home

Bennett's Logic Train Derails

By TChris, Section Social Justice
Posted on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 10:22:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Bill Bennett now justifies his racist remarks as a "thought experiment" that proposed a deliberately racist hypothetical to illustrate its "noxious" nature. Bennett indeed proved that he has mastered the ability to think noxious thoughts, but his latest spin defies reason.

Bennett spoke in response to "a caller who suggested that Social Security would be in better financial shape if abortion were illegal, leaving more people to pay into the system." What fallacy in that suggestion does Bennett's response -- that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down" -- illuminate? The caller's hypothetical suggests that banning abortion would have a positive consequence, while Bennett argued that forcing abortion (but only with regard to black women) would also have a positive consequence. If this non sequitur was a "thought experiment," the experiment went badly awry.

Bennett began his response by musing that the caller's conclusion didn't necessarily follow from her premise. Bennett pointed out that her hypothetical relied on the questionable assumption that the non-aborted fetuses would eventually become productive taxpayers. Bennett wondered whether the contributions of the productive would outweigh the burdens imposed by the nonproductive, and he cited an argument advanced in Freakonomics: "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."

Benett's thought experiment made a bizarre turn when he introduced race into the conversation. Race wasn't an element of the caller's hypothetical. If Bennett merely wanted to make the point that one never knows whether an abortion will have a social cost or a social benefit, the insertion of race was both gratuitous and irrelevant to his argument.

Why did race occur to Bennett? As Bennett pondered the caller's hypothetical, did he assume that new white babies would be productive while new black babies would become nonproductive? When he mused about cost vs. benefit, was he really wondering whether new taxpaying whites would be unduly burdened by the cost of imprisoning new blacks? Is that why he asked whether aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate? The logic train seems implicit in Bennett's thought experiment.

Bennett also complains that his remarks were taken out of context. This is nonsense. News accounts routinely report that Bennett denounced the idea of forcing black women to abort as "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do." No serious writer has argued that Bennett wants to force black women to have abortions. The point is that Bennett introduced race into the conversation for no discernable reason, in an offensive "thought experiment" that implicitly assumed that blacks, but not whites, contribute to a rising crime rate.

As Last Night in Little Rock wrote here, Bennett still doesn't get it. It looks like he never will.

< Cheney, Libby and Miller Leads Where? | Bill Bennett: His Wife's Abstinence-Only Program >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bennett's Logic Train Derails | 47 comments (47 topical)
    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    Why did he introduce race and crime into the discussion: well, as we learned a few weeks ago black people loot things and white people find things. This is actually a manifestation of paranoia. Bennet is afraid of black people. Why? Because deep down inside he knows that he has benefitted from the lay of the racial landscape. And he fears that those who have been underpriviledged by that same landscape will eventually get tired of the situation and rise up to end it. Bennett is showing the same paranoia as plantation owners fearful of a slave uprising did hundreds of years ago.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#2)
    by veloer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    The saddest thing about Bennett is there are millions who echo his beliefs.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    You would think a lawyer would understand the concept of reductio ad aburdum, but I guess it's too complex for TChris. Easier to toss the race card out and wave the bloody shirt.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    jr-it is all the rage, that is racism. It seems to be rearing its ugly head all over America. The race card..ha ha ha you are so wight. these guys did not mean any harm either: link link

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#5)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    JR, It sounds like you agree with Bennett. T-Chris brought up race? What's in that kool aid?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    For a glimpse into Bennet's educational values check out what Reed Hundt who was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (1993-97) has to say about his experience with Bennet:
    I asked Bill Bennett to visit my office so that I could ask him for help in seeking legislation that would pay for internet access in all classrooms and libraries in the country.
    Bennet was not amused.TPM Cafe

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Where did I say that I agreed (or disagreed) with Bennett? I was explaining to TChris what the form of argument being used was. Here's a tip, based on the logic TChris displays on this blog. If you need a lawyer, and TChris is recommended - run, don't walk, to the nearest exit. He's clearly not ready for the big leagues.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Hey James Robertson, I don't think William Bennett is in a court of law right now. I don't think your concept of reductio ad aburdum applies in this situation. I don't think most folks in the court of public opinion know what the concept of reductio ad aburdum means. Me, for example. And frankly I don't know who you are, but your personal, degrading, comments regarding TChris are inappropriate in this forum. Take it to e-mail to him.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    "Hey James Robertson, I don't think William Bennett is in a court of law right now. I don't think your concept of reductio ad aburdum applies in this situation. I don't think most folks in the court of public opinion know what the concept of reductio ad aburdum means. Me, for example." Through the wonders of Google, Here it is. As I said, TChris is supposed to be a lawyer - so it shouldn't be a hard one for him to figure out. Not to mention that the concept behind the term is familiar to anyone who ever passed through 7th grade.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    And who are you, James Robertson, who are you?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Oh, and where did you attend 7th grade. Why don't you try the concept of "concept of reductio ad aburdum" on Jay Leno?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#12)
    by rilkefan on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Note that Levitt's original paper in fact referred to race, in case you insist on an exterior reason for him choosing an appropriate example for a reductio ad absurdam.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Who am I, asks the person hiding behind a screen name? Well, if you know how to use Google, look me up. I'm not hard to find.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#14)
    by DonS on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    I'm about sick of racists and racist apologists hiding behind explanations of formal logical arguments, which are only post hoc justifications for the innuendos they've been caught in. The ground under these tactics shifts more that a pile of quicksand. And Bennett is the champ. I learned about logic in college and law school. I learned (and continue to learn) about the context of life everywhere else. If Bennett had real sensitivity about race his mind never would have led him to formulate the example it did, utilizing mutliple assumptions, statistical and otherwise, all of which led back to racial sterotypes.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Don - The form of argument that Bennett used is common on debate teams (and in courts of law). That's why I figured TChris ought to recognize it, but that was apparently hoping for way, way too much. You can dislike the form of argument, but it's commonly used. In fact, I'd bet good money that you've used it yourself in personal arguments. Nearly everyone has.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    jr- Debate teams with a local audience are one thing but Bennets comment was aired on nationally syndicated radio. As TChris notes:
    Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" radio program has an alleged 1.25M listeners.
    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#17)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    JR, Where is it "common" for debate teams to argue for racial eugenics? In my travels, I have missed that town. Please let me know, so that I can avoid it.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    billmon hits the nail on the head with this:
    And Bennett should have known -- before he opened his trap on the subject -- that at one point more than 30 U.S. states had laws on the books that encouraged or even required the sterilization of indigents, "habitual criminals" or those deemed mentally unfit. In many states, particularly in the South, these laws were used disproportionately against African Americans, in some cases well into the 1970s.
    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    He did it to make the connection to what happened in NOLA, which he does in his statement on the website for his radio show. He did it to capitalize on the racial fear that has generated. It's part of the conservative agenda, to play on racial fear. Usually they do it with "code." But on the heels of what happened on the Gulf Coast, and the exaggerated mythology of the violent behavior of the black people there, they want to make the most of that, to further their agenda. I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    He wasn't arguing for racial eugenics, that's the point. The point is, he was setting up an absurd argument, asking the hypothetical "if this (absurd) statement were true, would it justify this other (highly objectionable) action on utilitarian grounds?" He then said that even if the hypothetical were true, the utilitarian argument would still be immoral. Sadly, most people's grasp of logic (including TChris', which is why I question his skills as a lawyer, btw), is too weak to follow that argument. Far from claiming that eugenics was a good idea, he was stating that it was indefensible even if things that aren't true were. But like I said, it looks like most commenters here - and some of the posters - can't follow that kind of argument. Including TChris.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#21)
    by TChris on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    JR -- Bash me all you want, but your insults won't divert attention from the point of the post. Bennett's argument did not sensibly respond to the caller's argument, which referred neither to forced abortion nor (more importantly) to race. You simply refuse to recognize the obvious: that Bennett's "logic" pointlessly singled out blacks with the implicit assumption that blacks grow up to commit crimes.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    TChris, pointing out that a common form of argument seems to be beyond your grasp isn't bashing you. It's a simple statement of fact. Either you really don't grasp the argument, or you are so entranced with the idea of "gotcha politics" that you are willing to look stupid in order to get someone on the other side. So which is it - are you incapable of following a reductio ab absurdum argument, or is the prospect of gunning down a political opponent just too enticing to pass up?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#23)
    by DonS on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    JR - Why are you running interference for scum like Bennett when, at best, he was being inadvertantly rascist, not intentionally so? We ALL know the rules of logic. Doesn't matter. Its a diversion.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Don, I don't like stupid politics. And TChris is playing stupid politics here. There are plenty of valid things to argue with Bennett over, and this is just "gotcha" politics at its worst.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    JR-Ti criticize anyone who made that kind of remark with a million people listening is no "gotcha" politics, it is a moral obligation.His statement is a is a wink and a nod to racism, which is rearing its ugly head quite a bit these days. Why don't you ask some of your black friends how they felt about Bennet's remark?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    If his statement is a "wink and a nod" to racism, I wonder what you think of Robert Byrd, or Al Sharpton, or Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson? Last time I looked, high powered Republicans weren't hanging around with Bennett - the Democratic party makes a nice home for its race baiters and anti-semites though. This site - including TChris - made many fawning references to Cindy Sheehan, for instance - and never thought that any of her anti-semitism was worth noticing.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    jr-you are so full of cr*p. Sheehan criticized Israeli racist policies as most Jews in america do. She is far from anti semite. You make yourself look foolish defending Bennet. besides the point is not that high powered Repugs are hangin with Bennet it is that he make a horribly racist remark on a nationally syndicated radio show and should be shunned by all those who have seen how dangerous supporting this kind of talk is. it leads to the kind of violence you espouse. Big guy kills little guy. Natural selection. Preemptive military strike. Hope you are practicing your martial arts, cause you are provoking violence.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    First off, pointing out that the more powerful countries determine what is (and isn't) international law isn't advocacy on my part - it's simply a statement of fact. Clearly, you dislike that fact, and many of you want to inflict violence on me for poiting it out. That says more about you than it does about me. If you think that international law is defined in some other way - in actual practice - you live in a different reality. As to Sheehan - I took her "occupied New Orleans and occuppied Palestine" as being indicative. Based on the beliefs of the people she chose to march with (ANSWER), who want Israel wiped off the planet, it's an easy assumption to make. When Cindy Sheehan feels like distancing herself from the Stalinists who also support North Korea, I'll reconsider my opinion of her. As to the main topic in this thread - how many times do I have to point this out? I'm not trying to "support" Bennett (go back and actually read my comments). I'm making a point about the form of argument. I know that's complicated for a bunch of you here, but go it shouldn't be.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#29)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    With regards to the usual smokescreen of slapping critics of Israel with the too-commonly used epithet of 'anti-Semite', perhaps we should look at the actions of any nation in light of its' secular political and military activities as opposed to any religious ones its' citizens might have. Actions such as the one involving the USS Liberty: Official Website of Survivors of The Israeli Attack Upon the USS Liberty IMHO, those who wish to use the charge of religious bigotry to obfuscate an issue regarding hostile acts committed against this country by a supposed ally themselves become supporters, and therefore, accessories to those acts. It is especially germane when that supposedly ally would not exist at all without massive infusions of foreign aid supplied by the US taxpayer, under the general threat of imprisonment for failing to 'render under Caesar'. Those who wish to do so are forgetting what Washington said in his Farewell Address: In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim. and: So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. (emphasis mine - CMD) Sound familiar? Sound like the fawning declarations by American politicians of assuring the continued survival of another country, at the expense to our own? Another country, which has knowingly killed Americans citizens with impunity and injured others in the same spirit? I could care less what religious proclivities friend or foe may have, but their actions against this nation, not those professed religious procilvities, should be used to judge their conduct towards us.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#30)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    And as to Bill Bennett, all I can say is that he should invest in a ketchup factory, to use the product to smother his toes with before he inserts his feet in his mouth. They can't taste all that good. A few years back, in the DC area, we had a (formerly) wildly popular 'shock jock' whose handle was "The Greaseman". On at least two occasions, he made several on-air racial gaffes that cost him his local career; the last I heard, he was working for GOPRadio; go figure.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#31)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    Charley, Speaking of logic, those two issues are connected how?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    char-The plan Bennet suggested is forced abortion, recalling forced sterilization programs in the South that were largely directed against blacks. The pro-choice movement is about choice. A woman has the choice to do with her body as she sees fit, not what some government agency tells them they have to do. Your support of Bennet only shows how racist you are, and is a call for racism to rear its ugly head as it did in Germany not so long ago. The Nazi's would have added this: "you could abort every in this country, and your crime rate would go down" Does that put it into perspective for you.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#33)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    Charley, We know how you feel about forced abortions, how do you feel about forced medication?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    Bennet has resigned from the Board of K12, an educational group, due to his unpopular racist agenda, which he did not mean to make public. via atrios

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    that is the twisted version of his logic offered by you which ignores his full quote.
    ooo, ooo, pleaseeese mr charley tells us the full quote! Unless you mean the part about where he says it would be immoral. So chawlie, tell us what you think. Do you think blacks are more prone to crime? Do you think blacks have less intellectual capacity? Do you think Aryans have superior genes to the mud people? Do you think Mexicans work harder? Are Asians more intelligent?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    BTW, as Squeaky pointed out:
    Bennet has resigned from the Board of K12,
    What might not have been apparent in SQ's post is that K-12 Inc. is a private company and that
    "william j. bennett has resigned as ... chairman ... of the company's board of directors."
    K-12 Inc. is a private company preying on black children in Philly. bennett WAS THE CHAIRMAN. So a chairman of the board of a private company with a $3M+ contract for urban Philly schools says the country would be better off if all black fetuses were aborted. (In the interest of accuracy, I will point out that bennett said that would be wrong.) Obviously we need to abort all white fetuses to keep white collar criminals (who cost the economy 100 times more than black criminals) from procreating. [/sarcasm]

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    It's a good thing Jonathan Swift didn't have the modern left to deal with. His "Modest Proposal" would have been taken seriously as well.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    JR, Swift's proposal was satire, bennett's was not. mr charlie, you are a liar. GFY ... strong message to follow.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    char-I guess I overestimated your intelligence as my attempt to put the racist statement by Bennet into a context that would help you understand how racist it was, did not penetrate your thick scull. Guess you are cut from the same of cloth as Bennet, just not as bright. Why don't you go off to Iraq you are needed there more than here.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    Sailor, my point is that the modern left would not have recognized Swift's work as satire. Just as it can't follow a rather simple "reductio ab adsurdem" argument process.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#41)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    JR, re your last post: Quite frankly, that's as stupid an assertion as I've ever seen on TL. That you or anyone else would actually refer to it as a "point" denotes just how low the discourse has really sunk. P.S. Are you capable of discussing something without your straw man, hyper invented "Left," into which category I have never met a human being who would fit?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    JR- That is absurd. First off Bennet's remark was not satire and Swift would be rolling in his grave if he could hear your ridiculous comparison. Your wingnut strategy to change the subject so to imply that Bennet is using satire like Swift and not a racist, is transparent and certainly a non sequitor.
    Because satire is such a great tool, writers can use satire to advance political agendas and ideas. This is classic: Jonathan Swift used it most famously in "A Modest Proposal," after which Tenn named his own collection. You take a set of beliefs -- that the Irish Catholics are worthless, filthy, over-breeding, starving because of their own laziness and overpopulation. You magnify those beliefs, bring them out into the open, lay them out in a way that seems absurd, or draw an absurd conclusion from them.
    link Bennet can be used in a satire as a character to portray how slippery racists can be. They say something horribly racist that connects to things that have already happened like mass sterilization, and qualify it as hypothetical and mad. Meanwhile his 1.25 million listeners get to agree with the hypothetical statement and wonder why it is seen as crazy. That is how Hitler came to power, overt and covet inuendos about jewish blood rites propagated by the Chatholic press in Austria and Germany. Bennet's type of speech cannot be tolerated and must be loudly condemned. It is in no way remotely connected to satire.

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    char-yes, when the kitchen gets too hot change the subject and blame the one that turned up the heat. I am just like Bennet, brilliant remark charlie, ha ha ha. Bennet made a horrible racist remark which you defend. No one is looking into his soul as you accuse. We are pointing, in horror, to what he said to 1.25 million listeners, in the wake of Katrina which brought racism in America front and center. Racism can turn into scapegoated violence and fuel White Supremitist orgazinations. History need not repeat itself in this country. And you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting any remark that fans those fires.
    First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller
    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#44)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    all, This thread tells us more about Charley and James than anything else possibly could have. Why don't we take up a collection and pay their first year clan dues. BTW- remember Charley admitting that David Duke is one of his boys?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    char-I am glad that you got my point. Stereotyping either directly or by innuendo should never be tolerated. Now that we agree that Bennett's remark was unconscionable, perhaps we can have some dialogue. BTW what does Byrd have to do with Bennett's statements. Or are you just an echo chamber for Hannity & Colmes?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#46)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    It's not so much the statement as it is the sentiment it implies. If there's a guy in the spotlight saying this sort of thing, how many people outside of the spotlight are saying it. Even worse, how many people inside or outside the spotlight are thinking it or believe the same things, consciously or subconsciously?

    Re: Bennett's Logic Train Derails (none / 0) (#47)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    Charley, That's how we got to your love of David Duke in the first place. Byrd does not speak for me. I do not live in an area where I can vote for, or against him. I like some things that he says, but I actually agree with one or two things that Bennett has said in the past. This doesnt mean that I consider either a great person. This is about where you came in to subscribe to everything every right winger has ever said. Try thinking for yourself. You may be wrong now and then, but you will also be right once in a while.

    Bennett's Logic Train Derails | 47 comments (47 topical)