Posted on 09/30/2005 7:52:43 PM PDT by veronica
Former Drug Czar and Secretary of Education Bill Bennett's comments over skin color, crime and abortion have lots of folks howling, from Nancy Pelosi to Howard Dean to the NAACP to Ted Kennedy to the White House (go figure). What prompted this bipartisan outrage?
Here's the incendiary remark that he made on his popular radio program:
"…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."
Bennett has pointed out, correctly, that his remarks have been taken out of context. Even liberal commentators like Matt Yglesias and Brad DeLong feel the context of the remarks is mitigating and Bennett has no reason to apologize for them.
But let's forget about the context for a minute. Context can be so… so… oh, well, it can take all the fun out of it. So let's just focus on what Bennett said, totally out of context.
DeLong and Yglesias and are sufficiently reality-based enough to know that blacks commit a disproportionate share of violent crimes in the United States. This is not news. It's not even a controversial proposition. Given that fact, it's not a monumentally difficult conceptual leap to surmise that if you aborted every black child in the country from here on out (a hideousness that no one is advocating), the crime rate would drop.
Without getting into the tricky context of Bennett's remarks -- that doing so would be morally reprehensible, etc. -- what more is there to say about it? That it isn't true? No one, as of this writing, has argued that.
Bill Clinton claimed while he was president that he wanted to have a "national conversation on race." Perhaps he was being sincere. But it's plain from recent events that hardly anyone else in this country really, truly wants to have a "conversation" on this topic. If the mindless, knee-jerk reaction to Bennett's remarks -- including from places like the White House -- is any indicator, no one has any interest in an honest discussion of race.
Perhaps it's nothing new, but we live in a time where uncomfortable truths -- even challenging questions -- are to be shouted down and, if possible, driven from the public square. Harvard University's Larry Summers discovered this recently. Now Bill Bennett is on the receiving end of this same idiotarian nonsense. America is the worse for it. Thank goodness some liberals were honest enough to defend him. Let's hope others see fit to do the same.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Doesn't it seem odd that no one challenged Freakonomics? That book established the connection of "more abortion, less crime." Could it be because one of the authors writes for the New York Times?
Its is like saying Jesus taught that people should commit suicide because in one verse it says "Judas went out and hanged himself", and in another verse He says, "Go and do thou likewise". That is the proof text of what Jesus said. Of course He never said any such thing, but don't let the facts get in the way of making a fair analysis of what Bennett said.
Its is like saying Jesus taught that people should commit suicide because in one verse it says "Judas went out and hanged himself", and in another verse He says, "Go and do thou likewise". That is the proof text of what Jesus said. Of course He never said any such thing, but don't let the facts get in the way of making a fair analysis of what Bennett said.
What was so "dumb" about it, exactly? After all, everyone uses the utilitarian argument when it comes to abortion. Bennett was merely pointing out how defective that argument is.
He told the truth about what nearly everyone takes to be a philosophical justification for killing the unborn. And he's somehow amazingly "dumb" for pointing it out.
Speaking of Arnold. Why is it the firemen, etc., are upset that Arnold is supporting a proposition to limit using union dues for political purposes? Sorry if I seem dense, but if I was in a union the last place I'd want my hard-earned money to go is support the election of a bunch of politicians and union bosses.
What's "stupid" about what he said? You trashed Bennett as a person but neglected to tell us why and where he was wrong. Do tell...
Thank you, Songwriter. Well said!!!
This is why I wish someone would come back at NARAL, and basically all these libs and confront them with their love of abortion and dislike of the death penalty. WHY do they (conservatives) keep appologizing???
Absolutely, and you don't solve issues by Democrats who are hellbent on namecalling, stereotyping, and labeling the opposition as "Christian extremist", "racist", "homophobic", "bigoted", and "corrupted". It does nothing to advance the debate or solve the problems staring one in the face.
Instead of seeing an intelligent and successful man in the USSC
Liberals would rather call names and degrade him
Gotta listen to the ENTIRE Q&A between Bennett and the caller.
2 things are clear:
Mr. Bennett has never been pro choice, or in other words in favor of allowing women the option of murdering their unborn children. Yes even black children.
Second, the people who attcak him, for political gain, ARE in FAVOR of allowing the MURDER of unborn children, and YES that includes BLACK babies.
Makes you wonder in this screwed up world who is on the moral high ground. Bennett or the Pro CHOICE (murder) folks. How in the hell can someone who supports killing innocent children, offer any constructive opinion.
Get a grip huh?
If Bill Bennett had said "male" instead of "black", there would be no controversy.
They don't want a discussion, they want to deliver a lecture.
The notion -- uniformly known to all logic and language students some years ago -- of the ''predicate falsehood'' has sadly been lost today.
Bennett got Dowd'ed
You confront them by saying "it's wrong" and telling them why (no matter what boilerplate issue they themselves believe in, that you totally disagree with), in a reasoned and thought out manner. That will always keep the opposition on the defensive.
Namecalling is for 6 year olds on the playground. They can label me all they want until they're blue in the face, but I will tell them they're wrong and why.
Let 'em lecture. They have no moral high ground from which to lecture their boilerplate beliefs to the masses by.
Hell, I thought FR was all about thinking for yourselves and enough light has been shed on this website, that the media is never,ever to be trusted. This discombobulates me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.