Month: November 2001

Bribery Is a Way of Life in Mexico

As an example of just how corrupt many developing countries are, a recent report by Transparency Mexico suggests that bribery to obtain government services is endemic throughout Mexico.

In a survey of almost 14,000 Mexican households, Transparency Mexico estimated that more than 200 million individual bribes occur in the country annually, at a cost of $2.5 billion.

And these are just for normal everyday services. The average bribe measured in the survey was only $12. Want to get married in Mexico? Give a civil servant a $10 bribe to secure the date you want. Need to get a driver’s license? Don’t forget to bribe the clerk administering the test. Everything from enrolling children in schools to obtaining garbage collection and water service in Mexico involves regular bribes to the authorities.

Mexican President Vincente Fox was elected on promises to reform Mexico’s corrupt bureaucracy, but so far Fox’s anti-corruption campaign doesn’t seem to have had much of an effect on business-as-usual.

Sources:

For many in Mexico, bribes a way of life. Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, October 31, 2001.

Mexico’s Harsh Bribery Reality. James F. Smith, Los Angeles Times, November 1, 2001.

Animal Rights Activists Predict More Violent Actions in the Wake of Barry Horne's Death

Reaction to Barry Horne’s death from animal rights activists was swift and predictable — Horne was a hero and his death will likely inspire more violent actions against people in animal industries.

Ronnie Lee, founder of the Animal Liberation Front, said, “I think there are some people who would regard him as a martyr. Everyone in the animal rights movement feels a combination of sadness and anger over his death. That includes people whose thing is to carry out personal actions on animal rights abusers.”

Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, said he did not condone arson but called Horne a “thoroughly dedicated anti-vivisectionist.”

Robin Webb, current ALF spokesman, said, “Barry has given his life. It will harden people’s resolve. … I can’t predict what will happen but people are becoming angry and I belive this will make them angrier. Some people are becoming more radical still.”

Scriptwriter and animal rights activist Carla Lane said, “I don’t believe in violence, arson, or anything like that, but I believe in why Barry did what he did. I hope he will make others think more deeply about it, because if someone is prepared to give their life they must have seen something that was deeply, deeply upsetting to them.”

And Kevin Jonas of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, weighed in to predict that violent actions would escalate. “He was a household name for animal rights activists around the world,” Jonas said. “I can only predict that his death is going to spark a reaction.”

Companies and police in Great Britain are reportedly already preparing for an increase in animal rights related terrorism following Horne’s death. During his last hunger strike, the Animal Rights Militia issued a list of 10 people it claimed it would kill if Horne died. Given the outpouring of love for such a violent individual, don’t expect the activists to pull their punches.

Sources:

Police alert after animal rights bomber dies on hunger strike. Richard Ford, The Times (London), November 6, 2001.

Animal rights activist dies after hunger strike. Ian Burrell, The Independent (London), November 6, 2001.

Interview. The Guardian (London), November 6, 2001.

Animal activists mourn their martyr dies in hunger strike: Firebomber dies after fourth hunger strike bid to change vivisection policy. Sarah Hall, The Guardian (London), November 6, 2001.

Companies on alert after death of activist: Animal rights group wars of violence. Jimmy Burns and David Firn, The Financial Times (London), November 6, 2001.

Firebomber dies on hunger strike. Philip Johnston, The Daily Telegraph (London), November 6, 2001.

9/11 Attack: Remember the Women?

For some inexplicable reason, Caryl Rivers, who works with the National Organization for Women‘s Legal Defense and Education Fund, saw it necessary to write an article casting the 9/11 terrorist attacks along sexual lines.

According to Rivers,

Working women are on the front lines of what is being called ‘America’s new war.’

The terrorist Osama bin laden has said that he wanted to make war on all American males, but it seems that women are, more than ever before, in the lie of fire. No longer do they have a special status that protects them — if they ever really did.

What the hell is wrong with Rivers? Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists have made it clear that they are out to kill Americans whether they are men, women, or children. But would the 9/11 attacks have been any less horrific if only men had died?

In fact, Rivers seems to think that the terrorist act was specifically intended to kill women, claiming that, “…in the terrorist war against the United States, women are being blindly attacked as engines of American life and commerce. Seven employees of the TJX retail company died aboard one flight out of Boston because they were traveling on business. In the World Trade Center, we do not know exactly how many working women perished, but the number will be saddening.”

What I find saddening is this obsessive feminist need to reduce every issue to rather parochial men vs. women distinctions. The reality is that based on current information, most of the victims of the 9/11 attack were men.

The Associated press conducted an analysis of 3,000 people listed as missing or dead and found that 75 percent of the victims were men, whose average age was only 40.

Following the Rivers model, this should be the point where this article would go on about men’s contributions to society and how bin Laden is targeting men qua men, but that exercise is absurd regardless of sex. Bin Laden hates Americans, hates our liberal democratic society, and wants to terrorize us — he’s not assembling some manifesto about sexual politics in the United States.

Sources:

WTC victims were mostly young men. John Kelly, Associated Press, October 26, 2001.

Animal Research Leads to Stunning Advance in Nanotech Medicine

It’s long been a staple of science fiction — cure a disease such as diabetes by injecting extremely tiny nanotech machines into the body that will automatically regulate insulin level. Now, however, thanks to medical research with animals, this scenario is now science fact and likely to head to tests in human beings within a few years.

Bioengineering researcher Tejal Desai has managed to create a nanotech device that essentially cures rats afflicted with diabetes. Desai’s method involves injecting the diabetic mice with extremely small machines that contain insulin-producing cells.

The major obstacle to such an approach is that the bodies of both animals and human beings will launch an immune system attack against the insulin-producing cells. Desai gets around this by including tiny pores in the nanomachine that are only 7 nanometers across — wide enough to allow insulin to leave the nanomachine, but too small for antibodies to invade and attack.

Once in the bloodstream, the nanomachines should last a lifetime, meaning an insulin nanomachine would essentially be a cure for diabetes.

Desai’s next step will be long-term studies of her insulin nanomachines in small animals, followed by tests on larger animals such as chimpanzees.

Source:

Tiny capsules float downstream. Kristen Philipkoski, Wired, October 29, 2001.

Barry Horne, 49, Dead In Hunger Strike

Great Britain’s Prison Service has reported that animal rights terrorist Barry Horne, 49, died in a Worcester hospital on November 5 after a short-lived hunger strike. The official cause of death was liver failure.

In 1997, Horne was sentenced to 18 years in jail for carrying out a series of arson attacks in Great Britain. Horne’s stiff sentence was directly related to the depravity of his crimes which seriously endangered human lives. Horne built incendiary devices, placed them in cigarette packs, and then hid them in stores that he claimed promoted animal cruelty. In one instance, for example, Horne hid a cigarette pack bomb in a leather bag that was subsequently purchased by a woman. The woman allowed her young children to play with the bag before the bomb was discovered, and only sheer luck prevented several deaths in this and many of Horne’s other criminal acts.

In 1998, Horne went on a hunger strike that lasted 68 days and also brought Horne near death. That was the longest of several hunger strikes Horne started during his 5 years behind bars.

Source:

Animal activist dies on hunger strike. The BBC, November 5, 2001.

Airport Security Workers Should be Federal Employees? Is the Senate Insane?

Okay, I confess I have a lot of philosophical objections to making airport security workers federal employees, but there’s also a more practical reason — such a move would reduce rather than improve safety at airports.

Just look at what happened when a man managed to get past security with a bag full of knives. According to CNN, United Airlines immediately fired six security personnel and their supervisor who worked for a private security firm.

If they had been federal employees, however, firing these incompetents would have been a process that would have taken many months at a minimum. Given the strong role that unions have among federal employees, whether or not they could have been fired at all is questionable.

Yes, the Senate bill does contain language that would supposedly expedite the hiring and firing of security workers, but once the crisis atmosphere passes (and agencies like the EEOC inevitably water down the meaning of such provisions) these are likely to be a dead letter.

Personally, I don’t understand why there is such an emphasis on preventing people from being obvious weapons onto airplanes. Did I miss something here? Did the 9/11 terrorist sneak guns on board? Did they bring knives? Bombs?

No, they used box cutters and makeshift implements. You can spend all the money in the world and there is simply no way to prevent terrorists from bringing makeshift weapons onboard a plane. The current approach to airplane security seems to be adopting the “zero tolerance” philosophy of the war on drugs and recent anti-violence initiatives in schools, both of which have largely backfired.

I guess if what people really want is an illusion of security, then perhaps we’re accomplishing something — but not much more than that.