April 15, 2016

Hillary Clinton demands that "white people" recognize "systemic racism," and Bernie Sanders calls Hillary Clinton a racist.

In last night's Democratic Party debate,  Errol Lewis of New York 1 Time Warner Cable News questioned Hillary Clinton about the 1994 crime bill by. She tried to shift the blame to state government...
CLINTON: The original idea was not that we would increase sentences for non-violent low-level offenders, but once the federal government did what it did, states piled on. So we have a problem....
And to Sanders...
... Senator Sanders voted for the crime bill, and he says the same thing, there were some good things, and things that we have to change and learn from....
And to the future....
So that's how I see it. And I think we ought to be putting our attention on forging a consensus to make the changes that will divert more people from the criminal justice system to start... to tackle systemic racism and divert people in the beginning.
You see that she ended with a reference to "systemic racism." Louis followed on, pushing for her to apologize to black people:
LOUIS: Now earlier this year, a South Carolina voter told your daughter Chelsea, quote, "I think a lot of African-Americans want to hear, you know what, we made a mistake." Chelsea said she has heard you apologize, but went on to say that if the voter hadn't heard it then, quote, "it's clearly insufficient." Do you regret your advocacy for the crime bill?
She won't apologize:
CLINTON: Well, look, I supported the crime bill. My husband has apologized. He was the president who actually signed it...
Why not just apologize? What kind of feminist thinks the husband's apology counts for the wife? Are they "one flesh"? If so, she's term limited and should leave the race immediately. Louis keeps pushing (interrupting as she's saying, again, that Senator Sanders voted for it):
LOUIS: But what about you, Senator?

CLINTON: I'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives.
That's a craftily constrained apology. Of course, I want a President who's good at predicting consequences. We're not going to be happy as the world falls apart to hear that the President didn't intend the unfortunate impact. She continues, pivoting again to the future, with padded, blabby language...
I've seen the results of what has happened in families and in communities. That's why I chose to make my very first speech a year ago on this issue, Errol, because I want to focus the attention of our country and to make the changes we need to make.
... and then she does something quite surprising. She speaks specifically about "white people":
And I also want people especially I want -- I want white people -- I want white people to recognize that there is systemic racism. It's also in employment, it's in housing, but it is in the criminal justice system, as well.
Normally, a politician would talk about what all Americans need to do. Calling out "white people" feels new. I hadn't noticed that kind of talk in mainstream politics. References to race are usually sympathetic. Some group needs empathy, assistance, and caring attention. I don't believe I've heard a mainstream politician talk about "white people" at all, and I don't believe we've been hearing a racial group getting told it's falling short and needs to do better. I mean, I'm not surprised that the negative reference to race is aimed at white people. I'm surprised to hear "white people" from a candidate at all.

And look out. Bernie Sanders is about to call Clinton a racist:
LOUIS: Senator Sanders, earlier this week at the Apollo Theater in Harlem, you called out President Clinton for defending Secretary Clinton's use of the term super-predator back in the '90s when she supported the crime bill. Why did you call him out?

SANDERS: Because it was a racist term, and everybody knew it was a racist term....
Everybody, back in 1994, knew "super-predator" was a racist term? Is that true? He's besmirching her as a racist and the accusation depends on an assertion about what everybody knew 2 decades ago? That's a bold, heavy-handed assertion, and I'm trying to research it. There's this:



ADDED: I searched the NYT archive for "superpredator" and put the results in chronological order.



The first was a 1972 article about a theory of animal extinction 11,000 years ago, but after that, the next 2 are in 1998, 2 years after the act was passed, and then nothing until 2001, when there's a report about John Dilulio's regret for using the term. Dilulio and his regret are prominently featured in that NYT video I embedded above, so I suspect revisionist history about "superpredator. " I question the prevalence of the term at the time, and, again, I question Sanders' "everybody knew it was a racist term."

Pursuing that question — how racist was "superpredator"? — let's look at those 2 NYT articles from 1998. The first is in April, by Ann Powers, "Who Are These People, Anyway?"
In the 90's, stereotypes about teen-agers have been inflated to ridiculous proportions. Adolescents are causing trouble everywhere: getting sexual on ''Dawson's Creek,'' lurking in melodramatic movies like ''Kids'' and ''Hurricane Streets,'' scowling seductively in Calvin Klein ads and then seeming to bring the perversity of those images to life in shocking tabloid tales. The juvenile delinquent has become the superpredator. The troubled teen-ager needs Prozac. Lolita is Everygirl, pushing up adolescent birth rates in her hot pants and navel ring.
This article is about teenagers more generally, and "superpredator" is used in the context of inflating everything to ridiculous proportions. But the reader is expected to be familiar with the term. Perhaps the NYT has an editorial practice of avoiding using it. This isn't a use, it's a mention (as the "use-mention" distinction would have it). Mentioning works because the reader knows what you are referring to, so I'm reading this article to mean that "superpredator" was an established  term, though there's no evidence that it was understood as racist. In fact, the suggestion is otherwise, since Powers is talking about teenagers in general and the other teenagers in that paragraph seem quite white.



The second 1998 article, from December, is by none other than Fox Butterfield — he of the "Butterfield Effect." The Butterfield Effect originated in the context the larger topic this post is about, putting lots of people in prison for a long time. Butterfield wrote an article in the NYT that had the headline "More Inmates, Despite Drop In Crime," which many people regarded that as ludicrously obtuse, simultaneously expressing puzzlement and a clear explanation for the supposed cause of the puzzlement.

But this 1998 Fox Butterfield article is "Guns Blamed for Rise in Homicides by Youths in 80's."
As homicide rates have dropped the past few years, criminal-justice experts have warned that they could soon rise again as a generation of superpredator juveniles came of age. But that fear is being called into question by new studies that show that virtually all the increase in homicides by juveniles in the late 1980's was attributable to crimes committed with handguns, not to a change in the nature of teen-agers.....

Prof. Franklin Zimring, who wrote [one] of the studies.... said that the reclassification by the police of juvenile fights into aggravated assaults ''created a completely artificial crime wave.'' ''The truth is that all during the late 80's and early 90's, while we worried about superpredators, the average case of juvenile violence was becoming less serious every year,'' Professor Zimring said.
So, again, it's a reference to how other people have been using the term and how the term is overblown. There is no indication that the alarmism about juvenile crime was racist or racial. Maybe the NYT had a practice of avoiding racial details back then.

AND: Here's what Hillary said in 1996:
We also have to have an organized effort against gangs, just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'superpredators.' No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel. And the president has asked the FBI to launch a very concerted effort against gangs everywhere.

172 comments:

Robert Cook said...

"Everybody, back in 1994, knew 'super-predator' was a racist term? Is that true?"

Yes...except for the racists, who thought it an objective description.

Michael K said...

Pandering is a lost art. The Democrats will need to start putting on blackface if this goes on longer.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Just because the term "super predator" applies primarily to members of one race does not make it racist.

Ann Althouse said...

@Robert Cook

If you're going to accuse someone of racism -- and Hillary is accused of racism for using the term -- then point to some specific evidence. Don't just say "everybody knew." And it's a low trick to say: Anyone who didn't know is (or was) a racist. That's doubling down on cheap racism accusations. Maybe you think it's funny. I understand the humor structure of what you wrote. But it's a serious business, lobbing the "racist" accusation around, and you should be careful and you should support yourself with evidence. Otherwise, you are cheapening the very term you seem to think is important and meaningful.

rhhardin said...

Sandra Bullock in Gun Shy has night: wonderful as a cheerful barium enema nurse working with our suffering miserable hero on the table, on her job, "same shit, different assholes."

It works everywhere these days.

damikesc said...

If you're going to accuse someone of racism -- and Hillary is accused of racism for using the term -- then point to some specific evidence

She's condemned white folks as being racist because they're white. In what universe is this NOT unbelievably racist?

And she's more racist than anybody here because she's WAY more part of the system than any of us.

Otherwise, you are cheapening the very term you seem to think is important and meaningful.

The term is already meaningless. On campuses, being white is enough to be racist. So can you explain why I, as a white man, should give the tiniest sliver of a rat's ass about "racism"? If a black guy cannot get a job, why should I care? I'm going to be "racist" either way, so I say let the minority fend for him/herself.

damikesc said...

Calling out "white people" feels new. I hadn't noticed that kind of talk in mainstream politics. References to race are usually sympathetic.

Also, any white person voting for a Democrat is an idiot. They HATE you. They aren't on your side. The comments of the lead candidates provide no other alternative explanation.

rhhardin said...

Racism is a comic accusation these days, starting with the OJ trial verdict, when whites stopped caring what blacks thought.

Doubling down didn't and doesn't work.

Literal racism is benign. Blacks have an average IQ of 86 (US). That's not a failing but a clue about what will work and what will fail policywise. Outcome-based stuff is going to make things worse, as it already has.

Things that raise the value of good character will make things better.

Who do we teach blacks to admire these days?

damikesc said...

"super predator" isn't racist.

Basically everything else said was virulently anti-white. Which is also inherently racist.

Good luck with the country when the white working class decides to stop working. The elites won't much like the results.

MayBee said...

From what I remember about 1994- and I don't remember this speech specifically- was people were concerned that children in high crime areas didn't stand a chance against drug dealers, and also that people too easily got out of punishment. Maybe it was a little earlier than that prisoners were being let out early because of prison over crowding, even dangerous criminals.

New York was still really dangerous and seedy. People wanted a change in big cities and in the nation.

Michael K said...

"Otherwise, you are cheapening the very term you seem to think is important and meaningful."

It has lost whatever credibility it once had. It's just a generic like "Hitler" to use to signal you don't like someone.

Eventually, it will drive everyone from big cities that will become unlivable. I saw an article in the Chicago Tribune about how blacks are leaving the neighborhood where I grew up in Chicago. It was the nicest place to live in the city when I was a kid. Parks, near the lake to moderate temperature in summer and winter, public transit for those who did not drive. Now it is the murder capital of the city.

What changed ?

Guess.

MayBee said...

I don't get why its ok to call out "white people" as bad. What do little white children think? How does it benefit anyone?

EDH said...

Here's a new term for Hillary: "Super-Panderer."

Or would that be "sexist"?

Sydney said...

I can't even remember this term "super-predator" being used much back then or being used to shape public policy. I think I was fairly politically aware in those days. Weren't those the days of Rodney King riots? And OJ Simpson trial? I remember a lot of discussion of racism, but never the term super-predator. I don't think it was even on the radar, let alone considered racist back then.

MayBee said...

I'm trying to figure out what all this bad white people talk is supposed to accomplish.
Detroit is the city I think of when I think of politicians who held on to power by demonizing white people. It didn't really work out well.

To what end?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

As a white person (TM), I don't have any response other than a vague mild annoyance when a stranger, whether it's some campus doofus or Hillary Clinton, accuses me of being a racist based on assumptions they make based on my ancestry. I certainly don't feel moved to "have a conversation" or "examine systemic racism" or "check my privilege."

I do what I always do, which is love my family and community (both of which are quite diverse, thanks), do my best to treat everyone fairly and don't give a flying fart about Know Betters who want to lecture me about that of which they are entirely ignorant.

I outline this because I believe that this is the case for the middle of the bell curve for most white Americans. Anyone who takes seriously the nonsense about racism spouted by either Sanders or Clinton is a weirdo outlier anyway.

bagoh20 said...

"But it's a serious business, lobbing the "racist" accusation around, ..."

It should be, but obviously it's not. It's now just another rock of many lying about that you can pick up and throw at people for leverage. True also of terms like "systemic racism" which are just signals begging certain people to accept you.

exhelodrvr1 said...

The Obama administration and campaigns were significant contributors to the cheapening of the racist/racism terms and to the worsening of race relations.

damikesc said...

I'm trying to figure out what all this bad white people talk is supposed to accomplish.
Detroit is the city I think of when I think of politicians who held on to power by demonizing white people. It didn't really work out well.


Whites are the largest group here. Just attacking us relentlessly seems stupid. More and more of us have stopped feeling any tiny sliver of guilt about anything in the past.

(I once got chewed out for asking "Why aren't you angrier at your own people for selling your ancestors in the first place? Europeans didn't kidnap anybody")

White folks need to realize that the DNC HATES YOUR GUTS. If a Republican made comments about ANY group even a fraction of as hateful as what the Left says about white folks in passing, nobody would disagree with my sentiment.

If a party hates you, then why in the hell do you ever support them?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I'm trying to figure out what all this bad white people talk is supposed to accomplish.

Obama's most enthusiastic voting block is up for grabs. A Democrat can't win without it.

Tank said...

CLINTON: I'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives.

This here sums up Hillary "The Vagina" Clinton's political career in a nutshell.

==========================

There has been an attack on white people, and what white people created in the United States and Europe, for a long time. It's better to have it out in the open. And by white people, I mean mostly white men (the evildoers themselves).

=============================

How come all the black and brown people in the world want to come live in the white people countries? How come?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

All this demonizing just bums me right out.

Oso Negro said...

Systemic racism? Sorry, I recognize NOTHING of the sort. All of my working life, my employment outcomes would have been enhanced had I been black. At university, there would have been additional opportunities and funds available to me. Further, I can think of NO African country where the standard of living for blacks exceeds that of the United States. We have the most coddled class of Negroes in the history of the world and STILL it is not enough. I want no lectures about my white privilege or systemic racism.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I admit I haven't been following these discussions of race and crime and superpredators and so forth, because A. I think it's a little ridiculous to rake someone over the coals for policy decisions her husband made twenty years ago, and B. I can't stand either Team Sanders or Team Clinton so I've been avoiding the story. But, that said, I feel way more sympathy for little kids and vulnerable old grandmas who had/have to live in these crime-ridden hellholes than I do for the [perhaps? evidently? I dunno, but am openminded on the subject?] over-punished young men who were the people to whom Clinton was apparently apologizing.

Robert Cook said...

It was clear at the time that when Clinton referred to "superpredators," she was summoning up visions of hordes of inner-city (i.e., black and hispanic) youths spilling out of their debased home-turf to bring beatings, robbery, rape, and violence to white suburbs across America. If I can find any contemporary documents from the time online, I'll post links, but I do remember it and it seemed inflammatory and ludicrous even then.

It's as much an appeal to irrational fears as are the current references to "terrorists," (i.e., Muslims), who, we are encouraged to believe--the better to induce our acceptance of more draconian police tactics--are this close to breaching our borders and inflicting a wave of bombings and beheadings on the American continent. In reality, any one of us is more likely to be injured or killed by lightning strike or accidents in the home than by terrorist acts, or at the hands of "superpredators."

Mike Sylwester said...

it's a serious business, lobbing the "racist" accusation around

For Scientific Progressives, making racism accusations is a reflexive rhetorical device.

When a Scientific Progressive perceives that someone disagrees with him on a social or political issue, then he makes a racism accusation reflexively.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

hordes of inner-city (i.e., black and hispanic) youths spilling out of their debased home-turf to bring beatings, robbery, rape, and violence to white suburbs across America.

Is that what it was? Honest question. I wasn't paying attention; I was in the eighth grade. Or was it hordes of youths terrorizing their own neighborhoods? Was anyone concerned about things like grannies shooing drug dealers out of their yards or little kids being shot in drive bys or pressed into service as gofers for gangbangers? I don't know what the rhetoric was like so that's why I'm asking.

tim in vermont said...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/03/23/rare-rainbow-bird-seen-vt/82175114/

More Bernie bird magic.

Amadeus 48 said...

These idiots can chase their tails around the yard for the rest of the year. In the meantime, lots of issues that need responsible leadership languish. I don't think one-upsmanship on identity politics gets us very far.
Every time someone tells me they want to have a conversation about race in America, I say OK, let's have a conversation. Why are 75% of African-American babies born out of wedlock? It turns out they don't want to have a conversation. They want to lecture me (and every other white person in the world). This goes nowhere.

Andrew Lale said...

I thought collective responsibility was EVIL, with a capital E? Why am I responsible for the crimes of some southern plantation owners? At the time they were swanning around drinking their Mint Juleps my ancestors were working in some southern English fields.

Hagar said...

Ernestine Blofeld "debates" Mario Savio (ghost of).

Sebastian said...

"Of course, I want a President who's good at predicting consequences" No, you don't.

"and then she does something quite surprising" Faux surprise, right? I mean, Progs have been playing the race card for quite a while now.

"If you're going to accuse someone of racism . . . then point to some specific evidence. Don't just say "everybody knew." And it's a low trick to say: Anyone who didn't know is (or was) a racist." So nice of you to try to police Prog tactics. But also utterly beside the point. The point is whether the accusations work. As long as the race card can trump others, it will be used; otherwise, not. Prog pandering is one low trick.

MayBee said...

If Clinton or Sanders have specific changes they want made to quell the system injustice in the criminal justice system, I am happy to hear it. I do think there are a lot of flaws in the system.

I'm thinking of Brian Banks and Brandon Dassey, but they are far from alone. In general, I think our society has gotten life-ruiney, whether it's on Twitter (the science shirt guy) or minor in possession charges, or I'm sure jail time for urban youth.

But let's hear the answer, and it can't be "no profiling" because that is not an answer.

pm317 said...

Could we not get a better opposition candidate than that angry old man Bernie on the Democratic side? And he is supported by the same 20 year olds that gave us Obama last go around. How has that worked? His supporters are the epitome of "the victim culture that has turned into a victimizing culture."

Jim said...

Because dividing people into tribes is a typical leftist tactic. The Stalinists did it, as did other totalitarian ruling groups. It is a cheap and easy way to make things worse, while saying you are making things better.
The current fool who is president is a master at this style.
The tactic, and much of the so called 'debate' should take place on a middle school playground. Adults usually find such cheap BS to be embarrassing. Or maybe I should use the past tense.
Other than that, its just a pissing contest to choose who gives away the largest share of my money.

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Cook at 7:37 AM

when Clinton referred to "superpredators," she was summoning up visions of hordes of inner-city (i.e., black and hispanic) youths spilling out of their debased home-turf to bring beatings, robbery, rape, and violence to white suburbs across America

I remember the issue differently.

The issue was that a small portion of people were extremely vicious sociopaths. I was concerned about the issue and read a lot about it at the time. There was no racial focus in the discussion.

Any talk about crime, however, causes Scientific Progressives to perceive racism insinuations in the talk. If someone is expressing concern about crime, then he is a racist.

pm317 said...

I am not happy that Hillary said that thing about white people and system racism either. She is pandering to a certain "vote bank" and glorifying race baiting we have seen in the golden age of Obama.

MayBee said...

Pants and Robert Cook-

What I remember was going to trigger the black youths going into the white neighborhoods to beat up people was the welfare reform Clinton signed. I remember some of the construction guys I had working on my house being concerned about that in the 1990's. But I don't think it was a day to day concern for the crime bill.
There were home invasions happening at the time, I remember that from living in Florida. With all the early release programs it really felt like there was no need to even prosecute a certain % of criminals because they were just going to get out.

This was when most of our big cities were pretty gritty. I think a lot of people- especially millennials- don't remember how awful New York City was.

Roy Jacobsen said...

The Democrat party is the party of blatant racism against whites and blatant sexism against men.

JCCamp said...

First, the '94 crime bill was much more about encouraging or enforcing STATE minimum mandatory sentencing, to correct state policies which in effect allowed convicted felons to enter through one door and almost immediately exit via another on parole or probation. The Feds did through through selective grants and funding - just like they do now - but only if the beneficiary of their largess would adopt policies which fit the DOJ model.

In fact, there was terrible and uneven state sentencing at the time, even intra-state. Urban areas typically would have persons who would be convicted of violent crime after violent crime, but who remained free, while in another, more rural jurisdiction or venue, someone convicted of a relatively minor, non-violent crime might b sentenced to a term of years.

As for "super-predator", even though I was certainly active in the process at the time, I don't remember the common use of that term, but it surely applied to many of the defendants who cruised through the system. A very small minority of persons were responsible for a very large proportion of the violent crime (just like now), and certainly of the violent crime committed for profit. And it was true then just as it is now that blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately (in differing degrees) represented in the offending populations. That's not racism. it's just a fact.

So, if your take on all this is that if the results of any survey disproportionately (in terms of ethnicity) arrive at a conclusion equates automatically with racism, then "super predator" is indeed racist. But, in reality, you're the racist, for observing data and seeing bias.

Bob Boyd said...

She's basically saying it's her job to push through huge federal initiatives, but after that she's not responsible for any "unintended consequences".

We eliminated Glass Steagall and changed the CRA, "but once the federal government did what it did", the banks piled on.
"I'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives." But am I responsible? Oh Hell no! Bill did it, truth be told.

We pushed through NAFTA,"but once the federal government did what it did", the manufacturers piled on.
"I'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives." But am I responsible? Oh Hell no! Bill was all Nafta Nafta Nafta. I was just co-president.

We took out Gaddafi, "but once the federal government did what it did", the extremist groups piled on.
"I'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives." But am I responsible? Oh Hell no! Obama signed the orders. Talk to him.

We tried to topple Assad in Syria, "but once the federal government did what it did", the banks piled on.
"I'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives." But am I responsible? Oh Hell no! I was working for Obama. He signed the orders.

Owen said...

#BlackVotesMatter

exhelodrvr1 said...

Robert,
" In reality, any one of us is more likely to be injured or killed by lightning strike or accidents in the home than by terrorist acts, or at the hands of "superpredators.""

Also, traffic deaths, drownings, surgeons' mistakes, and by choking on food. So let's not address terrorism and gangs, because they probably won't directly affect me or my family.

MayBee said...

I want to hear what the Democrats here thought of the debate last night. We haven't heard from Garage for a while.

Do you guys like what you are hearing from the Democrat Party? I understand you won't like what you are hearing from Republicans, but do you proactively like the Dem discussion?

Owen said...

Bob Boyd @ 7:57: brilliant.

She is almost as good as Obama at blameshift. Like watching Wayne Gretzky slide through traffic toward another score.

Robert Cook said...

"Or was it hordes of youths terrorizing their own neighborhoods?"

No one was in a panic over the threat of suburban white teens terrorizing their own neighborhoods.

pm317 said...

Who dredged up that 1990s video of Hillary? Isn't there a statute of limitation on the use of what any politician says? It is wrong and meaningless to analyze the use of that term in today's context and feed the frenzy of the victimizers.

jr565 said...

Super predator referring to criminals or gang members is not a racist term. It refers to criminals. Who can be white black Asian Hispanic.

Owen said...

Maybes @ 7:54: "...This was when most of our big cities were pretty gritty..."

Yes. Yes, they were. New York in the late 70's through the mid 90's? A troubled town. Movies like "Dirty Harry" and "Death Wish" did not emerge from a cultural vacuum.

Mike Sylwester said...

JCCamp at 7:56 AM

A very small minority of persons were responsible for a very large proportion of the violent crime (just like now), and certainly of the violent crime committed for profit.

That is how the issue was formulated.

The talk was about a tiny minority of persons -- the very worst, most vicious, recidivist criminals. They were so bad that they should be kept in prison as long as possible.

This was not talk about a large demographic group like young Black males.

tim in vermont said...

Bob Boyd +50

Robert Cook said...

"Super predator referring to criminals or gang members is not a racist term. It refers to criminals. Who can be white black Asian Hispanic."

No one was in a panic over white or asian "superpredators.

tim in vermont said...

You know liberals have perfect models of conservatives in their heads and can run scientific experiments that could even be peer reviewed, so don't question them loser.

chickelit said...

If elected, perhaps Hillary can carry out some vindiction against white people. Especially the unrepentant and the ones persecuting her.

MayBee said...

No one was in a panic over white or asian "super predators.

Should they have been?

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Cook:

No one was in a panic over white or asian "superpredators.

The issue was not discussed in racial terms. I read a lot about it at the time.

The issue was discussed in terms of viciousness and incorrigibility.

The prominent demographic consideration was youth. When the "super predators" were young, it was especially important to imprison them early and long.

tim in vermont said...

Ted Bundy was white, as are most serial killers.

MayBee said...

In 1994, Ted Bundy had only been dead 5 years. He had escaped from several prisons and it took 11 years to go through the appeals process. It's not like nobody thought white people were predators as well.

buwaya puti said...

In those days I was living in Oakland CA, in a rather nice part of it, and I was mugged twice in a year. Pretty much all our neighbors were similarly mugged, robbed, or burgled.
The Asian residents (there were fewer then) in the poor parts lived in fear, the general, unrelieved predation on them - murdered with impunity - was actively suppressed in the newspapers.
It certainly wasn't white teens doing all this. Ask me how I know.

MayBee said...

OMG, Tim in Vermont. Mind meld.

Anglelyne said...

"Systemic racism" (see also "white privilege", institutionalized racism", "microaggression") is just another epicycle added to an ever-clunkier Ptolemaic theory of race relations.

MayBee said...

Haing S Ngor was killed by "Oriental Lazy Boyz" street gang in Chinatown, LA in 1996. So it isn't like Asian Street gangs didn't exist at the time.

Robert Cook said...

"The issue was not discussed in racial terms. I read a lot about it at the time.

"The issue was discussed in terms of viciousness and incorrigibility.

"The prominent demographic consideration was youth. When the 'super predators' were young, it was especially important to imprison them early and long."



The term "superpredator" itself is code for "inner-city" or "ethnic" (i.e., black or hispanic) offenders; this is how public discussion in America is carried out, by insinuation and use of coded terms.

Robert Cook said...

"Haing S Ngor was killed by "Oriental Lazy Boyz" street gang in Chinatown, LA in 1996. So it isn't like Asian Street gangs didn't exist at the time."

Of course they did, and they still do. But Americans at large are not afraid of becoming victims of asian street gangs.

Shannon said...

A few thoughts:

1) Sanders is obviously wrong about "superpredator" being a racist term, and that assumption itself is racist because it is a neutral term and to assume it refers to black people says more about your assumption than the normal use of the term itself. The fact that Clinton didn't (or couldn't) call him on it says something sad about the Democratic party.

2) Clintons never can apologize. A real defect in leadership.

3) Clinton should have been in a good position to defend the crime bill by pointing out how well it benefits the most likely victims of crime, which tend to be disproportionately poor, black and vulnerable. What is the Democratic party if it cannot work for the poor, black and vulnerable? It could have been a risky but admirable position, which I believe would not have hurt her chances to wrap up the nomination (mathematically Sanders is not going to win) and set up a good pivot for the general election, and even critics like me would have had to give her credit for a good answer. But Clinton's political instincts are poor, so she replied with mush and stuck to her usual tactic--shift the blame onto Sanders, embrace Obama (hint hint, black voters!), and throw out a lot of mush about what she really stands for. After that debate I really can't tell what she thinks specifically about the minimum wage (she wants to raise it, but with caveats that were all over the place), criminal justice reform, energy policy, etc.

AMDG said...

How long before she goes from speaking of "white privilege" to support for reparations?

How long before reparations are a mainstream Democrat policy?

MayBee said...

Robert Cook-
Americans by and large are not, but those who live/lived in their neighborhoods are/were.

If someone in the 1980's and 1990's was going to be afraid of street crime/stranger violent crime, who should have been afraid and whom should have they feared?

Anglelyne said...

tim in vermont: Ted Bundy was white, as are most serial killers.

"Serial killing is a white thing" is an urban legend. (Same with mass-murderers, iianm). Proportional to population, whites are under-represented among serial killers; blacks over-represented.

MayBee said...

If the Democrats were different, they could say it was a bill that seemed good at the time but as with all laws, it needs tweaking after we see the results.

They can't say that, though, because they don't want to tweak things like voting rights, affirmative action, public union pensions,etc. They want to pile on, not re-evaluate or ease up on laws.

Michael said...

The term "super predator" is new to me. It is not code for anything and never has been until these vile people began to use language as an ingredient in their poisonous ideology and lust for power.

MayBee said...

There is simply no way people who wrote or supported the 1994 Crime Bill had the desire to see large numbers of innocent black men locked away in prison. So it is ridiculous to start from that baseline now, even if they believe that is what has happened.

Let's look at poorer urban areas and evaluate what the problems are there. The problem doesn't start with young men going to prison. That is a result of a problem, and not a criminal justice problem. Who will get to the bottom of what that problem is and do something about it? I know the Democrats like to pretend Universal Pre-K and outlawing profiling will solve the problems of urban youth. But come on. They can do better.

At the debate yesterday, Bernie quoted the urban youth unemployment rate and it was really high. Does he think a $15/hour minimum wage is going to solve that?

It's so easy to just yell "Systemic Racism!" and pretend that is a solution.

M Jordan said...

Y'know, I'm no Clinton apologist but anytime I see a politician refuse to apologize to the oppressed via the media I say, You go girl ... Or guy. Apologies are for guilt-stricten individuals to offer to people they have offended, one on one. Public apologies are crap. And public apologies on behalf of others -- such as Obama is about to deliver to the Japanese for Hiroshina -- are worse than crap. Donal Trump's refusal to apologize to Michelle Fields was a high ware mark in his campaign, IMHO.

Birkel said...

The problem with white folks is their entrenched belief in self-determination outside of government control.

Any port in a communist storm for Robert Cook, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Racial politics are simply a tool for turning bourgeois values on their logical heads.

Mike Sylwester said...

The last time that I remember the expression "super predator" being used in discussions about crime was at least a quarter century ago.

There was a period of about two years when the expression was discussed a lot, but it soon became obsolete.

Now this expression has popped back up into discussion, because Scientific Progressives have adopted it as a new fad in their racism accusations.

It would be like if Sanders and Clinton suddenly started mocking each other for using the word "groovy" during the 1960s.

Rick said...

Controlling language and using it to create mythology was a tactic of the original political radicals more than a century ago. Think about who these people are.

Owen said...

Shannon @ 8:45: spot on, astute comments. Here, have a whole bag of upvotes.

Robert Cook: as Shannon says, there is nothing racist in a term like "superpredator." That meaning or value has to be "decoded" (I would say "arbitrarily imposed"), which you seem confident and eager to do for others here despite their protestations. It is inflammatory as hell and thus should be supported by strong evidence. Lots of independent observations from actual usage, preferably separated in time and space and reported by multiple observers with good resumes. Thar's what Prof. Althouse tries to give us. What do you offer?

Dr Weevil said...

Here's a data point. I lived in San Francisco 1979-81. My company's 20-something Chinese-American accountant had a boyfriend, also 20-something and Chinese-American, who was around 6'1" and on the muscular side - very big for an Asian. He was a perfectly respectable accountant, and lived with his parents, but there were whole neighborhoods in S.F. where he couldn't go, even in the day time, for fear of his life. The local Asian gangs would look at him, assume from his size that he must be a gang member, know that he wasn't in their gang, and pick fights at very unfair odds. These gangs killed a lot of people.

When Robert Cook writes that "Americans at large are not afraid of becoming victims of asian street gangs", he seems to be excluding Asian-Americans. "Americans at large" looks like a euphemism or code word for "white Americans" or at least "non-Asian Americans". A blatantly racist euphemism or code word, of course. Do Asian-Americans deserve no protection from super-predators?

Just to rub in the superpredacity (will that get me in the O.E.D.?) of S.F. gangs in that era: one front-page story from the time was about four respectable businessmen from Taiwan or Hong Kong (I forget which) gunned down in a S.F. bar. One gang ordered a hit on another gang, their lookout ID'd four guys standing at the bar, and the four gangster-targets just happened to pay their bill and exit, while the four innocent tourists walked in and took their places, in the few minutes the lookout took to pass on his tip to the actual hitmen. The four tourists died without ever knowing why they were dying. If they hadn't been innocent bystanders, and there hadn't been four of them, it probably wouldn't even have made the front page in those days, and I certainly wouldn't remember it.

rhhardin said...

If you mention the use versus mention distinction, are you using it?

Incidentally the distinction falls apart on analysis.

It depends on a restricted set of examples, like diagramming sentences does.

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...
"Or was it hordes of youths terrorizing their own neighborhoods?"

No one was in a panic over the threat of suburban white teens terrorizing their own neighborhoods.


Superpredator demoted an extremely small percentage of the population. Anyone trying to prove or disprove intent by reference to general demographics is either intentionally lying or just completely unable to think.

This is what happens when people start with a political agenda and grasp at every event to prove it. The fact this particular agenda requires so many absurd beliefs would indicate to any reasonable person the political agenda doesn't match reality.

rhhardin said...

Superpredators play in the streets with superballs.

Anglelyne said...

Robert Cook: The term "superpredator" itself is code for "inner-city" or "ethnic" (i.e., black or hispanic) offenders; this is how public discussion in America is carried out, by insinuation and use of coded terms.

This is how public discussion is carried out because people like you have hysterics when people realtalk about observable phenomena.

Of course they did, and they still do. But Americans at large are not afraid of becoming victims of asian street gangs.

Americans are afraid or not afraid of becoming victims of Asian street gangs for exactly the same reasons they are afraid or not afraid of becoming victims of black, white, or Hispanic street gangs.

Progs in general are no different from other Americans in their rational fear response to observable phenomena. They just lie about it, to themselves and others, and are further distinguished by their irrational punitive impulses toward more honest people.

Bob Boyd said...

M Jordan said..."Public apologies are crap."

You might like this song: (the intro is about 30 seconds so skip that if you want.)
https://buzzking.bandcamp.com/track/im-truly-sorry

Tim said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Or was it hordes of youths terrorizing their own neighborhoods?"

No one was in a panic over the threat of suburban white teens terrorizing their own neighborhoods.

Because the suburban white teens WERE'NT terrorizing their own neighborhood.

rhhardin said...

If the soul is a raptor some other soul must be prey

- Vicki Hearne

Fabi said...

No surprise to find Cookie working on an oak leaf cluster for his white guilt merit badge.

rhhardin said...

I am sorry if my public apology has offended anyone.

mikee said...

Althouse is working way too hard to find meaning in something Hillary said, and something Bernie said. Just accept that their actions and words are performed with the immediate expediency of the moment in mind, and have no further validity, utility, or permanence after uttered.
Or you're gonna burn out well before the general election digging in piles of manure looking for a pony.

Robert Cook said...

"Americans by and large are not" (fearful of inner-city predators) "but those who live/lived in their neighborhoods are/were."

Clinton was addressing her remarks to Americans at large--white America--not to residents of inner-city neighborhoods. All such appeals by politicians to the fears of the citizenry to rising crime are directed at white America.

Theranter said...

chickelit ...If elected, perhaps Hillary can carry out some vindiction against white people. Especially the unrepentant and the ones persecuting her.

Even if she went full Nero (and showed her support of alternative energy ideas) by burning whites on poles to light a Rose Garden party--would it end? What will it take to end it? Reparations with a gag order on both "sides" so that the past horrors and injustices will never be spoken of again, and an edict erasing it from all media forms so no child of any color ever can even have the seed of racism (either direction) planted in their minds? I'm not against some form of reparations, what I'm concerned about is does the incessant call of racism to the fore have a poisonous effect on children, as they must conclude there is some "there" there--making children of all races hyper-sensitive to the issue and thus unnaturally wary of each other? It's sick.

(I know your comment was in jest--I'm just frustrated for all children that decade after decade this entire issue continues to boil without any effective solutions in sight. And even having said all the above, I don't know why I get fired up about it in cases like this when these old farts are just fishing for votes by appealing to guilt and oppression with the promise of a fix.)

Fernandinande said...

Q. Why would the prison system become increasingly targeted on Black people?

"A. Nothing suggesting targeting of black people matches the facts. When general levels of incarceration increase, black and white incarceration rates follow a path precisely accounted for by group criminality distributions. In the tough-on-crime environment of the past 30 years, incarceration grew across the board. As levels of imprisonment rose, black and white incarceration rates traced out a predictable trajectory in diversity space. Black imprisonment grew as predicted -- approximately six times as fast as the white. (See Figure 4 or Figure 5.) None of this had anything to do with bias, racism, repressive injustice, racial profiling, political repression or the economy. It was an inevitable consequence of underlying group criminality distributions."

Anglelyne said...
Proportional to population, whites are under-represented among serial killers; blacks over-represented.


(Same link as above) "The appropriate question, then, is not why most serial killers are white men, but rather why black men are only twice as likely as white men to be serial murderers."

boycat said...

When the black community takes ownership of and is held accountable for the values of their subculture and the failure to thrive, is when progress will be made.

Tank said...

The irony is "super" thick here. Bill Clinton did the right thing (generally) on this issue largely at the request of the "community" which is now complaining about a word Hillary used.

OK, Tank just defended The Vagina. Now I have to kill myself.

As I said ... thick.

tim maguire said...

If Hillary is asked to apologize for her husband's signing of the crime bill, then why shouldn't she point to his apology in response?

Mrs Whatsit said...

Maybee said: "I don't get why its ok to call out "white people" as bad. What do little white children think? How does it benefit anyone?"

Well, I know of one little white child -- my daughter -- who was heartbroken by it. One day when she was in third or fourth grade, she came home from school in tears and asked me, "Why do white people do all the bad things?"

It was all we could do to persuade her that ALL people do all the bad things, as well as all the good things, and I'm not sure we really got through. That was 20 years ago, in an elementary school in a fairly conservative community, before the concept of "white privilege" had really taken root. I can't even imagine what little white children are being taught today about their unremitting inborn evilness.

Mary Beth said...

Google Ngram viewer lets you search books for word use. If you click on the date links at the bottom, you see excerpts showing the use.

Gusty Winds said...

mikee said...

Just accept that their actions and words are performed with the immediate expediency of the moment in mind, and have no further validity, utility, or permanence after uttered.

Hillary is the biggest "me too" candidate I have ever seen, and Bernie is nuts.

I don't buy it. Put Trump up against Hillary and he will finish the job that Bernie seems unwilling to do.

Gusty Winds said...

Ann Althouse said...

But it's a serious business, lobbing the "racist" accusation around

No its not. The left has made it a sport. It's a default go to accusation. The only seriousness is that now Democrats are calling other Democrats racist. And God forbid it get lobbed at the first serious female contender for the oval office.

The racist accusations have just caught up with the Democrats in their own arena.

It was delayed on CP time.


Gahrie said...

Systematic racism?

The only systematic racism today is inflicted on White, heterosexual, men. They are the only people you are legally allowed to discriminate against today.

tim maguire said...

Fernandinande, that doesn't quite get you where you want to go. The fact that black and white incarceration increases and decreases at the same rates (with black incarceration remaining proportionally greater than white incarceration to the same degree) just means the ratio of racism in the system doesn't change when the particular enforcement efforts change.

To go back a few years for the "go to" example, crack is punished with a severity many times that of cocaine despite the similarities of the drugs. And a white person caught with crack was punished the same as a black person caught with crack. Nevertheless, crack was the drug of choice for blacks and cocaine was the drug of choice for whites. That's where your systemic racism sneaks in--if blacks like it, everyone doing it is punished harshly. If whites like it, enforcement will be much less of a priority.

Bruce Hayden said...

Hillary needs the black vote desperately. They put Obama over the top, and are really her only chance at winning. Mostly, the relationship is good, but this super predator thing may have been hurting her, so she is trying to dig out. And, yes, if she thought that it would get her elected, I do think that she would promise reparations. Which I think is ludicrous, since the plight of Blacks in this country is 99% the fault of the Democratic party, starting with slavery, through Jim Crow, the Klan, and passage of the Great Society in the 1960s, which incentivized the breakup of families, etc. Reparations would be like what we see with the Indians so often when they get a big payout - they buy a new car or truck, don't take care of it, and soon it is stacked in the front yard, with the other broken down trucks. And, they are again dirt poor. You need to change the habits, and not just give them money.

The funny thing though, to me, is that concentrating on super predators probably worked. It somehow escapes people that we started locking up a bunch of people, primarily these super predators, and our crime rate has been on the downswing since them (and, no, most of them are not casual drug users). Aggressive policing also helped. Which is why I wouldn't be buying property anywhere near lower income areas in cities that have tried to rein in their police after Ferguson. Outside those Dem controlled hell holes, this country really isn't that bad in terms of violent crime (though the druggies seem to be engaging more and more in property crime to support their habits).

Bruce Hayden said...

Fernandinande, that doesn't quite get you where you want to go. The fact that black and white incarceration increases and decreases at the same rates (with black incarceration remaining proportionally greater than white incarceration to the same degree) just means the ratio of racism in the system doesn't change when the particular enforcement efforts change.

I would suggest that the racism there is that white incarceration rates are higher than black incarceration rates, when controlled by crime commission crime rates. In other words, if both a black and a white commit the same crime, the white is slightly more likely to go to prison for it. Yes, Blacks are more likely to be in prison, but even more likely to have committed crimes.

M Jordan said...

@BobBoyd

Listened to it and got a nice laugh. Thanks for the h/t.

cubanbob said...

Is this now the new and improved Democrat Party appeal to voters?
Whitey bad. Criminals good. Only the Republicans could blow the election, no other party is capable of being this intentionally incompetent. I can understand Clinton's new found empathy for criminals now that she is on the verge of being indicted.

Birches said...

Ummm wasn't this the time of the Menendez brothers? To try and retroactively claim that the middle class wasn't afraid of teens in their own community seems silly with that crime as a data point.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Crack epidemic wreaking on cities? Urban community leaders call for tough law enforcement and applaud cops sweeping the streets.

Youth violent crime and gang activity terrorizing innocent children and tearing poor cities apart? Community leaders and law-and-order Democrats push for criminal laws to get dangerous people off the streets.

Jump cut; it's a couple of decades later. Guess what? The actions, it turns out, were super-racist! So the politicians who supported those actions are racists if they don't apologize for their prior positions and actions. Is that fair? Of course not. I am not sure why liberals think anyone will help them point out the unfairness, though--they're the ones who gleefully engage in the same red queen race of condemning others for incorrect beliefs that were the norm just moments ago. Remember, it's proof that Republicans are homophobic when they make an assertion today (regarding homosexual marriage, say) that the current President of the US made just a few years ago.

It's not enough to "evolve," you have to evolve quickly enough and also beg for apology convincingly enough for those prior bad, racist thoughts and beliefs. You'd think being subject to this same unfair crap would make the Left more reluctant to use it (as a weapon) against the Right...but it doesn't.

walter said...

"References to race are usually sympathetic"

Oh..like "White privilege"

or.."white hispanic"

Pookie Number 2 said...

Clinton was addressing her remarks to Americans at large--white America--not to residents of inner-city neighborhoods. All such appeals by politicians to the fears of the citizenry to rising crime are directed at white America.

How much black-on-white crime was there at that time, and what level would Cook (and anyone else horrified by truth that conflicts with their smugness) describe as too high?

Rick said...

tim maguire said...
That's where your systemic racism sneaks in--if blacks like it, everyone doing it is punished harshly. If whites like it, enforcement will be much less of a priority.


Mythology. Crack was punished more severely because black community leaders portrayed it as an existential threat to their communities, not because whites automatically saw drugs popular with blacks as inherently more dangerous.

Bruce Hayden said...

How much black-on-white crime was there at that time, and what level would Cook (and anyone else horrified by truth that conflicts with their smugness) describe as too high?

Not sure of the crime rates then and now, in regards to intra-racial violence. The tragic thing today is that while the amount of black on white crime is higher than white on black crime, what is really staggering is the level of black on black crime. So, there really is white privilege, and that primarily seems to involve being safe from black on black crime. Of course, generous gun law would tend to reduce this, since the (black) victims would be able to defend themselves better, but the locations with the really violence rates tend to be in Dem strongholds (mostly held by that party for most of the last at least 50 years), which try to ban guns, and only succeed in keeping them out of the hands of the law abiding.

rhhardin said...

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bitches.

Robert Cook said...

"Ummm wasn't this the time of the Menendez brothers? To try and retroactively claim that the middle class wasn't afraid of teens in their own community seems silly with that crime as a data point."

Aiyiyi!

Yep...every affluent suburban neighborhood was crawling with their own Menendez boys, well-educated homicidal teens who embarked on sprees of parent-killing.

Owen said...

May I offer one more thought, which is institutional inertia. 1. An issue is identified by a politically hyperactive player. 2. After too little L study and debate everybody is persuaded to vote for social justice and a new law results. 3. The new law gets applied widel and son , without much rigorous observation of actual versus anticipated effects, by bureaucrats working on their pensions, "following orders." 4. The results of application are collected and explained, preferentially by politically hyperactive types.

We are way down the road here and I challenge anyone to find in that mix a program or policy of racism.

rcocean said...

All this is just windy nonsense. Crazy Bernie can call Hillary a raciss till the cows come home. She's still going to get 75-80% of the African American Vote

Bernie is an old 70 y/o white guy from Vermont with little or no connection to Black folks or people of color.



rcocean said...

So, we "White people" acknowledge that "systematic racism" and then what?

My guess is more handouts, quotas, and benefits for people of color.

Pookie Number 2 said...

The tragic thing today is that while the amount of black on white crime is higher than white on black crime, what is really staggering is the level of black on black crime.

Two thoughts:

1) I completely agree with your description of this trend as 'tragic'. Unfortunately, so many potential solutions are ignored because they're not politically correct - people would much rather preserve their self-regard than African-American children.

2) Black on white crime is almost certainly lower than black on black crime, but it can still be a legitimate concern for 'white people'. There's more rape in many other countries than in the US, but it's still well worth opposing.

Ken B said...

So asked for contemporaneous evidence about the use of the term Robert Cook links a recent tendentious article instead.

Althouse 1, Robert Cook 0

Dan Hossley said...

The democratic party will drive their gravy train off the cliff in pursuit of support from the extremists in their party.

Michael said...

Robert Cook

In which thread you appear to acknowledge the disparate crime rates in American communities with special note that those communities with peoples of color are particularly crime ridden.

And isn't pointing out that obvious fact racist under the terms and conditions of our "conversation" as provided by our progressive thought masters?

Ken B said...

Robert Cook: " I do remember it and it seemed inflammatory and ludicrous even then. "

There's the rub: what it seemed to Robert Cook. I get the impression a lot of things seem racist to Robert Cook. (I bet "a lot of things seem racist to Robert Cook" seems racist to Robert Cook.) The question is what it seemed to most Americans, in 1994.

Fernandinande said...

tim maguire said...
That's where your systemic racism sneaks in--if blacks like it, everyone doing it is punished harshly.


Not supported by stats. Less than 20% of the people in prison are there for drug "crimes", and that fraction is about the same regardless of race.

pm317 said...

Wow how irresponsible Bernie and the media can be dredging up the past without context. He is inciting violence with the already ready BLM people.

Anglelyne said...

Robert Cook: Clinton was addressing her remarks to Americans at large--white America--not to residents of inner-city neighborhoods. All such appeals by politicians to the fears of the citizenry to rising crime are directed at white America.

If true, so what?

Protecting citizens from criminals is a pretty fundamental duty of government.

Bay Area Guy said...

Hillary: "I want -- I want white people -- I want white people to recognize that there is systemic racism."

Oh Bullshit. But I will swallow my total distaste for that statist woman, and try to address this topic with civility.

There is some partial truth to it, but it's not the nefarious "racism" card. Lemme explain:

There are two axioms that cut against Blacks in America: (1) Strength in numbers and (2) birds of the same feather flock together.

The sad truth is that it's real difficult to be an outnumbered minority anywhere on the planet. If Whites were 13% of the country, and Blacks were 76% of the country, don't you think whites would be feeling the same barriers and obstacles?

In the modern era, it has very little to do with racism, it has everything to do with numbers.

There's another issue cutting against Blacks -- the inner city ghetto culture. No Dads, no structure, no books, few private sector jobs, no scholastic ambitions, many single mothers. This is a major impediment to success. Indeed, it's a blueprint for failure. In Oakland, 50% of public high school students don't even get a high school degree.

Think about that. Without a high school degree, an 18-year old young man is virtually unemployable and unmarriable. A pretty steep hole from which to dig out. Has nothing to do with Whitey, either.

Of course, most Blacks are kind, hard-working folks, trying to make in it the middle class, just like you and me. But that small loud minority of blacks seem to have way more negative influence than they warrant.

So, Yes, there are systemic problems for blacks folks. In the South, 50 years ago, it was racism. In the North, 50 years ago, there was also racism in the unions and in the job markets. But, Today, not nearly as much. (in my opinion).

pm317 said...

So old man Bernie really thinks he can take this to convention and win the general and GOVERN?

Quaestor said...

My guess is more handouts, quotas, and benefits for people of color.

Captain Obvious reaches a conclusion.

chickelit said...

Dan Hossley said...
The democratic party will drive their gravy train off the cliff in pursuit of support from the extremists in their party.

They've been at it for quite some time. I recall some recent analyses disclosing a purposeful, deliberate move to alienate whites and especially men. They are getting their wish.

Howard said...

Super-preditor is racialist because they are typically white male, the undisputed world champion Apex Preditor. Being cold-blooded is the first requirement of being a serial anything. The tropical races tend to be overly emotional, reactive and commit acts of violence without careful planning.

Anglelyne said...

BTW:

[Sanders is] besmirching her as a racist and the accusation depends on an assertion about what everybody knew 2 decades ago?

The interesting thing going on here isn't the how but the why. If anybody is the "white candidate" in this election cycle, it's Bernie.

Watching the race cards being played and choked on is bound to get even funnier as the end-game approaches.

n.n said...

Democrats have a population density, class diversity, economic stagnation, and progressive corruption problem in their urban jungles.

These issues are exacerbated through establishment of a pro-choice religion that denigrates individual dignity and debases human life.

Individual dignity. Intrinsic value. Natural imperatives. Go forth and reconcile.

Birches said...

Oh, Robert Cook said media saturated story of rich kids murdering parents was no big deal to people, so it must be so. Here's an article that links to a 95 Weekly Standard article on superpredators.
http://politicade.com/hillary-clinton-owes-no-apology.html

The article is obviously pro Hillary, but the excerpt from the actual 90's is interesting.

Richard Dolan said...

This focus on the '90s -- the 1994 crime bill, Hillary!'s comments a bit later, and all that -- is a nice start on a walk down memory lane, but it needs to begin a bit earlier. The crime bill and how crime was discussed in the '90s was a reaction to the crime problems that sensible people were trying to address at the time. In NYC, that conversation focused on street crime -- not too many here were quaking in fear of securities fraudsters -- and the perps involved in 'street crime' (then and now) presented a heavily black/brown cast. Everyone noticed. Jesse Jackson was famous (at least here in NYC) for two comments, the first about HymieTown, and the second about being fearful on the streets except if he saw that the people following him were white.

The papers had long since stopped reporting descriptions of the perps of street crime -- an editorial decision that just confirmed widely held (and accurate) presumptions about who the perps were. And the drug gangs that Hillary! specifically mentioned were overwhelmingly black/brown. These street crime problems were much, much worse in the black/brown neighborhoods. That was true then and is true today.

Rudy was elected here in '93 as the first Rep mayor in decades, in large part because the heavily Dem voters in NYC had gotten sick of it all and didn't want to hear a lot of excuse-making for the perps. These street crime problems were concentrated in the big cities (almost all of them entirely controlled by Dems) and their citizens too, like those here, wanted it to stop. Dems like Bill Clinton got the message and dealt with it.

It's just how it was. The measures taken then got a lot of credit for the fall in crime (even if those measures were only part of that success story).

And that's what Hillary! and Feel-the-Bernie are semi-apologizing for. OK. Got it.

tim in vermont said...

You know what goes deeper than "systemic racism?" Systemic "lookism." Ted Cruz could waltz to the presidency this time around if he didn't resemble Edith Bunker so closely.

tim in vermont said...

The more I look at Robert Cook's avatar and read his comments, the more I think he is just having us on.

Rick said...

Richard Dolan said...And that's what Hillary! and Feel-the-Bernie are semi-apologizing for. OK. Got it.

Same story with three strikes laws. They were passed in response to legitimate concerns over sentencing. The public was finding out only after someone was killed the perp had 30 convictions over 15 years including serious crimes like armed robbery and assault, but had only spent 18 months in jail. The three strikes policy was undermined by several other factors like felony creep [where non-violent small dollar thefts are made felonies rather than misdemeanors] which applied it in ways not envisioned by the original supporters. The natural response should be to eliminate the egregious outcomes. But rather than deal with the complicated pattern of how the issues interact extremists simply assert the law is racist and so are the people who supported it. They do this only because they don't want to merely eliminate the outrageous outcomes, they want to reverse the law entirely. Only demonization is a plausible path to this goal, so they preach hate.

Michael said...

tim in vermont

Wrong about Robert Cook. He is a treasure and absolutely essential to the health of this blog. Robert ticks every single solitary box that could be ticked in the progressive catalog. Better still he can check every single solitary box that could be checked in the marxist-socialist-financial know-nothing box. Plus the anti-war box. Plus the military industrial complex box. I mean the guy is an encyclopedia of prog and leftie thinking. And he does not deviate, not a single millimeter. It is impressive really. So impressive, in fact, that he would be the first to the gallows after the revolution. Too too.

mccullough said...

Dem idiocy at its finest. Old Whites people calling each other racist, especially the fool from the whitest state in the country and the Red Queen of Wall Street. Then they lecture the rest of white America about being white. Unbelievable stupidity.

No serious discussion about what factors caused violent crime to drop in half from 1992-2014 nor any discussion about the 10% rise in violent crime across large cities in the last year and what factors might be causing that.

Why is black unemployment, especially among young blacks 16-24, so high? No discussion of issues much less plausible policy proposals.

Typical political bullshit

Sigivald said...

I'm happy to watch this particular revolution eat its own.

Or, as they keep quoting on Reynolds' site, "the best thing about the Obama presidency is all the racial healing".

William Chadwick said...

“I'm happy to watch this particular revolution eat its own.”

I’m with you, Sigvald. As a libertarian RINO, I find this internecine Democratic sideshow of particular entertainment value. “I’m the bigger statist!” “No, I am! I hate liberty way more than you!” To paraphrase Lincoln, “Go it, Trotskyite Loon! Go it, Alinskyite Witch!”

It’s also interesting to me because for decades the “liberal” Hive, largely through its Media Division, has depicted the more pro-freedom of Republicans as either stupid or villains. And yet here, contending for the Democratic presidential nomination, you have one of the stupidest candidates ever to run contending against one of the most evil candidates ever to run.

Anglelyne said...

Birches: Oh, Robert Cook said media saturated story of rich kids murdering parents was no big deal to people, so it must be so.

Actually, he's right about this (though ironically it undermines, not supports, the "racist!" line he's pushing). A "big deal" as in "tabloid sensation" is not what we're talking about here. Parents across America were not nervously eyeing their children and wondering how to protect themselves from them, or demanding that politicians protect them from the parento-cidal menace stalking the land.

A spate of violent home invasions in one's neighborhood, or a rise in crime in once safe neighborhoods and city centers, on the other hand...

William Chadwick said...

"So impressive, in fact, that he [Robert Cook] would be the first to the gallows after the revolution." State-ahtuppers like Cook always seem to think they're some kind of secular version of the Calvinistic Elect, who are somehow going to ascend unscathed in some kind of Rapture, while the rest of the world goes to hell as a result of their policies.

Char Char Binks said...

Is it racist to laugh at anyone who says "systematic" when he means "systemic"? I have a feeling it would have a disparate impact.

Unknown said...

As a 19 year old in 1994, about to launch, I was intensely interested in the "super-predator" issue. It was clear (can't say today if it was the actual truth though) that a young black kid in the inner city who wanted to live a non-criminal, "good" life couldn't survive. And it was also clear that gangs hinged on a few key players (a.k.a. super-predators) who were able to terrorize black people who just wanted live normal lives. Black kids didn't get the freedom to live the lives they wanted, white kids did, and White America abandoning inner city Black America to super-predators was cast as racist. In my (perhaps distorted) understanding of the times I was living in, the super-predator laws were as anti-racist as one could get. I understood Bill Clinton's defense a few days (weeks?) ago.

Phunctor said...

Ann: "you are cheapening the very term"

No longer possible. "Racism" is universally understood as "speaker doesn't like target".

JaimeRoberto said...

Will the Dems apply lessons learned from the crime bill to the current hysteria about campus sexual assault? Of course not.

Real American said...

"I'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives."

This apology could apply to just about every government program and initiative ever.

Lefties never want to apologize for the unintended consequences of their policies (or even the intended ones) b/c results never matter. good intentions matter, even when they're racist Democrat intentions.

Real American said...

affirmative action is a "systemic racism" designed by racist leftists (redundant!). it doesn't help white people, though most whites recognize the blatant racism of the system and its supporters.

James Pawlak said...

How about "Systemic Terrorism" to describe: Those orthodox Muslims following the teaching of the Koran; And, Black thugs who select out, on a basis of race, White victims for their assaults on the bodies and rights of others.

Robert Cook said...

"Actually, he's right about this (though ironically it undermines, not supports, the 'racist!' line he's pushing)."

Not in the least. Clinton played on the public's fear of crime by railing against "superpredators," (i.e., black or hispanic youth), who, she insinuated, would invade their peaceful suburbs to rape, rob, and murder if not stopped by draconian action.
No one was afraid that the suburban youths themselves were going to unleash a crimewave, but the residents of the peaceful suburbs were all to ready to believe the unlikelihood that inner city youth were headed their way with crime in mind.

Ken B said...

Unknown at 2:31 make a good point. If the law protects blacks from blacks, is it racist? Wouldn't it actually be an affirmation that black lives matter?

What Robert Cook does not want to confront is the fact that young black men presented a much greater danger to other young black men in black neighborhoods than young white men presented to other young white men in white ones. He doesn't want to confront it partly because it gives him an easy tactic: if you come down hard on crime that's (disproportionate impact on convictions) racist! if you leave crime alone that's (disproportionate impact on victims) racist! If you discuss the statistics that's (blaming the victims) racist! if you ignore the statistics that's (lack of concern for victims) racist!

No wonder he's so busy decrying racism.

Phunctor said...

"the first to the gallows after the revolution"

"Gallows" implies a certain pageantry. A bullet in the neck and a topple into a mass grave is more likely. When the Revolution needs to liquidate undesirable elements, it does so without fuss or even emotion. Except, according to Russian and Cuban reports, perhaps a certain glee.

buwaya said...

"who, she insinuated, would invade their peaceful suburbs to rape, rob, and murder if not stopped by draconian action. "

Well, in Oakland CA at least, and to a great degree elsewhere there is overlap, or at least only limited separation, between populations, this certainly did happen.
Greatest sufferers in all this, besides black people, during the great crime wave of the 1970's-90s, were poor immigrants, Asian and Hispanic, residents of the inner cities and inner suburbs, who many of the natives considered prey.
Obviously they don't count though, the whole thing being about blacks and whites as if everyone else doesn't exist.

Pookie Number 2 said...

No one was afraid that the suburban youths themselves were going to unleash a crimewave, but the residents of the peaceful suburbs were all to ready to believe the unlikelihood that inner city youth were headed their way with crime in mind.

Again, Robert Cook, how much black on white crime was there, and at what point is it appropriate to develop policies in response?

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...
Clinton played on the public's fear of crime by railing against "superpredators," (i.e., black or hispanic youth), who, she insinuated, would invade their peaceful suburbs to rape, rob, and murder if not stopped by draconian action.


Cook has yet to provide any evidence this is true. Like all his beliefs this one is supported by mere assertion. In fact the focus on "superpredator" was specifically to make clear the people so labelled were a tiny proportion of their communities.

sane_voter said...

This lefty logic is very confusing.

Why is it that if those racist whites aren't around causing problems, that blacks can't seem to live amongst themselves without rampant mayhem in their schools and neighborhoods?

And we need to punish whites because they are the reason blacks can't succeed in general, except for pro basketball and football and popular music.

Amadeus 48 said...

I read the Chicago Tribune. I read about individuals who are superpredators (as Hillary defined them all those years ago) every week. No conscience. No empathy. Did you read about the trio of gang members who lured an 8 year old boy into an alley and then killed him as an act of revenge against the boy's gangbanger father. The victim's father didn't cooperate with police.
When the preps were finally identified a couple of months later, their moronic family members showed up saying what good boys they were.
The 1994 act, which was passed when the Democrats controlled the Congress and was signed by WJC, may need some changes, but people were fed up with the types that Hillary was describing. They are still around. We'll be hearing more about them.
There is an old theory that there is a crisis every 25 years on Wall Street because everyone that was around for the last one has retired. We are about to get the same thing in our society. Time to re-read The Bonfire of the Vanities, which is about NYC in the Ed Koch years.
Is Ed one of the Koch brothers?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Did you read about the trio of gang members who lured an 8 year old boy into an alley and then killed him as an act of revenge against the boy's gangbanger father. The victim's father didn't cooperate with police.

Robert Cook's okay with 8-year-old boys being murdered. He just doesn't want there to be policies that challenge his self-regard.

hombre said...

"Superpredator" was a media/politician meme extracted from Prof. Dilulio's outstanding research on crime. It was rarely used by law enforcement professionals outside the lobbying process. It was a generic term used to describe young males engaged in a particular type of criminal behavior and could be, and was, used to describe young males of all races. If young men of color fit the description more often than others, it was because they engaged in the behavior more often than others.

For uberlefties like Robert Cook and Bernie revisionism and denial are acceptable if they further the cause. Cook is undeniably ignorant about criminal justice while Bernie appears to be ignorant about nearly everything. Hence, "Racist!"

Speaking of revisionism, Hillary, the crime bill didn't permit or require the state's to adopt mandatory sentence laws and those laws were not aimed at nonviolent, low level offenders. They were aimed at violent and or repetitive offenders and drug dealers.

Ethereal Footsteps said...

HRC was raised by an ultra-conservative father, (who she quoted last night at the debate), and campaigned for Barry Goldwater, who promised to overturn Civil Rights Movements. She has had to work alongside people of color in her career and I'm guessing that she's not AS racist as she once was, but that doesn't take away the fact that she's immoral. I did think it was low for the moderator to mention Chelsea Clinton, an obvious vulnerable point for Clinton, but was happy to see that Bernie Sanders recognized her vulnerability and chose not to attack her, but to bring the debate back to relevant issues, such as HRC's inconsistencies and to confront her on trying to piggy back on the issues that he stands strongly for, shedding light on that HRC is truly a bureaucrat, a part of the establishment.

JCCamp said...

@ Tim maguire -
First, you miss completely the medical difference between powdered coke and crack. Because crack is smoked, it hits the system harder (or more effectively, depending on your POV), it is far more addictive. In fact, for some years, powdered coke was not considered an addictive drug but rather a drug of 'psychological dependence'. But of course the cocaine wars of the early 1980's were all about powdered cocaine, so it's not like the drug was ignored. But when someone invented crack, there was a public health epidemic of addiction and OD's that led to the harsh sentencing laws. it certainly wasn't about race, and frankly, there were - and are - plenty of non-blacks using crack. The chief racial disparity between powdered and crack cocaine is the ethnicity of those responsible for trafficking the respective drugs. Powdered cocaine was for many years within the province of South American crime groups, who controlled the distribution at most levels. Crack sales is mainly a black crime. But this has never been about race, except recently, and only then about the race of those sent to prison for trafficking large amounts. The users are equal opportunity and always have been.

Cook -
As usual, you seem to make all kinds of pronouncements with zero factual basis. It is fact that within the U S, a demographic that is probably around 5% of the population commit nearly 50% of the violent crime, to the degree it can be quantified. Certainly, the figure is less than absolute, because so much crime is unsolved. Also, the DOJ statistics are intentionally designed to prevent much of this type analysis. Hispanics are similarly over-represented, but in much less dramatic fashion. Also, I would caution that "Hispanic" is probably a fallible term, and shouldn't really be used.

As for your contention that the "superpredator" label was intended to conjure up visions of wild-eyed blacks running wild in the white suburbs, ala some 1930's crime fiction magazine cover, you are completely out of your mind. However, there were certainly real world gangs, from poor neighborhoods, targeting middle class and upper class victims, and doing so with some impunity during those times, and receiving a disproportionate amount of publicity because of the violent nature of their crimes.

Gahrie said...

but the residents of the peaceful suburbs were all to ready to believe the unlikelihood that inner city youth were headed their way with crime in mind.

Because that would be the smart thing to do. i have never understood why the gangsta class shits in its own neighborhood. They victimize their neighbors and relatives, instead of attacking the "bad guys" from their point of view. the same thing with riots...why the hell do they always burn down their own neighborhoods instead of burning down the rich neighborhoods?

Stupid is as stupid does.

Fabi said...

It's difficult for those unfamiliar with drugs to understand the difference between powder cocaine (cocaine hydrochloride) and crack (cocaine alkaloid), but they are so different in effect and intensity that they can hardly be called the same drug. Powder is dangerous enough, but crack is every bit as bad as claimed.

Anglelyne said...

Robert Cook: No one was afraid that the suburban youths themselves were going to unleash a crimewave...

No one but Birches, but yeah, if you continue to niggle about this dumb trope, maybe nobody will notice you don't actually know anything about patterns of crime in this country.

...but the residents of the peaceful suburbs were all to ready to believe the unlikelihood that inner city youth were headed their way with crime in mind.

Guess the rash of violent home invasions (some involving murder and rape) that rocked the peaceful suburbs of my hometown (and plenty of other people's home towns) back in the day, by perps from you-know-where, were just figments of my neighbors' racist imaginations.

That the inner-city had more violent crime didn't mean that there was no violent crime spilling out into safer areas, ya dope. People in the suburbs were up in arms about the black thugs from the ghetto because, hey, guess what? They were being robbed, raped, and murdered in their safe neighborhoods by black thugs from the ghetto.

Yeah, it happens. It's always happening to poorer people in the worst areas and on the fringes of the worst areas. Sometimes it spills over into previously safe neighborhoods, sometimes even into quite wealthy areas.

"All too ready to believe". Good God, how far gone do you have to be to cling to such transparently idiotic "explanations" for people's attitudes?

Paul said...

Hillary can got to hell. And I offer no apology for racism over the ages, for racism is universal. And that includes white racism. Even blacks are racist many times. So they can all go to hell.

Skipper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skipper said...

Jeez, they're both just high school juniors.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Robert Cook: doesn't realize he's useless, or enjoys being useless?

Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook's okay with 8-year-old boys being murdered. He just doesn't want there to be policies that challenge his self-regard."

This grotesque slander--followed by an inscrutable non sequitur--betrays the intellectual dishonesty (or stupidity) and ethical bankruptcy of its cowardly anonymous author.

Robert Cook said...

@Jonathan Graehl: it's never useless to try and educate the ignorant. Success is rare, but the effort is always worthwhile.

Largo said...

There's the rub: what it seemed to Robert Cook. I get the impression a lot of things seem racist to Robert Cook. (I bet "a lot of things seem racist to Robert Cook" seems racist to Robert Cook.) The question is what it seemed to most Americans, in 1994.

Indeed, Robert Cook seems to make statements that are expressed in tone that is utterly reasonable ... and with foundations that are utterly unprovided.

Robert Cook said...

Largo: The term "superpredator" is exaggerated and inflammatory, without basis in reality. It's intent is only to arouse primal fear in the citizens of the land. Appeals to fear of rising crime are always coded appeals to fear of blacks. "Superpredator" was very plainly a coded reference to black or brown criminals.

Pookie Number 2 said...

This grotesque slander--followed by an inscrutable non sequitur--betrays the intellectual dishonesty (or stupidity) and ethical bankruptcy of its cowardly anonymous author.

Except, of course, that it's completely true, and logically coherent. As your comments repeatedly demonstrate, you would rather lie to yourself and others about the nature of inner-city crime, because you're much more comfortable with policies that result in children being killed than you are with policies that challenge your intentionally false pieties. Calling me names doesn't change that obvious truth.

Largo said...

"""Largo: The term "superpredator" is exaggerated and inflammatory, without basis in reality. It's intent is only to arouse primal fear in the citizens of the land. Appeals to fear of rising crime are always coded appeals to fear of blacks. "Superpredator" was very plainly a coded reference to black or brown criminals."""


Again, Robert Cook has expressed a statement in tone that is utterly reasonable ... and with foundations that are utterly unprovided.

I'm not saying that what you are saying is not TRUE, Robert.

After all, bald claims *can* be true.