 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Have I got a moment for you. I'm sitting at the New York City Opera last week, covering The Rape of Lucretia (Britten) for the New York Sun. Toward the beginning of this Roman drama, a kind of narrator sings the following: "A king will often use a foreign threat to hide local evil." As this comment registered — flashed above the stage, as a surtitle — there were some titters. Then loud laughter, as people grew more confident. Then outright applause. Loud, lusty applause. It almost stopped the show. You could sort of feel the mob mentality build — as people discovered that it was safe to laugh and applaud, because they were sitting among their ideological fellows. One man behind me sounded like a hyena — I thought he would hurt himself. Obviously, this audience thought that the opera had scored one on ol' George W. and his allies. And as I sat there in the dark, listening to this madness, I thought: "We are two Americas. These people have nothing to do with me. Nothing. They are as alien from me as any hardened leftist Frenchman — as any hardened Saudi, for that matter. How far are we from Ground Zero? Three miles? Four miles? Ground Zero, where 3,000 Americans were murdered in cold blood, not two years ago, by real foreign enemies?" When I later related this story to Rick Brookhiser, he said, "How many subscribers are there to the New York City Opera? Among them, there must be some who lost loved ones in the Trade Towers. Wonder how they felt." Hang on, I'm remembering something, from shortly after 9/11. Let me dig it out from my "archives." Okay, here it is: an Impromptu from 9/16/01:
Well, it's been a long time since then, folks. You know our attention span.
This particular column explains that American soldiers have been forbidden to take home any "bounty," or souvenirs. When I first started reading, I thought, "Well, why should they? Why should they remove anything at all from Iraq? Isn't that sort of like plucking a flower from the Kew Gardens, or chipping off a bit of Pyramid?" As I read on, I saw that this view was silly — and that American soldiers have a right to grouse. See what you think. Here, though, is an excerpt — a bit I especially liked.
Again, a highly interesting column, on an unexpected topic.
Almost famous! There's a title for a movie.
Down Mexico way, the former president said, "We have to have honest inspections for chemical and biological weapons, and we need to have a sensible attempt to involve the world in building a democratic Iraq." Excuse me? Honest inspections? Is Clinton implying that the United States and its allies would conduct dishonest inspections, and that the only honest inspections would come through the U.N. — Dr. Blix and his merry band? Is Clinton implying, with America's enemies, that our government would, for example, plant WMD, just to say we found such weapons? And, of course, the ex-president spoke his words on foreign soil (the best soil for him to be on, in a way). Then, turning to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Clinton trotted out his usual lines. I've heard them from him many times, although he has been bolder with them since he left office. He is one of those who claim that "extremists on both sides" hold up the peace, wanting to keep conflict going perpetually. You know, Hamas killers; democratically elected Likud officials — the extremists. This view is noxious enough from lowly professors without being held and expressed by former U.S. presidents. On his Mexican trip, Clinton said, "I know what the peace will be like, and so do they [the Palestinians and the Israelis]. It's only a question of how many people they are willing to see die before they reach the inevitable agreement." This sort of equation will drive you to the funny farm, if you actually know what's going on over there: if you actually know anything about what the Israelis have striven for, and what they have met, on the other side. But Clinton should know all this, shouldn't he? And if he does: why does he pretend not to? Because this absurd equivalence sounds better — "evenhanded"?
This is a man with a sickening past, Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen): but he is the Great Moderate Hope over there, I suppose. Maybe we can see it this way: the gentlest are Holocaust deniers; the less gentle acknowledge it — and applaud it. (I have written about this disturbing subject many times, for example in "Thanks for the MEMRI (.org)," published last May in NR.)
"The music video shows scenes of masked gunmen firing automatic rifles, aerial views of Jewish towns, and, as mentioned, Jews who are targeted for murder: a man walking with his wife, a group of teenage girls, and a soldier. "The words that repeat throughout the music video: "'From the mountain of fire came the rebels . . . / Everywhere there are settlements. / Oh brave Nablus, keep the cauldron ablaze. / Pour over the settlements great flames. / Foreigners have no place on this land.'" Just lovely. PA MTV! And what has the Great Moderate, "Abu Mazen," said? "The Intifada must continue. And it is the right of the Palestinian people to rise and to use all means at their disposal" (March 3, 2003).
Recently, activists from the group "were beaten by staff of the Cuban embassy in Paris . . . when they chained themselves to the embassy railings in the presence of several prominent cultural figures to protest against the imprisonment of 26 journalists in Cuba. . . . Cuba has now overtaken Eritrea, Burma, and China as the world's biggest prison for journalists." For the entire story, and to become acquainted with RWB's invaluable work, please go here.
Okay, have your yuks: but beware. I think Bush would clock Gephardt in any debate. Yes, the Texas governor was disastrous in his first debate against Gore, in my opinion. I thought it was all over, at that point. But he was 1,000 percent better in the second debate, talking rings around the Dem. And he was quite good in the third debate: I thought he was by far the better performer, substance aside. Dan Quayle, of course, had a shaky performance against Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 (although it wasn't as bad as myth remembers). But he came back blazing against Al Gore in 1992, and, for my money, more than bested the cloying Tennessee senator. I'd be careful, if I were Gephardt, about what I wished for. He will not "know more" than George W. Bush — although he may know more that's wrong. (That reminds me of the Groucho Marx line — the alleged Groucho Marx line — that Mondale used against Reagan, very effectively: "It's not what he doesn't know. It's what he knows for sure that just ain't so.") As for "putting two sentences together," Bush can do that just fine, and, in fact, I think I like him as well in his extemporaneous remarks now as I do in his elegantly written speeches. "Nuclear"/"nuke-u-lar"? Well, that's just an American variant, and George W. Bush is a very American man. That shouldn't be such a harmful thing, for someone running for the leadership of America — no matter what Rep. Gephardt or Teresa Heinz Kerry thinks of it. And here's a fearless prediction for the '04 campaign: Bush will keep his eyebrows their natural color.
Here is the Massachusetts senator, defending himself against criticism for his "regime change" comment, during this latest Iraq war (remember that Kerry called for "regime change" in Washington while our boys were fighting and dying for the real thing overseas): "When I fought in Vietnam and fought for my country, I didn't give up my right to make quips and to participate in the debate." Can anyone explain what that means? Who ever alleged that fighting in Vietnam made quipping and debating impermissible? No, Kerry just wants to get that autobiographical datum in, at any turn. "Waiter, I fought in Vietnam and fought for my country: May I have the Dover sole, please?" "When I fought in Vietnam and fought for my country, I didn't give up my right to advocate higher marginal tax rates." Whatever.
Well, I have since been informed — by many readers — that Jagr wears the number 68, in honor of Czechoslovakia (as it was then known): and that he is thought to keep a photo of the Gipper in his wallet. Almost makes me want to watch a hockey game: which one late great basketball coach (whose name escapes me at the moment) memorably described as "one continuous turnover." (No mail, please: please. I have huge respect for hockey players, as athletes, and I would gladly shine Wayne Gretzky's shoes with my own hair. But . . . well, we'll leave this subject for later. A lot later.)
"You should have pointed out that, as with 'fedayeen,' the liberals have just learned 'neoconservative.' They're using it much the way they use 'assault rifle' or 'semiautomatic.' They don't know the real meaning. It's just shorthand for 'evil gun.'" That is so true, it almost hurts.
"Some years ago they decided that all states were to have two-letter abbreviations, both capitalized, no period. Kansas is KS and Alabama is AL (Alaska is AK). "Usually it wouldn't matter, but everything you write is such high quality that to make a stupid little error like that just makes it look worse than it otherwise would." Can't agree with you there, compadre. I know full well what the postal abbreviations are — and I even use them on letters, sometimes. But I like the older abbreviations, thinking they're a little more elegant: "Minn.," "Mich.," "Mass." "MN," "MI," and "MA" just seem a little cold, computery, and robot-like to me. So, being a reactionary conservative, I reach back for the old abbreviations. We do that in National Review too, by the way. And there are a couple of states — Iowa, Maine — that you can't shorten at all (according to that practice)!
And speaking of that: I'll be away, traveling and working, for the next little while, and will in all likelihood have no Impromptus next week. Happy May Day! And I'm not talking salutes to Lenin — I'm talking, leaving a bouquet of flowers at some lady's house, ringing the doorbell, and running away. Some of you remember that, surely? (I know: don't call you Shirley.) |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
riends,
we've talked before about Two Americas — and Two America moments.
These are the instances that reveal the deep split in our society, a split
that seems barely reparable. The split is between: oh, Left, Right; blue
states, red states; the Boston Globe, National Review —
however you want to characterize it.
So, Patricia Ireland is going to the YWCA — the organization once
known as the Young Women's Christian Association, but now known only by
initials, in part, surely, because of that embarrassing third word. The
former NOW head is now head of the YWCA. Had you considered this organization
a radical feminist one? Well, maybe you hadn't considered it at all.
