The other day, I was reading about “the first Latino fundraiser for Obama’s candidacy.” The president was talking to “about 120 mostly Latino contributors.” And I thought, “Even our fundraisers are segregated now? Must everything in American life be divided up by ethnicity and race?”
I have an idea: How about separate drinking fountains and toilet facilities? Has anyone ever thought of that?
E pluribus unum — a great principle. We ought to think about adopting it and living it someday . . .
Sen. Marco Rubio keeps swearing up and down that he would not accept the Republican vice-presidential nomination. This is bad, very bad. Maybe he thinks he needs to say this in order to get people off his back — in order to stop this line of questioning. (“What about the vice-presidency, Marco?”) But . . .
A) If his party calls, will he really say no? B) If his country calls, will he really say no?
I wonder how he can accept the nomination now, after his categorical statements. If he does, he’ll look like just another politician, one who doesn’t tell the truth but who says whatever is convenient to say at the moment.
A couple of fools at a Republican debate cheer inappropriately, or boo inappropriately, and it becomes a national issue. The president of the United States mentions it.
For two or three weeks, this nation was convulsed — convulsed — by the question of whether Tea Party people had spat on congressmen and used the N-word.
Okay: The Occupy Wall Street people are engaged in the most vile antics. They are crapping on police cars and so on. They routinely say dopey and hateful and Nazi-like things.
Prominent Democrats have made very sympathetic noises about the “occupiers.” Should we Republicans hang the occupiers around their necks, as they would do to us, for sure? (I realize that ain’t the Golden Rule.)
Of course, the Democrats always get more media help than we do. Is that whiny to say, or just truthful? A combination of the two, no doubt.
In early October, I said I heard a dog not barking: I hadn’t heard about the birth-certificate issue in ages. Since April, actually, when President Obama at long last approved the release of his “long form.” Obama had killed the issue dead, I said. Thank goodness.
I also said, “Think the Democrats miss it? The issue, I mean?” It was always so good for them: because it made opposition to Obama — all opposition — look kooky.
An astute reader wrote to me, “Not so fast — there are still birther rumbles.” And, lo, about two weeks later, Governor Perry went and reopened the issue. The same reader wrote me back and said, “You jinxed it!”
A word about the Israeli-Palestinian swap — the 1,027 terrorists for Gilad Shalit. I hated this swap, just hated it. It will mean more killings, probably more hostage-taking. And yet I’m for it.
Does that make me a blockhead?
I think of the death penalty: I’m against it, by and large. Yet I know it deters. I know the absence of the death penalty means more crime — more murders, to be blunt about it.
Am I a blockhead, and guilty, to boot? (Let me stress that these questions are strictly rhetorical . . .)
Arabs hate it when people say, “The thing is, the Jews love life while the Arabs love death. Simple as that.” This is a gross generality, probably a slander. Yet people will go on saying it until the Arabs, as a whole, disprove it.
Who can love death, except the psychopathic?
The above item is not my clearest — it needs mega-elaboration. But I trust you can sense what I’m groping at.
Several days a week, I walk by the Intrepid, on the Hudson River. Almost every time, someone is having his picture taken in front of the ship. Usually several someones.
Earlier this week, I thought, “Is that the way it’s going to be in the future? Will our ships in general be like the Intrepid — museums? Will America be a formerly mighty power, with tourists taking pictures of what used to be? Will we be like Europe, a has-been continent?”
I’m not ready for that, chillen. It’s not just a matter of personal or national pride. This is not a question of vanity. The world hath need of us. For if not us, who? (To coin a phrase.)
Back to the Middle East: A few weeks ago, I was reading Jennifer Rubin’s account of an interview she had with Mitt Romney — here. Romney spoke of his first trip to Israel, in May 1998. He said that, of all the trips he has taken in his life, that one has to be “the most emotional.”
This was “not only because [Israel] is the birthplace of my faith, but because of the extraordinary commitment of the people of Israel to values that we share — freedom, tolerance of others.”
You might say this is just a candidate blowin’ smoke — telling a strongly pro-Israel journalist what she wanted to hear. I don’t know. But as I read Mitt’s words, I thought, “You know, it’s true of me, too. The most emotional trip I have ever taken was one to Israel.”
FWIW (“For what it’s worth”), as they say.
Here I go again, rising to the defense of Anna Kournikova. Remember her? Beautiful blonde tennis player? Always mocked for being more famous than her record warranted?
On Monday, an article about quarterback Tim Tebow said, “. . . there are those who think he might prove to be the NFL’s version of Russian tennis player Anna Kournikova — popular, attractive and talented but not cut out for the weekly grind of the professional circuit.”