I'm an inch away from total writing burnout mode today, but I thought I would try to squeeze out a couple of Friday tidbits from my dying fingers....

Much to my amusement, it turns out that Glenn Beck has (via the other Glenn) joined Dick Cheney and Laura Bush in being to the left of Obama on gay marriage. I don't know Glenn Beck well enough to be surprised, but many people seem to be. Most likely, they're desperate promoters of the Conservatives Hate Homos narrative -- the sort who found it surprising that Elton John and Rush Limbaugh were friends. But hey, Elton John is a traitor for performing at Rush's wedding! And if you don't agree, you're a homophobe if you're straight and a self-hating homo if you're gay!

I really should do a better job of following these things.

I should also have taken the time to watch the Comedy Central piece that
Jonah Goldberg watched, after which he opined that the race card is maxed out and the payment is coming due.

He's hardly alone. Commenting on a racialized New York Times scolding about "baseball coaches from minority groups" being "found more often coaching at first base than at third base," and "third-base coaches become managers more often than first-base coaches," Thomas Sowell argues that it's past time to throw the statistical differences race card out of the deck:

This may seem to be just another passing piece of silliness. But it is part of a more general bean-counting mentality that turns statistical differences into grievances. The time is long overdue to throw this race card out of the deck and start seeing it for the gross fallacy that it is.

At the heart of such statistics is the implicit assumption that different races, sexes and other subdivisions of the human species would be proportionately represented in institutions, occupations and income brackets if there was not something strange or sinister going on.

Suppose I decide to sell my used car, and I run an ad offering it for $10,000. Right there, I would be having a disparate impact on the people who did not have $10,000. (I realize none of them would complain, but be patient. I'm still a low level "operator.") Suppose I decide it would be easier to sell the car if I offer financing, but only to those "with approved credit." Another disparate impact. But still no one complains. Eventually, I sell the car, use the proceeds to buy another one, then two, then five, and ultimately I find myself renting an unused parking lot for the 500 or so cars I have accumulated as my inventory. At that point, my "discrimination" will begin to attract enough public attention that one of my hapless credit-unworthy "victims" (someone I've turned down) will find a lawyer, and claim that my credit practices (which had nothing to do with anything but covering my bottom line) have a "disparate impact" on a particular group of people to which he happens to belong.

Sound unfair? You bet. But this same basic operating principle lies at the heart of the heart of the crisis.

The "disparate impact" movement is not about minorities. It is not about racism.

It is a lie. A lie grounded in labeling as "discrimination" things which are not. A lie promulgated and perpetuated by those who want to control the business sector. A lie which is always driven by the dishonest accusation that someone is guilty of discrimination. A lie backed by an ever present witch hunt mentality.

I realize, though, that "lie" might have too inflammatory a ring to it for some readers. But I think most reasonable people can agree that "disparate impact" is at least an error in logic.

I think it's a huge, tragic error. One for which we are all paying a very dear price.

There's no better con than fraud accomplished through intimidation.