Abort All Black Babies And You Reduce Crime

I watch this man on TV when he did it.

I still can't believe it!

But the thing that truly amases me more is the small reaction to his comments by the U.S. media and the general U.S. public?

Brigins back memories from the 1960's and 1970's in the U.S.

Times change but still remain the same!

---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Do you know how insulting it is to accuse the general public of the U.S. of going back to the 60's and 70's?

do you know how insulting it is for the rest of the world to listen to yankees always blathering about defence,WMD,war,globalization etc?

It is insulting to ones intelligence to realize that some one can still say something so bigoted like that in the United States of America in this time and age without there being mass condensation by American society and a fear by those speaking that way of being harshly dealt with by said society as well as the law!

There is no excuse for or justification on his part for saying what he did. The lack of response from the American public to this outrage shows only a tolerance in American society for this type of behavior.


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Good points, jensonj. The reaction, and lack of outright condemnation is a bit worse than the actual statements he made. I watched a brief peice on CNN where two men debated the meaning of the statements made, with one man actually claiming that his words weren't bigoted, that it was just a hypothethical arguement. It was bizarre to see this guy, with a straight face, try to pick apart and try to re-engineer what was said to spin off any idea that his remarks were bigoted, while continually stateing there was truth to the claim that most crime in the US is committed by blacks.

Let's also point out that is man was a Secertary of Education in Ronald Reagan's cabinet. He would have been in the room during the contra planning, the star wars nonsense and god knows what else, at the table.

He was also drug czar for the first bush.

He was, in the land of the free and home of the brave, leading the education of america or leading thier law enforcement.

But the most amazing thing for me is the statement from the bush junior thru his press secretary "the president believes the comments were not appropriate"

"kill black babies" in the united states of america is not appropriate.

As governor how many black adults did the little bush have killed? Or in the united states of america do just wait and pray for a hurrican to do the job?

---
Like a great red wine at the end of a good meal or a Van Morrison song played at just the right time, proof there is a god and every once in a while she smiles.

Times change but still remain the same! New titles to make it politicaly correct. He's not up with the times as far as titles, but appears to be up to date with the attitude. Americans call it freedom of speach where as the world calls it bigotry. At least he made no secret of it.

"with one man actually claiming that his words weren't bigoted, that it was just a hypothethical arguement."

His argument was not bigoted, though it was presented in a way that betrayed an underlying bigotry in his patterns of thought. The ostensible argument was that coming up with a policy or economic argument based on varying one simple statistic and imagining all other things remaining constant is stupid at best, reprehensible at worst.

Not to mention, even by his straight-statistics, self-admitted-nonsense argument, were you to magically abort only those African American babies who were to grow up to become *victims* of crime, crime rates would drop even faster! i.e. whoop-dee-doo, another meaningless argument.

His argument was more stereotypically Republican (in the New Republican sense) than it was racist. This man was a member of the Reagan cabinet, and thus one ideologically unwilling to accept certain well-established and more demonstrably causal correlates, such as income mobility, economic opportunity and education (wasn't that *his* job?). Instead he sticks to derivative, clearly non-causal correlates like skin colour.

In that sense his argument is ironic: in attempting to point out the futility of such boneheaded "what-if" statistical approaches, he uses an argument which shows he is stuck in the very same mindset--it is based on a refusal in his own mind to vary certain parameters due to his particular ideological bias. The unfortunate thing is the latter irony is manifesting itself in real policy.

<p>mk,</p> <blockquote>His argument was more stereotypically Republican (in the New Republican sense) than it was racist. This man was a member of the Reagan cabinet, and thus one ideologically unwilling to accept certain well-established and more demonstrably causal correlates, such as income mobility, economic opportunity and education (wasn’t that *his* job?). Instead he sticks to derivative, clearly non-causal correlates like skin colour.</blockquote> <p>perhaps he used a non-causal correlate like skin colour in his example because the FBI tracks crime statistics by skin colour (among other variables), but not by income mobility, economic mobility, or education?</p> <p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

<p>jensonj,</p> <blockquote>… a fear by those speaking that way of being harshly dealt with by said society as well as the law!</blockquote> <p>which law would he be accused of breaking? According to the <i>Media Matters</i> transcript, he certainly didn’t condone the wholesale elimination of fœtuses of African descent.</p> <blockquote>There is no excuse for or justification on his part for saying what he did.</blockquote> <p>Would it have been equally outrageous if he had said the following instead:</p> <blockquote>But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce forcible rape, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every male baby in this country, and your forcible rape rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your forcible rape rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.</blockquote> <p>If so, why? If not, why not?</p> <p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

New titles to make it politicaly correct?

Abort all white babies and the crime rate will drop!

The result is still the same and still not factual in anyway shape or form! But it is a sign of a weak mind and an inability to understand the mining of what he said.

Promoting the understanding of the rights and
responsibilities of shared citizenship is a key objective, recognizing that attitudinal change is brought by the concerted efforts of socializing institutions and programming from the community resulting in the promotion of a greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and values in the community as well as a country as a whole.

These are core community values of belief!

Respect and tolerance comes from understanding not from being politicaly correct!

---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Nope, data is gathered (by the DOJ) for all kinds of demographic relationships:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.htm">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.htm</a><br />
<br />
Again, perhaps he used skin colour as the same old Reagan-era blame-the-welfare-mom-cop-out to avoid a more serious reexamination of economic policy in a way that might mitigate the actual causal factors? Blaming skin colour, as Bennett does, suggests that the only possible remedy is so morally ludicrous that we'll just have to learn to live with it--which, at least for those not parroting the far-right "New Republican" line, is an even more fundamental lie.<br />

A lot of the time "politically correct" is just a way of hiding true feelings. Don't act as a bigot but do what a bigot does. Bennett is a bigot but didn't use the decorum to hide those feelings. How many do succeed hiding their inner-thoughts and yet support the KK. Bennett revealed it to the public and one can be on guard. But how about those in power that are politically correct. Typically American, I doubt, but certainly the new wave of "free speach". Bigots don't hold the values. They just pretend to. They are still around and Bennett just made it evident.

<p>Thanks for the BJS link — I wasn’t aware of its existence. I did find references to surveys on prisoner education levels there, but didn’t find references to surveys on either income mobility or economic opportunity for prisoners before incarceration.</p> <p>I can’t deny the possibility that Bennett may well be a bigot* — but would you have expected him to have presented a serious reëxamination of economic policy in an off-the-cuff response to a caller on a talk radio show who asked whether the solvency of Social Security would have been guaranteed if no fœtus had been aborted since 1973?</p> <p>It seems that the crux here is whether or not Bennett did blame skin colour for crime in his remark. To use my example farther down, if “forcible rape” were substituted for “crime” and “male” were substituted for “black” in his remark, would you see that as blaming gender for forcible rape?</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>* — My favourite definition comes from the immortal Ambrose Bierce: “BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.”</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />