Bennett told a caller that if your "sole purpose" is to reduce crime, then "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."Not only is the White House right to criticize these remarks, but so is the rest of America. You just can't say something as stupid as that and get away with it be saying it is immoral.
He went on to call that "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do."
Bennett later said his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was "morally reprehensible."
Blacks are not the sole source of crime...we need only look at Tom Noe and the CoinGate scandal to see that.
Smooth move, Benny...you're an idiot.
10/1 Update
Here is a statement from Bennett via The Corner:From the Desk of William J. BennettI still think this was a stupid move, but it appears that the media has made yet another mountain out of a molehill and the President's staff (read Scotty) magnified the thing by addressing it.
September 30, 2005
"On Wednesday, a caller to my radio show proposed the idea that one good argument for the pro-life position would be that if we didn't have abortions, Social Security would be solvent. I stated my doubts about such a thesis, as well as my opposition to such a form of argument (the audio of the call is available at my Website: bennettmornings.com).
"I then stated that such extrapolations of this argument can cut both ways, and cited the current bestseller, Freakonomics, which discusses the authors' thesis that abortion reduces crime.
"Then, putting my philosophy professor's hat on, I went on to reveal the limitations of such arguments by showing the absurdity in another such argument, along the same lines. I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars. In so doing, I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was 'impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,' just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.
"The issues of crime and race have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so--in light of the situation in New Orleans; and the issues of race, crime, and abortion are well aired and ventilated in articles, the academy, the think tank community, and public policy. Indeed the whole issue of crime and race is not new in social science, nor popular literature. One of the authors of Freakonomics, himself, had an extended exchange on the discussion of these issues on the Internet some years back--which was also much debated in the think tank community in Washington.
"A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.
"In sum, let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry--and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine."
Mark's Remarks
Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have a huge case of the false piety of liberals when it comes to the racism issue. I find it funny that the whole context of this statement is never referenced...No, Rangel and Co. jump around with the statement, out of context, and scream about racism. However, they have a former Klansman in their party, that they love dearly....But, let's look at the issue.
The original call had to with abortion affecting social security. The caller said that the aborted people (some 30 million) who have been eliminated, assuming they all became productive, could make SS solvent. Bennett challenged that. He said you have to be careful about blanket assumptions about abortion. Then, he mentioned that book, freakonomics. And he used the comment about the african american abortion thing, to illustrate the fallacy of relying on such blanket arguments.
Of course, the liberals and those who want to smear a good man heard only abort black people, so they ran with it. Terribly shameful, and it shows the depth of bias on the part of the media in that they did not fully investigate, they only played the supposedly objectionable part.
What galls me is that many conservatives, including my colleague Matt, immediately jumped on the bandwagon. I mean, look at this headline. Come on now.... There was no serious investigation by anyone. All we did was get the quote, with no context. Other hosts blasted Mr. Bennett. However, let's look at this interesting thing.
Here, these Democrats are lambasting Mr. Bennett, for supposedly advocating the extermination of blacks, but Rangel and company have been advocating this very policy by their incessant support of extending abortion programs to the inner city. Isn't it amazing that Bill Bennett gets condemned for pointing out the de facto policy that Rangel and Co. support by being so pro-NARA and so for the abortion lobby?
Bennett was pointing out that it is ridiculous to think that more abortions equals less crime, or less abortions automatically means ss is solvent and saved. However, the left leaning author of Freakonomics supports killing babies as a deterrent to crime. Evidently, Mr. Rangel and the rest of these loud and nasty democrats agree, because instead of spending the money on job training programs, or advocating more personal responsbility, they want to give abortion on demand to inner city people with children, who predominantly are black. So, are they racist, too, or are they merely upset because unknowingly Mr. Bennett showed their patent hypocrisy?
