You know the Cult of Obama? Conservatives are always talking about it–this substitute religion. And sometimes you can overtalk about it. And sometimes you can undertalk about it. I have seen some things that would knock your socks off. (Sorry to be coy, but I don’t want to embarrass certain parties–some of whom I may be related to!)

I’d like to tell you about something in my neighborhood. There is a display at the big Barnes & Noble, at 66th and Broadway (Manhattan). Only it is not so much a display as a shrine. In any case, it is a window–the main window–and it is devoted to Obama. The window is religious in character, or at least worshipful.

It includes cardboard cutouts of Obama, and front pages hailing his election, and a video monitor. The monitor plays a loop of the Great Man in action, meeting the people, looking benevolent and leader-like. As we were walking past last night, a friend of mine took an iPhone picture: here. The picture does not do this display/shrine justice. You have to see it, to believe it and gag at it.

Frankly, Obama voters and fans ought to be embarrassed. This window is well-nigh North Korean.

As you may know, the Upper West Side–the neighborhood in question–is sort of home base for American left-liberalism. And you can learn a lot about this outlook and lifestyle from living here. My neighbors are clearly not cynical about politics and life. They are not part of the “adversarial culture.” They are certainly part of the secular-humanist culture–maybe its full flower. And they badly want something to believe in.

I believe they’ve found it.

You know that bromide attributed to Chesterton, about believing in nothing, and believing in anything? We may tire of hearing it; but it has a point–a big, big point.

‐I don’t know about you-all, but I am good and sick of those Pepsi signs that mirror the Obama logo. Oh, well: We are capitalists, and Obama is selling, apparently (no, not apparently: obviously). And it is a lovely drink.

‐I had a discussion once with a dear anti-Communist friend from Vermont. We were talking about Ben & Jerry’s: whether to buy it and eat it, in light of the left-wing commitments of the company. We decided that ice cream, and the love of it, comes first.

Plus, as conservatives, we know that some things–most things–almost all things–ought to be above and beyond politics.

‐You may well have seen this article by that worthy and veteran Washington reporter, Tom DeFrank. It says that Dick Cheney put the full-court press on GWB, where Scooter Libby was concerned. Wanted a pardon. Went back and back at the prez. Bush finally said, No more: I don’t want to hear about it again.

I was also interested in the end of DeFrank’s report:

Ten days before leaving office, Bush hailed Cheney as “a fabulous vice president.” About the same time, however, an official who has worked closely with both men mused that the relationship “isn’t what it was” when Bush tapped Cheney as his running mate in 2000. “It’s been a long, long time since I’ve heard the President say, ‘Run that by the vice president’s office.’ You used to hear that all the time.”

Why am I bringing all this up? Do I have a point? Yes. For eight years, we heard from the Left–from their journalists, their professors, their comedians–that Cheney was calling the shots in the White House, with the president being merely his instrument.

Have so many people ever been so addled and ridiculous and malicious about an administration as the Left, broadly defined, was about the Bush-Cheney administration? In an amazing feat, virtually everything they said, thought, and spread was wrong.

‐As regular readers know, Bernard Kouchner–now the foreign minister of France–is one of my favorite people in all of public life. The co-founder of Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), he is absolutely clear about politics and human rights: hating tyranny whether it comes from the left or right, whether the boot is red or black. He is a stirring, consistent, and brave advocate of liberal democracy.

He is, in truth, an old-fashioned liberal. These days, of course, that gets you called a right-winger.

One day, several years ago, he dropped by the offices of National Review. This was during the runup to the Iraq War. I asked why so many Frenchmen seemed so enthusiastic about Saddam Hussein. (The polls showed shocking support for him.) Kouchner answered casually and matter-of-factly that their enthusiasm for Saddam was like their enthusiasm for Che Guevara: a way of expressing anti-Americanism, or anti-anglo-saxonisme.

In recent days, one of France’s leading investigative journalists, Pierre Péan, has published a book about Kouchner. And it accuses him of corruption: essentially, of being on the take from African governments.

Kouchner says that the book is a pack of lies, and that Péan hates him: for being pro-American and Jewish. It seems very clear to me that this is true. And Kouchner is suing over what he calls libel and defamation. He is not taking this assault on him lying down.

Hope he is right, is all I can say. I hope he is right. Somehow, I suspect he is. And the loss of Kouchner–a tumble off his pedestal–would be terrible.

‐I suppose I admire Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger as much as anyone does. He is the hero aviator who guided the plane safely into the Hudson River (about a driver, 3-wood, and 6-iron from my building). I noticed in the store yesterday that he is on the cover of People magazine. And he is holding a toddler, the youngest of the people on that flight, and therefore the youngest to survive.

I somehow thought that was out of character for Sully. Sort of surprised he agreed to pose with the tot. Do you know what I mean? Either you do or you don’t, I guess–hard thing to elaborate on.

‐Tell you something rather weird about that flight–the Hudson River flight. Not to insert myself into the story, because I in no way belong in it. That flight was a US Air flight from New York to Charlotte. At the time it went down, I was in Charlotte, waiting to board a US Air flight to New York. In the gate area, I saw a picture of the plane in the water on Drudge.

Kind of startling.

‐I’ll relate something interesting from the Middle East Media Research Institute (and for the report I’m talking about, go here). An Egyptian cleric is on television. And he is pronouncing on divorce. I cherish the last line in particular. But you’ll want to read the entire chunk:

What’s the point of having an animal you can ride, if it drives you nuts? The distance it takes you you could cover in a bus for a quarter of an Egyptian pound, but you have to spend 100 pounds on this animal. Sell it, and get rid of it. Would anyone blame you for selling it? Would anyone say: “Shame on him for selling it”? It’s only an animal. If a man is completely fed up with his apartment, because he has bad neighbors, and the apartment is falling apart, would anyone blame him for selling it and say: “Shame on you, how can you sell it? This is where you were born and raised.” This apartment does not suit him anymore. I have bad neighbors, and I don’t feel good in it. The same goes for the woman. If a woman has such bad character that her husband does not feel comfortable with her, there is nothing to prevent him from divorcing her. What are we, Christians?!

What are we, Christians?! There are about a hundred things to say about this. I will confine myself to: I don’t think the good imam has checked in on Christianity–by which I mean, Christian-dominated societies–lately.

‐More from MEMRI, more from Arab TV–this time not so funny. Listen to a Kuwaiti professor appearing on al-Jazeera:

Four pounds of anthrax . . . carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there. What a horrifying idea. 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings, and so on. One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this ‘confetti’ all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real ‘celebration.’

(For the full report, go here.) I don’t watch much al-Jazeera, but it must be a cauldron of poison. And, all those years ago, when we liberated Kuwait–did we have to liberate that professor?

‐My colleague Kevin Williamson forwarded me a noteworthy item. A spokesman for India’s Congress party is keen that George W. Bush be given India’s highest award, the Bharat Ratna. He said that Bush “nurtured the psychology and sensitivity of India.” He also pointed out the simple fact that India-U.S. relations have never been better–have never been so good, actually. “Bush reached out to India,” he said.

To read an article about this–incredibly sarcastic and sniffing–go here. (The facts are apparent nevertheless.) (And “Bharat Ratna,” by the way, means “Jewel of India.”)

‐You may wish to have a look at an article by Khaled Abu Toameh, here. He is the great reporter for the Jerusalem Post–a story unto himself. This particular article is about relations between Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis. But the point I’d like to make now is a language one. In the course of his article, KAT (as some of us think of him) cites the phrase “affirmative discrimination.” He writes,

“The public and private sectors are beginning to open more to the Arab citizens and there is growing awareness among the Israeli establishment about the need to endorse a policy of ‘affirmative discrimination’ toward the Arab citizens.”

Years ago–might have been 1997–Ward Connerly had a big Washington dinner. There were several speakers, one of whom used the phrase “affirmative discrimination.” He said we ought to say that, instead of “affirmative action.” And when Newt Gingrich got up to speak, he said, in essence, “What a great idea: We should say ‘affirmative discrimination’ from now on. That gets closer to the mark.”

I hadn’t thought of that in ages–and here I see the phrase in an article about Israel.

‐Did you see the video of Bush 41, telling the story about the lady who rushed his car? Oh, you must. This was a horrifying-looking lady, said Bush, and she rushed with a sign that said “Stay Out of My Womb.” Anyway, to see GHWB in action, go here. Reminded me what a kick I got out of him, no matter how he might have frustrated us with some of his policies.

‐You want a taste of mail? Not everything that arrives in my inbox is a valentine, you know. In my January 26 column, I wrote,

The question was raised in our office late last week, “How long will the Obama administration be able to blame George Bush for every problem under the sun?” And the answer is, Indefinitely–because the media will permit it, and abet it: participate in it (given that so many in the media share the worldview and attitudes and style of the new administration). Is that too dark and cynical a view? Well, I hope so. Maybe we should revisit this subject at regular intervals.

Anyway, a reader wrote, “Hey asshole, your grandchildren will still be paying for Bush’s greed in 2050 so GFY.”

I wanted to publish this letter mainly because I was tickled by that use of initials!

‐For Impromptus via RSS, go here.

‐And should we end on another letter–a nicer one? Recently I had occasion to mention nanotechnology, and that led me to mention the late Adm. Grace Hopper, whom I–and many others–associate with nanoseconds. (Better put, we associate nanoseconds with her.) A reader wrote,

Admiral Hopper was, at one time, the only commodore in the U.S. Navy. I had the pleasure of meeting then-Commodore Hopper when I was a Federal Protective Officer assigned to the CIA. Just a standard gate check and directions to VIP parking. Some months later she was back for another lecture, and I was working interior security at The Bubble (CIA auditorium). As she walked by me she said, “Good morning, Officer Smith. Better posting than the gate in this weather, isn’t it?” Such a memory! Such manners! I was able to listen to her lecture from the lobby. I didn’t understand a word she said. But I do have the honor of having rendered a salute to, and having had it returned by, Adm. Grace Hopper.

Loved her, and loved that letter. Have a great day.

#JAYBOOK#