"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
Friday, January 13, 2017
OBAMA’S TRANSPARENT PRESIDENCY
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/
12 January 2017
U.S. President Barack Obama makes his key Middle East speech at Cairo University June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Egypt. (Photo by Getty Images)
President Barack Obama promised that his would be the most transparent administration in US history.
And the truth is, it was. At least in relation to his policies toward the Muslim world, Obama told us precisely what he intended to do and then he did it.
A mere week remains of Obama’s tenure in office.
But Obama remains intent on carrying on as if he will never leave power. He has pledged to continue to implement his goals for the next week and then to serve as the most outspoken ex-president in US history.
In all of Obama’s recent appearances, his message is one of vindication. I came. I succeeded. I will continue to succeed. I represent the good people, the people of tomorrow. My opponents represent the Manichean, backward past. We will fight them forever and we will prevail.
Tuesday Obama gave his final interview to the Israeli media to Ilana Dayan from Channel 2’s Uvda news magazine. Dayan usually tries to come off as an intellectual. On Tuesday’s show, she cast aside professionalism however, and succumbed to her inner teenybopper. Among her other questions, she asked Obama the secret to his preternatural ability to touch people’s souls.
The only significant exchange in their conversation came when Dayan asked Obama about the speech he gave on June 4, 2009, in Cairo. Does he still stand by all the things he said in that speech? Would he give that speech again today, given all that has since happened in the region, she asked.
Absolutely, Obama responded.
The speech, he insisted was “aspirational” rather than programmatic. And the aspirations that he expressed in that address were correct.
If Dayan had been able to put aside her hero worship for a moment, she would have stopped Obama right then and there. His claim was preposterous.
But, given her decision to expose herself as a slobbering groupie, Dayan let it slide.
To salvage the good name of the journalism, and more important, to understand Obama’s actual record and its consequences, it is critical however to return to that speech.
Obama’s speech at Cairo University was the most important speech of his presidency. In it he laid out both his “aspirational” vision of relations between the West and the Islamic world and his plans for implementing his vision. The fundamentally transformed world he will leave President-elect Donald Trump to contend with next Friday was transformed on the basis of that speech.
Obama’s address that day at Cairo University lasted for nearly an hour. In the first half he set out his framework for understanding the nature of the US’s relations with the Muslim world and the relationship between the Western world and Islam more generally. He also expressed his vision for how that relationship should change.
The US-led West he explained had sinned against the Muslim world through colonialism and racism.
It needed to make amends for its past and make Muslims feel comfortable and respected, particularly female Muslims, covered from head to toe.
As for the Muslims, well, September 11 was wrong but didn’t reflect the truth of Islam, which is extraordinary. Obama thrice praised “the Holy Koran.” He quoted it admiringly. He waxed poetic in his appreciation for all the great contributions Islamic civilization has made to the world – he even made up a few. And he insisted falsely that Islam has always been a significant part of the American experience.
In his dichotomy between two human paths – the West’s and Islam’s – although he faulted the records of both, Obama judged the US and the West more harshly than Islam.
In the second half of his address, Obama detailed his plans for changing the West’s relations with Islam in a manner that reflected the true natures of both.
In hindsight, it is clear that during the seven and a half years of his presidency that followed that speech, all of Obama’s actions involved implementing the policy blueprint he laid out in Cairo.
He never deviated from the course he spelled out.
Obama promised to withdraw US forces from Iraq regardless of the consequences. And he did.
He promised he would keep US forces in Afghanistan but gave them no clear mission other than being nice to everyone and giving Afghans a lot of money. And those have been his orders ever since.
Then he turned his attention to Israel and the Palestinians. Obama opened this section by presenting his ideological framework for understanding the conflict. Israel he insisted was not established out of respect of the Jews’ national rights to their historic homeland. It was established as a consolation prize to the Jews after the Holocaust.
That is, Israel is a product of European colonialism, just as Iran and Hamas claim.
In contrast, the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land. They have been the primary victims of the colonial West’s post-Holocaust guilty conscience. Their suffering is real and legitimate.
Hamas’s opposition to Israel is legitimate, he indicated. Through omission, Obama made clear that he has no ideological problem with Hamas – only with its chosen means of achieving its goal.
Rather than fire missiles at Israel, he said, Hamas should learn from its fellow victims of white European colonialist racists in South Africa, in India, and among the African-American community.
Like them Hamas should use nonviolent means to achieve its just aims.
Obama’s decision to attack Israel at the UN Security Council last month, his attempts to force Israel to accept Hamas’s cease-fire demands during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, his consistent demand that Israel renounce Jewish civil and property rights in united Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, his current refusal to rule out the possibility of enabling another anti-Israel resolution to pass at the Security Council next week, and his contempt for the Israeli Right all are explained, envisioned and justified explicitly or implicitly in his Cairo speech.
One of the more notable but less discussed aspects of Obama’s assertion that the Palestinians are in the right and Israel is in the wrong in the speech, was his embrace of Hamas. Obama made no mention of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority or Fatah in his speech. He mentioned only Hamas – the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which shares the Brotherhood’s commitment to annihilating Israel and wiping out the Jewish people worldwide.
Sitting in the audience that day in Cairo were members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.
Then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak rightly viewed Obama’s insistence that the brothers be invited to his address as a hostile act. Due to this assessment, Mubarak boycotted the speech and refused to greet Obama at the Cairo airport.
Two years later, Obama supported Mubarak’s overthrow and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to replace him.
Back to the speech.
Having embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, branded Israel a colonial implant and discredited the US’s moral claim to world leadership, Obama turned his attention to Iran.
Obama made clear that his intention as president was to appease the ayatollahs. America he explained had earned their hatred because in 1953 the CIA overthrew the pro-Soviet regime in Iran and installed the pro-American shah in its place.
True, since then the Iranians have done all sorts of mean things to America. But America’s original sin of intervening in 1953 justified Iran’s aggression.
Obama indicated that he intended to appease Iran by enabling its illicit nuclear program to progress.
Ignoring the fact that Iran’s illegal nuclear program placed it in material breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama argued that as an NPT signatory, Iran had a right to a peaceful nuclear program. As for the US and the rest of the members of the nuclear club, Obama intended to convince everyone to destroy their nuclear arsenals.
And in the succeeding years, he took a hacksaw to America’s nuclear force.
After Obama’s speech in Cairo, no one had any cause for surprise at the reports this week that he approved the transfer of 116 tons of uranium to Iran. Likewise, no one should have been surprised by his nuclear deal or by his willingness to see Iran take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. No one should be surprised by his cash payoffs to the regime or his passivity in the face of repeated Iranian acts of aggression against US naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Everything that Obama has done since he gave that speech was alluded to or spelled out that day.
Certainly, nothing he has done was inconsistent with what he said.
The consequences of Obama’s worldview and the policies he laid out in Cairo have been an unmitigated disaster for everyone. The Islamic world is in turmoil. The rising forces are those that Obama favored that day: The jihadists.
ISIS, which Obama allowed to develop and grow, has become the ideological guide not only of jihadists in the Middle East but of Muslims in the West as well. Consequently it has destabilized not only Iraq and Syria but Europe as well. As the victims of the Islamist massacres in San Bernardino, Boston, Ft. Hood, Orlando and beyond can attest, American citizens are also paying the price for Obama’s program.
Thanks to Obama, the Iranian regime survived the Green Revolution. Due to his policies, Iran is both the master of its nuclear fate and the rising regional hegemon.
Together with its Russian partners, whose return to regional power after a 30-year absence Obama enabled, Iran has overseen the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Sunnis in Syria and paved the way for the refugee crisis that threatens the future of the European Union.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamist leader, was a principle beneficiary of Obama’s admiration of Islamism. Erdogan rode Obama’s wave to destroy the last vestiges of the secular Turkish Republic.
Now he is poised to leave NATO in favor of an alliance with Russia.
Obama and his followers see none of this. Faithful only to their ideology, Obama and his followers in the US and around the world refuse to see the connection between the policies borne of that ideology and their destructive consequences. They refuse to recognize that the hatred for Western civilization and in particular of the Jewish state Obama gave voice to in Cairo, and his parallel expression of admiration for radical Islamic enemies of the West, have had and will continue to have horrific consequences for the US and for the world as a whole.
Cairo is Obama’s legacy. His followers’ refusal to acknowledge this truth means that it falls to those Obama reviles to recognize the wages of the most transparent presidency in history. It is their responsibility to undo the ideological and concrete damage to humanity the program he first unveiled in that address and assiduously implemented ever since has wrought.
'SHE HAD A REALLY BIG HEART' Tragedy that inspired hit film Monster Calls that’s now helping cancer-stricken writer’s family deal with their loss
BY GRANT ROLLINGS
7 January 2017
At the same time that author Siobhan Dowd had her first short story published, breast cancer put a time limit on how much more she could write.
Even during gruelling chemotherapy she penned four novels in a bid to get her words out into the world.
But with her treatment failing in the spring of 2007, Siobhan was too weak to sketch out more than a 1,000-word outline of a novel about a lonely boy struggling to cope with his mum’s cancer diagnosis.
She died that summer aged 47.
Siobhan’s outline was later fleshed out into a prize-winning novel — and the film version of A Monster Calls is out now starring Felicity Jones, Sigourney Weaver and Liam Neeson.
It is the story of a giant yew tree monster, voiced by Neeson, visiting 12-year-old Conor O’Malley at 12.07am every night with a scary fairytale.
The stories help the youngster cope with the anger and fear he feels about his mum’s terminal illness.
The film’s success is also helping Siobhan’s family come to terms with her untimely death.
They revealed how she chose the yew because needles from that tree are used in the chemotherapy drug Taxotere, which did hold back her cancer for a year and a half.
Her sister Denise, 61, tells The Sun: “The book and the film have given us a real legacy for Siobhan.
“It’s something special that not many people have.
“She had so many ideas and I think she could have written forever.
“She did think time was running out for her.
“Once she started having chemotherapy she decided it would be wise to resign from her job and concentrate on her writing full-time for as much as she was able.
“It was so hard for her, writing while ill.
“She had a really big heart, loads of energy and she loved having fun.”
Siobhan Dowd
The film’s young star also knows the pain of seeing a parent slip away.
Lewis MacDougall, who plays troubled schoolboy Conor, suffered the death of his own mother Fiona, from multiple sclerosis, shortly before filming started back in 2013.
The 14-year-old, from Edinburgh, says: “When I lost my mother I was around Conor’s age, maybe a bit younger.
“There were times before she passed when she was in a bad way, when there was a possibility that she might not get through.
“And I remember vividly having conversations about it.”
Lewis, who has previously appeared in the 2015 film Pan alongside Hugh Jackman, adds: “I was very upset at the time. My dad told me, ‘Your mum might not get through this.’
“So having lived through something like Conor’s experience was helpful — to know what he was going through in any particular moment.
“At times on set it did affect me — it was a bit close to home.”
Sigourney Weaver, who plays Conor’s grandmother, and Felicity Jones (as his mother), prepared for the film by talking to people who had been through the same grieving process, talking to cancer doctors and visiting a hospice.
Siobhan, who was born in London to Irish parents, had her first short story published in 2004 — the same year she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
When the chemotherapy sessions started she quit her job as Deputy Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Oxfordshire and started writing books for youngsters.
Her first novel, A Swift Pure Cry, about an Irish teenager called Shell, was published in 2006 and a year later the children’s thriller The London Eye Mystery came out.
Two months later, in August 2007, overwhelmed by the rapid spread of the cancer, Siobhan died.
Doctors had told her from the start that they could only prolong her battle with the illness, although her family always believed she would be strong enough to beat it.
Denise recalls: “Her consultant was quite honest right from the beginning.
“He said he could control her symptoms but he couldn’t cure her. But you do always hope.”
Siobhan, who has two other older sisters, Oona, 63, and 58-year-old Enda, did not keep her condition a secret and remained as lively as possible right until the end.
Denise adds: “When they launched The London Eye Mystery in 2007 she was brilliant at the party but she couldn’t manage the meal afterwards because she had to go rest.” After her death two more novels she had completed, A Bog Child and Solace of the Road, were released.
Bog Child posthumously won the 2009 Carnegie Medal.
But A Monster Calls remained just an outline — shorter than this article — and it needed best-selling author Patrick Ness to round it out and turn it into a full book.
It has now been published in almost 40 languages and also won the Carnegie Medal.
Twice-married Siobhan did not have any children of her own but was inspired to write for children by her nieces and nephews. Mother of three Denise, from Stockport, says: “When she started interacting with our children she decided she wanted to write for young adults.
“She would talk to her nieces and nephews who were coming into their teens and lots of stuff from our family pop up in her books.”
Days before she died, Siobhan, who was married to librarian Geoff Morgan, wrote a will asking for all the money from her books to be used to encourage children to read.
The Siobhan Dowd Trust has already handed out more than £300,000 to give books to the children of military heroes serving in the Armed Forces, the children of prisoners and to the Readathon charity.
The trust has also given copies of A Monster Calls to a bereavement charity for kids called Grief Encounter.
Its chairman Tony Bradman, 62, who commissioned Siobhan to write her first short story, says: “The brief of the Trust which she put in her will was to bring the joy of reading books to children of disadvantaged backgrounds.
“Out of something very bad we have managed to get something very good.”
Denise and her son John, 30, are both trustees.
She adds: “Adults sometimes find it harder to cope after a death.
“For children, it’s the impending doom, knowing that something terrible is going to happen. Something outside the scope of their experience.
“We had been very open with our children about what was happening to Siobhan. But they were worried about the effect it would have on them and everyone around them.
“Being with Siobhan at the end was terribly important for me. Then suddenly it stopped, and there was this void.
“Grief is a very lonely emotion. You can be surrounded by other people who are grieving.
“They can feel a similar pain, but can’t feel your pain.
“Sometimes it’s more intense and sometimes it recedes, and nobody’s at the same stage at the same time.
“Now, if only Siobhan could see how her money was being spent, she would be so happy.”
'A Monster Calls' review: a luscious, painterly fantasy overcast with sadness
- Tim Robey
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
- 1 January 2017
The monster in A Monster Calls is a metaphor, made of gnarled bark, twisted branches and Liam Neeson’s sonorous baritone. This tree-demon charges down from its hill at night to confront a boy called Conor O’Malley (Lewis MacDougall), whose already difficult life is about to crack wide open: his mother (Felicity Jones) is gravely ill, and the monster initially seems like a harbinger of disaster.
Instead, it might just be a spirit guide, a helping hand through crisis, cooked up by the boy’s own feverish imagination. It is, after all, a yew tree, held sacred for its regenerative properties.
Fantasies that spring from the creative turmoil of a child are a fertile subgenre in cinema – aspects of this film call to mind Labyrinth, the Laika animation Coraline, or even Bernard Rose’s undersung 1988 British chiller Paperhouse, which had a similar setting in rural England.
Cannily adapted by Patrick Ness from his illustrated book of the same name, this is a more choked-up offering than any of those, so overcast with sadness it sometimes seems to be gulping for fresh breaths.
Conor’s hobby, and a respite from thinking about his mum, or dealing with the bullies at school, is sketching with graphite. He stays up until the witching hour in his bedroom, where this tree-BFG, not only rumblingly voiced by Neeson but motion-captured so that it looms Neeson-ishly down at him, finds him nightly.
Instead of threatening to devour him, though, the apparition has stories to tell. “Stories?” asks Conor, unimpressed, and puckering his face as if the monster is mainly just wasting his time.
The stories – there are three, two of them animated in luscious watercolour – illustrate paradoxes which Conor, initially baffled, must grasp in his unstable state of mind. They tell of wronged witches, misdirected vendettas, in a fantasy world of dragons and rumoured poisonings, not unlike Hamlet’s play-within-the-play.
As Neeson’s tree narrates them, the film stands still, but expectantly so, and colours spill across the screen in thrilling splashes: given the chance, you’ll rewind and watch these painterly interludes again, stat.
Conor isn’t just a bystander here, but an outstandingly detailed main character. Spanish director JA Bayona has form with drawing powerful performances from children, if you think back to his horror debut The Orphanage, and discovery of Tom Holland – the new Spidey, no less – in The Impossible.
Even by his standards, though, MacDougall is very special: his face can hide away pockets of pain in one moment, and explode with furious resentment in the next beat.
There’s a Spielbergian showmanship to Bayona’s films, wedded to an unabashed emotionalism, and this one reaches for you down in the gut. Working on ever-larger effects budgets – next up, the Jurassic World sequel – Bayona’s like a stage-fond illusionist who loves to flaunt his tricks and devices, opening his films inside out for your inspection. Subtlety might not be the name of the game, exactly – he just happens to prefer more emphatic games.
The effects team have certainly gone to town, not only on the molten innards of the monster, but on the recurrent image of a church and graveyard crumbling into an abyss, where Conor fears he will lose his mother forever. Jones, while perfectly sensitive, doesn’t have a great deal more to do than pallidly disappear in her role.
There’s quietly terrific work, though, from Toby Kebbell as Conor’s runaway dad, pained by the problem of being honest about death, the dilemma of whether to shield his child, and his awareness, having married too young, of belonging on the fringes of the family’s grief.
Sigourney Weaver, unyielding and imperious as Conor’s house-proud grandmother, hasn’t quite got to grips with her RP accent, but her best scene – the film’s best – thankfully doesn’t need it. It’s her mute devastation when finding Conor, in the grips of a particularly wild hallucination, has trashed every inch of her living room. She’s lost for words, looking at all her ornaments obliterated on the carpet, as Conor tries to blub his apologies.
The scene is about everything they’re in the process of accepting, and the emotional violence of it, as they fight their way to a strange kind of understanding for the first time, takes you aback.
It’s a pivotal encounter, in a film which keeps devising ever-more-epic collisions between an angry boy and his own sorrow.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
The Comforting Fictions Of Obama’s Farewell Speech
January 11, 2017
(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)
Watching Barack Obama’s speech at the 2008 DNC in Denver, I doubt I could have imagined the kind of turmoil his presidency would incite. Almost everything has changed in the subsequent years, and yet his farewell speech to the nation was brimming with the same kind of haughty lecturing we got back then.
Obama loves to conflate progressivism with patriotism, pitting the forces of decency and empathy — his own — against the self-serving profiteers and meddling reactionaries who stand in the way. All of it is swathed in phony optimism.
The president’s central case for government’s existence rests on the notion of the state being society’s moral center, engine of prosperity, and arbiter of fairness. This has never been normal. Obama speaks of government as a theocrat might of church—and his fans return the favor by treating him like a pope. This was true in 2008. And it’s true now. Just check out liberal Twitterdom.
There was much to process, and many policy claims to debunk, but for me the most grating aspect of the address were the broader fictions Obama likes to repeat.
“When Congress is dysfunctional,” Obama explained, “we should draw our districts to encourage politicians to cater to common sense and not rigid extremes.” For the president, a “dysfunctional” Congress means a Congress unwilling to pass progressive legislation. That is not the definition of dysfunctional, I’m afraid. Nor is it the definition of extreme.
There is nothing in the Constitution instructing legislators to acquiesce to the president. In the near future, the GOP Congress will be passing tons of legislation, and I can assure you neither Obama, nor his many fans in the media, will be celebrating the fact that Congress is finally “getting stuff done” or “doing its job.” Progress will no longer be measured in the number of bills signed.
Nor should it be. After all, if voters were displeased with the way legislators treated Obama’s agenda, they had the ability to replace these obstinate lawmakers with more cooperative ones. They did not. That’s because gridlock was created by a party that fooled itself into believing it could rule unilaterally. Also, after Democrats passed their massive health-care reform law — and I’m certain there were other reasons, as well — Republicans kept expanding their majorities, and not only in Congress.
Americans voted for equilibrium in DC. Congress was working exactly as it was intended. And it has nothing to do with gerrymandering or voter suppression or fake news or any of the other excuses liberals keep concocting to explain their troubles.
Moreover, the idea that Congress is catering to some “rigid extreme” because elected officials oppose policies that were passed in 2010 might be the prevailing opinion on the Left, but it has no basis in reality. Republican positions, like them or not, are well within the boundaries of normal American attitudes.
That brings me to this nugget. In his farewell address, Obama warned that “our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted” (because we don’t talk about politics enough, apparently!) and urged Americans to help rebuild “our democratic institutions.”
Our democracy isn’t in trouble. We just had an election, in which every citizen permitted to vote, and motivated, could do so. Our Electoral College, part of a broader system that most fairly embodies the will of voters in the nation’s 50 states, also worked exactly as intended.
Maybe Obama means we must rebuild our belief in separation of powers, because his administration displayed far more creativity in executive power than it ever did in attempting to build coalitions to pass legislation. Obama regularly ignored “norms” of governance, consistently losing cases before the Supreme Court, entering into international agreements without the Senate, creating immigration policy for millions without Congress, and using the administrative state to legislate environmental policies that couldn’t even pass when Democrats controlled both houses. Those abuses were not normal.
Nor is it normal to wish away the bad things that happened under your watch.
It’s one thing to make claims about how wonderful the recovery has been or how Obama stopped Iran’s nuclear program. Neither are true. But last night, Obama again made the extraordinary claim there has been no successful Islamic terrorism — or whatever euphemism we’re using these days — on the home front. “No foreign terrorist organization,” the president bragged yesterday, “has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland in the last eight years.”
Now, if you don’t count the attack in San Bernardino, where a ISIS-inspired couple murdered 14 people and wounded another 22; or the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack on Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were murdered and 53 wounded; and if you forget the Fort Hood shooting in Texas, where an Islamist U.S. Army officer murdered 13 people and wounded 32; and you skip the Boston Marathon bombings where Islamists murdered three and wounded another 264; then, perhaps, the president’s claim might have some veracity.
Otherwise, the idea is preposterous no matter how meticulously Obama constructs his sentences. This isn’t exactly as blatant a falsehood as our incoming president likes to drop on occasion, but it’s no less misleading. No, there isn’t a central planning committee meeting where violent foreign terrorist organizations hatch a specific plan to attack America. Yet, somehow, the adherents of violent theology know exactly what they need to do without checking in for instructions. Obama spent eight years refusing to acknowledge this reality — and many others.
Last night, he offered Americans a revisionist history of his entire presidency, casting himself as a resilient truth teller and champion of “democracy.” The reality is quite different.
Hilary Mantel’s Cursed Childhood
By ROD DREHER
January 11, 2017
Hilary Mantel, Man Booker Prize Winner on the seafront near her home in Budleigh Salterton, Devon.
I’ve not read English novelist Hillary Mantel’s historical fiction, but quite a number of people have. Writer Patricia Snow is one of them, and in a chilling (really) First Things essay, Snow analyzes the characters in Mantel’s two novels set in Tudor England, and draws out the connections between them and Mantel’s traumatic childhood. The essay begins like this:
By now, everyone who reads contemporary fiction will have heard of Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies, Hilary Mantel’s acclaimed historical novels about Thomas Cromwell, the powerful advisor to Henry VIII who all but single-handedly disestablished the Catholic Church in England. Anathema to many Catholics on account of their sympathetic portrayal of Cromwell, the books have been runaway bestsellers, were awarded the Booker Prize (twice), and have been successfully adapted for both stage and screen. Psychologically persuasive and prodigiously self-assured, they are examples of what can happen when an artist, who has been honing her craft in the meantime, finds or invents material that turns out to be the perfect vehicle for her powers. In Mantel’s case, when she began writing about Cromwell, by her own account she was “filled with glee and a sense of power,” a conviction that everything in her life had prepared her for this.
The Catholic childhood Mantel lived in the north of England was a nightmare. Snow draws extensively on Mantel’s own published memoir to discuss how its characters and themes shaped Mantel’s fiction. You don’t need to know Mantel’s work — again, I don’t — to appreciate the insight in Snow’s speculative analysis, in particular why Mantel may have made Thomas Cromwell the dark, dark hero of her novels.
What knocks the reader for a loop is this passage in the essay, which quotes from Mantel’s 2004 memoir, Giving Up The Ghost. Jack is the lover her mother takes, and moves into the family home, exiling Mantel’s father down the hall in his own home:
In Mantel’s memoir, after Jack moves in with her mother, their house slowly fills with unseen, malevolent presences. It is not only the child who is aware of this, but the adults and adult visitors as well. Objects disappear; gusts of wind roar through the rooms; doors slam and their dogs cry with fear in the night. On weekends, the sallow, perspiration-soaked Jack hacks at the undergrowth in the overgrown garden, opening a view to the fields and the moors beyond.Mantel is seven, going on eight. A pious, scrupulous child, she fears more than other sins blasphemy and inflicting brain damage, which would happen, she explains, if you were to drop a baby before the soft bones of his skull had closed. You might think, she confides elsewhere, that she would have asked God to show himself and put an end to the events in her home. But in her words, she was spiritually ambitious and had her own understanding of grace. (“By not asking for it, you get it.”) Rejecting the prayer of petition, and the risks that accompany it (“Because if it didn’t work . . .”), she simply waits. For a year, she carries around inside herself an empty, waiting space for God, a space that sounds ominously like what Malachi Martin calls an “aspiring vacuum” in his book about demonic possession.It is the morning of an ordinary day. Mantel is playing by herself in the backyard when something causes her to look up, some trick of the light. Her eyes are drawn to a spot beyond the yard, in the garden that Jack has been clearing.
[The spot] is, let us say, some fifty yards away, among coarse grass, weeds and bracken. I can’t see anything, not exactly see: except the faintest movement, a ripple, a disturbance of the air. I can sense a spiral, like flies; but it is not flies. There is nothing to see. There is nothing to smell. There is nothing to hear. But its motion, its insolent shift, makes my stomach heave. . . . It is as high as a child of two. Its depth is a foot, fifteen inches. The air stirs around it, invisibly. I am cold, and rinsed by nausea. I cannot move. I am shaking. . . . I beg it, stay away, stay away. Within the space of a thought it is inside me, and has set up a sick resonance within my bones and in all the cavities of my body.Mantel’s first thought is that she has seen the devil, who did not intend to reveal himself. She knows from experience that if you witness other people’s mistakes, and they know it, they will make you pay. Terrified, she flees to the house as “grace runs away from [her] . . . like liquid from a corpse.” In the days and years afterwards, she is always more or less afraid and ashamed. After her encounter in the garden with what she calls elsewhere a “slow-moving sinister aggregation of cells . . . like a cancer looking for a host,” wherever she goes and whatever she does, what she has seen accompanies her: “a body inside my body . . . budding and malign.”
In that moment, she was possessed. And that “budding and malign” spiritual cancer has never left her. Demons don’t generally depart of their own accord. Snow writes:
If a testimony, traditionally understood, is the story of a life-changing encounter with God, Giving Up the Ghost is an anti-testimony, the centerpiece of which is a life-changing encounter with a demon. Yet it never seems to occur to Mantel to discuss her situation with a priest.
In fact, Mantel remains to this day bitterly anti-Catholic. Trust me, you’ll want to read Snow’s entire essay.
Three years ago, writing in The Telegraph, Charles Moore penned these lines in an appreciative column about Mantel:
So why has she caught on? Why has such genuine merit and uncuddly, almost cold dedication to her art been recognised in a culture obsessed with celebrity?I am not sure of the answer, but I suspect it has something to do with her sense of the nearness of anarchy and darkness. She seems to fear those things and to be attracted to them. As a Catholic, she has a strong sense of the reality of evil, but as a non-believing one, she cannot find the redemption. This is a good position from which to convey horror.One of her early novels is called Vacant Possession. It is about a deranged woman who pretends to be a cleaner in order to take revenge on the occupants of her former home. The book’s title obviously refers to the familiar legal term, but it is also Mantel’s nod to Milton who, in Paradise Lost, says that “the fiend” may “invade vacant possession” and “some new trouble raise”.The fiend is often present in her work, the troubling something at the corner of one’s vision. In her as yet unfinished trilogy, Thomas Cromwell carries some shadow in his life which cannot be spoken of.English literature excels at these experiences on the borders of consciousness, at madness or anarchy imagined with the clarity of a sane mind. Now that she has turned one of the darkest passages in our history into a great work of fiction, Hilary Mantel can be said to have captured the national imagination.
“Vacant Possession.” Hmm.
By the grace of God I have never had an experience like Mantel’s, though I did go through a difficult period in the summer of 1990 or ’91 in which I became aware of a presence in my apartment as I slept. It got so bad that even though I wasn’t much of a Christian, I took to sleeping with a crucifix in my hand, as if I were a child with a teddy bear. I think back on it now and shake my head over how crazy that was. I am certain that there was a presence there, and that it was a malign presence. It would show up in my dreams sometimes, and communicate that it wanted me. Unlike most nightmares, these felt as if they were messages, invitations.
What’s crazy to me now is how hard I worked to assure myself that everything was normal, that I was just going through a rough patch, and that there was nothing out of the ordinary for a man in his mid-twenties to have to sleep at night with a crucifix in his hand to ward off the night terrors.
The only thing that made it stop was my leaving that apartment. What made me leave? Mostly, it was the night I sat straight up in bed out of a deep sleep because I sensed the presence of someone in the room, watching me. I would not have been surprised to have seen a burglar standing over my bed. What I saw was a creature. I can see it in my mind now as clearly as if I had looked at the thing last night. It chills me today to think of it, and I won’t describe the thing to you. I was furious at it, and leapt out of bed at it. I saw it run, then disappear.
You had a nightmare, I tried to tell myself. But this was no nightmare. Something had happened.
Here’s the thing: I had been dabbling with the thought of becoming a Catholic at that time, but refused to commit to the path of conversion — chiefly because I knew that it would disrupt the casually hedonistic life I had been living. That experience in the apartment — not just seeing the entity, but the whole matter of the creeping awareness that something wicked shared that space with me — drove me towards the Church, even against my will. It helped convince me that there was another dimension to our life, one that remains hidden to us in the everyday, but that may manifest at times beyond our control. I suppose you might say that even in my most agnostic period, I always supposed that if there was a God, then he was like the kindly owner of an estate, the Duke you never saw, but in whose authority you trusted to order the grounds on which you lived. To put it another way, my late-20th century, Moralistic Therapeutic Deist cosmology had no room in it for demons.
But now I had seen one. It had been invading my dream life for months, communicating to me that it wanted to enter into me. God, I had a chill writing that sentence just now, thinking about how stupid I was back then, wondering what would have happened had I not awakened suddenly and seen the entity made manifest at the foot of my bed. After that night, I could not deny that something was very wrong, and that it wasn’t simply in my head.
I couldn’t live in that apartment anymore, not with that thing. I moved. That ended the night visits. And before much longer, I began to take instruction in the Catholic faith. On my first meeting with the priest who began my catechesis, I told him about the events in my apartment in those months. He was an old man, and Irishman who was part of a religious order. He took me seriously, and told of being sent to Africa as a newly ordained priest. The things that missionary priests in Africa encounter on a nearly daily basis, he explained, are entirely alien to the Western experience in modernity. But they are real. You cannot spend any time in Africa doing missionary work and not come hard up against the reality of the demonic, he explained.
The old priest did not believe that malign spirits only dwelled in Africa, of course. We have them here too, but we have educated ourselves out of knowing what we’re dealing with when we see it. And in turn, we fail to turn to the Church for help when we are besieged.
Reading Patricia Snow’s essay and Charles Moore’s column made me reflect on how events in my own life have affected my stance towards the world as a writer. Mantel is an artist and I am not, but I share with her a sense of the nearness of anarchy and darkness. I, of course, do find hope, shelter, and redemption in the Christian faith, as she does not. Yet I see recurrent themes in my writing emerging from my most formative experiences.
- The world is not what we think it is. What is unseen is as real as what’s seen.
- People are not who we think they are; they are not even who theythink they are.
- People will go to extraordinary lengths — including telling themselves outlandish lies, accepting what ought to be unacceptable and making their own lives and the lives of others miserable — to avoid facing truths that would compromise the worldview upon which they’ve settled.
- The battle lines between good and evil, and between order and chaos, are not drawn where we would like them to be. The front is everywhere, most particularly within our own hearts.
- Be wary of the treachery of the good man who believes in his own goodness.
- “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Ephesians 6:12)
This painting below, “Carnival Evening” by Henri Rousseau, hangs in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. A print of it also hangs on my wall. From the moment I saw it, I was mesmerized by it. This is as close as I’ve ever seen to my view of the human condition (absent the reality of God and Jesus Christ) captured in a single painting. As I wrote in this space on the day I saw it:
This scene symbolizes the way I move through life: as a partygoer who finds himself … feeling very much out of place, on the way home, in the deep wintry woods under a full moon, with all the beauty and the danger and the mystery therein. Interesting to think about how art doesn’t explain, but reveals.
I like to think that unlike the man and woman in the painting, I am aware of the Watcher in the Dark, which is why I clutch the crucifix in my heart, and do my best to stand against the darkness, clothed in carnival clothes, but never forgetting that beyond the carnival is the dark wood. On the other hand, after closer examination, I believe Rousseau has captured the couple at the moment they have become aware that they are being watched. Look at them closely: they are not walking — his arms indicate forward motion, but his feet are planted firmly — nor are they looking behind themselves. They are frozen in place. After reading Patricia Snow’s essay on Hilary Mantel, I wonder if she was a frightened child staggering through the dark wood, saw the Watcher, and yielded to his malign designs on her.
Memories of Chargers not enough
Nick Canepa
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/
January 11, 2017
My father was a commercial tuna fisherman for the greater part of his life. He was away from home weeks, months at a time, working his butt off to support a family that didn’t have enough — and yet, strangely, plenty. He grew up here, an immigrant’s son, a barefoot wharf rat in Little Italy who loved sports.
So, what sports were there in San Diego for him to enjoy during his fleeting moments at home, long before satellites and the Internet? San Diego High football? The minor league Padres? Boxing on radio and fuzzy TV? San Diego State provided virtually no entertainment before Don Coryell’s arrival in 1961. Steve Fisher was an Illinois teenager, not yet in the loaves and fishes business.
And then the Chargers also came in 1961, and sports changed for my dad, for me, for my family and friends, and for San Diego, which overnight became a major league city. He happened to be home when the Chargers played their first game in Balboa Stadium, which 15 years later the city stupidly and unceremoniously would tear down.
And he took me to the game. Just like that, I found myself in the big leagues. We had little, but we had the Chargers.
And today I feel considerably smaller, sadder, but swollen with memories.
The football team coming here was the biggest sports story in the history of this city, now — barring an 11th-hour Hail Mary that even Aaron Rodgers would be hard-pressed to complete — surpassed by its leaving, to greener pastures under the yellow skies of Los Angeles, whence it came.
I was hoping this day never would come and all along, writing about the new stadium issue for much more than a decade, there was thinking someone would smarten up, that enough people would realize Qualcomm Stadium had become a dump thanks to the City slumlords who allowed it to go to seed.
I also couldn’t blame the Chargers for wanting a new stadium. They were renters, stadium upkeep not being their responsibility. Up to January 2015, the team never once threatened to leave. It was implied. They weren’t going to play there forever, and the city blew its chance in 2005, when all it had to do was give the franchise a parcel of land and get out of the way.
But the politicians jumped too late on the ship already pointed north. It wasn’t their fault. It was the fault of their predecessors, without vision and spine, but it was too late nevertheless.
I never will blame the team for taking off. I will blame it for the classless treatment of a fan base that supported it for more than half a century. It didn’t take a sledgehammer. A scalpel would have been good enough. They didn’t have to go out with cannons blazing, treating us as if we all were idiots. They could have just gone.
For that, I can’t forgive them. It was despicable, we didn’t deserve it, and I think they’re going to discover playing second banana in Hollywood never is going to get them an Oscar.
But, if you’re happy about this, if you’re among those who wanted them to leave, well, that’s you’re right, but I feel sorry for this city. Because its quilt now has a huge hole in the middle of it, and I don’t know if we ever will find the proper seamstresses and tailors to make it right again.
People say I was selfish wanting them to stay. So maybe I was. For myself, personally, and professionally. But I don’t know how much longer I will do this. I’ll do my work without them. The Chargers are leaving and I’m a San Diegan dammit. We can’t like this or condone it.
In their wake are memories. Lance Alworth. Ernie Ladd. The Fearsome Foursome. The Seven Thieves. Gary Garrison. Dickie Post. John Hadl. Tobin Rote. Dan Fouts. John Jefferson. Kellen Winslow. Charlie Joiner. Wes Chandler. Ed White. Doug Wilkerson. Russ Washington. Leslie O’Neal. Junior Seau. Stan Humphries. Natrone Means. LT. Drew Brees. Philip Rivers. Shawne Merriman. Dennis Gibson’s Pittsburgh batdown. The 1963 AFL Championship. George Pernicano. Barron Hilton. Sid Gillman. Don Coryell. Bobby Beathard. Bobby Ross. I could go on. So many names, so many great games, so many disappointments.
We are going to find a town losing an NFL team is a horrible thing and we shouldn’t enjoy having part of our guts ripped out. We now will do what L.A. people did for 20 years — watch NFL games on TV.
They were all right with it. We shouldn’t be.
We should be angry as hell, and we should continue to fight to get a team here, because while past politicians and the visionless didn’t deserve the Chargers, we did.
The Chargers are gone. The NFL is gone. And I hate the thought of it. Memories are great. They are not enough.