sorry, but Ive had it with those nude statues in the Great
Hall of the Department of Justice. Theyve caused too much
mischief for conservative attorneys general. Remember when Ed Meese
announced the findings of the Justice Departments Commission
on Pornography? (This was usually called the Meese Commission,
because the press hated Meese and wanted to link him to something
they also hated. Actually, President Reagan mandated the commission,
and William French Smith was attorney general during virtually the
entirety of its work. Meese came on in time to announce the findings.)
Anyway, when Meese made his announcement, it was in front of these
statues, which caused great and ignorant yukking among the press:
Didnt those step on your message, Mr. Dumb Puritan? And Meese,
of course, was talking about such stuff as the roping of vulnerable
runaway boys into pornography. The obfuscation done by the anti-anti-porn
people as though the rape of children for pictures and the
display of the Venus de Milo amounted to the same thing is
one of the dirtiest tricks of our time.
And now John
Ashcroft has been bitten by The Great Breast apparently,
someone wanted it covered for the AGs press conferences. And
this has given the press an excuse to say that Ashcroft hates dancing
and is basically unfit for American life.
inanimate objects caused high officials so many problems. If theyre
going to call us philistines, yahoos, and boobs anyway why
dont we just do away with the other kind of boobs in the Great
may have noticed that Condi Rice addressed the C-PAC conference,
a hotbed of rabid right-wingers (and I say that affectionately).
Many Republican officials like to stay away from this event
they dont want the taint of the RR (Rabid Right). (Ronald
Reagan, yes. Rabid Right, no.) Well, Rice didnt stay away.
I have long rooted for this lady to enter the electoral arena, and
I hope she does after she finishes the second Bush term as secretary
of state. And if she does, an acquaintance with C-PAC wont
commentators have been ballyhooing the Washington Posts
recent series on the White House directly after 9/11. I read one
installment and it was indeed interesting and would
like to comment on two items.
got under my skin deeply:
called Sharon in an effort to prod the Israeli leader to take
steps to try to reduce the violence that threatened to destroy
any hopes of peace in the Middle East. Bush believed that Israel
ultimately could be one of the principal beneficiaries of a global
war on terrorism and wanted Sharon to see that as well. It was
not clear that Sharon understood Bushs message.
Ariel Sharon a little cloudy about a war on terrorism and what it
might mean for Israel? Right. Look: Arik Sharon was fighting terrorists
shooting at them and being shot at by them when the
current president was in school. When he was puking his guts out.
When he was failing, then succeeding, in business. And when he was
thinking about running for governor of the Lone Star State. Sharon
has forgotten more about terrorism and the dimensions of fighting
it than Bush will ever know. The continual American condescension
to Israel on this issue is astounding to me.
But let me
put my Bush hat on and issue something positive. The Post
article reported that, in the aftermath of the attacks, the presidents
team gathered in Dick Cheneys cabin at Camp David for a meal
of . . . buffalo.
know about you this isnt very logical, just a gut feeling
but I feel very good about the fact that the leadership of
this nation in war is eating buffalo. Its a buffalo-eating
kind of time, and task.
Associated Press reports that a judge in Alabama has forbidden a
mother to take her two-year-old daughter to live in Israel: The
country is too dangerous. That is, indeed, a country under siege
perpetually. And no amount of nicey-nice in the West Bank
and Gaza would ease that; indeed, it would intensify aggression,
as repeatedly proven.
right, I now have to address the great Democrat/Democratic debate
in America. A reader has written me imploring me to say Democrat
party, Democrat policy, and so on, instead of
Democratic. I am forced to explain that Democrat
is the noun, Democratic the adjective. Republican
serves as both noun and adjective which is why we have the
confusion, probably. I once heard a caller to C-SPAN say, indignantly,
Why do I have to say Democratic, when we dont
Republican pols have long liked to use Democrat adjectivally.
Bob Dole, during the infamous vice-presidential debate of 1976,
talked about Democrat wars. George W. Bush says Democrat
in that same way: I got many friends in the Democrat party.
Basically, wherever there are goobers or Republican mischief-makers,
there will be Democrat as an adjective.
The idea is
that democratic is a good thing to be, and Democrats shouldnt
apply this term to their awful selves. Well, republican is a good
thing to be, too this nation is a republic but too
few people recognize that these days. We used to speak frequently
of republican virtues thats been somewhat
My fellow right-wingers,
if it hurts you to say, or write, Democratic, just remember
that thats Democratic with a very, very big D
a D right through the ceiling. Because many of the Democrats
we encounter are anything but democratic (and some Republicans,
it is true, are rather less than strictly republican).
the previous Impromptus, I wrote something touching about the first
Bush, H.W. Or rather, I wrote that Id been touched by something
he said: I used to be the President, I used to be George Bush.
I dont know who the hell I am anymore.
to relate another endearing H.W. moment, this one learned from a
well-placed PGA source. Its the 2000 Presidents Cup (a biennial
international golf event). Bush introduces himself to a U.S. player,
saying, Hi, Im George Bush. I dont know if you
remember me, but we met years ago when you were an amateur.
The player says, Oh, of course I remember you, Mr. President.
H.W. says, Well, I wasnt sure I was only vice
president then. And Bush appeared to have meant it.
my H.W., another great wartime leader (by the way).
been a tough couple of weeks for two of the greatest cuties of our
times: Winona Ryder and Olga Korbut (cutie circa 1972). Winona is
battling shoplifting actually, grand-theft charges
in L.A.; Olga is facing them in the Atlanta area. Is there something
about world-historic cuteness and theft? (Back when I was in college,
when I said something . . . er, admiring about Winona Ryder, a friend
of mine, who also liked her, and claimed to have liked her first,
said, Hey, stop cheating on me with Winona! He is a
very fine wit.)
the 72 Olympics, its a toss-up as to who was cuter:
Olga Korbut or Cathy Rigby. But in Montreal came Nadia, blowing
them all out of the water. (I know this is Winter Olympics
season, but Ill be talking about them soon enough.)
you a politician? If so, have you ever been the target of a headline
like this? This is from the Feb. 2 New York Times: Bloomberg
Hires 2 Relatives and Jokes About Layoffs. You dont
have to be a Bill Kristol-level political analyst to know that thats
a bad headline, folks. And the headline-writer must have
pro-aborts are squawking about the Bush administrations
decision to classify unborn children as unborn children for the
purpose of prenatal care. The pro-abortion forces are in an impossible
position: They have to pretend that what everyone really
knows to be true is, in fact, not true that unborn children
are, come to think of it, unborn children. Do useless blobs of protoplasm
have need of this kind of care? I almost feel sorry for Kate
One of the
most interesting people I knew in college is the only person Ive
ever met who acknowledged that abortion was the killing of an unborn
child but favored its legalization anyway. I wasnt quite sure
whether to admire him (for his honesty) or deplore him (for his
position). Im still not sure.
now, Mr. Castro. The kids on Semester at Sea had a nice
four-hour meeting with him. They cheered him, trembled in awe before
him. Their professors swooned. One student asked for a hug
youll be relieved to know that Castro agreed. He said, During
these 43 years of revolution, hate was never instilled against the
United States. The United States was never blamed for our difficulties
. . . Never. That is why I dare say that perhaps no other country
treats U.S. citizens with more hospitality than Cuba. We have tried
to instill ideas, not fanaticism; wisdom, not hate. We have tried
to educate, not incite prejudice or hate that could only
lead to war and tragedy.
Castro is not
only a murderer, a torturer, and an oppressor, he is a fantastic
liar. And the kids and their profs, of course, lapped it up.
Then too, the
(outgoing) Republican governor of Illinois, George Ryan, went down
to Havana for some more dictatorship-love. He certainly didnt
rub shoulders with any democrats, any oppositionists, any regular
Cubans. In fact, like most Americans, he stayed at a hotel
the Varadero that bans Cubans. No Cuban is allowed
to stay as a guest there, and no Cuban is allowed on the premises,
except for some strictly screened workers. This is the system of
apartheid there: The Castro-seekers never have to meet anyone who
has anything dangerous to say about the regime. Nice
going, Gov. You jackass.
Indian friend of mine remembers the signs that used to appear in
colonial India at country clubs, for example saying,
No dogs or Indians allowed. Liberals, quite rightly,
hated that. Why dont they hate it in Cuba? Oh, I know.
a nice day, yall.