T1B

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:19 am**

and I guess Mikey and Elvis, too.

Yeah it's a double post. yeah it's worth putting up in two place. no, it doesn't mean anything in the broader scheme of things. but hey, while we're waiting for Frist to fess up for his own ethics violations (ha), for Rove to be fired and then tried for treason over the Plame shit (ha ha ha), Bush to be impeached (HA!) and Cheney to die (somebody needs to Highlander him).... can feast your ears on this crap:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006

Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"

Click Play to listen to this audio clip
Problems? Download this clip here
Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such "far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."

Bennett's remark was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But Levitt and Dubner argued that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett's race-based argument.

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:

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.

Bill Bennett's Morning in America airs on approximately 115 radio stations with an estimated weekly audience of 1.25 million listeners.

— A.S.

A reader tip contributed to this article. Thanks, and keep them coming.

Posted to the web on Wednesday September 28, 2005 at 3:18 PM EST

how do you get the audio link to work here, and not just there?

It's bad enough some moron suggested what they suggested about the link between possible funds for social security and the abortion rate .. but then to compound with the nonsense Bennet brings in. holy fuck.

what's wrong with republicans?

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:38 am**

...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.

There's no way any sane person can dispute this, not after looking at census data and crime statistics.

Like he said though, it's purely an academic point. He's in no way suggesting it, he's just saying that it would in fact work for that one lone purpose, provided you were willing to deal with the rest of everything such a solution would entail...

...and of course, no sane person would be willing to do such a thing.

Purely an academic discussion, but dead on correct in the narrowest of terms, obviously.

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:25 am**

Annie, not sure what you're asking here.

Spit it out.

Technical question about posting a media file or simple rouse to get Van to post ...

10-1 it's the later, but hey, I'm just cynical and stuff. I mean, it's not like you have a history of Crying Wolf or anything.

:roll:

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:22 pm**

People can do whatever they want, Radio. However, I know sometimes people don't click links, and I wanted this particular link saved.

When I first heard it, even though I knew it was coming, I was still in shock that Bennett would actually a) go there, and b) sound so fucking dead serious when he went there.

I wanted everyone else to hear him, too.

I guess it's safe to knock on blacks, but not latinos. Blacks are a lost cause to Republicans. Latinos are not (see Florida).

It's why I laugh when some commentators fume that blacks weren't taking the 'outreach' republicans performed during a presidential campaign :roll: seriously. Of course most didn't... and those who did, only did it because their ministers vouched for the republican party. If you want to make in-roads with the black community, you go through the churches.

As for the rest, you have to walk the walk. Republicans don't walk the walk. They didn't mean any of that shit they were saying during a presidential campaign :roll: . At least Democrats make an effort. Or at least, they used to before they self-castrated. I don't know what's going on with them. Maybe Hillary really is the anti-christ, if their lack of power and lack of confrontation is part of her doing. She has to know she'll never be president. So what gives? And if it isn't Hillary, who?

But hearing Bennet say what he said.... it was like 'wow'.

The gloves are finally off. again. No more false bullshit.

Thanks Katrina.

Everyone should hear it. Because there's import in him saying it.

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:25 pm**

I don't get it. Are we still talking about Vulcans?

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:35 pm**

Toddowen wrote:I don't agree that crime would be lower were it not for abortion.

Parents of the aborted have concern for the future and would be much more likely to have principled kids....should they be allowed to live.

But too often, it's parents whose interest in their offspring becomes an abortion itself once the child is born. These are the criminals that build up those percentages.

Nah. most abortions are for selfish reasons, and not for concern for the child itself. most women are only thinking of themselves. it's the women who look at the child's welfare who choose adoption. or try to convince themselves that they can take care of this child after all.

Abortion is the most selfish act a woman could engage in. It's never about the baby (issues about serious birth defects excepted).

I don't know how many women actually buy that radical feminist crap that a baby is just a piece of tissue. for me, it would be a living thing as soon as conception. but if i wanted to get rid of it, i'd just want to get rid of it, living or not. especially living.

I read some of the freakonomics site, when Mikey (?) posted it a couple months ago. It's a very interesting site, and I like the radical way they look at economics, and at causes for effects. They're right; and when they're not right, at least they're opening it up for debate.

The problem with the social security analogy is needing a larger baby making force for each generation needing social security in the first place. You can't keep doing that. Social security was never meant to handle the number of people it's being asked to handle. It was never meant to be a savings account, a retirement account.

The root problem with social security is its inception versus a future that could not be predicted, not birth rates. Money could have been found for social security by raising taxes in the first place, and politicians NOT dipping into the fund in the second place.

And yet it's already bankrupt (allegedly). It's running on fumes now. But privatizing it won't save it. Look at what privitizing the buses that were supposed to serve New Orleans in a crisis led to. They skeedaddled out without making an effort, even as other companies were trying to organize immediately to do the job the contacted company refused to perform.

Or look at the S&L crisis (thanks you assholes).

No, more babies -- especially if those babies required welfare to get a start in the first place -- would not have saved social security.

And crime rates only go up when more actions are criminalized.

I look at it like prohibition: how many people (including bennett himself -- wasn't he caught out for having a serious gambling issue a few years ago? why is he still allowed to be a moral voice for the republicans?) would be 'criminals' if the Carrie Nationers still ruled the U.S.?

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:40 pm**

ElvisMonster wrote:I don't get it. Are we still talking about Vulcans?

The vulcans were pussified once Braga and Berman entered the picture. Yeah, I'm still pissed off at what they did to the vulcan mystique, the vulcan calm.

I guess the only way they could have salvaged it was to have the actress who played Hoshi play Jolene Blaylocks part. You know, get some of that stereotypical unflappable Orient bullshit in the house.

But now... they're just so angry and bitter towards the humans.

Braga and Berman should be castrated for what they did to the Enterprise premise.

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:44 pm**

Risa wrote:At least Democrats make an effort. Or at least, they used to before they self-castrated.

Democrats don't need to make an effort. They'll pull 90% of the black vote whether they give them more handouts or not. They vote like sheep, therefore they're treated like sheep. Why do you think Democrats go through the church? They know blacks will vote the way they're told to.

War thinking for yourself.

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:59 pm**

Variable wrote:
Risa wrote:At least Democrats make an effort. Or at least, they used to before they self-castrated.
Democrats don't need to make an effort. They'll pull 90% of the black vote whether they give them more handouts or not. They vote like sheep, therefore they're treated like sheep. Why do you think Democrats go through the church? They know blacks will vote the way they're told to.

War thinking for yourself.

You mean, why do you think Republicans are going through the church.

Blacks vote democrat, not because they do what they're told, but because they don't trust the other guy.

Like latinos voting because of a guy's name over a guy's record.

It's also a support thing. unless someone has completely and utterly fucked up, the black or white democrat is going to get the votes the white (and it's always a white) republican will not.

exactly why would blacks trust a party that takes such great care in refusing admittance to folks who look.. black?

you know the white republican is not going to look out for your interests. the white republican is not in your neighborhood talking to you. the white republican is using you as a scare tactic in order to reach out to his white base. the white republican does everything in his or her power not to be seen with you.

and you honestly expect blacks to vote republican?

if republicans (well, dixiecrats) had been in black neighborhoods from the beginning there would be none of this 'sheep' talk.

but republicans don't even attempt to offer anything to black neighborhoods. if anything, they go on record opposed to so-called black issues, lock step. you want some sheep action? look at your republicans.

T1B

RadioFan and NishLord -- this is for you

RadioFan and NishLord -- this is for you