Expatriate Owl

A politically-incorrect perspective that does not necessarily tow the party line, on various matters including but not limited to taxation, academia, government and religion.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Predictive Analysis: A Rose by Another Name





Newsday has an "exclusive" in today's print edition [the Newsday website has a paywall and lots of flash player apps that crash browsers; this link is safer.]:  "New Way to Fight Crime," "LI Cops credit data-driven approach as key to historic drop."

Seems that the police in Nassau County and Suffolk County are using a statistical technique known as "predictive analysis" as an aid in their police work, and are quite pleased with the results.  So is this Long Island resident.  I applaud the law enforcement agencies in their very honorable achievements, and would be pleased to no end to see crime drop even further.

But, pray tell, what happens if the "predictive analysis" techniques cause the law enforcement officers to focus upon individuals who belong to social and ethnic groups which the liberals have labeled as downtrodden and disadvantaged, and which have accordingly been adopted by the liberals as surrogate victims for whom their hearts can hemorrhage a few pints of blood?  Wouldn't the liberals call it "profiling?"

How soon will a lawsuit be brought against the police in Nassau and/or Suffolk County, alleging that the same techniques now showcased and lauded by Newsday actually constitute "profiling?"  And how will Newsday, with its decidedly leftist slant on the news, slant that story?

Just wondering.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Coaching Gabby for Discrimination





As an Olympic gold medalist, Gabby Douglas has become a national heroine, and is now doing the lecture and talk show circuit.  Such activities no doubt redound to the benefit of what should be her bank account, and I hope that the dollars are still there when she reaches her age of legal majority so that she herself can have access to every dollar thus posted, and not have her money squandered by profligate guardians (as happened to child actor Jackie Coogan) or swindlers.

Gabby's remarks on Oprah Winfrey's show have now caused a public stir.  I will presume that the misadventures publicly related by Gabby happened substantially as stated.  This is not so much a straw man argument or an allocation of the burden of proof so much as it is a reflection of my own experiences as a minority group member who has had occasion to endure analogous bias.  From this presumption (which, again, I believe to be well founded), it follows that:

A.  The biased and bigoted remarks uttered by Gabby's training mates are not to be condoned.  Period!

B.  The biased and bigoted remarks uttered by Gabby's training mates were every bit as detrimental to Gabby as claimed.

C.  As detrimental as Gabby's experiences (and, for that matter, mine) were, other successful people have endured far, far worse.  An example that immediately comes to mind is that of the late Admiral Hyman Rickover, whose page in the yearbook from his Naval Academy class (as well as the page of the other Jewish class member) was perforated so that it might be torn out by classmates who preferred to not have Jews as their equals.

[Yes, I know that Rickover did have some very serious personal issues in dealing with his own Jewish identity.  He nevertheless did more than his part, after advancing to the higher Navy echelons, to combat Naval institutional prejudice against Jews, Blacks and other minorities, contributing in no small measure to bringing the U.S. military closer to the ideal of a true meritocracy.].


With her Olympic medals, Gabby Douglas has had placed into her hand a retribution of the highest order against her former training mates and coaches at the Excalibur Gym.  Any future medals can amplify that retribution all the more.  Similarly, Admiral Rickover's successful career in the Navy was a sharp slap in the face to all of his Annapolis classmates who ripped Rickover's page out of their yearbooks.  For that matter, I do not doubt that many of those who assailed me (verbally and otherwise) in my youth have cringed upon reading of my own personal and professional achievements.


Those on the left side of the political spectrum seem to have a need to be victims, and those liberals of privilege who relish their personal creature comforts often satisfy that victimhood requirement with proxy victims for whom their hearts can bleed.  Many such victims-by-proxy go to great lengths to develop and train their proxies.

Gabby Douglas can now step beyond victimhood if she is not co-opted as a victim by the leftist political agenda.  Immediately prior to her appearance on Oprah, she had the esteem of virtually all of America, irrespective of political orientation.  But if Gabby allows herself to be so co-opted (not unlikely, given that her mother seems to be in the tank for Oprah Winfrey, Jesse Jackson, Barack Hussein Obama, ad nauseam), then those at the Excalibur Gym who taunted Gabby will no longer feel chastened by her success, but rather, will view Gabby's fixation with victimhood as a vindication of their attitudes.


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Evil in Oslo

There is no question that Anders Behring Breivik is truly an evil person.

This is not to say that his observations and analyses of the problem are totally without merit. Indeed, the Norwegian Labor Party's policies of deference to the Muslims have, among other things, facilitated threats and attacks against Jewish families and businesses in Oslo and Stavenger.

But Anders Behring Breivik is truly an evil person, and I do not applaud his lethal actions in the least. My empathies are with the victims, regardless of whatever connections they may have had to the Labor Party in general, and its policies of dhimmitude in particular.

But let's compare and contrast the attitudes towards Breivik with those towards the Muslim terrorists. How many liberal-thinking individuals and organizations give pass to the Muslim terrorists on account of the perceived sins of their targets? If you say justify the actions of the Hamas terrorists who fire rockets at civilian targets in Israel because of Israel's policies towards the so-called Palestinians, then why shouldn't it be acceptable to justify Breivik's actions on account of the Muslims' actions against the indigenous peoples of Europe?

And I note that the judge in Norway has remanded Breivik to 8 weeks of solitary confinement with no communications to the outside. If you complained about imprisoning the Muslim terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, then you should be up in arms about this unjust treatment of Breivik! How many of those who now applaud Breivik's solitary confinement were out demonstrating that Gitmo should have been closed?

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye

Three years ago this past summer, the Israeli government forcefully removed all of the Jews from Gaza. A Judenrein Gaza, the theory went, would go a long way towards placating the Arabs there and induce them to make peace with Israel.

Almost every day since, the Hamas terrorists have launched rockets from Gaza into Israel with impunity. Moreover, most of the rockets are specifically aimed not at military targets, but at civilian communities.

For reasons having to do more with Israeli partisan politics than any principles of integrity, the government of Israel has finally, at long last, done what virtually every other government elsewhere on the planet would have done after three days -- Responded with military force!

So now, I just got an e-mail from the UJA-Federation of New York, copying its website posting, entitled "UJA-Federation Response to Israel Crisis." For the uninitiated, the United Jewish Appeal - Federation is the charitable fundraising apparatus of the so-called "Jewish Establishment." I call it the "Judenrat," for it tends to pander to the leftward-leaning elements of the Jewish population by effectively apologizing for staunch adherence to Torah values and Jewish strength. Needless to say, I am not and have never been one of their regular contributors. Liberals, as many of you have surely realized, are hung up on victimhood and guilt, and become most apologetic whenever they escape victimhood and become successful.

The NY UJA-Federation, from time to time, sponsors seminars which qualify for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education credits, of which I and other New York attorneys must rack up twelve per year in order to retain good standing to practice law. The costs of the UJA-Federation seminars, on a per-credit-hour basis, is typically very competitive, and so, as a result of my attendance at one such event a number of years back, I am on the Judenrat's e-mail and snail mail lists (though, in all fairness to UJA-Federation, they are not nearly so obnoxious in their use of these lists as are many other organizations).

But I digress. The first 4 paragraphs of the E-mail I just received read as follows:

================
"The government of Israel has initiated military efforts to bring peace to its southern area and the border with Gaza.

These efforts were undertaken after the inhabitants of Sderot and neighboring communities endured months of missile barrages emanating from the Gaza Strip. And it ought to be noted, those missiles were launched after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, providing the Palestinians with the opportunity to live side-by-side in peace with Israel.

The results — whhat we are reading about and viewing on TV today — are tragic foor all people in the region.

The Israeli government concluded there is no alternative but to undertake an effort to end the rocket attacks and violence, so the people of Israel's south can live in peace. We mourn the loss of innocent life on both sides of the border, and we join with all people of good will in hoping that these efforts are successful in ending the threat and reality of missiles hitting civilian communities."

=================

The e-mail/web posting appears over the signatures of John M. Shapiro, UJA-Federation President; Jerry W. Levin, Chair of the Board; and John S. Ruskay, Executive VP and CEO. The e-mail, in fact, is from Ruskay.

I am old enough to remember who John Ruskay is. Back in the 1970's and the 1980's, John Ruskay, son of a successful garment industrialist, was active in supporting the so-called "Peace Now" movement in Israel, which advocated a withdrawal from Gaza and Judea and Samaria.

In full-page advertisements that appeared in the New York Times on 20 January 1988, p. B6 and 26 January 1988, p. A22, Ruskay was among the Peace Now signatories who advocated "against the occupation, for territorial compromise." Ruskay was a signatory to a full-page ad with a similar message that appeared in the New York Times on 16 March 1988, p. B2.

Well, Israel DID withdraw from Gaza, and look what is now happening! Israel got itself into its current jam by pursuing the very policies advocated by Ruskay 20 and 30 years ago!

So now, I get this e-mail from John Ruskay, incredulous at the perfidy of the Arabs after Israel showed its good faith (read "stupidity") by withdrawing from Gaza, and beseeching me to make a donation to help alleviate the suffering!

The basic fault is the fallacious presumption that the Arabs are capable of negotiating in good faith with the Jews. This is clearly not the case. Nor can the Arabs be trusted by anyone else! Leftists cannot recognize that there is such thing as evil people. Hamas hates the Jews and wants to kill us! Period! End of Statement. The only thing they understand is strength and force turned against them!

As for Ruskay, he differs hardly one iota from the arsonist who rushes to the conflagration he himself ignited, urinates into the flames, while proclaiming to the world that he is helping to extinguish the fire!

Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 31, 2008

The ANWR Drill

I am ambivalent regarding whether or not drilling for oil should be permitted in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If I had to vote yes or no, one way or the other, it would now be "NO." This Republican environmentalist still has that oily taste in his mouth from 24 March 1989, when Exxon Valdez skipper Joe Hazelwood, with Jim Beam as his first mate, reefed the ship and did one big lubrication job on Prince William Sound.

But really, the people whose opinions should count are the residents of ANWR and its vicinity. Because it is they who will have to live with the consequences -- foul or fair -- of bringing the oil drilling industry to ANWR.

The following points, in no particular order, are noted:


1. We all know what the potential foul consequences of drilling in ANWR can be. See the first paragraph of this post.

2. Had Mr. Seward not arranged the purchase of Alaska from the Russians, then it is safe to say that oil would already be flowing from ANWR, and there likely would be several spill mishaps whose cumulative oil gallonage would probably exceed the 10.8 million discharged on account of Joe Hazelwood's aforementioned deviation from the designated sea lane.

3. There are many stable and prosperous communities where oil is drilled. Beverly Hills, California immediately comes to mind in that regard. The story of Jed Clampett has it all wrong -- Oil is drilled and pumped from underneath Beverly Hills (including an oil well on the grounds of Beverly Hills High School). The oil leases in the Los Angeles area, and Beverly Hills in particular, enhance the value of the real property and reduce the public tax burden, and thus contribute in no small way to the communities' prosperity and lifestyle.

4. The oil boom in Alaska has raised the standard of living for many residents. This includes running water and electricity, paved roads, better medical care, et cetera.

5. Unless the limousine liberals from places like Beverly Hills are willing to either (a) spend their own money to bring running water and electricity to the residents of the far outreaches of Alaska, and/or (b) give up their indoor bathrooms and poop in outhouses, then what right do they have to deny the Alaskans the opportunity to have indoor plumbing and electricity?


And so, while I personally oppose drilling for oil in the ANWR, that is a decision that should be made by the people in Alaska.

Labels: , , ,