41 Thursday, June 5, 2014 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com hic ffiidiigan 4a4WIV Edited and managed by students at ithe University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu Thursday, June 5, 2014 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 9 Why I hate religion New Maleficent still just a fairytale IAN DILLINGHAM EDITOR IN CHIEF AARICA MARSH EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR STEPHANIE SHENOUDA MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Supporting social science Congress must consider social sciences' importance with budget creation Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation to increase the National Science Foundation's budget to $7.4 billion for the 2015 fiscal year, a 3.2 percent increase against the Obama administration's proposed increase of 1.1 percent. However, before the appropriations bill was passed, an amendment was added by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to specifically cut NSF funding for social sciences research. While it's commendable that the House has increased NSF funding more than two times the proposed increase, redirecting funds away from the social sciences is a mistake. When reviewing the bill, the Senate must keep in mind the importance of research in social sciences and its impact on society. The greatest form of human freedom - and the basis for all of our other rights - is the free- dom of thought. The right to, believe whatever we choose is the fundamental foundation to speak, associate and act freely. Freedom of thought gives JAMS birth to new ideas BRENNAN and challenges the status quo, allowing human beings the courage to resist tyranny and formulate new solutions to the world's problems. Our right to think freely is what incites us to speak when we're supposed to be silent, to love when we're supposed to feel indifference and to do that which was thought to be impossible. As a writer and vocal critic of anything and everything I dislike, the freedom to think and express my beliefs is a constant source of deep personal fulfillment. I can say with confidence that I love my right to think and say whateverv I want more than almost anything in my life. I love it more than any material good, more than any object of sentimental value and more than any person. When you love something that much, it's logical that you would absolutely hate anything that threatens its existence. I hate religion because it jeopardizes all of our most treasured civil liberties at their root: the freedom of thought. Religion requires an individual to suspend critical thinking and abstain from any questioning of dogma, often enforced through the threat of eternal damnation, the promise of endless . paradise or both. If one does notbelieve, he orshehas committed anunforgivable crime worthy of punishment. If one breaks any of the religion's rules, he or she has compromised their fate. In some cases, if one even so much as thinks an impure thought, his or her destiny is in peril. Religion isn't salvation, it's an Orwellian nightmare enforcing thought crimes. The bookNineteenEighty-Four opens with its protagonist Winston Smith hiding in the corner of a room out of the view of Big Brother, scribbling his thoughts nervouslyinto ajournal. If he's caught, he faces imprisonment or death. Religion takes away even that corner where Winston can hide. In a 1969 opinion, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." Religion . takes ,away not only the bastion of freedom in one's own home, but the most valuable space for freedom that exists: one's own mind. Religion isn't a law that we are all required to follow. It is, in fact, protected by the very freedom I value so much. If a person wants to filter all of their thoughts and actions to appease something they believe in, even if it's something silly, that's their choice. Adults are free to lock themselves into refusing dissent and obeying what Christopher Hitchens labeled "a celestial North Korea." But what about children? Kids often have religion drilled into their heads by their parents as soon as they're able to understand, making it nearly impossible to later bore out. While religion is the willful suspension of critical thinking for adults, it's a command for children who don't know any better to ask certain questions. Grown adults are free to give away their freedom of thought, but some children are required to do so before they can make the choice themselves. To be clear, I'm not advocating for the prohibition of all religion by law. Nor do I fail to recognize that some religions are far better in this respect than others, some of whom hold very few unquestionable tenants. What I'm saying is that rules on what you choose to think, say and do should not be restricted by an illogical desire to pacify a mythic higher power. A person doesn't need to defer to a hierarchy that supposedly punishes "bad" thoughts to decide what is and isn't good to contemplate. While I love my own freedom of thought, what I love more is everyone else's. A democratic society is built on a free exchange of ideas, an exchange unfiltered and filled with criticism and creativity. Progress is driven by new ideas, unconventional wisdom and, above all else, dissent. Religion destroys a person's ability to fully think for him or herself, in turn destroying their ability to decide their own path in life. On a large scale, it can hinder progress for the rest of society. I understand that religion can be comforting; it offers a person concrete meaning in life, explains what happens when it's all over and gives someone hope they may see their loved ones again after they die. What it asks for in exchange is a person's surrender oftheir faculties to think and act freely. If you ask me, that sounds like a deal with the devil. - James Brennan can be reached at jmbthree@umich.edu. Ada clas. do ft "Ma be arei the cla ingBea but the are stil of cast and orchest There to exp type What I directe the wo: is his with cl bad thi The Malefic Tourist Disney why sh iptation of Disney Aurora. Once an innocent girl with a pure heart, she was betrayed by sic well-made, but King Stefan (Sharlto Copley, "Old- boy") and becomes vengeful and esn t reinvigorate cruel: The rest of the story is a tale of redemption, forgiveness, the mean- alrytale movies oing of good and evil, blab blah blah. "Maleficent" 's plot is so predictable ByKAREN YUAN thatthe Mayans could have foreseen Daily Arts Writer it. Luckily, the weight of this story doesn't lie in its plot, but in its pro- leficent" is a fairytale. It may duction. nventionof It's clean, unsubtle filmmaking ssic "Sleep- that exactly fits its genre. A fairytale uty" (1959), requires tradition, formality, and a bones of it Maleficent poetic cohesiveness, which the film 11 the stuff delivers. The first true love's kiss in les, magic Walt Disney the movie, later proving to be false, dramatic Pictures is silhouetted aod in shadow. The ral scores. second true love's kiss is a scene are things Rave and awash in bright lighting and sun ect in this Quality 16 because the love is real this time. of story. Another contrast occurs between I mean is that "Maleficent," Maleficent's reaction to betrayal and d by Robert Stromberg (from Aurora's (Elle Fanning, "We Bought rld of production design; this A Zoo") - Maleficent immediately directorial debut), is riddled goes- for vengeance while Aurora iches, but that's not exactly a forgives. It's tidy symmetry. Malefi- ng. cent and Aurora are foils of the most movie tells the story of primitive, basic sense - one in black, cent (Angelina Jolie, "The one in white; one representing the ") - how'd you guess? - from past, one the future. This sort of 's "Sleeping Beauty," and storytelling is exactly the type for e cursed the infant princess children before bedtime, with clear In March, President Barack Obama and his administration submitted the 2015 fiscal year budget to Congress for review. The proposal included a 1.1 percent increase in the fiscal year budget for the NSF. When reviewing the budget proposal, the House decided to increase the NSF's budget 2.3 percent more than proposed by the Obama administration. As the NSF redirects more than one- fourth of the federal support to academic institutions, it's imperative the foundation be well-funded. While an increased budget benefits the NSF, an amendment to redirect social science research towards natural science inhibits the NSF's autonomy. Amendment proponents assert that natural science research significantly outvalues social science research, but this notion doesn't account for the arduous process to receive funding. Those interested in NSF grant money must submit extensive proposals to a committee and receive approval before given funds. Over 40,000 proposals for research, education and training projects are received by the NSF each year with only 11000 proposals accepted. Given their experience in scientificfields, members ofthe selection committee are better qualified than congressman to analyze whether research is worth of investment. The committee contains valid reasoning for supporting social science research. Proponents of more science research cite that natural science constitutes research that is "necessary for economic growth." While natural science deserves substantial funding, this shouldn'tundervalue social science research. Scholars at Rice University studied public reactions to natural disasters, and this information has been used to aid evacuation plans for future emergencies. Smith argues that some research money, like $50,000 to study 17th century Peruvian lawsuits, could be redirected, so the NSF should provide reasoning for the research's value. While the committe is qualified to make funding decisions, it's possible that a few of the 11,000 yearly proposes could be efficiently redirected. However, if money is to be redirected, it could be beneficial to both social science and natural science research. If money is taken from social science funding, it should be redirected towards others areas of social science research. 'uits' remiere Season premiere that USA Network tries to offer. None of their series do this as provides reliable well as "Suits." Over the course of three seasons, this show has entertainment and developed into a highly enter- taining, well-oiled machine. character chemistry While it's not telling revolution- ary stories or offering anything By ALEX INTNER that's hugely worthwhile, it's still Daily Arts Writer good television, and in this case that's enough. There's something to be said At the end of last season Mike for television that is purely enter- Ross (Patrick J. Adams, "Orphan taining. It's not Black") left Pearson Spektor particularly for an investment banking firm great, but .each to escape the possibility that episode is com- him being a fraud wouldn't be petently made, SUitS revealed to anyone else. The pre- there's an inter- Season 4 miere follows through on this esting story Premiere cliffhanger, creating a new status week to week, quo where Mike and Harvey Spe- and, above all, USA ktor (Gabriel Macht, "The Good watching each Wednesdaysat Shepherd") work on different episode is fun. 9 p.m. starting sides of the same case. It does a This is the type June11 lot of the expositional heavy lift- of television ing, setting up the dynamics that Angelina Jolie as Maleficent messages and simple poetry. Symmetry occurs again and again in "Maleficent." A young, trusting Maleficent eagerly says, "Come out!" to Stefan, who is hid- den in foliage. Years later, a young, trusting Aurora eagerly says, "Come out!" to Maleficent, who is hidden in foliage. Both are chil- dren smiling at the one who will or has unmade them. Stefan kneels to plead to Maleficent when she vis- its him in revenge, and Maleficent kneels before Stefan when he read- ies to kill her many scenes later. Both characters bitterly exclaim the season will follow, with Mike and Harvey working on different sides of a business fight. What results is a refreshing change in dynamics. Instead of digging deeper into its premise and reusing the same ideas from the previous three seasons, it puts a twist on the show's central rela- tionship and concept. Putting the mentor and the mentee on oppo- site sides of the fight isn't uncom- mon, and "Suits" doesn't bring much to differentiate it from oth- ers. Instead, the series relies on Macht's and Adam's abilities to sell it. The two actors have fan- tastic chemistry, which makes their scenes fun to watch. Not only do they both communicate their characters' mutual respect, they each bring their character's feelings to the forefront (with Harvey wanting to protect Mike and Mike wanting to earn Har- vey's respect). This illustrates what makes this show enjoyable: watching this cast interact. At this point, any character from Pearson Spe- "True love doesn't exist!" at differ- ent moments, and both characters' faces are half-covered in darkness as they slowly descend into vio- lence and hatred. Stefan's face is most obvious about this - watch the lighting changing from the moment he decides to betray Maleficent to even after the deed is done. The ending of "Maleficent" attempts to subvert the fairytale genre a la Disney's last blockbuster "Frozen" (2013). I won't spoil any- thing, but I will tell you that the subversion feels tired. Expected. Anti-climactic. Only there because it's trendy and hip and another ban- ner feverishly waving for House Feminism. Am I giving too much away? The thing is, despite a poten- tially refreshing trope inversion in the name ofgirl power, every female in "Maleficent" is still romanti- cally attached to a guy. Their major character points revolve around romance. In the context of the rest of the film's traditional, ye-olde- fairytale atmosphere, a new spin almost feels forced - and it doesn't help that one of the side characters literally looks into the camera to clarify the twist. Michael and Harvey have a moment ktor can be thrown into a room with another and it will be a strong scene. This is especially true for the characters of Jessica Pearson (the impeccable Gina Torres, "Firefly") and Donna Paulsen (Sarah Rafferty, "What if God Were The Sun"). Each scene the two share together peels back a new layer in their partnership and friendship. Ultimately, despite the amount of exposition and the familiar storyline, the season premiere of "Suits" features the fun character interactions from a great ensem- ble that lead to it being the per- fect summer diversion.