In my recent article discussing the issues surrounding the Sotomayor nomination — and in particular the prominence of identity politics — I pointed out that the worst racist abuses often come from the proponents of identity politics themselves.  Here’s some of what I said:

The politics of identity is always presented as an end in itself; the goal is to achieve representation for minority groups.  But in practice it is a tool designed to obscure the true objectives of its practitioners: the advancement of left-wing politics.  It is the political beliefs of the individual, and not their group membership, that determines whether identity politics will be used for or against them, to enhance their reputations or to destroy them.

…The different treatment of Sotomayor and other minorities by the proponents of identity politics is puzzling only when we make the mistake of taking them at their word that they seek merely to advance historically disadvantaged groups.  But when the cloak is removed, we see that the real objective is to advance the Democrat Party and the leftist agenda.  Perhaps in this small way Dr. King’s dream finally has been realized: those standing in the way of liberal democrats will be subjected to the abusive politics of personal destruction regardless of race or creed.

I provided several examples in the article, like the treatment of Miguel Estrada. Today, the New York Times provides yet another example of the hate and vitriol that is reserved for minorities who do not toe the line of the identity politics agenda.

Lt. Ben Vargas’ only crime was to work hard, then study for and pass a test for promotion.  He then had the gall to ask that his hard work not be tossed out because special victim groups didn’t work as hard.

The two dozen firefighters who packed into Humphrey’s East Restaurant were celebrating a coming marriage, drinking and jawboning in the boisterous style of large men with risky jobs, but Lt. Ben Vargas spent the evening trying to escape the tension surrounding his presence.

During a trip to the bathroom, he found himself facing another man. Without warning, the first punch landed. When Lieutenant Vargas awoke, bloodied and splayed on the grimy floor, he was taken to the hospital.

Lieutenant Vargas believes the attack, five years ago, was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retaliation for his having joined a racial discrimination lawsuit against the city over its tossing out of an exam for promotion that few minority firefighters passed. (No arrests were made in the attack, and the black firefighter vigorously denies having been involved.)

…But Lieutenant Vargas bore more than his share of the criticism, said Lt. Matthew Marcarelli, who was among the plaintiffs and has known Lieutenant Vargas since they were classmates at the fire academy. “Why the other guys viewed him as a turncoat I really don’t understand. He did it because he’s principled and he thought it was the right thing to do. Benny’s nobody’s token.”

Chief Marquez said his old protégé was “an easy target because he didn’t fall in line.”

“It seems that if you’re not the right type of minority, you get hammered,” he said.

Identity politics is destructive to the very groups it claims to help and society as a whole.

Sarah Palin announced today not only that she would not run for re-election, but also that she is resigning as governor well before the end of her first term.  Michelle Malkin has the details.

If she has designs for the presidency in 2012 then this is an odd move.  A governorship is historically the best place from which to launch a national campaign.  She might be looking to enhance her foreign policy credentials, in which case she could challenge Murkowski in 2010 for the Alaskan Senate, then aim for 2016 to run for president.  But given the number of governors versus senators ever elected as president, that would be an odd strategy indeed.

Also, her speech was terrible.  If she wants to be taken seriously on the national stage, then she will have to improve significantly.  She rambled on and bounced defensively from issue to issue. I got so bored I turned it off before she ever got around to the point, which was her resignation.

I think Sarah Palin has an important and useful role she can play in the republican party, but it shouldn’t be as their candidate for president in 2012.

Not everyone in the Republican party is too scared to stand up against the big government onslaught:

I recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:

To the Editor:

Your recent editorial (“The Fast-Draw-but-Don’t-Drink Law,” June 25th) regarding the decision by the Tennessee legislature to allow bar owners the right to decide for themselves whether patrons should be allowed to bring guns onto their property was heavy on hyperbole and light on facts.

The editorial approvingly quoted Gov. Bredesen’s claim that the bill is “an invitation to a disaster,” then lamented that “there is no requirement for owners to post warnings of the dangers inside at the doorways of gun-friendly places.” It also highlighted the fact that over 30 states have similar laws. With all these states creating so many opportunities for disaster, it’s interesting that your editorial writers weren’t able to muster up any specific incidents to bolster their case. Either your editorial stuff is incredibly negligent in its research, or reality simply isn’t cooperating with your anti-gun agenda.

Sincerely,

Brian Garst

I discuss Wal-Mart’s recent decision to endorse an employer mandate at the American Thinker blog.

Things have certainly changed® from the good old days under Bush when practically anyone willing to work could land a job.  “Shared sacrifice” appears to be one of the few campaign promises that Obama is willing to follow through on.  Another 467,000 Americans lost their jobs last month.  In Obamaspeak, this means that something like 90,000 plusgood jobs were saved or created.  So don’t go getting in a tizzy over another half million Americans having their lives ruined.  Obviously it could have been worse had we not elected business hostile socialists to every lever of power.  See?:

Er, maybe not.

Unemployment now sits at it’s highest level in 26 years, and underemployment is at the highest rate since measurements were taken. By my calculations, (and I’ve got a degree in math and stuff) far from having saved or created anything, Obama’s assault on what little free market we started with has endangered or destroyed no less than 50 million jobs.  I welcome attempts by Obama’s economists to disprove this claim.

We are 1/8th of the way through Obama’s reign of misery, a.k.a. America’s latest “crucible of freedom”.  Perhaps it’s time for Team Hopenchange to stop blaming Bush and start addressing the reasons their economic policies aren’t performing as promised.

UPDATE:

Perhaps not.

Along with the Ricci decision, there was more important news that came out of the Supreme Court on Monday. Rather than issuing a decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the court invited new oral arguments with the question: “For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and a part of McConnell v. FEC, which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?”

People who know much more about this sort of thing than I have weighed in on what this means.

Institute for Justice:

The Court has set up a blockbuster case about Americans’ First Amendment rights to join together and speak freely about politics.  A majority of the High Court appears to recognize the grave threat to free speech posed by both the electioneering communications ban in McCain-Feingold and the ban on corporate political speech.  This case could mark a significant advance for First Amendment rights and will have major implications for state laws nationwide.

Cato@Liberty:

Justices Kennedy and Scalia, both current members of the Court, wrote dissents in Austin. Justice Thomas has called for Austin to be overruled in other contexts.  Neither Justices Roberts nor Alito is likely to vote to uphold Austin (or the relevant parts of McConnell v. FEC for that matter). But it would seem that either or both of them were unwilling to strike down a precedent without a formal hearing. That hearing will come on September 9 with a decision expected by Thanksgiving.

Almost six years after the Court utterly refused to defend free speech in McConnell v. FEC, the Roberts Court may be ready to vindicate the First Amendment against its accusers in Congress and elsewhere.

Truck safety advocates push to mandate speed-limiting devices

Stephen Owings, whose 22-year-old son died when his car was rear-ended, is fighting to have the federal government require the use of speed-limiting devices on all big rigs, saying: “We’re not against truckers; we’re pro-highway safety.”

Most often, citizen-crusaders find themselves in lonely, unequal struggles against industry groups and lobbyists…

Those poor nannies! Don’t you feel sad for them?  Unfortunately for them, Obama has said that he believes in a government with a “light touch.”

…But this time, David and Goliath seem to be on the same side.

Wait, what?

In 2006, Owings petitioned the Transportation Department to require the use of speed-limiting devices but got nowhere with the regulatory-wary Bush administration. But after a recent meeting with an Obama administration official, Owings is encouraged. “This administration is much more open to regulation,” he said.

Sigh.  You don’t say.

When you allow political channels to be used to pick economic winners and losers, it is inevitable that politicians will use political (or personal) criteria, instead of “the public good,” as naively claimed, to make those decisions.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye’s staff contacted federal regulators last fall to ask about the bailout application of an ailing Hawaii bank that he had helped to establish and where he has invested the bulk of his personal wealth.

The bank, Central Pacific Financial, was an unlikely candidate for a program designed by the Treasury Department to bolster healthy banks. The firm’s losses were depleting its capital reserves. Its primary regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., already had decided that it didn’t meet the criteria for receiving a favorable recommendation and had forwarded the application to a council that reviewed marginal cases, according to agency documents.

Two weeks after the inquiry from Inouye’s office, Central Pacific announced that the Treasury would inject $135 million.

WaPo finally got around to identifying his party affiliation in paragraph 5.  Sen. Inouye is a democrat, in case it wasn’t painfully obvious.  Drain the swamp!

An interesting perspective on different presidents (and congresses) and their contributions to the national debt:

Hat tip: Econosseur