September 30, 2005

Bill Bennett's Slip of the Tongue
— Ace

The book Freakonomics noted that abortion had reduced the crime rate, by reducing the number of children born to poor, unmarried, often teen mothers, the children most likely to commit crime later on.

Bennet, in discussing bad arguments for and against abortion, noted that just because you could abort "every black baby" in this country, and it be "an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," but conceded "the crime rate would go down."

Liberals, and Media Matters of course (the link above) are of course making a major fuss out of this.

Yes, he mispoke. It's wince-inducing statement, something you know someone shouldn't have said. But while Media Matters righteously points out that Freakonomics did not make a "race-based argument," it does seem to me that poor unmarried teenagers having babies will, as a statistical matter, skew fairly black.

He shouldn't have said it -- no need to say "black," and "black" isn't the right word anyway; the theory talks about poor children born out of wedlock, some of which are black, but many of which aren't, and of course many black children aren't born poor or out of wedlock -- but one can hardly cry "racism" for making this inadvertant equivalency while speaking extemporaneously.

Mark Levin at the Corner is having none of it.

I like this line:

Let's not cede the moral high ground to people who've never held it.

Via the Blogometer.

Posted by: Ace at 07:37 AM | Comments (160)
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeah, I understand the objective logic of it - but he should have been smart enough to know he was handing his enemies a bat to clobber himself with. Come on - let's use some common sense people!

Posted by: Enas Yorl at September 30, 2005 07:48 AM (npCao)

2 If Bennett had been talking about interstate commerce, and blurted out "f*ckers" instead of "truckers", he'd have apologized and moved on. In this case, if he had said "out of wedlock babies" the whole brouhaha would never have started. It's just a slip of the tongue, but that doesn't mean you can't be an adult and admit that it sounded bad. Then you can go on and point out the context, etc., and get back to making your original point.

Turning the argument around and attacking the attackers, as Mr. Levine does, is just juvenile. He's been hanging around Sean Hannity too much, I think.

Posted by: HT at September 30, 2005 07:52 AM (iNegL)

3 Freakin' figures.
Bennett is essentially taken to task for repeating the argument of another guy in order to decry it.
Why is it that when an ivy-league professor talks about "the poor" in reference to crime, he's given a pass, but when other people use the term, it's a "thinly veiled reference?"

If I didn't know better, I'd think that what you say is interpreted by the MSM based on your political affiliation rather than your life's work.

See below:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2125581/sidebar/2125620/

Posted by: Zorachus at September 30, 2005 07:53 AM (yJ5ul)

4 And the worst thing about Levitt's theory? That it's empirically false.

Posted by: Russell Wardlow at September 30, 2005 07:56 AM (aMYqu)

5 What's interesting is that what Bennett said is basically the same rationale I hear a lot of Pro-Choicers use to justify abortion; underclass children are a burden on society, and should be killed to limit the social cost of raising them to adulthood.

I thnink he was trying to make a point about the ends not justifying the means, but he got smacked down because our country is racially neurotic. If he had said that we could solve the social security problem by killing off all the old people ... like France tried last summer ... he would have made the same point.

Posted by: V the K at September 30, 2005 08:00 AM (1R6cr)

6 I think the link between crime, poverty, and illegitimacy is something we should talk about every single day. The black community has an illegitimacy rate that hovers around 70% , up from 28% in 1965 when our government started the "war on poverty. "

Some solution.

But, hey, we can't talk about this because if we do some lefty might call us racists. Boo-hoo.

I say fuck all that. The true racists are those whose policies keep an entire segment of our population poor and dependent on others for subsistance. The war on poverty has been a failure, and the bigoted left knows it.

Posted by: The Warden at September 30, 2005 08:22 AM (cZGnO)

7 Bennett is the new Hitler(TM).

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 08:24 AM (Gi7oA)

8 The FBI doesn't delineate data based on "children of unwed mothers" but it does break down arrests by race.

See page 22 of 70 (nationwide data) and page 31 of 70 (urban data)...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec4.pdf

You can see that, although they only comprise approximately 12% of the general population, Blacks are arrested for almost half of murders nationwide, and well over half (55.4%) in urban areas....a third of all forcible rapes (higher in urban areas), more than a third of robberies, and over half of the aggravated assaults.

In fact, if you look at the lines labaled "violent crime", you'll see that between 33% - 40% of arrests for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults are of Blacks, which is FAR out of proportion to their representation in the general populace.

And considering that the overwhelming majority of these (alleged) perpetrators were male, it means that approximately 6% of the population is responsible for a very disproportionate percentage of the worst crimes.

Just saying....Bennett didn't just pick "Blacks" out of thin air, or out of innate racism....He had a factual reason to use Blacks in his crude analogy.

Posted by: tomaig at September 30, 2005 08:25 AM (8ogqy)

9 -- It's wince-inducing statement, something you know someone shouldn't have said. --

But it's true. If it's true, why shouldn't he have said it? It's not like telling your blind date that she smells bad; it's a statement of fact that's well supported by the available statistics. Are we so racially paranoid that we've become unwilling to speak the unimpeachable truth?

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at September 30, 2005 08:25 AM (PzL/5)

10 It occurs to me that the whole thing's based on a fallacy anyway, one I like to call the Whigger Parallax: Suppose you did abort all these black kids; how do you know white kids wouldn't step up to take those lucrative criming jobs that minorities had previously denied them on the basis of race?

Why, then the crime rate might not even fall at all. Heck, it could go up since everybody knows white kids work harder and stuff!

Posted by: spongeworthy at September 30, 2005 08:29 AM (uSomN)

11 So, is what Bennett said not true? And did he not oppose the hypothesis put forth by "Freakonomics"?

If every black baby were aborted, would crime go down in about 15-20 years? That's not racial politics, that's statistics. Abortion is morally wrong, whatever the perceived benefit, and that seemed to be what Bennett was saying if you read the transcript.

Another question would be whether or not it's a free speech issue when Congressman Conyers writes a complaint to the network president and says Bennett "has no place on the nation's public air waves". That seems to hint that he wants the government to remove Bennett if the network does not. Not everything is a free speech issue, but it certainly falls into that category if a government entity is the one silencing the dissenting voice.

More of my ravings on the subject here if you're interested.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 08:29 AM (ipjUv)

12 Levitt, a Freakanomics coauthor responds, today, over on his blog, here.

Posted by: Dr. Reo Symes at September 30, 2005 08:38 AM (kUNrb)

13 Had he said "all white babies" it also would have been true and there would have been no mention of it.

Posted by: scott at September 30, 2005 08:44 AM (M7kiy)

14 Indeed, Bennett said nothing that wasn't logically sound. He spoke of abortion carried to such extreme numbers as to constitute genocide. If you eliminate an entire generation of a group then the youth of that group are going to commit few crimes due to the handicap of non-existence. But that has little bearing on real life and I think Bennett was trying to convey that.

Posted by: epobirs at September 30, 2005 08:51 AM (Tf4ol)

15 Isn't it odd that Media Matters merely has to raise its pinky and a story breaks into the press, but Chuck Schumer's dirty tricks operation has merited only a handful of "boys will be boys" style stories?

Posted by: Robert Crawford at September 30, 2005 08:51 AM (Gn9tM)

16 Had he said "all white babies" it also would have been true and there would have been no mention of it.

I'm not so sure it would be true. If the national crime rate is X, and you prevent a population that is committing, for it's population share, less than X (whites, asians) then, because the total population falls as a result, and becomes comprised more greatly of those groups committing more than X, the crime rate would increase.

In short, to use a different analogy, you can't take the smart kids outta class and expect the overall class GPA to remain the same. (not making any point about respective intelligence of races here, best analogy I could comeup with quick)

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 08:54 AM (kUNrb)

17 Levitt's response contains a fallacy. He says Bennett cannot reject his statistics if he also stands by the statement about genocide levels of abortion. Sorry, but just because your stats are nonsense doesn't invalidate a scenario where the variable values are stated in advance.

This kind of thinking makes me doubt Levitt all the more. Too bad, I'd been interested in reading that book but it increasingly appears to be nonsense.

Posted by: epobirs at September 30, 2005 08:59 AM (Tf4ol)

18 Bennett is the new Hitler(TM)

Bennett is the new Cedarford!

Sorry, that was a low blow. Apologies to Bill Bennett.

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at September 30, 2005 09:02 AM (Pt3Le)

19 The NCVS backs up the FBI's UCR data. The UCR is based on official reports, whereas the NCVS is a statistical survey of US households. The survey method attempts to get a sense of the unreported crimes.

NCVS

You'll want to look at Table 40. The NCVS indicated black's offending at ~2X the percentage of black population in the US.

Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable - but Bennett was speaking the truth.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 09:06 AM (X+OCl)

20 Are we so racially paranoid that we've become unwilling to speak the unimpeachable truth?

Why yes, yes we are. Where have you been?

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 09:06 AM (52h84)

21 One thing people need to consider is that we don't speak in the same manner in which we write, unless of course, the speech is pre-written. I've transcribed interviews that I've conducted where the responses make perfect sense when I heard them, but looked like gibberish when written out. But from what I can see from the transcript, it appears to me that Bennett is basically saying:

1) He's unsure what effect abortion being made illegal would have on crime rates and the longevity of social security, and people should be careful in making such arguments.

2) Assuming that abortion being legal has had a positive effect on crime rates, then one could make the argument that aborting Blacks would also have a (bigger) positive effect on crime rates.

3) Even if this is true, it would be morally wrong, and as such abortion is morally wrong, no matter what positive effects it might have for society.

In other words, he doesn't believe the proposition itself to be true, but even if it were, so what?

So perhaps his worst sin is that he didn't quite say it right, but I'm guessing that if people actually heard it said in context it would have sounded a lot less controversial that it does when nitpicking a transcript.

Posted by: Jason at September 30, 2005 09:15 AM (Y2Bw/)

22 epobirs,

My impression of Freakonomics, after reading the critiques as well as the gushing praise by all the journalists who don't know any better, I've come to the tentative conclusion that the book is generally fairly well done and intriguing, with the exception of the abortion theory, which is simply flat-out wrong, and irresponsibly so (since people had been point out all the statistical and empirical problems with it since before the book was written, and Levitt was already choosing to dutifully ignore those people then as well as now).

There are some criticisms about other parts of the book, but on the whole even his critics think the book is overall worth it.

FWIW.

Posted by: Russell Wardlow at September 30, 2005 09:15 AM (aMYqu)

23 David Brooks should write about Bennett's teamwork!

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 09:18 AM (nfnmD)

24 I am having a Jimmy the Greek flashback.

Posted by: scott at September 30, 2005 09:22 AM (M7kiy)

25 Has Bennett confirmed that he mispoke?

I don't think so...

He is talking about committing an immoral act to decrease crime. He is saying that if you abort all black babies, crime will go down. The left cries that this is immoral. The right cries that aborting any babies is immoral.

He is demonstrating that just because an act has a side benefit, doesn't mean it is moral or acceptable, and it seems to have worked. The left can longer claim abortion keeps down crime because the opposing argument would be that aborting all black (or white / asian etc) babies would reduce crime even further.

Some have made the jump that he is suggesting blacks commit more crimes, he is merely suggesting that if we can commit one immoral act to reduce crime, why not another. In this case he chose race as the qualifier, which in this case seems to have raised eyebrows enough to discuss (pah, really, who cares if we have mandatory abortion of white / males or christian kids).








Posted by: Ring at September 30, 2005 09:23 AM (nyx6v)

26 What Bennett should have said is" You could abort every Democrat baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

No one could argue with that.

Posted by: Jake at September 30, 2005 09:24 AM (r/5D/)

27 When I first read his comments it sounded like he was implying genocide- the wiping out of a race to alleviate a social ill, in this case. I think that's the rub.

Posted by: ChrisG at September 30, 2005 09:27 AM (nfnmD)

28 Are we so racially paranoid that we've become unwilling to speak the unimpeachable truth?

Some things a society cannot permit to be spoken aloud despite their obvious truth. (See, e.g. Lawrence Summers.) In fact, the lie must be reinforced despite the cognitive strain.

Does this have an effect? Theordore Dalrymple said it best:
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Posted by: Internet Larry at September 30, 2005 09:29 AM (kUNrb)

29 As Russell linked to above, Steve Sailer demonstrated quite convincingly that the abortion-cuts-crime theory is wrong.

He even debated Levitt about it a few years ago in Slate, I believe.

Posted by: Nathan S. at September 30, 2005 09:35 AM (nG8O/)

30 A big fat bloviating racist with a gambling addiction who wrote a book called "The Book of Virtues" says one of the most dispicable things I have ever heard from a public figure and virtually all of the disgusting, coolaid-drinking cultists on this board rush to his defense. You guys are so fucking ridiculous it boggles the mind!

Posted by: Bilbo Baggins at September 30, 2005 09:59 AM (RSvSY)

31 Hey, Bilbo! Go blow yourself!

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 10:04 AM (52h84)

32 Bilbo, way to stick to the subject.
For homework this weekend, look up the term "ad hominem"

Posted by: Zorachus at September 30, 2005 10:14 AM (yJ5ul)

33 they're loyal to a fault. this group wouldn't defend a dem if a dem said it. way to win the black vote asshats.

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 10:15 AM (nfnmD)

34 I didn't read all of the posts and if I am duplicating some other post, please forgive me. The illegitimacy rate for black babies is 68% (as of 2003 statistics) That is 68% of all babies born to black mothers are born out of wedlock.

Posted by: rls at September 30, 2005 10:20 AM (Lh7Vt)

35 this group wouldn't defend a dem if a dem said it.

If a Democrat had said a politically unpopular thing, but it was demonstrably true, and moreover evidenced a kind of intellectual rigor and insight that pointed to an even more profound (though unpolular) truth, we'd defend him. I guarantee it.

Now, all we need to do is find a Democrat that can do that.

Maybe one will come riding in over the rainbow on a golden unicorn, straight from Fantasyland.

Posted by: Phinn at September 30, 2005 10:21 AM (DiZv6)

36 I'm not looking to win votes. I'm just being honest. You guys should try it next time you aren't jerking each other off.

Find a Democrat that'll be honest about racial issues and I'll support them too.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 10:24 AM (ipjUv)

37 For what it's worth, a Democrat (or MSM Personality, same diff) *did* make a basically equivalent gaffe recently. Wolf Blitzer, reporting from the Gulf, was going on a spiel about the plight of the people there, finishing with "These people are so poor, and so black."

I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere other than radio's "Don and Mike Show:"
http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/Product/09-27-05-092705.html

Posted by: David C at September 30, 2005 10:25 AM (OeHNk)

38 this group wouldn't defend a dem if a dem said it

Wouldn't need to, because the MSM would let it die before it got started.

Posted by: geoff at September 30, 2005 10:25 AM (pSxN9)

39 If you read some of the other posts on the corner, where Ace linked to, you'll see someone remark that Leavitt's original paper that he based the book on actually included the racial component, but he left it out of the book for PC reasons. If we make the reasonable assumptions that Bennett did a little homework on the subject before his broadcast, then he was using the authors own EXACT argument to refute the general idea. What is so blashpemous about THAT?!?!?

Posted by: brainy435 at September 30, 2005 10:26 AM (YbNIV)

40 David C.: I remember that comment. Still not sure what "so black" means. The "so poor" part is pretty clear though.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 10:28 AM (ipjUv)

41 Did anyone actually hear what Bennett said? Listen to the broadcast? I did...

And this whole thread is based on what Dem's are saying, not on what he actually said. It was taken out of context by Brocks bunch Tuesday, passed to other media Wednesday, and on to the politicos Thursday, like a talking points memo.
I can't believe what I've read here, and on other blogs about this....silliness.
I'm not going to have any hair left if this stuff keeps up.








Posted by: durand at September 30, 2005 10:41 AM (VxFti)

42 this group wouldn't defend a dem if a dem said it.

Well, we (or at least I) did defend Larry Summers for saying what he said, while he was attacked by the left for basically telling the truth based on what we know about sex at this point. He's a Democrat, right?

Sorry, but I don't let political correctness decide for me what true statements are allowed to be uttered.

The truth isn't racist or sexist.

Posted by: Jason at September 30, 2005 10:55 AM (Y2Bw/)

43 Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the comments were "hateful, inflammatory" and asked whether they represented the values of the Republican party.

Howard Dean: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

Geepers, it's almost like up is down and black is white in the reality based community.

Posted by: The Warden at September 30, 2005 11:04 AM (6gfGy)

44 Larry Summers ... Good point!

Having scanned (quickly) the comments there is an important point that needs to be included ...

Ethnic subgroups in the US have crime rates similar to the rates in their home culture.

Posted by: boris at September 30, 2005 11:10 AM (S+qVM)

45 Not to pick a fight, but with a name like Digitalbrownshirt what kind of "honesty" on racial issues would you support? Isn't a brownshirt an SA? Dude, why did you pick that name?

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 11:14 AM (nfnmD)

46 One of the many things that bothers me about this non-scandal is that it depends on a 180-degree reversal of the truth.

The point Bennett was making was that abortion is wrong, and specifically, is not justified by its broader economic consequences. To demonstrate this point, he made an analogy to aborting all blacks.

As would be obvious to a below-average 6th grader, the point he was making depends entirely on the idea that aborting all blacks is wrong regardless of its economic consequences.

This is precisely the opposite of what he is accused of saying.

In this age of propaganda and endless political near-brain-dead bullshit, a simple logical syllogism is twisted 180 degrees to carry the opposite of its express and ordinary meaning.

Posted by: Phinn at September 30, 2005 11:17 AM (DiZv6)

47 Digitalbrownshirt ... Dude, why did you pick that name?

I suspect he's making fun of Al Gore.

Try to keep up.

Posted by: Phinn at September 30, 2005 11:20 AM (DiZv6)

48 Dude, why did you pick that name?

DBS is being ironic, since those on the left are prone to labeling conservatives as "brownshirts."

Posted by: geoff at September 30, 2005 11:21 AM (pSxN9)

49 ...so perpetuate the notion? the logic... it's so clear now.

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 11:24 AM (nfnmD)

50 damn, I should have thought of that Al Gore comment instead of the SA. I'll try to keep up Phinn. You're right.

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 11:27 AM (nfnmD)

51 Sorry for the snap on the borwnshirt thing. This whole claptrap has me a bit steamed.

Posted by: Phinn at September 30, 2005 11:33 AM (DiZv6)

52 Commenters geoff and phinn are correct. I'm making fun of Al Gore (his famous quote is at the top of my blog) and I like to piss off libs by embracing the name they throw around so carelessly. To compare anybody that disagrees with them to Nazis is so outlandish that it's bordering on insane, yet that's the standard for their discourse. The ones that aren't pissed off are usually confused by my having an Al Gore quote beneath my blog name.

"The Administration works closely with a network of rapid response Digital Brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for undermining support for our troops." Al Gore

I'm what the radical left hates most, a minority, working class Republican that isn't afraid of the truth.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 11:33 AM (ipjUv)

53 The truth isn't racist or sexist.

Unless it's spoken by a Republican.

Good point about Summers. I supported him too, but didn't know his politics at the time. So I guess that doesn't count. He still told the truth and the lefties as usual couldn't handle it.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 11:40 AM (ipjUv)

54 Gotcha, how are you a minority? Are you a minority because you're working class?

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 11:42 AM (nfnmD)

55 I'm a minority because my skin is brown. I'm half Filipino. I believe that most Americans would probably fall into the working class category so that wouldn't by definition be a minority.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 11:51 AM (ipjUv)

56 I'll ask a few questions at your site, under Bennett. If I'm comfortable I'll eventually use my name.

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 11:55 AM (nfnmD)

57 Bennett is a moron who thinks he has a brain - a dangerous combination. He's also a gambling addict, and one very fat sonuvabitch. Maybe he could push himself away from the pork chops and gravy, and stop being a drag on the health care system.

If he would think - or do some research - before he runs his big fat mouth -he would find that the crime rate in the US is very low right now - at an all time low, in fact, since 1973. And oddly enough, very few black embryos get aborted. So maybe its the fact that white trash red state scum (who might grow up to be as stupid, lazy and irresponsible as the gambling addicted fat-boy is) are being aborted, thus lowering the crime rate for all of us.

Posted by: robert lewis at September 30, 2005 12:10 PM (+J4wd)

58 And further oddly enough, we're at a peak in prison population. Crime keeps falling but the prisoner count keeps rising! What a paradox!

But Mr. Lewis: thanks for sharing your profound thoughts. Not too many folks are so willing to be laughed at. Very altruistic.

Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at September 30, 2005 12:15 PM (usS6D)

59 OK, I'm pretty sure Bennet didn't even say "do this, and crime will go down" it sounded more like "according to that absurd premise, doing this would cause crime to go down".

Been meaning to bring this up in a gay marriage post. Ad Absurdum arguments are falling out of favor because they are so easily mischaracterised. So arguments that have absurd implications are gaining currency because the absurd implications are not being exposed. Some arguments (not all) for gay marriage really would work (logically) as arguments to legalize marriage to horses etc. But say so and it's taken to mean X=Y, gay marriage is the same as horse marriage. All Ad Absurdum arguments WILL be misconstrued, does this mean that they should not be made, then defended and clarified? If so, absurdity gets a free pass and will become increasingly rampant.

Someone in the comments at WORLD just said Bennet should shut up. HE'S ON A FUCKING RADIO SHOW!

So far, I haven't seen anyone else pointing out that exterminating the "human weeds" (Blacks and Jews) is precisely the reason why Sanger started the effort to legalize abortion to begin with. Not even Dawn Eden, I guess she's busy prancing around in a sacred grove or sacrificing chickens to Cathol or whatever. Am I going to have to do the unthinkable and actually write a new original post for my own blog?

Posted by: Dave Munger at September 30, 2005 12:25 PM (yvp3i)

60 Mr. Lewis: With regard to your 'very few black embryos get aborted' statement.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that while 56 percent of all women who obtained legal abortions were white, the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 per year) for black women was 2.9 times that of white women. For every thousand black women, 32 have abortions, as compared with 11 for every thousand white women. Likewise with numbers of abortions per 1,000 births: The abortions/births ratio for white women was 184 abortions per 1,000 live births; for black women, it was 543 abortions per 1,000 births. This means that abortion ratios for black women were 2.8 times greater than those for white women

From here.

Posted by: Doug E. at September 30, 2005 12:28 PM (kUNrb)

61 As would be obvious to a below-average 6th grader, the point he was making depends entirely on the idea that aborting all blacks is wrong regardless of its economic consequences.

Probably the best one-sentence description I've read today.

Have been arguing all day with a lib friend over this. She tried for hours to avoid saying what she really thought he meant, finally admitted she believed he was advocating aborting black children to lower the crime rate.

Are they stubborn? Goddam right they are. Sheesh.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 30, 2005 12:38 PM (pzen5)

62 Bennett's a dick who thinks he can legislate morality between showgirls and craps. his high moral ground is littered with plastic cups laced with hypocrisy. he shouldn't shut up. he's doing wonders for your black voter drive. what- with katrina you should have five percent of the vote if you're lucky in 06. asshats.

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 12:41 PM (nfnmD)

63 This is stupid because what he said is empirically true. Less people = less crime. To take it to the extreme, if we aborted every baby, crime would be completely wiped out within a generation.

Posted by: abuj at September 30, 2005 12:46 PM (TybzN)

64 abuj: What Bennett actually said was that "The crime rate would go down."

Posted by: Doug E. at September 30, 2005 12:50 PM (kUNrb)

65 If we were to abort all republican babies, we would greatly reduce white-collar crime.

Posted by: Bilbo Baggins at September 30, 2005 01:07 PM (Pkouo)

66 If we were to abort all republican babies, we would greatly reduce white-collar crime.

Yes, but perhaps not the white collar crime rate
Blacks even get themselves thrown in jail for white collar crimes disproportionately: 4.0 times more often for fraud, 5.1 times more often for "Bribery / Conflict of Interest," 3.2 times for racketeering, and even 2.9 times more often for embezzlement. I suspect you'd have to go all the way to high end white collar crimes like anti-trust violations and insider trading to find ones where whites have higher per capita rates.From Steve Sailer, quoting stats from The color of Crime

Posted by: Doug E. at September 30, 2005 01:15 PM (kUNrb)

67 Damn it Doug, will you stop throwing facts at their arguments. You know that's not fair. Stick to emotional taunts, that way they'll be able to understand to some extent.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 01:26 PM (ipjUv)

68 Happens every time. A white guy says something racist and then a bunch of white people agree that what he said was not racist. My guess is that most African-Americans think it was a racist statement and they would be the ones who would know about that. If African-Americans think a given statement was racist, maybe good citizens should respect that and give it some serious thought instead of simply rejecting it out of hand.

Posted by: Bilbo Baggins at September 30, 2005 01:39 PM (Pkouo)

69 Robert Lewis,

Your attacks on Bennett might have some validity if they made any sense. Bennett is not a drain on the healthcare system at all. As a wealthy man he can afford to pay for whatever care he needs, including any consequences of poor dietary habits. This being a free country, that is his choice.

Likewise, as a wealthy man Bennett can do as he pleases with his money. That includes gambling away amounts of it that would be stunning to less wealthy people. The fact is that Bennett's gambling fun has never come even close to causing him financial peril and his family has never worried if the bills would be paid. By definition he is not a gambling addict. He is simply someone who can afford to indulge. Bennett's church does not hold gambling to be inherently sinful in of itself and so Bennett is not in violation of the basis for his personal morality.

Posted by: epobirs at September 30, 2005 01:44 PM (9wCWz)

70 Without regard to any other element of this faux controversy, I would like to point out that the original assumption you make in your post is in fact incorrect.

Poor unwed mothers do not, in raw statistical fact, "skew black" in the United States. There are just as many white unwed lower-class women with children, and have been for quite awhile now.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/microdata.html

Posted by: AH at September 30, 2005 01:49 PM (yarTV)

71 Mr. Baggins, I understand your point about listening to blacks to see if it was 'racist.' They've suffered uniquely and are particularly sensitive to racial insult.

But what Mr. Bennett said was a factual statement 'Aborting blacks would result in a lower crime rate' followed in his next breath by a stenuous denuciation of the morality of doing so.

Now, examining what Mr. Bennett actually said, (and not the horrible unspoken thoughts that exist in the minds of listeners) were his words either wrong or immoral (granting for the sake of this argument that truths can be immoral to speak publicly)?

Seriously. I'm willing to listen to what you believe was wrong in his statements (not what others make of those statements.) of either a factual or moral nature. I'm being honest here, not trying to lay some trap. Please be specific.

Posted by: Doug E. at September 30, 2005 01:49 PM (kUNrb)

72 Poor Bill Bennett! He dresses up in an expensive tuxedo, walks down a dark alley in some inner city, and gets mugged. What a surprise! The Left Wing attack machine just lies in wait for stuff like that. Was he right? Hell, yes. Did he have the right to say what he said? Technically, yes, but he seemed to have forgotten that conservative christian white men in this country have less rights to free speech than the rest of the folks, due to Political Correctness.

Posted by: robert108 at September 30, 2005 01:53 PM (lZtLM)

73 My guess is that most African-Americans think it was a racist statement and they would be the ones who would know about that.
Bill:
Mighty white of you to put your opinions into an entire race. Saves them from having to think for themselves. Glad you're still around to carry the white man's burden, you pompous, self-righteous sack of crap.

Btw, what's with the name change? What did Bilbo ever do to you?

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 02:02 PM (ipjUv)

74 Well, let's go directly to what the 'Freakonomics' author says to Bennet, himself:

From - http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/09/bill-bennett-and-freakonomics.html

"(2) Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics. It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement. ...

3) Some people might think that my comments in (2) above are just ducking the race issue because it is politically correct to do so. Anyone who has read Freakonomics knows that I am not afraid to take issues of race head on.... I mean it when I say that, from a purely fact-based and statistical perspective, race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime.

...6) If we lived in a world in which the government chose who gets to reproduce, then Bennett would be correct in saying that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and
your crime rate would go down." Of course, it would also be true that if we aborted every white, Asian, male, Republican, and Democratic baby in that world, crime would also fall....

7) There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways."

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 02:16 PM (qlAlM)

75 Well, let's go directly to what the 'Freakonomics' author says to Bennet, himself:

From - http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/09/bill-bennett-and-freakonomics.html

"(2) Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics. It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement. ...

3) Some people might think that my comments in (2) above are just ducking the race issue because it is politically correct to do so. Anyone who has read Freakonomics knows that I am not afraid to take issues of race head on.... I mean it when I say that, from a purely fact-based and statistical perspective, race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime.

...6) If we lived in a world in which the government chose who gets to reproduce, then Bennett would be correct in saying that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and
your crime rate would go down." Of course, it would also be true that if we aborted every white, Asian, male, Republican, and Democratic baby in that world, crime would also fall....

7) There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways."

Posted by: jim at September 30, 2005 02:16 PM (qlAlM)

76 Uh, Dave Munger, Dawn Eden has many times posted at length on the eugenicist reasoning behind Sanger's promotion of birth control -- it's one of Dawn's major points against Planned Parenthood, which you would know if you had actually ever read her blog.

And I'm not sure what you're talking about her being "busy prancing around in a sacred grove or sacrificing chickens to Cathol or whatever" -- she's converted to Roman Catholicism, which is a mainstream church featuring no grove prancing or chicken sacrificing as part of its rites. But then I am guessing you didn't really want to make a point, just be an asshole about Ms Eden for whatever reason.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 30, 2005 02:17 PM (p5tFN)

77 Oh, and William Bennett is one of those people I just can't admire. I tried reading his Book of Virtues, but it was so fucking boring -- I can see a kid being totally turned off reading and being read to after being read to from that collection of pabulum. Anyone wanting to instill virtues in their kids from books should stick to the old standards, Aesop, Twain, and the Bible. Also, the times I've seen him on tv he has seemed to me to give off the air of a bully. What can I say, he just sets my teeth on edge, and I'm more conservative than Mussolini.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 30, 2005 02:22 PM (p5tFN)

78 HA HA NOW ALL YOU REPUKES ARE EXPOSED FOR THE RACISTS YOU ARE AND AFTER TOM DESPICABLE IS LOCKED UP AND SOME GUY MAKES HIM HIS BITCH THEN WE'RE FINALLY GOING TO SEE SCOOTER LIBBY ROVE CHANEY AND SMIRKY FROG-WALKED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE THEYRE BEING EVICTED BY THE REALITY BASED COMMUNITY SO JUST DEAL WITH IT.

Posted by: DEAL WITH REALITY at September 30, 2005 02:27 PM (Pt3Le)

79 Jim: Steve Sailer responds to Levitt's response at length today though at his site, quoiting an email from a social scientist directly as to his #2 above:

Levitt is so arrogant, he thinks he can just imagine a study just as valid as one that someone actually does. To my knowledge no study exists that he describes that explains away the racial gap in serious crime. Studies of minor delinquency have done this, but criminologists know that white and black rates of misbehaviors like smoking pot are similar. The only study I can think of examining serious crime that controlled for SES was Marvin Wolgang's famous cohort study of all males born in Philadelphia in 1945. (The final sample ended up being around 10,000). He reported that high-Socio-Economic Status blacks were 4 times more likely to be chronic offenders than high-SES whites. High SES blacks were 4 times more likely to have raped, robbed, or committed an aggravated assault. Family structure would probably not have been an issue among high-SES families, especially among blacks. Wolgang concluded that, "Race strongly related to delinquency status regardless of SES level."
Also, I think,more devastating is what he says about Levitt's game of controlling for variables that are, in fact, symptoms.

You can make all sorts of things disappear by "controlling" for variables that are closer to symptoms than causes. For instance, you can make the average height gap between the Dutch and the Japanese disappear by "controlling for" inseam length of the pants hanging in their closets.

What Levittt has done is pick three variables that currently correlate closely with being black and used them as a proxy for blackness. This is the opposite of Occam's Razor, which says you ought to be biased in favor of the fewest number of explanatory variables.

W/r/t Levitt's #6, he's switching within the same answer from overall crime numbers, to a comparison of crime rates something so disingenous, I'm kinda shocked to see someone of his level write that.

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 02:33 PM (kUNrb)

80 Sorry, the above was me. And the second and third para's from the end are also quotes from same. Forgot to blockquote

Posted by: Doug at September 30, 2005 02:35 PM (kUNrb)

81 DEAL WITH REALITY

Parody or real moonbat?

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 02:43 PM (ipjUv)

82 No Name: I said it was my guess that African-Americans would be the best judge of what is and is not racist, you paranoid piece of shit. There is nothing pompous or self-righteous about looking to African Americans as the best judge of what is offensive to them. What's pompous is for a white fuck like you to tell them it wasn't racist.

Doug, thanks for the civil tone of your challenge. My problem with Bennett is the premise for his statement. The higher crime rate among African Americans is a very complex issue that has a lot to do with the inherent racism in our system. His premise completely sidesteps all of the mitigating factors which lead to crime. Most crime is economic in nature and many African Americans are literally stuck in a cycle of poverty. There are too many details to ennumerate here, but the disparity between blacks and whites in areas such as sentencing, arrests, treatment by police opportunity for bank loans, housing, etc. etc. Just one small example is the way the justice system treats crack versus powdered cocaine. Another is the disparity between blacks and whites with the death penalty verdicts. My opinion is our society is steeped in racism. Blacks from Canada and Britain seem to agree with that. Malcom X said that there was no Mason-Dixon line with respect to racism. The only line he saw in North America which made a difference was the Canadian border. Bennett's ham-handed statement takes a very complex and challenging issue and makes a joke out of it.

Posted by: Bilbo Baggins at September 30, 2005 02:46 PM (Pkouo)

83 Andrea Harris, you are, uh, unpleasant. I check out Dawn Eden every day, that's why I used her as an example of someone who'd be right on top of this Bennet thing. She's also a Christian now, which means other Christians don't have to walk on fucking eggshells around her anymore, pointing out the weird Euro-girlyness of the denomination she's chosen isn't going to cause her to reject Christ because Dave's an asshole.

Posted by: Dave Munger at September 30, 2005 02:47 PM (yvp3i)

84 I think I might be able to offer some kind of clarification of the thinking that is going on on the part of Mssrs. Lewis and Baggins. You see, for them, any statement which broadly reflects poorly on a racial minority is racist.

The definitions of racism offered by dictionaries usually consist of either (1) discrimination based on race; (2) prejudice based on race; or (3) the belief that race accounts for differences between people, like their likelihood of committing a crime.

Now, the implications of Bennett's statement clearly satisfy definition (1) - they are discriminatory. However, they clearly do not satisfy definitions (2) or (3) - they are not prejudiced, because they are made not based on his predisposed beliefs, but are based on statistical reality, and they do not assert race as a cause of criminal activity, but only as a correlated variable.

I guess it follows that these trolls, ahem, I mean esteemed guests, are using the first definition. Well, sorry guys, but the way you are using this word "racist," reality is racist. Don't shoot the messenger, and all that. Not that you're more likely to resort to shooting people or anything - I've no idea what your race is.

Posted by: anon at September 30, 2005 02:49 PM (5YM++)

85 >>Are we so racially paranoid that we've become unwilling to speak the unimpeachable truth?>>

Yes.

Posted by: suek at September 30, 2005 03:00 PM (eREEK)

86 Mr. Baggins: I appreciate your response. The one thing I would point out is that your concerns have little to do with what Bill Bennett stated. He said it would reduce the crime rate. You don't seem to disagree with that, instead arguing as to why it would reduce the crime rate (greater societal failings). Mr. Bennett also denounced the underlying idea in no uncertain terms.

You would agree then, wouldn't you, that you're problems with Bennett aren't then what he said at all, but with others who listen, through no fault of Bennett at all, and don't agree with you beliefs as to the GREATER question of WHY blacks commit crime in such disproportionate number?

In short, it still doesn't follow why you're angry with Bennett or what he actually said.

Posted by: Doug E. at September 30, 2005 03:04 PM (kUNrb)

87 Sorry Bilbo,, I forgot to sign my post. BTW, I'm not white, and you're still a douchebag.

So why the name change Bill?

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 03:06 PM (ipjUv)

88 YA YOU DUMB FUCK DONT TELL ME THOSE SCUMBAG YUPPIES WHO SNORT COKE ARENT OUT ON THE STREET HAVING TURF WARS EXCEPT INSTEAD OF AK47S THEY USE THE BIG BERTHA FUSION FT-3 DRIVER WHICH UTILIZES FUSION TECHNOLOGY THE SUPERIOR WEIGHT-SHIFTING SCIENCE DEVELOPED BY CALLAWAY GOLF THAT USES MULTIPLE MATERIALS IN CLUBHEAD CONSTRUCTION. I DONT HAVE TIME TO ENUMERATE ALL THE REASONS THE BIG BERTHA FUSION FT-3 DRIVER IS SUPERIOR TO OTHER CLUBS BUT LIKE THAT MALCOLM MASON DIXON GUY SAID YOU SHOULD JUST MOVE TO FUCKING CANADA LIKE YOUR HERO RUSH LIMBAUGH.

Posted by: DEAL WITH REALITY at September 30, 2005 03:14 PM (Pt3Le)

89 The higher crime rate among African Americans is a very complex issue that has a lot to do with the inherent racism in our system

ah.. so, he's right? we're just arguing about the price?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 30, 2005 03:22 PM (uV+6C)

90 YA YOU DUMB FUCK DONT TELL ME THOSE SCUMBAG YUPPIES WHO SNORT COKE ARENT OUT ON THE STREET HAVING TURF WARS EXCEPT INSTEAD OF AK47S THEY USE THE BIG BERTHA FUSION FT-3 DRIVER WHICH UTILIZES FUSION TECHNOLOGY THE SUPERIOR WEIGHT-SHIFTING SCIENCE DEVELOPED BY CALLAWAY GOLF THAT USES MULTIPLE MATERIALS IN CLUBHEAD CONSTRUCTION. I DONT HAVE TIME TO ENUMERATE ALL THE REASONS THE BIG BERTHA FUSION FT-3 DRIVER IS SUPERIOR TO OTHER CLUBS BUT LIKE THAT MALCOLM MASON DIXON GUY SAID YOU SHOULD JUST MOVE TO FUCKING CANADA LIKE YOUR HERO RUSH LIMBAUGH.
OMG, Awesome job.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 03:31 PM (ipjUv)

91 Dave Munger is definitely an asshole, but DEAL WITH REALITY is my new perverse anti-hero. Here, I will address him in his own tongue: GO DEAL. BRING THAT BABY HOME. YOU HOT WINGER YOU.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 30, 2005 03:39 PM (p5tFN)

92 OMG, Awesome job.

YA DIGITAL BS TOO BAD I DONT HAVE A JOB ANY MORE CAUSE ALL THE FUCKING CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE RETHUGS LIKE TOM DESPICABLE AND GAYLORD DREIER IN THEIR POCKETS JUST SHIP THEM OVERSEAS SO THEY CAN MAKE EVEN MORE PROFITS AND HAVE BIRTHDAY PARTIES FOR THEIR WIFE WHERE PEOPLE GET THEIR DRINKS FROM SOME ICE SCULPTURE GUYS DONG AND BUY $6,000 SHOWER CURTAINS WHEN THEY COULD JUST BUY THE CROSCILL OPULENCE SHOWER CURTAIN THAT FEATURES A COMBINATION OF PAISLEY DAMASK DIAMOND AND LATTICE MOTIFS IN A PATCHWORK PATTERN AND SPICE-TONED COLOR PALETTE YOU FUCKING FASCIST.

Posted by: DEAL WITH REALITY at September 30, 2005 03:43 PM (Pt3Le)

93 DWR, you had me with "YA DIGITAL BS". MAN, YOU ARE ON FUCKING FIRE.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 03:49 PM (ipjUv)

94 Quick, throw gasoline !

Posted by: boris at September 30, 2005 03:57 PM (S+qVM)

95 IT FIGURES YOU SICK FUCKERS WOULD THINK THIS WAS SOME KIND OF JOKE EVERYTHING IS FUNNY TO YOU PEOPLE I'M SICK OF HOW YOU DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT MINORITIES UNTIL SOMEONE CATCHES YOU MAKING RACIST STATEMENTS LIKE THAT FUCKING REDNECK TRENT LOTT ITS BAD ENOUGH THE GUY WEARS A DEAD SQUIRREL ON HIS HEAD BUT THEN HES GOT TO SAY HIS WISHES THAT OLD RACIST DUDE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT NONE OF YOU TRY TO DO ANYTHING TO HELP MINORITIES YOU JUST SPEND ALL YOUR TIME JERKING EACH OTHER OFF IN THE COMMENTS OF BLOGS OR PLAYING ONLINE P*KER (WTF IS WITH THIS FASCIST COMMENT FILTER IT WON'T LET ME SAY P-O-K-E-R) PROBABLY AT P*KERSTARS BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE GREAT ONLINE P*KER ACTION AT YOUR CHOICE OF BUY-INS WITH OPPONENTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD AND OFFER USER-FRIENDLY P*KER SOFTWARE, EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE AND THE BEST SELECTION OF P*KER TOURNAMENTS YA I BET YOUR FUCKING BUDDY BILL BENNETT LOVES THAT CAUSE NOW THAT FUCKING HYPOCRITE WINGER CAN HIDE HIS GAMBLING HABIT JUST LIKE BUSHIE DOES WITH HIS DRINKING.

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 04:17 PM (Pt3Le)

96 THAT LAST COMMENT WAS FROM ME YOU FUCKING REPUBLITARDS!!

Posted by: DEAL WITH REALITY at September 30, 2005 04:19 PM (Pt3Le)

97 You know DWR, it is possible to beat a good joke to death. It was funny the way you pretended to be retarded in the first couple of posts, but you're losing your amusement factor. Maybe if you added a little "dismissed" at the end of your post it might be amusing for a few more posts.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 04:24 PM (ipjUv)

98 THAT LAST COMMENT WAS FROM ME YOU FUCKING REPUBLITARDS!!

Thanks for the clarification, DWR. There are so many hysterical all-caps golf-club-obsessed trolls who've pried all the punctuation keys off their keyboards that it's hard to keep all of you straight.

Posted by: Phinn at September 30, 2005 05:34 PM (TYNA0)

99 YA DIGITAL BS TOO BAD I DONT HAVE A JOB ANY MORE


ok, shit, it's too easy

*falls down laughing*

Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 30, 2005 06:00 PM (uV+6C)

100 Oh, and William Bennett is one of those people I just can't admire.

I use to feel the same way but with nothing to back it up. However, about a year and a half ago I started listening to his radio program. It comes on 3 a.m.-6 a.m. and I started liking him. He talks about his family a lot and is soft spoken and kind. Likes music, too.

Posted by: at September 30, 2005 06:03 PM (52h84)

101 Bennet only forgot one thing. The dim-wits have been losing the black vote and the race baiters are out in force trying to keep them in slavery so they will continue to vote for the dim-wits. The idea that the Blacks are so stupid as not the see through the dim-wits ploys is more racist than any words anyone can speak...Actions are stronger than words and everything the dim-wits have did in the past five years show them to be totally racist. Guess thay always have been, but just came out of the closet in the past five years.

Posted by: scrapiron at September 30, 2005 06:50 PM (ywZa8)

102 HEY FUCK YOU DIGITAL BS I DON'T HAVE TO SHUT UP AT LEAST NOT UNTIL THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN TOTALLY SHREDDED SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP OR GET THE FUCK OUT MAYBE YOU CAN TAKE A MAGNIFICENT 17-DAY CHINA TOUR AT PRICES THAT REPRESENT EXCEPTIONAL FUCKING VALUE FOR YOUR MONEY ASSHOLE SO STICK UP YOUR ASS AND DISCOVER CHINA'S 5000-YEAR-OLD CIVILIZATION BY TAKING A FASCINATING YANGTZE RIVER CRUISE DICKHEAD.

Posted by: DEAL WITH REALITY at September 30, 2005 06:54 PM (Pt3Le)

103 I'm rolling on the floor laughing right now. I can barely reach the keyboard. It's like a troll fighting a comment spammer for control of your soul.

Who told you to shut up? Please continue.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 07:15 PM (ipjUv)

104 HEY FUCK YOU DIGITAL BS I DON'T HAVE TO SHUT UP AT LEAST NOT UNTIL THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN TOTALLY SHREDDED SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP OR GET

1. Punctuation is your friend,
2. CAPS LOCK is not,
2. The Constitution does protect your right to speech, but since this is a privately owned weblog, Ace has the right to boot your ass off of here, faster than Ned Beatty can squeal like a pig in "Deliverance".

The only reason you get to post is the reason we watch monkeys drink their own piss...it's mildly amusing to watch something so utterly gross.
ThatIsAll...

Posted by: cheshirecat at September 30, 2005 08:04 PM (Gdtyf)

105 Ohhh...I ignored this thread for a while, but it looks like we've attracted one of the rare and endangered "all upper case moonbats".

Treat this one gently. We may get a chance to see it breed.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 08:05 PM (X+OCl)

106 We may get a chance to see it breed.

1. It has to have a penis first,
2. It has to get out of his parent's basement first,
3. ...after he done huffing the 10 year old paint,
4. ...the sparkling gold coloured kind, of course.
5. Then he has to actually get a female to talk to him,
6. Preferably one that understands basic grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

So, I wouldn't hold your breath, there, sporto...

Posted by: cheshirecat at September 30, 2005 08:13 PM (Gdtyf)

107 What the?

Deal With Reality, you are awesome. Do you have any tips for removing stubborn stains, or perhaps you could recommend a smooth, yet robust brand of coffee? Ooh, and could you work Chimpy McHitlerburton into your answer?

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at September 30, 2005 08:17 PM (RnIAu)

108 I think DEAL WITH REALITY should get to post on the main page. Think of the money you could get from product placement, ace! He can sell ANYTHING.

Posted by: Sortelli at September 30, 2005 08:35 PM (tHvzT)

109 I still think DEAL WITH REALITY is one of the guys doing a parody. This level of stupidity, mixed with obvious insanity is just too perfect.

But don't let that stop you DWR, because it's funny either way.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 08:44 PM (ipjUv)

110 DWR has a real anger management problem, it seems, with a limited ability to express himself. Seems he needs a real dose of his own name.

Mark Levin hits the nail on the head. I heard the entire segment that's being criticized, and nowhere in it is Bennett suggesting anything except that abortion is just.dead.wrong, and that looking at the statistics from an economic point of view was exactly the wrong way to view the problem.

Bennett may have a gambling problem, but he's dead-on with this.

Posted by: Carlos at September 30, 2005 08:45 PM (/RF5n)

111 I like DWR more than I like Bilbo. At least DWR is amusing.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 08:49 PM (ipjUv)

112 tips for removing stubborn stains

Vinyl tiles - use acetone, but don't pour it on (it'll disolve the adhesive if it gets under the edges), use an acetone soaked rag. Acetone will remove ANYTHING that might be on a floor. Tar, *cough* *cough* blood stains, 50 years of toe jam, etc. Highly recommended for industrial strength cleaning up of stubborn *cough* *cough* incriminating evidence.

Ceram/porcelain tiles - acetone again, but now you can pour it on. Reseal the tiles after cleaning. The acetone will waste the grout sealer.

Blackish mildew stains on roof shingles - baking soda. Pour about 50lb of it along the roof peak and wait for the first good rain. The shit is like magic on mildew stains and it doesn't tear up the shingles like a pressure cleaning would. Dumping the stuff along the roof peak doesn't take nearly as long as pressure cleaning would either. Also works well on mildew stained concrete sidewalks and brick.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 09:10 PM (X+OCl)

113 Ace has the right to boot your ass off of here, faster than Ned Beatty can squeal like a pig in "Deliverance".

HEY EAT ME PUSSYCAT YOUR RIGHT WING SMEAR CAMPAIGN WONT STOP NED BEATTY FROM BEING ELECTED GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA SO ENJOY IT WHILE YOU CAN ASSHOLE MAYBE YOU CAN HAVE A SAUCER OF MILK THEN SNACK ON SOME ALMOND ROCA I TOOK SOME OUT OF THE FOIL AND PUT IT IN THE CATBOX FOR YOU DICKHEAD.

Posted by: DEAL WITH REALITY at September 30, 2005 09:12 PM (Pt3Le)

114 Ummm, acetone is HIGHLY volatile BTW. Open some windows or you'll be higher than some moron huffing glue out of a paper bag. Avoid sparks - its highly flammable. Doing bong hits while using this stuff is not recommended.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 09:14 PM (X+OCl)

115 DWR - you need to open a window, you're not doing it right.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 09:15 PM (X+OCl)

116 Remember the Jimmy Witchard character on King of the Hill? He was the retarded guy that worked at the race track. Is speech was very similar in style.

Jimmy (to Bobby): Do it, you...you monkey boy! I'm the boss of you!

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 09:30 PM (ipjUv)

117 I still think DEAL WITH REALITY is one of the guys doing a parody. This level of stupidity, mixed with obvious insanity is just too perfect.

Oh hell yes. He's like Napoleon Dynamite, possessed by the devil.

MAYBE I CAN CATCH YOU A DELICIOUS BASS NEXT TIME PREPUBLICAN DICKWAD GEEZ

Posted by: Sortelli at September 30, 2005 09:47 PM (tHvzT)

118 For my money, though, the first DWR post was genuine. It didn't have the mark of poetic brilliance in the last half of the screed by going off the rails on some fine product or service.

Posted by: Sortelli at September 30, 2005 09:51 PM (tHvzT)

119 Maybe Ace could have a moonbat/troll "hall of fame" section where superior quality rants could be enshrined?

It would be really tragic if some of this stuff rolls off into the digital void. This is like D-Day footage or something that society needs to preserve for future generations.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 11:04 PM (X+OCl)

120 It's got to be satire.

Posted by: at October 01, 2005 05:33 AM (52h84)

121 > it does seem to me that poor
> unmarried teenagers having babies
> will, as a statistical matter, skew
> fairly black.

With a statement like that, you've just lost the right to even talk to me.

Posted by: Cantankerous Old Cuss at October 01, 2005 05:58 AM (Tz2D0)

122 With a statement like that, you've just lost the right to even talk to me.

And you have lost the right to anyone listening to you. Because you can't have a serious discussion with some one so PC that he is unable to recognize that unwed motherhood and absent fathers have reeked havoc on the black community.

Posted by: at October 01, 2005 06:37 AM (52h84)

123 Looked like sarcasm to me.

But then that's just my first take on anything posted here.

Posted by: boris at October 01, 2005 08:21 AM (S+qVM)

124 "Bennett is essentially taken to task for repeating the argument of another guy in order to decry it."

Actually, Bennett was agreeing with the Freakonomics premise--that there could be a social good from abortion--but was asserting that the social good would be outweighed by the moral wrong. The premise itself has frightening overtones, even for those who favor abortion rights. The fact that Bennett took it one step further and equated "black" with "crime" is racial profiling in extremis, i.e. stating that unborn black children are potential criminals, despite class background. Racist apologetics about "how the statistics skew" just compound the wrong by identifying race and not class as the contributing factor. The fact that race often determines class merely affirms the inherent racism.

Posted by: Straw Man at October 01, 2005 08:47 AM (5V3zC)

125 He wasn't agreeing with the premise, he was assuming the premise to be true for the sake of argument.

Posted by: Dave Munger at October 01, 2005 11:40 AM (yvp3i)

126 MAYBE YOU CAN HAVE A SAUCER OF MILK THEN SNACK ON SOME ALMOND ROCA

I prefer toffee, myself.

As for eating you, thanks, but if I was feeling all peckish for rotting meat, I would be snacking on one of your mother's fetid labium...with lima beans and a nice bottle of Chianti.

Posted by: cheshirecat at October 01, 2005 12:43 PM (Gdtyf)

127 Bennett said: "...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."

Dave Munger says: "He wasn't agreeing with the premise, he was assuming the premise to be true for the sake of argument."

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Bennett is unquivocal in his acceptance of the premise. He goes on to overlay a moral objection, but he reiterates the soundness of the premise. He also introduces the racial element, which is doubly rephrehensible.

I find the original premise repugnant anyway, in that it steps down the slope toward Hitlerian sterization of "social undesirables," etc. Bennett doesn't win any humanitarian prizes when he takes the original vile premise, dumps a racial slur on top of it, and then cops a weak moral stance of "but that would be wrong."

It's clear to me that his overall aim was to score political points against proponents of abortion with the "abortion is genocide" argument. This is a view he shares with Louis Farrakhan. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Posted by: Straw Man at October 02, 2005 12:17 AM (5V3zC)

128 Bennett said: "...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."

Dave Munger says: "He wasn't agreeing with the premise, he was assuming the premise to be true for the sake of argument."

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Bennett is unquivocal in his acceptance of the premise. He goes on to overlay a moral objection, but he reiterates the soundness of the premise. He also introduces the racial element, which is doubly rephrehensible.

I find the original premise repugnant anyway, in that it steps down the slope toward Hitlerian sterization of "social undesirables," etc. Bennett doesn't win any humanitarian prizes when he takes the original vile premise, dumps a racial slur on top of it, and then cops a weak moral stance of "but that would be wrong."

It's clear to me that his overall aim was to score political points against proponents of abortion with the "abortion is genocide" argument. This is a view he shares with Louis Farrakhan. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Posted by: Straw Man at October 02, 2005 12:17 AM (5V3zC)

129 Bennett is unquivocal in his acceptance of the premise.

Sad when people can't recognize a hypothetical. It reflects so poorly on the state of education in this country.

You don't have to accept anything to argue a hypothetical.

Posted by: at October 02, 2005 12:30 AM (X+OCl)

130 It's clear to me that his overall aim was to score political points against proponents of abortion with the "abortion is genocide" argument. This is a view he shares with Louis Farrakhan. Strange bedfellows indeed.

And it clear to everyone here that your aim is some lame attempt to score points against conservatives. Nothing strange about that. We're use to cheap shots by people like you.

Posted by: at October 02, 2005 01:45 AM (k+tYP)

131 I have a couple of posts on this issue that I'd add to the mix here.

Posted by: Jeff G at October 02, 2005 06:36 AM (TpsyO)

132 "You don't have to accept anything to argue a hypothetical."

Yes, you do. You have to accept a premise and then talk about what might happen as a result. Or you can reject the premise. Bennett didn't do that. Bennett said "your crime rate would go down." He accepted the premise.

I'll refrain from commenting on your education. That would be rude and ad hominem. You've heard of ad hominem.

Posted by: at October 02, 2005 10:59 AM (5V3zC)

133 "And it clear to everyone here that your aim is some lame attempt to score points against conservatives. Nothing strange about that. We're use to cheap shots by people like you. "

I would consider the fact that you have abandoned the argument in order to attack me to be a sign that I have succeeded. Thank you.

Posted by: Straw Man at October 02, 2005 11:03 AM (5V3zC)

134 Bennett said "your crime rate would go down." He accepted the premise.

UCR and NCVS data are not a "premise" - they are hard indisputable fact.

Posted by: at October 02, 2005 11:52 AM (X+OCl)

135 If the Right -wing can can debate black morality there is also another side to this debate one that involves patriotism, loyalty to a country that only shows it when they want to use our bodies for the war machine or your entertainment. There is another side to this debate.
I think personally, it is for time Afro- Americans seriously discuss doing what the Israeli people are doing in Palestine for their own self- protection, " racial disengagement" from white america. If white amerikkkans can debate black morality then black disengagement would be a reasonable response and honest conversation .As long as white american opinion is coming from the news and and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, and those attitudes have not changed over the past 25 years since the conservative rise to power in fact, these opinions have hardened from simple disagreements on political issues to saying the people in New Orleans "got what they deserved for depending on the Government" (when in every other country people feel even in the most violently oppressive regimes that government should have aided these people in their time of need.) to total disdan for black life,(and after press reports to lot of the so-called rapes and crime were outright lies and fabrications) For me personally Bennett's statment and most amerikkkans defense of it (from black conservatives saying we need to lighten up) is the final straw. Considering the fact that 70% of white males committ more crimes as oppose to black males 27% according to the most recent FBI stats in 2003(the FBI only counts who gets locked up not arrested) that there other reasons for the high numbers of AA locked up in prison from shoddy defense attorneys to giving the D.A. too much lattitude in bringing cases to trial and our awful drug laws. (which Bennett created when he was drug Czar) I think personally it is time we had a debate on whether further dealing in trying to solve the race problem in this country is becoming determential to our development as strong, sane black nation in amerikkka. It may sound like I am advocating separation but that's impossible for a population of 13%, what I am saying the time has come to leave the table of racial reconcilation and move to self-development and things like...

1. developing strong black-led institutions
2. Keeping our young men and women out of harms way
3. Taking care of our elders
4. get rid of our subsittute teachers called "black leaders' (right and left)
5. Have a more secular - based leadership that is not committed to racial intergration but black improvment
6. building black colleges that are just a s strong as the Yales, Notre Dames
7. How will be be defended in times of crisis (natural disaters , riots etc..)
8. And teaching our kids to be independent of the majority society instead of waiting for a "rainbow" of racial harmony.

I think a rational plan would be to not expect anything of racial reconcilation or 'colorblindness' from this society(expect to protect our hard-earned rights)from white amerikkka (or it's citizens) at this point in our development as a people. I think it is time to let amerikka go and the disscussion on race should be amongst white amerikkkans like yourself because people like you are the ones who bear "the orginal sin " of racial hatred and discrimination. We should define our humanity on our own terms AS STRONG BLACK PEOPLE. Racial Reconcilation in this country is 'overrated' at best .A debate amongst Afro- Americans would be more realistic than getting angry at a white racialist Like Bennett .

Eric Daniels

tampa, florida

Posted by: eric at October 06, 2005 10:43 PM (VeSIh)

136 nytecqi tfgyrialb whogkdr usfk iwzqkj htyqvbo cwhvabxj

Posted by: dvmbjzg tjpfwylse at July 26, 2008 01:28 AM (6OjXr)

137 ibxlcew kbvq

Posted by: zestoretic side effects at July 26, 2008 04:56 AM (as/3t)

138 odkzjmn yfndgq cigtb lmkieg

Posted by: how does torsemide control diatebes at July 26, 2008 10:47 AM (VNs64)

139 iwvjl

Posted by: torsemide oral at July 26, 2008 02:20 PM (ZgckT)

140 iukamc zwjb bpght jvgxt

Posted by: how does torsemide control diatebes at July 26, 2008 02:31 PM (IK0Xu)

141 zsec yjkfzvn zjiyo njlqfvd

Posted by: drugs avalide at July 26, 2008 04:24 PM (cSTIi)

142 oyeix yxczsj baufem owdei

Posted by: avalide no prescription at July 26, 2008 05:43 PM (cSTIi)

143 bhxgjsc ztpof gkqx

Posted by: zocor side affects at July 27, 2008 12:43 AM (MmEcy)

144 wgmvlp kouwxes tahxgv zoqud

Posted by: lipitor and grapefruit at July 27, 2008 04:51 AM (LFAJG)

145 ldqaf kouqt lofucw

Posted by: impotence lipitor at July 27, 2008 05:18 AM (MmEcy)

146 jqsur ebklos lpwgf

Posted by: lipitor interaction at July 27, 2008 05:21 AM (LFAJG)

147 wfgux trpes cyej

Posted by: what is lipitor at July 27, 2008 09:17 AM (JPfh0)

148 unqod rncbqz jgxuiwo gsfvw

Posted by: lipitor muscle problems at July 27, 2008 10:20 AM (MmEcy)

149 wqjeni rmuk

Posted by: lisinopril oral at July 27, 2008 04:11 PM (MmEcy)

150 vmfkhjz erktvih quabitj

Posted by: zestril with hctz at July 28, 2008 09:01 PM (vbBy8)

151 teog kgwjet

Posted by: generic for zestril at July 28, 2008 09:35 PM (pfXFW)

152 oqcer iloas

Posted by: buy soma online without a prescription soma buy online at July 31, 2008 07:57 PM (LO/wZ)

153 gltjf vukc

Posted by: buy carisoprodol diazepam online soma at August 02, 2008 07:50 PM (yIaVQ)

154 gdsxjfc ybums

Posted by: xnxx buy viagra at August 03, 2008 01:13 PM (Np/dX)

155 gjazqh wuham lgkrvsq ovjxf

Posted by: where to buy propecia at August 08, 2008 12:02 AM (PZRqW)

156 jlvpm ogrd xeig nvfxlb

Posted by: flomax rx at September 05, 2008 02:15 PM (EBXC1)

157 nvigxd yqcjk

Posted by: cardura at September 07, 2008 06:00 AM (kDxHr)

158 lmwe

Posted by: what is avodart at September 07, 2008 03:49 PM (MRrad)

159 uycg ofycn zqulxs uwyhj

Posted by: generic casodex at September 11, 2008 04:19 PM (oZZ3Q)

160 jxgvkuh cramhw smgk

Posted by: patient assitance programs for casodex at September 11, 2008 04:53 PM (acmdK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
168kb generated in CPU 0.16, elapsed 1.146 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0469 seconds, 396 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.