Ya well, this is the only throne Evans ever accomplishes anything on.
Posted on 10/09/2005 8:02:57 AM PDT by Crackingham
Yeah, sure. And the author of this wonderful piece can obviously read plain English.
What part of "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible" did he not understand?
Barf alert?
Moron author alert.
When they are cited, they always come with the note that they are mainly black on black crime...so, it's okay.(?)
Hellooo, barf alert?
What a sad article. No mention whatsoever of Bennett's wife's work in inner cities, fighting for years to prevent abortion among black girls, or his work on education and the focus on the "ghetto education" as he mentioned it on Hannity and Colmes last week, that has kept minority youth from opportunity. Bennett even explained on the same H & C show that the majority of victims of black crime are blacks themselves, and that as drug czar he fought very hard to stop that sad fact.
And lastly, no mention of the fact that that very approach to crime and poverty (the limiting of the black population) is the REASON Planned Parenthood was begun in the first place!! Although I wish Bennett had added that to explain his hypothetical.
Spare us we know what was said and how it was said you lying pimping liberal.
Bennett is a great American - your not worthy to utter his name.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Liberals take every opportunity to label their critics as hyprocrites, rather than looking deep inside to see and admit whether their own personal/group behaviors warrant criticism. "Shoot-the-messenger" debate.
How seriously can you take the opinion of someone who doesn't comprehend plain English? All crime? OK, Einstein...
as my 21 year old son pointed out, what Bennett said was inappropriate but not inaccurate; however, he might more correctly have said that if you aborted all MALE babies, the crime rate would go down. The difference between black/white crime is significant, but pales compared to between male/female crime.
He didn't "argue" that he was speaking hypothetically and that his comments were taken out of context; he was speaking hypothetically and his remarks were taken out of context. Not to understand this is not to understand the meaning of words such as "hypothetically".
Bennett very nonchalantly lays all crime at the feet of African-Americans.
Um, no he does not. He states by implication that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, not all crime. Not to understand this is not to understand simple grade-school mathematics.
Why single them out as the key to lowering the crime rate? Is all crime in America perpetrated by black people? Are there no white criminals, or Asian, or Hispanic?
Simple. Whites and blacks are the two largest (generalized) ethnic groups in the United States. (That is, until Hispanics surpass blacks.) And the circumstances under which blacks originally came here were highly pathological and unique, with apparently lasting effects. Therefore, in casual conversation about racial affairs it is perfectly natural that blacks are the most oft-used example group. When talking about crime and race, "blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime" is a factoid that has been used trillions of times in casual conversations. That would have to stop if blacks would stop committing a disproportionate amount of crime, of course.
None of this means whites, Hispanics, or Asians commit no crime. They do. But blacks are a ready example at hand of a prominent minority group that commits a disproportionate amount of crime, which is why they are always mentioned in this conversation. Is political correctness going to outlaw a conversation that basically everyone has had at some point in their lives?
In fact, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, twice as many whites as blacks were arrested and charged with a crime in 2003.
That's fascinating but seeing as how there are 6-7 times as many whites as blacks in this country, it completely misses the point.
Does this genius columnist understand about proportions? fractions? Maybe not.
Bennett's remarks reveal a deeply embedded racism. He believes that crime in America has a black face.
That would be wrong. Crime in America does not have a black face. It merely has a disproportionately-black face. Which is all that Bennett said. To call this "racist" is to ban civil discussion involving cold hard facts.
There is a sort of moral arrogance at work which allows many of these folks to harshly judge the failings of others while quietly excusing their own flawed behavior.
Projection.
This columnist is too stupid to understand junior-high-level discussion and logic, he calls his target a racist and immoral, then finds fault for that target supposedly "harshly judging the failings of others". Moral arrogance indeed.
Ya well, this is the only throne Evans ever accomplishes anything on.
...America's self-appointed guru of virtue...
Funny how no one ever calls Jesse Jackson or Al Franken "self-appointed". Anyone who speaks out publicly for virtue will be smeared by the Left as a hypocrite. Talking about right and wrong is SO judgmental!
That would have been correct too (at least according to the reasoning Bennett was using), but not "more" correct. Both statements are correct. I think what you mean to say is that (apparently) removing all males from the population would affect the crime-rate far more than removing all blacks. But that wasn't important to Bennett's point; he was just grasping for an obvious example of a disproportionate-crime-committing subgroup. It didn't need to be the *most disproportionate* (males) to make his point.
The fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is spoken of in private conversations by basically everyone. I doubt there's anyone who is not aware of the factoid and has not given it some thought, as to its origins and ramifications. All Bennett did was bring it up, and you call it "inappropriate". That strikes me as unfair.
im waiting for clintons book of virtues to be released soon....hmmm
Bill Bennett says two things;
1) He says that HE BELIEVES it's true, that aborting every black baby would reduce the crime rate.
2) HE believes abortion would be morally reprehensible means of doing this.
Why is it so hard for some people to comprehend the fact that the second statement DOES NOT UNDO the racial premise in the first part of the statement?
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.