Headlines

Trump hires Russian probe critic Joseph de Genova to his legal team

Dem. Rep. Suggests using Second Amendment to take up arms against Trump

Mueller has been botching investigations since the anthrax attack ...

Police: Austin, TX 'serial bomber' is changing tactics

Dems under pressure to block Pompeo, Haspel [confirmations]

American youth love free speech -- until it hurts their feelings

Ex-Obama campaign drops FACEBOOK bombshell: 'They were on our side' ...

Saudi crown prince slams Islamic 'extremists' ahead of Trump meeting

Supreme Court won't block new Pennsylvania congressional map

College tells black comedian not to tell jokes about race

Police order GOOGLE to turn over location data for all users near crime scenes

Dems reject WH bid for wall funds

Prejudice

As a tutor, one of my students is writing his college-application essay on prejudice ... which has inspired me to take up this same subject. Here goes:

"Prejudice" really means to pre-judge something or someone. After viewing N events or characteristics of a particular group of people, it is human nature to draw a generalization from the preponderance of a trait exhibiting itself in this experience. This generalization is not prejudice. Prejudice is applying this generalization to the next or N+1 person or event. As an example, if after a life among Irishmen, one concludes that this group has a tendency toward over-imbibing ... the generalization ... then upon meeting a next Irishman, one assumes that he is a sot ... this is prejudice. You have unfairly prejudged him without any evidence other than your prior generalization.

There is an unfortunate mix-up in the use of the term prejudice in today's society ... and that is to call any generalizations about WASPs, Jews, gays, Muslims, Asians, etc. "prejudice." They clearly are not ... unless of course the person making such a generalization cannot resist the temptation to apply it in the N+first case ... at which point it lives up to this societal condemnation. I know this is a subtle and difficult distinction to make, but, to me, it is a very important one. I rankle when I am accused of prejudice if I am making a generalization. This is because the accuser assumes that I cannot abandon this generalization when dealing with my next encounter under this generalization. I pride myself on being able to shuck my generalizations in such situations. (Interestingly, in this case, my accuser turns out to be prejudicial.)

Now let's test this definition of prejudice in the real world. When a Cambridge, Massachusetts policeman stopped Professor Chip Gates from entering his house thinking he was breaking in, President Obama said that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly." This is clearly prejudicial for Obama is applying one instance (questionable at that) to the entire Cambridge police department. He, of all people, should know better since, I assume, he has experienced the pain of prejudice in his past life. And now the flip-side ... the Obama administration's unwillingness to generalize with the term "Islamic extremists" or "jihadists" when dealing with ISIS and their ilk, tells me that they are confounded by the distinction made above. (Although, if I met one such militant dressed in black robes and carrying an assegai, I think I would myself tend toward prejudice.)

Summit Politics

It looks like the White House is once again trying to bamboozle the American public into believing that they are, in fact, administering. It is calling a "summit" to counter "violent extremism" (its pet term for the you-know-whats) ... see: Breitbart Squib. This is a tired old cliche, these show summits, where the president sits at a big table surrounded by oodles of important-looking people who, in the presence of photo-op cameras, go through a pantomime of serious discussions.

It would seem to this silly observer that countering Islamic terrorism could and should be done behind closed doors with a few administration operatives who know how to get things done ... you know, the Dick Cheney types ... not that there really are any of those around these days. All these show summits tell me is that President Obama is still not serious about dealing with this world-wide jihadist threat ... which is obviously growing daily.

Curiously, the only type of serious secret meeting that the White House convenes behind closed doors recently is the one where the president met with 15 Islamic movers and shakers ... see: Breitbart Story.

Hmmm?

Afterward: I am reminded of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney meme. Whenever there is a problem, Valerie Jarrett pipes up with, "I know, let's have a summit!"

Management 101

His First Challenge

Fresh from his disastrous faux pas about not having a strategy to combat ISIS, President Obama today in Estonia tried to reassure Americans and the world ... on the same day we learned that ISIS has beheaded another of our journalist ... that we will shrink ISIS into a "manageable problem" ... see: Politico Story. We have also learned tonight on Fox News that the United States has not supplied the Iraqi Kurds with the heavy weaponry that we promised them many weeks ago.

I suppose that being a community organizer and a college lecturer did not supply our fearless leader with the tools ... nor the understanding of what true management is. And on-the-job training is not effective unless the trainee is on the job. If President Obama chooses not to attend the majority of his security briefings or if he allows his National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, to travel to China on the anniversary of 9/11, he clearly knows next to nothing about management ... let alone running the country that is supposed to be leading the free world.

Effectively reading from a Teleprompter is not going to make the slightest difference in how the United States manages its way through the mine fields that Obama has allowed to be sewn around the world by Islamic extremists and Russia's Putin ... when instead he was stopping the oceans from rising and reducing his golfing handicap to five.

Wouldn't It Be Nice ...

if our President, Barack Obama, could ever utter the words "Islamic extremists," or "Muslim terrorists," or "Islam jihadists" ... see: The Foundry Story  Thoughout his four and one half years as our supreme leader, he has yet to label any such heinous action (as the grisly slaughter that was just experienced in London) with any of these appropriate terms.  Very curious ... very curious ...

Afterward: I'm not a psychiatrist ... nor do I play one on TV, but I think that this Obama pathology is called OCD (obsessive/compulsive disorder) ... and/or is reflective of his madrasa schooling in Indonesia.

After Afterward: My wife doubted my original premise about Obama's language aversions ... so I quickly did the following Google search.  See: Newsmax Story

Arabs Spring

Last night on TV, I watched a Youtube video of Egyptian military vehicles turning into crowds and purposely running over Coptic Christians who, two days ago, were demonstrating in the streets of Cairo (see: Telegraph Article and Youtube Video).  These reportedly peaceful demonstrations had been organized to object to the Egyptian government's autistic response to the numerous burnings of Egyptian Christian churches by Islamic extremists.  Reports indicate that as many as 25 Coptics were therein killed by this and related Egyptian army savagery.  Indicating the seriousness of these events, Egypt's Deputy Prime Minister has resigned in protest (see: NY Times Article.)

Equally outraged, The Barry requested and went on prime-time television last night to denounce in very strong terms the purposeful martyring of these Coptic Christians.  Oops, he didn't?  Never mind ...

Killing Osama

This morning on "Morning Joe" someone (I think Jonathan Alter) said that, as a result of Obama's pledge to close down our Guantanamo prison for terrorists, no new prisoners have been sent there since Obama was inaugurated ... or to any other rendition location for that matter.  And as a consequence, American forces have been killing those Islamic terrorist who have been captured ... just like that ultimate terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was recently tapped.

On one hand this decision appeals to my lust for revenge, but, just as logically, I have a problem with this apparent Obama policy.  Without capture and interrogation (even torture when necessary) of these prisoners, from whence is our future deep intelligence going to come?  And without this information, how are we eventually to win our war against Islamic extremists?  And, even more ironically, isn't "two in the hat" the ultimate enhanced interrogation technique ... so decried by this administration?