i'm waiting with baited breath to hear the doozy of an apology that will follow this one. i wish i could have been a fly on the wall when conservative pundits like rush, hannity, etc. read this. the cringe, groan, look-over-the-shoulder > classic moments.
I wish public figures would not be let off the hook for merely making forced apologies for remarks like these. This is a thinly veiled endorsement of genocide. No amount of back-pedaling, excuse making, or apologizing should make people think otherwise. Yet I'm sure Bennet will do all of these things and it'll be as if the whole thing never happpened. As far as I'm concerened, anyone who would accept an apology for these remarks should be suspect of sympathizing with Bennet's abhorrent views.
it's no wonder Rove can play the tricks he does with you people...you're so easily duped!
look at/listen to the full before and after context of the remarks.
Bennet was discussing the thesis of a book with a caller and entertaining a hypothetical to show how ridiculous it was (making pragmatic rather than moral arguments against abortion such as it will save the country money/reduce crime/etc.).
I applaud him for not apologizing, and even further illustrating the absurdity of it by extending the line of thinking he had called "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible" by sarcastically asking something to the effect of 'why not abort all babies?...the crime rate will surely go down'
Well the very critical and significant problem is of course that he said "abort every black baby in america." Nobody made this a race issue except him. If he did say "abort every baby" then it would not have been an issue of race.
nico you really don't know what you are talking about. the writer of Freakonomics went into detail about the "odd" correlation between abortion and crime. what bennet said really didn't make any sense and he is a fucking racist.
that is ridiculous... first we have robertson calling for assasinations, now bennet claiming black=crime... what the hell is wrong with people... have they no respect for anyone? or they really that ignorant? his statement could possibly have been meant as irony, but it sure doesnt sound or read that way... and it a horribly tasteless and tactless statement to make... i wouldnt even say that kind of shit drunk to my friends...
my suggestion is to abort every republican baby... that would make this country much better
I just love the 'black=crime' equation so deeply rooted in the American/ western subconscient. Every once in a while someone slips and reminds us that some things will never change... How sad.
Could it be that for once Republicans would happily give up their hard line pro-life moral views in favor of more accomodating ones just for the sake of eradicating every black person in America? Disgusting cynical bastards.
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Is he not saying (without endorsing it) that aborting every black baby will make the crime rate go down? He says it twice. Do you agree this is true?
He follows it up by saying it would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but fully endorses that it would be effective.
Blacks don't commit crime. Nor do Republicans. Nor any broad category of people. A generalization like that is completely irresponsible, and in this case, indefensible.
Yes, he's saying exactly what you think he's saying. Crime statistics show it to be true (without endorsing it).
Whites commit the majority of corporate crime. So, aborting every white baby will make the corporate crime rate go down. Crime statistics show it to be true (without endorsing it).
A statistic itself is not racist. Neither is entertaining it as a hypothetical - especially as a way of showing the fallacy of using a pragmatic rather than a moral argument against abortion.
are we to put a muzzle on the free-speech of professors, philosophers, columnists, etc., who regularly exhibit an opposing argument in order to advance their own? and furthermore claim that they are endorsing the opposing argument they argued against?
looks like we've got some aspiring bookburners here.
Of course. He has every right to say it, and I defend that right - no law should be passed that would attempt to stop him. But exercising that right makes him a jackass, and a racist. And the folks on this board are criticizing him for those precise reasons.
He's not going to loose his job. And Ward Churchill shouldn't lose his job. It's important to remember that there is a distinction between criticizing speech and silencing it. The first is essential, the second is totalitarian.
The question is whether that comment borders on hate speach or not... There is a legal question as to whether or not hate speach is an area where freedom of speach should be sanctioned, where it actually limits the freedom of someone else by inciting violence or prejudice.
Hate speech
is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.
Legal aspects in the United States and elsewhere
In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can sanction the harmful effects of speech through laws against slander and libel.
Indeed, the term "hate speech" and its surrounding discussion (whether and to what extent speech should should be regulated) is something restricted to American legal discourse. For example, the German constitution is subtly more restrictive, guaranteeing 'freedom of voicing one's opinion' and elsewhere restricts its misuse against the public peace. The German Criminal Code specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups.
Since such laws often apply only to the victimization of specific individuals, some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups. Others argue that hate speech limits the free development of political discourse and ought to be regulated, but by voluntaristic communities and not by the state. Still others claim that it is not possible to legislate a boundary between legitimate controversial speech and hate speech in such a way which is just to those with controversial political or social views.
There is considerable debate over how or whether hate speech can be defined; whether speech thus labeled ought to be regulated; and if so, how and by whom. Many courts cannot even decide the definition of hate speech. The aforementioned debates center on three critical questions: First, what is the force of speech? Is it the expression of personal thoughts, or is it a form of action that affects and can harm others? Second, is the free expression of ideas which some perceive as hateful necessary for healthy public debate, or is it harmful to public debate? Third, should governmental policies be founded upon the protection of interests and rights of individuals, or of identifiable groups, such as sexual orientation (e.g., homosexuals) and race (e.g., racial minorities)?
If he didn't endorse the idea, and in fact, only brought it up to show how 'morally reprehensible' it would be, where did he err?
He's a jackass because groups exist that will mischaracterize and sensationalize anything one says?
He cited an objective statistic as part of an illustration on the absurdity of the proposition of outlawing abortion simply because it might bring the government more tax revenue or reduce crime.
Am I a Nazi-supporter because I - as a way of showing how foolish it would be to condone Nazi atrocities because of selected pragmatic economic benefits of Nazism - state that the Nazi's actually grew Germany's economy (assume this an objective fact).
The problem is that stat is racist... It may be saying something statistically true, but what does it have to do with race? If anything, it is racism that creates unequal power structures that lead to connctions between race and class...
Why didn't he simply say "abort every poor baby" (which would have been a more accurate statement...)? His comment makes it an issue of race, which should not be.
The stat is objective. It has the potential to be used in a racist way, by racists, as with any stat involving race. To simply bring it up is not racist, especially when you actively argue against it.
You miss Bennet's point...that pragmatism/utilitarianism is not an acceptable way to argue against abortion.
All kinds of social & economic injustice, discrimination, and racism can be rationalized by pragmatism/utilitarianism.
But, you parse his argument and try to judge each comment in isolation rather than in its full context. Too precise.
Bill Bennet-Moral Leader
oh - my - goodness.
i'm waiting with baited breath to hear the doozy of an apology that will follow this one. i wish i could have been a fly on the wall when conservative pundits like rush, hannity, etc. read this. the cringe, groan, look-over-the-shoulder > classic moments.
I wish public figures would not be let off the hook for merely making forced apologies for remarks like these. This is a thinly veiled endorsement of genocide. No amount of back-pedaling, excuse making, or apologizing should make people think otherwise. Yet I'm sure Bennet will do all of these things and it'll be as if the whole thing never happpened. As far as I'm concerened, anyone who would accept an apology for these remarks should be suspect of sympathizing with Bennet's abhorrent views.
this guy, like a lot of our so-called leaders, has a storied history of hypocrisy. this latest episode is of no suprise.
it's no wonder Rove can play the tricks he does with you people...you're so easily duped!
look at/listen to the full before and after context of the remarks.
Bennet was discussing the thesis of a book with a caller and entertaining a hypothetical to show how ridiculous it was (making pragmatic rather than moral arguments against abortion such as it will save the country money/reduce crime/etc.).
I applaud him for not apologizing, and even further illustrating the absurdity of it by extending the line of thinking he had called "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible" by sarcastically asking something to the effect of 'why not abort all babies?...the crime rate will surely go down'
Well the very critical and significant problem is of course that he said "abort every black baby in america." Nobody made this a race issue except him. If he did say "abort every baby" then it would not have been an issue of race.
nico you really don't know what you are talking about. the writer of Freakonomics went into detail about the "odd" correlation between abortion and crime. what bennet said really didn't make any sense and he is a fucking racist.
that is ridiculous... first we have robertson calling for assasinations, now bennet claiming black=crime... what the hell is wrong with people... have they no respect for anyone? or they really that ignorant? his statement could possibly have been meant as irony, but it sure doesnt sound or read that way... and it a horribly tasteless and tactless statement to make... i wouldnt even say that kind of shit drunk to my friends...
my suggestion is to abort every republican baby... that would make this country much better
I just love the 'black=crime' equation so deeply rooted in the American/ western subconscient. Every once in a while someone slips and reminds us that some things will never change... How sad.
Could it be that for once Republicans would happily give up their hard line pro-life moral views in favor of more accomodating ones just for the sake of eradicating every black person in America? Disgusting cynical bastards.
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Nico...
Is he not saying (without endorsing it) that aborting every black baby will make the crime rate go down? He says it twice. Do you agree this is true?
He follows it up by saying it would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but fully endorses that it would be effective.
Blacks don't commit crime. Nor do Republicans. Nor any broad category of people. A generalization like that is completely irresponsible, and in this case, indefensible.
Janosh,
Yes, he's saying exactly what you think he's saying. Crime statistics show it to be true (without endorsing it).
Whites commit the majority of corporate crime. So, aborting every white baby will make the corporate crime rate go down. Crime statistics show it to be true (without endorsing it).
A statistic itself is not racist. Neither is entertaining it as a hypothetical - especially as a way of showing the fallacy of using a pragmatic rather than a moral argument against abortion.
are we to put a muzzle on the free-speech of professors, philosophers, columnists, etc., who regularly exhibit an opposing argument in order to advance their own? and furthermore claim that they are endorsing the opposing argument they argued against?
looks like we've got some aspiring bookburners here.
Of course. He has every right to say it, and I defend that right - no law should be passed that would attempt to stop him. But exercising that right makes him a jackass, and a racist. And the folks on this board are criticizing him for those precise reasons.
He's not going to loose his job. And Ward Churchill shouldn't lose his job. It's important to remember that there is a distinction between criticizing speech and silencing it. The first is essential, the second is totalitarian.
The question is whether that comment borders on hate speach or not... There is a legal question as to whether or not hate speach is an area where freedom of speach should be sanctioned, where it actually limits the freedom of someone else by inciting violence or prejudice.
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.From Wikipedia:
Legal aspects in the United States and elsewhere
In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can sanction the harmful effects of speech through laws against slander and libel.
Indeed, the term "hate speech" and its surrounding discussion (whether and to what extent speech should should be regulated) is something restricted to American legal discourse. For example, the German constitution is subtly more restrictive, guaranteeing 'freedom of voicing one's opinion' and elsewhere restricts its misuse against the public peace. The German Criminal Code specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups.
Since such laws often apply only to the victimization of specific individuals, some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups. Others argue that hate speech limits the free development of political discourse and ought to be regulated, but by voluntaristic communities and not by the state. Still others claim that it is not possible to legislate a boundary between legitimate controversial speech and hate speech in such a way which is just to those with controversial political or social views.
There is considerable debate over how or whether hate speech can be defined; whether speech thus labeled ought to be regulated; and if so, how and by whom. Many courts cannot even decide the definition of hate speech. The aforementioned debates center on three critical questions: First, what is the force of speech? Is it the expression of personal thoughts, or is it a form of action that affects and can harm others? Second, is the free expression of ideas which some perceive as hateful necessary for healthy public debate, or is it harmful to public debate? Third, should governmental policies be founded upon the protection of interests and rights of individuals, or of identifiable groups, such as sexual orientation (e.g., homosexuals) and race (e.g., racial minorities)?
Janosh,
If he didn't endorse the idea, and in fact, only brought it up to show how 'morally reprehensible' it would be, where did he err?
He's a jackass because groups exist that will mischaracterize and sensationalize anything one says?
He cited an objective statistic as part of an illustration on the absurdity of the proposition of outlawing abortion simply because it might bring the government more tax revenue or reduce crime.
Am I a Nazi-supporter because I - as a way of showing how foolish it would be to condone Nazi atrocities because of selected pragmatic economic benefits of Nazism - state that the Nazi's actually grew Germany's economy (assume this an objective fact).
The problem is that stat is racist... It may be saying something statistically true, but what does it have to do with race? If anything, it is racism that creates unequal power structures that lead to connctions between race and class...
Why didn't he simply say "abort every poor baby" (which would have been a more accurate statement...)? His comment makes it an issue of race, which should not be.
Precisely.
The stat is objective. It has the potential to be used in a racist way, by racists, as with any stat involving race. To simply bring it up is not racist, especially when you actively argue against it.
You miss Bennet's point...that pragmatism/utilitarianism is not an acceptable way to argue against abortion.
All kinds of social & economic injustice, discrimination, and racism can be rationalized by pragmatism/utilitarianism.
But, you parse his argument and try to judge each comment in isolation rather than in its full context. Too precise.
If we nuked Palestine, terrorism would decrease.
If we invaded Iraq, terrorism would decrease.
If we raised everyone's tax rate to 90%, the government would rake in miiiiillions.
republicans are boring.
beta - I can see that on a nice t-shirt...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.