William Bennett Speaks "Hypothetically" About Crime

[BVS]

Always a great approach....Tell people you disagree with that they're brainwashed.

No. I've listened to the man's show, even read a small portion of one of his books before I just put it down and I can't believe that conservatives fall for this shit. At least Rush is somewhat entertaining this man hides behind his pseudo intellect. I'm truly baffled that anyone respects this man.

 

[MaxFisher]

let's drop the outrage at the fact that powerful men have sex with younger women. let's drop the outrage that privileged white boys snort cocaine and drink too much. let's drop the outrage that fat radio hosts might be succeptible to myriad addictions.

let's drop outrage altogther. let's demand *ability*.

How then should we respond when our leaders or those in power commit adultery, do drugs, commit crimes, etc?
Just look the other way? If they are performing to their *ability* are they therefore above moral scrunity or discipline?

 

[MaxFisher]

No. I've listened to the man's show, even read a small portion of one of his books before I just put it down and I can't believe that conservatives fall for this shit. At least Rush is somewhat entertaining this man hides behind his pseudo intellect. I'm truly baffled that anyone respects this man.

Am I brainwashed because I agree with Bennett on a majority of issues?

 

[BVS]

Am I brainwashed because I agree with Bennett on a majority of issues?

Let's just say I'm concerned.

 

[MaxFisher]

Let's just say I'm concerned.

You didn't answer the question.

BonoVox, I assume you are a democrat or at least lean left on many political and social issues. Your party is losing. It doesn't control the House, Senate, or White House.

Here's a bit of free advice. Don't call people who disagree with you names. These are the people you need to win over to start winning elections again. No one responds positively to being called "brainwashed".

 

[Irvine511]

How then should we respond when our leaders or those in power commit adultery, do drugs, commit crimes, etc?
Just look the other way? If they are performing to their *ability* are they therefore above moral scrunity or discipline?

committing a crime, especially while in office, is one thing.

committing adultery? not a crime.

do you really think we're better off today than we were in, say, the 1960s when the press generally viewed JFK's various affairs as not worthy of public discourse? yes, i think if people are performing well then we shouldn't be concerned with moral -- please note, this is distinct from *criminal* -- scrutiny.

the only reason i care that, say, Newt Gingrich divorced his first wife while she was dying of cancer and then ran off with his former math teacher is because he ran on a platform in 1994 about "morals" and "decency" and other buzzwords that makes certain segments of the population swell in the chest and start waving their flags. it wasn't a criminal thing to do, it was just a rather shitty thing to do, but it has nothing to do with his abilities to govern and lead (which weren't terribly good to begin with). it matters, then, because it makes him a hipocrite.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

committing a crime, especially while in office, is one thing.

committing adultery? not a crime.

do you really think we're better off today than we were in, say, the 1960s when the press generally viewed JFK's various affairs as not worthy of public discourse? yes, i think if people are performing well then we shouldn't be concerned with moral -- please note, this is distinct from *criminal* -- scrutiny.

the only reason i care that, say, Newt Gingrich divorced his first wife while she was dying of cancer and then ran off with his former math teacher is because he ran on a platform in 1994 about "morals" and "decency" and other buzzwords that makes certain segments of the population swell in the chest and start waving their flags. it wasn't a criminal thing to do, it was just a rather shitty thing to do, but it has nothing to do with his abilities to govern and lead (which weren't terribly good to begin with). it matters, then, because it makes him a hipocrite.

Bingo. Couldn't agree more, Irvine .

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

White House criticizes Bennett's remarks on blacks
Sep 30 2:47 PM US/Eastern



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday criticized as "not appropriate" a comment from former Education Secretary William Bennett that aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate.

Bennett, a conservative radio commentator, stirred outrage for saying on his talk show on Wednesday: "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 impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said on his call-in program "Morning in America."

"The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Bennett has held various senior roles in administrations of President Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush. He is a former education secretary and head of U.S. drug policy.

Bennett, author of a book on morality called "The Book of Virtues," faced controversy two years ago when it was revealed that he lost millions because of a gambling habit.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he was "appalled" by Bennett's comments and said he hoped Republicans would condemn him.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the comments were "hateful, inflammatory" and asked whether they represented the values of the Republican party.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, a former campaign adviser to Bush, has been trying to reach out to African Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

On his radio program on Friday, Bennett said "I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition ... and then said about it, it was morally reprehensible to recommend abortion of an entire group of people."

"But this is what happens when you argue that the ends can justify the means.

His remark was in response to a caller who had suggested that the Social Security system's finances would be in a much better position if it were not for the 1973 legalization of abortion, because there would be more people paying into the system.

Civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton said on CNN that Bennett's comments were "blatantly racist."

"(He) stated as a fact that if you did this it would in fact lower the crime rate which clearly is him making blacks and crime synonymous," Sharpton said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/30/MTFH56914_2005-09-30_18-55-09_SPI068118.html

 

[Lila64]

all of Irvine's comments (too many to quote)

 

[BVS]

You didn't answer the question.

Actually I did, just not to your liking.

BonoVox, I assume you are a democrat or at least lean left on many political and social issues. Your party is losing. It doesn't control the House, Senate, or White House.

I have no party, but yes a new crop of conservatives control the House, Senate, and White House and many of them scare me. I fear for the future of this country.

Here's a bit of free advice. Don't call people who disagree with you names. These are the people you need to win over to start winning elections again. No one responds positively to being called "brainwashed".

I'm not running for office. I wasn't speaking of anyone specifically when I said brainwashed. If you took offense, my apologies.

I do not dislike the man because I have opposing views. If that were the case I'd dislike most of my family and friends. I dislike the man because he's poison. He's full of vile and hatred. He disguises it well, but it's there.

 

[the iron horse]

"as Bennett stated it, it is race that makes one more likely to commit crimes. that is a racist notion.

did he misspeak? probably. does this indicate a lack of awareness? yes."


One's race makes one more likely to commit a crime?

I don't think that is what Bennett was saying.
I agree with the member Ft Worth/?sorry
if i missed you s/n.

It's funny who is acussing who here of a lack of
awareness.


How about some reality?

-Children need a father and mother

-Children need a father and mother who
stick together

-Children need to be taught what is right and what is wrong

-Children need to be loved

-Children need stabilty in their lives

-And to know that people care for them

-People in their lives they can depend on for help


There's a lot of angry young people out there
and their condition does not have anything to with their skin color.

 

[Irvine511]

How about some reality?

-Children need a father and mother

-Children need a father and mother who
stick together

-Children need to be taught what is right and what is wrong

-Children need to be loved

-Children need stabilty in their lives

-And to know that people care for them

-People in their lives they can depend on for help

is anyone in here disputing this? what does it have to do with the conversation?

while i would amend "a mother and a father" to "loving parents," i agree with pretty much everything else.

 

[the iron horse]

"is anyone in here disputing this? what does it have to do with the conversation?"


It has to do with everthing.

It is about us trying to get to the point of talking about us.


*us, not black, white, yellow, green, lime*


And a plea stop using all this racists crap that keeps dividing us.


I believe a lot of people are ready to get along and move on.

 

[sue4u2]

I believe a lot of people are ready to get along and move on.

I really wish this were true..

and I agree with BVS, I fear for this country..

 

[Dreadsox]

do you really think we're better off today than we were in, say, the 1960s when the press generally viewed JFK's various affairs as not worthy of public discourse? .

President Kennedy was a security risk because of his behavior. That is a fact, and if his affairs with potential spys had been known, he would not have been elected. President Kennedy's medical problems alone, if they had been disclosed, would have made him unfit for office in my mind.

Good thing Bobby was there to run the show.

 

[melon]

President Kennedy's medical problems alone, if they had been disclosed, would have made him unfit for office in my mind.

Good thing Bobby was there to run the show.

Well, we have a dimwit being backed up by a veteran of multiple heart attacks and equipped with a pacemaker.

Good thing we have the pacemaker guy to run the show.

Melon

 

[BVS]

President Kennedy's medical problems alone, if they had been disclosed, would have made him unfit for office in my mind.

I actually agree with you on this. (Although I admire many things about his administration)

But let me ask you this, do you think Bush's admitted addiction to alcohol makes unfit for office?

To me, that's one of the biggest concerns I have with Bush. And I've stated it here many many times. Is that an addict, be it active or inactive is still an addict and is beyond unfit for office.


This beyond anything, is the reason it kills me that people voted for him. My background with addiction education tells me there's no way an addict is fit for this type of office.

 

[BonosSaint]

i really enjoy these slips of the tongues -- i don't think he misspoke, i think he was just being honest, inadvertantly, and i do think that every now and again we do get a sense of how rich, white, privileged, powerful, conservative, political people view the world -- we saw it with Trent Lott, with Barbara Bush, and now with "morals czar" Bill Bennett.

it's not that they hate black people; it's just that if you're black, you're not a person to them.

Considering the administration's ongoing PR problem with blacks, Bennett's remarks were stupid. Although I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was making a deliberately outrageous statement as a commentary on abortion, he appears to be a smart enough man to know what type of thoughts and emotions his words were going to stir. If I were black, I would not be comfortable with this administration and its darlings (Hell, I'm white and uncomfortable).

Racism? I don't know. I'd have to know more about him and frankly, he doesn't interest me enough.

When you are a moralist, when you write a book called "The Book of Virtues," you set yourself up to be watched to see that your personal behavior holds up to your expectations for others. Knowing my own limitations, I'm fairly careful on what I "preach".
And I'm pretty sure if I say something, somebody somewhere is going to be watching me--let alone if I do it in public, setting myself up as a moral authority--and he does. You can't just set virtues for others. If I recall, he didn't say anything about gambling and some conservatives were saying he wasn't hypocritical because he didn't condemn gambling, which I thought was disingenuous. It was a case of "My vices are OK. Yours are not."

I wasn't overly bothered by the gambling thing, although I read hypocrisy there. Some of those pictures of him by the slot machine were amusing. It's a vice shared by millions of people--though admittedly not to that extent. What I thought was telling was his wife being in the dark about it. I remember reading about her surprise. If I recall, this is a guy who wrote about marriage and I assume the necessity for honesty in it. That's more damning to me than the gambling. I paid no attention to him after that.

In the broadest sense, I can agree with some of his earlier points, if not the details. There is an ethical lapse in this country, all the way down the line. But when the elite worries more about the lapses of the little people and gives the corporations, etc. a pass, it appears to me they are more interested in protecting their own self-interests. I think there is a place to discuss ethics. I think they should be discussed all the time--personal ethics, social ethics, personal and social responsibility and accountability, the balance between self-interest and others-interest. But when you are telling me what to do, you better be towing the line.

 

[Dreadsox]

I actually agree with you on this. (Although I admire many things about his administration)

But let me ask you this, do you think Bush's admitted addiction to alcohol makes unfit for office?

If there were concrete evidence that he was back the way he was twenty or so years ago.....

I would have to say yes....

The difference in my mind is we know now that when Kennedy met with Kruschev, he was on drugs that would have affected how the meeting went. By most accounts, outside of the PR of the day, Kruschev kicked his ass all over the room.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well, we have a dimwit being backed up by a veteran of multiple heart attacks and equipped with a pacemaker.

Good thing we have the pacemaker guy to run the show.

Melon

There is a difference between a pacemaker and being on the drugs that Kennedy took.

I am asuming you made the comment seriously, but lately I can no longer tell.

 

[Dreadsox]

It was a radio show.

He is not a member of the administration. It does not in any way reflect upon the President in my opinion.

His comments are certainly not representative of my personal beliefs, and I am disappointed that he made them.

 

[diamond]

I actually agree with you on this. (Although I admire many things about his administration)

But let me ask you this, do you think Bush's admitted addiction to alcohol makes unfit for office?

To me, that's one of the biggest concerns I have with Bush. And I've stated it here many many times. Is that an addict, be it active or inactive is still an addict and is beyond unfit for office.
-

This beyond anything, is the reason it kills me that people voted for him. My background with addiction education tells me there's no way an addict is fit for this type of office.

hiccup, the difference is gw admitted his addiction, the left's heroes never admit their addictions and some serve who cannot and still struggle with their addictions.


-bill lewwinskyton
-ted chappaqidqic swimcoach, give me another cocktail while i serve.
-jfk painpills and women, than a martyr.

therein lies the difference.

yes so one should serve if his addictions are under control.

db9

 

[BVS]

therein lies the difference.

yes so one should serve if his addictions are under control.

db9

But that's where you are wrong. Speak to any addiction expert in this country and they will all tell you the same. You are always an addict. There is no such thing as an ex addict. Just a non active addict. Given the power, the stress and the importance of this seat I would never want or allow any addict in it's position. It's too dangerous.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yes that's right diamond, all Republicans admit their addictions and overcome them and Democrats never do. I don't think President Kennedy freely chose to be a martyr, pain pills and women aside. And it's true that an addiction is never under control, I have observed it in people personally and studied a bit so I know a little something about it. The addictive personality is always there regardless of the behavior.

back to the subject

From the Desk of William J. Bennett September 30, 2005

"On Wednesday, a caller to my radio show proposed the idea that one good argument for the pro-life position would be that if we didn't have abortions, Social Security would be solvent. I stated my doubts about such a thesis, as well as my opposition to such a form of argument (the audio of the call is available at my Website: bennettmornings.com).

"I then stated that such extrapolations of this argument can cut both ways, and cited the current bestseller, Freakonomics, which discusses the authors' thesis that abortion reduces crime.

"Then, putting my philosophy professor's hat on, I went on to reveal the limitations of such arguments by showing the absurdity in another such argument, along the same lines. I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars. In so doing, I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was 'impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,' just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.

"The issues of crime and race have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so--in light of the situation in New Orleans; and the issues of race, crime, and abortion are well aired and ventilated in articles, the academy, the think tank community, and public policy. Indeed the whole issue of crime and race is not new in social science, nor popular literature. One of the authors of Freakonomics, himself, had an extended exchange on the discussion of these issues on the Internet some years back--which was also much debated in the think tank community in Washington.

"A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.

"In sum, let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry--and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine."

 

[diamond]

i would rather have a "non active addict" ,who is in recovery and humble serving my country instead of these 3:


-bill lewwinskyton
-ted chappaqidqic swimcoach, give me another cocktail while i serve.
-jfk painpills and women, than a martyr.

these couldn't or cannot seem to control there addictions while serving in office.

thank u,

db9

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

it's Chappaquiddick diamond..

No one is saying President Bush isn't to be admired for quitting drinking (and I take his word for that since I have no proof otherwise). I admire him for that and for speaking about it. But you still fail to see the point about addiction. His degree of humility however I would definitely take issue with..

That's not the subject of this thread though, so maybe you should start one if you wish.

 

[BVS]

i would rather have a "non active addict" ,who is in recovery and humble serving my country instead of these 3:


-bill lewwinskyton

Lewinsky doesn't affect the way a person runs the country, addiction does...even if it is non active.

Humble

 

[diamond]

Lewinsky doesn't affect the way a person runs the country, addiction does...even if it is non active.

Humble

im saying bill clinton's adictions affected the way he ran the country.

get it?

db9

 

[Dreadsox]

im saying bill clinton's adictions affected the way he ran the country.

get it?

db9

I can think of an Asprin factory that members of the intelligence community did not think was a good target that was bombed the day the definition of "is" tape was released to the country.

I believe in my heart he put that on the agenda because he was in trouble.

 

[BVS]

im saying bill clinton's adictions affected the way he ran the country.

I can't believe you're even making light of a real disease.