Well, that was an amazing performance by Sonia Sotomayor before the Senate committee. The Sonia Sotomayor of the past was completely gone. Gone was the woman who talked about the role of “physiology” in judging, who insisted that impartiality, objectivity, neutrality — all of that — was a fantasy, and a bad one. In her place was a champion of impartiality, disinterestedness, and the rule of law: the rule of law, and nothing but. Doesn’t make a difference whether you’re a Latina or a whitey or whatever. “Empathy”? Never heard of it. Certainly has no role in the courtroom.
A funny thought occurred to me: Maybe President Obama should withdraw Sotomayor’s nomination? I mean, she seemed to repudiate everything he stands for in judging.
I must say I was especially grateful to those liberals who said, publicly, they were disappointed in Sotomayor’s choices: who said that her testimony before the committee was dishonest and disingenuous. They scored her for perpetuating the childish belief that judging can be impartial. They wanted the old, candid, racialist Sonia back. I would like to add that I think the old, candid, racialist Sonia would have been just fine. What I mean is, the Senate would have confirmed her anyway — there is that mountain of Democratic votes. She could have let it all hang out. She did not have to dissemble to stymie people like me.
The Sonia Sotomayor who testified before the committee, people like me could endorse and vote for. Somebody’s lying: either the Sonia Sotomayor of the past or the Sonia Sotomayor of the present. Or she has undergone a conversion. I doubt that such conversion has taken place. You?
A strange episode in current American history, if history can be current . . .
A quick language note: These days, people don’t use “score” very much the way I have used it above: “to berate or censure.” Generations ago, it was a popular word in headlines: “Smith Scores Jones for Abuses in Office,” etc.
Of all the things Obama has said in his half-year in office, I think the most offensive was his assertion that Israel must “engage in serious self-reflection.” The Israelis are experts in “serious self-reflection.” The Jewish people is expert in “serious self-reflection.” They have been seriously self-reflecting for several thousand years — they practically invented the practice. Israelis, since the founding — refounding — of that state, have had to do some urgent self-reflecting, and other reflecting. They live in a tinderbox; their existence and survival are threatened all the time. Barack Obama knows nothing about serious self-reflection compared with the average Israeli — compared even with a relatively unreflective Israeli. It’s
their lives that are on the line, not Obama’s. It is
they who have gone through war after war, not Obama. And those were wars of attempted annihilation: the annihilation of you-know-who.
People always speak condescendingly, ignorantly, and offensively about and to the Israelis. It’s kind of a world specialty. But I think our new American president may have taken the cake. Thanks a lot, BHO. (Is the “H” permitted now, with Obama safely in office? Is it positively cool? Is it verboten, or semi-verboten? It’s so hard to keep up. Maybe the
New York Times or CNN can give us a list of rules every day. Or Gibbs could simply announce them from the podium.)
Speaking of “BHO”: You remember when the Hillary Clinton campaign got in trouble, during last year’s primaries, because those initials were used in internal memoranda? It was thought to be racist or something: because “H” stood for “Hussein,” and that was the one great unmentionable name — unless Senator Obama himself was mentioning it, to advance his interest.
Well, I had occasion to think about the Democratic primaries of 2008 the other day. Remember how some of us said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two senators — between Obama and Clinton? They were peas in a pod. And yet Democrats, some of them, were acting like they were dead opposites. You may enjoy what Secretary Clinton said to Indians earlier this week (and I’m talkin’ South Asians, not Cherokees):
“I think the campaign magnified the differences more than they actually are. That’s what happens in campaigns. I’m sure you’ve noticed that. You draw differences and try to make them seem extremely large in order to convince people to vote for you rather than the other person.”
Oh.
You know who could use some “serious self-reflection”? Israel’s enemies in the Arab and broader Muslim world. And some people in these lands do, in fact, engage in such self-reflection. I have met some of them in my travels and studies. They’re worth their weight in gold. May they make inroads . . . And multiply.
I find the controversy surrounding Dr. Regina Benjamin one of the most depressing in memory. She is the southern doctor chosen by President Obama to be the surgeon general. She sets up medical clinics for the poor, etc. She is an example of the humanitarian in medicine. And what they’re saying — they, the controversy-makers — is that she’s too fat to be the surgeon general. She will set a bad example. What idiocy, what stupidity. To me, she is pleasantly plump: warm, inviting, reassuring. Also very pretty. She looks like she
should look. She looks like a trustworthy doctor — someone you’d want to go to, or send your children to. She is well-nigh Norman Rockwellian (southern-black version). I am glad she will be surgeon general. And her body-crazed critics can go jump in a lake.
(I was going to say something other than “jump in a lake,” but then I remembered this is a family column — most of the time.)
CONTINUED 1 2 3 Next >
