I’ve written about racial foolishness for a very long time, and I ought to be fairly blasé about it. But, I must say, I was sort of shaken by this “black hole” business. You know the story, right? County commissioner in Dallas speaks about a “black hole” of bureaucracy. Another commissioner protests that this is racist. And a judge demands an apology from the original commissioner.

A judge! This guy’s on the bench, where they’re supposed to be wise. (If you’d like to read an account of this episode, go here.)

I wonder whether these grievance-mongering lunatics can be shamed — or, better than shamed, enlightened. Many people try to do their part. But it seems uphill, as these instances recur year after year after year . . .

‐I did find a news story that made me smile — it was headed, “Obama revels in contrasts with McCain” (here). The story said, “In McCain, the likely Democratic nominee faces an opponent who is the opposite of him in every way — an Iraq war backer who supports free-market economics, opposes abortion rights and is a Republican.”

So Obama opposes free-market economics? It’s official, now that the Associated Press has said so?!

‐As regular readers know, this column has devoted acres of space to Che Guevara, over many years. If you’d like to see a proper magazine piece, go here — this is “Che Chic: It’s très disgusting.”

Well, we now have the biggest Che story ever — or, more specifically, the biggest Che-shirt story ever. The hostage-rescuing Colombians fooled the leftist guerrillas in part by wearing Che shirts — that signaled to the leftists that this band was on their side.

We might pose a question: Does this episode embarrass those in the Free West who wear Che shirts? With whom would they like to be identified — the hostage-rescuers or the hostage-takers? Is there any way that the myth of Che can be punctured?

I don’t know, but those Colombian rescuers raised my spirits. And, as many Impromptus readers pointed out: “At last, a good use for a Che shirt.”

‐From leftist guerrillas to a leftist dictator: Raúl Castro made a fascinating statement the other day (and for the AP story, go here). He said, “Socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of opportunities, not of income. Equality is not egalitarianism.”

Is that a Communist dictator or is that Friedrich Hayek?

‐Listen to President Bush, earlier in the month: “The temptation is to kinda say, ‘Maybe this isn’t really a war. Maybe this is just a bunch of disgruntled folks that occasionally come and hurt us.’ That’s not the way I feel about it.”

Exactly, Mr. President, exactly — keep it up.

‐Now, I like a pun as much as anyone — probably more than most. And I’ve committed many myself. But I have long decried the epidemic of puns in headlines and titles. They seem almost obligatory; and they often seem forced.

I say, if your headline or title is going to be a pun — better make it damn good.

I thought of this when spying a review of a new book: Hammer and Tickle: A History of Communism Told Through Communist Jokes.

“Hammer and Tickle”? Oh, no! (Even if it is a book about humor.)

‐From puns to translation: At a New York Philharmonic concert not long ago, they played the overture to Rossini’s opera L’Italiana in Algeri, or The Italian Girl in Algiers. Often, when speaking in English, people shorten the title to “The Italian Girl.”

Well, the Philharmonic’s program had a PC and utterly absurd translation: “The Italian Woman in Algiers.” That is so wrong in so many ways.

Also on the program was the Sarasate violin piece Zigeunerweisen, or Gypsy Airs. A friend of mine wrote, “Our PC arts police should no longer allow us to call them ‘Gypsy Airs’ but ‘Folk Melodies of Oppressed Impecunious Persons of Middle and Lower European Heritage.’”

Well done — although, joking aside, I suspect we will see “Romany Airs” at some point.

‐While in Japan, President Bush placed a message on a “wishing tree.” Apparently, this is an old tradition. (Is that a redundancy?) Bush’s message: “I wish for a world free from tyranny: the tyranny of hunger, disease; and free from tyrannical governments. I wish for a world in which the universal desire for liberty is realized.”

That is what I would have expected from him — and one reason I admire him so much. Most people, it seems certain, would have wished for “peace.” Bush is a man who recognizes that genuine peace comes from freedom.

I’ll never forget Thatcher, speaking in my formative years. “ ‘Peace’!” she would say, almost mocking the word. “Whose peace? Poland’s? Bulgaria’s? The peace of the grave?”

Anyway . . .

‐Was talking to a friend of mine back home in Michigan. Bright guy, well educated, very successful. And very much a liberal Democrat. He said we had to have Obama in November — because “we can’t have Big Oil running the government any longer.”

I ask for the millionth time: How can perfectly normal and non-crazy people believe that stuff? It’s not just that I’m on the other side; it’s that I’m honestly puzzled.

‐Would like now to bring up a question of etiquette — of public behavior. I was on a train, for about an hour, over the weekend. Crowded car. A man and a woman — a couple, middle-aged — were reading their New York Timeses. Each had his own copy. And they were talking loudly about what the Times had to say. “Did you see this editorial?” etc.

They were reading the Times as though poring over Scripture. It seemed, in fact, a substitute Bible.

All the while, this couple, in their loud voices — in an otherwise quiet public environment — were condemning Bush, condemning the Iraq War, condemning skeptics of global warming, blah, blah, blah. They were doing this not only loudly; they were doing it smugly. It was as though they were congratulating themselves with every syllable.

I got up to see if I could find another seat, (much) farther away. None was available. I returned to my seat, and, eventually, their conversation subsided. Peace reigned.

When I encounter behavior like this, I don’t just scold (internally); I take it as a reminder, or counter-example: “Don’t be that way.”

Now, I don’t think very much of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry: but it is simply uncivilized — inconsiderate, unacceptable — to denounce them loudly amidst strangers, who did not ask for your opinion, who may be supporters of theirs, and who have a right not to be subjected to your contempt.

Am I right, people? (That is merely rhetorical.)

‐Would like to close with a letter:

Jay,
I thought you would appreciate this. I was driving back home from the beach last night when I came upon a driver who was going below the speed limit in the left lane. The back of her Subaru Outback was riddled with political stickers. While there were the usual stickers — “War Is Not the Answer,” “Save the Whales,” etc. — the sticker that caught my attention read, “Hugo Chavez.”

Yes, of course: but when you suggest that American liberals have a soft spot for the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez — and they do — people get very, very cross. Call you a McCarthyite.

Well, at least we can know them by their bumper stickers . . .