He immiediately followed that up with, "That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down,"
Since then spinlords from the Republican Party to the White House, to his own brother have responded with the same explanation--Mr. Bennett does not support or suggest that killing all black babies is a good idea. He said such an action would be morally reprehensible. Or, Mr. Bennett does not support Genocide, and those that say he does are just misquoting him.
They don't even see the problem.
The problem is not that Mr. Bennett mentions a genocidal theory. It is that he so casually promotes the stereotype that black = crime. None of the republican spinlords mention that in thier apologies.
They focus on the sensational aspect, that can be easilly refuted.
They don't mention the stereotyping, heck a radio-announced racial profiling initiative. It is not because the Republicans are such racists, but it is because they can so easilly get the press to highlight the sensational and be distracted from the real issues.
Like when they destroyed the Amnesty International report on Guantanamo by focusing on the one word, "Gulag".
It is an artistically run con, and I do like watching artists work.
[ October 01, 2005, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I heard about this on NPR yesterday afternoon. I'm still not sure which is true-what the speaker said, that he was talking before this example was given about reprehensible arguing tactics and used this one as an example-or that he only said he was talking about that after the fact.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The context of the comments was a discussion of the controversial section of "Freakanomics" on how legalized abortion seems to have affected crime. Bennett was making a statement that abortion is not a proper method of crime prevention, even if it is an effective one.
Bennett's comment was both stupid and racist, but I think what you see as "spin" is rather a call for moderation and understanding of the fact that Bennett was not being malicious. Which I can understand, considering the press is using headlines like, "Abort all black babies and cut crime, says Republican" (Guardian Unlimited) which makes it sound expressly like Bennett was suggesting it as policy, which he obviously wasn't.
Bush's comment was that he felt Bennett's statement was "not appropriate." I would have preferred a condemnation, but from what I've seen, I think the contention that the White House is acting as "spinlord" is a bit exaggerated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Could you link some of that "spin," Dan? Especially the White House spin.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
When I read the WP account this morning, the problem appears to be that in addressing a caller's position on abortion (eliminating abortion would solve the SS shortfall), Bennett chose what he thought would be the ridiculous extreme example as a counter. I'm betting he probably did that because he wanted to show that over-simplifying the situation is a mistake.
Sadly, he was responding to a very contentious issue and chose a horrible example.
In reality, he appears to have prefaced his remarks adequately and is now simply falling victim to the fact that he shouldn't have used that comparison in the first place. He never for an instant advocated aborting black babies to fight crime. At worst, his comment was neutral on that point -- he responded to the caller with the equivalent of "by your logic then, we could make a case for aborting black babies as a way to reduce crime." He was attacking the caller's logic, not proposing that the caller switch from anti-abortion to a pro-abortion stance, so long as it's a selective one.
I think we've seen plenty of examples here where people get attacked for their choice of illustrative examples (their rhetoric, if you will) rather than have people address their actual point.
As much as I don't particularly care for Bill Bennett's politics, I don't think anyone should be in a rush to condemn him as a racist because of the example he chose in shooting down a caller's bone-headed logic regarding abortion.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
In thinking further about this, there are any number of better things Bennett could've said that would've been just as eye-opening for the caller without opening himself up to charges of racism:
"By your logic, then we would also be okay in promoting abortion in general as a way to reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil." Or
"By your logic we should also open our borders to anyone who wants to come here because having more working age people NOW would be even better for Social Security's long-term health."
Of course, I doubt I'll ever hear a conservative say that last one, but it is numerically true, and would probably have hit home more shockingly to at least some of Bennett's loyal listeners.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
I can't get the link to work.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
(registration required, but they don't give away your e-mail or send you junk unless you ask them to)
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Thanks Bob!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A more accurate example woulda been to say that the crime rate would be reduced by tossing "conservative"media hacks into Guantanamo.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Ok, that guy is just an idiot. What a tool. And I say that because why in the world would he use the example with black babies? I see what he was trying to do but come on man!
Edit to take out a word that Freudian slipped in there.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The problem is not that Mr. Bennett mentions a genocidal theory. It is that he so casually promotes the stereotype that black = crime. None of the republican spinlords mention that in thier apologies.
Thank you, Dan. This was certainly my first reaction when I heard this story. He clearly followed by saying that such abortions would not be morally acceptable.
I think his comments are right up there on the racist meter with Trent Lott's assertion that if people had voted for Strom Thurmond for president, that the country wouldn't have all the problems it has now. Remember that one, folks?
Both statements reveal an inherent racism, and all the twisting in the world to try to spin them otherwise will only dig the holes they find themselves in deeper and deeper.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm still waiting to see this "spin."
Especially from the White House.
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
While his remarks are initially shocking and I can easily see why people are upset over them, factually they are correct to a degree. Not that crime is inherent to black people and only them, but rather due to the reality that income and race are often closely coupled. Although poverty doesn't automatically create a criminal, it allows for an environment from which it springs more easily.
So, while there are numerically more white people who live in poverty across the country, the majority of these people exist in sparse, rural areas. As we saw during Katrina, a large amount of poor blacks continue to live in urban poverty because there is no way out. With people more densely packed, there is going to be more crime. So, if you take this into consideration, his remarks, while possibly inflammatory, possess an ugly truth as well.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote: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 impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
*big long sigh*
[Dan_raven, you've got two http://s in your link.]
--j_k
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I think it's funny. Yes, killing every black child would reduce crime. But so would killing every white or asian or whatever baby. Such a substantial drop in population would reduce the crime rate of any society- regardless of national or ethnic origin..
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
PC: Actually, it would reduce the number of crimes, but the crime "rate" (usually measured per capita) might actually increase. At least there's no obvious reason that it should decrease. (Unless you want to get more complicated and cite overcrowding as a trigger for crime).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In the short term, it would likely lower the crime rate as well. Younger males (16-23) commit more crimes. Reducing the ratio of people in that age group to the whole population would probably reduce the crime rate as well as absolute crime numbers.
If done for enough generations, it would possibly stabilize. But during the first generation it would probably reduce the rate.
I hope I don't have to say I am not in favor of any such plan.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You aren't?
Stupid comment, but stupid spin the papaers are putting on it as well.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Unemployed young males are the most likely to be involved in crimes. Reduce the number of young males, and a larger percentage of young males are employed to make up for the reduction. Thereby reducing the crime rate.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And why isn't %age in common use?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Thanks all, especially JT Kirk. Fixed the link.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Good point on the rate. I forgot about age-related factors.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Are there any links to the show, or to a transcript including the discussion before Na after.
As a liberal, I would of course love to skewer a Republican/Conservative spokesperson. But, unfortunately, as a liberal, I feel compelled to actually respond to what actually went on, and not the "spin" surrounding it (no matter the source)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
ssywak, that trait isn't due to your political leanings. As best I can tell, ones compulsion to deal with actual events as opposed to spin has no correlation to political views.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Then there's folk who've lived spinning for so long -- deliberately avoiding ever taking a step outside of their comfort/spinzone -- that if they see something steadfast, they assume that it is doing the spinning...and not themselves. Cultural relativity in action.
This is so &#%*@#! old and stupid that it ain't even news. BillBennett's mouth has been spewing out the same diarrhea since he first showed up on the national scene, at least. Press clippings of that era seem to be more about outrage concerning his latest "misunderstood" statements and "mis"phrasings than about substantive effects from his administration of the Offices he held. And when he got out of the government-paid sector, the first major thing he did, "his" Book of Virtues kicked up the same response as his latest "misunderstood" statement.
So the only question is why did the media decide that this bit of nonsense was newsworthy, was worth publicizing? I mean either Bennett is slipping into senility, forgetting lessons learned and "living in the past". Or Bennett is using another lesson learned -- any publicity is better than no publicity -- to raise market share for his radio show and opinion column, and to pump up sales of his racist&sexist "morality" tracts. Maybe he has a new book coming out?
Either way, the media shouldn't be covering it: He isn't personally important/relevant to how national policy issues are handled. If it's a sign of senility, the media is just being cruel in a way it never was during the last years of eg StromThurmond and JesseHelms, who were of national importance. If it's a publicity stunt, why cooperate? This is a capitalism; let him pay for his own self-promotion.
[ October 02, 2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's a nice rundown by William Saletan in yesterday's Slate about Bennett's statement and conservative spin. He gives lots of nice examples of unofficial spin (primarily writers and commentators, not elected officials).
I think Saletan's analysis is spot on, except his back-handed assertion in the second-to-last paragraph that Washington conservative think tanks are promoting the ideas that Bennett commented on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm waiting to see someone refute the statistical probability that Bennett was right about the result.
If that can't be done, then there's nothing racist about what Bennett said.
And, frankly, I doubt it can be. At best all you can point out is that aborting all the white babies would also have the same effect, and Bennett didn't say that. So he must be racist. Which is a weak, weak, weak argument.
I really wish you'd come back to this thread and back up your original assertion that "he so casually promotes the stereotype that black = crime," Dan.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Frankly, this whole thing is on par with the conservatives who accused that Congressman of calling our troops Nazis because he used it in a comparison.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As you stated, Dagonee, the statistical probability is that if ya eliminated enough young males, crime would be reduced. As I pointed out, cuz the ones who were left would be too busy working, and making too much money for crime to be much of a temptation. And too busy entertaining their girlfriends.
The racism arose when Bennett went from the general case of young males to specifying both males and females of an identifiable ethnic group.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's not racism. That's a disagreement over the best way to make a rhetorical point.
If the statistics are accurate, then his statement is true.
And the statistics are accurate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even true statements can be racist, but I don't think this one was. He was demonstrating (based on the additional quotation shown above) that there are things we will not do in order to reduce crime, even if we have evidence they would. If anything, that shows him fighting racism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, statistics are statistics.
Accuracy, ie truth or falsity, is in the interpretation. eg Most people who have automobile accidents have eaten carrots. It would be inaccurate to imply that eating carrots causes car accidents. Which is equivalent to what Bennet did.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, the interpretation is accurate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Most people who have automobile accidents have eaten carrots. It would be inaccurate to imply that eating carrots causes car accidents. Which is what Bennet did.
No, it's not.
It would not be inaccurate to say that if we banned carrot eaters from driving then accidents would go down.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Or you've been spun for so long that you can't differentiate between a correlation and a causation. Do you think that carrot eaters (who on average would have better night vision) would be more likely to be involved in an accident than carrot non-eaters (who on average would have worse night vision)?
[ October 04, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or you've realized you're wrong and decided to attack me personally again.
If correlation doesn't equal causation (which it doesn't), then making a statement that is based on the correlation is not implying causation.
And stop insulting me. Seriously, it's f(&^ing old.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Not nearly as old as attacking blacks for being black.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And that didn't happen here.
Are you going to bother to actually refute my argument, or merely restate the same thing over and over.
The carrot eating analogy pretty much settles the issue, unless you can posit a reason it doesn't other than your assertion that I am "spinning."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here's a link to a rather level-headed response...
Wow, that was probably one of the most reasonable things I've read in quite some time...
--j_k
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I was wondering when this would come up here. I heard the full clip this weekend. By full clip, I heard the entire call, from the question the guy who was calling in asked, to the end of Bennett's answer.
I think he worded himself very poorly, but believe he had no ill intent, nor was he, I believe, expressing a personal belief that if we killed all black babies it would reduce crime. I then heard the response statement by Howard Dean, which I thought was knee-jerk reactionary.
Bennett's show was discussing Freakonomics, and he was clearly doubting the veracity of the suggestions offered in the book, as discussed here on Hatrack earlier. The call was about the conclusions on abortion.
I haven't heard the Republican spin on it, but having heard the original call in its entirety, I can imagine how silly it is. Bennett screwed up in his wording, making what he said very easy to misinterpret. My impression from having listened to it was that he was talking about Freakonomics, not his personal views. He didn't make that excruciatingly clear in his statement, which left it open to interpretation. When I heard it, I thought what he'd said was pretty stupid, but I didn't think he was advocating racism or revealing a latent racist viewpoint.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The controversial section of Freakanomics doesn't make any statistical link between race and crime, as William Saletan points out in the article I linked to above. Also, Bennett was not "questioning the veracity of the suggestions," but questioning the wisdom of basing policy off the reported statistics (as he interpreted them).
I believe Bennett was lazily using "black" as shorthand for "poor, fatherless, and urban" which, while accurate, resulted in a statement that is both racist and misrepresentative of the true issues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
His point was that basing public policy about abortion on benefits that can be predicted statistically is a bad thing to do. He chose an example that worked statistically.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
That's not what I got from listening to his answer. I got that he was not entirely convinced that there was truth in Freakonomics. But I heard it only the once, and honestly had a difficult time following his answer. It meandered a bit. (and there was a bit of background noise too while I was listening...my daughter was in the backseat yelling for us to sing 'If you're happy and you know it') Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Except that the research he was quoting didn't mention "black." He added that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, he did. And that doesn't make it a racist statement.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not necessarily a racist statement.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I take it as a racist statement from an otherwise decent guy. The thrust of his argument is that one shouldn't use efficiency as a foundation for moral problems, like abortion or even crime prevention or social security. I agree. Not only do I agree, I wish people would say it constantly and shut lawyers, insurance salemen, and economists up.
quote:I think he worded himself very poorly, but believe he had no ill intent, nor was he, I believe, expressing a personal belief that if we killed all black babies it would reduce crime.
You see, I think he worded hismelf aptly, and I also don't think its that big of a deal. I also believe that he was expressing a personal belief that if we killed all black babies it would reduce crime. I also believe that him when he said that he finds crime reduction by infanticide morally reprehensible.
The point remains that there is a pervasive meme out there that says that black kids commit crimes fueled by poverty and the drug trade, and yes, there are gang wars and murders and all of that jazz, but I'll tell you, its the Kate Mosses and Aaron Sorkins who are driving the drug trade, we just aren't as eager to put them in jail. Society has carved out a comfortable class-niche for white drug abusers. Now the solution isn't to put everyoene in jail, but I don't know the solution is.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, an apology. I have been a bit busy recently and couldn't get back to this thread. By the time I did get back to Hatrack this was buried a few pages down so I assumed the debate was over.
You wanted a link to the Whitehouse response that I labeled spin. I fixed the above link which showed the White House public response as "It was innapropriate." There has been no other official White House response.
I believe that Carl Rove works with other conservative and Republican thinkers to put out a backhand spin. It is this group that is emphasisng the words the sensationalist hungry press take note on--"abort all black babies." This becomes very obviously an easilly misquoted statement. Anyone arguing that Bennett is Pro-AfroAmerican Genocide is going to be clobbered by the facts.
What struck me wrong about that comment was the offhand way he linked "Black" with "Crime". Here is where the African American community should come out strongly in opposition of his comments.
My question to you is, how can adding "black", adding "race" into the discussion not make it racist?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Society has carved out a comfortable class-niche for white drug abusers.
If you change that to 'rich and/or famous' instead of 'white', you'd have it about right, I think.
I know quite a few white addicts who have spent time in jail and manditory rehab. I don't know any black addicts at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Basic definition of racism:
"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others"
If the statement "doing X will lead to Y" is backed up by statistics (and no one here has presented reasons why it isn't), then there is no way of knowing if Bennett made the statement because he knows it to be true or if he made the statement because he believes that race accounts for the differences in human character.
Everyone keeps saying "correlation is not causation." Of course not. But correlation - even fairly low correlation - can still lead to predictable results when the underlying numbers are manipulated.
I think the carrot-eating driver example is a good demonstration of this.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm concede, a little bit. I still think that there is an disparity that says that white addicts can still be useful to society whereas black addicts should be locked up.
Dag, he introduced a new variable that need not have been introduced and did not serve his message. Had he stuck with the Freaknomics argument to show that economics does not morality make, everything would have been fine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I haven't seen possession treated differently based on race. I have seen distribution treated differently, not based on race, but based on factors that divide up by race.
I am not in a position to say whether the reason those factors are given the weights they are is related to race; I suspect it is in some people's minds and not in others.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He wasn't introducing a new variable as far as I can tell, he was using a clearly appalling example to show why the statistics re: the poor shouldn't be relevant to the decision.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Freaknomics' point was that the increase in abortions may have caused a decrease in crime. Bennett's point was than an increase in black abortions msy cause a decrease in crime.
Freaknomics was a claim about unwanted and ill-prepared for babies. Bennett's claim was about black babies. I'm not one to conflate the two catagories, maybe because I was black and born in the 70s post Roe. Freaknomics says that I'm not a factor in crime reducation. Bennett says that aborting me would be a positive factor in crime reduction.
All of this is hay, but I mention it to say that Bennett did introduce a new variable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This was added after I started posting:
quote:Dag, he introduced a new variable that need not have been introduced and did not serve his message.
I think it did serve his message. It showed that mere correlation with crime (and the correlation exists) is not sufficient reason to want a group of people to cease existing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Bennett's point was than an increase in black abortions msy cause a decrease in crime.
No, his point was that this is not an argument in favor of abortion.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Definition of racism from Merriam-Webster: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I don't think Bennett's comments could be construed as racist under the first definition, which seems to be the one Dag is working from. But I think they can be construed as racist under the second. He certainly made a discrimination in his statement based on race. That was what I meant in my earlier post(s) when I said his comments were racist.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Note: I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just wanted to clarify that there are multiple definitions of what it means to be racist. Maybe it will resolve some of the arguments (and hopefully not start new ones).
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
See, I see Bennett's comments as fitting both catagories, I'm just willing to overlook it because I think that this discussion is ancillary to Bennett's morally astute point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He certainly made a discrimination in his statement based on race.
If interpreted this way, that definition includes any statement that mentions any race but doesn't mention other races the statement might apply to.
If that's what you want the word to mean, fine, but it makes it a pretty useless word.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If that's what you want the word to mean, fine, but it makes it a pretty useless word.
I nearly made this exact point in my own post, but then I deleted it, not wanting to add to my own headache
My feeling was that any assertion based on race is racist, whether it assumes race is the root cause or not. The primary definition disagrees with that, but the secondary one supports it. I wouldn't say the word is useless when used under the second definition, but it's certainly less loaded.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My feeling was that any assertion based on race is racist, whether it assumes race is the root cause or not.
I think assuming a root cause based on race is racist. Not doing so makes the assertion racial.
Discrimination has two senses, one of which contains an element of unfairness. If the second definition of racism doesn't include that element of unfairness, then it is absolutely useless.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)