How do you arrive at the conclusion that such a statement is not racist? Did Mr. Bennett cite data that shows that abortions of black babies produce a statistically significant decrease in crime over abortions generally after controlling for other signficant variables such as economic status?
First because a racist wouldn't find aborting all black babies "ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do". And Bennett did. Second,a commenter elsewhere said this:
His argument boils down to the following a) Making purely utilitarian and far extrapolated arguments, even when true, can lead to some pretty undesirable moral results, b) For example, blacks commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes. c) Levitt claims that increased abortions reduced the crime rate by reducing potential criminals. d) Extrapolating from b and c, if we aborted all black babies, then the crime rate should go down. e) However, this utilitarian result is something we would never want to do because it runs so afoul of our morals.
Third, whether he was right or wrong on his stats doesn't make his statement racist, it was whether or not he believed it to moral and okay to do such a reprehensible thing that would.
One more thing, Mr. Moderate, even if Bennett was a racist the size of Texas that doesn't mean he isn't entitled to Free Speech. The 1st Amendment protects hate speech and when a Congressman, a lawmaker, decides that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to someone because he disagrees with with what they are saying, we have BIG PROBLEMS.
This is not about Bennett but Conyers, a Congressman, trying to remove a Constitutional right from someone.
Rosemary: You should know that I am not disagreeing, I am asking.
I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Conyers is off base in trying to abridge free speech. There is just no way a politician can appeal to have someone taken off the air without having a chiling effect on the press precisely because of the political standing of the politician - in both non-democratic and democratic societies their word carries too much weight. Imagine the leader of a country where freedom of the press is perhaps still struggling after a recent conversion to democracy suggesting that a popular, but controversial commentator, be taken off the air.
I also agree with your assessment that the idea using utilitarian arguments in support of abortion as crime prevention is morally reprehensible. In fact I think that's one thing that left and right agree on.
However, Mr. Bennett didn't say "all poor babies", or "all babies in single parent households", or "all crack babies" - he said "all black babies". So if I read what he says correctly then, an implicit assumption of Mr. Bennett's that even prior to birth a black child is innately more likely to commit crime.
That he is or is not a racist seems to be independent of your larger point and at least one person (me) is distracted from the main point by what doesn't seem to be as strongly argued a claim. Perhaps a different way to ask my original question would be to ask what he would have had to say to be considered a racist, in your view.
Also, apparently Levitt's work is not without its detractors http://www.iSteve.com
Mr. Bennett and his guest were going back and forth on various different statistics. The guest used their statistics, as the basis for their arguement. Mr. Bennett was pointing out how it could be supid and dangerous to use statistics such as the ones that were being used. So that led us to his statement. Statistically, there are more blacks than whites in prison. One goes to prison for committing a crime. If we aborted all black children the crime rate would go down. He was never advocating this measure. He simply pointed out how statistics could be used.
Rosemary, I don't see how this is a racist statement given the context of the interview. Had Bill Bennett said to his listeners, I am all for aborting every last black baby, that imo would be racist. But by simply discussing soemthing that makes reference to a race does not make the speaker a racist. The word racist gets thrown around too often IMO, and people have no idea what it means.
No, Bill should not have said what you think he should have said. Bill should have said what he said, which, taken in context (I heard the program and the lead-in) is not offensive to an informed and reasonable person.
He was making a deliberately dramatic point for the purpose of demonstrating how terrible it would be if we read too much into the (alleged) fact that abortion-proliferation (may possibly have)led to a reduced crime rate.
The idea that a person should say things as blandly and inoffensively as possible so as not to avoid offending the hypersensitive is positively illiberal.
Jeez, and I just gave you that nice complement. Oh well, it's true more often than not.
Dean: I think your assessment is sound. If Mr Bennett makes an inference based on statistics gathered about people who are already born that seems entirely reasonable and defensible/refutable - I mean how else would you define an enlightened approach to public policy other than using the best data available, exploring new theories, and trying to reconcile the two.
pam: it seems that Conyers left off an important part of the statement, but even the full paragraph Rosemary quoted, was not enough to interpret - one needed the still broader context.
This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, Rosemary, and you know it. The First Amendment is about government suppression of speech. People get canned for stuff they say on the airwaves all the time, and it's not a violation of First Amendment rights. I want Bill Bennett to be fired because he's a pompous gasbag pseudo-moralist, but writing a letter of protest to his radio network wouldn't make me any more guilty of First Amendment violations than Conyers is. He's not "removing" anyone's rights - he's protesting what he believes are offensive comments.
It's similar to the way right-wingers throw around "censorship" when someone like Michael Savage is canned for his gutter talk. It's not censorship if it's done by a private company, in response to "pressure" or anything else.
You make a good point that with a remark like this it's always important to hear the complete context of the statement and not merely a single snippet. Knowing that the context was a discussion of the idea that abortion has reduced crime makes the remark seem even less offensive.
Then again, I note that protesting what someone says is the very essence of the first amendment, including advocating that someone be fired. So I would not agree that Conyers as an elected official is in any way, shape, or form violating either the letter or the spirit of the first amendment by advocating that Bennett be taken off the air--unless he specifically advocates legislation to that effect, or threatens to use other government powers to force him off the air or force his firing.
John Conyers has the same right to say "fire that jerk" as anyone else does.
YetAnotherModerateVoice:- Rosemary gave the basis for us to start a discussion. I compliment her for it and I agree with her assessment. It would be helpful if everyone would take the time to listen to the entire conversation, prior to making a judgement.
I agree with what Bennett said. IMO, there are plenty of people for Conners to go after for racism. Bennett just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Snippet- I don't think this has to do with liberal/conservative. It has to do with common sense. Get the whole story before jumping to conclusions!
The simple fact of the matter is, Conyers is widely considered a liberal these days, and when he talks, liberals say "Amen" far FAR more often than conservatives.
That's all I really have to go on. There is no unanimously agreed upon definition of what a liberal is as there is with, say, the definition of an equilateral triangle. I do think there is a good definition of liberal that would not cover Conyers, but be that as it may, he speaks for liberals these days.
This annoys me because the word liberal should NOT refer to people who try to suppress (not disagree with, or even ridicule, mock and condemn, but suppress) others' opinions.
My beef is more theoretical. I really don't care if this particular dustup violates the first ammendment. Conyers, and too many liberals (so called) are not trying to debate the point, but to prevent it (if in a technically legal manner) from being publicly discussed. Their trying to shush and scold someone for saying something that, when the facts are understood, and the context is made clear, is perfectly legitimate.
Again, Conyers isn't "suppressing" (or "trampling") anything, despite the debate here and Rosemary's post headline. If his crime is "shushing and scolding," then the nation's kindergarten teachers are in for a rough time.
Bennett is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts.
Steve Sailer had this to say about abortion and crime in The American Conservative of all places:
...[T]he acid test of Levitt’s theory is this: did the first New, Improved Generation culled by legalized abortion actually grow up to be more lawful teenagers than the last generation born before legalization? Hardly. Instead, the first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history.
What was ignorant, arrogant, or scolding about Bennet's refutation of the idea that the morality of Abortion has anything to do with whether or not crime (or social security solvency) can be improved or worsened by the practice?
Conyers is a representative, to be sure. The question is whether, as Dean says, he is merely expressing an opinion like everyone else, or whether just by being a representative of said government his remarks are pernicious to freedom of speech.
Ara: to paraphrase my question to Rosemary - how do you arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Bennett's remark was racist?
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.
Do I have to spell it out for you? Bennett is clearly correlating skin color and crime. That's racist.
Whatever he was thinking, his mouth outran his brain...
That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
Gah! Now the listener is faced with a choice -- be morally reprehensible or lower the crime rate. What's a person to do -- so many choices, so little time.
Again, he reinforces the idea that black-skinned people are criminals. A racist observation.
And you know what? Saying "poor" instead of "black" would not have helped. As Sailer points out, "the first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history."
Ara: "Bennett is clearly correlating skin color and crime. That's racist. "
Yes, he is, and it not it's not.
It is a plain matter of observed, statistical fact that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Likewise it is fact that there is a correlation between skin color and average education and another correlation between skin color and average income.
I'm sure, that as a good progessive, you have noticed both of the latter correlations. Are those correlations "racist"?
I'm sure, that as a good progessive, you have noticed both of the latter correlations. Are those correlations "racist"?
Yes.
If you are implying (as I believe you are) that being born black means you are born stupid or born shiftless or born lazy or born devious, then yes, you're making racist observations.
On the other hand, there's a pretty strong correlation between being born black and being born poor. And isn't it true that being born poor brings a whole host of associated handicaps?
If you are implying (as I believe you are) that being born black means you are born stupid or born shiftless or born lazy or born devious, then yes, you're making racist observations.
Well, good thing that isn't what he/she was implying. Christ on crutch, Ara you are being purposely obtuse. I hate when you do that.
It is not racist to say that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes, if it is true. And it is in a number of large cities, New Orleans being one, D.C. another, Detroit, etc.
It is also not racist to say that blacks are better at most sports than whites. Why? Because it's FUCKING TRUE.
You keep on building those strawmen though, I know you enjoy it, but I won't allow you to beat me with it. Or anyone else.
Ara,
Simply observing facts does not make a person racist. Making unwarranted assumptions from them does.
You called me a racist on the basis of your own unwarranted assumptions.
There is indeed a pretty strong correlation between being born black and being born poor. Poor people, especially in hopeless situations, are more likely to commit crime.
This explains the correlation between skin color and crime pretty easily WITHOUT resorting to the nasty racist assumptions that YOU assumed were in my head.
None of which, apparently, has occurred to you.
***
If so-called progressives like you prevent people from even speaking facts, then how pray tell, do you expect to make any progress?
You know what hasn't occurred to you, Conyers and anyone else that is calling Bennett a racist? The fact that he was arguing against the position BECAUSE IT WAS an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do.
Do I have to spell it out for you? Bennett is clearly correlating skin color and crime. That's racist.
Yes I guess you need to Ara. Statistics show that there are far more blacks in prison than whites. A person could come to the conclusion that whites commit less crimes than blacks by just accepting the wording without looking at other variables. So if I follow this logic, Bill Bennett could make that comparison. It is not racist to use an example citing black people. Had Bennett called for the abortion of all black children, for no other reason than to say it, it would be racist. But that isn't what he did.
"...blacks commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes"
This is not completely true...blacks are convicted of more crimes. The vast majority of these crimes are drug-related. So although I support his "right" to make such assinine statements, I agree with Dean ~grimmace~ that people are also free to call him an idiot.
Despite his attempt to make his comment seem acceptable by adding the morally reprehensible bit, it irritates me that media personalities, like bloggers, feel comfortable making outrageous statments they know will lead to inflammatory debate.
Many blacks argue that they are disproportionately arrested and unfairly convicted by a racist judicial system where a different set of rules apply to them. I don't know if that is true or not but even as a conservative voter I would definitely be willing to listen to sound data and real evidence that this contention is true. If it is true, we have much work left to do in achieving equity in our society.
As a conservative, I also believe that economic opportunity and education/training will benefit the impoverished black segment of our society far more than anything I've heard from Farrakan or Jackson. Rising from poverty is a proven antidote to crime whether black or white.
A baby is a baby is a baby -- or so it seems. The wonder of babies is that they are equally innocent, equally endowed. Not so black babies, if we are to believe family values advocate and former Education Secretary Bill Bennett...
Criminal tendencies exist, according to Bennett, not in some black babies but in every black baby. Apparently, it would take the elimination of every black baby to decrease the crime rate. There is no succor then for those of us who are blessed with education and income: His words lead inescapably to the conclusion that every black baby is guilty before having taken his or her first, tentative steps in the world of polluting it. Bennett defines the problem of crime in America exclusively in terms of race, not of class or conditions, not of poverty or lack of opportunity; it is not, claims the advocate of traditional values, even a problem of moral choice, to be addressed through religious or ethical instruction. It is purely, simply a matter of race.
That's why Bennett's comments are racist.
I don't know about Bostonian, I don't know about Pam, but my God Rosemary, you have two babies of your own. Why doesn't this bother you more?
Nice piece Ara, but it still doesn't get to the root of this whole thing. Citing black people as an example is not racist. I tend to agree with Rosemary that this is nothing more than white guilt. Though I can't know for sure, I am of the opinion that had Bill Bennett said; "you could abort every white baby", you would not be calling it a racist comment.
Bennett did not "inescapably" imply say that criminal tendencies exist in every black baby.
Your conclusion is illogical in two ways.
First, as I noted, he said nothing about the root causes of the race/crime disparity, which, as I pointed out, can be explained easily without resort to any supposed inherent differences between races.
Second, the reason that "every" black baby comes into this rhetorical argument is that the argument requires thoroughness. If we magically made every journalist, editor, and other mainstream newsmakers in the US vanish in a poof of smoke, that would greatly reduce the amount of anti-American sentiment that we're exposed to. Such ruthless magic would ALSO eliminate some pro-American journalists, but the point of the argument is to be disgustingly ruthless precisely TO POINT OUT HOW UGLY THAT APPROACH IS.
***
I think you read/heard a few key words, assembled your own idea of what he said, and have been busily defeating that ever since. Is critical thinking not taught in schools anymore?
Yes, sadly it does. It says that critical thinking skills are sorely lacking on the left and all one has to do is say the word black and everyone turns retarded and ceases to be able to read/hear/intepret correctly.
The fact that you keep missing is that Bennett was arguing AGAINST the position but don't let a little thing like facts get in your way.
Oh and Ara, don't get me started on the abortion aspect because you'd flip right back into that bullshit "woman's choice" and your compassion for the innocent babies would go right into the abortion dumpster with them.
Yes, aborting all black babies would reduce the crime rate.
What about the fact that black people perpetrate that crime disproportionately against "other" blacks? Why is the fear of black on white crime not discussed?
If you don't believe that black ppl have less access to quality legal defense (other than OJ) then I believe you are misguided. Can you compare the quality that a 10K bill (or more) someone pays a private attorney to defend them compares to that of a public defender?
Why submit an immoral proposition without even briefly discussing class, prejudice, and inequality?
These things exist, believe me. I'm white, and my best friends through my first 12 years were black. I can recall numerous instances of "reverse" discrimination. Their parents didn't like me, and didn't want me playing with their kids. I wasn't a hooligan, so I assume it was because of my skin color. They didn't trust me.
Sad, but true.
So, his comments weren't "racist."
But they were insulting.
INSULTING.
To all those black people who are not born premature, poor, disadvantaged, to crack mothers, or in areas that actively promote discrimination.
And while not technically racist, Bennett's comment at the least flips the bird to those blacks that have managed to prosper in our Democracy.
BTW: Conyers is a citizen of this great Democracy, and has as much right as you or I do to condemn the views of another as reprehensible. Misguided or not. As has been stated by others before me... As Dean said, as long as he doesn't try to legislate those views, he's simply exercising his rights as an American.
If you don't believe that black ppl have less access to quality legal defense (other than OJ) then I believe you are misguided. Can you compare the quality that a 10K bill (or more) someone pays a private attorney to defend them compares to that of a public defender?
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding... That was the point of what Bennett was getting at. Don't take a statistic and use it for the basis of your arguement without looking at all the variables that are attached to that statistic.
John Conyers (whom I don't like one bit) is not "threatening the First Amendment." The First protects speech only from Congress , it has no application to an attempt to have someone fired from a radio station or any other private enterprise. Having said that, I found nothing wrong with what Bennett said, and wish the PC police would worry about something more important.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Ron wrote:
"BTW: Conyers is a citizen of this great Democracy, and has as much right as you or I do to condemn the views of another as reprehensible. Misguided or not. As has been stated by others before me... As Dean said, as long as he doesn't try to legislate those views, he's simply exercising his rights as an American."
Fine. And I'll excercise my rights as an American by calling Conyers exactly what he is: just another race pimp like Jesse Jackson. The Democrats used to elect the likes of Theodor Bilbo and George Wallace. They still do, just ones with a better tan.
The obvious motive behind this whole race swindle in this case is: 1) so the race pimps can get their faces on TV again, and 2) to change the subject from abortion to race. They don't like what Bennett was saying about abortion.
The pro-abortion lobby tries to play it both ways. During election years, when they're in front of the cameras, they say abortion is a tragic situation that no woman really wants, it should be safe, legal, and rare, they're not pro-abortion just pro-choice, etc., etc.. In between election years, when they think nobody's looking, they say abortion is a good thing because it kills off so many "undesirables" (will homosexuals be next?) and so there should be more abortions. I'd have more respect for them if they'd openly declare abortion to be what it really is for them: their sacrament, their Black Mass, their revenge against the Catholic church.
Third, whether he was right or wrong on his stats doesn't make his statement racist, it was whether or not he believed it to moral and okay to do such a reprehensible thing that would.
This is not about Bennett but Conyers, a Congressman, trying to remove a Constitutional right from someone.
What moderate thoughts do you have about that?
I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Conyers is off base in trying to abridge free speech. There is just no way a politician can appeal to have someone taken off the air without having a chiling effect on the press precisely because of the political standing of the politician - in both non-democratic and democratic societies their word carries too much weight. Imagine the leader of a country where freedom of the press is perhaps still struggling after a recent conversion to democracy suggesting that a popular, but controversial commentator, be taken off the air.
I also agree with your assessment that the idea using utilitarian arguments in support of abortion as crime prevention is morally reprehensible. In fact I think that's one thing that left and right agree on.
However, Mr. Bennett didn't say "all poor babies", or "all babies in single parent households", or "all crack babies" - he said "all black babies". So if I read what he says correctly then, an implicit assumption of Mr. Bennett's that even prior to birth a black child is innately more likely to commit crime.
That he is or is not a racist seems to be independent of your larger point and at least one person (me) is distracted from the main point by what doesn't seem to be as strongly argued a claim. Perhaps a different way to ask my original question would be to ask what he would have had to say to be considered a racist, in your view.
Also, apparently Levitt's work is not without its detractors http://www.iSteve.com
If he'd just said that we wouldn't be having this conversation.
That said: I used to think fondly of this guy, but the more time goes on the more I think he's a jerk.
Dean Esmay (any relation?) is, in my opinion, making a heroic effort to reclaim liberalism from the reactionairies who have taken it over.
No, Bill should not have said what you think he should have said. Bill should have said what he said, which, taken in context (I heard the program and the lead-in) is not offensive to an informed and reasonable person.
He was making a deliberately dramatic point for the purpose of demonstrating how terrible it would be if we read too much into the (alleged) fact that abortion-proliferation (may possibly have)led to a reduced crime rate.
The idea that a person should say things as blandly and inoffensively as possible so as not to avoid offending the hypersensitive is positively illiberal.
Jeez, and I just gave you that nice complement. Oh well, it's true more often than not.
pam: it seems that Conyers left off an important part of the statement, but even the full paragraph Rosemary quoted, was not enough to interpret - one needed the still broader context.
It's similar to the way right-wingers throw around "censorship" when someone like Michael Savage is canned for his gutter talk. It's not censorship if it's done by a private company, in response to "pressure" or anything else.
Then again, I note that protesting what someone says is the very essence of the first amendment, including advocating that someone be fired. So I would not agree that Conyers as an elected official is in any way, shape, or form violating either the letter or the spirit of the first amendment by advocating that Bennett be taken off the air--unless he specifically advocates legislation to that effect, or threatens to use other government powers to force him off the air or force his firing.
John Conyers has the same right to say "fire that jerk" as anyone else does.
I agree with what Bennett said. IMO, there are plenty of people for Conners to go after for racism. Bennett just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Snippet- I don't think this has to do with liberal/conservative. It has to do with common sense. Get the whole story before jumping to conclusions!
The simple fact of the matter is, Conyers is widely considered a liberal these days, and when he talks, liberals say "Amen" far FAR more often than conservatives.
That's all I really have to go on. There is no unanimously agreed upon definition of what a liberal is as there is with, say, the definition of an equilateral triangle. I do think there is a good definition of liberal that would not cover Conyers, but be that as it may, he speaks for liberals these days.
This annoys me because the word liberal should NOT refer to people who try to suppress (not disagree with, or even ridicule, mock and condemn, but suppress) others' opinions.
My beef is more theoretical. I really don't care if this particular dustup violates the first ammendment. Conyers, and too many liberals (so called) are not trying to debate the point, but to prevent it (if in a technically legal manner) from being publicly discussed. Their trying to shush and scold someone for saying something that, when the facts are understood, and the context is made clear, is perfectly legitimate.
Steve Sailer had this to say about abortion and crime in The American Conservative of all places:
I'm just saying.
What was ignorant, arrogant, or scolding about Bennet's refutation of the idea that the morality of Abortion has anything to do with whether or not crime (or social security solvency) can be improved or worsened by the practice?
I'm just wondering.
Adam,
Is Conyers a representative of our government or is he not?
Ara: to paraphrase my question to Rosemary - how do you arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Bennett's remark was racist?
Whatever he was thinking, his mouth outran his brain...Gah! Now the listener is faced with a choice -- be morally reprehensible or lower the crime rate. What's a person to do -- so many choices, so little time.
Again, he reinforces the idea that black-skinned people are criminals. A racist observation.
And you know what? Saying "poor" instead of "black" would not have helped. As Sailer points out, "the first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history."
Why make this about race?
Yes, he is, and it not it's not.
It is a plain matter of observed, statistical fact that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Likewise it is fact that there is a correlation between skin color and average education and another correlation between skin color and average income.
I'm sure, that as a good progessive, you have noticed both of the latter correlations. Are those correlations "racist"?
Yes.
If you are implying (as I believe you are) that being born black means you are born stupid or born shiftless or born lazy or born devious, then yes, you're making racist observations.
On the other hand, there's a pretty strong correlation between being born black and being born poor. And isn't it true that being born poor brings a whole host of associated handicaps?
None of which, apparently, have occurred to you.
Well, good thing that isn't what he/she was implying. Christ on crutch, Ara you are being purposely obtuse. I hate when you do that.
It is not racist to say that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes, if it is true. And it is in a number of large cities, New Orleans being one, D.C. another, Detroit, etc.
It is also not racist to say that blacks are better at most sports than whites. Why? Because it's FUCKING TRUE.
You keep on building those strawmen though, I know you enjoy it, but I won't allow you to beat me with it. Or anyone else.
Simply observing facts does not make a person racist. Making unwarranted assumptions from them does.
You called me a racist on the basis of your own unwarranted assumptions.
There is indeed a pretty strong correlation between being born black and being born poor. Poor people, especially in hopeless situations, are more likely to commit crime.
This explains the correlation between skin color and crime pretty easily WITHOUT resorting to the nasty racist assumptions that YOU assumed were in my head.
None of which, apparently, has occurred to you.
***
If so-called progressives like you prevent people from even speaking facts, then how pray tell, do you expect to make any progress?
You know what hasn't occurred to you, Conyers and anyone else that is calling Bennett a racist? The fact that he was arguing against the position BECAUSE IT WAS an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do.
Carry on.
Yes I guess you need to Ara. Statistics show that there are far more blacks in prison than whites. A person could come to the conclusion that whites commit less crimes than blacks by just accepting the wording without looking at other variables. So if I follow this logic, Bill Bennett could make that comparison. It is not racist to use an example citing black people. Had Bennett called for the abortion of all black children, for no other reason than to say it, it would be racist. But that isn't what he did.
This is not a First Amendment issue. Full stop.
You got it right on your blog when you said Bennett was tone-deaf. You got it wrong on this blog when you said he was racist.
Yours,
Wince
This is not completely true...blacks are convicted of more crimes. The vast majority of these crimes are drug-related. So although I support his "right" to make such assinine statements, I agree with Dean ~grimmace~ that people are also free to call him an idiot.
Despite his attempt to make his comment seem acceptable by adding the morally reprehensible bit, it irritates me that media personalities, like bloggers, feel comfortable making outrageous statments they know will lead to inflammatory debate.
As a conservative, I also believe that economic opportunity and education/training will benefit the impoverished black segment of our society far more than anything I've heard from Farrakan or Jackson. Rising from poverty is a proven antidote to crime whether black or white.
Are babies not equally innocent?
Cecile Berry:That's why Bennett's comments are racist.
I don't know about Bostonian, I don't know about Pam, but my God Rosemary, you have two babies of your own. Why doesn't this bother you more?
Your conclusion is illogical in two ways.
First, as I noted, he said nothing about the root causes of the race/crime disparity, which, as I pointed out, can be explained easily without resort to any supposed inherent differences between races.
Second, the reason that "every" black baby comes into this rhetorical argument is that the argument requires thoroughness. If we magically made every journalist, editor, and other mainstream newsmakers in the US vanish in a poof of smoke, that would greatly reduce the amount of anti-American sentiment that we're exposed to. Such ruthless magic would ALSO eliminate some pro-American journalists, but the point of the argument is to be disgustingly ruthless precisely TO POINT OUT HOW UGLY THAT APPROACH IS.
***
I think you read/heard a few key words, assembled your own idea of what he said, and have been busily defeating that ever since. Is critical thinking not taught in schools anymore?
The fact that you keep missing is that Bennett was arguing AGAINST the position but don't let a little thing like facts get in your way.
Oh and Ara, don't get me started on the abortion aspect because you'd flip right back into that bullshit "woman's choice" and your compassion for the innocent babies would go right into the abortion dumpster with them.
Yes, aborting all black babies would reduce the crime rate.
What about the fact that black people perpetrate that crime disproportionately against "other" blacks? Why is the fear of black on white crime not discussed?
If you don't believe that black ppl have less access to quality legal defense (other than OJ) then I believe you are misguided. Can you compare the quality that a 10K bill (or more) someone pays a private attorney to defend them compares to that of a public defender?
Why submit an immoral proposition without even briefly discussing class, prejudice, and inequality?
These things exist, believe me. I'm white, and my best friends through my first 12 years were black. I can recall numerous instances of "reverse" discrimination. Their parents didn't like me, and didn't want me playing with their kids. I wasn't a hooligan, so I assume it was because of my skin color. They didn't trust me.
Sad, but true.
So, his comments weren't "racist."
But they were insulting.
INSULTING.
To all those black people who are not born premature, poor, disadvantaged, to crack mothers, or in areas that actively promote discrimination.
And while not technically racist, Bennett's comment at the least flips the bird to those blacks that have managed to prosper in our Democracy.
Ron
BTW: Conyers is a citizen of this great Democracy, and has as much right as you or I do to condemn the views of another as reprehensible. Misguided or not. As has been stated by others before me... As Dean said, as long as he doesn't try to legislate those views, he's simply exercising his rights as an American.
Ron
Said Former Republican- Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding... That was the point of what Bennett was getting at. Don't take a statistic and use it for the basis of your arguement without looking at all the variables that are attached to that statistic.
"BTW: Conyers is a citizen of this great Democracy, and has as much right as you or I do to condemn the views of another as reprehensible. Misguided or not. As has been stated by others before me... As Dean said, as long as he doesn't try to legislate those views, he's simply exercising his rights as an American."
Fine. And I'll excercise my rights as an American by calling Conyers exactly what he is: just another race pimp like Jesse Jackson. The Democrats used to elect the likes of Theodor Bilbo and George Wallace. They still do, just ones with a better tan.
The obvious motive behind this whole race swindle in this case is: 1) so the race pimps can get their faces on TV again, and 2) to change the subject from abortion to race. They don't like what Bennett was saying about abortion.
The pro-abortion lobby tries to play it both ways. During election years, when they're in front of the cameras, they say abortion is a tragic situation that no woman really wants, it should be safe, legal, and rare, they're not pro-abortion just pro-choice, etc., etc.. In between election years, when they think nobody's looking, they say abortion is a good thing because it kills off so many "undesirables" (will homosexuals be next?) and so there should be more abortions. I'd have more respect for them if they'd openly declare abortion to be what it really is for them: their sacrament, their Black Mass, their revenge against the Catholic church.