Well, duh, I realize that there is no civil rights violation. I just think it’s highly ironic that civil rights champions like Conyers and Henderson are calling for censorship in any way. Isn’t that against the very spirit of the right to free speech?
Stuffy, call me names if you wish. I have no doubt this is personal to you and therefore you don’t see any humor whatsoever. I would expect that. It’s natural and I respect it. Look into many, if not a mojority, of threads outside GQ and you’ll find dark humor. It’s nothing new here and it’s accepted, if not cheered. Though only if posted by a select few, I guess. I wasn’t trying to insult you and you opbviously got that. Yet I’m a dick.
Keep in mind I never would have known of this without the OP pointing it out. You’re the one giving it credence by trying to lump millions together. How’s 'bout I just assume you toe the line Farrakhan preaches? After all, he, too, is black.
Ah well. I’ll slink away knowing in my heart that I truly am a dick. But I will pop up in any thread that someone tries to make a flippant comment on something so serious as genocide. I am truly humbled by your labeling. I can only hope to become another stuffed shirt with no personality outside what I’m told I am.
Sorry for the intrusion. I didn’t know my words carried so much weight. What a glorious day for me! 
How you could read into any post before the one I’ve quoted that anyone accused you of wanting black kids killed is beyond me. No one said any such thing. Every comment regarding the killing was directed at Bennet. You took your fair share of abuse for making odd comments, but the idea that anyone accused you of wanting any minorities killed is strictly in your head.
Now, I have been dismissing Bennet as an idiot since the Reagan years, but we are not that far away from Jim Crow that this does not bother me. Following the disaster (and disastrous reporting) in New Orleans, it has, indeed, become more acceptable to make sweeping comments about the worthlessness of black people (they have been made on this board, for example), so I don’t think it is quite the overreaction that you perceive when a major public figure (even a certifiable idiot) makes a statement that suggests “hypothetical” genocide.
There’s really nothing to add to this beyond what Diogenes said, but I guess you’re not quite getting it. The problem is the broadcast part of it. The government is not involved here and is not going to censor his show. He has the right to say and think what he wants. He doesn’t have the right to a radio show, and if he says things that piss people off, those people have the right to say “this guy is a fuck and shouldn’t have a radio show.” See my comment about the shock jocks.
It really isn’t. Nobody is saying Bennett doesn’t have the right to his opinions or that the government should send troops down to force him away from the microphone. Conyers and Henderson are saying that Bennett said something repugnant and that he shouldn’t be allowed to say that kind of thing on air.
Before somebody reads into my use of the word “allowed” there, I don’t mean “shouldn’t be allowed” in the sense of “he should be banned.” I meant “he should not be given the opportunity to say that kind of thing on air on his own radio show.” If the network fired Bennett, he’d still have all the rights that you and I do regarding the radio. He could call any station he likes and say whatever he wants to the operator or to the host if he’s allowed on air. He could buy a ham radio and talk all he wants about aborting black fetuses, yada yada yada. Maybe it ought to be different, but while the government isn’t allowed to impose content-based restrictions on speech, a business (like the one that gave Bennett a radio show) doesn’t have to let him say whatever he likes, especially if it causes a problem for them.
Hell, I thought that was funny.
Context?! I don’t need no stinking context!
So, caller makes patently ridiculous claim regarding the extrapolation of something based on abortion. Bennett illustrates the stupidity of such extrapolations by making another, equally stupid extrapolation, clearly identifying it as such, in the hopes of illustrating a basic point.
No bigotry intended, no racist agenda, except perhaps in the minds of our esteemed, professional race lords, peace be unto them.
That’d be great… except that in context, he still says the same thing. He’s not telling the caller his remarks are absurd. He says “maybe,” and then mentions the book and then says he disagrees with it. That’s not how you go about demonstrating your contempt for an absurd claim. “Extensive extrapolations are… tricky” is not how you tell your caller he has said something patently ridiculous.
I think perhaps you’ve misunderstood what people find offensive here. I agree, and I think everyone does, that Bennett is not actually proposing the termination of black pregnancies. But that context does prove what you’re saying, which is “Bennett said ‘black abortions would reduce crime’ ironically, to illustrate the ridiculousness of the caller’s suggestion.”
Sorry, I give that explanation a thumbs down. I eagerly await your comments that someone is making “race war” with Bennett’s words. 
In other words, cerberus, what is offensive about the comment is the link he draws between blacks and crime. It’s not really the solution he ‘suggests’ that’s the problem, since it’s clear he’s not actually proposing it.
Well, according to the US Dept of Justice:
Now, I don’t think this is a surprise to anyone on these boards. I know the reasons for this statistic are varied and many of them have been discussed ad infinitum here and in other public forums. But, in this context we’re not discussing objective justice, but crime.
So, the question is, is it really offensive to suggest that blacks account for a large portion of crime in the US? Does it approximate a true suggestion?
It’s not, no. But when you say it the way he did, does it sound like a comment about crime rates, or a judgment, perhaps one that says something about the inborn character of black people?
If murder is anything to go by, then federal statistics indicate that black offenders outnumber white offenders in absolute numbers. When you compute the rates, the contrast is larger, because of the much larger white population. The annual rate of black murder offenders relative to total black population is much higher than that of the white rate.
The data is there, check the Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reports (DoJ UCRs).
I could also drag in the racial disparity regarding the race of the offender versus the race of the victim, data suggest that blacks are both disproportionately represented as both offenders and as victims of crime.
These are facts. Be offended, whatever.
The fact is, that at least as far as certain crimes are concerned, that black offenders constitute produce more violent crime than white offenders, at least where murder is concerned.
Now, do we attribute the effect to race? No. The causes are more complex than that: culture, family, poverty, education, population/urban density, … But the effect is there, it is measurable.
That’s the thing though. I don’t read it as being about ‘inborn character’ at all.
In a comment about statistics and ‘extrapolation’ he made a statement…
…
…
You know, while reading and re-reading his comments, I just don’t think I can get a sense one way or the other. That’s sort of the problem in these situations; it’s hard to tell anything about what a person is really like, or what he really means/feels. This is my take on what was reported in the article:
A caller calls in and says, “abortion bad!”
Bennett responds and says, "I won’t invalidate your claim, but I also won’t agree with you either. Here’s another situation where someone has said abortion has had positive impact on crime. I disagree with him.
“Why do I disagree with him? Well, if we aborted all black children, for example, crime would go down. But that would be a bad, immoral thing to do. Therefore, the book guy is wrong about abortion having had a positive affect on the crime rate in this country.”
Actually, put like that, his argument doesn’t make much sense. In fact, it looks like ramblings by a guy who’s got an opinion on abortion and is just kind of blathering on about it without putting in much thought. His example I think was poorly chosen, and doesn’t realy follow from anything. It’s merely a vehicle for him to attempt (poorly) to make a point about abortion.
I disagree with cerberus that Bennett was pointing out stupidity in the caller’s suggestion. He gives the caller tacit agreement by responding to the claim “abortion bad,” with, “this book guy thinks abortion’s good, but I think he’s wrong.”
Bennett wanted to talk about abortion. That’s all that was running through his brain. If anything, his example could be read as an attempt to ‘justify’ his opinion with the more liberally-minded. I mean, look! It’s black people that abortion could be killing, but I am sensitive to their plight too!
When it comes down to it, I don’t really know. But race seems so far from the crux of his discussion that I don’t think he was really making any kind of comment about the inborn character of blacks. And, I don’t think there’s enough information about Bennett in this article with which to assume the worst.
What do you mean “almost”? A coworker of mine used that word as we were walking out to our cars yesterday. She’s giving me a lift to work today. I think I’ll use the drive to remind her I used to serve on my Diocesan Commission on Racism.
Yes, black people do commit a disproportionate number of crimes. However, assuming Eonwe’s quoted statment that “10.4 percent of the country’s black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in prison” is true and I am willing to assume that for this argument, “aborting every black baby in America” means you abort the more than 90 per cent of black men and women who don’t commit crimes. To me, Bennett’s statement indicts not only those who commit crimes, but casts suspicion on the majority of black people who, like the majority of white people, are just trying to live their lives. Hell, to me, it’s akin to saying “If you want to eliminate rape in this country, just abort all male children.” As a white woman, I’ve never had to worry about being automatically considered suspicious or dangerous simply because I’m walking down a street or driving through a neighborhood. Comments like Bennett’s only further the perception that all black people are likely to be criminals, again, in my opinion.
I’m sorry, but to me, his remarks were way out of line.
CJ
If we aborted the unborn child of every woman who was living below the poverty line right now, would that have an effect on the crime rate? What would that effect be?
Obviously, I’m not harboring an animus for poor pregnant women here, nor am I in favor of abortion.
William Bennett has a radio show? Who knew?
Except that it’s my recollection that the folks who came out with the study trying to correlate crime statistics and abortion never claimed it was the abortion of black children that made the difference. Your “context” statements don’t mention blacks in that context, either. It was Bennett who threw in the idea of aborting black babies reducing the crime rate.
Even if he’s trying to make a stupid point by showing how ridiculous it is, it’s incredibly insenstive and offensive. If he’d left out the word “black” he’d have made his point. He didn’t.
::shrug::
If you aborted every male foetus in Britain, you would slash (future) violent crime by an enormous amount. Doubtless the same is true of America.
There are one or two undesirable side effects, of course. And it would be patently ridiculous to do so. And that, in fact, is the very point I am making.
Anyone who likes can now call me a misandrist, though it may fly in the face of my usual known stance and the fact that I by no means hate my own gender.
Or, what Eonwe said.
I’m just waiting for Rod Serling to step out from behind the curtain, light up a smoke, and tell us we’re in another dimension.
Nope, you’re just a guy with a penchant for trying to explain away stupid behavior on the part of William Bennett. :dubious: