Bill Bennett may get some heat for this one.

[smokinandjokin]

He was in the government 15 years ago, and now has a syndicated radio show. 

 

An advanced gov't position, or just a chump?

 

For all the clamor over this BS, you'd think he was Attorney General or something.  

 

Yeah, I know. His death in a fiery explosion would have made fewer headlines. I stopped by my grandparents, and this story was on the news. My grandpa did not even react to the content of the story; he just said "Who the hell is William Bennett?"

 

My sentiments exactly. Thousands of times a day, in Alabama and in New York City, people say things like this, only they wish it would really happen. Katie Couric does not interview them about it.

[OGTEleven]

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]

It was a very stupid thing to say without question. It is clear however that he was trying to be bombastic/ludicrous to point out the ridiculous notion of his caller. Using black people, instead of poor people, is a "better choice" if you're trying to grab someone's attention. He probably could have used the poor baby example and made his point. He didn't. I don't see that as a proof for racism.

 

As controversial as socioeconomic issues are, they pale in comparison to race issues, thus the attention grab.

 

Disclaimer: I do not think it is ok to abort "poor" babies either, just because there is a better correlation to crime.

 

Next time I'd suggest he use "dolphin fan" babies as his example, but even then forced adoption to a proper home is a better way.

[OGTEleven]

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.

460135[/snapback]

Sounds like we have the makings of a really crappy movie. I'll call John Travolta.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

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.

460071[/snapback]

 

So, you do believe abortion is killing then? If so, that would really increase the crime rate somewhere.

[KRC]

An advanced gov't position, or just a chump?

460136[/snapback]

 

Drug Czar and Secretary of Education.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

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.

460135[/snapback]

 

In other words, there is a connection between poverty and race...and ergo, a non-causal connection between crime and race. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

Which does not explain why you conveniently discard it in this case.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

An advanced gov't position, or just a chump?

460136[/snapback]

 

There's a difference?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Drug Czar and Secretary of Education.

460144[/snapback]

 

Good times, good times...

 

"The solution to the drug problem is aborting all black babies."

 

[KRC]

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]

 

It is more important to label people racists than it is to actually find out what was said. When you can't compete, you must discredit.

[Kelly the Dog]

Sounds like we have the makings of a really crappy movie.  I'll call John Travolta.

460142[/snapback]

When I read about that movie I thought it was going to be great. And there were a couple things discussed when they were making it that also made me really look forward to it, like the production designers were designing the buildings and clothing and everything in the outside world with the idea of how it would be different under those circumsances. A terrific premise. And then I went and sat through it and it was a total piece of crap from start to finish.

[KRC]

Good times, good times...

 

"The solution to the drug problem is aborting all black babies." 

 

460148[/snapback]

 

Pretty funny to see the libertards get their panties in a bunch over remarks allegedly promoting abortion of black babies when the person making the statement is on record (and has been very consistent) about being anti-abortion.

[stuckincincy]

Anyone wanna come out in support of the First Amendment?

[Bill from NYC]

It is more important to label people racists than it is to actually find out what was said. When you can't compete, you must discredit.

460150[/snapback]

 

I am not calling Bennet a racist, but do you think that he didn't say this on purpose? I am thinking him to be too bright to make a mistake such as this.

After all, when was the last time we saw CTM make an accidental inflamatory racial remark?

[BigAL]

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]

I have to disagree with you that what he is saying is being taken out of context. During the call, Bennet refers to the Freakonomics book, but then he clearly states his own opinion with this quote:

 

"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."

 

I understand that he believes itis a ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to actually do, but it is undeniable that he believes that aborting black babies would reduce crime. I don't call him racist for trying to implement such a strategy, I call him a racist for having the belief in the fundamental link between skin color and crime.

 

I'm willing to give Republican's the benefit of the doubt, but It's people like Bill Bennet and Trent Lott that really leave me wondering. I mean with those views, Bennet had absolutely no business setting policy around educating our kids.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Anyone wanna come out in support of the First Amendment?

460154[/snapback]

 

Different topic. What Bennett said is one thing. The First Amendment is more an issue to be discussed in the context of idiots like Pelosi who are calling for the White House to shut Bennett up.

[Kelly the Dog]

In other words, there is a connection between poverty and race...and ergo, a non-causal connection between crime and race.  I wholeheartedly agree.

 

Which does not explain why you conveniently discard it in this case.

460145[/snapback]

If I thought Bill Bettett was mentioning black babies and crime rates with the idea in his head that it really wasnt anything to do with pigmentation but rather the pig-headedness of history and socio economic factors over the last 400 years, I would agree with you. And I admit, I didnt think of it, or mention it. But now that I have thought of it, I still won't mention it. Because I don't think for a nanosecond that is what he meant. I think he meant that black people are more likely to be criminals because they're black, not because of their history.

[RkFast]

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]

 

Well, if you take the CONTEXT CTM put forth, than making the statement appear "appallingly stupid" is EXACTLY what Bennett was going for.

 

But hes a white man...so race is something that is NOT to be discussed. Bennett is guilty of stupidity....not Racism.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I understand that he believes itis a ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to actually do, but it is undeniable that he believes that aborting black babies would reduce crime.  I don't call him racist for trying to implement such a strategy, I call him a racist for having the belief  in the fundamental link between skin color and crime. 

460158[/snapback]

 

Nice response. I've got two bones to pick with it:

 

1) Like it or not, there IS a link between crime and race: blacks in this country are more likely to be impoverished, and impoverished people are more likely to commit crimes (particularly "violent" crimes or crimes against a person or property).

 

2) "[F]undamental" link? Nowhere do I see anything implied that is "fundamental". He implies a link. I think anyone not living in a Skinnerian Box would have a hard time arguing that there is not a link. But "fundamental"? Show me where that's even implicit in his statements.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I agree that Bennett screwed up again and deserved to be skewered by the Media. However, I don't understand the Democratic outrage. They can be outraged at Bennett but he is not a spokesman for the White House or the Republican Party. Why do they have to politicize it?

[Kelly the Dog]

Well, if you take the CONTEXT CTM put forth, than making the statement appear "appallingly stupid" is EXACTLY what Bennett was going for.

 

But hes a white man...so race is something that is NOT to be discussed. Bennett is guilty of stupidity....not Racism.

460167[/snapback]

The CONTEXT was showing the listener the stupidity of using outrageous and non-related hypotheticals like the abortion and social security example. Bettett showed the danger of it and how ridiculous it was and the stupidity of the other guy by using his example of abortion in relation to the crime rate. That is all fine and dandy. But there was no earlier mention of race. Bettett brought up race on his own and knows full well it's a lightning rod topic. And he used it in such an example that it's pretty easy for anyone to see the racist implication. And whether he meant it in a racist manner or not, what he said, verbatim, in context, could be construed as racist. Some people are not going to see it as racist at all. But just as many will. It was ENTIRELY unnecessary to the context and discussion and wholely his own doing.