Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_re_us/bennett_race

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.

Bennett, on his radio show, “Morning in America,” was answering a caller’s question when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.

“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.”

He went on to call that “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.”

Responding later to criticism, Bennett said his comments had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was “morally reprehensible.”

Bennett was education secretary under President Reagan and director of drug control policy when Bush’s father was president.

WASP abortions would lower the racism rate.

> genocide @
You have been killed.

RIP
BENNETT
Human Politician
Killed by scroll of genocide

What’s funny is that all the radio dittoheads have spent the entire day defending Bennet, like it were their sworn duty or something.

all of these stupid racism faux pauxs would go away if people would just learn to stop saying “black people” when they really mean “poor people”.

He didn’t mean poor people.

I wonder, was the book they were talking about Freakonomics by any chance?

Ex-fucking-actly.

What this jackass was trying to say was that since black men disproportionally cause crime, then killing all of them would lower the crime rate. This is a true statement. Killing all white men would also lower the crime rate, to a lesser degree. In fact, wiping out any group that ever commits a crime will lower the crime rate. This is a good case of too little knowledge being a bad thing.

He’s taking this from Freakonomics. If he had read a bit further, he would see that while being black is corrolated with crime, it is not the cause. The causation is poverty or being raised in poverty. Blacks are disproportionately impoverished, thus they overcommit crimes. He could have then made a much more appealing statement like “if we wiped out poverty, the crime rate would plummet, because impoverished people disproportionately commit crimes.” But then the talking heads wouldn’t understand what he had said, so he went for Big Whitey.

H.

Not quite. Wiping out any group that commits crime at greater than the rate outside the group will lower the crime rate. Such groups presumably include black men, poor men, all men with divorced parents, all men who don’t drive hybrid vehicles, anyone who’s never ridden a Segway, anyone who’s never been to France, all men, etc.

Isn’t quoting people out of context fun?

Not quite. Wiping out any group that commits crime at greater than the rate outside the group will lower the crime rate. Such groups presumably include black men, poor men, all men with divorced parents, all men who don’t drive hybrid vehicles, anyone who’s never ridden a Segway, anyone who’s never been to France, all men, etc.[/quote]

Let’s be serious, we all know what kind of people Segway owners are. While I will admit that none of them have criminal records as of yet, you must admit that it is only a matter time until they are brought to justice, and their foul misdeeds laid bare for all to see.

Milo, what hair are you trying to split? I acknowledge that I was speaking of total crimes, which is different than the rate, but honestly, was there something I said that was offensive? The main point remains that what Bennett said, while factually true, was not the whole story.

H.

I was attempting to be ironic. Apparently I failed.

That does not seem like a correct statement. I mean how the heck would he have established that poverty was the causation? I think it is more likely that povery has a higher correlation coefficient than race.

Who thinks Bennett fell on his sword here intentionally to provoke a hysterical response and distract attention from Delay/Katrina/Frist/Iraq/Abramoffgate?

[quote=“Huzurdaddi”]

That does not seem like a correct statement. I mean how the heck would he have established that poverty was the causation? I think it is more likely that povery has a higher correlation coefficient than race.[/quote]

Hmmm. Good point, I evidently can’t get it together in this thread. It may be more accurate to say that poverty had a much higher correlation than race, but when does correlation become causation? 100%?

Anyway, point stands: it’s the poverty, stupid.

H.

Republicans are capable of selfless deeds? Careful with that slippery slope, friend; soon you’ll be suggesting that not all of them are crooks and liars.

Seriously, he’s going to try to take the heat off other prominent conservatives by adding to the recent dogpile of conservative fuckupery? Bill fucking Bennett? He’s more about the movement than any particular person in the republican party, with the notable exception of himself. No way does take one for the team here, he just got caught being honest at a bad time.

Good christ…

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.

My emp.

ZOMG, he really did say “black baby” on the air! Burn him!

CYA does not equal OK.

There’s more important things to be outraged about, people.