Exercises of Insanity (Adam Serwer & Michael Moynihan)

[Bloggingheads]

[operative]

Hmm...a left wing guy and a liberaltarian complaining about Fox, and saying that MSNBC is more balanced than Fox (LOL!!!)

Ok guys, some facts:
MSNBC had NO conservative commentators on their election coverage. Fox had around 5 liberals. MSNBC's coverage team consisted of a group of highly partisan liberals, led by Olberann and Chris ("HAVE YOU BEEN HYPNOTIZED") Matthews, whereas Fox had Chris Wallace, who is widely respected (heck even Jon Stewart praised him).

In 2008, MSNBC ran 78% negative stories on McCain. Fox ran 49% negative on Obama.

So cut this nonsense about MSNBC being less biased than Fox, because you are utterly mistaken. MSNBC is for the left what liberals believe Fox is for the right. The problem is that this is a result of Fox derangement syndrome.

[sirfith]

[QUOTE=operative;188807]Hmm...a left wing guy and a liberaltarian complaining about Fox, and saying that MSNBC is more balanced than Fox (LOL!!!)
Maybe he should read his own site
And the Award for Most Sanctimonious Non-Apology of the Week Goes To...
Rachel Maddow.

I love this quote that covers Adam Serwer.

I’m pretty sure Greg Sargent lets Adam Serwer blog at his place so he can look smart and reasonable by comparison. It’s a low barrier but it seems to work for them, so there’s that.

[net observer]

Originally Posted by operative

Hmm...a left wing guy and a liberaltarian complaining about Fox, and saying that MSNBC is more balanced than Fox (LOL!!!)...

I was under the impression that Moynihan did think MSNBC was more or less the equivalent of Fox. While I don't think that, it's a moot point either way.

Both Fox and MSNBC are aimed at specific corners of the political spectrum. That's like saying we need air to breathe. So what? If you know you're looking at a quasi-propaganda machine just take it for what it's worth. Thankfully, in the age of the Internet, we have a ton of alternative news sources. Use the amalgam to get closer to the truth. Much of the rest is academic conversation.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Ok guys, some facts:
MSNBC had NO conservative commentators on their election coverage. Fox had around 5 liberals.

Name them, please.

If three of them are going to be Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, and Geraldine Ferraro, I invite you to save yourself the bother.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Name them, please.

If three of them are going to be Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, and Geraldine Ferraro, I invite you to save yourself the bother.

Alan Colms (sic), too, and I think there was someone else but I forget their name. But I forgot that you get to decide which liberals count as actual liberals. That way even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you can continue with your illusion that Fox had no idealogical balance on election night. Basically, you will dismiss any liberal who goes on Fox as not really a liberal.

So, why don't we say it this way: Fox had on several people who most people, besides bjkeefe, consider to be liberals, and who objectively were giving alternative viewpoints. MSNBC, conversely, had no one other than lefties. MSNBC was an echo chamber, Fox was not.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Alan Colms (sic), too, and I think there was someone else but I forget their name. But I forgot that you get to decide which liberals count as actual liberals. That way even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you can continue with your illusion that Fox had no idealogical balance on election night. Basically, you will dismiss any liberal who goes on Fox as not really a liberal.

Untrue. I'd say Joe Trippi and Kirstin Powers are, broadly speaking, liberals. Whether FoxNews had "balance" in Election Night, of course, is doubtful. But who cares. It's not like I'd ever watch that channel.

And you're perfectly free to call whoever you want a liberal. As I've said before, when you're far enough out on the right, of course centrists are going to look liberal to you, just as gnats call horseflies "tall." This is why I don't care for labels of this sort -- they're well-nigh meaningless.

So, why don't we say it this way: Fox had on several people who most people, besides bjkeefe, consider to be liberals, and who objectively were giving alternative viewpoints.

Why don't we not? As I've also said before, the use of objectively is a particularly lame attempt to assert one's opinion is fact. That word is overused like few others, and almost always inappropriately. Just because you're feeling defensive about what FoxNews and its viewers call "liberals" and thereby can't stop sputtering, it doesn't make your subjective judgment something everyone would agree is beyond dispute.

I do notice you've backed off from "five," though. So I guess you're already acknowledging my point deep down.

Also: "idealogical" deserved a "(sic)" of its own. And for future reference, be advised that Google is there to help.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Untrue. I'd say Joe Trippi and Kirstin Powers are, broadly speaking, liberals. Whether FoxNews had "balance" in Election Night, of course, is doubtful. But who cares. It's not like I'd ever watch that channel.

And you're perfectly free to call whoever you want a liberal. As I've said before, when you're far enough out on the right, of course centrists are going to look liberal to you, just as gnats call horseflies "tall." This is why I don't care for labels of this sort -- they're well-nigh meaningless.



Why don't we not? As I've also said before, the use of objectively is a particularly lame attempt to assert one's opinion is fact. That word is overused like few others, and almost always inappropriately. Just because you're feeling defensive about what FoxNews and its viewers call "liberals" and thereby can't stop sputtering, it doesn't make your subjective judgment something everyone would agree is beyond dispute.

I do notice you've backed off from "five," though. So I guess you're already acknowledging my point deep down.

Also: "idealogical" deserved a "(sic)" of its own. And for future reference, be advised that Google is there to help.

The self righteous, I'm going to speak truth to power Fox remote is fairly precious. And obnoxious to boot. Are people really rude enough to use that to change the channel in public places where the owners have presumably picked a channel?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

The self righteous, I'm going to speak truth to power Fox remote is fairly precious. And obnoxious to boot. Are people really rude enough to use that to change the channel in public places where the owners have presumably picked a channel?

We can only hope.

And I don't know about "rude." In my experience, people who run places where they hope to sell food, drink, a comfortable atmosphere, etc., put the teevee on what they think their customers might want, and are only too happy to change the channel if asked. (Within limits -- you can't go into a sports bar during the Super Bowl and say you simply don't care for that football stuff, of course.)

I'd conjecture that Fox gets put on by default in some places because it's been the case (waiting areas, especially) that there's been a history of self-appointed culture warriors making a fuss about the BIASED LIBRUL MEDIA if any other channel gets put on, whereas outside that slice of the population, most people don't usually care to make a fuss, even if they don't much like what's on. Which is sort of the point of the Color of Change campaign -- to encourage people not to let right-wing blowhards control everything, just because they tend to be more shouty and unpleasant as a rule.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Untrue. I'd say Joe Trippi and Kirstin Powers are, broadly speaking, liberals. Whether FoxNews had "balance" in Election Night, of course, is doubtful. But who cares. It's not like I'd ever watch that channel.

And you're perfectly free to call whoever you want a liberal. As I've said before, when you're far enough out on the right, of course centrists are going to look liberal to you, just as gnats call horseflies "tall." This is why I don't care for labels of this sort -- they're well-nigh meaningless.



Why don't we not? As I've also said before, the use of objectively is a particularly lame attempt to assert one's opinion is fact. That word is overused like few others, and almost always inappropriately. Just because you're feeling defensive about what FoxNews and its viewers call "liberals" and thereby can't stop sputtering, it doesn't make your subjective judgment something everyone would agree is beyond dispute.

I do notice you've backed off from "five," though. So I guess you're already acknowledging my point deep down.

Also: "idealogical" deserved a "(sic)" of its own. And for future reference, be advised that Google is there to help.

Ideological is one of the lamest constructed of all English words. It's why 中文 is so much better.

I think you're trying to dodge the core issue here: Fox had people on giving alternative viewpoints. MSNBC did not. You can complain about just how 'liberal' they are, but they were there giving views that were different than Hannity's. MSNBC had no such thing.

And this is the difference between Fox and NPR/MSNBC: the former has idealogical diversity, the latter do not.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by operative

Ideological is one of the lamest constructed of all English words. It's why 中文 is so much better.

I think you're trying to dodge the core issue here: Fox had people on giving alternative viewpoints. MSNBC did not. You can complain about just how 'liberal' they are, but they were there giving views that were different than Hannity's. MSNBC had no such thing.

And this is the difference between Fox and NPR/MSNBC: the former has idealogical diversity, the latter do not.

What makes Fox much more balanced, in my view, then MSLSD, is that all of the Fox hosts will, every night, include at least one ARTICULATE MAINSTREAM center-left person on, in which a straightforward exchange of views occurs.

MSLSD (in evening programming) only speaks in choreographed dialog with people they agree with (Olbermann) or if they have right wingers on, they are not there for an honest exchange of views. They are almost always fringe figures who are selected for one reason: a transparent attempt to portray them as representatives of mainstream right-center views, while making fools of them. This is Maddows and Mathews(to a slight lesser extent).

For example: Governor Ed Rendell is a regular on Fox (Greta), you will never see a Christie or Pataki as a regular on any MSLSD evening program.

There is one exception. Morning Joe on MSLSD is great. This best show on cable news in my opinion. And very balanced with articulate, mainstream pundits for both sides.

[operative]

Originally Posted by whburgess

What makes Fox much more balanced, in my view, then MSLSD, is that all of the Fox hosts will, every night, include at least one ARTICULATE MAINSTREAM center-left person on, in which a straightforward exchange of views occurs.

MSLSD (in evening programming) only speaks in choreographed dialog with people they agree with (Olbermann) or if they have right wingers on, they are not there for an honest exchange of views. They are almost always fringe figures who are selected for one reason: a transparent attempt to portray them as representatives of mainstream right-center views, while making fools of them. This is Maddows and Mathews(to a slight lesser extent).

For example: Governor Ed Rendell is a regular on Fox (Greta), you will never see a Christie or Pataki as a regular on any MSLSD evening program.

There is one exception. Morning Joe on MSLSD is great. This best show on cable news in my opinion. And very balanced with articulate, mainstream pundits for both sides.

Yeah, I agree on both fronts. I think the only reason they keep Morning Joe is because Scarborough is the most plugged in of any morning host.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Ideological is one of the lamest constructed of all English words.

So, in addition to not knowing how to spell it, you don't know how to pronounce it, either, it appears. Sad. But gaps in your education to the side, you know what's really lame? Not knowing how to enable on-the-fly spell-checking in your browser.

I think you're trying to dodge the core issue here: ...

You think wrong. I have no brief for MSNBC. I don't watch cable teevee news, except for the occasional clip online. If you look back, you'll see that I was just curious if you had pulled that number out of the place you pull most of your numbers, and then when you didn't answer right away, I looked it up myself and realized who you were probably going to answer with. Sorry for not putting an "[Added]" to make it more clear.

I do love how defensive you're getting about Fox, though. That's probably the real core issue here, now that I think about it.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

So, in addition to not knowing how to spell it, you don't know how to pronounce it, either, it appears.

I pronounce it idea-logical, which may be a result of regional dialect or may not. Don't really care.

Sad. But gaps in your education to the side,

I didn't major in spelling. Maybe you did.

you know what's really lame? Not knowing how to enable on-the-fly spell-checking in your browser.

For some reason it didn't come up underlined. I totally care.

You think wrong. I have no brief for MSNBC. I don't watch cable teevee news, except for the occasional clip online. If you look back, you'll see that I was just curious if you had pulled that number out of the place you pull most of your numbers, and then when you didn't answer right away, I looked it up myself and realized who you were probably going to answer with. Sorry for not putting an "[Added]" to make it more clear.

I do love how defensive you're getting about Fox, though. That's probably the real core issue here, now that I think about it.

I get defensive about pretty much anything (even Obama) when people make unfair criticisms and rely on ignorant assumptions instead of facts, as you have done. You're pretty ignorant about Fox News and that fact doesn't seem to bother you, which is your loss. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Coming from you, this is especially rich.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by operative

Hmm...a left wing guy and a liberaltarian complaining about Fox, and saying that MSNBC is more balanced than Fox (LOL!!!)

This thread has certainly moved on but just in case you're still out there, I want to ask you something. As you and I both are aware, Fox and MSNBC are biased towards their respective political views, but is the presentation of ideas and events any more fair and balanced on one than the other? In other words does either organization do a better job of presenting the facts of the matter before going into their particular biased take? Does either channel blatantly lie or misrepresent the facts more than the other?

I don't consider the appearance of people from the other side as important as you do ie: election night coverage. People from the other side are often given short shrift and so what really makes the difference is whether the person from the other side can shout loud enough or refuse to be intimidated.

[operative]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

This thread has certainly moved on but just in case you're still out there, I want to ask you something. As you and I both are aware, Fox and MSNBC are biased towards their respective political views, but is the presentation of ideas and events any more fair and balanced on one than the other? In other words does either organization do a better job of presenting the facts of the matter before going into their particular biased take? Does either channel blatantly lie or misrepresent the facts more than the other?

I don't consider the appearance of people from the other side as important as you do ie: election night coverage. People from the other side are often given short shrift and so what really makes the difference is whether the person from the other side can shout loud enough or refuse to be intimidated.

tbh I never watch MSNBC and I very seldom watch Fox News. But I think that election day coverage as well as the breakdown of positive/negative coverage of candidates during the 08 election pretty well establishes that MSNBC is a different breed of animal, certainly more biased than Fox.

[operative]

I do agree with Adam and Michael that Beck's narrative is far too simplistic, but then this is the flaw in trying to apply simple narratives to history--this is, in other words, no different than the flaw with Howard Zinn's despicable body of pseudo-history.

[Winspur]

Beck is not stupid, insofar as he knows how to carry on a campaign of right-wing slander against a prominent Jew without looking too much like Rich Iott. He can convince enough viewers that he is a nice Mormon boy to keep raking in his millions.

(Rich Iott was the Republican Nazi fetishist who ran for Congress this year in Ohio and lost).

[operative]

Originally Posted by Winspur

Beck is not stupid, insofar as he knows how to carry on a campaign of right-wing slander against a prominent Jew without looking too much like Rich Iott. He can convince enough viewers that he is a nice Mormon boy to keep raking in his millions.

(Rich Iott was the Republican Nazi fetishist who ran for Congress this year in Ohio and lost).

I think that's a grossly unfair charge against Iott. His son was a history buff, and sometimes history buffs do quirky things like dress up in historical uniforms. He's no more a "Nazi fetishist" than someone who participates in a Civil War reinactment is a "Confederate fetishist."

[db63]

Originally Posted by operative

I think that's a grossly unfair charge against Iott. His son was a history buff, and sometimes history buffs do quirky things like dress up in historical uniforms. He's no more a "Nazi fetishist" than someone who participates in a Civil War reinactment is a "Confederate fetishist."

I wouldn't want a candidate who dressed up as a Confederate soldier either. It seems that doing so does not necessarily imply that one is a racist, but rather that one is completely tone deaf to the ways in which historical memory affect individuals living today. People shouldn't be barred from dressing up like their favorite SS or Confederate soldiers, but it seems completely legitimate for voters to determine they don't want a candidate representing them if they believe the candidate lacks the tact and foresight to see how their constituents would respond to their dressing up as a Panzer division that helped the Einsatzgruppen kill Jews.

[operative]

Originally Posted by db63

I wouldn't want a candidate who dressed up as a Confederate soldier either. It seems that doing so does not necessarily imply that one is a racist, but rather that one is completely tone deaf to the ways in which historical memory affect individuals living today. People shouldn't be barred from dressing up like their favorite SS or Confederate soldiers, but it seems completely legitimate for voters to determine they don't want a candidate representing them if they believe the candidate lacks the tact and foresight to see how their constituents would respond to their dressing up as a Panzer division that helped the Einsatzgruppen kill Jews.

Tone deaf yes, Nazi sympathizer no.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by db63

I wouldn't want a candidate who dressed up as a Confederate soldier either. It seems that doing so does not necessarily imply that one is a racist, but rather that one is completely tone deaf to the ways in which historical memory affect individuals living today. People shouldn't be barred from dressing up like their favorite SS or Confederate soldiers, but it seems completely legitimate for voters to determine they don't want a candidate representing them if they believe the candidate lacks the tact and foresight to see how their constituents would respond to their dressing up as a Panzer division that helped the Einsatzgruppen kill Jews.

Why would somebody, anybody, object to someone participating in a civil war reenactment? How is that "tone deaf" in any way?

[db63]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Why would somebody, anybody, object to someone participating in a civil war reenactment? How is that "tone deaf" in any way?

It is tone deaf if you are a politician.

Originally Posted by operative

I think that's a grossly unfair charge against Iott. His son was a history buff, and sometimes history buffs do quirky things like dress up in historical uniforms. He's no more a "Nazi fetishist" than someone who participates in a Civil War reinactment is a "Confederate fetishist."

I tend to agree. It's just dudes who are interested in military history. Not that big a deal. That said, conservatives gave some Democrat campaign leader/strategist a hard time for having been photographed wearing a Waffen SS t-shirt. That guy just happens to be into collecting SS items.

Whatever, I say.

[operative]

Originally Posted by Fluffy Foo Foo

I tend to agree. It's just dudes who are interested in military history. Not that big a deal. That said, conservatives gave some Democrat campaign leader/strategist a hard time for having been photographed wearing a Waffen SS t-shirt. That guy just happens to be into collecting SS items.

Whatever, I say.

Yeah it's something that's just a partisan game, really. There's a difference between being a history buff and actually being a Nazi fetishist, like Human Rights Watch's propagandist against Israel was (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/200...-obsessed.html)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Yeah it's something that's just a partisan game, really. There's a difference between being a history buff and actually being a Nazi fetishist, like Human Rights Watch's propagandist against Israel was (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/200...-obsessed.html)

Fascinating that you can't see how comically self-refuting this is.

[bkjazfan]

I guess I'm going to have to get cable tv. How else am I ging to keep up with all the attention on BHTV paid to Fox and MSNBC? Also, do I have to listen to Hannity and Limbaugh on talk radio? I never knew these cable stations and talk show hosts were so influential and important.

John

[operative]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

I guess I'm going to have to get cable tv. How else am I ging to keep up with all the attention on BHTV paid to Fox and MSNBC? Also, do I have to listen to Hannity and Limbaugh on talk radio? I never knew these cable stations and talk show hosts were so influential and important.

John

I don't think they are, tbh. Limbaugh spent all day everyday whining about McCain during the primaries in 08, launching every possible attack against him, and McCain got the nomination anyway. I bet he supported Biff Hayworth in the primary, too.

The only time they actually had a sway is with the collective insanity that was nominating Christine O'Donnell instead of Mike Castle--I think that would not have happened without Limbaugh, Palin, and DeMint.

[nikkibong]

glancing at the topic list:

Tea Party and racism, MSNBC versus Fox, the non-existent entity known as "Europe."

suggested alternate title for this one: Exercises Of Inanity.

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

glancing at the topic list:

Tea Party and racism, MSNBC versus Fox, the non-existent entity known as "Europe."

suggested alternate title for this one: Exercises Of Inanity.

Nikki,

You completely missed the value of this DV. I just learned that social liberals dislike Glenn Beck, Fox News, and the Tea Party. You can't get this kind of opinion anywhere else.

Well, maybe MSNBC, but that's it.

[ohreally]

Moynihan's smug complacency about race is a bit hard to take. So "We're OK on race matters" he asserts with confidence. Really? We don't have race riots in America for one simple reason: everyone who could riot is in prison. Yes Europe has serious ethnic problems (mostly socio-economic problems in fact) but Europe's solution is not to lock up all nonwhites. Ethnic minorities are 10 times more likely to be locked up in the US than in Europe. (I know, I know, that's because they break the law -- I guess, in Europe they just don't -- and it's got nothing to do with race... blah blah.)

As a good libertarian, Moynihan seems strangely indifferent to the insane rate of incarceration in this land of liberty. So yes "We're doing OK." Perhaps Europe can learn from us and lock up every Muslim kid. Because "we're doing OK."

[operative]

Originally Posted by ohreally

Moynihan's smug complacency about race is a bit hard to take. So "We're OK on race matters" he asserts with confidence. Really? We don't have race riots in America for one simple reason: everyone who could riot is in prison. Yes Europe has serious ethnic problems (mostly socio-economic problems in fact) but Europe's solution is not to lock up all nonwhites. Ethnic minorities are 10 times more likely to be locked up in the US than in Europe. (I know, I know, that's because they break the law -- I guess, in Europe they just don't

Well that and the fact that they give shorter sentences.

Africa Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime in America. It makes sense that they'll be in prison disproportionately. Before you attempt to impute racism to my statement, I'll also note that there is not any sort of 'genetic' or otherwise 'racial' explanation of why this is.

I will give you that there is a disparity in executions for the same offense between whites and blacks, so we do need to start executing more white people.

As a good libertarian, Moynihan seems strangely indifferent to the insane rate of incarceration in this land of liberty. So yes "We're doing OK." Perhaps Europe can learn from us and lock up every Muslim kid. Because "we're doing OK."

Because we just go around wantonly incarcerating people for the crime of being Muslim.

[ohreally]

Originally Posted by operative

Africa Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime in America. It makes sense that they'll be in prison disproportionately.

But that's not my point. Ethnic minorities in Europe are also in prison disproportionately for the same reasons. My point is that because here the likelihood of a black person going to prison is 10 times that of an ethnic minority in Europe, you end up with social calamities, such as having one third of young black men in or out of prison. And that's why you don't see race riots. Not because "We're doing OK on race matters."

[operative]

Originally Posted by ohreally

But that's not my point. Ethnic minorities in Europe are also in prison disproportionately for the same reasons. My point is that because here the likelihood of a black person going to prison is 10 times that of an ethnic minority in Europe, you end up with social calamities, such as having one third of young black men in or out of prison. And that's why you don't see race riots. Not because "We're doing OK on race matters."

Something tells me that whites are also less imprisoned in Europe. They have a different philosophy on incarceration, generally speaking. They have lighter sentences and focus more on 'rehabilitation.' If I'm not mistaken, the longest prison sentence in Sweden is 20 years.

I think it's far more productive to concentrate on ways to lower the crime rate than concentrating on the imprisonment.

[ohreally]

Originally Posted by operative

I think it's far more productive to concentrate on ways to lower the crime rate than concentrating on the imprisonment.

I couldn't agree more. But the fact is that American society has chosen to deal with the "race problem" not by creating conditions that lower crime rates but by locking up people of color. If that's how "we're doing OK on race matters" then I suggest we lock up every single black person. Then we'll do even better.

As the great writer (and notorious antisemite) Celine said: "To kill unemployment let's kill the unemployed."

The American prison system is the new plantation system. Something for all libertarians to love...

[operative]

Originally Posted by ohreally

I couldn't agree more. But the fact is that American society has chosen to deal with the "race problem" not by creating conditions that lower crime rates but by locking up people of color. If that's how "we're doing OK on race matters" then I suggest we lock up every single black person. Then we'll do even better.

As the great writer (and notorious antisemite) Celine said: "To kill unemployment let's kill the unemployed."

The American prison system is the new plantation system. Something for all libertarians to love...

I still think you're missing the point: we lock up more people than European countries. Not just blacks--whites too. As a reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/wo....12253738.html

[ohreally]

Originally Posted by operative

I still think you're missing the point: we lock up more people than European countries. Not just blacks--whites too. As a reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/wo....12253738.html

No, I agree with you. My point was NOT that we lock up all blacks and give a pass to whites. We lock up everything that moves sideways for an eternity. (I was against locking up Martha Stewart.) But the consequence is that we end up committing the worst kind of social engineering in the black population by destroying the black family: just as WWI destroyed the family in France by killing or maiming half of all male bachelors, we are tearing apart the fabric of black society with our incarceration policy. Between the ghetto and the prison, the US has successfully recreated the plantation system. So when I hear, especially from a libertarian, "We've kicked the racism syndrome," I think of the Bourbon dynasty who'd forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

[bkjazfan]

Originally Posted by ohreally

No, I agree with you. My point was NOT that we lock up all blacks and give a pass to whites. We lock up everything that moves sideways for an eternity. (I was against locking up Martha Stewart.) But the consequence is that we end up committing the worst kind of social engineering in the black population by destroying the black family: just as WWI destroyed the family in France by killing or maiming half of all male bachelors, we are tearing apart the fabric of black society with our incarceration policy. Between the ghetto and the prison, the US has successfully recreated the plantation system. So when I hear, especially from a libertarian, "We've kicked the racism syndrome," I think of the Bourbon dynasty who'd forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

There's more to the breakup of the black family than high incarceration rates for black males. Up until the mid 60's their out of wedlock birthrate was 24% now it's 73%. What happened in the last 45 years to make this dramatic jump? I have heard some ideas but it appears to be a problem that has not been adequately addressed.

Hey what's the deal I get get the audio transmission on this diavlog or any of them for that matter. This started yesterday. I am far from being a computer geek but all other audio on my computer works.

John

[operative]

Originally Posted by ohreally

No, I agree with you. My point was NOT that we lock up all blacks and give a pass to whites. We lock up everything that moves sideways for an eternity. (I was against locking up Martha Stewart.) But the consequence is that we end up committing the worst kind of social engineering in the black population by destroying the black family: just as WWI destroyed the family in France by killing or maiming half of all male bachelors, we are tearing apart the fabric of black society with our incarceration policy. Between the ghetto and the prison, the US has successfully recreated the plantation system. So when I hear, especially from a libertarian, "We've kicked the racism syndrome," I think of the Bourbon dynasty who'd forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

Well, in regards to the incarceration style, I'd also favor not locking up people who are pretty clearly not threats to society--Martha Stewart etc.

But I absolutely prefer the US approach on violent crime (actually I prefer the Singapore approach, but that's another story). If we concentrated on keeping violent criminals in prison and not putting people who are not threats to society in prison, we'd be better off.