I saw that, and I thinking it fucking sucks, and Bush is a moron for getting on this bandwagon.
Unfortunately, it demonstrates a well-known law of the smear campaign. It doesn’t have to be true. I just has to stick.
It is not true that aborting all black babies would reduce the crime rate. That assumption, in itself, is bullshit and racist. Race is an irrelavant factor. What matters most is whether the baby is wanted or unwanted. Most black babies are wanted.
It was a stupid, thoughtless, offensive thing for Bennett to say and his attempts to defend himself only show that he doesn’t really understand why what he said was racist. He seems to think that the problem is that people believe he really wants to abort black babies. He doesn’t get it at all that what people take issue with is his completely unfounded and RACIST assumption that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals than white people. His “simplification” doesn’t work because it ignores a number of other factors which affect correlation.
The guy is a fucking scumbag, a windbag, a hypocrite and a moralistic swine. He’s also wrong that abortion is not an economic decision and it is not his fucking place to decide whether it’s “moral.”
Like the local Air America pointed out: “hypothetically speaking like Bennett, if all Republican babies had been aborted, the son of Cindy Sheehan would be alive today”.
Nah, regardless how one tries to defend Bennett, what he said is still bad Scylla.
Bennett made no correlation between race and poverty, Scylla. He made a correlation between race and crime. It’s a completely different correlation.
And just for the record, I think that most of us on this board did NOT call Bush a racist for ignoring the New Orleans victims. I said then, as I’ve said before, that I don’t think Bush is a racist…I think he’s a classist. He didn’t ignore them because they were black but because they were poor.
No. It’s a fact. Relax. Read Levitt’s website again, the link you agree with. Think it through carefully.
Well, no. Race is unfortunately not an irrelevant factor as much as we would like it to be. It is relevant because there is a correllation between being black and being a criminal.
The fact that there is a legacy of racism and prejudice in this country that has left black people in disproportionate poverty is a relevant factor. The fact that there is a causative correllation between poverty and crime is a relevant factor. The fact that there is a correllation between race and crime is relevant factor.
Levitt’s thesis is one that pertains to race. I see no problem with Bennett discussing it candidly. I mean go look at Bennett’s record and read one of his books. He’s a conservative and you may disagree with much of what he says, but on the subject of race he’s a champion for civil rights and this is just an ugly smear job.
He did not make that assumption. He referenced a correllation, a correllation referenced by Levitt and many others. He did not state nor imply causation.
Well no. The other factors discussed are the causative ones. “Black” is a correlative one.
He’s saying it shouldn’t be. And, he makes an effective and interesting argument in his books.
To paraphrase Bennett’s argument we need to define our terms. By “decision” we are not talking about the decision of an individual to have an abortion. We are talking about the decision on how to legislate them. Should they be allowed? Should they be subsidized? How available should they be?
If it is a purely economic decision and noting the correllation between poverty and abortion and crime and race, than we are engaging in eugenics whether or not we mean to, and that is immoral.
I agree with this thesis. It is not racist. It is anti-racist.
Yes it is. It is also my place, and your place. The guy writes about morality and ethics, and if you actually read what he says, he is a champion for civil rights. Are you saying he shouldn’t be allowed to?
Why aren’t you calling Levitt a racist?
Why aren’t you calling Sharpton or Kanye a racist?
They are making the exact same arguments.
Ok. Now we’re getting somewhere. What you say is correct.
You need to be aware though that Bennett is highly aware of Levitt’s work, and vice-versa.
Levitt equates correllation between race and poverty and crime, as does Bennett. They are in agreement on this issue. They are also in agreement (according to their books) that race does not have a causative correllation with crime but poverty does. They have both worked on the same issues, and they have cited each other on this. Bennett in his “superpredator” work and Levitt in “Freakonomics”
These are their established positions. If you are talking about poverty and race and crime, and you have this preestablished position I don’t think that it’s necessary that you include a disclaimer every time you talk about it. Otherwise, you end up in that Seinfeld episode where they feel it’s required to say “not that there is anything wrong with it,” every time they state they are not gay.
I’ll bet you I can get Freakonomics off my shelf and find several instances where he mentions the correllation between race and crime without saying that it’s not a causative one.
This doesn’t make him a racist. He’s already discussed the issue. He doesn’t have to revisit it with a disclaimer every time he mentions the subject. He has a preestablished position definitively saying that it is not causative.
Bennett also has this preestablished position in his writings.
This guy is not a racist. It is ridiculous to call him one. Read his books.
A correction on a common misconception:
From the Southern Poverty Law Center website
I think that Bennett has a right to reveal his ignorant bigoted viewpoint just as Conyers and Henderson have a right to call for his censorship and I have a right to boycott his sponsors (when I find out who they are).
I detest hypocrisy. (Remind me never to publish a book on virtues.)
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the crisis in New Orleans brought every racist hate group out from under their rocks. Idiots like Bennett are just fuel for their fires.
BTW, pointing out the racial inequities in our justice system is not nitpicking!
“The problem with blacks”? Do you have a problem with blacks? Does the government? What are you talking about?
I just noticed that the White House doesn’t care much for what Bennett said.
Bennett could have picked any number of relevant factors, instead he chose the most irrelevant and the most inflammatory one.
As for his writing about “morality and ethics,” I call bullshit. Being moralistic (and hypocritically so at that) is not the same as being moral.
Champion for civil rights? You mean like opposing affirmative action and gay rights? You mean like championing the war on drugs? Like blaming the loss of forced school prayer for social ills? Like his intolerance for any religious or political views but his own? Like his warmongering and anti-Islamic bigotry?
What civil right hasn’t he attacked?
Strictly speaking, that only proves that they know which way the wind blows. It doesn’t prove Bennett is reprehensible, just that they know how people feel about it and what the smart thing to say is in that situation.
It’s neither irrelevant nor inflammatory. The only thing wrong with it is that he didn’t add enogh disclaimers to avoid being quoted out of context and falsely accused.
I guess this is the scattergun approach. You’ll just make a lot of accusations when the first one fails. I’m against drugs. I think affirmative action sucks. I think prayer is good, and the rest is just generalized bullshit. You accuse him of intolerance for dissenting views, but you’re the one calling the guy a bigot based on a one-liner taken out of context. Why? Because he’s a conservative. To you, that seems to equate with bad-guy, and there’s really no defense possible that will dissuade you. It’s kind of funny, because if it was some lefty that said something that could be misconstrued you’d be first in line complaining about the smear tactics of the right.
It is a shitty tactic, and not just because it’s rabid smearing. It’s shitty because it demonstrates a failure of ideas. You want to argue ideas? Talk about affirmative action or prayer in schools. Talk about race. Debate the issues. You’re attacking the guy’s arguments and you don’t even know what they are, or what he stands for. Every response from you is just another ill-supported smear.
We are fortunate to have amongst us someone who has such a keen and discerning eye for the hypocrisy of others.
now I’m getting the no page 4 gig.
Scylla, do you remember Dionysius’ advice to Damocles as included by Bennett in The Book of Virtues? Paraphrased, it is that those who are in positions of power are at greater risk.
Bennett lives under the sword of Damocles and preaches responsibility, self-discipline and compassion. He risks much with his position. (I heard his words myself; this was no “smear.”) He should accept responsibility for what he said. Either he harbors some bigotry, is not fully informed, or did not explain himself well.
In my book, it only proves the quality of “leadership” we currently have.
I don’t think it says anything good about them, it just strikes me as pretty typical.
Someone owes me a new irony meter.
William Bennett is a former cabinet member. He’s not powerless.
Not so typical for this administration and followers.
To explain were I am coming from, I am only pointing out that the “leadership” shown and said by the Republicans leaders is falling on deaf right-winger ears.
An administration bending to this –supposedly- obvious leftist smear machine is only showing weakness; or, what we have here, is that the dissonance in the Republican Party is growing.
Who gives a fuck what some has been ex-education Secretary turned right wing radio commentator says as a hypothetical. I just can’t get worked up about it. This pit is teh lame.
Oh dear lord. You mean now Bennett is going to abort all black babies?
How about this:
Who gives a fuck what some has been ex-education Secretary turned right wing radio commentator says as a hypothetical. I just can’t get worked up about it. This pit is teh lame.