Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This is what I don't get about Bennett...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Fenris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:53 PM
Original message
This is what I don't get about Bennett...
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 05:53 PM by Fenris
He makes a point of saying, after he posits his theory about the positive effect aborting all black babies would have on the American crime rate, that what he is suggesting is "an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do" but at the same time he reaffirms that, according to his theory, "your crime rate would go down."

Well, yes, it goes without saying that aborting all black babies would be morally reprehensible. But he repeats that the effect of aborting all black babies would have on the crime rate would be overwhelmingly positive.

Freakonomics does make the suggestion that there might be a correlation between the increase in the number of abortions and the decrease in the rate of crime. However, Freakonomics does not mention race as a factor in this theory. So you've got to imagine that somewhere between Bill Bennett reading Freakonomics and suggesting that aborting black babies would reduce crime on air, Bill Bennett came up with a modified theory.

That really is what is truly frightening here: Bill Bennett not only suggested such a disgusting idea on air, but he actually suggested it after a lot of thought. He says that of course it would be a morally reprehensible thing to do. But he still said it! And he meant it too! He says it: "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

What he's essentially saying is that he stands by his theory - aborting black babies would reduce crime - but that it was morally reprehensible and therefore he could never advocate it.

My question is, isn't it just as morally reprehensible to say something like that and mean it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. This wasn't a slip of the tongue; this was an idea he's carried around
in the back of his mind for a while.

He might have expressed it in a more subtle way, but the caller gave him the opportunity and his "edit" feature just shut down.

He's clearly a latent racist as so many are.

It's time we dusted off the "R" word and throw it right back at them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fenris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. That was my point. He's been formulating this for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowbody0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. if it weren't a racist biggotted statement
he would have said abort ALL babies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salinen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Exterminating Jews would free up cash
But I'm not suggesting it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Good analogy...
"Sure it would be... you know.. 'wrong'. But, still..."

He's a racist pig and he's been outed, despite attempts to explain away this "unfortunate choice of words".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splatter Phoenix Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Bwahaha!
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:22 PM by Splatter Phoenix
Exterminating the Irish would let more booze flow!

...But, uh...since I've got it in my own blood, I guess I should keep quiet...

EDIT: ...it being Irishness, not booze. I'm underage.

:rofl: I should read more carefully before I click post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Aborting Republicans would reduce racism.
It'd be morally reprehensible and impractical but... hold on, wait a minute, what am I saying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. he's advocating abortion...
typical hypocritical gamboler stepping on his own toes trying to goosestep past the george bush (ie: imbecilicus americanus pretendicus presiduncus) viewing stand...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Hehheh
Tiptoeing and goosestepping at the same time. No wonder he stumbles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. I thought that it was always implied
that the ones who objected to abortion objected to those by white, healthy women. That's because unfertile couples, like the Roberts, need these white healthy unwanted babies to be adopted by them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cappadonna Donating Member (303 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Exactly...........the Pro Life movement is a Pro White Life Movement
There have always been those who have opposed abortion, whether it be on religious grounds or because they just don't like the idea of a..gasp..woman.. controlling her own damn crotch.

But, there has always been a sinister underpinning of racism within the Evangelical Right's hard on for fetuses. Its Daddy Bush and Grandpas Bush that funded Margaret Sanger's crazy xenophobic ass when planned parenthood initially started. Also, most anti abortion laws, up until the mid 50's, had more to do with a woman's actual health (i.e. sterilizing or killing her) than it ever did a baby.


Why the shift? Because, before the 50's, it was mostly black, hispanics and poor immigrants going under the knife. After the insurgence of women's rights-- rednecks realized that they're fair Aryan daughters are no longer subject to gunshot weddings.

Notice that the Evangelical right mostly focuses on stopping abortions in middle class white suburbs. They couldn't care less about Black and Latino out of wedlock children. In fact, many of these pro-lifers, including Nixon's former hatchet man turned Evangelical kook Chuck Culson supported sterilizing Negroes and Jews in the 60's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. " I know" were his first words. He "knows" what he said was true...
I know if you aborted any segmnt of society crime would fall.

Because there are less people to commit the crimes. There'd also be less high school graduates and less people who knitted.

Bennet used his words to stir up his base. He knew what would happen. It was intentional to take all the failures of that party and turn it into a race riot. These bastards use race .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Have A Dream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Absolutely right, Ksec.
And then he threw in the words "an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do" so that his base could defend him with them. They're just an afterthought to cover his *ss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sunkiss BlueStar Donating Member (232 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. Repukes are Going Too
Continue these Degrading Statements against my people because we will not vote for them. There is no doubt in my mind that they are the sons of the original KKK and Friends of the Nazis.

I have no business with this type of Christian Repuke. No Decent American Should.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'll say it again.
In the '90s there was research building on older research showing no reasonable correlation between race and crime, or poverty and crime. The correlations were there, but they were tough to pin down, squishy.

But nonetheless African-Americans were over-represented as both crime victims and perpetrators; this says little about any individual person, of course. Eliminate drug convictions, and you still got a correlation between race and crime. They've all but stopped reporting racial demographics of perpetrators; but most crime is still intra-race, and blacks are still disproportionately victims of violent crime, even with hate crimes dropped out, so you can draw your own conclusions. *This* can be spun in a racist way, and has been far too frequently, as a quick Google search will indicate.

But they finally considered other factors in combination. Race dropped out as a primary factor in the crime rate. Poverty, education, single-parent families, unemployment, segregation--they did a better job at reducing them to independent variables, of course.

But it remained true that blacks disproportionately lived in communities plagued by the factors predisposing people to crime. Some non-black communities had all the factors, and the high crime rates. But the disproportionality involving blacks remained. Since these communities were overrepresented on the crime blotters, anything that reduced the rate of growth of these communities (compared to others) reduced the crime rate, both for the racial/ethnic group, and overall. Moreover, by reducing the number of kids in single-parent families, abortion moderated the poverty rate slightly, ameliorating a predisposing factor: this is a likely implication pulled from the data. It was also noted that attempts to dispose of any given factor in isolation had failed, and the conclusion was that the bundle of factors had to be addressed at once--long term, since they were intergenerational. Clinton proposed and implemented some policies based on this, but they weren't very popular, widespread, or long-lived. Far, far too wonkish.

Underlying Bennett's statement is the progressive take on how to eliminate the legacy of racism, one completely consonant with this research: reduce black poverty, black drop-out rates, black unemployment, segregation, absentee fathers, and make abortion available. In tandem.

That wasn't Bennett's point--his point was that extrapolating anything that ameloriated a bad condition to include the entire population is a silly idea, usually partial solutions are incapable of being applied across the board (hence abortion in pockets of 'dense' poverty). But it's the underpinnings of his point, and why his statement isn't inaccurate. But it's a byproduct of other research.

I don't know if the higher violent crime rate for blacks continues. But I'd suspect that it continues, although to a lesser extent; that as in the mid/early '90s, it is still confined to certain neighborhoods, and that a disproportionate number of those neighborhoods are going to be majority black. If true, this bears serious discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. he sees nothing wrong with his stereotyping blacks as criminals
he only sees something wrong with aborting black babies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ignatius 2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. Racism is so imbedded in the Bennets of the world that is is second
nature to them and as disguting and reprehensible as it is to many Americans he sees nothing wrong in what he said.

I swear, my younger brother has told me for years that the elite in this country want a race war.

I thought he was being paranoid, why and what would that accomplish, but so many recent comments and actions make me wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
political_invader Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
18. He was taught by the Neo-Con himself
Leo Strauss

list of Strausses students or students of his students:
Justice Clarence Thomas;
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork;
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz;
former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes;
former Secretary of Education William Bennett;
Weekly Standard editor and former Quayle Chief of Staff William Kristol;
Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind;
former New York Post editorials editor John Podhoretz;
former National Endowment for the Humanities Deputy Chairman John T. Agresto

Do a google search Strauss will scare the shit out of ya.
Also reference PNAC with all on that list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
19. republican thought is "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible"
they must 'qualify' what they say with some form of balancing factor or what they say would be easily recognizable as "the law of the jungle" and not 'compassionate', 'conservative', or any combination of the two
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC