Today on Blogcritics
Home » Fire Bill Bennett: Don’t Ask Him To Apologize

Fire Bill Bennett: Don’t Ask Him To Apologize

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Bill Bennett, author of “The Book of Virtues” must think that gambling addiction and racism are virtues, because he keeps defending himself on both accounts. Bennett, while pondering the crime rate and abortion, recently said:

“… 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 …”

Alphaliberal.comThe Democrats have demanded an apology, but that is probably not appropriate. Bennett should not apologize for what he believes in. His apology would be insincere. Bennett, along with most other conservatives believes African-Americans are an inferior race.

Typically conservatives are masters at political correctness and hiding their true beliefs, but occasionally the truth slips out and it is oftentimes revealing. That Bennett couches his hatred for African-Americans in an allusion to genocide is all the more revealing.

It is absolutely a FALSE stereotype that blacks commit more crimes than whites in this country, just like it is absolutely false that blacks are less intelligent than whites, that blacks are like monkeys, that blacks are prone to crack addiction, or that blacks smell bad. Bill Bennett and his conservative defenders likely believe all of these things.

Citing statistics to show Bennett he is wrong, is a waste of time –just as it would be a waste of time to argue with the KKK that all races and religions are equal. Don’t ask Bennett to apologize for his beliefs, but do remove Bennett from the public airwaves immediately. A prejudiced “blue-eyed devil” like him does not deserve to ever hold a microphone again.

Alpha Liberal: Recommended Diaries

Balletshooz blogs at Alphaliberal.

Powered by

About Balletshooz

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    You’ll see hearfelt, possibly tearful, but undoubtedly insincere apology from Bennett by the end of next week.

    Otherwise, he’ll be fired. His comments were out of line, even for right-wing talk radio, especially when the President and all other mainstream conservatives have turned on him and denounced him. He should have known better.

    That is all.

  • Les Slater

    Fire him? Anyone they hire would just as bad but woudn’t yet be discredited.

    It is not in our interests to have anything to do with who works for these creeps. Don’t prittify who they are.

    They have a right. Let’s not give them any more than that.

  • Vile Stench

    Why fire him?

    What he said was true. Watching you liberals dodge racial issues is like watching conservatives dodge global warming. I understand some people can’t handle scientific fact, but the truth sometimes hurts.

  • Les Slater

    It’s amazing that there are still those who insist racism has a basis in science.

  • 1Potato

    Ask a social scientist, and you will see that it in fact has a scientific basis.

    There are plenty of statistics relating crime to race to back it up. As for why the correlation exists, that is a different matter. But the correlation exists.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Stop trying so hard to be a caricature, 1Potato.

    Find me ONE scientist who argues we should abort “all black babies” and that it’s a better solution to crime and poverty than real assistance.

    Read the Levitt response to Bennett that I’ve cut-and-pasted on the other discussions of the Bennett comments. Blacks aren’t inherently more criminal or more disposed to poverty as a result of “their culture.”

    If it’s about poverty and poor neighborhoods that make people turn to crime (a more reasonable and perhaps less racist argument), then why wouldn’t Bennett say we should abort all babies of the poor, black and white?

    It’s because he assumes there’s something uniquely criminal about black society, irrespective of conditions.

    That’s racist.

    Name one social scientist who thinks blacks are criminals because it’s something about them as a people that predisposes it to them. The vast preponderance (if not the totality) of social science literature on black poverty and crime indicate it has everything to do with economic conditions and discrimination. Read William Julius Wilson of Harvard or any real authority on this topic before you spout your Internet race theories.

    That is all.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>The Democrats have demanded an apology, but that is probably not appropriate. Bennett should not apologize for what he believes in. His apology would be insincere. Bennett, along with most other conservatives believes African-Americans are an inferior race.<<

    This is such utter crap it hardly deserves a response, but your pattern of such ridiculous distortions really needs to be nipped in the bud. First off, Bennett clearly doesn’t believe blacks are inferior – the claim is completely fabricated – and I defy you to provide any examples of mainstream Republican figures who believe that African Americans are an inferior race. We’re not the ones who exploit them and pander to them and provide them with inferior quality education so that they’ll stay poor and dependent.

    Saying that ‘most’ conservatives are racist is so patently untrue and grossly offensive that it shows you for exactly the kind of partisan hatemonger you are.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > Bennett clearly doesn’t believe blacks are inferior…

    I do not know if he does or doesn’t. He did not say so in the infamous statement we are discussing. And it doesn’t matter if he believes he’s a racist or not.

    It is not a question of statistical correlation either.

    It is the fact that he did indeed put forward, at least on a theoretical level, that reducing the Black birthrate would reduce crime.

    It is the solution that he puts forward, and DEFENDS, at least in principle, which is racist to the core.

  • http://cranialcavity.net/wordpress/index.php marc

    Saying that ‘most’ conservatives are racist is so patently untrue and grossly offensive that it shows you for exactly the kind of partisan hatemonger you are.

    Thanks Dave, well said. I’d say balleshooz is more, WAY MORE, but it would just get edited out.

  • http://blogcritics.org/author.php?author=Cerulean Cerulean

    Very well said, Balletshooz. He clearly meant it. Why cover it up? Just get this guy off the air or otherwise bring the consquences down upon him and his supporters.

    Who’s the main sponsor of his show?

  • http://pewview.mu.nu Warren

    “Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies ‘would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,'”

    Sounds like a racist to me. Yup.
    Sounds like he meant it, too. Yup.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Fire him for what???

    “Sounds like a racist to me.”

    Bill Bennett has done so much for black children and black communities you don’t even know.

  • 1Potato

    Bob A Booey:

    Did you hallucinate a post I wrote? Who the hell said we should abourt black babies to reduce crime or that any scientist supports that? I certainly never said anything like that (my law partner is black, btw). Bill Bennett said that such a thing would be “morally reprehensible.”

    You are really race baiting, aren’t you? It’s pretty despicable, actually. But I have seen your posts. you have no shame.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    You liberals make me sad. Bill Bennett didn’t say anything close that showed he actually wants to abort all black babies, but you liberals jump all over and try to make it look like something when it is not. It shows that you guys got nothing else. You are out of ammunition and it shows. You guys are reduced to wining and nagging babies.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    When both sides of the aisle engage in scorched earth tactics, anybody who sticks their head up risks getting caught in the crossfire. Anthony, if you wish your opponents would be more civil, you could start by demonstrating some civility of your own.

    Being a member of no political party myself, I can almost watch all of them tear into each other with a certain degree of detached bemusement. Almost.

    If the constant decline of civility weren’t so damaging to a country I deeply love, I might find it actually funny.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Anthony, if you wish your opponents would be more civil, you could start by demonstrating some civility of your own.”

    Tell me how I am uncivil.

  • Realist

    There was a time when it could have been said in Boston, that if there were fewer Irish, there would be less crime.

    There was a time when it could have been said in New York, that if there were fewer Italians and Jews, there would be less crime.

    It can now be said in the country that if there were fewer Blacks, there would be less crime.

    The first two statements became obsolete when the Irish, Italians and Jews were integrated into our society.

    The third statement is true because Blacks have not been fully integrated into our society.

    To be constructive, look to the reasons for the truth of the third statement, and get off Bill Bennett’s back,

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>It is the solution that he puts forward, and DEFENDS, at least in principle, which is racist to the core.<<

    Except that he didn’t put it forward as a solution, as you suggest, but as a negative example of something that would be reprehensible and illogical.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > Except that he didn’t put it forward as a solution, as you suggest, but as a negative example of something that would be reprehensible and illogical.

    He said it would if you did. He said that it was abhorrent if you did but nonetheless if you did it would reduce crime rates.

    He is putting forward a cause and effect relationship. It is clear. He puts it in such a stark context that he can say he did not mean to carry any such plan out.

    Well, who the hell would have thought that he would? It is only a fool that takes him at his word in denial.

    His real message is there as clear as day. The essence of what he is saying is that reducing Black birthrate will reduce crime. Do you deny that was his message? Now, that’s something the right wing can run with.

    Do you think he is so naïve that he does not see it? Do you think he is senile?

    Or is the problem with you Dave?

  • http://cranialcavity.net/wordpress/index.php marc

    Just a simple question.

    With all the race baiting balletshooz throws up at Blogcritics I wonder why he never, never is critical of the trash that airs on (Dead) Air America. It’s as bad or worse than the twisted words you are attempting to assign to Bennett?

    Bunch of Flockin’ hypocrites!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>His real message is there as clear as day. The essence of what he is saying is that reducing Black birthrate will reduce crime. Do you deny that was his message? Now, that’s something the right wing can run with.< <

    How the hell can you say that his real message is exactly the opposite of what he was clearly saying? It makes no sense at all. He was discrediting the idea that the belief that aborting black babies was a desirable thing, not endorsing it.

    >>Do you think he is so naïve that he does not see it? Do you think he is senile?< <

    No, I think you're totally twisting what he said to suit your political agenda.

    >>Or is the problem with you Dave?<<

    Hardly. I seem to be able to understand what he said – the problem lies with those who choose not to.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    You seem to be having trouble, either reading, following logic, or both.

    Let’s take this one step at a time.

    Is he or is he not “putting forward a cause and effect relationship”? If yes, do you agree with him? If not, explain.

    If you can get by this one, we’ll go to the next.

    Les

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Les, there’s no confusion here. He threw out a hypothetical example of an extreme statement with which he did not agree. That context means that whatever he said he already acknowledged had no validity for him or in general. There’s nowhere else to go with it after that.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    You do agree that there is cause and effect relationship.

    > Comment 31 posted by Dave Nalle on October 1, 2005 02:40 PM:

    >> I don’t think anyone would take his remarks at face value. What it does do, however, is to lend credence to the myth that Black women having babies has something to do with an increase in crime. This is racist and reactionary to the core.

    > No, it’s not racist. Poor, black, unwed mothers produce babies who grow up with a much higher likelihood of becoming criminals than any other group in society. This isn’t racist, it’s a fact. You can argue that the things which keep them poor and get them pregnant are racist, but not with the fact that single teen parents raising unwanted kids in poverty increases crime.

    > Dave

    Look at what your rsponding to.

    >> What it does do, however, is to lend credence to the myth that Black women having babies has something to do with an increase in crime. This is racist and reactionary to the core.

    You did not dispute the causal relationship, you just deny it is racist.

    Do you take this back? After clarification we can go to the next.

    Les

  • Shark

    Shark’s two cents:

    1) Bennett said what millions of Americans believe — and yet are afraid to say

    2) Don’t fire him! Hell, give him his own TV show 24/7. We need more crap like this: an explicit, hypocritical, loud-mouthed racist is a gift to us all.

  • Loggerhead

    Is it any wonder why the entire context of the discussion where this quote came from is NEVER published anywhere. The power of taking something out of context should never be underestimated.

    Bill Bennett was debating the merits of a concept proposed by a caller; that if there was no abortion then Social Security would be solvent. In the course of this discussion, Bennett attempts to prove the absurdity of drawing such conclusions, and uses his now famous quote to prove the point.

    Bennett was NOT suggesting black babies should be aborted. Bennett did not suggest that Blacks are inherently more prone to crime. What his ‘hypothetical example’ stated was a reduction of black babies would reduce crime. This is true. So would the reduction of white babies. It takes people to cause crime. Has anyone taken the time to ask Bennett if he believes Blacks are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crime and if so, why? Of course not. Partisan politics at it’s worst.. and getting more worse by the day.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Sound bites are chosen for a purpose, L-head, and in this case, that purpose isn’t suited to giving the entire context of Bennett’s remarks.

    How else can we have the cockroach-swarm of opinions about racism, genocide, and poor personal hygiene, unless we accept the sound bite as representing the entire conversation?

  • Realist

    Liberals should realize that while they may energize their extreme left-wing base by making asinine claims such as the ones made against Bill Bennett, their mindless claims turn off moderates.

  • Vile Stench

    “1) Bennett said what millions of Americans believe — and yet are afraid to say” – Shark

    Because it’s true. You can continue to live in your fantasy world where every person is equal if it makes you feel good, but it is scientifically false.

    As I have always said, I would love to be proven wrong. It would be great if everyone really were equal. All we need is one shining example of a successful black population. Surely one of the dozens of African nations can rise up and show me the error of my ways. Even the success of blacks as a minority population would suffice. If we’re too racist, perhaps a country without all of our baggage could bring blacks into parity.

    Unfortunately, it hasn’t happened yet and I’m not holding my breath. It’s scientific fact that blacks commit more crime per capita in almost every single country in which they reside. It’s fact that blacks are less economically successful in any system that promotes competition. It’s also true that blacks perform less well on IQ tests and in educational systems all around the world.

    I have my theory on why those facts exist and you have yours. So while your working on your next theory of how super secret racist mind bullets travel around the world dropping blacks test scores and forcing them out of a job and into crime, I’ll just take the current scientific data at face value.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>You did not dispute the causal relationship, you just deny it is racist.

    Do you take this back? After clarification we can go to the next.<<

    As Bennett himself clearly pointed out, the relationship is statistical, not necessarily causal. The discussion here is whether what Bennett said was racist, and it clearly is not when taken in context, not whether there are social problems among poor blacks, which is a real issue, but has nothing to do with this discussion.

    Dave

  • Joey

    Bill Bennett has survived a long time, for whatever reason I cannot ascertain.

    Personnally I know several folks who have happened upon Bill, and were all left with a less than favorable impression.

    Let me give you an example.

    From a U.S. Marshall Service employee I know very well, for many years.

    Bill Bennett is scheduled to be picked up at his residence by a government employed driver and car. The driver arrives a bit late (traffic in DC is terrible). Bennett exits his abode cursing – procedes to walk across his lawn, purposly steps in doggy doo-doo, enters the sedan and proceeds to clean his shoes on the carpet, knowing full well that the driver is responsible for the maintainence and cleanliness of the vehicle.

    That’s vindictive, that’s Bill Bennett. You can ALWAYS judge a persons respectibility by the way he or she treats the waiting staff (or hired help). Everyone I know in the U.S. Marshall’s service thinks he’s scum, and avoids the Bennett duty like the plague.

    There’s a little inside information for you.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    This is the weakest defense ever, with no actual arguments being made.

    If this were a legal case and you all were Bennett’s lawyers, he’d fire you immediately.

    That is all.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    His brother was Bill Clinton’s lawyer, so I imagine he’d hire him before he’d hire us. But, of course, he doesn’t need a lawyer because he didn’t do anything. The defenses are weak because there’s nothing to defend.

    Dave

  • http://journals.aol.com/vicl04/THESAVAGEQUIETSEPTEMBERSUN/ Victor Lana

    Bennett is a disgraceful human being. He has no place to go but down, way down, into some hole where he can cover his big fat head.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Bennett is a disgraceful human being. He has no place to go but down, way down, into some hole where he can cover his big fat head.”

    Yeah, I just finished reading the Book of Virtues and I have to agree, Bennett is a disgrace.

  • murr

    cant we just say.. if you are poor..with low income..and bad schools..and possibly a minority..the crime rate would be higher then rich white elitist bastards..who dont need to steal to survive..who already know how to work and profiteer from the system?

    bill bennett should say that..but killing them premptively..he is on his own

  • 1Potato

    murr:

    We need “rich white elitist bastards.” Otherwise, who else would there be to steal from?

    1P

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >Yeah, I just finished reading the Book of Virtues and I have to agree, Bennett is a disgrace.<

    At least we can all agree on the quality of his written work.

    Dave

  • http://freewayjam.blogspot.com uao

    Speaking only for myself:

    When I was 20-21 or so, I had dropped out of school, couldn’t hold a job (mostly because I could only get crap jobs and was a shoddy, disgruntled employee all the time).

    My parents raised me to know right from wrong, but I was uneducated, poorly trained, frustrated, broke and in debt, and stupid.

    Age 20-21 was the most criminal of my life. I didn’t rob anyone, but I skipped out on bills and was a general deadbeat. I fantasized about a big score, getting piles of money all at once.

    I didn’t act on those impulses, and eventually got the education, training, and maturity I needed to find a good job and a career. I break no laws (except little ones ;-) ), pay my debts, and am a “productive” member of society.

    I’d still like to win the lottery, but I’m no longer fantasizing about embezzlement, strongarm robbery, or burglary.

    Had I not gotten my education, training, and career, and continued on the path I was on, I might very well have done whatever necessary to get me money. Which a lot of people wind up doing.

    The cause of my “crimes” was economical and educational; few opportunities open to me, few chances to get the experience I needed.

    The cure of my crimes was economical; when I could provide for myself, I didn’t need to take.

    Same as for black folk, or anyone.

    Crime simply doesn’t happen because somebody is black. It happens because of desperation and few options.

    Incidentally; would you like to know what race has the highest crime rate in Japan? White people, by far. military personnel and English teachers, no less. Most are punks; they get into scrapes (usually over women or drugs) and can’t financially get out of the holes they dig. Japanese in Japan have more options available to them, they generally resort to lest drastic means to get over their problems.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “bill bennett should say that..but killing them premptively..he is on his own”

    He never said that we should abort them. His words were taken out of context.

    “At least we can all agree on the quality of his written work.”

    Dave, I hope you are being sarcastic because I was being sarcastic.

    “Crime simply doesn’t happen because somebody is black.”

    Who said it did???

    uao, I enjoyed your story, you are an example to all of us, but everyone is capable of this. There is no excuse for not getting an adequate education and being a negative part of society by stealing.

  • RogerMDillion

    “What his ‘hypothetical example’ stated was a reduction of black babies would reduce crime. This is true. So would the reduction of white babies.”

    You’re not helping your case. Bennett’s first thought off the cuff was that blacks are prone to crime because he sees them as being more prone to poverty. If poor whites and poor blacks held the same place in his mind, he would have said poor instead of black.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Blacks are prone to crime because they are poverty stricken and oppressed. Blacks were being oppressed at the same time as Italians and Irish. The Italians and Irish eventually intergrated into society, blacks did not. Currently the Hispanics and blacks are the poor oppressed, but Hispanics are slowly intergrating into society just like the Italians and Irish, but the blacks are staying right where they are.

    It is because of the lack of true black leaders. Cosby would make a great black leader, but people like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton have the black masses calling Cosby a racist. The problem is that they are being oppressed by their own leaders.

    But no one wants to abort all black babies. Bennett’s words were taken out of context.

    Conservatives don’t want blacks to be eliminated because that would be barbaric.

    Liberals don’t want blacks to be eliminated because then who would vote for them???

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Integration and acceptance are a two-way street, my young friend.

    Race is the enduring trauma in the history of this nation and Natives and blacks have had the most enduring, difficult struggles with violence, discrimination, and poverty.

    We consider South Asian immigrants to be model minorities in this country, highly educated, law-abiding and well-paid.

    Yet in the UK, Indians and Pakistanis are regarded as criminal, poor, uneducated slum-dwellers much the way more backwards members of our society regard blacks. “Paki” is the worst racial slur in British society, the equivalent of the word “nigger” in ours. So how do you explain this difference? Is it something about the inferiority of Indian and Pakistani culture? Apparently not, since they produce some of the smartest scientists, engineers, and physicians in the world and are doing great work in those fields in America.

    Or is it more about the attitude of the nation they live in? In the UK, they’re post-colonial ghosts, those regarded as inferior, defeated people who were kept down on the basis of their skin color and difference for generations.

    Racism and our perceptions of motivation among different races is completely socially constructed. There is no such thing as inherent cultural or genetic inferiority or superiority.

    There is only our willingness to exclude or engage other people fairly and openly without fear or prejudice. And the results in this country speak for themselves — the assumption that black people DO NOT WANT to live good lives or “integrate” from “their” culture into “ours” is precisely the kind of thinking that makes black poverty a reality and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in schools, the workplace, and in business that causes real discrimination and suffering.

    Why is it THEIR burden to become more like US? Who says THEY are different from US? Even this more passive form of racism has real effects and provides otherwise well-meaning “white” people a cop-out for their role in the continuing sin of racial inequality.

    That is all.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >”At least we can all agree on the quality of his written work.”

    Dave, I hope you are being sarcastic because I was being sarcastic.<

    I was being uber-sarcastic by taking your sarcastic comment seriously.

    Dave

  • http://freewayjam.blogspot.com uao

    >”Crime simply doesn’t happen because somebody is black.”

    Who said it did??? <

    I think Mr. Bennett was implying this when he suggested that the abortion of black babies would result in a reduction of crime.

    He’s obviously ignorant to what causes crime. Either ignorant, or fully aware and simply a scoundrel and insensitive clod. Take your pick.

  • Les Slater

    Bob, I enjoyed your post. Good job.

    There is much talk of Bennetts remarks taken ‘out of context’. I present below the transcript in its entirety:

    CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I’ve read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn’t — never touches this at all.

    BENNETT: Assuming they’re all productive citizens?

    CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

    BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don’t know what the costs would be, too. I think as — abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

    CALLER: I don’t know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

    BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well —

    CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

    BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. 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.

    ***************************

    Dave, I’ll let you ponder this for a while. I’ll then try to parse it so even you might understand it.

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    I think what make Bennett’s statement racist is that he choose to target blacks directly.

    Why didn’t he say poor single mothers, or mothers living in poor neighborhoods, or from families whose incomes are considered under the poverty level.

    All of those type statements would have been more correct and would have avoided being racist.

    Saying the statement is riduculus and immoral does not take away this guys underlying racism. The fact that this is an unscripted statement shows how this guy feels deep down. He didn’t have time to think about his words, he just said them.

    Does this make this guy evil?
    No.

    Many people deep down have ill feelings for other races for some reason or another; justified or not.

    But this statment was racist.

    I do agree we are probably making to big a deel about it.

  • Mr X

    The big argument about what Mr. Bennett said on the radio is that his statements were taken out of context, and he is not a racist. OK lets supply the context.

    Mr. Bennett was talking to a caller on his radio show and the caller was postulating

    “I’ve read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn’t — never touches this at all.”

    Mr. Bennett put forth the statement that
    “Maybe, maybe, but we don’t know what the costs would be, to….”

    Mr. Bennet was saying that he was not sure if the caller was correct.

    Then Mr. Bennet states what he does know as true.

    “BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well —

    CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

    BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. 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.”

    Let me repeat again what Mr. Bennet stated

    “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”

    This statement is an expression of what Mr. Bennett believes to be true. It is not put forth as a hypothetical example. It is what Mr. Bennett says he believes to be true. He states that it would be “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do” and then goes on to say “your crime rate would go down”

    It sure looks to me like he is stating that the color of a persons’ skin is a direct cause of crime. “reduce crime” = “abort every black baby” He “knows” this to be true. He also says it would be “morally reprehensible” to do that.

    How can a person say that reducing crime = aborting black children without being thought of as a racist. There was no mention of other factors that could possible lead to crime such as; wealth or lack thereof, education, health, emotional wellbeing, drug addiction, and the list goes on. None of the elements besides race was put forward as the way to stop crime. Just abort the black children. You can qualify it all you want with “reprehensible thing” to do statements but it does not cover up the racist statement that Mr. Bennett made.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    To the two of you who want to quote the entire discussion over and over and over again. I’m not missing anything here. Bennett was clearly not suggesting DOING what he brought up. He was just pointing out that killing black babies would reduce crime – which it would – while accompanying the statement with the caveat that this does not make it an acceptable thing to even contemplate. Where is the confusion there?

    Dave

  • Mr. X

    OK I will not quote Mr. Bennet, I’ll quote you, Dave.

    Dave “To the two of you who want to quote the entire discussion over and over and over again. I’m not missing anything here. Bennett was clearly not suggesting DOING what he brought up.”

    That is exactly my point too, he was not suggesting doing “what he brought up”, that would make him a monster.

    What he did say is he “knows” as you seem to “know” that:

    Dave “He was just pointing out that killing black babies would reduce crime – which it would –“

    That is quite a statement there, DAVE. And in your next line you make my argument:

    Dave “this does not make it an acceptable thing to even contemplate.”

    That is exactly what we are saying; it is not acceptable for him “to even contemplate”. And further more I say that a statement like yours above, which I’ll quote again for you Dave
    “He was just pointing out that killing black babies would reduce crime – which it would –“
    is equally as racist.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Contemplating something as an unacceptable use of statistics to do justify doing something horrible is NOT the same as contemplating actually doing it. How can you not see this obvious difference?

    Exterminating the entire human race would also reduce crime, as would killing all male babies, as would executing all first time offenders, as would giving each child born in the US a million dollars, as would lobotomizing anyone who goes on welfare or unemployment. Statistically all of these things would reduce crime, and saying so doesn’t necessarily mean that you advocate doing any of them – especially when at the same time you specifically state that you aren’t advocating them.

    Give me a break – how far do you have to stretch things just to pursue a partisan witchhunt.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Mr. X,

    Very good post (48). Your parsing is pretty much what I was promising Dave. Your 50 is totally correct.

    I’m not sure why, but Dave sometimes appears to be clueless. But he’s not the only one that does not see what’s before his very eyes.

    Les

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Les, please. Point to me where Bennett said “hey, let’s go out and kill all the black babies – THAT is the best way to reduce crime.”

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    > Les, please. Point to me where Bennett said “hey, let’s go out and kill all the black babies – THAT is the best way to reduce crime.”

    You’re absolutely correct. I don’t think anyone has said otherwise. Re-read Mr. X’s 50, take a deep breath and think.

    Please do not take this personally. I do not think many posters here, both defenders, and critics see this clearly.

    Mr. X has to be geven credit for posting such a clear and succinct explanation. Many will not get it.

    Les

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. Nalle, I think that what people are saying is that of all the reprehensible hypotheticals he could have used, Gambling Man went for aborting all the babies gifted by some loving creator with excess melanin (and, I suppose, an aversion to assimilating to you in ways you deem appropriate or necessary). Sure, he said following through on such a hypothetical would be terrible and indeed it would. But the fact that he would choose that particular reprehensible is telling in and of itself. The fact that he would even conceive of such a thing gives many people good reason to wonder. Should he be fired? What would be the point? No, I think people need to pray hard for the soul of Bill Bennett. Of course, I have believed that for years; this little incident didn’t alarm me at all. It disgusted me, but hell, the right wing leaves me feeling disgusted each and every day anyway.

  • Les Slater

    > I think that what people are saying is that of all the reprehensible hypotheticals he could have used,

    No, no. There was nothing hypothetical aboutg it. He was making a very clear statement about what he believes.

    “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”

    How explicit does one have to be?

  • http://www.iamcorrect.com Lono

    It just keeps getting better. Every day a Republican implodes. Why, just in the last week we have this Bennet comment, TWO DeLay indictments, and the Frist investigation for insider trading.

    Oh, and Judy Miller is rolling over on Karl Rove about now too.

    It’s a good day to be a Democrat. Oh, and I told you so.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    If you are happy about little liberal lies like these then it is obvious that you haven’t been happy for a long time.

  • Cunning Linguist

    The funny thing is that you liberals would have no problem aborting black babies if you knew ahead of time that those black babies would turn out to be conservative republicans. Deep down inside you all wish Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice had been aborted. But then you wouldn’t have anyone to call “uncle tom”

    October 3, 2005, New day, same hypocritical liberal bullshit.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    I say we appoint Cunning Linguist to the Supreme Court. He knows what’s up.

  • Les Slater

    > Deep down inside you all wish Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice had been aborted. But then you wouldn’t have anyone to call “uncle tom”

    Uncle Toms? They’re members of the Master’s clan.

    Wish they were aborted? Sounds like projection to me.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    No, you no what it is not deep in their minds. It is on the tip of their tongues.

    “They’re members of the Master’s clan.”

    Will you still say that when Rice is President??? Will she be the head of the clan??? Will she be the Master???

  • Les Slater

    > Will you still say that when Rice is President??? Will she be the head of the clan???

    And why wouldn’t I?

    > Will she be the Master???

    Did you mean The Master? If so, then no. Mr. Bush is not The Master.

  • http://www.blogcritics.com T A Dodger

    Why is this so hard to understand? Those of us (ok, MOST of us) who think what Bill Bennett said was racist DO NOT think that he actually advocates forcing blacks to have abortions.

    “Aborting all babies pregnancies would reduce the crime rate, and that is what we sould do.” = Racist and Monstrous statment.

    “Aborting all black pregnancies would reduce the crime rate, but it would be a HORRIBLE thing to do.” = Just racist.

  • http://www.blogcritics.com T A Dodger

    Sorry for the typos.
    Should be *should* and *statement*

  • http://www.blogcritics.com T A Dodger

    “Aborting all babies…”

    Wow, I give up on trying to correct all the typing errors in my original post.
    At least, in my own defense, aborting all babies would decrease the crime rate…of course that would be totally reprehensible. Sigh.

  • arthur

    black people scare me becasuse most of them are criminals

  • ey yo

    mannn can’t you niggers take a joke