Thus far, most corrupt White House ever
The Dow under Obama. Related, at Pajamas: Turn Back, Mr. President
Chicago wants surveillance cameras everywhere. Except in their pols’ offices, no doubt.
Disagreement with stimulus is racist, claim…

I'm not sure there's a definition of racism that wouldn't entail, say, individuals holding racist beliefs.

“It will always be possible to make people's outcomes a little more equal by making government a little more invasive and abridging people's freedoms a little bit more. So an important question–*the* question, really–is how you know when you're done. Is a program like Affirmative Action going too far, or not far enough?”

My initial response was a general answer to a general post by Mr. Sanders (who wrote, for instance, “History is not perfect. But we have come a long way. Let’s be willing to say that.”) My response was not meant to litigate precisely when freedom must give way to equality in the government sphere–the only thoughtful answer would be that it depends on the particular program and all of the circumstances surrounding it at the time. Anyway, I have a sneaking suspicion we would eventually disagree on whatever program we discussed.

All I did was encourage a fundamentally different way of looking at things. It may not enrich you, but that doesn't mean it won't enrich others.

Depending on your definition of racism, yes. If everyone is enjoying the same rights, equal protection under the law, and a generally level playing field, why are anyone's weekend activities a matter of public interest?

Your contrast between the lowest and the highest standards is problematic. It will always be possible to make people's outcomes a little more equal by making government a little more invasive and abridging people's freedoms a little bit more. So an important question–*the* question, really–is how you know when you're done. Is a program like Affirmative Action going too far, or not far enough? Ambiguous formulations like “positive equality” don't shed any light.

But, you can have equality of opportunity and still have rampant racism, can't you? For example, people can hold KKK rallies on the weekends as their white children attend the same universities as black children.

If one considers ALL of the myriad implications of racism, I believe there is a consensus that we haven't arrived.

“Of course that's not really what we want, so that suggests that in this case at least, equality is the wrong goal.”

Then substitute the phrase “positive equality” or “optimal equality.”

“I think defining equality would be helpful.”

There is no universally accepted definition for terrorism, much less one for something as amorphous as equality. But as I alluded to right above, there is more to consider than simply legal or economic issues, it also entails sociological ones.

“If you accept the concept of a black culture you also have to accept there will be inherent weaknesses and strengths within it. In that case you could continually point to the weaknesses and say that we have not yet achieved equality.”

There is no reason we cannot attempt to address those issues as well. Although I must say that I have witnessed the black culture issue too often be used as a conversation ender, rather than a conversation starter.

“And then you'd have to advocate government programs to wipe out the inequality, essentially committing the government to a War on Culture.”

Please recall that I used the term “total equality” simply as a contrast to “our horrible, tragic history.” The point was simply about what our orientation should be when judging progress: are we going to use the lowest standard or the highest standard? I feel it necessary to point out that I did not propose any particular program or method of action that could lead to such a Parade of Horribles.

Rudi, that begs the question of how anyone becomes part of the power structure. You seem to be suggesting that if I put in my time in a gang, eventually someone will decide it's my turn and put me in a position of authority. It might have worked that way for George Bush, but I'm pretty sure he was an exception.

Well, there is the president.

The Purple Gang:

Detroit's Infamous Purple Gang

By Paul R. Kavieff / Special to The News

July 16, 1999

The Detroit River was a highway for Canadian liquor during Prohibition. A Detroit News photographer hid in a coal elevator to get this picture of rumrunners loading their cars at the foot of Riopelle in 1929.

With the advent of Prohibition in Michigan on May 1, 1918, the young delinquents quickly graduated from nuisance types of street crime to armed robbery, hijacking, extortion, and other strong arm work. They became notorious for their high profile manner of operation and their savagery in dealing with enemies.

The four Bernstein brothers, Abe, Joe, Raymond, and Isadore (Izzy), soon became the recognized leaders of the mob. The Purple Gang was never a tightly organized criminal syndicate but a loose confederation of predominantly Jewish gangsters. By the early twenties, the Purples had developed an unsavory reputation as hijackers, stealing liquor loads from older and more established gangs of rumrunners. The Purple Gang always preferred hijacking to rumrunning and their methods were brutal. Anyone landing liquor along the Detroit waterfront had to be armed and prepared to fight to the death as it was common practice for the Purples to take a load of liquor and shoot whoever was with it. In the early years, the Purple Gang preyed exclusively on other underworld operators, insulating them from the police.

That is a good, prudent answer.

However I don't think there's as much consensus as you suppose. I see liberals focus on equality of outcome, on which measure we have a great ways to go. Meanwhile conservatives focus on equality of opportunity, and on that measure there is a case to be made that we've already arrived.

“That would mean that crime would go down. Why is that a bad goal?”

Less crime is good. But at the risk of being pedantic, to reach equality the black crime rate has to drop while the white one drops less. Indeed, we can probably hit the goal faster if the white crime rate rises. Of course that's not really what we want, so that suggests that in this case at least, equality is the wrong goal.

I think there's a consensus that we aren't there yet. If and when that consensus breaks down, determining the precise moment of achievement would be a good problem to have.

“What's the goal state, that blacks commit crimes at the same rate as whites?”

Considering that the black crime rate is (unfortunately) higher, that would mean that crime would go down. Why is that a bad goal?

But J, perhaps they're in prison because they're committing more crimes. What's the goal state, that blacks commit crimes at the same rate as whites?

I fear liberals are doing exactly that. Without troubling to answer an important question: what does “total equality” mean, and how will we know when we've achieved it?

So have we come along way? Yes, but that's compared to our horrible tragic history. But why such a low standard? Shouldn't we instead be comparing our progress to total equality?

So a lot of Americans are scratching their heads, wondering what the hell Holder means, since they don't think they need a “conversation,” especially those under 40.

http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/