Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | New Blogroll Entries |
»
|
|
Friday, September 30, 2005
Unspeakable!
The worthy Ace of Spades has slipped into a rhetorical pit from which few have succeeded in extricating themselves:
The book Freakonomics noted that abortion had reduced the crime rate, by reducing the number of children born to poor, unmarried, often teen mothers, the children most likely to commit crime later on.Liberals, and Media Matters of course (the link above) are of course making a major fuss out of this.
Yes, he misspoke. It's wince-inducing statement, something you know someone shouldn't have said.
Why shouldn't Bennett have said what he did? It's true. Moreover, liberals and their mascot groups have been using pretended high dudgeon to silence such uncomfortable truths for long enough, no? And your Curmudgeon, for one, is getting pretty damned tired of being told what he can and cannot say.
As of 2003, the illegitimacy rate among American black mothers was 69%. Don't take your Curmudgeon's word for it; go check the Statistical Abstract of the United States. Of course, "illegitimate child" is another phrase we're not supposed to use any more. Women don't have illegitimate children today; they have "non-marital births." Nevertheless, illegitimacy correlates with teen and young-adult criminality with amazing strength. So it's beyond doubt that an abortion pogrom against black mothers would reduce the future crime rate, just as it's beyond argument, precisely as Bennett said, that such a measure would be a moral horror, unjustifiable by any means.
At this time, certain behaviors, certain pathologies, and certain risks to others, are concentrated in particular races, sexes, ethnicities, creeds, sexual orientations, and sports enthusiasms. It doesn't matter to the present whether those correlations might be subject to revision in the future. To refuse to admit such unpleasant facts doesn't efface them; it gives them disproportionate power, by excluding them from candid scrutiny and analysis.
The other aspect of such "unspeakable truths" is that pretending to offense over their utterance sits at the very core of left-wing political strategy. The Left's entire attack on the ideals of this country is based on exploiting our desire to please and our aversion to offending others. Over the long haul, it can't work; it contradicts human nature to remain passive when under attack. But over the short term, the enemies of liberty and the rule of law can use it to depress the opposition to their social engineering schemes.
You could hardly make a larger contribution to the national discourse than this: when a leftist dares to castigate you for speaking an unspeakable truth, rear up on your rhetorical hind legs and bellow back at doubled volume. Not only will it establish that you can't be cowed; it will put him on notice that his game is over.
It should have been over before it started, but that's a topic for a separate screed.
Comments
Let’s turn it around, then. “If you aborted every Irish Catholic baby in this country, the rate of American contributions to the Irish Republican Army and other Irish Catholic terrorist groups would go way down. Of course, that would be impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible.”
Regardless of the fact that it is true, such a statement would not make me welcome among Irish Catholic conservatives, which would be a shame, because I can use all the political allies I can get.
Daniel Day
Corbett, OregonPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30/2005 at 08:04 PM* Dramatic sigh *
As a black man (married with children), I hardly blinked an eye when I heard Bill Bennett’s comments. Cause I understood what he was saying from the jump. And I’ll be lying to you if I haven’t heard some of my fellow black folks say the same thing. BUT we wouldn’t do that. Why? Cause we’re not Nazis. President Bush ISN’T Adolf Hitler. So… Whatever!
Personally, as a dictator-in-thought-ready-for-reality-anytime, I would abort Dunkin Donuts in favor the local mom & pop donut shops!
Posted by T-Steel on 09/30/2005 at 08:55 PMI ... dunno about this. Nice people don’t say such things in vast public fora (e.g., on the radio). They eschew doing so for many reasons that have nothing to do with fear of confronting “uncomfortable truths,” or complying with anyone’s imposed agenda of censorship.
My Mom always told me that it was impolite and unwise to whup up a radio audience of several million angry crackers by paraliptically reifying genocide.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30/2005 at 10:47 PMAgreed. THe White House statement in regards to this is spineless and adds to the power of the race lords.
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has writtent the most thoughtful essay I’ve seen on this topic.
Bennett should not apologize. Period.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30/2005 at 11:02 PMThe day Bill Bennett leads the “Army of Crackers” against we black folks, then that’s the day I grab the ol’ shotgun (and various other delicacies) and handle business. ‘Till then, t’aint worried.
Posted by T-Steel on 09/30/2005 at 11:04 PMT-Steel, you sound like an honest man. And a brave one, to be willing to stand up and acknowledge that there really _is_ a problem. With more like you, maybe someday there will be a solution. As long as we can’t talk about it openly, solution just isn’t a possibility.
Thank you for your honesty.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/01/2005 at 01:37 PMDaniel Day
Corbett, OregonWhy am I not surprised that you simply don’t or won’t understand.
Another NW moonbat making me regret my decision to stay in Oregon.
Facts are facts. Oh that’s right, you liberals are all about feelings. The facts be damned.
Sucks to be you.
Posted by Ranger 6 on 10/01/2005 at 02:27 PMYou are jumping to several unfounded conclusions, Ranger 5.
What I am saying is, the example that came into Bennett’s head was “aborting all black babies to prevent crime”. I don’t believe for a moment that Bennett really intends such a thing, but that’s not the point. The point is, he is too tone-deaf to realize how offensive it sounds. Some delicacy needs to be used when discusing race and crime, at least in a public forum. This seems to me to be the same level of common sense and tact that usually keeps me from bringing up sensitive topics with my wife, friends, etc. Francis’ point about constricting intellectual debate and the Left’s attempt to censor uncomfortable truths is perfectly valid, of course; maybe I should have said so in my original post. I am arguing here about where to draw the line between “tact” and “obsequious political correctness”.
My agenda is to make not only black conservative/libertarians comfortable on this side of the political fence, it’s to make fence-sitting blacks comfortable on this side as well. Bennett’s tone-deafness and naivete does not further my agenda, it hinders it.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/01/2005 at 04:32 PM>>The point is, he is too tone-deaf to realize how offensive it sounds.>>
In other words, he is oblivious to race. That sounds to me like _non_ racist.
>>My agenda is to make not only black conservative/libertarians comfortable on this side of the political fence, it’s to make fence-sitting blacks comfortable on this side as well.>>
In other words, let’s just ignore that elephant standing in the middle of the living room. Don’t look now, but we are in the middle of a stampede of elephants, and if we don’t talk about it _frankly_, we are all going to get run over by them.
>> Bennett’s tone-deafness and naivete does not further my agenda, it hinders it.>>
Does your agenda have any goals other than to
make everybody “comfortable”?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/01/2005 at 06:26 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
