Howard Dean: Weapon of Self Destruction V3.0

DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s slips of the tongue in the past have been well documented here.  A few examples before I proceed to the latest are:

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization,” the failed presidential hopeful told the crowd at the Roosevelt Hotel, where he and six other candidates spoke at the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman. –January 30, 2005
——————————————-

“We’re going to use Terri Schiavo later on … This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it’s going to be an issue in 2008 because we’re going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, ‘Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?’ ” –April 15, 2005 at a gay rights group’s breakfast in West Hollywood.
———————————-

But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh. “I’m not very dignified,” he said. “But I’m not running for president anymore.” In fact, as part of his commitment to lead the party for the next four years, he has sworn not to seek any office until after 2008. I’m not running for president anymore.” –April 20, 2005 (Star Tribune link no longer works, so I’m providing an alternate source) at a benefit for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota
——————————————

Dean’s 25-minute speech to the Campaign for America’s Future annual gathering was interrupted frequently by applause, but his line about Republican work habits also produced an undertow of ‘’oohs’’ and ‘’aahs.’’ Asserting that some Florida voters stood in line for eight hours in November, Dean said that was a hardship for people who ‘’work all day and then pick up their kids at child care.’’ But, he said, Republicans could stand in eight-hour lines ‘’because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.’’ –June 2, 2005, in a 25-minute speech to the Campaign for America’s Future in Washington, DC

Well, the Dean of Disology is at it again. This time, in comments about Bill Bennett:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — Former Republican Secretary of Education William Bennett remarked yesterday on his radio show that, "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."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

"Bill Bennett’s hateful, inflammatory remarks regarding African Americans are simply inexcusable. They are particularly unacceptable from a leader in the conservative movement and former Secretary of Education, once charged with the well being of every American school child. He should apologize immediately. This kind of statement is hardly compassionate conservatism; rather, Bennett’s comments demonstrate a reprehensible racial insensitivity and ignorance. Are these the values of the Republican Party and its conservative allies? If not, President Bush, Ken Mehlman and the Republican Leadership should denounce them immediately as hateful, divisive and worthy only of scorn.

"As Americans, we should focus on the virtues that bring us together, not hatred that tears us apart and unjustly scapegoats fellow Americans."

But what did Bennett actually SAY? Read on:

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well —

CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. 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.

As John Cole – who has made clear in the past and in this post what he thinks of Bennett – points out (emphasis his):

There is nothing for him to apologize for regarding this statement. It is a statement of fact, he was not advocating it, and, in fact, he noted that it would be an “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do.”

Yep.

Howard Dean is being a demagogue.  As usual.  Will the media call him on this? I won’t hold my breath.

UPDATE: The WH has officially condemned Bennett’s remarks.  Sigh.  Jeff Goldstein writes:

And the White House, increasingly incapable of taking a principled stand, provides these disingenuous race baiters with cover—presumably still realing from the last round of disingenuous race baiting, which came in guise of Hurricane outrage.

I don’t disagree with that at all.

(Cross-posted at California Conservative)

UPDATE 2: The Washington Post has linked to ST. Heh!  Welcome, WaPo readers :)

57 thoughts on “Howard Dean: Weapon of Self Destruction V3.0

  1. Yes! God-d**n right….You’re right on the money.

    This is just another example of the Left taking things out of context, mixing it in with a helping of hysteria and, topping it off with a good old “ain’t we special” self slap on the back!

    They’re pathetic

    Edited curse word – in case young folk stop by :) — ST

  2. Pingback: California Conservative » Howard Dean: Weapon of Self Destruction V3.0

  3. A racial breakdown of who died after Katrina isn’t available but if I were a Democrat, I would be looking for any diversion I could find after the miserable record in a Democratic controlled city and state.

  4. What the Dems are doing…consciously or not..is defining themselves such that their core constituency will be people who are filled with anger and resentment, and are more interested in expressing it than in doing anything tangible.

  5. I tend to regard the entire Dean spectacle as an unending source of amusement, in that much of what he says is so outlandishly ridiculous yet taken as gospel by so many light-headed, should-know-better liberals. A cartoon the Mad Hatter’s kids might watch, and I find myself laughing when I know I should be shaking my head in both pity and disgust. 😕

  6. To me. This is another on top of 1,000 examples of the media not reporting truthfully.

    This morning on the way to work even talk radio hosts like Eric Hogue (conservative) were taking Bennett to task and I was dying to see what the comment was in context.

    Bennett said the truth out of an extrapolation based on the logic of the book Freakonomics and then said that would be WRONG and immoral.

    The media is OUT of CONTROL. They need the people of this country to continue to vote for the people they lambaste until the media gets it that they should stop lambasting and start reporting.

  7. Thank God for the internet. Thirty years ago all we had was the MSM, and this sort of exaggeration. How did we survive without bloggers who could actually check the facts.

  8. Since when does the head of the DNC attack fellow party members? Yesterday he went out of his way to make fun of Chuck Schumer(I don’t like him, but that is besides the point). Someone ought to tell Dean that he will be held against every democrat running for office in 06′ and 08’!

  9. Well, what Bennett SHOULD have said is “…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 EDUCATE every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”

    Dean’s characterization of Bennett stands.

  10. Taking someone’s words out of context and making them sound as if they stand alone is what the left does best. Is anyone really surprised that this is being blown out of all proportion??

    :arrow:Mr. Dean might as well be screaming at the top of his lungs again – that made more sense than this does.

  11. Conservatives Cut ‘n Run if a Republican asks to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
    Liberals circle the wagons, defend the accused, attack the accusor, and ignore the accustaion.
    Recent examples- VP Gore “no controlling legal authority” concerning campaigning from White House office.
    Pres. Clinton- “Legally accurate without volunteering information” in Grand Jury Testimony rather than providing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
    Republicans who try to stand up to bullies, must be prepared to stand alone!

  12. Zorro,

    The conversation wasn’t on education. The conversation was an extrapolation of a stupid argument by the book Freakonomics. Seems you have a problem with what Freakonomics was saying and someone pointing out how immoral and illogical their point was.

    If you’ll go to the entire discussion you’ll see what I mean. Otherwise your point is moot and meaningless as the conversation wasn’t about education.

  13. Zorro,
    I’ll post it again because you were lazy the first time. Here it is:

    BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well –

    CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

    BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. 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.

  14. “Someone ought to tell Dean that he will be held against every democrat running for office in 06′ and 08′!”

    Pam, I don’t think ANYbody puts Deany in the corner.

  15. Pingback: Kerfuffles

  16. Pingback: GOP Bloggers

  17. If every white baby in the USA were aborted, crime would be reduced. If every baby (of any race) were aborted, crime would be reduced. Wonder why he chose to single out blacks . . . could it be that Bill Bennett is racist?

  18. Dr. Bennett has had enough experience with the media to know it would use any opportunity it got to pillory him and other conservatives. It ought not be that way, but reality exists. It’s easier not to say something than have to go back and try to get out the truth of what you said and/or what you meant. Liberals know he’s no racist, but that doesn’t matter a whit. As James Carville once told Larry King, “This is wah, Larry!” Conservative leadership would do well to accept that and gird up their loins for battle, not remain milquetoasts.

  19. ArizonaTeach- I wan’t a fan of Terry McCaulliff, but I don’t remember him making fun of fellow democrats. Dean is just off the charts:shock:

  20. :twisted:The Truth About Mike Malloy…

    “On the House: The Bizarre Killing of Michael Malloy” hits the shelves Oct. 4. It’s the true story of a Depression-era drunk who thwarted numerous attempts on his life. All except the last one, that is. The author’s web site is http://www.simon-read.com. Cheers.:mrgreen:

  21. freedom wrote, “could it be that Bill Bennett is racist?”

    For those who like to make accusations and act like they know what’s in a conservative’s mind…..(aren’t liberal’s action’s great?)

  22. Pingback: The Unalienable Right

  23. Just shows how you can take something out of context and make it sound really bad. Bwahahahahah.

    Of course he should apologize, edited insult. –ST

    “…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.”

    It doesn’t matter that he’s positing it as a purely hypothetical and reprehensible possibility. The racist element is that he really believes it would work because he thinks black babies are congenitally criminally-inclined: more black babies, more crime; fewer black babies, less crime.

    People used to say the same thing about the Irish too, Mr. Bennett.

  24. Here’s the full context. What part of his statement do you not understand? He says he thinks the proposition – however reprehensible – is true.

    “BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. 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.”

    He needn’t apologize for suggesting it as a hypothetical, because he adds that this is morally reprehensible. Obviously. He’s anti-abortion, for one thing.

    He should apologize for believing that this would work, because he clearly believes black babies are criminals in the cradle. He’s a racist.

  25. It’s not me who has the problem understanding things in context. It’s you. You just keep on spinning it into something it’s not – most likely because you *want* to believe the man is a racist, not because anything he says actually indicates it. When you’ve got three lefty bloggers (who aren’t small fries in the blogosphere by any stretch of the imagination) defending Bennett, I’d say it’s *you* with the understanding problem, not me.

  26. Are you saying he doesn’t believe that if all black babies were aborted the crime rate would go down?

    Or, are you saying that that is not a racist and morally reprehensible thing to say?

    That’s what I don’t understand.

  27. Maybe this post by one of your fellow liberals can explain it better than I can:

    Not only is Bennett clearly not advocating a campaign of genocidal abortion against African-Americans, but the empirical claim here is unambiguously true. Similarly, if you aborted all the male fetuses, all those carried by poor women, or all those carried by Southern women, the crime rate would decline. Or, at least, in light of the fact that southern people, poor people, black people, and male people have a much greater propensity to commit crime than do non-southern, non-black, non-poor, or non-male people that would have to be our best guess. The consequences, clearly, would be far-reaching and unpredictable, but the basic demographic and criminological points here can’t be seriously disputed.

    Nor, as Bennett says, can the moral point be seriously disputed — doing any of that would be wrong.

    Your questions aren’t really relevant to the central point of Bennett’s comments, as Yglesia’s explains above. I suppose now you think he’s a racist, too.

  28. Bill Bennett’s statement, “you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down” is very racist and if he believes what he said, then he is a racist. Implying that just because a person is born of a certain race makes it more likely that he or she will be a criminal is about as racist as one can get.

    The demographic and criminology points mentioned by Yglesia’s can easily be disputed. The race of a baby, the region where a baby’s parents live, or how rich or poor a baby’s parents are, have very little to do with someone’s propensity to commit crime. The main factor in determining whether someone is more likely or less likely to commit crime is the environment in which the person grows up. It has nothing to do with the race of the parents. A black baby that is born to two happily married surgeons living in Beverly Hills is much less likely to commit crimes when he gets older than a white baby born to a single white mother, who is a drug addict living in a drug-infested neighborhood. The reason why African-Americans have a higher crime rate than whites is because a higher percentage of African-Americans grow up in bad environments that are more likely to produce criminals.

  29. A much more likely reason of why this country has such a high crime rate and is so dysfunctional compared to other industrial countries is because of the ignorant religious beliefs of William Bennett, President Bush, and other Christian Conservatives:

    LINK

  30. Sorry Sister Toldjah, stating facts isn’t intolerance. Forcing religious beliefs on others is intolerance, which you don’t seem to have a problem with.

    It’s too bad you had to go that route, Brian. — ST

  31. Sister Toldjah,

    My statement was based on your strong support for President Bush and conservative Republicans who are trying to force their religious beliefs on others. Part of their agenda is forcing Christian beliefs on other people such as:

    Abstinence only sex education. President Bush is trying to prevent children from learning all of the facts about preventing unwanted pregnancies and STD’s because it goes against his religious beliefs or the beliefs of his supporters. The United States is the only industrial country where “abstinence only” sex education is taught and the United States has by far the largest teen pregnancy rate, abortion rate, STD rate of any industrialized country.

    President Bush’s appointees to the FDA prevented the “morning after pill” from being sold over the counter at pharmacies, even though it has been shown to be safe, because it goes against his religious beliefs or the beliefs of his supporters.

    When the U.S. Department of Justice first drafted a national protocol for assisting sexual assault survivors, it contained recommendations that rape survivors should be offered immediate reproductive health services. When the final document was released last December, all such discussion and recommendations were expunged from it. It appears that even health care for rape victims is forced to take a back seat to politics.

    President Bush has stated that his religious beliefs of a creator or “intelligent designer” should be taught in science alongside scientific facts.

    These are just a few examples of the intolerance of President Bush and many other Republicans.

    To clarify what I meant by “the ignorant beliefs of William Bennett, President Bush, and other Christian Conservatives”, I was referring to their belief that their religious beliefs applied to everyone else, not just themselves. I have nothing against people who follow the Christian Religion or any other religion as long as they can accept that their religious beliefs do not apply to other people.

  32. As a conservative I’m thinking that Bennet made a big mistake. Why go there? Why play their game?

    He used a very poor example to get his point across. The loopies along with their MSM partners will be slowly roasting him for weeks.

    But something else tells me that he is a brilliant guy and this was a calculated risk. And in no way should he apologize.

    Just my observation.

  33. Brian,
    A truly tolerant person may acknowledge numerous reasons for the FDA to reject over the counter sale of a morning after pill. According to the FDA website the pill may not be safe for everyone – there is insufficient data to suggest it would be safe for females under 16. If the FDA rushes to release the drug and it later turns out there are unintended consequences, some future activist could accuse Bush of callous disregard for the reproductive rights of women.
    If a person believes killing is wrong it would be intolerant of another person to conclude that belief was an attempt to impose religion upon others. One could accept the belief without imposing the religion.
    “Scientific” tests are prone to two types of errors – either rejecting the truth or accepting a lie. Considering the consequences of either error, why rush to judgement. This pill is currently available with a perscription and if it is safe it will be available over the counter. —But then you would not be able to bash Bush.

  34. Sister Toldjah,
    If Bryan’s facts are accurate – it is the environment that is correlated to crime, — and the demographics show hyphenated Americans have a disproprotionate number of single parent, drug addicted, poorly educated, etc., Bennet’s comments could be correct, independent of Bennet’s position on race.
    It has been observed that females get pregnant more often than males, and a police department may have a policy to assign pregant officers to other than patrol duties, is it be sexist to show that females may be disproportionately assigned to restricted duty?
    Political correctness has led people to ignore the message and attack the messenger. Those who would deny the truth are quick to apply labels –racists, sexists, homophobes — to prevent debate.

  35. Brian wrote, “who are trying to force their religious beliefs on others.”

    Inaccurate accusation as liberals tend to do. But… I’ll bite. Prove Brian by citing which legislation was passed how your inaccurate accusation is true.

    Example 1: Abstinence works everytime. It’s common sense and logical. It’s not an exclusive thought of only religious people. Democrats vote in favor of this. You are in the minority on this issue and portray it in a wierd psycho fashion.

    Example 2: This pill has been kept in the same condition by Clinton.

    Example 3: There are legal and funding issues and state vs. federal issues here and the onlly thing liberals like you can do is take an elementary school approach of name calling and acting like you know what is in someone elses head.

    Example 4: Many scientists agree that absent an ability to explain that this is a theory that can be taught. Again elementary broad brush name calling.

    Brian laughably wrote, “These are just a few examples of the intolerance of President Bush and many other Republicans.

    I’d say you just showed your intolerance to alternative views. VIVIDLY. 😮

    In reference to your last paragraph… Wouldn’t it be nice if we can ban liberal views just like you want to ban the views of the majority of Americans. But we don’t attempt that. We actually debate and allow for debate, unlike CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN for decades. Oh the horrors. 😛

  36. Pingback: Cobb

  37. Per Brian-“President Bush has stated that his religious beliefs of a creator or “intelligent designer” should be taught in science alongside scientific facts.

    These are just a few examples of the intolerance of President Bush and many other Republicans.“- Brian what facts are being taught now? The only other thing I know of is evoltion, and last time I checked, it was still just a theory. Who is the intolerant one here. The one that asks for both, or the one that demands just one?

  38. Baklava,

    The examples I gave are examples of religious views being forced on others. They are religious views about sex, contraception, and a creator.

    You said, “Abstinence works everytime. It’s common sense and logical.”

    Once again you are distorting what I said. I never said abstinence doesn’t work. I said, “abstinence only education doesn’t work”. There is a very big difference. Not everyone chooses to stay abstinent until marriage. “Abstinence only” education does not help anyone who chooses not to stay abstinent. Telling students in class they should stay abstinent until they’re married does not stop them from having sex. Withholding information from students about preventing pregnancies and STD’s by using condoms and other types of contraception does not stop them from having sex. Preventing students from having access to condoms or contraception does not prevent them from having sex. For some reason Christian Conservatives are unable to understand this.

    Example 2.
    The FDA did not consider making the pill available for over-the-counter sales until 2003.

    Example 3.
    What do legal and funding issues and state vs. federal issues have to do with recommending that rape survivors should be offered immediate reproductive health services?

    I’m not showing any intolerance to alternate views.

    I’m not telling anyone that they should not stay abstinent until marriage. I’m not opposed to telling students that abstinence is the most effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD’s. I’m only opposed to withholding factual information from students because people with a certain religious belief don’t want students to know these facts.

    I’m not opposed to anyone refusing to use morning-after pills. I’m only opposed to people who want to make it more difficult for women to use it for those women who do want to use it.

    I’m not opposed to rape victims refusing to make use of any reproductive services after they were raped. I’m only opposed to preventing rape victims from having access or being told about these services.

    I’m not opposed to religious beliefs about a creator or intelligent designer being taught in a religious setting. I am opposed to religious beliefs being taught as scientific theories in public schools.

  39. Pam,

    The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. It has nothing to do with whether or not the phenomena is a fact or not. The Theory of Relativity is a scientific theory but it is still a fact the E=MC(squared). The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory but it is still a fact that plants and animals evolve.

  40. Brian, your ignorance is truely astounding. Site your “facts” that plants and animals evolve! The definitly adapt, but that isn’t evolution. Evolution is the changing of one species to another.

    Fact is black’s disproportionatly have a higher percentage of criminal activity than the general population. So where is Bennet’s use of a true fact racist? You claim to be all about fact but in reality you are all about emotion.

  41. John,

    It is a scientific fact that plants and animals evolve. If you’re not aware of this, you have a poor understanding of science. From the article in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species.

    The color of someone’s skin does not play a role in causing a person to become a criminal. During the 1990’s the crime rate in New York City fell by over 50%. According to you, Sister Toldjah, and William Bennett, in order for this to happen, there would have had to be a decrease in the black population of New York City by over 50%. This was not the case. In New York City the crime rate was able to drop dramatically without a corresponding drop in the black population.

  42. “According to you, Sister Toldjah, and William Bennett, in order for this to happen, there would have had to be a decrease in the black population of New York City by over 50%.”

    That’s not true and I’ll answer why in the next response.

    “This was not the case. In New York City the crime rate was able to drop dramatically without a corresponding drop in the black population.”

    That’s probably because under Guiliani, more criminals were prosecuted and put in jail for longer prison terms, Brian. Sheesh. In fact, that was the reason for the overall US crime rate drop during Clinton’s time in office was because of the dramatic decrease in crime under Guiliani in NYC and his ‘get tough’ approach to crime.

    You really need to learn how to examine the facts a bit better and quit reaching faulty conclusions about things other people have said.

  43. Sister Toldjah,

    Can you please make up your mind? Before you were agreeing with William Bennett that aborting black babies would reduce crime. Now your saying prosecuting more criminals and putting them in jail for longer terms reduces crime. So which is the main cause of crime, more black babies or not putting enough people in jail?

    The jail population in New York City peaked in 1992 when it reached 21,000 and has fallen dramatically since then. By the end of 2004 it had fallen to 14,000. This contradicts your statement that the crime rate in New York City was because “more criminals were prosecuted and put in jail for longer prison terms”. The crime rate fell most dramatically after 1994 at a time when the jail population was decreasing.

    The main reason for the very large decrease in the crime was because of the change in the environment. As I explained before the environment is the most significant factor in the crime rate, not how many black people there are. Rudolph Giuliani understands this. William Bennett does not. After Rudolph Giuliani became Mayor of New York City, he started cracking down on petty crimes such as graffitti, people jumping subway turnstiles, and other minor crimes. As a result of this, crimes in all categories fell dramatically. The number of murders per year fell from 2,000 to 600. This dramatic decrease in crime was accomplished without aborting black babies or throwing more blacks in jail. It was accomplished by improving the overall environment. When people grow up and live in a lawless society, they are more likely to become criminals than those who don’t, regardless of their race. This has been called the “Broken Window Theory”. From the following article:
    http://cms.longbeach.gov/citypros/prospagetext1.html

    First expressed by political scientist James Q. Wilson and criminologist George Kelling in an article for The Atlantic Monthly in 1982, the Broken Windows theory holds that if someone breaks a window in a building and it is not quickly repaired, others will be emboldened to break more windows. Eventually, the broken windows create a sense of disorder that attracts criminals, who thrive in conditions of public apathy and neglect.

    The Broken Windows theory was based on an experiment conducted 26 years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo. He took two identical cars, placing one on a street in a middle-class Palo Alto neighborhood and the other in a tougher neighborhood in the Bronx. The car in the Bronx, which had no license plate on it and was parked with its hood up, was stripped within a day. The car in Palo Alto sat untouched for a week, until Zimbardo smashed one of its windows with a sledgehammer. Within a few hours, it was stripped.

    In January 1994, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani put New York Police Commissioner William Bratton in charge of the NYPD. Bratton was selected because of his interpretation of the Broken Windows Theory. And Bratton turned Broken Windows loose on the streets of New York. Under Bratton, NYPD focused its full attention on combating petty street crime, the results have been astonishing. Crime went down dramatically in all 76 precincts, to levels not seen since the early 1970s. From 1993 through 1995, murder dropped 39 percent and burglary went down by a quarter. In 1997, 36 percent fewer cars were stolen, 31 percent fewer people were robbed, and 400 fewer people wound up on slabs at the city morgue.

  44. I strongly advise you to stop misrepresenting my position, Brian. I’ve made it very clear where I stand on this and there really shouldn’t be any confusion. In fact, I know there isn’t any confusion – you’re just trying to set up several strawman arguments to argue against.

    You made the following statement earlier:

    “This was not the case. In New York City the crime rate was able to drop dramatically without a corresponding drop in the black population”

    Which I clarified by saying that the crime rate dropped in NYC not because of a decrease in the black population but because of the arrest, prosecution, and long sentences that criminals receive, whether they be black, white or otherwise. I was right and at least you’ll acknowledge that the crime rate went down in NYC during Guiliani, even if you (deliberately) choose to confuse everything else in your attempt to imply I’m just as “racist” as Bill Bennett.

    Also, please scroll back up and read the post from popular liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias I linked to … do you think he’s a racist for what he said, too?

  45. Sister Toldjah,

    I will acknowledge that you’re not a racist if you will acknowledge that just because someone is born with dark skin, it doesn’t make it more likely that they will become a criminal and there are many factors other than race that contribute to someone becoming a criminal. The fact that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are criminals is due to factors other than the color of their skin.

    Do you agree that the fact that the crime rate in New York City was dramatically decreased without any significant change in the number of blacks shows that by concentrating on the factors contributing to crime can lower the crime rate without reducing the black population?

  46. “I will acknowledge that you’re not a racist if you will acknowledge that just because someone is born with dark skin, it doesn’t make it more likely that they will become a criminal”

    I have never argued that point once. And for that matter, neither did Bill Bennett. You are making it sound like a genetic argument, when it was not. That was your first mistake.

    “Do you agree that the fact that the crime rate in New York City was dramatically decreased without any significant change in the number of blacks shows that by concentrating on the factors contributing to crime can lower the crime rate without reducing the black population? ”

    I never argued that the black population should be reduced in order to cut crime! But what’s happened is that the high number of criminals in NYC, many of whom are black, were put in jail with longer sentences during Guiliani’s tenure – that is a FACT and thankfully you’ve acknowledged it.

    I honestly do not know WHERE or HOW you come up with the conclusions you do about Republicans but one thing you have convinced me of this evening is that you are not an “independent” as you’ve said earlier. If you are, you are the most liberal independent I have ever come across because your arguments are classic arguments liberals I’ve argued with in the past usually make with regards to race.

    I have NOT said I agree with aborting black babies in order to reduce the crime rate nor did I say in NY the reduction in crime was due to a reduction in the black population. It just so happened that those committing the crimes in NY, many of whom were in the black community, were *taken off the streets* and hit with longer jail time. The discerning reader will note that either way – whether it’s “aborting black babies” or putting criminals in jail for longer jail sentences, would reduce crime … but no one argues in favor of aborting black babies for that purpose because the idea in and of itself is reprehensible!

    Furthermore, you (and others like you who are making the phony “Bennett is a racist” argument) KNOW that Bill Bennett is *anti-abortion* – so he’d be one of the last people you’d see argue for abortions under any circumstances!

    You’ve acknowledged that there is a higher crime rate as a percentage of the population in the black community than there is with white people. You have also acknowledged that Guiliani cut the crime rate in NYC because of his get tough policy on crime and keeping criminals in NYC (many of whom were black) behind bars longer. No one is arguing that being black genetically makes you a candidate for being a criminal. It’s the circumstances surrounding you, and how you react to them, that determines whether or not you become a criminal. In the case of the black community, the percentages are (unfortunately) high and Bennett’s *hypothetical* scenario (which he acknowledged was morally reprehensible) aborting black babies would reduce crime *because* of the surroundings that they may be born into. Putting criminals in jail for longer periods of time helps reduce crime, because it stops (for a time) repeat offenders. So in essence, you are in agreement with Bennett’s position. Because as a percentage of the population, the black crime rate is higher than the white crime rate which and no matter which way you slice it the crime rate would go down if those same black criminals were put behind bars for longer periods of time or if black babies were aborted (the latter of which NO ONE has argued in favor of).

    Do you now understand the comparison and will you please acknowledge you were incredibly offbase for thinking I was some kind of racist?

  47. Sister Toldjah,

    I understand that neither you nor William Bennett are advocating black babies should be aborted. What you are saying is that if this were to happen, it would lower the crime rate. I do not agree with this. It is possible that crime rate could drop if this happened but it is also possible that the crime rate could drop if this didn’t happen as it did in New York City. What I see as the biggest factor in the crime rate is the quality of the government, not the number of black people. If a city has a very good mayor and very good people working for him, it is possible to keep the crime rate low in the city regardless of how many black people live there.

    Please read my previous post again. During Rudolph Giuliani’s terms in office, the jail population decreased, not increased. The jail population in New York City peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing ever since then. Also the mayor isn’t the one who decides how long people are sentenced to jail. This is determined by judges. According to Rudolph Giuliani, the main factor in the lowering of the crime rate was that the city cracked down on petty crimes such as graffiti and people jumping turnstiles in subways. By not tolerating petty crimes, crime of all types were reduced. By changing the environment of the city to one where lawlessness was not tolerated, the number of people committing crimes started to drop. The jail population in New York City has gone down from 21,000 people in 1992 to 14,000 people by the end of 2004. Even with a dramatic decrease in the number of people locked up, the crime rate has remained low. The reason for this is because of the dramatic change in the environment that occurred after Rudolph Giuliani became mayor.

    As I said before, I’m not a Democrat, I’m an independent and I’m not a liberal. I’m conservative on some issues and I’m liberal on others. I’m in favor of the death penalty. I’m in favor of allowing the government to pay for children to attend private schools. I support free trade with most countries. I originally supported going to war against Iraq. I still would support the war if it wasn’t so poorly planned and carried out. I was especially appalled at our treatment of Iraqi prisoners. I don’t blindly follow any ideology. I prefer to think for myself and decide what is best.

  48. Brain wrote, “I still would support the war if it wasn’t so poorly planned and carried out.” Ever notice your opinions are always accusatory? Just let it be that it’s not going as you’d like in Iraq. 100% of people can agree with you there. But to say that there was no plan as you’ve done in earlier posts makes for accusations.

    Who wasn’t apalled by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Many of us have just said YOUR (and your fellow liberals) accusations that it was Bush’s policy to torture and over 60 front page stories on the NY Times have been way overboard. That’s not saying we liked the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. And it’s not blindly following an ideology to point out how absurd you and the NY Times are being and how erroneously accusatory you are being.

  49. Baklava,

    I’m not being accusatory, I’m stating the truth. The Bush Administration ignored warnings of an Iraqi insurgency and did not adequately plan to deal with one:
    http://globalsecurity.com/iraq/cia_warned.htm

    You said:

    Who wasn’t apalled by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Many of us have just said YOUR (and your fellow liberals) accusations that it was Bush’s policy to torture and over 60 front page stories on the NY Times have been way overboard.

    Once again you are distorting what I wrote and misrepresenting me as a liberal. I did not write that is Bush’s policy to torture. That is a lie.

    You asked “who wasn’t appalled by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners?”. One person who wasn’t appalled was Rush Limbaugh. Rush compared the torture to “college pranks” and called it “brilliant”.

    You said, “it’s not blindly following an ideology to point out how absurd you and the NY Times are being and how erroneously accusatory you are being.”

    Just because you disagree with what I wrote doesn’t make it erroneous.

    It seems that you are unwilling to criticize President Bush under any circumstances. If you’re not blindly following an ideology or President Bush, can you state where you disagree with President Bush and point out some mistakes he has made?

  50. You’re funny Brian. It’s English 101. Not even politics 101. You sentence after, “I’m stating the truth” is full of opinion and not facts. And to top it off, it’s an accusation.

    The best way I can describe it to you is this… Let’s say you are a parent, and in your professional life you are a psychologist and teen counselor. YOU have a plan. You know what you are dealing with. You know what the future can hold. YET your teenager makes you look like a failed parent who has no plan. Your teenager makes you look like you’ve ignored the warnings and didn’t know what to do.

    Now, you Brian can either choose to empathize with the parent’s struggle or choose to attack that parent verbally. You can realize that the parent can only do what they can do, but the teenager has their own mind and won’t be controlled. And the American left (you fit the pattern) is choosing to egg that teenager on and give aid and comfort to the wrong people. If you continue down that path you only convince people who have common sense that they can’t vote for a Democrat (the people with similar rhetoric).

    Concerning the Iraqi prisoners–this is what you wrote, “I originally supported going to war against Iraq. I still would support the war if it wasn’t so poorly planned and carried out. I was especially appalled at our treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

    You said you supported the war. You said you would still support the war if it wasn’t so poorly planned and carried out. As a follow up sentence to the “poorly planned” sentence you wrote, “I was especially appalled at our treatment of Iraqi prisoners as if that was the plan. If you didn’t mean that then my other statements still apply. Like this one, “Who wasn’t apalled by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners?”

    Which you followed up with an incorrect (shocking) interpretation, and allegation (also shocking) of Rush’s comments. I listened to Rush’s comments. Rush even went on for hours talking about how the left was purposely mistating what he said (and why do you guys have this pattern). He played his comments back from tape over and over. The left seems to have a problem with English 101. And actually asserts that they know better of what someone was saying than the person who originally said it. Quite ironic. Happened again with you and Bill Bennet. Full of accusations. Not truth. Opinions.

    Brian erroneously wrote, “It seems that you are unwilling to criticize President Bush under any circumstances.. Sister can vouch for me as I’ve used her blog to say that I only agree with the president about 70% of the time. While I have even said his policy on illegal immigration is acting with negligence, I as a person don’t have the flawed character to say that:
    1) I know Bush’s thoughts and make claims about them (for instance saying that Bush is for big business)
    2) Saying erroneous things such as Bush has no plan.

    People (including you ) who continue that pattern do not add to the debate. And they certainly don’t convince people to vote with them.

  51. Baklava,

    Did you read the article I linked to? If the article is accurate, then what I said is true. There are many more articles documenting many of the mistakes made by the Bush Administration in the war with Iraq. There was a cover story by Time Magazine a few weeks on this issue.

    I don’t think that it was part of the plan to torture prisoners.

    There is no comparison between the war in Iraq and a rebellious teenager. Comparing the two trivializes what is happening in Iraq. Close to two thousand Americans have died there. The country is becoming or is already ungovernable. The fact that you would make a comparison like that shows you don’t understand how serious this is.

    I never said I know Bushes thoughts. My comments are based on his actions, not his thoughts.

    Regarding Rush Limbaugh, I will post some of his comments. If you don’t see these comments as approving or brushing aside the torture of prisoners, please explain what they mean:

    I think a lot of the American culture is being feminized. I think the reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country.

    CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men —

    LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?

    You know, if you look at — if you, really, if you look at these pictures, I mean, I don’t know if it’s just me, but it looks just like anything you’d see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I’m — yeah. And get an NEA grant for something like this. I mean, this is something that you can see on stage at Lincoln Center from an NEA grant, maybe on Sex in the City — the movie. I mean, I don’t — it’s just me.

    All right, so we’re at war with these people. And they’re in a prison where they’re being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it’s pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation — and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the Arab world. And we’re sitting here, “Oh my God, they’re gonna hate us! Oh no! What are they gonna think of us?” I think maybe the other perspective needs to be at least considered. Maybe they’re gonna think we are serious. Maybe they’re gonna think we mean it this time. Maybe they’re gonna think we’re not gonna kowtow to them. Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver. Nobody got hurt. Nobody got physically injured. But boy there was a lot of humiliation of people who are trying to kill us — in ways they hold dear. Sounds pretty effective to me if you look at us in the right context.

  52. Back on topic: The Democrites once again shamelessly race-bait and race-monger to score political points. Once again they arch-hypocritically point fingers at Republicans when in fact they are the true racists for keeping black people on the virtual Democrite Political Plantation. The Democrites will dole out the bennies, paid for by other people’s taxes, in exchange for fealty. They’ll never advance blacks within their party and administrations to the high positions that GW Bush has done.

    They continue to peddle welfare handouts that tend to keep black people down, dependent on their largesse and destroying any spark of self-sufficiency they may have had.

    The Democrites are the real racists, the real enemy of the black people in America.

    And the poverty pimps like Jackson, Sharpton, and others are even worse, because they are the Bledsoes of their era. They are sellouts to the Democrite plantation masters, leading their followers not in the direction of true liberty, but firmly down the dark road of virtual political servitude. They do this for their own personal gain and to maintain their positions of privilege and wealth.

    Now I know this is way too much, too threatening a truth for you Liberal Democrites to deal with, but it is truth just the same.

    I would say to black Americans: Rise up and throw off the chains of your Democrite oppressors, who seek only to keep you dependent and virtually enslaved on their political plantation.

  53. Pingback: Villainous Company

Comments are closed.