Bennett's defense would be:

"I was a shill for the administration even before I took money from them!"

Also, don't forget Bennett's gambling problems were (at least largely) in casinos, no less.

One big angle of the Abramoff scandal involves Indian tribes and their casinos. Related is the point that these values heroes, inclulding moral majority poster child Ralph Reed, were pushing gambling.

And CNN puts a guy with a notorious gambling habit on, which will no doubt dampen the discussion of this angle in a huge corruption scandal.

Total idiocy.

Would you feel the same way about the Reverend Jesse Jackson? I recall $5 million of Dept of Ed funds disappeared from his shakedown operation and he's still the go-to guy for news analysis on black issues.

A degenerate junkie gambler getting a highly paid slot on TV? Great, what's next, giving a radio show to a drug addict or letting a multiple adulterer and sexual harasser get his own opinion show on a news network....?

Does anyone still watch CNN? They're a laughingstock with or without Bill Bennett.

CNN has truly gone down the tubes. This is really bad.

I used to be in the business of competing for government grants. The process was a lot more transparent in those days, to say the least. We would submit proposals under the guidelines of the federal register. Proposals were evaluated by committees of professionals who, if you had submitted a promising proposal, often would contact you for additional information. There was back and fourth, there was feedback, there was information shared about who won the proposal and why. Folks like me and my partners, who had no political connections, actually had a chance to win grants based upon competence and excellent work.

Today is a new day. The process is opaque. If you are not connected, forget it. It’s political, unethical and dishonest. And it’s all due the leadership at the head of the federal government.

Today, I certainly would not bother to write and submit a grant proposal. The quality of a proposal is now irrelevant, as is the competence of those who will execute the proposal.

I don't know why anyone watches cable news. Or any tv news.

To respond to your concern, you conveniently brushed over his work on radio. He is still on the air.

As for his controversial comment, Bennett is speaking on a hypothetical that he disagrees with. He is still against abortion so the faked outrage is misplaced.

For his "last major contribution to the political world," how can you say that? Gambling is still a legal activity. Is gambling a virtue? Of course not, but it is still a legal activity and it is heavily regulated.

There should be more disclosure by journalists, but I don't think the label really works with Bennett. He has always been an commentator with an agenda.

This denies the fact that those who work with a person or organization have the MOST objective opinion of the faults or that person or organization.

If you want to know how good a job you're doing, ask your staff. That's what I do, and it serves me well.

With Abramoff about to roll over, DeLay headed for the slammer, and Lord knows what else emerging from the primeval ooze that is the GOP, obviously CNN needed a moral-values-and-ethical-principals guru on staff to discuss the ethical issues.

I mean, Bennett is an expert on virtues, and stuff.

He even wrote a book.

Coulter:ConLaw::Bennett:Ethics.

Bill can only help CNN. Their liberal bias is getting them crushed by Fox. If they were smart they'd give him an hour in the evening.

He is very smart, extremely well educated, and a trained, skilled debater. This is very good for them.

Bill started in talk radio at the same time as Al Franken. He kicked Al's ass out of the park. With his show and more books coming out CNN now has a signifcant Conservative Intellect.

" Bennett is speaking on a hypothetical that he disagrees with. He is still against abortion so the faked outrage is misplaced.
Posted by: tommy b on December 31, 2005 at 1:11 PM |"
tb, I'll be polite and assume you are deliberately distorting the positions of people outraged by Bennet's quote -- since the only alternative is that you're just not bright enough to understand. So:
As you well know, no credible spokesperson on the left was outraged at the "suggestion" that Black babies be aborted; we recognize that a "pro-lifer" such as Bennet would never actually favor that. (Ignoring -- nay, working against -- their well-being for the entire span of their lives after birth -- that's another matter entirely. But that's for another day.)
As you know perfectly well, the outrage is at the explicit association of "Black" with "criminal." That is, of course, the very essence of racism. And the outrage is anything but "faked."
But of course, since you are not stupid, you knew that.

Actually, CNN's attempt to out-Fox Fox will probably hurt them in the long run. Most of Fox's audience still regards them as the Clinton News Network, and the rest of us regard them as a joke.

Knock it off with the disingenuousness, Kevin.

With his show and more books coming out CNN now has a signifcant Conservative Intellect.

that doesn't say much about the state of Conservative Intellectualism.

With poker becoming the rage, CNN needed a gambling expert.

Please come back Ted Turner and clean house. With the force out of Aaron Brown, CNN has become FAUX Lite.

"As you know perfectly well, the outrage is at the explicit association of "Black" with "criminal." That is, of course, the very essence of racism. And the outrage is anything but "faked.""

There's the liberal response.... to deny reality.

Many people on both sides of the political spectrum acknowlege that blacks cause a disproportionate amount of crime, but that does not mean "black" and "crime" is fused as inseparable. Crime is always an individual activity.

Liberal outrage is FAKED because they know that abortion cannot be opposed without exposing their own hypocrisy. Black women have more abortions. That's a fact. Despite higher than normal abortions, blacks still do more crimes than the general population.

Yet, no one on the conservative side is calling for abortion despite the high crime rate of blacks. In fact, they want to improve things, but the liberal agenda means victimhood mentality, poor public schools, second class citizenship in the Democratic Party, and readily available abortions.

I think you missed the point. Abortion is morally repugnant and it should not be used to carry out social policy as it is doing right now.

As with the post below, when is the general public finally going to get it?

Republican scold=crooked hypocrite.

Much like Fox, CNN has nothing to do with news. It uses news as the medium to which it wraps it's political agenda around and forms some sort of bastardized talking points it feeds the masses. It is an attempt to keep otherwise intelligent people ingorant.

It is getting harder every day to get real news without the political spin. That is a real problem IMHO. When we can't trust the media we lose the ability to gain a credible understanding of the world we live in. Thank you Fox for leading the way in forcing us to remain ignorant.

Amazing. When anyone talks about the "liberal media," he gets hooted down as though nobody rational could possibly think such a thing. Media full of liberals? Naw.

But have a conservative show up at places like CNN, the L.A. Times, or NPR, and liberals act as shocked as if a Martian had just walked into the room.

BTW, I only wish I had a staff. Mine pretty much consists of a computer and a drip coffeemaker. The coffeemaker is a cool one though. It's the kind you stick your mug under and it dispenses the coffee, so you don't have to put down your doughnut.

Tomm P: thanks for your post, but to me it begs some questions.

Let’s stipulate your assertions as facts.

“Black women have more abortions.” What would you say are the reasons for this? Just curious.

“Despite higher than normal abortions, blacks still do more crimes than the general population.” Just curious.

“Abortion is morally repugnant and it should not be used to carry out social policy as it is doing right now.” Exactly what is the social policy? Who is carrying it out?

I’m just not sure exactly what you are trying to say.

tommy b wrote:

There's the liberal response.... to deny reality

Is this the only thing right-wing trolls can do, pretend that this sort of gibberish means anything? Of course no one is denying reality. Then again, it's not as if conservatives truly seem to care about reality.

Many people on both sides of the political spectrum acknowlege that blacks cause a disproportionate amount of crime, but that does not mean "black" and "crime" is fused as inseparable

Again, gibberish. Name some on the left who think blacks cause a "disproportionate" amount of crime, please? The few I've heard even discuss this talk about how the law is so often used to punish blacks for crimes whites don't get punished for, or are punished less severely (cocaine versus crack). You seem to be a racist, but don't want to appear so. The only time I hear someone gibbering about blacks and crime is some racist desperate to make a point, but not appear to be racist...

Liberal outrage is FAKED

Given that conservatives have created an industry of faked outrage (think about Kerry's mentioning that the Cheney's have a lesbian daughter, and the ridiculously fake outrage that caused, for one example) do please stop projecting.

blacks still do more crimes than the general population

Let me ask you, if you think that's the case, can you provide evidence? And, if you can, can you tell us why you think that is? I'd love to hear it.

the liberal agenda means victimhood mentality, poor public schools, second class citizenship in the Democratic Party, and readily available abortions

Yes, do let's leave it up to right-wing trolls to define what the liberal agenda is... You simply know not of what you speak. But, I guarantee you think you do, and you'll go on an on.

I think you missed the point.

No, you miss the point, obviously on purpose. Bennett was criticized for making a point which rested on a racist assertion. No amount of blather from you or anyone else can obscure that. Not that, again, that will stop you from trying.

tbrosz wrote:

Amazing. When anyone talks about the "liberal media," he gets hooted down as though nobody rational could possibly think such a thing. Media full of liberals? Naw

I'm at the point now where I just assume anyone who speaks of a "liberal media" is too stupid to bother with. You can provide anecdotes at best, but never evidence of it (being that it's simply an untrue assertion, I am not surprised) but, hey, it's a wonderful way to obscure the issues, so you'll keep right on trying.

i have no problem with conservative commentators. bennett,however, is a retread hack. doesn't the right have someone with something interesting to say? someone with a willingness to run counter to the administration line every now and then, even on conservative grounds? never will be heard a discouraging word from the lips of poker bill.

tbrosz, your coffeemaker does sound cool.

With poker becoming the rage, CNN needed a gambling expert.

Bill is no gambling expert. He is a degenerate slots player. I'd be willing to wager he was the laughingstock of the employees who seated his royal bulk in front of his own personal machine in the wee hours of the a.m.

If he played regularly in high stakes poker games, or was a sharp judge of race horses, I'd give him a bit of grudging admiration--even though he is a wanker is all other respects.

why waste time on this insignificant clog in the repub machine?

who will be you next traget? the ganitor of the white house?

tommy b,

The white sheet doesn't hide the point on top of your head.

watch those donuts, 'broz.

Abortion is morally repugnant and it should not be used to carry out social policy as it is doing right now

it is ?

tommy b apparently lives in some bizarro world.

How can CNN be getting as "significant Conservative Intellect" when Bill Bennett doesn't have one to bring? What, exactly, has he actually DONE to warrant any significant reputation? Bill Bennett is the intellectual equivalent of the crony capitalist faux businessmen now running our government into the ground. Prizes given out for the best phrase to describe the phenomenon: "crony intellectual" just doesn't do it.

There's the liberal response.... to deny reality

Damn straight! The modern GOP has a total death-grip on reality! There really WERE WMDs in Iraq... we really WERE welcomed as liberators... there really WAS a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda... the 9/11 hijackers really WERE Iraqis... "intelligent design" really IS a scientific theory... needle exchanges really DO encourage more drug use... Brownie really WAS doing a heck of a job... there really ARE fairies in the bottom of the garden...

the foxification of cnn, dirty deeds done dirt cheap.

happy new year kevin from sunny austin texas.

Mike B. does not believe the crime rate for blacks is higher than for other groups, and doesn't believe the media leans left, either. I'm afraid to ask him which income percentile pays most of the income taxes.

I could post statistics and links, but what would be the point? He obviously missed the implications of the reactions when a conservative shows up at a media outlet.

I have never for the life of me known why I should pay to have cable in the house.

Tbrosz said,

"This denies the fact that those who work with a person or organization have the MOST objective opinion of the faults or that person or organization.

If you want to know how good a job you're doing, ask your staff. That's what I do, and it serves me well."

I doubt you meant that. Personal involvement generally lessens objectivity. It provides more raw info, sure. Having a stake in a given outcome impedes analysis, however.

As for your staff, you're in a power relationship with them. Maybe you guys do well, but you were trying to generalize from that. You shouldn't have. Generally, powerful people get more bullshit thrown at them that others.

That being said, I think outside analysts and consultants are most often hired to give a veneer of objectivity, to displace responsibility for viewpoints, etc.

bobbyp:

Actually, to be truthful, I don't normally eat donuts, but it sounded good. Right now, my nemesis is Christmas cookies.

It's the kind you stick your mug under and it dispenses the coffee, so you don't have to put down your doughnut.

Here. Here. Ladies and gentleman. Let's hear for the humor of Mr. Rosz.

And now Bennett appears poised to bring this same level of ethical, professional commentary to CNN. Great.

—Steve Benen

What cave have you been hiding in for the last few decades? Bennett has always been a conservative and always talked like a conservative. He was a conservative when he worked for the government, ran a government funded program or worked for Fox. So what has changed except the never ending fault finding of left wingnuts?

So he is going to work for CNN. Fox has it's share of liberal commentators. It is called trying to provide a little balance to your braodcasts. I love it!

I have never for the life of me known why I should pay to have cable in the house.

Posted by: bob h

Other than the obviuos things. Much like the phone company they run cable to your house and provide service which is optional. You don't have to have it if you don't want it. Put up an antenna.

"Fox has it's share of liberal commentators. It is called trying to provide a little balance to your braodcasts."

Wow, guess Bennett's not the only one on the payroll. You'd think tthey could afford spellcheck, though.

They need all the wind they can get to prop up this failed presidency, even the hypocrites.

C.J.

If you've ever heard the man speak you would realize immediately he is a learned man. He and his brother, Robert Bennett, defender of Slick Willie, as products of the Jesuit run prep scool system so you know immediately of a rigorous education in the classics and ethics which he continued at Williams College, Univ of Texas and Harvard Law School. That's how he is able to write so clearly on virtues.

Dr. Bennett is more than just well educated. He's not like those twits who stay in academia because they can't make a living in the real world. He can think on his feet and articulate complex concepts clearly. Bill has been successful in everything he's tried.

This was a very smart move by CNN.

I have never for the life of me known why I should pay to have cable in the house.

Posted by: bob h

Well....lot's of people don't. But then, that is not playing by the rules. :)

Personally, I was sad to see CNN do away with Aaron Brown's news hour. I've liked Aaron since he was an anchor in Seattle long ago.

There is a statement upthread that says the news media is really no longer journalism, but is using the news to wrap political agendas around. (Sorry I am too lazy to scroll up and give proper credit); this is an astute observation.

I sometimes wonder if getting rid of cable and getting satellite would increase the availablity of worldwide newscasts to get the full spectrum of viewpoints from which to consider. Can anyone out there getting satellite TV give some advice as to whether this is achievable? Or are the choices of broadcasts pretty much the same?

For Mike B:

You want evidence? Here are some crime statistics for one city (Indianapolis):

http://www.indygov.org/NR/rdonlyres/em3fiyinqac3v5dguhllfo3k36g4gfnf73mrovbzc754rdl7gwj47cgxtevk42ivdyis6nyx3dmktfkqcznmozxyijf/homicide2004.pdf

68% of the victims are black male.

76% of the suspects are black male.

Would you like more statistics?

Please do not embarrass yourself and claim that this is only because of white racism.

Well, I guess this means CNN will be hiring a doughnut and cigarette coordinator. I wonder what they pay?

Let's see, I am betting Bennett will last two years at CNN. Any takers? C'mon, just one more round! After all I have books full of virtues and my luck is solid!

"Bill has been successful in everything he's tried."

The jokes just tell themselves around here, folks.

That smoking lipid Bennett will have a heart attack on the air. CNN can call it the myocardial infarction hour. Let's see that putz O'reilly beat that.

Found this at Brad Delong's blog, and it pretty much sums it up.

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish : "Bill Bennett is a hypocrite, a loathsome fungus on the tree of American politics, a man who has worked unceasingly to make America a worse place--when he's not publishing the work of others under his own name, or rolling the dice at Las Vegas while claiming that America's poor would be rich if only they had the righteousness and moral fiber that he does. But Bill Bennett is not afflicted with genocidal fantasies about ethnically cleansing African-Americans. The claim that he is is completely, totally wrong."

I thought Billy was going to add his name and talents to Bravo's Celebrity Poker match.

I mean with a mix up of B-level celebs, why not throw in some degenerate loser of a gambler who claims to have more morals than the rest of us?

I was responding to a name-stealer, I see. I expect tbrosz to say wacky things at intervals. I assumed he'd be the kind of ego-driven boss that'd believe his cronies, believe in his own powers of judgment... a GWB. And those were unfair assumptions.

Bennett probably does think he's objective about pies he has his finger in.

There was a time when CNN, operated by Ted out of Atlanta, was a refreshing change of pace from the NY based, corporate owned network news.

America needs an independent, offshore provider of news, ala Al Jazera. The US based news outlets can no longer be trusted.

68% of the victims are black male.
76% of the suspects are black male.
Would you like more statistics?
Please do not embarrass yourself and claim that this is only because of white racism.

I tell you what does look like a case of racism, or at the very least deliberate mendacity: The fact that you posted this link, misrepresented its contents, and then itemized these selected statistics as being representative of something.

Can you guess which city this sentence is talking about?
By race, 60.5 percent of arrestees for violent crime were white and 37.2 percent were black.

The trouble of looking at crime data, is that you have to take into account socio-economic indicators. If you control for education, poverty, and various sociological factors, such as family stability, you see that the supposed disparity between black and white crime disapears.

You want evidence? Here are some crime statistics for one city (Indianapolis

As the distinguished R. Porrofatto has already pointed out this is a clear case of twisting information. These aren't crime statistics, but homocide statistics for 2004. The most damning point, that 76% of the suspects are black male. refers to 75 individuals. Now thor, do you really think you can prove a cultural trend by generalizing from a sample of 75 individuals to a nation of almost 300,000,000? I don't think so.

Gee, let me guess. Or not.

At least I provided a link for people to peruse what seems to be a clear connection between homocide and race.

Also, I was responding to a post that asked for information on a correlation between blacks and criminal activity.

So, here is the racial mix in this city:

67.5% White
25.4% Black

Now. Please tell me why blacks are (allegedly, since this report only talks about suspects.) responsible for 76% of the homocides?

Is it possible CNN recognizes they are losing market share to FOX?

Maybe they realize another elitist metrosexual with blow-dried hair won't stop the slide.

LW Phil Says:
These aren't crime statistics, but homocide statistics for 2004.

Homocide is a crime.

I only did a 10 minute review of a place that I am familiar with. If you have better statistics, Please show them to me.

Now. Please tell me why blacks are (allegedly, since this report only talks about suspects.) responsible for 76% of the homocides?

No.

But feel free to tell us why you think this is so, since you seem to think you have an answer.

Once again, can you guess which city this sentence is talking about?
By race, 60.5 percent of arrestees for violent crime were white and 37.2 percent were black.

Okay, I will guess Indianapolis. Please tell me I am right!

I'm tired of waiting. I found your 60.5%.

You're cute, dragging a national statistic into a local discussion.

but, let's break it down.

60.5% arrestees are white
37.2% arrestees are black

According to the 2000 Census:

77.1% of the population are white.
12.9% of the population are black.

I am not a statistician, nor do I wish to be one, nor do I wish to spend much more time on this, but,

How can 12.9% of the population accounting for 37.2% of the arrests be a good thing?

BobbyP,

Yeah, I do believe that he is more of a slots puller or a clueless, "Hit me" type. Doubt if one ever saw him at Binions or hanging with Andy Beyer.

Tough about him not being a horse player as I did want to ask him who he liked for the La Brea at Santa Anita tomorrow. With his PhD and all, thought he might at least be a Bonnie Ledbecker "looks" player or at least a Beyer chalk guy. Can't see him with the Damon Runyon guys.

Coach, Liberal commentators all share the same Janitor's Broom closet at FAUX with InSanity's flunky holmes. Oh, excuse me, holmey is their only lib. He gets to play with all of the brooms by his lonesome self. Greta does not count as she is on permanent assignment in Aruba.

Correction - Bonnie Ledbetter.

LW Phil, Is any snow left on Mammoth?

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the DailyKos is on record* calling the Democrats in 1994 “a totally corrupted party.” That is an outrageous and defamatory statement, and Moulitsas should issue a quick retraction and full apology.

A totally corrupted party? That would necessarily include Democrats in the U.S House of Representatives in 1994, such as Nancy Pelosi, Ronald Dellums, Henry Waxman, Jane Harman, Patricia Schroeder, John Lewis, Barney Frank, Joe Kennedy, Edward Markey, John Conyers, and John Murtha, among many others.

It would also include Democratic members of the U.S Senate in 1994, including Barbara Boxer, Bill Bradley, Robert Byrd, Russell Feingold, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Paul Simon, and Paul Wellstone, among many other senators.

Also included in the Democratic Party in 1994 was a little-known governor in a small northeastern state, Howard Dean. Were they all “totally corrupted?”

Moulitsas inexplicably says they were. Whether it was simply a poor choice of words, a deeply held belief, or a cynical ploy to sell books, he owes all Democrats an explanation and a sincere apology.

* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10629288/site/newsweek/

“That is what happened to the Democrats in 1994. We were the corrupt party then. It was not pretty being a Democrat. But it took Democrats 30 years to become a totally corrupted party and it took the GOP only 10 years.”

LW Phil, Is any snow left on Mammoth

Paul, I'm in NW Montana. There's snow on Big Mountain, but the conditions aren't exactly prime. We're heading up Monday, even if its raining. Mammoth should be cooking what with the new storms.

Doesanybody know what we got for the 4.1 million?

The 100 million to the Lincoln Group is also a lot of money. What did we buy?

LW Phil,

Enjoy the fireworks tonight - Imagine the Bierstube will be rockin' with the Coup de Jam.

But watch out for that Grizzly they put up on their site. A Griz that skis.

Yeah, it once took me two days to get Mammoth in one of these winter storms - Had to go up from Bishop in a single lane convoy - But it scared away a ton of skiers and the powder was worth it.

Happy New Years

Same to you my friend.

There appears to be ignorance of crime by blacks. Yet despite the higher rate of crime, no one should be having abortions based on race. It is wrong despite the fact that black women have a disproportionate amount of abortions than any other group.

Here's some links for your review.
http://suppressednews.com/newsitems/national/AAuAlyyyyGklpjgKG.html

"For instance, they fail to include the fact that while blacks constitute only 12.4 percent of the country's population they commit 50 percent of the violent crimes and 67 percent of those involving robbery. Based on these figures, on a per capita basis, blacks are 8 times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites. And, these are not minor crimes of robbery for food and clothing."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hendershott013103.asp

"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. Sadly, black women were also more likely to obtain riskier abortions late in their pregnancies, while white women were significantly more likely than black women to obtain abortions before 16 weeks."

"While these data most likely reflect inequality in access to health care, data also indicate that the racial disparities in abortion rates have increased steadily since 1989. In some localities, including Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland, and Georgia, more than half of all abortions are performed on black women. Black women in New York City and in the entire state of New Jersey receive more than 47 percent of all abortions performed there."

I agree nobody should be promoting abortion for one race more than the other, but it is true that abortion does cut the crime rate, and its also true that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

Why that is I don't know. Its important not to sweep under the rug though the fact that the country is much better off in many ways if women (especially poor, young, unmarried girls) have easy access to abortion.

Isn't tv news mainly for people who don't want to know the news? I have never watched CNN except when waiting in DRs offices, so I really wouldn't care whom they hired, and I am surprised that anyone here cares.

I think the bizarre side conversation about black women and abortion reveals that, whatever Bennett's apologists may say on his behalf, his actual supporters are deeply and pervasively racist.

Every study of abortion ever done shows that when women are poor they simply can't afford to have more children, when poverty is on the rise, women can't afford the children they already have let alone new ones. When poverty and economic uncertainity rise, the rate of abortion and the number of abortions rise. If black are still disproportionatly poor, you would expect them to have higher rates of abortion--especially under republican leadership when access to health care and to good jobs is limited.

So what?

What on earth does that have to do with whether bennett, a man a number of right wing posters have identified as essentially employed by the white house, should pose as a serious commentor on public affairs. If the guy is double dipping financially the answer is, obviously, no. We don't want journalists whose day job is writing and regurgitating propaganda for the government. But no doubt the right wing will discover this for themselves anew when a democrat is in power.

aimai

For goodness sake, is the issue of racism here really that difficult for guys like you to follow thor? Try and follow this: Bennett's argument, facetious though it was, rested not on the assumption that blacks commit more crimes(This is nonetheless obviously erroneous,but lets leave that aside for the moment) but on the assumption that blacks are likely to commit more violent crimes because they are black. That is the only sense in which the scenario he proposes - killing all black babies as a way to reduce the murder rate - would actually make sense. It assumes that it is not the social factors in which blacks exist that accounts for the higher rate of violent crime among blacks but the simple fact that they are black. How else could aborting black babies reduce the rate of violent crime if no other social factors are addressed? Presumably there will still be poverty and thus the various social ills attached to poverty will remain. If it is not the case that blacks are more likely to commit crimes just because they are black, then how would killing all of them change anything with respect to violent crime rates?

Aimai, let me see if I am understanding your argument correctly. You seem to believe that no matter what the facts are, supporters of Bill Bennett are racist. Isn't that rather clumsy. Or are you just frustrated that you can't argue against truth?

So, please, call us names. Tell anyone that will listen to you that every single inequity in American life is caused by the Republicans.

You will continually completely ignore the fact that a person with a mild amount of ambition can do very well in this society.

You will continually dismiss everything as right wing propaganda, mainly so that you do not have to discuss the merits of what is being said.

As for Bennett, he is a conservative. The main arguments against him in this thread seem to be that, in his private life, he gambled (I keep forgetting that only Democrats are allowed to have private lives.) and that he is a conservative, and he generally espouses the same positions as conservatives. Imagine that.

Brent,

I cannot argue with you because you throw out, without any validation, the main tenet of Bill's arguement, then you take that arguement and read a malacious 'sense' in to it.

Please show how the arguement is "obviously erroneous"

Please do it quick, too. Because I'm going to start drinking. It is New Year's eve, you know.

I was going to be polite, but the putrid little pointy-headed bigots are really out tonight.

tommy b, from your posts and your insane links to fuckwads who even lie about the statistics, you are obviously a racist shithead, and a perfect, probably typical, candidate to carry water for the pre-eminent poster boy for hypocrisy.

Thor, I'm still waiting for you to answer your own bogus question:
Please tell me why blacks are (allegedly, since this report only talks about suspects.) responsible for 76% of the homocides?

Chris:

The trouble of looking at crime data, is that you have to take into account socio-economic indicators. If you control for education, poverty, and various sociological factors, such as family stability, you see that the supposed disparity between black and white crime disapears.

Chris is largely right. The crime problem has far more to do with a welfare culture, the lack of intact families, and educational issues than it has to do with race.

That a higher percentage of blacks is in this predicament than whites (by percentage of ethnic group, not total population) is due to years of loving social engineering by the Enlightened, not anything inherent to their race.

I'm sorry, but I thought we were having a civilized discussion. The venom you have brought forth is too much. We can talk about this with respect for one another, give our views and discuss the facts.

You presented a fact, and have yet to respond, to my views on that fact.

To answer my own question: I believe blacks are stuck in a cycle of violence that stems from a history of disillusionment. I truly wish that this was not the case. I also wish that the respected members of their own communities would not perpetuate this disillusionment for their own political gain.

Thor,

I would have thought it was obvious why I set this point aside but apparently not. So fine, I will address it. The main tenet of bennett's argument seems to be that blacks are more associated with violent crime than whites but this is obviously not the case since we all know, and bennett certainly knows that whites are actually responsible for more violent crimes than blacks. This has already been pointed out to you but I suspect you already knew it. Thus from the perspective of the scenario he is trying to construct, the underlying facts will not support his basic premise. That is, if we were to construct a scenario in which we used genocide to try and control crime rates then the obvious answer would be to kill all white people since they actually commit more crimes. But clearly this is not what he is going for. He seems to be, as you are, depending upon the proportion of crimes committed by blacks compared to their population.

But in terms of his scenario, this is entirely irrelevant because that comparison (between the percentage of blacks in the population and their overall contribution to the crime rate) has nothing at all to do with the overall crime rate which is the central factor in his hypothetical. Look at it this way. If it turned out, for instance, that Samoans made up .1 percent of the population but committed .3 percent of the crimes, would the argument that we could reduce the crime rate by comitting genocide of the Samoans make any more sense. I mean, it would be clear that they commit a disproportionate of crime compared to their population but in that scenario, the basic abusrdity of associating their race to violent crime in general would be significantly more obvious. It is essentially the same argument however.

Now you say that I am reading a malicious sense into bennett's argument but the fact is from that rational perspective, there is no other way to read it. If he is not assuming that blacks are more likely to commit crimes because they are black, then there is no sense in which his argument makes any sense at all. He is not talking about making social adjustments here. He is making the argument that making a change in racial makeup will necessarily and obviously change the rate of crime for the better. And yes, the assumption that blacks are preternaturally more likely to commit violent crime is an unambiguously racist assumption. If you really aren't able to see that then that tells us all we need to know about where you are coming from on this.

Hey lefties,

If you want to control the agenda, you gotta pursuade voters to vote for your candidates. You need to win more elections. Um you guys haben't been doing much winning lately. So until you can develop a positive agenda that voters will vote FOR, you will have to get used to bending over. I bet it hurts.

The crime problem has far more to do with a welfare culture, the lack of intact families, and educational issues than it has to do with race.

prove it, fucko.

is due to years of loving social engineering by the Enlightened, not anything inherent to their race.

Tommy Boy, you're declaiming about things of which you have no experience. Again. On New Year's Eve. Why don't you take Mrs. Brosz out for a nice dinner of mushrooms and beer, then, oooh, perhaps another grand-niece? Please Tommy? Some people actually care about poor people and inequality. They sacrifice, instead of worshipping Social Darwinism. Like Uncle Theo and me. We're thinking about giving your inheritance to the ACLU. At least they won't try and strip mine Basidium.

I bet it hurts.

God, that was clever!!! How long did you work on it? I'm soooo impressed. Those libruls are toast! I love the bit about winning elections. I've never heard it before.

I think the most revealingly racist part of his statement was that he was mischaractarizing the results of the study he had heard about. It was from the book "freakanaomics" where some economist had studied a bunch of wierd things with the tools of an economist. One of these was abortion. He found a correlation and some... hmm don't know the word for it but data about the order in which things happened weakly implying causation... that legalization of abortion lowered crime rates when the aborted fetuses would have been young men and hypothesized that abortions by poor women were eliminating future criminals.

Bennett however transformed, in his own mind, 'poor' into some other concept most easily expressed as 'black', presumably because that fit better with his "conservative" world view where people are criminals primarily because of thier inherent inferiority and this inferiority also explains thier poverty rather than thier poverty largely explaining thier criminality.

Anyhow the guy is known to be a secret paid mouthpeice. Any person hiring an analyst or commentator should immediately rule him out. Lucky for him the typical news outlet is actually hiring a celebrity.

Bennett is a racist twit and a moron. What we need are new conservative voices instead of vested interests. The reason Republicans have gone off the edge is because of the good-old-boy network they can't seem to shake. They forget that when a brosz or rdw pat them on the bqack, it is because they paid them. It stultifies them. I found this out by asking Brosz's staff; the guy who cleans the other stall.

Hey, Liloljim....

There is an old saying....The Fish rots from the Head Down.

Bush sets the (cough) standards, that the rest follow.

Let's see, we have a guy who commits sexual harrassment and a guy who is a gambler. Any other breakers of the moral code around to be hired? Fox News, get all the moral reformers in one station.

Please tell me why blacks are (allegedly, since this report only talks about suspects.) responsible for 76% of the homocides?

Some jackass wrote, because they were 76% of homicide arrests one year in some city--

But how many of those arrests were multiple arrests in one homicde investigation, where only one person actually committed the murder being investigated?

And how many homicides occurred where no one was ever arrested?

???

Someone who doesn't even think about the statistics shouldn't even be arguing... I would be more polite, except I bet it's more that you don't care about being accurate, rather than that you're just innocently ignorant of how to think critically at all...

Another one wrote:

The crime problem has far more to do with a welfare culture, the lack of intact families, and educational issues than it has to do with race.

And then, of course, someone wrote "prove it." But all us proud, genuine liberals certainly agree that unstable families, poor education, and poor economic situation are big factors that either tend to put people in impossible situations in which they feel they have to commit crimes-- or that lead persons who are most psychologically susceptible to becoming criminals to actually commit crimes.

Liberals and conservatives just disagree about what cause these conditions. Except I'm not counting the very large number of conservatives who just hate the blacks, and who think that blacks will behave badly no matter what-- a lot of conservatives who argue out loud that conditions turn people into criminals actually believe the racist shit, I'm sure-- they just believe that legions of blacks are born with irreparably flawed characters.

It's a hell of a long way to go from the fact that 76% of arrestees for a certain crime were black, to concluding that blacks were "responsible for" 76% of homicides.

The trouble of looking at crime data, is that you have to take into account socio-economic indicators. If you control for education, poverty, and various sociological factors, such as family stability, you see that the supposed disparity between black and white crime disapears.

Since controlled experiments are impossible, you can turn this around: accounting for race, the association between poverty and crime largely disappears. Blacks have higher crime rates than whites, Koreans, Latinos, Chinese, and Vietnamese of equal income levels. Blacks students spend less time on homework than students of the other ethnic groups in the same high schools, but more time in extracurricular activities, especially sports.

The facts taken as a whole do not support any simple causal conclusions. That was Bennett's main point about misusing the claimed association between increased abortions and decreased crime rates as a basis for forming policy.

Bennet was right. I hate to say that because I disagree with him on just about every issue. But statistics show blacks commit crime at a disproportionate rate "compared to their percentage of the population" (for example, almost half of all prisoners are black, compared to around 15% of the population). Hispanics commit next to the most, then whites and asians. I dont know why that is exactly, but thats what the statistics show.

Also children born to poor, young, unmarried girls are the most likely to grow up and commit crimes in their teens and twenties. These are also the females that are most likely to have abortions. What "Freakonomics" showed was that when abortion became legal in 1974 that around 18 or so years later the crime rate started to drop, and its been dropping every year since to where now its at its lowest point since the Justice Dept started keeping statistics.

Brent,

Thanks for writing it all down. In order to be sure I am understanding you, I will rephrase your statement: Let's suppose that 100,000 violent crimes are committed in the US. The statistics show us that Whites commit 60% of these crimes whereas blacks commit 32%. Obviously, whites have a greater number of incidents of criminal behavior. But, here is where our thought patterns diverge: since blacks are only 12% of the population then they are producing more crime then they should. In other words, in a perfect world, whites should be responsible for 70% of the crime and blacks should only be responsible for 12%.

Now, for the sake of sanity, I went back and looked at a transcript of Bennett's show. Here is what he 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."

This statement is true. Any similiar statement with a different race in there would be true also.

Conveniently, everyone forgets the next sentence: "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."

It is only when you read in to his remarks that you can get a racist intent. But the words aren't there to support it. In fact in the very next sentence he completly disavows the statement.

I submit that it is only because he is conservative that his words are taken as an intentional slight against black people.

You mention that it can only be racist because it is absurd. But there could be another possibility. Namely, that it is absurd, period.

Another problem, which would present itself, then, is why so many people do not think it is so absurd. That's surely something to think about.

Whites are 72% of the population, but commit over 95% of white collar crime, embezzelment, and tax fraud.

So tell me, Thor--why is that? Why are white more predisposed to steal than blacks?

And you have yet to answer RP's question...please do so.

Happy New Year!

How can 12.9% of the population accounting for 37.2% of the arrests be a good thing?

Nobody has asserted such a claim.

This statement is true. Any similiar statement with a different race in there would be true also.

but, but, but...you have been consistently arguing that the rate of crime is correlated with race: i.e., blacks commit crime at a higher RATE.

Started drinking early?

But there could be another possibility. Namely, that it is absurd, period.

Yes. Social scientists are jumping all over that hypothesis. How could they have missed such a proposition and its remarkable explanatory power? Did they not read their Sartre in college?

"As for his controversial comment, Bennett is speaking on a hypothetical that he disagrees with. He is still against abortion so the faked outrage is misplaced."

Umm... no. He clearly wasn't promoting the abortion of black children. No one really thinks that he would do that - I mean, promote that. He'd do it in a heartbeat if he could get away with it.

No, the controversy is that the conversation goes like this.

Caller brings up book that talks about how abortion rates among poor people lower the crime rate. Translation: Poverty is a source of crime. Duh.

Bennet says "I don't know about that..." and the rest of the quote. Read: I don't believe poverty causes crime. But being black causes crime. It must be in their genes, because it isn't poverty.

Everyone needs to tell CNN that they should never allow him on the air to spew his racist, eugenic bullshit ever again.

Somebody still needs to call him on that Oct. 11,2000 WSJ oped piece (see the daily howler, the site is easy to search). For such a blatant liar to pose as a guardian of public morality is truly outrageous.

So now they come back, and they try to say that they're not racist and to twist everything around any way they want. oh please.

The one guy writes that: Bennet was right. I hate to say that because I disagree with him on just about every issue. But statistics show blacks commit crime at a disproportionate rate

But no one even argues about whether blacks are arrested or convicted disproportionately. All the argument is about why that is. So you're just wrapping up non-news in language to make it sound like you're a reasonable, maybe even liberal person conceding a crushing point that *must* be conceded.

???

Oh, c'mon, give me a break.

Then the other one talks about the Bennet quote--
but we all know that conservative racists say things like what Bennet said as little hints to each other. If Bennet wasn't drunk, or wasn't 12 years old when he said the quote, why would he have said something so stupid? Why wouldn't he have just said, "if you aborted a lot of babies" instead?

Bennet was probably trying to make some weird, subtle point to all the like-minded types out there to the effect that eugenics would be a good thing. So that kind of remark goes along with the "why" conservatives supply to the question about the disproportionate arrests and conviction of blacks-- conservatives think that there is something wrong with blacks, and that therefore you should talk about eugenics, not about better social policy.

Liberals were smart enough to hear the hate-speech, and that's why they call this jerk on it.

I sometimes wonder if getting rid of cable and getting satellite would increase the availablity of worldwide newscasts to get the full spectrum of viewpoints from which to consider. Can anyone out there getting satellite TV give some advice as to whether this is achievable? Or are the choices of broadcasts pretty much the same?

It's suppose its possible a Nebraska insurance agent might choose to watch an Indonesian reality-TV show over Fox News.

I notice Thor has capitalized himself. Does that count? It's 1:30 in Indiana. I trust he is pleasantly drunk enough to repent in the morning. I have my eye on him.

thor,

To borrow a cliche, you're spinning a lot of dinner plates (or something) in the air, trying to prove you're not racist. It's OK, we know you're racist.

You could, instead, try to grow a little and stop hating. Posting disingenuous crap here does not enrich your life.

Anyway, jolly '06...

everyone and all!

18dy电影网

This statement is true. Any similiar statement with a different race in there would be true also.

Whether or not the statement is true in some sort of hyper-literal sense is certainly debatable but it is also beside the point. He obviously wasn't making a point about larger population dynamics saying something like - "if we drastically reduced the population then the crime rate would be reduced." In fact, I doubt he even believes that is true. Moreover, if he had wanted to make that point, he most certainly would not have brought up race at all. After all, how would the injection of race into that discussion offer any clarification at all?

What he is repudiating with his second statement is not his larger argument but the moral absurdity of attempting to carry out such a scenario. In other words, he is not saying that the association of black people with crime is wrong or absurd but rather that attempting to do something about it is. But nice try. i might have fallen for that argument if I was both drunk and stupid.

The real point is, and it is not at all mitigated by his follow up of how reprehensible it would be, is that he chose to refer to black people specifically and he chose to do that because he, and his fans like you, associate black people with crime at some sort of an essentialist level. I will say it again: The only way that his larger argument makes any sense at all is if you accept the idea that blacks are more likely to commit crime because they are black. Nothing else holds up to even the slightest scrutiny. That conclusion is not,as you seem to believe, about wildly extrapolating some malicious intent. That is seeing the plain implication of his choice of black babies for his scenario. He knew exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of statement that essentially defines racism.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Bear in mind, when conservatives argue that poverty does not cause crime they are actually on solid ground in a limited sense. They look to themselves first--which is only natural--and they ask:

Let's see... Has amassing large sums of money in any way reduced my desire to acquire more of it by any means necessary, legal or illegal?

And the answer they find is quite clear: No, it hasn't. So, poverty does not cause crime.

Quiet now while we pray for Mr. Abramoff, Mr. Lay, Mr. Skilling, Mr. Kozlowski, Mr. Cunningham & a whole host of other Misters.

And Judge Posner said that CNN was the "liberal" news?

BUT with Murdock as the owner of both FOX and CNN - Bennett is supposed to have a certain kind of resume. Solid Bush ass-kissing and no other need apply. Novak is histroy because he's not saying nice things about the Bushies anymore due to his not wanting to take the fall for Karl Rove. The ingratitude of it all.

Least anyone think CNN is some kind of real news organization instead of pack of Judith Millers and Woodwards.

CNN, A news outlet no just another LAP-DOG SUCK-UP TO BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Bennet proves that. START WATCHING THE BBC. MORE real newe in one minute then in FIVE dayes here in the U.S. Blackjack

Bennett will fit right in with the rest of the CNN "butt-kissers"...Blitzer, Kagan, and the rest...more and more reason to now drop both FOX (already done long ago) and CNN from viewing habits...can MSNBC be far behind? As long as Keith is there we'll be on from 8-9...then it's BYE BYE to them as well...thank goodness for the internet and newsprint!

Thank god for people like tbrosz.Without them we wouldn't know or be able to think for ourselves.If he wasn't constantly spitting out the dogma of the rightwing fascist in this country what would we have to hone our political skills with.

Brent,

Let's do a little logical exercise here. It's the old a = b, b = c, therefore a = c.

This is your view:

a=b: Bennett made this statement.
b=c: Only a racist would make such a statement.
Therfore,
a=c: Bennett is a racist.

In order for this statement to be accurate you assume b=c. Furthermore, you provide no other proof for the truth of a=c other than the fact that Bennett is a conservative.

The validity of your argument lies entirely on an assumption.

Of course, I understand that you don't believe it is an assumption. However, unless you were inside Bill Bennett's mind at the time he made the statement you can not say with any degree of certainty what his intent was. Also, I have not seen any other corroborating evidence, other than the fact that he is a conservative, of his racist views.

rdw:
My question was what has Bennett DONE, not what fancy schools he went to, not what approved authors he can quote-mine for over-hyped books that he sells mainly because he's famous for being famous and well-networked among like-minded folks, not whether the conservative media punditocracy-think tank complex is willing to hire him to talk. And just when has Bennett, unlike his brother, even had a job in anything that counts as the "real world?" If he has been "successful at everything he's ever tried," surely you can find and cite some actual accomplishment.

Well, Bennett wasn't so successful at pulling the one-armed bandit...

But I do recall the stomach-turning days when he was a commentator on the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour. To "balance" Bennett, who is himself a large, huffing & snorting sort, they had this meek little "liberal" suck-up (can't remember his name) who became so cowed by Bennett he would routinely cast his eyes toward Bennett as he spoke in a not-at-all-concealed attempt at measuring whether or not he had Bennett's approval.

It was sickening. But I believe the likelyhood is that Bennett would have refused to appear on a panel with a liberal who would stand up to him. It isn't difficult to spot a blowhard bully when you see one.

cj,

He has a website. Look it up yourself. I think at a minimum holding a cabinet level position qaulifies one as highly successful. Here's one of my favorite Reagan stories:

Within weeks after naming Bennett as Sec of Education Bill had managed to greatly upset the liberal establishment and the press was killing him gnerating of ton of negative publicity for the administration. Bill is getting ready for his 1st cabinet meeting and he's very apprehensive. In a very short time he became the media whipping boy. At the beginning of the meeting after introductary remarks and niceties Reagan pulls out a folder with newspaper clippings and it's all about Bennett and none of it is good. He reads a few of them and then says (I'm paraphrasing) "I've got a few more clips here and they're all of Mr. Bennett. I'm not getting any complaints about anyone else." Bennett is sitting there thinking he's about to get reamed. "Why aren't the rest of you getting anything done?"

Obviously a magical moment for Bill and a marvelous job at setting up a joke, and a message, by Reagan.

One thing you won't find on Bills website. He started his morning show at the same time Al Franken started at Air America. Bill is killing him and he's not had to steal a dime from a youth club or anyone else. The man is a media empire. He has books, columns, the successful radio show and can do the $20K per pop speech anytime he wants. He's no Rush Limbaugh but who is?

Let's everyone call and write CNN HQ and object, okay? I doubt they read this blog.

Besides, if the shoe were on the other foot, the wingers would jam their switchboard.

It's time we attack attack attack and attack some more.

obscure,

Bill is an excellent debater for which he credits his jesuit training. His brother Bob is equally complimentary toward his education. I don't quite get the bully thing. The man is a teddy bear. I do think he can dominate intellectualy but that's not a bully. His best debates were on Russert when he was with the raging cajun, James Carville, no sloutch in a debate. Russert always got his two cents in and never allowed James to talk over him. James is a verbal bully who specializes in interruptions and speaking over the other person. Some allow it. Some don't. Bennett does not.

BTW: Bob was an aggressive defender of Bill Clinton duing the Paula Jones hearings. He was beyond incensed when he found out Clinton lied to him and the Judge and was instrumental in negotiating the surrender of his law license. Before the negotiaitons he wrote a letter to the judge insisting clinton lied to him as well and he, Bennett, was honest with the judge. He told Clinton he'd never represent him again.

CurtiseE,

Cnn would be thrilled. They're worried everyone is watching Fox. It'll give them some hope.

CNN and Bill Bennett ,perfect together!As they discuss. bennett's statement "On if you want to reduce crime, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Go CNN you have really picked A winner? Also did'nt his brother represent the new york times reporter,judith miller who went to jail for 85 days, and still lost her job when she got out? I hear he's been put on the bush inpeachment defense team. Bush loves winners.

Thor,

You are engaging in a bit of half-assed amateur sophistry to avoid the central and unavoidable implications of bennett's statement and it is completely unconvincing. I doubt that your are even convinced of the validity of your poorly constructed "logical excercise" and the fact that you think I might be is actually rather insulting.

Yes racist statements are made by racists but this has almost nothing to do with the argument I have made. I have argued that Bennett's statement is an unambiguously racist one. Whether that makes him a racist or not is up to you to determine. To put it into the frame of your "logical excercise" you cannot be in my mind at the time I made the statement so you are only assuming that I think Bennett is a racist. And your only evidence that I think he is a racist is the fact that I am a liberal.

See how ridiculous that sounds.

But the fact is that I am not making an assumption. I am making an inference based upon the only reasonable interpretation of his remarks. I am sure you know the difference.

I hate to repeat this again but you seem determined to avoid the basic truth of this statement: The only way that the scenario that Bennett puts forth can make any sense at all is if one assumes that blacks commit more crimes because they are black. No other interpretation holds up. There is no other context in which aborting black babies specifically would necessarily reduce the rate of crime. This is the unavoidable implication of his statement and your numerous efforts to obfuscate that basic truth are becoming increasingly absurd.

henry,

Bob made a fortune defnding the NYTs and Judy Miller. It may have been unsuccessful for those two but Bob did quite well. Actually it was hugely unsuccessful for all jounralists and a big victory for the Bush Jstice Dept. The fact it was settled so decisively with the Supreme Court even refusing an appeals proves Bob never had a chance of winning.

It was just a matter of the Times pissing away tons of cash. Bennett had zero to do with the Times paying a fortune for Miller to retire. Just another brilliant management decision.

Bennett is a lyin' hypocrite and shouldn't be placed on t.v. to preach to good Americans.

If this is typical Republican behavior then America should stay away from Republicans and not vote for them.

Ahh Brent,

I've got to watch you closely. Here is the definition of an inference:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inference

So funny how similar the words are. especially when one is used to define the other.

Might I refresh your memory of a previous post:

He knew exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of statement that essentially defines racism.

Posted by: brent on January 1, 2006 at 7:48 AM

Now, There is another sense in his statement above which you continually ignore. The less people that are born, then the lower the crime rate will be.

I'm sorry you find my logic so clumsy and stupid. But please remember that sometimes in this world there is no hidden agenda. It is what it is. You do a diservice to any discussion when you assume beyond the given facts.

(In the wake of the controversy, Bennett said his "gambling days are over," though he later amended that to say "the excessive gambling is over.")

I've known quite a few alcoholics who claim their "excessive drinking is over" and that it's "under control" now. No one who knows them agrees, of course.

Wow Thor,

Are you actually trying to argue that an inference is the same as an assumption? Seriously? I mean, beyond anything else one would think that you would read your own link more carefully but seriously the difference is something that one learns in grade school even in our substandard public schools. One can infer based upon an assumption but they are not the same thing and I feel somewhat silly having to explain this to another adult. One is a logical conclusion based upon given evidence assumed or otherwise and the other is merely taken for granted to be true.

Now let us try an exercise. You quote me:

"He knew exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of statement that essentially defines racism."

No, that statement does not directly indicate that Bennett is a racist. It says that he knew what he was saying and that the statement itself is racist but it never states that the speaker himself is racist. Is your conclusion (a correct conclusion) that I believe Bennett is a racist

a. an assumption

or

b. an inference

I have confidence that you know the correct answer.

Now as far as my own treatment of Bennett's statement, I have pointed out numerous times that I did not infer based upon an assumption, I inferred based upon a given, which was Bennett's statement and which is not in dispute. Your explanation that Bennett could have been making an argument about lowering birth rates in general is ridiculous because as I and others have pointed out to you, he specifically chose black babies in his hypothetical. If he wanted to make a clear point about population dynamics, he could have used racially neutral language. He could have said abort every third baby. But he didn't, did he. He took a question about the relationship of poverty and crime and deliberately changed the association to race and crime. I think it is not anly rational to infer that he associates black to crime but that it is the only reasonable inference in this circumstance.

Now might I remind you that at one point on this board you were defending exactly this point of view. You inferred, as I did, that Bennett was making an argument about race. The only difference is that you thought he was on statistically solid ground to do so.

If Bennett had meant to say that a lower population would result in less crime then he'd have said that. As some have said he did have a good quality education. He is eloquent at times. He wasn't misunderstood because he communicated precisely what he meant to.

Likewise, when Ronald Reagan kicked off a presidential campaign in Mississippi there was no mistaken communication. He was saying that all the bigots should vote for him because he saw eye to eye with them.

These things aren't terribly complicated.

rdw:
I think most of us knew Bennett had served in a cabinet post. So have a lot of people no one would dream of taking seriously. Again, I didn't ask what jobs he had been handed. Or what his boss said about him. I asked what he'd DONE. Considering that he has held a cabinet post, you ought to be able to come up with some actual accomplishment. And being a second-rate Rush doesn't count.
Third time's a charm?

I think more than being a racist statement, which it is (but also with some truth to it), its an example of Bennett showing how worried conservatives are about the Freakonomics theory.

Because up till now abortion has been about choice, womens rights, etc.... but if it becomes about lower crime rates, less welfare, lower taxes, less big govt,... then it becomes a much more potent issue and one that could divide the conservative movement.

That's what leftists miss when they react hysterically about supposed racism in his statement. Theyre missing what could be an angle to take on the abortion issue that could be very, very effective.

Likewise, when Ronald Reagan kicked off a presidential campaign in Mississippi there was no mistaken communication. He was saying that all the bigots should vote for him because he saw eye to eye with them.

These things aren't terribly complicated.

Mark you are the best. There's nothing like liberal condesention to drive move voters to the GOP. Did you now those beloved Red States continue to grow in population as NY, Michigan and the blue stats shrink? Allow me to connect the dots. They get more votes. You get less votes. That means they get to pick the next President you simple ass.

CJ,

You and I just have a different definition of real work. You've got to appreciate how hard it is to be a talk show host and have to give all of us our talking points each day. We're just not very bright. I realize Bill only makes $2M a year but he'll be getting big raises not that his ratings are taking off. You have to understand how hard it is to train us dimwits. We're not good at much, aside from winning elections.

round ???

I assumed that his argument was based on race because that was what everyone was arguing about. Once I actually reread the statement, I realized that the argument was not about race. I adjusted my stance accordingly.

Now, you mention that: "he specifically chose black babies in his hypothetical" You claim that that is not in dispute, however that is completely the dispute. He mentioned black babies in his hypothetical. I believe that you offer no evidence that this choice was intentional.

I merely stated that an assumption and an inference are similar. you assumed that I meant that they were the same.

"If you really aren't able to see that then that tells us all we need to know about where you are coming from on this."

Posted by: brent on December 31, 2005 at 9:40 PM

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean.

Now, you mention that: "he specifically chose black babies in his hypothetical" You claim that that is not in dispute, however that is completely the dispute. He mentioned black babies in his hypothetical. I believe that you offer no evidence that this choice was intentional.

I have to say Thor, the absurdity of this final degeneration of your argument actually made me laugh out loud. Are you actually now arguing that Bennett's choice of words could have been unintentional? He just mistakenly chose the example of black people? Really, I got a good laugh over this and despite the fact that I don't know you, I have enough respect for your intelligence that i believe that you take this argument no more seriously than I do.

I merely stated that an assumption and an inference are similar. you assumed that I meant that they were the same.

Now I think maybe you are just having fun. I didn't assume anything... I inferred that they were the same. You really need to get a grasp on these concepts thor. An inference and an assumption are not remotely similar. They are not even close as concepts. For instance, you may believe that my inference was incorrect (although I assume that we both really know that it was not) but I was not assuming anything. I was deriving a logical conclusion about your beliefs based upon your statement. I was not taking for granted that you conflate "infer" and "assume" because your name was thor or because it was Sunday or because you think Bennett is not a racist. All of those issues are irrelevant to my inference about your thought on the definituon of terms. Is this really that hard?

Tbrosz wrote:

Mike B. does not believe the crime rate for blacks is higher than for other groups
No, I asked for data. I don't "believe" anything, I'm not religious. And, since it's obvious that my question won't get a response, I'll tell you why I asked. I have NEVER heard anyone make the "blacks have a higher crime rate" remark without a racist ideology backing it up. Never.

and doesn't believe the media leans left, either
Again, I don't "believe" anything. Do you have proof? No, you don't. I have studied this issue, and have looked at the data. Have you?

I'm afraid to ask him which income percentile pays most of the income taxes
Again, I've looked at the data. If you're going to say that it's the upper 10%, you'd match the data I've seen. BUT, they do NOT pay an amount proportionate to their income. Just to be clear.

I could post statistics and links, but what would be the point?
To show that you're doing more than pulling things out of your ass? I tend to read this board more than write on it, but I've noticed that you seem to sometimes make good points and sometimes have data, but far more often you make assertions. As seems to be quite common for libertarians, I might add. Well, reality isn't created just by you asserting something.

He obviously missed the implications of the reactions when a conservative shows up at a media outlet
No, I didn't. But, then, that isn't the issue. Standard move for a right-winger (and, yes, I do think libertarians are right-wing. I've yet to see one who doesn't turn authoritarian as soon as he thinks the power is his) but let's keep to the issue. Bennett has done some ridiculous things, not the least of which is to make a patently racist remark. To use him as a commentator opens the network to a lot of criticism. That is the issue.

"If you really aren't able to see that then that tells us all we need to know about where you are coming from on this."

Posted by: brent on December 31, 2005 at 9:40 PM

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean.

Oh. I almost forgot this last point which offers me yet another opportunity to be pedantic at a grade school level. My quote here is an example of an implication and what the speaker implies, the listener can infer. I assume that you got the right answer from my previous "exercise" so you know that this is another example of you inferring my opinion of racist attitudes based upon the speaker's statements.

I do not offer the exact thinking process of Bennett in making these remarks, however, you do believe that the reference to black babies was intentional. I merely ask for proof.

So far your proof is the fact that he said it. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough for me. Show me that he has a history of racist remarks. give me something other than us running around the same doughnut for another 24 hours.

在线免费电影
动作片
战争片
爱情片
恐怖片
科幻片
动漫片
喜剧片
灾难片
连续剧

免费电影
恐怖片
动作片
战争片
爱情片
科幻片
动画片
喜剧片
灾难片
连续剧

免费看电影
恐怖片
动作片
战争片
爱情片
科幻片
动画片
喜剧片
灾难片
连续剧

Yeesh Thor,

Well now you have the burden of proof mixed up. I have the proof of his statement as to what he meant. It is really up to you (or Bennett) to prove, or at least offer some other reasonable suggestion, that it means something other than what it plainly implies. You are, after all, the one making the argument that it could. This is also because human conversation and dialogue would have no meaning or usefulness if we don't proceed from the premise that people typically mean the things they say.

But as luck would have it, Bennett has defended his statement on numerous occasions. Here is a google link to a number of examples of him doing just that. You will notice on none of the occasions when he takes the opportunity to defend himself does he offer the suggestion that his choice of words was unintentional. He explains that they were hypothetical. That he believes that they were taken out of context. That he could have chosen other hypotheticals such as male babies. That the discussion of blacks and crime should not be off limits. But at no point does he actually make the claim that he simply didn't mean to say what he said. Now I cannot know with absolute certainty if any of those statements was intentional either but I think you get the point.

I feel like we are finally making some progress here.

You are holding on to this idea that I think his remarks were unintentional, I offered that as a possibility, but also recognized the multitude of other possibilities.

I have offered other explanations, just because you choose to dismiss them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Thank you for the link, I am will continue to review the articles.

LOL,

You're a hoot man! What the heck are you on about now? I am not holding on to the idea that you think his statement is unintentional. I am holding on to the idea that you think his statement could be unintentional. I am holding on to that idea because you said it several times. Or is it that I am merely assuming that your statements are intentional? Hahahahaha!

Also, there are not a multitude of possibilities here. Only two. He either intended to say what he did or he didn't. Yeesh. You call that progress.

Jonesy: "Because up till now abortion has been about choice, womens rights, etc.... but if it becomes about lower crime rates, less welfare, lower taxes, less big govt,... then it becomes a much more potent issue and one that could divide the conservative movement."

"That's what leftists miss when they react hysterically about supposed racism in his statement. Theyre missing what could be an angle to take on the abortion issue that could be very, very effective."

You've either done a beautiful job out-Swifting Swift, or you possess the most loathsome thinking on this thread - which is no mean feat.

Jonesy got it at least half right: Because up till now abortion has been about choice, womens rights, etc.... but if it becomes about lower crime rates, less welfare, lower taxes, less big govt,... then it becomes a much more potent issue and one that could divide the conservative movement.
[new paragraph]
That's what leftists miss when they react hysterically about supposed racism in his statement. Theyre missing what could be an angle to take on the abortion issue that could be very, very effective.

"You and I just have a different definition of real work."
I'd say that just about captures it.

So CNN might hire a man who will, for one thing, try to keep the public protected from the most unpleasant and discouraging news, so that the network could attract more advertisers. In Iraq, for example, expect no soul-searching comments or queries from this true conservative, who has not displayed - and would not display- the slightest compassion for the victims of a bloodbath that we have begun and cannot stop.