There is significant human pathos in this story of President Obama’s aunt. Her name is Zeituni Onyango, and she has applied for asylum here in the United States. I have linked to an Associated Press report from yesterday. Let me do some excerpting:

Onyango, the half sister of Obama’s late father, said she has exiled herself from the family after attending Obama’s inauguration because she didn’t want to become fodder for his foes. Obama and his family have not reached out to her either, she said.
“Before, we were family. But right now, there is a lot of politics, and me, I am not interested in any politics at all,” said Onyango, whose appeal for asylum from her native Kenya is before an immigration judge in Boston.
The Obamas are her only family in the United States, she said.

Some more excerpting:

Onyango, 57, is protective of Obama and said she never asked him to intervene in her case and didn’t tell him about her immigration difficulties.
“I carry my own cross,” she said. “He has nothing to do with my problem.”
The White House said Obama has had no involvement in his aunt’s case and believes it should run its ordinary course.

She sounds like an unusually stand-up woman, Mrs. Onyango: “I carry my own cross.” Another excerpt:

Onyango said she previously had no trouble visiting Obama when he was a state senator in Illinois or after he became a U.S. senator, though she declined to discuss details of how often she had contact with Obama and his family. Her tiny apartment in a modest subsidized public housing complex for seniors and the disabled is adorned with photographs of her with Obama at the Illinois Statehouse, the president’s official portrait, his family, the inauguration, her children and African wildlife.
She is disabled and learning to walk again after being paralyzed for more than three months because of an autoimmune disorder called Guillain-Barre syndrome.

I imagine that President Obama is handling this situation admirably, by absenting himself from it, or recusing himself from it. He would not want to be seen tipping the scales. But I will now say what you might expect a partisan Republican to say: How would the media paint a conservative Republican president who had a hands-off approach to his aunt’s predicament? Would they regard that approach as proper restraint — or as indifference?

While president, Reagan was derided mercilessly for failing to visit his grandchildren. The derision may well have been justified.

Finally, let’s read the end of the AP article, which, for me, is a twist:

Onyango reserved special words of kindness for former President George W. Bush for a directive he put in place days before the election requiring federal agents get high-level approval to arrest fugitive immigrants, which directly affected Onyango. The directive made clear that U.S. officials worried about possible election implications of arresting Onyango.
She said she wants to thank Bush in person for the order, which gave her a measure of peace but was lifted weeks later.
“I loved President Bush,” Onyango said while moving toward a framed photo of Bush and his wife standing with Barack and Michelle Obama at the White House on inauguration day. “He is my No. 1 man in my life because he helped me when I really needed that help.”

Am I right about “twist”?

‐A reader alerted me to something called Chicagopedia, which is apparently a project of the Chicago Sun-Times. And Chicagopedia has a definition of racist, here. Definition 1 is “a bigot; someone who deals with his own deficiencies by projecting them upon others.” Definition 2 is “anyone of another race who disagrees with you.” Uh-huh. Sounds like modern America!

‐Speaking of modern America, a reader writes,

Jay,
Last weekend I attended a stand-up comedy contest at a local club. The emcee was a young man, lots of tattoos, vulgar routine — a dope-is-cool type. He asked the audience, “How long has Obama been in office?” A woman responded, “Too long.” After a moment, he said, “You’re either a racist or a Republican.”

Of course. (But doesn’t he regard those terms as synonymous?)

‐I know Malcolm Pearson, a member of the British House of Lords, a bit. He is a man of considerable knowledge, cultivation, and refinement. He was made a peer by Thatcher, and was a staunch Conservative. But he defected to the new United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP. The reason? The Conservatives had largely accepted Britain’s disappearance into Europe, and Malcolm would have none of it. He has now been elected the leader of UKIP, as you can read here. His goal, as near as I can tell, is to move the Conservatives back into an embrace of British sovereignty. I wish him well — one Thatcherite (American) to another.

‐I sometimes feel guilty for not engaging much with the left-of-center magazines, and a magazine with which National Review might well engage — and has often engaged — is The New Republic. We are seen as counterparts, I suppose. But The New Republic has published some pretty rotten things about National Review. I think in particular of a nasty piece about a cruise of ours: our guest speakers, our passengers. Also, I was the target of a low journalistic blow, as I detailed here.

So, no, I have not read The New Republic much, or engaged much, although I know the magazine routinely publishes worthwhile pieces. I have seen some of them, and have commented, usually favorably, I believe.

A few days ago, a reader sent me something that a New Republic editor wrote about Victor Davis Hanson. Now, Hanson is one of the most serious-minded people I know: a scholar, a teacher, a man of the West (a man both of California and of the Western — the Judeo-Christian — world). He ranges far and wide, over classical history, foreign affairs, politics, and other subjects. I know few writers of greater integrity, and I know few who are more honest: honest in seeking out the truth of a situation. You may think Hanson is wrong or mistaken or misguided. But of his fundamental seriousness, there should be no doubt.

Okay, this is what the reader sent me, from the (or a) New Republic blog: “I don’t normally read Victor Davis Hanson, who’s a fruitcake even by the standards of National Review Online, but . . .”

I stopped reading right there. I felt no compulsion to go on, which I hope you can understand and forgive. I sometimes feel guilty for not engaging more with left-of-center magazines, and maybe TNR in particular. But, when you read things like that — how can you, really?

‐Now let me praise The New Republic to the skies — at least its editor-in-chief, Martin Peretz (who, it seems to me, is often out of step with TNR at large, which is fine: even rewarding). He recently wrote a piece called “Losing the Democracies: Obama’s Heart Is with the Hooligans.” (How you like them apples?) And it includes this sentence, about the Anglo-American relationship: “This has been an alliance steeped in common values, the values of democracy, liberalism and, pardon me, Christian civilization.”

Oh, no pardon necessary. A few of us were just saying the other day: The last defenders of what was once known as Christendom might well prove to be a battalion of Jews, labeled “neocons.”

‐What do you call it when a woman (Nonie Darwish) who is a fearless and knowledgeable opponent of Islamofascism is invited to Princeton and Columbia — and then disinvited? Bad news for the West. Bad news for what I have been calling “civilizational confidence.” To read about the Darwish cases, in a New York Daily News editorial, go here.

‐I’ll give you another brave one — another brave (and knowledgeable) Middle East-born American, Fouad Ajami. His recent Wall Street Journal column deserves that much-overused description: “must-read.” Let me quote a smidge: “We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference — the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.” Oh, is it. ‐In a Corner post earlier this week, I noted that the Clare College Choir, of Cambridge University, is doing a tour of Israel — and taking terrible, malodorous heat for it. It was suggested to me that the choir could use some expressions of support. I agree. I thought I might point out the choir’s website, here, which includes an e-mail address. Strange how difficult it is — how much fortitude it requires — for a British singing group to undertake a tour of Israel. Hats off to them for going.

‐To Monday’s Impromptus, which featured notes on Mark Helprin’s latest book, Digital Barbarism, I received many responses. I would like to print you one, which comes from Moreno Valley, Calif. (sounds lovely):

Dear Jay,
I make my living with computers (software engineer), but I have always thought people (especially educators) make too much of computers in the classroom. I think it is mostly a waste of money and an excuse to let someone (something?) else do the teaching. People of our generation went through school without so much as an adding machine, yet we invented the computer and the microelectronics that make computers possible. Kids today with their abundance of gadgets couldn’t invent a ruler.

I’m afraid there is wisdom — a piercing wisdom — in that observation.

‐I thought of something, when reading Helprin’s book — something that I did not include in my Monday notes. Helprin talks about the natural, desirable rhythms of life, as against the distortions that technology introduces. (I cannot do justice to Helprin’s argument or points here, but please bear with me.) Some years ago, I had an extended stay in Italy at the home of friends. And I came back resolving to do two things: to check my e-mail less and not to eat lunch at my desk. I wanted a more civilized lunch hour (or 20 minutes). I think I lasted about three days: three days of checking my e-mail less and not eating at my desk.

But I have always borne those resolutions in mind! (If that counts . . .)

‐Let me follow up on something I had in the Corner, shortly before Thanksgiving. For 20 years, they have put up a Christmas tree in the Orange County Superior Courthouse. I’m talkin’ California — Bob Dornan country (at least it used to be that). The tree is part of “Operation Santa Claus,” which gives gifts to poor children. This year, a member of the public complained about the tree, and, on the basis of that one person’s complaint, the court ditched the tree. Said a spokeswoman, “It’s a public building and we have to serve the diversity of our community.”

But other people were not willing to accept that view of American life and law. Court employees petitioned for the reinstatement of the tree; citizens at large gave the court an earful, too. Long story short: The court’s powers-that-be brought back the tree.

Who said every one of these “War on Christmas” stories has to have an unhappy ending? And who said that, on hearing the word “diversity,” every Christmas tree must wilt?

‐A friend of mine visited the Carter Presidential Library and Museum in Atlanta, and wrote me a thorough — and learned and entertaining — report. Let me quote one paragraph:

“As you know, I have no love for the murderous dictator Fidel Castro. As it happens, one of the items proudly on display in the museum is a baseball autographed by both Castro and Carter. To me, that says all anybody ever needs to know about Carter. Far more than anything else, that autographed baseball sticks out in my mind as the definitive item in the museum.”

I understand, believe me.

‐You want some safe-zone violations? I mean, I know you don’t want any. Care to hear about a couple?

Jay,
I attended the “Broadway in Chicago” production of The Addams Family last week with my family. There were four or five stupid, unnecessary “jokes” and snide comments attacking Republicans, home schooling, and the lack of a national health-care system. Besides being stupid and not funny, the comments did nothing to advance the story, were completely out of place, “broke the wall” between the stage and the audience, and seemed to have been inserted to say, “Aren’t we cool, commenting on current events while putting on a show?”

But of course.

And a reader wrote to say that his family has a “draw,” every year, for Hanukah. One family member gives another family member a gift. A particular family member wanted his gift to be a donation to a Democratic interest group. The family member with whom he was paired — is a conservative Republican. Our reader wonders whether holiday gift-giving should be a safe zone.

Well, I think so. But th’aint no safe zone nowhere, y’know?

‐Let’s end with some “mixed” names — names such as, oh: Giovanna Murphy. (“Bridget Murphy” would be an unmixed name.) We’re talking about a first name of one type or tradition, and a last name of another. I did a little item about such names in Monday’s Impromptus.

Several readers — really, about five — wrote to mention Juan Eichelberger, who used to pitch for the Padres. Another reader mentioned the TV journalist Soledad O’Brien, whose full name is (the beautiful) María de la Soledad Teresa O’Brien.

Speaking of O’Briens: “Jay, I hadn’t thought of my fellow architecture student Leilani O’Brien in many years, and your impromptu this morning immediately brought her to mind. Thanks.”

Another reader: “I grew up in a small California farm town that surprisingly had a large Hmong population. I had a childhood friend named Friendship Yang. I’ll never forget it.”

“I went to high school with a guy named Nikolai Mulligan.”

Finally, “Went to an Air Force air show in about ’83. Saw an F-15 with the pilot’s name stenciled below the canopy: Lt. Ahmad McGee.”

Fabulous. Later, ’gators! (Or is writing ’gator like writing ’phone or ’cello? Anyway — see you!)

#JAYBOOK#