Reading a report about China’s latest massacre in Tibet, I was struck by one line in particular: “China is gambling that its crackdown will not bring an international outcry over human rights violations that could lead to boycotts of the Olympics.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That is a very, very good gamble. Nobody gives a rat’s behind what the Chinese do, to Tibetans or anybody else. It is a curious fact of modern times. If only China’s rulers would embrace the Bush administration: Maybe the world would care!

Cynicism is very unattractive, isn’t it?

Couple of weeks ago, Bush said we weren’t heading into a recession. And I heard someone say, “But I thought Bush was a truth-teller!” Well, we may be heading into a recession, and we may not be. But I know this: Bush is as truth-telling as any leader you’ll ever find.

I thought of this, for the thousandth time, when he said, “In a free market, there’s going to be good times and bad times. That’s how markets work.” Are presidents supposed to talk this straight? Perhaps not, but Bush does. He also warned against overcorrection — an unpopular but wise warning.

Sometimes, Bush talks more like a free-and-clear commentator than an elected official with all sorts of political and CYA obligations. As I’ve said before, we will miss him when he’s gone. At least some of us will . . .

As you may have read, seven Cuban soccer players made a move to defect in Florida last week. (For a report, go here.) This is a very, very familiar story: When Cubans have a chance to defect, they tend to do so. They vote with their feet. And they vote with their feet when they head out into shark-infested waters, too, risking death.

How do Castro’s countless apologists deal with this? They don’t, really — except to condemn the would-be escapees as “Batista stooges” or whatever.

For decades, these apologists have said that Cuban Communism is popular on the island. Okay: and if that is so, why doesn’t the Party hold elections? Why doesn’t the Party hold free elections and prove their popularity before the world?

Because Communist officials know what their apologists may not: They wouldn’t stand a chance.

And when Cubans have a chance to “vote,” they tend to do what those soccer players did in Florida.

Before we leave Cuba, the “Ladies in White” are marching again, appealing for the release of their husbands and others, imprisoned by a ruthless dictatorship. (A news article is here.) This week is the fifth anniversary of the “Black Spring,” in which the regime cracked down brutally. At that time, they rounded up 75 innocent people and threw them into dungeons. Fifty-five are still there.

And these wives, who march, are extraordinarily brave people.

Someone sent me a piece by Yossi Klein Halevi, called “The Iranian-Israeli War.” (To see the piece, go here.) I’d like to make three quick points, one of them a language point.

1) I’ll read any piece by Halevi, who is one of the best analysts of the Middle East there are.

2) Either he or an editor made a common mistake, one that writers and speakers ought to be on the lookout for. He said — or someone caused him to say — “Ironically, Hamas was initially more reluctant than Fatah to enter into an Iranian alliance, precisely because the Sunni Hamas takes religion more seriously than Fatah and was loathe to accept the authority of the Iranian Shiites.”

“Loathe,” of course, is not an adjective — “loath” is. But I would be loath to loathe anybody who makes this mistake: I just wish it were less common.

3) Halevi wrote, “In contending with Hezbollah and Hamas, Israel is trying to treat the symptoms, rather than the cause.” This reminds me of something I once heard a head of state say. The conversation was off the record, unfortunately. But I will relate the image that stays with me:

Iran is the body of the octopus, the center of the octopus. Hezbollah and Hamas are mere tentacles. To deal with the animal: Look to Tehran. Don’t fool around with the tentacles.

I’ve written about this before: Some bright foreign journalist writes something bonkers about your country; and you think, “Geez, do I write that way, when I write about other countries?” It makes you want to be very, very careful. It’s hard enough to know our own countries, let alone other people’s.

I thought of this, yet again, when reading Charles Moore’s “Notes” in the current Spectator. He writes,

If Mr Obama pulls through and beats Mrs Clinton for the Democratic nomination, he presumably would not offer her what she offered him [the vice-presidential nomination] and, even if he did, she couldn’t accept it. [?] But perhaps Mr McCain should ask her to be his running-mate. Wouldn’t theirs be an unbeatable combination? Or would it enrage the Republican base so much that the whole thing would fall apart?

Now, Charles Moore is basically the smartest person in the world. But . . .