[art_director]

This week's winner of the 'Fcuk was that a stupid thing to say' competition:

"Bennett, who held prominent posts in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told a caller to his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday: "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," he said."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...nts/index.html

[art_director]

"What could possibly have possessed Secretary Bennett to say those words, especially at this time?" Pelosi asked. "What could he possibly have been thinking? This is what is so alarming about his words."


We don't know Nancy, but you've rattled off some non-sensical shiit yourself.

[OldManMac]

Not surprised. After all, he's a "family values" kind of guy.

[MacNStein]

Well, if you aborted every baby born to low-income parents, crime would go down. It's not the color, it's the environment (urban).

Soooo... since blacks make up a large portion of the urban population, his statement may have some truth to it (even though it's in poor taste and terribly "un-PC").

[Moderator]

eh..i'd love to jump all over it but really..who cares. The guy slipped up and made an idiotic statement. Not the big deal thats being made of it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Moderator

eh..i'd love to jump all over it but really..who cares. The guy slipped up and made an idiotic statement. Not the big deal thats being made of it.

Precisely why I called it the winner of the 'Fcuk was that a stupid thing to say' competition.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Well, if you aborted every baby born to low-income parents, crime would go down. It's not the color, it's the environment (urban).

Soooo... since blacks make up a large portion of the urban population, his statement may have some truth to it (even though it's in poor taste and terribly "un-PC").

It is so nice to talk about this with lightness and a touch of cold rationality.

Especially when we are not black.

It feels so goooooooooood to be white and well, isn't it?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Soooo... since blacks make up a large portion of the urban population, his statement may have some truth to it (even though it's in poor taste and terribly "un-PC").

Yeah, it's called extrapolation, which is the exact term Bennett used within the same response.

He was referring to the book, Freakonomics, which theorizes that the significant drop in crime (40%) that we've experienced is somewhat due to abortions performed over the past 3 decades.

Blacks are 8 times more likely to commit a crime than whites, 7 times more likely to commit murder than whites, and are the black abortion rate is 3 times that of whites.. So what Bennett used as an extrapolation of Freakonomics' abortion-crime theory in the discussion on Tuesday was factually correct... ie, if abortions (which blacks are 3x more likely to have) are the reason for the drastic drop in crime (which blacks are 8x times more likely to commit), then the extrapolation would be 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."

Then Bennett continued with "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

If the crime and abortion liklihoods for blacks and whites were anywhere near similar, then I think perhaps Bennett's response could be construed as racial, as in "why mention only blacks". But the rates aren't even close... 8x more likly to commit crime and 3x more likely to have an abortion are pretty significant.

[loki74]

As a farily vehement right-winger, I must admit, its definately NOT something he should have said, regardless of how accurate or quantifiable the statement may be.

My guess is that he was just pissed off or frustrated with something, and crossed the PC line. Not saying its right per se, but we all do it to a certain extent, time to time. Its not a specifically Republican/conservatice or Democrat/liberal thing to do, IMO.

$0.02

EDIT: On a side note, I'd like to commend Moderator for his/her well... moderation? As was said many would love to (and many will) jump all over this but its really not as huge of a deal that people will inevitably make it out to be. It takes a hard-to-find reasonablility, objectivity, and self-control not to take something like this and milk it for all its worth.

[rambo47]

Shock-jock tactics sure made a success of Howard Stern, so why not this bozo? I think he was looking for some shock value to get a buzz about his show. Or maybe he's just dumb.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by rambo47

Or maybe he's just dumb.

This has been confirmed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by art_director

This has been confirmed.

It hasn't been confirmed at all. It was an accurate thing to say and was used to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that abortion reduces crime. Those who oppose abortion believe it's roots stem from this specific desire to and full knowledge of, the reduction of minority culture and the resultant decline in the crime rate as evidenced by recent statistics and offered in Freakonomics-the topic at hand. Bennett is perhaps the most active in opposing abortions and conducts many seminars and rallies against it within the minority communities. One could argue he is a more conscientious "black leader" than those who've fashioned themselves as such on the backs of racial division and propogated poverty. At some point, someone needs to speak up. He did. As you can see, it may not be wise to speak up in a free culture. I still respect it and believe if one must forego wisdom to say what needs to be said well then you'll have to remember that "stupid is as stupid does" not as " stupid says".

What are you doing to ease the poor socio-economic conditions most evident among the minority? Or is it easier to pretend it doesn't exist?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It hasn't been confirmed at all. It was an accurate thing to say and was used to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that abortion reduces crime. Those who oppose abortion believe it's roots stem from this specific desire to and full knowledge of, the reduction of minority culture and the resultant decline in the crime rate as evidenced by recent statistics and offered in Freakonomics-the topic at hand. Bennett is perhaps the most active in opposing abortions and conducts many seminars and rallies against it within the minority communities. One could argue he is a more conscientious "black leader" than those who've fashioned themselves as such on the backs of racial division and propogated poverty. At some point, someone needs to speak up. He did. As you can see, it may not be wise to speak up in a free culture. I still respect it and believe if one must forego wisdom to say what needs to be said well then you'll have to remember that "stupid is as stupid does" not as " stupid says".

Bennet's stance on abortion, crime or the lottery has nothing to do with the fact that his comments were offensive. It was an inappropriate thing to say, period. Apparently your beloved Bush administration agrees:

"The White House called the comments, made by William J. Bennett, the former Republican secretary of education, off base. The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said that President George W. Bush "believes the comments were not appropriate."

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/po...yt&emc=rss

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What are you doing to ease the poor socio-economic conditions most evident among the minority? Or is it easier to pretend it doesn't exist?

Hmmm...I point out that a Repulsivican says something stupid and you ask what I'm doing to help conditions among minorities? What color is the sky in your world, ebuddy?

[Spliffdaddy]

But it's OK to suggest that "poor" women should be able to obtain an abortion for that reason alone?

Lefties are hypocrites. They fully support the basis of Bennet's statement.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

But it's OK to suggest that "poor" women should be able to obtain an abortion for that reason alone?

Lefties are hypocrites. They fully support the basis of Bennet's statement.

Whatthe****areyoutalkingabout?

[dcmacdaddy]

"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."

Then Bennett continued with "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

The problem is that something perceived on the surface to be highly offensive--the hypothetical statement in the first paragraph--is greatly modulated by being contextualized by the declarative statement in the second paragraph. I mean, he comes out and says that his hypothetical is morally reprehensible. But no one wants to see beyond the first paragraph.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The problem is that something perceived on the surface to be highly offensive--the hypothetical statement in the first paragraph--is greatly modulated by being contextualized by the declarative statement in the second paragraph. I mean, he comes out and says that his hypothetical is morally reprehensible. But no one wants to see beyond the first paragraph.

The problem is, that he shouldn't have made the first statement, because that's really what's on his mind, and then he tried to cover it up with the second statement. Bennett is as big a hypocrite as they come.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG

The problem is, that he shouldn't have made the first statement, because that's really what's on his mind, and then he tried to cover it up with the second statement. Bennett is as big a hypocrite as they come.

Karl,

When you become William Bennett you can tell us what is on his (your) mind. Until then, I will read the whole sentence in context and form my response to the statement based on what is said NOT what I think he mean to say.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by art_director

Whatthe****areyoutalkingabout?

Simply put,

Bennet said that if you abort black "high risk" children (ie, children born out of wedlock, children of impoverished mothers, and children who are otherwise unwanted) - then the crime rate would go down.

Liberals also claim that it's best for those same children to be aborted. They just claim it's for the well-being of the mother and society - while Bennet says it for the good of society only.

Sounds like Bennet is saying the same thing liberals are saying, but he used non-politically-correct terminology.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Simply put,

Bennet said that if you abort black "high risk" children (...) - then the crime rate would go down.

No, he only said black. Children of impoverished mothers and children who are otherwise unwanted that grow up in poverty DO have a high risk of becoming low-grade criminals. This is a fact regardless of race.

[Spliffdaddy]

I know. The liberals say the same thing - they just don't use the term "black". Statistically, 'black' and 'high-risk' are interchangeable terms. One of them is politically correct and one is not.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Well, if you aborted every baby born to low-income parents, crime would go down. It's not the color, it's the environment (urban).

Soooo... since blacks make up a large portion of the urban population, his statement may have some truth to it (even though it's in poor taste and terribly "un-PC").

Given that, wouldn't it be even more effective to abort (is William Bennett pro-abortion?) babies born to all low income parents, white or black?

[Busemann]

I know. The liberals say the same thing - they just don't use the term "black". Statistically, 'black' and 'high-risk' are interchangeable terms. One of them is politically correct and one is not.

With that logic, you might as well use the terms 'male', 'blinged out' or 'muscular'. Much more statistically interchangeable with a criminal than 'black', but just as silly. If his idea would come into fruition, then whites would eventually crowd the same areas and the crime-rates would be equally high anyways

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Busemann

No, he only said black. Children of impoverished mothers and children who are otherwise unwanted that grow up in poverty DO have a high risk of becoming low-grade criminals. This is a fact regardless of race.

And if they are black, they are 8x more likely to become criminals, and 7x more likely to become murderers. That's a fact.

Hence, if Freakonomics' theory that abotions reduce crime is true, then the extrapolation would be that one could reduce crime by aborting all black babies. That's all that Bennett stated, along with his own feelings that this would be a morally reprehensible thing to do.

Again, folks can whine and complain all they want that the term "black" was used, but the facts stand: blacks are 7x more likely to commit murders than whites, and 8x more likely to commit crimes.

A different statement, taking into account those statistics would be: "Crime could be reduced by shipping all blacks out of the nation." Not a pleasant statement to say or digest, but it's supported by decades of statistics that show the black crime rate is ridiculously higher when than the white crime rate... 700%-800% higher to be exact.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

And if they are black, they are 8x more likely to become criminals, and 7x more likely to become murderers. That's a fact.

Hence, if Freakonomics' theory that abotions reduce crime is true, then the extrapolation would be that one could reduce crime by aborting all black babies. That's all that Bennett stated, along with his own feelings that this would be a morally reprehensible thing to do.

Again, folks can whine and complain all they want that the term "black" was used, but the facts stand: blacks are 7x more likely to commit murders than whites, and 8x more likely to commit crimes.

A different statement, taking into account those statistics would be: "Crime could be reduced by shipping all blacks out of the nation." Not a pleasant statement to say or digest, but it's supported by decades of statistics that show the black crime rate is ridiculously higher when than the white crime rate... 700%-800% higher to be exact.

Yes, in regards to blacks commiting a higher percentage of crimes than whites the numbers are true. But this does not imply causality between being black and being more likely to be a criminal. Something that is statistically correlative is in NO WAY a claim to causality.

For example, if we shipped all the blacks out of the country there would still be some segment of the population commiting a large percentage of the crimes. So, if there are no black people in the country, who would make up this group? White people, of course.

If you want to look for a causative relationship between some factor and criminal activity in this country, you'd be better off looking at poverty levels. Everywhere in this country where there are large pockets of poor people, the poor commit a significantly higher percentage of crimes than those not lving in poverty. And this is true across all racial categories.

So, while being black in this country means you are more likely to commit a crime, this likelihood is NOT because you are black but because you are more likely to be poor.

[Busemann]

And then there are other types of crimes where whites are disproportionally represented, ie white collar stuff. You never hear people saying whites should be aborted because of it, because it's just a stupid thing to say.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

And if they are black, they are 8x more likely to become criminals, and 7x more likely to become murderers. That's a fact.

Yup. But why single out race? There are plenty of other "risk factors" for crime - the biggest one by far is sex. Males are much more than 8x more likely to commit crimes than females, and commit the vast, vast majority of crimes, unlike blacks, who commit less crime than whites overall.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Males are much more than 8x more likely to commit crimes than females, and commit the vast, vast majority of crimes, unlike blacks, who commit less crime than whites overall.

Per capita, no way.

As for your "males" statement, is there any way you can provide a link to some stats to back up your contention? Not that I disagree... just curious as to the actual numbers/rates.

So you think Bennett could have instead stated what - that we abort every white male? That we only abort male babies (as per his extrapolation)? I guess he could have stated that similarly, one could reduce crime by aborting all males. That's along the same lines. Doesn't matter to me.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Busemann

And then there are other types of crimes where whites are disproportionally represented, ie white collar stuff. You never hear people saying whites should be aborted because of it, because it's just a stupid thing to say.

Overall, longstanding statistics show that blacks are 7x more likley to commit crimes than whites. That encompasses ALL crimes.

It was a casual discussion with a caller, ie.. "Sure, if you want to make ridiculous statements, one could say that aborting black babies would reduce crime... but that's a ridiculous thing to say."

Sure, a similar statement could have been "Sure, if you wanted to reduce only those particular whitecollar crimes where whites outnumber blacks, one could say that aborting white babies would reduce that specific crime rate."

It doesn't matter to me either way which one he said. They're all the same to me in the context of his discussion with a caller. "If we want to be ridiculous, we could say all sorts of insane things. But they're morally wrong things to consider".

[BRussell]

The Bureau of Justice Statistics always has nice little charts.





Here's a question: Bennett says he doesn't agree with the thesis that abortion reduces crime. But then he says that aborting black babies would reduce crime. So which is it: Does he think abortion reduces crime or not? And why did he single out black abortions, especially if he doesn't believe the thesis, which didn't originally involve race anyway, but single motherhood and poverty?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

one could reduce crime by aborting all male children of poor people.

Fixed.

This issue has nothing to do with race and everything to do with poverty.
It just so happens that the majority of those in poverty in this country are black.

Now, if you wanted to say something racist you could say that "blacks can't help
themselves from being poor." Now that would be a racist statement.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

It just so happens that the majority of those in poverty in this country are black.

Actually that's not even true. The majority of those in poverty in this country are white, about 25 million. Less than 10 million blacks are in poverty (from here). The phrasing you use really affects the meaning of these things.

[teknopimp]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

"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."

Then Bennett continued with "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

The problem is that something perceived on the surface to be highly offensive--the hypothetical statement in the first paragraph--is greatly modulated by being contextualized by the declarative statement in the second paragraph. I mean, he comes out and says that his hypothetical is morally reprehensible. But no one wants to see beyond the first paragraph.

the first paragraph is all we need to see. this statement *is* about race. what was said after is a poor excuse.

[Rolling Bones]

MacNStein

spacefreak

loki74

Spliffdaddy

=Racists

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

MacNStein

spacefreak

loki74

Spliffdaddy

=Racists

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Interesting statement. And by interesting, I mean very ill-informed and quite frankly ignorant.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Interesting statement. And by interesting, I mean very ill-informed and quite frankly ignorant.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

MacNStein

spacefreak

loki74

Spliffdaddy

=Racists

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

I don't agree with any of them on much, but I think that's low and uncalled for.

[typoon]

What's interesting is that a "White Man" said it. I wonder if the same uproar and hoopla would be made about it if a so called black leader or someone like Cosby made a statement like that. Whether it be about blacks or whites.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by typoon

What's interesting is that a "White Man" said it. I wonder if the same uproar and hoopla would be made about it if a so called black leader or someone like Cosby made a statement like that. Whether it be about blacks or whites.

Or Larry Elder and The Ten Things You Can't Say in America.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Simply put,

Bennet said that if you abort black "high risk" children (ie, children born out of wedlock, children of impoverished mothers, and children who are otherwise unwanted) - then the crime rate would go down.

Liberals also claim that it's best for those same children to be aborted. They just claim it's for the well-being of the mother and society - while Bennet says it for the good of society only.

Sounds like Bennet is saying the same thing liberals are saying, but he used non-politically-correct terminology.

Liberals say it is the choice of the mother.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Here's a question: Bennett says he doesn't agree with the thesis that abortion reduces crime. But then he says that aborting black babies would reduce crime. So which is it: Does he think abortion reduces crime or not? And why did he single out black abortions...

You need to ingest the entire conversation. The caller stated that if we didn't have abortions, then Social Security could be solvent (more folks to pay into the system). Bennett responded by saying, in essence, that one could use all types of wacky theories to solve problems, and then he referred to the bestseller, Freakonomics, which proposes that the drastic drop in crime and abortions performed over the past 3 decades are linked. Bennett then extrapolated that one could say that aborting all blacks would reduce the crime rate, but that such a proposal would be morally reprehensible.. and that's why we can't start using crazy theories as a basis for solving our problems. Why blacks? The 7x more likely to commit crimes probably has something to do with it.... as in aborting the part of the population most likely to committ crimes. But again, Bennett was not proposing this as a solution, but rather demonstrating that kookie solutions are just that: kookie.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

You need to ingest the entire conversation. The caller stated that if we didn't have abortions, then Social Security could be solvent (more folks to pay into the system). Bennett responded by saying, in essence, that one could use all types of wacky theories to solve problems, and then he referred to the bestseller, Freakonomics, which proposes that the drastic drop in crime and abortions performed over the past 3 decades are linked. Bennett then extrapolated that one could say that aborting all blacks would reduce the crime rate, but that such a proposal would be morally reprehensible.. and that's why we can't start using crazy theories as a basis for solving our problems. Why blacks? The 7x more likely to commit crimes probably has something to do with it.... as in aborting the part of the population most likely to committ crimes. But again, Bennett was not proposing this as a solution, but rather demonstrating that kookie solutions are just that: kookie.

Quite a sensitive demonstration though. I would avoid topics like these to ensure limited misquotations.

But then, it is interesting that one comes up with such an example; he could have used "blue" people.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

You need to ingest the entire conversation. The caller stated that if we didn't have abortions, then Social Security could be solvent (more folks to pay into the system). Bennett responded by saying, in essence, that one could use all types of wacky theories to solve problems, and then he referred to the bestseller, Freakonomics, which proposes that the drastic drop in crime and abortions performed over the past 3 decades are linked. Bennett then extrapolated that one could say that aborting all blacks would reduce the crime rate, but that such a proposal would be morally reprehensible.. and that's why we can't start using crazy theories as a basis for solving our problems. Why blacks? The 7x more likely to commit crimes probably has something to do with it.... as in aborting the part of the population most likely to committ crimes. But again, Bennett was not proposing this as a solution, but rather demonstrating that kookie solutions are just that: kookie.

Of course he wasn't actually proposing it. But he does seem to think it would reduce crime.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. 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 impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

So does he believe it would work - in theory, of course - or doesn't he?

[GlobalNomad]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

It feels so goooooooooood to be white and well, isn't it?

Well being white its hard to make racist jokes, even about white people

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by typoon

What's interesting is that a "White Man" said it. I wonder if the same uproar and hoopla would be made about it if a so called black leader or someone like Cosby made a statement like that. Whether it be about blacks or whites.

You mean statements like those made by Farrakhan et al.?

[art_director]

I'm just rolling as I read this thread. There are some real characters here and the Repulsivicans defending / attempting to support Bennett are sounding like school children.

Let's go back to the first two posts in the thread:

In post 1 I bashed Bennett for saying something extremely stupid. It has nothing to do with facts, figures or politics. It was simply a foolish thing to say. Even the White House has called his remarks 'innappropriate.'

In post 2 I went on to bash Nancy Pelosi, a Dipshitocrat, for her remarks. She deserves to be bashed for most everything that comes out of her mouth. She's a pimple on the a$$ of the Dem party.

So, in the end I was bashing big mouths from both parties. For some reason the Repulsivicans here cannot see past their infantile rants in support of Bennett.

God this has me in stitches and explains volumes about the tone, tenor and general understanding, or lack thereof, in this political forum. Keep up the laughs, children.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by art_director

Bennet's stance on abortion, crime or the lottery has nothing to do with the fact that his comments were offensive. It was an inappropriate thing to say, period. Apparently your beloved Bush administration agrees:

"The White House called the comments, made by William J. Bennett, the former Republican secretary of education, off base. The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said that President George W. Bush "believes the comments were not appropriate."

"My Beloved Bush Administration"??? What the heck are you talking about? Just because I don't like vitriolic and dishonest bashing of my Commander in Chief does not make me some reprehensible repulsivican or whatever it is you think of me, nor does it make his administration "beloved". Please stop.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/po...yt&emc=rss

Many of those who oppose abortion harken back to the original intentions of those whoe tried to get it legalized. Crime reduction was one of thier arguments. Bennett was pointing out the absurdity of this by using an extreme example. Crime is often figured as per capita or percentage of population. When one makes the statistically accurate statement that blacks make up a majority of crime in the US, they are stating that a higher percentage of blacks are engaged in criminal conduct. Now, there are many more white people in this country so it should surprise no one to see that a majority of everything is "white" in raw numbers. To determine the state of an issue or crisis, the reall issue at hand is percentage of population. So, consistent with what Bennett has deemed an attempt at genocide of the minority and who has been most vocal within the communities affected, gets chastized for making an accurate statement. Yes, it would reduce crime, but is death the way to do this? He posits no. The White House and notably the Republican influence of it are reaching out to the minority and of course would be expected to refute statements made that the populous deems inappropriate. Unfortunately, the populous is wrong on this issue, wrong about the context of the call, and wrong on Bennett.

Hmmm...I point out that a Repulsivican says something stupid and you ask what I'm doing to help conditions among minorities? What color is the sky in your world, ebuddy?

I'm pointing out the hypocracy of this "eyes moving to and fro looking for an offensive statement made by a Republican". Having lived in predominantly black neighborhoods as well as neighborhoods deemed as "poverty level" I understand the nature of poor socio-economic conditions. Abortion is a real problem in that culture, a culture that shows a significantly higher proportion of poverty and crime among minorities. The sky is blue for them also. You'd have to get outside your gated community to know it.

Bennett has a right to speak about such things. He's a warrior who is often found in the very communities in which you wouldn't sit in your unlocked vehicle. He's been an activist for reducing genocide among the minority through abortion. He's been vocal about it for years and is acknowledged by many in the minority community as a fighter for their cause. He makes one statement you find objectionable, all of a sudden you know who he is and what he's talking about.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

"My Beloved Bush Administration"??? What the heck are you talking about? Just because I don't like vitriolic and dishonest bashing of my Commander in Chief does not make me some reprehensible repulsivican or whatever it is you think of me, nor does it make his administration "beloved". Please stop.

Your defense of Bush, even when he messes up, is not rational and it puts you in the minority of Americans. By that observation I must insist that his is your beloved administration.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Many of those who oppose abortion harken back to the original intentions of those whoe tried to get it legalized. Crime reduction was one of thier arguments. Bennett was pointing out the absurdity of this by using an extreme example. Crime is often figured as per capita or percentage of population. When one makes the statistically accurate statement that blacks make up a majority of crime in the US, they are stating that a higher percentage of blacks are engaged in criminal conduct. Now, there are many more white people in this country so it should surprise no one to see that a majority of everything is "white" in raw numbers. To determine the state of an issue or crisis, the reall issue at hand is percentage of population. So, consistent with what Bennett has deemed an attempt at genocide of the minority and who has been most vocal within the communities affected, gets chastized for making an accurate statement. Yes, it would reduce crime, but is death the way to do this? He posits no. The White House and notably the Republican influence of it are reaching out to the minority and of course would be expected to refute statements made that the populous deems inappropriate. Unfortunately, the populous is wrong on this issue, wrong about the context of the call, and wrong on Bennett.

His comments, whether statstically accurate or not, were racist. That's what you call it when someone suggests the elimination of a race. Well, that or Nazi. Which label would you like applied to yourself from this day forward – I offer you the choice.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Bennett has a right to speak about such things.

Yes, unfortunately he does. And I have the right to point out that he's racist. And the White House has the right to call his remarks 'inappropriate,' which they are.

Let me add that I'm warmed by the fact that the Bushies called him on it. They've proven rather adept at defending some who should not be defended in the past. Maybe George is learning, though I doubt it.

[smacintush]

This is a lot of discussion over…William Bennet? Who the f*ck cares what he thinks or says? I know I don't. Nothing he says is in anyway representative (good or bad) of Republicans or Conservatives (if it was then I could claim that Robert "sheets" Byrd speaks for the Dems too), so why even make an issue of it?

Plus his audience must be tiny, I am a talk radio junkie and I didn't even realize he had a show.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by smacintush

This is a lot of discussion over…William Bennet? Who the f*ck cares what he thinks or says? I know I don't. Nothing he says is in anyway representative (good or bad) of Republicans or Conservatives (if it was then I could claim that Robert "sheets" Byrd speaks for the Dems too), so why even make an issue of it?

Plus his audience must be tiny, I am a talk radio junkie and I didn't even realize he had a show.

Funny, isn't it? I post about what a stupid thing it was to say, nothing more. Then I point out that Nancy Pelosi is a windbag of a Dem. That's when the Reps came out of the woodwork to argue about Bennett's foolish remarks. I love it. Fools.