How about a Bill Bennet thread

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's forget about whether or not he is a racist. He just doesn't seem to be a logical thinker. How can he say he disagrees with the Freakonomics conclusion, but be so sure that aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate?

The fact is that most crime is done by young people, so if there are less young people there will be less crime regardless of race. Bennet seems to think it is true among blacks, but not among whites.

Doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in your "How about."

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[renodoc]

I think he was just quoting the book.

[ QUOTE ]
I think he was just quoting the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was/is trying to start a "slam Bill Bennet" thread.

[Boris]

The Freakonomics hypothesis is that neglected young people commit more crime. more abortions means fewer neglected kids. Bill Bennet is no doubt a racist but it's not surprising. He's been an a-hole for a long, long time. He just slipped up this one time, let the cat out of the bag so to speak.

Bennett might have to hide out behind a very high bank of slot machines to avoid the s-storm this quote is bound to create.

The quote is actually scientifically accurate from a statistician's point of view. But for someone with one foot in the world of politics to ever let this particular string of words come out of his mouth in this order is so utterly stupid, I'm stunned. If his political enemies make enough hay of this, it could severly damage his career.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Bennet is no doubt a racist

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that for a fact? One of his closest friends is Jack Kemp (they co-founded Empower America). Jack Kemp has a reputation as being very.....non-racist. Why would someone who hates racism like Kemp, be such a great friend of a guy who is "no doubt a racist."

[ QUOTE ]
The Freakonomics hypothesis is that neglected young people commit more crime. more abortions means fewer neglected kids. Bill Bennet is no doubt a racist but it's not surprising. He's been an a-hole for a long, long time. He just slipped up this one time, let the cat out of the bag so to speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidently you, and other posters, haven't bothered to read the complete text. And everyone who wants to slam Bennet is completely ignoring the "reprehensible" portion.

That's no different than what right-wing zealots do when they want to "make a case" against someone they don't like.

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[whiskeytown]

I couldn't care less what he said -

Anyone who goes writing a book of virtues and puts down anyone who disagrees with him while nursing a massive gambling addiction and blaming casinos for extending him credit is a hypocrite - the man has too much low moral fiber for me to read what he says with any credibility, though it's obvious from his comments he is a racist.

You know you [censored] up when the White House breaks from it's tradition of covering up the idiocy of it's fellow Republicans and critizes your comments - usually that money connection they share is enough to keep them supporting even someone like a serial killer.

Man's not worth the piss at the bottom of a urinal.

RB

[MaxPower]

After reading the Steven Levitt blog, I understand the hypothesis a little better.

I basically agree with what Levitt has to say here:
http://www.freakonomics.com/blog.php