Bill Bennett - Worse than you could imagine

Everyone is upset with Bill Bennett's latest gaffe about aborting black babies, while the estimable Mr. Bennett defends himself and refuses to apologize.

Of course, the caveat in his statement that  "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down" is used as a defense, in that he wasn't actually advocating aborting black babies, but just making a point about abortion. True enough, but it misses the point as to why he even thought of that analogy in the first place. Why didn't he talk about aborting rich white babies so that the corporate crime rate would decrease?  We can all guess.

But wait, there's more! Over at TPM Cafe Reed Hundt tells a story that we all need to hear.

Reed Hundt was Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission between 1993-97. During that time he was seeking legislation to implement a strategy to place computers and internet access in classrooms and libraries around the country. A good idea, no?

A provision was put in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to accomplish just that. Mr. Hundt called on Bill Bennett, who had been Secretary of Education, to help support the bill when Republican allies were needed for its passage through Congress. Silly Mr. Hundt. He thought that a Secretary of Education might actually support education. So what did Mr. Bennett, that moral philosopher of virtue, tell Mr. Hundt? According to Hundt:

He told me he would not help, because he did not want public schools to obtain new funding, new capability, new tools for success. He wanted them, he said, to fail so that they could be replaced with vouchers,charter schools, religious schools, and other forms of private education

As Hundt writes :

Well, I thought, at least he's candid about his true views.

Yeah, candid. But scary. These people don't want government to work. They want to destroy it. New Orleans was no accident,  just part of the plan. Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education doesn't want public education. he wants to destroy it.

I can't help but think that it's at least partially because public schools, at least in the cities, like the poor areas of New Orleans are full of black people.  

By the way the bill passed, thanks to the Dems, Clinton and the help of Olympia Snowe, the one Repub Senator who voted for it. Today nearly 90% of all classrooms and libraries have internet access and the overwhelming majority  of all teachers have nothing but praise  for the positive impact the technology has made.  

The Bill Bennetts of this world need to be exposed for what they are. Elitist bigots. Plain and simple.

•  re

  I felt sick after reading the post. EVERYONE should read this.

  by cookiesandmilk on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:18:00 AM PDT

  •  I felt sick after reading...

    ... the press coverage. The point wasn't that Bill Bennett advocated aborting black babies. The point wasn't they he said such an act would be morally reprehensible. The POINT is that he thought of that specific example. Anyone who writes about anything else is missing the fucking point! Good job msjhelp!

    Don't ask him to apologize! Ask him why aborting black babies was the first example that came to mind? It makes too much sense to ask this question and that is why the press won't ask it. Why was that your example Mr.Bennett, you piece of human scum?

    Reid and Pelosi are taking the wrong approach! Asking for an apology is the surest way to kill this story! The story here isn't Bennett advocating genocide, it is about how racism and Republicanism are intertwined. Now we'll spend days going back on forth on whether he should apologize. Screw apologies!
    

    by crazymoloch on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:11:19 PM PDT

    •  When Mouth........

      Opens, thoughts in Mind come out!

      A fairly Quick mind listens and quickly tries to put a reason for original thought out as well.

      But it's the First thought that counts, and you're Right he shouldn't be Allowed to Apologize and Forgiven, Get Rid Of The AssHole Finally!!!!!
      ***
      

      
      ***
      I Will Add To Signature: ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP-BOTH PARTIES, SHOULD RESIGN - NOW!!!!!

      James Starowicz
      VFP 'Declaration Of Impeachment'
      Sign On and Pass Link To Others

      http://www.veteransforpeace.org/impeachment/impeachment.htm
      USN '67-'71 GMG3 Vietnam In-Country'70-'71 COMNAVFORV
      Member: Veterans For Peace

      "We, having dutifully served our nation, do hereby
      affirm our greater responsibility to serve the cause
      of world peace by applying the concept of engaging
      conflict peacefully, without violence."
      http://www.veteransforpeace.org/  

      by jimstaro on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:21:01 PM PDT

    •  totally agree

      abut the demands for apology. That's just so "My Three Sons". (dating myself terribly...)

      by lanellici on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:25:51 PM PDT

    •  Agreed, with one qualification.

      To be fair, Bennett was speaking hypothetically and stated that actually aborting black babies in mass numbers would be horrible. I make this point of clarification because, if we don't, defenders will harp on this one point and obscure the larger issue.

      And the larger issue is where I agree with you. Indeed, not only is it telling that Bennett chose this particular hypothetical example. It's also telling that his assertion is a patently racist development of a non-racist thesis developed by more worthy minds. As Media Matters notes, the original thesis is that, for better or for worse, there's a causal connection between the drop in crime rates and the occurrence of abortions since Roe v. Wade. At least in their original article, the originators of that thesis made no claim about race. In the interview, Bennett references a book authored by one of the originators of the thesis. It's thus telling that he transforms an a-racial thesis into a hypothetical example which perpetuates racist stereotypes.
      

      by machopicasso on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 05:15:09 PM PDT

      •  It's not science

        it's speculation. There are no facts to support Levitt and Dubner's argument that aborted fetuses are more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes.

        I find this kind of theory as racist as Bennett's remarks, so to use it to excuse him is in itself inexcusable.

        To speak even hypothetically about killing people because of their race is outrageous.

        by irritated consumer on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 06:46:56 PM PDT

        •  Some important distinctions

          I'm sympathetic to your claim that "it's not science", in part, because I'm skeptical that economics itself is a science.  

          Claiming that "there are no facts to support Levitt and Dubner's argument" is tangential to the point I made; I wasn't defending their thesis. I do however think it's mistaken to say their thesis is "as racist" as Bennett's remark, though if you can show where Levitt/Dubner explicitly state that aborting fetuses in a particular ethnic group will result in a reduction of crime, I'll be happy to accept your contention.  That aside, it is an interesting question as to whether the thesis, if not racist, is at least classist in a relevant sense.

          I agree that even just speaking hypothetically of aborting within a particular ethnic group for purposes of crime reduction is outrageous. My point, however, was that glossing over the distinction between endorsing an idea and merely entertaining it as a hypothesis gives defenders of Bennett an opportunity to make a valid point, which they would then no doubt use to obscure the larger issue, namely, the outrageous nature of the idea, whether endorsed or entertained as hypothesis.

          by machopicasso on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:15:56 PM PDT

•  dKosopedia entry for overt truth telling?

  Is there an entry in dKosopedia for times like these when these thugs reveal their real agenda? It would be helpful to have it all in one spot (foul though it would be). Another quote for it would be the bathtub quote. Other suggestions?

  by Wee Mama on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:19:35 AM PDT

  •  Already Got a 2nd

    The line in Scooter Libby's note to NYT reporter Judith Miller telling her to "come" back to work.

    by Gooserock on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:07:55 PM PDT

    •  Good catch! n/t

      by hopesprings on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:12:02 PM PDT

•  Aborting...

  Bush family babies would inevitably decrease malfeasance in government...

  by rgilly on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:21:17 AM PDT

  •  Jack Daniels would lose their customer base

    Not to mention the loss in business to lawyers specializing in DUIs.

    by Darrin on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:38:50 AM PDT

    •  DUIs and involuntary manslaughter.

      Oh, and war crimes. And all those pesky laws and regulations about cronyism.

      by homogenius on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:21:24 PM PDT

•  Thanks, and...

  I hope this strikes a nerve. That's why I posted it. These evildoers need to be exposed for what they are.

  For that reason, I humbly ask you please recommend.

  by mjshep on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:23:54 AM PDT

  •  Almost wrote something myself;

    glad you got it.  The guy is a bastard, and needs to be called out on all his BS!!
    Recommended!!!!

    by Phil S 33 on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:47:15 AM PDT

  •  Letters to the editor

    Send out LTEs with the link to get this out.

    by Cecile on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:25:54 PM PDT

  •  Not just an "elitist biggot".

    There's at least a second problem with Bennett's hypothetical assertion, in addition to the racist mindset it denotes. The second problem, as you imply with your discussion of the Telecommunications Act, is the hypocrisy.

    First, Bennett is willing to actively contribute to the problematic circumstances which make committing crimes an appealing course of action for people who live in economically depressed communities. In this case, he actively discourages a measure which would improve the quality of education in those communities and, as you note, precisely because he wants those schools to fail.

    Second, he then worries about the crimes he implicitly expects to be committed by the young men who have to grow up in economically depressed communities and who have to put up with schools which are inferior, in part, because of the policies advocated by the Bill Bennett's in this world.  

    I can't decide if it's simply short-sightedness, or if it's the hyprocritical willingness of elitists to place blame on those who make poor decisions while living under the burden of adverse circumstances fostered by elitist policies. His willingness to tell America what's morally correct while secretly indulging in a feverish gambling habit suggests to me it's just more hypocrisy.

    Regardless, Bennett's assertion, and all it implies, really is a provocative occasion for understanding the moral judgments of the racist elites in this country.

    by machopicasso on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 05:39:43 PM PDT

•  This is THE aim of the No Child Left Behind

  program. My mother-in-law, a teacher in California, has been telling me this for the last 3 years.

  by juliesie on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:24:15 AM PDT

  •  This is exactly right.

    E X A C T L Y!

    by Skubwa on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:17:53 PM PDT

  •  Everything in NCLB attempts to do just that

    Anyone who has studied statistics knows that the smaller the group, the more the data scatters and clumps.  So what does NCLB do?  It requires continuous improvement on standardized tests by each school... and by 15 different SUBGROUPS at each school.  If any of subgroups fail to improve, the school is labeled noncompliant.  This is also true if fewer than 95% of the subgroup take the tests in the first place.

    You can predict what will happen now.  Small, statistically meaningless subgroups will show random behaviors, which will then be used as evidence the school is failing to meet the arbitrary goals.

    Get enough schools noncompliant and NCLB can shut down the entire school district.

    Your mother-in-law is absolutely right.  It is time for us to strike this horrible program down before it drowns an entire generation of minds.
    

    The Music Room.

    by madhaus on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:37:33 PM PDT

    •  Good info picking NCLB apart

      you should send this to Ted Kennedy - boy did he get snookered on this miserable bill.

      by jsmagid on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:21:36 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    And I'd like to add:

    >I can't help but think that it's at least partially because
    >public schools, at least in the cities, like the poor areas of
    >New Orleans are full of black people.  (*)

    Urban public schools are also full of Public School TEACHERS, a group that conservative and the fundie-religious mistrust very deeply.

    *One of these days I have to snoop around and figure out how to put quotes in those lovely little grey boxes.

    by cathy b on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 04:18:03 PM PDT

    •  It's also about reducing critical thinking and

      an informed electorate, in order to more effectively push an agenda through propaganda.

      by juliesie on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 05:01:41 PM PDT

      •  So their christ-like leaders can tend flocks

        ...of happy sheeple.

        by cathy b on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 05:23:37 PM PDT

•  Unfortunately we need to be reminded

  What it is that we are up against.

  It is always hard for good people to identify evil.

  We don't spend our day thinking of ways to destroy America and are incredulous when we are faced with people who do. Our enemies are resourceful...

  by Bill Section 147 on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:42:54 AM PDT

  •  This is exactly the point

    I made in my response to Obama's well-intentioned but "not exactly on point" diary.  

    Part of the reason the average American doesn't see what's going on today for the evil/anti-constitutional trend that it is is because they aren't educated about it.  But I do believe a larger part is because Americans are optimistic.  We believe in the Horatio Alger, "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" myths - or we desperately want to believe in them.  Most Americans do not want to see evil because they don't want there to be evil.

    This was a great diary and I don't think the theory that New Orleans was "part of the plan" is that far off-base.

    by hopesprings on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:16:31 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    We need to defeat the "evildoers" over before we deal with the "evildoers" over there.  BTW, I think that the term "evildoes" is totally stupid and assinine.  It appeals to the most stupid of our society, no person with a brain would ever adopt the term "evildoers."  

    by elveta on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:46:47 PM PDT

•  Great diary!

  This is the point that needs to made over and over on our blog: a dysfunctional government is exactly what this crime syndicate wants. Things are going according to plan: they want to drown the government in a bathtub. New Orleans just happens to be the biggest bathtub they could find.

  by el maso on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:45:53 AM PDT

•  Religious Education = De Facto Segregation

  We are never more segregated in this society than when we sit down to pray.  

  Racists like Bennett know this, and have always known it.  As soon as segregation was struck down in Brown vs Board of Education, the churches started their lily white segregated alternative schools. The secular version of this is 'vouchers' and 'charter schools'.  

  And the reason for all of this is a base, gut-level terror by the racists that all or nearly all the African Americans are violent, lazy, criminals, and they need to protect themselves and their children from them.  They cower in their gated communities, shivering again in is their fear of black 'criminals.'

  Their most important war wasn't the Civil War, it was the Nat Turner Slave Rebellion.

  That's why the first thing that Bush wanted to talk about in hurricane Katrina was protecting property, looting, and again, Fear, Fear, Fear.

  I'm with FDR.  The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

  Hang Bennett as high as you can for the whole world to see his racist underwear peaking out.

  by LIsoundview on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 12:01:14 PM PDT

  •  Along similiar lines,

    it's been claimed, not without justification, that the hour from 11am-12pm on Sunday is, in America, the most segregated hour of the week.

    by machopicasso on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:07:36 PM PDT

  •  Hmm-- there may have been a racist motive to

    earlier efforts to skirt public education, but its hard to define one now.  Many charter schools have opened in inner cities & are entirely African-American: Washington DC is a good example of a city with public charter schools run by African-Americans with A-A students.  

    In fact, the right wing made some headway a few years ago by pitching their vouchers scheme to inner city residents fed up with bad schools.  Fortunately, the courts and public seem to concur that vouchers are nothing but a giveaway to religious schools at the expense of public schools: a very bad idea for many reasons.  

    Bottom line: its not accurate to compare the modern voucher and charter schoools movements (BTW -- very different movements) to the southern racist reaction to the Brown decision.  

    by historyrocks on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:01:52 PM PDT

    •  You forgot something --

      Yes, there are many excellent private and charter schools that encourage black student to enroll. But in general, the biggest difference between public and private schools is that pubic achools must educate all students, while provate schools can cherry-pick the best "best" candidates.  

      The inevitable outcome of the Bush Kleptocracy's War on Public Schools will be to create a two-tiered "educational" system. On the one hand, we'll see voucher-funded private schools that take only the smartest, best-behaved students (95% of whom will be from upper-income families, 95% of which will be non-black).

      The rest of our youth -- the poor, the behaviorally-challenged, the disabled -- all the students that are harder and more expensive to educate -- will be forced into either grossly underfunded public schools (once the middle and upper class leave, public schools will become truly abysmal), or second-tier private schooling: Poor Schools.  Most of these Poor Schools will be religious, since their tax-exempt status, donations, and "faith-based" federal funding will help subsidize their expenses, over and above federal vouchers. Their motivation will be to create converts and suck up money from the gov't and private donations, not educate their students.  SInce they're PRIVATE, they don't have to meet any pesky federal standards. The mission of these Poor Schools and underfunded public schools: to create a compliant, dependent underclass to serve the graduates of the first type of achools.
      We can wait and see how long it takes this scenario to play out. Or we can elect progressive politicians who agree that a fundamental role of government is to give ALL students a good education.

      by vulcangrrl on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:24:53 PM PDT

      •  OK, but

        there's a huge difference between charter schools and private schools.  Charter shools are very public-they can not discriminate like private schools, except perhaps for meritorious reasons, i.e. are magnet schools or otherwise selective like my high school, the Bronx HS of Science (an exceptional public school).

        by historyrocks on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:28:41 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      Many charter schools have opened in inner cities & are entirely African-American: Washington DC is a good example of a city with public charter schools run by African-Americans with A-A students.  

      In other words, de facto segregation.  Exactly what the earlier commenter said.

      by MaximusNYC on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:26:25 PM PDT

    •  But the private schools can discriminate

      for some really twisted reasons.  Such as the California school that recently threw out a student because her parents were lesbian.

      by barbwires on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:25:16 PM PDT

  •  Not true.

    My son goes to a Catholic school that's open to all. It might segregate people who can't afford to pay, but it's really, really cheap.

    hink

    by MrHinkyDink on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 04:07:29 PM PDT

    •  I'm particularly concerned

      with the Protestant schools.  

      However, the Catholic schools, like most private schools, cherrypick.  And they favor Catholics, most of whom are not African American.  However, there is generally an effort in Catholic schools to provide education without regard to class, at least as far as I can tell from the experiences of friends' children.

      by LIsoundview on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 04:33:06 PM PDT

•  Truly Disgusting Hypocrite....

  ...like most of these wingnut talk show hosts.

  Thanks for posting this.

  Felt compelled to write this.

  Written to: [e-mail]

  Dear Salem Communications,

  Unless you immediately terminate Bill Bennett and remove his disgusting show from your network, I can only assume that you embrace his clearly racist viewpoints.  His remarks about aborting black babies and reducing crime clearly demonstrate his true makeup, which is far from the Christianity that he obviously uses as a facade.

  I only hope that your radio network is not made up entirely of covert racists.  In the meantime, I have stopped listening to any of your programs, and will avoid wherever possible patronizing any of your sponsors.

  Yours Truly
  rlt
  Crystal Lake, IL

  by rlteiken on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 12:16:19 PM PDT

  •  My Guess Is....

    Many wrote Similar feelings about their Company and Bennett, I certainly did!!

    by jimstaro on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:33:32 PM PDT

•  fantastic diary

  n/t

  by heterodoxy on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 12:34:50 PM PDT

  •  You're welcome. (n/t)

    by mjshep on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:12:57 PM PDT

•  If every Bill Bennett was not born

  the rate of bigotry would decrease.

  I'm just sayin.

  by muledriver on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM PDT

  •  If Every Bill Bennett Were Aborted

    we could eliminate on-line gambling.

    by litigatormom on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:44:07 PM PDT

•  Yes. The drowning of New Orleans....

  ...wsa purposeful. And now they will drown it in vouchers. That is what people have a hard time grasping: They do want social security, education reforms, UN "reforms" to succeed. They want government to fail, for it to appear to be untrustworthy (one of the new messages -- cities and towns must be independent, because no one is going to come to "save us", or even aid us as the alligators swirl and the black babies drown).

  Bush is Hitler in Knee Pants and this is Germany, 1937.

  by Bensdad on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:05:39 PM PDT

  •  NO Schools system

    you forget that the New Orleans school system is private (Catholic) and public.  Most of the whites and some of the Blacks, Creoles, Hispanic, etc., send their kids to Catholic schools, whether Catholic or not. Teh nuns don't allow misbehavior, and will kick out trouble makers, which encourages the paretns to keep the kid in line in order to stay in Catholic school. Often, the mere threat of going to public school is enough to end the misbehavior. However, The public schools are changing to a magnet system, which is encouraging the students to work harder to get into the good magnet schools, like Lusher & the school for the arts & music, which will dump them back into the regular public schools if they misbehave. And Nagin was making a lot of headway towards cleaning up the corruption in the public school board, which was gradually improving the public schools. Nagin knows the value of an education in arts and music and supports it 100%.

    So it will not be easy for a right wing religious group to come in and establish itself. Catholicism is almost the foundation of New Orleans, the Catholic school system is very well entrenched and financed, and the people there don't like zealots who try to tell them they are living in sin. And Nagin is not dumb- he won't let some winger group try to muscle their way in.

    by azureblue on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:45:05 PM PDT

    •  RELIGIOUS CAT FIGHT IN NEW ORLEANS

      If the religious right who are bossy,nosy interfering SOB'S without courtesy or discretion try to move in on the Catholic school system in NOLA, they will be received like the church from Hell.

      I went to Catholic school from 5th grade through High School and got a terrific education.  I was thoroughly ready for college.  I was a protestant all the way through.  The nuns and the kids never gave me any problem with that.  I was accepted, as were other non-catholics.  The tuition then was what I'd call low cost,but kids of various backgrounds went there because the school had such a high scholastic standing in San Francisco.

      We learned how to study with plenty of homework, and without overdoing it we learned coutesy and discipline.

      There were (less now due to overhead) lots of Catholic schools in San Francisco.  The schools keep a low profile, doing the work and minding their own business.

      Such schools do help the public school system as an accessory.  I think our public school system should be improved throughout US to match the standard of these type parochial schools.  The schools will continue to exist because the Catholic Church and its members want them.  So be it. It is their right.

      Trampling all over everyone else they don'tdo.  But if the obnoxious religious fundamentalists try their stuff in New Orleans, they will be met by courtesy and solid strength of character such that will bludgeon them like a silent bulldozer.

      I do not accept diminishing/ruining the public school system, in favor of voucher schools.  This is elitism.  Oh,if only all our kids could have a really scholarly education starting from the first grade.  The US can afford it if the people want it--that's all it takes.  There's nothing magical about it--the money it would take is for renovation throughout the country. We need to upgrade all schools to the same standard with great physical education facilities, and eliminate forever upgrading based on taxes paid by residents of an area, the higher taxes the better facilities.

      I'm glad to hear good things about Mayor Nagin.

      by lucretia on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 04:51:14 PM PDT

      •  Both of these comments...

        ...confirm what I have always suspected: Catholic schools rock. You filter the bad stuff out, and take the education away with you. I first began to suspect this while in public school and fell in with a large group of friends who had just transferred from Catholic school. They were all critical thinkers, well grounded in history, math and the arts.

        by Bensdad on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:22:04 PM PDT

        •  CATHOLIC SCHOOL ROCK

          Yeah, there's some reactionary stuff, but it doesn't take hold.  And,it's not indoctrination.  Unlike the fundy fundamentalists who prefer scaring people shitless so they'll conform.

          by lucretia on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:59:29 PM PDT

•  you know.

  I did notice that "why would he even come up with that analogy?" thought.  I mean technically you could give vasectomies to every criminal and that would reduce crime rate.  You could tie the tubes of every female criminal or junkie and that would reduce crime rate.

  Why would abortion (much less racially targetted abortion) even have play a part in any of that.

  by DawnG on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM PDT

  •  Because 'Abortion' Foes.........

    Get Abortions!

    And by bringing it up Over and Over as a Negative gives their Supporters [who also partake in the legality] the Issue to Rally Behind when All Else Fails.

    Especially as a Party/Cult they really never have a Clear Agenda or Ideology, just catch phrases!

    by jimstaro on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:37:45 PM PDT

  •  Umm...

    So you think crime is heritary?

    by Elwood Dowd on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:01:24 PM PDT

    •  Where...........

      Does the Reply Say That??

      The Abortion Issue Is Used As The Tool To Keep The Flock In Line!

      Everytime it is Mentioned brings the Boiling Point to the Top, no matter How Ignorant or Racist the Comment, and the Bennett Comment wasn't his First on this, equally Racist/Bigotted!

      Travel around to the Flocks Comments/Apologist, shows where All of them are coming from, the Racist side of the Equation where they've always been!

      by jimstaro on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:11:57 PM PDT

      •  Here's where

         

        I mean technically you could give vasectomies to every criminal and that would reduce crime rate.

        by Elwood Dowd on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:14:56 PM PDT

        •  Be Clear.........

          Your Reply was Below my Reply which did not have the HighLighted words in it, hit the Right Button next time!!!!!

          by jimstaro on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:27:39 PM PDT

          •  Below but NOT indented

            Therefore not a reply to your post, but the post above.

            by bpierce on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:49:51 PM PDT

    •  no...

      ..but there are so many more less inflamatory things he COULD have said.  Why chose "Black" and "abortion"?

      Maybe some pro-life people really do secretly crave selective abortions.

      by DawnG on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:26:18 PM PDT

      •  More discrete

        Yeah, the Bush family is more discrete, using "underpriviliged" instead of "black".

        by Bob Love on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:58:20 PM PDT

    •  Crime and Heredity

      I think you are incorrectly intertwining correlation and causality, at least that is what 'Freakanomics' tells me. Crime IS hereditary, in the sense that the economic factors that made a parent a criminal are the same ones likely to cause a person to have baby when their lives embody many of the high risk factors that will lead their children to crime.

      I know you are talking about a biological correlation which I don't have the answer to...but if you are just looking at larger factors surrounding those who commit crimes, those same factors are likely to cause them to have babies that will commit crimes....its not a genetic thing but a poverty/education/class thing.

      That is why, as disgusting as Bennet's statement is, it is not entirely incorrect.....an increase in abortion rates for any group with social factors highlighting a greater likelihood of criminal behavior will reduce crime. Seriously, read Freakonomics. If you aborted rich white babies there would be a reduction in white corporate crime, although the amount of the reducation would depend on the correlation between number of abortions relative to the number of births and construct a ratio for those who are born now and then commit corporate crimes.

      by coheninjapan on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:57:30 PM PDT

  •  Not to defend Bill Bennet...

    but to explain why he was talking about abortion in the first place:

    They were discussing the claim -- I can't remember where it's from, maybe that book Freakonomics? -- that the reason for the decrease in the crime rate over the last few decades was the legalization of abortion (i.e. all those would-be criminals were aborted).  

    What's weird, or racist or whatever, is that he chose to bring race into it at all.

    by Pigeon Peas on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:16:31 PM PDT

•  He's a hideous freak,

  preaching morals, gambling away millions, advocating the end of public education. Outrageous!

  Yes, they want to destroy the country so they'll have a slave class. They've made a lot of progress, but, of course, they've had little or no resistance.

  It's been great watching the repugs tumble these last couple of days, but reading Obama really stole all the joy.

  Let's face it, there's no one looking out for the American people. No one.

  by cotterperson on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:13:46 PM PDT

•  Typical Republican. Racist.

  Corporatist. Privatization. The usual list of Republican sins designed to make the poor suffer and the rich richer.

  Just par for the course in my opinion. Bill Bennet is what the Republican party has always been. Anyone who signs up for the GOP... I just assume they think like Bennet. Or they're too stupid to know what they're signing up for... which happens a lot too.

  by Lode Runner on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:13:48 PM PDT

  •  they deny the racist label

    when called out, their response on christian talk radio is; "we are not racist. Racist stands for"
    Rationale
    Americans
    Commitment
    Integrity
    Security
    Truth

    I kid you not. can't make this up. These are evil little people dressed in religous garb.

    by idredit on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:39:16 PM PDT

    •  I spell it:

      Ridiculous
      Assholes
      Creating
      Irrational
      Scare
      Tactics
      

      by Bob Love on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 04:01:11 PM PDT

      •  right on

        but sadly that mindset forms a good chunk of the GOP gotv base.

        by idredit on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 06:01:06 PM PDT

•  Bennett is just a mouthpiece.

  It is to the benefit of Bush Inc. whenever the disreputable concept of race hits the front page, regardless of context. "Race" is used to spread discord among those who would otherwise find unity in common cause. When millions of Americans found themselves in the same predicament following hurricanes Katrina & Rita, divisions of race weren't being exposed so much as divisions of class. & it is always an advantage to the rich - who believe in class divisions & defend them - to deny such economic divisions matter & to substitute color. Bennett is just a mouthpiece.

  by DJ Rix on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:15:27 PM PDT

•  Is this not...

  the talking point that the Democrats need the most?

  The Republicans DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT TO WORK. The Democrats DO. It's funny in it's twisted way, but Republicans are ANARCHISTS. I never thought I'd write something like that.

  Anyway, its a simple and effective slogan.

  by Skubwa on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:16:15 PM PDT

  •  In defense of anarchists

    Please, you do an injustice to Emma Goldman. Real anarchists don't advocate chaos; they believe in the "trickle up" theory of ordering human affairs.

    by DJ Rix on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:38:13 PM PDT

    •  You are right, but...

      I mean anarchists in the ignorant stereotypical sense. They want chaos.

      by Skubwa on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:15:53 PM PDT

    •  Emma Goldman

      She's one of my favorites.  I've read part of her autobiography.  She was a remarkable speaker and her openness on sex for example would fit in today but too advanced for the muddy midwest and the simple south.

      She did a lot of work organizing and speaking all over the nation.  She spoke in San Francisco,but was not treated too well.  So much for the city that knows how!

      She was active in 1880-1915 when intolerance toward dissent ran rife in parts of the nation. Pinkerton guards were hired as strikebreakers.  Her compatriot Sasha (can't think of his real name) took the shots at Frick during the Homestead strike (Andrew Carnegie departed to Scotland and left it in  the  hands of hideous Frick).  Frick lived and Sasha went to prison for years.

      It's hard to imagine but the public was not generally sympathetic to labor strikes then.  But the papers reported otherwise re. Homestead,Carnegie's company being so pitiless on the Homestead workers.  

      Say, begins to sound like the way we live now.

      She and the other anarchists had met the man who later killed McKinely.  He was not an Anarchist, but was a dreamer, not violent, and believed by killing McKinley (remember Karl R's favorite pres.!) he could help the plight of the poor.  A woman reporter who had access to the trial told Emma that he had been beaten so terribly by  the police, he could hardly walk and was little able to speak when brought into the courtroom.  Yaay,God bless America!

      Emma had wit.  It would be nice to hear what she's saying on the other side about Bush.  Of course it's not printable as expression goes, but they aren't prudes in the afterlife like Americans!

      Our thoughtful government had tried for years to deport Emma.  She was originally from Russia and arrived here early 1880's.  They finally got rid of her around 1913 (that may be wrong dating).  I think she went to Paris,who didn't?

      by lucretia on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 08:34:53 PM PDT

  •  I see a TV commercial

    There are two auto repair shops.

    GOP Auto Repair has a horse-and-buggy logo. Our story begins with the driver taking his ailing, sputtering car in here.

    "Of course you've got problems! Get a horse!" says the mechanic, in suit and bowtie, as a crawl across the bottom of the screen reminds viewers of GOP statements about how government is the problem.

    Our driver leaves and finds Democratic Auto Repair down the street. (

    "Boy, that sounds bad, don't it?" asks the grease-stained mechanic. "But don't let the sound scare ya. We've worked on these before. She'll be humming along in no time, and it won't cost you an arm and a leg." The crawl is listing the programs Democrats have built, from Social Security to parental leave.

    The commercial ends, of course, with a smiling driver and a well-tuned car -- and maybe a bumper sticker.

    by Elwood Dowd on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:42:51 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like we can call

    the GOP plan for American government by its real name:

    Sabotage.

    by Torta on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:03:13 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but...

    Not anarchists. Instead: Corporatists.

    by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 05:48:16 PM PDT

    •  (Or theocrats or aristocrats, i guess)

      Take your pick.

      by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 05:48:49 PM PDT

•  And he bought his own internet school..K12 inc

  Bill Bennett's own school system

  "So far, there is no good evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve learning." So wrote former U.S. secretary of education William Bennett in The Educated Child, a book he coauthored in 1999. Now Bennett chairs a for-profit online education venture called K12 (www.k12.com), which offers a complete curriculum for grades kindergarten through fifth and will expand those offerings to grade twelve over the next few years. Bennett's earlier skepticism about the role of technology in education has not subsided. K12, he says, is not a replacement of the traditional curriculum but rather a way of exposing children to it via the Internet. In an interview with George Clowes, managing editor of School Reform News ("Offering `the Heart and Soul of an Excellent Education,'" July 2001), Bennett said,

  K12 is a comprehensive educational program. It can be used as a school, it can be used as a home tutorial, it can be used as an assessment, but--at its core--K12 will offer every lesson, every day for thirteen years in the six major subjects: math, English, history, science, art, and music. We use technology, we use books, we use all sorts of things. . . . Millions of parents care deeply about their child's education. If they have access to a program that will help them secure a world-class education for their child, for an affordable price, then I think there will be plenty of demand.

  K12 is unique among the growing number of educational options available to parents today, in that it can used in the home or in a traditional brick-and-mortar school, and either as a part-time tutoring tool or as a source of comprehensive, full-time instruction. According to the Cato Institute's report "`Edupreneurs': A Survey of For-Profit Education" (2000), the last ten years have brought a large increase in the number of charter schools, publicly funded voucher programs, tuition tax credits, and private scholarships; and according to the National Center for Home Education, approximately 1.7 million children are now being homeschooled. The author of the Cato report, Carrie Lips, argued that this, among other things, is evidence of American parents' growing "dissatisfaction with public schools and support for alternatives."

  This school is exceptionally successful in Florida, last I heard.

  by floridagal on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:20:37 PM PDT

  •  conflict of interest?

    I guess we know why Bennett wants to see public education fail: so he can make money. Bastid.

    by vinluvr on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:13:59 PM PDT

  •  I disagree with this kind of education

    on so many levels, I can't begin to explain it. But this guy can.

    I am shocked, just shocked, that Bennett is making a living with this.

    by PeteyPuck on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:15:02 PM PDT

    •  Wasn't one of the Bush brothers

      Neil I think?  Also involved in an online education company??

      by LIsoundview on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 04:38:31 PM PDT

•  Martial Law R Us....

  You're right.  Anyone who sits down and thinks about it can see that the more chaos and needless suffering and death, the better for the Rapture Gang.  Heavy on the demoralization.  Wear down the population and some will go mad, some will die, and whoever's left might suffer and acquiesce in silence.  If not, there's always Martial Law.  Not with our military of course, because they're being eliminated in advance, but with security "subcontractors."  The whole point of these oligarchs is to return to serfdom since we willful heathens can't possibly know what's best for ourselves.  In the name of right and wrong (Jesus), of course.  George Clooney says America always fixes what's wrong eventually.  I hope he's right.  Somebody said by the time Rome had to hire mercinaries, it was The End.

  by tkn10015 on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:20:45 PM PDT

•  reminds me of the Federalist Society

  which aims to dismantle the power of the federal government.  as one member allegedly commented: we might as well be called the anti-Federalist Society.

  well, that's the general pattern: name a thing exactly what it isn't.

  by dreamsign on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:20:56 PM PDT

  •  Well

    that name confusion stems from what Federalism is... that being a weak central government and stronger state/regional gov.

    What they seek would be to make our nation a federation of smaller government entities (states) in a loose Federation instead of a single nation with a central gov. At least that was their driving principle for decades until they have grabbed 2/3rds of the Federal Gov. Now a string Fed is good in some areas... Schiavo, stopping Oregon's PAS law, etc.

    But yes it does have  that strange "healthy forrest" and "clear skies" Orwellian take at first blush.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:51:27 PM PDT

    •  Yes, well...

      The ultimate goal is, and i think always was, Republican/Conservative domination of all of society and life. The whole "federalism" thing was merely a means to an end while the Republicans lacked Congressional power.

      That's why they liked war powers and vetoes (Presidential power, something they have had a lot of recently) and hated legislation ("bereaucracy") and the courts ("activist judges").

      Although individual members of their coalition might have been principled, the ideas were (i believe) only a means to an end and have been for about fourty to fifty years.

      by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:42:36 PM PDT

      •  I concur

        The second the Fright-Wing^TM gained a secure stranglehold on the Federal levers of power, sudden "states rights" we deep-sixed faster than a jack-rabbit fucks.

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 08:04:12 PM PDT

    •  i'm thinking Federalist

      as in Federalist Party, as founded by Hamilton et al; and Federalist Papers as written by Hamilton, Jay and Madison.  it is in accord with these that i think the term Federalism is understood in an American context.

      so, yeah, there's some confusion over the term, as it carries opposite meanings depending on context.

      by dreamsign on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 09:30:50 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        That is the source for the term, which is encapsulated in the modern context (and why they use that name) regarding Federalism, etc. (i.e. weak central Gov., strong state govs.)

        Of course like most of the GOP "principles" they went promptly over-the-rails the second they firmly became in control of the Federal Gov. in 2/3rds of its branches... because it was simply to gain power, and begin devolving Gov. and progressivism back to the gilded age.

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 10:26:46 PM PDT

        •  i think you're misunderstanding the term

          Federalism, in its original American context, refers to a strong federal government, as layed out in the Constitution and distinguished from that sort of system provided by the Articles of Confederation.  The Federalist party (of Hamilton and Adams) was for a strong central government, whereas today's Federalist Society is not.

          Could be that i'm just not following what you mean.

          by dreamsign on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 06:22:11 AM PDT

•  Thank

  you for posting this. The past few days have been appalling - the number of covert racists and indirect facilitators of racial genocide who have been trying to put Bennett's statement "in context" and trying to justify his statement with twisted logic was way more than I would have expected.

  Your diary clearly shows what Bennett's true motives are.

  Every rational, thinking human being should unequivocally condemn such a racist and genocidal statement. This is the only way to prevent a post-Katrina US from degenerating into the 1930's Germany.

  No excuses, no wishy-washy "did he really mean" this or that.

  by freespeech on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:23:41 PM PDT

  •  You're very welcome, as well (n/t)

    by mjshep on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:15:33 PM PDT

•  Racist assumption

  I've been bothered by the fact that some people haven't recognized the racism inherent in Bennett's statement--because,t hey say, he went on to add that such actions owuld be reprehensible.  They miss the point that even if he says it shouldn't be done, he stilla ssumes that African Americans are more prone to commit crimes than whites.

  The fact is that throughout American hsitory, whichever group was on the bottom was considred to be inherently criminal.  When the Irish came over in droves after the Famine, they were the bottom of the heap, and Irish gangs roamed the streets. Later, as the Irish made it into the middle class, the Italians replaced them, and we had the Mob. Not it's African Americans. The reality is that poor people with no hope of a way out of poverty tend to commit crimes. When your schools have hot and cold runnign water (int he halls) seasonally, your teachers  suck, your textbooks are falling apart, and the only job you're likley to get is cleaning other people's houses or slinging burgers--selling drugs looks like a good deal.

  by irishwitch on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:26:35 PM PDT

  •  And so true in New Orleans history

    Each group that came in had to start at the bottom. and sometimes below the free people of color, like the Creole society there. One reason race relations were OK in NO was because the Irish, the Blacks, the Italians, all were doing hard labor together in New Orleans, building canals, draining swamps, etc. Music was played by all races. Since the established population was French, Spanish  & Anglo, the predominant way of looking at race as black / anglo, doesn't work in New Orleans and Louisiana- too many races and too many mixes.

    by azureblue on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:53:57 PM PDT

  •  That is THE point

    Sadly the discussion has focused around the abortion component of his statement.  You've correctly pointed out the true crux of the quote.  Give Bennett his "full context."  Yes, he did say that suggesting the abortion of black babies was reprehensible.  In that same sentence he lets the shield slip and we can peer into the part of his soul that attributes crime to black people.  I think his meaning there was pretty clear and indisputable.  I hope I made it clear that THIS was what I found more disturbing in my profanity complaint to the FCC.

    by Tux the Penguin on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:18:06 PM PDT

  •  White people kill too

    Ted Bundy
    Son of Sam
    Dennis Rader (BTK killer)
    Jeffrey Daumer
    The Boston Strangler
    John Wayne Gacy
    Charles Manson

    Maybe no one should have children!

    by irritated consumer on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:03:16 PM PDT

    •  don't forget George Bush.

      He's especially good at killing non-whites.

      by dj angst on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:06:05 PM PDT

  •  It's the sort of non-disclaimer...

    That weasels and criminals use.

    Like, "If you were offended then I am sorry."

    No, not "if". You're either sorry or not. People who use that sort of non-apology are trying to hoist the responsibility for determining the legitimacy of their behavior onto others--specifically, onto the people who were injured.

    A more extreme example of the same thing would be going around and randomly smacking people in the face, then saying "Oh, well you never said otherwise..."

    It's wrong regardless.

    Unless you're into S&M, i suppose. But that's a different situation entirely.

    by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:45:19 PM PDT

•  8 Million

  The real obvious rot within the right wing propaganda machine is how some obese, mental defective like Bill Bennett got his hands on 8 million dollars to lose at video poker.  It came from speaking engagements in front of corporate cretins, book deals with his babblings purchased by right wing foundations by the carton and then given away.  Bill Bennett is an automaton, a babbling mouthpiece of corporatism, religious fanatacism and race hatred.  The outrage should  not be about his statements, but how he has a forum to begin with.  

  by normcash on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:27:43 PM PDT

  •  The nail

    The nail, on the head, has just been hit.

    What more can I say?

    by mjshep on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:11:31 PM PDT

•  Why was he surprised?

  I can't believe that Hundt was surprised at Bennett's reaction. Bill Bennett was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Education. 1980 was the first presidential election I was eligible to vote in, and even I remember that one of Reagan's election promises was to abolish the Department of Education. What's surprising about the person he appointed to oversee the nation's schools being hostile to public education?

  by darrelplant on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:47:11 PM PDT

•  Why should education

  be treated by conservatives any differently than they treat any other government service.

  True conservatives want to turn government's clock back to the late 18th century, when a group of rich white men got together and wrote the Constitution.

  Senator Byrd is right, they should memorize the preamble.  

  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  Liberals believe in A MORE PERFECT UNION.

  How can we be united if we do not have a public education system?  There is no profit to be made in education.  Not in elementary or secondary anyway.  If there were, for-profit schools would be prevalent and without a high economic base to support them, they are not.

  Liberals believe in JUSTICE AND DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY.  How can you have a stable society when people don't have productive jobs?  When their voices and votes aren't valued?  When the true causes of crime (and it has very, very little to do with race, Mr. Bennett) are never studied adequately, nor is there enough energy and study put into more effective ways to treat addictions (Hello Bill!) and reform criminals?

  Conservatives think they know all about PROVIDING FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, but do they know HOW to do it? Without getting into it on this thread, I have yet to be convinced that the war in Iraq was more important to our common defense than finding, prosecuting and making less effective the group of people who perpetrated the attacks on September 11th.  Think we eliminated them?

  And finally, we get to the real point of the divide between Liberal and Conservative.  Liberals have not forgotton that IT IS CONSITUTIONAL TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.

  Every single dyed-in-the-wool conservative would like to dismantle every government "welfare" program, saying that it is not a real function of government.  Not a real function?  Why did the framers of the Consitution put the damn word "welfare" in there if they never envisioned government as a means to promote it?

  Mr. Bill Bennett, now that you're not playing slots or betting horses anymore, I'm sure you have some extra spare time to read your Constitution.  Perhaps you could use the time you're probably spending now, watching rap videos on MTV2, convincing yourself that you know all about black culture.  Perhaps you could use the time that you're spending having coffee chats with the likes of the noted expert on black America, Alan Keys.

  Before you even try to surmise that black people are the problem, keep these little tidbits in mind:

  1. Most didn't come here voluntarily.
     
  2. Most work harder than you do for way less money.
     
  3. White people have been undermining programs to help black people for centuries by starving off funding, staffing, and miring them in red tape.

  Don't think so?  Why not give everything away and live on food stamps for a month.  It'll probably take you a month just to get food stamps.  And while you're at it, we'll drop off two babies for you to feed.  Black, white, don't matter...babies all eat the same stuff...  Oh, perhaps those babies will have asthma, which is prevalant in low income communities.  High blood lead content, too.

  Deal with that.  And if by the end of that month, you don't feel like killing somebody, then, hey...maybe fat old white men are more superior after all.

  The question I have isn't why the crime rate is so high (it actually isn't) but why it isn't double given the shit some people have to deal with.

  by suzq on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:48:22 PM PDT

•  Don't repeat the Republican Lie...

  If you could somehow abort every black baby, the crime rate WOULD NOT DECREASE.. the ensuing chaos would result in an INCREASE IN THE CRIME RATE Bennett is an asshat (pardon my french). His statement is racist through and through. It is even sad that there has been no real Republican condemnation of his comments.... Bush called them inappropriate. My mom said told me that saying "yea" instead of "yes" was inappropriate... Where is the Muslim, er, Republican Outrage?

  by Random Excess on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:57:47 PM PDT

•  Another strategy

  for reducing the crime rate would be to let the criminals make the laws........oops, we are already doing that.

  move along now, nothing new here.

  by cassidy3 on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 01:58:39 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the post.

  I sort of kinda wondered the same thing as I heard some people defend Mr. Bennett, saying that his statements were taken out of context. But why make the analogy with black babies? That is the part I cannot get beyond -- because you see I have a black son and I wonder if this man thinks he's going to grow up to be a criminal.

  It is bad enough that public schools are struggling, but to have the education secretary refuse to make the schools better is pure hateful.

  I'm sorry to say Mr. Bennett is among a long line of these conservatives who preach about virtue and the sanctity of life, but the don't mind the death penalty, supporting the one China policy, etc.

  by africa on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:04:25 PM PDT

•  I'll bet you...

  Sorry couldn't resist, that the right figures out a way to twist this into: "look what hypocrites the liberals are--when someone mentions abortion on the right, they act like it's a crime." Or some such bullshit.

  Watch, it's coming. I'll report back with the first example I find.

  New on EWM, Breaking news: "Environmental Disaster: Republicans get Protection in Endangered Species Act."
  

  by The Eyewitness Muse on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:07:26 PM PDT

•  Preview is my friend!

  This should say they do NOT want social security (or any other idea advanced for the common good) to succeed. And "was" is spelled "was". "Ay-yi-yi-yi" is spelled just like it sounds. I vow to use preview henceforth!

  by Bensdad on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:07:31 PM PDT

•  But This Was Their Publicly Stated Policy

  They said they wanted to close the Dept. of Education for example. I don't see that this is even news except for our many younger participants.

  Finding something evil in the Bush admin that's original with them is very, very hard to do.
  

  by Gooserock on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:10:06 PM PDT

•  There are no words...

  ...to describe how much I hate these people.

  by asskicking annie on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:10:22 PM PDT

•  A clueless racist.

  I thought of writing a diary about the comments below, but decided against it.

  
  BENNETT: Let me just tell you, when it comes to abortion, my wife's program, Best Friends, has kept more young women from having abortions because they don't get pregnant because they take her good counsel...

  HANNITY: Let me...

  BENNETT: Than the entire black caucus. She has done more for inner city black girls than the entire black caucus. So I will not bow my head to any of these people.
  

  So, his defense is "my wife is a good person". So what? And, more importantantly who the fuck cares? If your wife is a good person, great. Good for her. But this is not about her. This is about you, you gambling racist. If you'r wife and children are noble and good, it is INSPITE of you, not because of you.

  So, stop taking credit for your wife's actions. I am sick and tired of people taking spousal coverage for their obvious follies. Last time I checked, a marriage is between two INDIVIDUALS.

  So, you need to bow your head and apologize, because you are a racist, plain and simple. Your defense simply does not meet even an extremely liberal interpretation of civility and compassion.  It is idiotic, and simply stupid. It's like a murderer saying "My wife is a nun", so by extension I am good guy. Sorrym that does not cut it.

  And, do us all a favor. JUST DISAPPEAR THE FUCK ALREADY. Fade into the oblivion. Better yet, go to Iraq.!
  

  by jeeves on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:13:58 PM PDT

  •  Yep...

    "Roberts isn't a racist, his wife is a feminist!"

    Yeah, and Bush married a librarian.

    And of course, his wife isn't a feminist: his wife is a "feminist".

    by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:51:11 PM PDT

  •  Bill's Brownie Points

    Bill is doin' a heckuva job playing the Anti-Blame Game, pointing fingers at his virtuous wife and expecting some sort of ethics-by-association effect.  Hope he's not holding his breath.  On second thought...  

    by Mlle Orignalmale on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 08:57:02 PM PDT

•  More at the link

  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051001.wxadoption1001/BNStory/National/

  A Canadian haven for black U.S. babies
  The United States is exporting newborns by the hundreds and Canada is a preferred destination.

  Most of the infants are African American or biracial; their birth mothers want them to be raised outside the United States and believe Canada is a land of little racial strife.....
  

  by Blackstar on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:15:13 PM PDT

•  man, I had TOTALLY forgotten about that

  I consider myself well versed in the Telecom Act of '96, if only because it released most rules regarding radio/tv station ownership and gave birth to the giants that are now Clear Channel and to a lesser extent, Infinity.  Thanks for bringing this to the forefront.

  by kineticdissent on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:15:30 PM PDT

•  Destroying the Government

  Last week I was having a conversation with someone regarding all of the incompetent appointments Bush has made.  I know he's an idiot, but even an idiot should get it right once in a while by pure chance.  This person said that she'd been listening to some talk radio show and they were saying that the incompetence is purposeful because there is a group of neocons who want to completely destroy the government so that they can rebuild to their liking.  After reading this diary, I am starting to think there is something to that theory.

  by elveta on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:19:14 PM PDT

  •  More than something

    "there is a group of neocons who want to completely destroy the government so that they can rebuild to their liking."

    There is more than something to that theory. It is everything. And believe me, what they "rebuild" will not be to your, or most Americans, liking.

    It won't be so bad, however, if you're a religious fanatic, a warmonger, a CEO, or wealthy (and heartless, as even many wealthy people with consciences won't be happy), or corrupt, or don't mind being an ill-educated, oppressed, exploited, hopeless serf.

    by mjshep on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:36:53 PM PDT

    •  Planned Incompetence

      I think you're right!  Right after the fiasco in New Orleans, and right after their semi-successful scare campaign on Black Looters, there were echoes from the Right of, see, we told you Govt. doesn't work.  The rationale didn't really hold, particularly when held up to comparisons of FEMA under Clinton and James Lee Witt, when it was a nonpartisan well-oiled machine.  

      These guys would like you to believe Govt. is great for the things they want (military, police, etc.) and totally hapless for anything that might actually HELP people.  Trouble is, they read their own clippings and listen to their own wacky echo-chamber a bit too much.  Social Security "reform" went over like a lead balloon, and "deregulation" hasn't exactly worked wonders for SEC, FDA, FCC, Energy, Environment, or virtually anywhere they've given free rein to their corporate donors.  But the battle's not over till the stake's in the heart--many, many skirmishes yet to go!

      by serrano on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:15:54 PM PDT

    •  Being none of the above

      I will definitely not like it.

      by elveta on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 07:37:28 PM PDT

    •  Has anyone noticed...

      ...there haven't been any abortion clinic bombings since before November 2000?

      Am I wrong on this? I can't recall any.

      Who wants to bet they start again in 2009 after a Dem Congress and President are in office?

      by dj angst on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 11:20:03 PM PDT

•  Pervasive, systemic and toxic

  When I read this anecdote at TPMCafe, my first thought was GROVER F*CKING NORQUIST.

  This is exactly what Norquist would have said, too.

  There's more of them who believe exactly the same things as Norquist and Bennett; they exist through and through the entire right.  They believe that there should be no government save for the military.  There should be no social contract, only God.

  The greatest hypocrisy and irony of all: these people are SOCIAL DARWINISTS.

  They do not believe in evolution, in the Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest".

  Yet they believe that applies to humans on an individual level; they believe, "I've got mine, you deserve not to propagate if you don't have yours."

  Human scum.

  by Rayne on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:27:46 PM PDT

•  just a thought..

  If we had a very very late term abortion (200th trimester?) for execs in big pharma, big oil, and most of the political appointees in the bush administration... as well as all bush family members themselves... I think that might do the trick.  Crime rate would go down.  Environmental problems get better.  Income is distributed better and the middle class grows...

  Of course my idea is morally reprehensible and ridiculous...

  by OrangeClouds115 on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:29:36 PM PDT