RUTHFULLY YOURS

She loathed The New York Times but would smile at this obituary. Beth was a remarkable, brilliant, witty and courageous woman who jousted tirelessly with junk science charlatans and spurious claims on nutrition. rsk

Elizabeth Whelan, Who Challenged Food Laws, Dies at 70
By DOUGLAS MARTIN

Elizabeth Whelan, an epidemiologist who crusaded against what she called junk science by starting a national organization to question conventional wisdom on food, chemicals and the environment, died on Sept. 11 in Manahawkin, N.J. She was 70.

The cause was complications of sepsis, her husband, Stephen T. Whelan, said.

Dr. Whelan (pronounced WHEEL-an) believed that much research concerning complicated health questions lacked proper scientific underpinning, and in 1978 she started her organization, the American Council on Science and Health, to remedy this perceived deficiency.

One of the first scientists to join the initiative was Norman E. Borlaug, the biologist awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the vast increase in global grain yields known as the green revolution.

Dr. Whelan had earlier collaborated with Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, who founded the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, on the 1975 book “Panic in the Pantry: Food Facts, Fads and Fallacies,” which asserted that many federal food regulations were absurd.

The council’s main contention was that some chemicals and products were regulated without proof that they were harmful. Dr. Whelan thus often found herself on the side of industry, which partly financed her efforts, against consumer and environmental groups and regulatory agencies.

At first, the council refused corporate financing, though it accepted money from private foundations. But “in avoiding corporate donations, we were limiting A.C.S.H.’s fund-raising potential to no avail,” Dr. Whelan wrote in a commentary for the organization’s 25th anniversary in 2003.

In the spring of 1918, the influenza that would become pandemic was first detected. It was initially known as “three-day-fever.” Its effects were such that it caused few deaths. Nobody paid it much heed. That fall, however, it reappeared in a more deadly form, and began to rapidly spread. Because of the War and the subsequent troop demobilization in late 1918 and 1919, a concentration of soldiers in camps, and in troop ships and trains returning to their homes abetted the disease’s migration around the world. By the end of 1919, somewhere between 20 million and 50 million people were dead of influenza, more than had been killed in four years of fighting. It has been estimated that over 20% of the U.S. population (106 million in 1920) had contracted the flu, with 675,000 dying. While those numbers suggest the death rate was only 3.5%, the 675,000 dead were almost six times the number of Americans killed in the War.

The outbreak of the Ebola virus was first seen in Guinea in December 2013. It has since spread to at least four other West African countries: Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Nigeria, and recently Ebola been confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The three hardest hit countries are among the smallest. Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone have a combined population of 22 million, But Nigeria has a population of 173 million and 68 million people live in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Significantly, the latter two countries are not contiguous to the others.

A data sheet from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta provides some key facts:

* Ebola virus disease (EVD), formerly known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever, is a severe, often fatal illness in humans.

* EVD outbreaks have a case fatality rate of up to 90%.

* The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission.

* Fruit bats are considered to be the natural host of the Ebola virus.

* Severely ill patients require intensive supportive care. No licensed specific treatment or vaccine is available for use in people or animals.

Depending on the programs you watch on television – or the media avenue of your choice, it is hard not to have seen the commercials produced by the National Rifle Association (NRA). They are well crafted and thought provoking. In fact, if they didn’t include the final branding of the NRA in their closes, even the liberal Democrats amongst us would be hard pressed to find anything to object about in their messages. Without a doubt, the NRA knows how to communicate to the average American. So, why hasn’t the Republican National Committee (RNC) learned from the NRA’s effort?

One of the most paralyzing deficiencies of the Republican brand is the fact – the fact – that they couldn’t brand their way out a wet paper bag. Never mind their other short-comings – the combating of the Progressives’ individual targeting of voters with another old, crusty get-out-the-vote effort, or insisting on attacking a core constituency of the GOP in the TEA Party, or failing to reach out effectively to the Libertarians – messaging has, and most likely always will be, the GOP’s Achilles heel. When compared to the Progressive messaging apparatus, or the Democrat spin machine, the RNC comes in a distant fourth, behind the Progressives and Democrats, and trailing the public awareness campaign for the retirement home for blind squirrels. I won’t even get into how they fair against the Islamic State.

But the NRA has struck a chord. They have crafted thirteen segments, each addressing an issue that has become problematic in a nation that is supposed to sanctify opportunity, individualism, justice and liberty. In each, they state facts and make an argument, something inside-the-beltway 30-something “strategists” obviously ignored during “spin class” when they navigated their ways through “establishment Republican school.”

When the American Studies Association and the professional organizations of other ethnic studies associations moved recently to boycottIsraeli academic organizations for various political reasons, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), the professional organization of academics studying and teaching about the Middle East from its ancient empires to the present day, was silent–never mind that such a boycott would go to the heart of a field in which academic discourse and debate about the Middle East is crucial.

But now that various politicians—Maryland State Senator Joan Carter Conway, Speaker of the New York State Assembly Sheldon Silver, and Peter Roskam and Dan Lipinski in the U.S. House of Representatives—have introduced a bill to prevent public money from funding academic participation in organizations participating in the boycott, MESA is crying foul.

Here are letters that MESA President Nathan Brown sent to the politicians mentioned above. In each case, he wrote, “It is clear to us that whatever one’s opinion of the campaign to boycott Israeli academic institutions, the principles of academic freedom protect the right of faculty and students to speak and act for, as well as against, such boycotts.”

What arrogance. Public money dedicated to education isn’t meant to be a slush fund for professors’ pet political causes. The American Studies Association is supposed to be about American studies. If it evolves from its academic purpose to focus more on academic grandstanding than on exchange of knowledge, then professors should not be able to use taxpayer funds for a trip to Los Angeles. Likewise, if the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association isn’t going to focus on Native American and indigenous studies, then why should any professor operating out of the public dole attend its annual shindig in Austin? They can pay out of pocket if it’s that important to them, just as I pay out of pocket with my own money when I make a charitable contribution or should I wish to make a political donation. The same holds true for the Association of Asian American Studies, which will hold its next conference in San Francisco.

If Nathan Brown and MESA’s Committee on Academic Freedom are serious about academic freedom and scholarly discourse, then perhaps they might consider that they should not be in the business of political boycotts to begin with, regardless of target.

MESA (MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION) SEEMS TO FALL UNDER THE RADAR OF SERIOUS INVESTIGATION. IN ORDER TO TEACH MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES PROFESSORS MUST BELONG TO MESA WHICH TOWS THE HARSHLY ANTI-ISRAEL LINE OF EDWARD SAID/RASHID KHALID AND IS FUNDED BY ARAB NATIONS…..RSK

Yesterday ten organizations, including the Middle East Forum, announced an effort to educate Congressional leaders and policy makers on the need to reform federally-funded Title VI Middle East studies centers, which have for years produced biased, anti-American and anti-Israel material.

Predictably, Amy W. Newhall, executive director of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), responded not by countering the signatories’ charges, but by attacking their character and motives.

Newhall claimed “MESA resolutely opposes all forms of hate speech and discrimination, including anti-Semitism.” In fact, “It supports prompt and forceful action in response to anti-Semitic incidents on college and university campuses.”

Were this true, MESA would have condemned flagrantly anti-Semitic statements by Joseph Massad and Hamid Dabashi of Columbia, Ali Mazrui of SUNY Binghamton, As’ad AbuKhalil of Cal State Stanislaus, and countless others. Yet it consistently defends such speech rather than condemning it.

She next offered this bit of sophistry:

MESA is concerned that some of the reports issued by partisan political groups based outside academia may actually weaken efforts to combat anti-Semitism by portraying all criticism of Israeli policies as a form of anti-Semitism or as “anti-Israel.”

A touching sentiment disproved by MESA’s silence in the face of genuine anti-Semitism, as noted above. Plus, the participating organizations never suggest that criticism of Israeli policies is anti-Semitic or anti-Israel.

Newhall proffers the intellectually lazy claim that:

Their real goal seems to be to shut down open discussion of issues of public concern by demonizing academic and other critics of Israel, Zionism, and U.S. policy in the Middle East, in many cases by tarring them with the brush of anti-Semitism.

Joel Zinberg is associate clinical professor of surgery at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City

A medical journal’s one-sided view on the conflict between Israel and Palestine

It has become commonplace for academics and entertainers, especially in Europe, to prove their humanitarian bona fides by condemning Israel, often in the most outrageous, defamatory ways possible. Now, proponents of these tactics have infiltrated the world of objective scientific journals.

The Lancet is a widely read weekly British medical journal. This summer, it published a rambling, one-sided denunciation of “Israeli aggression” in Gaza. Under the headline “An open letter for the people in Gaza,” 24 medical doctors, researchers, and professors accused Israel of conducting a “massacre” and of “clearly directing fire to target whole families.” The letter ignited a firestorm. Some lauded the journal and supported the political sentiments of its authors. Others attacked The Lancet for publishing an inaccurate diatribe. They wondered why a well-known medical journal would publish a political statement that seemed to have no scientific or medical connection.

The Lancet doubled down in an editorial entitled “Gaza: an urgent call to protect civilian life and health.” The editors acknowledged that publishing the letter “has led to a debate about the appropriateness of a medical journal giving space to opinions about an issue that lies at the intersection between health and politics.” The Lancet justified the publication of the open letter because “The role of the doctor is to protect, serve, and speak up for life. That, too, is the role of a medical journal. . . . Our responsibility is to promote an open and diverse discussion about the effects of this war on civilian health.”

In fact, The Lancet has a history of publishing one-sided criticisms of Israel. A March 2013 editorial was titled “Israeli doctors accused of collusion in torture.” A 2006 Lancet article by reporter Sharmila Devi repeated the unverified claims of a Palestinian hospital administrator who accused Israel of using “chemical and phosphorous weapons.” Devi also wrote that Israel “controls all land borders” around Gaza, which must come as news to Egypt. Lancet editor Richard Horton wrote a vitriolic letter to The Guardian newspaper on August 24, 2010, labeling Israel an occupier, denying any anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian schools, and accusing Israel of “indiscriminate bombing of residential communities.”

But the journal reached a new low with its recent open letter and follow-up editorial, which abandoned all pretense of objectivity and scientific inquiry. The Lancet is a peer-reviewed journal that checks its publications for accuracy. Yet the editors allowed the open-letter authors to claim in the disclosure section that they have “no competing interests” when they are well-known, long-term critics of Israel and members of pro-Palestinian organizations. They published the letter despite its baseless claims that Israel deliberately targets civilians and its assertion that Israel blockaded building materials “so that schools, homes, and institutions cannot be properly rebuilt.” In reality, Israel once allowed building materials to be imported into Gaza, but clamped down once it became clear that Hamas was using these materials to build terror tunnels and ammunition bunkers. Israel places its ground troops at risk rather than resort to indiscriminate bombing so as to limit civilian casualties.

What drives Muslims to want to settle in countries that are Dar al-Harb (the enemy’s land) or Dar al-Kufr (land of unbelief)? What makes them want to live among the infidels?

Muslims and Self-Sacrifice

Last March I discussed the Muslim state of mind in “The Pathological Roots of Islam.” This time around I explore the reason that drives ordinary Muslims to want to immigrate to Western nations, when it means having to deal with infidels “lower than pigs and apes.”

On the occasion of the Australian raids on homes after discovery of a plot to behead a random Australian, that is, a non-Muslim, playing the Muslim-persecution-race-religion card, a Muslim whined that:

When asked why police had targeted his brother [Kawa], he said he had no idea.

“I dunno, I got a lot of anger. It’s a war on Islam just because we grow our beards. They want to label us as a terrorist, or supporters of IS, whatever, that’s up to you.” he said.

He later said he believed Kawa may have been targeted because he hung around with “hot heads”.

Another Muslim complained and warned, in the Daily Telegraph:

A MUSLIM leader chose the hallowed steps of Lakemba’s War Memorial to preach outrage and condemnation over the anti-terror raids across Sydney.
In front of 300 angry protesters, controversial Hizt ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar warned of a growing anger within the Islamic ¬community and said it was time to stop the victimization. “We are tired of being made scapegoats. The government is the terrorist,” he declared to the gathering, many waving anti-government placards.

One must ask oneself this question: If Muslims regard non-Muslims as filthy kaffirs and the lowest of all creatures they’d really rather not be anywhere near, why do they wish to surround themselves with them by immigrating to – or rather, by invading and colonizing, too often by a nation’s invitation – a country full of them, where they must deal with them daily and not in a beheading way (at first), either? Is it the higher standard of living? Is it the welfare? Is it for jobs? A “better life”? I think those are just flash card reasons.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s trip to New York next week will be a welcome relief for the Iranian leader. Finally, he’ll be somewhere where he’s appreciated, even loved.

Ahead of his trip to America, the US media continued its practice of presenting Rouhani as a moderate, and a natural ally for the US.

NBC News’ Anne Curry interviewed Rouhani in Tehran, focusing her attention on his dim view of Islamic State.

Rouhani told Curry, “From the viewpoint of the Islamic tenets and culture, killing an innocent people equals the killing of the whole humanity. And therefore, the killing and beheading of innocent people in fact is a matter of shame for them and it’s the matter of concern and sorrow for all the human and all the mankind.”

The US media and political establishment’s willingness to take Rouhani at his word when he says that he’s a moderate is one of the reasons that Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz was in such a desolate mood on Wednesday.

During a briefing with the foreign media, Steinitz described the state of negotiations between the US and its negotiating partners – Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – and Iran regarding its illicit nuclear weapons program.

The briefing followed the latest round of the biennial Israeli-US strategic dialogue. Steinitz led the Israeli delegation to the talks, which focused on Iran, the week before nuclear talks were scheduled to be renewed.

One of Steinitz’s chief concerns was the US’s insistence that Rouhani is a moderate.

Secretary of State John Kerry didn’t appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lay out an offensive strategy for defeating ISIS. Instead his real mission was a defensive strategy to protect Obama from critics on the right and the left.

Obama’s delayed strategy hasn’t won over liberals and conservatives. It certainly hasn’t won over the American people. For the first time, Obama’s counterterrorism policy no longer has the support of a majority of Americans. Americans don’t believe that Obama can keep them safe. They suspect that he’s just trying to protect the last shreds of his fading popularity by bombing ISIS. And they’re right.

Kerry was on the defensive from the first, appeasing Code Pink protesters there in support of ISIS, as they have in the past shown up in support of Hamas, and then taking fire from members of the Senate from both parties. He began his statement by appeasing Code Pink and ended it by appeasing Islam.

His statement was layered with television friendly talking points. “We do have a clear strategy,” he insisted. The defensive statement was a reference to Obama’s own disavowal of a strategy. Since then Obama, Kerry and countless administration personnel have insisted that there really is a strategy.

Defending Obama against accusations that his delayed response had allowed ISIS to become a major threat, he claimed that, “Early this summer the ISIL threat accelerated when it effectively erased the Iraq-Syria border and the Mosul Dam fell. The President acted immediately.”

“Immediately” makes Obama sound proactive. Kerry’s testimony was full of similarly active language. He used the word “immediately” three times in close succession. But cheap marketing tricks can’t cover up the fact that Obama’s “immediately” kicked in when ISIS was marching on Baghdad. That “immediately” sounds a lot like “the horse ran away and we immediately shut the burn door.” If you wait until an Al Qaeda spinoff has nearly taken over two countries, then there’s nothing immediate about your actions.

Kerry’s statement was filled with such delayed immediacies. “Deliberately and decisively, we further surged the ISR missions immediately,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

While the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) shocks and horrifies the world with videos of mass executions and beheadings, ISIS terrorist Rabie Shehada, also known as “the Palestinian slayer,” has stepped forward to give appalled onlookers a clearer insight into the evil that inspires him and his colleagues. In a video he recently posted online, Shehada earnestly and quite proudly explained:

“I swear we are a people who love death for the sake of God just as you love to live. I swear we are a people who love drinking blood. We came to slaughter you.”

Let it never be said that Shehada ever suppressed his charm.

This particular ISIS vampire has come a long way from studying mechanical engineering at a college in Nazareth Illit in Israel. As a Muslim who clearly didn’t overlook the Qur’anic command to wage war on unbelievers, it’s understandable why developing refrigerators and microwaves didn’t really cut it for him when he entertained visions of his own glorious Islamic future. And so, as his Islamic fate would have it, the young engineering student quit university and traveled through Turkey to get to Syria to join the “moderate” rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).

It appears the FSA came up a little short for Shehada in terms of what he thought a true Jihadi should be doing with his time. So he quickly moved on to bigger and brighter things: he joined the ranks of ISIS, where he adopted the a.k.a. “Abu Musaab al-Safouri,” named after the village of Safouri near Nazareth.

Shehada was now clearly liberated from the distracting and draining routines of developing power plants and factories; Allah had now bestowed upon him the blessing of being able to spend his days in the productive, fulfilling and cheerful way that every good and obedient Muslim is obligated to do by the Qur’an: executing and beheading the enemies of Islam and reveling in their blood.

While many observers might be mystified and startled by the pronouncements of Jihadi warriors such as Rabie Shehada, those who are knowledgeable of the practices of Jihad and the ideological foundations on which they rest are well aware that the behavior of someone like Shehada is a completely normal and everyday thing in the world of Islamic warfare.