|
 ell,
now they’ve done it — the terrorists, that is. They’ve
canceled Kiss Me, Kate, the best show on Broadway (which
I say only because I haven’t yet been able to see The Producers).
Kate was supposed to run until the end of the year. My wife
and I saw it last year, on our anniversary. I was so looking forward
to seeing it again. But it, like many other shows, had to close
abruptly, owing to the paucity of tourists in the city.
Who cares? What a trivial, stupid thing to mention, amid all the
death and destruction! A Broadway show, for heaven’s
sake?
We talk about how our enemies seek to end, or disrupt, our “way
of life” — a phrase that can seem meaningless. But this
is the sort of thing we mean. They have robbed us of much that is
precious, above all human lives, but they’ve robbed us of Kiss
Me, Kate, too, and I have to say — Go get ’em.
 By
the way, the above is not unrelated to my ongoing steam about the
cancellation of the Ryder Cup matches in England. Kiss Me, Kate,
not far from the World Trade Center, wanted to go on, as usual.
But it had to go away, because of the terrorists. The Ryder Cup
could go on, easily — but it won’t.
My
mood? Thanks for asking. Last week, I called a friend of mine and
asked him about his own mood. He replied with a story about a favorite
historian of his, the Briton Robert Byron. While filling out his
passport application — in the significant year of 1938 —
Byron gave his occupation as “warmonger.” This expressed
his frustration with the complacency and timidity of his country.
This is how we feel, my friend and I (and countless others): “warmonger.”
Not in a belligerent way, oddly enough (though you will ask how
one can be a warmonger without being belligerent). Just in the sense
of: Let’s get on with it, let’s be determined.
There
was a sad, sad story in the New York Post — concerning
something I never would have thought of (or at least not so quickly).
All of those logos and designs featuring the New York skyline —
a skyline that includes, that boasts, the Towers? What to do with
them? Withdraw them? Phase them out after a decent interval? Keep
them whole, indefinitely, in a show of defiance? This is a rather
strange and peripheral question, but it is sad and fascinating all
the same.
About three weeks ago, my wife and I gave a young friend of ours
— the four-year-old daughter of friends — a “snow
globe,” if that’s the proper term, of Manhattan. The sight
of the thing, last night, we were told, was difficult.
Everyone
has his own favorite article — his own favorite piece of journalism
— that sums up his own feelings and views. My favorite, in
the “what to do” category, is Richard Perle’s Sept.
19 piece in the Daily
Telegraph. The piece basically expounds on what has become
known in Washington as “the Wolfowitz view,” after deputy
defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who was disavowed and just plain
dissed by the secretary of state, Colin Powell. Perle lays out beautifully
why going after mere “terrorists,” per se, is futile,
and why reckoning with the states that sponsor them — that
give them their very breath — is the only way.
It
seems to me that apologists for Arab intolerants — and such
apologists are bold and prominent — are caught in a bit of
a bind. On the one hand, they say, “The terrorists are a ridiculous,
hated faction, and they have no popular support.” On the other,
they say, “But you have to understand why people in the Middle
East despise the United States so.” I’m not sure this
is ultimately sustainable. Which is it, y’all? Do ordinary
Middle Easterners abhor and reject our enemies? Or do we have to
understand why ordinary Middle Easterners hate us, although perhaps
not to the point of mass murder?
Good
news, bad news: Said one Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council
on American-Islamic Relations — probably the most prominent
Muslim group in the country — “We can suppress terrorism
by force, but not eliminate it except by justice. We have to understand
when people abroad are angry with this country, and come up with
solutions.” Said one Khalid Saffuri, president of the Islamic
Institute — not the most prominent organization, unfortunately
— “It’s wrong for someone to say he understands why
terrorists would do this to America. There is never an excuse for
doing it.” Whew.
I
wonder if you noticed a newspaper ad taken out by the United Nations,
or rather, taken out for the U.N. by the Better World Campaign,
a group about which I know nothing, but whose name is lovely, isn’t
it? The ad says, “The United Nations Stands with America.”
Gee, that’s swell. It goes on to list a statement by Kofi Annan
saying that he “condemns” the terrorists. Also swell.
And there is an excerpt of a General Assembly resolution expressing
“condolences and solidarity with the people and Government
of the United States.” Super-swell. How neighborly and civilized.
Is it just my heightened U.N. pique, or shouldn’t it sorta
go without saying that the U.N. is kind of miffed about unprovoked
and murderous attacks on America? The whole ad, to me, had a kind
of creepiness.
We
may wish to call him Infamous Amos. In the widespread condemnation
of the fat targets Falwell and Robertson, it has been somewhat lost
that a preacher in San Francisco named Amos Brown delivered an anti-American
tirade . . . at a memorial service for the victims. He said,
“America, is there anything you did to set up this climate?
America, America: What did you do — either intentionally or
unintentionally — in the world order, in Central America, in
Africa, where bombs are still blasting? America, what did you do
in the global-warming conference when you did not embrace the smaller
nations? America, what did you do two weeks ago when I stood at
the world conference on racism, when you wouldn’t show up?
Oh, America: What did you do?” The crowd went nuts, with glee.
To their credit, Democratic politicians Gray Davis and Dianne Feinstein
walked out. Others did not.
My
congressman — my ownself personal congressman — is Bad
Jerry Nadler, one of the left-most and most obnoxious politicians
in the United States. Yet, according to reports, he is dismissive
of pleas from his Manhattan constituents that this country refrain
from action: “I just think they’re wrong and living in
a dream world. We’ve been attacked.” All right, Jer’:
Let’s do lunch.
Another
New York congressman, Charlie Rangel, is true to form. Said “Chollie”
of Republicans and their economic initiatives in Congress, “Before
we can even bury our dead, they’re asking for tax breaks.”
It’s amazing how ugly the term “tax breaks” can be
in certain mouths. Rangel says it as though talking about disease
or crime or something. It must be remembered that any reduction
in taxes, for any purpose, is a moral offense to some people.
Obviously,
it has taken a national crisis to make Bill Clinton feel safe giving
interviews again. He has chatted with anchormen, confident that
there will be no questions about unpardonable pardons or anything
else touchy. The Comeback Kid has come back — once more.
At
so tense a time, a dose of sarcasm — of angry sarcasm —
from our leaders is encouraging. The other day, Don Rumsfeld said,
“The terrorists do not function in a vacuum. They don’t
live in Antarctica. They work, they train, and they plan in countries.
They’re benefiting from the support of governments.” I
love that “Antarctica” : It makes one feel that the SecDef
grasps the issue and is purposeful.
China,
too, has been heard from: Jiang Zemin has made it clear that “any
military action against terrorism” should be based on “irrefutable
evidence and should aim at clear targets so as to avoid casualties
among innocent people.” Of course, the PRC has always
been a stickler for irrefutable evidence, and has always
been careful not to inflict harm on innocent people. Falun Gong
members must be particularly appreciative today of their government’s
exquisitely moral position.
Here
on the site, we’ve been calling our daily Hall of Shame “Kumbaya
Watch” (put out by the redoubtable Ross Douthat). “Kumbaya,”
of course, has for years been a sort of anthem of the American Left,
at least in its gentler variety (though “This Land Is Your
Land” probably still takes the cake). There is hilarious use
made of “Kumbaya” in the early Tom Hanks movie Volunteers,
always a popular rental.
It’s somewhat of a shame, though, because “Kumbaya”
— drained of its political associations — is really a
beautiful song, a Caribbean lullaby. Listen to Marilyn Horne sing
it on her album of lullabies: She does so movingly and nobly. It’s
hard to hear “Kumbaya” in the old, risible way again.
Speaking
of patriotic singing — were we speaking of patriotic
singing? — I couldn’t help thinking the other day of Leontyne
Price’s singing of “America the Beautiful” (including
the stirring verses beyond the opening, amber-waves-of-grain one).
In her final recital at Carnegie Hall in 1991, she sang nine encores,
virtually a “second program,” as we call it. (No one knew
it was her farewell to Carnegie Hall, by the way — she didn’t
tell anyone. Just as she didn’t announce what has proven her
final, final recital, given at Chapel Hill, N.C., in 1998. Marilyn
Horne, incidentally, was there — her friend ’tyne must
have tipped her off.) Anyway, at the very end of the New York evening,
Price came out without her accompanist and, somewhat hoarse but
full of spirit, sang “America the Beautiful” — thrillingly.
This recital was captured by RCA Victor, and it is unforgettable.
Okay,
one more musical note: Sergei Rachmaninoff used to begin his recitals
in his adoptive country — ours — with the playing of his
own transcription of The Star-Spangled Banner. Another reason to
admire him — and not a bad habit.
Finally,
a correction (or clarification) or two. In a recent Impromptus,
I blasted Italian defense minister Antonio Martino for being “the
Perfect European,” based on reports that he had said his nation
would not join the U.S. in a counter-terrorist war, while insisting
that Washington not act without allied cooperation. Martino told
Martin Sieff, in a UPI piece run on our site, that he had been misquoted.
I also received a call from the mayor of Ann Arbor, Mich., my hometown,
which I have been describing and excoriating lately. I wrote that
a correspondent had informed me that the mayor, John Hieftje, after
a town meeting, had hugged a woman who had said, essentially, that
the United States deserved what it got, because it, too, was a terrorist
nation. The very gentlemanly Mayor Hieftje tells me that he did
not hug her. He further says that he hails from “Main Street
Ann Arbor,” not “campus Ann Arbor,” and that he,
too, finds himself frustrated at the “political correctness”
of the town (which I am apt to characterize less diplomatically
as a hateful leftism).
Last,
I thought I’d share part of a note I received from an old friend
and high-school classmate: “I’m here to confirm for you
that people who didn’t grow up in a fever swamp like ours do
not believe our stories. My wife insists that I’m fixated
on a few isolated incidents when I tell her what growing up in Ann
Arbor was like. She doesn’t understand that, while she was
in Knoxville diagramming sentences and dividing fractions, I was
hearing about the glory of health care in Cuba and the amazing productivity
of Soviet farmers.” Ma’am, I can vouch for your husband:
It’s true.
|
