 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here, of course, I’m being “the turd in the punch bowl,” as I once heard Lowell Weicker describe his role in the Republican party. Naturally, I have no use for Weicker, but this phrase has always endeared him to me somewhat. But back to the question of Bush’s latest project. One of the most striking things I ever heard my colleague Richard Brookhiser say — of many — is that the problem with the bully pulpit is: It’s a bully pulpit. From it comes bullying. Now, I may be just a touch sensitive on the matter of fitness, for reasons you’ll never guess. But I do have a point (if that’s not too much like the catch-phrase of Ellen DeGeneres: “My point — and I do have one . . .”): The president has a lot to do, by which I mean tasks that actually fall to him. He should reform the tax code. He should reform Social Security. He should reform the tort system. And, oh, I almost forgot: He should win this worldwide war, and do whatever the government can to remove the shadow of terror from us. But those things are hard. And it’s mighty tempting to do the easy, symbolic, stunt-like things, like foist your mania for exercise on the rest of us. In dictatorships, of course, the Leader is concerned with the private behavior of the people: Wash more, wash less, wear this, wear that, read from my little red book! In a country like ours, however, the leader should stick to the script — the constitutional script. I’m not even sure I’m nuts about the President’s Council on Fitness. Do we still have one? Last I knew, it was headed, jointly, by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Flo-Jo. Sorry ’bout this lead-off, folks, but I’m in a somewhat anti-FDR-ish, anti-imperial-presidency mood.
I should say to those who’ve never lived in communities like mine (and here I include my hometown of Ann Arbor): Excuse my surprise and wonder. Where I’ve lived, the Left has always hissed in movie theaters. It’s one of their least attractive traits. And here on the Upper West Side, they’ve always hissed commercials, along with any movie previews, or any part of one, they happen not to like. Coca-Cola, for example, no matter how artfully done the ad, is always hissed. Same with Pepsi (though less viciously). My fellow moviegoers object to a) ads in theaters and b) capitalism generally. I myself am willing to have ads if they reduce the price of a movie ticket. But one thing, if I may, has always separated me from these folks: I often object to things in movie theaters, and elsewhere; but it would never occur to me to hiss and to make my personal displeasure known to a bunch of others. They have the right to be free of my opinions, certainly at the moment. Instead, I do my hissing in Impromptus — which no one has to read (except my mother, possibly). Ooh, before I leave this topic, one reminiscence: I was in the Lincoln Square Cinema up here one night a couple of years ago, and an ad was shown. There was hissing during the ad, and huge hissing and booing afterward. Then someone yelled out, “No one buy these products!” And everyone cheered lustily. Frankly, it was all a little Mussolini-ish — just slightly unnerving, if you know what I mean.
Thing was, the Palestinian side insisted on a fence, right there in the studio. It was the damnedest thing: a fence — a little, homely fence — running between the two panels. Ted Koppel sat on it, I believe, when he made his introduction. I remember his saying that the fence pointed to the amazing difficulty of such a discussion, and of the Middle Eastern situation generally. I remember thinking that he hadn’t made enough of the fact that it was only the one side that required a fence. (One of the Palestinian panelists, by the way, was network-news honey Hanan Ashrawi.) That was weird enough. But the most curious thing about the entire program (which was riveting in its way) was that the Palestinian side refused to make eye contact with the Israelis! They simply refused to look their way. It was one of the most strained things I’ve ever seen. The Israelis would look at the Palestinians, talk to them, try to engage them — and the Ashrawi-ites would stare straight ahead. I had a feeling that their fellow Palestinians would kill them or something if they dared look at the Israelis — or tried to do without their fence. A freaky moment of television. And telling. And memorable.
Yet a little creepily undemocratic and unrepublican, no? I mean, I dislike (for example) Eminem, and much of popular music. Would I crusade for taxing it and giving the money to, say, human-rights groups (especially those helping political prisoners in Communist countries, who are sometimes overlooked)? What would be your favorite scheme? What do you hate, and what do you love, which would be the recipient of your hated object’s dough? Think about it. But here we get into philosophical deep waters..
Yes, that Castro is a real teddy bear, in his seventies. But would someone tell his political prisoners, still receiving rather un-soft treatment in their cells? Would someone tell Oscar Biscet, Rafael Ibarra? Anyone? Then Chafee said,
of the Varela Project — constantly harassed and thwarted by the Castro
regime — “My own theory is that the president in Cuba let that
happen as a signal to the West.”
A reader wrote to say that this reminded her of “a comment that John Irving made years ago, when Cider House Rules was up for Oscars — that it took courage to make a pro-abortion film. Can you believe?” No.
A somewhat tricky one.
Perfectly right: but not quite cricket, I would say, old chap, on this side of the pond.
Another reader jokes that “woodburning fireplace” would certainly offend “tree-huggers.” Still another reader writes: “Your Impromptu about the PC state of Seattle’s dailies reminded me of an experience I had about five years ago. I was starting a new job in Seattle, which is 70 miles from my home, and was looking for a small apartment or room to rent in-town to stay at during the work week. Not finding much in the Rentals section of the Seattle Times, I composed an ad for the Wanted to Rent section. As I recall, my first stab at this was: ‘45 yr old professional male non-smoker with long commute looking for a room or small apartment for use weeknights.’ It was soundly rejected by the paper. When I asked why, they informed me that their policy was not to allow any adjectives in a real-estate advertisement that might cause someone to discriminate favorably toward me. In the end, my ad read something like ’non-smoker with long commute . . .,” etc. I guess it was okay to discriminate favorably toward non-smokers, but not professionals.”
“What has annoyed
me about commentators’ calling Bethpage the first ‘real’
public course is their reason for doing so — the cheap green fees.
Anyone who wants to play Pebble Beach can play Pebble Beach if they have
$300 or so. Price is used to ration a scarce good, in this case tee times.
Above, I mentioned Uncle Miltie (Friedman). This note reminded me of the great professor’s admonition about “public schools” and “private schools”: that, more properly, we would refer to “government schools” and “non-government schools.” Ah, Uncle Miltie.
“My grandmother is 93, and fairly oblivious to most things. However, whenever I am with her and happen to be watching golf, she anxiously asks where Tiger is. She repeats this question over and over and then spins off into stories of how she used to play on the ‘links’ next to her house when she was a little girl. Also, on her otherwise bare nightstand she has saved a Time magazine from a year or two ago with Tiger’s face on the cover. She’s like a teenager with a crush. Tiger certainly is amazing.” Yep.
“I thought you might like to hear what I witnessed last night at the Irish pub on Lexington between 28th and 29th [in Manhattan]. Thursday nights, they have a trivia contest. Last night the moderator asked a question about the World Cup, but phrased it in this way: ‘Whose a** is the United States going to kick next?’ I was heartened by the immediate and loud response of a young lady: ‘Saudi Arabia’s!’ Whoops and cheers all around. A second later, someone added, ‘Yasser Arafat’s!’ I then offered, ‘Iraq’s!’ Further proof (if any were needed) that few New Yorkers follow the Susan Sontag line, or share the sentiments of those anti-Americans one often sees in Union Square.” Beautiful. But this correspondent adds a coda: “Unfortunately, the pub in question displays some pro-IRA sentiments (posters and whatnot), so I doubt I will return.” Can’t have everything. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
o, President Bush
is leading a war on fitness, or a war for fitness, or against unfitness,
or whatever we should call it. Great. Most people will hail him for doing
this, or at least not object. But is this really what the chief executive
of a liberal republic should be doing? Should the American president really
be hectoring the people about being plump or too couch-friendly, no matter
what the merits of the argument?
I
bring you a report from the Upper West Side of Manhattan: The missus and
I were in a movie theater on Saturday night, and before the previews came
on, a couple of advertisements were shown, and one was for the Marines
(“The few, the proud . . .”): and no one hissed! This
is inconceivable pre-9/11.
