Bill Bennett's Morning In America: Brain Food for 1.25 Million Americans in 115 Markets

Originally posted by dbates
Blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.

Ok. This may be true (I'm not going to rummage through to find the numbers - I'll take your word for it) but is it because they're black?

And you've also separated out violent crime, which Bennet did not do. What about all other crime? - fraud, bribery, credit card scams, identity theft, extortion, insider trading, embezzlement, sexual harrassment, Internet fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, arson, pharmaceutical drug abuse. You've basically taken out of the picture the crimes usually committed by white people and then said that black people commit more. Yeah, if you take away the white people's crime before you run your statistics, you can get the numbers you're looking for.

Bennet was making a hypothetical suggestion to mainly focus on the abortion issue. That's why he believes abortion to be the offending factor. Saying that the abortion of all black babies would lower the crime rate is not racist, or untrue. His assessment is based on hard facts. Should he have made that statement? Probably not, but you can't pull the racist card on this one.

But aborting all the white babies would reduce crime, too! Aborting 1/4 of all babies would reduce crime. After reading his own explanation, I have come to the conclusion I stated above. And I'm not pulling the race card. He linked black and crime. If he had said, "Well, after Katrina, we can expect lower crime rates in the US because a bunch of black people died." I would see the same racism.

Why can't people honestly discuss these issues without getting attacked?

I think we are. I don't feel attacked, do you? I'm white. And I hate racism.

Bennet is by no measure a racist.

You may very well be right. I don't know the man. My first introduction to him was this thread right here. And so far, I haven't seen much compelling either way, but for now, from reading his own words, I still think he's racist, simply because he associates black people with crime.

Back to Bennet's propostion, what can we do to fix these issues? Sweeping them under the rug doesn't help, and this is talk radio isn't it? What should they talk about on talk radio, if not important issues?

I agree that talking about issues is a very important thing to do. What issue is he trying to solve with this particular discussion? Wasn't the talk about abortion? We have no less than 6 threads going about abortion. I'm all for talking about difficult subjects. (See my latest PODcasts)

But if he'd said "if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could kill all the 30-45 year old white males in this country, and your crime rate would go down" maybe you'd see what I'm getting at.

Isn't that outrageous? Even if true, it's so off-the-wall (to me) that I can't really understand the thinking behind saying it. Maybe that's my failing, but I just don't get it.


[edit on 1-10-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by brimstone735
As for Bill Bennets arguement, the correct wording would have been "Aborting drug users would drop crime". In its current form, framing the arguement the way that he did, is in fact racist.

While I understand and applaud your research, I would disagree with this statement, too. It's too general. There are plenty of 'drug users' who do not commit other crimes. The only completely true statement he could have said (in my opinion) is:

"Aborting criminals would drop crime"

Statistic do have a story to tell, but it's not always accurate or comprehensive.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
[Statistic do have a story to tell, but it's not always accurate or comprehensive.

Not to defend Bill Bennett's insensitivity (which was glaring), but that was his point.

My point, however, was that the million Americans that didn't read Freakonomics but do listen to his show, are now all over the web defending his own admittedly absurd comment with racially insensitive comments of their own.

It doesn't matter how smart or well intentioned a host is, you're only as smart or well meaning as your audience in the final analysis.

He has done damage to himself, and his cause and infected millions of minds now with GARBAGE.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

While I understand and applaud your research, I would disagree with this statement, too. It's too general. There are plenty of 'drug users' who do not commit other crimes.
[edit on 1-10-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Eliminate marijuana from the equation, because they do the heavy lifting when it comes to giving drug users a relatively passive image. It's rare that a "pot" user will become addicted and turn to a life of crime. Nor would I consider it a "gateway" drug, when the drugs arent stratified anymore.

If you take marijuana users out of the equation and a single thing becomes crystalized, drugs cause violent crime. Coke, crack, heroin and meth. If a user of one of these substances isn't a violent criminal now, he eventually will be.

And that's primary point. Within the context of Bill Bennet's arguement, it was the framing of the answer itself that was racist. When, if he wanted to make the same point, within the framework of his ideology, then exchanging "Black" with "Drug Users" would have been the correct way to put it.

Drugs are the cause of the phenomenal surge in both violence and crime since the 60's. What began with heroin shifted to coc aine, then to crack coc aine, and then to black tar heroin, and finally to meth.

Drugs cause crime.

Simple. It just does.

Not to get too sidetracked, but our War on Drugs isn't winning, because we don't wanna win. Winning the war on drugs requires exactly one thing.

Treatment

Incarceration is NOT a deterent. Drug users go to prison and learn how to get better at it. They also network and learn such nifty skills as murder and chemistry. I know, because I've witnessed it at an administrative level.

The problem is that treatment isn't macho, and nor does it seem like punishment. Perhaps if they renamed it "brain purging" or "raping your insecurity with logic", then more people might support it.

Americans like punishment, and you will find no one more strict than me. But, in this case, punishing the problem does not work. Punishing the problem will never work. And, we will continue to have a problem until we, as a society, decide that winning is more important than simply being right.

Well, said brimstone. This is exactly the kind of talk I was referring to earlier when I said that we should address the problem, or at least discuss possible problems and solutions.

What remains to be seen is if Bill Bennett will cross the line from throwing out hypothetical solutions, and venture into real solutions. I still think his comment was silly, but the issue itself should be discussed just as you have done here. Ideally both sides affected would have an open mind and not jump into the race issue with both feet. The real problem is closer to what you have suggested. More along the lines of poverty than anything.

I've never actually heard Bennett's radio show, but it does sound like he's willing to talk about the issues instead of just regurgitating the same talking points that others do. That's a good thing I think. Hopefully he'll learn something from this little slip of words. That being you can't say everything that comes to mind when you're doing a radio show.

(Sorry RANT if this is off-topic)

I just don't think it can be simplified to "XZY causes crimes". Maybe a very specific class of crimes, but not crime in general. There are many factors involved in the criminal element. It's not just the color or the economic stature or drugs.

There's something more in the upbringing, influences, environment and probably just in the personality that all comes together to make one person a criminal and his brother a preacher.

Just because a poor, black person who does drugs commits a crime, we can't automatically associate any one of those characterizations with causing him to be a criminal. It could be because his father was a criminal. Maybe he was beaten as a child. It could be he got in with the wrong crowd.

I'm not trying to be nasty (I know I come across like that sometimes) But by the logic you guys are using, if we look at embezzlement and corporate crime, we could say that wealth causes crime. Or power causes crime. Yet there are plenty of wealthy people who would never consider crime.

I think you're looking at a narrow class of crime (committed by drug-users) and saying, "Well it's clear that drugs cause crime." It's too simplistic to say that drugs cause crime.

This is just my opinion. It's not that simple.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is just my opinion. It's not that simple.

No, it really is that simple.

And here I go being nasty, but perhaps you should have actually read my post before you commented on it, because nowhere did I say that...

"drugs cause ALL CRIME"

No, what I said was, "Nearly ALL DRUGS cause crime"

...and there's a fundemental difference between the two opposing and drastically different thoughts. No one single factor causes all crime. But, one factor nearly always results in crime, which inturn results in the statistical anomaly of African Americans being over represented in the NCVS and the UCR.

In answering Dbates point regarding the over representation of African Americans convicted of crimes, as opposed to their percentage of the total population. The answer is low price, high quantity drugs, and the lack of ecomic infrastructure within our nation's inner cities.

That's it.

It's not rocket science. It's not racism. It's not Satan. It's not people losing touch with their inner child. The reason for the over representation of African Americans is just simply economics.

Originally posted by brimstone735
No, it really is that simple.

Well, all right, then.

And here I go being nasty, but perhaps you should have actually read my post before you commented on it, because nowhere did I say that...

I absolutely did read your post, several times. Just because we disagree, doesn't mean I'm not listening.

No, what I said was, "Nearly ALL DRUGS cause crime"

I cannot find that quote in your post, but it doesn't matter. Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I don't think I did. You've associated drugs and crime and assigned one to be the cause and the other the result. Maybe the criminal mind is more susceptible to addictive drugs? Maybe crime causes drug use?

No one single factor causes all crime. But, one factor nearly always results in crime, which inturn results in the statistical anomaly of African Americans being over represented in the NCVS and the UCR.

I will agree that many times drugs and crime are associated, but regardless of how many times you say it or how forceful, I don't think the association is necessarily causal. I have a very logical and analytical mind and it would be nearly impossible to show me on a discussion board proof that drugs cause crime.

It's not rocket science. It's not racism. It's not Satan. It's not people losing touch with their inner child. The reason for the over representation of African Americans is just simply economics.

It's clear what you believe. We disagree. No big deal.

The reason I'm holding so tight to my position here is that there are too many rich white people (in the entertainment industry, for example) who do drugs. Lawyers, bankers, stock-brokers. They have all the money they could want, yet they still have some void that makes them reach out for the drug. I contend that this same void exists in everyone who becomes addicted to drugs or other substances.

After all the poor black kid had to become addicted to the drug in the first place. Why did he reach out to drugs? You're assuming he wasn't a criminal before he became addicted. Maybe he was. I just don't buy the simplicity of your assertion. But I'm ok with that.

In my past, I have done nearly every illegal drug available to man, and I'm not a criminal. And I'm not the exception either. I know lots and lots of people like me.

Originally posted by RANT
It doesn't matter how smart or well intentioned a host is, you're only as smart or well meaning as your audience in the final analysis.

He has done damage to himself, and his cause and infected millions of minds now with GARBAGE.

He did not did damage to himself he did probably what he was told to do to start a new debate on abortion and racial issues.

While the main topic that is the white house corruption goes in the background in the media circus.

People that are leaders in the "Moral Majority" knows how to work out the masses, to their advantage and the ones they are protecting.

The "Moral Majority" conservative masses will believe, trust and defend anything they said, and that included defending any corruption and more pressing issue when it comes to our nation and their leaders.

I think it was all staged.

Originally posted by spacedoubt

What if it were changed to "abort every inner city poor baby"?

...what would the effect be on the crime rate?

True Story:

I once knew a girl who is a retired NYC prison guard--retired on disability. She told me that inner city black women will use the prison system (actually have themselves arrested) to get free abortions.

Sick, sad, shocking even, but true, and I'll never forget she said it. Inner city poor babies.

And yes, I do believe a report was out last week that violent crime is down.

Posted 9/25/2005 6:21 PM

U.S. crime rate holds at 30-year low

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's crime rate was unchanged last year, holding at the lowest levels since the government began surveying crime victims in 1973, the Justice Department reported Sunday.

Since 1993, violent crime as measured by victim surveys has fallen by 57% and property crime by 50%. That has included a 9% drop in violent crime from 2001-2002 to 2003-2004.

And it was the mid-90's when she told me the story.



[edit on 2-10-2005 by psyopswatcher]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In my past, I have done nearly every illegal drug available to man, and I'm not a criminal. And I'm not the exception either. I know lots and lots of people like me.

If you've done every "illegal" drug known to man, then you actually are a criminal. Don't know if you put the connection there or not?

The distribution of illegal drugs is regulated by a well armed militia of lawless men. I somehow don't think that you and your friends spent your time getting high on free samples, so that means you had the disposable income to purchase said heroin and crack coc aine. And if you didn't, then that means you were a dealer or you're lying now.

Now you can live in fairy tale land all you want, and that's fine.

But, in the real world, the "economy of drugs" replaced "The economy of factory work" as the primary source of income in America's inner cities. There was no source of available money, other than the distribution of illegal drugs. Everything else trickled down in one way or another. The barber, the milk man, the grocery store, even city hall itself, became depedent on the money that drugs brought in.

The introduction of crack coc aine in the early 80's, cheap in price - high in quantity, is the reason for the astronomical rise in murders, assaults, robberies, and the convictions of African Americans.

And anything is else is utter and complete nonsense.

Had you read my original post, you would have gleamed the fact that African Americans DON'T do more drugs, they just get caught more, because there's more law enforcement in our inner cities. The rates of drug use are pretty standardized between Black, White, and Hispanic.

As bad as Bill Bennet's blatant racism is, your detachment from the reality of the situation is far more insidious. You have the gaul to admit that you've tried every drug - but drugs don't really cause crime.

Drugs cause rainbows.

I'm a liberal democrat, and I think your position is shallow and clueless.