But hella bella, guess what, you guys? James Wolcott, one of the best bloggers in America, likes my shit!
He first showed me some love three weeks ago, paying particular attention to my running tally of Misidentified Black People.And yesterday, Mr. Wolcott took note of my critique of Lawrence Auster and his post-Virginia-Tech race baiting.
Thank you, James Wolcott. You’ve led quite a few intelligent eyeballs to this site, and I am very grateful.
Amusingly, Auster has reacted with an ego-indulging post on his View From the Right blog, headlined ”Wolcott attacks VFR.”
Oh how it delights Larry Auster that a “dyed-in-the-wool liberal like Wolcott” would take the time to “[cast] me as a repellant and odious character.” His universe is so very full of enemies.
Well, I hope Auster savors the moment’s attention, because Jim Wolcott and I have similarly concluded that the best way to deal with this malign jerk in the future is to let him prattle away in well-deserved obscurity.
(And while my ego is scampering freely in the daylight, let me also thank Entertainment Weekly’s Ken Tucker for showing me some love back in February.)
UPDATE (04/21/07): Dang, I just realized something that makes Lawrence Auster’s words seem especially silly. It’s so obvious, I should’ve pointed it out in the first place.
Auster claims (based on no apparent evidence) that “barely a week passes in which a white American is not killed by a non-white immigrant or illegal alien.”
Well, let’s assume that to be true, for argument’s sake. In fact, let’s assume that each and every week, a white American is killed by a non-white immigrant or an illegal alien.
Let’s see… 52 weeks in a year… carry the one… that’s 52 dead white folks.
Do you know how many people were murdered in America in 2005? Care to guess? Go ahead, take a stab at it… give it your best shot…
No, you’re way off. According to the FBI, in the category it labels “Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter,” the United States tallied 16,692 victims in 2005.
Which would mean that Auster’s supposed epidemic of white death at the hands of violent colored immigrants accounts for .003 percent of the total of persons killed in America. That’s three thousandths of one percent… hardly a drop in the bucket. So his rhetoric doesn’t even make sense.
More significantly, the FBI’s data show that the murder/manslaughter rate for 2005 was 5.6 killings per 100,000 population, while the rate for 1986 was 8.6 per 100,000. Yes, the murder rate has gone down over the past 20 years – even as the number of Hispanics in America has doubled!
If Lawrence Auster’s bullshit social theories were correct – i.e., that “the immigration of poor non-whites into a prosperous, majority-white country… triggers feelings of racial alienation, racial envy, and racial hostility on the part of the non-white immigrant,” and that such alienation and hostility is externalized as violent crime aimed at whites – then surely the U.S. would be turning more deadly, not less, with the swelling brown population and shrinking white majority.
(The rates of forcible rape, robbery and property crime have also declined over the past 20 years.)
Points to ponder, my friends. Especially for you Auster fans checking out this blog to assess the caliber of my intellect.
29 comments:
UBM, let me just say that I have enjoyed reading your blog since day one. I came here because I was a Wire fan but your insight into American culture is especially invigorating for a "non-immigrant" like me.
Thanks, SJ, for your ongoing involvement in the conversation.
A breakdown of the violent crime/murder rate for the various races would hurt your argument.
"Well, I hope Auster savors the moment’s attention, because Jim Wolcott and I have similarly concluded that the best way to deal with this malign jerk in the future is to let him prattle away in well-deserved obscurity."
I'm sure Auster is trembling that the legendary "Undercover Black Man" (who?) has decided not to pay him any more attention.
And it's hilarious that you've put yourself on a first-name basis with "Jim" Wolcott. Your ol' buddy "Jim", huh? I can hear you already, bragging to friends about how you and "Jim" Wolcott go wayyy back.
And you lambaste Auster when you don't even have the balls to use your real name as he does. He's writing stuff that takes courage to say in this society. You're just another voice in the liberal echo chamber, and you can't even get up the courage to put your name on your stuff - while outing other people who want anonymity.
Uh, Anonymous 6:47 AM, UBM's real name is David Mills, and it's not like he is hiding it.
James, welcome. Now, instead of guessing what "would hurt" my argument, why don't you bring some hard numbers and actually hurt it? In the words of my favorite non-white immigrant, Sanjaya Malakar, "Let's give 'em something to talk about... other than hair."
I'm not saying non-white immigrants don't commit crimes. I'm not saying non-white immigrants don't commit murder. I'm not saying non-white immigrants don't kill white people.
I'm stating the fact that the number of Hispanics in America has doubled over the last two decades -- through massive immigration -- and over that same span of time, the violent crime rate has gone down. This would appear, prima facie, to contradict the racialist doomsayers' case that America is becoming more dangerous because of non-white immigrants.
Anon: Anyone caring to know UBM's true identity can merely click that "view my complete profile" link and find out. Or one might scroll all the way to the bottom of the main page for my copyright notice.
Those wishing to learn more about me after that could check the Internet Movie Database. Or search the Washington Post archives for some of my journalism output during the '90s.
I'm not hiding. Hell, I even got my face on the damn blog! My "balls," as you put it, are in tact and hangin' low.
According to Congressman Steve King from Iowa, "The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day. Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals."
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/
ia05_king/col_20060505_bite.html and http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 (has some other links)
Aliens comprise about a quarter of federal prisoners and account for a similar proportion of the money spent on incarcerating criminals at the federal level. - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d05337r.pdf#31 .
"According to the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center, 7.04% of Hispanic drivers involved in crashes in the state in 2005 were suspected of driving while intoxicated. That compares with 2.82% of whites in crashes and 2.29% of African-Americans" http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-10-hispanic-dui_N.htm
According to a report from a liberal think tank, the NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES, Hispanics are imprisoned at 3.7 times the white rate (in 1997), see p.30 - http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/content/
essays/articles/race/mask.pdf (The think tank removed it from their site.) Steve Sailer discusses it here - http://www.isteve.com/
Crime_Imprisonment_Rates_by_Race.htm
Auster probably just reads similar statistics elsewhere but doesn't bother to cite them, or remember their specific figures (except that Hispanics/illegal aliens commit more crime than whites).
If crime rates were the deciding factor for selecting immigrants, and white crime rates the baseline, Hispanics as a group would not pass muster. Of course, you could probably create filters like education requirements that yields a subset of Hispanics with a crime rate lower than American whites.
I meant to say, Auster doesn't remember their specific figures
Kind of ironic how someone named "anonymous" is accusing UBM of not using his real name.
UBM--it was Elvis Mitchell who directed me to your site, and you can call me "Jim" in person or online anytime. Auster, however, has to refer to me by my official sobriquet, "Mr. Has-Been."
cheers, Jim Wolcott
TSM, thanks for commenting. And for injecting some data into the discussion.
You cited a congressman as saying: "The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day."
Twelve per day? Let me break out my calculator again... 365 days in a year... that would be 4,380 murders, more than 25 percent of all murders in the United States, perpetrated by illegal aliens. A shocking statistic, if true. Why don't I believe it?
But I promise to do this: I'll check out all the information you point to, and more besides, and see if I can get to a clearer picture of things. And I'll blog accordingly.
UBM, you have redeemed yourself. You have done the obvious math about the shoddy murder theory AND ALSO decided to leave Auster to fester in solitude. Okay, onward!
Hello UBM.
I'm a new reader here thanks to Wolcott, whom I agree is one of the best bloggers out there. That guy has a frighteningly good way with words.
You're on the favorites list and I'll be stoppin by regularly.
Keep up the great work!
UBM,
I was also a bit surprised by the 4,000 deaths per year figure, working out to more than a quarter of all murders. But that accords well with another piece of data I cited, that aliens account for 27% of federal inmates. (The caveat is that the illegal/Hispanic proportion of federal inmates may differ from state inmates, and that, less plausibly, aliens are less likely to be in jail for murder than non-aliens.) And generally speaking, I believe, the more violent the crime type, the higher the black/Hispanic:white ratio, so the alien proportion of murders could easily be higher than their proportion of inmates.
From City Journal: "A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater... The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li." Of course, this crime is more limited in scope.
Also, the 'immigrants decrease crime' argument is facetious, for two reasons: Second and third generation immigrants commit more crime than their forebears, and we're in it for the long haul, so the behavior of later generations is, quite literally, exponentially more important. Ironically, a proponent of the 'immigration cuts crime' argument notes this here:
"In particular, first-generation immigrants, that is, people born outside the country, are much less likely to commit violence, in our data about 45 percent less likely than third-generation immigrants. In turn, second-generation immigrants are about a quarter less likely to commit crime than third-generation. " - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/
2007/04/10/geraldo/index.html . Another relevant link (see first table) :
http://www.migrationinformation.org/
Feature/display.cfm?id=403
So basically, if we let in Mexicans and kept them from having children, it would reduce the crime rate. Otherwise, the national crime rate will rise. But a "No Child Policy" for Mexicans is absurd. So you have to look at 2nd, 3rd generation crime rates.
Secondly, groups vary widely in their tendency to commit crime, who may commit more or less crime than the average American/white American, so grouping them all together gives you a meaningless result. I found a fascinating table while Googling, according to which, for instance, 2nd generation Japanese youth are 24x less likely to be incarcerated than Lao ones! http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/
crime/underestimated.html (Scroll down a bunch.)
I'd say the 'illegal' designation is equally superficial, except that illegals are predominantly Mexican or otherwise Latino, so it's a proxy of sorts for a group that commits more crime than white Americans. Of course, it's a little too impolitic to discuss it in terms of race or national origin rather than legal/illegal terms in mainstream discourse.
Saying non-white immigrants (or "aliens" to use tsm's word) are a quarter of the federal prison population is a little misleading. According to the U.S. Justice Department, 55% of federal inmates in 2003 were incarcerated for drug crimes. Now I understand these are still crimes under our glorious War On Drugs, but it's a bit of a stretch to say this proves anything about the "alien" propensity to commit murder and other violent crimes. To commit drug crimes perhaps, but not murder.
I'm stating the fact that the number of Hispanics in America has doubled over the last two decades -- through massive immigration -- and over that same span of time, the violent crime rate has gone down. This would appear, prima facie, to contradict the racialist doomsayers' case that America is becoming more dangerous because of non-white immigrants.
Or that the drop in violent crime would have been even greater.
James Wolcott wrote: "... you can call me 'Jim' in person or online anytime."
Thanks, man... and cheers back at ya. See what you set off over here in the comments section? It's been a blast.
I came here because of the Wire and H:LOTS connections (that, and because of Alan pointing out this blog) and am very much enjoying the read (and many of the comments as well) :-)
So for second-gen immigrants: wouldn't they also be called first-gen Americans?
"Saying non-white immigrants (or "aliens" to use tsm's word) are a quarter of the federal prison population is a little misleading. "
Aliens are non-citizens, per the usage in the GAO document I cited. As I said there, federal prisons might well be different from state prisons in their proportion of aliens. After seeing that data on second generation immigrants (yes, American citizens), I find the question rather irrelevant - As I said before, discussing the crime rates of immigrants (or illegal immigrants) as a single group is silly - there is huge variation in ethnic/national origin crime rates. Looking at the data on 2nd generation immigrants, Mexican Americans for instance are clearly more crime-prone than native whites. (And 3rd gen immigrants are supposed to be even more criminal.)
Do I have to be the first one to point out that there's a difference between Hispanic-Americans and illegal immigrants?
Even if the rates of drunk driving, aggrivated assault, and improper verb conjugation were ten times higher among Hispanics, that doesn't necessarily mean they're ten times higher among illegals. There are illegal immigrants from places other than Latin America, you know, and Hispanic-Americans who have been here for generations.
So the next person to use the term 'hispanics/illegals' has to let everyone else use 'blacks/Africans' and 'whites/The Man' to make a point.
Do I have to be the first one to point out that there's a difference between Hispanic-Americans and illegal immigrants?
That's sort of what I was getting at with my remark about first-gen Americans :-) Seriously, at what point do hyphenated Americans stop being "immigrants"? What generation immigrant are you, tsm?
This always happens-- whenever I start to read a debate about how Hispanics are taking over America I can't help but think of how that will expand the availability of delicious tacos, burritos, dulce de leche, and horchata, and then my mouth starts to water and I get too distracted to really pay attention to all those totally convincing stats about how they're just here to get drunk and rape me. Mmmmm.... horchata. So refreshing on a hot day.
Now all you need to do, UBM, is send James Wolcott a book about woodpeckers and your alliance will be cemented.
Anna: How about peckerwoods? ;^)
Cheek!
I'm a first generation American of Hispanic heritage. If tsm is right, I'm way overdue for a crime spree, having gotten all the way to 59 without a rap sheet.
My wife is a second generation Mexican-American and she, too, hasn't gotten the word. She just keeps going to her job and paying taxes. Doesn't she know Mexicans are born criminals?
Really, this whole discussion is ridiculous. Caucasians commit the vast percentage of white collar crimes, but we're not stopping them from becoming CEOS.
But Hispanics...wall 'em out!
Post a Comment