Kudos to the ever-intrepid Mr. Edroso of alicublog for steering me to a gem of both poor usage and my favorite kind of dumb, the multi-leveled. A would-be screenwriter, Barbara Nicolosi, in a piece called “Exposing Euthanasia Through the Arts” (“What’s that even mean?” you might ask; like they say, read the whole thing, IF YOU DARE; it does become clear) asks the burning question “How many parents realized, when you sent your teenagers to James Cameron’s latest 3D extravaganza Sanctum (2011), that there was a matter-of-fact mercy killing of four characters at the end?” Well, okay, “a” “mercy killing” of “four characters” is, I think, actually, four “killings,” but never mind that, or the other thing, but the actual answer to the question is, “Not that many, I guess, and who cares, because Sanctum didn’t even make back its production budget of $30 million, which means the indoctrination of our teens into mercy-killing degenerates is really going quite poorly. Also, on what planet these days to parents ‘send’ their teenagers to the movies? Is Riverdale of the Archie comics a real place and I don’t know about it? Seriously?”
It gets even more exciting, with Nicolosi citing four other feature films made between 1996 and 2004 and concluding, “The evidence is undeniable: Somewhere in the middle of the Terri Schiavo tragedy, Hollywood and the cultural left climbed aboard the latest human-killing bandwagon and have since thrown the weight of their talent and creativity behind it.” Five films, and that HBO Kevorkian thing. “The weight” of Hollywood and the cultural left’s talent and creativity. Yeah.
Since I’m on the culture war topic, I will note here that while it’s very unlikely that I shall read David Mamet’s The Secret Knowledge, I did read my colleague Kurt Loder’s approving review of it and cocked an eyebrow at Kurt’s observation “[r]eaders on both sides of Mamet’s current political stance can take issue with his social conservatism. He is, among other things, an unbending proponent of traditional gender arrangements […]” This strikes me as funny solely because Nick Tosches once (adopting the voice of Robert Stack adopting the voice of Eliot Ness, but still) referred to Mamet as “that half-fruit playwright.” Doesn’t take much to amuse me, I know.
I wonder what Barbara makes of the “human-killing bandwagon” called war. Rather more people die for real because of that than in these films she has such problems with.
But, James, they don’t die in a merciful way. That seems to be the flaw in your logic right there.
Crisis Magazine, it should be known, is a monthly conservative Catholic journal started by Michael Novak and published until recently by one Deal W. Hudson, a regular visitor to George Bush’s White House with a prominent position on the RNC, until the publication of an investigative piece in the liberal Catholic journal The National Catholic Reporter which prompted his resignation. Apart from the bullying tactics you would associate with such a powerhouse in the Catholic and Republican hierarchies, he is also a world class hypocrite who took advantage of one of his more vulnerable Fordham students in the 90s but, of course, got on the morality bandwagon during the Lewinsky affair. “No one regrets my past mistakes more than I do,” he wrote in the National Review, in an attempt to get the jump on the NCR story. “[The Fordham incident] was now being dug up, I believe, for political reasons — in an attempt to undermine the causes I have fought for: the defense of Church teachings on life, the priesthood, the authority of the pope, and the need for faithful Catholic participation in politics.” Quite a piece of work, this guy.
Wow, great find. Hard to choose, but, here it goes, my favourite line:
“We make short films for the highly influential festival circuit about the infinite blessings that come through suffering.”
Gah. I’m fond of “parapledgic hero played by handsome star.” It’s like an Onion headline.
Has anyone steered you to this gem yet?
http://vimeo.com/24595172
“Five films, and that HBO Kevorkian thing. ‘The weight’ of Hollywood and the cultural left’s talent and creativity. Yeah.”
As long as your readers don’t go back and read Nicolosi’s piece, and see that she also cites comparatively recent episodes of “House,” “ER,” “Law & Order,” “Nurse Jackie” and “Weeds,” as well as a “comic take” in “The Simpsons.” I haven’t seen the episodes so I have no idea how euthanasia is depicted, but it seems rank dishonesty to leave out more than half of Nicolosi’s references and then mock the paucity of the references you choose to cite. And gee, I don’t suppose her examples could be illustrative, not exhaustive, could they?
Oh, and your cutting introduction of Nicolosi … the height of gracelessness. Any stick to beat a dog, hm? Yeah.
Being the astute observer that he is Nick Toches may be onto something re Mamet. Think of Christopher Hitchens going in reverse.
Oooh, “rank,” I’m terribly ashamed. Hey, I linked to the piece and said “read the whole thing;” I don’t know what else you want, except for me to completely agree with it and offer all praise to Barbara Nicolosi. So now we’re up to five movies and a bunch of TV episodes, holy crap, you’re right, you really turned it around. As for my characterization of Ms. Nicolosi, given the sloppiness of her work, she’s lucky to be referred to as ANY sort of writer.
Glenn, I don’t “completely agree” with Nicolosi’s piece and I’m certainly not going to offer her “all praise.” I understand it’s pointless to expect civility from every yob on the Internet in his parents’ basement, but I don’t think professionals should find it necessary to stoop to below the belt shots to toss off a strong critique.
“Five movies and a bunch of TV shows” can certainly be evidence of a significant pattern, one that may meaningfully affect the zeitgeist. I wouldn’t phrase it the way Nicolosi did, but it would be silly to say “Bah, five movies and a bunch of TV shows, nothing to see here.”
she must mean ‘exposing euthanasia IN the arts’. otherwise the title sounds like it’s a community college seminar
Oh, there’s something to “see there.” And the fact is is that when a film such as “Million Dollar Baby” comes out and gains some traction, its ostensible message and/or political perspective is debated vigorously (some might say ad nauseum) in various forums, and a lot of points of view get aired out. And that’s fine. And that’s also hardly the same state of affairs as the monolithic edifice of right-think Nicolosi would like to create the impression that the mythic entity of Hollywood is putting up, the better to kill grandma. And while I understand that “she did it first” is hardly a defense for incivility, the passage Edroso has the most fun with, “We need slogans like, ‘Make your insurance adjuster’s day; let him kill you.’ Or, ‘Everything we know about euthanasia we learned from the Nazis.’ ” hardly invites a response along the lines of “au contraire, Barbara.”
Look, this “piece” was written for an on-line magazine that is basically the Catholic arm of the right-wing propaganda machine, and “euthanasia in the movies” is just another item that was checked off – it’s not like it’s a carefully rendered essay in which the author felt compelled to build an actual argument. It doesn’t really deserve your respect. Here are the titles of a few other stories on the website: “Obama and Business: Irreconcilable Differences” (a red-hot issue for all American Catholics), “International Criminal Court: Justice or Menace?,” and “As the Family Goes, So Goes the Economy.”
“And that’s also hardly the same state of affairs as the monolithic edifice of right-think Nicolosi would like to create the impression that the mythic entity of Hollywood is putting up, the better to kill grandma.”
I certainly think Barbara can be faulted on citing the timing of Terri Schiavo as salient – whether causally or as co-inciding but related phenomena (all her movie examples are 2004 or earlier).”
But citing five films and six TV episodes (and there are several she didn’t cite, as this pro-euthanasia group notes – http://www.finalexit.org/assisted_suicide_in_the_movies.html) is at least evidence of something in the zeitgeist and whether it is “monolithic groupthink” that is not rebutted by the obvious fact there are hundreds of movies and TV episodes that are not about euthanasia. (Do we really want to apply that hermeneutic to every perceived moral issue of which one might approve or disapprove its representation in popular art?) What WOULD rebut it is a number of movies or TV episodes that are as explicitly anti-euthanasia as the one she cites are “pro.” Can only think of any? I can’t.
Nor will it do as a rebuttal to cite the fact that the thematics of, say, MILLION-DOLLAR BABY get debated when the movie comes out. That is true, but that is a fact about the outside world’s response to Hollywood. It tells one NOTHING about Hollywood itself and whether it is or isn’t pushing one side of that issue.
Fundies vs ‘The Simpsons’ redux… because Dan Quayle’s attempt worked out so well for him, LOL.
And so, Mr. Morton turns up to steer the discussion into the corner of “Hollywood” its own self and whether it is or isn’t “pushing” one side of the issue. Note the formulation there, the again-accepted notion of Hollywood as this (monstrous, of course) discrete entity with a very particular agenda. My preferred formulation would be to say that, well, yes, there’s a preponderance of films that arguably do come down on the side of, oh, not-being-anti-euthanasia. And what of it? This is “communists peeping out of my wife’s blouse” victim-card-pulling puling yet again, and there’s only one answer to it, which even poor poor pitiful Roger L. Simon knows is the only way, and that is, go out and make your own goddamn anti-euthanasia movie and try hard to make sure that it doesn’t suck. See, Ben Shapiro’s problem (well, one of his many problems) is that he’s not talented enough to do that. And Bill Whittle’s problem is that he’s too much of an, um, eccentric to pull off any such thing. And Barbara Nicolosi’s problem is pretty evident in her piece. It’s poor sport to make fun of such people, I know. I’ll try to do better next time.
Honestly, the thing that really caught my attention was the whole sending-the-teenagers-to-the-movies remark. If you’re that poorly informed about how things work, you’re never going to be able to storm the barricades of Hollywood. This is like arguing with libertarians; it can go on forever, because the things they are talking about are actually NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. And it ain’t because the other side is being oppressed.
Barbara Nicolosi and Crisis magazine (and Dan Quayle for that matter) are not “fundies.”
Glad we cleared THAT up. Okay, play nice for a while, kids, I gotta go to the gym and take some steps to stave off my future potential euthanization, be back in a coupla hours.
“My preferred formulation would be to say that, well, yes, there’s a preponderance of films that arguably do come down on the side of, oh, not-being-anti-euthanasia.”
To the extent that (a) “preponderance” can be construed to mean “essentially all the relevant content,”* and (b) “arguably” can be construe to mean “obvious to all remotely rational observers, though of course there’s NOTHING that SOMEONE won’t controvert,” and © “not-being-anti-euthanasia” can be construed to mean “anywhere from neutrality to all-out pro-euthanasia activism” … your “preferred formulation” seems about as cautious and tepid an acknowledgment of the reality as can be imagined.
*Unless you want to rise to Mr. Morton’s challenge and offer some counter-evidence.
“A great example is the gay culture. Homosexuality made an absolute intentional movement forward to get on the media and in peoples’ faces. They were going to change the way America thinks about gays by using the media. This actually happened. They had a meeting in LA with some very influential homosexuals and they sat down and they made a list of things they were going to do—a gay character in every television show, a gay character in every movie. They were going to read the scripts from the studios and give notes and screen them for anything that was ‘homophobic.’ The book THE HOMOSEXUALIZATION OF AMERICA by Dennis Altman documents this moment and the strategy.
“Fifteen years later would you ever have believed that we’d have five states with same-sex civil unions and one with gay marriage and last year 11 referendums on same-sex marriage? I was in Washington, DC, a couple years ago, and some conservative staffers on the Hill said to me about this issue, ‘Where did all this come from?’ And I said, ‘Are you kidding me? This was decided 12 years ago with Roseanne kissing her girlfriend, and then Ellen coming out, and then ER having a lesbian doctor!’ We are too late now because for too many years we made no response in the culture.” – from an interview with Barbara Nicolosi, “American screenwriter, script consultant and founder of a Christian screenwriter’s program” and “renowned expert in cinematic excellence and visual storytelling” (from her Wikipedia entry)
How, one might wonder, did a “renowned expert in cinematic excellence and visual storytelling” find herself shooting the breeze with “some conservative staffers on the hill?”
“The new thing is to care passionately, and be right-wing.”
I don’t think I “steered” the discussion anywhere, simply provided a rebuttal on subjects that already had been brought up. And besides, Glenn, you surely would be disappointed in me if I weren’t to comment on this topic.
Anyhoo, despite my use of “Hollywood” as a singular noun, I assure Our Genial Host that I do not believe it is either a conspiracy or a discrete entity (see here: http://vjmorton.wordpress.com/2003/08/20/liberalism-as-product-placement ) that “wakes up in the morning and asks itself over its first latte ‘what can we put into movies to help the left’.” Rather, it’s a self-selected (and thus self-perpetuating) culture of consensus that “writes what it knows” and reflects its worldviews. Which is one factor (among others) in explaining why self-consciously conservative “counter-movies” have been not very good or worse. (You would actually find agreement with Barbara on that point, BTW. I believe it was she who first used the term “Junk for Jesus” in my presence. And you know my opinion of Ben Shapiro as a critic.)
But I’m glad you can see that the preponderance of films about euthanasia arguably do not oppose it. (“Unanimity” I’d say, bar a counter-example; but why quibble.)
Other than the direction of the terms that indicate approval or disapproval of the phenomena, how is what Barbara said in 2004 any different from what pro-gay folks routinely say about “how far we’ve come” and “impacting the culture and making ourselves seen and known,” etc. That’s the whole logic of Coming Out Days.
Well Victor, on one level there’s no difference whatsoever – on said level, everything is reduced to warring rhetorical gestures. On another level, there’s a very big difference between those who believe that gay rights is a terrific example of moral progress and those who believe that it’s a threat to the institution of marriage, to the family, and perhaps to western civilization as we know it.
Oh, ok, duh. See, I thought the “whole logic” of Coming Out Days was to establish some sort of strength in numbers that might have the effect of fewer fairies getting the shit stomped out of them with no consequences for the stompers, or something. Whereas in reality it’s a giant insidious plot to TURN THE WORLD HOMO.
More seriously, though, wouldn’t you (Victor) say that a film like “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” is, at least, anti-euthanasia by implication? And aren’t there at least a few genre films in which a protagonist’s consciousness is shut down for some reason, and he or she has to communicate this before being unjustifiably put to death? Where ought one stand on Dallas’s “Kill me” plea in one of the cuts of “Alien?” I admit that the imaginative resources necessary to make a programmatically anti-euthanasia picture are formidable; you’ve got to create a scenario in which moral/ethical/theological dictums can engagingly trump that old bugaboo, “quality of life.”
Okay, now I really AM going to the gym, and maybe I’ll troll for some anonymous gay sex in the sauna while I’m there, ‘cuz I’m all about wallowing in moral depravity.
“More seriously, though, wouldn’t you (Victor) say that a film like ‘The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’ is, at least, anti-euthanasia by implication?”
Good point. And now that you mention it, so was Mark Waters’ JUST LIKE HEAVEN.
(Which, like SANCTUM, didn’t make back its production budget, so take that FWIW.)
Behold the IMDB page of a “renowned expert in cinematic excellence and visual storytelling”:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1728753/
Glenn:
Fair enough about DIVING BELL AND BUTTERFLY (which, irony of ironies, Barbara disliked) – and which I should have thought of since (Victor digs out his notes to confirm) the Terri Schiavo thought even occurred to me while I was watching and rather-liking it. And while I honestly can’t think of a film that employs the trope you describe (I’m not the genre-hound you are), it’s intuitive enough that it probably has been used.
And I acknowledge that since cinema tends toward realism, or to the depiction of the physical and concrete, that it’s easier and more surface-persuasive to draw sympathy for someone in pain and ill health than moral issues that can feel like abstractions, especially to the unconvinced.
But at the same time, does one really HAVE to make a hero out of Jack Kevorkian? Is it not a fair point that he could just as easily be portrayed as a villain within existing conventions, yet wasn’t (Hollywood films about serial killers are not in short supply). Therefore it is reasonable to infer that YOU DON’T KNOW JACK and all its awards-garlanding were (at least in part) ideologically motivated. I think that this HBO film — which was probably seen by more people than five of the other six feature-film titles we’ve mentioned combined — was really the catalyst for Barbara’s article.
Kent:
“on said level, everything is reduced to warring rhetorical gestures.”
… a critique of which gestures from one side seemed to be rather the point of your Wikipedia cut-and-paste. It looked to me like a bid to show what a conspiratorial fool Barbara is.
But hey, if your actual argument really is the substantive one – “she opposes gay rights, therefore everything she says related to the subject (and probably others) is the foolishness of Jesusite toast-gazers” (and please clarify if that isn’t) – well, is there really much more for you and I to say?
I won’t speak for Kent, but this little gem -
“she opposes gay rights, therefore everything she says related to the subject (and probably others) is the foolishness of Jesusite toast-gazers”
‑sounds about right to me. I mean, it’s a bit oversimplified, and I would argue why anti-gay rights is nothing more than bigotry, but I’ll let Lewis Black make the point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o‑id4GKsaQk
“I would argue why anti-gay rights is nothing more than bigotry”
No, actually one cannot argue that (and also there is no earthly reason to do so even if you could), because that presupposes an argument to be had (or an audience capable of reason). Bigotry (bigots) is the opposite of both these things. The charge “bigotry” is not an argument, it is an anathematization.
But good to hear, for future’s sake.
I don’t really care about superhero comic books now, but I am vaguely aware that they are more sympathetic to homosexuality than they were in the eighties and nineties, when it was very difficult to raise the issue. I don’t know if they discuss euthanasia, but since characters come back from the dead all the time, I would hardly think they make a very good case for it.
@ Victor; excuse me, I was trying to be polite. Opposing equal rights under the constitution for homosexuals is, transparently, bigotry. I would put forth reasons why this is so, but something so obvious doesn’t (or shouldn’t, if we’re being serious) require further explanation. You seem a smart enough cookie to grasp that, so I’m assuming by your comment that you agree.
@ Zach: Victor can speak for himself, but I would say that I am for equal rights under the Constitution for all American citizens, and that categories such as straight vs. homosexual don’t enter into my thinking on this (indeed, like many queer theorists I don’t put much stock in those categories in the first place). In that sense, I could in principle agree with your premise that to oppose equal rights under the Constitution for homosexuals is bigotry.
OTOH, I also consider it transparently obvious that the civil institution of marriage exists principally and essentially for the sake of recognizing and affirming a type of enduring union that occurs uniquely between a man and a woman (as well as the larger set of relationships that emerge when offspring are born to a man and a woman), and that to redefine the term marriage to include fundamentally different types of relationships runs clean contrary to the raison d’être for civil marriage in the first place.
That said, it should be abundantly obvious to anyone sufficiently familiar with the state of discussion at this time that (a) the above statement will be violently controverted by those on the other side, and (b) neither affirmation nor denial of this statement follows from being a “smart cookie.” There are “smart cookies” on both sides. It is theoretically possible to indict everyone on one side or the other of some grievous moral failing such as bigotry, but not, to me, plausible.
@ SDG – I also don’t put much stock in the stark categorization of sexual orientation, but I’d argue that certain categories become necessary in a legal system; ironically, it’s the prohibition of gays from legal marriage that renders necessary their self-identification as such. If a woman wants to marry another woman, and the government steps in and tells her she can’t, a category has been created, and the singling out of that (now) separate and unequal category is an injustice.
As far as the unique-ness of heterosexual love, or intimacy, or whatever you mean by “union” – I don’t see it, frankly, other than in the biological implications for childbirth. I can’t say for certain, but experience has shown me that gay couples can be just as good or bad as straight ones. As to whether there is some variation from the stated ideal of civil marriage, I don’t see a substantive one – other than, again, the aforementioned issue of making babies. But that’s all beside the point, isn’t it – the point being that, it isn’t the government’s damn business who cohabits with who, or does what freaky thing with who’s orifices, or who takes long walks on the beach with (or how they choose to make it official.)
All that being said, I have my doubts about marriage as a legally binding institution anyway…but this thread is already dangerously off-topic. I just wanted an opportunity to spread the joy of the Gay Banditos bit.
Getting back to the original debate:
I realize “euthanasia” is a hot-button topic, and having never been in the position of having to decide whether to make that decision for anyone else, I feel I’m in no position to speak ill of anyone’s feelings on the matter (my feeling is I simply wouldn’t want to watch my loved ones suffer any more than they had to, and if they asked me to end it all, I’d want to grant their wishes, but again, I haven’t been in that position, so I can’t say for sure). And, to be fair to Nicolosi, I haven’t seen those TV episodes (unless that episode of ER was during the George Clooney years), and the only movies I’ve seen she lists are THE ENGLISH PATIENT, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, and TALK TO HER, and I honestly don’t remember how Almodovar’s movie dealt with the whole issue (I’m very surprised ONE TRUE THING didn’t get mentioned, though).
But let’s talk about those other two movies. I don’t see euthanasia coming up at all in THE ENGLISH PATIENT; yes, Juliette Binoche is just there to make Ralph Fiennes comfortable until he does die, but it’s not like she’s there to pull the plug, unless I completely missed something. And as for MILLION DOLLAR BABY, how can anyone in their right mind see this as a simple-minded look at this issue? Hilary Swank asks Clint Eastwood to help end her life. Eastwood becomes anguished and says he can’t do that. They talk about it. She tries to take matters in her own hands, but fails. They talk about it some more. He talks it over with the priest in the movie (Brian F. O’Byrne), who tells him it’s a sin to do what she asks. Finally, he decides to help her die, and tries to act calm for her sake, but you can still see he’s in agony about it. And then he leaves town(I may have screwed up the timeline on this in a couple of ways, and of course I leave out all the boxing gym scenes that don’t involve Eastwood), possibly to try and find his real daughter, but also possibly because of how he feels about what he’s done. Of course, you could argue about whether or not Eastwood and writer Paul Haggis were overly melodramatic with this sequence (I wouldn’t agree, but I could see the argument). But my impression is Eastwood takes the issue seriously, gives us both sides (without being simple-minded about it), and shows us whatever his character decides, it’s a tough decision he’s going to feel crappy about either way.
According to Nicolosi, these two movies, and the other works she lists, are examples of Hollywood saying, “Run! We want to kill your supposedly close-to-dying patients with no thought whatsoever!” Surely there’s a way to say you don’t feel comfortable with euthanasia, or wish there were films more sympathetic to your point of view, without resorting to hyperbole such as this.
Lipranzer:
Here is a nurse disturbed by the very phenomenon you describe – that so few people saw THE ENGLISH PATIENT as a euthanasia movie and you yourself, on your own self-description, seem to have missed it – http://www.nurseweek.com/ednote/patient.html I will myself say, in solidarity with you, that euthanasia isn’t its worst moral failing – the whole principal story is a toxic celebration of selfishness-to-the-point-of-Nazi-collaborationist-apologia.
What I would say in general, though, is that Barbara is correct to cite these movies for exactly the reasons you cite in their defense – that the particular stories presented in the films represent “limit cases.” But that is exactly how propaganda operates and how moral degradation advances – by framing a moral premise in the most unfavorable particular circumstances possible.
Fuck you and your “moral degradation”, you asshat.
Euthanasia is pretty much ALL about ‘limit cases’.
Guys, guys, summer’s just starting! It’s supposed to hit the 90s this week! It’s gonna get worse before it gets better! Cool down!
… for now. (Or however you say that in Dutch.)
And once the social conscience is cauterized, particularly in an environment of “how dare you judge me”/“fuck you, you asshat” antinomianism, those “limits” become surprisingly flexible. (See also, how campaigns for loosened rules on therapeutic abortions in 50s/60s eventually birthed a general right.)
Sorry for continuing this, Glenn after your warning. That was a cross-post timing thing.
And the “for now” was obviously segueing off IB.
I’d say ‘asshat’ may not be an appropiate choice (too heavy for polite rebuttal, too eccentric for all-out name-calling), but it’s hardly a sign of the impending apocalypse. And it’s certainly not the exclusive property of one of the sides of this debate, since defending euthanasia in other sites can get you responses as heated as that, if not more, and would not ‘social conscience’ be equally cauterized, though in a different way, in an environment of “do what I say”/“enjoy the pain of the Lord, you asstelemeter heathen!”?
And let’s not delve into ‘what if’ straw men. Euthanasia is understood for limit cases. Period. It must be discussed within that frame (1.66?, sorry), it is moral as such, it is immoral as such, and not dodge the issue assuming it’s going to automatically degenerate into something else, because that is ENTIRELY a different issue. You start that, I’ll start quoting non-related ‘Our gang’ bullshit speeches. Understood?
Sorry, ‘Understood? sounds too much as a threat. Replace with ‘Deal?’
Dragging back to foo-foo films… It’s quite true, as has been argued here, that films more often seem sympathetic to euthanasia because film is fundamentally a medium of the external, and one with a strong inclination towards glorification of the individual. A suffering person who wishes to die invites the audience to want to see their suffering ended, and to see their dream realized. The Catholic anti-euthanasia position rests on the belief that one’s body is not one’s own, but instead belongs to an invisible god who imposed a set of rules from which an interpretation can be derived (after much, much extrapolation) prohibiting euthanasia. That’s a tough sell in movies—heck, it’s not an easy sell in rational discussion. When a movie shows you a suffering person saying “I want _________”, whatever _________ is, an audience wants to see them get it. The person who stands up and says “You can’t have what you want because the priests say you can’t” is the villain.
@I.B.: “It must be discussed within that frame (1.66?, sorry)”
I love you for that, I.B., especially this thread bids fair to be as un-killable as the Barry Lyndon aspect-ratio food-fight.
Victor, your question is fair. To be clear, the cut and paste is mostly from an interview she gave, and only the last part is from her Wikipedia entry. It is, you’ll have to admit, an odd description.
On a fundamental level, I don’t believe anyone can be reduced to anything. But can there really be such a thing as a nuanced, carefully considered, and humane anti-gay rights position? You probably think so, and on that point we will have to disagree.
But my question is: isn’t Barbara Nicolosi a Conservative first and a screenwriter second, her frank view of lousy “bias-correcting” films notwithstanding? It would seem so, given the fact that she spends time on Capitol Hill hobnobbing with conservative lobbyists, but maybe we disagree on that count, too.
So no, I don’t think she’s a “Jesusite toast-gazer.” But based on the interview, I can’t say that I find her a compelling thinker.
@ Zach: Not to perpetuate a tangent already stretched to the breaking point, I’ll pass on responding to the bulk of your comments, except to say that when you say “All that being said, I have my doubts about marriage as a legally binding institution anyway,” that’s pretty much the nub of the issue. A world in which same-sex relationships are legally deemed to be equivalent to marriage is a world in which the institution of marriage itself no longer has any clear raison d’être. Given the premise that “it isn’t the government’s damn business who cohabits with who, or does what freaky thing with who’s orifices,” etc., everything about marriage becomes equally arbitrary and ultimately indefensible: its exclusiveness, its insistence on only two partners, its vestigial taboos (e.g., incest), even the presumption that marriage means sex.
Kent:
Yes, that description of Barbara (surely not a self-one, I hope) is rather odd. More so if one is familiar with her criticism, as I am.
As for spending time of Capitol Hill, she has certainly given a couple speeches to folks gathered in DC in various capacities (I attended one of them), but describing her as primarily a political figure on that basis is reductive. I would describe her an aspiring screenwriter and practicing teacher (one with a definitive POV, sure … as with most screenwriters or teachers).
As for **whether there can be** a nuanced carefully-considered and humane opposition to gay marriage / discrimination-laws / military service / Scout troopers, etc. … that isn’t something we can simply chalk up to disagreement and “agree to disagree.” The issues themselves … sure. But the presupposition of that latter comity is an affirmative answer to that possibility. I’m sorry you give a negative one.
“The Catholic anti-euthanasia position rests on the belief that one’s body is not one’s own, but instead belongs to an invisible god who imposed a set of rules from which an interpretation can be derived (after much, much extrapolation) prohibiting euthanasia.”
Actually, it isn’t. Given Glenn’s and others’ stated exasperation on an OT thread, I’ll have to leave it at that lest I overstay my welcome.
Euthanasia would not work on this thread.
@ Victor Morton: Huh, I forgot to ask you what did you meant by this. Been puzzled on it all afternoon at work:
“… for now. (Or however you say that in Dutch.)”
Dutch?
Holland has been the world “leader” in euthanasia (and euthanasia creep) for about three decades now.
Their army’s full of poofs too!
Oh. And I thought you mistook me for a Dutchman and was half paranoid wondering why it could be so, is it good, is it bad, who else noticed…
Still, that gets me thinking: isn’t the Netherlands some kind of New Sodoma for right wingers? Taking their stances on this matter, pot, prostitution, gay marriage, Paul Verhoeven, etc., how come there hasn’t been any moronic/phony/is-there-really-a-difference wacko preacher calling for it to be destroyed by fires falling from the heavens? I mean, they, the Dutch, have it all!
You forgot their poof army.
Well, Paul Verhoeven at least made a TRIUMPH OF THE WILL homage, so there is THAT. Plus, their football team is awesome (and awesomely entertaining). And they gave the world Heineken.
More seriously, the religious figures calling for damnation on Holland tend to be (recently) internal, not of the Christian variety, and a bit more vigorous about penalizing those who “have it all.”
Yes, I read you Victor. “…agree to disagree” is an I‑close-the-iron-door kind of statement, the kind that only seems to be made on TV or on the internet but never in mixed company.
When I wrote “conservative first…screenwriter second,” I think I really meant “conservative activist.”
Thanks for reacting thoughtfully.
To those who have rushed to Nicolosi’s defense – have you actually read her article? (I just did). I mean, it is transparently a call for fundamentalist propaganda. Whether Nicolosi is interested in (or capable of) a reasoned discussion of the vexed issue of euthanasia seems irrelevant; nothing in the piece suggests that she is. In fact, she makes it quite clear that she isn’t even interested in drama or aesthetics, insofar as they exist to do anything other than persuade an audience of an ideological message. Why this is deserving of anything except dismissal or snark is beyond me.
Maybe I’ll send her one of my official “W.W.A.B.D.?” bracelets. (What Would André Bazin Do?) Patent pending, of course.