Showing posts with label Colbert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colbert. Show all posts
Thursday, June 20, 2013
In Case I Needed More Reason...
... to be madly in love with Stephen Colbert, this came up on Facebook lately. His mother passed away last week, and he did a tribute to her on the show. Watch this and you will cry. I did.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Stephen Colbert, You Own My Heart
In a frenzy of personal, emotional, and academic happenings, I have been sorely neglecting this blog. Now, at the beginning of the Triduum, I don't quite have time to catch up, though I can promise (or threaten) another feminist manifesto coming shortly. To keep you entertained in the meantime, here is a recent discovery of mine. Stephen Colbert + Oprah. Check out the interview in all its 4-minutes-at-a-time glory here. He drops character and talks about his life, his joys, his tragedies, and his family. One of them includes his wife. Shelly and I both fell a little more in love with him after seeing Colbert and his wife interact. That struck me (I want that after 19 years of marriage!) as well as his great humility, which is astounding for someone with such a cocky on-screen personality and so much cultural influence.
All in all, this is my Holy Thursday treat to you. Watch it today, go to Mass tonight, and your day will be complete.
All in all, this is my Holy Thursday treat to you. Watch it today, go to Mass tonight, and your day will be complete.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
In Which I Wish I Went to Fordham: Dolan & Colbert
On Busted Halo this morning I stumbled across this article that linked to the NY Times coverage of the same event. Apparently, earlier in September, Stephen Colbert and Timothy Cardinal Dolan spoke together at Fordham University about joy and humor in faith. Just in case I wasn't already completely in love with Colbert.
According to the Times, Fordham did not let the media in, so (as far as I am aware) there are no videos of the talk. Just a few tantalizing descriptions of the encounter: enough to make me dream of an encore.
According to the Times, Fordham did not let the media in, so (as far as I am aware) there are no videos of the talk. Just a few tantalizing descriptions of the encounter: enough to make me dream of an encore.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Liar Liar
Stephen Colbert recently interviewed magician David Copperfield. While I spent the entire interview thinking of Dickens, I also enjoyed what he had to say about lying. It's like fear in amusement parks. When we control how it enters our life, there's something okay about it.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| David Copperfield | ||||
| ||||
Sunday, December 19, 2010
On God and Politics
Once again, I share with you my admiration of Stephen Colbert. I really appreciate how much he gets spot-on about Christianity and the way his satire allows him to get away with it. However, as one of my friends pointed out, those issues that separate the Democratic party from the ministry of Jesus are, well, rather important. And, of course, political action must go hand-in-hand with a life-style that reflects the same values, something none of us do perfectly.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Keep Fear Alive!
I went home to my parents last Friday, in pursuit of a shirt I'd left in the laundry and some time with my parents away from Williamsburg. Since my time in the area coincided with Stephen Colbert's March to Keep Fear Alive (sorry, that's the bit I loved; I'm not so much about the Jon Stewart side of things), I had no excuse not to attend an event that I wanted to attend.
Here's the thing though: I didn't really plan ahead on, um, anything regarding this trip. I knew it started at noon. On the Mall. I knew it takes me 20 minutes to get to the Metro and less than an hour from there into the city. I knew I didn't care if I was at the back of the crowd, and I didn't care if I was a tad bit late. So I left home at 10:30.
Fail plan. Traffic was backed up three miles before the exit for the Metro, based on the light cycles off the exit. Just to give you an idea of how crowded it was. The line to purchase farecards stretched through the station, across the bridge, into the parking deck, outside into the sunlight. The standing room in my Metro car was filled by the time we left the second station. I didn't make it into the city until 1:30. I spent 3 hours on a journey that should not take more than 1.5 hours.
When I got into the city, I followed streams of people coming in just as late as I was, held up by the same traffic. I walked around, looking at snarky signs and hilarious costumes... and offensive signs and offensive costumes. I pushed my way through a variety of crowds, attempting to find a friend whom I was supposed to meet. Text and phone calls wouldn't go through. Eventually I gave up and wandered the outskirts, catching bits and pieces of the rally speeches and music as I walked past speakers. So I enjoyed the "Legalize Pot" signs and the anti-Christine O'Donnell and the people dressed as Jesus and bears and holding fake tea parties. Then I caught the Metro at Capitol South, a few stops ahead of where the masses of ralliers got on, and headed south again.
At one point, I hopped off the change lines, and a man waiting for the same train asked if I'd been to the rally. Which set the stage for a conversation with him all the way home. It was a very random conversation, and a little awkward as he mentioned failed Match.com dates and glanced at my hand (I wear a ring on my left ring finger; I think it helped me out here). However, the overall impression I got was that he's rather lonely. He was glad to find someone else who went to the rally alone, and I hope our conversation brightened his day a little. It made me laugh, which always brightens my day.
Here's the thing though: I didn't really plan ahead on, um, anything regarding this trip. I knew it started at noon. On the Mall. I knew it takes me 20 minutes to get to the Metro and less than an hour from there into the city. I knew I didn't care if I was at the back of the crowd, and I didn't care if I was a tad bit late. So I left home at 10:30.
Fail plan. Traffic was backed up three miles before the exit for the Metro, based on the light cycles off the exit. Just to give you an idea of how crowded it was. The line to purchase farecards stretched through the station, across the bridge, into the parking deck, outside into the sunlight. The standing room in my Metro car was filled by the time we left the second station. I didn't make it into the city until 1:30. I spent 3 hours on a journey that should not take more than 1.5 hours.
When I got into the city, I followed streams of people coming in just as late as I was, held up by the same traffic. I walked around, looking at snarky signs and hilarious costumes... and offensive signs and offensive costumes. I pushed my way through a variety of crowds, attempting to find a friend whom I was supposed to meet. Text and phone calls wouldn't go through. Eventually I gave up and wandered the outskirts, catching bits and pieces of the rally speeches and music as I walked past speakers. So I enjoyed the "Legalize Pot" signs and the anti-Christine O'Donnell and the people dressed as Jesus and bears and holding fake tea parties. Then I caught the Metro at Capitol South, a few stops ahead of where the masses of ralliers got on, and headed south again.
At one point, I hopped off the change lines, and a man waiting for the same train asked if I'd been to the rally. Which set the stage for a conversation with him all the way home. It was a very random conversation, and a little awkward as he mentioned failed Match.com dates and glanced at my hand (I wear a ring on my left ring finger; I think it helped me out here). However, the overall impression I got was that he's rather lonely. He was glad to find someone else who went to the rally alone, and I hope our conversation brightened his day a little. It made me laugh, which always brightens my day.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Least of These
Remember that time where I loved Stephen Colbert? Yeah, that time that started when my capstone Sociology research was all about him and Jon Stewart. I don't have celebrity crushes or idols, but he comes pretty close. I've written before about his humor and his defense of the Catholic faith, and, while I don't know his views on everything the Church teaches, I've come to think of him as fairly stalwart, despite his satire. Satire (this was the contention of my final sociology presentation) allows him to say things that he otherwise would not be allowed to say, express views through layers of subtext that could not be expressed without that protection. Because he spews the serious and the farcical in the same breath, he can get away with much more than the mainstream media. This theory applies to much more than religion; he calls out so many people and institutions for foibles and major flaws; I tend to view him as genuine in spite of his satire.
What happens when he has to be serious? When, for example, he is asked to testify before Congress? For those of you who don't know, Colbert agreed a few months ago to work as a farm laborer with migrant workers. Recently, he fulfilled this promise in two episodes (one and two). As a result of his fame and his one day on the farm, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D. CA) asked him to speak to a House subcommittee about immigration reform.
First, Colbert is never (in public, that I have come across) completely serious and is always to a greater or lesser degree in character. However, he shed his character during his testimony before Congress to the greatest degree I've ever seen. And he left the character even further behind when answering the questions of the Congress people.
My favorite moment, as I watched on the Washington Post's website, came around 8min 55sec. One Congress woman asks him a question that he obviously does not expect and has to think about how he wants to answer. Watch the interview, at least the last few seconds of it, and listen to his response. And then you'll see why I am so much in love with this man.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Religions
Eventually, I will return to a 50-hour work-week, and my posts will once again become shorter and less frequent. Until then, my loyal readers will find more to read -- or in this case watch.
Stephen Colbert makes an appearance again! Yesterday he interviewed Stephen Prothero (who I'd never heard of) who wrote God Is Not One (which I'd never heard of) about the 8 major religions of the world, their vital differences, and why these differences are important. Besides Colbert's stunning defense of the Catholic crucifix, I enjoyed Prothero's explanation of the world's religions in terms of the problems they address: Catholicism, sin; Islam, pride; Buddhism, suffering; Judaism, exile. In fact, Prothero's explanations intrigued me so much, I put the book on hold at the library as I was watching the interview.
So, for your enjoyment:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Stephen Prothero | ||||
| ||||
Monday, June 7, 2010
Oil Spill Immigrants
I recently discovered that two of my favorite sources of humor, xkcd and Stephen Colbert, have a similar vision. A day or so ago, this appeared on xkcd (#748):
The image of the wall of alligators immediately reminded me of one of my favorite images from Colbert. (The map didn't hurt either. It's relatively the same part of the world.) Colbert first brings it up here -- go to 2:00 and listen to him.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Bay Buchanan | ||||
| ||||
I don't understand the fascination with flames and large reptiles... maybe it goes back to boyhood dreams of dinosaurs? I'm not sure. The crocodiles keep coming back up for Colbert. I enjoy the whole clip for him and would recommend finding the mouse-over text for xkcd. It's always worthwhile.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
"They Call Me a Communist"
It has been a while since last I commented on Stephen Colbert. Unfortunately, the internet in our house streams his show very slowly, so it takes a long time to load and, even then, plays haltingly. However, when Sarah, who lived here last year, posted a clip regarding Catholic Social Teaching, I had to watch it.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Glenn Beck Attacks Social Justice - James Martin | ||||
| ||||
Glenn Beck apparently commented (some weeks ago now) that Catholics should keep an eye out for the words "social justice," and if their priest preaches it, they should take it up to the bishop -- as if the bishop would object! Colbert also showed a clip of Beck comparing those who support Catholic social teaching to communists and Nazis.
After going through his usual satirical spiel, Colbert brings in a Jesuit priest to discuss the matter. If CST is the "best kept secret of the Church" (which I've heard; though I've also heard it has some competition from ToB), hopefully this frank discussion about Catholic doctrine from both Colbert and Fr. Martin cleared things up for a huge number of viewers. The Catholic Church could use more publicity like this.
By far my favorite part occurred (I think) unintentionally -- or else Colbert is much more into the subtle subtext than I imagined. He jokes that his God is in favor of people making money; that's why his symbol is a + sign. If he cared about social justice, "he would have put something on it that inspires empathy... Like a kitten." For the Catholic Church, however, there is something on the cross to inspire empathy : the bloodied, beaten, broken body of a man who did nothing to deserve it but love us.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Prisons?
Hello again, Stephen Colbert! In my daily dose of news and satire, today (though it's yesterday's show, played online) I learned that Arizona is privatizing their prison system. I knew vaguely that people talk about such a thing, but I had no real thoughts on it. Luckily, Colbert makes me think.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - The Green Mile | ||||
| ||||
From disciplining kids, I know that punishing people is not fun. I do it because it's necessary and I care enough about these kids to want them to grow into decent people; and learning action = consequence will help. A problem comes about when someone wants to punish another person. That's twisted and, well, sadistic. And it's the danger that privatized prisons run. Or else they could simply dehumanize prisoners. Even the worst offenders are still human, something our society has a hard time remembering.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Motion on the Floor
Thursday, I headed towards DC at the unholy hours of 6am, so that I could make it to the Capitol South metro station by 7, at which time I met up with other NRLC interns, a few staff, and the students at the NRLC academy. One of their fathers just so happened to work in Congress, and just so happened to be Representative Chris Smith.
I had prepared myself for another talk from a politician who was politicking... But we started out following him through a side door into the Capitol and onto the floor of the House of Representatives! If you've been following this blog at all, you know that when it comes to politics, I put up a cynical and thoroughly un-impressible front. Well, standing on the floor of the House, where generally only Congresspeople and pages stand, sitting in a House chair, where generally only Congresspeople sit, watching the voting wall light up as they tested it, I dropped this... I was impressed, and I know my face lit up like the voting wall.
Congressman Smith talked to us for a while, about being in Congress, the House, and other such minutia, until he sidetracked himself sharing about his own work as a public leader. He stressed human rights again and again, sharing how the two parties worked with or against him and the leverage Congresspeople have against each other. I realized that I know very little about Congressional Committees and I need to remedy this; he made their importance quite clear, something I had known, but never really hit me until that morning.
After we listened and asked questions for a while, we had a few moments to wander in awe before a group of 400 displaced us. We proceeded to the Raybourn building where donuts and coffee awaited us in the Congressman's office. We socialized with each other and spoke with Congressman Smith again. He emphasized human rights and his duty to his God and his family... and everything just seemed so consistent that I couldn't help but admire him. It also gave me hope for my friends who dream of becoming politicians: there may be hope to be a good Christian and a politician. Of course, all I know about Congressman Smith is what I heard from him, but still. It was different than what I've heard from other Congresspeople.
The only negative bit I have to say about Congressman Smith is that according to Wikipedia, he refused to appear on Stephen Colbert. Silly Congressman.
I had prepared myself for another talk from a politician who was politicking... But we started out following him through a side door into the Capitol and onto the floor of the House of Representatives! If you've been following this blog at all, you know that when it comes to politics, I put up a cynical and thoroughly un-impressible front. Well, standing on the floor of the House, where generally only Congresspeople and pages stand, sitting in a House chair, where generally only Congresspeople sit, watching the voting wall light up as they tested it, I dropped this... I was impressed, and I know my face lit up like the voting wall.
Congressman Smith talked to us for a while, about being in Congress, the House, and other such minutia, until he sidetracked himself sharing about his own work as a public leader. He stressed human rights again and again, sharing how the two parties worked with or against him and the leverage Congresspeople have against each other. I realized that I know very little about Congressional Committees and I need to remedy this; he made their importance quite clear, something I had known, but never really hit me until that morning.
After we listened and asked questions for a while, we had a few moments to wander in awe before a group of 400 displaced us. We proceeded to the Raybourn building where donuts and coffee awaited us in the Congressman's office. We socialized with each other and spoke with Congressman Smith again. He emphasized human rights and his duty to his God and his family... and everything just seemed so consistent that I couldn't help but admire him. It also gave me hope for my friends who dream of becoming politicians: there may be hope to be a good Christian and a politician. Of course, all I know about Congressman Smith is what I heard from him, but still. It was different than what I've heard from other Congresspeople.
The only negative bit I have to say about Congressman Smith is that according to Wikipedia, he refused to appear on Stephen Colbert. Silly Congressman.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Colorblind
In the same week that one of Bill's regulars admitted on The O'Reilly Factor that a race-based double standard does exist, Stephen Colbert gave a brilliant and punny summary of whiteness in our society.
Do I really need to add anything? I will just say that I get my news, in order throughout the day from: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (yesterday's), The Colbert Report (yesterday's), The Washington Post, WMZQ and WTOP, Google Alerts on select issues, the full-time staff and fellow interns, and The O'Reilly Factor. A healthy, balanced, bipolar diet.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Colbert Report: The Word - Neutral Man's Burden | ||||
| ||||
Do I really need to add anything? I will just say that I get my news, in order throughout the day from: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (yesterday's), The Colbert Report (yesterday's), The Washington Post, WMZQ and WTOP, Google Alerts on select issues, the full-time staff and fellow interns, and The O'Reilly Factor. A healthy, balanced, bipolar diet.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Transnationalism Appears Again!
We next heard from Mark Krikorian, from the Center for Immigration Policy, author of The New Case Against Immigration. Of all the speakers, he presented the most academic sounding case, although I may only believe this because he cited my favorite sociologist, Peggy Levitt, and her book that I've used in several projects, The Transnational Villagers. In general, he seemed to pull from a data bank with which I am familiar, which gave him credibility in my mind. Even though we interpreted the facts differently, we seemed more or less to agree on the facts about immigration.
Most of the attendees who had trouble with his speech disliked his first point: as far as impact on society goes, documented or undocumented status. (Well, he used the terms "legal" and "illegal," but the "illegal" comes from the manner of entry: a person cannot be illegal. Only an action can.) According to Krikorian, low-skilled immigration provides the real threat. Low-skilled immigrants come into a modern society and they are farther behind this society than their 19th and 20th century counterparts. On a federal level at least, documented immigrants "cost" the government 3x as much as undocumented, because of taxes withheld and services not available.
At this point, I felt like cheering. I was sitting with people who thought that pressing 1 on the phone for English was a hardship imposed by illegal immigration -- something I had thought was a joke made only by Stephen Colbert, funny due to hyperbole.
Next, Krikorian explained why mass immigration proves a problem. Our society can no longer absorb immigrants the way it used to. He did not make a distinction between the types of people or their attitudes in modern versus historical immigration -- also points in his favor. The first reason he gave for an immigration problem was my favorite concept in immigration: transnationalism! He transported me momentarily back to some of my favorite sociology classes as he explained how modern technology provides the opportunity for immigrants to live in two worlds. The idea behind transnationalism is that immigrants, or rather migrants, belong to both the sending and the receiving communities and are shaped and shape both. Krikorian argued that modern technology which allows transnationalism to happen changes the experience of immigration.
Next, he claimed that our society as changed towards "multiculturalism," and thus it is "unsuited" to assimilate people. We have lost our self-confidence as an American people. We no longer say the Pledge in school. We celebrate cultures, but no Americana. This means immigrants will, as far as I could tell, make our culture fall apart.
Here, I found nativism couched in the clothes of modern understandings of immigration. He sounded good, but he made the mistake of assuming that we have an ideal "American" culture, which is by default good and worthy of protection. Who can define this culture? If you can, explain to me why immigrants threaten it.
Finally, Krikorian advocated against "comprehensive immigration reform." We do not need to grant amnesty, nor do we need to increase legal routes for immigration. Instead we should ask "who should we allow into America?" what he called "zero-based budgeting." And he told us who: families (spouses and children of citizens only), a certain number of high-skill immigrants, and humanitarian refugees who have no other location to go and no chance of resettlement in their home. These groups would bring 400,000 immigrants a year to the United States.
Most of the attendees who had trouble with his speech disliked his first point: as far as impact on society goes, documented or undocumented status. (Well, he used the terms "legal" and "illegal," but the "illegal" comes from the manner of entry: a person cannot be illegal. Only an action can.) According to Krikorian, low-skilled immigration provides the real threat. Low-skilled immigrants come into a modern society and they are farther behind this society than their 19th and 20th century counterparts. On a federal level at least, documented immigrants "cost" the government 3x as much as undocumented, because of taxes withheld and services not available.
At this point, I felt like cheering. I was sitting with people who thought that pressing 1 on the phone for English was a hardship imposed by illegal immigration -- something I had thought was a joke made only by Stephen Colbert, funny due to hyperbole.
Next, Krikorian explained why mass immigration proves a problem. Our society can no longer absorb immigrants the way it used to. He did not make a distinction between the types of people or their attitudes in modern versus historical immigration -- also points in his favor. The first reason he gave for an immigration problem was my favorite concept in immigration: transnationalism! He transported me momentarily back to some of my favorite sociology classes as he explained how modern technology provides the opportunity for immigrants to live in two worlds. The idea behind transnationalism is that immigrants, or rather migrants, belong to both the sending and the receiving communities and are shaped and shape both. Krikorian argued that modern technology which allows transnationalism to happen changes the experience of immigration.
Next, he claimed that our society as changed towards "multiculturalism," and thus it is "unsuited" to assimilate people. We have lost our self-confidence as an American people. We no longer say the Pledge in school. We celebrate cultures, but no Americana. This means immigrants will, as far as I could tell, make our culture fall apart.
Here, I found nativism couched in the clothes of modern understandings of immigration. He sounded good, but he made the mistake of assuming that we have an ideal "American" culture, which is by default good and worthy of protection. Who can define this culture? If you can, explain to me why immigrants threaten it.
Finally, Krikorian advocated against "comprehensive immigration reform." We do not need to grant amnesty, nor do we need to increase legal routes for immigration. Instead we should ask "who should we allow into America?" what he called "zero-based budgeting." And he told us who: families (spouses and children of citizens only), a certain number of high-skill immigrants, and humanitarian refugees who have no other location to go and no chance of resettlement in their home. These groups would bring 400,000 immigrants a year to the United States.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Eagle Forum, Day 2
Day Two, Phyllis finally brought out the intellectuals. After a brief speaker from Clare Boothe Luce, who emphasized the bias of institutions of higher education with the confidence of a person who knows her audience supports her, we had a host of speakers who, while supporting different views and agendas than me, at least engaged us intellectually. I would have enjoyed sitting down with each of them of a conversation, which unfortunately, was not possible, because I always wanted to hear the next speaker.
First, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (Ph. D Econ.) spoke about traditional marriage. I agreed with and respected the first part of her speech, other than a slip up where she implied that the "alternative to marriage" is worse than an abusive relationship. (It was just a misphrasing. She clearly meant that there is a greater chance of being abused in cohabitation than marriage.) She explained that marriage has an "integrative function": it joins men to women and children; it joins the functions of biological, emotion, social, and legal parenthood; and it joins love, sex, and child-rearing. The man and woman come together naturally to make babies. Once there is a baby, the woman is "naturally" bonded and "the father is the problem." Essentially, marriage makes men stick around.
Okay, I'm following you thus far, Dr. Morse. She touched briefly on two "organic" functions of sexuality, the unitive and procreative aspects, and explained how contraception and IVF each separate these functions. In a bit of humor, she added that in her opinion, IVF is "a bit like skipping dessert and going straight for the brussel sprouts." I'm not sure how pro-life it is to compare children to brussel sprouts, but it got a laugh.
Next, she tackled "their" point of view. The left apparently wants to take over private lives. Marxism, in its creation myth, harkens back to primitive communism and communal marriage, and the left wants to bring us into a socialist age by bringing about the downfall of marriage.
At the center of this evil, she narrowed in on two threats: no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. No fault divorce, Dr. Morse explained, gives the government control of our lives. It functions to separate someone from their family, and, since 75% of no fault divorces are unilateral, this separation occurs against someone's will, often the father. Furthermore, the state becomes involved in minute decisions: instead of being in the bedroom, as feminists feared, it sits "at the kitchen table."
If no fault divorce starts the alienation of men from their families, "same sex marriage completes the project of separating men from their families." She lost me here -- she never made a clear connection about how two men who adopt a child might find same-sex marriage an impediment to connecting to their family.
The next bit enraged me. She compared no fault divorce, same sex marriage, and Roe. Regardless of the relative moral and legal bases for each of these issues, only one of them authorized the murder of millions of people.
In the Q&A two interesting points came up. First, someone asked more about same sex marriage and she pointed towards her lecture series, "Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone." I, of course, thought of the commercial and my ever-beloved Colbert. She pointed out that same sex marriage changes the motivation for marriage. Women will one day be having children via IVF without needing men. People marry people of the same gender for immigration purposes. And this is only the chip of the iceberg.
As the polite, under the radar liberal that I was, I did not tell Dr. Morse that people marry people of the opposite gender for immigration purposes. Not to mention political, financial, and lustful marriages. Heterosexual marriages have their fair share of problems.
I did ask how adoption of orphans, divorce due to abuse, widowhood, etc. affect her idea of the supremacy of a biological basis for bonding. She replied that these cases are exceptions, but should not prove the rule. I should have asked why she assumed the supremacy of biology for bonding. I don't necessarily disagree -- but I don't necessarily agree and definitely do not know the rationale behind it.
First, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (Ph. D Econ.) spoke about traditional marriage. I agreed with and respected the first part of her speech, other than a slip up where she implied that the "alternative to marriage" is worse than an abusive relationship. (It was just a misphrasing. She clearly meant that there is a greater chance of being abused in cohabitation than marriage.) She explained that marriage has an "integrative function": it joins men to women and children; it joins the functions of biological, emotion, social, and legal parenthood; and it joins love, sex, and child-rearing. The man and woman come together naturally to make babies. Once there is a baby, the woman is "naturally" bonded and "the father is the problem." Essentially, marriage makes men stick around.
Okay, I'm following you thus far, Dr. Morse. She touched briefly on two "organic" functions of sexuality, the unitive and procreative aspects, and explained how contraception and IVF each separate these functions. In a bit of humor, she added that in her opinion, IVF is "a bit like skipping dessert and going straight for the brussel sprouts." I'm not sure how pro-life it is to compare children to brussel sprouts, but it got a laugh.
Next, she tackled "their" point of view. The left apparently wants to take over private lives. Marxism, in its creation myth, harkens back to primitive communism and communal marriage, and the left wants to bring us into a socialist age by bringing about the downfall of marriage.
At the center of this evil, she narrowed in on two threats: no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. No fault divorce, Dr. Morse explained, gives the government control of our lives. It functions to separate someone from their family, and, since 75% of no fault divorces are unilateral, this separation occurs against someone's will, often the father. Furthermore, the state becomes involved in minute decisions: instead of being in the bedroom, as feminists feared, it sits "at the kitchen table."
If no fault divorce starts the alienation of men from their families, "same sex marriage completes the project of separating men from their families." She lost me here -- she never made a clear connection about how two men who adopt a child might find same-sex marriage an impediment to connecting to their family.
The next bit enraged me. She compared no fault divorce, same sex marriage, and Roe. Regardless of the relative moral and legal bases for each of these issues, only one of them authorized the murder of millions of people.
In the Q&A two interesting points came up. First, someone asked more about same sex marriage and she pointed towards her lecture series, "Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone." I, of course, thought of the commercial and my ever-beloved Colbert. She pointed out that same sex marriage changes the motivation for marriage. Women will one day be having children via IVF without needing men. People marry people of the same gender for immigration purposes. And this is only the chip of the iceberg.
As the polite, under the radar liberal that I was, I did not tell Dr. Morse that people marry people of the opposite gender for immigration purposes. Not to mention political, financial, and lustful marriages. Heterosexual marriages have their fair share of problems.
I did ask how adoption of orphans, divorce due to abuse, widowhood, etc. affect her idea of the supremacy of a biological basis for bonding. She replied that these cases are exceptions, but should not prove the rule. I should have asked why she assumed the supremacy of biology for bonding. I don't necessarily disagree -- but I don't necessarily agree and definitely do not know the rationale behind it.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Civil Debate
A friend (a real one, not just the Facebook kind!) posted this on Facebook as "one of the most intelligent and balanced discussions of the pro life v. pro choice debate i've seen."
None of the loyal three readers whom I have recently discovered should have any question where I stand on abortion. (If you do, loyal three readers, read the post directly below this.) So instead of expounding upon Huckabee's well-articulated case, I am going to marvel at The Daily Show.
Why is it that, outside of the Nicholson 2nd Upper bathroom freshman year and a few other late-night places, this conversation is the most real conversation I have heard about abortion? Normal "discussion" consists of highly-charged rhetoric being thrown from one side to the other in simultaneous monologues that talk over around and through each other. Yet Jon Stewart, who claims his "fake news" functions only as comedy, can have a civil televised dialogue.
If I ever become a serious academic, conducting research of her own, I want to figure this one out. What is it about Jon Stewart and, in a slightly different manner, Stephen Colbert that allows them to confront current events in a way the mainstream media will not?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
None of the loyal three readers whom I have recently discovered should have any question where I stand on abortion. (If you do, loyal three readers, read the post directly below this.) So instead of expounding upon Huckabee's well-articulated case, I am going to marvel at The Daily Show.
Why is it that, outside of the Nicholson 2nd Upper bathroom freshman year and a few other late-night places, this conversation is the most real conversation I have heard about abortion? Normal "discussion" consists of highly-charged rhetoric being thrown from one side to the other in simultaneous monologues that talk over around and through each other. Yet Jon Stewart, who claims his "fake news" functions only as comedy, can have a civil televised dialogue.
If I ever become a serious academic, conducting research of her own, I want to figure this one out. What is it about Jon Stewart and, in a slightly different manner, Stephen Colbert that allows them to confront current events in a way the mainstream media will not?
Friday, June 12, 2009
How to Use a College Degree
I have been graduated from college somewhere in the area of 4 weeks, and already I have used both my English degree and my Sociology degree. I feel smart!
What do you do with a BA in English? one might ask. I certainly did. Am I any more employable? Likely not. However -- it does make it easier to catch literary references on Colbert.
As for the sociology degree, as part of my work with Feminists for Life, I am trying to find some statistics. Which means I have been wading through loads of articles interspersed with charts and tables full of p values and standard errors and random samples or population studies -- even trying to makes sense of a couple code books to figure out if what I'm looking for has even been studied. I may be using the one class I would have elected not to take, but I am using my soc degree!
What do you do with a BA in English? one might ask. I certainly did. Am I any more employable? Likely not. However -- it does make it easier to catch literary references on Colbert.
As for the sociology degree, as part of my work with Feminists for Life, I am trying to find some statistics. Which means I have been wading through loads of articles interspersed with charts and tables full of p values and standard errors and random samples or population studies -- even trying to makes sense of a couple code books to figure out if what I'm looking for has even been studied. I may be using the one class I would have elected not to take, but I am using my soc degree!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)