|
by Mischief Nazi 10/04/2005, 5:29pm PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ray of Light wrote:
Levitt himself provides one of very few reasoned responses.
People should bear in mind that this took place on an unscripted radio show in response to a caller's question. It was clearly off-the-cuff. This is a very different situation than, say, Bennett's writing an op-ed piece.
True.
Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics. It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement. Empirically, what matters is the fact that abortions are disproportionately used on unwanted pregnancies, and disproportionately by teenage women and single women.
Granted.
There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways.
And I in turn would take the freakonimics guy to task for having it both ways: 1) this was an unscripted comment made in the heat of the moment 2) Putting said comment through a rigorous examination shows that it is equally valid for all ethnic groups, not just black babies, which Bennet was obviously being too meta for critics to pick up on.
If Bennett was citing the freakonomics hypothesis which, according to this dude, does not include race at all, then the mention of babies being black is a completely unnecessary qualifier. And in my experience in politics, unnecessary qualifiers are a better window into a persons thought process than a freudian slip. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Pat Robertson, Bill Bennet, is the right wing getting cocky? by Mischief Maker 10/02/2005, 3:38pm PDT 
Re: Pat Robertson, Bill Bennet, is the right wing getting cocky? by Weyoun Voidbringer 10/02/2005, 6:34pm PDT 
Re: Pat Robertson, Bill Bennet, is the right wing getting cocky? by Ray of Light 10/02/2005, 7:13pm PDT 
Re: Pat Robertson, Bill Bennet, is the right wing getting cocky? by Mischief Nazi 10/04/2005, 5:29pm PDT 
Re: Pat Robertson, Bill Bennet, is the right wing getting cocky? by Ray of Light 10/04/2005, 8:44pm PDT 
I'm pretty sure he just thinks niggers want to steal his stuff. NT by Worm 10/05/2005, 9:20am PDT 
Fuck You, Worm NT by in pointy 10/05/2005, 2:04pm PDT 
Re: Pat Robertson, Bill Bennet, is the right wing getting cocky? by motherfuckerfoodeater 10/02/2005, 7:39pm PDT 
We're all sick of your regurgi-replies. NT by Zseni 10/02/2005, 7:57pm PDT 
Aren't you dead? NT by 30 Large Bags 10/04/2005, 7:30pm PDT 
They destroyed the simulator room and you with it! NT by Admiral laudablepuss 10/05/2005, 12:43pm PDT 
MP3, for those who want it. by Fussbett 10/05/2005, 1:02am PDT 
MEDIA MATTERS?!?!?! by Billy O. 10/05/2005, 8:24am PDT 
|
|