I think what Bennett was seeing in his mind at that instant was the image of urban gangbangers. He was the "Drug Czar." He maybe should have said "male babies," or just "all babies."

As I understand it, Sun City, Arizona, with a median age of 75-years-old, doesn't really have much of a crime problem. I think that was really his point, and from "Freakonomics," and true.

RBMN, that was not his point. His point was that if you abort all the babies within a segment of the population that has a higher crime rate than the population at large, the net result will be to lower the crime rate for all age groups. On the flip side, if you abort all the babie within a segment that has a lower crime rate than the population at large, the effect will be to increase the crime rate. Aborting all babies, or proportional numbers of them in all segments of society, would not affect these rates at all.

Bennett's critics should read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. I don't think Swift was really recommending cannabalism on the Irish and I don't think Bennett recommended genocide.

Re: Xrlq at October 1, 2005 11:02 AM

The Freakonomics example was about how raising the average age of the population reduces crime, so "all babies" works too. Bennett raised the stakes a little with his example, proving that he still likes to gamble. I really believe he was thinking "gangbanger," in his mind, when he said it.

Great update Dafydd. I think you're exactly right in saying that we can note that blacks commit a disproportionately large number of crimes while without having to attribute to something inherent within the black race. It seems that, in the same manner as Asians tend to excel academically, blacks are overrepresented in crime statistics because of the culture that their respective races have embraced. A number of black commentators (Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell come to mind immediately) have lamented the poor choices of culture embraced by black vis a vis education, and I think your comments correct, Dafydd, intimating that the same is true with regard to that culture's impact on it's adherents propensity to commit crime.

Of course all of this is too nuanced to make for good radio - especially when arguing with a caller, and even more especially when one is employing a reduction ad absurdum argument which, for its rhetorical impact, relies on shock value.

Bill Bennett is a talk show host who is opinionated and vocal, and who argues his opinion unscripted and unrehearsed with call-in interlocutors for several hours each day. You're going to get lots of shooting from the hip. Not every exchange is going to be as eloquent, nuanced, or polished as one might expect from, say a newspaper editorial, a blog entry, or a prepared speech. Of course that wouldn't excuse gross violations of decency, but it should tend to mitigate the frenzied rush to judgment over one small radio exchange. I mean we've got Howard Dean condemning the "hateful, inflammatory remarks ," Bob Cesca (at huffingtonpost) saying "What he seemed to imply was that all black babies will one day grow up to become criminals." (Via Drudge) Michelle D. Bernard, senior vice president of the conservative Independent Women's Forum, said "Bennett shamefully traded on the pervasive stereotype that it is African Americans who are responsible for all of the crime in the United States." And wilsonkolb is calling poor beebob an idiot. Come on folks, have one of those stiff martinis Dafydd recommended and settle down a bit.

Does it seem a little disingenuous to read into Bennett's comments the notion that he is trying to convince us that ALL black babies will grow up to be criminals? Or that ALL crime is committed by blacks? Wouldn't his point be made simply by assuming that a larger than average percentage of black babies would grow up to be criminals? To read anything more than this into his remarks seems, to me at least, to be unwarranted.

As it stands, Bennett's argument is based on statistics. Upon the underlying reason for these statistics, Bennett did not comment. Perhaps he agrees with Dafydd that the underlying cause is a destructive culture which has been embraced by that segment of the population. Or perhaps he really believes (as some seem to be attributing to him) that the underlying reason is that blacks are somehow inherently lawless and undesirable. As none of this was explicitly stated, it seems beyond the bounds of good faith discourse to attribute the second position to Mr. Bennett.

I think the larger problem here is the teapot in which this little tempest spins: the atmosphere of this dialog is not very conducive to the "honest discussion on race" which liberals purport to desire, and which this country really does need. I think wilsonkolb is pretty close to naming the sin (no, not that "He extrapolates black crime rates" - ?) for which Bennett is accused: he "make [s] blacks seem like an undesirable population." So essentially, some folks got their feelings hurt. Yeah, I know, I know you're going to tell about how the gypsies and gays and Jews got more than their feelings hurt because they were made undesirable in 1930's Germany. And a retort like that would be further demonstration of the problem, because we are manifestly not in 1930's Germany, and the attempts by some essentially to convince us that we are in some Nazi equivalent is really damaging to this "honest discussion." We really need to get over the knee-jerk reaction that when someone brings up something uncomfortable we throw out some label like "Racist!" that is just meant to cut off the debate. You don't like abortion - well, you hate women. You think blacks commit too much crime - well, you hate blacks. You think people are being abused at Guantanamo - well, you hate America.

On some of the most important issues in our society, too often debate ends before it ever starts because the mentality is that if you don't think like us then you're just a hater. And of course we now know that intolerance is the only unpardonable sin.

Again, via Drudge, "Robert Woodson Sr., president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, said 'it was stupid' for Bennett to even ruminate on such an explosive topic." Sounds like a Brave New World.

One post nuked for a personal attack on another commenter.

Wilson Kolb, you are dancing on the edge of the abyss right now. This site has a comments policy, to which I have referred you.

That policy will be enforced. You will follow those fairly loose rules, or you will be escorted off the premises.

Got it?

No use of offensive language, including comparing people you don't like to members of the Third Reich; and no personal attacks. There are other rules, but you haven't violated those yet.

There will be no further warnings.

Dafydd

This is a whole lot of bandwidth used to try and place a logical explanation into an emotional situation, and it isn't going to work, because it can't work.

What Mr. Bennett said was true. Mr. Bennett's stated motives and reservations were correct. But none of that matters, because he allowed a reference to eliminating blacks from the population by aborting all black babies to pass his lips, and that is simply not done.

His comment could have no other effect but to stir up an emotional, not dispassionate, response, and Mr. Bennett is educated and experienced enough to have known that. He has been in enough debates in his life to know that some things simply cannot be said. I'm guessing that if he had been writing something on the subject, rather than speaking into an open microphone, he'd have edited his comment . . . a lot.

Is it fair that a comment meant to make a point, even through reductio ad absurdum, cannot be discussed logically and dispassionately? No, it isn't. But fairness doesn't matter; what exists matters, and the situation that exists is, rather obviously, one which does not allow comments such as Mr. Bennett's to be even remotely useful.

OK, Mr ab Hugh, thou needst to open up thy site to html tags! I used the proper italics tags, but they didst not italicize the proper words.

Don't you think it a rather tepid response, on a site that uses serpentine imagery, to say that an offending commenter will be "escorted off the premises?" Wouldn't a warning that the offender will have the editor's venomous fangs sinking deeply into his flesh be more appropriate?

Dana Pico:

You can use <em> and </em> instead of <i> and </i>. That seems to be the standard for emphasized text.

For boldface, we typically use <strong> and </strong>.

Hiss.

(There... satisfied, reptillianistically speaking?)

Dafydd

Dana:

If I gulped him like an anaconda, I would have to go into a digestive torpor for days, o wise!

Dafydd

"You can use and instead of and . That seems to be the standard for emphasized text.

For boldface, we typically use and .

Hiss.

(There... satisfied, reptillianistically speaking?)
"

Well, OK. I guess. Now I've gotta learn new tags. More work on my part.

I find it interesting that mostly Democrats/Liberals/Leftists have expressed "outrage" over the comments made by Bill Bennett, when it is Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, who first espoused the idea of eliminating "unfit" races from society through abortion. There is even a website, BlackGenocide.org which highlights this despicable ideology.

Could it be that the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists are turning the focus on Bill Bennett and castigating him for fear that if we really did have an intellectual debate about abortion and race, the true racist ideology of the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists and Planned Parenthood's original goal of eugenics would come into the light?

I think this is good topic to discuss, but there is nothing new to the story of our times. Tone-deaf Right Wingers continue to say stupid things and duplicitous Lefties will try to make the most of it. Will a bell ring for the millionth example of Liberal journalists truncating quotes to change their meaning?

In the end, Bennett is a transparent phony and negative asset to Conservatives. I wish he would go away.

Re: HelenW at October 2, 2005 10:28 AM

> In the end, Bennett is a transparent phony and
> negative asset to Conservatives. I wish he
> would go away.

And this is based on what exactly?

Gosh, somebody called me an idiot and their comments got nuked before I got to read it, I feel flattered by this new blog.

A very provocative editorial concerning these issues by Charles Murray, of The Bell Curve fame, is linked on RealClearPolitics today. I'd be very interested in hearing the Lizard's opinion on the article, and then see it mauled and abused here in the comments section.

..what is so surprising; Bill as well as others in the line of fire think people are "enlightend" enough to grasp the discussion..sorry they are not..

“Political correctness is a purposeful obstacle set by liberals to impede the truth. It's there to make sure liberals don't have to hear certain truths that they don't want to hear.” - El Rushbo

Clearly...wilsonkolb does not do drugs, huh.

Perhaps wilsonkolb has never done any drugs, right...wilsonkolb?

RBMN asks: [your transparent phony and negative asset comments were] based on what exactly?

Happy to oblige. Despite his pontifications on morality, Dr. Bennett is a walking billboard for pomposity, self-indulgence, and addiction. Maybe I shouldn't cast the first stone, but then, I don't pretend to be an authority on or exemplar of righteous behavior.

He is a negative asset, on this particular occasion, because he forced the President to apologize for his stupidity.

Ddd brings up another volunteer from his army of straw men when he uses political correctness to cover for Bennett. He is every bit as destructive as Bennett when he preaches: There is nothing remotly offensive to blacks in Bennett's words. Try this paraphrase on for size.

But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce divorce, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could execute every heterosexual in this country, and your divorce rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your divorce rate would go down.

And how about this one?

But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce serial killings and child molestation, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every Caucasian male baby in this country, and your serial killing and child molestation rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your serial killing and child molestation rate would go down.

The inherent error in Ddd's defense are that some truths that are better left un-broadcast. I don't know Bennett's intent. I do know that he broadcast a statement with a crystal clear meta-message that resonates with all bigots--America would be better w/o Blacks.

If an idea really is "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible," why does Bennett need to radio it up? Why do we need public figures making racial statements of any kind? Where is the good? How does this help? And if we really want a colorblind society, why don't we start right now?

Thank you for your interest, RBMN.

General readership of this thread:

Was any heterosexual, causasian male offended by either of Helen's two sample rewritings?

I read both without the slightest stir of negative emotion. I wasn't aware that whites were overrepresented among serial killers, but it sounds reasonable; now that she mentioned it, I think I may have read that somewhere else before.

Was anybody offended?

Dafydd

Helen,

Bill Bennett did no such thing! That's the whole point, Helen. People have attributed to Mr. Bennett an attitude and statement he didn't have and didn't make. Mr. Bennett was discussing abortion using a reductio ad absurdum argument, which seemingly no left wingnut understands, or possibly deliberately misunderstands for PC purposes.

Humble me was...

Gentlemen, please stop the personal attacks. Our host asks nothing more than civility. We owe him, and the topic at hand, nothing less.

CD, I'm familiar with the use of absurdity in logic, and agree that it was Bennett's intent. Ddd discussed this thoroughly and correctly. That's not important, and not the point I was supporting. The problem with constructing absurdities, loudly in public, is that they don't go away in a poof. The other problem is that most people really don't get it. Check the comments.

Ddd asks: Was anybody offended?

Could you please leave something for the cows? I can't even offend the rabbits in my garden. Bennett's undiscovered error is that he offended the President and Conservatives like me. The Blacks, Bennett referred to, are our countrymen. The criminal element among them deserve punishment. The remainder, even if that is no more than one man, deserve our respect and fraternity.

This is America, dammit.

Helen:

You posted a couple of rewrites of Bennett's words, which you seem to have posited would drive home to us white heterosexual males how offensive Bennett's words would be to blacks. But I noticed that when I read them, they didn't offend me in the least. The idea, for example, that whites are overrepresented among serial killers (if true, and it seems likely) certainly didn't offend me or make me think the hypothetical speaker was saying all white males were serial killers.

So I grew curious whether I was anomalous or whether others found them similarly unoffending. So far, nobody has really answered except KarmiCommunist, and I'm not exactly sure whether he's serious or not.

Am I mistaken? Or did you believe that white male heterosexuals would find one or both of your rewrites offensive? Do you know any who do?

I'm not sure that I agree that "most people really don't get it" (reductio ad absurdum). In fact, I really don't even believe that every person who has expressed outrage failed to understand the purpose of the exchange.

I believe the vast majority of Bennett's listeners were bright enough to understand his point: that all such arguments by projection were absurd and offensive -- like arguing that 9/11 was bad because it caused so much air pollution: one ought to presume its evil was inherent, not merely because of some ancillary unpleasantness.

I'm sure a handful of people were honestly confused; but most of those screaming the loudest knew exactly what Bennett meant; they just saw an opportunity to create some mischief, and they couldn't help themselves (not if their lives depended upon it).

If you read Power Line -- and if you don't, you should! -- they posted a good example of one of those professionally aggrieved activists who seemed to be chastising Yglesias and DeLong for reacting with "cleverness" instead of "outrage" to the Bennett gambit; she seems, in fact, to be saying that they missed a golden opportunity to bash Bennett, even if they understood what he really was trying to say.

I find that profoundly more disturbing that an unartful RAA from Bill Bennett.

Dafydd

No, Dafydd, it is not just about culture. i thought science==good? The truth is, the mean IQ of blacks is 85, the mean IQ of hispanics is ~87, the mean IQ of non-hispanic caucasians is 100, and the mean IQ of asians is 103. The lowest student of statistics is going to see an R factor there. Culture contributes, but the raw and abbhorrent truth is that there are racial differences. How can we hope to address them if we cannot admit their existance? All men are equal under the law, but not under the genes.

i am sorry to always have to disagree with you, but you have some awfully big shoes to fill. The only other welshman i have known was my section A Welsh Mountain pony, Rhys. When i was eight he was my boon comrade, unfailingly courageous, strong, generous and intelligent. And he could jump his own height.

I noticed that when I read them, they didn't offend me in the least.... So I grew curious whether I was anomalous or whether others found them similarly unoffending.

Reaction to Bennett's statement will range from amusement to outrage. He provided the potential. Amperage through the circuit depends on individual resistance, yes? Here's a little story to illustrate how people react to meta-content.

I went to see the Big Chill with a good friend. As considerate moviegoers, we watched silently until the audience started to file out during the credits. She asked how I liked it, and I told her that it was the most tightly woven and satisfying Redemption story I had ever seen. I particularly liked the way the impossibly contorted yoga girl was used to portray an angelic spirit. My friend was incredulous. She saw it as a dark comedy about yuppies set to great music. The only truth is that the film was loaded with symbolic elements and well worn metaphors. The allegorical potential was built in. Who is to say whether I saw too much or she saw to little?

find one or both of your rewrites offensive?

Most would find them absurd. I wrote them with several of my regular correspondents in mind, who actually would be offended, but that's besides the point. Those in the majority are safe. We take special precautions with minorities, because potential threats to them are naturally more probable. That's reverse discrimination to ideologues, but that's the way it has to be in America. These citizens really were threatened with high pressure water hoses, attack dogs, lynchings, organized terror groups, police beatings, constant humiliation, abortion, segregation, institutionalized discrimination, repatriation to Africa, fire bombing, and worst of all--The Great Society. As we recover from this madness, we find that the kind of indifference you show to Bennett's remarks is *exactly* how all that was facilitated. It's not going to happen again on my watch. This is America, dammit.

I'm not sure that I agree that "most people really don't get it"

Providing that example from the short history of your blog is the best I can do to be convincing.

I believe the vast majority of Bennett's listeners were bright enough to understand his point

I agree. Unfortunately, this vast majority was not the subject of his comment.

most of those screaming the loudest knew exactly what Bennett meant

I agree here too, but you miss the vital element of the discussion. Those screaming the loudest also knew exactly what Bennett said unintentionally. It's more like my idiot cousin who intended to put his fellow airplane passengers at ease with an absurd bomb joke. The flight attendant was not amused. He barely escaped arrest only because the event occurred in the early 90's.

If you read Power Line -- and if you don't, you should!

Yes, most fish get eaten by bigger fish, but ... apologies in advance for my unfair advantage. This is so funny, I have to go off topic. You, of all people, should know what I read. ((Sorry, I hate when people do that to me.))

I'm not exactly sure whether he's serious or not.

i was very offended...then became offended when you didn't ban the poster for offending humble commenter me...haven't been able to sleep or eat since...have stopped listening to Boortz and Rush...i bought all of the Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel Podcasts that could be found yesterday...wrote to Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and begged him to reinstate me at the Daily Kos...watch Barbra Streisand movies (when Air America ain't on) almost every hour of the day whilst listening to her albums in between Al and Charlie's Podcasts...proposed to Nancy Pelosi this morning...i now hate being white, and am trying to change the colour of my skin (probably with one huge tattoo)...etc. There's much more, but humble me is too offended to write anymore!

Lady Helen,

Just before Dafydd put that rather nasty Serpentine Curse upon a humble and gentle one such as i, i was trying to make a point.

*SHUTTER*

Legalizing same-sex marriages opens a "Pandora’s Box", in my opinion. If a man is allowed to 'mArRy' another man...or, a woman is allowed to 'mArRy' another woman, then what stops them from marrying boys and girls...'Da Age of Puberty.

*SHUTTER*

Next will come multiple marriages or harems. In Texas, "Men are Men", and the sheep know it. What stops a Texas male from marrying a herd of sheep?!? BTW, i was born in Texas, but hate sheep. Cows are cute... ;)

Karmi
*SHUTTER*

Dana Pico seems to me to be advocating abject surrender to the forces of political correctness, saying that people should avoid saying things that elicit irrational responses because the response will be irrational and that deliberately provoking an irrational response is useless. I must respectfully disagree. Deliberately violating the laws of political correctness repeatedly and frequently is the only way to enable open and honest debate between the left and the right. The guardians of political correctness must get the message that simply responding irrationally is not sufficient to shut up people with whom they disagree. Bill Bennetts remarks are therefore useful in desensetizing the left to disagreement and training the left to respond rationally rather than irrationally. Rewarding the left by avoiding language and arguments that they respond irrationally to only encourages that behavior.

"As we recover from this madness, we find that the kind of indifference you show to Bennett's remarks is *exactly* how all that was facilitated. It's not going to happen again on my watch. This is America, dammit."

Which is the first and most important amendment to the US constitution? The one that comes before even the right to keep and bear arms?

If this is America, then even white folk (spit on us if you must) must be permitted to speak their mind.

"Amperage through the circuit depends on individual resistance, yes?"

If so, we're talking about a fuse whose purpose is to prevent debate. The solution is to blow that fuse so often that they stick a penny in the damn fusebox. Democracy, freedom, all that stuff, depend on the freedom of all to speak their mind. Even us evil degenerate whites.

I think that's more than enough snarkasm for one post. That divorces amongst heterosexuals and serial killers amongst whites are more common than among other groups failed to offend me. I hope it's apparent that what I perceive as your contempt for the freedom of non leftist white people to express their thoughts succeeded where more deliberate attempts to offend failed.

Previously, from MrDamage:

"I hope it's apparent that what I perceive as your contempt for the freedom of non leftist white people to express their thoughts succeeded where more deliberate attempts to offend failed"

Come to think of it...
If non leftist white people were to respond hysterically and irrationally to suggestions that we have less right to express ourselves freely than other segments of the population, would this prompt the left to stop trying to shut us down? Somehow, I have my doubts.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)