The Black Republican

A rose by any other name

I’m not sure what is more surprising, the fact the Bill Bennett would say what he said, that people would defend him, or that I’m surprised by the former and the latter.

I don’t have to point to the so called evidence "he is white, he is Conservative" etc to know what was said AND in the context in which it was said is wrong. And is it sickening to watch people try to defend it with so called reason and logic.

Like the saying goes "there are three types of lies - lies, dam lies, and statistics".

If we were to use this so called "reasonable" argument, then maybe we need to abort the babies of well to do people whose children might become corporate executives in order to rid our society of white collar crime. Maybe we should abort all white males between a certain age and fitting a particular image (profiling) since statistics show them to be pedophiles and pederasts.

And for the record, the first prominent "terrorist" attack on American soil was not 9/11 but the Oklahoma bombing. But no one started rounding up young, white males who looked like the wrong doer.

Race is NOT the problem but rather racism. It is still one of the biggest problems this country faces.

Bennett said, "That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do." Notice the moral part was last on his list.

So as usual the Right comes to the defense of something that is indefensible. And anyone who would point this out is an "idiot, not paying attention, leftist etc."

Typical white, racist, conservative, Republican response.

The only racist in this discussion is you, MLM, for suggesting that being white and conservative means you're de facto racist. Disraeli aside, what Mr. Bennett said is as factual as statistics allow. It was painfully obvious what he said would be wielded as a club out of context, but that he is racist is reactively ignorant on your part. Why are you more concerned with denying the truth of black-on-black crime and the economic and social poverty that it breeds than with saving black babies from genocide?

I should add, that I'd like to thank you for defending the comment by pointing out the examples you provide. You're quite correct - in each of those cases, abortion would have reduced the specific statistic you're trying to improve, but would be despicable for its arbitrariness. That's exactly Mr. Bennett's point. If you'd stop being so emotionally oversensitive to the parts of the comments you don't like that you fail to hear the whole argument (hence: CONTEXT), you'd see that you're actually agreeing with him.

MidLife, you said, "Like the saying goes "there are three types of lies - lies, dam lies, and statistics".". I think when you said, "dam lies", you meant damn lies. A "dam lie" is what that racist dude from the Nation of Islam is spreading about the failure of the New Orleans levees. He lies about those dams.

In his second comment, Chris has it right, you make the exact same type of argument that Bennett did, you present an absurd solution to a problem; however you never say that such tactics are "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible", so Bennett is one better than you on that front. There is a name for the type of argument which Bennett, and now you, employed; reductio ad absurdum, a method of reasoning in which one draws an absurd conclusion to prove the absurdity of the original premise. But, as a reasonable person you knew that already, right.

I can't put much stock in your complaint over the order in which Bennett listed, "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible", of course the one with the most impact is placed last. He is saying that the idea is not only impossible, not only is it ridiculous, most importantly it is morally reprehensible and should not be even considered. It is common sentence structure to place the point with most impact last. Your complaint is just silly.

As one mid-lifer to another, let me suggest that it is never too late to learn, and you should spend more time immersed in training yourself in rhetoric and logic, and, spend less time in touch with your emotional response reflexes.

First of all, I didn’t say that being white and conservative makes you a racist. You’re talking my words out of context (smile). What I said was to back the statements of Bennett with that same old tired argument of “it’s just a statistical fact b.s.” smacks of typical new age conservative racism. Trying to slide a racist comment that “ALL BLACK babies being aborted would cause a drop in crime” with the fact that there are issue with crime in the black community is racist – period.

ALL Black babies? What’s his point in choosing ALL black babies? Is he saying that ALL black children go on to commit crime? NONE of them would do something positive with their lives. Aborting other babies including white wouldn’t have an effect on the crime rate?

I do not deny the problems of black on black crime and the toll it takes on our society.

If he had said eliminate poverty we would see a drop in crime then I would agree hole heartedly. He didn’t. He implied that killing ALL black babies reduce crimes. And people like you back this rubbish with more rubbish.

So I understand the “so called” logic of the argument but I’m not falling for it.

Thank you for catching my error and for the witty Nation of Islam reference. That was a good one. I laughed really hard.

As you stated, it is never too late to learn and I hope by engaging such obvious learned people like yourself that I will be enlightened. So I would like to also thank you for pointing out the reductio ad absurdum aspect. Maybe you can clear things up for me since by definition this means “the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result.”

Maybe I’m hearing it incorrectly but it seems to be that Bennett and his supporters are saying what he said to be true - “you 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”.

So are we mincing words? Are you saying that the statement is true but is wrong? Because I don’t see how “he prove the absurdity of the original premise”. So if the “assumption must have been wrong” does it mean it was inaccurate and therefore false. See law of non-contradiction — a statement cannot be both true and false.

It seems that he says that its absured only in the ability to do it and for moral reasons. But he still says it as truth.

So even if it is true it doen’t explain why he uses black babies. Why not eliminate poverty? That is probably impossible also.

And as far as placing the morally reprehensible last for “impact” – it really only needed to be the ONLY thing pointed out as being wrong with the premise.

MLM, I had thought you confused at best, and devoid of any understanding of statistics, so I was going to try to explain again. But James Taranto does such a good job of hitting the same points I was going to make, I'll direct you there instead.

Incidentally, he's also not afraid of your attempts to demonize us, so he won't mind that I'm sending you his way.

If you're still confused, come back and we'll talk.

MidLife, you said; "Maybe I’m hearing it incorrectly ". And I think that is the case.

What is being proven wrong is the statement by the caller to Bennett's show. The caller spoke to his understanding of the impact on Social Security revenues from abortion. Reading a transcript of the show would better set up Bennett's remarks. Bennett had the example of abortion's impact on society in his mind, from the caller's ideas, and from his reading of a book called Freakonomics. So, he presented his recollection of that author's presentation as an reductio ad absurdem showing the caller how one can take facts (black crime), applied to a desired outcome (crime redcution) and then arrive at an "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible" solution. He did not invent, justify or endorse the use of abortion as a solution to society's ills. He used the example which has you so offended as an example to show the other guy how wrong he was.

Had Bennett sought to prove, or disprove, the crime rates among populations he did not need, and would not have been well served, to use a convulution such as reductio. He could simply research and present the data. Either the crime rate among population "A" is highest among all populations, or it isn't. And an accurate accounting of the crime incidence would yield that result, a mathematical fact, without any reasoning more complex than an understanding of which amount is greater or lesser. But, that is a separate discussion from that which Bennett had with his caller.

Liten, even James Carville says he knows Bill Bennett and that Mr. Bennett is not a racist and his remarks are not racism. Well, Carville is more than capable of calling someone racist who isn't racist; so, when he says someone on the other side of politics isn't racist, believe it. If there were even a hint of an opportunity to smear a Republican, Carville would take, so when he defends one you know the charge is bogus. In the context of Carville's political agenda, his support is meaningful.

Further, the real problem with the criticism of Bennett's remarks is not the false racism charge. That can be explained to a reasonable person. And, it can be agreed that he could have selected another population base for his comments which would have elicited a less volatile reaction. Bennett himself has said that he could have said "poor" instead of "black" and made the same point, but he had the "black" example on his mind from the book, and on a live radio show, like in conversation, there isn't always time to do a draft, a rewrite, and then a presentation of your remarks. He answered the caller impromtu, unfortunately, in today's social venue candor is made to be a dangerous thing. One dare not even say the word "black" without wondering how one will be attacked. Black, black, black. Hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings. Really, I hope I didn't. Did I? I hope not. Please don't hit me for saying black. Oops, I did it again. Now I probably sound absurd. Did I just disprove my own existence by my being absurd? Was my original premise my saying "black"? Are the thought police at my door? Dare I go out in public now? I said "black", will they know at work? Maybe I should abort myself, or is it too late for that?

Why are we so afraid to have a candid discussion about the state of affairs in this country? If there is a high incidence of crime among a population, say among blacks, or the poor, does it do justice to the finding of solutions to the problem to refuse the debate if it contains reference to the specific population? Must each reference, taken out of context, devoid of an understanding of the greater point proposed, be followed by baseless charges of racism? Why must we be so reactionary, and so absent of context, thought, and candor?

Morning Chris,

I understand statistics. And I don't recall every arguing about statistics. My issue is with the particular statistics used.

I also wanted to clarify if we are saying the statement can be true but wrong and if by wrong we are talking about morally wrong.

I’ll review the link today. Thanks for the response.

Have a great day.

P.S. I apologize if I made you feel "demonized". I just thought I was expressing an opinion that differed with others.

I understand statistics. And I don't recall every [sic] arguing about statistics.

Really? Are you having a problem reading your own comments on this page?

ALL Black babies? What’s his point in choosing ALL black babies? Is he saying that ALL black children go on to commit crime? NONE of them would do something positive with their lives. Aborting other babies including white wouldn’t have an effect on the crime rate?

My issue is with the particular statistics used.

So, when you state:

Race is NOT the problem but rather racism.

I also wanted to clarify if we are saying the statement can be true but wrong and if by wrong we are talking about morally wrong.

Are you so illiterate that this is still unclear? From the Andrew McCarthy column:

"(Bennett) emphatically qualified his remarks from the standpoint of morality."

Bennett: "That would be a... morally reprehensible thing to do."

I apologize if I made you feel "demonized". I just thought I was expressing an opinion that differed with others.

Equine defecation.

Typical white, racist, conservative, Republican response.

Chris,

Thanks for the response. I still have questions about the reductio ad absurdum but thanks for the info. It was very enlightening and I'll have to do more reading.

I’ll concede that my response may have been emotionally motivated. But is still take issue with Bennett.

To use Bennett’s own words, "we just don’t know." When race become an issue for public debate, I have heard from conservatives that unless the person says something that is obvious and blatantly racist, that we just don’t know what motivates their actions. And I agree. I don’t know that race was the motivation. But then those that support him don’t know that race wasn’t the motivation even James Carville.

James Taranto’s article was interesting and he made valid points. I believe in the freedom of speech and do not believe in censorship or "Forbidden Thought". But unlike some, I don’t believe that just because someone states something to be statistically true that race didn’t inspire the words.

I can only go by what I heard, and I have listen to and read the conversation between Bennett and the caller and still find how the conversation diverted into race questionable.

The conversation stated out about how "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency". Notice we are not talking about race. We then have him say that we are assuming all aborted fetuses would have been productive citizens.

He says that abortions occur more among single women. Then he says, "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 the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Note that they book Bennett references states 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.

The caller states he doesn’t think the statistics about abortion and the decline are accurate and Bennett agrees. Suddenly we get, "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.

So one minute we are talking about poverty, abortion, and crime. Statistics are used but Bennett is unsure and feels they are not accurate. Then he states that he KNOWS it to be true that aborting black babies would lower crime. And his supporters like Taranto point to the statistics.

And if memory serves me, after the Katrina disaster, and race became an issue, there were those that pointed out the issue weren’t about race but rather about poverty. The victims of Katrina were poor and that is why they suffered. I also recall someone from the media pointing out that 75% of poor people are white. So wouldn’t that mean that from the original stats referenced that aborting white babies would produce the same affect? Why wasn’t that used? Why wasn’t he sure about that fact?

So the stats about poverty and crime rate decline are questionable but the stats about blacks and crime are rock solid?

So I recognize the validity of the black on black crime, I respect the right to speak your mind. I just take issue with what was said and the possible motivation.

It’s like Fredrick Douglas said, we should have no such thing as black or white problems because we are all Americans and they should America’s problems.

I’ve read my statements and as I stated, “What’s his point of CHOOSING black babies to make his argument, with all the other options available? NOT the validity of the statement or its truthfulness.

Race is a fair topic and shouldn’t be taboo. But let me get this straight. When we talked about race and the Katrina disaster it wasn’t about race it was about poverty – there was no racial aspect to be talked about and how dare anyone suggest that there was one. But when we talk about the decline of crime due to abortions, THEN race is a “fair topic”? This is despite the fact that the initial conversation and statistics referenced were about POVERTY, abortion, and the decline of the crime rate.

Am I Illiterate!? No. I have my clarification. Thanks.

Interesting others can “consider it standard elements of genteel conversation to casually accuse strangers of being idiots and leftist for having called into question some ones remarks.” But you didn’t take issue with that generalization.

I apologize for the generalization. But not for taking issue with what was said.

He. Didn't. Choose. The. Argument. It was proposed in a book referred to earlier in the show.

Moreover, it's the most logical argument to revolve around, if you're looking for the extreme case for an example. Do you think it's mere coincidence that blacks are the one ethnic group that lead in each statistical category for crime, poverty and abortions? Why do you suppose that is? Do you think all these things are unrelated? Could it possibly have something to do with... I dunno... the legacy of racism in America? And where has that racism had its home for 175 years, and who promised that they would lift blacks out of the cycle of these statistical dead-ends while doing NOTHING to resolve the problems and only exacerbating them?

And yet, when the people who did NOT do all those things sit and muse over the reasons why these things are, and try to come up with ideas to stop them, who do you accuse of racism, simply because they DARE to bring up the subject?

How do you expect someone to respond when you come to their website and you insult them, and repeatedly deny the truth being laid before you? How do you expect us to get to the point where there is "no such thing as black or white" when you aid, abet, and act as a willing agent for the people preventing such a Dream from being realized?

Frederick Douglass said a lot of things. Another thing he said was: "I recognize the Republican Party as the sheet anchor of the colored man's political hopes and the ark of his safety." Some of us still believe that, and work hard to make it a reality, despite every lie told to you by our opponents. Stop looking for a hood in every Republican linen closet and maybe you'll have time to see Republicans of all colors working hard to dispel those lies and live the Dream.

But if you can't break free of your own bigotry, don't come in here and waste our time with your inanities.

Good day, sir.

But the ideas he was talking about, and not endorsing, were not in the book they were discussing. So where did that leap to "black abortions" come from? Not from the caller, not from the book.

OK, I've resisted commenting on this thread as long as I can take! MLM and toad, do either of you understand, or did you even attempt to educate yourself as to the meaning of Reductio ad absurdum? Rick provided a great link... did either of you read what that wikipedia entry said? Obviously not! To enlighten you, here is what that term means [Bold emphasis added by me]:

(Latin for "reduction to the absurd", traceable back to the Greek, "reduction to the impossible", often used by Aristotle) is a type of logical argument where we assume a claim for the sake of argument, arrive at an absurd result, and then conclude the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result.

Got that? I doubt it! To enlighten both of you, Bennett added the modifier "black" to the word "abortion" so as to make his hypothesis as absurd as possible! You see, by making it as absurd as possible, he make his point even that much more obvious... for those that can follow a logical argument, that is!

Did either of you bother to follow the link to the excellent example given by James Taranto that Chris linked to? If you had you would have seen that Juan Williams actually used the same method (Reductio ad absurdum) in a hypocritical attempt to criticize Bennett:

On "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, Juan Williams joined the attack on Bennett. The way in which he did it made our jaw drop, and let us count the ways. This is from the Factiva transcript (alas, not available publicly online); "Brit" is Brit Hume, who was defending Bennett:

What's clearly wrong is if you wanted to say, oh, gosh, you know, [1] maybe we should have abortions for every woman who has a history in her family of mental illness or anybody who has a disabled child, or [2] let's get rid of all the Christians, they certainly have been involved in lots of wars. [3] How about the Jews? You know what? [4] We have trouble with older people in this country. Clearly, they, you know, cause a great burden on our Social Security system. Maybe we should do away with some of these older people.
You know, Brit, it really speaks to a deeply racist mindset to imagine America somehow as better off if we didn't have those black people around and all those racial issues and all these--you know, so many of these blacks end up in jail, as if they're criminals because they're black. . . . He certainly said it to me. That's what . . . I heard, Brit. . . .
Brit, if I'm sitting here on a national talk show and I say, you know, [5] maybe if we killed off these white people, we wouldn't have so many mass murders in America, you'd say, Juan, are you out of your mind? . . .
Words have meaning, Brit. . . . I think what you're misunderstanding is it's the idea that he gave voice to this notion. If you were in a Nazi regime and said [6] you know, gee, you know, a lot of these Jewish people have businesses and they dominate the academy, and therefore wouldn't it be better--that's not a good idea, Brit. Not a good idea to give voice to.

No fewer than six times in a 10-minute segment, Williams did exactly what Bennett did that so offended him--namely, offer an outrageous hypothetical to illustrate a point. We're no more offended by Williams's doing so than we were by Bennett's, but Williams's hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.

By the logic you two are attempting to use against Bennett, Juan Williams is guilty of being a misogynistic anti-Christian anti-semitic anti-octogenarian racist (for wanting to kill all "white" people), right? RIGHT??? Where are your complaints about Juan Williams' words? Oh... what's that you say... he was just trying to illustrate a point. Hypocrites!

If you two cannot grasp this point you are imbeciles and incapable of dialogue at anything above a base level.

Thanks for your input Steve.

I’ve GOT IT.

I think we have already come to and passed the point to agree to disagree.