National Review editors fall back on lazy assumptions to criticize Trump on NFL

American Thinker ^ | 09/26/2017 | Thomas Lifson

[SeekAndFind]

The editors of the National Review are back on their high horse again, recalling the days of their “Against Trump” issue devoted to foiling his quest for the GOP nomination.  This editorial in National Review, calling for a “time out” on the NFL for Trump (like some naughty preschooler) and calling for better “judgment” (in other words, their judgment) from the president:

The president has conducted himself here in an unseemly fashion, to say the least, and has exhibited his remarkable knack for making everything he touches about him, which the NFL protests weren’t until he stuck his nose in.  (snip)

This is not a question of rights but a question of judgment, which was, unhappily, in short supply over the weekend.

But along the way, the offer supporting context that makes it seem like the writers on the editorial board never read Heather MacDonald.

We do not believe that simmering white malice is the reason for it, but black Americans are arrested and incarcerated in numbers far disproportionate to their share of the population.

Huh? MacDonald has repeatedly shown that incarceration is not disproportionate to criminality.

Blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants in America's 75 largest counties in 2009, 57 percent of all murder defendants and 45 percent of all assault defendants, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, even though blacks comprise only 15 percent of the population in those counties.

In New York City, where blacks make up 23 percent of the city's population, blacks commit three-quarters of all shootings and 70 percent of all robberies, according to victims and witnesses in their reports

[SeekAndFind]

Whites, by contrast, commit less than 2 percent of all shootings and 4 percent of all robberies, though they are nearly 34 percent of the city's population.

In Chicago, 80 percent of all known murder suspects were black in 2015, as were 80 percent of all known nonfatal shooting suspects, though they are a little less than a third of the population. Whites made up 0.9 percent of known murder suspects in Chicago in 2015 and 1.4 percent of known nonfatal shooting suspects, though they are about a third of the city's residents.

Such racially skewed crime ratios are repeated in virtually all American metropolises. They mean that when officers are called to the scene of a drive-by shooting or an armed robbery, they will overwhelmingly be summoned to minority neighborhoods, looking for minority suspects in the aid of minority victims.

[SeekAndFind]

Heather MacDonald for those who don’t know, is a contributing writer to the National Review. Apparently this outfit does not bother to check with its own writers.

Here’s what she wrote:

Trump’s concern about rising crime is therefore not a concern about white victims and the loss of white life. Rather, it is a concern about black lives. As Trump said: “[Y]oung Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson . . . have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child America.” Hint to the media: He was referring to black children in those cities, such as the ten children under the age of ten killed in Baltimore last year; the nine-year-old girl fatally shot while doing homework on her mother’s bed in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2015; and the nine-year-old boy in Chicago lured into an alley and killed by his father’s gang enemies in November 2015.

And yet the media is twisting itself into knots trying to downplay and trivialize the crime increase. Isn’t it white Republicans (and, of course, the cops) who are supposed to be indifferent to black lives?

[Dr. Sivana]

National Review has let it’s innate patrician-streak supersede its legitimate principles.It was over a long time ago. I dropped it when they had a cover story with a “civil discussion on abortion” (pro-abort self-described “conservatives” got equal time).

[TakebackGOP]

What about when George W. Bush talked about steroid use by young athletes in a State of the Union speech?

[Lurkinanloomin]

National Review as a propaganda organ for the Cheap Labor Express will sue whatever they can find to try to hurt Trump.

Their entire antiTrump tirade is about keeping the Cheap Labor Express running.

[miss marmelstein]

He spoke at a rally - rallies involve red meat to the base. We see that all the time with Demogogues...er, excuse me, Democrats, but NR barely has a word for them.

The swamp better get used to 8 years of this. I’m determined to vote for him again come hell or high water. I think I’m not alone.

[vmivol00]

Why would anyone even care what the editors at NR think anymore than the editors at People magazine?

[reasonisfaith]

In any contest between kneelers and standers, standers win by overwhelming odds.

[apillar]

The “National Review”, a publication I once respected (way back in the 1990’s), has become so blinded by their reflexive Trump Derangement Syndrome, that they will do logical somersaults to take the anti-Trump position even if Trump's views should be 100% in line with their own. I have no doubt if Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney had taken the exact same position as Trump on the NFL protests, every National Review editor would be all over the news shows praising them to the hilt.

[littleharbour]

Before Bill Buckley started to become doddering and hired the likes of Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry, National Review was a solid, well written publication. They are now just a voice box for the GOPe. For them to give any cover to the race baiting millionaire players and complicit billionaire owners shows them to be as irrelevant as the NFL will soon be. Out of touch with their consumers.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

Does anyone still read that Never Trumper rag?

[libstripper]

They have become so consumed by virulent personal hatred for DJT, a man who never did them any genuine wrong, that they have jettisoned all the great conservative principles they purport to support. If they were true to their own principles, they’d rationally look at DJT, criticise him for deviations and support him when they viewed him as right. Indeed, if they did that, they’d find that,in his own somewhat crude way, he’s the best thing for conservatism since Ronald Reagan. We couldn’t have gotten a better person from the current GOP.

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[Titus-Maximus]

They have gone bad ever since WFB departed this world.