george-bailey-at-bridge

This isn’t a post we ever thought we’d have to write.  

Ricochet is a labor of love for us. We envisioned it, from the very start, as a place for civil and witty conversation between and among our members and contributors -- a place for great audio content, political analysis, and even more importantly, cultural conversations.

But it’s also a business. And, to be honest, it’s a business in trouble.

We need more members. If you’re reading this, and you like Ricochet, and you’re not a member, we need you – need you – to join.  Today.

Every month, we get somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 unique visitors to the site.  Every month, we get somewhere around 300,000 podcast downloads. And that’s growing every month. We repeat: Ricochet is growing. 

But here’s the problem: only about 1% of those visitors are members. And that’s not enough to cover our costs paying our editors and technical team even the pittance we pay them.

We insisted, from the start, that Ricochet should be a business. We decided we wouldn’t try to cover our expenses by raising money from foundations. We should submit ourselves to the marketplace. That’s the best way to know if you’re reaching people or not; If you’re filling a need or not.

So here’s where we stand: unless we get more members, something closer to 2% of our visitors, we really can’t keep the business going. Our whole model is built on the 2% figure. That’s all we need: 2% of our regular visitors to join up.

In about four weeks, we’ve got some tough decisions to make.

That puts us roughly at January 21st, when President Obama takes the oath of office.  And yes, we’re aware of the irony.

If you’re a regular visitor here, and you’ve been putting off joining, please: join now. Join today.  There’s never been a better time to join: you get a year of National Review Digital, and you get to take part in our quest to win the country back. 

 If you’re already a member: thank you. Spread the word. 

The next four years are going to be crucial for our movement, and for the country. We want Ricochet to be there.

Rob and Peter

UPDATE: This post was originally published December 14, and pinned to the top of the Main Feed for several days.  We then revised the publication date to December 19, so we could unpin it and let it flow down the page from that point, instead of jumping to the fourth page or so according to its original publish date.

Barkha Herman
Joined
Jul '11

There is a general concern about the future of marriage in the conservative universe.  

In my experience, the rhetoric doesn't always follow the actions. One of my staunchest conservative friends is single and almost 50, and has never been married. Many of my very conservative girl friends have either never married or are divorced. Some are even single mothers.  

So, despite all the glory of marriage and the doom and gloom talk, is it just gays and polygamists killing marriages? Who is preventing my 50-year-old conservative friend from getting married? Why are so many of my churchgoing, Republican-voting girl friends not married?

Almost everyone in India gets and stays married. Why aren't they all registered Republicans?

So, I'd like to know a few things of the Ricochetti:

  1. Are you married?

For those who are married:

  1. How old were you when you got married?
  2. Is it your first marriage?
  3. How long have you been married?

For those not:

  1. Why not? (didn't you hear our civilization is at risk for the lack of marriage?)
  2. What are you looking for?
Fred Cole
Joined
Nov '11

I know I've asked this before, but it was over a year ago, so hopefully most of us have moved on to a new book. Also, I figured we'd all want a refuge from discussions of SSM.

So what are you reading right now?

Who is the author?

How is it?

Fred Cole
Joined
Nov '11

Pew Research and Smithsonian magazine did a joint national poll testing people's knowledge of science and technology.

The questions and the results are up and you can take the quiz yourself and see how you rank among the thousand people they randomly sampled.  The quiz can be found here.

We talk about science and technology here at Ricochet, so I thought this might be a fun exercise for people to take the quiz and post their results.

Stephen Dawson
Joined
Mar '11

Without getting into the substantive argument, who here regards themselves as a denier, and on what basis? e.g.:

1. I don't believe there's warming.

2. I think there's warming, but it wasn't caused by us.

3. I think there's warming, but consider it mild and best dealt with by moderate adaptation,

4. I think there's global warming that could be of concern, but don't think proposed responses are sensible.

'Deniers' are generally lumped by public 'warmists' as all falling into the first camp, despite the prominent 'deniers' generally falling into one of the others. Thoughts?

Spin
Joined
Nov '10

Ricochet is pretty high and mighty these days. Let's tone down the seriousness for just a darn minute.  

Post the one (one!) movie you think is the best source of quotable movie lines.  I'll go first.

Howellis
Joined
Apr '12

I was re-watching "The Cider House Rules" last night and I was struck by how great the ending was. It was so powerful mainly because it was so understated. As Homer puts the boys to bed, he decides to repeat the late Dr. Larch's habitual good-night refrain ("Good-night you princes of Maine, you kings of New England"). The quiet giggling of the boys evinces their deeply felt affection for Homer and their joy that he has returned to take over Dr. Larch's role as father-figure.

Another of my favorite endings is that of "South Pacific," when Emile, who had been missing in action, returns home to find Nellie taking care of his children. He sits at the dining table with her. Then, rather than embrace, or kiss, or say anything at all, they simply clasp hands under the table. It's hard to describe, in the context of all that's gone before, just how evocative that moment is.

I love both of these endings, and so I thought I'd ask if you have any particular movie endings that you love, and why.

lynn bateman
Joined
Aug '12

With all the arguments in the news these days, here's my $.02 on the subject.

After mother died, my father married my wicked stepmother and she had the locks changed on our house so that I couldn't get in unless she was at home. After her rebuke I moved out rather than disturb my Dad's new bride. My education wasn't finished and my new secretary job allowed only a one-room. third-floor walk-up studio apartment. When my brother witnessed my stepmother closing the door in my face on Thanksgiving, he and his wife invited me to live with them in Connecticut. They had three little children and the plan was for me to help out with the kids; get a job; and contribute to household chores and expenses.

Because my sister-in-law thought that the boy a few doors down was 'cute', she invited him to come and help me babysit on New Year's Eve. He brought liquor and champagne, so we got drunk and I got pregnant.

After three months when it became apparent that I was getting 'puffy', I decided to get an abortion. I really didn't understand abortion and in those days before ultrasound, people said the fetus was just a 'blob of tissue'. One of my co-workers put me in touch with a local doc known for abortion and his receptionist gave me an appointment, stressing that I would need to bring $500. In cash.

At a bus stop on the way to the abortionist, there was a sign for an OB/Gyn and since pregnancy hadn't been diagnosed, I went in and the doctor examined me. He confirmed my pregnancy, guessing it was a New Year's Eve conception, and told me that my baby was due at the end of September. The doctor, with an Italian name, started telling me about pre-natal vitamins and exercise and I stopped his instruction, telling him I was on my way to the abortuary. Becoming very distressed, the doctor emphatically told me that abortion 'is murder!' ''Don't do it", he warned. "You'll regret the rest of your life. Go and see this lady and she'll take care of you." He handed me his business card with a phone number and address on the back.

Confused and afraid to the point of being paralyzed, I took the card to the address and arrived at St. Agnes Home in West Hartford. Tiny little Sister Damien answered the door and invited me to sit down in her office where she fixed me a cup of tea. I was in tears of shame and Sister handed me a box of tissues. Full of compassionate humor, Sister told me "no one is here because of a headache" and there were about 25 girls in my condition. Gently advising that just because I had made a mistake with a boy, my life wasn't over. When I told her that I had no money, she said "Don't worry. God has lots of money."

Living at St. Agnes was perfect to prepare for childbirth. The Sisters of Mercy cooked three nutritious meals every day and made sure that we walked at least two miles after dinner to ensure adequate exercise. In those days, the Sisters of Mercy were a teaching and nursing order, with several M.D.s at the home in addition to the R.N.s in crisp white habits.
We were offered Mass every day, but it wasn't forced, and Father was always available to us. I later learned that the priest was also a psychologist. Even the Protestant and Jewish girls bonded with our gentle and holy priest.

On September 27th my beautiful, perfect little girl arrived. She was exquisite and I can still feel her tiny fingers grasping mine when I held her during her Baptism. I named her Bernadette Lucy which was my mother's name. Sure that Mom was in heaven with God, I wanted my baby to always have her own, personal patron saint.

Because years of wisdom resided at St. Agnes with the nuns, they counseled us all during our pregnancy about the inevitable decision - to keep my baby or surrender her for adoption. Since I had literally nothing to offer a child, I decided on adoption. My self-esteem was non-existent. Locked out of my own home, a brother very disappointed that I would get 'knocked up,' and my career prospects looking bleak, I was despairing for myself, and didn't want to take my beautiful baby into what I felt would be a life of desperation. But had I not signed the adoption authorization several months before her birth, I would have kept my wonderful child throwing pragmatism to the wind. The nuns understood a mother's love and anticipated a young woman's emotions trumping logic.

But when the day came for me to give my baby into the arms of a social worker, my heart felt as if it was being stabbed with a dull knife. I can still feel the pain when I think of her angelic face and tiny lips as I kissed her goodbye - forever.

My life turned out to be what most would call successful. Moving to Boston and interning with a seasoned newspaperman/publisher, I finished schooling and had my first byline published about a year after my child was born. But every night I would pray that little Bernadette Lucy was OK and adopted by a loving family. I tried not to dwell on her face and the way she felt in my arms, since crying myself to sleep every night was very unproductive. What was done, was done.

But after about ten years, I hired an investigator to find her. Of course, it was a fruitless investigation because records were 'sealed'.

Still remorseful about surrendering my own child into the arms of stranger, memories haunted me. It wasn't until I returned to my Faith and spoke to priest in Confession that I reconciled what I had done. Father assured me that I had taken the proper action and that my job was to forgive myself and pray assiduously for the child. He reminded me that the Blessed Mother had given Jesus to the world and He was killed in a horrific act of deicide. I should be at peace with the fact that my baby was living in a good home with a loving family.

But when my third brother was diagnosed with the same colon cancer that killed our mother and two uncles, my doctor advised that our family could be pre-disposed to get the disease. I wrote to Catholic Family Services in Connecticut asking that they inform my daughter. Although she may be susceptible to the deadly cancer, she could avoid it with diet and lifestyle. I expressed concern that I did not intend to intrude on her life, but wanted her to know.

About three months passed, I received a call from a social worker who informed me that my daughter wanted to contact me. I gave permission and in less than two months she and her husband brought my grandchildren to visit me in Virginia.

When Bernadette (who had a new name from her adoptive parents), walked in my front door and hugged me, I could feel the dull knife come out of my heart and the wound healed immediately.

The years in between saying goodbye and hello to my child were always tinged with sadness, but seeing her happily married to a solid, good provider erased the sadness.

And when I saw those beautiful grandchildren, tears, of joy this time, were more than welcome. They were GLORIOUS!

Giving birth under difficult circumstances is a challenge and can be a heartache as it was for me. But it was worth every minute to know that I didn't kill my baby and a lot of people are happy that she is alive. Her devoted husband, her many friends and brilliant children, just to name a few.

Including me!

Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Poetry

  
I need your help.

I enjoy poetry, but my experience with it is rather scattershot.  I tend to browse the stacks of my library, pull a collection, read, contemplate, then find myself either moved, amused, or befuddled.

This year I resolve to focus my efforts on 12 essential works of poetry.  One work per month.

Here's what I need from you ... 12 essential works of poetry.

Can you help?

Fred Cole
Joined
Nov '11

Can we talk about sitcoms?

A sitcom is:

A situation comedy, often shortened to sitcom, is a genre of comedy that features characters sharing the same common environment, such as a home or workplace, accompanied with jokes as part of the dialogue. Such programs originated in radio, but today, sitcoms are found mostly on television as one of its dominant narrative forms.

Just wanted to be clear about that.

I don't watch much TV, but I'm curious what everyone's favorite sitcom is. And more importantly why.

I'm going to exercise original poster's prerogative and establish a couple of ground rules:

1. You get to name two. One current (meaning currently on or within the last ten years) and one historical (meaning not current) sitcom.  

2.  I don't just want to read lists. I'm curious about the why. Sometimes you can't explain it, but try to put your finger on why it's a favorite.

3. Animated series count.

4. If you name a sitcom Rob Long worked on, you need to name an additional one.  Them's just the rules.

Pediatrician

Tomorrow, I'll be taking my daughter to the pediatrician for her annual check-up. Pediatricians these days, on the advice or requirement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, ask parents about guns in their house.

The AAP is rabidly anti-gun, as Forbes' Paul Hsieh notes:

[T]he American Academy of Pediatrics is not politically neutral in the gun debate. The AAP supports standard Left positions, including “federal firearms legislation that bans assault weapon sales and the sales of high capacity magazines” and “the strongest possible regulations of handguns for civilian use.” The AAP also recommends that parents “NEVER have a gun in the home” (“NEVER” capitalized in their statement).

Despite the fact that a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than a gun accident, our pediatrician doesn't suggest we "NEVER" live near a pool.

Anyway, in recent years, I've been surprised by the question (amazing what sleep deprivation can do to parents of young children!) and have mumbled through responses. This time, I'd like to be prepared.

What would you say to a pediatrician who asked you whether you keep any guns in your house?

Frederick Key
Joined
Jul '12

Howellis's great post on  great movie endings got me thinking about movies with endings that just fall completely flat, or worse infuriate; films that may have been otherwise enjoyable, but when you get to the ending it's so lousy it threatens to suck the enjoyment out of the previous 89 minutes.

One I sometimes see around this time of year is Prancer (spoilerish alert!), which Leonard Maltin accurately nails as having a too-literal ending. Throughout it is subtle and the magic hums below the surface--the movie is not really about the reindeer, after all. I keep thinking that if they had just let the reindeer go off, and the Prancer light in town be mysteriously restored, it would have been more satisfying and feel less phony. I'm convinced some ham-handed studio exec got involved. Well, at least we got to see Abe Vigoda in a movie with very few guns.

For something completely different, as much as I love Monty Python's Holy Grail and I get the point of the various jokes in the ending, it's still annoying as hell. Maybe it's because I first saw it in a midnight showing (back before the VHS, kiddies) and felt like I'd schlepped a long road for nothing.

A favorite frustration is the tacked-on happy ending, a mainstay of Hollywood since its beginning. Except in the early 70's, when I think a studio would have felt obliged to tack on an unhappy ending on anything, with ironic overtones--if The Wizard of Oz had come out in 1973, Dorothy would have been revealed to be in a permanent coma while half of Kansas lay bleeding and dead around her. Which also would have stunk.

So what movie endings annoy you?

Fred Cole
Joined
Nov '11

In one week, seven days, 168 hours from now (But who's counting?), I'll be taking vows and getting married.

Now, I'm not a humble man, or even a smart man, but I'm smart enough to know when to shut up and listen to advice, especially when it comes from people who know what they're talking about.

So here I am, asking you, my friends on Ricochet, for general marriage and/or wedding advice. For those of you who do not follow the intimate details of my life, know that this is not my first marriage. I've been in this club before. And my fiance and I already live together, so that special joy of discovering how to live with someone else won't come in to play.

Ricochet is full of many loving friends and people who are married (some long married) and I welcome your advice.  

Please share some with me.  I'm listening.

A week ago -- though it seems like longer -- we put up a post in which we described the current, precarious position of Ricochet.

It-s-A-Wonderful-Life-its-a-wonderful-life-32920436-1500-1074

What a difference a week makes.

We're happy to report that through a combination of things, the site seems to be on firmer footing. We've attracted an investor or two, we've signed up more members -- but more than that, we've realized just how central this place is to us and our members. Ricochet can't die, because we and you won't let it.  

We still need more members. There is still a lot of work to do to make the site better -- and reach further. Know that every single suggestion, every comment and notion, has been read and re-read and hashed over.  We're collecting and indexing them right now, in fact. This place is our place.  

To our members, thanks. Deeply.

To those that aren't yet members, what are you waiting for? Join today.

To everyone, a very Merry Christmas, which to us came a little early this year.

Rob and Peter

Valiuth
Joined
Apr '11
ariel

So the first part of "The Hobbit" is out in theaters. With the release of another Peter Jackson film based on the work of Tolkien, pundits everywhere can once again gloss the back cover of the book or watch the trailer of the movie and render sweeping judgments. 

The latest one comes from  Ruth Davis Konigsberg of Time Online.  Her complaint is not a new one. The Hobbit and Tolkien's works in general are lacking in a sufficient number of female characters. This makes them unrealistic and very unapproachable by women. 

The problem is one of biological accuracy. Tolkien’s characters defy the basics of reproduction: dwarf fathers beget dwarf sons, hobbit uncles pass rings down to hobbit nephews. If there are any mothers or daughters, aunts or nieces, they make no appearances. Trolls and orcs especially seem to rely on asexual reproduction, breeding whole male populations, which of course come in handy when amassing an army to attack the dwarves and elves.

Now, I know that Tolkien has many devoted fans among the fairer sex, so clearly there is enough in the books and stories to attract women to them, and I won't go on to detail all the important female characters that do exist or are mentioned. The critique I have is that this complainer is looking at the stories in the wrong light. 

For the most part, Lord of the Rings and the mythology of Middle Earth is written based around the various wars fought between the powers of Good and Evil. The focus on male characters is only natural in this case, as men have historically been the primary participants and instigators of war. If one where to write the history of European wars, Chinese wars, Japanese wars, or any other nation's, one would find the books filled to the brim with males. This is not to say that women were not part of these wars. Some were very involved and very important, but the overall ratio is highly skewed to the Y chromosome. 

Perhaps tales of women warriors would be more progressive, but they hardly would be more realistic. Perhaps the complainer does not wish to see a movie about a war? This would seem to me to be fine reason to show no interest in "The Hobbit" or "Lord of the Rings," but it is a poor reason to complain about them. 

So what do people here think about Tolkien's female characters? Are there enough? Do the books seem unrealistic because of their scarcity? 

Vince Guerra
Joined
Oct '12

My wife and I recently began reading more classic literature. Occasionally, we get curious as to whether or not there are any film versions that are worthy of the books. Rarely do we find any that are worth the effort.

Usually, there are missing characters, edited plot points, or just plain bad adaptations. The once exception that comes to mind is the old BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, which was excellently cast and practically a word for word adaptation. Are there any others out there that you would recommend; true and genuine film versions of great classic literature (especially any Dickens novels)? 


Joined
Oct '12

Greetings, Ricochet members. I have a friend who has only recently begun to understand the horrors of communism, and would appreciate any suggestions of books or films about the red holocaust. I have suggested Whitaker Chamber's Witness, Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, and Solzhenitsynn, but she is asking for shorter works so she can fit it into her busy schedule. Any ideas?

Also, she would appreciate the titles of movies/documentaries. Her two kids are about to head off to college, and she hopes to arm them with the facts. Like so many youngsters, they tend to get their knowledge from films rather than books. I recommended The Killing Fields, but then my memory failed. I would appreciate any help you can give this old man.

The Writer's Guild of America has released its list of the best-written television shows ever. The guild evaluated talk shows, daytime dramas, primetime fixtures, cartoons, and variety shows to compile the list.

“At their core, all of these wonderful series began with the words of the writers who created them and were sustained by the writers who joined their staffs or worked on individual episodes,” WGAW President Chris Keyser and WGAE President Michael Winship said in a joint statement. “This list is not only a tribute to great TV, it is a dedication to all writers who devote their hearts and minds to advancing their craft."

The top 10 are

1. "The Sopranos"
2. "Seinfeld"
3. "The Twilight Zone" (1959)
4. "All in the Family"
5. "M*A*S*H"
6. "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"
7. "Mad Men"
8. "Cheers"
9. "The Wire"
10. "The West Wing"

For the full list, go here.

So, Ricochetti, do you agree with the Writer's Guild? What would your list look like?

HeartofAmerica
Joined
Aug '11

Last week I received a cold call -- business related -- from a gentleman who is moving his company from New York City to Kansas City. After we finished the business portion of the call, he got around to sharing some of his concerns about moving to the Midwest. He's worried about the weather, specifically tornadoes. Where do you go? What do you do? You're a native, how do you handle the stress all these years? The Oklahoma tornadoes had occurred less than a week before, so it was fresh on his mind.

I tried to calm his fears by letting him know that most people have basements here -- or at least a good crawl space. Most people pay attention to weather alerts and plan accordingly. For a short period of time every year, it's just part of existence. Other than that, it's a great livable city and a wonderful place to raise children.

But it got me wondering: What if I had to move somewhere else in the country (or world for that matter)? What locations would I avoid or at least be hesitant about moving to? We all have our preconceptions about portions of the country. What are yours? Would the weather, or something else, be enough to stop your move?

Casey
Joined
Mar '11

What are some of the best novelty songs ever recorded?

What are some of the most annoying?

We'll begin with the best ever - David Seville's Witch Doctor

imgres

Although he's beginning to look tired and sound hoarse, at this hour Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is continuing his filibuster. My own overriding impulse all day his been simple: good for him.  He's standing up for civil liberties in a way that involves no back room wheeling and dealing, but a powerful dose of determination, courage and sheer cussedness.  

But is Sen. Paul wrong on the underlying issue?

Richard Miniter insists that he is. A fine journalist and a frequent guest on Ricochet podcasts, Richard just put up this post on Facebook:

imgres-1

RAND PAUL'S STAND against John Brennan's nomination as CIA director is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Brennan has a reputation inside the intelligence community for "failing upward" and would likely not be a stellar DCI. But Sen. Paul's objection-that Obama might use drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil--is actually dangerous. In reality, you want the president to be able to kill Americans who are attacking civilians without a court order. Does any body really think that Lincoln have gotten a warrant every time the confederates took a shot at federal property. Should George Washington have had to get a judge's approval to fire on the rebels in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion? When people take up arms against our country, they are making war on us--not engaging in criminal activity. If Sen. Paul's prevails, they will have all of the protections of criminal law--and the public will have none of the protections of military force. Hardly a good bargain.

Well?

Rachel Lu
Joined
Apr '12

It’s always seemed bizarre to me that liberals love to champion Islam. Doesn’t Islam represent everything liberals love to hate? Islam assigns women subservient social roles. It condemns homosexuality and other "sexually deviant" practices. At least in recent years, it has given rise to numerous violent extremist movements, and, even more alarming, a non-trivial percentage of Muslims seem to be supportive of them. Nothing remotely comparable has been seen from Christians or Jews in the modern era.

 So it seems like liberals should despise Islam with a white-hot hatred, but instead they love to defend it, to label it the “religion of peace”, and to champion the rights of Muslims to religious freedom (even while they remain indifferent to the other two Abrahamic faiths in their struggles for similar freedoms). I’ve often wondered about this, but yesterday I had an “insight” into the question. I use scare quotes here because I’m not certain whether my theory is actually true. But here is my thought: liberals love Islam because it represents their idea of what religion is supposed to be. 

In saying this, I am drawing mainly on my experiences living in the Muslim world (mainly in Palestine and in Uzbekistan), and on the numerous conversations that I had with serious Muslims there about how they understand their religion. I am not an Islamic scholar, so I won’t attempt to quibble with those who want to claim (as some do) that the religiosity of actual Muslims today is a far departure from what Islam was intended to be. This could be true. I wouldn’t know. And I recognize that there are limitations to what one can learn from the rank-and-file faithful of any religion. A person who simply talked to 50 lukewarm, liberal Catholics about their faith might get some very funny ideas.

 Still, the people I have in mind did not regard themselves as lukewarm. And, in my experience, living Muslims take a markedly fideist approach to their faith, meaning that they don’t expect that rational evaluation should yield greater insight into its teachings. The Koran should be followed because it is God’s word; to expect more understanding than that is folly and even possibly a sacrilege. Islamic resistance to textual analysis of the Koran is legendary by now. And it's also true that Islam has many, many concrete rules; unlike Christianity, it has little flexibility for adapting to different political systems. Muslims, in my experience, are far more concerned about external action than they are about internal spiritual states. Christian and Jewish attention to virtue seems strange to them.

One Muslim friend actually told me that she found the Christian focus on thought and feeling to be alarming. “I don’t want God looking into my head and heart all the time,” she said. “If I do what I’m instructed to do, that should be enough. My thoughts should be my own.” She was horrified by my admission that evil thoughts might be the sort of thing a Catholic would feel moved to report to her priest in the confessional. I thought that was interestingly revealing of differences between the religiosity of Christians and that of Muslims.

Corresponding to this, Muslims expect to be rewarded or punished for their religious practice in fairly external and obvious ways. Carrots and sticks are very central to the Islamic understanding of obedience and submission to God. So, for example, the pleasures of Islamic heaven seem to be straightforwardly sensual. My Muslim friends were tickled when I told them about the Beatific Vision. “You just get to look at God?” They wanted something a little more tangible, like a harem of virgins.

Islam doesn’t offer many resources for finding redemptive value in poverty or suffering. I actually think that the rage of the present Muslim world is partly related to this defect in Islamic spirituality. Their faith gives them no constructive paradigm through which to view their own material and political struggles. It makes no sense to them that the West should prosper while they, the practitioners of the true faith, languish under poor and corrupt regimes. Some very normal-seeming (which is to say, not visibly crazed or violent) Muslims offered this to me as a rationale for violent jihad. “How could God not enable the true faith to prosper? If only we had the will to fight, God would necessarily hand us the victory.”

This is the picture of Islam that I developed through my years in the Islamic world. Fideist, rule-oriented, and focused on the material advantages that God has promised to those who obey without question. Now, doesn’t this sound like the liberal vision of what religion should be?

 Of course, that still doesn’t explain, per se, why liberals love Islam instead of just despising it from top to bottom. I wonder, though, whether the story is something like this: liberals like to think of themselves as the enlightened teachers and leaders of benighted, backwards religious people who cling to their gods and guns as a lifeline in an insufficiently-liberalized world. Christians and Jews keep defying them by proving themselves to be far more rational than the liberal narrative would suggest, and by showing that their religiosity is, contrary to expectation, generous, fruitful and humane. This is maddening, and makes it difficult to bring Christianity and Judaism to heel. But Islam seems to fit the paradigm much better, and, conveniently, there aren’t enough Muslims around (at least in the United States) to burst the liberal bubble when they imagine themselves condescendingly plucking their benighted Muslim brethren out of the muck of their broken undemocratic regimes and their backwards faith.  

Is it plausible, or no?

ShellGamer
Joined
Feb '11

I contend that Dune (just the first novel, not necessarily the whole series, particularly the ones not written by Frank Herbert) best exemplifies what a science fiction novel can do. It is a work of pure imagination, but fully grounded in the universe we live in and human behavior we’ve experienced. Its imaginative sweep is astounding. Herbert creates high tech (shields, ornithopers) and low (thumpers, dew collectors). It involves intergalactic political intrigue and village customs. Before there was an Earth Day, he created a plot that revolved around a planet’s ecology. He fabricated a religion and an order with a millennia-long genetic engineering program. And tried to work out what it would be like to see into a future that appears to operate on quantum principles.

Whenever I reread Dune, I wonder how Herbert had time to write it, given how long it must have taken to work out all the details; details that, for me at least, never interrupt the flow of the story. Other than Lord of the Rings (which is not a science fiction novel, so don’t suggest it as a counter example), I’m hard pressed to think of a more impressive example of the craft of writing in English in any genre. But I’ll limit my assertion to Dune being the greatest science fiction novel, which deserves to be included in the canon of 20th century American literature.

What would be your choice for best science fiction novel?

chris-christie

Scott Conroy, writing today at RealClearPolitics, takes a look at the political future of Chris Christie and comes to the conclusion that there's plenty of upside. To wit:

If Christie does become the first Republican since 1985 to earn at least 50 percent of the vote in a New Jersey gubernatorial contest, he will earn bragging rights that could bolster an eventual White House bid. And with the 2016 cycle expected to kick into gear earlier than past campaigns, he will need whatever boost he can get.

While Christie remains one of the nation’s most popular governors in his home state, he has a lot of work to do to win back many conservatives outside of New Jersey who were turned off by his emphatic, post-Hurricane Sandy embrace of President Obama just prior to the November election.

Organizers of February’s CPAC gathering snubbed Christie, denying him an invitation to the largest annual meeting of conservative activists, and some key GOP influencers have expressed publicly their disappointment in him.

That blowback may have disregarded Christie’s well-established conservative record on fiscal matters along with his less well-known positions on social issues. Last year, for instance, he vetoed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey and publicly urged Mitt Romney to pick a pro-life running mate.

I'm curious as to where the Ricochetti come down on this. Is Christie a figure that you consider beyond the pale as a presidential candidate? If so, why? Was the post-Sandy presidential lovefest enough to get you off the bandwagon? Were you ever on it? If you're on the fence about Christie, what could he do to win you over? If you're a supporter, why does he command your affection? Let us know in the comments.

sawatdeeka
Joined
Nov '10
Will-Smith-9542165-1-402

Ever notice this? You'll be watching a film in which some big name actor was heavily promoted in the trailers, and then you realize that you are seeing the same character as you saw in a previous film under a different name.

I've realized there are several actors who repeatedly play the same people. One-role acting can work, and audiences are drawn in. Other times, it can be disastrous, as at least some of us think these limited actors just plain obnoxious and write off all their movies. Here is my list of one-role actors, and my evaluation of the degree to which the important people in their audience (i.e., me) tire of them. You are welcome to add to the list.

1. Tommy Lee Jones  He is the main actor I think of when contemplating one-trick ponies.  He is always the dry, cranky, and loud yet effective enforcement agent. In fact, the whole idea of one-role actors hit me when, after I had sat through Tommy's recitation of every site police were supposed to search to find the desperate Harrison Ford in The Fugitive,  I was then subjected to a trailer for U.S. Marshalls where Jones was shouting very similar instructions (I didn't realize at the time that he actually was playing the same character as in The Fugitive--I think.) Yet despite the tough exterior, in every role Jones plays, one suspects that he is eminently reasonable, possessing a heart of flesh under the stony expression.

Evaluation: Tommy Lee Jones' authoritarian yet competent and compassionate persona works for me. Perhaps I'd like to think that we have law enforcement in high and low places that, like the hardened anonymous agent in Men in Black, are duty-bound and sold out for the common good--and grimly funny, too.

2. Will Smith Speaking of Men in Black, Will is your go-to guy when you need an unrefined, unconventional, street-smart, and wisecracking protagonist. In these cases -- and most especially when the blockbuster involves aliens -- you don't need a great deal of nuanced acting. Just call up Will and ask him to be himself. He throws himself into what is being asked of him, bungling tasks along the way, but regularly tossing out casual quips like a charismatic class clown, with heart and persistence and wit defeating darkness and saving the world.  Audiences will flock to the film, and it will enjoy a long life once released in other venues.

Evaluation:I like Will. But I always had a soft spot for the class comedian. His formula works so well that even in darker stories like I Am Legend, featuring a character bearing horrific burdens, I saw the same old Will with his optimism and creativity and humor making the nightmare environment bearable--at least until three quarters of the way through, when my husband drew the line at the sad plot point involving the German Shepherd. Will Smith's persona is probably harder to pull off than it looks, and he probably brings more depth to his role than he appears to, which might explain his longevity and continued attractiveness to moviegoers.

3. Robin Williams is always the misunderstood but brilliant maverick, with a crucial and revolutionary role to play in a community. It often helps that his character is able to pull off dynamic riffs featuring a range of imitations. Narrow-minded authority figures play his foils, always trying to intervene and spoil his beautiful work. But since he is the one who truly cares and believes in people, he often overcomes his rule-bound foes--or, if not, is most fondly remembered and cherished.

Evaluation: I first realized that I did not like Robin Williams after I watched Patch Adams. It may be that his portrayal of rebels is so at odds with my careful color-in-the-lines approach to life that I just do not relate or feel comfortable with a character who challenges the status quo. Or maybe it's the Hollywood meme of glorified rule-breakers that I'm tired of. There is a third option--that maybe Williams is really good at rattling off impressions and fast-talking sequences, but not much else. Maybe that's why I enjoyed him in Aladdin, but can rarely abide him elsewhere.

There are more--several more--one-role actors, but I have to leave you with these three. Maybe I'll resume this evening.

Franco
Joined
Sep '10

I recently got Netflix and I love it. There are so many great documentaries out there that defy categorization, and I have learned so much watching them. Last night I watched a brilliant one: Bones Brigade, about skateboarding. If you are at all interested in business, cultural phenomena, sports and mastery, teenage boys and what they do to survive, teamwork, coaching and holding a group together, facing adversity and challenges, fame at a young age - this has it all. It is absolutely inspiring.

There are so many more! Yours?

-- Welcome Rush Listeners! To participate in the conversation on posts like this one, compose your own posts, get access to the Ricochet Podcast with James Lileks, Rob Long, and Peter Robinson, and get a free year's subscription to National Review/Digital, become a member of Ricochet today.

The Limbaugh Theorem is Rush’s explanation of why, according to the polls, most Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction but don’t hold President Obama accountable for it. Even in the midst of scandals, his job approval rating remains relatively high. 

The theorem explains that people don’t associate Obama with the bad state of affairs because he’s always campaigning, fundraising, deflecting blame, feigning indignation, and talking about events in the Capitol as if he’s an outsider and not the man in charge. As a result, nothing sticks to him.

During his recent speech about terrorism at the National Defense University in Washington, Obama amazingly set himself in opposition to his own administration. He talked about a “perpetual war” that will prove to be “self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways,” as if he doesn’t have any control over the situation. He spoke about Guantanamo Bay, where “we are force-feeding detainees who are being held on a hunger strike.” But the “we” he mentioned doesn’t include himself. If he wanted to stop the force-feeding, he could do it with a simple phone call.

Clearly, Obama has portrayed himself as an uninvolved bystander, and low-information voters (who Rush says don’t know what’s going on outside of TMZ, SNL, and Entertainment Tonight) have fallen for it. They don’t fully understand the issues or how Washington works, so they believe Obama when he says he didn’t know about the IRS scandal until he read about it in the New York Times. They think it’s perfectly fine that the president was MIA when Americans were under attack in Benghazi. And they don’t think Obama should be held accountable for the Justice Department spying on the AP.

Rush is right. These factors certainly shed light on why people can approve of Obama’s job performance while at the same time believing the country is in decline. But not fully. Not everyone is a low-information voter, not everyone buys the campaign rhetoric, and many people will freely admit that Obama is deceptively positioning himself as if he’s above it all. Yet they still won’t hold him accountable.

There is an intransigent refusal on the part of most Americans to call Obama a failure, and the explanations given are not sufficient to explain this phenomenon. The Limbaugh Theorem is not complete. There’s another factor that needs to be added—a very powerful one, one more significant than Obama’s constant campaign strategy and the gullibility of the low-information voter.

It seems to me that the root cause of Americans not holding Obama responsible is the very same thing that got him elected: white guilt, something recognized not only by Rush after the 2008 election, but by writers and pundits from George Will to Ann Coulter.

“White guilt has produced mistake after mistake, including the 2008 election when more whites voted for Obama than voted for a Democrat for a decade,” Coulter said.

Lloyd Marcus, a writer at the American Thinker, agreed and pleaded with white Americans before the 2012 election “not to fall for the white-guilt thing ... again!”

Shelby Steele, in his book “White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era,” called white guilt “perhaps the greatest source of political, social and cultural power in the late twentieth century.”

[I] know [white guilt] to be something very specific: the vacuum of moral authority that comes from simply knowing that one's race is associated with racism. Whites (and American institutions) must acknowledge historical racism to show themselves redeemed of it, but once they acknowledge it they lose moral authority over everything having to do with race, equality, social justice, poverty, and so on. They step into a void of vulnerability. The authority they lose transfers to the “victims” of historical racism and becomes their great power in society. This is why white guilt is quite literally the same thing as black power.

The most striking irony of the age of white guilt is that racism suddenly became valuable to the people who had suffered it. Racism, in the age of racism, had only brought every variety of inhuman treatment, which is why the King generation felt that extinguishing it would bring equality. But in the age of white guilt, racism was also evidence of white wrongdoing and, therefore, evidence of white obligation to blacks.

If it is true that the primary causal factor in the Limbaugh Theorem is white guilt, then trying to pin anything on Obama by continually countering his campaign rhetoric or even trying to convince uninformed citizens that Obama, as the CEO and Commander-in-Chief, must be responsible for what goes on in Washington is useless. People, from low-information voters to high, just aren’t ready to abandon their guilt. They cling to it as a means of redemption, their perceptions informed by it, the truth shaded by it.

It’s time to accept the fact that when it comes to Obama, we won’t make a dent in America’s unwillingness or downright inability to accuse him of failure. Obama will never be held responsible because whites are lost in what Steele called “a void of vulnerability.”

Voters bound by white guilt have unwittingly forsaken any “moral authority” by which to judge Obama. He holds all the cards and carries all the power, not just because he is a clever man who avoids questions while on the campaign trail, or because people are ignorant, or even because he is a quintessential liberal adored by statists everywhere, but because he is, first and foremost, a “victim” of historical racism.

Given this fact, I believe it is futile to try to inform people that Obama is, indeed, responsible. Therefore, we should just stop talking about him. Marginalize him. Ignore him. Not that we give up the fight. Instead, we need to refocus it. Every time we’re tempted to say “Obama,” we need to insert “Democrats.”

The Democrats are responsible for the IRS scandal; the Democrats are behind the AP scandal; the Democrats left Americans to die in Benghazi; the Democrats are siphoning away our freedoms through the dreaded “Affordable” Care Act; the Democrats are responsible for inflation, failures in education, higher taxes, and unemployment.

Accusations of wrongdoing, of incompetence, of failure, will never stick to Obama. But they will stick to the Democrats. And let’s face it, they’re the ones we’ll be dealing with for years to come, not Barack Obama.

Bereket Kelile
Joined
Oct '10
BenCarsonScrubs_large

Dr. Benjamin Carson is an incredible man with a fascinating life story, about which a movie was made starring Cuba Gooding Jr.

He is one of the most accomplished, talented neurosurgeons in the country. He came from a humble background with an illiterate mother (she dropped out of school in the 3rd grade) raising him and his brother under difficult circumstances. His violent temper had him on the way to a dark future until his mother intervened. She wouldn’t let the kids watch much TV and required them to write reports on 2 books from the library every week. This eventually turned Carson around. He went on to to earn a B. A. in psychology from Yale.

Carson eventually became a groundbreaking surgeon. He was the first to successfully separate twins who were conjoined at the tops of their heads. He was also the first to operate on adult conjoined twins with success. The operation took place in Singapore in 2003 with over 100 medical personnel and it lasted 52 hours. Basically, he is awesome.

All this does not do justice to his biography but it is important to know in order to appreciate his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast today, where President Obama was listening from mere feet away. These two men are complete opposites. Both men grew up with single moms under difficult circumstances, although Carson’s family may have been poorer.  By the time they reach adulthood, however, they had taken divergent ideological paths.

In this short clip, Carson goes right to the heart of Obama’s worldview and dismantles it with a smile and cheerful tone. What’s even better is how indirect he is about it, though the President is sitting only a few feet away. Watch how Carson walks this tightrope and how Obama reacts (also keep an eye out for the priceless look on Senator Jeff Sessions' face).

 

I was struck by the fact that the audience welcomed Dr. Carson’s remarks. It seemed to add to the suspense of it all. I think he provides a great example to the GOP on how to convey their message in a winsome way. Senator Sessions seems to have been paying attention and I hope his colleagues do too. 

For those who are interested, here is the full speech:

1967mustangman
Joined
Apr '11

There are some songs I just love even though the lyrics are depressing, raunchy, or just plain bad. Most of the time, I am really just listening to the tune and not the words.

This has surprised me a couple of times recently. The Shins' song "New Slang", for instance, is really depressing when you read the lyrics. I'm pretty sure that my current earwig -- "Rhythm of Love" by The Plain White T's -- celebrates one-night stands. So my question to the Ricochet community is: Are there any songs out there that you love despite the lyrics?

Casey
Joined
Mar '11

About two years ago, Claire Berlinski asked us "Has Ricochet Changed Your Mind About Anything?"

New ideas

This is an interesting question for all of us but I'd like to ask it (and other questions) of the left-siders - those who are immersed in and connected to the political world.

 - Has Ricochet changed your mind about anything?

 - How has your participation on Ricochet changed the way you think about issues? Perceive issues? What issues?

 - How has your participation on Ricochet changed your work off Ricochet?
  

 - What do you think Ricochet has done/is doing for conservatism? For the Republican party?

 And a special question for the founders of this mental feast:

Is Ricochet having the impact you hoped for?  (particularly among your hot shot, fancy pants dinner pals)

Loading
Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In