bill bennett shoots self in foot

[LibraryLady]

Am I the first to talk about Bill Bennett’s comment on his radio talk show?

Here is a transcript:
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.


I think his excuse of a philosophical construct is a little weak. It's still pretty egregious, even in context.

 

[RandFan]

I think his excuse of a philosophical construct is a little weak. It's still pretty egregious, even in context.

I honestly don't think it is weak. Don't get me wrong. I think what he said was one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said considering the ramifications of how it would be received but I get what he was trying to say and failed to convey.

What was the argument? The original premise was that abortion would reduce crime. Do you accept that argument? Ok, given that argument wouldn't abortion in the African-American community reduce even more crime? Given that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime then the argument stands to reason. Now we can argue why Blacks commit more crime and we can debate the effects of slavery and other socio-economic conditions but the nature of why African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime was not the subject of the argument.

Bill's point was clearly against abortion and clearly against abortion for African-Americans.

The truth is that we are not yet prepared to have this discussion. Any mention of crime, abortion and African-Americans in the same breath is a non-starter and that fact has nothing to do with intent or purpose.

Bill was clearly against abortion and clearly against abortion of African-American's. It IS why he used the group in the first place to appeal to the emotions of the caller who would find abhorrent the idea of using abortion to reduce crime if it was targeted to a specific race.

1.) African-Americans are not inherently different than any other race.

2.) Abortion should not be justified by the fact that it may or may not reduce crime.

 

[Cylinder]

Bill Bennett is a pretty sharp fellow. I just cannot believe he let himself step into a pile this large.

 

[username]

I think he was factually correct, but really dumb to say this. It is comparable, in my opinion, to Bill Maher saying the terrorists weren't cowards right after 9-11. He was also correct, but excercised very poor judgement in saying it.

 

[Roboramma]

Okay, it's a stupid thing to say. It's also probably true.

But look at the context in which it was said. I didn't listen to the show, just read the transcript at the start of the thread. Here's what I see:
This woman calls in and suggests that abortion has negative economic affects because those aborted fetuses would have grown up to become productive citizens who contribe enough to the economy to "fund Social Security".
The argument makes no sense. As Bill says, we just don't know. What percentage of those citizens will be "productive"? What percentage will end up being an overall drain on the economy?
In what way would they have altered the economy that we might not be able to think of? What might the added strain on resources do? What way would this affect international trade?
To argue against abortion from this perspective doesn't work - we can't go back in time and stop all of those abortions to see what would happen, nor do we have enough information about the system to rationally construct senarios. The economy might have been better off with those aborted babies growing up in it, or it might have been worse off. As he says, "we just don't know".
The argument might work if a large amount of evidence was gathered to show that america has a problem of negative population growth that is weakening it's economy in the long term, that aborted fetuses would have grown up in the right environment to help with this problem (ie. that the education system could deal with them for instance), and that it couldn't be more cheaply or better solved through immigration. Then maybe she'd have the beginnings of an argument.

But that's not to say that there is no argument against abortion. Just that these made up arguments based on fallacious economics don't work. His last point is that even if she is right, there's still a moral issue - for instance, here's a situation where abortion could be shown to decrese the crime rate, yet no one would support it.
Point being, even if her economic argument were true, that wouldn't necessarily mean that abortion should be outlawed.

At least that's how I read it...

 

[davefoc]

I honestly don't think it is weak. Don't get me wrong. I think what he said was one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said considering the ramifications of how it would be received but I get what he was trying to say and failed to convey.

This is pretty close to what I think, although I think when his words are read without emotion they convey his meaning precisely.

The problem is that a key Democratic Party mantra is that Republicans are evil racists. They promote this view at every opportunity. They are skillful at eking out the slimmest racial slant from every story and using it support their basic mantra: Republicans are evil racists.

Given this environment, Bennett showed incredibly poor judgment to make that statement. It was guaranteed to cause problems for the Republican party which had put him in positions of authority, it probably eliminated any chance for him to hold public office in the future, and it will increase a sense that the US is more racist than it actually is (a notion promulgated by a variety of people for various self serving reasons). Balanced against all that is a moment of satisfaction from making, for him, whatwas an intellectually consistent point. Overall, not his best moment.

 

[slingblade]

What was the argument? The original premise was that abortion would reduce crime. Do you accept that argument? Ok, given that argument wouldn't abortion in the African-American community reduce even more crime? Given that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime then the argument stands to reason. Now we can argue why Blacks commit more crime and we can debate the effects of slavery and other socio-economic conditions but the nature of why African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime was not the subject of the argument.

FIRST, I'd have to be willing to agree that blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime. I don't admit that, and am skeptical of the way this premise is simply stated and accepted by the majority of the posters as a given fact.

Let's say there are 100 black people and 100 white people in a particular area, and 40 from each group commit a crime. Now let's say that racial profiling is used in this area, and so 35 black criminals and 24 white criminals are arrested and convicted. Gee, it sure makes it look like blacks commit more crimes, but if we could see the original numbers, we'd see that isn't so.

Funny how no one postulated for a second that the basic premise could possibly be false, but just accepted it as a given.....

SECOND, mass abortion in any segment of a given population only reduces the number of live births. Is it true that in any given generation, in any population, some people will engage in criminality? Sure. But then, some of them will become doctors, social workers, teachers, police officers....so mass abortion also reduces the number of support and response systems, which could actually lead to an increase in crime. (and of course, this presumes that doctors, teachers, and the like never commit crime. Ha! Anyway....)

But THIRD, I think you have a very false correlation here. And an extremely racist one.

Bill's point was clearly against abortion and clearly against abortion for African-Americans.

I don't know about that. I do know it was clearly racist.

Bill said:

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.

What would happen if you aborted every Asian baby in this country?
What if you aborted every Indian baby? Every Hispanic baby? What would happen then, and how do you know and prove what would happen?

The truth is that we are not yet prepared to have this discussion.

No ◊◊◊◊, but not for the reasons some may think.

 

[LostAngeles]

The thing is, he said that crime would definitely be reduced if "every black baby" was aborted, crime would be reduced. There's a clear implication there that getting rid of the black population would reduce crime. It was not, "if you aborted a lot of babies, crime would go down," it was "...you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down..."

That's what the problem is with what he said.

ETA: It's not just connecting blacks with crimes in this. There's also the implication of eugenics here. Remember the reports of several states having laws that forced sterilizations on women? Aside from the racism in this remark, it definitely recalls those.

 

[davefoc]

FIRST, I'd have to be willing to agree that blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime. I don't admit that, and am skeptical of the way this premise is simply stated and accepted by the majority of the posters as a given fact.

The evidence of greater violence in the American black populations is overwhelming and almost entirely undisputed. I would have said entirely undisputed if I hadn't seen your post.

Murder rates in black sections of cities are often several times higher than white sections (check out Washington DC murder statistics for some insight into this). Nearly all black Gary, Indiana has often had the highest murder rate of any American city.

Is it possible that your desire for the world to fit your pleasant liberal notions prevents you from seeing the world the way it is? Is it possible that a head in the sand approach to the problem of high black crime and violence rates for the sake of political correctness is damaging because it impedes dealing with a serious problem by pretending it doesn't exist?

 

[RandFan]

FIRST, I'd have to be willing to agree that blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime. I don't admit that, and am skeptical of the way this premise is simply stated and accepted by the majority of the posters as a given fact.

Hmmmm.... I'm willing to be open to any counter arguments. The numbers are rather bleak however.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Let's say there are 100 black people and 100 white people in a particular area, and 40 from each group commit a crime. Now let's say that racial profiling is used in this area, and so 35 black criminals and 24 white criminals are arrested and convicted. Gee, it sure makes it look like blacks commit more crimes, but if we could see the original numbers, we'd see that isn't so.

Evidence please? Yes, there are problems with racial profiling but that does not prove that there is the exact same amount of crime and that is not the only statistic to measures crime. Incidents of crime in some areas are higher than others. Many of those areas are poor. Many of those areas are in minority neighborhoods. Not because those people are minorities but because of the socio-economic conditions.

Funny how no one postulated for a second that the basic premise could possibly be false, but just accepted it as a given.....

Hey, we could be wrong. I think many of us might just happen to be familiar with the statistics. If you have some evidence then please provide it. Proffering some unsubstantiated theory about racial profiling isn't going to cut it. You might want to start with this page http://www.peace.ca/truthaboutblackcrime.htm but I would recommend that you do a lot more research to make your case.

But THIRD, I think you have a very false correlation here. And an extremely racist one.

Could you make a case why?

I don't know about that. I do know it was clearly racist.

I understand why you think that. There are some things that can't be discussed under any circumstances. To even suggest that there are economic circumstances and other factors like slavery and racism that contributes to higher statistics is defacto racism to you.

What would happen if you aborted every Asian baby in this country? What if you aborted every Indian baby? Every Hispanic baby? What would happen then, and how do you know and prove what would happen?

Any statistically significant attribute of that community would decrease. So what? I know, we can't discuss some things without emotion and calls of racism.

No ◊◊◊◊, but not for the reasons some may think.

You are so blinded by your own emotion that you can't even hear what others are saying.

1.) African-Americans are not inherently different than anyone else.

I posted this in my first post. I stand by that statement. The problem isn't the color of the skin but the situation that many blacks find themselves in. If the situation were reversed then an increase in abortions in the white community would result in a decrease in crime.

 

[RandFan]

The thing is, he said that crime would definitely be reduced if "every black baby" was aborted, crime would be reduced. There's a clear implication there that getting rid of the black population would reduce crime. It was not, "if you aborted a lot of babies, crime would go down," it was "...you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down..."

That's what the problem is with what he said.

ETA: It's not just connecting blacks with crimes in this. There's also the implication of eugenics here. Remember the reports of several states having laws that forced sterilizations on women? Aside from the racism in this remark, it definitely recalls those.

Oh for crying out loud.

Bennett is AGAINST abortion. ALL abortion. ANY abortion. Bennett is clearly against eugenics. Bennett is clearly trying to appeal to the sensibilities of the caller. Please to show me anything at anytime that Bennett has ever said to suggest that he is in favor of eugenics. Come on people. Think with the brains and not the emotions. If you want to be pissed at Bennett then fine. What he said was clearly incendiary and I understand why it was. But to turn it into a call from Bennett to commit genocide goes against all of the evidence.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Evidence please? Yes, there are problems with racial profiling but that does not prove that there is the exact same amount of crime and that is not the only statistic to measures crime. Incidents of crime in some areas are higher than others. Many of those areas are poor. Many of those areas are in minority neighborhoods. Not because those people are minorities but because of the socio-economic conditions.

When the factor of racial profiling cannot be excised from a statistical analysis of the black crime rate, that analysis cannot be taken at face value. It is not a matter of proving that there is a bias. It is a matter of showing that there is none as the claim is the statistics, not the questioning of them.

You may be right, however, in your interpretation of what Bennett was trying to say. It was certainly untactful though to say the least.

 

[LostAngeles]

Oh for crying out loud.

Bennett is AGAINST abortion. ALL abortion. ANY abortion. Bennett is clearly against eugenics. Bennett is clearly trying to appeal to the sensibilities of the caller. Please to show me anything at anytime that Bennett has ever said to suggest that he is in favor of eugenics. Come on people. Think with the brains and not the emotions. If you want to be pissed at Bennett then fine. What he said was clearly incendiary and I understand why it was. But to turn it into a call from Bennett to commit genocide goes against all of the evidence.

I said there was the implication of eugenics and that it recalls though as I tried to explain what was wrong with the statement.

As to the racism, I'm sorry, but anytime anyone makes any kind of a statement that makes an implication about an entire group of people (all blacks being criminals, all Asians being smart, every person living in a trailer is trash) it's wrong. The words that makes these statements wrong are, "all," "every," and, "none."Bennet said he "knows" that if "every black baby" was aborted then... It starts being incorrect at the word "every."

Yes, the problem of crime in significantly black areas relates more to socio-economic status than race. I agree with you there. I'm just not understanding why you're missing why people have a problem with what he said.

 

[RandFan]

When the factor of racial profiling cannot be excised from a statistical analysis of the black crime rate, that analysis cannot be taken at face value. It is not a matter of proving that there is a bias. It is a matter of showing that there is none as the claim is the statistics, not the questioning of them.

We absolutely should not take the statistics at face value. On the other hand the numbers can not simply be dismissed for just any convenient reason including racial profiling unless and until it is substantiated. On the one side we have hard data and the other we have a claim. Now we can characterize the data as a claim and that is fine but even assuming such the claim is not resolved with another claim.

You may be right, however, in your interpretation of what Bennett was trying to say. It was certainly untactful though to say the least.

No argument.

 

[RandFan]

I said there was the implication of eugenics and that it recalls though as I tried to explain what was wrong with the statement.

Then I really do not understand your point. Bennett would be the first to stand against abortion and eugenics. If anything your point is in agreement with what Bennett is saying. So if you are agreeing with him on the grounds that abortion for poor single women is akin to eugenics then I think you are correct.

As to the racism, I'm sorry, but anytime anyone makes any kind of a statement that makes an implication about an entire group of people (all blacks being criminals, all Asians being smart, every person living in a trailer is trash) it's wrong.

But that is not what Bennett said. He didn't say that "every" black person is a criminal. Example: If you aborted every Irish person then the rates of Irish people would go down.

Given - A.) that the rates of crime amongst Blacks is *higher, then if you aborted every black baby the rate would go down.

Your attack of the word "every" in this instance is wrong. If there is a problem with Bennett's logic it is in the assumption that crime rates are higher. The statistics would indicate that they are. *However, please, I would sincerly be happy to see arguments to dispeal this if it is indeed a myth. I have read some interesting articles since the start of this thread including the one I posted above and I'm open to questioning of the data. And Batman is correct. Skepticism demands a critical look at that data. And I think most would agree that there are problems with racism and profiling but to what extent do these skew the data?

Finally I think most would agree that the stastics don't paint a picture of the inherent nature of blacks or any minority but the circumstances that they find themselves in.

 

[Kerberos]

We absolutely should not take the statistics at face value. On the other hand the numbers can not simply be dismissed for just any convenient reason including racial profiling unless and until it is substantiated. On the one side we have hard data and the other we have a claim. Now we can characterize the data as a claim and that is fine but even assuming such the claim is not resolved with another claim.

I'll second that. Also if memory serves the correlation between race and crime largely disappears if we correct for social class, which is strong evidence that it's not causes by racial profiling, however wonderfully politically correct the notion may be.

 

[Kopji]

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.

Ol' Bill must've been temporarily stunned senseless by this comment...

 

[Batman Jr.]

We absolutely should not take the statistics at face value. On the other hand the numbers can not simply be dismissed for just any convenient reason including racial profiling unless and until it is substantiated. On the one side we have hard data and the other we have a claim. Now we can characterize the data as a claim and that is fine but even assuming such the claim is not resolved with another claim.

With all due respect, the counterargument wasn't so much a "claim" as it was a thought experiment demonstrating the potential for the claim it criticizes to be faulty. It makes no point to be empirically tested but rather urges for the testing of another point deserving of scrutiny.

I'll second that. Also if memory serves the correlation between race and crime largely disappears if we correct for social class, which is strong evidence that it's not causes by racial profiling, however wonderfully politically correct the notion may be.

America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume II

There's a lot of interesting stuff on racial profiling in this book. It's from NAP, so it should be accurate.

 

[slingblade]

Hmmmm.... I'm willing to be open to any counter arguments. The numbers are rather bleak however.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Evidence please?

I've played this game numerous times on this forum. I provide evidence, and then no one responds to it, or acknowledges it in any way. So what good will that do either of us? As Gallagher says, "I've played buffet before."

But I've checked the DOJ link you provide. It contains a false correlation.

Numbers of people arrested for crime does not prove criminality; it only proves that these people were arrested. Since the innocent often get arrested, and even convicted, the data is flawed. There's a disconnect between the question asked and the proof cited. It's simple:

If the question is "How many people in a given race commit crime?" then in order to get an accurate figure, you have to count everyone who's commited a crime but hasn't been caught, along with those who have been caught and are actually guilty. And this is impossible, or nearly so, since those who haven't been caught can't be counted, and since some of those arrested are innocent but can't prove it.

But if the question is "How many people in a given race are convicted of commiting crime?" then you need only count case files, which do not prove guilt or innocence, but only who was found guilty. Now by sheer law of averages, there are some innocent people in that number. But you have no way of determining that number, since all were found guilty. Therefore, this data cannot be used to prove criminality in a population.

Yes, there are problems with racial profiling but that does not prove that there is the exact same amount of crime and that is not the only statistic to measures crime. Incidents of crime in some areas are higher than others. Many of those areas are poor. Many of those areas are in minority neighborhoods. Not because those people are minorities but because of the socio-economic conditions.

"Exact same amount of crime?" That isn't my point. My point is that blacks are disproportionately arrested, for various reasons, including racial profiling, misidentification, and other factors. Whites or other races may very well commit more crimes, but if they aren't arrested, how can we know?

What would happen to the numbers if all the members of other races who have commited a crime were actually caught? I can't answer that with numbers, since it's basically proving a negative.

You also fail to see the correlation in your own premises. Wht is the correlation between minority populations and poverty? Is it not possible that being a minority means your socio-economic conditions may have some base in institutionalized/systemic racism?

Hey, we could be wrong. I think many of us might just happen to be familiar with the statistics. If you have some evidence then please provide it. Proffering some unsubstantiated theory about racial profiling isn't going to cut it. You might want to start with this page http://www.peace.ca/truthaboutblackcrime.htm but I would recommend that you do a lot more research to make your case.

Well, if I simply read this link you've provided, I find this:

Am I implying that African American males do not commit crimes? Not at all. In my opinion, there is an equal distribution of criminals (and law abiding citizens) among all racial and ethnic groups and blacks are no more likely to be criminals than are whites. The data shows, however, that African Americans are more likely than others to be arrested and convicted.

(emphasis mine)

And this, just before that paragraph:

What do all of these findings suggest? For starters, we cannot conclude how many African Americans or black males are actually guilty of committing crimes. We can only obtain data on the number of black males who are arrested for and convicted of a crime. While arrest rates are highly subjective, one could argue that a conviction is a guilty sentence in the eyes of the law. Though that is true, given the racial undertones and biases still present in the American judicial system, it seems highly unjust to assume that black crime statistics are a valid indication of the state of the entire community of African American males.

One has to wonder if you read your own source? Seeing as how the statements made are supportive of my point, that is. Did you mean to do that, I wonder? Because it looks as if you provided this source to help me make my point.

I understand why you think that. There are some things that can't be discussed under any circumstances. To even suggest that there are economic circumstances and other factors like slavery and racism that contributes to higher statistics is defacto racism to you.

That's so convoluted it almost makes sense. Almost. Economic circumstances and factors like slavery and racism are evidence of systemic racism in American society. See? Racism is evidence of racism. Tautology. Please, do more than suggest this, will you? Proclaim it loudly every chance you get, because it is exactly my point. Nice try, though.

Any statistically significant attribute of that community would decrease. So what? I know, we can't discuss some things without emotion and calls of racism. You are so blinded by your own emotion that you can't even hear what others are saying.

Nice little ad hom. And actually, I do hear what the others are saying, and I see a mixture of enlightened perspectives and unconscious racism in the statements. It's the unconscious part I'm trying to bring to consciousness.

1.) African-Americans are not inherently different than anyone else.

I posted this in my first post. I stand by that statement.

And you are correct. Most of the so-called difference is imposed on blacks and other races from the outside. This must be accounted for!

The problem isn't the color of the skin but the situation that many blacks find themselves in.

Yes, which is exactly my point. Your own phrasing suggests that it's not a problem created by the black population, but from outside that population. Thanks for the support.

If the situation were reversed then an increase in abortions in the white community would result in a decrease in crime.

Your phrasing does nothing but beg the question. A hypothetical mass abortion of any race, any demographic, is going to result in a decrease in everything! You can't simply isolate one factor and call that significant, and to do so is dangerously close to predictive logic. How does anyone know what will happen in the future? How do you test that hypothesis?

 

[RandFan]

The thing is, he said that crime would definitely be reduced if "every black baby" was aborted, crime would be reduced.[/b]

Are you not reading what I'm posting?

Assuming more crime is committed by African-Americans then aborting "every black baby" would reduce crime. That IS logically valid. You can argue the premise but you are not doing that. You are making unwarranted conclusions based solely on the argument.

There's a clear implication there that getting rid of the black population would reduce crime.

Assuming the premise, YES.

"...you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down..."

Assuming the premise, yes. That is correct and it has nothing to do with eugenics. Bennett isn't advocating eugenics. Bennett isn't suggesting that we abort Black babies. On the contrary he is showing why the argument about abortion and reducing crime is stupid.

That's what the problem is with what he said.

???? What is your problem with it? You are not making a logical argument. You are simply drawing a connection and making a conclusion. Could you flesh out your objection a little better?

ETA: It's not just connecting blacks with crimes in this. There's also the implication of eugenics here. Remember the reports of several states having laws that forced sterilizations on women? Aside from the racism in this remark, it definitely recalls those.

???? Eugenics is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from Bennett's argument. You are simply making a connection that is unwarranted and in fact is opposite of what Bennett is making.