Forgot to tell you this in Impromptus yesterday. On St. Patrick’s Day, I was picking my way through the crowds, going to work. (This is Manhattan, I should specify.) And this man — sort of dressed in Uncle Sam gear — was hollering, “Obama condoms, get your Obama condoms!” I did not stop to inspect the merchandise.

But, when the history of Obama-mania — this Obama fever — is written, I believe this product should get at least a small mention.

‐Former president George W. Bush — I hate writing those words as much as his foes love them — gave a speech in Calgary, Alberta. He said, “I love my country a lot more than I love politics.” And “I think it is essential that he be helped in office.” The “he” is President Obama.

Well, that was the posture of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and all those folks during GWB’s own years, right? (For a brief discussion of Dick Cheney’s recent interview on CNN, consult yesterday’s Impromptus.)

*#Let me toss you an Associated Press report: “The Obama administration said Friday that it is abandoning one of President George W. Bush’s key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant. But that won’t change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba — Obama still asserts the military’s authority to hold them.”

One of the curses of the age, I think, is euphemism. This is part of the Oprahfication of America (to use a shorthand). Some euphemisms are relatively harmless. I mean, if you want to call the physically handicapped “differently abled,” fine, fine. But some things are important to describe straight-out — such as enemy combatants. Language can either clarify or murk up. And I believe that the Obama people — and modern liberals at large — are great murkers-up.

They say that Obama is a great communicator, and that George W. Bush was a poor one. I rather like the way Bush communicated, frankly. He communicated to me just fine — but I, of course, am not the average voter (or journalist). One helpful thing about Bush’s communication: You knew where he stood, what he meant. There was very little “hope/change” BS.

And he did not try to fudge the fact that America and freedom, like it or not, have enemies.

P.S. What are the Obama people going to call enemy combatants instead of “enemy combatants”? Dunno.

P.P.S. I should note that there is legal wrangling about this term, “enemy combatants” — the courts have hold of it.

P.P.P.S. I have a dear friend who had a son born severely retarded. She was talking to me one day about terms. There came a time, she said, when “retarded” was considered mean and coarse. But, when her son was born, “retarded” was the nice, progressive term. “They used to have ‘Homes for Idiots,’ you know.” “Retarded” was progressive because it meant merely late, delayed, stalled, held up . . .

‐People talk a lot about Iranian foreign policy — that is, what Iran does, or threatens to do, to the outside world. They don’t spend enough time talking about what the Iranian regime does to Iranian people. For example, these lovelies stone to death girls for the crime of having been gang-raped.

I thought of this when reading this headline (over this article): “Saudi judge sentences pregnant gang-rape victim to 100 lashes for committing adultery.” So, Saudi Arabia truly is a moderate state, in a sense!

‐You may know the story about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who has had lunch with Judge Learned Hand. As Holmes is pulling away in his carriage, Hand says, “Do justice, sir, do justice.” Holmes stops his carriage and replies, “That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law.”

I thought of this when reading an AP story about Justice David Souter. He is one of the most “liberal” members of today’s Court, as you know. He is the type very keen on shaping national policy from the bench. Justice Holmes’s view of judging must seem very, very quaint to him — possibly pathetic.

There has been some talk that Souter will step down before long. But, the AP informs us, “his former law clerks say they try to appeal to Souter’s sense of history to ensure he doesn’t retire soon.” One of those former clerks said, “We have suggested to him that history has put him in a place where he can be a force for good and that we would like him to continue to do that.”

Fine and dandy. But you know what would make a justice a true force for good? A willingness to apply the law, come what may: and to let legislators write the law. Is that unsexy? Maybe (and we know how sexy Justice Souter is). But it remains good judging.

‐A few days ago, I was reading a Mark Steyn review in Commentary of a book by David Denby. And I made a comment about Denby on the Corner, here. He is a film critic for The New Yorker. And it was something he said, years ago, that made me stop reading The New Yorker, regularly. And I had always read it, or long read it.

A Corner reader wrote,

Jay,
If you’ve stopped reading The New Yorker, perhaps you have missed the celebratory Obama covers: one after the other. The blue light at the end of the long red tunnel. The “O” moon over the Lincoln Memorial. The new president in heroic, even saintly poses. This week, they have Michelle Obama parading as a fashion model. There is no humor or irony in these covers — only pure tender love and devotion.

Oh, yes, I know — I still sneak peeks at The New Yorker now and then. Like most people, I like the cartoons — probably every fourth one is genuinely funny (which is not a putdown, as it may seem — that’s a pretty high average, I think).

Just today, I’ve seen a new New Yorker. It is the issue after the one with Mrs. O as a fashion model, I believe. The new cover has eight baby Rush Limbaughs, squalling and so on — generally looking terrible. They’ve been piling on Rush quite a bit lately, haven’t they? I mean, from the White House on down. Much of the country seems to be mobilized against him. I hate this sort of bullying and mob mentality, and you might too.

In 1984, there are Two-Minute Hates — hate sessions lasting two minutes. I think that, with Rush in this latest round, they are well past their two minutes. Maybe they could direct their hate back at Bush or something.

‐Received a press release that said, “America’s Chefs Applaud the Obamas for Their Commitment to Local, Sustainable Food.” Okay, then! Applaud away.

‐A friend of mine e-mailed to me a letter-to-the-editor he wrote:

In the episode “Woody Gets an Election,” from the eleventh season of Cheers, simpleton Woody Boyd receives some advice from Frasier Crane. Frasier suggests that even an awful candidate can receive a meaningful percentage of an election’s votes simply by mouthing empty platitudes, such as “change.” “Say the word ‘change’ a lot,” says Frasier. Embracing this advice, Woody goes on to win the election.

A tried-and-true technique!

‐Impromptus via RSS? Here.

‐My sister was making an interesting point the other day: She has new neighbors, and she has not met them, in the flesh. But she has communicated with them on Facebook. And people are so personal on Facebook, she said — and on Twitter and the rest of them. (If the phrase “on Twitter” makes no sense, please forgive me, because I know nothing about it.) They want to let you know what they’re doing every second of the day: “I’m making a hamburger.” “I’m going to the bank.” “I’m taking a dump.”

And Americans are always squawking about privacy! When President Bush instituted some perfectly sane clandestine programs to protect us from terrorist beasts, everyone — or many people — said, “Oh, no, privacy!” And yet everyone insists on being the star of his own movie, on the Internet.

I realize that people choose to talk about themselves, or show themselves, on the Net. (And I’ve been known to talk about myself in this column, have I not?) But still . . .

Years ago, I was at Davos, and the question of some sort of quick-pass at the airport came up: You know, you give them your DNA or something, and you move through faster. I asked a well-known magazine publisher, libertarian-leaning, whether he was okay with this. He said, “Oh, certainly. You know what the biggest threat to my privacy is? Google.”

Interesting response, I thought.

‐You know what’s a tiny bit depressing? Getting left-wing mail, or anti-Republican mail, and finding that it comes from the federal government — from someone who works for the USG. Happened to me just now. Got this anti-GWB blast. And the e-mail address: the Treasury Department.

Super.

‐Do I receive conservative, or pro-Republican, mail from government workers? Yes. But, as a rule, not flaming stuff. Temperate stuff. The left-wing stuff tends to be flaming.

‐End with some Fun with Names? A reader writes, “Jay, I know you always enjoy interesting names. Do you know about the center for the Alabama State Hornets basketball team? Grlenntys Chief Kickingstallionsims Jr.”

Holy moly, guacamole. I think I retire. See you.

#JAYBOOK#