Barbara Bush's Secret Service detail, several of whom have been been with her for decades, refuse to leave her side until she is buried. Very powerful. pic.twitter.com/zAmotYTXsC
— John P. Lopez (@LopezOnSports) April 20, 2018
That one-sidedness has always been at the heart of President Trump's relationship with his longtime lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who has said he would "take a bullet" for Mr. Trump. For years Mr. Trump treated Mr. Cohen poorly, with gratuitous insults, dismissive statements and, at least twice, threats of being fired, according to interviews with a half-dozen people familiar with their relationship."Donald goes out of his way to treat him like garbage," said Roger J. Stone Jr., Mr. Trump's informal and longest-serving political adviser, who, along with Mr. Cohen, was one of five people originally surrounding the president when he was considering a presidential campaign before 2016.Now, for the first time, the traffic may be going Mr. Cohen's way. Mr. Trump's lawyers and advisers have become resigned to the strong possibility that Mr. Cohen, who has a wife and two children and faces the prospect of devastating legal fees, if not criminal charges, could end up cooperating with federal officials who are investigating him for activity that could relate, at least in part, to work he did for Mr. Trump.
Melania, usually stone-faced, is seen smiling for the first time in a while next to Barack Obama.
— Nathan H. Rubin (@NathanHRubin) April 21, 2018
Donald is not going to like this picture. RT! #BarbaraBushFuneral pic.twitter.com/4XDbLhr2uO
Oscar-winning actress Natalie Portman has refused to travel for Israel to accept a $2 million award, citing her "Jewish values" as an imperative to stand up for justice amid an increasingly deadly conflict with the Palestinians.The Hollywood superstar said she did not want to be seen as endorsing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom she accused of carrying out a wide variety of misdeeds."The mistreatment of those suffering from today's atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values," she said in a statement late Friday, just before the start of the Jewish sabbath. "Because I care about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power."
President Trump on Saturday criticized a report by The New York Times that described his years of poor treatment of his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, and concerns among the president's advisers that Mr. Cohen will cooperate with the federal officials who are now investigating him.
The Washington Post reported Friday that Sessions told White House counsel Don McGahn in a phone call last weekend that he could leave the Justice Department in the event of Rosenstein's ouster.
The cannons were quiet this time but there was fire and smoke anyway at the Manassas National Battlefield Park during a prescribed burn intended to maintain the look of the area as Civil War soldiers would have known it.
It was anything but dull in the Security Council on Monday, when Russian UN Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya faced off with his US and UK counterparts, Nikki Haley and Karen Pierce, respectively, and the representatives from Sweden, the Netherlands and Poland. There was a surprising reversal of roles in the discussion of Saturday's suspected chemical weapons attack by Syrian government forces in the town of Douma: The United States and its EU allies pummeled Nebenzya with the rhetorical abandon that had always been the trademark of Russian diplomats.The drama at the United Nations unfolded hours after the collapse of Moscow's stock exchange. Shares of Russia's state-owned enterprises and financial institutions such as Sberbank, as well as assets owned by the Kremlin-friendly billionaire Oleg Deripaska, took a nosedive. According to various estimates, the capitalization of companies belonging to Russian oligarchs fell by $12-16 billion (€9.7-13 billion) within a few hours. The ruble also took a plunge, losing about 10 percent of its value.This was the result of the US Department of Treasury's decision on Friday to publish a new list of Russian individuals and companies to be punished under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. The new sanctions struck Russian President Vladimir Putin's inner circle much harder than previous rounds had.
Three generations ago, literature professors exchanged a rigorously defined sphere of expertise, to which they could speak with authority, for a much wider field to which they could speak with virtually no power at all. No longer refusing to allow politics to corrupt a human activity that transcends it, they reduced the literary to the political. The change was sharp. From World War I until the 1960s, their forerunners had theorized literature as a distinct practice, a fine art, a realm of its own. Whether in the scholarship of the Russian Formalists, in T.S. Eliot's archconservative essays, or in such midcentury monuments as Erich Auerbach's Mimesis (1946), René Wellek and Austin Warren's Theory of Literature (1948), and Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism (1957), literature was considered autonomous.Then, starting in the 1970s, autonomy became a custom honored only in the breach. Terry Eagleton and Fredric Jameson were first among countless equals who argued that pure art was pure politics. In 1985, Jane Tompkins laid out what many scholars increasingly believed about the whole field -- that "works that have attained the status of classic, and are therefore believed to embody universal values, are in fact embodying only the interests of whatever parties or factions are responsible for maintaining them in their preeminent position." Porous boundaries, fluid categories, and demoted reputations redefined classic texts.Beauty became ideology; poetry, a trick of power, no more essentially valuable than other such tricks -- sitcoms, campaign slogans, magazine ads -- and no less subject to critique. The focus of the discipline shifted toward the local, the little, the recent, and the demotic. "I find no contradiction in my writing about Henry James, bodybuilding, heavy metal, religion, and psychoanalytic theory," Marcia Ian stated in PMLA in 1997. In Classics and Trash: Traditions and Taboos in High Literature and Popular Modern Genres (1990), Harriet Hawkins argued that much pop culture "has in practice ... been a great deal more democratic and far less elitist, even as it has often been demonstrably less sexist than the academically closeted critical tradition." Within the bosky purlieus of a declining humanism, everything had become fair game for study: Madonna and Lost, Harry Potter and Mad Men.The demographic exclusivity of the midcentury canon sanctified the insurrection. Who didn't feel righteous tossing Hawthorne on the bonfire? So many dead white men became so much majestic smoke. But now, decades later, the flames have dwindled to coals that warm the fingers of fewer and fewer majors. The midcentury ideal -- of literature as an aesthetically and philosophically complex activity, and of criticism as its engaged and admiring decoding -- is gone. In its place stands the idea that our capacity to shape our protean selves is the capacity most worth exercising, the thing to be defended at all costs, and the good that a literary inclination best serves.Democratizing the canon did not have to mean abdicating authority over it, but this was how it played out. In PMLA in 1997 Lily Phillips celebrated a new dispensation in which "the interpreter is not automatically placed above either producers of texts or participants in events but is acknowledged as another subject involved in a cultural practice, with just as much or as little agency." This new dispensation -- cultural studies -- "emerged forcefully because the awareness of positionality, context, and difference is endemic to this historical period."Having eaten the tail of the canonical beast they rode on, scholars devoured their own coccyges. To profess the humanities was to clarify one's situatedness, one's limited but crucial perspective, one's opinion and its contingent grounds. Yet if "opinion is always contingent," Louis Menand asked laconically, "why should we subsidize professionals to produce it?"By the 1990s, many scholars equated expertise with power and power with oppression and malicious advantage. The humane gesture was not to fight on behalf of the humanities -- not to seek standing -- but rather to demonstrate that literary studies no longer posed a threat. Unmaking itself as a discipline, it could subtract at least one instance of ideological violence from the nation and world.If the political events of 2016 proved anything, it's that our interventions have been toothless. The utopian clap in the cloistered air of the professional conference loses all thunder on a city street. Literature professors have affected America more by sleeping in its downtown hotels and eating in its fast-food restaurants than by telling one another where real prospects for freedom lay. Ten thousand political radicals, in town for the weekend, spend money no differently than ten thousand insurance agents.Now that we have a culture of higher education in which business studies dominate; now that we face legislatures blind to the value of the liberal arts; now that we behold in the toxic briskness of the four-hour news cycle a president and party that share our disregard for expertise while making a travesty of our aversion to power, the consequences of our disavowal of expertise are becoming clear. The liquidation of literary authority partakes of a climate in which all expertise has been liquidated. In such a climate, nothing stands against demagoguery. What could?