Friends, I’m writing this column on Tuesday, but it won’t appear till Thursday — so if I seem behind the times or otherwise clueless (no comments from the peanut gallery, please), forgive me.

It looks like Hillary Clinton will sail through her confirmation hearings — aside from a few pesky questions about her husband’s donors, their influence on policy, etc. Democrats tend to sail through, do they not? I remember talking to two Republican senators about President Clinton’s Supreme Court picks: Breyer and Ginsburg. They just rocketed on through (unlike many Republican nominees we could name). Ginsburg had been general counsel to the ACLU! But no matter . . .

The senators I spoke to said, “Yeah, we always grease ’em on through. Barely lift a finger.”

Isn’t there a song from Chicago about reciprocity?

Earlier this week, Senator Lugar called Hillary Clinton “the epitome of a big-leaguer.” Other Republican pols are saying similar nice things about her. Even the conservatives I know have been praising Obama’s choice of her as secretary of state. This shows how much the center of gravity in America has shifted to the left.

Senator Moynihan once spoke of “defining deviancy down.” Recent times have defined acceptability leftward.

Hillary Clinton has been wrong — terribly wrong, Left wrong — on virtually every important issue since she was in college: from the Vietnam War on. Those issues mattered a great deal, to the country and the world. And, during the Democratic primaries, she came off as a wee bit more tough-minded than her principal opponent, Senator Obama. And now conservatives are acting like she’s some combination of Colonel Stimson, John Foster Dulles, and George Shultz (whom conservatives didn’t like very much, but that’s another story . . .).

As a friend of mine quipped, when Obama chose Hillary, and conservatives responded with relieved cheers, “Whom was he supposed to pick — Billy Ayers? Noam Chomsky? How much worse were they expecting?”

Strange times . . .

‐Speaking of Republican nominees blocked by Democrats: I was interested to see in an article the other day that Miguel Estrada is representing Conrad Black. During the Oval Office meeting that some of us had with President Bush last month, he spoke of Estrada. (I mean, the president did.) Brought him up unprompted. Do you remember from my write-up?

He was saying that good people have little incentive to put themselves forward, seeing as how they’re eaten up. “I mean, I think of Miguel Estrada, unbelievably brilliant, and it’s a fabulous American story . . .”

I interjected, “That’s why he had to be stopped.”

Bush continued, “Oh, absolutely. But I look at it from his perspective, not theirs. And his perspective is, I want to serve, I want to be in a position to exercise my intellect, I want to help my adopted country . . . And yet he just got hung out there. It was very discouraging, I’m sure, to him and to others who watched the process.”

No kiddin’, babe. (I was actually thinking of another phrase that ends with “Sherlock.”)

‐Things are shifting in the Middle East — really shifting. A new, or at least different, Middle East is emerging. Consider a series run in al-Gumhouriyya, an Egyptian (government) daily. The series, by the paper’s editor, was called “Hamas, Damascus, Iran — the New Axis of Evil.” (MEMRI, or the Middle East Media Research Institute, has the goods here.) Bernard Lewis tells us that Sadat decided to make peace, not because he became a Zionist, but because he recognized the Soviet Union as the great threat to his country: The Soviets, not the Jews, threatened Egypt.

And, increasingly, Arabs are recognizing that Iran poses the great threat to them — and they are not only recognizing it, but saying it.

By the way, for remarks of Lewis, published in my piece on Middle East studies last November, go here.

‐In Tuesday’s Impromptus, I quoted Jimmy Carter, who was in China for a bit. Let me dwell on him, just for a second. He said, “Not even Deng Xiaoping could have anticipated the glorious changes that have taken place in this wonderful country.” And it is true that China has made great strides. But couldn’t the language of an ex-president of the United States have been a little less . . . less propagandistic? Less like the language of the PRC itself?

After all, this is a country with a gulag (“laogai”). And Jimmy Carter is Mr. Human Rights. Isn’t he?

‐When something is termed a “deficit,” that something is held to be bad. Therefore, people have talked of the “trade deficit” in ominous tones for many years. Sometimes, economists have objected. They’ve said, “Just because something is called a ‘deficit,’ doesn’t mean it’s bad.” But they have been little heeded.

So, I notice some news, earlier in the week: “WASHINGTON (AP) — The trade deficit plunged to the lowest level in five years in November as a deepening recession slashed demand for oil by a record amount. Imports from China also fell by the largest amount on record.”

Doesn’t sound so great, does it? When reading economic news, it is sometimes hard to know what is good — strictly good — and what is bad — strictly bad. What it takes is a little perspective and, dare I say, calm.

‐Check out this headline: “Senate Democrats expect to seat Burris.” You wonder how much of that is racial — and how much of that is the normal course of business. (Of course, the racial is part and parcel of the normal course of business, true?) What if Blago had picked a white senator — some typical Chicago pol. Irish, Polish, whatever. Would that person be taking a seat in the upper chamber? Hard to know — impossible, actually. But a question.

Crafty, that Blago, no matter what his occasional (and fatal) crudeness.

‐A regular — and very, very sharp — reader writes,

Jay,
I will favor you with my strange, almost mystical powers of prediction. As you have heard endlessly during the last eight years, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. (By the way, I can tell you that if you respond by pointing out that the America First Committee and Clement Vallandigham were dissenters, the invariable response from highly educated liberals, much smarter than conservatives, who are stupid, will be, “Who?”) However, I predict that during the next four to eight years a synonym for “dissent” will be “racism.”

Hmmm . . .

‐

Cubans with classic American cars — or even rusty Russian sedans — are being encouraged to apply for taxi licenses and set their own prices for the first time in nearly a decade as the communist government turns to the free market to improve its woeful transportation system.
Under regulations published into law this week, Cuba is applying a larger dose of supply-and-demand to an economy that remains 90 percent under state control.
The move by President Raul Castro’s government also breaks with the policies of his ailing brother Fidel, who long accused private taxis — legal and otherwise — of seeking “juicy profits” and fomenting a black market for state-subsidized gasoline that Cuba “had sweated and bled” to obtain.

Interesting. (For the complete article, go here.)

‐A reader writes to remind me of the “transition” meeting between President Carter and President-elect Reagan. Carter was later caustic about Reagan: saying that he was uninterested and an idiot. The only time Reagan perked up, said Carter, was when the subject of South Korea came up: because Reagan favored the dictatorial Right there. (Not true, as events would quickly establish.)

I’ve always loved what Reagan said, when told that Carter had found him dull (and dull-minded) and uninterested. “What was I supposed to do? Jump up and down and beat my breast?”

I have used that line on several occasions, as life has proceeded.

‐I don’t read much about the Roman Polanski rape case — child-rape case — because I do not read much about rape cases. Is there anything more ghastly? (And yet we should not turn away.) So I skimmed this article, from the AP. And I was arrested by something the victim said. She is now a 45-year-old wife and mother (of three children). She was then 13.

She said, “I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child.”

I have a feeling that this woman has greatness in her.

‐In response to something I had in my column — about a college student who liked carrying National Review around, because it made him feel “subversive” — a reader wrote,

I’ve never seen NR in a doctor’s office, dentist’s office, or anywhere outside my home with one curious exception. I lift weights at the base gym at the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station (home of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing — if you didn’t know). While working on some shoulder presses, I noticed a fresh copy left sitting on the next bench.

Very glad to hear it!

‐In other NR news, I looked at the most amazing art installation just before New Year’s Day — or perhaps it was Christmas. In any case, it was fashioned by one of our crack deputy managing editors, Fred Schwarz. (The other crack DME is Kevin Williamson.) What it was was the Year in Cupcakes. There they were, twelve of them, lined up on a ledge.

January featured the cover image of Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg. (It was published in that month.) February commented on the passing of WFB. March showed the room in the Mayflower Hotel in which Governor Spitzer received his pricey visitor. (The story broke that month.)

April had the McCain logo (for no particular reason — it was just an okay time to put McCain in). May paid tribute to the concept of “under the bus” — as in, being thrown under one. This applied to the Reverend Wright and Tony Rezko, once dear to Barack Obama.

June had Hillary conceding defeat. July had the John Edwards scandal. (Remember that?) August had Governor Palin, who emerged nationally that month. September and October dealt with the Revenge of the Subprime Mortgages.

November had Obama winning the election. And December said “ILLINOI$” (an allusion to the Blago scandal).

Honestly, this was an amazing work of art — showing wit, imagination, skill. It was far superior to that which often wins the Turner Prize.

‐I loved this letter from a reader:

Hi, Jay,
I watched the Bush press conference this morning. I loved him! What grace! Even calling Obama a better speaker. Loved him! I have no one else to share this with (I live on Bleecker St.). Sorry for cluttering your inbox.

I loved the letter, and share it with you, for “I live on Bleecker St.” (That is in Greenwich Village, NYC. Menotti once wrote an opera called The Saint of Bleecker Street.)

‐Some time ago, I had an item on “boy,” “man,” “girl,” and “woman” — when and how to use those words. (It was in this column.) That provoked a lot of mail, as you may imagine, and I’d like to publish three letters.

The first:

We must insist on calling our youth “boys” and “girls.” I served as a high-school athletic director for a short time, and among the firmest stands I took was that it’s boys’ basketball, not men’s basketball. And equally, it’s not women’s soccer, but girls’ soccer.
Regardless of how it may sound to a child, or young person, it’s important for the adults to be reminded: They’re children, or young people.

Letter No. 2:

It’s funny that you should refer to sports in asking your question, “When do ‘boys’ become ‘men’ and ‘girls’ become ‘women’?” Because, as in many things, sports gives us the answer. You may have noticed that high schools have boys’ teams and girls’ teams, while colleges and universities have men’s teams and women’s teams. So the transition is made at the conclusion of high school.

And No. 3, a little different:

I coach girls’ fast-pitch softball. At 12 and under, the game is played by big girls. At 14 and under, it is played by young women. The game is completely different.

This writer (a man, incidentally) adds a P.S.: “‘Coach’ really is the coolest title.” I agree!

‐You may remember that, in notes about Moscow, Idaho — scribbled in this column — I mentioned Murf Raquet. He is a business columnist in the area, and what a wonderful byline, a wonderful name: Murf Raquet!

Well, I have a little more information about him, because he wrote me. He said,

I have no Irish in my heritage. My real name is Maurice. Murf was a nickname my parents invented. I am from Western New York and moved to Idaho in 1980. I’ve been in Moscow since 1984.

And I have yet more information, because I pressed: “Raquet” is Alsatian. “My paternal grandfather had a French name and spoke only German. Life is always fun in a buffer state!” Indeed. And “Raquet,” you will want to know, is pronounced “Ra-KAY,” not like the implement used in tennis.

Murf Raquet — not a name you run across every day, and an excellent one.

#JAYBOOK#

‐Feel like Impromptus via RSS? Go here.

‐Finally, a colleague sent me a YouTube video of Licia Albanese, the famed soprano. Apparently, the video was shot last summer, when she was 95 (not 100, as the text says). Watch her nail (pretty much) an A flat. It starts to sag a little, but it is awfully good. And she releases it like a true pro. Go here. Enjoy.

And I’ll catch you later.