Yesterday I talked about some of the terror plots against New York City.
Representative Peter King has called for law enforcement to focus on radical Muslim
communities and put aside what is “politically correct.” He believes we face a major
threat from Islamic terrorism and talked about 16 terror threats against New York since
September 11, 2001.

I took the time to investigate some of these threats and yesterday described many
of those that took place a few years after 9/11. Here are some others that have taken place
in just the last few years.

One plot to place a suitcase bomb in a Long Island Railroad car involved a
man who traveled from Long Island to Pakistan. He drew maps of Long Island and the
railroad and its tunnels with the intent of causing the most damage.

In 2009 four men placed what they believed were functioning bombs outside
Jewish targets in the Bronx. A government informant supplied them with an inert missile
system and fake explosives.

During that same time, three individuals planned to set off bombs in the subway
during rush hour in celebration of the 8th anniversary of 9/11. The plot was thwarted
through an intelligence tip. Two who pleaded guilty are awaiting sentencing; the third is
already serving a life sentence for other plots.

In 2010, Faisal Shahzad attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. He
pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to life in prison. The next year NYPD arrested
a man and woman planning on attacking a synagogue. And that same year a man was
arrested for plotting to detonate bombs in and around New York City.

A year later a man on a student visa was arrested for attempting to remotely
detonate what he believed to be a bomb placed in front the Federal Reserve Bank.
That same year two brothers from Pakistan also tried to bomb popular New York City
landmarks.

These, of course, are just the terror plots that have been in the news. All of them
are a reminder of the threat we still face.

Less than a week after the bombing at the Boston Marathon, Representative Peter
King called for law enforcement to focus on radical Muslim communities and put aside
what is “politically correct.” To support his argument, he talked about 16 terror threats
against New York since September 11, 2001.

I didn’t realize there had been that many, so I decide to check them out. Today
and tomorrow, I want to summarize what I found. Let’s today look at what happened in
New York just the few years after 9/11.

In 2002, Iyman Faris planned to cut the Brooklyn Bridge’s support cables at the
direction of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was arrested and sentenced
to 20 years in a federal prison. A year later, al-Qaeda planned to release cyanide gas in
the New York City’s subway system, which carries more than 5 million passengers on an
average weekday.

In 2006, Uzair Paracha was sentenced to 30 years in a federal prison for
attempting to help an al-Qaeda operative enter the U.S. and blow up gas tanks. That same
year, Dhiren Barot was sentenced to life in prison by a UK court after pleading guilty to
planning attacks both in the UK and the U.S., including the New York Stock Exchange.
Shahawar Matin Siraj and James Elshafay planned to place explosive devices at a
subway station in Manhattan. In 2006, the FBI uncovered a plot involving an attack on a
commuter train tunnel connecting New York and New Jersey. Also that same year, four
men plotted to detonate the jet-fuel storage tanks and supply lines for John F. Kennedy
Airport.

In a series of three trials spanning 2008 to 2010, eight men were convicted in
Britain of attempting to simultaneously detonate explosives in seven airlines traveling
from London to several North American cities, including New York.

These are just the list of known attacks or planned terrorist plots against New
York. It reminds us that we still face a threat from radical Muslims.

The Internal Revenue Service is collecting more than your taxes these days. They
are collecting a massive amount of personal information on your digital activities: credit
card payments, e-pay transactions, eBay auctions, and Facebook posts.

In previous commentaries, I have talked about the impact of “big data.”
Apparently the IRS understands its significance as well. The agency will start using
“robo-audits” and third party data to collect more information on taxpayers then they ever
had access to in the past.

Why is the Internal Revenue Service using “big data” to invade your privacy?
Government leaders are putting pressure on the IRS because the federal government
needs more money, and it is estimates that as much as $300 billion in revenue is lost to
evasion and errors each year. Collecting and analyzing this data might be one way to
close the so-called “tax gap.”

This new IRS program is not without its critics. I have seen a number of articles
and columns about the potential invasion of our privacy. Watchdog groups are concerned
about how this new program using “big data” is being implemented with few guidelines
and essentially no public discussion. In fact, this commentary might be the first time you
have heard about what the IRS is doing in data collection.

Apparently the digital tracking of the IRS is quite sophisticated. They have
brought in private industry experts to develop the system. But since this is a government
agency, they have access to Social Security numbers, health records, and other privileged
information not available to private sector marketing firms. One IRS bureaucrat boasted:
“Private industry would be envious if they knew what our models are.”

Each day, we lose a little more of our privacy. The last thing we need is more
government regulation and overreach into our private lives. Big brother is using big data
to track you down in ways few of us could have ever imagined.

The Internal Revenue Service is collecting more than your taxes these days. They
are collecting a massive amount of personal information on your digital activities: credit
card payments, e-pay transactions, eBay auctions, and Facebook posts.

In previous commentaries, I have talked about the impact of “big data.”
Apparently the IRS understands its significance as well. The agency will start using
“robo-audits” and third party data to collect more information on taxpayers then they ever
had access to in the past.

Why is the Internal Revenue Service using “big data” to invade your privacy?
Government leaders are putting pressure on the IRS because the federal government
needs more money, and it is estimates that as much as $300 billion in revenue is lost to
evasion and errors each year. Collecting and analyzing this data might be one way to
close the so-called “tax gap.”

This new IRS program is not without its critics. I have seen a number of articles
and columns about the potential invasion of our privacy. Watchdog groups are concerned
about how this new program using “big data” is being implemented with few guidelines
and essentially no public discussion. In fact, this commentary might be the first time you
have heard about what the IRS is doing in data collection.

Apparently the digital tracking of the IRS is quite sophisticated. They have
brought in private industry experts to develop the system. But since this is a government
agency, they have access to Social Security numbers, health records, and other privileged
information not available to private sector marketing firms. One IRS bureaucrat boasted:
“Private industry would be envious if they knew what our models are.”

Each day, we lose a little more of our privacy. The last thing we need is more
government regulation and overreach into our private lives. Big brother is using big data
to track you down in ways few of us could have ever imagined.

Thomas Sowell has been writing about intellectuals and race. He can probably get
away with addressing this topic since he is African-American. Most scholars avoid any
discussion of race and intellect for fear of being branded as racist.

That is unfortunate, because there is a sad and sorry history especially when
Darwinian evolution and eugenics were applied. Thomas Sowell points out that a
hundred years ago, people from different races had very different rates of success in
education. Many political leaders as well as intellectuals took this as clear proof that
some races were genetically superior to other.

Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, actually invented the word “eugenics.”
He and others proposed methods by which to reduce the reproduction of certain races and
urged “the gradual extinction of an inferior race.” Thomas Sowell reminds us that
eugenics was not an idea held by “a bunch of fringe cranks” but espoused by academics
at our leading universities.

Sometimes assumptions about intellectual inferiority of certain races were based
upon flawed data. For example, American soldiers were given mental tests during the
First World War. Men of German ancestry scored higher than those of Irish ancestry,
who in turn scored higher than those who were Jewish. Mental test pioneer Carl Brigham
said these Army tests helped to “disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly
intelligent.”

A better explanation can be found in immigration patterns. German immigrants
came to the U.S. decades before most Irish immigrants. Both groups arrived before most
Jewish immigrants. Years later, Brigham admitted that “many of the most recent
immigrants grew up in homes where English was not the spoken language.” He finally
admitted that his earlier conclusions were “without foundation.

Much of the racism and anti-Semitism associated with intelligence and test scores
is past history, and hopeful we will learn from the past.

The new movie “42” has done well at the box office. But there is something
missing from this story about Jackie Robinson, who wore number 42 during his historic
career. Once again Hollywood swung and missed by downplaying the faith factor in this
incredible story.

Chris Lamb, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reminds us that Brooklyn
Dodgers President Branch Rickey picked Jackie Robinson to break baseball’s color
barrier because he could model Christian behavior. At their first meeting, Rickey opened
the book “Life of Christ” and read the words of Jesus: “But whoever shall smite thee on
the cheek, turn to him the other also.” Jackie Robinson knew the gospel and understood
why Rickey said: “I’m looking for a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back.”

One biography of Robinson tells the story of how Reverend Karl Downs (Scott
United Methodist Church) rescued Robinson from the streets. Downs became a father
figure to Robinson and brought him back into the church. In one interview Robinson
talked about his nightly ritual of knelling at bedside to pray. “It’s the best way to get
closer to God,” Robinson said, and then the second baseman added with a smile, “and it’s
also the best way to stop a hard-hit ground ball.”

Eric Metaxas, writing in USA Today, also noticed the missing element of faith in
the movie “42.” In his column and his new book, Seven Men and Their Secret of
Greatness, he describes Branch Rickey as a “Bible-thumping Methodist” who refused to
attend games on Sunday.

There were many other players in the Negro Leagues that Rickey could have
picked. He chose Jackie Robinson because of his Christian character. That is what
sustained him during the years of racist taunts.

When it comes to the faith factor, Hollywood chose to pitch around it rather than
throw strikes. Here’s hoping that these movie producers will some day find the strike
zone.

Over the last few weeks, many of us have been following the lack of media
coverage of the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. First, we were noticing that the trial of this
abortion doctor (who some had called a mass murderer) was receiving no media
coverage. Then we waited to hear the explanations for why there was essentially a media
blackout.

Columnist and political analyst Kirsten Powers asked her media colleagues why
they avoided any coverage of a trial that had all the elements of what mainstream media
would want in a story. Correspondent Megan McCardle tried to explain “Why I Didn’t
Write About Gosnell’s Trial And Why I Should Have.”

Perhaps the best summary came from Washington Post writer Melinda
Henneberger who tries to explain “Why Kermit Gosnell Hasn’t Been on Page One.” One
of her colleagues tried to argue that Gosnell’s atrocities were a local crime. But she
counters that she couldn’t think of another mass murder that the media every saw that
way.

Another journalist suggested that the rest of the country doesn’t care about
Philadelphia. Or perhaps the media blackout occurred because Gosnell performed
abortions on poor, black patients. But that was not true. He actually treated white patients
himself, while his assistants treated the others.

She therefore concludes that “we didn’t write more because the only abortion
story most outlets cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat to
abortion rights.” She believes it is merely a newsroom reflex.

Here’s the calculus. A trial of someone who broke into an abortion clinic and
destroyed equipments. That’s news. A trial of an abortionist who cut off heads of aborted
babies born alive. That’s not worth coverage.

Put another way, the mainstream media has a number of sacred cows. Abortion is
at the top of the list. That’s why some of you may be hearing about the Kermit Gosnell
trial right now for the first time as you are listening to my commentary. I’m Kerby
Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Following trends and making predictions is a risky endeavor. Sometimes when
you think you spot an important trend and make a prediction, the trend goes the other
way. Nate Silver in The Signal and the Noise explains why many predictions fail. One
reason is what he calls “self-canceling predictions.”

One good example of this is what happens when we use the GPS navigation
systems in many of our cards. He explains that there are two major north-to-south routes
through Manhattan: the West Side Highway (which borders the Hudson River) and the
FDR Drive (on the east side of Manhattan). Imagine that it doesn’t matter to you which
drive you take north. Since you don’t strongly prefer one or the other, you consult your
GPS to determine which drive has less traffic.

But think of what happens when lots of people begin to look at their GPS system.
The route with less traffic will be flooded with traffic. Soon the “faster” route actually
becomes the “slower” route. In case you are wondering, there is now empirical evidence
that this is becoming a problem in cities like New York, Boston, and London.

The opposite of this would be the self-fulfilling prediction. We can see this with
many polls during the election season. Nate Silver illustrates this with the 2012 Iowa
caucus race. A CNN poll released before the vote showed Rick Santorum surging to 16
percent of the vote when he had been at about 10 percent before. There is some evidence
that the poll was an outlier. Other surveys did not show him gaining ground.

Nevertheless, the poll provided Rick Santorum with lots of favorable media
coverage. Some voters switched to him from similar candidates like Michele Bachmann
and Rick Perry. Before long, the poll and the media coverage moved him up in the polls,
and he finished well ahead of Bachmann and Perry.

The lesson here is to be careful that your prediction doesn’t cancel itself out or
becoming self-fulfilling. His book is one more reminder that we need to have lots of
discernment.