We’ve all seen the video, and know the case that caused the furor. And what’s more, those of us with the guts to say so are applauding the courage of Fernando Mateo, son of a Black man and a Hispanic woman:
He spoke the truth about the cab driver, shot seven times during a robbery, and backed up his demand for profiling with this reasoned analysis and statistical truth: that most robberies are committed by Blacks and Hispanics. He was vilified, accused of being worse than satan (“He’s a racist! Burn him!”), and forced to defend the truth he gave voice to.
And I sat back and wondered, How did we get to this point?
Remember when profiling was first introduced into the average person’s lexicon? It was around the time of infamous serial killer Ted Bundy. It was applauded as an amazing breakthrough by the law enforcement community, a tool of scientific fact. My dad was a Federal Parole Officer, and I remember him saying how remarkably accurate they were, how he would get chills reading over them once they had the individual in custody, right down to the types of homes they came from, education, profession, relationships, and even sexual dysfunction.
All of this from just analyzing the details and nature of the crime and plugging them in to mathematical formulas.
It was a tool that was met with the awe and respect we used to reserve for science and math. And make no mistake; profiling is as scientific as it gets:
- Preliminary grounding: The profiling process starts with a specification of the applicable problem domain and the identification of the goals of analysis.
- Data collection: The target dataset or database for analysis is formed by selecting the relevant data in the light of existing domain knowledge and data understanding.
- Data preparation: The data are preprocessed for removing noise and reducing complexity by eliminating attributes.
- Data mining: The data are analyzed with the algorithm or heuristics developed to suit the data, model and goals. (See Data Mining for breakdown)
- Interpretation: The mined patterns are evaluated on their relevance and validity by specialists and/or professionals in the application domain (e.g. excluding spurious correlations).
- Application: The constructed profiles are applied, e.g. to categories of persons to test and fine-tune the algorithms.
- Institutional decision: The institution decides what actions or policies to apply to groups or individuals whose data match a relevant profile.
I also remember when I first heard how evil profiling was. It was during the DC Sniper rampage, and it was said by Chief Charles Moose, who refused to allow the description of the two suspects to include the word “black” and insisted on sending people on wild goose chases after “white” vans, even suggesting it could be “white supremacists.” For a man who decried profiling as racist, he sure was stuck on “white.”
He turned out to be wrong…deadly wrong. And very few have had the fortitude to say a single word. But then, Moose isn’t racist like that evil bigot math.
This is when things seemed to turn…when a black policeman refused to call black suspects “black” and said little to nothing when they actually turned out to be “black.”
Pretty pathetic, Bullwinkle. Is that what we’ve become; people who know the truth but dare not speak it out loud?
Which brings us to Communsim. Right around the time we were stifling truth, they were discovering it.
Between 1978 and 1990, Andrei Chikatilo raped and murdered his way through Rostov, Russia. Refusing to allow the chief investigator Viktor Burakov to do his job because serial killers were a “decadent western phenomenon,” the communist leaders to whom Burakov had to go for permission at every step behaved then the way we are fast becoming now: suspicious, fearful, slothful, and choosing their own ambitions and collective socialism over what the evidence and emerging sciences clearly indicated.
Burakov was entirely on his own, save one Col. Mikhail Fetisov, who understood and manipulated the insane and illogical Marxist system. The madness is illustrated very well in the 1995 HBO movie Citizen X.
Burakov’s greatest sin, like Fernando Mateo, appeared to be his willingness to state the truth out loud, to put 2 and 2 together and call it 4.
In spite of the system, Burakov prevailed through 12 years. What he had to go through just to get permission to do what he did, to get the things he needed to do his job, are indicative of what we are becoming.
Burakov figured out alone what we once pioneered and owned: profiling was the answer.
Enter Dr. Alexandr Bukhanovsky, the only Soviet psychiatrist who was willing to risk the wrath of the system he’d grown old in. Using science, statistics, and the mathematical probabilities of profiling, including such “racist” evils as algorithms, patterns and data mining, he put together so precise an analysis that it reduced Chikatilo to a quivering mass of tears with its breathtaking accuracy. Dr. Bukhanovsky wrenched from him a total confession within three hours, something the arrogant Communist leaders hadn’t been able to achieve in 9 straight days of interrogations.
In other words, Burakov and Bukhanovsky got it right…over and over again. They got it right because they used the right tool, or at least were strong enough and committed enough to the truth to fight for it, as demonstrated in the most profound scene in the movie:
Burakov: You think a man is what he says, don’t you, Colonel?
Fetisov: He is if he talks for a living.
Burakov: A man is what he fights for.
Fetisov: Well I don’t fight for anything.
Burakov: I know
In only 3 decades we’ve gone from singing the praises of profiling to having botoxed lawyers condemning it as “racist” on FOX news. Apparently the only reason for this schizophrenic decision is because profiling is truth, or in other words, it works too well. This liberal doctrine is psychotically determined to individually personalize and “feel up” forensic mathematical patterns, which have a stubborn tendency not to give in to Political Castration. This is lunacy when dealing with percentages and likelihoods; apparently, evil eventually makes you stupid and insane. Either way, it’s madness when we punish people for telling the truth. That is a consequence we used to reserve for the lie.
Fernando displayed great courage when he spoke the truth out loud. He stood like a man in the face of a Politically Castrated media, looked it square in its hypocritical camera and demanded a return to logic, reason, and math. He was not afraid of the “4.”
And for that, I have no doubt he will be punished, even though he is right. They’ll see to it.
Oh, and they released the shooting suspect’s information. His name is Shawn Peace, he’s 22 and a member of an armed gang that’s been responsible for 16 robberies in the past six months.
Did I mention he’s black? And I said it out loud. How do you like that “4?”
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
2 comments:
I love gutzy ladies that speak up; wish we had more in the U.S. Give 'em Hell. You and Deb Hamilton's RightTruth are among the best.
Yours for a better New Year, 2011.
Merry Christmas to all!
P.S. Check our Link-page. - reb
___ ___
Thanks Snake Hunter, checking your blog now, and so far, you are my kind of man! Totally blowing the stereotype of an 85 year old man, you are on the ball and remarkable! I'm way behind on making my WARCHICK recommends blogroll, but you are on there for sure!
Post a Comment