Today on Blogcritics
Home » William Bennett, Cheerleader for Abortion Rights

William Bennett, Cheerleader for Abortion Rights

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

Aren’t these people special?

“George Bush has distanced himself from comments made by a leading Republican crusader on moral values who declared that one way to reduce the crime rate in the US would be to ‘abort black babies.’

I suppose I’d distance myself too. Although it would be easier for me to do, given that I don’t head up a party which once saw fit to make this drooling, crypto-genocidal caricature of a human being secretary of education. That’s right, our special man of the day is William Bennett, not only secretary of education under Reagan, but also chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He conducted a little “thought experiment” on his radio show, in which he demonstrated — convincingly, I imagine, to the kind of people who listen to Bill Bennett — that all you’d have to do was abort every single one of those black kids, and you’d sure clean up the streets.

Bill’s precise words: “If you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose; you could abort every black baby in this country.”

He followed that up with the suggestion that this would be “impossible.” Also “ridiculous.” Thanks Bill. It would be kind of silly, wouldn’t it. And so difficult to pull off.

Finally, he suggested that it would be “morally reprehensible.” Well, yes.

He was careful, however, to cap this probing moral distinction with the reminder: “but your crime rate would go down.” Which is what really matters, if we’re going to be all daring and philosophical.

Equally deep thinkers could well argue that this intriguing hypothesis be more fully investigated. Why not abort all children? And murder their parents. I guarantee — and this is incontrovertible — that crime would be completely and permanently eradicated. (To give Bill credit, he did include in his thought experiment the race-neutral abortion of all children: yes, even those that aren’t black. But he didn’t properly examine the efficacy of lining up their parents and shooting them.)

Bill has a problem, though, mathematically speaking. Given that he’s “a leading Republican crusader on moral values,” surely he must insist — or he’d lose this honorific — that abortion itself is a crime. So, let’s see: by aborting all black children (“murder,” I believe, is how leading Republican crusaders on moral values see it), Bennett would be causing a huge spike in the murder stats — the assumption being that this brief genocidal spike would be more than compensated for by all those murderers that wouldn’t get born.

Let’s do the math, however: in order to balance the books, murder-wise, this would mean that each of those aborted black babies would have to have become — had he or she not been murdered by a leading Republican crusader on moral values — a murderer. Or you’re still seeing a bit of an uptick in crime, statistically speaking. Every murdered murderer would constitute a murder. And the murdered non-murderers… well, you see the problem. The aborted murderers would have to do a fair bit of murdering in order to make up for the aborted innocents.

Luckily, the media has accustomed us, in the past couple of weeks, to think of most black Americans — poor ones, anyway — as rapists of babies, so I suppose it’s not too hard to make this mental leap: sure, hell, they’re all basically serial killers. The thought experiment works! Right? I think… Okay, I’m not so good at thinking this way. Which is why they pay people like Bennett the big bucks — I’d make a lousy secretary of education.

Yes, I defer to the expert. Bill Bennett — with his “multi-million dollar gambling habit” — clearly knows a lot more about morality than I do. I mean, I have opinions, but he’s written whole books about this stuff: The Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals; and Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism.

Moral clarity. If I had some of that, I suppose I’d be outraged that we weren’t taking clothes hangers to black children in the womb.

————————————————————–

If you find this kind of reasoning irritating, or even repulsive, please visit Dysblog for whole pages of the same.

Powered by

About visigoth

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The man made a rhetorical point. There’s no indication of even a whif of actual racism here. Give me a break.

    Dave

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Dave, is there *nothing* you won’t apologize for?

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    I mean, how repulsive do these people have to be before you’re willing to stand up and say, “These people are repulsive.”

    The rhetorical point focused, I note, on *black* babies. What precisely was the point, then, rhetorically speaking?

  • RogerMDillion

    “Moral clarity. If I had some of that,”

    If you had some of that, you would realize that Bennett was making a larger point, which I notice you didn’t disagree with. So that makes you a racist, right?

    Your article is written as if Bennett was advocating killing black babies, which is patently false, and you would know that if you read or heard his entire statement.

    This is all just politics as usual attacking a man you don’t like by taking fragments of what he said. Try and strive for something better.

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Look. The context of his remark was an economic survey demonstrating that crime goes down as abortion goes up. A racially neutral survey. Bill’s attempt to put some moral clarity into this fact (which clearly disturbed him) was to specify that — if you *really* wanted to be, you know, factual — you’d stress the abortion of *black* babies.

    That’s the context. That’s what he said. He did not say, “let’s go out and kill black babies.” No, he said that if you were going to cut down on crime, then the way to do it would be to target — hypothetically, of course — this particular race for abortion.

    Just a little thought experiment.

  • RogerMDillion

    Which he immediately followed up with “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,”

    But to your point “he said that if you were going to cut down on crime, then the way to do it would be to target — hypothetically, of course — this particular race for abortion.”

    Is that not true? Heaven forbid, that Bennett thinks there are poor black people in this country. Do you not think there are?

    I didn’t notice anyone getting upset when those on the left stated that the victims from Katrina in New Orleans suffered because they were poor and black.

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

    Douglas Anthony Cooper you twisted, spun and obliterated the original context of Bennett’s remarks.

    “Thought experiment” my aching ass.

    You posted a misleading pile of crap that smells worse than an elephant with the runs.

  • Rob

    The real rub in Bennett’s comments is that he said “A L L ” black babies…a clear indication of a lack of understanding of African-American contributions to this great country.

  • Tom

    Since the percentage of criminals in jail are disproportionately male, how about aborting all males to reduce the crime rate? Bill Bennett and his defenders are ridiculous.

  • ann

    planned parenthood has been aborting black babies in disporportiante numbers yet not suprisingly the crime rate has not gone down, i felt like a knife went thru my heart when i heard his comment, taken out of context or not it was a sick thing to say about human beings

  • Les Slater

    “I didn’t notice anyone getting upset when those on the left stated that the victims from Katrina in New Orleans suffered because they were poor and black.”

    I did not get upset but did point out that is was the poor that bore most of the suffering. Well off Blacks fared fairly well. Poor whites were much in the same situation as the rest of the poor, who were predominately Black.

    Bennett’s remarks were racist in that he did not distinguish the social strata in which the abortion solution would apply. His hypothetical solution would abort fetuses of all Black people.

    Even though he may have been trying to make a moral point, his using race as the criteria is, indeed, racist.

  • kittygogo

    If Bill Bennett didn’t want people to talk about what an incredibly insensitive and perverse dickhead that he is, he shouldn’t say idiotic racist remarks. Taken out of context my ass. He is a nationally syndicated radio talk show ranter. Don’t tell me that he doesn’t know that what he says goes out everywher. He should know that if he says ludicrous, destructive and mean-spirited remarks, targetting a racial group, he’s obviously going to get called out on it. Apologize for him if you really feel he needs your help, but he said what he said, and it was a stupid, racist remark, no matter what the “context”.

    All republicans should be aborted if we want less murder because more black people would have money and wouldn’t be so desperate to kill. Of course, aborting all repos would be wrong on moral grounds. There I made a completely idiotic and perhaps false comment. But don’t you dare criticize me, because I said it would be wrong and you would just be taking my words out of context. What a bunch of bullshit. All of these guys are simply full of evil. (How’s that for a gross, general oversimplicfication for you.) The fact is Bennett represents a party that has proven time and again to be racist, xenophobic and out-of-touch with the real citizen of this country. Let’s just hope that the next election doesn’t once again turn into a homosexual witch hunt …another group the repos love to hate (along with poor people, blacks, illegal immigrants, europeans and other misc. foreigners, environmentalists, teachers …)

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

    >>The real rub in Bennett’s comments is that he said “A L L ” black babies…a clear indication of a lack of understanding of African-American contributions to this great country.<<

    So they ARE handing out clown shoes with the DNC membership cards. I thought they might be.

    Bennet made an extreme rhetorical statement for effect. He made it painstakingly clear that it was entirely hypothetical and that his purpose was to excite thought. Not surprisingly it excited a great deal of dumb thought.

    He didn’t say “hey, let’s kill all the black people” or “I have a plan to exterminate the poor”. His statement was essentially saying :we could do a lot of stupid things to combat crime, here’s one of them”.

    The fact that you people are trying to blow this into a manufactured scandal while ignoring the outrageous comments from Ray Nagin and others that there’s a conspiracy to keep blacks out of New Orleans and make it a city just for rich white people is so hypocritical that it would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

    Dave

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

    >>Dave, is there *nothing* you won’t apologize for?<<

    Apologize? For what? I despise Bennett and everything he stands for, but this manufactured attack is so bogus and so outrageous that something has to be said. I’m not apologizing for Bennett, I’m wondering why you are so shameless that you’d write this transparently partisan attack piece. I thought you had better sense.

    Dave

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

    >>planned parenthood has been aborting black babies in disporportiante numbers yet not suprisingly the crime rate has not gone down,<<

    The crime rate has steadily declined since Roe v. Wade. It’s down more than 50% since 1993, in fact. I’m sure it’s just coincidence that the crime rate has done nothing but decline dramatically starting almost the moment abortion was legalized, of course.

    This is an undeniable, completely unambiguous fact. And the largest beneficiaries of this decline in crime are African Americans since they are disproportionately the victims of more crime than any other group in Ameirca.

    Dave

  • kittygogo

    pathetic?

    Who is really the pathetic one Dave? The whole point of this board is to give pathetic people like myself something to do to kill time and express their opinion whatever that be (that’s my excuse, what’s yours?). People who aren’t pathetic would rather not sit and rant on a blog, criticizing everyone’s differing opinion just to reassure themselves of their intellectual superiority. You spend hours and hours of your valuable time right here (and doing research to skew your bizarre fantasies of reality for this site). All so that you can rant and rave about how you are right and everyone else is so off the hook for expressing an opinion that you don’t agree with.
    If you really have such disdain for us pathetic people, than why are you even wasting your time? Sorry Dave, but no matter how “wrong” you may perceive everyone who doesn’t agree with you to be, you still come out looking just as pathetic as anyone you attempt to criticize.

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

    Having a bit of a self-loathing issue there, Kitty? Take a look in a mirror. Then consider that I think there IS a point to discussion. I find that it helps me clarify my beliefs and hone my writing skills, which I actually use to good purpose, rather than just wallowing in pathos.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Douglas – I think you’re supposed to put “Satire” across the top of the page when you write material like this.

  • Les Slater

    > Not surprisingly it excited a great deal of dumb thought.

    Isn’t that the point of these right-wing talk shows in the first place? But whom are they trying to excite?

    As far as their audience is concerned, the left and liberals howling is just more red meat.

    They will not dispute the assertion made that preventing Blacks from having children, however abhorrent, would really help the crime situation.

    There are some among this ilk who come up with solutions that not as many see as abhorrent. ‘Well, maybe its not all Black folk that are at fault, after all there are some decent ones. Maybe if we could just make welfare contingent on having a hysterectomy performed. We can always dump them from the rolls anyway.’

    These ass-holes perform as a tag-team. It never stops where it might be discussed in polite company. One team member’s germ is carried further. It is a division of labor.

    Then there are some know-nothings that support not only their right to say it, but excuse the content as well.

  • kittygogo

    If you really believed in the point of your posts as “discussion” than you would discuss issues constructively and not state that people who disagree with you have no sense or are pathetic. You are mean-spirited and you attack. You call people shameless, you consider it ridiculous that anyone would find objection to what Bennett has said, and you are contemptous towards people who find his remarks insensitive. This isn’t constructive conversation, this is once again, you spewing on about your superiority on seeing “the truth” into the issue. There are many layers of truth to every issue, but you never, never ever see that a difference in opinion to you does not make the other person any more right or wrong than you. You are always right and naysayers are fools. Bennett said an incredibly hurtful thing, yet we are the pathetic ones for find offense in it and discussing it? You are the superior one for seeing that it was all just rhetoric. OK, whatever …

    And yeah, I must embrace my self-loathing side when I get on this site, because I always feel like I could be doing something much more constructive with my time. My excuse is my boring weekend job. I am thankful I have a life during the week to keep me off of here.

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

    Kitty, just having an opinion doesn’t make you special and doesn’t cause people to bow down before you. For an opinion to be worthy of consideration it needs to be well reasoned, based on facts, and not just some sort of ideological rant based on an emotional reaction or a vague sense of incoherent outrage.

    The reaction I’ve seen to Bennett’s comment is substantially out of proportion to the offensiveness of the comment itself. That disparity is as worthy of discussion than the comment itself. The comment was obviously not intended as anything but an absurd hypothetical. That’s indisputable. So why are people acting as if Bennett actually believed and was trying to promote mass abortion for black babies? The story here isn’t the comment, it’s the completely bogus and manufactured outrage which it has produced.

    I find few things more offensive or hypocritical than self-serving partisan smear campaigns, and the way people are characterizing Bennett’s remarks are an egregious example of the ongoing attempt by some on the left to paint anyone on the right as a racist, whether they are or not. It’s cheap, it’s dirty and it’s much more offensive than anything Bennett said.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Kitty,

    Don’t take Dave too seriously; he’s full of hot air, he likes getting your goat. It makes him feel important.

    Les

  • peter huizinga

    Lets see… If we abort all babies from white trailer trash couples the level of bigotry should come down; of course this is purely hypothetical, and monstrously abhorant, but the level of bigotry should come down.

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Okay, some moral clarity here. Yes, whoever ironically suggested I put the word “satire” at the top, was in fact — to a small extent — correct. The post was deliberately hyperbolic. Is Bennett “genocidal”? Of course that’s a radical exaggeration. What he *is*, and what the post clearly indicates (I think, even if I like to use Swiftian hyperbole to get people a bit riled up), is utterly racist, in a particularly nasty fashion.

    Let’s look very closely at what he said. Bill Bennett claimed that *unborn black children* are criminals. Not black people (which is a pretty ugly sentiment in itself), but *unborn* black people — who, simply because they are black, will grow up to be criminals. Not “might”, but *will* grow up to be criminals. Why? Because they are black.

    Twist that any way you like: it pretty much *defines* racism.

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

    Actually, by the same measure that killing all the black babies would reduce crime, killing all the white babies would enormously reduce our expenses for welfare, since that’s the main social vice which white people dominate.

    Based on what I’ve seen here, to get rid of the bigotry we’d need to abort the babies of graduate students, union members and school teachers, especially in the northeast.

    Dave

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

    Bennett never suggested on killing all black babies you fascist pigs. He was saying that is what the abortion people are trying to say.

    Bennett is so sick of abortion. How dare you say that he supports any baby killing of any kind. George Bush is not distancing himself from the issue. He is just not getting involved. He knows not get involved when the liberal media go an a witch hunt, because it always blows over.

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

    Damn!!! Why the hell are these liberal lyers allowed to post this bullshit. Some should their blogs before they bring them to the public.

  • RogerMDillion

    “George Bush is not distancing himself from the issue.”

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House on Friday criticized as “not appropriate” a comment from former Education Secretary William Bennett that aborting black babies would reduce the U.S. crime rate.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1174353

  • RogerMDillion

    Not “might”, but *will* grow up to be criminals.”

    Are you saying that no unborn blacks will commit crimes? That’s an obvious falsehood. All unborn races will have people in it that will eventually commit crimes.

    The first group that came to mind for Bennett was black people. He has spent a lot of time in DC, so there’s no surprise that he associates blacks with poverty and crime.

    It might be insensitive to say that, but it’s not racist.

  • Les Slater

    > Bennett never suggested on killing all black babies you fascist pigs.

    Who are the fascists you’re talking about? Bennett never suggested killing anyone, Black or otherwise. What he posited was the hypothesis that terminating pregnancies of Black women would produce a lower crime rate. No fainting horror will take that back.

    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.

    > He was saying that is what the abortion people are trying to say.

    What on earth are you talking about? A woman’s right to control her reproductive life has nothing to do with any social engineering that you seem to ascribe to it.

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

    >>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

  • Les Slater

    > 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.

    I’m glad that you deny this is racist. It betrays your thinking.

    No one is disputing that there is crime in Black communities. What is at stake here is that in the context of these remarks, it is put forward that reducing the Black population is a solution to crime.

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

    The context clearly exonerates Bennett. He was posing an extreme example of what he clearly thought was ridiculous thinking and bad use of statistics – the exact opposite of what he’s being accused of. This is what makes this entire ‘controversy’ so offensive.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > The context clearly exonerates Bennett. He was posing an extreme example of what he clearly thought was ridiculous thinking and bad use of statistics – the exact opposite of what he’s being accused of. This is what makes this entire ‘controversy’ so offensive.

    You never commented on my comment 19.

    Bennett is nothing but a celebrity that kicks off a deeper discussion. He has given much to run with.

    Your 31 indicates that you buy into the fundamental premise that Bennett posited in his remarks.

    Denying that was his intent may exonerate him but where does that leave you?

  • peter huizinga

    Bill Bennett and his apollogist sadly don’t get it; we understand Bennett wasn’t implying that aborting black children would be a good thing. It’s his simplified premise black = crime couched in a sick hypothetical argument, if all black children where aborted it would lower crime, that is causing the outrage. Similar sick premises have been used through the ages Jews = stingy with money, hispanics = lazy, and on and on it goes.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Dave Nalle has finally, truly lost it.

    I’m almost speechless, almost …

    You’re really going to stick up for rhetoric advocating racial eugenics? You see no racism in that statement?

    The “abortion reduces crime” argument is Levitt’s (completely misinterpreted by Bennett, who thinks he teaches at “Yale”), and here he demolishes your “exonerating context” of black crime rates:

    “Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics. It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement. Empirically, what matters is the fact that abortions are disproportionately used on unwanted pregnancies, and disproportionately by teenage women and single women.

    3) Some people might think that my comments in (2) above are just ducking the race issue because it is politically correct to do so. Anyone who has read Freakonomics knows that I am not afraid to take issues of race head on. Much of the book deals with challenging issues of race (e.g. black-white test score gaps, black naming patterns, etc.). I mean it when I say that, from a purely fact-based and statistical perspective, race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime.”

    So the answer to crime that’s a result of poverty is to stop the poor from reproducing at all? Wouldn’t it be cheaper and easer to spend the money on abortion on say, I dunno, programs to help the poor find jobs? Education? Child care?

    Oh wait, I forgot, you think poor blacks are ineducable and unmotivated.

    You really are a social Darwinist, Dave.

    Stop yourself. It’s getting embarrassing.

    That is all.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    And how is it a manufactured partisan attack?

    EVERYONE is denouncing Bennett, including the White House.

    That is all.

  • Bliffle

    Don’t the wingnuts ever tire of defending their leaders gross immoralities?

    Were the lefties as constantly defensive with Clinton? Whitewater, TravelGate, Monica. They all seem so unimportant now.

    B

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>You’re really going to stick up for rhetoric advocating racial eugenics? You see no racism in that statement?< <

    None. Taken in context the statement is not racist. If you think that it is, then you are not sufficiently informed. Bennett made it very clear that he was using it as an example of the ridiculous extremes such an argument could be taken - not that he was advocating it - but that he was using it to show how totally wrong such a statement would be.

    >>The “abortion reduces crime” argument is Levitt’s (completely misinterpreted by Bennett, who thinks he teaches at “Yale”), and here he demolishes your “exonerating context” of black crime rates:< <

    No, this argument was never brought up by Bennett, and has only been associated with the statement after the fact.

    >>Oh wait, I forgot, you think poor blacks are ineducable and unmotivated.< <

    When did I say that? I've never said anything of the sort. And when did you stop beating your wife, btw?

    >>Stop yourself. It’s getting embarrassing.< <

    Oddly, I find your arguments so weak and irrelevant that they only strengthen my position.

    >>And how is it a manufactured partisan attack? <<

    Because Bennett clearly didn’t intend anything racist, quite the opposite, and other people have taken what he said, tried to combine it with Leavitt’s argument which had nothing to do with it, and create an opinion for Bennett which he doesn’t hold and did not express in this comment on his radio show. That’s a textbook case of a manufactured controversy.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > Bennett: 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.

    “I do know that it’s true ….” Indeed!

    > That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

    Nothing in the second part of the statement denies the validity of what he said in the first. In the end he reiterates with “… but your crime rate would go down.”

    It is quite clear. No context can excuse it.

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

    Les Slater, it is wrong to say but if you did KILL every black baby before they were born the crime rate WOULD go down. Look at some statistics it is true, our jail system is full of black inmates.

    Us Pro-Lifers know this and our solution to it isn’t KILL EM’ ALL!!! The Pro-Deathers know this and their solution IS kill em’ all.

    I have a cousin who is a pro-Deather and an amitted racist and I asked him, “Why do you support killing babies?” And he says, “Because them n*****s drive by and shoot eachother and they kill their own babies before they are born, which is good because it reduces their numbers.”

  • Bennett

    “EVERYONE is denouncing Bennett, including the White House.”

    I’ve done some bad things in my day, but I never thought I read that.

    And I haven’t even been too harsh about GWB lately…

    :-]

  • Les Slater

    > Les Slater, it is wrong to say but if you did KILL every black baby before they were born the crime rate WOULD go down. Look at some statistics it is true, our jail system is full of black inmates.

    You say the essentially the same thing as William Bennett.

    Please step back and try to see what you are saying.

    > but if you did KILL every black baby before they were born the crime rate WOULD go down.

    The reason it is ‘wrong to say’ is that it is not true. Blacks are not the cause of crime. It is the system that causes crime. Racists try to Keep Blacks in dead end situations that breed crime. The purpose is not to breed crime but to increase profits. Having a desperate section of the population that will take the lowest paying job is good for some businesses.

    It is also a reminder to the better paid that if they don’t keep in line they can also be replaced by any Black who would be happy to put up with the conditions they are bitching about.

  • Stephen Kelly

    So the White House has distanced itself from the comments of William Bennett by saying the comments were “Not appropriate.” Where’s the indignation and disgust? Where’s the demand for an apology? Could it be that those in the White House believe what Bennett said was true and that they are only upset because he said it in public?

    Bennett took what was an economic issue and transformed it into a racial issue. In my book, that is racist! Why not mention the whites who are guilty of insider trading, Enron, the oil companies, Adelphia cable … It would be true that if we aborted all white babies, the rate of white collar crime would would decline.

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

    “Racists try to Keep Blacks in dead end situations that breed crime.”

    Yes, DemocRats keep blacks in those situations so they can satify them by throwing some food stamps their way. That is how they get their votes.

    This is the reason why democRats are jumping all over Bennett. It makes it look like they actually care about the blacks.

  • Les Slater

    > Yes, DemocRats keep blacks in those situations so they can satify them by throwing some food stamps their way. That is how they get their votes.

    > This is the reason why democRats are jumping all over Bennett. It makes it look like they actually care about the blacks.

    Your ss bad as the Democrats blaming everything on the Republicans.

    Racism is bipartisan.

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

    Tell me how the Republicans are racists.

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Here, if you’d like to know how Republicans are racist, you’ll get the exhaustive treatment:link

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

    “Senator Trent Lott, whose past as a foaming segregationist was no secret in the party, was accepted as majority leader for over half a decade”

    How is Lott a racist??? He just said Thurman would have made a great president at his farwell party. Aren’t you supposed to say good things at a farwell party???

    “Senator Strom Thurmond, the one who turned Lott to a pillar of salt, found it necessary in 1964 to cross over to the Republican party, where his special thoughts about race were now welcome…”

    How is it welcomed??? Senator “former head KLANSMAN” Byrd found it neccesary to switch to the DemocRatic Party in the 60s also. Your point is…???

    “Senator Jesse Helms, before Bono converted him to the cause of African AIDS (through subtle references to the eternal barbecue that awaits the old bastard), was notorious for his contempt for the black race.”

    How is Helms a racist??? You provide no evidence of this.

    I didn’t read any farther.

    That entire blog you gave me was mad of anti-GOP rants. I can do the same thing with similiar arguments but against DemocRats. It was nothing.

    Soon a BLACK women will head the GOP and hopefully the country. What racist President would appoint a Black woman to the highest spot on the cabinent???? Clarence Thomas was appointed by Reagan, what racist would appoint a black to the supreme court???
    Jeb Bush married a Cuban and had Cuban kids, what racist would do that???

    You cannot give the same examples for the DemocRatic party though.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Based on what I’ve seen here, to get rid of the bigotry we’d need to abort the babies of graduate students, union members and school teachers, especially in the northeast.

    I’m willing to go that route, Dave. Provided, of course, that all adults are sterilized in the Bible Belt.

    “Senator Trent Lott, whose past as a foaming segregationist…

    Like it or not many of our most astute political leaders could have begun their careers as racists. One must remember that women did not have the right to vote until the summer of 1920. The Constitutional repeal of the Poll Tax and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave the Black community insured that Blacks had the freedom to vote.

    Previous to the mid 1960’s politicians came from a different world. As America changed and become more racially tolerant, those who were raised in ‘old school’ views came around. They realized that which they were taught as children was morally reprehensible. For the most part those who grew up from 1900 – 1965 have been able to adapt to the societal advancements being made. People like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Tent Lott, Robert Byrd and even the late Governeor George Wallace came around. Most of the kids we’ve popped out in the last 40 years, however, need a lot of work. And as far as our generation and the one directly behind us are concerned, we’re just as resistant to societal change as the fundamentalist Islamics in the Middle East and the Communists in China.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Here, if you’d like to know how Republicans are racist, you’ll get the exhaustive treatment:link
    <<

    That’s a link to your own blog and a post about one identifiable, marginal racist who’s a Republican and an unsupported assertion that most racists are Republicans even if most Republicans aren’t racists.

    I can easily point to numerous examples of racist Democrats, from Jesse Jackson calling New York ‘Hymietown’, to the working class Democrats of the midwest who are certainly as casually bigoted as anyone in their communities.

    As for most racists being Republicans, this is certainly not true. The distribution of casual racists is probably equal between the parties, and the support of the Democratic party for institutionalized discrimination and racial exploitation is the backbone of the party, and something which really doesn’t exist in the GOP.

    When it comes to real, hard-core racists, they are likely to be neither democrat or republican, intensely anti-government and somewhat sociopathic.

    Dave

  • Stephen Kelly

    Why are Republicans racist? The evidence speaks for itself. Whenever an R says something like Bennett did, it is allowed to stand without challenge by the rank and file R’s. The White House tried to distance itself from the mess by saying that Bennett’s statements were “Not appropriate,” but no where did they dispute what he said, only that the statements were “inappropriate.” Instead, the spin comes out and we hear that Bennett was “taken out of context.” To be honest,it doesn’t matter–what people heard or think they heard will. Don’t say it was taken out of context. Be honest and say Bennett was wrong; what he said was stupid and he does not speak for other R’s. Otherwise, the public will continue to think the Republicans are racist.

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

    What evidence??? Bennett didn’t say anything racist. Don’t believe everything you hear on the liberal media. What Bennett said was actually the opposite of racism.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Yeah, Bill Bennett’s a generous soul who cares so deeply about black people. He’s the reason so many blacks are flocking to the GOP!

    Dave, I didn’t think I had to excerpt the actual transcript of the Bennett radio show since someone on this site had already posted it and blogged it up, but here it is. I thought for sure you’d already seen that discussion since you’re Internet spelunker #1. I can understand why you thought it wasn’t related to interpreting Levitt’s work since Bennett is such an illiterate that he references Yale rather than Chicago (where Levitt teaches), but he mentions him in the sentence before the infamous quote:

    “Here’s what Bennett said during the Sept. 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network’s Bill Bennett’s Morning in America:

    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.”

    You can find this and Levitt’s response to the race-crime claim on his blog.

    That is all.

  • rob

    Race baiting by the left is all this is. Read the transcript of the full conversation and you’ll see that this whole *controversey* is bullsh*t. The idea he cited for abortion/crime rate relationship came from a book called ‘Freakonomics’ authored by….you guessed it!!! A black man!! You mindless sheep who buy this race card nonsense hook line and sinker should be castrated. Hypothetically speaking of course.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    What? Freakonomics was written by a black man?

    I want to see where this goes, so which of the authors is black? Levitt or Dubner? Have you ever seen either of them on TV or in pictures? If you had, you’d know why I ask.

    This is too funny :)

    That is all.

  • http://freewayjam.blogspot.com uao

    http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7136/dubner2na.jpg

    Dubner’s pic

    http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7108/levitt3or.jpg

    Levitt’s pic

    Say what you will about the Left, but the Right is just as full of slimy liars.

    What was that about race baiters being castrated? How about lying race baiters?

  • http://freewayjam.blogspot.com uao

    Dammit, I messed up the url [on the sidebar–too long] and ruined the site layout for everybody.

    Sorry about that…

    (next time, use HTML, I keep reminding myself)

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

    “Bill Bennett’s a generous soul who cares so deeply about black people. He’s the reason so many blacks are flocking to the GOP!”

    Some of the top members of the GOP are black. The blacks that live in poverty always vote democRat but it is amazing that eventhough democRats are in power in poor areas that poor areas always stay poor.

    They keep voting democRat because the democRats throw food crumbs to them, like welfare. Republicans throw advice like “Get an education!!!” at them and how fun is that??? They could get welfare if the support democRats, but if they support Republicans then they would have to get off their asses and get an eduction.

  • http://freewayjam.blogspot.com uao

    And how shall they pay for this education? I know a lot of white people who can’t afford college, too. I know I can’t afford it; glad I live in a state that values liberal ideas like public education, and cheap universities.

    But a lot of people can’t afford it, white or black.

    And it’s not because they are lazy and sit on their asses.

    Welfare? What decade are you living in?

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

    I don’t have money for it either. But I currently have a 3.95 GPA and am a member of the Young DemocRats. I can easily get a scholarship.

    I worked hard for my 3.95. I know I have to go to college to make something of myself so I work hard. I have listened to what teachers and couselors have been saying.

    And I know if you are a minority and your parents don’t make under $30,000 and have a respectable GPA colleges will give you scholarships.

    I forgot what the name of the organization was, but it is for sending black youths to college.

    And if all that fails, get into a sport or get involved in the military. There are many options out there. College is possible for everybody.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Name some of these top black GOP leaders who have their roots in the black community and are working everyday to help black constituents, young Anthony.

    That is all.

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

    Clarence Thomas, Condilezza Rice, and Colin Powell are examples of blacks who risen from poverty and racism and worked hard to get themeselves an education and make something of themeselves. They have all given advice and they are also living examples to show young blacks that it is possible. That is all you can do, it is up to you to get yourself on the right track and make something of yourself. All three of them have inspired me to work hard and make something of myself.

    Name some black leaders in DemocRatic Party who have done something similiar.

    There isn’t any.

  • peter huizinga

    Given Bennett’s comments we now know it’s official; the campaign, by the republican party to reach out to the black community, has begun.

  • Les Slater

    I do not think people who vote Republican are any more apt to be racists than those that vote Democratic.

    It seems that they’re more Republicans that think it’s cute to be racist in public. The Democrat will only allow himself that luxury amongst friends and confidants.

  • melvyn wilcox

    Sorry to disapoint Mr Bennett , but his suggestions are not viewed in Ireland- nor anywhere else in “old Europe- as “morally reprehensible”. They’re viewed as psycopathic. As for the concept of intellectualising extremism in order to demonstrate its ridiculousness and moral reprehensibility— we’ve been there and done that.

  • Stephen Kelly

    Where are the R’s that are willing to state that William Bennett was wrong. I have yet to read or hear from and R on this issue, other than that Bennett was “taken out of context.”

  • http://afterabortion.blogspot.com Annie B.

    Stephen Kelly, don’t know if you’re still around checking this two weeks later, but I’d be happy to say that I’m an “R” and I say Bennett was wrong.
    He was wrong on two counts, but not the ones you’re probably thinking of.

    He didn’t believe that this way of reducing crime should be done, so if you’re thinking that about him, I disagree with you.

    I do agree though that 1) he was wrong to even bring it up as it could so easily be misconstrued, and 2) he was wrong to think that the theory was even TRUE.

    Honestly, that’s what I think.

    Ironically, I’d just learned something else astonishing, even more disturbing, while all this was flapping up again this month:
    THERE REALLY IS SOMEONE OUT THERE, A WELL-KNOWN BESTSELLING (NYT BESTSELLING) BOOK AUTHOR WHO REALLY DOES BELIEVE THIS THEORY IS TRUE AND PUBLISHED RESEARCH STUDIES IN WHICH HE’S QUOTED AS INDICATING SO.

    And then he turned that research, in part, into the book, FREAKONOMICS.

    I may be one of the few who’s discovered this. FREAKONOMICS book author Steven Levitt stated essentially the same racist theory Bennett cited and condemned, in 2 published research papers, and after substituting cleansed phrases for the racist phrases (but not altering their meaning), he then turned it INTO that bestselling book.

    Levitt actually quoted other studies in writing as part of his basis for his conclusions: the “other studies” said that “African-Americans” are among those “most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity.”

    Sounds just like what Bennett was referring to, doesn’t it?

    Yet Levitt makes millions and gets glory while Bennett is tarred and feathered.

    Don’t take my word for it: my articles on it contain the links for you to download the papers yourselves and read them: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=218908 is one of them, this is the other copy: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=139438.

    Both Levitt and Bennett are wrong to believe the theory is even true, of course (because it hasn’t been proven and probably can never be), but I asked our readers and some of the media directly (like the top dogs at AP, Mensah Dean of The Philly Daily News and Robert Steinback of The Miami Herald), why only take Bennett to task? I am sure 99.99999% of America doesn’t but should know the truth about Levitt’s racist/eugenicist foundations (from 1991 to 2001).

    I uncovered this when writing an online, 5-part expose about the “abortion lowers crime” myth (not my word, but what one of 5 Ph.D. criminologists from the likes of UPENN and Carnegie Mellon called it).

    I have a much-shortened excerpt of the lengthy series that is pertinent to the proof points mentioned above, if anyone wants to email me so I don’t clog up the comments here.

    Or you can read the full series, just up this week, ironically, though I’ve been researching it for a month: links are here: http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/10/crime-also-how-five-renowned-ph.html