Time was, I wrote a lot about Jimmy Carter, usually despairingly. And then I kind of swore off him — I did this in an announcement to Impromptus readers. I mean, you can only despair over a guy so many times. But every now and then I dip back into Carterville — and I will do so again, because he has picked up an award in the Palestinian Authority (natch).

Carter made a deeply, deeply revealing statement: “I have been in love with the Palestinian people for many years.” (For a news story, go here.) Yes, he has: He has been in love. This is an emotional and ideological love. And he apparently feels something like the opposite for those on the other side of this conflict.

I would have said that Jimmy Carter was “in love” with the Palestinians, adopting all of their prejudices, beliefs, and stances. But now our 39th president has said so for himself. Amazing.

‐Do you remember back when right-wingers used to joke, “If a liberal Democrat is elected president, and commander-in-chief, we’ll be reading terrorists their Miranda rights”? Do you remember that? It was funny, wasn’t it?

‐I quote to you from the beginning of an AP article: “Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that ‘everyone guessed wrong’ on the impact of the economic stimulus . . .” Um, that wouldn’t be “everyone,” would it? (Perhaps everyone Vice President Biden knows, consults, or respects.)

‐By now, you’ve read what our director of central intelligence said about Dick Cheney: “It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”

If a conservative Republican said that a liberal Democrat were “almost . . . wishing that this country would be attacked again,” he would be drummed out of public life, as the worst kind of McCarthyite. He would be beyond the pale. At least, I suspect that would be the case.

Almost every day, the Obama administration has attacked the previous administration for its national-security policies (and other policies). Almost alone, Dick Cheney has responded. And I can’t see where he is wrong to do so. Furthermore, he is criticizing Obama national-security policies, saying that they are dangerous for the country.

And now Panetta is saying that criticisms themselves are dangerous.

What Panetta is doing, perhaps, is declaring illegitimate any criticism of the administration where national security is concerned. And Americans of all views should reject that. People criticized Bush every day, often vitriolically, as was their right. Cheney is speaking out from deep knowledge and experience. Besides, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Didn’t we used to hear that?

‐I acknowledge: I like Panetta better when he is using his position to undermine Nancy Pelosi!

‐Readers have asked me to comment on the State Department couple who spied for Castro’s Cuba for 30 years. I will, briefly. Let us be clear what they were doing: aiding a regime that denies people their fundamental rights and liberties; that imprisons people for dissent; that tortures them while they are in prison; that kills people who try to flee the island; that will allow no political pluralism; that squashes the very souls of people, like any other totalitarian state. We say that this couple “betrayed their country.” Sure. But they also betrayed Cubans and humanity at large.

‐Here is some good news — Dr. Hilda Molina has been allowed to leave the island. To leave Cuba. She is a heroic woman. I have written about her before, including in this article, two years ago. (“The Myth of Cuban Health Care: Michael Moore gives it a powerful boost.”) I said,

Hilda Molina Morejón is another doctor-dissident — a stunning case. She was the country’s chief neurosurgeon, the founder of the International Center for Neurological Restoration. She was also a deputy in the National Assembly. In the early 1990s, however, the regime informed her that the neurological center would start concentrating on foreigners, who would bring their hard currency. She objected, resigning her positions and returning the medals that Castro had awarded her. Then came actos de repudio and all the rest of it (but not prison). [Actos de repudio are when the dictatorship sends goons to your house, and to those of your relatives and friends.] She has been forbidden to leave the island, and is banned from practicing medicine. She manages, despite the circumstances, to speak out.

Now she is in Argentina, and she made the following statement: “I have inside a wound that will never heal. I say to Mr. Fidel Castro, who has been the scourge of my family, may he have all the peace in the world. May he choose the path that the country needs. I don’t need to forgive him for anything.” (For the news article, go here.)

Yes, a heroic woman.

‐I thought the Netanyahu speech did everything it should — including answer President Obama on the question of Israel, and why it was founded. Obama said, or implied: the Holocaust. This is what Israel’s Arab (and Iranian, and Turkish) enemies say: Israel was established because of the Holocaust, and why should Middle Easterners have to pay for the crimes of Europeans? Indeed, in much of his speech, Obama adopted much of the “Muslim-grievance narrative,” as others have said better than I could.

Anyway, Netanyahu gave Obama some instruction that perhaps he missed from Rashid Khalidi. Good.

‐Let me make a point I’ve made since 2003: Iraqi political leaders are much criticized, and much maligned; but they risk a lot, when they agree to serve. I thought of this yet again when reading, “Harith al-Obeidi, leader of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, and his bodyguard were shot dead Friday as they left a Baghdad mosque after prayers.” (For the article, go here.) They were murdered by a Qaedist, it seems. Iraqi politicians no doubt screw up a lot. But they risk a lot, too. I wonder if you and I would sign up, if we were Iraqi . . .

‐You’ve probably read this story, but let me just refresh you:

The government’s inadvertent and red-faced Internet posting of a 266-page list of U.S. nuclear sites provided a one-step guide for anyone wanting details about such sensitive information. Obama administration officials said Wednesday the document contained no classified material about nuclear weapons. They contended the locations and other details already were available from public sources.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said “a snafu” led to the online posting. “A little embarrassing,” he acknowledged.

Uh-huh. (For the rest of the article, go here.) Quick question: Does it make me a paranoid Republican to suspect that, if a GOP administration were in charge, this would be a fairly big story — all over the media, and the subject of late-night comedy and so on? (Maybe you shouldn’t answer that.)

‐I hope you read David Pryce-Jones’s piece on 1984, which was published 60 years ago. (The novel, I mean, not David’s piece.) This is just a blog item. But you may agree that it rises near literature.

‐This is not literature, or near it – very far from it — but did you happen to catch Impromptus yesterday? If not, catch up here.

‐Last week, I published FAQs – three answers to questions I receive a whole lot. The first is, “What should I read about Che Guevara?” That is by far the most frequent question. The second: “What should I do to know about music?” And the third, “How do I break into journalism?”

Well, these questions, or the answers to them, provoked many sacks of mail. In answer to the music question, I gave a little list, of things people might listen to. And I said, “Please don’t write me to tell me what I failed to include! I know, I know.” In fact, I “failed” to include most things — the musical universe is very large. Well, people did, in fact, write in to tell me what I should have included. I loved one jokey note: “Mr. Nordlinger: You left out all the music you didn’t include!” Exactly.

Let me share with you an exchange I had with a distinguished musicologist — just thought you might enjoy. He wrote,

Dear Jay,
As a retired music-history professor . . . I well understand how challenging — and ultimately futile — it is to put together a list of must-hear pieces . . . I also am well aware of your plea to us all not to write to tell you what you have missed. And I won’t.
Except: I wonder whether you really meant to recommend “L’Isle inconnue” from Berlioz’s Nuits d’été. I do agree that the Berlioz cycle contains “one of the great songs, by anybody.” But that song — beyond doubt, for me — is: “Absence” — not “L’Isle inconnue.”
Did you really mean “L’Isle inconnue” and not “Absence”? That would really interest me — and surprise me.

And here is my reply:

Dear Professor . . .: I’m so glad you raised this subject. I’ve always had a problem with Les Nuits d’été. Something is wrong with me. I’ve always loved the bookends of the cycle — “Villanelle” and “L’Isle.” Have sung them (to myself) since I was quite young. But I’ve never much liked the middle songs — especially, I’m afraid, “Absence.” I hate to say it, but I consider them somewhat soupy and static (if a song can be both).
I do love “L’Isle.” I admire it greatly — consider it a small masterpiece. Because I think that no song better captures a sense of romance-adventure. The sheer giddiness of romance: “Hey, where do you want to go? Let’s live, let’s get going.” The line “Dans l’île de Java?” is especially thrilling, somehow — the way Berlioz sets the two syllables of “Java,” with that questioning inflection on the end. Just marvelous.
I will think further! . . .

And I will.

‐Can’t resist sharing with you one more music letter — real cute:

Jay,
To expose my children to some classical music I bought a CD called The Only Classical CD You’ll Ever Need! While I don’t agree with the title, it does have good versions of familiar classical pieces.
Yesterday I was playing this in the car on a family trip. When the “Ride of the Valkyries” came on, I started to sing along. In my best Elmer Fudd voice I sang, “Kill da wabbit! Kill da wabbit!” Then from the back of the car my five-year-old son said, “Gee Daddy, you’re pretty smart. You know all the words.”

Fabulous.

‐This is from a reader, re Che:

Jay,
Your FAQ answer on Che led me to your article “Che Chic” [here]. I was interested in the following: “. . . our own National Institutes of Health describes him this way: an ‘Argentine physician and freedom fighter.’” I did a quick search and found that he is now an “Argentine physician and revolutionary.”

Better, barely.

‐A little language? A reader wrote to inform me that “Indian style” — as in how kindergarteners sit down for story time — is now called “crisscross applesauce.” Hmmm. Our reader wonders whether “we’ll have to stop referring to lo mein as ‘Chinese food.’”

‐A little golf? I love something that Tiger Woods said (which may not surprise you). Referring to his pursuit of Jack Nicklaus’s record of 18 major titles, he said, “It’s five to pass him, four to tie him. That’s a lot. Most of the guys in my generation haven’t won more than three, so it’s quite a challenge.”

On so many levels, that is just — boffo.

‐A little more golf — golf crossed with journalism? I regard the following lead, from the AP, as one of the great leads of recent times: “Nick Faldo can add another title to his six majors — ‘Sir.’” (Faldo was knighted.)

(Yes, I know that insiders, and would-be insiders, write “lede.” I have always balked at that.)

‐Thanks for joining me, friends. And if you live in Phoenix — will I see you at the Goldwater Institute on Thursday? GI is a dynamite organization, as you may know. It is doing what all of us should be doing, in some fashion: working for freedom — explaining it, defending it, advocating it. A wonderful way of life, don’t you think?

In any case, wherever you live — see you!

#JAYBOOK#