I still get surprised when someone who has been in politics for so long can make such a statement. OTOH, Bennett has been showing himself to be somewhat of an idiot for some time now.

"Genocide: A Partial Solution to Crime in Our Country"

Sheesh.

So, David, which part do you disagree with -- his saying that statistics could be misrepresented to present such a conclusion, or that that conclusion is reprehensible?

I heard the whole bit, in context. A caller was pushing the idea that rising abortions had had an indirect effect on crime rates, and was hinting about a racial/class element. Bennett took what the caller was saying, extrapolated the caller's argument to the logical extreme, and then condemned it.

It's a rhetorical device called "reductio ad absurdum." For example, if I said that getting Kerry and Kennedy out of office is vital to the survival of the nation, one could say that simply nuking Massachusetts would achieve that goal quite nicely -- no Massachusetts, no Senators. But as Bennett said, "That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but (it would work)."

Simply stating a racist position is not in and of itself a racist act, especially when one then goes out of the way to condemn it. ESPOUSING the racist position is the bad thing; what Bennett did was simply report on the belief, and then denounced it.

J.

Dunno, Jay, I suppose it's possible a non-racist could think of the scenario Bennett described to illustrate a point. All I can do is project myself into the situation and see what I think I would do.

And I couldn't in a million years imagine that Bennett's remark would come to my mind. Maybe he's just that much smarter than me, though.

But let's take it as a neutral given that the idea legitimately popped into his head while he was listening to the caller. I'm of the opinion it was a fantastically stupid thing to say.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot (or a racist) than to speak and remove all doubt."

Hehe, what Boyd said! And how would you two suave conservative gentlemen like to Guest Blog while I am boozing and chasing skirt, eh, I mean working.... In Guatemala.

I think I just, "removed all doubt." LOL!

David--

I'm not particularly a fan of Bennett, but this is getting blown way out of proportion. In this situation, context truly is everything.

He was fielding a call from someone who suggested that getting rid of abortion would improve the GNP (because of a larger workforce, more taxpayers, etc.).

Bennett offered the statement as a caution against backing such a claim with statistics, using an extreme example to illustrate.

The logic goes like this: Statistics show that blacks are criminally incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites (prisoners as a percentage of overall population). If there were fewer blacks, there would be less crime (a likely scenario, considering the crime rates for single-parent households and the percentage of single-parent households in the black community). Therefore, a case, based upon statistics, could be made that promoting more abortion amongst blacks would lower the crime rate (a point that Bennett immediately denounced as "impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible").

Again, he was showing how absurd a policy could be defended by statistics.

The only reason for the outrage against Bennett is that he picked at a festering sore that nobody wants to admit even exists. The reasons behind the high crime rate in the black community remain unapproached by black leaders, and unapproachable by white leaders. Much of the problem is rooted in a profound distrust of the "white man's law," and in the legal system in general. Some stems from a lack of supervision and parental involvement during a child's most impressionable formative years, leaving them to fend for themselves, and often gaining the companionship of neighborhood thugs. More than a little blame should be placed upon a lack of respect for elders and authority in general, a perverted interpretation of the civil disobedience that brought about the most profound gains of the Civil Rights Movement.

Bennett's remarks were certainly insensitive, but I think it's obvious he was looking for the most absurd, offensive application of the logic used by the caller to prove a point. Instead, he's being "called out" as a genocide-advocating racist.

Despite my previous comments, I should point out that The Prominent Left is staying true to form and selectively quoting Bennett's remarks, omitting the context to deceive people about what actually happened (it's worth noting that the CNN article that David quoted provided at least some of that context). Yeah, been there, done that, got the T-shirt. It's to be expected.

Which is one reason why I think Bennett was stupid to make the comment, even with his "reprehensible" caveat.

Well, looks like a couple posts went through whilst I was composing mine, Jay Tea's essentially saying the same thing.

I guess I see this as a knee-jerk to a white conservative referring to unflattering statistics about black Americans.

Also a little bit like the fact that for a white man to say the "n-word" is the Ultimate Racial Slur, but if a black man uses it, it's a term of endearment.

In general, I think sensitivities are running way too high (i.e. previous blogosphere discussions/rants about "articulate), and have been for some time. How can we ever become "color-blind" if one of our colors insists on being so different?

Which leads me to the conclusion that I've held for quite some time--we cannot, will not, nor should we be, truly "color-blind." It's better to recognize differences, and where those differences reveal a problem, address the problems, than to gloss over everybody with the "everybody's equal" brush, and think the problems will eventually fix themselves. Perhaps at some time in the future, the same set of problems will face blacks in America as face whites (or vice-versa), but until then, race- and class- specific solutions will be necessary. Our refusal to admit so is doing grave violence to the vision shared by Evers, King, and Meredith (and countless others).

Willikers, Bo Diddley (He's black, ya know.) must love you using a facsimile of his name to sign your racist comments. Apparently hypersegregation and concentrated poverty are non-factors in you're thinking. Try checking out the Freakanomics website on what happens with white people in the same socio-economic position as black people. Funny thing, they act pretty much the same.

Nice to see that I can come to ISOU and read intelligent comments - pro and con - that get to the crux of Bennett's stupidity.

You're right Jay Tea, that he offered the appropriate caveat, all of which taken in context gives him cover. But, I also heard the clip. And, the matter-of-fact, familiar manner in which it rolled off his forked tongue did not exactly project 'reprehensible'.

The reason the Dem leadership jumped all over this is, one, payback for the similar job you did on Dick Durbin. And two, knowing the MSM would handle it in the same manner.

TCF, thank you for the affirmations. First, Durbin? Was he that pinhead who compared US soldiers to the genocidal Nazis and Maoists with the blood of millions on thie rhands? The same Durbin who got a week or so of half-assed criticism, then went back to business as normal? Bennett will be relieved to hear it'll blow over so easily.

And secondly, thanks for confirming the coinciding of the agendas of the left and the media. It's occasionally refreshing to hear it from the horse's mouth -- or, in this case, the other end.

J.

Phaedrus, exactly what did I say that calls for you to deem them "racist remarks?"

Did I infer that blacks were predisposed to crime because of some sort of race-linked genetic trait? Didn't think so.

I think, in bringing up the statistics linking crime to single-parent households, and stating that that type of household is far too common in the black community, I was giving an appropriate nod to the socio-economic pressures that lie beneath the alarming statistics.

Bennett's point was that statistics alone shouldn't shape policy. Anybody who reads more into it than that (I suppose he was too "articulate" for TCF), is grasping at straws, putting forward their own brand of racism.

Do you really think that seeing racism lurking around every corner is serving Black Americans well?

No, Bo, but "seeing racism lurking around every corner" is serving his agenda well.

The fate of black people isn't TCF's cause, it's his issue. It's the means to an end, not the end itself. And it's a hell of a good cover.

J.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: