m not sure how a researcher would even start to separate the confounding factors such as the construction of the secuirty fence, which has generally been credited with the reduction in suicide bombings in Israel.

Source:

K-State’s Walter Schumm has analyzed whether defeat of Hussein reduced suicide attacks in Israel. Press Release, Kansas State University, October 7, 2004.

Final Thoughts on Appearance by Siraj Wahhaj

I was not very happy to open up the student newspaper last week and see another big story about Siraj Wahhaj without a single mention of his history of extremism. Oddly enough, I contacted a number of local media outlets about Wahhaj and none of them mentioned anything about his history (like I said, sometimes I wish these folks were Christian extremists since the media actually seems to care about that).

Anyway, here’s my letter-to-the editor about Wahhaj’s appearance,

The Western Herald headlined its story on Islamic scholar Imam Sirraj Wahhaj, “Scholar tells truth about Islam.” It’s a shame that in two separate articles, the Western Herald couldn’t be bothered to report the truth about Wahhaj.

The Western Herald couldn’t be bothered to report that Wahhaj is on record as supporting the stoning to death of adulterers, saying that “If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it’s the obedience of Allah and his messenger — nothing personal.”

Nor could the Western Herald be bothered to mention Wahhaj’s odd view of Osama bin Laden, of whom he told the Wall Street Journal in 2003, “I’m just not so sure I want to be one of the ones who say, ‘Yeah, he did it. He’s a horrible man.'”

And, of course, space reasons probably precluded mentioning that Wahhaj was an unindicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing or that he appeared as a character witness on behalf of terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is currently serving a life term for his role in the 1993 WTC bombing.

Presumably if Osama bin Laden ever appears at WMU, the Western Herald will headline the event, “Former Construction Engineer to Give Speech.”

HSUS/Fund for Animals Merger Apparently A Done Deal

The rumored merger between the Humane Society of the United States and The Fund for Animals appears to be a done deal.

The Associated Press reports that the new organization will be headquartered in Washington, DC, where HSUS is currently located, but will maintain an office in New York where the FUnd for Animals is located.

Along with the merger, the groups plan to launch a new 501c(4) group to increase the amount that they can spend on political lobbying. Both Fund for Animals and HSUS are organized as 501c(3) which strictly limits the amount of lobbying they can do. Animal rights magazine “Animal People” obtained a memo written by Fund for Animals president Mark Markarian in which Markarian wrote,

“A key component of the merger would be the launch of a new 501(c)(4) organization which could spend unlimited resources on lobbying. It would raise money specifically for lobbying.” The new entity might be named either, “The Humane Fund for Animals” or “The Humane Society Fund for Animals,” the memo indicated.

“As you know,” Markarian and the memo continued, “The Fund and HSUS are both [IRS classification] 501(c)(3) organizations, and both currently face lobbying limits that severely encumber their effectiveness. HSUS must limit its [political] spending to $1 million per year—just 1.3 percent of total spending. The Fund must limit its expenditures to $450,000—about 6% of total spending. These hard caps cannot be consistently exceeded without risking the loss of our charitable status.

“In short, as our organizations grow, our lobbying programs cannot grow commensurately because of the rigid formulas established by the IRS. The HSUS spending cap is frozen at $1 million, no matter how much HSUS grows. The spending limit is the same whether an organization’s annual budget is $20 million, $80 million, or $200 million. As wages, benefits, printing, postage, and other expenditures rise from inflationary pressures, we face shrinking ability to spend in the lobbying domain.”

Markarian and the memo pointed out that the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund “distributes in excess of $5 million per year, and its lobbying arm spends nearly $20 million. Other political opponents, including the American Farm Bureau, National Pork Producers Council, Safari Club International, and Feld Entertainment, spend millions more on political activity. We are at a distinct and often insurmountable disadvantage,” Markarian and the memo contended, “when we attempt to push sweeping and meaningful reforms.

“Our hope,” Markarian and the memo said, “is that a single 501(c)(4), viewed as the political lobbying arm of both organizations, would appeal to donors from both The HSUS and The Fund. Within a few years, it is not unreasonable to think that the 501(c)(4) may be able to spend upward of $10 to $15 million on political activities—representing an increase in spending in this domain by a factor of 10.”

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance issued a press release on Nov. 19 saying that it had talked to Scripps Howard News Service reporter Lance Gay and that,

Gay stated that sources within the groups confirmed that the new organization would seek to ban bowhunting as a priority.

Pacelle has also been making noise about removing the exemption for poultry under the Humane Slaughter Act.

According to an article by Lance Gay, Pacelle apparently is looking to possibly merging with other groups as well,

Pacelle said he would like to further unify the animal rights movement in the United States through other mergers, or by creating an umbrella organization that could carry more political clout in Washington.

Sources:

Animal rights groups to merge. Associated Press, November 19, 2004.

Animal rights groups to announce plan to merge, ban bowhunting. Press release, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, November 19, 2004.

HSUS to merge with Fund for Animals. Lance Gay, Scripps Howard, November 22, 2004.

The Fund, HSUS, and merging packs. Animal People Online, September 2004.

BBC Claims More Foxes Killed After Hunt Ban In Scotland than Before

The BBC is reporting that the number of foxes killed by hunts in Scotland actually increased after the Scottish Parliament passed a ban on hunting with dogs.

The legal change in Scotland forbid huntsmen from using dogs to hunt down and kill foxes. Instead, they are only allowed to use dogs to flush out foxes who then have to be shot by hunters, and in any event only for pest control purposes.

According to the BBC, this change actually makes it more likely that foxes being hunted will be killed,

It’s claimed that since a ban came into force the hunts are killing more foxes, because the animals stand less chance of getting away from guns than they did from the hounds.

There’s also concern that in the past the younger, fitter, healthier foxes were the most likely to get away from the pack.

But now they’re the very ones most likely to break from cover first, which makes them more like to be shot.

Older or diseased animals may stay hidden and so escape. Hunts say this is bound to be bad for fox populations in the long run.

The most amusing part of the Scottish ban is the debate over “flushing” vs. “searching.” Under the ban, hunters are allowed to use dogs to flush foxes from their hiding places, but they are not supposed to use dogs to actively search for foxes. Sounds like a hair-splitting lawyer’s employment program to me. The BBC quotes huntsman Trevor Adams saying,

Flushing, and looking for a fox, are pretty similar things really. The fox is a wild animal and nobody knows exactly where it is, so you have to search for it a certain extent to find out where it is. . . . What you’re not allowed to do is go off searching, without a need to control that animal.

Sounds like they’d need to take a lawyer with them on every hunt. Frankly, I’m disappointed that the rights of dogs to pursue their carnivorous nature with foxes isn’t taken seriously by the animal rights activists.

Source:

Huntsmen ‘destroying more foxes’. Huw Williams, BBC, November 20, 2004.

New Oxford Chancellor Slams Animal Rights Activists

Chris Patten, former EU Commissioner and new chancellor of Oxford University, used his first speech as Oxford chancellor to blast animal rights “thugs” in the UK who are threatening medical research.

In his speech, Patten said,

It would, of course, be devastating news for many who suffer from disease if this research was to be halted in its tracks. But there is more at risk than the future of biomedical research in one university, or even in the whole country.

To use violence against research at a university — against academic staff and all those in any way associated with what they do — is a serious blow against the basic liberties of a plural society. If we surrender over animal research, what comes next?

Will there be attempts to intimidate us not to employ those who belong to a particular country or faith or ethnic group? Will research into some parts of our history be censored as it has been and still is in some countries?

Will other sorts of scientific inquiry be choked off because of the objections of this or that group which is prepared to threaten or use violence? Pushing back the boundaries of knowledge is one of the hallmarks of a free and civilized society.

These are all issues that are on the frontier between an Enlightenment world of liberty and reason, and darkness.

Universities, when able to pursue knowledge simply out of curiosity, are a bastion of a free society, as newspapers are. If you start to limit through the use of violent means what universities do, you are undermining the values of freedom.

Wow — the role of Chancellor in the Oxford system is largely a symbolic one, but it is still good to see someone associated with the university so eloquently stating what is at stake in the fight against animal rights extremism.

Sources:

New Chancellor Patten Attacks Animal Rights Extremists. Press Association, November 19, 2004.

Liberty threatened by animal rights thugs, says Patten. Mark Henderson, The Times (London), November 19, 2004.

Animal rights extremists slammed. BBC, November 19, 2004.

Russian E-Mail Order Bride Wins $400,000 Judgement

Earlier this year, I noted ongoing controversy over mail order brides from Eastern Europe, and whether they are victims of domestic violence at higher rates than normal (and, if so, what should be done to minimize the problem).

This month, a Ukranian woman won a $434,000 jury award against an online agency that matched up women from the former Soviet Union with American men.

Nataliya Fox sued Encounters International claiming that the agency was fraudulent and negligent when it paired her up with American businessman James Fox in 1998.

The two were married about three months after meeting, but Nataliya claimed her husband was abusive throughout their marriage.

Nataliya testified that when she told Encounters International owner Natasha Spivack about the abuse, that Spivack told her she would be deported if she left her American husband. Spivack testified that Nataliya concocted the story in order to remain in the United States.

Similarly, Nataliya testified that when she asked Spivack why another Russian woman had left James Fox only two weeks after being set up with him by Encounters International, Spivack told her that the woman had been “foolish.”

James Fox testified at the trial that he never abused his wife.

Encounters International plans to appeal the verdict.

Sources:

Online dating bride wins damages. The BBC, November 19, 2004.

Mail-order bride wins damage award. Stephanie Hanes, Baltimore Sun, November 19, 2004.

Jury awards $434,000 to woman who met husband online. Associated Press, November 19, 2004.