I have posted my "Open Letter" before, but due to Bettin' Bill's absolute unwillingness to admit he was WRONG and that he is now working at CNN, it's time to post it again. I sure hope the Matthew's boycott will spill over to CNN and FAUX ASAP. Here's what
Media Matters had to say:
Summary: In his first appearance since being hired by CNN, Bill Bennett defended his September 2005 comment that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down" by falsely asserting that the topic "was a matter that had been under discussion in articles and newspapers and in some discussions of books."
Open Letter To The Supporters Of Bill Bennett's Comments and CNN.
Dear Bennett Supporters,
I find it appalling that anyone would even attempt to support Mr. Bennett's racist comments relating to the abortion of "all black" babies and crime reduction. Since many have, I would like to look at his statement from a logical perspective -- one that is often said by the pundits on the right to be lacking in the discourse from the left. Let us step away from the blatant racism that underlines his remarks and deal with the statement at hand. We know, factually, that Mr. Bennett said this:
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.
- Why did Mr. Bennett immediately think of all "black" babies? Could he not have used, as his brother did, male babies to make his point? Not that it would have made that much of a difference about the accuracy of his claims. The fact that he IMMEDIATELY used the phrase "you could abort every black baby " is the crux of the issue, not whether his argument is cogent and sound.
- His argument is neither cogent nor sound. A sound or cogent deductive argument, as defined, is one that is valid and has true premises. Mr. Bennett's argument in neither valid nor is his premise true. His "hypothesis" is not falsifiable so it does not meet the criteria for a hypothesis. Mr. Bennett claims that it's a "morally impossible hypothesis" which seems to conclude that, if you could abort all "black" babies, that you would have some accurate way to measure crime reduction, based on the lack of the African-American race, which would be valid. To say that his argument is valid is to deduce that "blacks" are directly linked with "crime" because they are "blacks" not poor. When asked by Alan Colmes about this, Mr. Bennett replied, "what bothers me is that last night on your radio show, you were all over me, Alan. And, you know, I was really surprised. You know me, you've known me for a long time and the fact that you would give credence to the notion that I would believe such a thing is very disturbing." If Mr. Bennett was talking about socio-economic status then that's the premise he should have used and, some may say, would have used if he didn't truly believe that crime and race are causal, not correlational. Further, Mr. Bennett later claimed he used the Socratic method. As Mr. Bennett stated on his web page, "I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars." Since Mr. Bennett's argument under the Socratic method would be considered ethics, he may want to know that Aristotle felt this method was not suitable for ethical arguments. Perhaps Mr. Bennett should dust off his "philosophy professor's hat" and brush up on his Logic a bit.
- Please explain to me how Mr. Bennett KNOWS "...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[?]" Unless he has some sort of super powers or has actually been conducting secret experiments in some remote, unknown part of the world that is an exact replication of the USA (scaled in proportion of course), I fail to see how he can say this. It's an impossible thing to know with any modicum of certainty.
- His assertion that the crime rate would go down is misleading. Crime statistics are based on the status quo. The methodology for collecting and interpreting the data would not change and would still be based on population, location, type of crime, and other factors. Since the majority of crimes by African-Americans are committed against African-Americans there, one may hypothesize, would be a minor shift at most, but that's a stretch and cannot be predicted with any accuracy. Also, the lack of those African-Americans who are involved in criminal activity would create a void in the criminal world that could, and probably would, be filled by others, regardless of race. Crime could, one may say, actually increase with the decrease in competition.
- An America without African-Americans would also stop the contributions they make to society, which is a factor that needs to be part of any argument. Can Mr. Bennett say with certainty that the lack of contributions made by African-Americans would not result in an increase in the crime rate?
- The author of "Frekonomics," Steven D. Levitt, states emphatically that his abortion argument is NOT based on race. "I mean it when I say that, from a purely fact-based and statistical perspective, race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime."
- Mr. Bennett stated "This is like Swift's `Modest Proposal,' for people who remember their literature." Well, I found nothing satirical or ironic about Mr. Bennett's comments, period.
It is beyond me how anyone could come to this man's defense except to say that he made an egregious error and should apologize and set the record straight. But that is not what has happened. Mr. Bennett has stood by his remarks based on intellectualism, which is both repugnant and fallacious. I can only conclude that those who come to his defense
OR HIRE HIM, based on his refusal to acquiesce are too, racists.