Criminal Law Reforms: African Style

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?ref=books Basically, she's saying that if arrest rates do not adhere to disparate impact standards, they're racist. She claims that the only major reason more blacks are arrested is racism and that drug laws must be repealed because blacks have disproportionate arrests under those laws. I will pass over her idiot imputations about the whole system being an anti-black conspiracy. This entire line of reasoning signally fails to break with the long tradition of blaming white America, and only white America, for black problems. Instead of constructive criticism of the black community, black leaders persist in destructive criticism of black-white relations. Blacks have chosen to adopt a parasitic role in America. It's unhealthy for them. It's unhealthy for their hosts.

One of My Favorite Laws--

Properly demolished in a law review article by a UPenn law professor (and formerly a practicing neurologist with a Harvard MD--which ought to indicate a still more comprehensive knowledge and authority on this subject): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1795443 This is the only law review article I've ever seen that is both substantively consequential in its argument and a demonstration of moral courage. The vast majority manifest neither quality. I'm betting we won't hear tell of this in the NY Times. To them disparate impact rules are a talismanic solution to the overwhelming racism that explains all black and mexican social pathologies. Considering what happened to Larry Summers and Thomas Watson for similar arguments, this lady ought to prepare for a return to neurology.

Criminalizing Protection from Criminals

What would we do without the EEOC? To be fair, I think employers are stupid to issue blanket prohibitions on hiring ex-cons--but, I think this decision should be at their discretion. Employers who act stupidly tend not to do well in business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/us/29records.html

I especially liked this bit:

There is no federal law that prohibits discrimination against people with criminal records. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has set guidelines on how employers can use such records. Because African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities have higher rates of criminal convictions, a blanket policy that screens out anyone with a criminal history will discriminate against these groups, the commission says, and is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The E.E.O.C. has been a plaintiff in several lawsuits over background checks, and the guidelines have led to a raft of lawsuits against companies under Title VII — at least seven are working their way through the courts.

White Americans have No Recognized Nationality

Another instance of one of my favorite laws in action. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/04/disparate-impact-discrimination-against.html Where does this stuff come from?   Moldbug's theory: 1. Academia tells the civil service and the media what to think 2. The bureaucrats (that is, the professional political class) and the journalists use these ideas to formulate an ideology to "guide" the politicians. 3. The politicians pass laws in accordance with "their" ideology, that is, the ideology they are spoon fed by the media and the civil servants (making occasional exceptions for special interests and polling purposes). 4. The bureaucrats transform these laws into regulations that can be acted on.   Now, who constitute the elite of academia and the civil service and the media?