Bill Bennett

[Gemini Cricket]

"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..."Bill Bennett's Remarks Criticized by White House (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/politics/30cnd-bennet.html?hp&ex=1128139200&en=b6b5756e1431a21f&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
This nut used to be the Secretary of Education for crying out loud!
'Education'... does he know the meaning of the word? wtf?
:(

[Tito's Kitten]

I am not sure how a remark like that could be taken out of context. It seems pretty straight forward to me....
Such a jerk....

[Nephythys]

Margaret Sanger would be SO proud!

[scaeagles]

When Jesse Jackson or Al sharpton gets out and talks about all the black men in jail, are they being racist? No - they are simply pointing out that a larger percentage of the black populaiton is in prison than the white population.

Now, one could argue that it is because the judicial system is racist. However, because of the racial makup of the prison population, it is logical to conclude that a larger percentage of black people commit crimes than white people. Does this make me a racist to say that? No.

There was a caller to Bennett's show who was saying that abortion should be opposed for economic reasons. Bennett said regardless of whether that was true or not, abortion should not be opposed or supported because of anything other than the morality of abortion itself. He said he could make an argument that aborting all black babies would reduce the crime rate. He then said it was a reprehensible idea.

So the problem is what?

The critics are most certainly taking his statement out of context.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I heard the full quote on the radio today and YES, context matters.
There was a caller to Bennett's show who was saying that abortion should be opposed for economic reasons. Bennett said regardless of whether that was true or not, abortion should not be opposed or supported because of anything other than the morality of abortion itself. He said he could make an argument that aborting all black babies would reduce the crime rate. He then said it was a reprehensible idea.

So the problem is what?Exactly. I agree completely.

I just read that in the late 80's there were all these dire reports about how juvenile crime levels were rising and were about to skyrocket in the mid 90's, but suddenly, juv crime practically vanished. Why? Well, back in the 70's, abortion was made legal. And those that were in the highest risk group of their kids turning to crime were able to get abortions.

It's true. It's horrible, reprehensible, but it's true.

If you hear the full quote, you understand what he was trying to get across.

[Scrooge McSam]

*weighing in with scaeagles and CP*

[Nephythys]

wow-
Nice to see some reasonable reactions to this- thanks CP and Scrooge!!!

[scaeagles]

wow-
Nice to see some reasonable reactions to this- thanks CP and Scrooge!!!

Thanks for leaving me out of that, Nephy. :p Or are you suggesting that since my reactions are always reasonable that it isn't necessary to point it out? ;)

[Nephythys]

Thanks for leaving me out of that, Nephy. :p Or are you suggesting that since my reactions are always reasonable that it isn't necessary to point it out? ;)



ummmm..... :blush:

Yeah!

[lizziebith]

Quote taken out of context: reprehensible.

Quote taken within context: disturbing. What made him choose this particular rhetorical argument?

Abortion should be a woman's private choice, made for her own abundant reasons...it should never be dragged into some horrid economics argument. Sanger would be spinning in her grave, actually.

[Nephythys]

Quote taken out of context: reprehensible.

Quote taken within context: disturbing. What made him choose this particular rhetorical argument?

Abortion should be a woman's private choice, made for her own abundant reasons...it should never be dragged into some horrid economics argument. Sanger would be spinning in her grave, actually.


Hardly- her stated goal was the reduction of the black population. Don't fool yourself- that woman was no patron saint of "choice"

[scaeagles]

Quote taken out of context: reprehensible.

Quote taken within context: disturbing. What made him choose this particular rhetorical argument?

I would guess it is because it is something he has been in on before. From the article:

"Mr. Bennett, who was the secretary of education in the Reagan administration and is the author of a best-selling book on morality, said he was referring to a debate in the online magazine Slate that had discussed race in the context of an argument about whether abortions contributed to lowering the crime rate. That debate, involving Steven D. Levitt, an author of the best-seller "Freakonomics," apparently appeared in Slate six years ago."

[lizziebith]

Hardly- her stated goal was the reduction of the black population. Don't fool yourself- that woman was no patron saint of
"choice"

Honestly, I've never seen that goal stated, so I'll not argue that point. I have seen her letters wherein she stated her frustration with the Comstock Laws of the time. She was a LOT more about birth control than abortion, from what I've read. Yes I know she joined a eugenics movement, but I'd read she quit, disgusted, because she'd thought it would help her, but was it obviously was something QUITE different from what she expected. I'll have to go rooting through some books to find more info...

[Prudence]

I understand what he meant, but I also have a problem with what he said because it plays into racial perceptions in a way that I think someone of his political stature should try to avoid.

His statement would be true even if it were altered to hypothesize aborting all white babies. Crime rates would then presumeably drop by whatever percentage is committed by white people. Chosing "black people" as the group capitalizes on both the reality of higher crime stats and the public stereotypes of criminal identity. I can't help but think that part of his argument stands on the idea that white criminals are so few that the idea is ludicrous on its face, but black criminals are so numerous that it would actually be a solution to crime. A reprehensible solution, but effective. In contrast, a more racially neutral expression of the same argument would be to argue that mandatory abortions across the board would reduce juvenile crime and then continue with thoughts on abortion itself.

I suspect that this was an off-the-cuff remark and that he didn't really put that much though into it. Those of us that now have the luxury to examine this post-mortem, as it were, can take away the lesson that one should really watch what one says in interviews.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm not buying the context argument. If that was the example he chose to illustrate his point, it illustrates his racism quite a bit better.

[Not Afraid]

I don't care about context or no context. Nor do I care who else may have some something that may or may not have been similar. Bottom line is that this is a racist comment and the guy should be pubically ridiculed and rotton tomatoes stuffed into every orifice.

It is just not right to say that....at all!

[Nephythys]

Ya know- I like you two- but those comments seem to be full of intellectual laziness and nothing but the need to feel good about being outraged about something someone you don't like said-

Feeling rather than thinking about it-and I truly do not mean offense, but that is how that strikes me.

[scaeagles]

I understand what he meant, but I also have a problem with what he said because it plays into racial perceptions in a way that I think someone of his political stature should try to avoid.

His statement would be true even if it were altered to hypothesize aborting all white babies.

The first part of your statement - I don't want to have to agree with it. It is the ignorance of those listening to what he said that is the problem, not what he said.

Statistically and mathematically, the second part of your quote above is not true. If you have a section of the populace committing crimes at a higher rate than the other, taking them out of the equation lowers crimes rates overall. If you remove the section of the populace committing crimes at a lower rate than the other, the crime rate raises overall.

I couuld come up with an example with numbers, but that would bore everyone.

[scaeagles]

I'm not buying the context argument. If that was the example he chose to illustrate his point, it illustrates his racism quite a bit better.

Is Howard Dean then a racist in your eyes because of his comment on how Republicans could only fill up a room at a convention by bringing in all of the hotel staff? That has no context at all.

[scaeagles]

Bottom line is that this is a racist comment

Please explain to me why.

[Nephythys]

aw come on Leo- they're never racist! Byrd can call black people N****rs and they don't blink.

And now, just because I love throwing fuel on the fires-
N'awlins will be more white from now on? (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050929-114710-8545r.htm)

[Not Afraid]

Please explain to me why.

The noun racism has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1 (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1f18utelaqqnr?method=4&dsid=502&deid=1049209940&gwp=8&curtab=502_1&sbid=lc02b): the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races


Meaning #2 (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1f18utelaqqnr?method=4&dsid=502&deid=279440600&gwp=8&curtab=502_1&sbid=lc02b): discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
Synonyms: racialism (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1f18utelaqqnr?method=4&dsid=501&dekey=racialism&gwp=8&curtab=501_1&sbid=lc02b), racial discrimination (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1f18utelaqqnr?method=4&dsid=501&dekey=racial+discrimination&gwp=8&curtab=501_1&sbid=lc02b)




The Comment:

"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..."

Implication: That black babies are somehow MORE responsible for crime than babies of other races. He seems to be implying that it is their "blackness" that is the problem.

If he had said:

"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce future crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down..."

He would be more correct and the statement would not be racist.

As far as this goes:

.......being outraged about something someone you don't like said

I have no feeling of like or dislike for Bill Bennet before this statement. But, his statement has certainly given me more to think about.

[Nephythys]

yet you totally reject the context in which it was stated- reject that he himself said that the notion was reprehensible- and simply denounce him as making a racist comment-

THAT should be something to think about!

[Not Afraid]

Yeah, I think about how anyone who speaks publically should choose their words carefully KNOWING what happens to words once you let them go. No public officer/personality should ever forget that.

[Morrigoon]

Hmm...

Was the statement technically, statistically correct? Probably

Was the statement a poor choice of words? Definitely

Was the statement ill-advised in a public forum? Without question

Was the statement necessarily racist? Hmm....

On its surface, it's a glaringly, maliciously, obvious racist remark. However, taken in the context of what came before it, and the entire statement. Not exactly. I can see where he was going with the statement, and, using statistics to back up the argument, you could technically say it was a correct statement. But it was still a poor choice to make it.

He could have made the same argument by saying "abort all the poor babies," and it would probably have been more correct, statistically, and far less racist. A bit classist, perhaps, but again, he has stats to back it up, and people are less likely to be this upset about a classist remark than a racist one. It probably would have been best to refrain from using this example at all, but given that he did, it would have been a better choice to use socioeconomic status rather than race.

I can see where he was going with it... trying to make a non-racist remark (hence the disclaimers afterward), but in typical born-pre-civil-rights-movement old white guy style, his attempts to be non-racist made him out as more racist, even than he is. Not intentionally racist, but the prejudice comes out in his very poor word choice.

[Gemini Cricket]

Don't misunderstand. I know the context the statement was made in. But his choice of an example was in bad taste. And someone (BB) who has been in the public spotlight before and knows how things can be taken out of context should know better.

[Not Afraid]

I guess I ttend to err on the side of judgement. If it can be construed as racist - even if you can technically argue that it was not, you've still got a racist remark. Remarks don't usually travel with disclaimers attached to them.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think the timing was so very wrong, too. I mean there was a huge hurricane recently. Does he remember that? And a lot of people who were there (and people around the country) felt that the government did not come to their aid because they were black. Kanye West's statement was a huge happening. Millions of people saw that. Did Bennett? He should know that the issue of racism is at the forefront right now. Everyone's thinking about it. Bush just said something about diveristy in his next choice of Supreme Court justice. The timing was inappropriate... not that any time would be a good time to say what was said.

[Morrigoon]

Suffice it to say, whether you believe the argument to actually be racist or not, I think it can almost universally be declared to be in poor judgement.

[Gemini Cricket]

^ Yes. Poor judgement.
:(

[Gemini Cricket]

There's an audio clip of it here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006).

[innerSpaceman]

Is Howard Dean then a racist in your eyes because of his comment on how Republicans could only fill up a room at a convention by bringing in all of the hotel staff? That has no context at all.

No not racist. Republicans not being a race. But yes, a diss on Republicans, absolutely.


Ya know, though, it's a lot less politically correct to diss blacks than it is to diss a political party. Dissing jews in a public remark is bad form, also. So is dissing gays or women or muslims.


Dissing Democrats or Republicans is not nearly as insulting to the nation at large. Figure out the difference if it's not already apparent to you.





(I'm not sure where dissing Dominicans would fall into this, much less Dominican Republicans)

[Nephythys]

are you really missing the comment Dean made?

The hotel staff- being all black or minority of course- has to be, right?

wow- back to what I said- they don't even blink- they don't see it. Like blinders-

[innerSpaceman]

yet you ... reject that he himself said that the notion was reprehensible- and simply denounce him as making a racist comment

Since he knew it was a reprehensible concept, all the more boneheaded for him to say it aloud. It's as if he were a schizophrenic Turets victim.


He could have given an example that did not involve the racist concept that blacks commit more crimes because they are black.


His saying that the hypothetical was reprehenisible was nothing more than the way I used to cause havoc on MousePad and then apologize for it. I knew what I was doing when I caused the havoc, and Bill knew what he was saying when he spoke the racism.






Nehph, are you trying to claim that he's a blithering idiot, but not a racist?

[innerSpaceman]

are you really missing the comment Dean made?

The hotel staff- being all black or minority of course- has to be, right?

wow- back to what I said- they don't even blink- they don't see it. Like blinders-

Huh? What are you trying to say here? Speak up, can't hear you.

[SacTown Chronic]

wow- back to what I said- they don't even blink- they don't see it. Like blinders-
I think it's a form of mental twistation.

[Nephythys]

*snicker*

ok guys...have it your way.......

(walks away muttering about damn mentally twisted liberals....;))

[scaeagles]

No not racist. Republicans not being a race. But yes, a diss on Republicans, absolutely.

As Nephy pointed out, the point was his assumption that the entire hotel staff had to be minority.

As an aside, I don't think Dean is a racist. Byrd - most definitely. But not Dean. He was trying to be clever and diss Republicans.

[wendybeth]

I understood the context in which the statement was made, but if anyone was being intellectually lazy, it was Bennett. He is a public figure, and should know to phrase things better, or not say anything at all. It's cannon fodder to his political opponents, and was incredibly stupid on his part. I agree with NA- if he had to say anything, it should have been a general comment, not one regarding a specific race. Stupid, stupid ,stupid........ Not unlike Mrs. Bush's comment regarding the current residents of the Astrodome. Btw, she's certainly keeping a low profile lately.:rolleyes:

[sleepyjeff]

Well there's intelectually lazy and then there's downright pure racism. (http://www.blacknews.com/pr/tysonfoods101.html)

Once again the mainstream press has shown its true colors by ignoring this story...............after all, how can Tyson be racist when they were such strong supporters of------Clinton?

Besides, wouldn't want to confuse the public any........the script says the Reps are evil racist and the Dems are the devoted defenders of minorities.... :rolleyes:

[wendybeth]

Kind of a leap there, Jeff- but you're right as far as I can tell. Lots of leftist fringe media reports on it, but nothing that I could find at the mainstream sites, including Fox. I cannot believe this kind of crap is still going on.

[sleepyjeff]

I know it is kind of a leap to suggest any connection to Clinton....and I really don't think that the media is not reporting this because Clinton was good friends with their CEO. It does puzzle me though as to why it isn't being reported. They too busy trying to dig up stuff on US Soldiers and make up things about NOLA? Too busy following the latest missing person case? Too busy taking quotes of radio talk show interviews out of context?

This story "broke" in the liberal/alternative press over two weeks ago...you would think that at least MSNBC would have picked it up by now.............I know they would have if it had been Haliburton with the segragated bathrooms.

[wendybeth]

Actually, I found some articles on it going back to August, and you are right- this is a story that deserves strong attention, especially with Tyson Foods track record. They went after Denny's and Cracker Barrel, which ultimately persuaded them to make changes for the better, so why not this?

[sleepyjeff]

Actually, I found some articles on it going back to August

Well, I am not too savvy when it comes to looking things up in the liberal press. :D


Which brings up another thing that bothers me about this.....no reporting of it in the Conservative Press either :(

[Name]

Well, I am not too savvy when it comes to looking things up in the liberal press. :D


Which brings up another thing that bothers me about this.....no reporting of it in the Conservative Press either :(
Probably because its about Tyson foods, which is a big corporation, which is a friend of the repubs... ;) ;)

[sleepyjeff]

Probably because its about Tyson foods, which is a big corporation, which is a friend of the repubs... ;) ;)

Actually they were one of the Democratic National Commitees biggest donors over the last 10 years and their CEO is a very good friend of Bill Clintons.

[wendybeth]

Actually they were one of the Democratic National Commitees biggest donors over the last 10 years and their CEO is a very good friend of Bill Clintons.

Well, according to this (http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=tyson+political+donations&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Db 3688796a8ebbc0e%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery% 3Dtyson%2Bpolitical%2Bdonations%26clickedItemURN%3 Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.arkansasnews.com%252Farchi ve%252F2004%252F10%252F31%252FWashingtonDCBureau%2 52F307598.html%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arkansasnews.com%2Farc hive%2F2004%2F10%2F31%2FWashingtonDCBureau%2F30759 8.html) article, they favor the Republicans more.

" Some 65 percent of Tyson Foods donations went to Republicans in 2003 and 2004, according to federal records."

[sleepyjeff]

Well, according to this (http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=tyson+political+donations&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Db 3688796a8ebbc0e%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery% 3Dtyson%2Bpolitical%2Bdonations%26clickedItemURN%3 Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.arkansasnews.com%252Farchi ve%252F2004%252F10%252F31%252FWashingtonDCBureau%2 52F307598.html%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arkansasnews.com%2Farc hive%2F2004%2F10%2F31%2FWashingtonDCBureau%2F30759 8.html) article, they favor the Republicans more.

" Some 65 percent of Tyson Foods donations went to Republicans in 2003 and 2004, according to federal records."


I stand corrected :blush:

[Name]

See, don't try to undermine my off the cuff, un-researched, flippant remarks again.....

:D ;)

[sleepyjeff]

See, don't try to undermine my off the cuff, un-researched, flippant remarks again.....

:D ;)

I should know better....this is the second time I had to eat my words with you :D

[€uroMeinke]

Large Corporation donate to both parties, generally more money goes to the party in power. Their motivation is not based in party politics, rather influencing those in power to favor their industry. I bet Tyson donated more to the Dem when they lived in the whitehouse.

[scaeagles]

Yep - it's protection money.

[Alex]

The racism in Bennett's remarks come not form the statistical correctness or incorrectness of the result he posits, but from the misidentification of root cause.

Blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, this is true. But to say that a way to reduce crime is to reduce blacks (even if you personally reject the method of doing so) is to suggest that being black is what causes the increased rate of criminality. It is not.

Poverty is the factor that increases criminality. Middle class blacks do not commit crimes at a rate higher than middle class whites. Poor blacks do not commit crimes at a significantly higher rate than poor whites (and much of what difference does exist can be explained by the urban/rural split).

So the proper thing for Bennett to say would be that if you wanted to reduce the crime rate you could abort all poor babies (which would disproportionately affect blacks since they are disproportionately, for whatever reason, poor).

I don't think it was the most racist thing in the world, but I do think it is revealing that for Bennett the link seems to be more black = crime than poverty = crime so that when he was coming up with an example off the cuff that is the direction he went.

Bennett's larger point, that arguing abortion on anything other than simple moral grounds smacks of eugenics is certainly valid and employing the example he did is not necessarily racist, but the implicit assumption of what he said is.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Everyone needs to read Freakonomics. It's an awesome, eye-opening book.

[Alex]

I didn't get very far into Freakonomics before their softness of reasoning irritated me beyond reading farther. Frequently they seemed to be picking some correlation and implying causations not necessarily shown in the information they provide.

Look at the real estate case they provide showing that agents underprice their clients homes in order to get an easier commission. As evidence of this they point out that real estate agents sell their own homes at higher prices and leave them on the market longer.

They just leave it as assumed that this means that the agents are underselling the client homes while putting in the extra work on their own homes without sufficient examination of any other factors that might produce this difference (for example, perhaps the sell motiviations are different between the normal client and a real estate agent).

I'll probably try to slog through the rest at some point because so many people keep referencing it. But just as I tend to discount the pop psych books this seems a bit like a pop economics book. Though it does raise interesting questions I didn't see them really answering any (at least not in the first 50 pages or so).

[Not Afraid]

The racism in Bennett's remarks come not form the statistical correctness or incorrectness of the result he posits, but from the misidentification of root cause.

Blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, this is true. But to say that a way to reduce crime is to reduce blacks (even if you personally reject the method of doing so) is to suggest that being black is what causes the increased rate of criminality. It is not.

Poverty is the factor that increases criminality. Middle class blacks do not commit crimes at a rate higher than middle class whites. Poor blacks do not commit crimes at a significantly higher rate than poor whites (and much of what difference does exist can be explained by the urban/rural split).

So the proper thing for Bennett to say would be that if you wanted to reduce the crime rate you could abort all poor babies (which would disproportionately affect blacks since they are disproportionately, for whatever reason, poor).

I don't think it was the most racist thing in the world, but I do think it is revealing that for Bennett the link seems to be more black = crime than poverty = crime so that when he was coming up with an example off the cuff that is the direction he went.

Bennett's larger point, that arguing abortion on anything other than simple moral grounds smacks of eugenics is certainly valid and employing the example he did is not necessarily racist, but the implicit assumption of what he said is.

I just had to quote the entire thing because it is so right on. You stated what I was thinking much better than I could.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I didn't get very far into Freakonomics before their softness of reasoning irritated me beyond reading farther.
<snip>
Though it does raise interesting questions I didn't see them really answering any (at least not in the first 50 pages or so).I agree with all your assertions, even though I enjoyed it very much. The book cautions that this isn't cause/effect information, simply correlations, and carefully delineates the difference. I took the information as it was. Yes, it doesn't answer questions. But it made me look at things from a different angle, and encouraged me to ask who stands to gain from any given scenario.

[Not Afraid]

LOL! I was reading the Amazon reviews of Freakonimics to see if my gut instinct was correct. I had to laugh at the last line of one of the reviews:

Don't waste your money on this book, as I did. Blow your cash on illicit substances or gambling instead - you'll learn a lot more about economics that way.

Some people have such a joyous way of summerizing. :)