I know this is intednded to be a rhetorical question, but I like it more in its non-rhetorical form.
This is not what I said at all. I was talking about looking to the law to justify its value as a basis for evaluation. Obeying stupid laws is not necessarily stupid. (Obviously it can be quite wise at times.) Believing that stupid laws should be perceived as valuable standards simply because they are law is stupid.
Fortunately I don't much care about the category of "criminal" except as a matter of trivia.
Perhaps his credibility on issues of moral regulation would suffer, but why is there this rush to dismiss every lunacy of Mr. Barry as somehow being connected to the fact that his prefered recreational intoxicants happen to be on an arbitrary list?
Because they aren't black, because they are successful (thus crowding out potential black-owned businesses), and because they come to this country, often speaking almost no English, and succeed, largely in spite of government rather than because of it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that Marion Barry is some kind of crackhead genius. The man is a whackjob to be sure. I just wonder why people are so quick to say things along the lines of "Yeah he says crazy stuff, but he's just a crackhead." The thing is a lot of the stuff he says is actually representative of his voters. The fact that he happens to engage in vices that are unfashionable uptown shouldn't detract from the fact that the crazy things he says really are indicative of broader societal tensions that aren't just a byproduct of crack.
Problem is there's no easy way to measure fairness, but there are easy ways to measure results, which means that affirmative action tends to be judged by quotas. And that in turn means that if a minority group as a rule works and studies hard, they are going to get shafted by Affirmative Action because Affirmative Action's core philosophy is that there can be no differences between groups except those imposed by institutional racism.
This is true; Jessie Jackson tried to get Affirmative Action limited to American-born blacks on the grounds that African-born blacks didn't suffer under slavery and segregation as did American-born blacks. But the left still has some valid points. To be black is to have a lower chance of inheriting a family business, having family members or friends who are professionals or business people or college graduates, have two parents in the home, have excess income for private school or tutors or computers, have legacy status at a college. American-born blacks have the same opportunities as foreign-born blacks or other immigrants, but have the same entitlement mentality as the rest of us native borns. Whereas American-born Asians have on balance a culture of honoring education, hard work and achievement, American-born blacks have on balance less appreciation for these things than other American-born ethnicities.
There's a reason you'll be a millionaire quicker than in the burbs, risk. Most risky professions do have high margins. Seems if ppl are going to be exposed to being robbed, shot, cussed at they want more money for their efforts and I don't blame them. Koreans should be thought of as heroes rather than gougers - you won't see too many black or white ppl even bother with the ghetto.
