Israel will soon celebrate its 70th birthday. Trump has given the nation a most unique birthday gift by agreeing to move America's Embassy to Jerusalem.
As a result of this announcement some six or more other nations are now considering doing the same. Guatemala was the next to announce they are following our nation's decision.
At least half a dozen countries are also thinking of relocating their embassies to Jerusalem, Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells foreign diplomats • Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for
3,000 years, PM says, thanking Guatemala for expected move.
Meanwhile, when Trump pops off with unilateral comments and tweets it is generally unwise and can
even prove dangerous.
I understand his desire to disengage from Syria but his recent premature comment did not take into
consideration the implications it would have for a nation he has been effective with in re-establishing
better relations. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This from a dear friend and long time institutional client and fellow memo reader:
"Dick, I certainly hope you are still driving at 95, if competent. We have a dear friend here in
Hayesville who is turning 100 next month. We are having a party for her to celebrate this milestone.
She got her drivers license renewed at age 95, for a term of five years. Amazing. She still has her
car, but quit driving about 18 months ago.
At 95, you can get other people to drive you around! Provided THEY are competent, of course.
Most importantly, we all hope you are still blogging at 95.
B--"
My response:
"This guy turned 100 in a small town that never had anyone who lived that long so they sent a local reported to
interview him. The reporter asked: "Sam to what do you owe your longevity?" Sam replied: "Tough Luck."
Thanks for your well wishes and should I make it to 95, I will invite you for a cross country drive.
Stay well and thanks. Me"
And:
"When in residence, your output is stunning. BTW IMHO your view of the national condition is correct. Ciao. F---"
My response:
Thanks. BTW, I assume is "by the way" but not familiar with meaning of IMHO. Stay well. I am one old cynical
SOB (Sweet old bastard) but do believe my views about our divisions, though lamentable, do reflect reality.
And:
"No you are not an alarmist. I think you address the most insidious, relevant, and critical issue of our day - the
un-elected bureaucracy. Our founding fathers worked hard to construct checks and balances to guard the strength
and vitality of our democracy against the numerous ways our republic could be challenged. The safeguards against
the administrative state are not being used if, in fact, they are adequate. S-----"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Strassel on Comey and his soft ball interviews. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am going to touch a sensitive issue and present my thoughts on diversity.
Nations that have homogeneous populations do not generally have diversity issues. They have other problems. In Japan, aging and being an island are two problems they confront. In China, a Communist dictator, now for life, who must ride herd over demographic challenges and a still huge population that desires increasing economic and social freedom appears, I submit, seems their two main problems.. America has always prided itself on being a "melting pot." Initially "Americans" from England, Ireland and France, then a significant number of slaves were brought over from the African Continent. This was followed by large legal immigration, mostly from Eastern Europe and, more recently, an increasingly large influx from south of the border, as we ignored protecting our own, in combination with a lack of enforcement of our outdated immigration laws. Consequently, the face of America.has undergone a significant cultural shifts over our history. One of America's greatest tragedies was its policy on slavery which led to the Civil War. This war witnessed enormous physical damage and left our nation in need of healing the great divide which caused this war as slaves were freed only to become re-segregated and treated as second class citizens. Through Rev. King's amazing efforts "Caucasian" America was forced to look at itself and eventually The Civil Rights Bill was passed and remarkable progress has been achieved. However, problems caused by poor education, lack of economic opportunities, cultural differences still lingers and the issue of racial diversity has come center stage. Personally, I believe Americas's first black President blew an opportunity to further heal our racial problem. Consequently, today racial diversity continues as a serious unhealed wound. Can it be solved and if so how? Diversity takes many forms and, frankly, I believe it can also be used as a cudgel to gain undeserved advantages, create guilt and increase the size of the wound. Again, speaking personally, I believe the shake down approach used by the likes of the Jesse Jacksons' is not constructive and I also believe cowering to inappropriate demands lacking a legitimate basis on the part of those being shaken down are also not helpful. The recent episode at Starbucks has aspects of what I am referring to but the facts remain somewhat unclear and in dispute. A public business has a right to refuse service to those who are unwilling to abide by them, ie. no shirts, shoes, must be a paying customer to use bathroom facilities etc. Asking one to leave in a courteous manner is the first and most reasonable step. If the "intruder " refuses to leave then calling police, as a last resort, also seems appropriate. Whether this is the correct set of facts remains somewhat in dispute as one would expect in such matters. For Starbuck's Management to feel the need to close all stores and engage in diversity training, though beneficial to my dear friend whose business is work place training, I believe such might fall under pandering and overkill considering the circumstances and what about the manager who was asked to quit and now is a social pariah? Another problem that impinges on resolving the diversity issue is lack of qualified applicants. This gets back to poor education, break down of the family, government subsidies/entitlements that destroy initiatives and elevate the appeal and economic betterment of belonging to gangs, say those dealing in drugs etc. When a child's home environment is negative and uncaring, gang membership fills voids. When one is cooking, adding a variety of ingredients often enhances the flavor and so it can be in a business settings where diverse ideas, experiences can benefit all. On the other hand, adding wrong ingredients can ruin taste. What must be achieved is a balance among the different inputs in order to enhance the value of diversity. I have never played basketball but a diverse team of tall players and midgets would probably not work though, Spud Webb did provide audience appeal to The Atlanta Hawks. What I fear is happening are legitimate desires and benefits derived from increased diversity is becoming exploited too often by those seeking retribution and not comity. Wrongs that have been ignored, like a magnet, attract. However, all too often they attract radical advocates who do more harm than good, exploit for their own questionable and nefarious purposes. Wearing the righteous mantle of the do-gooder radical is not the answer. Bullying for economic gain is not the answer. Cowering to unwarranted and misplaced threats also is not the answer. Americans, by and large, are a generous and compassionate people and when presented with facts that have legitimacy we respond. Our history is replete with correcting societal ills. Yet, like in my cooking analogy, corrections take time and I understand there are those who believe progress comes only through raising everything to a boiling point.. What I have written so far are a lot of words and have offered no solutions because whatever progress we make in reaching balancing the various conflicting equities raised by the issue of diversity will not be achieved by the likes of radicals employing methods that cause resistance.Dr. King struck the right chord with his non-violent approach. He remains forever my hero. I have always said, when American families become more racially mixed we will discover we generally all want the same for ourselves and our families. America's Constitution is the basis for my believing reasonable racial diversity is achievable and will be achieved and it will come faster if cooler heads and well intended folks get together and work things out in the American tradition of fair play. Will this happen. I would like to think so but I doubt it any time soon because a divided nation is unlikely to be able to resolve divisions. That said, I recoil when I see exploitation of the issue by those whose objective is not throwing oil on the troubled waters to calm them but throw oil only to, subsequently, light a match. (See 3, 3a and 3b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I leave you with this thought! "Don’t worry about old age, it
will not last very long!"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Israel Sees Rising Threat From IranAfter ISISLike Islamic State, Iran and Hezbollah call for Israel’s destruction—but they havegreater military capability
Like Islamic State, Iran and Hezbollah call for Israel’s destruction. But unlike Islamic State,
they have the military capability to pursue that goal.
With the Israeli-Lebanese border largely quiet since the devastating war between Israel and
Hezbollah in 2006, Iran and its allies don’t disguise their desire to open a second front in Syria.
“Iran’s goal is clear: to establish regional hegemony in the Middle East and to surround Israel
from all directions,” said Naftali Bennett, Israel’s education minister, who heads a right-wing
religious party allied with Likud and sits in the country’s security cabinet. “We’ve made it clear
this is unacceptable and indeed, we will act to prevent it.”
To Israel, that’s a strategic challenge much more severe than anything Islamic State could do.
“ISIS, unlike Iran, doesn’t have an air force, missiles, sophistication and they are not supported
by anyone, not by a superpower like Russia,” said Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Amos Gilead, the head of the Institute for Policy and Strategy, an Israeli think tank, who served until earlier this year as director of policy and political-military affairs at the Israeli defense ministry
where the Golan Heights meet Syria and Jordan have never troubled Israeli settlements just across
the border fence.
Recognizing Israeli concerns about the Iranian threat, the U.S., Russia and Jordan have been
negotiating de-escalation agreements between rebels and the regime in southern Syria that would
prevent Iran and its militias from coming too close to Israeli positions on the Golan. It isn’t clear,
however, to what extent Russia will be able to enforce those deals.
Israel, meanwhile, is threatening to act unilaterally if its so-called “red lines” are violated. It has
already done so many times with airstrikes against Hezbollah targets in Syria—many of them
targeting weapons shipments bound for the group in Lebanon.
Those “red lines” include the creation of permanent Iranian bases, airfields or naval facilities in
Syria, the transfer of long-range precision missiles to Hezbollah or the establishment of plants to
produce such missiles in Syria or Lebanon.
Israeli officials aren’t just worried about Syria.
The endgame of Syria’s war has also prompted the Palestinian Sunni Muslim movement Hamas,
which controls the Gaza Strip, to renew links with Shiite Iran. Those ties had been weakened by
Sunni-Shiite sectarian tensions.
The way Israeli officials see it, the defeat of Islamic State has left their country essentially
surrounded, with Iranian proxies or allies active on three of its five borders.
“One of the great tragedies of the international coalition against ISIS was to bring Iran de facto,
Russia, Assad and the United States on the same side in a situation which ultimately benefited
Assad and the Iranians,” said Michael Oren, deputy minister in the Israeli prime minister’s office
and a former ambassador to Washington. “We have to grapple with the consequences of this,
unintentional or not.”
These new challenges emerge at what seems like a golden period in Israel’s history. The civil
wars and insurgencies that ravaged Israel’s foes after the Arab Spring in 2011 proved a major
boon for the country’s security and drew international attention away from Israel’s own conflict
with the Palestinians.
The Syrian war, by destroying the Syrian army and eliminating most of its chemical-weapons
capability, removed the main conventional military threat on Israel’s borders. The spike of
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi summed it up like this: “The Arab Spring was supposed to
be a democratic movement. But it ended up to have a spring for Israel and chaos in the Arab
region.”
Indeed, while the rest of the Middle East is reeling, Israel’s economy is booming and its cities are
safer from attacks than they have been in decades.
“Israel’s position in the world is better than at any time in our national existence,” Mr. Oren said.
However, he cautioned, this doesn’t mean the country can lull itself into complacency.
“Hezbollah has at least 130,000 rockets and is capable of hitting every city in Israel, including
Eilat. We have to operate on the assumption that Hezbollah and Iran are building up these
capabilities not just to have them, but someday to use them. They are saving them all for us.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) An Honest Comey Interview
Questions nobody is asking the former FBI director—but somebodyshould.
By Kimberley A Strassel
Former FBI Director James Comey on his book tour in New York, April 18. Photo: Lucas Jackson/
TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY/REUTERS
James Comey and his memoir are tripping the media light fantastic, though what’s defined that trip so
far is its lack of news. Mr. Comey explains the many and varied ways that he does not like President
Trump. Mr. Comey explains the many and varied ways that he does like himself. Tell us something we
don’t know.
People forget that directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation—by necessity—are among
Washington’s most skilled operators, experts in appearing to answer questions even as they provide
pablum. Yet the publicity tour rolls on, which means that upcoming interviewers still have an
opportunity to do the country—and our profession—a favor. Here are a few basic questions Mr.
Comey should be expected to answer:
• You admit the Christopher Steele dossier was still “unverified” when the FBI used it as the basis of a
surveillance warrant against Carter Page. Please explain. Also explain the decision to withhold from
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the dossier was financed by the Hillary Clinton
campaign.
• You refer to Mr. Steele as a “credible” source. Does the FBI routinely view as “credible” sources
who work for political operatives? Did the FBI do any due diligence on his employer, Fusion GPS?
Were you aware it is an opposition-research firm? If not, why not?
• Mr. Steele by his own admission briefed the press on the dossier in the fall of 2016, to harm the
Trump campaign, although the FBI ordered him not to. Are these the actions of a “credible” source?
The sourcing in these articles—particularly one that ran in Yahoo News—was hard to mistake. Yet the
FBI soon after assured the FISA court that its “credible” source had not spoken to the media. Either
the FBI failed to follow up on the stories, or it did and Mr. Steele lied to your agents. Which is it?
• You say you knew the dossier was funded by a “Democrat-aligned” group but that you “never knew”
which one. Why not? Didn’t the FBI have a duty to find out?
• Please explain the extraordinary accommodations the FBI provided Team Clinton during the email
investigation. Why was Cheryl Mills —whose emails suggest she had early knowledge of the irregular
server as Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff—allowed to claim attorney-client privilege and represent Mrs.
Clinton at her interview? Why did that interview happen only at the end? Especially since you say any
case hung entirely on her “intent”?
• You’ve surely now read the texts between the FBI’s Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. That happened on
your watch. Is this appropriate FBI behavior? Should we believe such behavior is limited to them? In
addition to overt political bias, the texts prove the FBI took politics into account—worrying, for
instance, about how much manpower to put into investigating the woman who could be our “next
president.
” Why should the public have any faith in the integrity of the Clinton or Trump investigation?
• The texts ridicule former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to step aside from the Clinton
probe, “since she knows no charges will be brought.” This was before the FBI even interviewed Mrs.
Clinton. And it contradicts your claim at the start of your July 2016 press conference that no one at the
Justice Department knew what you were about to say. Please explain.
• Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s leak and “lack of candor” also happened on your watch.
Should he be prosecuted for lying? Should Mr. Steele be prosecuted for lying to the FBI about his
leaks to the press? If the answer to either is no, please explain why the FBI holds one standard for the
public, and one for its own.
• You dismiss Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo as nothing but a “pretext” to fire you.
Yet you don’t address its claims. Please point to the internal policies or regulations that gave you the
authority to announce that Mrs. Clinton was being cleared and why. Please provide any examples of
similar announcements by FBI directors. Please address the criticisms of the prior attorneys general
and deputy attorneys general from both parties cited in the Rosenstein memo.
• You justify your decisions to divulge FBI investigation details on the grounds it served “the public
interest.” Would it not have been in the public interest to make clear last year that the president was not
under investigation?
• Sometimes, making everybody mad is a sign of doing things right. More often, it’s a sign you
screwed up. Mr. Comey, is it possible, just maybe, that you made a mess of things?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)This explains why Socialism won't work,
and always fails.
Is this man a genius ??
An economics professor at a local college
made a statement that he had never failed
a single student before, but had recently
failed an entire class. That class had
insisted that socialism worked and that no
one would be poor and no one would be
rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have
an experiment in this class on this plan".
All grades will be averaged and everyone
will receive the same grade so no one will
fail and no one will receive an A....
(substitute grades for dollars - something
closer to home and more readily
understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were
averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who studied hard were upset and
the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the
students who studied little had studied
even less and the ones who studied hard
decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D !!!! No
one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled
around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never
increased as bickering, blame, and name-
calling all resulted in hard feelings and no
one would study for the benefit of anyone
else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the
professor told them that socialism would
also ultimately fail because when the
reward is great, the effort to succeed is
great, but when government takes all the
reward away, no one will try or want to
succeed.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences
you'll ever read and all applicable to this
experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into
prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of
prosperity.
2. What one person receives without
working for, another person must work for
without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody
anything that the government does not
first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it
!!!!
5. When half of the people get the idea that
they do not have to work because the other
half is going to take care of them, and when
the other half gets the idea that it does no
good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that is the
beginning of the end of any nation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
When bigots preach aboutbias
Leaders of the Women’s March movement call for a boycott of Starbucks
over ties with the ADL illustrates the folly of alliances with anti-Semites.
At what point do critics of President Donald Trump realize that they can’t
go on being associated with a group that is fatally compromised by its
association with hatemongers? That’s the question Americans who have
taken part in demonstrations organized by the Women’s March need to be
asking themselves again this week after the latest outrageous statements i
ssued by their leaders, in which they have shifted their focus from attacks
on the president to a war on a company because it chose to associate
itself with the Anti-Defamation League.
The Women’s March leadership is calling for a boycott of Starbucks. But
what’s interesting about their all-out assault on the ubiquitous chain of
coffee shops is the reason for their anger.
They’re not boycotting the company over a notorious incident last week at
one of their Philadelphia restaurants, when two black men were arrested
without reason. Starbucks has always been associated with liberal causes,
and no one who knows anything about it can conceivably believe it is guilty
of practicing systematic racism. Yet the company has reacted—or perhaps
overreacted—to the incident not merely by firing the manager responsible
for that unfortunate controversy, as they should have. Instead, they are
planning to shut down all 8,000 of their stores on May 29 and subject all of
their 175,000 employees to “racial bias” training, including educating them
about so-called “unconscious bias.”
Women’s March leaders are fine with Starbuck’s reaction to the incident.
What they don’t like is the inclusion of the ADL among the consultants who
will help organize the employee re-education program.
The ADL is best known as the group that monitors anti-Semitism in
America. As such, it performs the essential task of assembling information
and statistics, even though they are guilty at times of hyping their findings
in such a way as to make it appear that Jew-hatred in the United States is
out of control when, in fact, that is not the case. The ADL has also been
guilty of jumping to conclusions about Trump’s role in fomenting anti-
Semitism, which is not supported by the facts though likely satisfies many
of its liberal donors.
Yet to its credit, the ADL has also been willing to take on leaders of the
march regarding their soft spot for anti-Semitism.
The Women’s March is the principle engine of the mass protests that have
symbolized the “resistance” to Trump and its administration. Earlier this
year, many people who took part in their events were shocked to learn that
Tamika Mallory, the group’s president, was a supporter of Nation of Islam
leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semitic hatemonger. Others were
concerned over the comments of Linda Sarsour, another leader, in which
she demonized the State of Israel and its supporters, and claimed Zionists
could not be true feminists. Along with many other people of good will on
both the left and the right, the ADL criticized the pair.
So when Starbucks announced that the ADL would be part of its race
education program, Mallory and Sarsour pounced. Mallory denounced the
ADL on Twitter for “CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people.”
Sarsour echoed that smear and chimed in with her own indictment of ADL
for supporting programs in which U.S. law-enforcement personnel are
given training in Israel, as well as for the ADL’s criticisms of the Black Lives
Matter movement’s attacks on Israel as an “apartheid state,” calling for
ending all U.S. aid to Israel.
No one with even a cursory understanding of the role that the ADL has
played in the civil-rights movement and in promoting bias education in
recent decades can possibly take the statements from Mallory and
Sarsour seriously. The ADL’s “No Place for Hate” campaign in schools and
elsewhere has been an important resource for communities seeking to
combat racial and religious bias. It is about as unlikely a target for those
who purport to care about the fight against prejudice as can be imagined.
However, in a leftist mindset in which intersectional theories that link
worries about lingering racism in the United States with the war to destroy
the Jewish state, even a liberal-oriented group like the ADL must be
considered beyond the pale because of its willingness to stand up against
anti-Semitism.
Not satisfied with that, Mallory suggested that Starbucks replace the ADL
with Jewish Voices for Peace, a group that she said fights “racism of ALL
kinds every day.”
JVP is clearly the Women’s March’s idea of a good Jewish group since it
opposes Israel’s existence (it endorses the Palestinian “right of return” and
opposes Birthright Israel trips for Jewish youth). It also promoted a
campaign that blasts Jewish organizations for promoting security
cooperation between American and Israeli police. (The results of which
can be seen this week in a city council vote in Durham, N.C., which
banned local police from training with Israeli law enforcement.) In doing so, it engaged in what can only be described as an anti-Semitic blood libel, seeking to
blame Jews for police shootings of African-Americans.
Yet the problem here isn’t so much the outrageous statements of Mallory
and Sarsour, and their vile allies in the JVP. It’s that many otherwise well-
meaning Americans haven’t drawn the proper conclusions and cut ties with
the Women’s March.
For many on the Jewish left, antipathy to Trump is the only thing that
matters. While they may find Mallory and Sarsour distasteful, they believe
that building a coalition with them is the priority right now. Yet treating the
Women’s March as kosher despite its affinity for anti-Semites is neither
reasonable nor good politics.
The time has come for all decent Americans to tell the Women’s March to
either get rid of their anti-Semitic leaders or be subjected to their own
boycott. At this point, anyone who chooses to work with Mallory and
Sarsour is sanctioning Jew-hatred. No political cause—not even the liberal
crusade against Trump—can possibly be worth that.
3a)
Reed College Bows to the BulliesStudents get their way by harassing staff and shutting down class.
The Editoial Board
Reed College announced last week that it will overhaul its core humanities course after students
claimed the curriculum’s focus on the classics “perpetuates white supremacy.” Mark down
another school that has succumbed to demands to let politics trump education.
For more than 70 years the 1,500-student private liberal arts school in Portland, Oregon, has
required every freshman to take a yearlong course covering the Judeo-Christian and Greco-
Roman canon (Humanities 110). Through these texts, students explore “issues of continuing
relevance pertaining to ideals of truth, beauty, virtue, justice, happiness and freedom, as well as
challenges posed by social inequality, war, power and prejudice,” according to the course
description. These themes transcend race, gender and culture.
But activists calling themselves Reedies Against Racism denounced the course as “oppressive”
and “Caucasoid,” claiming too many of the writers were white men. You know, like that lame
Aristotle dude. Last spring they demanded that their peers participate in sit-ins, and last fall the
bullying grew worse.
When a parent complained online about the disruptions, a Reedies Against Racism participant
“tagged the parent’s employer in a post,” the Atlantic newssite reported. English professor Lucía
Martínez Valdivia said protesters were so intimidating that she suffered “physical anxiety—lack
of sleep, nausea, loss of appetite, inability to focus—in the weeks leading up to my lecture.”
Protesters shouted down lecturers, forcibly grabbed microphones, and shut down class. The
faculty finally voted to prohibit protestors from attending the class, and the college had to issue
no-contact orders to stop them from harassing staff.
But even as the school punished unruly protestors, the faculty voted to advance the decennial
review of the Humanities 110 course. Reed College now says it will scrap some of the traditional
texts and focus half the course on Mexico City and Harlem. Reedies Against Racism still isn’t
satisfied. In a statement on Facebook last week, the activists called for faculty to cut more
“white” texts from the curriculum “as reparations for Humanities 110’s history of erasing the
histories of people of color, especially black people.”
Reed’s curriculum has plenty of other courses that deal with “the histories of people of color,” so
this is more about blocking the study of the core texts of Western civilization. That Reed would
agree to this, and especially under political pressure, is an insult to the meaning of a liberal arts
degree.
3b)When Barbara Bush Visited Wellesley
She was chosen as the commencement speaker, and 150 students declaredthemselves ‘outraged.’By
Protests, politics, controversy and Russians! No, not today’s headlines— Barbara Bush’s 1990
commencement address at Wellesley College.
That spring, the Cold War was winding down, Donald Trump was king of the New York tabloids
for nothing having to do with politics, and the first lady was the subject of a national controversy.
Days after she was announced in March as Wellesley’s commencement speaker, 150 students at
the prestigious women’s college in suburban Massachusetts signed petitions declaring themselves
“outraged” at the choice of someone who’d ridden to prominence on her husband’s coattails
rather than her own merit.
That spurred a coast-to-coast discussion on feminism and the role of women in modern-day
America, and everyone weighed in, from President Bush to David Letterman. It went on for
months, in contrast with the story-cycle-burst-then-on-to-the-next that we see today.
“The Wellesley thing has become a bore,” Mrs. Bush wrote to her brother days before the speech.
“I can’t go anywhere that I am not asked about it,” she added in her diary.
The speech was carried live on the major TV networks—there were three of them then—a first
for a first lady. Accompanied by her Soviet counterpart, Raisa Gorbachev —a U.S.-Soviet
summit was going on in Washington—she arrived on the dais to raucous applause.
Barbara Bush was a week away from turning 65 on that day, June 1. She was famous for her
white hair, her pearls and, yes, for being the wife of the president. No, she wasn’t the secretary
of state delivering the latest policy on the Middle East. She wasn’t a billionaire sharing a story of
rising to the top. “Just” a housewife, those protesting students had intimated. What could she
possibly have to say?
“For several years, you’ve had impressed upon you the importance to your career of dedication
and hard work,” she said. “That’s true. But as important as your obligations as a doctor, lawyer
or business leader will be, you are a human being first and those human connections—with
spouses, with children, with friends—are the most important investments you will ever make.”
Make an “effort to learn about and respect difference, to be compassionate with one another, to
cherish our own identity and to accept unconditionally the same in others.”
She said she hoped the students would consider making three very important choices: believe in
something larger than yourself, find the joy in life (“It’s supposed to be fun!”), and cherish your
human connections. “At the end of your life,” she said, “you will never regret not having passed
one more test, not winning one more verdict or not closing one more deal. You will regret time
not spent with a husband, a child, a friend or a parent.”
She wrapped up saying she hoped each graduate would realize her dream in life. “And who
knows?” she said. “Somewhere out in this audience may even be someone who will one day
follow in my footsteps, and preside over the White House as the president’s spouse. I wish him
well!”
With that, she brought down the house. Mic-drop, as we’d say today.
Barbara Bush was a kindly grandmother, but she was so much more. Funny, feisty, sharp-
tongued—you really didn’t want to get on her bad side—she turned a swirling controversy into
an affirming message about what truly matters in life.
Don’t pigeonhole others. Listen. Be kind.
A timeless message many of us could stand to hear again today.
And all this from “just” a housewife.
Imagine that.
Ms. Dooley is a writer and editor in Wisconsin and a Wellesley graduate. She worked in the
speechwriting office for President George H.W. Bush and was the researcher for Mrs. Bush’s
Wellesley College commencement speech.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
No comments:
Post a Comment