November 24, 2003, 12:01 a.m.
The “statue.” “Who’s black?” The Simile of the Month — and more

We've seen a lot of sick things in the recent period, but I'm not sure we've seen anything sicker than the stunt those Londoners pulled with that Bush statue. You know what I'm talking about: A bunch of goons make a sort of statue out of W., then topple it, in imitation of what Iraqis and Americans did in Baghdad, after Iraq was liberated. You know without my articulating it — or anyone's articulating it — why this stunt was especially vile. The protesters can't do anything useful or hard for humanity; instead, they have to tear down those who actually do useful and hard things for humanity.

From an early age, we're taught that we're all on the same side — basically — despite differences of opinion. You grow up and realize that, no, we're not all on the same side (basically or not). To be sure, not every anti-war activist is on the side of tyrants — but some of them are. And sensitivity to McCarthyism should not prevent us from looking that sober fact in the face.

About Michael Jackson, I'd like to say simply three quick things. First, the form filled out about him, when he was booked, said, under "RAC[E]," "B," for black, presumably. Hmm. But wait: Second, Brother Jermaine keeps referring to the arrest as a "lynching." Will Michael, now that he's in serious trouble, all of a sudden be black, the way that O. J. Simpson, after he killed those people, suddenly found it convenient to be black? Of course, ol' Michael has played the race card before, when his CDs were tanking.

Finally, that same Jermaine has said, "My brother is not eccentric." Now, forgive me, but if I were a Michael-defending sibling, I would not say, "My brother is not eccentric." I might say, "My brother is damn eccentric, but he's not a child molester," or something. But, come on: Jermaine needs a more credible set of talking points.

Every once in a while — no, more like every hour — I'm e-mailed something that is stomach-turning but hard to ignore. Many of these items deal with Cuba, and many deal with China. Most, probably, deal with the Arab world. I'm about to give you a link — here — picturing toys for sale in Palestinian areas. You don't have to look; the image is very disturbing. There is an Osama bin Laden doll (he is holding the Pentagon) and a model of the Twin Towers, on fire. Sept. 11, of course, is to be celebrated in much of the world. Do try to remember this next time you wonder why Israelis can't get along more harmoniously with their neighbors, or why the U.S. is having trouble making headway in the "peace process."

Remember too that, after the Sbarro bombing — a terrorist attack that killed many Israelis — an exhibition in honor of that act was set up at Bir Zeit University, the Harvard of the Palestinians, so that students and faculty could admire the blood and flesh against the wall, the strewn limbs . . .

"A rough neighborhood," we sometimes say, with quite shameful understatement.

Parts of Europe are pretty rough too, what with French rabbis warning people not to go around in their skull caps, lest they invite assault. In the first decade of the 21st century, you have to keep your Jewishness a secret, in France? Mais, bien sûr!

Over the weekend, Andrew Sullivan pointed us all to an article in the Financial Times, explaining that the EU has spiked a report exploring anti-Semitism on the continent. Apparently, the report was inflammatory — i.e., told the truth: that anti-Semitism is great and rising. I particularly loved this line from the article: ". . . some members [of the relevant EU body] had felt anti-Islamic sentiment should be addressed too." Yeah, right. This is what Solzhenitsyn calls "the 50-50 principle," or a false evenhandedness. It reminds me of all the talk of the "black-Jewish problem" in America, in the 1970s and '80s, in particular — a crisis in "black-Jewish relations." The problem, naturally, was black anti-Semitism; there was nothing mutual about it. But to say that was to risk dismissal from polite society.

Well, how did you celebrate Jerusalem Day? I'll let the AP tell you how others did:

Muslims held rallies across the Middle East to commemorate Jerusalem Day, held each year on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan to support the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem. In Bahrain, 10,000 demonstrators chanted, "Death to Bush! Death to Sharon!" and set fire to American and Israeli flags. Tehran's streets closed to traffic as tens of thousands of Iranians also chanted against Israel and the United States. In Beirut, the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, told thousands of supporters that the United States was chiefly to blame for attacks against Western interests in the region. He presided over a military parade that included a children's unit [of which there is a nauseating, and all too typical, photo]. Demonstrators also marched in Baghdad and Najaf, the first time in many years that Iraqis were allowed to hold Jerusalem Day rallies. "Sharon is God's enemy! America is God's enemy!" they chanted. "No to America!"

Well, at least they have a dose of the First Amendment, President Bush might observe! "We Liberated Iraq and All We Got Were These Lousy Demonstrations!"

I know, I know: not funny. "Not very funny, sonny," as Nancy Reagan might say (it's a line I learned from her). (And all Hillary Clinton gave us was, "Okie-dokey, artichokey" — which is pretty good, actually.)

I'm indebted to the New York Post for reprinting a chunk of the open letter to President Bush by Frederick Forsyth (the genius behind The Day of the Jackal). (The full letter was published in the Guardian.)

Wrote Forsyth, "The British Left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilization against Adolf Hitler and worshipped the other [master of] genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Andropov. It has slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated against everything and everyone American for a century. Broadly speaking, it hates your country first, mine second."

Well said, you (I think a Brit would remark).

A quick word on David Brooks's passionate column on gay marriage, which is bound to be widely discussed (the column, that is — gay marriage already is).

The column, as I have read it, argues that we must favor gay marriage because we must favor fidelity — commitment, loyal love. Well, let me make the obvious point that no force on earth can stop people from being faithful if they wish to be. Certainly you don't need a marriage license for that. And no force on earth can stop people from being unfaithful if they wish to be — a marriage license is no barrier to that. Gay partners have been faithful to each other for millennia (presumably), without benefit of marriage. And married partners have been unfaithful to each other for millennia, with benefit of marriage. So, support gay marriage if you like, for whatever (sound) reasons you can come up with — but let's not pretend that a respect for fidelity has anything to do with it.

Arrestingly, the column mentions Ruth and Naomi — and the Scripturally ignorant might suppose that they were a lesbian couple! They were, of course, daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. Ruth's faithfulness was exemplary. But what this has to do with marriage, strictly, is a mystery. Any two people can be faithful to each other, if they decide to be. Friends, fathers and sons, the corner grocer and his favorite shopper — whatever. Weren't we talking about marriage?

Finally, just a comment on language: That phrase "heterosexual marriage" is really something, isn't it? So it has come to this. Heterosexual marriage! I remember when I first heard the phrase "the heterosexual community," as though it were a neighborhood somewhere! You need a companion phrase to "homosexual community," I guess. But heterosexual community! Heterosexual marriage! Please!

Received a note last week from the superb Terry Teachout, saying, "The National Book Award for non-fiction was given last night to Carlos Eire's Waiting for Snow in Havana, a memoir of Eire's childhood in Cuba that is passionately anti-Castro. Eire gave a speech at the ceremony that was also passionately anti-Castro, pointing out (among other things) that if he had written the book in Cuba, he'd be in prison, not standing up in front of a crowd of New York glitterati to receive a prize. Press accounts of the dinner make some mention of the speech, but not of its power and intensity." Eire is what the first President Bush might have called, in another context, a point of light. And, judging from my mail, the Cuban-American community — there I go, with "community" again! — is very, very pleased about this award. Also a little surprised.

A drop of good news. Now if only one mainstream news organization would look into Oscar Biscet. Maybe Barbara Walters could whisper his name into Castro's ear next time she cuddles, I mean, huddles, with him.

I've got loads of interesting letters I'd like to address, y'all, but I gotta go — some other time. Let me close with a little language. First, I offer the Simile of the Month. It comes from Zell Miller, the Democrat we wingnuts all love: "[The Dem presidential candidates] are like polkas: They all sound the same." (Before proud Poles write me, I know, I know: All polkas do not sound the same. But it's a cute line.)

Finally, we continue our war against the equation of "reticence" with "reluctance": An AP report on Saturday said, "[Gwyneth] Paltrow has been dating [some dude named] Martin for the past year, but both have been reticent to discuss their relationship." The battle — or war, I guess I said — may be hopeless. But it's semi-fun to follow!

Happy Thanksgiving, readers, and I give thanks for, among other things, you. (Awww.)

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!