William Bennett: "If you want to reduce crime...abort every black baby in America."

[Leviosaurus]

I think all of you are missing the point.

I’ll propose a hypothetical situation: Imagine you are a white male, sitting in a bar next to your black friend. You make what you believe to be an innocuous comment involving race, and your friend immediately takes offense. What is your first response?

I know that I would apologize, and I believe most everyone on this board, including those currently defending Bennett, would do likewise. It doesn’t matter if the comment seemed harmless to you, the fact is that your friend was offended and that wasn’t your intention. The proper thing to do is apologize.

So here’s Bennett, Mr. “Book Of Virtues” himself, and he’s managed to say something that has half the country offended as all get out. Sure, he doesn’t think it was an offensive comment. Sure, some people even agree with him, saying they believe it was not meant to offend. That does not change the fact that half the country, including the White House and many high profile Republicans, find the comment “inappropriate”.

So where is Mr. Book of Virtues’ apology? It’s the same apology any one of us would give in his shoes. Where is it? Nowhere. The guy maintains that he has no reason to apologize, even going to defending it as a thought experiment.

Why is it so hard to apologize? Does an apology cost anything? Will it harm him somehow to apologize? Will he seem less virtuous? No, absolutely not. Yet a day later, Bennett hasn’t apologized. If he did so now, I certainly wouldn’t think it was the least bit sincere. He should have apologized immediately.

Since he didn’t, we can draw certain conclusions about his character. My conclusion is that Bennett feels he somehow has the right to make this offensive comment. He feels justified. Where we would feel bad for offending our friends, he does not. What do you suppose motivates this?

Having drawn these conclusions, now look upon the actual content of the message. He feels there is nothing to apologize for in the statement, therefore, he believes the statement is just. He could have restated, he could have clarified, but he likes it how it stands. What does that say?

It says to me that he’s a damn racist and hypocrite. He can go and eat his stupid Book of Virtues.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@AFAIKnow

Oh dear lord. You mean now Bennett is going to abort all black babies?

How the fuck did you get that out of anything I’ve said?

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.

Good point. You may go fuck yourself now.

[GIGObuster]

@Leviosaurus

Having drawn these conclusions, now look upon the actual content of the message. He feels there is nothing to apologize for in the statement, therefore, he believes the statement is just. He could have restated, he could have clarified, but he likes it how it stands. What does that say?

It says to me that he’s a damn racist and hypocrite. He can go and eat his stupid Book of Virtues.

And Ed Schultz (not from Air America but his radio show appears in the local AA station) pointed also other missed point that AFAIKnow unwittingly reminded me:

Paraphrasing, Ed pointed out that one of the biggest missing points of this mess is “why does a bore like Bennett have a radio show in the first place?" You think Al Franklin is bad? Bennett is worse, and he is on the air influencing people BECAUSE of what he wrote and did in the previous administrations.

His show is part of the Salem Radio Network that, for your information, is Christian radio. (Such family values :rolleyes: ) If in politics the cover-up is the problem, not apologizing is the problem for the “virtuous” guy here because he represents a higher power on the radio.

[EvilGhandi]

Aren’t we overlooking the most obvious hole in this “thought experiment”.

Being the religious right considers abortion to be murder.

How will adding several murders per year to the crime stats lower the crime rate?

[EvilGhandi]

Err, should have read “Several million murders”

[bienville]

@duffer

He’s Pro-Choice now. What the hell are you bitching about?

Everyone who didn’t think this was funny has been officially un-invited to my bithday party.

[Scylla]

[QUOTE=Zoe (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.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. Did you hear the whole thing? Your either or is silly. I can add several more “ors” or he spoke plainly and candidly not expecting his words to be taken out of context to manufacture a racism charge.

[Scylla]

@Leviosaurus

I think all of you are missing the point.

I’ll propose a hypothetical situation: Imagine you are a white male, sitting in a bar next to your black friend. You make what you believe to be an innocuous comment involving race, and your friend immediately takes offense. What is your first response?

I know that I would apologize, and I believe most everyone on this board, including those currently defending Bennett, would do likewise. It doesn’t matter if the comment seemed harmless to you, the fact is that your friend was offended and that wasn’t your intention. The proper thing to do is apologize.

The situations are not equivalent. It is not that Mr. Bennett said anything worthy of offense. It is that the charge was manufactured. Why do you think anybody knows about it?

Somebody took his comment out of context, and changed its meaning.

If you are a reporter, and you are going to quote somebody, of course you have the right to edit. You do not have the right to change the person you are quoting’s meaning.

They took Bennet’s quote and presented it out of context so that it specifically meant the opposite of what it meant in context.

It’s a deliberate lie.

Why would you apologize to somebody who did that?

They owe you the apology.

---

I honestly don’t see how anybody can get behind this smear and not feel ugly and dirty. You can clearly see how they presented his words to mean the opposite of what they do in context.

[Monty]

@Leviosaurus

I think all of you are missing the point.

I’ll propose a hypothetical situation: Imagine you are a white male, sitting in a bar next to your black friend. You make what you believe to be an innocuous comment involving race, and your friend immediately takes offense. What is your first response?

Depends on what it was that my friend is reacting to. Perhaps I used the word niggardly and he’s just ignorant of its meaning and etymology. Should I apologize for his ignorance or should I take the opportunity to eradicate some ignorance?

[elucidator]

Yeah, right, poor, poor Billy Bennett. Naive child that he is, unaccostomed to public speaking and all. Made some perfectly innocent remark (with disclaimers, even!), just an off-handed thing, really, kind of thing could happen to any of us who aren’t at all accostomed to being in the spotlight. Didn’t know the mike was on, that must have been it.

And all of a sudden a huge storm of controversy and publicity arises over his previously unremarked and unnoticed radio show.

Poor, poor Billy Bennett.

[wonky]

@Scylla

Somebody took his comment out of context, and changed its meaning.

I’ve seen the context. His caller was making some point about abortion affecting economics. Bennett said he didn’t know if that was true. Then he said that he didn’t agree with the authors of Freakonomics that abortion can lower crime rates. Then he said that aborting all black babies would lower crime rates. Then he said that would be a bad thing to do.

What other context do you think there is?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Monty

Depends on what it was that my friend is reacting to. Perhaps I used the word niggardly and he’s just ignorant of its meaning and etymology. Should I apologize for his ignorance or should I take the opportunity to eradicate some ignorance?

Why not both? Apologize for inadvertent offense, explain the meaning and etymology of the word, commiserate over the unfortunate klang association that now attaches to it.

[monstro]

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce the number of mental institution patients, you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every Jewish baby in this country, and your commiment rate would go down.”

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to increase the average IQ of Americans, you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every blonde baby in this country, and your average IQ would go up.”

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to increase the average productivity of Americans, you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every Hispanic baby in this country, and your productivity would go up.”

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce the incidence of alcoholism, you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every Native American baby in this country, and your sobreity would go up.”

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce racism, you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every white baby in this country, and your racism would go down.”

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce terrorism, you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every Muslim baby in this country, and your terrorism would go down.”

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce the spread of STDs, you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every homosexual baby in this country, and your STDs would go down.”

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce willful ignorance, you could – if that were your sole purpose – you could abort every Christian baby in this country, and the number of willfully ignorant people would go down.”

Mental illness is not the domain of Jewish people, nor do white people hold a monopoly on racism. But certainly we hold stereotypes that imply otherwise. They are so deeply engrained in us that we might certainly believe they are true, without question. But even stereotypes based on a grain of truth shouldn’t be the basis of argument.

Yeah, his point was that abortion to acheive a result is absurd and morally questionable–and I’m grateful that’s his stance–but he did it in the most God-awful way. He just seemed to come out of left-field with that one. I can’t believe people can’t see how inappropriate his comment was.

[Jackmannii]

@Scylla

The situations are not equivalent. It is not that Mr. Bennett said anything worthy of offense. It is that the charge was manufactured. Why do you think anybody knows about it?

Somebody took his comment out of context, and changed its meaning.

If you are a reporter, and you are going to quote somebody, of course you have the right to edit. You do not have the right to change the person you are quoting’s meaning.

They took Bennet’s quote and presented it out of context so that it specifically meant the opposite of what it meant in context.

It’s a deliberate lie.

Why would you apologize to somebody who did that?

Go here, read the transcript of his remarks, play the actual audio if you don’t believe the transcript, and decide if being (at the very least) a flaming jerk is something for which to apologize.

[tomndebb]

The situations are not equivalent. It is not that Mr. Bennett said anything worthy of offense. It is that the charge was manufactured. Why do you think anybody knows about it?

Somebody took his comment out of context, and changed its meaning.

Not really. (Or someone should take Bennet aside and tell him what his context was.)

In his follow-up defense the next day, he said that he was using the Freakonomics book as an example because they directly linked race, poverty, and crime. Yet, as has been pointed out in this thread and has been reiterated by the author of Freakonomics, the authors explicitly refused to use race in their discussion and spent time in the book showing how race was not a valid discussion point.

In other words, Bennet injected race by misrepresenting the book to which he referred.

Now, I do not believe that Bennet encouraged abortions of black babies; I do not think he intended to say many of the things attributed to him; I do not think that he was being racist.

However, he stupidly grabbed a racial analogy at a time (the aftermath of Katrina) in which such an analogy would be all the more sensitive in order to make a point based on a distortion of a work with which he disagrees.

I agree that his intent was to show that it is invalid (or, at least, unproductive) to couch the abortion debate in terms of economics. I do not think he intended any more than that.
It remains true that his selection of examples was both incorrect and insensitive and, ultimately, pretty stupid.

[Zoe]

Zoe: (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.

Scylla: Bullshit. Did you hear the whole thing? Your either or is silly. I can add several more “ors” or he spoke plainly and candidly not expecting his words to be taken out of context to manufacture a racism charge.

This is what I heard originally with the rest of the context described:

Bennett: 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.

Since then I have read for myself the complete context and nothing has changed my initial impression.

There was no malicious tone to his voice – none of the venom or advocacy of blatant racists. I understand that the overall context was a hypothetical and that he is not advocating the abortion of black babies to bring down the crime rate.

Look at my either/ors again: “Either he harbors some bigotry, is not fully informed, or did not explain himself well.”

Your comment: “or he spoke plainly and candidly not expecting his words to be taken out of context to manufacture a racism charge.”

I agree that he spoke plainly and especially candidly. We have looked at his words in context and understand the hypothetical he was making. He admits that would be a ludicrous thing to do.

The bigotry (which he and others will not or cannot see) is in the automatic association of blacks with high crime rates. The casual comment on the hypothetical of genocide (however ludicrous he finds it) after his initial statement was also jaw-dropping.

What if he had said: “If we slaughter all the Jews in New York, prices will go down…not that that wouldn’t be impossible and immoral”?

Would that comment pass the smell test for you?

I did not take his words out of context and I did not manufacture a racism charge. Neither did most of the rest of the country. Open your eyes.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Marley23

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.

Yeah, I understand what you mean, and I won’t hold your use of an inflammatory off-the-cuff remark against you, now that you’ve provided a detailed explanation after the fact.

[magellan01]

@Zoe

The bigotry (which he and others will not or cannot see) is in the automatic association of blacks with high crime rates. The casual comment on the hypothetical of genocide (however ludicrous he finds it) after his initial statement was also jaw-dropping.

I did not take his words out of context and I did not manufacture a racism charge. Neither did most of the rest of the country. Open your eyes.

Question: If it is true that blacks commit more crimes per capita than the general population (which early posters in this thread have provided statistics for), how is bringing up that fact, in context, racist?

I do however think it was dumb. For both the reason tomndebb mentioned and the fact that he used a sensitive, lightning rod issue just to make a point. When you do that you simply deflect the focus away from the actual point you were making and allow the discussion to be shifted. My guess is that he spoke too quickly. And if he had weighed his words more carefully before he spoke, or if it was the print medium, he would have chosen an equally effective but more benign example in making his point.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@magellan01

Question: If it is true that blacks commit more crimes per capita than the general population (which early posters in this thread have provided statistics for), how is bringing up that fact, in context, racist?

No one has provided statistics for any such thing. What the statistics show is that black people are more likely to be arrested or convicted, not they are actually committing more crimes. Furthermore, when the statistical samples are controlled for equity in the non-racial variables we see that that race has no influence on whether an individual is more or less likely to be a criminal. It’s a spurious and irrelevant correlation.

[Shodan]

@Zoe

Either he harbors some bigotry, is not fully informed, or did not explain himself well.

No, I don’t believe it is possible to explain yourself well enough not to be misrepresented. If someone wants to smear you, all that is necessary is that you say something.

Bennett hedged his intentionally ludicrous hypothetical with a number of disclaimers. None of which were sufficient to prevent the race pimps from misrepresenting what he said. Nothing could be.

You, for instance, have stated that you support the killing of Jews to reduce prices. Ergo, you either harbor some anti-Semitism, are not fully informed, or did not explain yourself well.

See the problem there? See it with Bennett?

@Zoe

The bigotry (which he and others will not or cannot see) is in the automatic association of blacks with high crime rates.

This is not automatic. As has been pointed out several times, being black correlates with a disproportionate rate of the kind of violent crime that most people, black or white, are talking about when they mention crime.

This is not a racist statement, it is an empirically established fact. Correlative, not causative, but an established correlation nonetheless.

The race pimps have simply found another opportunity to play the victim card. I don’t know which is more worthy of ridicule - that they think blacks in America are stupid enough to buy it, or that there are some blacks who are doing their darnest to prove that they are.

With all the real racism in the world, this is apparently the best they can come up with. :wally

Regards,
Shodan