Displaying posts published in

May 2018

Philip Roth, Yesterday’s Young American By Kyle Smith

His later novels may be his most enduring, but future readers may shun even those, because of what they understand about who he was.

The reputations of novels and novelists wax and wane over time. Herman Melville died impecunious, and Moby-Dick didn’t begin to rise to the head of the canon until 30 years after he died. The Great Gatsby was not a great success until after F. Scott Fitzgerald died. Zora Neale Hurston died in obscurity in 1960, was rediscovered in the 1980s, and is now so revered that this spring’s publication of an 87-year-old Hurston manuscript was a literary event, and the book Barracoon today sits at number 2 on the New York Times bestseller list.

On the other hand, Norman Mailer was once the most famous novelist in America. As recently as 1991, publication of one of his books (Harlot’s Ghost) was major cultural news. His books sold hugely. His mantel groaned with the tonnage of his awards. He was a fixture on talk shows. No one who cared about books could fail to have an informed opinion about him, but even people who didn’t read books knew who he was. Today, if you stopped by the English department of an elite university and talked to the undergraduates, you’d have a hard time finding anyone who cares about Norman Mailer, just a decade after his death. Certainly you’d find students who have never heard of him. Norman Mailer is no longer important.

A similar fate may await Philip Roth. Before his death on Tuesday he was widely seen as America’s greatest living novelist. But will he be widely read in 30 years’ time, or even 20? I doubt it, although he may be saved by works that are among his least characteristic efforts.

Departed artists get subjected to a harsh, often unfair reductionism, and in Roth’s case a prodigious output — more than 30 books — will be collapsed into an unflattering assessment passed on from professors to curious undergraduates to less curious undergraduates. Roth, like many of his protagonists, will be described as a striver from the urban immigrant ghettos of the 1940s with a Holocaust-informed persecution complex and a ferocious, rageful lust. Roth, like Mailer, grew up in a culture that struck him as a prison of sexual convention and repression. Much of his writerly energy went into a frenzied, wailing hammering against those walls.

How the Clinton-Emails Investigation Intertwined with the Russia Probe By Andrew C. McCarthy

Obama administration officials in the DOJ and FBI saw the cases as inseparably linked.

‘Cruz just dropped out of the race. It’s going to be a Clinton Trump race. Unbelievable.”

It was a little after midnight on May 4, 2016. FBI lawyer Lisa Page was texting her paramour, FBI counterespionage agent Peter Strzok, about the most stunning development to date in the 2016 campaign: Donald Trump was now the inevitable Republican nominee. He would square off against Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ certain standard-bearer.

The race was set . . . between two major-party candidates who were both under investigation by the FBI.

In stunned response, Strzok wrote what may be the only words we need to know, the words that reflected the mindset of his agency’s leadership and of the Obama administration: “Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE.”

MYE. That’s Mid-Year Exam, the code-word the FBI had given to the Hillary Clinton emails probe.

“It sure does,” responded Page. Mind you, she was not just any FBI lawyer; she was counsel and confidant to the bureau’s No. 2 official, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

If the thousands of text messages between Ms. Page and Agent Strzok are clear on anything, they are clear on the thinking of the bureau’s top brass.

In its Trump antipathy, the media-Democrat complex has admonished us to ignore the Strzok-Page texts. FBI officials are as entitled as anyone else to their political opinions, we’re told; and if they found Trump loathsome, they were no different from half the country.

That’s the wrong way to look at it. Regardless of their politics (which, the texts show, are not as left-wing as some conservative-media hyperbole claims), these FBI officials are a window into how the Obama administration regarded the two investigations in which Strzok and Page were central players: Mid Year Exam and Trump-Russia — the latter eventually code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”

The two investigations must not be compartmentalized. Manifestly, the FBI saw them as inseparably linked: Trump’s victory in the primaries, the opening of his path to the Oval Office, meant — first and foremost — that the Hillary investigation had to be brought to a close.

The Left Waits for Godot—Er, Mueller ‘Resistance’ types crave impeachment desperately, but can’t be bothered to do much of anything about it. By Ted Rall

Mr. Rall is a political cartoonist and author of “Francis: The People’s Pope,” the latest in a series of graphic-novel biographies.

On book tour in Ohio a few weeks ago, someone asked me if Donald Trump would finish out his term. The room was full of liberals and left-of-the-Democrats.

I pointed out that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats have said that they have no interest in impeachment even if their party wins back Congress. I predicted—with the usual caveats about the perils of political prognostication—that Mr. Trump would not only finish his term but win re-election, due to the divisions within the Democratic Party.

Loud gasps all around. Some people were so peeved—at me!—that I had to remind them: “I’m not a warlock. I don’t make anything happen.”

Many Democrats are surprised Mr. Trump has hung on this long. Magical thinking is legion on the left. A recent Rasmussen poll finds that 41% of Democrats believe the president will be impeached and removed from office by 2020—more than the 36% who think the voters will reject him in 2½ years.

But how would that happen? Despite its legal-linguistic trappings—“high crimes and misdemeanors,” “counts,” “hearings,” “trial”—impeachment is a political process. This GOP president has nothing existential to fear from this GOP Congress. Should a Big Blue Wave occur, Mrs. Pelosi’s plans don’t include divisive hearings—and even if Democrats won every Senate race, they’d still be well short of the two-thirds needed to remove Mr. Trump from office.

Clapper’s desperation revealed in appearance on The View By Thomas Lifson

James Clapper has a brand new book to sell, which must be his excuse for forgetting Denis Healey’s First Law of Holes: “When in one, stop digging.” Yesterday, he appeared on The View and brought a metaphorical shovel with him. The entire nine-and-a-half-minute segment is embedded below, and it is worth watching if only to observe the bizarre facial expressions he manifested while tap-dancing around the truth of what he and other members of the cabal have been caught doing.

Fortunately for those in a hurry, Doug Ross put together a collage of his contortions that reveal his stress and discomfort – “[l]ooking down, looking away, grimacing, and gesticulating wildly,” in Ross’s description:

It is always possible to grab awkward faces off a video clip, but if you watch the clip below, you will see that Ross has not pulled this kind of trick. The man repeatedly grimaces and gestures in odd ways as he digs his hole deeper.

ACT! FOR CANADA

https://www.actforcanada.ca/ACT! For Canada is a forum for citizens concerned about the triumphalist brand of Islam that seeks to erode our cherished western principles of free speech and equality with the goal of eventual Islamic supremacy in the West.

We are fighting to protect our Country by speaking out in defense of our democratic values, our security and our liberty against the rise of Islamism. And we’re fighting for the protection of Canada’s national security.

ACT volunteers from across the country are mobilizing to make a difference in their communities and for their nation.

Big Jim Clapper Wants You Watched Edward Cline

James Clapper, former head of the CIA, stated that the U.S. government’s spying on political candidates, especially ones he doesn’t approve of, was a legitimate action. A Daily Caller article, “Clapper Defends Spying On Trump Campaign as ‘A Legitimate Activity’,” by Julia Nista, on May21, quotes him:

Clapper, currently a CNN security analyst, said he is not OK with Trump ordering an investigation into the DOJ, saying, “that’s actually a very disturbing assault on the independence of the Department of Justice.”

“When this president or any president tries to use the Department of Justice as a private investigatory body, that’s not good for the country.”

Clapper said he is concerned about “politicizing what is a legitimate activity, and an important one, on the part of the FBI. They use informants and have strict rules and protocols under this.”

You have to wonder what Clapper’s notion of “politicizing” is when the DOJ was a tool of the Democrats, charged with the task of finding “dirt” on Trump during his campaign –hardly “independent”! – and after he occupied the White House.

In the meantime, the Gateway Pundit, on May 2nd, devoted some time to the belligerent utterings of another ex-CIA director, John Brennan, in Christina Laila’s “John Brennan’a Latest Cryptic Tweet Has People Asking ‘Is This a Threat to Trump?’”:

What undermines democracy? Douglas Murray

The production of three-volume novels may have dried up, but their place has been more than adequately taken by the Netflix/Amazon Prime market. Just as readers of the past found it hard to put down a really good novel, so today it is impossible not to click the “next episode” box once an episode is over. Or binge-watch a season in a sitting.

I was recently persuaded to watch The Looming Tower, an adaptation of Lawrence Wright’s excellent 2006 book on the run-up to 9/11, having resisted because of a presumption that it would not be perfect for any down-time. Yet the series is not only well scripted and acted, but also — as with much of the best art — constantly throws light on recent events. One came from the reminder about the amount of time the world — and America in particular — spent in the 1990s talking about Monica Lewinsky.

It is easy to portray those days as halcyon in retrospect. A film adaptation of Philip Roth’s The Human Stain once made precisely that error. In fact the episode felt at the time, as it was, tawdry, demeaning and suggestive. That the nation which had saved the world from destruction three times in a century should finish its great century in such a fashion seemed at the time — as now — to be emblematic of some greater falling away.

Yet what attention and energy was expended. The makers of The Looming Tower do not over-focus on it, but the thought is placed each time a television flashes in the background with a discussion of “that dress” that if people had not been focused on other matters, worse things might have been averted.

***

It is unprovable, of course. Besides which fact, democracies — and democrat — need to be able to multitask. But in recent weeks the feeling does occur that this era might recur. Anderson Cooper’s interview with the porn star Stormy Daniels was treated like, and trailed as, one of the big political interviews of yore. Every day’s news seem similarly stuck on the gleeful pile-in onto whatever is that day’s scandal. Even those stories which should give pause — North Korea, the use of chemical weapons in Syria — swiftly degenerate into a “what did X (usually the President) say about Y on Twitter?”. One wonders what it would take to shake us out of this.

Watchmen of the West Daniel Johnson

This could be a turning point in the fortunes of the West. If they are willing to be led by America, Britain and France, the democracies could now cease to turn a blind eye to subversion, abandon appeasement and refuse to be blackmailed. The sponsorship of terrorism and assassination, the proliferation of propaganda and intensification of cyberwarfare, the lobbying and corrupting of Western elites, aimed at lifting sanctions and creating energy dependency: these are just some of the methods deployed by Russia, Iran and other enemies of the open society. They should have been stopped long ago. They still need to be stopped. And now they can be stopped.

President Trump may not be the ideal leader of the free world. But he understands what is at stake, he knows what must be done and he has the willpower to see it through. It is time for the high-minded to set aside their low expectations and judge Mr Trump by his actions rather than his words. There is method in his “madman diplomacy”. And it seems to be working. North Korea is negotiating with him on denuclearisation. Iran may soon be forced to follow suit. China is negotiating on trade. And Russia is no longer under any illusions that America will give it a free hand, either in the Middle East or in Eastern Europe. For the first time in a decade, a US administration is taking the lead, not “leading from behind”. Western leaders of very different political views, such as Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau, are eager to work with Mr Trump. The transatlantic establishments have underestimated this president, just as they underestimated Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush — but overestimated Barack Obama. A little humility from the great and good, who took it for granted that they had a better grasp of reality than a reality TV star, would not go amiss.

Airstrikes, however, are not enough to save Western civilisation. We need to win the battle for hearts and minds, as John Ware explains. In British debates about intervention in Syria of recent weeks, the Labour leadership, plus assorted Greens, Scottish Nationalists and Islamists, have been dancing to the tunes of the Russian, Iranian and Syrian regimes. It suits the world’s most depraved despots to sow panic and inhibit punitive action. The awkward fact remains that Assad has used chemical weapons at least 50 times. “They are,” in Mr Trump’s words, “the crimes of a monster.” And monsters never lack for useful idiots.

Rohingya Militants Massacred Civilians in Myanmar: Amnesty Report In one attack last year, Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army abducted 69 Hindus and killed all except those who converted to Islam, Amnesty International found By Jon Emont

A Rohingya Muslim militant organization slaughtered dozens of Hindus in Myanmar last year amid violence that included the military’s bloody campaign that forced some 700,000 Rohingya to flee the country, a report released Tuesday by Amnesty International said.

The report marked the most definitive account of atrocities against civilians allegedly committed by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army in violence that engulfed the western state of Rakhine. The military has borne the brunt of human-rights scrutiny. The aid agency Doctors Without Borders estimates that some 6,000 Rohingya were killed and the U.N. said the campaign bore the hallmarks of genocide. But the military has contended that the militant organization massacred civilians in addition to waging coordinated attacks against police and military outposts.

Both Muslims and Hindus are minorities in Buddhist-dominated Myanmar, including in Rakhine state, but the Rohingya Muslims have been the target of focused persecution for decades. The Myanmar government considers them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and a security threat.

A Sunday afternoon massacre last August could rank as one of the largest by Myanmar‘s security forces since the military initiated its campaign against the Rohningya. (May 11, 2018)

Amnesty International said that it had interviewed numerous Hindus, including survivors, who were present during the alleged massacres and reviewed other evidence, such as photos of mass graves.

One attack documented in the report occurred in Ah Nauk Kha Maung, a mixed Hindu-Muslim village, where the militant organization allegedly abducted 69 Hindu villagers. According to villager accounts shared with Amnesty, the militants blindfolded and robbed the Hindus, marched them to a creek and executed most of them by weapons including knives and iron rods. Of the 69 captives, only 16 were spared—women and children who agreed to convert to Islam. The report documented similar violence elsewhere.

Gatestone’s Person of the Week: Dr. Khaled Montaser “Trying to Fix This” by A. Z. Mohamed

Egyptian intellectual Dr. Khaled Montaser referred to the “scientific-miraculous” nature of the Quran (i’jaz) as a “great delusion” and “an anesthetic or a nice sedative” for the Arabs and the Muslims.

“Where does extremism come from? People, we must admit — as our president has often said — that there are elements in our books of heritage that incite to this. We must admit this.” — Dr. Khaled Montaser.

Montaser’s harsh criticism should be understood as a call, similar to that of other caring Muslims “trying to fix this,” not to abandon Islam, but to modernize or risk remaining “at the tail end of all the nations.”

In an interview with Sky News Arabia on April 20, Egyptian intellectual Dr. Khaled Montaser referred to the “scientific-miraculous” nature of the Quran (i’jaz) as a “great delusion” and “an anesthetic or a nice sedative” for the Arabs and the Muslims, making them feel superior: “we are superior,” “we are the best,” “we are the greatest.”

Montaser, head of the Dermatology Department of the Suez Canal Authority, linked this “delusion” to the prevalence of Islamic terrorists. “As Muslims,” he said, “we pay a steep price for this. We are at the tail end of all the nations.”

“Among the names of all those who detonated explosive belts in Europe or America,” he went on, “one cannot find a single Hindu or Buddhist name. They always have Muslim names. Furthermore, how come Muslims always oppose modernity?”

“Our interpretation,” he went on, “is in conflict with modernity…”

“They insist on screaming their religion out loud: ‘I am a Muslim!’ They are always screaming that they are the only ones in possession of the truth, that they are the best, the only ones to be spared the Hellfire. They carry these notions with them wherever they go… Where does extremism come from? People, we must admit — as our president has often said — that there are elements in our books of heritage that incite to this. We must admit this… As a thinker trying to fix this, I must find this shocking. The reality is bitter. As Muslims, we pay a steep price for this. We are at the tail end of all the nations.”