The flawed premise of Bill Bennett

[whatever4]

I just want to take a stab at this, to say, his premise was unjustified. I did not see it attacked enough.

He implied that having fewer black people would mean less "crime" Here's the thing. His basic premise was that "crime would go down if...". He said "Everybody knows..." But I question it.

Why would crime go down? And what is crime?

Seriously, look at that underlying assumption. Upon what is it based, that without ANY (he said "every black" baby) black people in this country, crime would go down? It is an invalid assumption, given by that former Education Secretary. Consider -

- Is it fair or reasonable to assume that not only are black individuals more prone to crime, but that they are VASTLY more criminal, many MULTIPLES more likely to commit crime?

Is that reasonable? The only possible justification for what he said are our prison statistics. I have to say, IF we went by prison statistics, what are we assuming? Are black people twice as likely to commit crime? Three times as likely? Four? Ten times? What is the current difference in prison demographics, and is it AT ALL reasonable to use THAT as a judge of human nature???

Is it more likely, FAR MORE LIKELY (statistically) our nation has issues with race and legal equality? In looking at Katrina, I think we can all agree is is FAR more likely that racism exists. In looking at the failed drug war, I think we can agree minority populations are unfairly targeted.

I think we can all agree the prison numbers are NOT a fair judge of human nature, and that our legal system is NOT a good measure of it. Our nation has a history of inequality, a history of minority discrimination, a history of poverty and my good lord a history of slavery. A history of lynchings. LYNCHINGS. Shall we use THAT to make judgments of BLACK people? I say, it speaks very poorly of us, to blame later generations of systemic vile victimization for not being "better" enough. For not being better yet. For not being not poor anymore, after generations of being robbed of everything, even their humanity. We judge them now. We judge their human nature by our own horrific prison statistics? How self-serving and ugly of the majority white population, and how historically wrong.

- Is it fair or reasonable to assume our nation would see a decrease of crime if we had no black Americans? THAT is what he basically said, but upon what is that idea based? Do we see other nations having fewer races with less crime? Far less crime? Does that uniformity guarantee them peace and equality? Could anyone point out to me a nation free from crime? Could anyone point out to me a white nation free from crime, are we THAT much more peaceful than "black people", those who are not black? If we were, surely it would show, in a large way, in the many other white nations. So...Hitler never happened then...

- Is it fair or reasonable to believe all REMAINING races in our nation would then (after his murderous idea ) live in peace and harmony? Really? Do other nations continue to live peacefully after committing genocide? That is not my understanding of human history. I fail to see how it could be a given.

- Is it fair or reasonable to believe white Americans, because that is surely the superior demographic in his opinion, would commit fewer crimes? Why? Is white America not the predominant force in our nation right now? Are not "whites" in charge now? Given that white leaders rule our nation...gulp...aren't we fairly well the most dangerous bully in the world currently? In effect, isn't the United States of America the biggest lawbreaker? So...doesn't this speak exactly opposite to what he says?

- Is it fair or reasonable to believe we have low (lower) crime rates when, if so very many black people are being imprisoned, it means we are committing crimes against THEM? In effect, THOSE crime numbers, violations of civil and human rights, are not counted AT ALL. Further, are crimes in prison, frequently violent crimes against persons, reported in those crime statistics? Are then counted, or are they discounted as being unimportant? I say, ask yourself what our crime numbers REALLY are if we're imprisoning millions innocent people, people guilty of "moralistic" crimes, crimes of prohibition, laws designed to discriminate, and then allowing these victims to be further victimized in an institution without even counting the ways and times crimes against them are committed?? This would be "less crime"?? Hardly.

- Is it fair or reasonable to believe a white nation that would even CONSIDER such a concept could BE less criminal? Realizing that not all black women would consent to forced denial of reproduction, realize it not only espouses that would be "better", but further assumes the nation that would DO that would be "better". I have to say, it would not, since it would a genocidal, in creating his perfect we would become monsters. Funny that he considers being a monster less criminal.

Looking at what he said, and what it means, it's mind boggling.

And to me, amusing. What demographic is different than any other? What demographic truly is demonstrably more violent than another? Men. Men are far more violent and prone to committing crimes, statically, than the female of the species. Across the board, across ALL demographics, all nations, all human history. It's just a fact of life, one we can safely assume.

If we went by HIS logic...well, there'd be fewer MALE babies born. But, it's easy to see it's NOT a solution worth considering. It's inhuman. But logical. If Bennett cares for pure logic...he would never have been born.

I watched my Rams lose this weekend. It wasn't fun, they got run over. They fought to the end, but defense...oh my. So many of my favorite players are black, men I adore watching play, enjoy listening to them comment. I never cared about football before, but the amazing bottom-to-top win in 1999 got me hooked. Marshall is a phenomenon. I still miss Farr (hope he and his family are doing okay) and Fletcher - HEY FLETCHER, defense needs you!!! - Torry was finally able to smile again after the last call they didn't botch (what, did the Mafia have money on the game or WHAT??) Jackson is learning fast, and Bruce, that wonderful reverend and a man to admire, wasn't able to play, but he's my fav, so I was thinking about him too. What a guy. What a team, ya know?

And Bennett said WHAT again? I mean, really, guys like him, they ARE a crime. Hurt my feelings and I'm not even black. But anymore, I know where the pride is, and it isn't with the likes of Bennett. He makes sick, self-serving assumptions, and for all he used to be Education Secretary, he isn't even very bright. Not about people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Sum it up as: Bennett thinks there is a genetic racial basis to criminals.

[whatever4]

3. Yes, whatever his justifications are, they're self-serving and wrong. nm

[whistle]

2. "The flawed premise of Bill Bennett"...IS BILL BENNETT!!!

...Back in 2003 Bill Bennett's defenders were explaining how Bennetts short comings were helping the rest of us somehow overcome our own short comings by being the example for what not to do! Well Bennett is still practicing his short comings and he never was ands still is no contra-example of moral virtues even.

<snip>
Bill Bennett and the charge of hypocrisy
BY: Dennis Prager

Posted: July 8, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

The preoccupation with Bill Bennett's gambling has reaffirmed something I long ago realized: Only conservatives can be hypocrites.

Can you think of one prominent liberal ever labeled a hypocrite in the mainstream press? President Bill Clinton was labeled many things for his extramarital affairs and his lying, but never a hypocrite. But when the press discovers flawed behavior in the personal life of a prominent conservative, he is discredited as a hypocrite.

Why is this? Because you can only be a hypocrite if you violate standards that you promote or judge, and liberals rarely promote or judge personal behavior. Their moral preoccupations almost exclusively concern social positions. Liberals judge people by their positions on global warming, not by how they behave.

That is why conservative Bill Bennett was dismissed as a hypocrite for gambling while liberal Jesse Jackson, though a clergyman, was almost never labeled a hypocrite after the public learned that he had committed adultery, fathered a child out of wedlock and misappropriated funds earmarked for civil-rights work. Jackson has the right liberal positions on social issues. Likewise Woody Allen, Norman Mailer, the Rev. Al Sharpton and many other liberals who committed far worse sins. None is labeled a hypocrite.

<more>
<link> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33462

...and another article:

<snip>
May 12, 2003, 10:00 a.m.
Freedom & Slavery
Our moral predicament — and Bill Bennett’s.
BY: Stanley Kurtz

Obviously, William Bennett is a man of large appetites — for food and for gambling. The reaction of Bennett's foes to this is: "You are a hypocrite. If you can have your pleasures, why can't I have mine (whether you like them or not)?" The traditionalist's reaction, on the other hand, is that, like everyone else, William Bennett is a weak and flawed human being — a creature touched by the universality of sin. No doubt, Bennett's own large appetites taught him something about the dangers of the slippery slopes against which he preached. But that is not proof against traditional morality itself. It is proof of the need for morality. Across this gulf of incomprehension, the two sides in the Bennett matter sit.

In the final analysis, however, those sides may not be so far apart. No matter how atomized society gets; no matter how many of us morph into expressive individualists; our need for a community with at least some common moral presuppositions remains. And no matter how convincingly Marvin Gaye sings about sexual healing, some element of social and moral danger will always cling to the unrestricted enjoyment of our pleasures, be they chemical, sexual, or musical.

So the real reason Bennett's foes hate him is not simply cultural incomprehension. At some level, Bennett's opponents surely can understand what he is saying. Each side in this conflict knows something about the other. Bennett's prohibitionism is no doubt based on his knowledge of his own large and potentially dangerous appetites. Yet the unseemly hatred of Bennett — the ugly rejoicing in his weakness — is based on the fact that Bennett has pricked the conscience of his foes. If his foes had been totally alien to the traditional moral universe, Bennett's defense of virtue would not have created in them the misery they continually complain of.

What, then, are we to make of Bennett's dilemma? By his own admission, William Bennett has stumbled. I believe he will get up.


<More>
<link> http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz051203.asp