Oklahoma is Far Safer Now!

Ozella Scott owned 25 acres of land in Oklahoma appraised at about $30,000. Scott allowed her son, Mark, to live in a trailer on the property. Mark decided to grow marijuana plants on part of the property.

In August 1995, a helicopter looking for drug crops crashed over Scott’s property, killing the pilot and a federal Bureau of Indian Affairs agent. Even though Ozella Scott was never charged with a crime, the feds decided to try to seize her land anyway.

Ozella maintained that she did not know her son was growing marijuana on her land, but a panel made of two judges decided that she should have known about the marijuana crops but had chosen to turn a blind eye to her son’s activities. Thy ruled the federal government could seize her land under civil forfeiture provisions of the law.

On January 10, 2002, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ozella Scott’s appeal of that decision, clearing the way for the government to seize her land.

I bet people in Oklahoma and the rest of the country feel a bit safer knowing this hardened criminal has been dispossessed of her property.

Source:

Court rules feds can take widow’s land. Associated Press, January 11, 2002.

Worst. Speeding. Ticket. Ever.

Finland has a system whereby the cost of a traffic ticket is proportionate to the income of the person receive the ticket. Nokia director Anssi Vanjoki was stopped for going 47 mph in a 31 mph zone. Since Vanjoki exercised options in Nokia stock when it was very high at the beginning of 2001, the fine works out to almost U.S. $104,000.

Finally, My Dream Has Been Answered — KISS on Terrorism

My conservative friends rave about Bill O’Reilly, but I have yet to see any evidence the man is actually conscious. For example, what sort of person whats to know what Gene Simmons would do about terrorism? Yeah, that’s so much deeper than the tripe on Larry King Live.

And the most amusing thing is, it’s not a one-off comment where O’Reilly simply asks him about “the recent events” and lets Simmons babble out some stupid answer. O’Reilly gets involved in a serious conversation with Gene Simmons about the ins and out of counter-terrorism, Israel, and the conflict with the Palestinians.

O’REILLY: Now, the Mossad is feared. It is a secret police and agency that is given assassination. We don’t have that in the United
States, although President Bush, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), he did an interesting thing, I don’t know whether you’re aware of this. He took a U.N. resolution that allows assassination in defense of a country, and that’s what…

SIMMONS: It’s time.

O’REILLY: Yes.

SIMMONS: Yes, it’s time, because the United Nations is the wonderful place of civilized people and civilized countries to have civilized
discussions. We and Russia — look, America and Russia, I’d be hap — proud to be considered part of the we. Russia and America had the back and forth of, You shouldn’t do this, you shouldn’t do that. Background, there
was some dirty stuff going on. But ultimately it was a conversation.

These guys are not interested in the conversation. So the result is very simple. It’s not even eye for an eye. The old book says eye for an eye times seven. You take out my eye, punitive damages are also allowed.

O’REILLY: Right.

Gee, what’s next Bill? When do we get to hear Britney Spears’ opinion about political unrest in Sri Lanka? How about N’Sync conduct a roundtable on Japan’s economic problems?

Door Number One or Door Number Two?

I’m sure my boss thinks I’m crazy, but today I turned down a job that would have been a nice promotion largely because it would have precluded interviewing for yet another job that would be an even larger promotion. This is the second time I’ve turned down an otherwise excellent position to have a crack at this other opening. In a couple weeks, I should know if my gamble paid off.

Dave Thomas, Burger Companies, and Foodborne Illnesses

Somebody had to do it — somebody had to use the death of Wendy’s founder Dave Thomas to make a crass point about the benefits of the vegan lifestyle. And the winner was Jackie Alan Giuliano. Giuliano’s weekly “Healing Our World Commentary” about Thomas was headlined “Can I Supersize that Heart Attack For You?” (though, to be fair, I do not know if Giuliano wrote that headline or if the Environment News Service crafted that).

Most of it was the standard whine against the fast food industry claiming that “fast food burger companies refuse to acknowledge the impact that their diet is having on children and adults around the world. Their diet is killing us.” Of course the reality is that to the extent that consumption of fast food contributes to heart disease and other ailments, it is our own food choices that are killing us. Wendy’s and other chains do not force people to eat high meat, high calorie diets, and in fact most such chains these days offer plenty of healthier fare due to increased competition and awareness about the impact of diet on general health.

But lets focus on just one claim made in passing by Giuliano,

More and more, contaminated meat products are resulting in millions of illnesses each year and estimates are that 7,000 to 8,000 people in the U.S. alone die annually from eating contaminated meat.

This is an outright lie.

First, the estimates that there are upwards of 7,000 to 9,000 deaths from foodborne illness and as many as 70 to 90 million incidents of foodborne disease apply to all foods, not just meat. Take something such as salmonella. Animal rights activists warn consumers about the risk of contracting salmonella from chicken, but according to a CDC study of foodborne illnesses, “in 1999, several large salmonellosis outbreaks were traced to produce vehicles, including unpasteurized orange juice (S. Muenchen) (8), mangos (S. Newport), and raw sprouts (S. Mbandaka).”

The idea that foodborne illness is the same thing as meat-related illnesses is a typical animal rights twisting of the facts.

Second, though, these figures are largely complicated guesswork. These numbers are obtained by looking at reports of specific foodborne illnesses in a handful of U.S. cities. A 1998 report on food safety prepared by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine said of these estimates,

The frequently cited annual estimate of foodborne disease (up to 81 million cases) and 9,000 associated deaths are based on assumptions that do not necessarily reflect the current national foodborne disease problem. Those estimates must be qualified for two reasons. First, no comprehensive population-based studies of gastrointestinal illness in the community have attempted to determine what proportion of these illnesses is due to consumption of contaminated food and what proportion is from other sources. Second, foodborne illness can cause clinical conditions not characterized by gastrointestinal symptoms, such as congenital toxoplasmosis, hemolytic uermic syndrome, salmonella-associated septicemia, and invasive Listeria infections (Morris and Potter, 1997).

Foodborne illness may be far less serious or much more of a problem, but these estimates are little more than a national guess at the incidence of such illnesses.

Sources:

Preliminary FoodNet Data on the Incidence of Foodborne Illnesses — Selected Sites, United States, 1999. Centers for Disease Control, March 17, 2000.

Ensuring Safe Food: From Production to Consumption. Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1998, pp.55.

Can I Supersize that Heart Attack for You? Jackie Alan Giuliano, Environment News Service, January 11, 2002.

False Rape Claims — The Evidence from Canada

One of the hot-button issues related to rape is just how many reported rapes are in fact false allegations. It is difficult to get a handle on this in the United States, since the closest statistic that is recorded is unfounded reports of rape, but an unfounded crime can be a number of things aside from simply a false allegation. Ontario, Canada, is one of the few places, to my knowledge, that is actively tracking the incidence of false rape allegations.

The National Post‘s Christie Blatchford recently described how police forces in Canada use a computerized system called the Violent Criminal Linkage Analysis System (VICLAS). More than four years ago, Ontario passed a law mandating extensive recording of violent crime in the province (police forces in other provinces use the system, but only Ontario mandates it suse by law).

As such, Ontario tracks not just unfounded rape cases, but also tracks outright false sexual assault allegations. Province-wide, the system reports that about 5.7 percent of all such allegations are false. A very small percentage, but in the four years of using the system, that accounts for 2,235 sexual assault allegations that later turned out to be false.

In British Columbia, which has been keeping similar statistical track of violent crime, 6.7 percent of sexual assault allegations have turned out to be false. Again a small percentage, but still enough to generate 986 false reports.

Meanwhile, analyses of incidents involving a Toronto police squad that restricts itself to handling major rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim, a whopping 30 percent of cases — 69 out of 232 cases — turned out to be false.

The system has managed to capture a number of people who have made numerous false allegations of sexual assault. The National Post, for example, described the plight of 34-year-old chef Jamie Nelson. Nelson was accused of sexually assaulting a woman and spent almost 3 years in jail. His accuser’s name, however, was later retried and acquitted after the database revealed that his accuser had a habit of making false allegations of assault.

As Nelson’s lawyer, Todd Ducharme, said, “This is a cautionary tale for anyone who suggests that people who make allegations of sexual assault must be telling the truth because why else would they go through the process?”

It would be an interesting experiment to deploy a computerized system like this in several U.S. states and see if rates of false allegations are similar to those in Canada. At the very least, it would be good to have solid numbers rather than just speculation on the false sexual assault allegations in the United States.

Source:

Crying wolf. Christie Blatchford, The National Post, September 8, 2001.