Harry—if you wish to delete this entire thread, feel free.

I just love bigots. They take the bait every time.

Hey JE —Duck WOLVERINES“

And here she produces statistics showing that: blacks commmit 37% of the violent crime, or 3 times the percentage that one would expect if crime rates were equal. Voila, Jane has proved that blacks do commit proportionally more crime.

This is not something that I care to point out (Jane’s ridiculous invocation of a “hood” is as scurrilous as one would expect from her). I think there are many historical and sociological reasons that a higher crime rate would arise in the black population. That said, given that such a higher crime rate does exist, that is what gives a surface plausibility to theories like Steven Levitt’s, i.e., that aborting more poor [black] people means less crime. Anyway, for the umpteenth time, Neuhaus was DISAGREEING with Levitt, and he was using sarcasm to do so.

But a smarty pants such as yourself already knew that, right?

By Age, Sex, and Race

Law enforcement agencies that contributed arrest data to the UCR Program reported information on the age, sex, and race of the persons they arrested. According to the 2004 data, adults accounted for 84.2 percent of arrestees nationally. (See Table 38.)

A review of arrest data by age from 2003 to 2004 showed that arrests of adults increased 1.6 percent. Arrests of adults for property crimes increased 2.1 percent, but arrests of adults for violent crimes dropped 1.6 percent over the same time span. In contrast to the 2-year arrest trend of adults, the arrest total for juveniles in 2004 decreased 1.7 percent from the 2003 figure. Over the same 2-year period, arrests of juveniles for violent crimes declined 1.0 percent and for property crimes dropped 2.9 percent. (See Table 36.)

By gender, 76.2 percent of arrests in 2004 were of males. Males accounted for 82.1 percent of the total number of arrestees for violent crimes and 68.1 percent of the total for property crimes. (See Table 42.)

A review of the 2004 arrest data by race indicated that 70.8 percent of arrestees were white, 26.8 percent were black, and 2.4 percent were of other races (American Indian or Alaskan Native and Asian or Pacific Islander). Of all arrestees for violent crimes, 60.9 percent were white, 36.9 percent were black, and the remainder were of other races. Of all arrestees for property crimes, 69.3 percent were white, 28.2 percent were black and the remaining 2.5 percent were of other races. Whites were most commonly arrested for driving under the influence (893,212 arrests) and drug abuse violations (821,047 arrests). Blacks were most frequently arrested for drug abuse violations (406,890 arrests) and simple assaults (288,286 arrests).(See Table 43.) (my emphasis)

As the saying goes, the hood fits…

http://volokh.com/posts/1144956979.shtml#81717

Maybe you could take the trouble explain the whole BYU physicist “bombs planted in the World Trade Center” thing so even a simpleton like me could understand?

And please don’t stop until you get to black helicopters, the UN and fluoridated water. I want the Fully Monty.

I don’t object to activism, but I prefer that it at least tries to be honest. Henry: You are a literate person, and you can figure out sarcasm. You know that what I’m saying (about the Father Neuhaus piece that Jane criticized) is unarguably correct. Yet you can see how Jane digs in and refuses to back down from an idiotic reading of Neuhaus.

You lack basic familiarity with statistics, I see. As you can see from Table 43 here, around 48% of the nation’s murders are committed by blacks, who are about 12% of the population. This means that the black homicide rate is about 8 times the white homicide rate. You might be able to dispute a few of those cases, but there is absolutely no reasonable case to be made that the murder rates are identical.

In the Fr. Neuhaus piece that you criticized, Neuhaus was taking on Steven Levitt’s theory that because blacks have a lot of abortions, the U.S. has lowered the crime rate. Neuhaus is a strong opponent of abortion, and he was merely describing Levitt’s position sarcastically.

“Sarcasm.” Look it up.

We may be rabblerousers but on the whole we do a rather good job of keeping bigoted trash out of our comments section, especially those that like to truss it up with intelletual pretense. That is, I understand, not everyone’s policy.

What broke unions? Growing international trade, deregulation, loss of jobs to European and Japanese companies, and the move of manufacturing to the South—as well as lack of enforcement of union benefiting rules, the latter done, surreptitiously.

Roll back of social programs? Like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, earned income tax credit? Yes, after 30 years of questionable results, there were changes in welfare programs under Clinton, but can it really be argued that the conservative vocabulary accounts for it?

True; reduced tax progressivity was accomplished, but to the greatest extent it was done, confusingly and subterraneanly, by the Greenspan Commission.

And topping all else, the growth of television as the politician’s prime media connection to the voting public—television’s expense and the control corporations gained over policy by funding that expense.

At bottom the conservative “revolution” is a manifestation of 30 years of changes in technology and communications. Claiming the change is the result of intellectuals setting (selling?) new terms of political discourse is self-satisfied preening.