So, the Democrats are back in power — they control all of Congress again. Was it really twelve years that the Republicans were in charge? I know this is bad, but I think of Democratic control as the natural state of things. I view the Republican reign as a mere hiccup, a parenthesis — grace.

It seems like only yesterday that the Republicans took over . . . and bumper stickers sprouted on Capitol Hill that read, “Speaker Newt: Deal with it.”

‐In her opening remarks, Speaker Pelosi said, “This is an historic moment — for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years.”

Pardon me, but is there a single human being who has been waiting for a woman to be Speaker of the House? One?

In his general exultation yesterday, Bill Clinton said, “It’s a great day for the largest number of women we’ve ever had in the Congress . . .”

Maybe I make too little of gender — sex, whatever — in areas like this. Perhaps I have an abnormally strong aversion to this kind of thinking. Maybe I was born too late, and don’t really understand the barriers that women faced.

But I don’t get it — I just don’t. I don’t see why Nancy Pelosi’s being Speaker helps any woman other than herself, and I don’t see why women at large should take pride in her ascendance. I mean, was it ever in doubt that a woman would become Speaker, in the normal course of things?

I don’t think of Nancy Pelosi as a woman. I think of her as a left-wing Democrat from San Francisco.

And she ought to view that as a compliment.

‐May I tell you the worst thing about the unusually warm weather we’re having in the East? People take it as evidence of “global warming.” I mean, the thinking that occurs is not exactly scientific. In the last few weeks, I’ve talked to maybe five people — plenty smart — who’ve said, “Yeah, this weather: global warming.” I talked to a brilliant man two days ago who said, “I’m enjoying this weather, myself. But I’m sad for the world — you know, global warming.”

I guess they don’t have the luxury of talking like that in Kansas. Or does global warming cause catastrophic blizzards, too?

‐Was struck by a headline yesterday: “U.S. Death Sentences Drop to 30-Year Low.” Wasn’t the election of George W. Bush, the Texas executioner, going to inaugurate a reign of death? I mean, you remember how they killed him for seeming to take pleasure in the capital sentences imposed on the lynchers of James Byrd, in that presidential debate? You remember?

Anyway . . .

‐Speaking of GWB: I thought you’d like to see this column by Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York (and a Democrat, of course). It opens,

President George W. Bush, vilified by many, supported by some, is a hero to me.
Why do I say that? It’s not because I agree with the president’s domestic agenda. It’s not because I think he’s done a perfect job in the White House.
George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage.
The president does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.

Amen, Mayor.

‐And now a word about another president — Nixon. You perhaps read this story yesterday:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Embittered by career diplomats during his first term, President Nixon said he wanted to “ruin the Foreign Service” before leaving office, according to newly released State Department documents.
Days after his reelection on Nov. 7, 1972, Nixon vented his frustrations about the diplomatic corps during a meeting with his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger.
Just before saying he was going “to take the responsibility for cleaning up” the department, the president told Kissinger on Nov. 13 that he was determined that his “one legacy is to ruin the Foreign Service. I mean ruin it — the old Foreign Service — and to build a new one. I’m going to do it.”
Months later, Kissinger would become the chief U.S. diplomat as secretary of state, and major changes were never made to the Foreign Service.

Nixon could rave, but you often have to sympathize with the guy. I have met many a fine Foreign Service officer. I trust you have, too. But . . .

Do you remember something I wrote in September 2005? I will reprint it below:

I was at dinner with this [Foreign Service officer], who gave every indication that he didn’t think much of my politics or employer — or of the Bush administration. [The encounter, too, was in 2005.] I was searching for small talk. It so happened that I had met another Foreign Service officer in the region, on a previous trip. This fellow had two sons, about ten and eight. He was hoping to be posted back in the United States — in Washington — because his sons had never lived in America. He wanted them to have that experience.
My guy snorted, “Yeah — introduce ’em to the joys of Burger King.” I let that slide. But later I asked him, “Do you really think that’s all there is to American society and culture? Burger King?” (Not that there’s anything wrong with that great institution, believe me.) Then this guy said, “Well, there’s jazz.”
“Anything else?” I inquired. He couldn’t think of anything.
Then he said that all kids should be made to live abroad. “Just American kids,” I asked, “or all kids? In other words, should Dutch kids have to live abroad, or Botswanan kids, or Laotian kids?” Clearly, he had in mind the Americans, trapped inside their boobish, blinkered homeland.
Later — because now our conversation was really open — I commented that the Foreign Service seemed to me about 95 percent Democratic. He said, “No, more like 80 percent.” That sounded pretty low to me. Then my guy said, “Can we help it if the Republican party has no interest in the world?” (No interest in the world! The Republicans I know are obsessed with the world!) “Can we help it if Republican congressmen brag about not holding passports?”
1) I very much doubt that there is a congressman — from either party — who doesn’t hold a passport. 2) I doubt even more that, if there is such a congressman, he brags about it.
Also, I think it’s fairly universal that like hires like.
Also . . .

Gosh, that was discouraging. I mean, that conversation with the Foreign Service officer. Confirmatory and discouraging.

‐According to the Foreign Service — at least as represented by this fellow (pretty ably, I think) — people like me are not supposed to be interested in the world. But that will not prevent me from commending to you a new organization, the Human Rights Foundation. Its website is here. I am looking at a headline: “Bolivia to Deport Cuban National for Criticism of Cuban Dictatorship and Bolivian President.” On the HRF’s “international council” sit such great men as Vladimir Bukovsky, Armando Valladares, and Harry Wu. Thank heaven for the arrival of the HRF. ‐Looking for a couple of good columns on the execution of Saddam? You can’t do better than WFB’s: here (Dec. 29) and here (Jan. 2). You may call me biased. It would be smarter if you called me simply discerning. ‐I hope you heard about the latest stunt of that Danish art group: Der Spiegel has the details (in English), here. The Danes “managed to smuggle an advert insulting the Iranian president into a Tehran newspaper.”

At first glance the advertisement placed in the Tehran newspaper on Wednesday seemed to be declaring support for the Iranian leader. Beneath an image of the hard-line president, there was a series of apparently sympathetic statements such as “Support his fight against Bush,” or “Iran has the right to produce nuclear energy.” However, on closer inspection things were not quite so benign: the first letters of each phrase when read from top to bottom spelt out the less than subtle insult “S-W-I-N-E.”

That’s the spirit, boys. I praise Denmark for this art group, Carl Nielsen, Lauritz Melchior, and that lissome little mermaid. ‐Care for a little music (other than Nielsen and Melchior)? For a piece on new recordings, published in the New York Sun, go here. Under consideration are a Christian Thielemann-conducted Mozart Requiem and an opera by Albéniz: Pepita Jiménez, with Plácido Domingo at the head of the cast. (Even though he isn’t the title role, he’s the head of the cast. Believe me.) ‐Some fun with bumper stickers? In Wednesday’s Impromptus, I noted what a reader had noted: a pair of bumper stickers on a car, one reading F*** Bush and the other reading Hatred Is a Learned Behavior. Another reader writes,

Today’s column reminded me of a pair of bumper stickers I saw on a car recently: So Many Christians, So Few Lions, and “I’m for separation of church and hate.”
Well, isn’t that special?

Yes!

Another reader:

Seen on the back window of a small cheap car driven by a much-pierced young man in Orlando: Your To Old.
Speaks volumes, huh?

At least a page or two. One more reader:

Seen this week: an SUV large enough to seat at least nine fools, festooned with the usual anti-war bumper stickers, including one reading Grand Oil Party. It would be difficult to make this stuff up.

‐Well, that’s about me done. Have a great weekend — and, as we enter this new governmental era, remember that, as our dear kindergarten teachers taught us, we are a nation of laws, not men. Or women. (That’s for you, Madam Speaker.)

Imagine Ms. Pelosi’s telling her mother, “Mom, I grew up to be a madam!”