The Voice of Treason

“… So there’s some of the things that are on my mind, and I appreciate you letting me get a chance to come by to speak to you. I’m — you know, I guess the best to describe government policy is like a person trying to drive a car on a rough patch. If you ever get stuck in a situation like that, you know full well it’s important not to overcorrect — because when you overcorrect you end up in the ditch. And so it’s important to be steady and to keep your eyes on the horizon.”

– President Bush at The Economic Club of New York

I listened to President Bush’s speech on the economy and thought I heard him say that one of the dangers of isolationism and protectionism is a tendency for “retrenching.” Before you roll your eyes, know that it is a real word. A few hours later, though, T and I were out with the dog and he was talking about her current health condition “reprogressing.” He caught himself and just looked at me. I looked back.

“Nice word, George.”

But I understood what he meant, and I understood what the President meant, and both words – one real, one not so much – actually make sense. In fact, the President’s advice in general makes sense. It reminds me of the time T and I and our friend, Tom, the North Dakota farm boy who now lives outside of Kansas City, decided to take a trip to Arizona to catch some spring training games. T was driving a Jeep Cherokee at the time and Tom was in the backseat. I was up front on the passenger side, white-knuckling as T sped over this stretch of Arizona mountain road dotted with signs that said: ELK.

I had lived in Arizona as a child and I knew elk and mountain roads. You may want to slow down a bit, I cautioned. There are signs. There are elk. He said he was perfectly aware of the situation, but I suspected that he really didn’t know about the elk part. And then came the curve… and the legs.

Directly in front of us on the road, just past the curve, were four legs. That’s what the car’s headlights had illuminated. Legs. What was attached to these legs was far above the range of the beams and therefore invisible, but it was, in fact, the mother – or in this case – the father of all elk. My suspicions were justified; clearly, T was unaware that elk were so large. There was hesitation, then the reflexes kicked in.

“Don’t overcorrect!!! Don’t overcorrect!!!,” Tom kept shouting from the backseat.

We swerved, we were on two wheels, we almost hit rock, then almost went off a cliff, but we did not hit the elk and T did not overcorrect. It was as close to overcorrection as possible, but if he had truly overcorrected we’d probably still be in that Jeep, in the ravine, our bones picked clean by friends of Mr. Elk.

Don’t overcorrect. Words to live by, indeed. Someone might have uttered them to Michael Jackson when he first contemplated cosmetic surgery — we don’t know.

As for the economy, there is a simple solution to our current woes. Elect a Democrat in November and the media will report the best economic environment in the last hundred years.

“For years I have thought that one could have no finer honor than to have WFB, Jr. write one’s obituary. He offered such wonderful tributes to his many friends and associates as they passed.

I wonder, today, who can write his; who is up to offering the tribute that he deserves.”

– Stephen Goldstein, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan

“We will remember our dear friend who so generously and consistently and willingly, over many years, gave us a foretaste of heaven by his fun, his witticisms, his seriousness about serious things, his patriotism, his verve, his . . . the list is endless. Above all, he gave his love and friendship, a perfect agreement of wills, tastes, and thoughts accompanied by a benevolence and affection without peer. He was a great man motivated by great ideas. His passing from the American scene, upon which his impact was huge, is historic. Freedom has lost a luminous friend in the death of the most important journalist of the last 75 years, William F. Buckley Jr.”

– Tim Goeglein, the (former) Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison

(Eeeek! I certainly hope that tribute wasn’t lifted…)

Senator Lieberman’s statement, as e-mailed to NRO:

“America has lost a great patriot with the passing of William F. Buckley Jr. and I have lost a dear and cherished friend who I have known for more than 40 years. Bill was a man of considerable wit, charm, and grace who contributed so much to the intellectual debate and discussion in our country for many decades. He was truly an intellectual giant of the past century.

Bill Buckley was not only a national treasure but one of the most distinguished longtime residents of Connecticut. He was a man of principle who recognized that civility in our political life was a virtue. Regardless of where you stood in the political spectrum, you marveled at Bill’s ability to make a point with humor and aplomb. Indeed, all of our vocabularies were bolstered by his erudite analysis!

Although Bill is no longer with us, his legacy will continue to enrich our great land for many years to come. Hadassah and I send our condolences and prayers to Chris Buckley and the entire Buckley family.”

(For a glimpse of why so many on the “other side of the aisle” like Joe, click here for a lovely tribute to WFB, adapted from remarks he delivered on the U.S. Senate floor.)

Mario Cuomo’s office e-mails:

“I was privileged to know William Buckley for more than 20 years and was in fact his opponent in his last public debate.

He may not have been unique. But I have never encountered his match. He was a brilliant, gentle, charming philosopher, seer and advocate.

William Buckley died… but his complicated brilliance in thought and script will survive him for as long as words are read. And words are heard.”

(And for transcript excerpts from a WVOX Radio interview with the former governor, click here.)

“What a great and consequential man was William F. Buckley.”

– Cliff May

Q Any thoughts on Buckley?

THE PRESIDENT: I just had the — I just hung up with Christopher Buckley, the son of William F. Buckley. I expressed Laura and my sadness over the passage of this very important figure in American political thought. He was a great author, a great wit and a leader. And Chris said that his dad died at his desk. And I asked whether it had been a — I know it’s a painful experience for Chris’s heart, but he said that his dad died a peaceful death, and we got to thank God for that and thank God for his life.

Q You once said Buckley moved conservatism into the Oval office — that he moved conservatism from the margins of American society into the Oval Office.

THE PRESIDENT: No question, he was a — one of the great political thinkers. He influenced a lot of people, including me. And he was — I can remember those debates they had on TV, and he was so articulate and he captured the imagination of a lot of folks because he was — he had a great way of defining the issues. It was erudite and yet a lot of folks from different walks of life could understand it. And he’s a big figure in our history, and he’ll be missed. And we ask for God’s blessings on his soul. Thank you.

“William F. Buckley was a giant of conservative thought and action throughout his life. He taught, challenged, and inspired three generations of conservative thinkers. Mr. Buckley demonstrated that ideas are powerful things and have the capacity to change the world. The conservative ideas he so forcefully and eloquently championed certainly changed America for the better, and for that we are eternally grateful. William F. Buckley and his family are in our prayers today.”

– Mitt Romney

“I am very profoundly saddened to hear of the passing of William F. Buckley Jr. and offer my deepest condolences to the Buckley family. Bill had many friends, including my parents, who he even took time to visit when they were stationed at the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii. My father and mother very much admired him and so did their son. With Bill’s passing, freedom has lost one of its greatest defenders. Bill was a great American who helped change the course of history. When conservatism was a lonely cause, he bravely raised the standard of liberty and led the charge to renew the principles and values that are the foundation of our great country. A man of tremendous vision and big ideas, he founded the National Review in 1955 and through its pages and his other endeavors, as a lecturer, commentator, debater and author of dozens of books, inspired many and advanced an intellectual rigor that transformed American politics. Bill was an American giant who shall be missed.”

– John McCain

“As we all know, Bill was one of the most consequential figures of he age, let alone in our lives as conservatives. He defined us, to wit: when I went for my first White House personnel office interview to be vetted as an Assistant Secretary of State candidate, the young intern doing the initial paperwork noted that I was not a registered Republican in many public records and dutifully asked, ‘you are a Republican aren’t you?’ I said, ‘well, I’m a conservative.’ His pen hesitated over the yes box, then the no box, then the other box. I said, ‘look, I’m a Buckley man, a Buckley conservative – was on the masthead at National Review for a decade.’ He nodded with some recognition, but the party affiliation box was left unchecked. I felt as though I said everything about my political philosophy and reliability that would ever need to be said. It worked out.”

– John Hillen

“Please accept convey my deepest sympathy and condolences to you and the family of National Review.

Mr. Buckley was one of those rare individuals whose actions in life will continue to echo throughout eternity. His ‘echo’ has always been and will remain music of the highest quality - he was a precious antidote for a world that too often seems to reward individuals who choose avarice over charity, malice over justice, pride over modesty and vapidity over thought.

He will be greatly missed - I’m sure my father’s part of the (huge) reception committee greeting him at the Pearly Gates.”

– Henry Hyde’s son, Bob

Tony Blair has been “received into full communion with the Catholic Church” by the Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. This means that the former PM has converted officially and is now a Roman Catholic.

Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman have been appearing side-by-side, smiling like dual Cheshire Cats, on all the cable news shows. This means that hints are being dropped like the turkeys from WKRP over Cincinnati that the two might share a ticket.

The Saudi king has pardoned “The Girl of Qatif.” This means that the poor girl who was brutally gang-raped by seven Saudis and then sentenced to six months in prison after 90 – no, 200 – lashes, gets “a break.” Say, how ‘bout a pardon for her unfortunate male companion who was also gang-raped?

Politicians are proposing a $5000 tax on human breeding. Does this mean I can expect a $5000 check from Uncle Sam for not breeding?

Mike Huckabee is about as clear on Cuba as JFK was. Jack would have been better served if he’d spent more time looking at world maps and less time romancing starlets; Mike would be better served if he spent more time thinking about the forty-nine states and the numerous countries surrounding Arkansas. (Didn’t Ross Perot try to make this point in ’92?)

Rudy Giuliani was eviscerated by both Tim Russert (on Meet The Press) and Florence King (in National Review) when she described him thusly:

“… Embarrassingly unfunny and made unfunnier by his big grin because he looks like a skull from a Vincent Price movie when he grins.”

Ouch. And that image is still not as scary as the dream I had about him (don’t ask). I think this means trouble for the Mayor.

I watched a Republican debate in Spanish without subtitles and discovered that Ron Paul has seventeen (actually eighteen) nietos. This means I can never get those ninety minutes back. Or those eight years I wasted in school studying French.

The Left accuses Romney of flip-flopping and changing his views, and this means that when George Bush doesn’t change his he’s stubborn. This also means that neither, according to the Left, are nuanced like John Kerry.

The Left is also wringing their hands over the CIA tapes. Clearly, they insist, these tapes were erased to protect the identities of CIA employees. I thought they wanted the identities of CIA employees protected. Who’s to say that Valerie Plame wasn’t torturing enemy combatants on those tapes? Threatening to pour peroxide in their eyes? Look, we aim to please, but obviously you people are never satisfied.

What does all this mean? It means it’s Christmas and it’s time to tune into Barney Cam to try to regain some holiday spirit before it’s all sucked out by the MSM. Pop that ham and green chile cornbread in the oven and grab the sloe gin and Sprite – it’s going to be a bumpy 2008!

My advice: Concentrate on the menu and adult beverages. As always, a very merry Christmas to all.

Let me begin by saying that I am a woman of “a certain age,” probably perimenopausal, and I do not watch Oprah. I’ll repeat that: I don’t watch Oprah. It’s not that I dislike the woman, it’s just that she’s on at the same time Brit Hume’s on FOX. If I’m near a set at 4:00, I’m watching Brit. Anyway, today I sat down with a cup of tea and surfed around, then landed on FNC – the Obama rally in Iowa was about to begin. Michelle Obama, looking like she was on her way to a funeral, dressed in black from head to toe, introduced Oprah Winfrey to the expectant crowd.

Oprah took the podium and began to speak. A few moments later I came to an important realization: Oprah’s black. In fact, she was speaking black to a predominantly white audience. How odd, I thought. That is not her usual manner of speaking, yet she is suddenly using a heavy dialect and is dangerously close to lapsing into Ebonics.

Worse than how she was saying it was what she was saying. She described Obama as a politician who “has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.” Plainly someone hasn’t that ear for eloquence, and as for the tongue… well, better that, I guess, than a tongue dipped in an intern.

Say what you will about FNC, at least they weren’t having technical difficulties. I’d switched over to C-SPAN to catch what Obama had to say and I only caught every eighth word. I simply couldn’t get what he was saying because the sound quality was sh*t, but from what I could make out, Barack had brought his black voice, too. Again, an odd choice. You’re all up there talking about change – change we can believe in – and it appears nothing has. You say you’re not going to be a politician that says what he thinks people want to hear. You say you’re honest. You say you’re different.

Fine, then drop the phony dialect and just be yourself. Same goes for your friend, Oprah. Critics of George Bush cringe when they hear that drawl and they know he’s perfectly capable of speaking with barely a twang. It’s like Hillary and her Arkansas voice, back in the day. And worse, her “I don’t feel no ways tired” voice.

The human voice is a most important instrument. It is the essence of a person. To change one’s voice in order to communicate to a different audience is, frankly, a consternation. Sure, one might speak differently to an infant, a small child, or a dog, but if one is authentic, one should be able to communicate in the same voice to all people, no matter their age, their gender, their ethnicity, or their religion. In fact, one should even be able to speak – without altering one’s vocal quality – to another species. I mean, I don’t change my voice when I’m speaking to my dog. Why would I want her to think that I think she’s not as intelligent as she is?

Please. Just leave the dialects to the actors, dahlings.

The CNN debate shouldn’t have surprised anyone, but it should be noted that a highlight was the thirty-second campaign video produced by Giuliani’s people. The one which ended on the suggestion that when “Hillary” and “plant” are in the same sentence no one’s talking about a Philodendron. Ironic, considering that only minutes after the conclusion of the debate, Bill Bennett announced that he’d received information that the gay Brigadier General was a Clinton plant. The questions and questioners are a minor detail; what’s more interesting to me is how the media is portraying Huckabee as the winner.

This relates to yesterday’s post which suggests that there is an assumption that intelligence is tied to one’s verbal skills. The Left hears Bush talk and they conclude that he is moronic and unqualified to sit in the Oval Office. What they don’t understand is that some people, after eight years of a smooth-talker, feel more comfortable with a president who struggles to get a sentence out of his mouth. Hence, another assumption: slickness can’t be trusted, therefore Bush – who cannot be thought of as slick – can be trusted. It sounds nuts, but there are a few who bristle when Huckabee glides, stumble-free, through one of these debates. He’s articulate, glib, charming, and well… a little too Clintonian for comfort. Is it something in the water in Arkansas? But this might help to explain why Giuliani’s doing well compared to some of the other candidates. His speech sounds natural and unpretentious, yet he’s articulate enough for the job. He’s sort of in the middle of the elocution scale, let’s say.

The Left can afford to be kind to Huckabee because he won’t win. And there’s no way such an overtly religious candidate will appeal to them. Those on the Right who are impressed need to take a moment to examine his record more closely. There are many things I like about Mike Huckabee but I do not allow myself to be charmed by his easy manner and sense of humor. My theory: A silver tongue easily tarnishes.

This is an idiom that many believe to mean that one should be on his best behavior or be careful of his language. That could be interpreted as being careful to choose the right word, being careful not to use an offensive word, or being careful to simply use one’s language properly. But that requires some knowledge and practice of the rules of grammar and pronunciation.

When it comes to idioms, there are often several ways to explain expressions we use but rarely understand. One explanation is “mind your pints and quarts,” something that may have been generated in an English pub. It’s possible. Another could be the advice given to children learning to write to be careful not to mix up the lower case letters “p” and “q.” How quaint, since they don’t teach penmanship in government schools anymore. (T mentioned he saw the handwriting of an adolescent recently and was appalled that there was such a liberal mixing of upper and lower case letters within words – a standard error of our times.)

I mention this because I watched the President at the podium with Abbas and Olmert and I did cringe a little when he butchered the pronunciation of their names. It was unfortunate because I know that he knows how to say their names without stumbling over them – although I admit he’s had trouble with “Olmert” before – but it always looks bad when he chokes like that.

Keith Olbermann, of course, devoted quite a bit of time to this and maintained that disgusted look throughout his “report.” He, like others of his political persuasion, interprets the President’s verbal stumbles as evidence of a dull mind. Fact: Because George Bush can’t consistently communicate clearly he must be stupid. Let’s, for a moment, accept that as a truth and say, transversely… uh, conversely, that if someone can communicate clearly he must be smart.

I’m reminded of one of my high school theater teachers. She had just assigned parts to students in class and one girl protested. “I don’t think I can do this. I just don’t speak very well.” It was true, the girl did struggle with proper usage and the character she would be playing did not have the same issues. I was impressed that she voiced her opinion and I interpreted it as an admission of a problem she thought should be overcome. But then the teacher told us that how a person speaks has nothing to do with intelligence. To illustrate her point she recalled a college classmate who spoke extremely well and was always grammatically correct, but she was one of the dumbest people my instructor had ever met.

So the production went forward and most people agreed the girl had been terribly miscast. Frankly, I failed to see how the experience helped her.

I’m old enough (hear that creaking? that’s me) to be one of those kids who survived elementary school teachers who had no problem smashing a youngster’s self-esteem. If a student mispronounced a word or misspelled a word, our teachers made sure it wouldn’t happen again. Why? Because, as they would explain, others will think you are uneducated. Stupid. And nothing was worse than that.

I was one of those kids who was speaking as an infant (my baby book says my first word was “tea”) and I never had issues with dialect. My sister complained that I sounded weird and couldn’t understand why I didn’t sound like a Chicagoan. She would correct me in her slightly hard Chicago dialect: “It’s ‘hot,’ not ‘haht.’ Talk right, will you?”

And I would find myself correcting my playmates. “Do not say ‘ain’t’!” and “It isn’t ‘them’ shoes, it’s those shoes! And it isn’t “don’t” – it’s doesn’t. As in, it doesn’t matter to me.” And, as I soon realized, it really didn’t matter to them. It wasn’t a priority. I even corrected my own mother when she’d start speaking what we used to call “Erie-ese.” And that went over like a lead balloon. No one enjoys being corrected – it’s embarrassing, insulting, rude. But those who feel they must point out others’ language transgressions feel that saying something wrong is more embarrassing than being berated for it.

It makes a person feel bad about himself, educators say, so teachers aren’t correcting students anymore. If they were we’d see evidence of it. Parents don’t seem to be doing their part, either, so kids are growing up sounding like idiots. My crusty old English teachers – the ones I adored and who influenced me to grow up to become a crusty old English major – explained that a person could learn to perfect their speech if they read well-written books. One would see how sentences were put together and how words were used. It would seep in and affect speech patterns positively. This is partly true, I think. How often do you hear someone mangle a common expression? I believe it’s because the person has never actually seen it in print. They’ve heard it, they repeat it, but they aren’t aware that they’re saying something that doesn’t make any sense and bears little resemblance to the actual expression.

I’m not saying that theater teacher who told the student that the way she spoke had nothing to do with her intelligence was wrong, but I do think she simplified a not-so-simple issue. Some people are supremely intelligent but verbal skills, for them, are a challenge. I don’t think anyone would support the argument that a person whose math skills are weak is automatically ignorant. (Well, maybe a mathematician would. But let’s see him write a great novel. Okay – some people are good at both, but those people are rare, blessed, and are probably slightly better at one than the other.)

We can take sides on this issue, sure, and argue forever. I just find it disturbing that the Left feels that every gaffe, every verbal blunder from Bush is proof that he’s a moron. Why? Because the same people who nitpick and roll their eyes at Bush have absolutely no issues when they permit the mangling of the language when it’s mangled by one of their own — especially if that individual is black.

I think teachers and parents are doing a disservice when they allow youngsters to abuse and misuse the language. It isn’t cruel to correct a child who makes an error – it’s cruel not to. Poor communication skills might not seem all that important in a world that seems to think it’s appropriate to speak as if you’re thumbing out a quick text message, but one thing has not changed. You may talk like you’ve never cracked open a book and no one around you would think to correct you, but the perception still stands, regardless. You might say “irregardless” and be perfectly smart, true, but it just won’t seem that way to others. So why allow them to assume something that’s false? Respect yourself, respect the language. It might not always come out perfect, but it doesn’t hurt to give it your best shot.

(Here’s a fun page to peruse for common errors we’ve all committed – unless, of course, you’re Bill Buckley.)

“The great people I’ve met always have time for the niceties.”

– Mercedes McCambridge

Today I’d planned to do a faux interview with Buzzo the Wonder Fly, who reportedly had access this week to the Oval Office and was, quite literally, the fly on the wall during that awkward meeting between the President and Algore. I sat for a few minutes formulating questions and answers, then decided that it wasn’t worth the trouble.

“Let Rob Long do it,” I told myself. “After all, he’s the master.”

This meeting was just one more example of Bush outreach, and that’s fine. It’s typical Bush. After all, he had the Kennedys over for movie night, he hands out praise and awards to people who would probably like to see him peeled like a grape (Benjamin Hooks, for instance, is a recent recipient), and he has been nothing but gracious towards the former inhabitants of the White House. His own father has practically adopted the former president.

I understand why Bush does this because he’s the one who has to live with himself. Call it a Christian thing or call it common decency – George Bush is not going to stop being nice to people who despise him. I imagine Barbara Bush might have given her children the same advice my mother gave me when I was a kid. I’d come home from school complaining that someone had made up their mind to find fault with me and she always said the same thing. “Be nice to them.” I thought she said it because she assumed it was the classy thing to do – to rise above any pettiness and not sink to a foe’s level, but later I realized that what she was saying was closer to this: “Be nice. It will annoy them and eventually they’ll leave you alone.”

In many cases that worked pretty well, but in partisan politics I don’t think it does. One never gets credit for being nice… if one is on the right side of the issues. But Bush will continue to be pleasant because that’s his pattern of behavior. He’s not a divider, he’s a uniter, if you recall. The problem is that he’s united with a lot of the wrong people. After his father left office it seemed like everyone and his brother came out to publicly criticize the administration because it was so full of people who didn’t have the best interests of the president in mind. In short, a weak group.

George is his father’s son and has, unfortunately, made some of the same mistakes. It seems to me that he has surrounded himself with a lot of people – Michael Gerson types — who share his Christian beliefs and feel that they are “compassionate conservatives,” but if you examine their personal histories you’ll discover that too many of them “used to be” Democrats. That’s like saying “I used to be a smoker.” Or an alcoholic. Or a heroin addict. Or a child molester. Or an ax murderer. You might have broken a bad habit, but there’s always the chance that you’ll take it up again.

Truth be told, I think Bush is surrounded by – and influenced by – some nice, well-meaning people who haven’t quite broken old habits.

One of the most delightful things about this holiday was the gloomy weather. I stayed inside, brewed big cups of hot tea, and had four solid days of C-SPAN 2 — Book TV. Sam Tanenhaus had been taped at AEI in Washington and I tuned in for his lecture: “George W. Bush and the Future of Conservatism.” One question: Has Tanenhaus read every book ever written? I know that would be impossible, but he does such a good job of convincing us he’s at least leafed through them all.

But I digress. He was making the point that, in many ways, President Bush could easily be compared to LBJ. Picture a rough-around-the-edges Texan assuming office after someone so smooth-talking and glamorous. (Tanenhaus uses the word “élan” and you get the picture.) Sure, Bill Clinton idolized Kennedy and comparisons have been drawn. Tanenhaus, whether you agree with him or not, deserves credit for supporting his case and support it he does.

So if we had Kennedy, then Johnson, and Tanenhaus compares this to Clinton, then Bush, who would be next in line? In other words, who’s the most Nixonian candidate in the race? It starts to make sense, doesn’t it? How often was the Clinton administration compared to Nixon’s? How many parallels were drawn? How many coincidences?

So if Hillary follows Bush… is there another impeachment in our future? A resignation, perhaps? Then who would be the VP assuming the office? If there’s anything to this repeat pattern we’d need a Ford. Mind you, all this was spinning in my head when I walked down to the mailbox and found my new dead-tree issue of National Review. The one with Barack Obama on the cover, described as “The New Jimmy Carter.”

I’ve seen the future… and I’ve already lived it.

“There is a wonderful, wonderful scene at the Battlefield of Yorktown: the moment when everyone would be expected to crow in victory, when the Americans had, in effect, stumbled onto victory and defeated the British, and, needless to say, the Continentals were in a mood to rub it in; and Washington prohibited his men from cheering. As he put it — a wonderful line — he says, ‘Posterity will huzzah for us.’ He was not only playing to the immediate crowd, he was playing to posterity.

– Richard Norton Smith on our first President

“It is said that General Washington cautioned his troops, saying, ‘My boys, let there be no insults over a conquered foe, when they lay down their arms, don’t huzzah, posterity will huzzah for you.’”

– America’s March To Yorktown Daily Log

I think it’s safe to say, then, that George Washington probably did utter those words. Maturity and dignity were two of his attributes, so I do not doubt the authenticity. He was a man who saw the BIG PICTURE, as we like to say.

Yet we live in a world where life moves fast, so we tend to want our huzzahs in the here and now. Waiting, patience – all that is quaint, outdated. Still, there are a few individuals who can see beyond today, next month, and next year. Things might not pan out for them in the here and now but in time… isn’t that what used to be called the fruits of one’s labor? One day a man’s work, his ideas, will bear fruit. And it might just be long after he’s gone.

I think of the remarkable breakthrough in skin cell research. Some are downplaying the significance, but those in the know are calling this HUGE. Credit should be given, then, to our 43rd President for encouraging more research for alternatives to embryonic stem cell use. One wonders what other decisions will pan out long after his administration ends.

Same could be said, I imagine, for Australia’s John Howard. Like Washington, he demonstrated maturity, dignity, and saw the BIG PICTURE. So here’s hoping that, because today’s generations won’t, posterity will huzzah for both Howard and Bush.

“Speaking as a misfit unassimilated foreigner, I think of Thanksgiving as the most American of holidays. Christmas is celebrated elsewhere, even if there are significant local variations: in continental Europe, naughty children get left rods to be flayed with and lumps of coal; in Britain, Christmas lasts from December 22nd to mid-January and celebrates the ancient cultural traditions of massive alcohol intake and watching the telly till you pass out in a pool of your own vomit. All part of the rich diversity of our world.

But Thanksgiving (excepting the premature and somewhat undernourished Canadian version) is unique to America. ‘What’s it about?’ an Irish visitor asked me a couple of years back. ‘Everyone sits around giving thanks all day? Thanks for what? George bloody Bush?’

– Mark Steyn, NRO

Another splendid piece from Mr. Steyn, who reminds us, “Americans should be thankful they have one of the last functioning nation states.” And speaking of George Bush, allow me to post an excerpt from his Thanksgiving greeting:

“Americans are a grateful people, ever mindful of the many ways we have been blessed. On Thanksgiving Day, we lift our hearts in gratitude for the freedoms we enjoy, the people we love, and the gifts of our prosperous land…

Since the first National Day of Thanksgiving was proclaimed by President George Washington, Americans have come together to offer thanks for our many blessings. We recall the great privilege it is to live in a land where freedom is the right of every person and where all can pursue their dreams. We express our deep appreciation for the sacrifices of the honorable men and women in uniform who defend liberty. As they work to advance the cause of freedom, our Nation keeps these brave individuals and their families in our thoughts, and we pray for their safe return.”

Thanksgiving is a time to honor tradition, to be sure, and no one minds if your tradition is different than others’. I’m always encouraged when I see representatives from other cultures in the supermarket filling their shopping carts with typical Thanksgiving foods. (An Asian woman, still struggling with English, stopped to help T and me look for an appropriate sized turkey. She had already scoured the store and knew where all the Butterballs were hiding. If that’s not assimilation I don’t know what is.)

It’s time we recognize that tradition isn’t such a bad word because every one of us subscribes to some sort of … well, traditions. Even Ralph Nader. I mention him because a couple weeks ago I’d stopped what I was doing in the kitchen to watch his segment at the Miami Book Fair. He was speaking to an audience about his most recent work: The Seventeen Traditions. His family, immigrants who settled in the East, sounded a little like my mother’s family, immigrants who settled in the East. Nader’s family was from Lebanon, my mother’s family was from Italy. Two different places, two different cultures, but many of the traditions were the same.

In fact, the ones Nader lists sound downright American. Like a Thanksgiving potluck, everyone in America contributes something to the holiday table. Peruse his list and pick out the ones that sound like your family.

1. The Tradition of Listening
2. The Tradition of the Family Table
3. The Tradition of Health
4. The Tradition of History
5. The Tradition of Scarcity
6. The Tradition of Sibling Equality
7. The Tradition of Education and Argument
8. The Tradition of Discipline
9. The Tradition of Simple Enjoyments
10. The Tradition of Reciprocity
11. The Tradition of Independent Thinking
12. The Tradition of Charity
13. The Tradition of Work
14. The Tradition of Business
15. The Tradition of Patriotism
16. The Tradition of Solitude
17. The Tradition of Civics