Abort Black Babies, Crime Would Plummet

[Lil Bit]

Ex-Ed Secretary:
Senator Demands Apology

POSTED: 6:50 am CDT September 30, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Former Education Secretary William Bennett is coming under fire for comments he made on his radio program.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats are demanding Bennett apologize for linking the crime rate with the abortion of black babies.

It began with Bennett taking issue with a recent book that theorized that one reason crime is down because abortion is up.

Bennett said, "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."

He went on to call that "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."

Reid said he's "appalled by Mr. Bennett's remarks," and is calling on him "to issue an immediate apology not only to African Americans but to the nation."

Bennett said his comments have been mischaracterized. He said his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime is "morally reprehensible."

Link of story: http://www.click2houston.com/news/5040059/detail.html

[SISTER_KATE]

MAN THIS COUNTRY IS GOING DOWN HILL FAST. Scares me what evil dwells in the minds of some men!

[GoingNova]

The quotes were taken COMPLETELY out of context. What was left out was the fact that he said SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE that if you wanted to reduce crime you could abort black children. He never, for ONE SECOND, was suggesting it. He even said it was a "ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do".

Sorry, just another example of reverse discrimination. Black people can say whatever they like, like Congressman Rangel comparing President Bush to Bull Connor, and get a completely free pass, but white men are not allowed to say anything about blacks. The fact is, African Americans commit more crime than Caucasians percentage wise. Is that a nice fact? No. It is a polite fact? No. BUT IT IS A FACT. A fact that every single time a prominent white man even HINTS AT or IMPLIES, he gets lambasted as a racist.

HE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY SHOULD NOT BE FIRED!

[GoingNova]

I would like some of you who voted YES, he should be fired, to explain why. If you don't mind.

[Angry White Man]

He is being attacked because he dared to imply that blacks commit more crime than any other race. Although this is a well documented fact, it is not politically correct to say it. I agree with you Nova, there is a horrible double standard.

For those of you who believe he should be fired, what have we become as a society when people can not even state facts without being unfairly labeled a racist? Obviously Mr Bennet was not advocating abortions of blacks, so all that remains was his connotation that blacks commit a majority of the crime, which is true. So what is hateful? What is it that he should be fired for? Speaking the truth?

[Lil Bit]

I will reply to that Nova, I have to be going right now, but I will post my answer as soon as I get a chance.

[ANGLOIRISH]

Of course he should not be fired. Let's take off the blinders and call it like it is - there is without question a higher rate of crime in the black population although Hispanic is getting right up there with them. The thing that burns my ass is the vast number of Hispanic illegal immigrants committing felonies; you deport them and before the ink is dry they are back in the US committing more crime.

Every time someone opens his mouth to call a spade a spade someone is jumping down his throat. Grant it abortion should have been omitted but hey if the shoe fits!

[ski2bfree]

While I don't agree with what he said, freedom of speech should prevail. Just because someone says something ridiculous, offbeat, offensive, or whatever, doesn't mean you have to listen to it.

He is being attacked because he dared to imply that blacks commit more crime than any other race. Although this is a well documented fact, it is not politically correct to say it.

Where is this "fact" documented? That's an absurd comment. Even if it were true, which it certainly isn't, it would have more to do with urban areas being more heavily populated by blacks than rural areas. Crime tends to be higher in cities, either because there is more crime or because there is a greater police presence.

[Angry White Man]

Where is this "fact" documented? That's an absurd comment. Even if it were true, which it certainly isn't, it would have more to do with urban areas being more heavily populated by blacks than rural areas. Crime tends to be higher in cities, either because there is more crime or because there is a greater police presence.

Look up the FBI Statistics, or read reports that have put together, when you can find them. Here is one:
<!--StartFragment -->
Color Of Crime, Sound Of (Big Media) Silence

By Jared Taylor (http://www.vdare.com/taylor/index.htm)
[Recently by Jared Taylor: Further Down The Road (Paved With Good Intentions) (http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050714_paved.htm)]

Today, September 14, the New Century Foundation (http://www.nc-f.org/) releases The Color of Crime (http://www.nc-f.org/findings.htm), our relentlessly factual study of race, crime, and the criminal justice system.

For anyone who ever wondered just how much more likely blacks or Hispanics are than whites to commit various crimes, the answers are here.

It takes hard work to pry the facts out of the reluctant grip of federal crime databases. But the results are eye-opening:

<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><!--msthemelist--><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.vdare.com/_themes/blocksvd/redball.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Blacks are just 13 percent of the population but they commit more than half the muggings and murders in the country. Hispanics commit violent crimes at about three times the white rate.<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></TD></TR><!--msthemelist--></TBODY></TABLE><!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><!--msthemelist--><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.vdare.com/_themes/blocksvd/redball.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%"><!--mstheme-->The proportion of blacks and Hispanics in an area is the single best indicator of how dangerous it is. The racial mix is a much better predictor of crime rates than poverty, unemployment, and dropout rates combined.<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></TD></TR><!--msthemelist--></TBODY></TABLE><!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><!--msthemelist--><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.vdare.com/_themes/blocksvd/redball.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Although Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby wring their hands over black-on-black mayhem, blacks actually commit more violent crime against whites than blacks. A black is about 39 times more likely to do violence to a white than the other way around, and no less than 130 times more likely to rob a white.<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></TD></TR><!--msthemelist--></TBODY></TABLE><!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><!--msthemelist--><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.vdare.com/_themes/blocksvd/redball.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%"><!--mstheme-->And yes, everyone's suspicions about rape are correct: Every year there are about 15,000 black-on-white rapes but fewer than 900 white-on-black rapes. There are more than 3,000 gang rapes of whites by blacks—but white-on-black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in the statistics.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

And while all of these statistics may be disturbing, what is much more disturbing is that you can not discuss these statistics! If you do, you will be labeled a racist. Sorry, the facts don't lie, but the media does!

[smo1704]

The way that statement is phrased Ski2bfree is correct.

Statistically blacks are a little less than twice as likely to commit a violent crime (adjusted rate based on population for 2004). However, as they compose only about 13% of the total population (as opposed to about 77% for whites) they should commit about 1/3 (very rough estimate, I can't get pure numbers from anyone) as much overall crime.

I have seen one of the studies of the effect of abortion on crime rates, and while they do demonstrate fairly conclusively that the right to an abortion has led to an overall decrease in crime, they never implied that race had anything to do with it. The primary reason was that those who would opt to have an abortion were less likely to raise a child properly if they had to. It was based purely on upbringing, not ethnicity.

My sources:

Race vs Crime Rate:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/racetab.htm
http://www.govspot.com/news/reports/population.htm

Link between abortion and decrease in crime (file):
http://ssrn.com/abstract=174508

[Damm]

I would like to see an exact transcript of the radioshow before I decide whether his comments are being taken out of context.

[Lil Bit]

I have to admit that my answer to just firing him is a bit selfish in a way. If I were ever to say something like that I would be fired and probably killed by an angry black mob. IMO more crimes are committed by blacks than whites. I think some of the most horrendous ones are committed by white males, such as serial murder, and serial rape. Just looking at the lists of sex offenders in Texas alone I think that most of them are Hispanic, then white, then black. I am not a racist person, but in our country we always have to watch what we say or how we say it as to not be deemed racial and then hated and possibly hurt or killed for our beliefs. One wrong statement and every black person in my company would hate me for the rest of their lives. I was almost hit once by two black men in a car and out of anger I shouted at him calling him a stupid nigger, he pulled a gun out and flashed it at me. This is not my only run in with blacks; I have had them do far worse than this, Hispanics too. They, a lot of them, see a white man or woman and automatically think we are racist and so they do everything they can to try to scare us into thinking they have the upper hand. Honestly they do and if you want the truth then they will have the upper hand until God decides it's over anything we do is racist, everything they do is defending themselves. For the rest of our lives we will have to fight just to prove that we are not the haters, we are the hated, our children their children and so on will all have to deal with the same damn thing and if our white nation would quit spawning with them and other races then the whites will be no more. I have been told that I am racist because I believe that, if me wanting my kids only to have white children and blacks only to have all black children and so on and so forth then I guess I am racist, actually I think would be considered a white separatist, whatever. SO I am sure that I will be bashed for that somewhere someday, but I can tell you now that a lot of the blacks feel the same way. There is no greater hate than that of a black woman when she sees a white woman and black man together, there are very few that are so accepting of this type of relationship. We will always have to watch what we say, African American as opposed to black, or sit and listen while they call us honkey, cracker, pigmently challenged, white trash, Bacon Bits, Beecher, Bird ****, Bleach Boy or Girl, Casper, **** (play on words short for Caucasian), I could go on and on with the names I have been called or have heard blacks or even Hispanics call us but won't. You pull two words spick and nigger and you’re on your way to the courthouse to be sued for mental anguish, and anything else they can pin on you. I am sick and tired of being treated like I owe them something, yes my family had slaves, that was many generations ago and as far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with me.

Anyhow him saying what he said no matter how he really felt or how it was taken out of context is what is really going to make it harder for those of us who aren't racist. I heard people talking about it in the lunch area at work today and then a couple of us white folk walk in and holy crap you could slice through the tension with a butter knife. I don't agree or not agree with what he said, I don't condone abortion and I feel that what he was suggesting is selective breeding in a way, it sounds rather communistic to me and that is why I don't agree with what he said, it had nothing to do with black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or Arab to me. But I do think that if people that were responsible could breed then we wouldn't have half of the problems we have, but that is not possible nor a freedom at all. It was morally wrong that he would even state such a thing and that is why I do not think he should be in a position of such power. He says it and automatically we all think the same thing, or at least that's what other races think. So we are all branded yet again as the ones who hate.

[GoingNova]

Where is this "fact" documented?

From the US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm) web site:

Lifetime likelihood of going to State or Federal prison

Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.Percentage wise, blacks commit more crime. I am not saying this to pass judgment, I am not saying this because I hate blacks, I am merely stating a fact. What angers me so much is that by just stating this fact, one is called a racist. That is a crying shame!

[SISTER_KATE]

Mustang, be careful they would shoot first then ask questions today! Road rage is rampant in your neck of the woods! What goes "clip clop clip clop BANG"? Amish road rage!

I don't fault the Senator! His statement has been taken out of context and he is correct in everything he has said!

[MrsD]

I voted "Yes" only because I didn't like the other options, and then couldn't undo my response. I've always like Bennett - I was a bit sickened by his comments., however. They may have been well-intended but they were totally innappropriate. He will have to do a lot of back peddling to get out of this one. Should he be fired? No, he shouldn't. should he be sanctioned and made to offer an apology? Hell, YES!!!

I agree with everyone regarding double standards and the inequality between blacks and whites - I feel, as Mustang said, that many, many people of different races have the "upper hand" over me. I'm constantly aware that I must not offend people. I have never thought of myself as a racist person, and would just die to thik I'd offended anyone. My sister-in-law is Puerto Rican. So what? God made her just like she made me. Know what I found out? SHE is predujiced against WHITES!!! I never knew she considered herself to be different - both of her husbands are white! She feels that she has been discriminated against because she is a "non white" (didn't know tht people from Puerto Rico were "non white"). She in fact has had more opportubity in this country than I ever had (and we were both BORN here!). I went to a community college because my parents could afford nothing else. No complaints. She went to an art school, totally funded by the government under a minority program. She IS talented, but so am I. I just try to be myself and hope they like me. What a way to live....

[ANGLOIRISH]

If we fired every politician that uttered something dumb in the course of their term - who the hell would be running the country! Like really folks, let's just get rid of them all and then see how smart those not running the store would be!

[SISTER_KATE]

*Frantically waving hand in the air* Pick me! Pick me! I want to be President. Screw Hilary Clinton, let me run the Country! It's time for a real leader. Let's rock this town!

Mind you I will want Bill O'Reilly an Jerry Springer as my right hand men! For those of you not aware of Springer's background, he is a very competent politician. He would certainly know how to deal with the "trailer park boys".

[smo1704]

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office."

H. L. Mencken

[Angry White Man]

Where is this "fact" documented? That's an absurd comment. Even if it were true, which it certainly isn't, it would have more to do with urban areas being more heavily populated by blacks than rural areas. Crime tends to be higher in cities, either because there is more crime or because there is a greater police presence.
It is certainly not an absurd comment, and it is most certainly true: BLACKS COMMIT MORE CRIME OVER ALL THAN WHITES DO PERCENTAGE WISE.

Figure 1
Race, Population, and Incarceration

U.S. Population by Race
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/images/figure1.2.gif

Source: U.S. Census, 2000. White and Black excludes Hispanics.


State and Federal Inmates by Race
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/images/figure1.1.gif

Source: Percentages calculated from data in Table 13, Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002," April 6, 2003. White and Black excludes Hispanics.

I present a piece from an article by Walter Williams, who is black:

"Let's examine Bill Bennett's conditional "if black babies were aborted the crime rate would go down." According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports for 2003 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec4.pdf), blacks, who are 13 percent of the population, were 49 percent of murder arrests, 33 percent of arrests for rape, and 54 percent of arrests for robberies. That means Bennett's statement was true."

We live in America, where we are supposed to have free speech, but we don't. If you say "Blacks commit more crime than whites percentage wise", you are labeled a racist. Notwithstanding, what you are saying is true. That is the crime.

Click here (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/walterwilliams/2005/10/12/171707.html) to read Mr Williams entire article.

[ANGLOIRISH]

Thank you Angry. Excellent information for all the doubting thomas'

[bob_gray]

The numbers actually just show that blacks are prosecuted for crime at a much higher rate than other "racial" groups, not that they actually commit more crime. This could be an indication that they commit more crime but it may also be an indication of the inherent racism of the US. Just look at how whites and blacks were portrayed in the media during Katrina. Whites were "foraging" and blacks were "looting". I suspect is is more a function of poverty than race. A higher percentage of blacks live in poverty than whites so you would expect they would be disproportionately represented in the prison population.

As far as Bennett is concerned I answered with the second choice not because I "think" he was taken out of context but because I know he was taken out of context. I read a more complete transcript of that particular show in The Nation and he was actually referring to the correlation mentioned by Smo. In the book Freakonomics the author points out that the dramatic decrease in crime in the early 90's had less to do with improved law enforcement and more to do with the fact that it was 18 years after Roe v. Wade and there were fewer unwanted babies who statistically are more likely to commit crime. Bennett was simply saying that you could extend the argument to advocate aborting all black babies to reduce crime. Of course you could extend the argument to say abort all babies born to families whose income is less than 20 K because people in poverty are statistically more likely to commit crime. Both arguments are stupid and Bennetts biggest flaws are not realizing it and being a hypocrite.

[bob_gray]

Springer's background, he is a very competent politician.

Springer is out of politics because he bounced a check to prostitute. That is not a "competent" politician.

[ANGLOIRISH]

So he was thinking with his other brain. Perhaps he felt he would get a freebie but the "tute" had the upper hand so to speak. We all have skeletons in our closets that doesn't make us "stupid" people! A person should not be condemned for one indiscretion. If that were the case then Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton should be banished from Politics as well! Right?

[SISTER_KATE]

We are not all perfect especially politicians but think about it. Would you like your life to be under a microscope 24/7?

[GoingNova]

The numbers actually just show that blacks are prosecuted for crime at a much higher rate than other "racial" groups, not that they actually commit more crime. This could be an indication that they commit more crime but it may also be an indication of the inherent racism of the US. Just look at how whites and blacks were portrayed in the media during Katrina. Whites were "foraging" and blacks were "looting". I suspect is is more a function of poverty than race. A higher percentage of blacks live in poverty than whites so you would expect they would be disproportionately represented in the prison population.

BOB, KEEP QUIET! We told you at the last "White People Rule the World, in conjunction with Jews" Meeting not to mention the free "get off from prosecution" pass we all get!

Inherent racism? Give me a break. Always an excuse, always something or someone else to blame. Stop making excuses already. How about this, they are in jail more because they are commit more crime proportionately, plain and simple.

[smo1704]

Statistically there is a higher correlation between poverty and crime than ethnicity and crime. I think the issue is not so much that they are genetically pre-disposed to violence, but rather more likely to be impoverished.

[GoingNova]

Statistically there is a higher correlation between poverty and crime than ethnicity and crime. I think the issue is not so much that they are genetically pre-disposed to violence, but rather more likely to be impoverished.

Now smo, that makes complete and total sense. I concur, I would never say that any race is more pre-disposed to violence. You would have to be a fool to not think that a person's upbringing, particularly when such an upbringing is in poverty, does not contribute heavily toward a propensity toward crime.

That being said, I do not accept poverty as an excuse for crime. No matter what your upbringing, you ultimately are responsible for your actions. In my opinion, the answer is not to be politically correct about it, and pretend that it isn't wrong for 13% of a population to be responsible for so much crime, but rather to address the issue head on, and try to combat it. In the case of African Americans, I would direct them to Bill Cosby way of thinking, rather than Rev. Jessie Jackson.

[bob_gray]

I don't care that Springer was with a prostitute. I think all vice crimes are unconstitutional. What I found funny about the situation is that he PAID WITH A CHECK and it BOUNCED. Number one rule of illegal activity: don't use a check.

[bob_gray]

I suspect is is more a function of poverty than race. A higher percentage of blacks live in poverty than whites so you would expect they would be disproportionately represented in the prison population.
Apparently you missed this part because you got to the racism bit and stopped reading. However, to pretend that there isn't racism in this country is laughable and doesn't even warrant a response. Racial profiling by police is well documented.

Added by edit:

That being said, I do not accept poverty as an excuse for crime. No matter what your upbringing, you ultimately are responsible for your actions.

I agree 100%. Poverty is not a mitigating circumstance but it is part of the cause of the action. If you have nothing you are much more likely to steal than if you live in a middle class neighborhood with an $80K/year income. Poverty doesn't make it acceptable but it does explain the action.

[GoingNova]

Apparently you missed this part because you got to the racism bit and stopped reading. However, to pretend that there isn't racism in this country is laughable and doesn't even warrant a response. Racial profiling by police is well documented.
Racism no longer exists as an institution. It does, and will most likely always, exist on an individual level. Racial profiling by police is no longer acceptable, and when it is found, it is purged. Is that to say that no cop racially profiles, I am not that naive. Frankly, I think that cops SHOULD racially profile, but that is another debate.

Bottom line there will ALWAYS be racism on a personal level, but I believe institutional racism is all but extinct, and when it rears it's ugly head, it is usually dealt with switftly. Now a days, pulling the race card USUALLY means that the person is guilty and has no other excuse.

NJ State Police, and racial profiling, well, it turns out, there is some info. Funny how this wasn't really publicized:

"According to the study commissioned by the New Jersey attorney general and leaked first to the New York Times and then to the Web, blacks make up 16 percent of the drivers on the turnpike, and 25 percent of the speeders in the 65-mile-per-hour zones, where profiling complaints are most common. (The study counted only those going more than 15 miles per hour over the speed limit as speeders.) Black drivers speed twice as much as white drivers, and speed at reckless levels even more. Blacks are actually stopped less than their speeding behavior would predict--they are 23 percent of those stopped."

[gilean23]

Black drivers speed twice as much as white drivers, and speed at reckless levels even more. Blacks are actually stopped less than their speeding behavior would predict--they are 23 percent of those stopped."
Am I missing something here? This statement doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't their "speeding behavior" determined by how often they are stopped? How then would they be stopped less frequently than their "speeding behavior" predicts?

[GoingNova]

Am I missing something here? This statement doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't their "speeding behavior" determined by how often they are stopped? How then would they be stopped less frequently than their "speeding behavior" predicts?

No, the study showed exactly the opposite, they are stopped much less than they should be stopped. The study was conducted by NON LAW ENFORCEMENT, and it just studied speeders and their ethnicity. The people doing this study COULD NOT STOP ANYONE, as they were not law enforcement officials.

What is not to understand? The study said of the people that speed, black people speed twice as much as white people:so for example, they see 10 people speeding, 6 of them were black, 3 were white, 1 was "Other". In this example, blacks represent over 50% of speeders, yet they make up only 23% of people stopped and ticketed.

So, basically, someone who could not give tickets, just sat and observed speeders. They observed that in NJ, blacks speed twice as often as whites. They then took the ticketing results of the NJ State Troopers and saw that, although blacks speed twice as often as whites, they only receive 23% of all tickets given to speeders.

[gilean23]

The fact that the study was not executed by law enforcement is the part that I missed. Knowing that, the rest makes sense. :)

[ANGLOIRISH]

Law enforcement is an oxymoron!

[bob_gray]

It turns out that you can find almost anything on the net including the fact that the DOJ and the state of New Jersey both admitted that racial profiling exist. The "study" changes nothing. Below is the relevant section, the bold is mine. Notice that the Attorney General of the state of New Jersey says in reference to the report, "We are long past the time when New Jersey admitted racial profiling was a reality on the turnpike," Samson said. "The report was not required by the consent decree, nor does it change the course we are set upon. It does not alter the past or undermine the evidence that profiling was real."

More people need to know their rights and not consent to searches. This should be taught from the moment kids enter the 1st grade. The answer to, "Do you mind if I search your car?" is "You may not search my car." followed by, "Are we done?"


A 1998 shooting of four minority men by state troopers on the turnpike inflamed accusations that state police targeted minority motorists for searches. A year after the shooting, state officials admitted troopers practiced racial profiling. The state then entered into a court agreement to prevent a lawsuit by the Justice Department. One part of the agreement required the monitoring of the race of motorists stopped by troopers. Earlier studies found little difference between white and minority motorists for speeding, Buckman said.
State and federal data show minorities are more likely than whites to be stopped for traffic violations and to be asked to consent to searches. The state troopers' union demanded last week that the new study be made public and contended that it absolves them of charges they practiced racial profiling. A telephone message seeking comment from the troopers' union was not immediately returned last night. Buckman said the troopers' reaction shows the State Police has a long way to go in ending racial profiling, which former Attorney General Peter G. Verniero and State Police leadership agreed was "real, not imagined."
"They seize upon it to say, 'See, it vindicates us,' " Buckman said. "This report really answers nothing and is probably not worth the paper that it's written on."
State Attorney General David Samson said the release of the report would allow for a public evaluation of its results. The Justice Department has commissioned its own study of the report's reliability, Samson said.
"We are long past the time when New Jersey admitted racial profiling was a reality on the turnpike," Samson said. "The report was not required by the consent decree, nor does it change the course we are set upon. It does not alter the past or undermine the evidence that profiling was real."

[GoingNova]

It turns out that you can find almost anything on the net including the fact that the DOJ and the state of New Jersey both admitted that racial profiling exist. The "study" changes nothing. Below is the relevant section, the bold is mine. Notice that the Attorney General of the state of New Jersey says in reference to the report, "We are long past the time when New Jersey admitted racial profiling was a reality on the turnpike," Samson said. "The report was not required by the consent decree, nor does it change the course we are set upon. It does not alter the past or undermine the evidence that profiling was real."

Bob, will all do respect, OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO SAY THAT! Do you really think they would come out and fight against the media? I am sorry, the study speaks volumes, and it shines a light on the truth.

Bob, if you don't mind, might I ask how old you are? You sound like I did in my twenties. I used to be a hard core liberal. I then got a little older, and a combination of my life experiences, talk radio, and the Internet made me realize just how strong of a liberal bias the main stream media has, and just how liberalism simply does not work. I am not trying to be condescending. I respect your positions. I really do. Particularly since I used to share them! :laughing7

I guess I am a shining example of Winston Churchill's quote, "If you are twenty, and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are forty, and not a conservative, you have no head!" :)

[bob_gray]

Bob, will all do respect, OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO SAY THAT! Do you really think they would come out and fight against the media? I am sorry, the study speaks volumes, and it shines a light on the truth.
They are going to say that because it was true. It is well known that the police use profiling in their attempts to catch people moving drugs. If you are black and drive a nice car you are far more likely to be pulled over than if you are white. It wasn't even a hidden agenda, the police officers who did it were proud of it because they said that it worked.
"If you are twenty, and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are forty, and not a conservative, you have no head!"
I am pretty sure that (a) this was not Churchill and (b) back when Churchill might have said this he would have been referring to British political parties which would not have been in line with what you would think of today as "liberal" and "conservative" in US politics. In the strictest political sense "liberal" means you want to change existing laws and "conservative" means you want things to stay the same. Neither party falls into the "conservative" category by this definition (the one Churchill would have been using had he used that quote). Anyway, I have heard the quote before and since my opinions are well reasoned and insightful I can assure you that it is simply untrue. :) There are plenty of very intelligent "liberals" of all ages and plenty of very intelligent "conservatives" of all ages. This is nothing but an ad hominem (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) attack disguised as an appeal to authority (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm). It does nothing to advance the issue at hand and it is insulting to thinking people everywhere. Allow me to regale you with a quote from one of my favorite authors, Mark Twain (http://www.twainquotes.com/).
Look at the tyranny of party--at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master.
- "The Character of Man," Mark Twain's Autobiography
My age is irrelevant to the conversation. Either the things I say are true or they are not. I try to not reveal information about myself which would allow anyone to say "you are just saying X because you are a Y". I will however let you know that I am not a "liberal" in the sense that you are thinking of the word and I used to share your opinions. Apparently our respective life experiences have taken two thinking people in two different directions.

[GoingNova]

I am pretty sure that (a) this was not Churchill and

It has been attributed to him. I had done some research on it at one time, and was satisfied that it came from him. I have since forgotten where I verified it from, but I do remember being satisfied that it came from him at one time. Oh well. ;)

[ANGLOIRISH]

It was Churchill, and it was "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

Researched on a Democrats & Liberals commenting on whether or not Bush is a Liberal! So the consensus I am afraid Mr Grey is the Churchill's have it 3 to 1.

[smo1704]

The quote is actually by Churchill, however quotes prove nothing. I like them because I find that every thought I have had has been expressed better by someone else at some time or another. I merely borrow their phrasing and credit them for it. The evidence should lie in the argument not in the quote. Also it doesn't seem to me that people get more conservative as they get older, the world simply never stops moving. Liberals who are open to new ideas and continue to question and change their opinions as time passes may remain liberals. Those who fix their ideas at one point in their life and decide that they have made up their minds will become conservatives as society progresses and leaves them behind.

Personally I do not think I have the absolute truth on any matter. I know that in the years to come some of what I now believe to be true will be proven false. However, I do not know what part this will be. Thus, I can either remain permanently undecided on every matter, or I can accept the fact that my knowledge, though more accurate now than it has ever been, will never even remotely approach perfection or certainty.

[bob_gray]

I understand that the democratic system would say that the quote is Churchill but does this site seem legitimate?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112

I agree with smo1704.... after the first sentence. :)

[smo1704]

Hmm. that site appears far more legitimate than the sites that contained the quotations, and many of those sites were devoted to quotations, not Churchill himself. I'd have to agree with bob_gray on this one, unless I find better contradictory information. (Perhaps I should also change the phrasing in my previous post from "in the years to come" to "in the minutes to come")

[ANGLOIRISH]

I stand corrected. Sorry! Should have known that the democrates don't know what they are saying! Thank you for putting me straight!

[GoingNova]

I understand that the democratic system would say that the quote is Churchill but does this site seem legitimate?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112

I agree with smo1704.... after the first sentence. :)
Bob, let me be the first one to say that I believe I must stand corrected. Perhaps it was the equivalent of the George Carlin on Immigration of it's time.

I still like the quote, whoever said it. ;)

I somewhat agree with smo. Let me explain. The LITERAL definition of liberal is much different than what we usually associate with a person called liberal. The same thing with a conservative. Let me take a swing at better definitions, or, at the very least, let me explain what I believe defines what I call a liberal and conservative.

Instead of liberal:
A person who believes that the government should play a broader role in people's day to day lives, and provide much more than the basics, but rather whatever someone does not have. This person believes that those who make more should not have a choice when it comes to "paying their share", and is in favor of wealth redistribution. This person also supports a global government, and puts national sovereignty after this world government. There is also an underlying thought that some people just can't do for themselves, and a society can not rely on charity to support these people. Instead we must rely on a government to, in essence, force those who have, to donate to the cause of those who have not.

Instead of conservative:
A person who believes that the government should play a little to no role in people's day to day lives, and provide them with things only when the need is close to dire. This person believes that people should keep the majority of what they earn, and donations to charity should be the main source of help to those in need. This person believes that the sovereignty of his country trumps, AT ALL TIMES, the wishes of a world government, and believes that the leaders of his country should put the needs and wants of his country ahead of the needs and wants of the global community. There is an underlying thought that, while some people, through no fault of their own, can not provide for themselves, the overwhelming majority of people can. When they don't it usually through some fault of their own. Those who can not take care of themselves should be taken care of, but should be taken care of by charitable institutions, rather than the government.