O'Reilly Called Racist for Remarks

[jillian]

I was feeling facetious.

I don't think O'Reilly sees black people in terms of negative stereotypes. I think that, for the purposes of his discussion, he was addressing the fact that many white Americans do harbor these stereotypes because of the pop culture representation we all see.

Again, he started out that way. It was when he went off course and said "I couldn't believe that no one was yelling "more iced tea, mf'er" that he started to personalize the stereotypes. Personally, I think he should have just said, yeah... I know it sounded bad. But I meant it well..." and it would have passed. Instead, it's another poor woe is me, everybody's out to get me" thing from Bill O'.

I've got another hour. I pulling for the grave digger.

We're kind of liking the flight attendant. The grave digger's cool, too. I'm just glad they voted off the girl wrestler. So far, they've actually gotten rid of the right people.

Keep in mind, I don't believe either one of them are racists. My only point is that what O'Reilly said is no worse than Olbermann's comment in his voice over and that if what O'Reilly said makes him a racist or racially insensitive, well, the same can be said of Olbie. As for the source, NewsBusters. The conservative equivalent of Media Matters. I am loathe to source any blog, especially those that are blatantly partisan.

I'll have to disagree about Newsbusters v Media Matters. Media Matters actually does its homework.

I haven't like Olbermann since his days as a local sportscaster in Los Angeles. I used to listen to O'Reilly, but his schtick grew old. Much like Hannity he plays the same tune over and over. Unlike Hannity, however, he seemed willing to take members of both parties to task when necessary. Of course that was a while back. I don't mind Scarborough, but I do have some questions about the dead girl, Lori Klausutis, who was found in his Florida office back in '01. I can't stand Hannity or Colmes but I can tolerate Glenn Beck in small doses.

Just to give you an idea where I'm comming from, LOL.

lol.. Touche! You know, until you wrote it, I had forgotten that it was Scarborough who had the assistant who died in his office. He resigned not long after that. The press was making such a huge thing about the Gary Condit matter (him being a dem and all) at the time, that Scarborough kind of got swept under the rug.

 

[hjmick]

O'Reilly certainly could have chosen his words better, there is no denying that. But is he a racist? I don't think so. This is a problem all public people face, there are always those who don't like them and will seize any opportunity to tear them down. This is across the board, left to right, right to left. Celebrities, pundits, and politicians of all stripes. It is a problem that is part of the core of divisiveness currently sweeping this country.

The longer it continues, the harder it will be for the opposing sides to reconcile their differences and work together to solve the problems this country faces.

The death of "Gotchya!" politics and news reporting/commentary can't come soon enough. It is a malignancy that stifles a great country that can be greater still.

 

[jillian]

O'Reilly certainly could have chosen his words better, there is no denying that. But is he a racist? I don't think so. This is a problem all public people face, there are always those who don't like them and will seize any opportunity to tear them down. This is across the board, left to right, right to left. Celebrities, pundits, and politicians of all stripes. It is a problem that is part of the core of divisiveness currently sweeping this country.

The longer it continues, the harder it will be for the opposing sides to reconcile their differences and work together to solve the problems this country faces.

The death of "Gotchya!" politics and news reporting/commentary can't come soon enough. It is a malignancy that stifles a great country that can be greater still.

Certainly true. I can pinpoint the day the divisiveness became set in stone at least for now. I doubt that it will get any better until we actually do have a president who's a "uniter not a divider" and pundits, pols and the like stop engaging in politics that play to the extremes, rather than to the center where most voters actually reside.

It would be great to see a healthier form of debate, rather than the Rush Limbaugh ditto-head variety....

Anyway, off to home! Laterz!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont buy that anything said by oreilly was racist. This whole things harms blacks and whites, cause we cant have a real dialogue, which means being honest, and not calling people names, but being nice, polite, and still being real.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070926/D8RTEON00.html

Anyone is America is a racist if they are 1) white, 2) talk, and are 3) honest.

Yawn.

Blacks like to talk about "driving while black." I got one for ya. It's a crime called "talking while white."

 

[DiogenesDog]

Quite simply, black people are the most racist people on earth, period. There is no denying that. They feel that since they were slaves, that entitles them to a permanent status of entitlement and racism against whites. Can you say "reparations?"

The black on white war... http://www.heretical.com/miscella/sheehan.html

Ah, there you are. Thanks for being my first target of opportunity and letting me make a very well executed Cosmo Kramer into the room.

->Back to thread. o'r? I suspect that his is early onset insert some dread male OBS here.

I AM

 

[mattskramer]

O'Reilly’s job and Olbermann’s job are based on ratings (an indication of what percentage of the viewing public they can lead to commercials. It is the old “Hey, watch me” phenomenon and the viewing public eats it up. They have a style and charisma and a way to select and spin stories to attract a demographic or to stir the emotions on other demographics. They are entertaining in their own way as long as you don’t take their hype and politically biased rhetoric too personally and seriously. I take what they say with a grain of salt.

 

[William Joyce]

<b>William Joyce</b>: there are many people, from every possible political persuasion, who, when examined closely, have some admirable qualities. To choose as your screen name a particular one of these people, unless you are being entirely ironic, is a statement of general sympathy with their politics -- or at least will be seen that way -- unless it is quite obvious that you are not sympathetic with them.

Of course, even Hitler did not agree with "every jot and tittle" of the Nazi program, or at least not with its practice. He used to joke about the literal-mindedness with which lower-level Nazis carried out their orders.

What I don't like about your view of the world is that it is a primitive, tribalist view of the world, and in its implications literally genocidal.

It's not "evil" in some abstract sense -- it is in fact the world-view of most of our ancestors, and of a huge part of humanity today. Although today it is disguised somewhat by people who want to appeal to those who don't have this view, and/or by people who are too weak to implement it on behalf of their own race. (Thus, I am sure it is the view of most Black militants.) We see it also, very thinly disguised and sometimes not even disguised, with Zionist fanatics and Palestinian terrorists. The zoological view of the world.

And in the world as it actually is, with all the tribes mixing together more and more, it is a view that gets in the way of making life livable.

For example, whites and Blacks have got to live together in the USA, whether we like it or not, despite the fact that whole books can be written on either side full of entirely true grievances one against the other.

So we have to engage is some mutual hypocrisies, great enlargements of how I routinely act around a mother with an ugly or stupid child. The trick is to maintain friendship without lying too blatantly.

In the case of whites and Blacks, we saw some terrible atrocities committed against Blacks by whites not too long ago in history. And we see some terrible atrocities committed against whites by Blacks today. Apologists for either side can no doubt justify them or try to muddy the waters by recounting contrary evidence, but facts is facts.

We've got to work out a way of living together that can allow anyone who obeys the law to have a good shot at doing well in life. Tribalism diverts us from this task. How can we support and develop a current of opinion among Black people that will combat the self-destructive elements of their people, if we appear to have disdain for all of them. (I know you say you don't, but the logic of your arguments is against that.)

And there is something else I don't like about tribalism. I'm a Southern white from a fairly modest economic background. (My grandparents were farmers on both sides, and quite poor on my mother's side.) If I had to confine my friendships and intellectual interactions with white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, it would be boring as hell. I want to be able to talk to and even perhaps make friends with all kinds of people, so long as they are intelligent and generally benevolently-inclined.

And in particular, I like Jews. I didn't meet any to speak of until I went off to college on the East Coast, and realized what I had been missing by being brought up exclusively among Methodists and Baptists. Wow! The intelligence, the sense of humor, the committment to social justice ... it was wonderful.

And that's the real crime of the Nazis: when Vienna had Jews, it became, after the First World War, the world's intellectual capital, in music, in philosophy, in mathematics, in physics ... then the Austrians, gripped by tribalism, murdered all their Jews, and today Vienna is just a bunch of pretty buildings.

So it is surprising to me that a man of your evident intelligence can be a tribalist. I blame the liberals.

You obviously get what's going on, even if you don't agree with me. That's a blessed relief.

A few counter-points:

1. Yes, the view is tribalistic, but in a realistic, nature-appreciating sense. If its implications are genocidal, so are the implications of Life on Earth in General. I'm not proposing genocide. If anything, I'm AGAINST it for whites... are you? Because it's happening to us right under our noses. I think we as human beings can deal with ethnic and racial dischord. Planet's big. Not every race needs to occupy every square inch.

2. You say that relationships confined to whites would be "boring." Perhaps, though some of the most interesting and incredible human beings who ever lived never had contact with members of other races. I think the benefits of race-mixing are largely cosmetic and marginal. Are these benefits so great that we need to force race-mixing BY LAW? Because that's exactly what's going on. Consider also that whites have been TRAINED to think of themselves as boring. You will never hear a group of blacks say, "man, are we ever boring. Let's get some whites in here!"

3. You like Jews. Jews are certainly fascinating people, inevitably more intellectually bold than your average white gentile. But that does not change the fact that they are a highly cohesive ethnic group that seeks, and achieves, detrimental changes to white gentile societies. Their power is incredible to behold. And I think that many who proclaim their philo-Semitism are actually AFRAID of Jews --- you know what would happen in your personal or professional life if you spoke out against them. You'd be destroyed. Is this really such a loveable people?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

NO one is forced BY LAW to associate with anyone else. That is a bogus argument. No one is forced to live anywhere, assuming you can afford to buy where you want to live.

What YOU want is to FORCE by law a seperation. That is why your wrong. It is Unconstitutional and illegal. You do not like our Constitution and the rights it protects? Find another country to live in, I suppose you could work to change the Constitution, but I seriously doubt THAT is going to happen.

 

[William Joyce]

NO one is forced BY LAW to associate with anyone else.

Yes, they are. You cannot refuse to hire a prospective employee on grounds he's black. That is illegal under federal law, most state and local laws. You cannot prevent blacks from being relocated to your neighborhood through housing mandates or busing. See any number of federal judicial orders on this, from KC to Boston. You cannot refuse to rent property to a black person.

So I don't know what you mean by, no law forces assocition. What do you mean, actually? Do you not understand the law? By saying "No one is forced to live anywhere, assuming you can afford to buy where you want to live," you offer an Alice-in-Wonderland version of "not forced." As in, Jews weren't forced out of power in Germany... they could have moved to France if they wanted to!

What YOU want is to FORCE by law a seperation. That is why your wrong. It is Unconstitutional and illegal. You do not like our Constitution and the rights it protects? Find another country to live in, I suppose you could work to change the Constitution, but I seriously doubt THAT is going to happen.

I wouldn't discount the need for force, but if you simply erased forced-association laws from the books, people would separate naturally. The force of law backs unwanted association, not the other way around.

I find that when liberals start talking about "our Constitution and the rights it protects", things get laughable, fast. The 14th Amendment, if enforced as passed, would not ban private racial discrimination at all, only government. I could go on about this and cite the cases, but when you sputter "find another country to live in," I sense it would be pointless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually Federal hiring laws only apply to companies that do business with the Government. Local, State or Federal. And as a seller you can refuse to sell to anyone you want to for any reason you chose. Now as a renter you are restricted or as a business that sells you are restricted. But there are ways around that. Of course telling someone they are the wrong color or ethnicity is not going to fly.

Move to Idaho, I hear the panhandle is full of white supremists , I am sure you can find a white only town.

 

[jillian]

Actually Federal hiring laws only apply to companies that do business with the Government. Local, State or Federal. And as a seller you can refuse to sell to anyone you want to for any reason you chose. Now as a renter you are restricted or as a business that sells you are restricted. But there are ways around that. Of course telling someone they are the wrong color or ethnicity is not going to fly.

Move to Idaho, I hear the panhandle is full of white supremists , I am sure you can find a white only town.

Yeah... but he likes Jim Crow. So he feels put upon by anything less than blacks and jews and hispanics and anyone else who's not "lily white" being prohibited from sharing his little white world.

Still can't figure out why he stays in Brooklyn.... not exactly a separatist haven.

 

[Edward]

People who identify a person by race are identifying a person. If certain races in general are prone to a certain behavior, then it is completely appropriate and not racist to identify them as such.

Problem is, then along comes some literalist with a list of exceptions to the rule, when a general statement should always take into account exceptions. Rather than ask, someone comes along and cries "racist", as if that completely destroys the argument. It does not. It's cheap play on emotion in lieu of an intelligent argument.

Agreed. If white people in general act in a certain way it's completely appropriate and not racist to identify them as such. My conclusion based on my experience with white people being racist therefore allows me to conclude that white people in general are racist. You can be a literalist and come along with a list of exception to this rule. Someone always come along and cries "emotional argument" in lieu of an intelligent argument but this is truly nothing more than a cheap shot on their part. Therefore, in conclusion I assert that the "general rule" is "white people are racist" based on "my experience with white people acting racist" and I also "take into account" the "exceptions" to this rule.

 

[Larkinn]

As usual, William Joyce says what everyone else thinks, indeed knows, but with his own implications.

Liberals respond with hysteria and illogic. "Only a few examples!" "Others behave badly too!" They know better, I'm sure. (Hypothetical question to every guilty white liberal here: your car has broken down late at night. Would you prefer for it to have broken down in a (1) Jewish (2) Chinese (3) Greek or (4) Black neighborhood?)

Hmm probably Jewish. But I don't think this is so much about race as it is about economic status. I would much rather my car get broken down in a rich black neighborhood than a poor white one. But for some reason race and class are still very closely linked in this country.

But of course, it is true that anecdotes are not data. It is true that there are exceptions to the rule.

So let's look at some objective data: Black vs non-Black violent crime rates.

I assume everyone is familiar with these, so I won't bother to post the links unless asked -- and I know that the liberals couldn't care less: they drink the same kool-aid fundamentalist Christians do when confronted with the overwhelming evidence for the age of the Earth. The ability of people to deny the reality that is staring them in the face is limitless. But at least the poor fundies are generally of below average intelligence and of poor education. Liberals do not have that excuse.

Is this because blacks commit more crime, or because they get caught more often? We all know that the cops are going to look at a black kid a lot more suspiciously than a white kid. That, and again there is the class question.

 

[Edward]

Is this because blacks commit more crime, or because they get caught more often? We all know that the cops are going to look at a black kid a lot more suspiciously than a white kid. That, and again there is the class question.

I doubt that blacks commit more crimes than white and I do believe that blacks get caught more often because cops do not want to arrest white people but have no problem when arresting a black person. This is why black cops can be gunned down by white cops and somehow the black cop is the bad guy. Here is a perfect example of this mentality in action.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=108472&ran=109830

Ironically, the police chief was black and yet he defended the actions of the white officer (even though the police dog had more common sense than its retarded human partner ). When you look at the actions of the dog who determined the black officer to not be a threat even with a gun over the actions of the white cop who allegedly determined him to be a threat it becomes obvious racism was involved because dogs don't know race. It's clear that the actions of the white officer led to the death of the black officer because he was black and that there was no signs that he posed a threat to anyone otherwise the dog having been trained to assess a situation based on who poses a danger and to attack that person would have done so.

 

[Doug]

William Joyce: During my life I have met some really intelligent, and some really good, and some really interesting ... Blacks, white Gentiles, Jews, you name it. I don't draw big conclusions about ethnic groups from my personal experiences, obviously. But I would hate to hold a belief which in effect prohibited me from contact with someone just because they were an "X". If I were building a retirement community somewhere, I would definitely want Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell living there. And I would definitely want lots of Jews.

I should also say that, besides you, I have only known of (I never personally met him) one other person with your general views that I would bother talking to. I mean someone who is intelligent and well-educated and has a sense of humor, and with whom you could reasonably expect to spend a profitable evening arguing and discussing. (And by "your views" I mean your general views about other ethnic groups, and specifically Jews -- not your "racial realism".)

Most people I know of who share your outlook are ... unpleasant. (I do not mean that their beliefs are unpleasant, although they are. I mean that they personally are unpleasant.) Of course, this says nothing about their/your beliefs: these may be 100% correct, although obviously I don't think so. And of course there are plenty of other people who are unpleasant -- for instance, the extreme blood-and-soil God-gave-us-this-land Zionists. And for the same reason. It's zoological thinking.

Now you will assert that zoological thinking is realistic thinking. And it is. But we are capable of doing a lot better than that, of constructing a higher kind of reality, since, uniquely among animals, we have an advanced rational capacity. A serial rapist is following a certain kind of biological logic, maximizing his chances of replicating his genes, but so what?

A couple of points: you say Jews

are a highly cohesive ethnic group that seeks, and achieves, detrimental changes to white gentile societies.

Well, you couldn't prove it by me. What detrimental changes? My experience has been that they are an extremely incohesive group. If I were to assemble the most articlulate Zionists, and the most articulate anti-Zionists, to debate -- it would probably be a mainly intra-Jewish debate. I have known some brilliant Jewish Marxists, Jewish liberals, Jewish libertarians, Jewish neo-cons ... you name it, they've got it.

Looking over the great scientists and mathematicians and medical researchers and musicians ... etc etc of the last 200 years, it seems to me that the Jews have made enormous contributions to humanity. I don't see how anyone can deny this.

Now it is true that Jews took to the Enlightenment very strongly, and have been prominent in its values. So I can see if you don't like the Enlightenment, you will not be happy with Jews -- or most of them. (Although even here, as I recall, some of the most cogent arguments I have read against a naive celebration of modernity were made by Jews.)

Or if you mean something more specific -- say, that Jews have been prominent among the various promoters of socialism and, today, of Political Correctness. True. But they have also been promient among the opponents of these things.

Surely this is just because these are very smart folks, and they rise to the top of whatever is going, be it the Bolshevik Party, or international banking. (I know that there are some people who will then claim that the international bankers and the Bolsheviks all formed some sort of secret cabal. I do hope you are not one of these.)

And as for the Kevin MacDonald thesis in general ... isn't it true that Jews in America have an out-marriage rate that exceeds fifty percent? From time to time I read an anguished article in Commentary that claims that American society is doing what Hitler could not do, extinguishing the Jews as a distinct group. They're probably right. But, at one rate or another, this is going to happen to all the human tribes.

Where your thesis of group cohesion has some obvious truth is with respect to Israel (although as I said, there are plenty of Jewish anti-Zionists).

Of course, if your are an American citizen, and your ethnic group has its own country somewhere, and that country is waging war against others, you will inevitably feel the tugs of genetic solidarity. Many people have such dual loyalties -- they are the natural result of immigration. It's why we exempted Japanese-Americans from pulling the trigger against their own racial group during WWII.

Now Israel is a historic accident, one of those weird turns of history that happen from time to time. Had the Nazis not instituted widespread murder of the Jews in Europe (enthusiastically taken up by many non-Germans, and continued even after the war), then the Zionist project would have remained a historical curiosity. No European Jew in his right mind would have voluntarily immigrated to Palestine (just as many American Zionists would drop dead before leaving this country to go to Israel).

But it happened. If the Arabs had accepted Israel, or if in some other way its existence was obviously secure, then Jews in America would probably feel about it much as Japanese-Americans feel about Japan.

But the specific reality of Israel's existence -- the fact that its extinction is always a possibility -- has made Jews band together, in their majority anyway, on this issue. And since they are by and large smart and effective people, their lobby has a lot of influence. It is probably true that "the Jew thing", as John Derbyshire calls it, makes some people think twice before they criticize Israel.

And American Mid-East policy is no doubt pushed further in a pro-Israel direction than it would be without that lobby, just as the Cuban exiles push our policy towards Cuba into something it would not be, if they did not exist.

But without Israel, I reckon the Jews would have no particular unity whatsoever, at least not in America.

 

[Doug]

Larkinn and Edward: We can probably reach some agreement on the reality.

Larkinn says, with respect to the high Black crime rate:

Is this because blacks commit more crime, or because they get caught more often? We all know that the cops are going to look at a black kid a lot more suspiciously than a white kid. That, and again there is the class question.

I am sure that some of the difference in the Black/white crime rate is caused by differential treatment: the police will be more suspicious of Blacks than of whites, and judges and juries will be more likely to convict Blacks than whites, etc.

So if we simply examined the official statistics of crime rates by race, we might still harbor some suspicion that the different rates were simply the result of different treatment by the system.

So ... could we find some data that was not subject to this? Can you think of any? Something that would allow us to test this idea?

But before we continue the argument ... is it your position that no data whatsoever, of any sort, collected under any conceivable circumstances, could change your minds?

In other words, is your conviction that the crime rates for the two races are identical a religious conviction, or an empirical one?

If you have a religious committment to the equal-crime-rate proposition, then of course hunting for any data whatsoever on the subject is pointless.

But if your position is one which is open to change, if the data are convincing, then let us explore the issue further.

 

[Annie]

I certainly wouldn't rule out racism, yet I think it more likely that socioeconomic levels have more to do with it. Also the fact that single parent homes is higher among blacks, follows with higher crime.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn and Edward: We can probably reach some agreement on the reality.

Larkinn says, with respect to the high Black crime rate:

I am sure that some of the difference in the Black/white crime rate is caused by differential treatment: the police will be more suspicious of Blacks than of whites, and judges and juries will be more likely to convict Blacks than whites, etc.

So if we simply examined the official statistics of crime rates by race, we might still harbor some suspicion that the different rates were simply the result of different treatment by the system.

So ... could we find some data that was not subject to this? Can you think of any? Something that would allow us to test this idea?

I can't think of any. You would have to find an area where racism was nonexistant. Well I suppose you could account for class in the stats...which someone has probably done, but as for blacks getting picked up more because of racism...no I have no idea.

But before we continue the argument ... is it your position that no data whatsoever, of any sort, collected under any conceivable circumstances, could change your minds?

In other words, is your conviction that the crime rates for the two races are identical a religious conviction, or an empirical one?

I don't have a conviction on the matter. I don't see any way to test it, so I withhold judgement...although my suspicion is that it is that the system treats them differently.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I doubt that blacks commit more crimes than white and I do believe that blacks get caught more often because cops do not want to arrest white people but have no problem when arresting a black person. This is why black cops can be gunned down by white cops and somehow the black cop is the bad guy. Here is a perfect example of this mentality in action.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=108472&ran=109830

Ironically, the police chief was black and yet he defended the actions of the white officer (even though the police dog had more common sense than its retarded human partner ). When you look at the actions of the dog who determined the black officer to not be a threat even with a gun over the actions of the white cop who allegedly determined him to be a threat it becomes obvious racism was involved because dogs don't know race. It's clear that the actions of the white officer led to the death of the black officer because he was black and that there was no signs that he posed a threat to anyone otherwise the dog having been trained to assess a situation based on who poses a danger and to attack that person would have done so.

Ignorance knows no bounds. First dogs DO in fact learn about "color". It is a fact that a white man that has a dog can in effect teach that dog to not like or distrust people of other colors, same as a black man with a dog can teach a dog to not like other races. Though I doubt that would be the case with this police dog. Second, your not going to actually claim this dog KNEW the guy was a cop are you? That the dog KNEW he was no threat. That is idiotic on its face.

The plain cloths cop got shot because he was black, NO SHIT, sherlock. It was a black neighborhood with blacks basicly rioting. He was a black man with a gun out and no obvious indication he was a cop. He was ordered repeatedly to drop the weapon and surrender, instead he turned towards the uniformed officer WITH his gun. It is likely a uniformed BLACK officer would have done the exact same thing. Further he was ONLY shot after the dog failed to take him down AND he turned with the weapon towards the police. So much for the " racist" killing point.

 

[Doug]

Larkinn: I didn't make myself clear. What I was trying to say was this:

There are some questions where two sides who disagree, can at least agree on some method of testing their clashing beliefs.

Suppose I claim that my new-design Kevlar vest will stop an AK47 round point-blank. You claim that it will not. We can easily decide who is right on this question -- you simply put on the vest and I fire an AK47 into it.

Or, to take another example, suppose you said that smoking is a risk factor for cancer, and I disagreed. We could both agree that one way of testing to see which of us (if either) was right, would be to choose a few hundred thousand young people -- pre-smoking age -- and then have half of them, chosen at random, smoke; and the other half, not smoke. And then compare their cancer rates over the years.

We could not in reality do such a test, but it would be a pretty good one if we could. (Instead, we have to compare the cancer rates of people who have voluntarily chosen to smoke, and those who have not, which leaves the possibility that people who are more likely to get cancer -- because of stress, say -- are more likely to smoke. Then smoking correlates with cancer but is not its cause. I think the tobacco industry apologists tried to argue this for a while!)

Now this approach is in contrast to the religious approach. Religious people, believe, for example, that God hears our prayers and sometimes acts on them. If you show them the results of experiments designed to test this proposition, and if the results are negative, their faith is not shaken. For them, it is not a matter of empirical evidence.

Now, I can think of at least one way to test the Black crime rate = white crime rate proposition. It's not absolutely perfect, but it's pretty good.

But what I first need to know is: for you, is the Black=white crime rate idea a Kevlar-vest/smoking/to-be-tested idea, or is it a God-hears-our-prayers idea?

Is there any conceivable evidence which, upon seeing it, you would change your mind and say, Yes, Blacks do have a higher crime rate than whites?