Comments on: Res Ipsa Loquitur

By: Richard Garner

Richard Garner — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:09:27 +0000

Another good post, Julian: although, I would point out that your "criminals like to target those who actually have money to steal" point only goes so far - economic analysis of crime suggests that whilst rewards influence the decision to commit theft, so too does likelihood of capture: A high income from a theft one has little chance of succeeding in is less attractive than a lowish income one is very likely to get away with. Add to this the fact that the poor cannot afford security mechanisms as well as the rich, amongst other factors, and the important factor that policing is often poor in poor neighbourhoods, and we get an explaination as to why crime is worse in poor neighbourhoods. Going back to this whole Ron Paul issue, you may be interested in my posts on Liberty Forum here and here, in which I defend your Reason article against an LRC writer.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:51:48 +0000

“You are then left to explain the enduring quality of disproportionate black academic underachievement/poverty relative to the social mobility of other non-white groups that began in the same milieu.”

Which other groups apart from African Americans began in a milieu of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and continuing structural discrimination?

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:18:13 +0000

I knew someone was going to bring that up. But really, that was a joke about Santorum Sr., and pretty explicitly.

By: James Kabala

James Kabala — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:53:16 +0000

On the subject of profanity, it’s worth noting that Raimondo himself directed an f-word at Matt Welch in the comments of his original post, so I guess the combatants are even in that respect.

On the other hand, on the subject of tone-deaf bad jokes, I seem to remember a certain crying little girl…

By: Gil

Gil — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:08:17 +0000

I hereby go on the record in support of your “fucking racist” formulation.

I think that you write it infrequently enough that it conveys the force you intend.

But, I must point out that there’s at least a bit of a similarity between people who focus on the style rather than the substance of your argument, and people who focus on the nasty pandering of people Paul has associated with, rather than the positions he actually holds and professes today.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:16:22 +0000

See, this is what makes my jaw drop. Justin Raimondo foams at the mouth for 5000 words and it’s a “reasoned response”. I say “fuck” once and, woah, I’m over the line. And in the event that this is actually unclear to anyone: My irritation is not about people responding. It’s about people *not* responding to our actual claims, and instead attacking the motivations (and sartorial choices) of the authors and editors.

By: Fred S.

Fred S. — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:28:54 +0000

Sanchez,

I’m baffled as to why you would be so indignant that people are actually responding to your piece. Has some sort of unofficial statute of limitations elapsed in the two weeks since you wrote the article in question? If your intent was to deliver a deliver a hit piece and then be “way beyond done” with it, perhaps you should have stapled unsigned copies to the telephone poles in your neighbourhood instead of posting it beneath your byline and e-mail address.

I can only imagine that this display of peevishness, combined with you impassioned use of the Anglo-Saxon expletive, is an attempt to stymie your critics with the depth of your feeling rather than the strength of your arguments. Good luck with that tack.

P.S. By invoking those sociological explanations for black criminality, you at best push the issue to arm’s length. You are then left to explain the enduring quality of disproportionate black academic underachievement/poverty relative to the social mobility of other non-white groups that began in the same milieu.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:26:17 +0000

So, actually, I don’t think it’s totally irrelevant that Cosby is black: That’s an important part of the context. For the same reason that (say) your siblings get to complain about your family in a way that would be deeply obnoxious for an acquaintance to do. (A certain George Carlin routine comes to mind…) That said, I feel pretty sure Cosby wouldn’t put it quite like this.

Note in the first item how smoothly the writer moves from talking about “black” institutions and culture to “ghetto values,” without a hint of qualification. Ditto most of the rest of these: Black demonstrators are presumed to be habitués of the crack house and the food stamp bureau. Rage and rioting are a “black” phenomenon. And need we recall that little gem from a newsletter not quoted here about how we may suppose that 95 percent of black men in DC are criminal? I guess technically that exempts 5 percent — phew! Guess that’s not racist after all, huh?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:07:56 +0000

Gil:
The implication seems pretty clear to me in their gratuitous and repeated use of the word “blacks” without any qualifications. Never do they say “individuals,” or even “some blacks.” It’s pretty clear from the newsletters that the key element in the actions they discuss is the race of the criminals. The clear and unambiguous intent of the newsletters – at least of the passages in controversy – is to perpetuate stereotypes. Otherwise, the repeated emphasis on race serves no purpose within the context of the newsletters.

The newsletters that have come to light don’t directly say “all blacks,” but the passages pretty clearly imply (and intend) to perpetuate generalized stereotypes about all blacks.

By: Gil

Gil — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:23:58 +0000

Mark,

On what basis do you so confidently conclude that the newsletter writer(s) were making claims about ALL blacks?