STOP
TERROR
STOP
TORTURE
OUT
OF IRAQ
 
 

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

There Goes The Meanest Man That Ever Took A Breath Of Life

One of the "moral leaders" of the Republican party, former Secretary of Education and current talk show host William Bennett, has a novel idea to reduce the crime rate:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

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.
That's right, it'd be "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible"... but you thought about it, and you think it would accomplish the goal you thought about it in regards to, and then you said it in out loud, knowing that at least some of your audience would nod and go, "Makes sense".

Why does anyone listen to or support these foul creatures?

(Cross-posted to the Digital Acoustic LiveJournal.)

Comments:
No, Swift went one step meaner. It's interesting that even liberal Americans can't spot the difference between opinion and reductio ad absurdum.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?