Like Kryptonite To Stupid
Is this maybe the Kanye effect?
The White House on Friday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.
“The president believes the comments were not appropriate,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Politics 2008 Election Republicans Conservatives Iraq Democrats Media George W. Bush 2006 Election Humor Uncategorized Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Links John McCain NFL Oliver's World Right Wing Media Redskins Race Maryland Terrorism Sports Movies Mitt Romney Fox News Religious Right Liberal Media Women Michael Steele Liberals Rudy Giuliani Economy Fred Thompson Superman Newsweek Racism Television Black Conservatives News Comics Democratic Congress John Edwards Immigration Ben Cardin Global Warming History U.S. Attorney Scandal Crime 9/11 Technology Al Gore Economics Dick Cheney Iran Site Stuff Education TV Al Qaeda Bill Clinton Democratic House Joe Lieberman Religion The Politico Useful "Liberals" Stem Cell Research Intelligent Design Weird Republican Culture Of Corruption Science Democratic Senate Health Care Kirsten Powers Supreme Court Books Free Speech Abortion Atheism Video Guns tba2007 Bob Ehrlich Progressives World Katrina Mike Allen America Hillary Clinton's Experience Washington D.C. David Broder Washington Post Virginia Business 2005 Election Entertainment USA Stupid Things Foreign Policy Martin O'Malley Snoopgate Fox News Democrats The Washington Post Virginia Tech Massacre Nancy Pelosi MSNBC Evolution Howard Dean OW Radio Media For McCain Jessica Alba Blogs Instapundit Doctor Who CNN GOP Bigot Eruptions Fox News Channel MBAPBSAllAmericaDem Anti-Gay Hugh Hewitt The Truth Jamaica Chris Matthews BBC Ron Paul Dumb Liberals Freema Agyeman CK Advertising Military National Security Disney Mark Penn New Orleans Tom DeLay The War CIA The Daily Show Clenis Bill Kristol Alan Colmes Alaska Weblogs Afghanistan Zen! 209 Wal-Mart AP Trade Torture Brent Bozell Bill Richardson Army Conservative Torchwood Energy Obama Haters James Carville Olympics Howard Kurtz Hillary Hate Homeland Security 163 New York Times Karl Rove Legal Jon Stewart Music John McCain And Airbus Health Regulation Media Research Center Senate D.C. Subprime Conservativies Current Affairs Sean Hannity First Amendment Glenn Beck Glenn Reynolds Republican Bigot Eruption Gay Marriage Football Taylor Marsh
Dkelsmith:
But why did Bennett bring up black babies as opposed to any other group (whether ethnic, socio-economic, etc.)? The initial question had nothing to do with race.
The WH said the same thing about Trent Lott’s way of praising Strom Thurmond. These Goopers are definitely more entertaining lately.
I wouldn’t ascribe to Kanye what can be adequately be explained by damage control and distancing. The entire context of what Bennet was saying has not been displayed, most people read the headline and go off. Bennett was actually saying that to argue that the crime rate was was down because abortion is up or legal is reprehensible. To explain this, he further stated that saying that aborting every black baby born in the United States would make the abortion rate go down. OVer time, that is true…as would be the case if we aborted every new born of any race….over time. BUt, since drug deals, bank robberies, insider-trading and other things aren’t usually committed by those people 3 years old and under it would not have an immediate effect. To be certain, the backlash is that he was inferring that the crime rate is up because of the high percentage of blacks that are part of the criminal justice system. While we can speak to statistics and other things that can be quantified, to support your opposition to what I believe is a totally unrelated subject is not smart. While the facts may be there to support it, you have to ask if this is right or not. I mean, it is not illegal to pass gas, belch, and down a Budweiser during a church service, but just because this is a true fact doesn’t mean that it is something that we ought to do. There are repercussions. I hope Bennett is prepared to deal with them. Alone.
Dkel –
You don’t even know what is actually offensive about what he said. God. This is why we have a problem with race in this country. To justify what Bennett said in any context you have to accept his basic premise that BLACKS CAUSE crime. Not that blacks committ crimes, or even more crimes. Bennett’s underlying assumption is that blackness itself causes crime. Otherwise, as JWG said, he would have said “poor babies,” or something else. The thrust of Bennett was saying has nothing to do with the number of blacks in the criminal justice system — a statistic that is incredibly loaded and not to be taken on face value, in the first place, so even if this is what Bennett meant he’s an idiot — but rather what he said implies that the crime rate is what it is because of the high number of blacks. Period. That is what’s so fucked up about it.
Why didn’t Bennett mention “poor people” or “Southerners” or “males”, all of which statistically correlate with higher crime rates as much as “blacks”?
To put it yet another way, and then I’ll leave it alone:
No matter what Bennett meant or thought he meant, anyone who has given two seconds of thought to the problems of race and racism in America would have never used the words or phrasing that he did. It’s indicative of a world view that refuses to face the real complexities of our society — in this case, the root causes of crime — and prefers instead to traffic in stereotypes, fear and ignorance. It’s as simple as that.
To put it another way, I grant that Bennett would never endorse aborting black children to lower the crime rate. But Bennett nevertheless seems to believe that if there were less blacks, there would be less crime. That’s a straight equation of blackness with crime.
Frameone and JWG,
I suppose you must have missed my sentence that stated,
“To be certain, the backlash is that he was inferring that the crime rate is up because of the high percentage of blacks that are part of the criminal justice system. ”
I said it was stupid, at what point did I defend what he was saying?
Frameone, don’t assume that I don’t know what he said that was offensive, trust me, I do. As a black man who was subjected to a few years schooling in rural Kentucky, believe me I probably have experienced more overt racism than you have, especially in regard to physical confrontations. Either I didn’t explain myself well or you saw me mention that I understood the point he was making was against abortion. I never said that his comments weren’t outrageous. I also said that he was inferring that blacks were responsible for high crime because of the high percentage in the Criminal Justice System. Calm down man. Read a little bit.
Trust me….people like me are not the reason why “race relations are the way they are now.” I’m of the opinion that begging or forcing an “apology” out of a numbskull does nothing for the struggle. Racists of all colors are beneath me.
I’m going to change the subject a bit, because I have a proceedural question. How can you complain about a right-wing echo chamber, when your initial post driving this story linked back to an organization that you work for? How can you use the loaded term “echo chamber” as a rhetorical weapon, and at the same time be part and parcel to your own echo chamber? Because its obvious sometimes when you address the arguments of your opponents, you claim they came out of a “right wing echo chamber” as a way to dismiss them out of hand, without any comments of real substance. Hell, you did it just a few points down with regard to DeLay.
hey nawoods,
I read your post. Excellent!!
Dugger, A choice not an echo
Problem is, the GOP won’t make Bennett “toxic.”
Why? Because although Bennett’s comments have been roundly and rightly criticized by sane people, GOPers secretly think Bennett had a pretty good idea.
So, they’ll make the appropriate “tut-tut” noises–but Bennett will retain his radio/columnist’speaking gigs.
“OVer time, that is true …”
Dkel point taken. What through me was the above comment. Bennett’s supposition is not true. Again, Bennett objected to the idea of aborting black babies. Bully for him. But he agreed with the concept that doing so would reduce the crime rate. Here are his words:
“That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”
It’s the “but your cime rate would go down” that’s actually really damning in my eyes. He isn’t saying anything about poverty, discrimination or anything. He’s saying regardless of how you do it, less blacks=less crime. That strikes me, as I guess it does you, as pretty fucked up.
Frameone,
And to be certain I did not “justify” what he said, I said I understood that he was using that as an illustration to show that the argument that the more abortions we have the farther the crime rate will go down is way of base. He did try and save himself by saying, “That would be reprehensible.” It is not on the same level, but to a certain degree if you told me. Wow, D-Kel, you use pretty good grammar for a black guy. Undoubtedly you would have thought you were giving me a compliment all the while you made a horse’s ass out of yourself.
forcing an apology out of a numbskull does nothing for the struggle.
There is nothing I have found in any of your posts I would disagree with. But I ask your opinion on the above quote (realizing it has a narrow contect)
I recently had a discussion with a female who took the position that PC speech is not a bad thing. (Paraphrasing her) She said, although people are more constrained than ever about the sentence structure of speech, it displays attitudes. It is better to stop certain words before they exit the mouth. (Shouldn’t be a new idea, I know)
That was in contradistinction to my long held feeling. that PC had so constrained speech that it had imparied communication. Spontanaeity and free-flowing discussion was being hampered unnecessarily by the narrow band of accepted language; ergo, wrong.
Her point, which I took, was that it is necessary for us to stop! and think! because it forces a self-examination. Just stopping your tongue does not stop your brain. Sometimes taking a break between words gives new nerve pathways a chance to form.
In that regard, the only statement you made wihich I might disagree with, was the one I pasted above. Forcing an ‘apology’ out of an idiot, helps us all stop and think. Too many of the wrong attitudes and beliefs have inhabited our core structures, and novacaine is not always available for the extraction.
Frameone;
Agreed.
The discussion is about ‘attitudes’ and the subtle verbal and non-verbal indicators of same.
The point I am specifically making is that such attitudes are often ‘unconsious’ and therefore invisible to those who have not made the ‘conscious’ effort to correct the errant atitude. Bringing attention to the matter can ‘air-it-out’ for those who are capable of making the connection.
But were not talking about offensive words here. Bennett didn’t use the “n” word. What I have a problem with is the fact that the idea Bennett was expressing is anathema to a pluralistic democratic society. And I’m not talking about the abortion thing. I am talking about the fact that Bennett seems to believe that blacks CAUSE crime. As in less blacks=less crime. This kind of thinking has nothing to do with freedom, understanding, communication, expression or anything. This is an idea that actually impedes all those things. Should it be suppressed? No. Bennett can say what he wants but I bet if he had stopped an thought about what fuck he was saying he would have phrased it differently or not made the point at all. Now that’s giving him a huge benefit of the doubt given that he has just on Hannity’s show claiming that everyone is accussing him of wanting to kill black babies. Again, he doesn’t even know why what he said is so offensive and not just offensive but anathema to open and honest communication. You cannot discuss what to do about crime with someone who thinks that crime originates with black people. You can’t. Why should we even try?
I would venture to say that Bennett, at the very least, should have anticipated that the PC Police were going to be all over his ass for a remark like that.
Frameone,
Im not trying to beat a dead horse, but once again you only looked at a portion of what I wrote.
“OVer time, that is true& as would be the case if we aborted every new born of any race& .over time.”
What I meant by that is if we aborted every new born baby of ANY race the crime rate would go down over time because there would be less people….that only makes sense.
But I did say the backlash, and rightfully so is that he specified a race, not just any newborns. I am ASSuming, and maybe wrongfully so, that he chose blacks because of the crime statistics. I think we are on the same page, but perhaps I didn’t convey my point very well. Have a good weekend man. You have a good weekend too, Dugger. I like you even though I don’t agree with you on a lot of things. You raise compelling points and stir the pot a lot. That is what makes this fun.
Hooah!
likewise, dkel
Dugger
The bottom line is the United States is a racist country, always has been and always will be. “United We Stand” my ass.
Dkel –
I get what you’re saying. We are on the same page but not even the crime rate statistics bear out what Bennett says because their are so many mitigating factors that render the figures unrealiable when it comes to race. Indeed, Bennett’s claim that he was only repeating what the author’s of Freakonimcs assert is BS because they authors never mention race, specifically avoiding race altogether in their analysis. Bennett is the one who brought race into the discussion (which is why, yes Frank, he should have).
But also, and I may be wrong here, whether or not abortion effects crime rates depends on how you measure crime rates, right? As a total per year or per capita, right?
I would venture that Big Casino does not care very much about PC. Maybe he just likes being in the limelight.
Today on Fox, Bennett listed his many accomplishments as drug czar, in serving the black community including:
“…we raised the price and lowered the purity of cocaine…”
He is actually claiming to have helped the drug dealers sell an inferior product for more money. What a perfect business model for increasing profits. I wonder whose side this guy is on. Dig yourself deeper, Mr Czar.
Todd –
Bill Bennett is the GOP leadership. That’s the whole point. He was Education Secretary and Drug Czar under Reagan and he speaks regularly at GOP functions and as a leading Republican on Fox news. Respectfully, Oliver and Rhandi Rhodes are not even close comparisons to the influence Bennett yields over conservative policy makers. If Bill Bennett is not at the heart of the conservative movement. Bill Bennett is a “Distinguished Fellow” at the Heritage Foundation, one if not the leading conservative think tank in the country. Here’s the link: http://policyexperts.org/last_name/last_name_results.cfm
Here’s what the Heritage Foundation says are Bennetts areas of expertise:
Issues
* Church-State Relations
* Civil rights/Racial Preferences
* Corrections/Sentencing
* Police/crime/crime statistics
* Bilingual Education
* Education Unions/Interest Groups
* Higher Education
* Public School Financing/Administration
* Parental choice: charters, vouchers, home schooling
* Standards, Curriculum, & Testing
* Arts, Humanities & Historic Resources
* Citizenship/Civil Society
* Family/Children
* Media and popular culture
* Philanthropy
* Political Correctness/Multiculturalism
* Religion/Public Life
How many of these areas of expertise are compromised by what he said? And yet, there he is, distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, leading conservative think tank in the country. Yup, Bennett doesn’t speak for conservatives at all.
What he said was appauling, yes, but I don’t understand why everyone is demanding the actual GOP leadership to denounce his comments.
It’s not like he said the comments at an official GOP function, or anything. He said it on his radio show and he just happens to be a Republican. His job, as a radio commentator, is to say outragious things to get ratings.
If you, Oliver, (or any other right or left wing blogger, for that matter) ever said anything that was offensive to someone else, would you demand that the leadership of the DNC or RNC denounce your comments?
It’s freedom of speech - if something is said that causes an uproar, then call the station or his advertisers - they’re the ones that could actually do something, not the GOP leadership. What exactly do you want the GOP to say? Issue a canned statement and move on with their business? What would that accomplish? Would you expect the Democratic leadership to denounce something if Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy (or any other left-wing host) ever said anything shocking?
Quite frankly, I think the government is putting too much stock in to what we say, as it is…
Way OT, but we all need a break
http://www.linkydinky.com/alba.shtml
Okay Frank, I give up. You right-wingers are right about “intelligent design”.
Todd,
I think it goes with the territory. Fox is the de facto voice of the GOP. It’s not surprising that party leaders feel it’s their obligation to denounce some of the more harebrained notions expressed on the fair and balanaced channel.
nawoods said: “How can you use the loaded term ‘echo chamber’ as a rhetorical weapon, and at the same time be part and parcel to your own echo chamber?”
I can see your point, but with so many right-wingers coming in here to tro– er, to challenge Oliver’s point of view, I don’t think you can call this blog an echo chamber.
Frnk_D
I am shocked and amazed that you think I would defer from this debate to actually take the time to ogle Jessica Alba in a skimpy hellow bikini……….what kind of an ingrate do you think that I am ? As if I would deviate from this debate and pay special attention to picture # 4. You need to grow up and get to my mature level.
Frank,
O Dub has sputtered on the hottie postings. I think you found your new niche … get that up on your blog and your traffic will skyrocket.
On a related note, the LATE BREAKING NEWS is that Paris Hilton is once again available to make a sex tape.
Maybe you righties would understand what’s stupid about Bennet’s remarks if we change some of the terms:
Voters with no college degree went for Bush over Kerry 53%-47%
This is a higher rate of Bush voting than the general voter population (52%-48%)
Therefore if we abort all republicans the rate of people graduating from college will increase.
Stupid, eh? er….. wait a mo…..
What I meant by that is if we aborted every new born baby of ANY race the crime rate would go down over time because there would be less people& .that only makes sense.
Dkelsmith, I think you’re missing something important here: Bennet was not talking about the total AMOUNT of crime, but the RATE of crime, i.e. the number of crimes per capita.
The diminution of any segment of the population could reasonably be expected to lower the amount of crime, but you would only expect a drop in the RATE of crime if you thought that segment of the population was disproportinately prone to committing crime.
Nice work, Wilbur.
There is a fact that no one seems to be mentioning, which is, everyone keeps getting distracted by the wrong numbers.
Bennett did not specify violent crimes, or property crimes, or any other subset, so we can assume that he referred to total crimes. As the NYC Police Department discovered, putting the brakes on even small offenses brought down totals of crimes across the board.
So - I propose that the total number of crimes committed by whites in a given period would exceed the total number committed by blacks.
What does it matter if more crimes are committed per black capita than per white capita, when we’re talking about reducing the crime totals?
That’s right, it doesn’t matter. If one of you folks wants to look up the statistics, it would help the already obvious argument that race was unneccessary in making a point about the potential of abortion victims.
One more nail in the coffin is his use of the word “impossible”. No doubt he used “ridiculous” and “reprehensible” in a useless attempt to justify what he said, but “impossible” does not fit for that purpose.
First of all all, he can’t mean “impossible” in the true sense of the word, since anything is possible, and everyone knows that. People might have thought, in 1930, that the Holocaust would have been impossible.
Secondly, saying that it would be impossible to abort every black baby gives away the fact that he doesn’t like seeing a black population (apparently doomed to lives of crime) so large that efficiently ridding the nation of them would be such a formidable task that it might not be worth the effort, and therefore would not even be worth the effort of further consideration. There’s really no use arguing against that fact, since the consideration of whether or not it would be possible to abort every black baby would never occur to someone unless they first considered that a justification to get over the moral boundary might be available.
So, he may not be burning crosses and may not even hate black people, but it’s quite clear that he holds prejudice against them.
Macswain: If it takes the nubile Ms. Alba to draw you out of hiding — well, then, I’ll post it!
Welcome back!
Wilbur, I’ll take that as a compliment!
WOW. An incredible amount of analysis over what Bill Bennett meant when he said, and I 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,” said Bennett, author of “The Book of Virtues.”
To me, its plain as day. This man has some very serious issues. No need to anayze anything…just read it word for word, people.
I think the guy who wrtoe Freakonomics is a good place to start in talking about this further:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/09/bill-bennett-and-freakonomics.html
“Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement. Empirically, what matters is the fact that abortions are disproportionately used on unwanted pregnancies, and disproportionately by teenage women and single women.
3) Some people might think that my comments in (2) above are just ducking the race issue because it is politically correct to do so. Anyone who has read Freakonomics knows that I am not afraid to take issues of race head on. Much of the book deals with challenging issues of race (e.g. black-white test score gaps, black naming patterns, etc.). I mean it when I say that, from a purely fact-based and statistical perspective, race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime.
4) When a woman gets an abortion, for the most part it is not changing the total number of children she has; rather, it is shifting the timing so those births come later in life. This is an important fact to remember. One in four pregnancies ends in abortion and this has been true for 30 years in the U.S. But the impact of abortion on the overall birth rate has been quite small.”