NationStates Jolt Archive

have y'all followed any of this?

bill bennett, former secretary of education, engaged in rather unfortunate hyperbole on his radio show yesterday.

a caller called in suggesting that if abortion had been illegal all this time the extra population would have taken care of our social security crisis. bennett responded that that was a stupid way to look at it and if you looked at it another way then abortiing all black babies would lower the crime rate.

WASHINGTON Sep 30, 2005 — 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.


i was listening to rush limbaugh on the radio this morning and he was about having a stroke while listening to his ultra conservative audience call bennets remark utterly indefensible.

think bennett should lose his radio job over this?

Well, he's correct. The crime rate would drop substantially if all black babies were aborted. It would also drop substantially if all white babies were aborted. Abort all babies! :rolleyes:

Excuse me while I go puke. :mad:

I find it completely great. He shouldn't lose his job at all. Hell, we need to promote him.

Everyone forgot the context.

Black children are disproportionately prone to grow up and commit crimes. Chalk this up to poverty or anything else you want, but it's a fact.

His point was that just because abortions may possibly reduce crime, as posited by the author of Freakonomics, it's a more complicated issue than that. He uses the example of aborting every black baby to show that, for example, a lower crime rate is not a desirable end if genocide of black children is the means to achieve this, as it's completely dispiciable. There's nothing racist about this, and Bill Bennett is a known Pro-lifer, so he certainly wasn't advocating the abortion of every black baby.

He seems fairly ok to me.

He's answering and ridiculing one mildly silly suggestion by coming up with a ridiculous suggestion, and he knows that. He knows it isn't true. He's just using it as an example of "If we aborted X then X would happen", to show the fallacy.

Seems fine to me.

I find it completely great. He shouldn't lose his job at all. Hell, we need to promote him.

Everyone forgot the context.

Black children are disproportionately prone to grow up and commit crimes. Chalk this up to poverty or anything else you want, but it's a fact.

His point was that just because abortions may possibly reduce crime, as posited by the author of Freakonomics, it's a more complicated issue than that. He uses the example of aborting every black baby to show that, for example, a lower crime rate is not a desirable end if genocide of black children is the means to achieve this, as it's completely dispiciable. There's nothing racist about this, and Bill Bennett is a known Pro-lifer, so he certainly wasn't advocating the abortion of every black baby.
As much as I hate to admit it this guy has a bit of point, at least in regards to the context.

I find it completely great. He shouldn't lose his job at all. Hell, we need to promote him.

Everyone forgot the context.

Black children are disproportionately prone to grow up and commit crimes. Chalk this up to poverty or anything else you want, but it's a fact.

His point was that just because abortions may possibly reduce crime, as posited by the author of Freakonomics, it's a more complicated issue than that. He uses the example of aborting every black baby to show that, for example, a lower crime rate is not a desirable end if genocide of black children is the means to achieve this, as it's completely dispiciable. There's nothing racist about this, and Bill Bennett is a known Pro-lifer, so he certainly wasn't advocating the abortion of every black baby.
i didnt forget the context. thats why i used a quote. he made it sound as if the only real drawback to the idea was the immorality of abortion. after all he could have said "the rate of diabetes would drop" since black people have a hire rate for diabetes and an illness doesnt represent a moral failing. but NOOOO he had to suggest that black people are criminals. bad bad bad.

It's just as valid as what that dickhead Bennet said.

And it rings with greater truth in any event.

Said like a true Nazi. :eek:

Said like a true Nazi. :eek:
Who? Me?

I find it completely great. He shouldn't lose his job at all. Hell, we need to promote him.

Everyone forgot the context.

Black children are disproportionately prone to grow up and commit crimes. Chalk this up to poverty or anything else you want, but it's a fact.

His point was that just because abortions may possibly reduce crime, as posited by the author of Freakonomics, it's a more complicated issue than that. He uses the example of aborting every black baby to show that, for example, a lower crime rate is not a desirable end if genocide of black children is the means to achieve this, as it's completely dispiciable. There's nothing racist about this, and Bill Bennett is a known Pro-lifer, so he certainly wasn't advocating the abortion of every black baby.
It was entirely indefensible. It singled out only black babies -as if the only criminals being born are black. He may not have meant that but that is the way it comes accross. He should be fired from any and all positions he holds. Crass and stupid coment to make! A lower crime rate is desirable....who in the right mind wants a high one :rolleyes:

i didnt forget the context. thats why i used a quote. he made it sound as if the only real drawback to the idea was the immorality of abortion. after all he could have said "the rate of diabetes would drop" since black people have a hire rate for diabetes and an illness doesnt represent a moral failing. but NOOOO he had to suggest that black people are criminals. bad bad bad.

As a black male, I have to remind everyone that black males commit crimes disproportionately in the USA. He did not say that all black people are criminals.

But as a black male, I can tell you that there are plenty of areas I am scared to enter in greater Los Angeles, where I would not stand out because of my color. But as a stranger, I would be a target.

And the only people who have commited crimes against me have been black. Sad but true. :(

As much as I hate to admit it this guy has a bit of point, at least in regards to the context.
I love racist comments like this shit! :mad: Crime comes in all facets of society its just the white collar criminals are treated with kid gloves and get special treatment while the blue collar (poorer) criminals get the stiffer sentences. I dont think it is a black or white issue rather a class issue and nobody should be killed because they arent in the other section. If this thread keeps bringing in intelligent views such as this I hope it gets locked.

This was simply an argument to absurdity. Taking something to its absurd conclusion.

Why can't people understand this? I guess it is as hard as reading sarcasm in our posts... :(

I love racist comments like this shit! :mad: Crime comes in all facets of society its just the white collar criminals are treated with kid gloves and get special treatment while the blue collar (poorer) criminals get the stiffer sentences. I dont think it is a black or white issue rather a class issue and nobody should be killed because they arent in the other section. If this thread keeps bringing in intelligent views such as this I hope it gets locked.
You no I really don't know what to say to that except that when i pointed to context, I was intentionally trying to avoid having what I was saying twisted into a claim that more blacks are criminals, that might be statisticaly true it might not I don't know. I was just pointing out that what the poster I was quteing was sayingabout how the man wasn't calling for it but using it as an extream case to point out the absurdity of saying that the fact that abortion led to reduced crime made it a good thing.

It was a stupid thing to say. But he's a talk show host, not a current official. And his listeners probably don't have a problem with it.

Heard him on Sean Hannity on the radio today, and Hannity's listeners think it was OK.

But it is true that violent crime would drop if "they" (pick your ethnic or racial group) were eliminated by some means.

In the case of "blacks" (legal definition unknown), the Department of Justice Crime Statistics collected information on firearms and crime from 1993 to 2001. They also collected data on crime and race.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

Interestingly, they note the following. Just remember that blacks comprise only 12 percent of the population:

1. Blacks were 6 times more likely than whites to be murdered in 2002.
2. Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002.
3. From 1976 to 2002 --
* 86% of white victims were killed by whites
* 94% of black victims were killed by blacks
* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics
(6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per
1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3
years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.


And all of this at the same time when:
* From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

It would seem logically apparent that the group that only represents 12 percent of the general population is responsible, roughly, for 40 to 50 percent of the murder (still a crime in the US) in the US. And not only that, they are the primary victims as well. Because it says (above) that 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks.

While you might reduce the total number of murders, the victims saved come from the same group. So for all of you racists out there who think it will save the lives of your particular group, the majority of lives saved would be black ones.

People should be thinking of trying to find out (and fix) the reason that blacks are killing blacks at such a high rate. If you found something rational that worked, I'm sure that blacks would be happy to not be killing each other. And everyone else would benefit in other ways.

Who? Me?Na I think he meant bill bennett.

This was simply an argument to absurdity. Taking something to its absurd conclusion.

Why can't people understand this? I guess it is as hard as reading sarcasm in our posts... :(
This is pretty much what I said, but I have, as usual on this forum, been ignored.

Bill Bennett was using reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum), and while he reveals a degree of racism in how he presented it, his actual point stands.

He was saying that the reduction of the crime rate is not a legitimate excuse for abortion, and illustrated this with an example.

And he is quite right. If abortion is indeed murder, then how can one legitimately assert that because it prevents violent crime it is somehow a good thing?

This is pretty much what I said, but I have, as usual on this forum, been ignored.
And what I was trying to say I guess I did a bad job cause it just got me called a raceist :rolleyes: Not that I don't think it was a poor choice and that the man is an idiot for thinking saying something like this wouldn't piss people of.

Na I think he meant bill bennett.
Ah, good. I got confused. I get confused easily at times.

And what I was trying to say I guess I did a bad job cause it just got me called a raceist :rolleyes: Not that I don't think it was a poor choice and that the man is an idiot for thinking saying something like this wouldn't piss people of.
I guess I'm just not controversial enough. Maybe I need to add "OMG the Gays are EVIL" or "Jesus was a knobjockey" to the end of every post, depending on the context.

It was a stupid thing to say. But he's a talk show host, not a current official. And his listeners probably don't have a problem with it.

Heard him on Sean Hannity on the radio today, and Hannity's listeners think it was OK.
That is because Hannity's show is based on him being a hardcore rightwing douche so the only people that would consider listing to him are hardcore rightwingers, or if there is a recording of some one talking him down.

Wow. Speaking as non-aborted black person who J-walked this morning, I'd say the guy's right. If only we aborted Asian babies to, I think the Chinese guy accross the street's growing pot.

Bennet was referring to a recent book called "Freakanomics" which postulated the theory that crime rates dropped in the mid 1990's because the decision in Roe v. Wade in the early 70's legalised abortion and statistically crimes are committed by 18-25 year olds in the lower socio-economic stratus and statistically, people in that class have more abortions. Once those people could have abortions, the number of children statistically likely to grow up in poverty and hence statistically more likely to become criminals were never born - i.e. due to legalized abortion, in the mid 1990's there were fewer 18-25 year olds around and hence fewer crimes were committed.

It is morally reprehensible to suggest that people should have abortions to keep the crime rate down. It is merely an acknowledgement of a theory to suggest that IF they had abortions the crime rate would go down. I don't fault Bennet for his comments in the least. He clearly stated the idea of "requiring" abortions to reduce the crime rate was "morally reprehensible." While acknowledging the idea put forth in Freakanomics that it had.

He is right that if we aborted every black baby the crime rate would go down. It would also go down if we aborted every white baby, or asian, or hispanic, etc. Pick a race, any race, the effect would be the same.

This is pretty much what I said, but I have, as usual on this forum, been ignored.
I understood what he was saying. I'm not saying he was morally wrong in saying it, which is what a lot of people are saying. I'm saying he was stupid to say it, because most people will fly off the handle before digesting what he meant.

Pick a race, any race, the effect would be the same.

That was my point earlier - the real problem being that it would drop it more significantly per person with blacks. And the real beneficiaries would be blacks - because 94 percent of crime against blacks is done by blacks.

Contradicts any racist reason for eliminating them.

I understood what he was saying. I'm not saying he was morally wrong in saying it, which is what a lot of people are saying. I'm saying he was stupid to say it, because most people will fly off the handle before digesting what he meant.

The ones that fly off the handle like that are the stupid ones IMHO.

The ones that fly off the handle like that are the stupid ones IMHO.
Hmm. Does being a regular tend to make one better at waiting to see what someone really means before flying off the handle?

Or does it just raise the chances a bit?

Hmm. Does being a regular tend to make one better at waiting to see what someone really means before flying off the handle?

Or does it just raise the chances a bit?
That's the $64.00 question. :)

WTF! Black people are the cause of crime? That's rascism! (I didn't read the entire first post, so don't yell at me if I'm wrong)

WTF! Black people are the cause of crime? That's rascism! (I didn't read the entire first post, so don't yell at me if I'm wrong)

OK, no yelling, ::: in calm voice ::: please read the first post in its entirety and think a minute or two about what he said, you'll see that you are wrong.

Heh. I think everyone that's outraged isn't looking at the context that it's in. I see nothing wrong with what he said... It's technically true, and he's not suggesting that it'd be a good idea. Quite the opposite, in fact.

At first I thought he should be whipped for saying that but after taking a minute to think about it and reading the facts - he's right. I don't like the fact that he said it but he's right nonetheless.

EDIT: Of course though, it's not a good idea.

Actually, that wouldn't really be right. All it would do is shift crime rates to a different segment of the population. For example, with the reduction in total population of blacks, the ratio of crime in their area would probably go down, but at the same time, the slack would be taken up by Whites, Hispanics, Asians and what have you as they move into the areas formerly occupied by them. It's a simple matter of time. If every single member of a single demographic were to go *poof*, it would be filled by another soon enough.

Ergo: Nothing would change.

He makes a more or less valid point. By killing an entire segment of the population, the crime rate would go down regardless of the race involved. If anything, he was criticizing the ridiculous argument that abortion is beneficial because it kills off people who otherwise would be burdening the system and in my book that idea's a hell of a lot more controversial than what he said.

They're overreacting because he said "black" baby, as opposed to any other race. If he loses his job, it's going to be a very dark day for freedom of expression, to say the least.

I find it completely great. He shouldn't lose his job at all. Hell, we need to promote him.

Everyone forgot the context.

Black children are disproportionately prone to grow up and commit crimes. Chalk this up to poverty or anything else you want, but it's a fact.

His point was that just because abortions may possibly reduce crime, as posited by the author of Freakonomics, it's a more complicated issue than that. He uses the example of aborting every black baby to show that, for example, a lower crime rate is not a desirable end if genocide of black children is the means to achieve this, as it's completely dispiciable. There's nothing racist about this, and Bill Bennett is a known Pro-lifer, so he certainly wasn't advocating the abortion of every black baby.

Heh. I think everyone that's outraged isn't looking at the context that it's in. I see nothing wrong with what he said... It's technically true, and he's not suggesting that it'd be a good idea. Quite the opposite, in fact.


Even in context, his statement was still grotesque. Out of context he was promoting genocide as a form of crime reduction. In context he was blaming crime on a single race.

But it's worse than just that. In addition to being blatantly racist on a few different levels, it was also intellectually dishonest. He was responding to a thesis in the book Freakonomics which said that the decrease in crime is attributable to the legalization of abortion. This evidence supports the legalization of abortion because it shows that there are benifits to society if you give people responsibility for their own family planning. Bennet went on to equate this proposal with the idea that it would be even better, by that same criteria, to commit genocide, in the hopes of conveying the message that if you think the information in Freakonomics is evidence in favor of a pro-choice position, then it is inconsistent to think that it doesn't also promote a pro-genocide position. Thus he equates greater civil liberties with genocide.

It's rather like how such rightists say that a minimum wage is a bad idea because if a minimum wage of a hundred dollars an hour is a dumb idea, then a minimum wage of 10 dollars must also be a bad idea, only one tenth as dumb. It isn't even a reductio ad absurdum argument, because it is essentially making up a new absurd argument and hoping that the listener won't notice that the absurd doesn't really follow from the plausible. It's like saying that 32 degrees farenheit is too hot for human life because 212 degrees would boil a person. Therefore, 32 degree weather will also boil a person, only at 1/6 the rate.

This shows how this author of "The Book of Virtues" (quotes denote both quotation of book title and my intention that the phrase be taken in irony) is completly morally bankrupt and has no idea what real morality is. Much like the entire religious right.

He makes a more or less valid point. By killing an entire segment of the population, the crime rate would go down regardless of the race involved. If anything, he was criticizing the ridiculous argument that abortion is beneficial because it kills off people who otherwise would be burdening the system and in my book that idea's a hell of a lot more controversial than what he said.

They're overreacting because he said "black" baby, as opposed to any other race. If he loses his job, it's going to be a very dark day for freedom of expression, to say the least.

If he looses his job it will be because the radio netowork that carries him fears a boycott. That's not just a freedom of speech issue, it's also a free enterprise issue. If he owned his own station, that would be a different story.

He doesn't make a valid point. His statement is statisticly sound, that's not the same as a valid point. I'd go on, but I think I addressed the lack of validity there in my previous post.

It was a stupid thing to say. But he's a talk show host, not a current official. And his listeners probably don't have a problem with it.

He's not a current official, but he was a public official. One ought to take a look at the politicians who associated themselves with him. The saying "one bad apple spoils the bunch" may have a flawed sense of causality, but it's wisdom is sound. When the rot and corruption becomes obvious in one then other examples of the same are bound to turn up with the same problems.

If the secretary of defense under Clinton suddenly made pro-terrorist statements on a TV show I certainly wouldn't expect any Democrats to say "he's not a public official, he's just a TV personality. I don't agree with what he said, but it isn't really relavent to Government policy, he's allowed to say whatever he wants as an American citizen." Yes he's allowed to say whatever he wants, but why was he in government if he's so screwed up?

Not all blacks cause crimes. However, blacks do cause the most crimes compared to all other ethnic groups, but that's no reason to be racist.

Wow what a douchebag.

His point was that just because abortions may possibly reduce crime, as posited by the author of Freakonomics, it's a more complicated issue than that. He uses the example of aborting every black baby to show that, for example, a lower crime rate is not a desirable end if genocide of black children is the means to achieve this, as it's completely dispiciable. There's nothing racist about this, and Bill Bennett is a known Pro-lifer, so he certainly wasn't advocating the abortion of every black baby.
It's not more complicated, all the author says is that that is the principal reason for the drop in crime. He doesn't really endorse it, he just notes that it is by far the most probable cause for the crime rate drop.

He's not a current official, but he was a public official. One ought to take a look at the politicians who associated themselves with him. The saying "one bad apple spoils the bunch" may have a flawed sense of causality, but it's wisdom is sound. When the rot and corruption becomes obvious in one then other examples of the same are bound to turn up with the same problems.

If the secretary of defense under Clinton suddenly made pro-terrorist statements on a TV show I certainly wouldn't expect any Democrats to say "he's not a public official, he's just a TV personality. I don't agree with what he said, but it isn't really relavent to Government policy, he's allowed to say whatever he wants as an American citizen." Yes he's allowed to say whatever he wants, but why was he in government if he's so screwed up?

Well, that's like saying that because Sandy Berger was stealing classified material, and stuffed it in his pants to steal it and take it home and destroy it, that we should somehow associate that behavior with the Clinton Administration - and then regard everything they did as somehow jeopardizing our national security.

It doesn't wash. Sandy Berger was a trusted advisor of Clinton, yes. But just because Sandy Berger is a thieving ass-covering classified material stealer and destroyer doesn't mean that everyone in the Clinton Administration was the same.

And if you read his whole statement, you would realize that Bennett wasn't being racist.

Perhaps he read Freakonomics. I only read a few chapters myself, but it is brilliant in its quirky analysis of everything. Anyhow, in the intro, it suggests that the crime drop in the late 1990s was due to a spike in abortions in the late 70s and early 80s. It stated that low-income women were less likely to use birth control, and more likely to get pregnant. By aborting those babies, they wiped out many potential ruffians and criminals that emerge from this socioeconomic situation. I'm staunchly pro life myself, but in the face of overwhelming evidence, I concede that they are correct.
Perhaps Bennett, like so many others, assumed that most in poverty were black, forgetting that there are twice as many poor whites as poor blacks. Blacks are just more visible because of America's obsession with race, racsism, and "multiculturalism", another form of rascism.

have y'all followed any of this?

bill bennett, former secretary of education, engaged in rather unfortunate hyperbole on his radio show yesterday.

a caller called in suggesting that if abortion had been illegal all this time the extra population would have taken care of our social security crisis. bennett responded that that was a stupid way to look at it and if you looked at it another way then abortiing all black babies would lower the crime rate.

i was listening to rush limbaugh on the radio this morning and he was about having a stroke while listening to his ultra conservative audience call bennets remark utterly indefensible.

think bennett should lose his radio job over this?
Funny the way conservatives embrace political correctness when they don't agree with the truth.

Funny the way conservatives embrace political correctness when they don't agree with the truth.

What truth?

What truth?
That the crime rate would drop if all black babies were aborted.

That the crime rate would drop if all black babies were aborted.

At best, that is unsupported speculation, at the worst, it is kinda racist and douchey. In any case, it is hardly a "truth".

There is no reason to suppose that aborting black babies will have any effect upon the crime rate: infants not usually being perpetrators of felonies.

And any claims about twenty years from now are both speculative, and untestable.

Well, he's correct. The crime rate would drop substantially if all black babies were aborted. It would also drop substantially if all white babies were aborted. Abort all babies! :rolleyes:
hahjahahahahah

I wonder what the crime rates were in the Warsaw ghetto.

I wonder if Himmler cited that as evidence that Jews were responsible for crime, corruption, and revolt. (I wonder (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/himmord.html))



C'mon people think. It's the slums that are the problem, not just the people living in them. And by logical consequence genocide will raise America's crime rate, not reduce it. You're forgetting that genocide is a crime.

Well, that's like saying that because Sandy Berger was stealing classified material, and stuffed it in his pants to steal it and take it home and destroy it, that we should somehow associate that behavior with the Clinton Administration - and then regard everything they did as somehow jeopardizing our national security.

It doesn't wash. Sandy Berger was a trusted advisor of Clinton, yes. But just because Sandy Berger is a thieving ass-covering classified material stealer and destroyer doesn't mean that everyone in the Clinton Administration was the same.

And if you read his whole statement, you would realize that Bennett wasn't being racist.

I did hear what he said, and it was racist. He wasn't advocating the blatantly racist proposal "abort all black babies." The rasicm that he evidenced was more implicit than that. To claim that his satement was not racist because it could be interpreted one way when he meant it another is like Pat Robertson saying that he never called for Chavez's assassination because he actually said "take him out." Yes, he said "take him out," but he also said assassinate. Bennet's statement was loathsome, intellectually dishonest, and implicitly racist, not because he advocated the aborting of all black babies, but because he was advocating stripping families of the right to make their own choices and appealed to the idea that blacks are inherently more prone to criminal behavior.

If we did wipe out a generation of blacks their position on the social ladder would simply be taken by poor whites and other minorities. The crime rate would stay the same, simply the demographics of it would change.

The Freakonomics thesis was valid because the families most likely to choose to abort their fetuses were the ones most likely to be unable to support them. Those families, be they black, white, or anything else, are the most likely to produce children that turn to blue-collar crime because they don't have the options that more well off people do. On the other hand, truly devestating crimes, like the Enron scandal, would not be affected in the least by such a policy. Not even by a demographic shift.

Heh. I think everyone that's outraged isn't looking at the context that it's in. I see nothing wrong with what he said... It's technically true, and he's not suggesting that it'd be a good idea. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Again, the overt racism that is appearant is in fact not overtly racist, merely in really really really bad taste. It is still implicitly racist because it would only be true if blacks were inherently more crime prone rather than in the socio-economic position that makes their population more likely to produce criminals who are unable to escape prosecution.

He makes a more or less valid point. By killing an entire segment of the population, the crime rate would go down regardless of the race involved. If anything, he was criticizing the ridiculous argument that abortion is beneficial because it kills off people who otherwise would be burdening the system and in my book that idea's a hell of a lot more controversial than what he said.

They're overreacting because he said "black" baby, as opposed to any other race. If he loses his job, it's going to be a very dark day for freedom of expression, to say the least.

But he was equating the thesis in Freakonomics to the idea of forced abortions. The statistic in Freakonomics says more about letting people make their own family planning decisions rather than forcing them to make bad ones that you feel more comfortable with.

To summarize.
Forced abortions = Bad.
Forced deliveries = Bad.
Letting people make up their own fucking minds = Good.
Bill Bennet = Vile hypocritical douchebag.

Bill Bennet is a sorry excuse for a human being.

He exhibited awful, awful judgement because his comments could easily be found to be offensive. I don't know if he's a racist, I don't know him but I wouldn't say he was from his comments but it really wasn't a good comment to make regardless.

Again, the overt racism that is appearant is in fact not overtly racist, merely in really really really bad taste. It is still implicitly racist because it would only be true if blacks were inherently more crime prone rather than in the socio-economic position that makes their population more likely to produce criminals who are unable to escape prosecution.

Domici, it is true, according to Department of Justice statistics from 1993 to 2001, that blacks are far more likely to be:

1. committing murder, especially with a firearm
2. the victim of murder, especially with a firearm

94 percent of all murdered blacks are murdered by blacks.

For a group that comprises only 12 percent of the population, they account for 46 percent of all murders, and 53 percent of all firearm murders.

Being murdered has nothing to do with escaping prosecution. And there are plenty of poor whites, Hispanics, and Asians who are nowhere near as violent.

No, it's too easy to prove that they are violent far beyond what can be explained by their economic class or numbers. They are in a deep crisis - and the primary victims of the crisis are black.

It's not racist to point out the truth.

If that were to happen the majority of the black population and some others would riot against the government which would bring the crime rate much higher.

It's a strange, strange day when I agree with conservatives.

The IDEA is morally reprehensible. Advocating the abortion of all black babies would be a terrible thing. But he is pointing out that yes, the crime rate WOULD drop if all black babies were aborted.

Yes, they do commit more crimes, on average, because more black people live in the ghetto as compared to the black population in America as a whole, compared to the number of white people in ghettoes compared to the number of white people in America. If that makes sense.

He's just taking an absurd argument to its length. Y'all are getting upset over nothing.

It's a strange, strange day when I agree with conservatives.

The IDEA is morally reprehensible. Advocating the abortion of all black babies would be a terrible thing. But he is pointing out that yes, the crime rate WOULD drop if all black babies were aborted.

Yes, they do commit more crimes, on average, because more black people live in the ghetto as compared to the black population in America as a whole, compared to the number of white people in ghettoes compared to the number of white people in America. If that makes sense.

He's just taking an absurd argument to its length. Y'all are getting upset over nothing.

Not really. It won't affect crime all that much. If all the blacks in the ghettos went poof or died out as a demographic of old age, another part of the demographic would simply move there. You can't pull a chunk of society out without expecting it to get filled by another part sooner or later. Who knows? The poor whites, asians and hispanics might end up going to the ghettos and starting a full sized turf war as the blacks recede, resulting in even more crime.

And this is not counting the economic and workforce implications of what a demographic shift on that scale would do. It's like attempting to drain water from a boat by drilling more holes below the waterline.

Am I the only one that's noticed that this thread has degraded into pointless banter?

To summarize.
Forced abortions = Bad.
Forced deliveries = Bad.
Letting people make up their own fucking minds = Good.
Bill Bennet = Vile hypocritical douchebag.

He wasn't supporting forced abortion. He was rebutting the ridiculous argument that outlawing abortion would have averted the upcoming crisis in Social Security.

Am I the only one that's noticed that this thread has degraded into pointless banter?
You're mom has degraded into pointless banter.

NOTE: This is not serious, as people can't degrade into conversations. Yes, even "Mrs. Your Mom" isn't capable of achieving that. Furthermore, this was merely a way of degrading the conversation further, pointless banter not enough for you? What about non-witticism's starring your maternal relative. All the same, I love you and personally hope that you will bear my children, even if that is biologically impossible, in which I shall love you as if you were both child and lover. Part of this will involve diapers, though, so I hope you are okay over this.

NOTE FOR THE NOTE: It has come to my attention that the above NOTE is several times longer than the actual post. I apologize for this and shall engage in much self-flagellation in repentance.

NOTE FOR THE NOTE'S NOTE: The above note was also longer than the post, again I apologize and will sacrifice one (1) goat in repentance.

NOTE FOR THE NOTE'S NOTE'S NOTE: Once again, I am sorry. It has come to my attention that I have spent far too long on this joke and have soundly beaten a very very dead horse.