Bennett Redux

WOW! I can only imagine how swamped you must have been with emails and or some of the comments (which I read), to have to point people to the source (yet again). Have we come to this in our “to lazy to read and research” society??

I grew up partially without a father and partially with one. I also grew up partially with an abusive step-father, but my issues have always been more about the absence of my real dad than the behavior of my step-father.

The woman writing this book is probably trying to make the best of a difficult situation, but there is simply no argument that I will consider seriously which claims that a single mother raising a boy without a father or father-figure present is any way preferable to a traditional home. Frankly, I’m more than a little offended that a woman would even presume to write such a book – as offended as I imagine she might be were I to publish my views about about how mothers should discuss such issues as menstruation or puberty with their daughters, and then pad those views with surveys and studies.

The bottomline is that you can train a chimp to be well-behaved, but at the end of the day, it’s still going to be a chimp. Similarly, you can raise a child to be an adult, but only a man is going to be able to teach him how to be a man.

If you want a society wherein there is no difference between men and women besides their respective reproductive biology, why do you need WOMEN to raise children, either? Just send them off to Day (and night) care and let the social workers do it.

LaShawn, my oldest son has stayed married to a shrew for one reason, and one reason only. His sperm-donor was not a part of his life, and he is not about to allow his two sons to grow up without him. HE KNOWS the value of a father! I realize it is anecdotal evidence, but it is important nonetheless.

Hi Lashawn -

I grew up without a father, and few older male influences. We lived in the projects in Boston, a hardscrabble kind of place, until my mother managed to work her way out. I’d like to think I turned out OK, but I feel so strongly that a male influence is important in a young man’s life that I have been a volunteer for the Boy Scouts since my son was 7 years old. He is now 29.

Working with the local Scout troop, I also work with lots of boys who have no fathers in their lives and to the best I can to instill values, ethics, and skills into their character.

Lots of boys without fathers grow up to be good, decent men, but they are in the minority, in my opinion.

Exactly what part of “aborting all black babies” is confusing here? Exactly what part of linking black babies to the crime rate, (whatever definition that is) is out of context? Exactly what are you folks gaining by defending this “man”, Bennett?

–Cobra

“Bill Bennett’s comments are akin to someone using the word “niggardly.” Ignorant people who want to be offended will see it as a racist word. The rest of us intelligent, rational folk won’t.”

~True, but one must consider the environment when using any terminology, and cognizant of the impact any statement will have. It is inadvisable to use the word “niggardly” in public because of the very real fact that no matter what your message is, it’s likely to get lost in misunderstanding. Besides, that word hasn’t been in common usage in ages. Using it would also seem to limit the amount of people who will receive your message. Why be self-defeating?

For example, if I have a male friend who is always happy, I wouldn’t go on the air and say “My friend [blank] is very gay, and that makes him a pleasure to be around!” I wouldn’t say that not because it’s an illegitimate usage of “gay” because it’s a very valid usage, but these days people don’t immediately associate gay with happy anymore, so to use it would conflict my message.

La Shawn, I lost my father when I was 10. I know that there are many choices I made that I wouldn’t have made if he’d been around. I wouldn’t have been able to drop out of high school, I wouldn’t have been able to enter a relationship with a woman who had a live-in boyfriend, I’d have learned how to work on my own car and home much earlier, (as my older brothers did before me) I’d have had someone to ask advice of about “man things”, and I probably wouldn’t have been so angry when I saw friends (even strangers) hanging out with their dads.

I’m thankful that as promised in Scripture, God gave me what I had been missing in terms of people to play particular roles in my life, and my pastor and one or two other men I grew close to showed me how to be a man. That took some reversing of what I’d learned on the street, but it eventually took hold. They taught me to be responsible, to protect those around me, to treat a woman like a person and a peer, how to walk with strength without being threatening (although I remember how when I need to), they showed me how to express emotions as a man should, and most of all the modeled being a man 24 hours a day.

My development was short-circuited when my dad died, plus he wasn’t that great a dad to begin with, but being around men who were comfortable being men taught me a lot.

Having a father in the home is one thing. Having a good father in the home is on a level by itself. Nothing compares to having a father and mother who love each other and love you too. I watch some of the kids I know who have that, and without exception you can see a difference in their personalities as compared to the kids who have anything less. The kids who have it are more confident, more aggressive (in a positive way) and most of all more secure in themselves.

Fine, use what you want.

So, Cobra, you listened to the whole thing, in context?
The point of it was that it would be an abomination to do so (kill black babies). The point was that some things are always morally evil, regardless of intent or possible consequences.

La Shawn,
Yes, correlation, does not mean cause, as someone who has education in statistics. Have you been around the military, where many children have been raised without fathers in the old days and today, even mothers. Mothers have raised children without fathers who died in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. Some military fathers are great father figures, and yet absent fathers. If Colin Powell was killed in first or second tour in Viet Nam, he would have left a son or son and daughter, if he had been killed. Yes, he was wounded, during both tours. This is true of many soldiers, whether later famous or not. The ones that become generals such as Schwartzkopf, Franks, or Powell can write books, but most are unknown. Being killed in WWII was noble, but Viet Nam it was different. Father figures, I feel, are important for both males and females. If a parent dies of a heart attack or cancer when you are past a certain age, it hurts, but your inner self is already formed. A single parent can compensate, but as you say there is statistical correlation to bad outcomes. Are not girls without fathers or father figures also more likely to bad outcomes.
Fathers who die in War, leave pictures and medals, it seems less bad than fathers that are unknown? How many females in the military that are killed leave children today? We seem to need females in the military today for Muslims that we never needed years ago!
James M. Barber

My husband’s dad left the family, so his mom (undereducated Latina immigrant) had to raise the four boys by herself. Everyone eventually came out okay, but that’s because she got on her knees every night and prayed for them, read the Bible to them, and got them in church. They grew up very poor and went to awful city schools, so it’s a miracle it worked out despite all that.

La Shawn,

Without going into to much detail… a three-year-old boy I know recently asked his father, “Daddy, where do you live?”

Parenting requires “being there”–and a whole lot more.

No doubt a single-mom or –dad can raise children on her or his own. In itself, this truth is evidence that a better way exists. In my opinion, and experience, that way begins when a married couple builds a house on rock.

Cheers,

You know, when I was only reading Bennett’s comments I felt much better about him. There is a rational argument to what he says. However, upon hearing him I have to say I was disturbed. I am bothered by the way he blurts out something that isn’t really the topic of his conversation. It feels to me that he had wanted to say this and he finally got a chance to say it. Minimally it was stupid and insensitive to say. It seems even worse to me, and I hope I am wrong about Mr. Bennett. I have taken a 180 after listening, and I now agree with Cobra.

Bennett’s abortion view didn’t bother me as much as his speculation that high crime rates are caused by Blacks. That was the only thing that I didn’t like. I want my infant sons to be free of that kind of stigma. Let them be judged by their character and not by their skin tone. I is really hard to be a Black conservative nowdays. Conservatism is being highjacked by these so-called TV conservatives who have done nothing to improve this country and have made careers on sound bites.

There’s a letter to the editor in the Boston Globe (go figure) saying Bennett advocates aborting all black baibe. Did you write that one Cobra?

Drexler’s book has perturbed me for a somewhat personal reason – my husband and I are raising our son (adopted at five, he’s now eight). He’s a marvel and a joy, among other things, and we’re doing the best we possibly can by him. One thing we can provide for him, which our parents provided for both of us, is a home with two parents who love each other and love him.

We recognize that the ideal situation would have been for his birthparents to have been capable of providing that home for him. That not being the case, we have dedicated ourselves to giving him the best possible upgringing we can. I don’t believe that Drexler’s book is going to help the overall environment for children.

My son grew up without a father — white, low middle-class. He is grown up now and doing well and says he doesn’t feel he missed anything, but after about age 8 or so, I could see that there was a hole where something should have been. It really didn’t matter that he had other men to help (which did help), or even that his father may well have been a bad or indifferent father (as some of my friends with ex-husbands to deal with claim). The problem was just the fact that my son’s father was alive somewhere, but absent in his life. You can mitigate the damage but nothing can undo it.

La Shawn,
Reading Bill Bennett’s comment and many comments about his remarks, can I make this remark. If I am in Bethesda, MD in a theater and comment with my loud voice about a fire in California, and a rush for the doors happens, is this what Bill Bennett did in thought process on the air. Race today is hot button issue, which cannot be spoken off the top of your head. Larry Elder, who has a Brown degree also, mentions this in article he wrote about Bill Bennett being Borked. In the late sixties, students demanded certain black representation at Brown. The following year I was given the opportunity to tutor in physics for a month. I did and carefully filled out comments at the bottom. The student showed up completely unprepared, expecting me to teach him without opening a book. Several pictures on brownorleans site are mine of Ruth Simmons’ visit in the beginning of August. The old section or French Quarter was never flooded! By the way, Brown’s oldest part in Providence is on a hill on the east side. Without engineering degrees, people knew to found city on high ground. The people from the Times-Picayune at the party, have houses in the old rich section. Bobby Jindal(R-LA) got Dr. Simmons there since he is on the corporation.
Good luck in your new undertaking, whatever, the name becomes.
James M. Barber

Bennet did not just pull blacks and crime out of thin air because of racism..When the caller made the original comment about abortion being linked to an economically undesirable outcome for society, Bennet cautioned the caller about making links to abortion and social outcomes. He then referred to ‘Freakonomics’ which he said he DISAGREED with, stated their premise, which was related to abortion and crime.(flawed statistically in my opinion)..What is not widely reported is that the authors actually used race in their original manuscript when discussing abortion and crime, but changed it to low income individuals and abortion (though statistics would indicate that blacks have far more abortions per capita on a percentage basis so the implication was certainly there). Ergo, Leavitt and company got a free pass….and are lauded by the liberal establishment..

The point here is that Bennet did not just pluck black crime and abortion out of thin air due to latent racism…He plucked it straight from the one book which made any implied relationship to abortion and crime, though it had whitewashed any mention of race. And, he related the fallacies of the book to the points in the call. Yes, he could have talked about castrating Catholic priests and reducng homosexual abuse, and would have been statistically correct, but that would have been more off the wall in terms of the relevance to ‘Freakonomics’, the caller’s connection to abortion and social outcome (even beneficial ones.

Lastly, Cobra, Bennet deplores abortion. Further, he works in urban areas, and has for years in a mentoring organization, reaching out to the very youth you say he would like to see aborted. He never ever suggested aborting black babies. As far as black crime goes, he is using incarceration stats as his benchmarks. In fairness,you simply cannot expect people to know how many white people are snorting coke in the privacy of their homes or cheating on tests, or smoking pot. Realistically, many people will look at an incarceration rate, and say that is the crime rate, and we can debate tht all day long.

What we cannot debate is tht he advocated aborting black babies. We cannot debate that he advocated a genetic inferiority of black babies. We know that many people who are expecting children, and are looking for the perfect place to raise them, scope out the perfect place for their children in large part by observing the behavior of the parents of their chldren’s future playmates. That is not to say that they are making a determination of the genetics of the children, but are making a statistical guess and betting on an outcome simply be observing the behavior of the parents.We make predicitive analyses every day of the week.

When our society becomes a lot more impressed with what an individual does with their life, such as Bennet and his urban outreach, than how politically correct and smooth talkin’ they are, we’ll be a whole lot better off. Right now, we are so much more into charisma and pc that we don’t know a good man when we see one….

Nah, father’s don’t matter at all, that’s why I dress in women’s clothing… “oh I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok…. I work all night and I sleep all day, I put on women’s clothing”. Ode to Monty Python for my past history as a lost youth.

Seriously, having a Father in a boy’s life is critical. If not, then a solid and reliable male influence is required and if not able, then the encouragement of quality male friends in school and organizations. Honestly, I could give reason after reason, example after example as to why not having a Father in my life really let things spiral out of control. I’m not saying the Father is the final answer or solution to societies problems or boys in general. But I saw the effects of divorce on all my male friends. We were the most irresponsible lot in school. It dawned on me half a life later, with the exception of 1 and 1/2 friends, they were all from broken families – thus the correlation to gangs or groupings of lost youth in lost causes.

I read the book Wild at Heart with a men’s group ministry not long ago. I was staggered by the lack of any understanding on 95% of the men. They were mostly older and all had seemingly normal family history. The minister himself finally admitted he could not understand many of the author’s points. It is exactly because he grew up in a family with two parents in a normal lifestyle. TV was not the answer to his questions. Mom nurtured and showed loving ways, Dad disciplined and showed adventure and encouragement, both worked together from their unique and natural qualities as male and female.

When I first started reading the book, I was fairly negative myself. But then one particular thing hit me(with regards to puberty), then another and another. Then, looking back I realized how all the feelings of insecurity creeped in unconsiously into my young mind, especially at tender ages from 9-13, where really men were just a mystery to me. In fact, at a young age I was embarrased being around men in certain circumstances because why? Because I never had been. All these things add up in a young child’s mind, emotionally and mentally as he matures.

Let me give a clue to women who may read this or men who know single women, or for that matter Fathers who are divorced and do not see their sons and daughters regularly. Whatever you do, don’t just leave Cosmo, RedBook, or Adult womens and fashion magazines laying all around the house for your young boy to read freely without explanation, because he will. Another thing, don’t get comfortable as a woman and dress in front of the young boy without a male role figure in the house as well. I know this sounds silly, but its very simple and logical. Young children mimic the adults in their lives. If their is only one adult, who will they mimic?

Balance it out with uhhhuhhhh! Macho Men stuff, like fishing and hunting and sports and men stuff, yeah! Smiles, I laugh a little now, but in reality, you must balance it for a young boy. Get his Uncle to go fishing with him, or a good friend who you trust with other families or organizations like the Scouts. Young boys need the familiarity and friendship of boys and MEN as role models. Otherwise, they get lost as to their own masculinity, their own worthiness as in maleness.

I remember seeing my Mom dress over and over again. Eventually, after I grew up in my teens, what do you think I did? I will leave it to your imagination. Fortunately, the named title does not apply to my life. But I’ll tell you that the curiosity of a young boy growing up without any male influence, seeing ‘HIS FATHER’ get dressed, or shave, or a dozen other things men do that only men do, well, its quite a lost art on a young boy with no one to tell him anything and him left guessing what is right, what is wrong, will he grow big? hair under his arms? whats the best way to shave? the simple fact of knowing you indeed will be a man one day, past puberty is lost completely without a male influence.

Well, I apologize if some of this info got a little rough around the edges, but normal life of a father and son are well, just that, rough around the edges and the Father tells the son, you will grow to be a man, just like me one day. You will be big and strong in all kinds of ways as the young boy progresses in life he compares himself to his Father. If that Father is absent or is negligent in his duties, the son will suffer the consequences.

And that is the reassurance that no woman can give a boy, because when he looks at his Mom, he knows down deep, he’s not built like her. Of course she can reassure her son, talk to him, encourage him. And I compliment and cheer all the women who have done just that for young boys who have grown to be productive men.

But, to write of men as unimportant in a relationship is a mistake for the boy and society at large. Strong men of character, confidence and good morals early in life, by and large come from strong men of good character. The struggle is overcome by example and not falls, experience wisdom and not accidents, love of a father and not the love of a book or a TV.

So… by all means, review the book, but my verdict as you can tell is in. Its garbage already in my mind. It is self-indulgent and self-seeking importance to make one feel better about ignoring the truth.

Now, forgive me up front. But genetics, smenetics, homosexuality is nurture, not nature, experience by example, not born from conception and a fashion sense in a boy, color coordinated and clean raised by a single woman is not surprising at all. Let alone, insecure as a man, feminine qualities in addition. When lack of examples enforce the other genders traits at a higher level, it is bound to have implications in the child’s life. And for society at large, especially the medical professions not to realize this and openly discuss it is a complete disservice to single mothers, children(especially only child) and society.

That’s my 2 cents… Its taken me 40 years to get past being a confused, being that insecure boy and being a selfish whiner and complainer, broken relationships with women one after another. I’m still working on many issues, some of which are related to my Father’s life. But many, many are just the fact I never had a Father around in the first place. It’s not my Mother’s fault at all. She did what she had to do and I lover her with all my heart. But she could not replace the male example, nor could she begin to comprehend the loss of such example. She is a woman, a Mother, loving, nurturing and caring. But when I reached 15, forget it, I started to rule my own way and therein lies many problems in today’s society.

The important point to make is that society has jumped from one side to the other without finding middle ground. It also accepts failure to easily in marriage, nor lifts it up enough. It focuse on the romance, not on the true self-giving sacrifice a family must make, and the happiness that can be if they all work together. But our culture has also drifted far apart into self-inflicted isolationist tendencies too. Children no more about the TV plots and game characters than they do their own Mom and Dads.

Men are starting to feel it, fight back so to speak, be men again. For a long time, society treated women in some ways as second class citizens. Then, the rise of feminism took it to extremes, divorce, single parent families, TV as Nanny and MTV as BabySitter Bubblicious Blues have and are still putting this nations children at high risk of losing any moral compass it once had on a larger and large scale.

No, there are no simple solutions. But to strike out one whole side of the equation as useless is in my mind criminal.

Hope this is a little bit of the comments you were looking for…

#40 – none of the points you make matter to the perpetually aggrieved. No reasonable person would interpret what Bennett said as advocating abortion but to the PA, as I’ll abbreviate, he associated blacks with crime so he therefore is a racist which the PA believe all whites are in their heart of hearts.

Harry Potter grows up with an uncle, not a father.

He’s proud of his own father, and learns to be an anti-hypocrit partly thru living with the Dursleys.

The Harry Potter books have the extremely important message: you have to do IT yourself. Easily relevant to whatever IT is for any young person.

When the first Fallujah siege was called off, I noted this important issue, for the Iraqi people:
Harry Potter, Ender Wiggin, (no) Help for the Iraqi People.

And, just as Harry is growing up; the new Iraqi Gov’t is growing up a bit. They just enacted the death penalty for terrorism.

What I find really interesting in this whole fracas is that the left suddenly refers to aborted fetuses as “babies.” This is a huge revelation. Suddenly, when it benefits their rants, that “mass of cells” is miraculously a baby.

I’m with Andy on #48…Good point!

Cobra states: “For this “man” to suggest that there is a genetic component to crime…”

Of course Bennett did no such thing, but Cobra isn’t one to let facts get in the way of a good rant.

I just have to bite. On the Bennett issue, anyway…

Race is a charged issue but I’m not very intimidated by it. For my entire life, I’ve pretty much been ‘the white girl’ in my school, church, and neighborhood. I don’t flinch at this issue. What this means, though, is I’m always saying things that are intrepreted as inflammatory and racist. In a way, I talk openly because I’m confident about my position. People can think I’m racist but I know I’m not, so I feel entitled to say things others are too sensitive to say.

I think Bennett must be in the same boat. He stopped being careful because he forgets he’s white, looks at some facts, and makes a probability conclusion that just so HAPPENS to be negative about African Americans. The reaction: “OMG HE’S RACIST.”

This is what happens when he live in a hyper-racial society that is resistant to objectivity. No one can set up a very convincing debunking of the incarceration & criminal statistics (the sources are hard to find but I’ve found some after digging around) that show both are overwhelmingly African-American. In fact, the ratio of criminal activity from white to black right now may be underestimated, not exaggerated as some people believe it to be. Why? Because Latinos are sometimes clumped together with white people.

So instead of debunking very clear statistical patterns, the upset population goes and beats a dead horse.

The message this whole mess is sending: “Don’t bring that up.” I’m every day highly disturbed by people’s inability to talk objectively about anything racial. Instead of dealing with facts, facts which reveal bad things that are going on in society, we pretend they aren’t there OR that they’re “racist” and thus deserve our contempt.

THE FACTS:

a) We could go on all day about what are “crimes” and whether white people just get away with it, but the fact right now is the prison population is overwhelmingly African American. A given.

b) Bennett was saying that the African American population is STATISTICALLY more likely to commit crimes, not GENETICALLY. He was referencing “Freakonomics”–get a clue.

c) If all white babies were aborted, there would still be a drop in crime–the point here, though, is that according to the statistics (and nothing more), aborting the black population would result in a sharper decline.

d) Bennett can’t and doesn’t advocate this idea because first, he’s anti-abortion, and second, if you read his quote carefully, I don’t think he considers it a very reliable way to control crime, nor does he think it would be overall a beneficial thing. Even if the result of such a despicable program was an immediate decline of serious crimes, we have no idea what would happen beyond that. He said that “if you wanted to reduce crime… [as] your sole purpose.” What he’s trying to clarify there is that it may reduce crime, but there are other problems out there, some of which would be caused by such an idea.

I know I’m fighting a losing battle because inevitably, race talks end up with somebody covering their ears and going, “LALALA-I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU!” Bad news or, often enough, good news is not welcome. But I think it’s right for anyone to feel their blood boil as this concept evolves. It IS wrong. It’s what abortionists argue. And it’s terrible that African Americans have to be stuck with such statistics–but as people we should be willing to act on it, not ignore it. If you don’t LIKE the fact that I’m telling you African American crime is hugely disproportionate to white crime, do something about it.

Cobra, Ebrima and Nardo:

I suggest you learn to understand what you read or hear, especially when you choose to take comments out of context, and do so in order to justify your own bias and prejudices!

As someone who spent years working within the film industry, I know first hand that the way a director frames the picture you are viewing is vital, but what’s more important is what came before and after that one particular image being projected in the moment.

Remove the image from what came before and after, and the message is likely to be misunderstood or completely altered.

That is what you and the MSM have done with Bill’s comments. So perhaps I should make the same assumptions about you three and the MSM and dumocrats have made about Bill Bennett, and in your case, Cobra, seemingly about all white conservative males – “Those comments you made are done in order to justify your vitrol, your anger, and your BIASED beliefs; and claiming that Bill’s comments underlie a racist heart is your way of deflecting the truth about YOUR biased hearts”.
Stew on that for awhile!

Cobra, you then go on to quote Rush Limbaugh as means to support your previous false assertions about Bill Bennett. WTF has Rush Limbaugh got to do with Bill Bennett?

So I guess your point is that all white male conservatives who happen to have a radio talk show or are published authors, are racists and use their shows to make racist statements in order to increase their ratings or sell their books??
That has to be one of the weakest attempts at justifying your inability to understand what was said and/or your decision to take the comments out of context simply to support what appears to be your PERSONAL bias towards white conservative males!

Cobra says “Exactly what part of “aborting all black babies” is confusing here? Exactly what part of linking black babies to the crime rate, (whatever definition that is) is out of context? Exactly what are you folks gaining by defending this “man”, Bennett”

Well,maybe Cobra, if you actually attempted to UNDERSTAND what Bill said IN the context in which he made that comment, and if you would stop taking four words complete out of context to justify your biases, you’d might be able to understand the analogy Bennett was making, and perhpas you’d also understand that HE is NOT the source of this “linking black babies to crime rate” you have deliberately misquoted.

His comment was in direct reasponse to a ludicrous assumption another caller made, and mirrors a study present in the book FREAKONOMICS,written by TWO WHITE MEN, who are economists, and whose book has been on the NY Times best seller list!

Anyone who claims that “Freakonomics” doesnt bring “race” into the conversation, is wrong! IT DOES!

“I don’t think it’s controversial to say crime is higher among African Americans,” Levitt still insists. “We’re not saying there’s anything intrinsic about this. There’s also higher poverty among African Americans. The CAUSAULITY is not important in our argument, in the sense of WHY it is that African Americans are disproportionately represented in the crime statistics”

Wrap your mind around THAT statement by ONE of the authors of “FREAKONOMICS”! Levitt also noted that their(he and his co author) study managed to offend EVERYONE. Liberals denounced it as a call to arms against the poor.

By the way, Levitt acknowledges that his conclusion is mainly “conjecture” and that it could “never be proven to the degree of certainty that a scientist might demand”. But that didn’t stop him and his co author from including it in his best selling book!

So, are the authors of FREAKONOMICS also racists?
As economists they claim to look at numbers, not skin colour! The facts remain that from 13% of the population( black americans) occur slightly over %50 of all murders. What conclusions we draw from this, should be a matter of deeper discussion. But, you cannot have an honest open discussion on race if you refuse to deal with facts HONESTLY.

I lived in LA during the OJ Simpson murder trial, in the 90’s. All this alleged progressive thinking that both black and white liberals seem to have laid claim too suddenly DISAPPEARED during the OJ trial.Frankly I think it was non existant to begin with; but during that time, the racial divide in American became only to painful clear.

Blacks hated OJ for having “turned white” and white americans were furious when he was found not guilty of a crime that even black americans felt he had committed.

But, Black Americans celebrated his acquital as a HUGE victory – not for him per se- but for their race – because they wanted to see ” a black man win one” within the justice system they felt had treated them unfairly.

On the other hand, white americans didnt care that he was black and found not guilty – they cared more that he was RICH and found not guilty, convinced that his money had bought him his acquital!

For white americans it was about “class”- for black americans it was about “color”.But, considering how Black Americans hated OJ for marrying a white blond hair blue eyed woman, and for being rich, and successful and embraced by white americans, the trial and the emotions it brought forth also speaks to an underlying bias within the black community towards issues of “class divide”!

Ebrima says “The example given here(quoting Bill Bennett) is a preconceived notion the speaker has about a people, and the context in which it is used does not change the speakers notion. Racism is not just about what is said in one given context or an other but a believe so deeply rooted that it becomes a way of seeing the world around”

Really??!! Hmmm, tell me what preconceived notion does THIS speaker has: “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery – then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Why wasn’t THIS man- Jesse Jackson – at the receiving end of black american vitriol, as well as white liberal ‘progressives” vitriol for making this comment?

“Hypocrisy – prejudice with a halo”

[sigh] Back to Rush Limbaugh again, Cobra? That has to be one of the weakest arguments in your entire collection of weak arguments.

I noticed in your post above that you failed to address the issue you yourself brought up, that Bennett believes blacks are genetically programmed to commit crime. Are you retracting that allegation, as you should? Or are you simply changing the subject to unfair incarceration canards in order to keep your rant going?

Redbeard writes:

>>>”I noticed in your post above that you failed to address the issue you yourself brought up, that Bennett believes blacks are genetically programmed to commit crime.”

I certainly did address it. I don’t have to disprove this ridiculous allegation Bennett makes, because the onus is upon the person making the statement YOU’RE APPARENTLY SUPPORTING:

“if you aborted all black babies, your crime rate would go down.”

Not “all babies”…but all BLACK BABIES which makes “black” as the qualifying adjective.

You call me “miserable” because I challenge the statements of pompous white conservative media figures? You claim I have a chip on my shoulder because I draw cartoons that don’t support YOUR political ideology? (You should check out some of the new ones I uploaded on Katrina, Terrell Owens and Condi Rice! )

Sorry Red. If you want to hug up on these reactionary types, that’s your right. Don’t hate me for calling them on the carpet.

–Cobra

Cobra – one great example of how your drivell is flawed and based on your own personal biases is when you equate a basic understanding of the point Bill was trying to make with an automatic assumption that I’m “prime listening demographics for Rush Limbaugh…and by extention..Bill Bennett.” ….I can’t stand Limbaugh. Never have! And Im not a fan of Bill Bennett’s. His moral platitudes about being a good Christian even as he was secretly dealing with his own gambling addiction would not have been so annoying to me had he adopted a less holier than thou attitude and written the book from the perspective of a man who was struggling with his own demons rather than demonizing others.

Bringing up Limbaugh to “support” your argument indicates an inability to understand what Bill meant – and then again what I wrote – and is a sad inneffective attempt on your part to deflect the truth from your biased and erroneous assumptions about me, and about white conservative males.

As for facts I quoted…they can be found in a variety of independant studies, done outside the judicial system! Look them up! The only argument you have is that the justice system is prejudicial and biased and therefore any stats about black crime rates are faulty….its weak..and serves to play into the hands of the “victim mentality” that is so prevalent in todays society.
A man or woman is judged by a jury of his/her peers….so when black people sentence black criminals…how does that make the system totally flawed? Oh wait….poor blacks can’t afford lawywers….well neither can poor whites..so your argument is still wrong, because now its not a race issue its a “class” issue.

You missed the point of my post entirely but based on the drivell you spout…I’m not surprised.
A mind is terrible thing to waste..and you have clearly wasted yours!

You fail to admit you have taken out of context everything Bill has said, and you fail to address the fact that a well read, often quoted, book written by two while males, was the SOURCE for the point Bill was trying to make.Even though the author now DENIES it, the quote from Levitt that I posted above demonstrates that he did very much believe that this was related to both race first and then class. Levitt spewed out his bogus theory…made a ton of money from his book sale…admits his reasoning is highly speculative…admits he offended everyone..yet doesnt think twice about denying his own statement now that Bill Bennett is taking heat for extrapolating on what Levitt eluded to in his book, and later confirmed in an interview!

Yet your vitriol is focused soley on Bill Bennett..why? Could it be that you’re biased towards while male conservatives AND this white female moderate who happens to see past the bull that liberals spew…past their hypocrisy…past their attempts at keeping black americans subservient to white americans..and past their sorry attempts at denying their true agenda.

Let’s look at another example of your bias towards while male conservatives…you failed to comment on how a black civil rights leader, Jesse Jackson, feels safer being followed by a white man rather than a black man, and didn’t think twice about making his feelings known in the media.

Hmmmm…so its okay for a liberal black civil rights leader to make racist statements against his own people, without you so much as batting an eye and asking Jesse to come up with “facts” to support his blantant racist remark.

Or is it simply that Jesse, being black, was allowed to speak the truth, albeit a truth most liberals white or black, find hard to accept.

Im sure if Bill had made that same remark…you and the MSM would be shouting “racist” from the rooftops…but let a black liberal civil rights leader make the same racist comment..and the silence is deafening!

So why isn’t Jesse Jackson the target of your bogus vitriol? Because your vitriol is steeped in your blind hatred for white male conservatives and a white female moderateboth of whom you have made wrong assumptions about, based on your personal biases. I worked on Bill Clintons campaign when I lived in Hollywood, so maybe you should remove your head from the biased hole you bury it in!

“You call me miserable because I challenge the statements of pompous white conservative media figures? You claim I have a chip on my shoulder because I draw cartoons that don’t support YOUR political ideology?”

Actually I call you pompous ill informed biased because you ONLY call white conservatives on the carpet (a sign of your own bias and mindset)and refuse to challenge the lying pompous hypocritical liberal media figures, both black and white, on the carpet, for the same thing and worse!

And because you make false assumptions blantantly based on your biases which you then spew out with such certainity that it would be laughable were it not so sad, and because you flaunt with such bluster your inability to truly grasp the points being made, not only by me, but also by the very eloquent, well spoken, articulate, and intelligent LaShawn in her original post about Bill Bennett.

Now onto the “Raising Boys Without Men”

LaShawn, I agree that a male figure is very important in a boy’s life..but how we define who that male figure should be is where we need to tread carefully.

I would hope lesbian couples would have a strong male presence in the lives of their children, whether it be their fathers, their brothers, or uncles, or even a close male friend.
I’ m not male..but my dad and I are very close..and his presence in my life has been invaluable.
I think the book you talk about raises other questions even though it doesnt focus on them.

For instance, do female children in homosexual households need the presence of a woman in their lives? Or what about homes in which child custody was awarded to the father? Should we be looking at what happens when boys don’t have a continous mother figure in their lives, or girls don’t have a continous father figure in their lives? What about women whose men leave them and their child, and for whom getting into a relationship with another man becomes challenging? A dear friend of mine has a wonderful son, but the men she meets and dates don’t want to include her son in their lives. This is a scenario I’ve seen played out all to often. “He isn’t my real child..so I can’t love him…or I love you,but don’t want the responsibility of a child.”

We live in a society that has over the past 20 years redefined “family”…and I’m not convinced that’s such a bad thing. Certainly having both parents in ones life can never be under appreciated. But Im concerned that we may be heading towards a collective mindset that deems it more important to have any male or female presence in a boy or girls life rather than no presence at all…and that’s a dangerous place to get to!

If I want to have a baby and have no man in my life, should I abort the baby once the tests prove it to be a boy? Its an extreme example…I think you can understand the slippery slope I’m concerned we may headed down if we insist that there is no room for “Raising Boys Without Men” or “Girls Without Women” in our society.

Cobra,

If the justice system is white (therefore, racist), then doesn’t that prove Bennett’s point?

If the justice system is racist, if all black babies were aborted and there are no black people, then wouldn’t there be fewer arrests and incarcerations? Bennett NEVER said such a program would make the world a paradise, nor did he actually say “there would be fewer crimes being committed.” The crime rate would go down. There would be fewer arrest and incarcerations. Wouldn’t that means he’s right?

When I presented a sort of graciously thin statement that says blacks are statistically more likely to commit crimes than whites, you shift the responsibility on ME to disprove that the entire idea of “crime” is some white conspiracy. I HAVE NO PATIENCE FOR ARGUMENTS LIKE THIS. It’s NOT fair.

Check it out. In 1999, an essay was published that said, flat out, “blacks are 8 times more likely than whites to commit homicide.” I guess white people were making them do it?

The fact that prisons are racially out of proportion doesn’t prove there’s racism in the system. And just because white drug users are somehow getting away with it more than black users doesn’t prove the system is racist.

DON’T pull the “stereotype” crap on me. It’s also a “stereotype” that all conservatives listen to and love Rush Limbaugh. I’ve NEVER listened to Rush or cared about him. Don’t pretend that liberals have a monopoly of objectivity. And besides which, I’m not talking about a stereotype. I’m talking about numbers.

If you’re so eager to tell me I’m Rush-loving racist scum, how about YOU present some evidence that there is NO racial disparities in crime levels? Because all the evidence I have shows a huge difference.

Huntress writes:

>>>”Actually I call you pompous ill informed biased because you ONLY call white conservatives on the carpet (a sign of your own bias and mindset)and refuse to challenge the lying pompous hypocritical liberal media figures, both black and white, on the carpet, for the same thing and worse!”

The title of this thread is “Bennett Redux.” A neutral, outside person reading this thread would ASSUME it’s about BILL BENNETT, not any black face you would like to throw up as a counter example. I have discussed BILL BENNETT, and his radio strategy for attracting more conservative listeners, akin to Rush Limbaugh.

What is so hard to comprehend about this? I was once a BLACK BABY. Bill Bennett was talking about ME. If YOU were once a black baby, he was discussing YOU AS WELL.

–Cobra

Cobra;
This thing about drugs is something I want to address in a race neutral sense. Recently, my 19 year old nephew was arrested for a dwi, while driving home from a frat party. He was speeding. Here’s the deal. Drinking is an integral part of many/most fraternities. Generally, we don’t have enough police, resources, or reasons to police every fraternity/college in the US to minitor the drinking/drugs taking place, so most of the kids get away with it. Ergo, unless an individual draws attention to themself in some way, they usually get away with the consumption of substances….To me, this makes sense, and is not proof of racism or even unfairness, but rather an indication of a common sense allocation of law enforcement resources. Most people want their resources used to prevent murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, assaults, and burglaries. All of these aforementioned crimes are closely connected to substance abuse, and when the conjunction is overt, it makes perfect sense for law enforcement to intervene.

So, either the individual draws attention to themself by illegal activity such as speeding or stealing or public intoxication, violence, or murder…

Or:
The individual indulges in the activity in an area that is heavily policed because it is a high crime area, in which the homicide rate is many times the overall national rate. Ergo, they receive more scrutiny. This is a more complex situation in that the police are in that area to protect the population from predators, who are literally making it difficult for the children to go out and play and for normal life to take place. Yet, the fact remains,that the population in that area is also under heavier scrutiny. Drinking was illegal in Saudi, but most had the sense how and where to do it reasonably. But, there were many who lacked judgment, and ended up in jail.

You did not mention that burglary is far more common in low socio-economic areas to support drug habits. The result of this is that the neighborhood becomes terrorized, people flee, business leaves, the tax base flattens out, business crumbles, schools fail…..

You continually speak of high school students who anecdotally admit to doing drugs. etc..The point of police intervention is to protect innocent victims from crimes that people may commit against them. You seem so concerned about whether people are snorting coke in the privacy of their homes (and I abhor drugs), but, in reality, most of us are far more concerned about murder and other forms of violent crime…

Cobra;
As I indicated above, some people get ensnared in the legal system because they are in a high crime area and are therefor more visible to the police.That’s exactly like it was in Saudi, where one had to be very careful about one’s behavior, depending on one’s location. More police will be concentrated in an area where there is more violent crime. That just seems so logical to me. Given a finite amount of resources, police decide what areas need the most protection from criminal activity. And, in this dynamic certainly holds true even in black run cities like DC.

And, of course computer crime is as much of a crime.And, of course doing drugs in one’s own home is illegal. Everyone knows it. It’s odd to me that you feel such a need to point it out. But, you don’t send police into neighborhoods to patrol for hackers. They are difficult to apprehend. When they are, they are getting very severe panalties. Just recently, they caught a hacker student from UT, and he got years in jail. Similarly, police cannot go to people’s doors and check for drug use. Without a reason to suspect illegal substance abuse activity, police simply cannot invade the privacy of people’s homes. The logistics of doing so are enormous. So, they concentrate their resources in areas where there is generally a high murder rate, assault rate, or high burglary rate.

Incidentally, in the last four years, the SEC has done more to uncover corporate crime than has been done in years. The jail sentences are quite stiff, and the prevailing consensus is that there will be zero tolerance, when it is discoverd. Once again, it is very difficult. Right now, they are investigating Fannie Mae, which looks as if it needs wo be bailed out to the tune of $40 billion. It appears that there was a great deal of financial malfeasance..That’s a lot of dough. So, investigations are happening….

I am not exactly sure what you want the police to do..Do you want them to leave the inner cities to deteriorate more than they already are? Do you want them to go into areas with virtually no violent crime or break-ins in case they might see a group of teenagers leaving someone’s house walking funny?

Crime rates simply cannot be determined by the things people are doing that they don’t get caught doing…..as much as you would like that to be true. We don’t arrive at statistics by plucking numbers out of thin air or by guesswork. And, you are highly presumptive about who is doing what, as well as highly selective about which crimes you concentrate on, and which crimes you ascribe to different people. We simply have to go on the incarceration rates, which are consistent with CVS studies…..

Obviously, Bennet’s comments were relatd to the crime rates in America and cannot be extrapolated to other countries. Speaking of the Irish, my Grandfather immigrated from Ireland. At one point in our history, they were known to have a very high illegitimacy rate as well as an astronomical crime rate. IF these are true, and not merely anecdotal, then one could have applied Bennet’s statement to the Irish babies at the time, to reduce the crime rate…Naturally, no one would really propose such a repugnant idea, but from a sheerly mathematical, statistical model, it would be a correct statement.

Gotta run..

Unfortunately, this country’s past will inevitably continue to haunt it and there will ‘always’ be its misconceptions and judgements to heavily flourish, especially between the blacks and whites.

Michael

‘The allocation and concentration of police resources is more indicative of how still SEGREGATED American society is’

I’m guessing this statement advocates less policing in areas associated with high murder rates and violent crime?

‘explain how Bennett’s statement would apply to the crime rate of St. Petersburg, Russia or Belfast, Ireland’

Let’s say with about 100% certainty that Bennett was referring to the US.

I read your post thoroughly, Cobra, and I see no evidence that whites necessarily commit as many homocides, etc. than blacks. You concentrated on ONE area of crime–drugs. I don’t find this convincing, because Bennett wasn’t arguing that the drug use rates of blacks are higher. You’re using isolated evidence to prove your point, except the trouble is it doesn’t prove anything. So what if, in ONE state (the one I happen to live in), white people are supposedly taking more drugs but black people are still getting arrested more? What does that prove? Anything? That’s one state and one crime.

It proves either a) the system is racist or b) black people in the U.S. are committing more crimes and thus getting arrested more (if someone has a better theory between these two I’d be interested in hearing it). You haven’t really proven the former or disproven the latter, and so I don’t understand why you automatically leap to conclusion A when it can be explained otherwise.

If the system IS racist, though, you’re just kicking yourself–Maryland is an incredibly liberal state (Dems outnumber Repubs 2-1 here). In fact, there’s a good chance that the more liberal a state is, the more racial disparity there will be in white/black prisoner ratios. (Hmm.)

I understand this topic is difficult because there isn’t a whole lot of trust between certain people and law enforcement. But to suggest that ALL white crime is EXACTLY equal to black crime seems a tad unrealistic. Bennett said the crime rate would go down–he did not suggest how much.

Let’s imagine for a moment what you’re ultimately suggesting: “white people commit the same numbers, if not more, of crimes than black people–they’re just getting away with it.”

Can we assume at least most of the people in prison now are in for something they actually did? I’ll leave at least a partial margin hanging because I know in any situation, there can be wrongful convictions. But in any case, most of the people incarcerated are criminals.

So, if white people are committing just as many homicides, robberies, burglaries, drug abuses, rapes, etc… Wouldn’t that be an awful lot of crimes never being surfaced? I can believe a good number of crimes are never reported, but a good number of crimes committed by both sides are never reported. People get away with crimes constantly–but somehow it seems a bit much.

Ashtony,

You’re a victim of stereotypes once again.
One doesn’t have to be arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated to have committed a crime.

You write:

>>>”I read your post thoroughly, Cobra, and I see no evidence that whites necessarily commit as many homocides, etc. than blacks. You concentrated on ONE area of crime–drugs. I don’t find this convincing, because Bennett wasn’t arguing that the drug use rates of blacks are higher.”

Except Bennett didn’t list any SPECIFIC CRIMES. He simply said “crime rate.” He didn’t specify, homicide, illegal drug use, rape, racketeering, or driving while intoxicated. He just said CRIME.

I highlighted a few examples of criminal activity that is overwhelmingly committed by whites, and you either deny that these activities exist, or try to claim that a group representing 12% of the population would commit MORE of these criminal activities.

Both are fallacious conclusions not based upon one whit of evidence.

I know it’s hard breaking the American mythology of the “black boogeyman” being the root of everything wrong in society. Right wing ideology NEEDS scapegoats and pariahs for it to succeed, so I fully understand the passion of the Bennett-buddies to defend their boy. Just realize that there are CONSCIOUS African Americans out here like me who won’t suffer damning generalizations quietly.

–Cobra