Aborting Black Babies Will Reduce Crime Rate

QueEx · Sep 30, 2005

<center>"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"

 - William Bennet, former U.S. education secretary under Bush

[frame]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/[/frame]

QueEx · Sep 30, 2005

<center>Bennett Under Fire for Remark
on Crime and Black Abortions</center>

Washington Post
By Brian Faler
Special to The Washington Post
Friday, September 30, 2005; Page A05

Democratic lawmakers and civil rights leaders denounced conservative commentator William J. Bennett yesterday for suggesting on his syndicated radio show that aborting black children would reduce the U.S. crime rate.

The former U.S. education secretary-turned-talk show host said Wednesday 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." Bennett quickly added that such an idea would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do." But, he said, "your crime rate would go down."

Bennett's comments, flagged by the liberal news media watchdog group Media Matters for America, were quickly condemned by Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who issued a statement demanding that Bennett apologize. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) circulated a letter, signed by 10 of his colleagues, demanding that the Salem Radio Network suspend Bennett's show.

Wade Henderson, the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, demanded that the show be canceled.

"Bennett's statement is outrageous. As a former secretary of education, he should know better," Henderson said. "His program should be pulled from the air."

A spokeswoman for Salem Radio Network did not return three calls requesting comment.

Bennett, education secretary under then-President Ronald Reagan and director of drug policy during George H.W. Bush's administration has written a number of books stressing the importance of traditional values, including the 1993 bestseller "The Book of Virtues."

In 2003, he admitted he was a heavy gambler after news reports that he had lost millions of dollars in casinos.

Bennett's comments came Wednesday, during a discussion on his talk show "Morning in America." A caller had suggested that Social Security would be better funded if abortion had not been legalized in 1973 because the nation would have more workers paying into the system.

Bennett said "maybe," before referring to a book he said argued that the legalization of abortion is one of the reasons the crime rate has declined in recent decades. Bennett said he did not agree with that thesis.

"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," Bennett said, according to an audio clip posted on Media Matters for America's Web site. "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, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092902126.html

vitrifier · Sep 30, 2005

I don't even know what to say about this... it was a horrible thing to say, but even still not blatant enough to "prove" in the minds of white america that he is a racist, and that racism pervades the thoughts of those in power.

He'll evade criticism by saying "I meant it in a good way, that it would be bad to abort all black babies even if it would make the crime rate go down" and people will eventually get off of his case. Yet others will say what he said has truth to it and we should "explore all options" and have meaningful discussions of what he said, as if there were merit to it. Yet others will say that we should stop being so PC, and he has the right to say what's on his mind...

In this day and age, the president could say the exact same thing and his approval rating would be untouched. Bush ignored anything that had anythign to do with black people and still won the election.

muckraker10021 · Sep 30, 2005

<img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg">       <img src="http://www.bennettmornings.com/images/team/bennett.jpg">          <img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50">

     RepubliKlan Bill Bennett


Bill Bennett served as President Reagan's chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1981-1985) and Secretary of Education (1985-1988), and President Bush's "drug czar" (1989-1990). Bill Bennett is now the host of a nationally broadcast radio show from 6:00-9:00 a.m. (EST): Bill Bennett's Morning in America.
<table border="7" width="550" id="table1" bordercolorlight="#FF0000" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" bordercolordark="#0000FF" bgcolor="#FFE1E1"><tr><td><center>
<img border="0" src="http://foxtrotters.tripod.com/blodline2.gif" width="532" height="24">

     RepubliKlan Bill Bennett...says

"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"

Click below to listen to <img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50">RepubliKlan Bennett's rant
<img border="0" src="http://foxtrotters.tripod.com/blodline2.gif" width="532" height="24">
[QT]http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/bennett-200509280006.mp3[/QT]
</center></td>
</tr>
</table>
 Now is anyone surprised at Bennett's comments?????
If we take a look at the agenda of the RepubliKlans. Bennett's "MEIN KAMPF" type rant is not shocking. Read the chapter in "MEIN KAMPF" that Bennett agrees with for yourself. Click the link below :

Mein Kampf by
Adolf Hitler Chapter XI: Nation and race
        <img src="http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/eagle.gif">

<img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"> The RepubliKlan Party is. 

• Unapologetically Racist
• Homophobic
• Anti-Sex Education
• Anti- Immigrant
• Anti- Minimum Wage
• Anti-Abortion Rights
• Anti-Consumer Protection (pro-tort reform)
• Anti-Social Security Insurance
• Anti- Environmental Conservation Laws
• Anti-Progressive Taxation
• Anti-Banning the Death Penalty
• Anti-Feminism
• Anti-Affirmative Action
• Anti-Small Business Administration
• Anti-Substantially Increasing Foreign Aid
• Anti-Government Student College Tuition Grants
• Anti-ANY Gun Control
• Anti- Non-Christian Religion Tolerance 

Do the RepubliKlan <img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"> Party Policies embrace what Bennett said????

OF COURSE THEY DO!!!!

<hr noshade size="12" color="#000066"></hr>

<img src="http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/bush/images/aboutbush.jpg" width="125" height="111">
After passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,which made it US apartheid illegal and ended de facto racism against America's Black citizens, the first President George Bush, then a House member, told his fellow Texans: " The new Civil Rights Act was passed to protect 14% of the people. I'm worried about the other 86%." -Quote Source- The Dallas Morning News, October 28, 1964; Bush Bulletin, October 30, 1964. 

<hr noshade size="12" color="#000066"></hr>



Can't Go Wrong With SAGE

<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/BeadsOnCouch20.jpg"> 
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/BeadsOnCouch26.jpg"> 
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/BeadsOnCouch28.jpg"> 
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/BeadsOnCouch29.jpg"> 
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/BeadsOnCouch30.jpg"> 
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/BeadsOnCouch31.jpg"> 
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/BeadsOnCouch35.jpg"> 
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/BeadsOnCouch36.jpg">

nittie · Sep 30, 2005

This guy is just try to make "brownie" points with the right wing after being outted for gambling and drinking problems, he's been in the game too long to not know a statement like that wouldn't stir up some people and get him back on t.v. you would think white people would be mad because they are the ones he's playing for fools.

JUju2005 · Sep 30, 2005

nittie said:
This guy is just try to make "brownie" points with the right wing after being outted for gambling and drinking problems, he's been in the game too long to not know a statement like that wouldn't stir up some people and get him back on t.v. you would think white people would be mad because they are the ones he's playing for fools.

cosign, there is more to this than a dumb statement.

vitrifier · Oct 1, 2005

I forgot what I was about to say.....

Brown Pride · Oct 2, 2005

What the heel do you expect from a Crackka Rephucklikkkan :smh:

Brown Pride · Oct 2, 2005

What the fuck do you expect from a Crackka Rephucklikkkan :smh:

Havoc · Oct 2, 2005

Adrianna Sage....mmmhh

The guy is a moron, and should be hung from the tree.

QueEx · Oct 2, 2005

vitrifier said:
I forgot what I was about to say.....

LMBAO. Me too. Speechless!

QueEx

rcr10101 · Oct 3, 2005

I just finished reading an interview on www.bennettmornings.com. That
s his websites name. He stands by his words as a hypothetical argument that he partakes in all the time as a philosophy professor. He has stated he doesn't feel an apology is warranted and doesn't mention one word about the thought that the crime rate is directly proportion to the amount of "black" children born. Never mind the thought of aborting all black babies. I really thought maybe he didn't mean it or maybe his words were taken out of context. Wow was I wrong..... Really opens your eyes.

peanut1 · Oct 3, 2005

Check this out. It has the audio link of what was said. Peace.

http://blackinformant.com/2005/10/01/we-hear-what-we-want-to-hear-we-defend-what-we-want-to-defend/

muckraker10021 · Oct 5, 2005

<img src="http://www.nynewsday.com/images/nycnews/nyndlogosmall.gif">


Let's not scapegoat this herd spokesman



<img src="http://www.newsday.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2004-02/369969.jpg">
by LES PAYNE

October 2, 2005

So the former U.S. secretary of education suggests that the way to lower the crime rate is to abort "every black baby" in America. What's the big fuss?

Is not William Bennett's final solution to the crime problem a logical - albeit cataclysmic - conclusion for those who consider African-Americans a criminal type? Much evidence suggests that this sentiment is held by a large if not majority segment to whom Bennett merely gave voice. Unlike Herr Bennett, however, most Americans will not slip and reveal themselves in conversation with strangers, and thus their deeply held opinions rarely show up in polls. So we must rely on anecdotes and the life experience of the black citizenry who are often suspiciously viewed - and treated - as criminals by their white brethren.

Let's start with the police. Does anyone really doubt that many cops, not a few of whom come from criminal families themselves, view black men as potential criminals? Among civilians, the unannounced appearance of a solitary black in a room, or on a dark street, is enough to set strangers rocking back on their heels and clutching their handbags.

What about the lone black male professional in the elevator or on the railway platform?

Such encounters loose such a panic as to provoke a reactionary malady among black men. They create coping mechanisms designed to reassure whites that they are indeed not criminals. Some look passively at the floor, others strike up a conversation, being careful to remove the bass from their voice. One well-known journalist admitted that when awaiting a train with a white stranger on a rail platform, he would sing a few bars of an opera, I assume in falsetto.

There's plenty to suggest that such racial interaction is as common as it is troubling. It goes well beyond the yakking of such bloviators as Bennett. Consider these few anecdotes:

The New Jersey State police force, as the most widely surveyed agency, was proven to stop and search a widely disproportionate number of African-American turnpike motorists for no explainable reason other than their race.

The U.S. Justice Department documented that black motorists nationwide are searched and manhandled more than white Americans.

New York City puts a prosecutor - not an educator - in charge of its vast public school system that is more than 85 percent black and Latino.

Despite the supermarket of crime conducted by Halliburton, serial killers, polluters, sitting politicians and the interlocking Mafia families, the overwhelming majority of offenders who get slammed into U.S. prisons are blacks and Latinos.

Taxicab drivers routinely pass up black fares and admit to equating African-Americans with criminals.

Blacks huddled in the Superdome during the recent New Orleans flooding were subjected to the media's belief that - because of their race - they likely committed every crime falsely rumored to have been pulled off, no matter how ludicrous and exotic.

This quick willingness to accept blacks as criminals without requisite evidence is not uncommon in the media or the police precinct, and it locks William Bennett in step with far more Americans than would admit it.

OK, one must perhaps concede here that the former cabinet secretary is in rarer company with his hypothesis that such Draconian action be taken to shrink the crime problem. It is indeed a pogrom, for in suggesting that "every black baby in the country" be aborted, Bennett condemns every black man, woman and child in the U.S. as a potential criminal.

Bennett's final solution does not excuse from his criminal roster the likes of such black suspects as Archbishop Wilton Gregory, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rev. Gardner C. Taylor, or even the most upright Justice Clarence Thomas. If we can excuse Bennett his exuberance, we must resist every temptation to drive him into the wilderness as a scapegoat.

It would be hypocritical to march yet another high-profile white person into exile in the desert as punishment for his sins of expressing racial beliefs so central to those of his fellow Americans. This cleansing ritual serves to make the republic feel good about itself while allowing the racial sins of dominant society to press on unacknowledged and unabated. In the past the sacrificial goats have been such violators as Al Campanis of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Marge Schott of the Cincinnati Reds, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, Andy Rooney and other personalities singled out to take the arrow for their group.

This is not to say that Bennett and the others stand innocent. But rather, why all the fuss? These finally are words only, uttered in what is supposed to be this very citadel of free speech.

Racism in America must be dealt with in some way other than this periodic, ritualistic scapegoatism of one invidious individual - who so clearly shares the racial value system of his fellow countrymen.

Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.

vitrifier · Oct 5, 2005

The infamous (Bennet/aborting black babies)- Freakonomics [d/l]

The now infamous book Freakonomics that Bennett was discussing when he made the claim that crime would decrease if all black babies were aborted...

Now you can read it and make your own decisions... I haven't read it yet, but it looked like an interesting read...

(yousendit and rapidshare were messing up)

Torrent: http://www.mininova.org/get/124331

[frame]http://www.freakonomics.com/[/frame]

nittie · Oct 6, 2005

Bennett knew what he was doing. He wanted to out some people in his party because he was outted for his gambling , he knew if he said something like this some people would defend him and in the process show their true colors it was a inside con game on racist whites in the rep party plus it riled up black demagogues Bennett is prolly laughing his ass off. Bush is playing these same people with his Supreme Court nominations both of his appointees are moderate at best, they are nothing like the hard right neocon judges he promised to deliver in his campaign. I think there is a war going on for the soul of the conservative party and the combatants are playing for keeps.

nittie · Oct 9, 2005

nittie said:
Bennett knew what he was doing. He wanted to out some people in his party because he was outted for his gambling , he knew if he said something like this some people would defend him and in the process show their true colors it was a inside con game on racist whites in the rep party plus it riled up black demagogues Bennett is prolly laughing his ass off. Bush is playing these same people with his Supreme Court nominations both of his appointees are moderate at best, they are nothing like the hard right neocon judges he promised to deliver in his campaign. I think there is a war going on for the soul of the conservative party and the combatants are playing for keeps.

It looks like Scooter Libby or Carl Rove will be out of work soon. Funny how Bush is referring to Reps who oppose Mierer's nomination as "elite snobs" buckle your seatbelts this gon be a rough ride for the "average American"

nittie · Oct 9, 2005

Here's what we gon do about this bullshit. Those so-called elites that think they want problems gon get some problems. We gon organize... and when we do..we gon take all this shit...I think ya'll understand now.

muckraker10021 · Oct 10, 2005

<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">


Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant


<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/13/timesselect/herbert.75.jpg">
by Bob Herbert. Oct 6, 2005. pg. A.37

A lot of people are upset over comments made on the radio by the former education secretary and guardian of all things virtuous, Bill Bennett.

A Republican who served in the Reagan cabinet, Mr. Bennett told his listeners: ''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.''

After making the point that exterminating blacks would be a most effective crime-fighting tool, he quickly added, ''That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.''

When I first heard about Mr. Bennett's comments, I wondered why anyone was surprised. I've come to expect racial effrontery from big shots in the Republican Party. The G.O.P. has happily replaced the Democratic Party as a safe haven for bigotry, racially divisive tactics and strategies and outright anti-black policies. That someone who's been a stalwart of that outfit might muse publicly about the potential benefits of exterminating blacks is not surprising to me at all.

Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.'s Southern strategy:

''You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Niģģer, niģģer, niģģer.' By 1968 you can't say 'niģģer' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

''And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Niģģer, niģģer.'''

Atwater, who would manage George H.W. Bush's successful run for the presidency in 1988 (the Willie Horton campaign) and then serve as national party chairman, was talking with Alexander P. Lamis, a political-science professor at Case Western Reserve University. Mr. Lamis quoted Atwater in the book ''Southern Politics in the 1990's.''

The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.

The payoff has been huge. Just as the Democratic Party would have been crippled in the old days without the support of the segregationist South, today's Republicans would have only a fraction of their current political power without the near-solid support of voters who are hostile to blacks.

When Democrats revolted against racism, the G.O.P. rallied to its banner.

Ronald Reagan, the G.O.P.'s biggest hero, opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960's. And he began his general election campaign in 1980 with a powerfully symbolic appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three young civil rights workers were murdered in the summer of 1964. He drove the crowd wild when he declared: ''I believe in states' rights.''

Bill Bennett's musings about the extermination of blacks in America (it would be ''impossible, ridiculous morally reprehensible'') is all of a piece with a Republican Party philosophy that is endlessly insulting to black people and overwhelmingly hostile to their interests.

But that white racist vote, once so important to the Democrats and now so important to the G.O.P., has been steadily shrinking. The U.S. is less prejudiced than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, which is why George W. Bush had to try so hard to disenfranchise black voters in Florida in 2000; and why Jeb Bush had to call out the state police to try to intimidate black voters in Orlando, Fla., in 2004; and why Republicans in Georgia have come up with the equivalent of a poll tax (requiring people without a driver's license to pay $20 for a voter identification card), which will hurt poor, black and elderly voters.

Bill Bennett's twisted fantasies are a malignant outgrowth of our polarized past. Our job is to keep them from spreading into the future.

QueEx · Oct 10, 2005

Thank you for reminding me of that S.O.B. Lee Atwater. While I have not forgotten the true Reagan/Republican revolution, Atwater's misdeeds had faded from memory. I stand self-reprimanded.

I've found it curious how many who would woo Blacks toward the Republican party today use economics as the carrot while overlooking how the Republicans became, in fact, the majority elected party by the massive defection of southern whites from the Democratic pary, including people like Trent Lott. In addition to the "Code" mentioned in the article above, the re-characgterization of Affirmative Action into a vile evil, as you probably know, had its roots in that same coded progeny.

I also find noteworthy that it was when Blacks began to win elections in the south as democrats, that party suddenly started to become rather crowded with the political pie being divided into ever smaller porportions to those who once dominated it -- that the white flight to the republican party caught fire like that prompted by forced busing and the integration of lilly white schools and hoods of the 60's and 70's.

QueEx

nittie · Oct 11, 2005

There's a war going on in the Rep. party. On one side you have Bush reps who want to build a new world order, whatever that may be, they don't seem to mind nation building, running up deficits and spending money on social programs, entitlements have increased under Bush, I believe they are less hostile to change and could care less about Rowe vs Wade or AA. The you have the old conservatives who want balanced budgets, less international activity, and no social entitlements, this is the ol skool racist wing and they are getting tired of GW. Whoever emerges from this battle on top will decide what America looks like for at least 20 yrs.

Conspiracy Brutha · Oct 11, 2005

Let me apologize up front for the length of my post.

No dobt, The statement was disrespectful and insensitive. However, it is unrealistic to believe that all of "White America" has been reformed and have to come view Blacks as equal counterparts in this country. Just as White Americans have expressed hurtful comments about racial minorities, some Black Americans have proven to be exceptions to general beliefs about Black people. William Bennett's comments are a friendly reminder that our general reputation is under the boot of Uncle Sam. This statement is a test of our pride and self respect. The real loss is not in the statement, itself but in the lack of consequence that follow such brash and stereotypical ideas.
Would the Jewish community allow someone to grossly disrespect their name and reputation in the same way? No. because the Jewish community uses their wealth and resources collectively and can easily decide to sway their socio-economic power to those who respect and appreciate them.

We don't command respect from ourselves therefore we can command no respect from others.
We have no control of our own collective spending power therefore we cannot put any pressure on the flow of cash. Remember the Bus Boycott? (I know it is an old example but the boycott was successful) Black folks took a stand and broke a long standing tradition. Where is the forethought to penalize William Bennett's supporters for his comments, where does the accountability rest?

muckraker10021 · Oct 27, 2005

<img src="http://www.blackcommentator.com/153/153_images/153_cartoon_bennett_large.jpg">

Bill Bennett's Fantasy
by Margaret Kimberley

The American Fantasy Is A World Without Any Black People In It.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/153/153_freedom_rider_bennett.html

<hr noshade size="14" color="#ff0000"></hr>

Greed · Oct 27, 2005

that is truly one horrible picture.

Greed · Nov 29, 2005

'Freakonomics' Abortion Research

'Freakonomics' Abortion Research
Is Faulted by a Pair of Economists
By JON E. HILSENRATH
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 28, 2005; Page A2

Prepare to be second-guessed.

That would have been useful advice for Steven Levitt, the University of Chicago economist and author of the smash-hit book "Freakonomics," which uses statistics to explore the hidden truths of everything from corruption in sumo wrestling to the dangers of owning a swimming pool.

The book's neon-orange cover title advises readers to "prepare to be dazzled," and its sales have lived up to the hype. A million copies of the book are in print. The book, which was written with New York Times writer Stephen Dubner, has been on the New York Times best-seller list for 31 weeks and is atop The Wall Street Journal's list of bestsellers in the business category.

But now economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston are taking aim at the statistics behind one of Mr. Levitt's most controversial chapters. Mr. Levitt asserts there is a link between the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s and the drop in crime rates in the 1990s. Christopher Foote, a senior economist at the Boston Fed, and Christopher Goetz, a research assistant, say the research behind that conclusion is faulty.

Long before he became a best-selling author, Mr. Levitt, 38 years old, had established a reputation among economists as a careful researcher who produced first-rate statistical studies on surprising subjects. In 2003, the American Economic Association named him the nation's best economist under 40, one of the most prestigious distinctions in the field. His abortion research was published in 2001 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, an academic journal. (He was the subject of a page-one Wall Street Journal story1 in the same year.)

The "Freakonomics" chapter on abortion grew out of statistical studies Mr. Levitt and a co-author, Yale Law School Prof. John Donohue, conducted on the subject. The theory: Unwanted children are more likely to become troubled adolescents, prone to crime and drug use, than are wanted children. When abortion was legalized in the 1970s, a whole generation of unwanted births were averted, leading to a drop in crime nearly two decades later when this phantom generation would have come of age.

The Boston Fed's Mr. Foote says he spotted a missing formula in the programming of Mr. Levitt's original research. He argues the programming oversight made it difficult to pick up other factors that might have influenced crime rates during the 1980s and 1990s, like the crack wave that waxed and waned during that period. He also argues that in producing the research, Mr. Levitt should have counted arrests on a per-capita basis. Instead, he counted overall arrests. After he adjusted for both factors, Mr. Foote says, the abortion effect disappeared.

"There are no statistical grounds for believing that the hypothetical youths who were aborted as fetuses would have been more likely to commit crimes had they reached maturity than the actual youths who developed from fetuses and carried to term," the authors assert in the report. Their work doesn't represent an official view of the Fed.

Mr. Foote, 40, taught in Harvard's economics department between 1996 and 2002; served stints as an economist on the Council of Economic Advisers in 1994, 1995, 2002 and 2003; and served as an economic adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Iraq, in 2003 and 2004.

Mr. Levitt counters that Mr. Foote is looking only at a narrow subset of his overall work on abortion and crime, so his results are of limited value, and not grounds for dismissing the whole theory. He acknowledges the programming error, but says taken by itself, that error doesn't put much of a dent in his work. (Mr. Foote's result depends on changing that formula and on the adjustment for per-capita arrests.) Moreover, Mr. Levitt says the abortion theory has held up when examined in other countries, like Canada and Australia, and when applied to other subjects, like drug use.

"Does this change my mind on the issue? Absolutely not," Mr. Levitt says.

This isn't the first time Mr. Levitt's abortion research has come under attack. Other academics have tried to poke holes in it, and critics across the political spectrum found the research offensive. Conservatives were appalled that it found such positive consequences from a practice many of them found immoral. Liberals felt it smacked of eugenics.

Mr. Levitt has asserted all along that he is just a dispassionate researcher doing what any economist does, exploring for unseen causes and consequences in human activity. Still, he hasn't shied away from the reputation he has acquired as a "rogue" economist, as he is described on the "Freakonomics" jacket.

Mr. Levitt's book has become the subject of endless water-cooler talk in the profession. Many economists are thrilled with the attention he is bringing the field and the way he uses provocative subjects -- like sumo wrestlers -- to show how people respond to incentives. Some complain the book, with its offbeat title and easy narrative tone, in some way trivializes economic research.

Still, as economic debates go, this one is relatively civil. Mr. Foote praises Mr. Levitt for making all of his data and his programming easily accessible and hastens to add that "in many ways it is a very careful paper." Mr. Levitt responds, "I think this is exactly the way science should work," with controversial theories being poked and prodded for their robustness.

Edward Glaeser, a Harvard professor who helped referee Mr. Levitt's original abortion submission to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, said the Foote critique isn't damning, though it does suggest the impact of abortion on crime has not been as strong as Mr. Levitt has argued. "These guys have put the [data] through the wringer," Mr. Glaeser says of Mr. Foote and his research assistant. "There is no question that the results get smaller and weaker, but there still seems to be something there."

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...Wpc9pxaKd_paZU0_20051228.html?mod=tff_article

Greed · Sep 21, 2006

Freakonomics presentation on street gangs

Steven Levitt is an economics professor at the University of Chicago and the best-selling author of Freakonomics. In this talk, filmed at TED2004, he goes inside an inner-city gang to examine economic principles at work in the real world. (Recorded February 2004 in Monterey, CA. Duration: 22:00)

http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=s_levitt

Darth Furious · Nov 11, 2006

Greed said:
that is truly one horrible picture.

Unfuckingbelievable. But then again, maybe not.

I work for the government. Financial reasons withstanding, it is the single worst career move I've ever made in my life. We have NOTHING to do with direct political figures yet the politics that streamline their way down into our system is right on track with this post. We watching election results like a motherfucker so I can plan out the budget with wifey and organize in five years. Republicans in charge threaten my way of life.

You would not believe the shit we have to fight against at work - every fucking day. Moreover the lines that divide Republican and Demo are becoming more and more blurred thanks to a shuffling tactic I been seeing where political arnolds label their names with the other parties tag.

Sad that Bennet's type of mindset is normal... yes even in some blacks.
oNE

infamous-online · Nov 12, 2006

this is why i keep white people at a distance, simply because of this shit. they can't be trusted fully.

Mofoman · Nov 12, 2006

LOL, wasn't there another white polititian who said the same thing or something very similar within the last few years?

GET YOU HOT · Nov 12, 2006

TO THE WHITE FIENDS
by Claude McKay

Think you I am not fiend and savage too?
Think you I could not arm me with a gun
And shoot down ten of you for every one

Of my black brothers murdered, burnt by you?
Be not deceived, for every deed you do
I could match-out-match: am I not Afric's son,
Black of that black land where black deeds are done?

But the Almighty from the darkness drew
My soul and said: Even thou shalt be a light
Awhile to burn on the benighted earth,
Thy dusky face I set among the white

For thee to prove thyself of higher worth;
Before the world is swallowed up in night,
To show thy little lamp: go forth, go forth!

actinanass · Nov 12, 2006

do anyone have the whole interview in which he says all of this? I ask because CNN has a habit of putting only half of the interview, and spinning it as being racist. Now If he just says this just to be saying it, than fuck him. Someone needs to abort his ass. BTW, please don't go and say that theres NO racist democrats now. Go look at the history of the democratic party if you think that.

democrats used to be called DIXIECRATS because of their racist behavior.

GET YOU HOT · Nov 12, 2006

actinanass said:
do anyone have the whole interview in which he says all of this? I ask because CNN has a habit of putting only half of the interview, and spinning it as being racist. Now If he just says this just to be saying it, than fuck him. Someone needs to abort his ass. BTW, please don't go and say that theres NO racist democrats now. Go look at the history of the democratic party if you think that.

democrats used to be called DIXIECRATS because of their racist behavior.

Good point and more information to back it up, however dont add your own spin on this issue, tides have changed...we all know who supports the republican leftist white christian elite, its the w.a.s.p. Bennet's, Limbaugh's, etc. of our society...

In 1984, in Biloxi, Mississippi, deep in the heart of the old Confederacy, the future Senate majority leader Trent Lott declared that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis" now lives in the Republican party.

It's a mystery quite how the party of Abraham Lincoln, born in the moral outrage of the great northern abolitionists, could become in the minds of some of its most visible modern leaders the party of Davis. To some, Davis's legacy may seem one of support for states' rights. To others, however, he remains a Southern slaveholder, Democrat, and president of a Confederacy born in rebellion and secession.

Or perhaps it's not such a mystery. From their 1854 beginning, the Republicans were the party that fought slavery, imposed Reconstruction, and opposed segregation, while the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow, race baiting, and Dixiecrats. But for many years, "progressive" historians have been telling a story of America's "steady march to liberalism," in which all good comes from Democrats and all evil from Republicans. And not only have Democrats learned this false lesson and claimed an undeserved reputation on race, but even Republicans have absorbed their enemies' lesson--until at last they find themselves claiming Jefferson Davis as one of their own. In order to construct their progressive story, these left-leaning historians--Henry Steele Commanager, Allen Nevins, Claude G. Bowers, and the Arthur Schlesingers--were forced to pass over innumerable Democratic sins: Andrew Jackson's treatment of native Americans, southern populists' racial demonizing, Woodrow Wilson's segregationism, William Jennings Bryan's support of the Ku Klan, and Franklin Roosevelt's indifference to anti-lynching legislation

actinanass · Nov 12, 2006

GET YOU HOT said:
Good point and more information to back it up, however dont add your own spin on this issue, tides have changed...we all know who supports the republican leftist white christian elite, its the w.a.s.p. Bennet's, Limbaugh's, etc. of our society...

White Leftist Republicans?

Limbaugh is a leftist?

Do you actually listen to what limbaugh show?

BTW, leftist are typically NOT RELIGIOUS. So to call a christian an leftist is an oximoron.

Do yourself a favor, go listen to limbaugh, see how the show really is, see how everyone misquotes him, and then reply back on this board. I'm not going to lie, I thought the same about limbaugh before I actually listen to his show. He isn't all like what the media is putting him out to be. Not to mention, Donavon Mcnabb, one of the so-called victims of racism, and Limbaugh are best friends. Matter of fact, he was on the show 3 weeks ago.

btw, i like the quote you had at the end...

QueEx · Nov 12, 2006

Didn't I tell you guys to focus less on the "Party" and focus more on the "Individuals" that make up the party? I didn't"? I'm saying it now. lol

QueEx

QueEx · Nov 12, 2006

actinanass said:
Do yourself a favor, go listen to limbaugh, see how the show really is, see how everyone misquotes him, and then reply back on this board. I'm not going to lie, I thought the same about limbaugh before I actually listen to his show. He isn't all like what the media is putting him out to be. Not to mention,

You're kidding me right?

QueEx

Aborting Black Babies Will Reduce Crime Rate

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Superstar *****

Star

JUju2005

Guest

Star

Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Potential Star

Star

Superstar *****

Star

Star

Star

Star

Superstar *****

Rising Star

Star

Potential Star

Superstar *****

Star

Star

Star

Master

Star

Potential Star

Superfly Moderator

Rising Star

Superfly Moderator

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Similar threads