Apologize, Now!

Once again, liberals are screaming for an apology because they are incapable of comprehending English.

They cannot have a legitimate debate on a topic because they always lose. So, they fall back on the tactic of constructing a false reality to achieve their political ends.

Case in point, from the Washington Post:

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.

This is flat out shoddy reporting. The Washington Post simply echoes the rantings of misinformed political opportunists.

While it's true that these people denounced Bennett, the reporter, Brian Faler, fails to point out that they denounced him for something he DID NOT do.

Bennett called the notion ridiculous.

Abort every baby in the country and the crime rate would go down. While true, that's a completely ludicrous, immoral proposition, as Bennett stated.

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."

Faler provides no context for this. I can only conclude that he is intentionally misleading the public.

Listen to Bennett's comments IN CONTEXT here.

Faler is suggesting that Bennett said something he regretted, so he "quickly" tried to cover it up.

FALSE.

I've listened to the audio repeatedly. There is no urgency there. Bennett is simply stating the obvious.

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.

How many times is President Bush called a racist in any given hour on Air America?

Of course, there are no such tallies because no one listens to Air America; but the comparison is valid.

Do Republicans rush out and demand that Al Franken and Randi Rhodes have their shows suspended for making such outlandish statements about Bush and Republicans?

What about Kanye West's comments on NBC's Hurricane Katrina relief fund-raiser? He said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Instead of demanding that West apologize and ban him from appearing on the network, West is scheduled to perform on Saturday Night Live this weekend.

Why is it that far Left-wingers can make idiotic statements with impugnity but conservatives are condemned for things they didn't even say?

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."

Bennett was referencing Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. He stated the theory in the book and said that he did not think that the claim that crime is down because the abortion rate is up was an accurate statistic.

I'm curious. Did Wade Henderson demand that all copies of Levitt and Dubner's book be removed from bookstore shelves and burned? After all, it's their theory.

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

Imagine. The spokeswoman didn't return THREE calls.

Faler presents that information as indicative that the Salem Radio Network is complicit in some wrong-doing. I have no idea what the network would be complicit in, but not returning calls apparently shows it's complicit.

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.

Here's where Faler loses it completely. How is any of this relevant to the story?

When Clinton recently unveiled his Global Initiative amid great fanfare, did the Post's coverage happen to mention that Clinton was impeached or that he was unfaithful to his wife or that he had a "critical lapse in judgment" when he indeed "did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate"?

No. It wasn't relevant.

Accordingly, it's difficult to make the argument that bringing up Bennett's gambling is appropriate here. Faler's purpose is solely malicious.

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."

So--

Faler tacks on at the end of his article that Bennett didn't agree with the thesis put forth by the authors of Freakonomics.

Why wasn't that in the first paragraph?

The article should have been about how misguided the Democratic lawmakers and civil rights leaders were to be demanding that Bennett be silenced just because they can't seem to understand what Bennett actually said.

There's your story.

Transcript

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:

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.

I do think Bennett should issue a statement to clarify, for those needing clarification, that he was not suggesting that an effective plan to reduce crime would be to abort every black baby in this country.

If I am misunderstanding Bennett's comments, and he does, in fact, believe that a solution to crime would be the systematic abortion of all black babies, then I think he's a racist, as well as insane, and incapable of issuing a meaningful apology.