Wanted to make a personal note–you may find it interesting, or semi-interesting. I was in an unusual position in the last Israeli election: I was happy either way–for Livni to be prime minister, or for Bibi to be prime minister. In almost all elections–certainly the American presidential elections–there is someone I strongly want, and someone I strongly don’t want. In this one Israeli case, I was comfortable with both leading candidates: I admire them both, and I think either would do a good job.
As you may remember from Davos-in-the-Middle-East notes, last year (here), Livni gave just about the best Daniel-in-the-lions’-den performance I have ever seen. She spoke in a ridiculously hostile room, and did superbly: with compassion, insight, serenity, conviction, nimbleness. She is no dove; that’s why she’s in Kadima, not Labor. But she is not as conservative as Bibi.
I have admired Bibi–particularly his talking skills–for a very, very long time. When I was coming of age, learning about politics, he was deputy ambassador to the U.N. And he was often on shows such as Nightline. And I learned pro-Israeli arguments from him. (I didn’t get many of them, back in Ann Arbor.) When he became prime minister, a lot of us were thrilled.
A lot of us were less thrilled by how that prime ministership turned out. And Bibi has his faults, heaven knows. (Don’t we all?) But he is a strong, smart, and capable man. And, national security aside: He seems to be one of the few big Israeli politicians who know that socialism is no good.
So, I was happy–and would be happy–with either Tzipi or Bibi. Not that anyone asked my opinion (and not that I’m a citizen of the country about which we’re speaking). (Although, judging by some of my hostile mail, I may be.) And isn’t it interesting that the Labor party is virtually in the toilet, over in Israel? Nothing like constant, unremitting siege to move a society to the right.
‐It’s sometimes helpful to remember the character of the enemy–in this case, the worldwide jihad. And that character is so dark, the mind can scarcely absorb it. I will simply excerpt a news item, without much comment on it:
A woman suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.
Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks. In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.
“We arrested Samira Jassim, known as ‘Um al-Mumenin’, the mother of the believers, who was responsible for recruiting 80 women”, Major General Qassim Atta said.
The mother of the believers, indeed–believers in, and practitioners of, raw evil. If you would like to read the entire article, go here. Organizing the rapes of women; forcing them to self-detonate, as they in turn murder others . . . it doesn’t get any darker, does it?
George W. Bush said, continually, in a thousand different ways, that Islamofascism represents implacable evil–and that good people have no choice but to combat it. I think he was right. How about that?
‐I know that I took several swings at Hillary Clinton, as she swung through Asia–I did this in a column last week. But can I take a few more? I’d like to make a couple of points about an Associated Press report from Beijing, here.
First, the reporter, Matthew Lee, writes, “In Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and China, the former first lady used her superstar status to press points on North Korea’s nuclear program, reassure jittery allies and neglected friends of U.S. support, and push cooperation on climate change and the global financial crisis.”
“Neglected friends”? Is it for an AP reporter, in an AP report, to say that the previous administration neglected American friends? I don’t think so. I also think it is untrue. But that is a separate point.
Later we read that Secretary Clinton “dropped in a healthy dose of criticism for President George W. Bush and his foreign policy team.”
Yeah, they’re all class, those Clintons, and Democrats of their sort. Way to go as you perform diplomacy abroad. I don’t recall that the previous administration openly trashed their own predecessors. And why is that “dose of criticism” “healthy,” by the way?
Another excerpt from the article: “‘This is a work in progress but I think it is [a] more effective approach than adopting this kind of hands-off, name-calling, under-no-circumstances attitude,’ Clinton said, referring to the Bush era.”
Oh, yeah, that’s the way it was, classy one (and sagacious one).
Finally, I wanted to note this: “‘I think President Obama has an extraordinary capacity to (engage) because of the really positive feelings that he personally engenders,’ she said, attempting a bit of deferential modesty to her former campaign rival and new boss. ‘To a lesser degree I have some of the same capacity.’”
Or, as Obama once put it, “You’re likable enough, Hillary”! Not to some of us she isn’t.
‐Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan strongman, does a lot of draconian things. He also does some silly things. But sometimes the silly merges with the draconian. Let me give you an example.
He canceled Valentine’s Day–or rather, he postponed it. This year, Valentine’s Day fell on a Saturday, and he was having his big referendum on Sunday. So he imposed a dry law starting on Friday afternoon–no tippling with the vote coming up. And he postponed Valentine’s Day, declaring that all of the following week would be Valentine’s Day, or a “week of love.”
“We’re going to be in battle,” he said. “After achieving our great victory, the week of love begins.” Yes, “I’m giving you a week in exchange for a day. That’s not bad, is it?”
This is all harmless and even amusing. Right? Except you remember that a hallmark of strongmen–strongmen of the worst kind–is tampering with the calendar: Year Zero and all that. And if you can cancel, or postpone, Valentine’s Day, you can do a lot more, too, in your dictatorship.
Just sayin’.
‐By the way, Chávez declared that Lech Walesa would not be welcome in Venezuela. Yes, why would he? He is a liberal democrat–and that is the approach to government and life that Chávez and his ilk fear.
‐Oh, Ronald Reagan would have loved this story–boy, would he have, and he would have used it till the cows came home. He loved stories–real-life stories–about ridiculous government programs, or laws, that made people behave in ridiculous ways. His opponents–the Democrats, the press, the academy–hated his stories: about “welfare queens” and so on. “Mere anecdotes!” they screamed. “No serious person uses anecdotes!”
But Reagan could not have been more serious, and he used his stories to marvelous effect. He would have eaten up the following–from the AP, out of Madison, Wis.:
A restaurant worker was accused of trashing the place in an attempt to get fired and collect unemployment compensation. A criminal complaint filed Thursday said a 35-year-old man showed up at a Qdoba restaurant and started throwing brownies and cookies on the floor.
The man then went into the kitchen and threw pots and pans around, then went into a storage area and threw boxes of hot sauce on the floor.
Police said the man told them he was trying to get fired and couldn’t collect unemployment if he simply quit.
Oh, Gipper, thou shouldst be alive at this hour!
‐An e-mail that arrived yesterday struck a chord with me–and it may well with you, too:
Dear Mr. Nordlinger,
I was very moved by your column today (“The case of Baby Shanice, &c.”). Like you, I was raised in an ultra-liberal environment–Santa Cruz, Calif., in my case. Only now, at 37 years old, am I questioning my long-held assumptions, particularly about abortion.
I was a huge supporter of Senator Clinton for the presidency. But the tactics of the far Left–the DailyKos and MoveOn crowd–left me cold. I voted for McCain, the first time I ever voted for a Republican.
Increasingly over the last year, I have found myself siding with conservatives on issues like illegal immigration, affirmative action, fighting jihad, and the role of markets. What Arthur Schlesinger termed “the liberal mind”–what I take to mean freedom from totalitarian thinking (anti-Communist that he was)–I see reflected by conservatives today.
Yes, he is on his way, this letter-writer. I remember the journey myself–vividly. I didn’t want to become a conservative! In my world, “conservative” was a dirty word: It meant “bigot,” “racist,” “ignoramus,” “warmonger,” and other unpleasant things. No one would have chosen to become a conservative in Ann Arbor, Mich., unless he was a complete masochist, which I surely was not.
It’s just that life and events and thought and facts–well, they pushed me that way. And I was devouring Commentary and National Review. And, mirabile dictu (as WFB might say), here I am . . .
‐Also in yesterday’s column, I was talking about “coming out”–coming out as a conservative, which is to say, revealing yourself before the world as one (no matter what the consequences). A reader wrote,
“My older brother was a College Republican at Penn State, and they used to hold a yearly ‘Coming Out Party’ where conservative students could out themselves to friendly faces. I do not know if they still do.”
What an interesting idea!
‐A friend of mine suggested that the Guantanamo detainees could be released on the Upper West Side–since Left types are so outraged at their detention on our Cuban base. He added, “Maybe they can greet them with fruit baskets from Zabar’s”! Yeah, there’s an idea!
‐I got a pang from the following letter–and I suspect you might, too:
Jay,
Just finished the article you wrote about Michael Steele in 2005. [Here.] It spoke right to my heart. The club of black conservatives is much more exclusive than any country club, and it is indeed a badge of honor to belong. If you can stand up to horrible race-mongering liberals, you can stand up for conservative principles. Conservatives in general don’t have to worry about a black Republican’s going wobbly. As a black young conservative female journalist, I can honestly say that, if they were wobbly, they wouldn’t be conservatives in the first place. It’s a tough road!
A “black young conservative female journalist.” All honor to her. She must be one tough, independent-minded woman.
‐Reader writes,
Jay,
When I read your squib on savoring Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, I had just finished watching a video with Emma Thompson. What a beautiful, intelligent-looking woman, and a great actress! Then I learned from Wikipedia that she is also a Greenpeace activist and an atheist. Not uncommon, I suppose, in her guild, but I’d like to think Elinor Dashwood had better sense.
Oh, I’m all over Emma Thompson! Here is something I wrote about her from Davos last year:
Emma Thompson . . . is the only person to win Oscars for both acting and writing. And, this afternoon, she looks very chic, in a long black leather coat, or something like that–I can’t quite tell. The other night, I met a young journalist who had an encounter with Emma and fell for her–quite naturally. He said that she looks all of her 48 years; she does not look younger than her age. But she looks totally terrific.
True, true. I understand she’s a left-wing nightmare, but I don’t care: She is a babe, and has a marvelous voice, to boot. [Speaking voice.]
When Emma steps up to receive her award, she kisses Klaus [Schwab], three times–à la suisse–and gives one of the most graceful extemporaneous speeches I have ever heard.
For the rest of those scribbles, go here.
‐Impromptus via RSS? Here.
#JAYBOOK#
‐Some fun with names? My colleague Kevin Williamson wrote to say, “I came across a Shalom Ford today, friend of a friend. Given Henry Ford’s awful attitudes, the name ‘Shalom Ford’ just sort of jumps out.”
Doesn’t it though!
Some fun with my name? It was mentioned on television the other day, and I saw a transcript where the name was rendered “Jane Norlinger.” Very nice! More often, it’s “Jane Ordlinger”–because if you say “Jay Nordlinger,” especially fast, it can sound like “Jane Ordlinger.”
I have received mail addressed to Ms. Jane Ordlinger. I think the “Jane” is very nice; not so sure about “Ordlinger.”
And, back home in Ann Arbor, there was a man–father of friends–whose name was Arch Naylor. He would receive mail addressed “Art Schnaylor.” Why not?
I’m sure you can think of your own such renderings–some of them vulgar!
Check you soon . . .