Best of the Web Today - October 4, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
What Crime Problem?
USA Today's DeWayne Wickham weighs in on the Bill Bennett kerfuffle with a column that tries to minimize the crime problem among black Americans:
He talked, hypothetically, about aborting all black babies as a way of cutting the crime rate. While he hasn't said as much, I suspect Bennett did so because he knows that blacks make up a disproportionately high percentage of the inmates in our jails and prisons.
Of the men and women behind bars last year, 910,200 were black; 777,500 were white and 395,400 were Hispanic, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. To the casual observer--and anyone who is looking for some data to back up racist views--this might suggest that Bennett used an apt example. . . .
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' figures represent only those who were jailed for a crime. But according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, more than twice as many whites as blacks (6.7 million to 2.6 million) were arrested in 2003 for committing a crime. Whites made up 70.6% of all people arrested that year-- and 60.5% of those arrested for violent crime. Blacks totaled 27.0% of all arrests and accounted for 37.2% of the people arrested for committing a violent crime. . . .
I don't think it's a leap of faith to conclude that the scales of justice are out of balance.
Wickham assumes that arrest statistics are a better proxy for the crime rate than incarceration statistics, and concludes from the disparity between the two sets of statistics that the real problem is a justice system biased against blacks.
But Wickham's interpretation of the statistics is either misguided or disingenuous. For one thing, blacks are a small minority of the total population (12.9% as of 2000, vs. 69.1% non-Hispanic whites). Wickham doesn't adjust for this when he asserts that "more" whites are arrested than blacks.
If we adjust Wickham's figures to account for overall proportion of the population, we find that the average black person was 6.3 times as likely as the average white person to be behind bars in 2004 and 3.3 times as likely to be arrested for a violent crime in 2003. Either way you measure it, blacks have a far higher crime rate than whites.
What accounts for the apparent disparity between arrest rates and incarceration rates? Wickham's answer--racial bias in the justice system--is not wholly implausible, but it does strike us as awfully odd. What he is suggesting is that the police are the least racist part of the criminal justice system. This may be so, but it is an assertion we have never heard anyone, including Wickham, make directly. In fact, police racism is a constant refrain of liberal commentators addressing questions of race and crime, and not without justification.
The seeming disparity is easy to understand, though, when you consider that the rates of arrest and incarceration are actually measures of different populations. Criminals often spend long periods of time behind bars, during which time they are not subject to arrest. That is to say, by Wickham's figures, nonincarcerated blacks are several times as likely as nonincarcerated whites to be arrested for a violent crime.
As we argued yesterday, the high crime rate among blacks is a far bigger problem for blacks than for whites. People who respond to the problem by denying it are doing the black community a deadly disservice.
The Case for Miers
Since we are an inveterate optimist, we thought we'd round up some of the better arguments we've seen in favor of President Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
One encouraging sign is that Leonard Leo backs Miers enthusiastically:
I have worked closely with Harriet in the past and I am very excited about the president's pick of my friend. . . . Her judicial philosophy is summed up in the statement she made this morning accepting the nomination:
"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the constitution."
Leo is an executive of the Federalist Society, and we have worked closely with him in the past (he's co-editor of "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," which is available from the OpinonJournal bookstore), so his view carries considerable weight with us.
Angry Left blogger Markos Moulitsas sees the nomination as a victory for his side:
Several Democrats, including [Harry] Reid, have already come out praising Miers, which ultimately will only fuel the right-wing meltdown on the decision. . . .
This is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren't in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base. . . .
My early sense is that this is already a victory--both politically and judicially--for Democrats.
We are not wholly unworried that Moulitsas is right, but the Angry Left's proven capacity for self-delusion provides us a great deal of comfort.
Blogger Bill Dyer makes a pretty good argument against those who fear Miers will turn out to be another David Souter:
To you, me, the Senate, and the public, Harriet Miers may seem as much of a blank slate as David Souter was when Bush-41 nominated him. . . .
But that is emphatically not the case from the perspective of George W. Bush. . . . He knows, and he's always known, that the blame for an appointee who turned out to become "another Souter" would likewise be placed on him. It's a responsibility and an opportunity whose benefits and risks he sought, but that he obviously takes very seriously indeed, because from Dubya's perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become. . . .
When Dubya looks at her, he doesn't think "blank slate, might be a Souter." He thinks: "I know her, she's been my lawyer through thick and thin, and I know things about her judgment and character that nobody else knows about her, but that leave me entirely comfortable about how she'll turn out as a Justice."
David Bernstein makes an interesting argument:
What do Miers and [Chief Justice John] Roberts have in common? They both have significant executive branch experience, and both seem more likely than other potential candidates to uphold the Administration on issues related to the War on Terror (e.g., Padilla and whether a citizen arrested in the U.S. can be tried in military court).
Conservative political activists want someone who will interpret the Constitution in line with conservative judicial principles. But just as FDR's primary goal in appointing Justices was to appoint Justices that would uphold the centerpiece of his presidency, the New Deal, which coincidentally resulted in his appointing individuals who were liberal on other things, perhaps Bush sees his legacy primarily in terms of the War on Terror, and appointing Justices who will acquiesce in exercises of executive authority is his priority, even if it isn't the priority of either his base or the nation as a whole. Such Justices may be coincidentally conservative on other issues, just as FDR's nominees moved the [Supreme Court] generally to the Left.
Knight Ridder reports that "a former campaign manager says [Miers] opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989":
"She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race.
"I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president."
This column is moderately pro-abortion, but if Miers disagrees with us as a matter of policy, that argues in her favor, for we are also pro-democracy, and Roe v. Wade is a constitutional and political monstrosity that should be overturned yesterday. If Miers is really a pro-life extremist, it's unlikely that she would vote to uphold it.
John Kerry* has weighed in against Miers:
"America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation. . . . Without a meaningful exchange during the confirmation hearings, there is no way to know how Ms. Miers views the Constitution, whether she's a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, or whether she will protect fundamental rights."
This from a guy who claimed his "war hero" record qualified him to be president but refused to release his military records until after the election, and then only to a handful of friendly journalists. We wish we could say Kerry's opposition was an argument in Miers's favor, but the guy is so mindlessly partisan--he even opposed Souter!--that his words have no significance.
None of this is to say we aren't still disappointed with the Miers nomination. There were so many plainly excellent prospects, and we would have liked to have seen the president call the Democrats' bluff and have a fight, which would have been good for both the Republicans and the country. We can only hope he'll have another chance to do so--and when that chance comes, the Republicans will still have a big Senate majority.
* We'll stop doing these footnotes when Kerry supporters get the bumper stickers off their Volvos.
Exodus Excitability--II
In a press release yesterday, Exodus International announced that Harriet Miers has no connection with it:
Harriet Miers, nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, served on the board of directors of Exodus Ministry [actually Ministries] in East Dallas, an organization that assists ex-offenders in finding jobs and places to live. The organization is in not related to Exodus International, the world's largest educational and informational outreach dealing with homosexuality. Exodus International has not yet taken a position on Miers' nomination to the Court.
This was prompted by attacks on Miers, including one from Andrew Sullivan, for supposed involvement with Exodus International. As we noted yesterday, Sullivan quickly realized his error and yanked the post, but National Review's Byron York obtained a copy, and it was a dilly:
I have to say that, even after the last few years of amazement at the Bush administration's hostility to gay people, I never thought it would come to this. And this, I think is one key to unlocking the reason for Miers' nomination: it's Karl Rove's way of re-igniting the culture war, of once again using the gay issue to polarize the country, and rally his base. When these people are in a hole, they look to demonize a minority. The Southern strategy is back. But now, it's not blacks who are being used; it's gays.
This is becoming a pattern. As we noted last week, Sullivan also attacked the charming children's book "Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!" on the basis of what turned out to be a parody that featured, according to this press release, "a caricature identified as Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) clad in inappropriate pants."
Sullivan has gotten so error-prone in his mudslinging, it's as if he's a cross between David Brock and Emily Litella.
'He Was Extremely Rude'
The Yale Daily News reports on a campus appearance by John Bolton, ambassador to the U.N.:
"He was extremely rude, extremely belligerent, everything the Democrats called him in confirmation hearings," Jed Glickstein '08 said. "He was all those things, but in the end he won the debate."
Presumably the Democrats (and that crybaby Voinovich) want the country to be represented by the exact opposite: someone who is extremely polite and loses the debate.
What Would We Do Without Experts?
"Experts See Parallels in Bali and London Attacks"--headline, Reuters, Oct. 3
Help Wanted
"Police Are Looking for Armed Robber"--headline, KTRE-TV Web site (Lufkin, Texas), Oct. 3
Medical Meritocracy
"Best Admitted to Intensive Care"--headline, BBC Web site, Oct. 4
Death Wish
"Veterans Eagerly Await Cemetery"--headline, Bakersfield Californian, Oct. 2
A Chinese Thanksgiving
"Sweet and Sour Climax to Turkey's Long March"--headline, Guardian (London), Oct. 4
Not Too Brite--CXCVI
"Half a dozen Mexico City prostitutes have been arrested for using eye drops containing a sleep-inducing drug to knock out and rob their clients, leaving at least five men dead," Reuters reports.
Oddly Enough!
(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)
Homer Nods
It appears we were too hard on Islam when we criticized it yesterday for demanding the killing of a cameline victim of sexual assault. Several readers called our attention to Leviticus 20:15, which reads:
" 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. . . .' "
So if you're a camel, be wary of Christians and Jews too.
At the Movies
Red Herring reports on a bizarre bit of social science:
The motion picture industry's most profitable movies released since HIV was first isolated in the early 1980s are nearly devoid of discussion of safe sex practices, according to Australian researchers who have studied the films. . . .
"The study showed there were no references to important consequences of unsafe sex such as HIV transmission, spread of STDs, or unwanted pregnancy," said Hasantha Gunasekera, the lead author of the paper and a research fellow in children's health at Sydney University.
These researchers have some weird ideas about what makes a good movie. Remember the scene from "When Harry Met Sally" in which Meg Ryan fakes an orgasm in a deli? To hear the Australian researchers tell it, she should have delivered a lecture on the dangers of food poisoning instead. |
