December 9, 2004

NOT WHAT MS SANGER HAD IN MIND:

Are white Utah couples 'buying' black children? (MARY MITCHELL, December 7, 2004, Chicago SUN-TIMES)

Given the great divide between blacks and whites, a black mother who takes her child to Utah to be adopted by a white couple must be in a terrible state of mind.

Impoverished black people definitely don't trust well-to-do white people. In fact, most poor black people believe they wouldn't be in such sorry shape if it weren't for racist white people. So it is hard to grasp why black women are flying to Utah to give white people their children.

Left behind are stunned fathers and grandmothers who are struggling to understand how a black person could do such a thing.


Planned Parenthood sold us abortion on the theory that you had to kill black kids because their parents couldn't raise them and whites wouldn't adopt them--now we're supposed to be upset that whites want them?

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 9, 2004 2:27 PM
Comments

Black is beautiful and children amplify that beauty. It's tragic that black moms don't seem to think so, aborting at thrice the rate of everyone else.

Posted by: JimGooding at December 9, 2004 3:14 PM

In 1978 the legislature here passed the Minnesota Minority Child Heritage Protection Act. It allows a distant relative to trump a white foster parent's desire to adapt a minority child, even if that child has bonded and developed and attachment with the foster family.

The "Baby D" case was particularly notorious. Upshot? Nobody wanted to try to adopt minority babies anymore.

In reaction to Baby D and similar cases elsewhere, in 1994 Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act, which limits the ability of states to dictate adoption based on race.

Posted by: Gideon at December 9, 2004 3:14 PM

Again we see it illustrated: the abortion industry is not about "choice," its about eugenics.

Posted by: Mike Morley at December 9, 2004 3:19 PM

Our current policy is hardly eugenic. It is if anything 'anti-eugenic.' It discourages the able-bodied and hard-working and ambitious from breeding through excess taxation to pay for the permanent underclass which can breed like rabbits and get an additional check and/or a larger place to live for each little snotnose they produce.

An intelligently-run eugenics program would have mandatory Norplant for welfare recipients, sterilization of violent felons, people with genetic diseases, the mentally defective, etc. Our current policy will have us hip-deep in the unfit in a generation or two. One can only hope the bear population, ineffectively controlled by hunting and 'bear contraception' can help us out.

Posted by: Bart at December 9, 2004 4:36 PM

If black children are raised by whites, they might start thinking like whites. Can't have that say the white New England (and west coast urban) elites.

Posted by: M. Murcek at December 9, 2004 5:25 PM

Bart:

"An intelligently-run eugenics program would have mandatory Norplant for welfare recipients, sterilization of violent felons, people with genetic diseases, the mentally defective, etc."

Bart, you're going wobbly. Why waste scarce resources on the costs of sterilization?

Posted by: Peter B at December 9, 2004 7:00 PM

Peter,

Public relations.

Posted by: Bart at December 9, 2004 10:21 PM

Bart:

Goebbels would be proud of you and no doubt hire you immediately.

Posted by: Peter B at December 10, 2004 7:00 AM

My ideas have nothing to do with race. The knotheads like Goebbels hate people like me, who actually think about the underlying science involved rather than racially-based romantic claptrap, more than they hate bleeding hearts like you.

Posted by: Bart at December 10, 2004 8:23 AM

Yes, I can just imagine his rage growing as the two of you argue who has the better theory for killing off the untermenschen.

Posted by: Peter B at December 10, 2004 9:08 AM

Bart: The Nazi's would say the same thing about science. In fact, that's a useful Google search, "Nazi science."

Posted by: David Cohen at December 10, 2004 9:12 AM

David,

And the Nazis ended up on the scrap heap of history, even reversing 800 years of German migration as any Sudeten German can tell you.

Peter,

It's just so much easier to label me a Nazi than to actually argue the rightness or wrongness of the issue. The Nazis liked toll free, limited-access multi-lane superhighways which criss-crossed the nation. Does liking the Interstate Highway System make me a Nazi?

If you want to remain emotional and irrational on the matter, rather than logical and scientific, that is your business. But calling me a Nazi for having an opinion, based upon rational, utilitarian economic analysis, indistinguishable from that held by America's leading jurist of the 20th century, Oliver Wendell Holmes(a man no serious person would ever consider racist), is ludicrous.

Posted by: Bart at December 10, 2004 9:57 AM

I have never labelled you a Nazi. Firstly, I wouldn't dishonour your family by so doing. Secondly, I doubt it would bother you much if I did. The Nazis are history and no one here thinks that kind of epithet has any real meaning at a personal level.

However, you make progressives and liberals look good and should be silenced for that alone. You hold appalling, embarassing views that you seek to excuse through pseudo-science and an over-inflated assessment of your admittedly impressive intelligence (although the one potential saving grace may be that you just never grew up and still get your giggles by shocking people). You seem to hold vitriolic slander and contempt is the well-deserved lot of any who disagree with or displease you and you preach hatred and death for all (individuals, groups, genders, faiths, nations, etc--unlike the Nazis, you are very catholic in that regard) who fail to meet your quite absurd standards of humanity, especially the defenceless, less-gifted and weak. You are a superlative cherry-picker of quotes and obscure incidents. You are the first person in a very long time that has made me want to scream "homophobe!" and rise to the defence of Hillary Clinton. So of course I won't take you seriously.

Posted by: Peter B at December 10, 2004 2:14 PM

Peter,

Don't play innocent. You're the guy who brought up Goebbels.

I am a misanthrope and believe the world would be an infinitely better place with a lot fewer people, particularly those less capable of contributing economically. It is precisely that battle over scarce resources that makes us all treat each other so abominably. Any research done on animal overcrowding mirrors the human condition to a remarkable degree. The lack of respect people display for each other is a direct function of our too frequent interactions. What people think is far less important than how they behave, that is precisely what makes one civilized. A world with perhaps 250 million people rather than 7 billion, where 10% of the First World and 1% of the Third World survived would be an infinitely better place.

Homophobe? Of the two of us, I'm the one who won't object if the Episcopal Church marries two men. Ain't my business. The word 'girlyman' is a frequent epithet but the reason has little to do with one's sexual proclivities and far more to do with acting 'like a woman.' Effeminate men and metrosexuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, disgust me. Too many years of being thought of as 'gay' because I like art museums, classical music, and gourmet cuisine take their toll.

Hillary Clinton is almost pure evil and it is virtually impossible for me to discuss her/it without the use of vulgarities inappropriate for a family audience. She/it is worse than a true believer in leftist nonsense like Chomsky, she/it is a criminal who wants to pick my pocket to enrich herself/itself and make herself/itself look good in the eyes of the lumpier sections of the Lumpenproletariat. She/it is totally unprincipled and like Gary Hart, who brought anti-Labor,peacenik, trendnoid leftism to the mainstream of the Democratic party, the spawn of Satan.

Posted by: Bart at December 10, 2004 7:03 PM

It is precisely that battle over scarce resources that makes us all treat each other so abominably.

This is hogwash, and a copout on your part. We are not lacking resources, we have more resources than we know what to do with.

Any research done on animal overcrowding mirrors the human condition to a remarkable degree. The lack of respect people display for each other is a direct function of our too frequent interactions.

More hogwash, and another copout. If you don't like people, fine, but don't blame it on such Malthusian nonsense.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at December 10, 2004 11:12 PM

Robert,

If resources are not scarce, why do they cost money? Money is, by definition, a means of rationing scarce resources. No scarce resources, no need for money. Just punch up the right code in your Star Trek replicator and you're up to your eyeballs in pate' avec truffes blanches.

Posted by: Bart at December 11, 2004 6:36 AM

Bart, I assume that you are talking about America and not Sub-Saharan Africa. Can you point to a time in history where the average person had access to as much material wealth than in America today? It is nonsense to complain about material want in the context of our current exonomic situation.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at December 11, 2004 1:02 PM

There is no basis in fact for your Panglossian view. Most Americans live under conditions of economic want, the two income family is a necessity not a luxury. I hope I do not have to go into detail about the cost of education, housing and health care, all of which would be reduced significantly with the introduction of a sensible eugenic policy.

Also, I hope I do not need to detail the existing and coming ecological disaster in the Third World. Desertification, due to overpopulation, is a fact in Africa and South Asia.

Posted by: Bart at December 11, 2004 2:13 PM

Robert:

I never realized until now that eugenics was a full-blown faith with its own well-developed doctrine of heaven---an empty world with an endless free supply of pate with truffes blanches.

Posted by: Peter B at December 11, 2004 4:16 PM

Bart,
Ask any of these two earner households if they would rather not exist than have to work for a living and see how they answer you. Yeah, stuff like education and healthcare cost money, but they are available, aren't they? A poor person today has access to better healthcare than Queen Victoria had. So a working life is not worth living? Who exactly will benefit from a eugenics policy?

The problems with Africa are cultural, not resource based. Asia is not the poor sister of the world anymore, their economies are booming. Of course, Asians have an unofficial eugenics policy - abort females. If you think that this bodes well for Asia, just watch what happens to their crime rates and political stability as the hordes of "excess" males come of age.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at December 12, 2004 11:58 AM

Just as we have learned that blacks can be racists, Bart shows us that Jews can be Nazis.

Posted by: Vince at December 12, 2004 6:41 PM

Robert,

It all depends. Which is cheaper, locking a violent felon up in prison or giving him a painless lethal injection? Obviously, the needle is cheaper. Which is cheaper giving someone with an IQ under 70 a painless lethal injection or trying to 'educate' him and then caring for him for decades because he can't care for himself? Obviously, the lethal injection is cheaper. Which is cheaper caring for the childless elderly person on the public dole or a painless lethal injection? Obviously the painless lethal injection.

In the case of people on welfare, the use of temporary contraception, e.g. Norplant, is logical. Why should they be allowed to have kids when they can't support themselves, much less a family? Again, the costs to society, in terms of education, food stamps, free meals, free housing, free medical care for the undeserving poor are enormous. When these incompetent people have kids, mal-raise them, and they become criminals or wards of the state, who foots the bill then?

These are hundreds of billions of dollars we could be saving as a society, money that could be rolled back to the taxpayers to the vast benefit of all. Think of how much we spend on prisons that could be spent on health care. Think of how much we spend educating the mentally defective which could be applied to the education of all, the mentally defective have a per pupil expenditure roughly 10 times that of the average kid.

Most two-income families that I know would rather be able to live on what they would earn off of one income and have a house full of kids like they or their parents grew up in. Hell, I'm childless precisely because I am aware of what things cost and what they will cost and I don't want to bring a kid into the world who will be denied anything he could reasonably want.

Lots of Asia is in pretty bad shape and any Thai will tell you that their decision to encourage birth control all across Thailand is a major cause of their current relative prosperity. The vast unemployment and underemployment in China, India and elsewhere is the direct result of continuing overpopulation. Female infanticide is a short-term rational but long-term fatal response to population pressure.

Africa is destroying its resources. Just read some Thomas Homer-Dixon.

Vince,

Name one position here that is race-based. My views are based on a pure application of the efficiency criterion.

Posted by: Bart at December 13, 2004 8:01 AM

Bart,

Indeed, you don't mention race, but you're spewing eugenic nonsense just the same.

Do you have a graph that shows us the sweet spot in your efficiency theory? When I was a dairy farmer, we could calculate how much milk a cow needed to produce to give a positive return. Likewise, we never put a cow on life support or spent "too much" money on vet bills, if it wouldn't pay back.

Thankfully, we don't manage humans like a herd of cows, though it sounds as if you'd like to.

Posted by: The Other Brother at December 13, 2004 10:45 AM

One herd is much like another.

There are too many variables to run a perfectly efficient society, and it would probably be pretty unpleasant anyway.

However, there are inefficiencies that we can dispense with to great public benefit, with little harm to anyone. The most obvious is mandatory Norplant for welfare recipients. They can continue to live on the dole, get drunk, use drugs, and copulate like rabbits. We as a society don't get stuck having to subsidize their broods of the genetically unfit. Nobody gets hurt and we save tons of money in welfare, law enforcement, education etc. As a taxpayer, I become the big winner.

Sterilizing the mentally defective, say people with an IQ under 70, is a win-win situation. Killing them off might seem to draconian but sterilization gets us to the same place. The bad genetic material gets removed from the gene pool and the costs of subsidizing these people who are unfit to pay taxes or raise children get saved. Their lives do not change one bit, they still get to plop down in front of the tube and watch Oprah or whatever they do, and the rest of us get the benefit of the savings.

Why should people with incurable genetic diseases get to reproduce? Hemophilia, Tay-Sachs, sickle cell anemia and a host of others would be gone in a generation. Again, where is the loss?

Why should violent felons continue to remain alive or get the chance to reproduce? A two strikes and you're dead policy towards rapists, armed robbers, etc would go a long way to curbing the recidivism rate, reducing the size of our prison population, cutting back on the need for private security, all manner of inefficient costs with which we now contend.

When you look around at all our money that just gets wasted, you just want to scream. A few million people get sterilized, a few hundred thousand get executed and our cities are livable, our taxes are lower, our education and a decent health care essentially cost-free. Government becomes less of a factor in our lives rather than more of one, as we need less of its protection. What could be bad?

Posted by: Bart at December 13, 2004 11:46 AM

Bart...
You are in "top" (blunt, harsh) form on this thread. I should save your words and write a story. A CHRISTMAS CAROL II would open with a grandma reading the classic Dickins tale to her grandchildren. The children smile and listen attentivly. The camera focuses on one little boy as he smiles and sheds a tear whilst listening (guess who that will turn out to be). The cmaera then opans outside the house into a snowy New England night. A narrator says: "Ebeneezer Scrooge learned his lesson, and his story was passed down to succeding generations as both a warning and as a word of gracious hope."

Posted by: Phil at December 13, 2004 11:58 PM
« INSANE SANITIZING (via Mike Daley): | Main | WINDING 'EM UP: »