GOI: As many of you know, Bill Bennett had this to say the other day on his radio show:
Bill Bennett: "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
Via Media Matters.
GOI: This obvious racist is not only refusing to apologize for his disgusting comments but he has now said that HE is the one who deserves an apology!!!
This is the same guy who wrote, "The Book of Virtues" and then admitted that he had a serious gambling problem. This is the problem with a lot of Republicans. They write books like these in which they claim the "moral high ground" and then when they inevitabley fall (as we all do since we are ALL imperfect) they look like the biggest hypocrites.
Seems to me like his book should now be changed to, "The Book of Virtues of the Ku Klux Klan." I'll be willing to forgive his comments when he apologizes to all black people in this country.
---End of Transmission---
24 comments:
James,
I think that Bennett was presenting a hyperbolic & absurd argument to make his point. [I do that a lot!]
IMHO, this is exactly the kind of thing we need to stop playing "gotcha" with.
The reasoning of Bennett's argument is valid. Is it insensitive? Vry, very much so. But part of Bennett's thesis is that what he proposes is "ridiculous and morally reprehenisble."
Let it pass.
Tom:
I am not playing "gotcha" with his statements. He said them and now must be accountable for them.
It is no different for anyone else. We can choose our actions and comments but can not choose our consequences.
I disagree with you that the reasoning for Bennett's argument is valid. It is absurd but he framed it with saying that it would reduce crime.
If his thesis is "ridiculous and morally reprehensible" then he shouldn't have never said it.
I will not let it pass until he apologizes. How can we hope to erase racism in this country while we continue to allow prominent figures like Bennett to say such things?
Yeah, I'm on James's side on this one. Hyperbolic and absurd is one thing; completely wrong and ignorant is another. I understand the thinking that this kind of thing just makes "The Left" (Whatever that means) look bad, but I just cannot agree. Democrats do not get a free pass on right-wing radio when they say something seemingly harmless, so I'm not about to cut this guy any slack. I cannot imagine the kind of mindset that leads someone to say something like this, but I do not think it needs to have been anywhere near power, ever. The fact that this man did hold positions of such great responsibility is a hideous statement about the government.
I have now heard a tape of what Bennett said and I was made very uncomfortable by it.
So I am backing off "defending him" in any way -- but I still doubt very much he is a racist.
Another Bennett in the news tonight was Bennett's loving brother, a prominent liberal lawyer who is Judith Miller's council. I would be interested to know what this man thinks of his bro's remarks.
I am mostly of the opinion that Republican arrogance, like Bill Bennett's, comes from thinking of other people as abstractions. I think this weird almost-pathological sense comes from a constraint ability to identify with others. It makes their particular genre of insensitivity possible. [My own genre of insensitivity is something else; I work at figuring IT out.]
But American Buddhists, generally, are overly sensitive. While this is adventageous to our spiritual quest, it has disadvantages, too. We need to let people off the hook more.
In 04 candidate Howard Dean said the Democrats needed to appeal to Southerners with Confederate flags in the back windows of their trucks and he got crucified for his remark. I think we need to give people a break; accept that people say things that are somewhat stupid every once in a while; they shouldn't have to tiptop through minefields.
You have extremely high standards; no, impossible. Bill Bennet COMPILES a book with traditionally recognized stories, poems and examples of virtue that we must aspire to. Bill didn't write an auto-biography, James! And he didn't write it because he considered himself a paragon of virtue. Have you ever read it? Try it! It has great stuff in it. My favorite story is "The Selfish Giant," by Oscar Wilde. It makes me weep every time I read it.
Let it go, James, let...it...go.
>But American Buddhists, >generally, are overly sensitive. >While this is adventageous to our >spiritual quest, it has >disadvantages, too. We need to >let people off the hook more.
It is overly sensitive to speak out against hate speech, racism and injustice. Huh? Let people off the hook more? No wonder this country is on it's way down the tubes.
As for the book Bennett wrote about virtues, I never heard of it. However, I did hear of his gambling problem. So, he wrote a book on virtues?--how ironic. ~Amadeus
Amadeus:
I have Bibles in my home, call myself a Christian, and find myself committing acts that range from mildly insensitive to downright despicable. I put up two blogs that are open about my faith, and I fail, almost on a daily basis. What should I do? Give up? Renounce my faith in Jesus Christ because I or my fellow Christians fail every day?
This "purest" mentality may work rhetorically, but the implications of it are completely absurd. Why reject the God who is total Love, Mercy, Justice, etc. because I or others fail? I should NOT be a christian because the Spanish killed those poor little Aztecs in Mexico, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades, or...fill in the blank.
This is a totally irrational, moronic, and destructive mode of communication that is meant to keep Christians at bay and off other people's backs. I choose to follow Christ because I act hypocritical at times, am insensitive, immoral, hateful, indifferent, etc. I'm not going to list my sins to you, but you don't reject the hospital because there are sick people there, do you?
Remember when the French didn't join our coalition forces against Iraq? I heard of people refusing to eat French food or drink French wine, or change the name of french fries to "Freedom Fries." All tongue in cheek, of course it and worked rhetorically and sounded funny or cute, but entirely vain and meaningless.
A Christian fails due to the Christians dispostion and lack of virtue, not because there's some secret teaching that allows us to rape, plunder, and kill people who don't convert.
Do you see how absurd this is?
Crimnos:
You are right. Dem's do not get a free pass on saying whatever they like, and they shouldn't. I was appauled by Dean's comments about southerners as much as Bennett's comments.
Imagine the outrage if the head of the NAACP said something similar about aborting white babies!! He would be scorned as well he should be. Or what about Dirk Durbin's comments recently? I'm just saying that there is is often a double standard here.
Tom:
He may or may not BE a racist but what he said was very racist.
Bob Bennett was interviewed on CNN's "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer about his client Judy Miller. Then Blitzer asked about his brother's comments and became upset and offended that Blitzer would ask him such a question. Huh, so go figure on that one.
I agree that we need to give people more slack but when they are on a national stage say and do things that are insensitive then they should apologize. Dean should have apologized too.
Even on a smaller level, if we were to say something like what Bennett said at work then we would probably be fired.
UL:
I do not think that it is impossible standards to expect someone to apologize for a statement that is racist. All he needs to do for many people to let this go is apologize. Is that so hard?
I haven't read his book but maybe I will some day.
Amadeus, James,
I am not sure what is accomplished by raging against indelicate comments and demanding appologies.
You want persons who don't yet see our common humanity to be humiliated and dragged into the street? I don't see the point.
Bob Bennett is paying for his gambling and his recent statement: We needn't worry about that. Once a possible presidential candidate, he now lives in the political wasteland. His audience now is the full mooners at the margins of society.
The curious desire to extract an apology from someone who clearly doesn't want to is bizarre. Why not just put him in stocks out on the public square?
Episodes like this make people aware of our common humanity except when a mob mentality ensues trying, to no purpose, to exact a pound of flesh.
We all mess up once in a while; we have to allow for this.
Zen,
Wow, well-put, and I will admit not knowing the totality of Bennett's story. I still can't really forgive him, but I can see where he is paying the price for his actions in the past.
As for raging about this, I'm torn on this one. I'll admit it, I was personally offended by the statement. Sure, he might have meant it as hyperbole, but like I said, it's not even good hyperbole. At a minimum it's crass, tactless, and ignorant; if he really meant it, it's a lot worse.
Do we need constant examples of how this kind of thinking is wrong? Does it really accomplish anything, or does it drive people further into their holes? I don't know. I actually favor the approach of shining light on how Bennett is wrong and educating people on how black people are not inherently tied to crime; Cellar Door had a great piece on the statistics.
So yes, personally, I am pissed off at Bennett, but I think I am going to let this one go and instead accept it as a lesson in how much education still needs to be done in this country.
Tom:
Fine, I'll let it go but at what point as a society do we ever draw the line? I'm just curious.
Crimnos:
I agree that the main issue is to concentrate on educating people. Maybe that is the positive ground we can take in all of this.
Underground logician:
You must be responding to my ironic comment--your point is taken. Actually, I thought it was ironic, not because Bennett is a Christian, just because it is ironic that he wrote a book about virtue that I never heard of but I did hear about his gambling problem. That maybe more of a societal issue where people just focus on the bad things you do instead of the good. Regardless, I don't really care what religion you are, what party you are from or what nationality you are--the speech that Bennett exibited the other day is ridiculous and un-necessary. Just like the speech of Cindy Sheehan, calling Bush a Hiltler incarnate. It is un-necessary.
Tom:
It isn't about being dragged into the street-it is about them answering to comments they make. And this goes for both sides. Cindy Sheehan can't call Bush Hilter without answering to it. Of course, extracting an apology is pointless, but it being discussed on the national stage is important.
It is just like when the Colorado Professor characterized the people who died in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns". (sp) Completely ridiculous and callus. The point in discussing this stuff is discovering where we are as a society. Hell, the White House condemned Bennetts remarks, so it shows that maybe we are moving in a better direction.
We all have our own points of view on Bennett, some are political, some come from the heart and some come from a dark place where we feel anger for the direction our country is being taken. I respect those who think that his comment should be let go; I respect those that think he should put in stocks and I respect those that don’t give a damn. Just wait a few days and we will all be on to the next thing. Just remember to try to stand up for what you believe in.
~Amadeus
Amadeus:
Yeah, I think discussing the underlying issue of race and class is one of the most important things to flesh out in this story.
We need an open and honest dialogue once and for all.
I am in agreement! I think if we can come away from Bennett's foolishness toward the rich discussion of addressing America's race and class problems, the controversy will be well employed.
There are many dimensions to a discussion of race and class, all dovetailing with a central aim of Buddhism, which as Ken Jones roughly puts it, includes social action to, generally, maximize happiness and minimize suffering.
The direction of politics in America continues to be one of enormously enriching a few while leaving great numbers of people in poverty. It makes no sense, economically, ethically, morally or spiritually.
James wrote, "Tom,...as a society do we ever draw the line? I'm just curious."
I suppose I favor the ideal of ours being a free-speech society. I want people to be enabled to be authentic. This includes being authentically flawed and having troubling opinions.
It is better, I think, for people to be upfront and straightforward with what they believe than for them to be constrained, holding ugly opinions but disguising themselves as wholesome.
In an atmosphere of freedom, I believe the Truth -- whatever it is, exactly -- will win out. I think we have examples showing us that Truth doesn't do so well in repressive societies.
The Civil Rights movement has succeeded to the extent it has in the last forty years by the power of its argument and the success of social legislation, including affirmative action -- not by suppressing the opinions of its detractors.
Tom:
I agree. I think all opinions should be able to be expressed. I do believe, however, that we have a right to ask for apologies when people offend us.
Whether they give them to us is indeed their choice.
Thank everything that we have the freedoms that we do in this country, eh?!!
First, if people offend us, it may not be because they were offensive; it may be that we are too sensitive, or that we didn't understand their meaning.
I listened to Mr. Bennett on his radio show, read the transcript, read the transcript from Hannity and Colmes, and he explained himself quite adequately. And he finds aborting all black children as morally reprehensible. He also makes a point; if we were to continually abort all black children that would be born of single black women, our crime would be less. I could also say, that if we aborted every white baby that would be born of a single white woman, the crime rate would go down too. We could list all the races and there would some decrease in the crime rate. If we were to abort all children from all single women, the crime rate would go down. The idea is morally reprehensible, but it would work.
Now those of you who read this, are you going to erupt into insanity too? You can't discuss hypotheticals then, unless you go to the Great White Bear's blogsite and talk about guillotining Bush and any Republican that's "messed" up our country. Now they were kidding somewhat, but to carry that out would be morally reprehensible. Protestors last weekend want to castrate Cheney. That would be morally reprehensible, but they screamed it and no one is getting on their case.
In philosophical discussions, when theories or ideas are postulated does not mean that you believe them or are doing anything wrong by bringing them up hypothetically. There are those very few, but they are out there, that propose such monstrous ideas as Bill was discussing. We have an entire nation of China who forces families to abort if they already have one child.
The problem I see is a liberal establishment that is led by people who are mean, hateful and shrill. They are irrational, they have lost power in this country and are DESPARATE to get it back. They have unloaded every tool out their bag of tricks and are flooding this country with it.
The mold of liberalism is stinking up the joint.
Bill Bennett should NOT APOLOGIZE. That would be a huge mistake, and this oversensitive, band of wimps would want him crucified anyway.
UL:
Well, we agree to disagree. That's the beauty of America.
>...read the transcript from >Hannity and Colmes, and he >explained himself quite adequately
Yeah, I think it was Hannity that said Bennett was a great philosopher of our time. What a joke. Oh, that Hannity.
>Now those of you who read this, >are you going to erupt into >insanity too?
Sounds like you have already got that corner market on this thread.
>...they screamed it and no one is >getting on their case.
I gave you that in my last post.
>The problem I see is a liberal >establishment that is led by >people who are mean, hateful and >shrill.
Now your just getting insulting and a bit shrill if I may be so bold. I wonder if Zen Unbound Tom will come and rein you in?
>The mold of liberalism is >stinking up the joint.
Yeah, think of us as the penicillin to fight the conservative bacteria infecting this nation.
>Bill Bennett should NOT >APOLOGIZE. That would be a huge >mistake, and this oversensitive, >band of wimps would want him >crucified anyway.
Your right, what is an appology worth from a conservative anyways?
Hey, the White House was pretty overly sensitive, weren't they for condemning Bennett for his not so intelligent comment?
Like James said disagrement is the beauty of America.
~Amadeus
">The mold of liberalism is >stinking up the joint.
Yeah, think of us as the penicillin to fight the conservative bacteria infecting this nation."
Amadeus:
Well said.
UL:
">The problem I see is a liberal >establishment that is led by >people who are mean, hateful and >shrill."
Yeah, with all due respect, this comment is just silly. I can find just as many conservatives who are mean, hateful and shrill. Let's stick to the arguements and not name calling.
UL: The problem with Bennett choosing black women as the ones to have their children aborted to bring down crime is the clear inferrance that blacks are criminals and that solving the crime problem involves elimination of potential criminals.
IF one were to propose that white women abort their fetuses, that would not imply a reduction in the crime rate. Bennett's racial choice here was not random, as you imply.
James: There are not only as many, there are MORE conservatives who are mean, hateful and shrill. BUT conservatives by their very nature are that way. They believe in life as being basically competative, "us vs. them," good vs. evil. Liberals should, by contrast, NOT be quite so mean, hateful and shrill, since our ideal is supposedly cooperation and accommodation. So, I think UL has a point.
This highlights a problem that is the liberals' downfall: Self contradictions that unbraid our complaints about conservatives' self contradictions.
Tom:
I agree with you on most of what you say. I agree that conservatives by their nature are more mean, hateful and uncompromising as they are more about "us vs. them."
I try my best to compromise when I can with conservatives because I DO believe in the art of compromise and I feel that I do that rather well on this blog.
However, sometimes we have to stand up and be the "loyal opposition" when we feel their is an abuse of power or a trampling of civil rights, etc.
Although even in opposition I agree with you that there is always room for some compromise.
Such as I was willing to compromise on Judge Roberts because I do believe that (within reason) a President should get his/her nominee's, however, I do think that the "loyal opposition" does have the right (and sometimes the duty) to oppose radical, ideologue nominations.
This is why I hope that Bush comes back with another moderate nominee.
I believe that the highest court in the land should be mostly moderates to maintain the Constitution. Ideologues such as a Justice Scalia, Thomas or Ginsberg should not be on the court in my opinion.
James,
I am not meaning to say that YOU are mean, hateful or uncomprimising. I am thinking that it is right to observe the meanness hatefulness and noncomprimising in Democrat leaders. In this I was, indeed, thinking of the Roberts hearings where Biden, Kennedy and Shermer seemed a little unglued.
BTW, I don't think that Ginsberg is an ideologue. I think that having, basically, openned-minded brilliant people on the Court who have a sense of poverty and what a hardscrabble life is like is ideal. A few conservatives are good, so long as they aren't Golden Tower elitists. A few liberals are good, so long as they aren't ignorant of the problems of businesspeople.
Tom:
Yeah, I guess that balance is the main thing in their rulings. I think the term "Ideologue" is a wrong term to use with Ginsberg.
I see better now that there is plenty of room for liberals and conservatives on the high court.
They represent a segment of the population and representation of all the people over the years on the court is truly great for discussion and compromise.
Post a Comment