Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhompa (talk)
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it. Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding. Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.
So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --Daniel B. Douglas 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate? --[[User:Anti-Facio Facio 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.
Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--Itsjustme 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
A widely published author once wrote something like this: When religion fails to inculcate a sense of morality into society then the whole of law and enforcement falls onto the shoulders of government. In broad, general terms, religion is a force for morality, for good. Though not every religion has 10 commandments exactly, traditional religions have a moral code its followers are encouraged to follow. Yes, religion has a place in society, no matter how freely a society communicates within and without its borders. Terryeo 17:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I would have to disagree with both you and that author. In a Canadian city, about 40 years ago, the police went on strike for a day. Shops and banks were robbed, cars stolen, vandalism, looting etc. The town pretty much went to the dogs for that day, and almost every shop along the main drag was robbed and massive amounts of damage occured. Now, the majority of the people in that city were christians, and fairly devout ones as well, yet despite having a "strong moral code" they still participated in the robberies and muggings because the police weren't there. This suggests that faith in God is not enough to stop people doing bad things, a lot of people need something more mundane and real. Bolly Ottihw 09:30, 22 April 2007
I was under the impression inoculating you with morality is the responsibility of your parents and the community. -Sam
The moment people forsake religion, or God in a society, ancient or modern, it is the moment the society becomes rotten, like US now.Kmcheng 12:24, 25 December 2008 (EST)
The fact that religion is so common among humans shows that it must have evolutionary significance. Different human societies and nations are in competition, just as surely as different species are. Humans are social animals and are most effective when working together. Religion is one of the drivers for social cohesiveness and co-operation. Christianity is one of the most effective religions because it promotes tolerance, is against violence ("turn the other cheek"), promotes respect for authority ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"), promotes forgiveness (the parable of the prodigal son), claims an omniscient God who sees all transgressions, and promisses reward for virtue and everlasting punishment for anti-social behaviour. The Koran (and the Old Testament)is more violent and less forgiving - and Islamic (and Jewish) societies are generally more violent and less successful than Christian ones. Ideally the New Testament should be taught in Public schools and the Old Testament should be dumped. - Mountainboy November 14 2012
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.
So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? Niwrad 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Response The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. Rebiu 17 March 2007
I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? kchittur 18 March 2007
Religion? No, lets make this quite clear: Not all religions are equal. Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth. But the abomination of Islam should be wiped out, destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions, and for leading people from Christ and thus damning them eternally. To speak of 'religion' lumps all religions together. Christianity is good, everything else is bad, and any christian who doesn't realise this just hasn't yet realised that by the fundamental tennants of Christianity they are allowing people to literially go to hell in the name of freedom. - BornAgainBrit, from a town just outside of Londonistan.
Just to point it out, Religion is defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or Gods, and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --Hojimachongtalk 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT) The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --Hojimachongtalk 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief.
And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages.
ResponseYou sir are not much of conservative. If you want to use you biased relative arguments then get thee to Wikipedia. Here on Conserapedia bold clear and simple assertions carry more weight than Socratic diatribes and explicit analogies.Rebiu 24 March 2007 --Facio
Socrate's method was asking questions. Explicit analogies are by definition better then vague analogies. Biased relative arguements is the funniest statement I've heard in a while. The reson they don't say religion is evil is because it is a debate and discusion where you have to explain your position. -Sam
Minor correction - in 1998, the Catholic Church did not admit the world was not flat. They never claimed that in the first place, it was a story made up to poke fun at them shortly after the continent of America was (re-)discovered. An easy mistake though - 1998 is the year in which they admitted that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe, and that not everything has to orbit around it. The RCC always knew the earth to be round, and even had a good idea of its size - both discoveries of Greek science. They did have some minor doctrine on the issue though: Church policy was that the other side of the earth was nothing but uninhabitable water, an assumption based on the idea that if there were another continent then they could not be exposed to the Second Coming of Christ, which the bible states will be witnessed by all people. - BornAgainBritoooookkk....so christianity has never done anything bad in its name over the past 2000 years, compared to islam? I think that to say that is in blatant ignorance of the facts of many atrocities commited in the name of the christian God and with the support of the church. The Crusades, the holocaust, the witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, the killing of doctors who carry out abortions, the list continues. To deny that the christian faith played no role in any of these is just plain stupidity. Bolly Ottihw 09:35, 22 April 2007
There are good morale people and there are bad inmorale people. There are good religous people and there are bad religous people. Religion does not make you a better or more morale person. Sometimes people use religion as guidlines or something that can scare them into doing the right thing. But people know the difference between right and wrong and if you need religion to tell you that and religion to scare you into being good then you're probably either an ignoramus (for not knowing the diff. between right and wrong) or a bad person in complete denial only behaving well to get your ticket into heaven and eternal bliss (as if you're personality is going to be somehow different in the afterlife). - DMiller
Ever wonder why it is that human life was short and miserable prior to the enlightenment, while since the enlightenment, average human quality of life has been improved exponentially? Ever wonder how every remarkable improvement of individuals and society happened in spite of religious dogma? If religion had had its way, without he input of science and humanism, we would still be in a world where life expectancy is in the 20s, a small cut is a death sentence via infection, and people who criticize religion, like me, would be burned at the stake. Religion has had thousands of years to attempt to prove itself necessary, something that it has failed at miserably every time. Also, for those who posit that Christianity is necessary, but none of the others are, ask yourself: would I rather be alive today, or in the 15th century? =skb
This seems to be a pointless question. Which religion are you refering to? Do you mean one in particular or just religiosity in general? If you say yes or no how far are you willing to go to bring about that outcome?
17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)Evanave 17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
"Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth." Right...because we know that this so called God said that Christianity was right and was the truth...Hey, why don't we all live like our savior Jesus...oh wait, Jesus was Jewish...If you want to follow his path, convert! Jesus was Jewish, get over it, this is a fact (as opposed to the existence of a god).
Also, I have trouble taking arguments seriously when I read:
"i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago." I'll let you slide on the I, but come on people...it is intelligent than, not intelligant then.
"destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions," nessicessary? attrocities? Try something like...necessary or atrocities.
Moving on...
There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of a supreme being. Not one single bit of information. There are approximately 6 billion people in this world, and if I'm not mistaken, over 80% of people are religious...That means 4-5 billion people waste their time praying to nothing (Assuming all of these people have prayed at some point or another)
What makes you believe in God? Somebody told you that God existed as a little child and you believed them. People also used to think that cigarettes weren't harmful to the body, but guess what, people were wrong!
Take a moment and think...what has God done for me? How would my life be different if I did not believe in God?
I have no answer, but then again, I'm atheist.
So, in response to the question, No, religion should not play ANY role in modern societies.
~Evan
Lack of evidence does not speak against the truth/existence of anything, anybody with a basic knowledge of science should know that. And religion gives you a crutch, regardless of whether it is true or not; knowing (truly believing, knowing that you are undoubtedly correct) that there is a God who loves you can be the best drug ever. And don't take the politicized Christian Conservative views as the only kind of Christianity; There are plenty of forms which are much more Biblically accurate than evangelism (IMHO). --Hojimachongtalk 17:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)Exactly what the Humanist Manifesto says is being repeated here. Waisting your time praying to nothing... etc. You are a Humanist. That is a religion. You say you are an atheist? You are a Humanist. You are religious. Non-theistic religion. You obviously don't even now what constitutes a religion. When someone says religion, you think of Judeo-Christianity. Whatever your religious belief is, and whether it is theistic or non-theistic, get over it. It's all religion, and every single one of you believe in something. So instead of criticizing everybody elses why don't you all get a life and tell us all what is so great about what you, that's right you, believe in. If all you got is bashing everyone else then it only tells the rest of us you ain't got nothin.--Roopilots6 22:14, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
That isn't true. I believe reality exists. The truth is out there and then it whops us on the head. Damn truth. I was under the impression that religion had to do with belief in God(s). Morality and ethical codes are not religion because they are based on reality (it's the other people stupid). (We) bash you because it reminds (us) of wack a mole. It is rather fun, although it can be tedious. - Sam
Not that it's not relevant, its just, it shouldn't play a large role. Relgion is like your thoughts, its yours, you make it according to your own personal moral values and based on the teachings of those before you. Getting religions entangled with people is quite dangerous some times, or annoying at others. Religion is for you and those who believe with you and those who wish to believe, none others.
See: Rise of global Christianity and creationism and the decline of global atheism and agnosticism and Atheism is a religion and Question evolution! campaign I trust that clears things up for you. Conservative 03:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)
Friday, June 14, 2013
Modern conservatism
Modern conservatism consists primarily of the following principles:
anti-communism anti-feminist anti-judicial supremacy anti-illegal immigration anti-gambling anti-federalizing crimeDespite attempts by some to portray Reagan as a quintessential conservative, he was weak on several of the issues above, including his relative lack of pro-life nominations to the Supreme Court, support for a form of gun control (in 1994), acceptance of illegal immigration (1986 law), and criticism of term limits for president (22nd Amendment). Also, his "free trade" policies were not helpful to the working class.
Barry Goldwater was the last outsider to win the Republican nominee for president as a first-time candidate, in 1964, based on large part to the runaway bestselling book A Choice Not an Echo. Though far more conservative than his liberal opponent, Nelson Rockefeller, some of Goldwater's views did not exemplify the above list of conservative positions.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Joss Whedon’s ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ And The Challenge Of Modern Shakespeare Adaptations
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\thinkprogress\Much-Ado-About-Nothing.gif "Much-Ado-About-Nothing")
One of the reasons William Shakespeare’s work is so enduring is that it’s perceived to be timeless. Romeo and Juliet are stand-ins for every teenage couple that perceives themselves to be or actually is pulled apart by family or other societal forces. Hamlet is every son with a dead father and an uncertain sense of himself. Bands of brothers will continue to charge into battle from this day to the ending of the world, and they and we will need to believe they do so for a greater cause to enable them to keep doing it. But while many of Shakespeare’s psychological insights may feel unmoored from time, in the same way Lizzy Bennet and Mr. Darcy could have met, sparred, and found each other in almost any time period, with adjustments along the way, the means by which Shakespeare delivered those insights vary widely in how tightly they’re tied to particular historical circumstnaces and mores, and in how much structres from the past have reinvented themselves for new eras. This poses enormous challenges for the success of a contemporary Shakespeare adaptation: it’s easy to turn the Capulet and Montagues’ relatively amorphous family fued into a gang rivalry or a spat between business empires, but rather harder to come up with a modern equivalent of the Salic Law that will get audiences juiced.
I say all of this as a roundabout way of approaching Joss Whedon’s adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing, a play that’s a perfect example of a relatively modern relationship that’s brought together under difficult-to-translate circumstances. Beatrice and Benedick, two wits who have each other as their favorite targets, are brought together in a horribly traumatic moment that’s difficult to imagine today: Beatrice’s cousin has her chastity impugned at the altar on her wedding day, is left at the altar, and her family pretends that she’s died of shame in order to build time to restore her reputation. The process by which Hero’s wedding is ruined is essentially a timeless one—she’s framed for cheating with another man on the night before her marriage to Claudio—but the reaction to this news is not. Claudio isn’t just disgusted by the idea that Hero has cheated on him: the fact that she has sexual experience at all is at the root of Claudio’s complaint to Hero’s father at the altar:
Sweet prince, you learn me noble thankfulness.
There, Leonato, take her back again:
Give not this rotten orange to your friend;
She’s but the sign and semblance of her honour.
Behold how like a maid she blushes here!
O, what authority and show of truth
Can cunning sin cover itself withal!
Comes not that blood as modest evidence
To witness simple virtue? Would you not swear,
All you that see her, that she were a maid,
By these exterior shows? But she is none:
She knows the heat of a luxurious bed;
Her blush is guiltiness, not modesty.
I wrote on Friday that this is a scenario that’s exceedingly hard to move into the modern era, and I thought the success of Much Ado About Nothing would depend on the ability of the movie to find a contemporary scenario into which this conflict fit without seeming jarringly anachronistic, making it easier to suspend disbelief about the characters’ reactions. While there’s no question that cheating on your wedding night is a big deal in modern society, we’re—fortunately—not a society where it would be a reasonable test of your lover’s affections to ask him to kill his best friend for besmirching your cousin’s sexual reputation. There are options here, of course. I would have been curious to see a slightly larger social context where Hero and her family are Christian, and the film took seriously the idea that her honor is valuable to her because she’s been taught it’s the most important thing about her. And even more interesting could have been a setup where Claudio’s reaction seems to come more from a sense of anxiety about the revelation that his bride has more sexual experience than he does than from the idea that Don Leonato has offended him by pretending to honor him but offering him “this rotten orange” as a sign of that honor.”
So it’s an interesting choice for Whedon that he does add one significant bit of modern context to Much Ado. But it’s meant to flesh out the relationship between Beatrice and Benedick, the part of the play that transitions most smoothly into a modern setting, rather than to render less jarring the conflict that lets them end the “merry war of words” between them. In the scene that opens the film, it’s revealed that Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) slept together before he went off to the wars, and for reasons unclear, they’re both embarrassed and angry with each other about the encounter. It’s a decision that works surprisingly well for all its lack of necessity, giving new meaning to Beatrice’s barb that Benedick is “a good soldier to a lady,” or her insistence that “I know you of old” after he slips out of their conversation with “a jade’s trick,” just as he slept out of her bed early in the morning to avoid awkward conversation. When the Prince tells Beatrice at the party that “You have lost the heart of Senor Benedick,” Beatrice’s reply that “He lent it to me for a while” has a new and lovely melancholy.
But the dynamic between Beatrice and Benedick has larger problems. Denisof, a veteran of How I Met Your Mother plays Benedick like womanizer Barney Stinson, rather than as a man who’s hesitant to see the military unit that’s given his life meaning and companionship broken up by marriage—this is bro-hood, not brotherhood. In his readings of lines like “I hope you have no intent to turn husband,” or Benedick’s declaration that the woman he marries must be “Virtuous, or I’ll never cheapen her,” I could almost see MacLaren’s Pub breaking through the background as if conjured for another realm. Acker’s performance as Beatrice is better, a melancholy rather than merry read on the character, which wisely means she’s competing less with Emma Thompson than Denisof is with Kenneth Branagh, even to the extent of stealing his voice concealment schitck during the garden party, and she suffers less by comparison as a result. But the new backstory between her and Benedick would have required slightly more context to explain why an independent woman in a contemproray setting who has repeatedly rejected the idea of marriage would be so wounded by a one-night stand. Explaining that reaction might have provided a set of norms that would have clarified the Claudio-Hero story, and given more context for Beatrice and Benedick’s reactions when Hero is falsely accused, and Benedick takes her side rather than standing with his friends, giving him more reason than simply wanting to impress Beatrice.
The real problem is with what happens after Hero is accused and pretends to have died. Fran Kranz and Jillian Morgese do very nice work with the most fundamentally boring parts in the play, and in particular, someone should really cast Kranz in an indie romantic comedy already. But watching Beatrice demand that Claudio be killed for the sin of falsely accusing Hero, or watching Denisof flash a pistol at Claudio in the tastefully-appointed library in Joss Whedon’s real-life house just feels silly and histrionic. Rather than Shakespeare’s words giving us the gravity we’ve scrambled after in contemporary life, something that worked so well with contemporary war in Ralph Fiennes’ excellent 2011 adaptation of Coriolanus, here, his scenario just feels ludicrous, diminishing everyone involved, and making the challenges of contemporary romance feel histrionic rather than blesssed with a vocabulary that can express their proper gravity. That’s not to say there are no pleasures to be had here, particularly the channeling of Nathan Fillion’s spectacular gift for pomposity into Dogberry, a performance that would do Michael Keaton proud, and the lovely use of Clark Gregg’s decency as Don Leonato in perhaps the most deft and subtle casting in the movie. But Whedon’s interpretation ultimately makes the much ado about nothing in the title seem like a negative reflection on his characters rather than a charming reflection of the inherent nonsense and complication of true love.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Leslie and Ben and Liz and Criss: NBC Comedies On Modern Marriage
This post discusses plot points from the February 21 episodes of Parks and Recreation.
Their shows are entirely different animals, but in recent weeks, I’ve been thinking a lot about the differences between Liz Lemon and Leslie Knope. Both are the main characters of tonally innovative and critically loved but ratings-challenged sitcoms, both have as their best friends older, Alpha-male archetypes, and both lead teams of people who are not always eager to make their lives easy. And both of them recently married their soulmates, laid-back food truck operator Criss Cross and anxious geek and good-government nerd Ben Wyatt, in impromptu ceremonies where they wore dresses that summed up significant themes of the run of their shows. As I watched Leslie and Ben tie the knot on last night’s Parks and Recreation and thought about the episode today, something came clear for me. Liz Lemon is a much pricklier, more challenging character than the relatively normal if professionally ambitious Leslie Knope. But Leslie’s relationship with Ben is more radical than Liz’s marriage to genial weirdo Criss.
Much of Liz Lemon’s dating history was about her coming to terms with what she really wants. In Floyd, she learned that she wanted her career and relationship with New York more than she wanted him in the suburbs. With Drew, she found out that handsome is only as handsome does. Carol turned out to be as rigid as Liz herself was. But in Criss, Liz found someone who was complimentary to her, whose great strength and expression of love for Liz was to help her handle her worst tendencies. He was a guy who’d never mistake an argument at Ikea for a breakup, who wasn’t intimidatingly perfect—his idea of romanticism was making Liz a table out of found objects that almost immediately collapsed—and, as we found out in the finale, really just wanted to stay home and raise their adopted children, letting Liz be the primary breadwinner. It makes sense that Liz married Criss in her Princess Leia outfit: their relationship was about Liz finally embracing herself precisely as she was, even if sometimes it’s the worst, because of society.
But while I appreciate 30 Rock‘s embrace of ladyweirdness, from female science fiction fandom, to using your treadmill as a hanger for a ham-stained wedding dress, to ambivalence about sex, Liz and Criss’s relationship came down to a fairly common argument about being loved for who you really are, even if who you are is kind of neurotic and strange. Parks and Recreation, by contrast, took two relatively conventional humans, albeit ones with intense fondness for calzones, waffles, Game of Thrones, and in Leslie’s case, a hoarding problem, and used a conventionally shot sitcom wedding where a makeshift family comes together at the last minute, to make permanent a relationship based on ideas that are deeply challenging by the standards of popular culture.
When Leslie met Ben, he was working as an Indiana State auditor, a job he’d chosen in part to redeem his disastrous tenure as the teenaged mayor of his small town, where he’d bankrupted the city government by building an elaborate ice skating complex and been impeached. The auditor’s job was a way for Ben to demonstrate that he’d definitively left the misconceptions of his first foray into government behind, so someone might give him the chance to run an agency or a city again. But over the course of Ben’s relationship with Leslie, he’s made a significant shift from planning for his own long-term ambitions to working to make Leslie’s dreams happen.
Now, it’s not that men in popular culture never help the women that they love achieve their professional goals. But that sort of encouragement usually doesn’t require sacrifice or compromise on the man’s part. Instead, he’s generally presented as someone who provides the wisdom, insight, or experience that a woman needs to self-actualize, whether it’s successful producer Adam Bennett (Patrick Wilson) teaching Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) how to handle her feuding news anchors in Morning Glory, or shock jock Mike Chadwick (Gerard Butler) teaching his uptight producer Abby (Katherine Heigl) to relax. Criss isn’t teaching Liz how to do her job better, but he also essentially gets exactly what he wants by being with her, even if what he wants is to achieve in the domestic realm rather than a professional one. It’s a variation on the ideal of Having It All: having it all and having it together, without the need for conflict and compromise. This sort of ideal even shows up in breakup stories. In The Devil Wears Prada, Andie (Anne Hathaway) and Nate’s (Adrian Grenier) relationship falls apart when it doesn’t live up to their expectations that they will both be pursuing their careers and deeply present in their lives—exit, for both of them, turns out to be preferable to compromise and accommodation.
But for Ben, dating Leslie and supporting her run for office have entailed real sacrifices. He gave up his job in city government so she could keep hers and survive an ethics trial prompted by the revelation that they hadn’t disclosed their romantic relationship, a move that let Leslie preserve the prospects of a potential run for office, while putting another strike on his own record, precisely the kind of thing he came to Pawnee to avoid. Losing his job has real emotional consequences for Ben, who at one point ends up weeping in a Batman suit. He puts his energy into getting Leslie elected, and after that victory, takes a job working as a higher-profile campaign consultant in Washington. But once again, Ben chooses Leslie over his own career trajectory, coming home from Washington to propose to her instead of going to run a Florida campaign. And now that they’re married, Ben has settled into Pawnee and is running the Sweetums Foundation, a job that allows him to do good and to make smart decisions about budget and impact, but that also is a respectable local job that bolsters Leslie’s relationship with the town’s dominant industry.
Is it any wonder, then, that for her vows, Leslie told Ben “The things that you have done for me to help me, support me, surprise me, to make me happy, go above and beyond what any person deserves. You’re all I need. I love you and I like you.” There’s very little in popular culture that would have told Leslie, or that tells any woman, that she’ll find a partner who isn’t just happy to be supportive when it’s a fit, but who, when his interests and hers are in conflict, will prioritize hers, and choose and work to support them again and again. And there’s something remarkable about Ben’s declaration that “In my time working for the state government, my job sent me to 46 cities in 11 years. I lived in villages with eight people, rural communities, farming towns, I was sent to every corner of Indiana. And then I came here, and I realized this whole time I was wandering around everywhere looking for you.” Ben didn’t just find Leslie. In looking for the recovery of his own reputation, Ben found Leslie’s career instead, and made it his cause—the man’s come so far that he’s even capable of being touched by what appears to be the mysterious resurrection of Lil’ Sebastian.
For another couple, it might have been bizarre for the bride to wear a dress that’s made of headlines and documents about her career, but for Ben and Leslie, it’s perfect. Working together on projects like the Harvest Festival and her election didn’t just bring Ben and Leslie together and then closer as a couple—it was a core substance of their relationship and a reflection of their mutual values. And showing us a relationship like that is one of the reasons I don’t just love Parks and Recreation: I like it, too.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
VIEWPOINT: How A Very Smart Senator Showed Us Everything Wrong With The Modern GOP In One Week
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\thinkprogress\Ted-Cruz.jpeg "Ted Cruz")
It shouldn’t have been this way.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is an undeniably smart man. Cruz is by all accounts a brilliant litigator, one talented enough in the courtroom to clerk for a Supreme Court justice and win a number of difficult cases as Texas’ Solicitor General. It wouldn’t have been crazy to expect that Cruz would bring a degree of argumentative rigor into the Senate after his victory in the 2012 election.
Well, Cruz had two golden opportunities to showcase his keen analytical mind, as he sits on both Senate committees that held high profile hearings last week, one on gun violence prevention, the other on Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)’s nomination to be Secretary of Defense. And Cruz distinguished himself alright. Just not in the way one might have hoped.
The Senator misrepresented official documents to the point of falsehood, placed the words of an raving call-in viewer on a television show in Hagel’s mouth, and played “six degrees of guilt by association” with Hagel’s record in a manner that would make Sen. Joe McCarthy blush. And yet, Cruz’ behavior, embarrassing as it was, was by no means irrational. Rather, it’s a perfect illustration of how the Republican Party’s internal structure, particularly its allied media and electoral base, incentivizes the replacement of real policy thinking with fact-free paranoic fantasism.
Let’s begin with Cruz’ monologue at the gun hearing. The proposed assault weapons ban bore the brunt of his ire. He leaned heavily what he claimed were two Department of Justice papers — one from what he sneeringly characterized as the “Janet Reno Department of Justice under President Clinton” — that had proven the 1994 ban failed to reduce gun violence. In his words, the Senate was about “to reenact a law that, according to the Department of Justice, did absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence.”
Literally every claim in that sentence is false.
First, the Senate is not “reenacting” the 1994 ban. The law proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) closes a series of loopholes that even gun regulation proponents admit limited the first ban’s effectiveness. Second, the studies in question were not official judgments of the Department of Justice, as Cruz says, but research by Professor Christopher S. Koper supported by the Department.
Which brings to the third, and most important, point: any fair reading of Koper’s work suggests Cruz has entirely mischaracterized its findings about the ban – a reading shared by Prof. Koper himself. Koper’s research found, among other things, clear evidence that the 1994 ban limited criminal access to assault weapons as well more tentative evidence that assault weapon shootings were more deadly. While it’s true the studies didn’t find evidence that the bans reduced the homicide rate, they didn’t, as Cruz suggests, conclude from that that the ban didn’t work. Rather, Koper said that he didn’t have enough data, given that the ban was only in effect for ten years, to prove for one way or another. That’s why Koper, in a 2004 op-ed, referred to the then-expiring ban as a “work in progress” rather than, as Cruz suggested, a failure. And the assault weapons ban is far from the only issue on which Cruz did violence to the facts in the gun hearing.
As fact-free as Cruz’ diatribe during the guns hearing was, it had nothing on his performance the following day during Senator Hagel’s confirmation. During the excruciatingly long proceedings, Cruz had three chances to interrogate Hagel, each time resorting to grosser distortions of the former Senator’s statements to prove that Hagel was every Israeli’s worst nightmare.
In round one, Cruz played a tape of a rather concerned man calling into a talk show on which Hagel was a guest. The video was spliced to make it appear Hagel agreed with the ranter’s accusation of “war crimes in Palestine.” In reality, Hagel was endorsing, on the program host’s instruction, the need for “moral leadership” by the United States and Russia on nuclear arms reduction, a point made clear by his reference in the full clip to President Obama and then-President Medvedev. After Hagel said he did not believe Israel was committing war crimes, and asked for the full context of the clip, Cruz lied, saying “that was the full context.”
Cruz’ second attempt to cast Hagel as Israeli Public Enemy #1 was equally dishonest. Cruz ventriloquized the claim that Israel had committed a “sickening slaughter” in Lebanon into Hagel’s mouth, even though, as Dave Weigel points out, Hagel was condemning deaths in war themselves rather than Israel’s behavior. And his third sally, a failed attempt to tar Hagel with the views on Israel of someone on the board of an organization he chairs (yes, it’s that remote), struck The New Republic‘s John Judis as “classic McCarthy tactics.”
Judged kindly, Cruz’ performance in each of these two hearings was aggressively inaccurate. Judged more harshly (and accurately), it was mendacious demagoguery at its finest.
So why would Cruz, an intelligent man, resort to such dishonest tactics? There are certainly no shortage of ways to make the case against gun regulation or Chuck Hagel without mischaracterizing research or wrenching stray comments out of context.
But that’s not nearly as fun.
Guns and Israel are two issues of paramount importance to staple GOP voting blocs. These voters don’t want mealy-mouthed, hedged defenses of their positions — as evidenced by the Great RINO Purge of the past few election cycles. Rather, these voters want Republicans who see the world as they do: President Obama and the Democrats are attempting to attack their fundamental liberties and eliminate America’s “exceptional” global role, most prominently by “throwing Israel under the bus.” For these voters, the Assault Weapons Ban isn’t just bad policy; it’s a nefarious, unconstitutional gun grab that strikes at the heart of American liberty. Chuck Hagel hasn’t been more qualified in his support for Israel than Republicans would like; he’s an anti-Semite.
Cruz rode this apocalyptic mood to power, pairing a worldview extreme enough to please the base with packaging just well enough to make him acceptable to more establishment folks. As Mother Jones‘ Tim Murphy writes in a profile of the Senator, “Cruz’s greatest asset is that he lives in both worlds;” he’s “an intellectual face on a movement and ideology that have long simmered beneath the Republican mainstream.” Cruz pioneered a marriage between extreme ideas with a manner of expression that allows the party’s “respectable” thought leaders to support it.
Understanding the central dynamic of Cruz’ political strategy is the key to unlocking his intellectually abysmal outings at the Senate last week. His base wants the fireworks, but straight-up calling Hagel an anti-Semite on the Senate floor might be a bit much. So Cruz wraps up more extreme versions of his arguments in intellectual-sounding garb, citing studies and TV clips that are just good enough to justify his firebreathing.
Now, this strategy would fail if the conservative media said base relies on weren’t interested in playing along to Cruz’ tune. But the writers who are supposed to serve as conservatism’s intellectual gatekeepers lapped it up. “It would be hard to do much better,” National Review‘s Peter Kirsanow wrote, “than one of Hagel’s interlocutors — Senator Ted Cruz.” In response to criticism of Cruz’s arguments as, well, totally made up, Kirsanow scoffed. “Cruz should be pleased to be the subject of such scorn. Smart, principled, aggressive, conservative Republicans are subject to special opprobrium from Beltway elites.”
Kirsanow was far from the only one. “Sorry I missed @tedcruz carving up Chuck Hagel on TV like a roast,” tweeted RedState editor and Fox News contributor Erick Erickson. “Cruz showed what happens when preparation, talent, and discipline come together,” gushed Pete Spiliakos at the theoconservative journal First Things. Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin enthused that “tough questioning” from Cruz and other Republicans exposed “Hagel’s pose as a consistent and ardent friend of Israel and foe of Iran…to be nothing but a hastily constructed façade that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.” These are but a few examples from a vast ocean.
This adulation illustrates just how deeply rooted GOP dysfunction is. The Republican base elects someone like Cruz, who’s extreme enough to have suggested the United Nations was coming for America’s golf courses. Cruz, who’s not only a ideological member of the base but beholden to it, brings its unsupportable ideas and implacably hostile attitude to the center of the Republican party. And he’s rewarded not just by adulation from his supporters, but widespread praise from the ostensibly serious conservative commentariat. There’s just no incentive for any Republican to speak out against the party’s descent into paranoia, and every reason to believe you’ll be rewarded by giving into it.
So if you want to know why the Republican Party will remain broken for the foreseeable future, go watch the Ted Cruz game tape from this week. And try to think how it could have been otherwise.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Potemkin Federalism And The Modern Campaign Straddle
We Call This Federalism Instead of Open CowardiceThe president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.
(HT: Yahoo News)
I’m thinking President Obama regrets two of his decisions right about now. He wishes he wasn’t about to hold the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC and he’d rather have Opus The Penguin as a Veep right now instead of Huey “The Kingfish” Biden. As our Commander-In-Chief leans forward, gasps for breath and removes the 9” piece of steaming cutlery Mr. Biden recently sheathed between two of his vertebrae, he attempts to find a new and unique way to straddle the contentious issue of homosexual marriage.
Presidential Candidate Obama needs to stay on both sides of any controversial issue. As an Illinois State Legislator, he could always vote present. As United States President, he gets no such option – except that he kind of does. He can rediscover the magical principal of Federalism. He personally claims to favor homosexual marriage, but doesn’t want to shove his values down anyone’s throat. If only he could try that gambit out on energy policy and health care. This is far from the most egregious stunt I’ve seen out of Obama Presidency to date.
Had President Obama delivered this response in a vacuum filled only by moderately liberal suburbanites it would be an unquestionably logical decision. He doesn’t have any such vacuum to orate in and his teleprompter would probably fail if he tried. He gets the base of the Democratic Party to speak with instead, and they consider Federalism only slightly less insidious than Radon Gas in the basement. John Cook of Gawker explains liberal heartburn over President Obama’s “Present vote” on homosexual marriage.
He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn’t believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?…. before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery.
> (HT:Gawker)
Mitt Romney meanwhile suggested that he had permanently retired Flip The Romney Dolphin. He chose his side on the issue years ago as Massachusetts Governor and won’t evolve.
Obama’s likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage, and fought his state’s highest court when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, when Romney was governor. Romney said on the campaign trail Monday that he continues to oppose gay marriage. ‘My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney said. “That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point. … Or ever, by the way.’
All of this seems like a perfect opportunity for Barack Obama to reaffirm his status as President Gutsy Call. He could take the bit in his teeth. He could demand openness and liberalization. He could make those damn, dirty Tea Partiers evolve. Except for one little nit to pick…..
The DNC will re-coronate Barack I in Charlotte, NC this summer. North Carolina just passed a ban on homosexual marriage by a 61-39 margin. And not only that, President Obama is going against a key element in The Democratic Party’s base if he openly supports homosexual marriage. Time Magazine (after their obligatory cheap-shot against North Carolinians for voting against leftist preferences on homosexual marriage) explains why Barack Obama won’t be making a very gutsy call here.
The constituency calculus makes this choice politically risky for Obama. Black voters, who were critical to Obama’s ‘08 victory, are strongly against marriage equality. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found 55% of blacks oppose gay marriage and 42% support it, which is almost the opposite of white voters—53% support and 43% oppose.
So there you have it. Federalism rises from the grave. It’s easier than leadership and more conducive to longer careers in politics than making principled decisions one way or the other. Now we just need to start devolving some of DC’s power, along with all the controversy and blame.