When I read this morning about Bill Bennett’s latest public humiliation, all I could think was “Man, does this guy know how to shoot himself in the foot!” Forget the pompous Book of Virtue. Mandatory reading for Bill Bennett: Doestoevsky’s The Gambler.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
As a preface to the comments to follow I am copying here the transcript of what Bennett actually said.
From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network’s Bill Bennett’s Morning in America:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I’ve read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn’t — never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they’re all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don’t know what the costs would be, too. I think as — abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don’t know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well –
CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Wow, Roger. I thought you were worldly enough to realize that, since Bennet’s a Catholic, there’s nothing in his faith that bans gambling. The only restriction is on doing so in excess, in gambling away the money needed to support the family. I’ve never heard anything to suggest Bennet’s family was hurt by his hobby.
Bennet’s not the hypocrite. His attackers, though, should spend some time looking into their mirrors.
I’m a Bennett fan. But this was dumb. There is no “in the context” about what he said. He needs to fess up, apologize that he even thought this. It was a mistake, and a mistake only. I do not feel that he is in anyway a racist. And trying to dance around what he said by essentialy blaming it on someone else (context arguement), he’s showing he may be. All of us make mistakes. I just wish politicians on both sides, would quit trying to skirt the issue, and be human and say they made a mistake, and sincerley apologize.
Even in context he’s still got his foot in it by making it a racial issue. If you have fewer babies being born you have fewer crimes, in that you have fewer victims and criminals. OK, fair enough, he’s discussing abortion here. But substitute “white” for “black” in the sentence Bennett used – wouldn’t that strike you as odd? As something Farrakhan might say?
Well, people are free to be as outraged as they please. The fallout will be predictable, and across the usual fault lines. A more interesting question, I think, than what effect abortion has had on crime to me is the effect it has had on elections. We are now into the decade where those aborted kids would have been (maybe) voting. Would they have voted for Bush in the last election? How about the 2000 election? Did the Democrat push for abortion lose it an election or two for the White House?
But substitute “white” for “black” in the sentence Bennett used – wouldn’t that strike you as odd?
Well, yes, because the study dealt with poor people, and unfortunately, as any honest person should admit, blacks are poorer in this country. You could, of course, substitute “Southern,” “poor,” or “male” in the sentence he used for the same effect, because all those groups have higher rates of violence and crime. That’s perhaps a better example to use to see whether a different phrasing would offend people.
He was clearly trying to give a reducto ad absurdum example of a horrendous policy that might on the face of it give utilitarian benefits, but that would be awful for moral reasons. This was to argue against making exclusively utilitarian arguments– in the specific case to counsel against people trying to use utilitarian arguments like about Social Security to argue against abortion.
He said explicitly that people shouldn’t elevate utilitarian arguments like reducing the crime rate above all moral considerations, because that would inevitably lead racist arguments like that being taken seriously.
Steven Levitt’s paper clearly argues that abortion has reduced crime because the people abortion were more likely to commit crime. The same exact argument applies to black people in general, mostly because of strong cross-correlations. But Professor Levitt was defending abortion, so he mostly gets a free pass.
Yes, Bennett here is guilty of the gross sin of making an argument that requires that:
1. His short argument be presented in its entirety to make sense.
2. His listerners/readers follow what this argument says.
3. Furthermore, he bothered to engage the caller on such a question rather than put him off with blather and then later write and reflect on the issue.
How could he be so blind in our “sound bite” culture?
How could he be so blind in our “sound bite” culture?
Exactly. he was dancing in a mine field, and found one. Foolish.
Isn’t Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood built on the idea that aborting the poor and blacks will manufacture a just society without crime and poverty?
Geez why worry about Bennett says, take a look at what is actually happening and who is actively doing it.
Roger:
If Bennent had inserted “from poor families” instead of black there would be no controversy. He should just come out and do a mea culpa and get it over with. But when you read the entire discussion,thanks Ted, you get a real feel for what he actually meant. The impression I had received from some of the reports were entirely misleading. His argument that using utilitarian arguments for or against abortion is the true sickness.Whatever your take is on abortion the discussion he had with his caller regarding abortion was better then the usual bumper sticker arguments of “Your killing a baby” and “Women will be using hangers in the alley” fare that you get on many talk radio shows.
Ramesh Ponnuru has characterized Bennet’s comments as “impolitic,” and he’s right. No white conservative dare utter anything that even tangentially references race.
Of course, Charlie Rangel is free to call the President Bull Conner.
Our political discourse is absolutely poison, not to mention superficial, irrational and stupid as evidenced by the fact that this made the news at all.
“Our political discourse is absolutely poison, not to mention superficial, irrational and stupid as evidenced by the fact that this made the news at all.”
Agree with that, except that if we had better political discourse, such things would make the news all time–only as analysis/debate instead of news. G.K. Chesteron, Blatchford, Bernard Shaw, and others certainly didn’t pull any punches in the early 1900s. Their readers seem to have been able to handle it just fine. It helped that they made arguments instead of “gotcha” lines.
A few of you have referenced the “mine field” And surely it is just that.
Many of us visit web sites which monitor the media daily and report on the
egregious examples of distortion of what an individual has said or written. I remember both Dowd and Milbank being caught cutting and pasting remarks to make them seem the opposite of what
was said and then to attack the speaker. Other sites show a news item and compare the “headline” used by various outlets. Try that on the Bennett flap today.
I have often talked to friends and made remarks such as ” When I become King, no one will have
a child until they pass a Parenting Test.” I laugh, as my friends do and then we acknowledge that
I won’t be King and will have to discuss the problem in more practical terms. Of course, one of my friends could go off and say that Ted advocates that no one could have children with the permission of the Government. So far none have done that.
The only sure cure for the “mine field” is never to write and never to speak. That clearly is not good. So, we will have to live without fear of the mine field. And when the mines explode we have to expose the liars and cheats who misquote and vilify their opponents. Fox and some of the people there are the most likely ones to put the Bennett flap into full view.
And tomorrow we will have a new one.
Couldn’t read all the comments but I read the 1rst one – thanks for the exact playback – which is a ‘little bit’ better than the paper’s account.
However, Bennett still said if you abort all the black babies… and you can’t take that back. It’s kind of like if your wife tells you yeah you’re just alright and I married you bcs I was afraid to wait for something better… I mean how can you take that back? “well honey you’re taking it out of context?” lol…
Of course Ponnuru’s right about a white man particularly a rich conservative one can’t saying certain things… and I imagine Farrakhan, Sharpton etc.. will jump on this like shark bait of course…. however leaving the nuts on the fringe aside….
Bennett’s still a jack a** for saying this….
even if it is true that crime is disproportionately committed by blacks it does not matter and is not relevant….
And while I listen to Hannity and am a recovering dissallusioned left of centerite (like most here) Bennett’s gambling thing still irks me…
the guy just comes off pompous.
Whether its “unchristian” or not I couldn’t give a shit. but if he’s such a pious guy he could quit gambling and take the $$ he would have blown and fly to Africa with tons of food for starving kids.
Nuff said.
Mike
Let’s see, an author and public figure makes a ridiculously easy to verify statement that is sure to offend the “sensitive” types who would never buy his books anyway. His name goes back into the spotlight for a moment and the kneejerk reactionaries who just got done thumping their hollow chests concerning “speaking truth to power” are now howling about a man who actually took facts to a logical, if unpleasant, conclusion in order to make a specific point.
Rather amusing.
Thanks effie at September 30, 2005 10:09 AM for this opportunity to remind everyone here of the Roe Effect.
This is another one of those “can you believe he said” stories that apply only to conservatives. The Media Matters/Democrats Dowdify a quote and throw it out for a feeding frenzy. What did the book being discussed say about race, abortion and crime? I have yet to see a story that even begins to answer that question, which would put the comments in context. It is much more fun to say that Bennett thinks that aborting black babies would reduce crime, something which he rejected as immoral.
This is just another example of how dishonest liberals in the media can be.
Eh. Liberals display their usual gut-level hatred of Christianity. In other breaking news, the sun rose in the east this morning. Latest scientific evidence suggests that it will set in the west.
Rick B.–
Nice data. If only a couple of MSM chumps would bother to read it. Imagine that, Bill Bennett–who’s only a right-wing nutcase, after all–had that information at his fingertips.
Mr. Simon,If all you could think was:
Allow me to recommend Jeff Goldstein who has been considerably more thoughtful.
Note to those who think Bennett was dumb:
He was attacking Steven Levitt’s notion that abortion among black women has reduced the crime rate and that is a good thing. This is what Bennett actually said:
“It’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could–if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”
Bennett was attacking the morality of a pro-abortion argument that has been made quietly in liberal circles for years. The reason the left went bananas over this is because exposed the racism and mmorality of basic pro-abortio arguments. That fact that many pro-abortionists are closet racists should come as no surprise given the fact that Planned Parenthood, the number one abortion profiteer in the US, was founded by Margrett Sanger who was an open racist and Nazi sympathizer. (Yes Roger, she didn’t have much use for Jews either.)
Jerry;
Bennett was dumb because he should have known that by using black instead of poor, or babies from high crime area’s, this type of s###storm was going to occur. Didn’t he witness the Summer’s fake atrocity at Harvard. He know’s this is a PC dominated country and he should know better. It doesn’t make it fair, it’s just reality.
He was not only attacking the “abortion is good because it lowers the crime rate” idea, he was also attacking the “abortion is bad because it hurts the countries revenue stream” stupidity. It is so obvious that he was using a absurd thought to point out the flawed logic in both arguments.
Unfortunetly the press is jumping on this, taking his words completely out of context and people are calling in talk show’s all over the country calling for his head because “Bennett is advocating the abortion of black babies.” I kid you not. I have heard it three times this morning.
Bennett will eventually have to come forward with some form of apology or the “Bennett wants to kill black babies” legend will continue to grow. If he doesn’t the calls for economic boycott’s and other forms of witch hunting will grow. Sad, but true.
Kevin:
I disagree. If he comes forward with an apology for something the leftwing, pro-abortion press turned around on him then he validates it. He should get further in their faces and tell them directly that they racists and this proves it.
The Left came up with the notion of calling for apologies (to Indians for white oppression, to Blacks for slavery-and reparations too, etc, etc) and have now got The Apology embedded in current culture. The Right doesn’t counter. When Bush is likened to Bull Conner (a Dem), a Hitler, a murderer, our side is silent. Perhaps we on the Right understand freedom of speech.
So I hope Bennett holds fast. No apology, none needed.
Considering how Bennett has been read, compared to what he actually said, I suppose that I should state that my original post in this topic was rhetorical sarcasm. I don’t see any need to apologize for stirring people up.
Poor, sweet, unsophisticated-in-the-ways-of-the-world Bill Bennett: I’m thinking of the title of a longer Dostoevsky novel and it isn’t Crime and Punishment.
Roger:
Just a reminder on how taking qoutes out of context can be abused. I found this shocking statement by a prominent mystery writer blogger. “Console yourself, brothers, with the thought that there are no female Shakespeares or Einsteins”. Why you sexist pig you. These are the type of comments that have kept women from their proper place in society. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Of course I am not serious. But it is easy to do to almost anyone. Even if I included the crucial word that I left out on purpose, “….Yet”, there are some in the P.C. world who would claim that you are promoting the idea that women are not capable of achieving great achievements in science or literature or that if you were not so male eurocentric you would know that there are equivalent female achievments. I don’t agree, but that is how the game is played.
It was a dumb thing to say but then again considering the dumb things people like Pelosi say all day everyday it is kind of ridiculous to make a big deal out of it.
I am with Old Dad on this.
But Bennet has been around long enough to know that there are somethings you can not say.
It was a dumb thing to say but then again considering the dumb things people like Pelosi say all day everyday it is kind of ridiculous to make a big deal out of it.
I am with Old Dad on this.
But Bennet has been around long enough to know that there are somethings you can not say.
Look, this is taking something out of context to the point of dowdification. Even if he should have known this could be done, the only effect would be that he could never say anything particular about black people at all because you could, with sufficient elision, make anything offensive. Bennett offends me fairly often with things he really does mean; why fall for this?
By the way, Freakanomics doesn’t actually talk about race per se in this context, just social class; it does make the argument that wide access to abortions has reduced the population of the underclass, and thus the population of people likely to be involved in violent felonies.
Yep, classic case of Dowdification. If Bennett had said that one way to reduce crime was to abort all baby boys, would anybody say that he was anti-male? Nope, he’s just being undiplomatic. You know the definition of undiplomatic: Accidentally telling the truth.
It is time for the PC crap to be repudiated.
Folks like Bill Bennett need to speak the truth to lies.
Why is it so terrible or unacceptable for people to say truthful but unpleasant or uncomfortable things about blacks or the minority dujour, (except about the Jews, one of the smallest minorities)?
If you don’t like being stereotyped don’t act in stereotypical ways.
Bill Cosby gets beaten up by usual suspects. Why? Because he says truthful things that show them up for the empty suits that they are.
Bil Bennetts statements are getting the reaction from the usual suspects because they have been caught with their pants down once again.
Roger I am ashamed of a nice Jewish boy (who went to Queens College that bastion of left wing ideology no less) like you for jumping to knee jerk conclusions. I would have thought a person such as yourself who has experienced first hand the perfidy of the left would have waited for the dust to clear before jumping in and making a fool of yourself.
Ah well there is always the next time.
I say right on to Bill Bennett.
The Repudiation continues:
Watch for the fall of Harry Reid and Chucky Schumer in a congeress near you soon ( talk about unethical and felonious).
thedaddy
thedaddy:
The main topic of Bennett’s discusion was not crime in the African American community. He was pointing out the stupidity of using utilitarian factors in the discussion of abortion, pro or con. He brought up the AA community in a intentionally absurd example to point out the dangers in going down that route. He wasn’t trying to say anything to the AA community. He was pointing out to a pro life caller that when he brought in revenue streams for the government to back up his pro-life position he was going down a dangerous path and then he brought up a clumsy, not because he intended it but because we live in a P.C, crazed world, and intentionally ugly example to show hinm the error’s of his thinking.
It was 100% pure Dowdification.
He argued AGAINST a purely utilitarian theory for reducing crime, purposely making that theory as shocking as possible. He vehemently said how immoral & repugnant that solution would be.
He gets reported as saying EXACTLY the opposite, that he proposes killin’ black babies.
That’s not merely unfair to Bennett. That is egregious slander.
***
The Left employs this tactic so often that I start to feel they would be entirely out of power if they abandoned it.
Thanks, the left-of-center Nuff-said guy. Bill Bennet and the rest of us will no doubt defer to your wisdom on how we should re-distribute our own “wealth”.
Any other worthy causes you deem appropriate for us to spend our own money?
I went to the AP article and noticed their careful layout of his words:
Notice the gap between the first part of the quote, with an implied time lapse, and the rest of it. Reading it this way, you do not understand that the 2nd and 3rd sentences are a critical part of the argument, not an afterthought. Read that way, his choice of shock in the first sentence makes no sense at all; you don’t understand that he is arguing against this utilitarianism.
This is a fun game. Let’s do this to some Democrats, shall we?
It is another example of stupid PC goofiness. If I say something that offends you, then I’m some kind of criminal. I wish we had more Bill Bennetts and Bill Cosby’s willing to face it head on.
I want the right to say what’s on my mind, even if it’s hurtful and most of society thinks it’s unacceptable.
Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore can call bloody, murdering, jihadists freedom fighters and are celebrated for it. To me it is hateful, demented speech, but I support their right to say it.
It is way past time to take a stand against the political rectitude that is stifling any discussion of serious issues. Bennett is owed an apology. None will be offered, because the victim class would rather be aggrieved than debate ideas or offer facts that might counter his position.
I think most of you are missing Roger’s point in your zeal to defend Bill Bennett. He is, like a good writer, simply observing an obvious psychological issue that Bennett’s comments once again reveal. The man has a deep seated (perhaps unconscious) desire to sabotage himself.
Bennett has nothing to apologize for; this is PC sliming, and Roger got taken in.
On Steven Leavy’s behalf (sp?), if we aborted all pregnancies except those of Jews and Asians, we could slash crime rates in the US to less than one-tenth of what hey are now!
See? It’s all those evil white, black and Hispanic peoples who make up most of the excess crime rate; control those people, and the problem will go away!
This isn’t just parody, it’s deductive truth. We’ve just no balls to commence such aggressive social engineering. Too bad we believe in individuals and human rights, like Bennett. But for Bill, WE COULD HAVE UTOPIA ON EARTH!
SJ:
I agree that Bennett should have realized that by using a politically incorrect term he was opening himself to this ridiculous witch hunt. The practical reality of today’s society is that for public speakers or writers they have to edit themselves to the point that if the words and the idea’s that they talk or write about carry even a hint of possible racism, sexism, class bigotry, or any other possible thought crime you will open yourself to unfounded indictments of hate speech. It is not right but it is the ugly truth.
If Bennett was talking on the subject of crime he could be scolded. But you if you read the entire text of the conversation that he was having with his caller and it is clear that he was discussing the problem of using utilitarian arguments to attack or defend the issue of abortion. So you and Roger are right that Bennett left his door unlocked and the P.C. police broke in and arrested him. But I also think that, no matter which side of the abortion debate you fall on, that if one decides to laugh at Bennett for being so naive to think that free and open conversation is not going to be a risky proposition you might also be worried about having the thought control police parsing every word you speak or write to stifle open conversation and the free exchange of idea’s.
The realistic side of my nature knows that he can’t win this fight and he is going to have to humble himself to the P.C. crowd. My idealistic side is sick with the thought that he has to do it.
Kevin Peters
I think the crimethink Mr Bennet displayed was to imply that blacks display a higher rate of criminality than whites. We are not supposed to talk about this.
I never voluntarily watch CNN anymore but it was on at the gym. After some amazingly blatant Bush bashing, they had a “fair and balanced” segment featuring Donna Brazille and Beowulf Buchanan (I guess that is their idea of a typical Republican). Anyway, Donna asserted that “saying African-Americans have a higher crime rate is a stereotype” (not sure if quote is exact, but it’s close). Grammatically, that is nonsense, but if she meant to say it is somehow untrue, that is nonsense on stilts. Blacks not only have a higher crime rate, it is enormously higher, almost an order of magnitude in some cases.
John Darbyshire is correct: You can’t talk about that!
Curmudgeon:
I have no fight with a single word that you wrote but it is mistake to make that the primary target of the argument. It is exactly where the P.C. crowd wants to fight this battle. Bennett was not discussing balck crime per se, he just used black crime as an absurd example of using the utilitarian argument regarding abortion. He was warning the pro-life caller that once you go down that road you turn the moral argument into a practical argument. Brazile wants the argument to go down that path because it supports their argument that Bennett is a racist. By going down that road it accepts the premise that does not apply to the facts. I know I am being repetitive and a major snot by saying the same thing over and over but this is exactly how these discussions get perverted and end up helping the P.C. nuts.
Yep, Kevin P has it correct. Follow the Jelf Goldstein link, then check out the posts by Brad DeLong and Matthew Yglesias. Then read the comments to both posts, until you have to come up for air.
This is how people become instantly “guilty”. And they worry about Republicans taking over the country as facists …
SJ: You’re quite right that Bennett could have kept himself out of this by avoiding any language that would alert the PC police.
But we have to stop tiptoeing around these things. We have to restore the use of common sense.
***
On another blog, I noted that blacks do commit disproportionately more crime. A so-called progessive leapt on that with fury, and suggested that I had all sorts of nasty racist ideas.
In Newspeak, observing an unpleasant fact is identical with having a racist explanation for that fact.
Likewise, in Newspeak, wanting to keep traditional marriage is completely equivalent with hating gays.
In both cases, I think the differences are pretty obvious, but they are beyond the grasp of today’s progressives, who have mutilated and mangled common sense.
This is why the Left and Right talk past each other most of the time. (At least the Right realizes what’s going on.) Sigh.
I am honestly trying to make sense of this controversy.
It either is, or is not, true that, considered in the aggregate, our black citizens have a higher crime rate than, say, those of some other “race,” say Race Q. (I put the term “race” in quotes because I believe it to be a dubious category.)
But then if you were to examine citizens of a black middle class neighborhood, and compare them to citizens in a desperately poor Q neighborhood, would you find that the crime rate was higher among the Q’s than in the black neighborhood?
Let’s say that that turned out to be the case.
Would it make sense to argue, then, that there was some necessary connection between “race” and crime rate?
Would one then advocate promoting abortion among poorer Q women (to reduce the overall crime rate)?
It does seem to me that Mr. Bennett was, somewhat foolishly and carelessly, trying to argue against abortion in general (as he generally does); against trying to come up with utilitarian justifications for or against abortion in particular; but that he was not advocating any racist policies.
That is just my reading.
Jamie Irons
As far as homicides are concerned, the US Bureau of Justice statistics are compelling. From the linked site:
From 1976 to 2002 –
* 86% of white victims were killed by whites
* 94% of black victims were killed by blacks
The first I heard of this contrived “outrage” was a news video quoting a NAACP rend a shirt. Bill Bennet is an outspoken opponent of abortion, and has been for decades. I remember a priest in Chapel Hill who spoke of Mr. Bennet with profound respect and admiration.
It seems passing strange to me that those who decry the reactionary tactics by the MSM often do not hesitate to use similar ad hominem vitriol against those with whom they disagree, politcally and/or philosophically.
I was also curious as to the position taken by the NAACP on abortion.
From the 4/23/04 linked article:
For the first time in its 95-year history, the National Association for the Advancement for Colored People (NAACP) board of directors has taken a pro-choice stance and endorsed the principle that women have the right to equal access to family planning materials, information, and birth control.
But there was a reaction to the resolution, and for an example of the outcry, read the entire piece.
Re: mrp at September 30, 2005 07:03 PM:
Another compelling statistic at the same site:
From 1976 to 2002
45.9% of homicides were committed by Whites
52.1% of homicides were committed by Blacks
These statistics do not seem dramatically different except when you consider that, as of the 2000 census, Blacks comprised only 12.3% of the total population. So we could more than cut the homicide rate in half if we were to eliminate that 12.3% of the population. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your murder rate would decrease by 52.1%.
Before I say goodnight, here is some grist for the mill: From the Daily Kos
“You Could Abort Every Black Baby in this Country”
by Congressman John Conyers
Thu Sep 29th, 2005 at 11:43:28 PDT
Former Republican Education Secretary, Bill Bennett stated on his radio program yesterday that, “if you wanted to reduce crime, you could – if that were your sole purpose – abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. ” I have written a letter to the president of the Salem Radio Network, the network that carries Bennett’s program, requesting that they suspend this program and address the problem of stereotyping and profiling that has been expressed on their programming.
The text of my letter follows: “Dear Mr. Anderson:
We were shocked and outraged to learn that, on your radio network yesterday, Bill Bennett stated on his radio program, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, “I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” This statement was made in response to a caller’s suggestion linking abortions to the solvency of the Social Security program.
It is difficult for us to understand how an individual granted a show on your network could utter such a statement in 21st century America. While we all support First Amendment Rights, we simply cannot countenance statements and shows that are replete with racism, stereotyping, and profiling. Mr. Bennett’s statement is insulting to all of us and has no place on the nation’s public air waves. The fact that Mr. Bennett later acknowledged that such abortions would be “morally reprehensible,” but added again that if it was done “the crime rate would go down,” is equally outrageous.
We ask that you immediately suspend this radio program. We also ask to meet with the executives of your network to understand how you could have permitted an individual with such views to broadcast such a program on your network, and learn what you intend to do to respond to this problem. We are planning to convey our views to your commercial sponsors as well and hereby request a list of all sponsors of the show within the last year.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Jamie,
You’re setting aside the proposition that Mr. Bennett might feel that the worst possible outcome to all this would be that his name would be misspelled. Plus, using a verifiable datum to advance Sanger’s Benthamite utilitarianism to its logical conclusion had to have been a bit of fun. All this as the Dems try desperately to herd blacks back into the (literal) moat in back of their Blue Castle in NO makes for rather droll entertainment. Especially if you consider the fact that NO had one of the highest murder rates in the country even before the NOPD boogied. Not to mention the highest jury nullification rate for homicides.
I’m not at all sure that foolish and careless are adjectives that apply in this instance.
Dear Congressman Conyers:
I came upon a book in my child’s High school library and I was shocked. It was written by a man called Jonathan Swift, “A Modest Proposal.” I was enraged to read that this man proposed that poor Irish families eat their children. I have tried to talk to the school officials and they have used terms such as Black Humour, Reducto Ad Absurdum, Freedom of speech, and they have even tried to say that he did not really suggest that the Irish become cannibals even when it is written in black and white.
I know you are especially sensitive to matters of racism and even though you do not share my Irish heritage you understand my outrage. You must have this book banned at once from every school and library in this country. If you do not I can only make the assumption that you are racist in the tradition of Wallace, Duke, and Bennett.
Kevin Peters
“We also ask to meet with the executives of your network to understand how you could have permitted an individual with such views to broadcast such a program on your network, and learn what you intend to do to respond to this problem. We are planning to convey our views to your commercial sponsors as well and hereby request a list of all sponsors of the show within the last year.”
Thus begins the shakedown.
Conyers is a contemptible ass.
I had to read mrp’s post twice to be sure.
It seemed the guy thought those particular statistics actually had a bearing on this question.
I wake up this mornng and lo and behold I see Bennett has followed my advice and come out swinging. I think that the pro-abortion left is going to regret their attempts at smearing him. It couldn’t happen a more opportune time. W should definately nominate Jance Rogers Brown to fill the SCOTUS vacancy. Between Bennett and Brown the Democratic party hold on the black vote should crumble into dust.
“The practical reality of today’s society is that for public speakers or writers they have to edit themselves to the point that if the words and the idea’s that they talk or write about carry even a hint of possible racism, sexism, class bigotry, or any other possible thought crime you will open yourself to unfounded indictments of hate speech. It is not right but it is the ugly truth.”
The above only seems to apply to conservatives and Republicans.
This is the problem, not what Bennett said, but that there are those amongst us who, not content to disagree or prove incorrect what was said, seek to silence even to the point of advocating killing of the speaker. Only communists, socialists, muslims, thugs and gangsters advocate death to the speakers of things that shine the light of truth on their failings.
Where is the condemnation of Sharpton, Jackson, Conyers, Lee, Waters, Rangel, Pelosi, Kerry, Gore, Schumer, Clinton, various imams, leftwing bloggers and other members of that gang of vile racists for all the outrageous and hateful things they say on a regular basis by these same “SHOCKED” bleaters. The ones who jumped to condem Bennetts taken out of context statement. One does not have to take out of context the above mentioned pimples on the body politic to hear their seething rage, hate and even calls to violence in their spoken and written words.
It is time to repudiate PC.
The best way of course is to do exactly what Bennett did and come out fighting. The weenies will scurry away when their bleatings are repudiated and turned on them.
Rudy Guiliani did this from day one of his Mayorality and was labled “mean-spirited” for the entire time of his holding office by the usual suspects. So what. When I was a child the response to an insult was “Sticks an stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me”
Insults can only be taken, never given.
He didn’t let them change him or his agenda and was reelected and as we all know became the Leader after the above mentioned muslim advocates of death did the only thing they know how to do to pople they disagree with– destroy.
Keeping quiet and looking the other way does not solve problems. It is only by exposing rot and pus to the light of day that it can be removed.
I say right on Bill Bennett.
thedaddy
“The practical reality of today’s society is that for public speakers or writers they have to edit themselves to the point that if the words and the idea’s that they talk or write about carry even a hint of possible racism, sexism, class bigotry, or any other possible thought crime you will open yourself to unfounded indictments of hate speech. It is not right but it is the ugly truth.”
The above only seems to apply to conservatives and Republicans.
This is the problem, not what Bennett said, but that there are those amongst us who, not content to disagree or prove incorrect what was said, seek to silence even to the point of advocating killing of the speaker. Only communists, socialists, muslims, thugs and gangsters advocate death to the speakers of things that shine the light of truth on their failings.
Where is the condemnation of Sharpton, Jackson, Conyers, Lee, Waters, Rangel, Pelosi, Kerry, Gore, Schumer, Clinton, various imams, leftwing bloggers and other members of that gang of vile racists for all the outrageous and hateful things they say on a regular basis by these same “SHOCKED” bleaters. The ones who jumped to condem Bennetts taken out of context statement. One does not have to take out of context the above mentioned pimples on the body politic to hear their seething rage, hate and even calls to violence in their spoken and written words.
It is time to repudiate PC.
The best way of course is to do exactly what Bennett did and come out fighting. The weenies will scurry away when their bleatings are repudiated and turned on them.
Rudy Guiliani did this from day one of his Mayorality and was labled “mean-spirited” for the entire time of his holding office by the usual suspects. So what. When I was a child the response to an insult was “Sticks an stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me”
Insults can only be taken, never given.
He didn’t let them change him or his agenda and was reelected and as we all know became the Leader after the above mentioned muslim advocates of death did the only thing they know how to do to pople they disagree with– destroy.
Keeping quiet and looking the other way does not solve problems. It is only by exposing rot and pus to the light of day that it can be removed.
I say right on Bill Bennett.
thedaddy
sorry about the double post.
thedaddy
Bostonian said -
I had to read mrp’s post twice to be sure.
It seemed the guy thought those particular statistics actually had a bearing on this question.
I’ve been Bennetted!
The post was a response (helpful or otherwise) to Jamie Iron’s item (9/30 6:20pm) immediately prior to mine. If it didn’t have any bearing on a particular question that Bostonian had in mind, said fellow/lady has my apology.
The linked page is an index of the enormous suffering and fear borne daily by our fellow Americans living in the nation’s inner cities.
And neither I nor Bill Bennett believe that the abortion of a single innocent child will solve the scourges of poverty and drug trafficking in ANY American community.
Update:
A further apology to Bostonian:
The “I’ve been Bennetted!” was typed with a “grin” following, but the “g” (within left and right arrows) was unfortunately stripped out. The declaration was meant in jest.
If anyone knew Bill Bennett’s background and his wife’s support of saving ‘minority’ babies from being aborted(killed), the whole leftist-democratic misled media frenzy would be held in contempt.
Statistics – what do they prove? Well, just about anything the person wants to prove in misguided interpretations. The truth is usually lost in agenda driven political right and left narratives who weave stories in and out of the media cycle for all to see. I use to accept such 30sec knowledge as fact. I no longer do.
It will be interesting to see if blogs like PJMedia will be able to change this feature of 30sec soundbites and Mass Media fixation on 30sec research. OR will they become caught up in the same quick one liner morass?
The WEB in general should be able to combat these issues if it can cut through the media blitz with media ratings that are trustworthy. But then, who is doing the rating?
Speaking of rates, more specifically crime rates, try some links at the Bureau of Justice Statistics here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/race.htm and even better on homicide trends here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Ironic is it not that the site list race statistics? Does it tell the whole story? No, course not, but it does shed light on the truth of what is current in today’s society on a fundamental metric. Is it racist to collect such information? If not, then is it racist to draw hypothetical conclusions on such data? Better yet, is it racist to “point out that such hypotheticals are invalid?” Which is exactly what Bill Bennett did, he pointed out how such hypotheticals are completely wrong.
What are the reasons for such disparity? Poverty? Generational Nutured Inheritance(Father to son, or lack of Fatherhood)? Single Parent status? Religion? Ethical Breakdown? Educational opportunities? Police Enforcement? Job Opportunities? Regional racism? Regional Political Power?
It is very easy to point to poverty, but we all know criminals exist at all levels of socio-econmoic spectrums. Obviously it is much harder to rise out of a poverty-stricken, crime-ridden area and become a productive citizen than it is for someone without such pressures in life. It is much easier in such circumstances to fall into the criminal element when surrounded by such. Yet, still many come out of these circumstances to lead good, productive and moral lives. Why?
I personally do not believe Bennett is a racist based upon one of his discussions. He is prone to philosophical debates of a higher order than are usually provided on talk radio or TV newscast. He was trying to point out the weakness of arguments just like the one he made and at the very end he called morally reprehensible.
I do not know Bennett personally, nor much about his history. But I do know that he and his wife support an organization that works with those in poverty and of all colors. To specifically try and stop abortion, a personal cause of his.
In an argument made by the caller, Bennett used known statistics as part of an argument against such wide speculation.
Would it be more appopro to say if we aborted all white males we would have less pedophiles? Would there have been as much outrage? Honestly, I do not know the pedophile stats, but that is not really the point of my argument.
To me, it seems a leftist media(see Nawlin’s coverage for example) and a Democrat Propaganda machine are in full force to hurl accusations(racist and others) at anyone and anybody at the drop of a hat.
A little off subject to be sure, but having grown up in Louisiana I am fully aware of the internal problems in La. from a morally corrupt perspective. Racism exist, so does the last of the Democratic Cronies who openly flaunt there power and family connections. It is changing and thankfully so. But anyone with an inkling of a clue in regards to La. politics knows the real issues where not federally related at all, but massive corruption, ineptitude and incompetence on all levels, local and state.
One only need to look toward David Duke for straight answers in a racist state. One only need to look at the states economic policies for growth – casino las vegas, la. style.
Jefferson parish democrat Broussard’s Hollywood acting role made famous the lies of the local politico to the nation. He feigned horror and woe, when in reality he was lying.
If anyone checks on him I would not be surprised to find a whole list of improprieties long enough to shake alligator tails/tales at. Just my personal opinion with no basis in reality, except that of La. politics, specifically, southern La. politics.
Where does ramble on La. politics lead? Speculation! Is it possible that Howard Dean’s language has entered into safe ground among the whole democratic party? First Dean made inappropriate jokes about whites in trucks, guns and rebel flags, then he joked about blacks only attending republican fund raisors as paid wait staff. Then you have New Orleans, now Bennett? Where else will it pop up?
Finally, How is it a reverend of the cloth will complain about faux federalist racism in a city of Nawlin’s, yet have little at all to say about the local Democrat racist or the sin’s against God?
Anyone who understands the nature of the Bible, understands both old and new testament doctrine. Christ, Moses, none ever preached against poverty as a sin, but they all railed against Sexual Sins, Greed and Immoral conduct.
I do not remember “Rev’s” Sharpton or Jackson once taking on Bourbon Street or Las Vegas. Not once do I remember them taking on any kind of vice such as prostitution, alcohol, drugs on a national level. I never remember them railing against cities of sin.
Christ said help those who need help and he did critize hypocrites. But I can hardly see evidence of differences in racism between the John Kerry’s, Howard Dean’s and George Bush’s of the world.
All have silver spoons, neither raised in poverty, just the opposite. But we are somehow supposed to believe that Kerry, Howard Dean and the Democrats are more sympathetic to causes of racial disparity or poverty?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…. Funny I do not remember a bunch of blacks in Dean’s government or his Presidential campaign any more so than the President’s.
Howard Dean, Broussard, Pelosi…. fawning racist slurs against those over whom they have no moral superiority. It is fluff, fluff and dangerous rhetoric of the worst kind.
It is nauseating to the core and dirty politics.
Fight poverty, help those who need a helping hand, but the hypocritical handwaving and mouthing slurs and slanders of racism should not be leveled at someone without true cause.
The question in the end is not do blacks commit more crime – statistically – they do right now in our society, but not all areas and yes blacks are prone to be in poverty, thus a correlation.
At one time – the Irish committed more crimes in New York, not racist, a fact. The question is not whether or not its a racist statement to say so of either group.
No, the real question is how do we target a community in metropoliton areas with messages of hope, with encouragement, with education, with new opportunities, even “moral messages” secular or in a religious vein for those who believe and rather take a spiritual route.
Democrats are great at hurling accusations around. It would be good to hear some answers, some real solutions put forth.
Louisiana is historically in control by the democrats, especially the south. The problems of New Orleans were known for decades for its flood path and the people of poverty. Yet no democrat ever did a thing about it.
Howard Deanism or Deniacs have caught on to the democratic party and hurling accusations is now the norm for a party hell bent on self-destruction.
Intellectually, there was nothing dumb or factually incorrect about what he said. If anything, it was too sophisticated, leaving his words vulnerable to misquotation. Unfortunately, we on the right are so used to the perpetual outrage that we’re tolerating, instead of challenging it.
“In this climate we have to be careful…” so eff-ing what? The only reason we have to be careful is we’ve surrendered political discourse and language to people who are hostile to us. But alas, noone’s willing to stand up to it, too afraid of the media…so we give more ground to fake charges, hoping it will just pass over.
In a perfect world, he wouldn’t give an inch, and the White House wouldn’t throw him under the bus for the real race baiters. We just had the opportunity of a lifetime to discredit their ilk. You think the majority of people in this country welcomed the Katrina racial demagoguery? Yet, once more the Republican Party took its licks, and swept it under the carpet with moderate language, too afraid of bad press to actually respond energetically.
“I have no fight with a single word that you wrote but it is mistake to make that the primary target of the argument. It is exactly where the P.C. crowd wants to fight this battle.”
…
“The realistic side of my nature knows that he can’t win this fight and he is going to have to humble himself to the P.C. crowd. My idealistic side is sick with the thought that he has to do it.”
I think that’s exactly the argument you have to fight, because it is the most important element of the entire episode. The idea that we cannot say things that are true, but are also politically inconvenient.
And I strongly believe that you’re wrong, we can win this fight. Perhaps 10 or 20 years ago we couldn’t have, but I think Americans are generally fed with racial demagoguery and pandering. And I suspect the average American would be insulted by the notion that he can’t handle the truth. But of course, noone has the stones to actually say that that’s exactly the liberal party line.
“But of course, noone has the stones to actually say that that’s exactly the liberal party line.”
What do you mean?
I said exactly that in many more words earlier in this discussion.
Unless, of course, you are referring to the liberals themselves. Then again we already know, they have no stones.
thedaddy
I meant high profile Republican politicians. Yes, bloggers do, but the only reason that they’ve had such a strong impact is that they aren’t as gunshy as the national party. We say things that our bigwigs don’t, even when they should be carrying the water themselves.