Tuesday, January 20, A.D. 2009

Bush Departs

We are at the end of the presidency of George W. Bush. You can find some of my reflections on the current president in “Letter to David Frum” and “As the 2008 Election Nears, a Personal Story.” Let me just say here that I think that Bush was an honest, principled, and good man who tried to steer a centrist course in unprecedented times. It is ironic that his popular image is so different from the real man. Related to such, Jay Nordlinger’s account of his meeting with Bush in December is an interesting read—“POTUS speaks” I am not sure how to estimate his administration, but I do know that he does not deserve the ingratitude and invective that he has received over the last eight years. I wonder if Americans will have the hindsight or the honesty to feel shame for their actions and words concerning him.

That said, Bush is somewhat responsible for the slander. As I have previously written, Bush has continuously allowed his enemies to “frame the narrative” of his presidency, to use Leftist lingo. By trying to compromise, by reaching out to Democrats, and by aiming for the middle, Bush garnered few friends and upset his supporters. It is funny that political analysts always tout the power of the “center”—yet, rarely does that sort of program lead to success. Centrist regimes get toppled in Banana Republics. In the United States, where we remain Anglo-Saxon enough—for the time being, at least—to limit coups to the media, centrist administrations simply tank in the polls.

Besides allowing the Left to define his presidency, thereby insuring the next administration, Bush had many other failures. He allowed rampant illegal immigration to continue, and he parroted the self-defeating rhetoric of the multiculturalists that would have the United States follow the Brazilian socio-ethnic model. He followed his predecessors in facilitating the deindustrialization of our economy, and he did not work to correct the unpardonable trade imbalances that impoverish our country. He betrayed conservative principles in his support of affirmative action, in his profligate public spending and public debt, in his unwillingness to veto Congressional pork spending, in his aggrandizement of the federal bureaucracy and its powers, and in his general social conservative but socialist “compassionate conservative” agenda and outlook. Moreover, the Harriet Miers fiasco was ridiculous, Katrina should have been managed better, and Bush should have reigned in his cabinet officials long before crisis mode set in. Perhaps most egregiously, he let his “ownership society” compassionate conservative rhetoric trump good sense and solid monetary policy.

Unlike most folks, however, I refuse to blame Bush for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is too early to tell how successful Bush’s strategy will be, and armchair and hindsight strategies are not the luxuries of a sitting president. I agree that something had to be done, but I am not sure what the best, feasible path would have been. I cannot fairly state that Bush was mistaken or that anyone else would have chosen superior alternatives.

Anyway, I wish our president well. May he rest after eight tumultuous years. Let him know that many Americans are grateful for the good that he has accomplished. No one believed on September 12, A.D. 2001 that we would not have another terrorist attack in the United States before Bush left office. Bush appointed two stellar justices to the Supreme Court. He lowered taxes, at least temporarily. He tried—but failed—to reform Social Security and the health care financing establishment. Bush consistently defended the sanctity of human life and the importance of traditional cultural values. After the scandal-ridden, corrupt Clinton years, Bush cleaned up the White House and the executive branch. Unlike the crooks from Arkansas, he did not use political power for personal gain. He was no Reagan, and he certainly was no Coolidge, but he was better than most of our elected leaders.

President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush, many years and many blessings to you both!

Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, January 20, Anno Domini 2009
Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

Saturday, January 17, A.D. 2009

Fathers and Abortion

The National Right to Life Committee sent the “New Study Examines Familial Context of Choice to Abort” article by Wanda Franz to their members this past Thursday. It contains some interesting—and sobering—figures. Here is a selection:

The results of the study indicated that the most important factors in determining the women’s choice to abort a second pregnancy were those associated with the father’s inability or unwillingness to provide assistance in rearing the first child. Women were significantly more likely to abort if they reported that the father of the child cannot be trusted to “watch the child for a week,” “take good care of the child,” “watch the child when the mothers needs to do things,” “does not support the mother’s way of raising the child,” “does not respect the schedule and rules” for the child, etc. In addition, it was found that mothers who were married to the father were significantly more likely to deliver the baby.

What is especially interesting are the variables that did not appear to influence the choice of abortion vs. delivery. For example, the difficulty of raising the child, based on poor temperament of the child or the need for frequent medical intervention, did not affect the choice to abort. In addition, financial considerations were not important in the decision. Employment and income did not predict the decision to abort. Surprisingly, aggression directed toward the mother by the father was not a factor in the choice to abort. On the other hand, women who chose to abort the second baby, demonstrated more substance abuse following the abortion; and they were more apt to be physically abused by the father.

The results of this study are counter to the prevailing opinion that women abort because of poverty and financial considerations. Instead, these mothers were more apt to make the decision based on whether or not they would be supported in their role as a mother by a father who had already demonstrated an ability to care for one of his children. Furthermore, marriage was a protective factor in determining the parents’ decision to keep and raise their child.

This study supports the idea that abortion occurs in the context of a family. It requires both a committed mother and father to assure the choice to deliver and care for a child. Fathers are, not only important, but possibly decisive in the choice to have an abortion.

Though emasculated de jure with regard to the fate of their unborn offspring, de facto men have enormous influence in the abortion decision. How many realize this? How many care?

Posted by Joseph on Saturday, January 17, Anno Domini 2009
Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

Monday, January 12, A.D. 2009

Paleos and Jews: European and American

My post from yesterday—“Gaza and Jew Hatred”—dealt with the recent spike in anti-Jewish outbursts in the West. For today’s related post, I refer you to Ilana Mercer’s recent entry at VDARE—“Paleos Must Defend the West . . . And That Means Israel, Too”—where she considers how the European paleoconservatives differ from their American counterparts regarding the state of Israel. She notes that the notoriously anti-Semitic European Right has been generally quite supportive of Israel in its fight against Hamas, while American paleoconservatives have been rather critical of Israel. I suppose that she means Patrick Buchanan; I do not know who else might represent traditionalist conservatives who also complains about Israel’s supposed war mongering. Her article is worth considering.

Mercer holds that Europe’s “blood and soil” conservatives have a better instinctual appreciation for Israel’s struggle to survive, while she argues that American paleocons criticize Israel from parochial concerns. I think that she is correct. Buchanan’s annoyance at Israel originates not in anti-Semitism, as his enemies frequently claim, but in his belief that America’s influential Jewish community pressures American foreign policy to do what is not in America’s best interests—for the sake of Israel. He thinks that America’s neoconservative agenda has entangled us in other peoples’ problems. Yet, Mercer argues that it is in the self-interest of the West to support Israel as a fellow Western nation on the frontlines of Mohammedan terror. The European Right fears the creeping tide of sharia in their midst, while American paleoconservatives believe that the oceans and energy independence will keep the barbarians from the gates.

I agree with Mercer, as I am hopelessly lost to the clash of civilizations thesis. I think that the evidence is clear, but I confess that I am a sucker for the epic. I tire of the West’s technocratic babbling about managing risks and population intervention and the rest of that soul crushing social science jargon. We cannot even say crusade? What would Washington, Lee, or Patton think about our political and cultural leaders, curdled in cowardly paralysis?

At the basic level, we must admit a certain incompatibility between the West and the Mujahideen. Our thoughts are not their thoughts; their ways are not ours. The Anglican archbishop’s advice notwithstanding, our legal system cannot operate alongside sharia. If we value our own side and our own ways—if we wish for them to continue to exist—we cannot accommodate the banner carriers of Mohammedanism. There are several options available to us.

We could isolate the breeding grounds of jihadists, limiting them to the areas where the scimitar has already conquered the Dar al-Harb. Of course, this offers no hope to the oppressed dhimmis under the infidel yoke. Moreover, this plan would require a post-petroleum economy, and the West is not technologically advanced enough to sever those poisonous pipelines without having to suffer significant economic hardships. In the land of mammon, few are willing to forgo material benefits for long-term civilizational survival.

We could follow the Projet Coulter: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” When Ann Coulter published those words on September 13, A.D. 2001, the entire political spectrum denounced her. Yet, it is obvious that it is a winning strategy. Of course, the West no longer breeds men such as Cecil Rhodes and Horatio Herbert Kitchener. We no longer have the stomach for unpleasant necessities. Besides, I, myself, find the attacks on Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki reprehensible. I disagree with the Left about waging “politically correct” war, but morality has a place even in battle.

We could also set a middle passage and allow some trade, study, and cultural intermingling with very strict provisions. This route is the most realistic but, if taken, the most likely to devolve back into the current mess. Without active resistance, one’s guard relaxes, and then the barbarians storm.

With these options and others, allies are needed and useful. It is difficult to see how, on a per capita basis, at least, we could have a better ally in this fight than the state of Israel.

Posted by Joseph on Monday, January 12, Anno Domini 2009
Politics • (2) Comments • Permalink

Sunday, January 11, A.D. 2009

Gaza and Jew Hatred

Yesterday, Mark Steyn posted an article on the National Review Online—“The Oldest Hatred”—about the rise of attacks upon the Israelis’ kinsmen in the West. He mentions just a handful of incidents that have occured since the Israeli military retaliated against Hamas’ firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas in December. Jonah Goldberg discusses the situation a bit more in his Los Angeles Times editorial, “Who’re the real Nazis?”, where he notes how frequently the state of Israel is depicted as the Third Reich in its actions of self-defense.

From London to Fort Lauderdale, there are protests against Israel’s allegedly genocidal actions, though these events feature no small showing of genocidal calls for the destruction of Israel, Jews, Zionist pigs, and the like. I would comment about hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance, but I hold human beings generally to be irrational and idiotic. So, a protester against supposed genocide who wishes real genocide upon his enemy is not that surprising. Even in the USA, these events have been marked by calls such as, “Go back to the oven! You need a big oven, that’s what you need!,” “Nuke Israel,” and “Death to the Jews.”

Now, I have not drunk any Zionist Kool-Aid; you can read my thoughts on rabbinical Jews in general in my post, “Those Jews.” I do not hesitate to criticize Israeli policies or Western rabbinical Jews when they deserve it. Yet, there is a significant difference between criticism and “Go back to the oven!” Moreover, I find it disturbing that the genocidal cries of terrorist sympathisers do not alarm Westerners. We have imported fanatics into our midst, who threaten our peaceful and usually quite productive fellow citizens, and we patronizingly allow them to spew their bile without criticism.

I watched the following video, and I choked when the program reported, “American Outrage.”

My visceral reaction was, “These people are not Americans; do not state that Americans are outraged at Israeli self-defense.” I suspect that many fellow Americans would agree. However, those pre-1965 days have long been lost to history. On paper, at least, they are indeed Americans—an increasingly meaningless designation in our multicultural age.

Let us remember that one of the most basic responsibilities of government—and one of the justifications of the state—is defense from foreign aggression. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Mohammedan, Palestinian, and Arab terrorist groups have been waging war upon Israeli citizens for decades. They flout the conventional rules of war. They target civilians and use civilians of their own as shields. They enlist women and children in their terror campaigns. With each compromise or concession made toward them—with each step for peace achieved by the Israelis—they strengthen their own hand, bide their time, and then renew their terror. They do not want peace; they want Israel’s annihilation. They openly and frequently state such.

Why does anyone sympathize with them? The West does not deserve its heritage, its wealth, or its power if it has lost its moral compass to such an extent that it holds Israeli self-defense comparable with Palestinian terrorism. I certainly find it horrible and savage that innocent civilians are dying in the Israeli onslaught. However, I do not blame the Israelis but the Palestinians for bringing such upon themselves—they have continuously thrown their lot with lunatics and monsters, generation after generation. Justice is upon them whenever the Israelis retaliate. I only wish that the West could stomach Israel’s finishing the job—though we no longer have the fortitude or the manhood to see done what needs to be done to eradicate subversion and terrorist breeding hostility once and for all . . . not ethnic cleansing, but something quite close. The Israeli military should take complete control of Gaza, imprison or execute all subversive elements, and issue an ultimatum to the survivors: “Peace, economic investment, trade, and potential self-rule (down the road) are all possible if you recognize our right to exist as a state and as a people and if you cease all hostile actions. We will not tolerate any more aggression. You will seal your own fate.” There should be no apologies, no mercy beyond that reasonable offer, and no hesitation to crush Palestinian enemies into submission.

Leftist apologists for Arab and Mohammedan terrorists think that such a response would only breed more terrorists and more hostilities. Such only occurs with mediocre retailiation. The spirit of the intifada must be utterly destroyed. There is no reasoning with unreason, and the hatred that such men have for the “apes and pigs”—for the Zionist infidels—is not amenable to reason. They understand only the sword, and they should have to meet it. Give them their martyrdom straight to hell.

Posted by Joseph on Sunday, January 11, Anno Domini 2009
Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

Friday, January 9, A.D. 2009

Richard John Neuhaus

Roman Catholic priest, thinker, writer, speaker, and editor and founder of First Things journal Richard John Neuhaus died yesterday. In his honor, First Things reposted his essay “Born Toward Dying” that you may wish to read. It is a mix between near-death autobiography and a somewhat Christian version of the Phaedo. I was fortunate enough to have met him once after a talk that he gave at the John Paul II Cultural Center a few years ago. May his memory be eternal!

I commented upon the passing of Neuhaus in a letter to a friend yesterday in which I marvelled at the lights in the darkness of our inane times. We should be ceaselessly grateful for such luminaries:

When I consider how unworthy our era is of any blessings, it is humbling to think of how many shimmers of truth and sanity have manifested in the world during the past century. Considering just mainly English and French speakers, the list is impressive—to name just a small sample: Gilson, Lewis, Maritain, de Lubac, Popovich, Elliot, Orwell, Chesterton, Danielou, Voegelin, Lossky, Aron, Berry, Kirk, Anscombe, Tolkien, Plantinga, MacIntyre, Strauss, Findlay, F. O’Connor, von Balthasar, Bozell, Schmeeman—not to mention several hierarchs, including the present and preceding Roman pontiffs. Anyway, it is probable that the culture and population at large are the worst that they have ever been in the history of civilization. Never before have so many believed in so much that was so wrong. Nonetheless, it is also possible that we have not had the same level of insightful and wise thinking and discourse in the West, on the part of a growing minority, since the Renaissance. Several centuries of diseased modern ideas have given us both sets of facts. Perhaps, there is hope for the West.

Whenever you get caught up in a fit of desperation, wondering where are our Cappadocians, our Ciceros, and our Thomas Mores today, just consider those names and the thousands like them who have maintained nous in an anoetic age.

Posted by Joseph on Friday, January 9, Anno Domini 2009
Aesthetics • Anthropology • Epistemology • Ethics • Metaphysics • Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

Tuesday, January 6, A.D. 2009

Civic Literacy

I have greatly benefited from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute since I was an undergraduate student. I was a part of its Collegiate Network, I still treasure the friends and acquaintances that I have made through its programs, I always look forward to getting and reading my Intercollegiate Review, and I owe no small part of my extracurricular education to the wonderful organization that Frank Chodorov and William F. Buckley, Jr. brought to Americans’ minds.

I highly recommend that you join I.S.I. It is free for students and faculty members, and membership has many privileges. I am very grateful to the institute and to its benefactors for all that they have done for me.

I.S.I. has launched an American Civic Literacy project to bring attention to our people’s ignorance. One of the project’s publicity and instructive tools is a set of short civics quizzes given to college students and to the general population. The overall average grade is 46%, and the average grade for college professors is 55%, which is just horrible. Even more troubling is the fact that holders of public office score lower than average citizens. Can you offer another profession where laymen are better informed than the masters?

You can take an online version of the quiz here.

Thanks to the American Legion, the Jesuits, and my involvement in I.S.I., I am pleased to report that I answered all but one of the questions correctly (my first and only time taking the test, of course).

Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, January 6, Anno Domini 2009
Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

Wednesday, December 31, A.D. 2008

Radio Derb

John Derbyshire is my favorite atheist. While he may incur the ire of fellow conservatives for his horizontal world view and the limitations thereof, he is usually quite insightful as well as very funny. He functions as the unofficial Puddleglum of National Review, but he nonetheless expresses the most honest worldly common sense of any public commentators around. In addition to writing for National Review, the American Conservative, and other publications, Derbyshire has produced a radio webcast for some time, Radio Derb, which is endlessly entertaining. His sign-off for the miserable year of A.D. 2008 was typically charming—you may listen to it here. I especially appreciate his commentary on Gaza. Consider his handling of Obama’s Inaugural “Poetess” Elizabeth Alexander on the previous broadcast:

And—oh no!—we’re going to get a poem from Elizabeth Alexander, who is to Maya Angelou as Ms. Angelou is to Elizabeth Barrett Browning. As a poetry lover, I’m going to need to know exactly where in the program this lady shows up, so I can hit the mute button on my remote. I can tell you what her poem will be like anyway. It won’t rhyme, scan, or make much sense, and it will contain lots of keening about oppression and injustice along with gassy stuff about striving and uplifting and the soulful wisdom of Apaches. She’s that kind of poet.

Few voices in the public sphere are as honest as Derbyshire . . . folks who have the courage to disrespect the disreputable.

Posted by Joseph on Wednesday, December 31, Anno Domini 2008
Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

Tuesday, December 16, A.D. 2008

On the Hunt in Baghdad

Reporter Michael Totten posted an article yesterday about his recent experience accompanying a raid in Sadr City on the edge of Bagdad: “On the Hunt in Baghdad.” For American citizens comfortably removed from Iraq, it is easy to ignore or to forget what our countrymen are facing every day. Totten’s article shows a bit how the facts on the ground looks now—still quite dangerous, even if the worst carnage is (hopefully) over. Let us remember all of them in our prayers and in our gratitude.

Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, December 16, Anno Domini 2008
Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

Wednesday, December 10, A.D. 2008

Goldberg, O.J., and the Black and White Divide

As you may know, I am rather fond of National Review’s Jonah Goldberg. I am quite happy to see a conservative rabbinical Jew “on the team”—and I am not even a neo-con. Yet, as I wrote before, I generally fancy Jews. Folks with a high intelligence quotient are quite useful in most human endeavors. Anyway, I recently defended him before Lawrence Auster, but my case did not impress Mr. Auster, who refers to Goldberg as an “Animal House conservative” for his sophomoric tendencies and for his love of popular culture. I, however, usually find him insightful and refreshingly honest. As I wrote to Auster, I met Goldberg once and was impressed by his warmth and decency.

Goldberg’s article today, by contrast, is neither insightful nor honest, though Goldberg himself might actually believe what he wrote, which would make it all the more depressing. His article—“O.J., Obama, and Race in America”—notes that the black and white racial divide evident in the reaction to the first Simpson trial was not evident in the most recent one. Therein, Goldberg sees progress and unity in America, under the banner of an Obamasque post-racial presidency:

Those who saw Simpson as a symbol of permanent division and the impossibility of progress were wrong. What better proof of that is there than that Obama, the nation’s first black president, will be figuring out the floor plan at the White House at almost exactly the same moment Simpson will be figuring out how the toilet works in his cell?

Is Goldberg serious, or could I hope that, as a good conservative Jew, he writes esoterically for the good of the city? I am not sure. For Jonah is no Spinoza. Still, I have never encountered such a negligent piece by him before.

As Goldberg notes, when Simpson was first on trial, everyone knew that he was guilty. That certainty unraveled, though, among white Leftists who had black colleagues (and, later, among all Leftists everywhere, once they learnt the official Party position). For these Leftists encountered their black friends and co-workers, who steadfastly maintained Simpson’s innocence, despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. For the blacks so inclined (most black Americans, but obviously not all), the trial was never about the actions of a particular man accused of a crime. Who would imagine such an idea about a criminal case? Rather, as Goldberg’s article also mentions, the case was transformed in black Americans’ minds into a trial of our racist criminal justice system. Never mind that two people were butchered; never mind that two families and many friends and acquaintances lost loved ones due to a man’s homicidal rage; never mind that children lost their mother—the O.J. Simpson trial was about how black men are victims of American injustice. Hence, when the murderer was acquitted, blacks celebrated—and white Leftists went along, not wanting to miss out on an opportunity to atone for their special and unique ancestral sin by indulging the unjust and irrational passions of their black friends.

For normal white Americans, such a sight was a precursor to the Palestinians’ dancing in the streets after September 11, but much worse. Those folks are over there. Ken from Accounting is someone in daily life, and you never knew how different he was until his celebration of the acquittal. Social cohesion breaks down when one party learns that another member of his team (or so he thought) relishes the fact that a man can pick off another team member with impunity. One of Auster’s readers offers his story of this, but you may have your own memories, as well.

My experience of this racial insanity occurred when D.C.—a far worse local governmental system than you can possibly imagine—drafted me as a juror in a trial. That I was not a resident of the District was not important—I had a pulse and I was too young to stand up for myself. For D.C. drafts everyone on all of its contact lists, including university students, to serve jury duty every two years—a necessity for a city with such rampant criminality. Anyway, though an Ohioan, I thought that jury duty would be interesting, and, besides, I could not get into trouble for doing what the court clerk told me to do after I explained that I was not a D.C. resident. Having already long abandoned belief in democracy, I still clung to my Anglo-Saxon trust in trial by jury . . . but reality likes to dash illusions.

The criminal case was a simple one involving a young black man who worked in the men’s department at Nieman Marcus, an upscale store if you are not part of the clientele. He was accused of seventeen counts of theft and one count of fraud. The jury was half white and half black, with slightly more men. There was a wide ranges of ages, and I was the youngest. We were instructed not to talk to one another about the case until the prosecution and the defense both presented their sides. I thought that the prosecution clearly proved sixteen of the theft counts. I was sure that the accused was guilty of the seventeenth, as well, but the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of that last charge of theft. The prosecution had footage from the store, paperwork, and even a signed confession from the employee. The man had all of the stolen merchandise in his house. The case could not have been more settled.

Or so I thought. I was like those poor crackers mentioned earlier before they witnessed their black co-workers celebrate the Juice’s acquittal. For when we began to discuss the case, the fault lines came down along racial lines, with white jurors thinking that he was guilty and black jurors maintaing his innocence. I did not know before that black men were incapable of vice and that all bad things issue from The Man. Day after day passed, and the sheer stupidity and unreason of the folks were a devastating indictment of jury trials peopled by idiots. Race was never mentioned, but it was the glaringly obvious factor in our differences. Three days of deliberation passed. Finally, we worked out a compromise, where we would find the man innocent of the seventeen theft charges and guilty of fraud. I feel somewhat tainted for my part in this injustice, but, otherwise, a hung jury would have resulted. Some tarnish on his record was all that as was possible, given the circumstances, for this man to experience justice. Perhaps, some future employer was saved from his stealing by that fraud count on his criminal record.

During the trial, the defense attorney exploited the racial divide on the jury. He even demanded that each juror individually voice approval of the fraud charge once we rendered the verdict. It was clear to me that he knew his juries—though all of us kept to the compromise and found the man guilty of fraud.

Had I any naive noble sentiments about the commitment to justice among black Americans before, I had them no longer. With the Nieman Marcus fellow, with O.J., and with Obama’s election, nothing trumps the tribe when it comes to most blacks. As I have written before, such a tribal reflex seems universal, save when it has been educated out of folks, as has been the case in white America. The higher virtues do not come easily to mankind.

Why would one take joy in a criminal’s acquittal, though? Friends have tried to explain this celebration of injustice to me in the sense that two wrongs cancel each other out. I do not understand how or why anyone would hold such an illogical view, but evil is, after all, unintelligible.

Moreover, I am not convinced that black men get the shaft in the American justice system. If anything, our court system is absurdly stacked in favor of the defendant. If anyone complains about public counsel and its quality, then he should consider the even more meager resources of prosecutors’ offices. Statistically speaking, crime does pay in America. We are as Nietzsche predicted—a society too soft, rich, and powerful to care any more about justice, where we express our society’s stability by the toleration that we show to those who would subvert it. More crudely, letting the savages go free is democratic society’s attempt to ape the aristocratic “noblesse oblige.”

The evidence that those who would indict the American justice system put forth is the disproportionate number of blacks who are accused and convicted of crimes. That, perhaps, such is due to a disproportionate number of blacks among American criminals is not considered, though it is the obvious starting point to see whether there is such a problem. As with the Simpson trial, folks who are not caught up in racial hysteria conclude that the system is not the problem—unless it is one of indulgence toward criminals—but that black Americans do indeed proportionally commit more crimes than other demographic groups.

Why this is is quite unanswered, though there are many theories. There is the Leftist proposal that poverty causes crime—a questionable thesis, though some link between them seems definite. There are other accounts that hold that black America’s dysfunctionality is an ongoing consequence of slavery. Conservatives suggest that the welfare state has destroyed the black family and crippled blacks by facilitating destructive behavior. (Theodore Dalrymple thinks that the same is true of poor whites in Britain, which would make the issue one of bad public policy—with good intentions, of course—rather than a racial problem, though we should ask why there isn’t the same type of defunct white underclass in America.) Politically taboo explanations note that most crimes are committed by people in a certain intelligence range, regardless of their ethnic background, but that the proportion of blacks in that range is much higher than whites. (For more information, Steve Sailer has many fascinating articles about race, crime, and IQ.) I do not think that anyone knows for sure—human affairs make for sloppy science. Yet, any clear-headed person not under the spell of debilitating white guilt (Leftist whites), bilious anti-white hatred (racist blacks), or group shame (normal blacks) acknowledges the facts as they force themselves onto us every day of our lives.

Yet, men have a knack for delusion, and it is possible that even Goldberg has entered into the racial fantasy land. The presidential campaign and the racial factor therein showed that America has not transcended its racial problems. Dishonestly and willful blindness are as widespread as ever. That no one cared about Simpson’s conviction is because the demagogic cowboys were not corralling the herd in that direction—they were too busy orchestrating Obama’s election. Simpson as a symbol was so “90’s”—even Jesse Jackson has moved on. The thirst for the novel had more to do with the lack of black outrage over Simpson’s comviction than a consensus that the state should not allow murderous thugs to behave as they wish with no adverse consequences. Had the media decided to showcase Simpson, tabloid circus style, as they did in the 1990’s, we would have witnessed the same tribal impulses. National post-racial unanimity has nothing to do with it.

Posted by Joseph on Wednesday, December 10, Anno Domini 2008
Anthropology • Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

Wednesday, December 3, A.D. 2008

That Blond Target with a White Shirt, Tie, and Bicycle

Let’s not forget about the “Elder” name tags.

Last week, the editors at the National Review published “Legislating Immorality” that describes the social fall-out for Mormons after Preposition 8, which banned homosexual “marriage” in California, passed. Today, Jonah Goldberg’s “An Ugly Attack on Mormons” deals with the same. Both articles show yet another example of the Left’s blind hypocrisy and double standards, but we should not be surprised at anything villainous from such quarters. I would like to say that I am shocked at the public’s acquiescence in the face of such incivility and intolerance, but I am not. The entire scenario is unfortunately quite predictable. As the editors and Goldberg point out, Mormons are not part of the spectrum of politically correct protective classes and they are not particularly well liked by American Christians for their theological eccentricities. They thus have few allies and are easy targets. As we learnt in grade school, bullies usually prey on the weak . . .

Here is an advertisement that was run in California:

I have little respect for Americans’ political integrity, but this propaganda piece surprises even me. Is this a harbinger of what the Left has in store for us?

Posted by Joseph on Wednesday, December 3, Anno Domini 2008
Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink