Here was a headline yesterday: “Obama to throw out first pitch at All-Star game.” And I thought of a couple of things. When JFK had to throw out such a pitch, he practiced in the backyard of the White House for quite some time — did not want to embarrass himself. Did not want to bounce it or something. I also thought of what Obama said about his bowling score (129): “It’s like the Special Olympics or something.” (At least that was an example of self-deprecating humor — not a specialty in this administration — however socially unacceptable it was.)

Finally, I thought of Chris Rock, who said one of the funniest things of recent vintage. A reporter had heard that he was really unathletic. And she asked, “Do you throw like a girl?” Rock answered, “No, I wouldn’t go that far. Not like a girl. Maybe like a lesbian.”

‐Turn now to Latin America — and let me begin with a platitude: Democracy has been a boon to the region (as to the world at large). And, of course, the opposite has been a bane. For 50 years now, Cuba has been the odd man out in Latin America: a Communist dictatorship in a democratizing region. In 1962, the Organization of American States expelled Cuba, on grounds that “Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system.” In 2001, the OAS reaffirmed and strengthened its principles by signing a “democratic charter.” What a difference a few years makes. The quasi-democratic Left is riding high in Latin America, controlling Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and other countries. And the new leaders want Cuba into the OAS, pronto. They voted to lift the ban, inviting Cuba to rejoin. The United States had no objection. As far as most members are concerned, Cuba may rejoin immediately, without any change or reform at all. Our secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, says that some reform will be necessary. But these are empty, unenforceable words. The Wall Street Journal’s wonderful Latin America analyst, Mary Anastasia O’Grady, noticed something interesting. Secretary Clinton was asked about Cuba’s political prisoners, and what they might mean for Cuban membership in the OAS. And she talked about . . . other things. Hillary said, “The United States, under the Obama administration, is committed to reengaging in Latin America, to working with all countries, and we have begun doing that. We believe that lifting people out of poverty in our hemisphere, narrowing the intolerable income gap that exists between the rich and the poor in our hemisphere, working for greater social inclusion, improved education and health care — these are our goals.” Yes, and political prisoners, Madam Secretary? Or does the Obama administration simply not do those? Clinton added, “Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course, that means that we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential.” Right. And under conservative presidents, America is not committed to improving and enhancing the human potential? Our government’s current stance is very, very curious. For his part, Castro says that Cuba will never rejoin the OAS, which he regards as an American puppet. (And when I say Castro, I mean the older brother, the one really still in charge.) In any case, most people are saying that, with the lifting of the ban on Cuba, a Cold War relic has been removed. The Honduran president went so far as to say, “The Cold War has ended this day.” Yeah, but democratic values are worth defending and upholding — whether a cold war is on or not. Or is that too sappy? ‐We’ve been reading a lot about Silvio Berlusconi’s shenanigans, or alleged shenanigans. So I appreciated the distraction of reading something about the prime minister and Israel — here. “At a joint news conference after talks lasting about two hours, Berlusconi endorsed Netanyahu’s plan for a future demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes Israel as a ‘Jewish state.’” And later, Netanyahu said, “It was a very warm welcome. It would be hard to find a better friend.”

Hmmm. That includes in the White House, presumably. Anyway . . . Forza Silvio! (At least where the Middle East is concerned.)

‐President Sarkozy has done something interesting. He has said that burqas have no place in France. This is interesting in several ways. Let me count a few of them.

1) It is said that certain European leaders cannot afford to offend Muslims, for any reason (foreign policy, domestic policy). Muslims are simply too big a portion of the population, and thus they loom too large in political calculations. 2) Sarkozy struck a blow, perhaps, for Western culture and assimilation. 3) He sent a signal to Muslim women that they are not alone. They are not unsupported and undefended. Some women wish to wear the burqa, of course. Others are condemned to do so. And if such condemnation is going to stick — why leave a Muslim country for a Western republic? You can be condemned to the burqa back in the dusty Middle East. Why such condemnation in Paris, or Lille?

Again, Sarko has done something interesting.

‐I had a thought while reading this article, headlined “Iraq to mark US pullback from cities with holiday.” I have had this thought before, and perhaps you have too. It looks like our effort in Iraq may well succeed — succeed against some long odds. And if that is the case: Will anyone be around to celebrate it, or even notice it? What I mean is, is much of America — including official Washington — too committed against the war, too committed to millions of words and actions against it, to acknowledge the success of the effort, with all it means for the Middle East, the United States, and beyond?

‐The news is big, big from Iran, and this may seem a small matter: “Pro-opposition Iran soccer players may quit team.” (Article here.) Again, this may seem a small matter — but maybe it is not so small. Because soccer matters a lot in Iran, and little symbols and happenings matter everywhere.

‐I wanted to highlight a few passages from this report on Tibet. (Remember Tibet?) “The Chinese paramilitary police who usually patrol Tibet’s often tense capital went to work in black and yellow track suits last week instead of their green uniforms. The occasion: a government-arranged visit by a group of foreign journalists.”

These journalists “saw trim young men in crew cuts and black and yellow track suits marching in patrols around Lhasa’s medieval Tibetan quarter. The men said they were students and some carried math text books. But local residents said they were actually People’s Armed Police officers . . .” Sure.

“A monk in his 30s arranged a secret meeting with one of the foreign reporters in Lhasa on last week’s trip and described the political study classes he’s required to attend once a week at his monastery as painful. In his interview, the monk, who had dressed in civilian clothes to avoid drawing attention to himself, told the reporter . . . that monks are forced to criticize the Dalai Lama during the classes.”

Anyway, enough. The PRC is still the PRC — just in case you had forgotten, amid our various expressions of “engagement.”

‐In the past, I’ve written about Wal-Mart, in defense of. More specifically, I have criticized its critics — I am an anti-anti-Wal-Mart man. One thing I learned, when I was a bit of a Wal-Mart-ologist, is that a key to the company’s success is adaptability: They are always monitoring, watching, thinking, reassessing, making tiny changes — or seemingly tiny changes — that affect the bottom line (upward).

I thought of all this when spying this article, which begins,

The recession steered a new type of customer to Wal-Mart — deeper in the pockets and suddenly looking for bargains. Now the world’s largest retailer has to figure out how to keep that customer when the economy recovers.
So Wal-Mart is bringing in more brand names, ditching scores of other products and even redesigning hundreds of stores to give them wider aisles, better lighting and better sight lines.
It’s more than just a cosmetic upgrade. That new breed of customer also spends about 40 percent more than the traditional Wal-Mart shopper, and the retailer senses an opportunity to accelerate its growth.

Smart company. I’ve always been of two minds about China products — the majority of what Wal-Mart stocks. Globalization has unquestionably been a boon to the Chinese — ordinary Chinese — which is so gratifying. Of course, globalization has been a boon to most everyone else, too. But how do you tell which products from China are free-labor products and which are slave-labor products — items from the Laogai, or Gulag? You cannot, as far as I know.

I once interviewed a man — a Falun Gong practitioner — who, between bouts of torture, was made to manufacture Homer Simpson bedroom slippers. You placed your foot where Homer’s mouth was. He also made Christmas lights.

Charming. Anyway . . .

‐I was somewhat amused by a report from San Francisco — maybe you will be, too.

Lawmakers agreed unanimously Tuesday to snuff out new shops that sell pot-smoking paraphernalia in the heart of San Francisco’s one-time hippie district.
The Board of Supervisors approved a three-year moratorium on new businesses in the Haight that sell the smoking equipment. At least a dozen businesses sell rolling papers, roach clips and glass water pipes along Haight Street, a popular destination for tourists nostalgic for the Summer of Love.
The ban does not affect existing shops.

Well, thank heaven for that! The mayor is weighing whether to sign the bill, and I was especially amused by what his spokesman said: “When even the Green Party politicians are opposing head shops, you know it’s a legitimate issue.”

Okay!

‐Let’s have a little language. A reader at a state justice department writes,

Hi Jay,
Could you give a ruling on the use of pled or pleaded as the past tense of plead? I’ve always liked and used pled, but many are telling me it’s just slang and wrong to use in formal court briefs. Where do you stand on this galvanizing issue?

Oh, my goodness, this is an easy one: Pled and pleaded are perfectly good words, perfectly good past tenses. They are equally right. Say pled with confidence, even zeal, and tell your false correctors to . . . I don’t know: do something unpleasant.

Another reader writes, “When I worked for a cable-TV company, a young Texan complained to the chief engineer that while he was watching a movie the picture ‘just blunk off.’ Funny, yes?” Great.

Another reader: “Something I’ve oft wondered about: louse/lice; mouse/mice. And why aren’t neighborhoods full of hice?” Hmmm . . .

A reader living in the Czech Republic writes,

Hey there,
I teach English, and I get interesting questions about the language all the time. A recent impromptu of yours reminded me of something. My girlfriend is German, and her English is excellent, but the first winter we were together she said something like, “It had snown, so we went sledding.” I laughed. She said, “Well, I learned English in San Antonio. We didn’t get much of a chance to conjugate that particular verb.”
Thanks for reminding me!

Sure! Finally, a friend of mine coined a word: profaganda, meaning left-wing indoctrination instilled by professors.

‐Another friend alerted me to a wonderful video that illustrates the extent to which our national debt is being increased. I hear a lot of Republicans say, “Well, Bush and the congressional Republicans spent a lot; Obama and the Democrats are spending a lot. What’s the big diff?” Oh, is there. The video is here — charmingly, imaginatively, and persuasively done.

‐A reader reminded me of an excellent — and pertinent — Thatcher quote: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” All too pertinent, yes.

‐This was kind of lousy:

Jay,
Last weekend I attended the Telluride Bluegrass Festival. While shopping for a commemorative T-shirt I came upon a display of Fidel hats with the official festival logo on the front. You know the ones — those little military caps the dictator favors. Sick.

Yup.

‐Finally, I like an insight a reader had, and the way he framed it:

I keep hearing about how smart Obama is because he has the wisdom and judgment to implement policies that contradict his campaign positions now that he is in office and has all the facts before him. I agree — that is evidence of his intelligence. It makes him almost as smart as the people who believed what he now believes back when he believed the opposite.

Quite.

Thanks for joining me, cool ones, and see you soon!

#JAYBOOK#