![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have a bunch of "Chain Links" to offer up, but this thing, well it deserves a rant of it's own, and a better one than I can give it.
Bill Bennet... remember him. The man a lot of people point to as the "foremost moralist in America." Secretary of Education under Reagan, after being head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Drug Czar under Bush Pere, author of such wonders as, The Book of Virtues, The Children's Book of Virtues and other such wonderful tomes explaining to us where America has gone wrong.
He is a big supporter of the War on Drugs, going so far as to say that beheading drug dealers would be, "morally plausible."
Right there you know he has a problem, because one of the defenses he made when it was revealed he lost millions of dollars (yes, millions) playing the slots (and for those who think if they keep putting money in, the laws of averages means they have to win sometime,... there's your example of statistics and probability in action) was that, because he was Catholic gambling isn't forbidden, well capital punishment it.
But he's got himself a gig (which I'm sure is helping to restore the millions he pumped into the coffers of BallY) doing a Radio Show, Morning in America (which is, in itself an appeal to that other "great moralist," Ronald Reagan) where he takes calls and imbues the audience with his wisdom.
Take the other morning.
A caller got past the screeners to ask about abortion, specifically to ask about the theory that if Roe v. Wade hadn't been decided the way it was all those babies which would have been born would have put enough into the pot to prevent the crisis breaking it now.
It went like this:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all. [which might be because it's utter rubbish]
Bennet, he says:
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens
Bad enough, one might think. In a word he posits a lack of merit to any kids who might have been born, but whose mothers/parents decided it wasn't a good idea. He backs it up, sort of, with a different sort of backhanded slap, in which he brings up a couple more nastygrams.
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occurs among single women? No.
There you go, single women, who have kids, are a net drain on society, and the children of such women aren't productive citizens when they grow up. I'll be sure to tell that to my mother, and to all the other people I know who reared single kids. Nice to know they were bad for America, and bear some of the responsibilty for the terrible way things are.
It gets worse.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
Ye Gods, and little fishes, that stuff. It's an interesting piece, but not (I think) well supported. First, there are a lot of variables, and second, with immigration, the fact that birthrates aren't in that much a state of decline, I don't think the theory stands up, but we'll cut him some slack, because he's gonna need it to tie the noose.
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate. [points to the caller]
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know.[hey, points to Bennett, a bit more slack, but wait for it, the jerk as the rope fetches up against the gibbit is coming fast] 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 impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Tricky. Yep, it's damned tricky to argue for genocide. It's damned tricky that you argue it can't be proven that generic abortions reduce crime, but targeted ones; ones aimed at killing off the black presence in America, that will. It says a lot that, "morally reprehensible," (recall that beheading drug dealers is "morally plausible.") is the last thing you can think of, right after ridiculous. He is now entering the Volokh Zone, where the only argument against torture is that it's not really feasible in the present environment, but if it it were, it would be a good thing.
Me, I happen to wish that one of Bennet's books hadn't proved so aptly titled, so true to the mark over the past five years.
The Death of Outrage
Because he ought not have had a job the next morning, and the only talk shows which put him on should be roasting him alive.
But I don't think that will happen. I think he will get away with spouting his racist crap, and the Republican Party will ignore it, and the people, like me, who rage about it will be called cranks, and oversensitive, making mountains out of molehills and trying to divert attention from the issues that really matter.
Well, this matters. It matters a lot what the people who have supported him say. The O'Reillys, the Savages, the Hannitys of the nattering-nabobs need to step up to the plate and condemn him.
But they won't, they have no outrage left.
Bill Bennet... remember him. The man a lot of people point to as the "foremost moralist in America." Secretary of Education under Reagan, after being head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Drug Czar under Bush Pere, author of such wonders as, The Book of Virtues, The Children's Book of Virtues and other such wonderful tomes explaining to us where America has gone wrong.
He is a big supporter of the War on Drugs, going so far as to say that beheading drug dealers would be, "morally plausible."
Right there you know he has a problem, because one of the defenses he made when it was revealed he lost millions of dollars (yes, millions) playing the slots (and for those who think if they keep putting money in, the laws of averages means they have to win sometime,... there's your example of statistics and probability in action) was that, because he was Catholic gambling isn't forbidden, well capital punishment it.
But he's got himself a gig (which I'm sure is helping to restore the millions he pumped into the coffers of BallY) doing a Radio Show, Morning in America (which is, in itself an appeal to that other "great moralist," Ronald Reagan) where he takes calls and imbues the audience with his wisdom.
Take the other morning.
A caller got past the screeners to ask about abortion, specifically to ask about the theory that if Roe v. Wade hadn't been decided the way it was all those babies which would have been born would have put enough into the pot to prevent the crisis breaking it now.
It went like this:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all. [which might be because it's utter rubbish]
Bennet, he says:
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens
Bad enough, one might think. In a word he posits a lack of merit to any kids who might have been born, but whose mothers/parents decided it wasn't a good idea. He backs it up, sort of, with a different sort of backhanded slap, in which he brings up a couple more nastygrams.
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occurs among single women? No.
There you go, single women, who have kids, are a net drain on society, and the children of such women aren't productive citizens when they grow up. I'll be sure to tell that to my mother, and to all the other people I know who reared single kids. Nice to know they were bad for America, and bear some of the responsibilty for the terrible way things are.
It gets worse.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
Ye Gods, and little fishes, that stuff. It's an interesting piece, but not (I think) well supported. First, there are a lot of variables, and second, with immigration, the fact that birthrates aren't in that much a state of decline, I don't think the theory stands up, but we'll cut him some slack, because he's gonna need it to tie the noose.
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate. [points to the caller]
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know.[hey, points to Bennett, a bit more slack, but wait for it, the jerk as the rope fetches up against the gibbit is coming fast] 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 impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Tricky. Yep, it's damned tricky to argue for genocide. It's damned tricky that you argue it can't be proven that generic abortions reduce crime, but targeted ones; ones aimed at killing off the black presence in America, that will. It says a lot that, "morally reprehensible," (recall that beheading drug dealers is "morally plausible.") is the last thing you can think of, right after ridiculous. He is now entering the Volokh Zone, where the only argument against torture is that it's not really feasible in the present environment, but if it it were, it would be a good thing.
Me, I happen to wish that one of Bennet's books hadn't proved so aptly titled, so true to the mark over the past five years.
The Death of Outrage
Because he ought not have had a job the next morning, and the only talk shows which put him on should be roasting him alive.
But I don't think that will happen. I think he will get away with spouting his racist crap, and the Republican Party will ignore it, and the people, like me, who rage about it will be called cranks, and oversensitive, making mountains out of molehills and trying to divert attention from the issues that really matter.
Well, this matters. It matters a lot what the people who have supported him say. The O'Reillys, the Savages, the Hannitys of the nattering-nabobs need to step up to the plate and condemn him.
But they won't, they have no outrage left.
