Morning in America
All we see is a quote which says that Bill claimed “aborting 100% of black babies will reduce crime”. Never mind that it is true (because aborting 100% of any higher crime group will reduce crime because the crime rate is highest in the black community, which has the highest percentage of urban and poor members – the true indicators of likelihood of crime), or that no one mentions that the abortion rate in the black community is astronomically higher than any other group (which should make the crime rate lower than in other races, right? Whoops.) What is ridiculous, yet typical, is that Bill Bennett was not proposing the idea or even claiming it was reasonable – but the left and the media would have you believe that he was.
A discussion of what was said is here, at the Morning in America website. I actually heard the quote, because I have become more of a fan of Bill Bennett over the past two months. He is always respectful, courteous, and sounds like he is genuinely interested in what the callers talk about, whether it is Beltway politics or their casserole. Plus, he keeps to the “Socratic method of discourse”, which involves candor, courtesy and logic. All three are very appealing to me.
Anyway, the quote. It came from a suggestion about how reducing abortion could raise the GNP because we would have more taxpayers. Bill replied that such logic is faulty – you can no more link abortion to GNP than you could say that aborting 100% of black babies would reduce crime – because neither have any kind of causal relationship. In fact, Bill noted that the idea of trying to credibly link such morally reprehensible nonsense was the subject of a recent book, to demonstrate that logic and reason are seldom the order of the day – along with the lack of morality.
Of course, the left never mentions such context. The Washington Post claims they couldn’t reach Bill, who said on the air today which numbers that the Post has for him, and that they never called. I have linked above to Bennett’s interview on Hannity and Colmes above. Here is the transcript excerpt at Media Matters, which ain’t a right-wing site. Ignore the bold print, and read what isn’t bold. Clearly Bennett is pointing out that the idea is stupid. ABC News also tries to claim it was a racist comment, but at least they posted Bennett’s reply: In an interview with ABC News, Bennett said that anyone who knows him knows he isn't racist. He said he was merely extrapolating from the best-selling book "Freakonomics," which posits the hypothesis that falling crimes rates are related to increased abortion rates decades ago. "It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies," Bennett said.
All of which are true. Duh.
Here’s my proof that the left does not seek to tell the whole story: I’m about to surf over to the Cranky Liberal and see if he has posted on this. I’m sure he has. While he can and often is a reasonable argument presenter, I’ll wager first that he has not put the full context in his post, and second that he has not linked to a full transcript. He likely will leave out the words “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do” and the final quote “So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky. “ These quotes demonstrate Bill’s own position – that such attempts to connect abortion to GNP or crime are impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible, and out in left field.
My comment will have the results.
What’s the real issue? Only liberals are allowed to discuss race. How silly. The black population has a higher crime rate – it also has a higher rate of babies born to single parents and the highest abortion rate. Why conservatives don’t publicly point these out as problems and what the solutions are – compared to the welfare state that doesn’t work and has made the problems worse – is evident in this episode.
14 Comments:
Cranky did not post on Bill Bennett. I'm off to Kos for the test.
By Hammertime, at 9/30/2005 10:22:00 AM
Kos is a vile place. Besides that, they merely had the quote without the original caller's position, and titled it "Bennet Gambler and Racist", thus insisting that he is - but the first commenter on the relevant thread made my point, even though he thought he was disparaging Bennett:
Hell, I'll go him one better (3.25 / 4)
If you want to reduce crime 100%, launch the nukes and kill everybody.
Can I be a TV intellectual now?
People don't think anymore.
By Hammertime, at 9/30/2005 10:28:00 AM
It’s almost getting to the point where the best assumption of the truth is the opposite of what we hear in the MSM.
By David M. Smith, at 9/30/2005 12:03:00 PM
”2006 is practically in the bag for the Demoncrats.”
Demoncrats?
Might be the best Freudian slips I have ever seen. : -)
I see no reason to believe the 25 year political trend in America will reverse. Democrats keep moving to the left, Republicans keep moving to the center, and Republicans continue to win elections.
As much as I would love for a few leaders to emerge from the Democrat party, I don’t know who it would be. Where will the new Bill Clintons come from?
Lousy Republicans continue to win elections because the alternatives are worse. It will take more than a Delay pseudo-scandal, a Rove pseudo-scandal, and a pathetic MSM for the trend to reverse.
By David M. Smith, at 9/30/2005 05:03:00 PM
Hammer,
I think that your defense of Bennett is a little hasty. It seems like an “us against them” stance…i.e. he’s on my team, therefore I must defend him. Allow me to explain.
Bennett’s said: 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.
You wrote: These quotes demonstrate Bill’s own position – that such attempts to connect abortion to GNP or crime are impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible, and out in left field.
With all due respect, that’s not what he said. According Dr. Bennett, the “thing to do” which he described as “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible” was abortion (in this particular case, he’s condemning mass infanticide). Such condemnation has consistently been his position, which is fine. But look closely at what he said: “I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime…” and “…but your crime rate would go down.” Bennett was clearly linking blacks—as a racial group—to crime. As Rush would say: words means things.
You agreed with him: Never mind that it is true (because aborting 100% of any higher crime group will reduce crime because the crime rate is highest in the black community, which has the highest percentage of urban and poor members – the true indicators of likelihood of crime)
I don’t dispute the statistical probabilities, and yes, poverty is perhaps the leading indicator of criminal behavior, but you, Bennett and others seem to presume that potential, unborn black babies are predestined to be criminals, or at least have a higher “likelihood” of crime. Following that logic, society would be better served by simply executing all poor adult males of every race (as males commit the vast majority of violent crime, regardless of race). This too would be grossly immoral, but at least some of the ones executed would presumably be ‘guilty’ of a capital crime, as opposed to, say, innocent black fetuses that have yet to draw their first breath. My point is that blanket statements based upon race are dangerously close to racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Look, the fact is that we’re dealing here with correlation, not causation. So why not suggest that Dr. Bennett emulate Christ, by judging individual hearts and minds, instead of making gross generalizations that stink of what Bush calls “the soft bigotry of low expectations”? Also, what’s with the quick defense of foolish and inappropriate statements, instead of simply acknowledging their inappropriateness? In my view, those types of statements ought not to ever be defended…no matter who has made them.
By Robert, at 10/01/2005 05:00:00 PM
Hi liberpaul,
Most issues only fall under the left/right divide because the Democrats hold one position and the Republicans hold another position. The soul of the Democrat party today is for unrestricted abortion rights which are a radical left position. The majority of Americans want some restrictions including parental notification. The other left positions of the Democrats are gun control, anti-war, affirmative action, and social programs. A person can support any four of these positions without being a radical leftist, but the Democrat party leaders are not moderates in any four of these areas. Didn’t Senator Kerry embarrass you when he went duck hunting during the election?
I am not a pragmatist. I want freedom, even if freedom means a little more chaos. However, I think you are right about most people. Most people would like to see a government that is fair and efficient. As bad as the Republicans have been, and are, the Democrats do not offer an alternative. I will take what I can get because I know there are a few Republicans who still believe in freedom.
I would love to see Democrats, Republicans, reporters, celebrities, and commentators, to all develop a little common sense. However, I have no realistic expectation that common sense will all of a sudden break out. No trend lasts forever. At some point, the Democrats will retake control, or a new party will emerge. Neither is on the horizon for the next election though.
By David M. Smith, at 10/03/2005 12:07:00 PM
It's funny how the party that wants to keep all abortions legal is "radical" but the party that tries to keep women away from the Morning-After pill is nice and moderate and just wants a few little tweaks.
...and the two sides continue to dig their trenches even deeper...
Twenty years ago both parties were more moderate than they currently are, mostly because the South had yet to really forgive the party of Lincoln. Today the two parties are more clearly defined.
If you pretend politics really do lie along a left-right spectrum you'd expect the 'left' party to center around the 25 percentile and the 'right' party to center around the 75 percentile leaving both parties to the extremes of half of all Americans. That's pretty much what we see. It's even worse if you assume there is an independent, moderate middle aligned with neither party.
Back to Bennett: I've never liked the man, but I adore his close friend Jack Kemp. For that reason, I've always given Bennett a bit more benefit of the doubt than I normally would.
By Xactiphyn, at 10/03/2005 12:42:00 PM
Because we see what we want to see. The answers to anything lye somewhere in the middle. Anyone who says something controversial (even if it is correct) is quickly quoted out of context and attacked--you know?
By IMO, at 10/04/2005 12:21:00 PM
LiberPaul,
I couldn't find anything on Bennett dated 5 October at the CLP.
By Hammertime, at 10/11/2005 05:01:00 PM
David,
My goal is not to "convert" the LiberPauls of the world to conservative thought. It is to convince those who are less radical that my positions are merely worth considering.
By Hammertime, at 10/11/2005 05:01:00 PM
I listened to the Bennett quote the other day and changed mind. Before I was defending Bennett in just this one instance. After all, I use extreme examples all the time. It is perfectly natural in my mind to take what seems like an extreme example from one side and flip it around in a way the other side can understand. So I've been defending Bennett's quote.
But recently I actually heard the recording itself. Bennett really seemed to focus more on how well his counter argument would work than the extreme stupidity of his counter example. The tone of voice, the inflections, the whole thing sounded very bad.
I've never considered Bennett a racist before and I'm not ready to say it now, but man, what Bennett said really was worse then just another extreme example tossed out for comparison.
By Xactiphyn, at 10/13/2005 07:05:00 PM
Mark,
Did you hear the whole two minutes, or just Bennett's response? It makes a world of difference. I had been listening to the show, and it didn't even register on the meter. Stuff that Rush, Hannity, and Ingraham say does - but this was not such a case.
By Hammertime, at 10/14/2005 11:02:00 AM
Good luck & keep writing such awesome content.
property for rent in dubai
best child dentist in greater Noida
coaching in Greater Noida for CBSE 9 10 11 12th
Virgin Linseed Oil BP
Pure Linseed Oil
By Drift Financial Services, at 8/11/2021 01:54:00 AM
Best content & valuable as well. Thanks for sharing this content.
Approved Auditor in DAFZA
Approved Auditor in RAKEZ
Approved Auditor in JAFZA
i heard about this blog & get actually whatever i was finding. Nice post love to read this blog
Approved Auditor in DMCC
By Drift Financial Services, at 8/11/2021 01:57:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home