The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Bill Bennett is an idiot with a mouth big enough to hold both feet (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=9262)

BigV 09-30-2005 02:18 PM

Bill Bennett is an idiot with a mouth big enough to hold both feet
 
Bill Bennett very candidly reveals some reprehensible ideas. Even if he spoke in the ridiculous extreme, "If all people were dead, there would be no crime" the most generous characterization of his remarks would be "stupid", with apologies to all the stupid people out there. Here is the most context-full report of this story I could find. I don't want to hear whining dressed as spin parading as excuse that sounds like "but you're taking it out of context". Just shut up. From here.
Quote:

Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"

Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such "far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."

Bennett's remark was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But Levitt and Dubner argued that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett's race-based argument.

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

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.
Mother Fucker.

Elspode 09-30-2005 02:22 PM

Bill's a dumbshit alright, but mostly because he used a really stupid example to make a point. He revealed his underlying prejudices, or so many people think.

Example #197854 of why I would never be a politician...or a talk radio host.

Trilby 09-30-2005 02:23 PM

agrees with Els.

bigV and I will never hook up. Sad sigh.

BigV 09-30-2005 04:04 PM

GWB says the comment was "inappropriate". Bennett says critics are taking him out of context.

This is all so instructive.

dar512 09-30-2005 04:17 PM

I assume this is William J. Bennet we're talking about?

Too bad it turns out he's a twit. I liked his "Children's Book of Virtues'. We read it with our kids when they were younger. :(

wolf 10-01-2005 01:16 AM

Everybody says something egregiously stupid at some point in their lives. Usually more than once.

He, unfortunately, happened to say it on the radio.

tw 10-01-2005 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512
I assume this is William J. Bennet we're talking about?

Bill Bennet the drug Czar? Same guy who failed to stop the 'gateway drug' - coffee?

Urbane Guerrilla 10-01-2005 02:17 AM

Quote:

'gateway drug' - coffee?
News to me. And, I suspect, to most people who aren't tw.

Urbane Guerrilla 10-01-2005 02:25 AM

Well, BigV, those who are fairminded know the context of the remark and that Bill Bennet thinks this is reprehensible with a capital R. Those who do not believe in being fair to Republicans will continue to demand an apology for mentioning it, and rave, and posture, and carry on, and generally disgrace themselves. Instead of an apology, they should be issued a collective invitation to assemble, pantsless, on the National Mall before the Smithsonian or maybe the National Museum of Art, to pound hot sand up each other's... ratholes. The unfair ones merit nothing but contempt, both lofty and gut-cutting.

Tonchi 10-01-2005 02:40 AM

Why is abortion so much more offensive to these politicos than killing those babies after they reach 18 and can be sent to Iraq, or wherever else we are "liberating" at the moment?

I'm waiting for some (insert ethnic designation here) to announce the only reasoning behind the rabid no-abortions-for-any reason policies of this administration is their fear of not being able to maintain enough cannon fodder in the pipeline. I mean, it follows the same twisted logic as Mr. Bennet's formula for crime prevention, so why hasn't some rabble-rouser reached this conclusion yet? Item: The last dictator of Romania actually FORCED his people to have children by forbidding any form of contraception, including abortion, because the decline in population had the government alarmed. It worked, but it led to 50% of these children born to unwilling women to be "stillborn", abandoned to die, or dumped at the dismal and understaffed state orphanages. Later they decided to forbid adoptions outside Romania also, because it was bad publicity for the regime that so many people from Western nations were coming there and grabbing up these children which nobody in Romania wanted. So much for the politics of regulating births.

elSicomoro 10-01-2005 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Those who do not believe in being fair to Republicans

I don't believe in being fair to Democrats or Republicans. They've had enough chances to get it right.

bluecuracao 10-01-2005 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Well, BigV, those who are fairminded know the context of the remark and that Bill Bennet thinks this is reprehensible with a capital R. Those who do not believe in being fair to Republicans will continue to demand an apology for mentioning it, and rave, and posture, and carry on, and generally disgrace themselves. Instead of an apology, they should be issued a collective invitation to assemble, pantsless, on the National Mall before the Smithsonian or maybe the National Museum of Art, to pound hot sand up each other's... ratholes. The unfair ones merit nothing but contempt, both lofty and gut-cutting.

For someone to even think to "use the example" that Bill Bennett did is too revealing of his true opinions. And he just tried to cover his ass by saying it would be reprehensible.

Unfortunately, there's been too many Republicans who have made public remarks ranging from insensitive to outright racist. So when the GOP asks the public to be "fair" when it happens AGAIN, they think, "what would be the point?"

Griff 10-01-2005 03:55 PM

[notpc]Of course, back in the day, this was the reasoning behind legalizing abortion in the first place. The Margret Sangers of the world didn't want the underclass reproducing.[/notpc] Just thought I'd throw that in there among the righteous indignation. It is a reprehensible idea, but it is the left's reprehensible idea.

Tonchi 10-01-2005 05:44 PM

[JimmytheGreek]But....but, then where would all our basketball players come from???[/endGreek] DOH!

Urbane Guerrilla 10-03-2005 11:08 AM

Blue, I'm in the habit of being fair to Republicans. He put this out as a reprehensible, bad idea, and that's the only fair way to read it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.