More hate-facts from the liberal media—and a question for Andrew McCarthy

Greg W. writes:

While the media blasts Derbyshire for his racial commentary, they simultaneously verify his conclusions as valid. Bus drivers in Houston are fed up with kids smoking weed, fighting, assaulting drivers, and pulling kids from seats and jumping off the bus with them. Obviously the race of these kids isn’t mentioned, but my suspicion is that they are either “youths” or “urban.” The video seems to verify the race of the kids.

I checked the demographics of Houston Independent School District and it is as follows:

Black—26.5 percent
Hispanic—61.7 percent
White—7.8 percent

This is consistent with Anywhere U.S.A. If a quarter of a population is black, the area is a cesspool.

So to all of those who criticize Derbyshire, I ask this: Would you really send your kids to this school district, or would you avoid it at all costs? If you avoid it because of the violence, then you’re avoiding it because there’s too many blacks, and that makes you just as “racist” as Derbyshire.

LA replies:

A question to be directed specifically to Andrew McCarthy, who said with regard to Derbyshire that “racialism is noxious regardless of who practices it.” Would McCarthy send his children to this school district? If not, then is he not, as he accused Derbyshire of doing, making “a priori conclusions about how individual persons ought to be treated in various situations,” and “calculating fear or friendship based on race alone”? To choose to avoid an entire neighborhood or school district because of its blackness, and thus to avoid all the individual persons in that neighborhood or district because of their blackness, is certainly to reach a priori conclusions about people based on their race, the very thing McCarthy said we must never do, and he supported Derbyshire’s exclusion from National Review because he had done it.

- end of initial entry -

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Has it occurred to anyone else that Andrew McCarthy has publicly endorsed the judicious use of profiling by the law enforcement and national security communities? And that he has done so on essentially the same premise that John Derbyshire’s column was based upon, namely, the correlation between certain groups and certain behaviors? Here’s one example. Here’s another, helpfully titled, “Unreasonable Searches: Policing Without Profiling Makes No Sense.” There are others, which I don’t have the time to go and find.

McCarthy’s reputation as an “adult” conservative is founded in part on his cold-eyed acceptance of reality in this respect. I suppose he trusts prosecutors more than he trusts ordinary people, which shouldn’t surprise anybody—people working on the public dime usually do consider the members of their profession more trustworthy and judicious than the public at large. McCarthy evidently believes that people like himself are not only better able, but more entitled to make discretionary judgments about other people based on their group characteristics, if it’s for the noble purpose of protecting the public. The public itself, in his mind, has absolutely no right or duty to protect itself in the same way, however, if that means drawing preliminary conclusions about other people based on group characteristics.

Considering they are trying to keep their own heads from being bashed in, in a world where that has become a horrifyingly common and predictable occurrence, one would think McCarthy might cut them some slack.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 11, 2012 01:58 PM | Send