Chef Jim Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Linky Well if outrage is bad and political, then try this shoe off for size. 460046[/snapback] What are you talking about? Oh and by the way if your sig lines are longer than any post you've ever made there is a $50 fine for that. You were aware of that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 i agree with him 100%.but i also agree that aborting all white babies would eventually lower crime. fewer humans...lower crime. what's the problem? 459991[/snapback] You agree that killing black babies would lower the crime rate? Not total crimes, but the crime rate. If so, why? Why would killing black babies specifically, he mentions no others so lets not put words in his mouth that he did not say, have an effect on the number of crimes committed per x amount of people, ie, the crime rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 You're much smarter than that. He was saying, that since there is higher crime/arrest rate among blacks....... He was being purposely ludicrous. He was giving an example of how statistics can be used to reach FALSE conclusions. His statement was in no way racist, nor did it even hint at some underlying racism. You know that. Don't wordsmith it to try and make it seem otherwise. FWIW IMO, The statement does not prove he is unbiased either. It is what it is, and nothing more. A bad choice of words/example to shoot down an idiot caller. 460045[/snapback] He believes that killing black children would lower crime rates. You are presuming because of an assumed higher crime rate among blacks. If you killed the kids of Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, Martin Luther King, etc, etc, etc. do you think that would lower the crimer rate? Why wouldn't it, they are black aren't they? Is it possible that to lower the crime rate in the absurd manner he was poking fun at what you would need to do is abort babies who you know are later going to committ crimes. That would seem to make more sense. Of course, maybe to Bennett aborting a baby you know is going to committ crimes later and aborting a black baby is the same thing. Being black doesn't predispose one to becoming a criminal. The link between poverty and crime on the other hand is pretty clear. If what he needed was for the analogy were people statistically enegaging in more crime, then why not use a race neutral reference such as "the poor". If he had to make a stupid point in a stupid way then he could at least have talked about aborting the babies of the poor. He didn't, he chose black babies. Was that a wild stab or did he do that for a reason and if so why? I really can't beleive that there is a spirited defense of Bennett on this one here. And you guys wonder why you get like .00001% of the black vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 You agree that killing black babies would lower the crime rate? Not total crimes, but the crime rate. If so, why? Why would killing black babies specifically, he mentions no others so lets not put words in his mouth that he did not say, have an effect on the number of crimes committed per x amount of people, ie, the crime rate? 460057[/snapback] Because The Man targets black people and they get picked up more for crimes that they may have not committed. There, good liberal answer. I'm going way out here and say something that will get me crucifed but here goes. Have you looked at the racial make-up of our prison. Why is that? Are they committing more of the crimes than other races or they just being caught and prosecuted at a higher rate because of their skin? I mean that's the question correct? If it's the former then Bennett's rational is correct, if it's the latter racisim runs deeper than most people want to admit. But maybe the real question is if they are committing more crimes percentage-wise than their percentage of the population the REAL question is.....why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 What are you talking about? Oh and by the way if your sig lines are longer than any post you've ever made there is a $50 fine for that. You were aware of that right? 460050[/snapback] Glad to annoy you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Glad to annoy you! 460076[/snapback] Confuse me is more appropriate. Because were you saying the Whitehouse is outraged? "The president believes the comments were not appropriate," Wow he IS outraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 You agree that killing black babies would lower the crime rate? Not total crimes, but the crime rate. If so, why? Why would killing black babies specifically, he mentions no others so lets not put words in his mouth that he did not say, have an effect on the number of crimes committed per x amount of people, ie, the crime rate? 460057[/snapback] Disclaimer so I don't get painted as a racist: I think all human beings are equal without reservation. (P.S. In reality if anyone wants to take this and run with it calling me a racist go right ahead. I know who I am, and won't get irked by some stupid stojan on a board.) Here you go Mr. Wizard: Per capita, blacks currently have a higher crime rate than the cross section of america. This is due to many factors, including, but not limited to, economic circumstances. Bennett's ridiculous example, purposely ignores all those other factors and draws an improper direct correlation between skin color and crime. This is done in an effort to be ridiculous. He takes it further and says basically "if you take away the skin color, the crime goes with it. Stupidity in an effort to be stupid. For round numbers lets say 3 in 10 blacks will commit a crime, and 2.5 in 10 is the overall rate. This would make the rate for the non-black population somewhere less than 2.5 by definition. Say 2.3. If skin color was the only factor feeding those rate......need I go on? What BB did not factor in to his thought process was the firestorm that would ensue from his comments. This firestorm is not helpful to anyone, black or white. It was predicatble though, so I do think BB was pretty stupid in choosing his example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 This whole episode reminds me of that guy down in DC (I think....CTM?) who got shitcanned for using the word "Niggard." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 He believes that killing black children would lower crime rates. 460071[/snapback] Actually, he doesn't believe that. Which is clear from the context of his statement: he had a caller call in and suggest that Social Security would not be an issue if it wasn't for the legalization of abortion, as all the aborted fetuses would now be in the workforce and paying into SS. Bennet pointed out that that was a faintly silly idea, as abortion and SS are at best only remotely connected, and was as silly as saying that aborting all blacks would reduce the crime rate. His context was not crime prevention, it was the stupidity of assuming apparent causal connections where there are none. But of course, without the context, it looks like he's saying that the secret to crime prevention is genocide. That's probably why the context wasn't reported: in context, it's a non-issue. Out of context, it's a really juicy story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Can someone please tell me, in all seriousness, who the hell Bill Bennett is and why I should care, or even listen, to what he says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Actually, he doesn't believe that. Which is clear from the context of his statement: he had a caller call in and suggest that Social Security would not be an issue if it wasn't for the legalization of abortion, as all the aborted fetuses would now be in the workforce and paying into SS. Bennet pointed out that that was a faintly silly idea, as abortion and SS are at best only remotely connected, and was as silly as saying that aborting all blacks would reduce the crime rate. His context was not crime prevention, it was the stupidity of assuming apparent causal connections where there are none. But of course, without the context, it looks like he's saying that the secret to crime prevention is genocide. That's probably why the context wasn't reported: in context, it's a non-issue. Out of context, it's a really juicy story. 460103[/snapback] Wow. That puts a whole new spin on things, doesn't it? If I were him, I'd tell the masters of this smear campaign to go screw themselves rather than apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Can someone please tell me, in all seriousness, who the hell Bill Bennett is and why I should care, or even listen, to what he says? 460106[/snapback] He was in the government 15 years ago, and now has a syndicated radio show. For all the clamor over this BS, you'd think he was Attorney General or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Wow. That puts a whole new spin on things, doesn't it? 460107[/snapback] It took me all of three minutes to find that out. Two of those minutes were spent realizing that every single "independent" press outlet was running the exact same story, and no one ever bothered to look up any transcripts to find out what was actually said. "Spin" doesn't enter into it. It's laziness and irresponsibility on the part of the media...and greed, as taking his statement (which was badly phrased, even for the point he was making) out of context makes for a far jucier story and better ratings than the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 As Mickey suggested, I'd be willing to bet that the crime rate for blacks as a whole, is closer to the crime rate of poor people as a whole, than the crime rate for middle or upper class blacks to the overall crime rate. Therefore, it is more a poverty issue than a race issue. If Bob Bettitt wanted to use that as an example, he should have said poor babies, not black babies. By saying black babies, it became appallingly stupid, and borderline racist, even if it was pretty clear he wasn't intentionally being racist. Although some of the worst forms of racism are the unintentional ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 "Spin" doesn't enter into it. It's laziness and irresponsibility on the part of the media...and greed, as taking his statement (which was badly phrased, even for the point he was making) out of context makes for a far jucier story and better ratings than the truth. 460113[/snapback] Hmmm, wasn't this the topic of another thread. The media's need to create, rather than investigate and report the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 What he doesn't explain is why killing black babies would lower the crime rate by his thinking? 459953[/snapback] Not certain at this point that is his thinking. But most people understand that black's at 13 percent of the population are a disproportionate number of our convicted criminals. I think I remember hearing once that one in eight young black males was incarcerated. His statement, an over generalization for sure, but maybe taken out of context. Still you can't string those words together like that and not expect heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 As Mickey suggested, I'd be willing to bet that the crime rate for blacks as a whole, is closer to the crime rate of poor people as a whole, than the crime rate for middle or upper class blacks to the overall crime rate. Therefore, it is more a poverty issue than a race issue. If Bob Bettitt wanted to use that as an example, he should have said poor babies, not black babies. By saying black babies, it became appallingly stupid, and borderline racist, even if it was pretty clear he wasn't intentionally being racist. Although some of the worst forms of racism are the unintentional ones. 460118[/snapback] I'd buy that reasoning if you weren't conveniently tossing aside the obvious and long-standing connection between poverty and race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I suppose that his explanation will not be believed by libs or conservatives, but Howard Stern gave his views on what is happening wrt these types of remarks..... He stated that there is SO much competition now between "conservative" radio broadcasters, that they have to make efforts to be more over the top than the others. Rush Limbaugh, in addition to his "Mayor Nager" remark, referred to Chuck Schumer as the "spear chucker" in the movement to impede the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts. I am of the opinion that Rush is a pro and that he is far too smart to say these things by accident. Bennett is probably smarter than Rush; knew that there would be fallout, and didn't care or was even glad. What disturbs me is that there are a couple of double standards at work here..... 1) Dusty Baker made that remark about white athletes not performing as wellas blacks and hispanics in hot weather and of course, "liberals' were not the least bit disturbed. Frankly, neither was I, nor could I care at all what Dusty Baker says on any issue. This does not take away the double standard. 2) When Hillary made that ethnic slur against Eastern Indians, many so called "liberals" not only weren't offended, they thought it was funny. To her credit, blzrul came out against this remark. One leftist on this board went as far as to call it a compliment! She too is far too smart for this to have been an accident. As for this particular remark by Bennett, I don't like it. My ex-partner has 4 children and would be hurt and angered by this. I also have to admit, Micky is correct. This is NOT the way to go about attracting African American voters. That said, would you leftists please spare me the crococile tears? Most of you don't care when your leaders do this stuff, even a United States Senator. Leftists, as a group, are only concerned by hateful remarks when they are uttered by someone on the right. Power, which they lack due to the rejection of the American voters, is their goal, not to soothe hurt feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Still you can't string those words together like that and not expect heat. 460121[/snapback] Particularly the way he did; his phrasing was, to put it mildly, awkward. However, that makes him boorish, and maybe even stupid. Last I checked, shoving one's foot in one's mouth does not make someone a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I'd buy that reasoning if you weren't conveniently tossing aside the obvious and long-standing connection between poverty and race. 460124[/snapback] It's my opinion that the long-standing connection between poverty and race in the country is due to its history and socio-economic factors. And if blacks were the majority since the discovery of the new world and blacks owned all the plantations and had whites as slaves and whites were 3/4 of a person in the constitution and whites got the right to vote in the 60s and whites were only 13% of the population and had to sit on the back of the bus, that the crime rate would sway in the exact same percentages toward whites as it does now toward blacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts