Most who know me well understand that I am a movie buff. I enjoy a good Hollywood motion picture of all varieties--drama, comedy, epic, historic, adventure, etc... I have a top twenty list composed of my favorite movies of all times. To qualify to be on that list, the movie has to have been seen by me at least twice, with no objection from me to see to see the movie again, and again. One movie that qualifies for my top twenty list is the 2000 film Cast Away, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks. Hanks portrays a FedEx employee who is stranded on an uninhabited island for 1500 days (over four years) after his plane crashes on a flight over the South Pacific. The film depicts his attempts to survive on the island using remnants of his plane's cargo, as well as his eventual escape and return to society. Hanks was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role at the 73rd Academy Awards for his critically acclaimed performance in this classic movie.I find Cast Away emotionally gripping on several fronts. The movie has the least amount of actor dialogue than any Hollywood movie since the silent film era of the early 1900's--yet it also won an Oscar for "sound" due to the incredible sounds that made the audience feel they were on the island.
The theme song is one of the great Hollywood songs of all time, and it is the only song played in those brief places where there is actually music in the film. When I first saw the movie, I was disappointed--very disappointed--in the ending. If you've seen it, you know that Hank's character is eventually rescued, but there is no happy ending. His wife, who waited for two years hoping her husband would be found and rescued, eventually gave up, and had a funeral. Then, a year later, she remarried. The fact that thoughts of his wife (and a small photograph in a pocket watch) is what kept the castaway alive for four years, only to discover that he had actually lost her after he himself had been rescued, caused me a great deal of angst as a movie goer.But time has softened my view of the ending. In fact, I now consider the last scene of Cast Away as one of the closings of any Hollywood movie. I don't want to give it away because of people who may have not yet seen it (like my secretary).
But the lesson from the scene, which involves a ranch and a road, is that after a few tough hit ins life, when dreams are shattered, you must keep on going down the road of life--and you might as well do it with enthusiasm and a smile. The scene is very simple yet visual, the theme song is played for the final time, and the viewer feels hope after vicariously feeling the pain of Hank's character. In retrospect, though I disliked the ending when I first saw it, I am now tempted to place Cast Away's concluding scene as one of my favorite movie endings. Why the change in evaluation? Because after over nine years of reflection, Cast Away mirrors real life, not fantasy, which Hollywood usually portrays. Disappointment happens--but we must move on. God has a way of working all things for our good, even those tough, hurtful, broken things of life.I had the opportunity this past Thursday to take a couple of photographs with my cell phone (the two below) at the very place director Robert Zemeckis and actor Tom Hanks filmed the final scenes. I had been to a funeral of a close family friend in Borger, Texas, and was heading back to Enid, Oklahoma on Highway 60 when I turned south on County Road #5 about 12 miles west of the Texas panhandle town called Canadian, Texas.
I had been told that Cast Away had filmed near Canadian, Texas and after calling and speaking to a very helfpul secretary at First Baptist Church, Canadian whose husband worked near the Arrington Ranch, I followed his directions and turned off travelled south on County Road #5. Sure enough, four miles down the white shale road, on the west side, is the Arrington Ranch (pictured here). The same family has farmed the this acreage of land for over one hundred years. Their working ranch also doubles as a bed and breakfast. It was here that Tom Hank's character, in the final scene of Cast Away, delivers the package that meant so much to him while on the island.After taking a few pictures, I went six miles further south from the Arrington Ranch where County Road #5 (also called Ranch Road 48) intersects Ranch Road 1268, which runs east/west.
It is at this crossroads that the compelling last scene of Cast Away is filmed. A choice to move on on down the road is made. The road Hanks took is pictured in the second paragraph here. After taking a few more pictures I turned around and went north on County Road 5 to Highway 60 and made my way back to Enid. The little side trip took about 45 minutes, and it might seem silly to some, but I really had a great time on the little excursion. Thinking about Cast Away's last scene, reflecting on the different crossroads of my own life, and contemplating the goodness of God during my entire life made the trip home seem really short!In His Grace,
Wade
75 comments:
Wade,
I too am a big fan of this movie. I loved it from the first time I saw it.
Life is rarely a ruler-straight journey. It is filled with zig-zags, loops, retreats, and grand pauses. For those of us who believe, these are teachable moments if we only let God use them.
I've missed a bunch of these - others I sat still and payed close attention. In retrospect, I've laughed, cried, questioned, railed, rejoiced, and had deep disappointment. But the lessons were there even if some of them were missed.
Thankfully, we have a very patient Parent/teacher/God.
Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow.
Gary Skaggs
Norman
Wade,
I almost wish you hadn’t made this post. The movie brought back feelings about the end that I didn’t like.
Sure, life does not always have happy endings, but I like ‘movies’ that do.
Even the end of the end held me in suspense, and I still don’t know what Hanks’ last decision was because I got mixed up on the crossing roads.
Ah, Rex, good endings sometimes leave you guessing!
:)
The ending still disturbs me. but perhaps that's because it mirrors life so closely... in other words, the ending is so genuine and plausible that it could happen to me.
Wade, Cast Away is one of my all time favorite movies for the very reasons you list. I've seen it at least 8 times. So forgive my nitpicking, but I must correct one small detail. Helen Hunt does not play his wife in the movie; they aren't married. He gives her an engagement ring right before he gets on that fateful FedEx flight.
Rex, let me end your suspense about the end of the end of the movie. Tom Hanks himself has said in an interview of his character in Cast Away that "He went off and made babies with that woman!"
Light,
Thanks for the correction, and of course, you are correct.
It is no defense, I guess, for me to look at engagement as it was in Scripture - actual marriage (i.e. Joseph and Mary).
:)
I was going to correct you too, Wade, but Light beat me to it. Chuck and Kelly were only engaged in the movie.
I love this movie. I loved it the day I saw it in the theater, and if it were on tonight, I'd sit and watch it. This year I was in Tampa, and found the DVD on sale, so I bought it. Maybe I'll watch it tonight.
I loved the ending, even though it was hard to take. First, I used to live near the place where the ending was filmed, and the scenery looked familiar. It was a classic Hollywood "man at the crossroads" ending. I loved the way Chuck told his friend that he had to do what he had been doing every day for the past five years--keep breathing.
I love the message of moving on--that is a message that many people need to hear. Things don't always go the way you picture them in your mind. When that happens, it is time to move on to the next chapter. It reminds me that there is only one thing we can really count on in life.
I love Chuck's character, his emphasis on time--tick tock tick tock, and how he was forced to re-examine his priorities while on that island.
Lots of good life lessons in this film. Thanks for reminding us today.
Is this a hint of Wade's crossroads moment within the SBC?
In Wade's own words...
Disappointment happens--but we must move on.
just a thought as I read the post.
I found one thing very interesting in this movie. More of a contrast. At the beginning Tom Hanks plays a character who is very conscious of time and of the necessity to do things in a punctual manner. And then he is marooned. Now he has all the time in the world.
I thought the ending was graceful even though Tom Hanks and us as viewers were devastated at the turn of events.
Wade
Great post. I love it that you went out of your way to find the location for the last scene of the movie. Sometimes we have to really look for the crossroads and even ask for directions.
I, too, like the movie but still would have rather had the fantasy, fairytale ending. Most of the time, that is why I watch movies. I have enough reality in my life. Every-once-in-awhile I like to escape into a good movie.
Even so, the ending of this movie is apropos for the consistency of the plot. Survival without bitterness!
Applying that theme to Christianity is something we all need to “set our face.” Most American Christians go through life never expecting to be a castaway from our life map. Then when bad things happen to religiously good people bitterness can take root. Most churches have a few bitter Christians in them. Southern Baptist’s inactive rolls are full of names of castaways. Life didn’t turn out the way they intended it to. Their spouse died, their child died, they were hit with a tragedy, they lost their job, health failed them, or any other castaway scenarios. God has disappointed them and now they are disillusioned. Most have trusted Christ for a way of life but not for life.
As a Christ follower we always find ourselves at a crossroad. We can choose the way of bitterness or the way of joy. We can choose the way of death or life.
“God has a way of working all things for our good, even those tough, hurtful, broken things of life.” I have found this statement to be true and if we “set our face” on life and not a particular way of life then when we become a castaway we can experience more than just survival. We can survive without bitterness and enjoy Christ in the adventure.
“Thinking about Castaway's last scene, reflecting on the different crossroads of my own life, and contemplating the goodness of God during my entire life made the trip home seem really short!” I think this is true literally and figuratively. Heaven is not far away!
Chuck
P.S. I really like the main character's name.
Thy Peace and Chuck,
Very, very perceptive comments.
Jon Estes,
There could be some of that kind of thinking in me. Truthfully, my desire is to just do ministry and love people. I didn't seek SBC service, and having experienced it over the years, I'm thinking the mindset required for it is a little different from mine.
I remember the long-ago crossroads we came to after my husband was laid off from a very high paying job in the North. We chose to move to the city where my parents lived for my husband's new employment, at about a forty per cent reduction in pay.
Within six months, both of my parents were hospitalized for different ailments, at the same time. If I had not been there for them, well . . .
But I was there.
And I remembered the teaching that if you wait upon the Lord, He will direct your paths.
I often think about how, when one door closes, another opens.
And how, at that time, we cannot see what is just beyond the horizon.
It is then that "Thy Will be done . . . " becomes a prayer, not just of mere acceptance,
but also an expression of the peaceful resting place to be found for us in the wisdom of Our Father.
Love, L's
Chuck,
"Most have trusted Christ for a way of life but not for life."
Sometimes a "mouthful" can be said in a sentence. How about ten mouthfuls in a sentence!! Thanks.
Paul,
Agree totally. I foresee a number of sermons which use Chuck's line. 10 mouthfuls may not be enough.
Gary
I, too, loved the movie Castaway, and the ending is also one of my favorites. I've always felt the theme of the movie is summed up well in Hanks' monolog when talking to his friend after his return to Memphis, where he said:
We both had done the math. Kelly added it all up and... knew she had to let me go. I added it up, and knew that I had... lost her. 'cos I was never gonna get off that island. I was gonna die there, totally alone. I was gonna get sick, or get injured or something. The only choice I had, the only thing I could control was when, and how, and where it was going to happen. So... I made a rope and I went up to the summit, to hang myself. I had to test it, you know? Of course. You know me. And the weight of the log, snapped the limb of the tree, so I-I - , I couldn't even kill myself the way I wanted to. I had power over *nothing*. And that's when this feeling came over me like a warm blanket. I knew, somehow, that I had to stay alive. Somehow. I had to keep breathing. Even though there was no reason to hope. And all my logic said that I would never see this place again. So that's what I did. I stayed alive. I kept breathing. And one day my logic was proven all wrong because the tide came in, and gave me a sail. And now, here I am. I'm back. In Memphis, talking to you. I have ice in my glass... And I've lost her all over again. I'm so sad that I don't have Kelly. But I'm so grateful that she was with me on that island. And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?
The ending pictured perfectly the hope expressed in those words.
I'm finding myself at a similar crossroads with choices to make. Many disappointments of late, but opportunities and decisions to go forward. Nothing has caught God off guard, nothing surprises Him--now we must follow His leading
REFLECTIONS
Is our country at a crossroads for the preservation of the dignity of our people?
We have 'choices' to make, and we stand arguing about which road to take. This is true.
Here is one road I hope we don't follow down:
"“OUR STARTING POINT IS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL, AND WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT ONE SHOULD FEED THE HUNGRY, GIVE DRINK TO THE THIRSTY, OR CLOTHE THE NAKED . . . . OUR OBJECTIVES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT . . .”
JOSEPH GOEBBELS, MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA, 1938 —"
The Nazis systematically conducted the murders of people with disabilities and of infants with birth defects. They did this in addition to attempting the extermination of many groups who were considered to be non-Aryans.
Starvation was the ususal form of 'euthanasia' for little ones who were handicapped.
This quote comes from the archives of the National Holocaust Museum's website. The Museum itself exists so that we will 'never forget'. And it is devoted to the dignity of all mankind.
Choices.
What is OUR 'starting point', if not the dignity and worth of even a single human being?
To what do we 'subscribe' as a people, as a nation?
Is it in our national character to care for those in need? Or not?
Or only in so far as it does not interfere with 'wealthcare'?
It is not strange that so many who decry the idea of Darwin's theories, so firmly apply them to the economic sphere wherein 'the survival of the fittest' takes precedence over compassion for the less fortunate?
Must we watch faithful Christians also kneel at the altar of Run-away Capitalism as a God-Appointed Way of Life ??????????
Choices At A Cross-Road:
Sometimes a little side-trip to places like the Holocaust Museum can help us to think about which directions not to take.
Wade, that ending has a special place for me for a different reason. The hill you see while looking south from the intersection is part of the farm where I was raised. Not much happens in those parts other than cattle, wheat, and natural gas. By the way, you turn off hwy 60 East of Miami and west of Canadian.
gmay,
Wow! How neat is that!
wade
Christiane,
The only way the Nazi's could finance their terror was to take over and nationalize business and industry. They started with the banks.
Let's take a look at how the Nazi's started on this venture in 1933 with the brilliant Keynesian tactics of Hjalmar Schacht, president of the Central Bank. He became finance minister.
Unemployment was at about 30%, so
he constituted huge public works programs funded by large deficits. The banks were beholden to the government to even exist.
Does this sound familiar?
He could do this because they were no longer on the gold standard and could print more money and regulate banks as they pleased. And he was able to keep interest rates low. With this was a quick decline in unemployment and a great groundswell of support for the Nazi's for 'fixing' the economy.
From here they nationalized all major industry for public works.
Take heed. As a civics teacher, you should know these things.
Hi LYDIA,
If I were the ONLY person in the entire United States that supported health care for all Americans, and everyone else was against me, I would still stand up for what I think is right.
Reason: for me, it is a MORAL issue. Economic and political arguments aside, I will always support what I think is the right thing for our people.
There is NO moral argument to be made for destroying the welfare of even a single human being because a corporation has to account to its stockholders or enrich its executives with millions in bonuses.
How many lives have been terminated when an HMO 'Doctor No' signed death warrants as he/she rejected valid claims for treatment of illnesses? How many?
And don't bother to get any honest answers from sources like FOX News, Lydia.
BTW, did you know that FOX News once went to court to get out of a law suit by claiming that they had the 'right' to distort the truth when presenting news to the public?
The kicker is that they won.
As a former civics teacher, I thought you might want to research information from sources that are more respectable: C-Span, for example.
As a former civics teacher, I am cautious about sources. But then again, I have had the benefit of training in resarch skills in poly sci at university.
A moral stand is made according to honor and conscience, Lydia.
It doesn't mean that I think other people who don't take that same stand are 'immoral'. Not at all.
For me, it is a personal stand. No accusations towards anyone are implied in any way. Please know that. People must deal with their own consciences in this world and take their own stand accordingly.
Love, L's
Christiane,
I don't watch Fox news because I do not watch TV at all. We do not even have a TV that works since the new digital boxes came out. I do not listen to talk radio, either. I read history.
My concern here was not for your view but your erroneous teaching that no government health care means we are like the Nazi's.
I was using FACTS that are in the historical record to show the road we are on is similar to how the Nazi's operated in areas of finance, public works and government take over of industries.
Exactly how do you think forced sterilizations took place? Heinous medical experiments? By a free market health care system in Nazi Germany?
Bismark first semi= "socialized" medicine in Germany and by the time the Nazi's came to power, the doctors and hospitals were used to following government dictates.
How sad to see the political issues of the world interrupt our little discussion.
How ironic indeed it seems that we have to disrupt and put at risk the health care system that such a majority is basically satisfied with to place it under the iron hand of government. Whever he is, even Hjalmar Schacht must feel a thrill coming up his leg right now.
Sure, this service is expensive. But government? Really? Is government the answer? Especially this ineffectual wave of blunderers?
How sad indeed.
Dear LYDIA,
I'm sorry that I made that assumption about you and FOX.
Perhaps it was because of this reference you made to me on a previous topic?
"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/
This guy wants total power over us"
Please excuse my assumption. It was wrong to assume that you watched television.
Christiane,
Here is the same type article from CNET
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
I could have easily have posted from their site instead of FOX when putting that forth. Shame on me. from now on, I will remember that you believe everything coming from Fox is a lie.
Incidently, I know a few guys over at CNET and they are NOT right wingers at all but quite liberal and they were concerned about this bill giving power to shut down the internet by Obama.
Hi LYDIA,
Unfortunately you referenced CNET, an entity connected to CBS/Viacom which is owned by another powerfully-connected right-winger, Sumner Redstone.
His credentials are even more 'impressive' than Rupert Murdoch's. (Frown-face)
"... Another big contributor to Cato Institute is Viacom, which recently acquired CBS. Consequently, CBS/Viacom is now headed by Sumner M. Redstone, who is yet another powerful right-wing figure with a WWII intelligence background [11] and apparent ties to OSS/CIA figures [12]."
So we are back to square one.
Lydia, sources are sometimes 'owned' by those for whom 'truth' is subjective. It is difficult to see sometimes who spins what. Even in the liberal world, this happens.
In the end, we must vigilantly learn to think for ourselves. No short-cuts, I guess. Especially if we want to keep our country free from those at either end of the spectrum who would take our liberties away.
Love, L's
Christiane said...
Lydia, sources are sometimes 'owned' by those for whom 'truth' is subjective. It is difficult to see sometimes who spins what. Even in the liberal world, this happens.
In the end, we must vigilantly learn to think for ourselves. No short-cuts, I guess. Especially if we want to keep our country free from those at either end of the spectrum who would take our liberties away.
"Even in the liberal world"? I'd say especially in the liberal world.
"either end of the spectrum" -- the spectrum is Right = very small and limited government and Left = very big and powerful government. It is only those who promote big, powerful government (the left, such as socialists, fascists, and communists) that seek to take away liberties. The right is, by definition, the end of the spectrum that supports individual liberties.
Methinks that your "university" training is the typical, prevalent indoctrination of the left. I agree that w emust think for ourselves, but I don't know many liberals who do.
And, like others, I am sad to see the discussion of the ending to a good movie turned into a political debate. That probably wouldn't happen, L's, if you didn't imply that those who oppose government run healthcare are like Nazis. Deny it if you want, but those of us who "think for ourselves" know better.
-----
Tom
C-Span respected come on...you can't make a statement like that and expect people to believe it.
What proof?
C-Span is TV---they have a bias
Hmmm... CBS/Viacom - employer of Dan Rather at CBS; oh, yeah - the guy who just cozied right up to the Republican poiticians. Definitely a right-wing plant with a GOP slant, that Dan. I bet he stayed overnight with the Bushes many a night, going on camp-outs, roastin' the marshmellows....
Tom, I'm sure it's okay for you to have your own opinion. It is a basic American right.
As far as 'like Nazi's':
when you talk about my opposition to euthanasia, are you talking about opposition to those who 'oppose government-run health care'????? Are you SURE about that?
I'm not sure I understand your reasons for what you said, but I accept your judgment of me as your own.
Come to think of it, there is something pretty horrific about any society that would allow a corporation to deny a policy-holder care that would save their life, based on a trumped-up reason, in order to save profit.
Maybe not in the 'Nazi' camp, but certainly not moral: to give HMO profiteers the right to hand out death sentences to policy holders.
But, you know, I think a lot of conservatives would agree with me that denial of care for profit is a violation of the right of a person whose insurance that should cover his life-saving care.
That kind of behavior has made some HMO's real 'death panels'.
Some things just make sense to everyone, if they stop to think about it.
Love, L's
TOM, you DO KNOW that Fascism and Nazism were right-wing extremes, don't you?
It's the Communists and the Socialists who were extreme 'left-wing'.
You DO know that, I'm sure.
Just a reminder.
Love, L's
The above discussion will fit with this post this way ...
An alternate ending of Castaway ...
Tom Hanks character after returning to life in USA, finds that he does not have a job at FedEx. All his assets have been disposed of. He has no health insurance. And he has a contagious diseases of which the western world has no cure. The effects of this disease are lethargy. So Tom Hanks's character can not hold a job while he is silently infecting the rest of the US with this disease (Oh wait. The disease must have already worked its way through once around USA). He goes often to Emergency Room(s), but the people there can not help him. So being unemployable and without health insurance, he becomes a homeless person. Since this is hollywood, the Churches here do not do anything to help him.
Please forgive my cynicism, sarcasm and hopelessness.
Hi TOM KELLEY,
I was reading what you wrote about 'university training' being indoctrination by the 'left'.
If you really believe this sort of thing, it confirms what I have read that there are many 'conservatives' who distrust formal education and do not seek under-graduate and graduate degrees for themselves or their families.
Personally, I would think that lack of education makes a person much more vulnerable to the ones who might use their power to prey on the uneducated. I like having an educated family. I like being able to call a brother who is a physician, a sister who has a degree in horticulture, a cousin who is a child psychiatrist, another cousin who is a lawyer with Sally-Fitch in Boston, and on and on . . . these people are nobody's fools.
And, Tom, good news:
my family are all over the board as far as politics goes.
So much for the theory about liberal indoctrination by universities.
Educate your children, Tom.
Teach them to think for themselves and follow their dreams and develop their skills.
An educated family is less vulnerable to predators of all kinds. Love, L's
"Lydia, sources are sometimes 'owned' by those for whom 'truth' is subjective."
Sumner was a big donor to Bill and Hill many moons ago. The truth is, Christiane, these guys donate to everyone ...just in case.
And I am looking for the virtues of Ted Turner...I will get back to you on that.
"In the end, we must vigilantly learn to think for ourselves. No short-cuts, I guess. Especially if we want to keep our country free from those at either end of the spectrum who would take our liberties away"
That is why you should read lots and lots of history from all venues. The FACTS are out there. (Especially with the Nazi's as they were meticulous documenters of everything.)
Then YOU would know that Nazi Germany had socialized medicine and you would not try and connect dots that do not exist as you did in your original comment about this matter.
That is how they got by with all the forced sterilizations and evil medical experiments including killing the least of these. The government had control of the medical establishment.
"TOM, you DO KNOW that Fascism and Nazism were right-wing extremes, don't you?
It's the Communists and the Socialists who were extreme 'left-wing'."
That would mean more government control would be on each end of the spectrum. That cannot be right.
L's,
No, I do not agree that Nazi-ism / fascism is right wing. It is a version of socialism. The idea that they are right wing was perpetuated by political leaders on the left after WW2 as a smear tactic against their detractors (basicaly they said that fascism was right wing so people would not want to say they were right wing). It was an effective tactic, and people have been asociating those with whom they disagree with Nazis ever since.
Yes, education is important. I have a good bit of it myself and encourage others to get as much as they can. But I don't think there is any doubt that most universities are left-leaning and have been for quite some time. I encouageb my son to thjink and research for himself and not buy things just because a supposed authority or expert says it, whether that person shares his views or not.
-----
Tom
Hi LYDIA,
I think Nazi Germany's way of 'eliminating' those who were 'unhealthy' was horrific.
They believed in a 'master race' of healthy Aryan peoples to carry out their plan for world domination.
If childrem were born with a physical 'deformity' or mentally retarded and placed into institutions, the Nazi policy was to 'euthanize' the children.
I can see no relationship between the conservative party in our country today and this horrific policy of the Nazis.
I am however concerned when good people look away as the more vulnerable people in our society are preyed upon for profit. It is flat out immoral.
The situation I spoke of earlier is about people who ARE insured, or truly thought they were covered, until they developed a serious illness and were told "NO" by an HMO official who decided, not arbitrarily, but due to profit/loss considerations to deny the individual life-saving care.
By the time lawyers might be hired (who can afford that among the vulnerable?) and a case taken through the courts, the victim's battle with death is often lost. A rich HMO can keep a case going through the courts indefinitely.
Nazi-like? Only in ONE respect: the Nazis had no need in their society for those they termed 'inferior'. Not everyone they labeled was gassed. Some were sterilized so that they could not reproduce. Some in institutions were given shots to 'euthanize' them, or, if very small, were starved to death.
Then what IS the connection?
The connection is the respect of a society for the value of even a single human life.
The Nazis didn't have that respect.
I hope we don't go as far down the road as they did in denying help to the weakest among us. Some have already perished from HMO abuse.
If we can, we must at least prevent profiteers from abusing those who have health-care already.
If we don't, more innocent people will be sacrificed on the altar of run-away greed.
The Nazis counted on fear and intimidation to get their way. The HMO's count on lobbyists, and spin, and on the apathy of those who say 'the majority of us are satisfied with the way things are'.
Are we? Are we really?
I hope not.
The end is the same: the death of innocent people.
Does it even matter what label you give a society that allows an HMO to deny life-saving care to the innocent unjustly?
And, truthfully, what do we list as the REAL cause of of death on their death certificates?
"If I am not for myself, who will be? "
"If I am not for others, what am I ?"
In my opinion, and I repeat IN MY OPINION, the status quo is immoral.
"I can see no relationship between the conservative party in our country today and this horrific policy of the Nazis."
Sorry Christiane. You are backpeddling. Below is your original comment that I responded to. You might want to read it again as you tried to connect dots between people who do not support socialized medicine and Nazi's.
I simply pointed out historical facts that the Nazi's had socialized medicine like you are advocating.
Here is your comment:
Is our country at a crossroads for the preservation of the dignity of our people?
We have 'choices' to make, and we stand arguing about which road to take. This is true.
Here is one road I hope we don't follow down:
"“OUR STARTING POINT IS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL, AND WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT ONE SHOULD FEED THE HUNGRY, GIVE DRINK TO THE THIRSTY, OR CLOTHE THE NAKED . . . . OUR OBJECTIVES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT . . .”
JOSEPH GOEBBELS, MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA, 1938 —"
The Nazis systematically conducted the murders of people with disabilities and of infants with birth defects. They did this in addition to attempting the extermination of many groups who were considered to be non-Aryans.
Starvation was the ususal form of 'euthanasia' for little ones who were handicapped.
This quote comes from the archives of the National Holocaust Museum's website. The Museum itself exists so that we will 'never forget'. And it is devoted to the dignity of all mankind.
Choices.
What is OUR 'starting point', if not the dignity and worth of even a single human being?
To what do we 'subscribe' as a people, as a nation?
Is it in our national character to care for those in need? Or not?
Or only in so far as it does not interfere with 'wealthcare'?
It is not strange that so many who decry the idea of Darwin's theories, so firmly apply them to the economic sphere wherein 'the survival of the fittest' takes precedence over compassion for the less fortunate?
Must we watch faithful Christians also kneel at the altar of Run-away Capitalism as a God-Appointed Way of Life ??????????
Choices At A Cross-Road:
Sometimes a little side-trip to places like the Holocaust Museum can help us to think about which directions not to take.
Mon Sep 21, 06:05:00 PM 2009
Tom, Lydia, L's,
I think that we've had the "This is left and this is right" discussion recently. There, too, nobody could agree on terms. Tom and Lydia are operating off of idealogical distinctions as present in current society. L's is operating off of the historical-cultural distinction. For those who don't see how a Fascist dictatorship is "right-wing," don't look at it as ideological. Look at it in terms of culture: the right-wing (conservatives) try to keep things the same whereas the left-wing (liberals) try to cause change. Most fascist governments - including Hitler's Europe and Mussolini's Italy and (the guy in charge during WWII) Japan - established themselves as being the party whose beliefs have *historically* made their respective countries great. They called for a conservative approach: be true to our history, don't mess with it. Now, we can argue all day about whether or not those really were the ideals that had made those nations great, but nevertheless that was how they presented themselves: representatives of the best of "traditional" Germany or "traditional" Italy, bolstering that cultural heritage.
Today's American right wing is often the same way. "America was founded on Capitalism and the Protestant work ethic. Any change to that undermines everything this country is about. etc." From a historical-cultural perspective, Hitler and the American Right find themselves on the same end of the spectrum.
Idealogically, there are a great deal of very, very important differences between the two. The vast majority of conservatives would not approve of Hitler's economics or morality (there are always a few wierdo's who might). But it is important to see that we are now operating off of a different paradigm with different definitions.
Hope that helps everybody stop accusing each other of libel. It is simply a different critical perspective.
Thank you, CHRIS, so much.
Yes, I can see their perspective now. And I WAS reflecting what I had learned from European history.
How are your studies going? Did you find a job yet? Have you settled in to a 'routine'?
You are on my prayer list for students preparing for ministry, along with Kevin.
Thanks again for helping us.
Love, L's
L's,
Studies are going well. Really well. Of course, since I'm still job searching I have plenty of time to focus on them. :)
The no-job thing has been a matter of intense concern, however. I've been very conservative (idealogically)in my spending habits, so my savings has been going a long way. But I'd really rather not exhaust my savings during my first semester. Prayers are desired for that situation, especially.
A routine has been established, but I'm still rather hoping that the routine gets upset by the addition of a job.
" Tom and Lydia are operating off of idealogical distinctions as present in current society." L's is operating off of the historical-cultural distinction. For those who don't see how a Fascist dictatorship is "right-wing," don't look at it as ideological. Look at it in terms of culture: the right-wing (conservatives) try to keep things the same whereas the left-wing (liberals) try to cause change. Most fascist governments - including Hitler's Europe and Mussolini's Italy and (the guy in charge during WWII) Japan - established themselves as being the party whose beliefs have *historically* made their respective countries great. They called for a conservative approach: be true to our history, don't mess with it. Now, we can argue all day about whether or not those really were the ideals that had made those nations great, but nevertheless that was how they presented themselves:
Chris,
Facism and communism are on the same side of the coin as authoritarianism/totalitarianism. Look at the government, economic and military model of both. Very similar. On the same side of the continuum. The other side is anarchy with no government.
"representatives of the best of "traditional" Germany or "traditional" Italy, bolstering that cultural heritage. "
Adolf Hitler was traditional Germany? He was Austrian, had no blue blood and was a street activist who led an inside coup of elected representatives. He did not want to conserve traditional Germany. He was a sociopath who was in it for power. He destroyed Germany.
If you could explain to me what is 'traditional Italian' is I would love to hear it. Are you familiar with the history of Italy? Exactly which of the hundreds of coups, ruling factions and invasions did Mussolini seek seek to conserve?
Last I looked there are a ton of factions/parties even today. Must be the heat.
But I do see what you mean in one example. Lincoln, the republican,
was trying to conserve the union and the Southern Democrats were trying to conserve slavery.
Or were the republicans trying to 'change' the South? But then that would make them liberal according to your definition. And that cannot be right. Only liberals want change. :o)
"Yes, I can see their perspective now. And I WAS reflecting what I had learned from European history."
Did you learn today that Nazi Germany had socialized medicine? Government control of health care. That is how they were able to carry out so efficiently the sterilizations and heinous medical experiments.
If you think that could never happen here because we are so much better than that let me point you back to the Born Alive Babies left to die in the Oaklawn Hospital in Illinois that Obama worked so hard on keeping them from getting medical attention. (Jeremiah Wright was on the Board of the Hospital Corp)
Or perhaps you are not familiar with Michelle Obama's patient dumping at the University of Chicago Hospital? If you are not, I can send you a link about those inner city poor patients.
Chris,
Interesting observations. I tend to categorize viewpoints based primarly on ideology, rather than historical categories, which shift over time. Views that are considered "conservative" (traditional) in our current society were, at the founding of our country, "liberal" (new) concepts. And certain values taught by Jesus that we call conservative today were quite liberal ideas to those of His culture. I realize that in our current context it is normal to equate "right wing" with conservative and "left wing" with liberal. But I intended to use "right wing" specifically to mean limited and smaller government, along with individual liberties and personal responsibility (which are manifested in democracy and capitalism), and "left wing" to mean powerful and large government, which is manifested in various forms of statism, including socialism, fascism, and communism.
Thanks for helping clarify the categories.
-----
Tom
Lydia,
In his *historical* context, Lincoln was a liberal for promoting any form of abolition. By trying to preserve the cultural status quo, Southern Democrats were acting as the conservatives. The "preservation of the Union" is a little more thorny. The question must first be, was the historical understanding that states could not secede? If yes, then Lincoln acted in this area as the conservative and the South acted as the liberals. So it is entirely possible, from a historical-cultural standpoint, that the same person can be both conservative and liberal depending on the issue.
As Tom pointed out, what is *historically* liberal at one point may at another time become historically conservative. The idea of democracy was once an incredibly liberal idea. In America, it is now a conservative reality.
Even in your response, you are continuing to use an ideological paradigm for analysis. That's fine. I'm not objecting to that at all. It's a perfectly reasonable paradigm. I just tried to help you see that others who are using terms differently than you are operating off of a different critical method.
Furthermore, I never said that Hitler or Mussolini *were* ideologically traditional Germany/Italy. Rather, their parties represented themselves as preservers and protectors of German/Italian culture and history. And as such, they classify as culturally conservative for seeking to maintain what they understood to be the best their country had to offer.
That makes no value judgements as to the truth of the matter or the morality of their positions. To make those sort of value judgements requires a shift into a more idealogical method of analysis. Thus, there is a place and a need for both methods. But to have a fruitful conversation, you have to agree on which method you are going to use, and acknowledge when conversation shifts from one method to the other.
Let me correct myself. I said that if the historical understanding of secession was that it was acceptable then Lincoln was a conservative in this matter. That should be that if the historical understanding was that secession was unacceptable then Lincoln was a conservative in this matter.
"Even in your response, you are continuing to use an ideological paradigm for analysis. That's fine. I'm not objecting to that at all. It's a perfectly reasonable paradigm. I just tried to help you see that others who are using terms differently than you are operating off of a different critical method."
Tom was right about this. These terms are applied and then change with history. A historian focuses on facts when looking at outcomes.
Hitler was a liar and dictator. He had no intention to conserve anything good or traditional.
Why should I accept descripters for something he had no intention of doing.
He brought HUGE changes to Germany. That would make him liberal according to your definition. That is why your definitions do not work when dealing with truths.
The same can be argued for Lincoln. That he wanted to 'conserve' or that he wanted to 'change' the status quo.
It is not ok to use terms wrongly just because some want to rewrite history and put Nazi's on the same end of the continuum as modern day Republicans or something like that. It is ridiculous propaganda that has worked for decades.
The fact is that Facism and Communism are both focused on degrees of government control over the population and are on the same end of the continuum. Can you not see that?
No government (Anarchy) is on the other end of the continuum and close behind is limited government.
Since liberals tend to like more government control over people, they are closer to Fascism on the continuum than those who want limited government.
These liberals are more like socialists.
Now, one can see this if they deal in facts.
You may want to do some reading on how the words 'right wing' came about to include Fascism. It is instructive as to why this term is so misused and misunderstood.
Think about it. How could limited government have much in common with Fascism? Putting both on the same end of the continuum does not make sense.
Hi LYDIA,
Socialized medicine: I presume you speak of things like Medicare, and the new health care program for children.
About four years ago, I was receiving my 'project children' at the door of our classroom in the morning and a child comes up to me and says: ' Mrs. __, my mom says send me to the nurse, she thinks I have chicken pox.'
He did. He was 'covered'.
I have since wondered about that whole scene: a little boy having to come to school to get help, obviously ill. And then, being in the position of a poor, black child having to ask us to help him.
Our school nurse, God Bless her forever, was the 'socialized medicine' for our students in many cases. She was the one we sent children to who had received injuries the evening before and needed help. We sent her the ones with toothaches who had never seen a dentist in their whole lives. Our nurse was the front lines for these children.
Her office was always filled.
She understood 'how it was'.
She herself had grown up 'in the projects', and had resolved to make her life count for something.
She remains a dear friend and she has my vote for sainthood.
I'm sharing a part of the reason why I think we need to move in the direction of a more compassionate society, and yes, as a society.
My experiences feed into my opinion. I hope you can understand this.
If I hadn't worked in that environment for so many, many years, I wonder: would I feel as strongly as I do?
But I can't turn my back on what I have seen, and say 'it's not OUR problem'. I just can't.
It doesn't mean I think people who haven't seen the nightmares 'don't care'. Maybe if they knew . . . ?
So I guess I'm not 'fair and balanced' in my outlook. I can't be 'reasonable'.
I am way too haunted by the neglected ones.
But today, the problem of abuse and neglect has seeped upward into the world of the 'insured'. And some are chosen for neglect based on HMO profit/loss considerations.
They need our help, Lydia.
OUR help. As a people.
Love, L's
Lydia,
You can prefer to deal in idealogical facts. That's fine. I agree with you that idealogically Facism and Socialism are on the same end of the spectrum. Using other methods of analysis, looking at a different set of facts, they are not.
What Hitler intended to do has no bearing on the fact that he was elected by Germans seeking to return to the traditions of German glory: conservatives from a historical perspective. Hitler brought changes. Horrific changes. But his party was not marketed nor perceived as such.
And truth be told, sociologically Hitler didn't make a lot of changes. Anti-semitism had been a huge part of German social conscience for a long time (just not acted upon to this degree). It was a part of the social conscience for a large part of Europe. Governments with a large degree of regulatory control over people's lives were the historical reality for a lot Eurpopean history, including Germany (Rome, church-states, absolute monarchies). A strong military presence and fervent patriotism were both German ideals for a long time before Hitler. He stepped into all these roles, promoting traditional understandings of what it meant to be German: you were a Christian who valued country and the ability to protect that country from defamation. Hitler just put into place the means to act out the negative side of this social conscience.
Also, the definitions are not inconsistent. You are just absolutizing people and parties. They must be entirely conservative or entirely liberal. Such polarizations aren't wise regardless of what method you use. Even idealogically, George Bush had a lot of conservative ideals. But he presided over a huge expansion in government (Patriot Act, anyone?). He began the current process of bailouts leading to increased control over the (previously) private sector. Absolutes don't work.
Let's even pick one issue: same-sex marriage. Now, if I were to be a consistent idealogical conservative (desiring limited government interference in people's lives), then I would say the government shouldn't be involved in making the decision of who can marry whom. However, the Christian Right (largely idealogical conservatives) have the desire to see government expand its sphere of influence in this area. Again, absolutes don't work in political analysis. However, historically, it is those who advocate the govt making that decision who are conservatives and those saying govt shouldn't make the decision are liberals. Govt has been deciding who can get married and who can't since they began issuing marriage liscences. Same issue, but from one perspective the same person is a liberal and from the other perspective the person is a conservative. Which is correct? Both are. Based on a different set of facts.
"What Hitler intended to do has no bearing on the fact that he was elected by Germans seeking to return to the traditions of German glory: conservatives from a historical perspective. "
Not true on several points. he was NOT elected by the German people. it was a parlamentarian coup and even those in the Reichstag who went over to the Nazi party to make a majority were ousted later. Not to mention they had lost 34 seats in the last election before his coup for vice Chancellor.
von Hindenburg represented the 'traditions' of Germany. Not Hilter. It is too lengthy to go into here but you need to read a detailed account of the intrigues that lead to this. One good source is The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich by William Shirer. That is a good starting point.
"Right wing" comes from the French Revolution and was used to describe those who sat on the right side of the chamber who supported the Monarchy.
Now what in the world does that have to do with limited Government?
It was originally a perjorative term that Russell Burke tried to make into a good term by saying it meant to conserve the right things. It was adapted by the media of that time but the whole premise is wrong.
And all it does is confuse the issue. How can one who believes in limited government be on the same side of the continuum as Fascism which believes in government control of people, industry and business?
"I'm sharing a part of the reason why I think we need to move in the direction of a more compassionate society, and yes, as a society.
My experiences feed into my opinion. I hope you can understand this. "
If you really do feel that way then you must acquaint yourself with Michelle Obama's inner city patient dumping at the University of Chicago because they had no insurance. David Axelrod was involved with it, too.
Lydia,
Supporting the monarchy has *nothing* to do with limited government idealogically. I've agreed with you there.
They have everything to do with each other historically. Traditionally, the French had been ruled by a monarchy. The historical conservatives wanted to see that tradition stay the same. Traditionally, America has been in favor of limited government. The historical conservatives want to see that stay the same.
Can you honestly not see how the two methods are analyzing different facts and thus using different spectrums?
As for Hitler, coups work because the people ultimately support them. "Elected" is not the correct political term, you are correct. But he stayed in power because more people agreed with him than not. The Nazis had lost seats, but they were still the largest party in the Reichstad. As to von Hindenburg, I must admit that I am less familiar with his story than I would like to be, so I will not comment either way on that issue.
Hi LYDIA,
If you are referring to Michelle Malkin's article, I have read it.
Ms. Malkin, as you may know, is not generally respected as a journalist in all circles.
Story: Regarding the story of Dontae Adams and his mother, I remembered an incident long ago.
My Down Syndrome child broke a glass bowl and stepped on it with bare feet. OMG. I panicked.
I picked him up, put him into the car, blood everywhere, and drove three blocks to a major hospital.
They acertained that he had not cut an artery, thank God, and I was told to take him to the military clinic for stitches. We were Navy dependents at the time.
I drove for an hour as my angel bled and we both cried. At the clinic, I had to help hold my son down for them to put in the stitches, because they didn't have enough corpmen to help. When it was over, I looked at the bloody towels, and the blood on my clothing, and started to feel light-headed and fainted !!!
I'm sure Mrs. Adams wept on her way to the other hospital. I'm also certain that if her son had arterial bleeding, he would have been treated at the first hospital.
Sad story about Dontae. But I understand how it must have gone down. And, Lydia, I wouldn't take too much stock in someone like Michelle Malkin. Just my opinion.
Love, L's
I'm one who lives in the midst of the "projects" in private housing.
That means I live among and reach out to poor children who need health care.
It also means I see daily WHY they need health care.
It isn't because the government isn't taking care of them.
It isn't because bad old for profit organizations like private insurance aren't taking care of them.
It isn't because nobody cares.
It isn't because society isn't compassionate enough.
It IS because mom and dad just don't give a fig. They would rather have their cocaine and their meth right now than take little johnny two blocks to the FREE clinic.
They would rather sit around stoned than even attempt to find a job.
Now, because I invest in, among other things, bad old for profit insurance companies through mutual funds and even bank cd purchases, I can use my share of bad old profit to help the neighbor kids.
Profit isn't always so bad, is it.
And things are not quite as simple as proponents of government run healthcare like to suggest.
Chris Ryan said ...
Furthermore, I never said that Hitler or Mussolini *were* ideologically traditional Germany/Italy. Rather, their parties represented themselves as preservers and protectors of German/Italian culture and history.
Kinda like John McCain, and both Bushes. :)
"Ms. Malkin, as you may know, is not generally respected as a journalist in all circles."
Not in your circle. So, what journalists do you think are respectful?
Linda,
My brother is using his greedy evil profits from his career to set up a free medical clinic in an inner city high school.
He should give it to government if he was a real Christian but he knows many of those in that neighborhood have iphones, ipods, nice cars, expensive tennis shoes and such but refuse to buy some insurance because they expect government to give it to them.
" But he stayed in power because more people agreed with him than not. "
For this reason: He was very smart to build an army (The Brownshirts) before he got power. Once he got power he consolidated and got rid of representative government. It happened real fast once Hindenburg died.
And yes, the German people wanted food and jobs and believed him. But it had NOTHING to do with traditional Germany which was traditionally ruled by Junkers.
Christiane,
What news sources would you recommend?
LYDIA,
A variety is better than one-sided.
But, if you did watch television, I would recommend C-Span which shows the goings-on in Washington as they happen, without comment.
Sometimes, they tape and show these meetings and sessions of Congress again.
As far as what is recommended, you have to look up where a source is 'coming from' to understand the 'spin'. Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes not.
A lot of people 'own' sources through third parties.
Original source material is always best.
For your info, that interviewer on your site: Rachel Maddow, is pretty liberal, although she can be funny and is always pretty good-natured.
FOX is too 'extreme' to the right.
MSNBC is too 'extreme' to the left.
As long as you know the drift, you can filter out some of the spin.
C-Span is almost a public-service in that it shows the goings-on without 'commentary'. I love it.
I hope someday we can get back into scripture commentary so that I can enjoy your point of view. I may not always agree, but I always read your biblical commentaries. Love, L's
Hi LINDA,
My projects are worse than your projects.
(It's a joke, only not very funny, I know.)
Are you in the inner-city?
BTW, when I first got out of university, a million years ago, I did AID FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN case-work for Social Services.
I got out of that as fast as I could. OMG, how sad it was.
Love, L's
Tom,
Nailed it.
Also, LINDA,
I agree that mom and (the missing putative father) may not care. My students often were in the guardianship of a grandmother, herself in poor health, while mom was in jail for drugs, or working the streets. Sometimes mom was in a mental hospital, or a drug-rehab.
Sometimes mom was dead. But you're right, sometimes 'mom' just didn't care.
The children didn't have transportation and their grandmothers weren't able to do much for them. But, Linda, I learned not to judge those grandmothers. I used to go out with our guidance counselor on home visits sometimes, so I learned first-hand.
May we never be in situations so grim as these children are, where their support systems are almost non-existent. Love, L's
"A variety is better than one-sided.
But, if you did watch television, I would recommend C-Span which shows the goings-on in Washington as they happen, without comment.
Sometimes, they tape and show these meetings and sessions of Congress again."
How do you know if what the congressman says is true?
Only reitred folks have time to watch C-Span and I can remember years ago the AARP had calling trees to swamp C-Span call in.
Lydia,
I know you put the question to L's, but...
You may know the Congressperson is telling the truth when he or she isn't speaking. But anytime their mouth is open it is pretty much guaranteed they are lying. All the time that C-span is people milling and doing nothing, that is the only time that they are honest about what's going on in Washington.
But I may be a bit of a cynic.
I would rather hear it from the horse's mouth than have a spin artist 'explain' what is going on.
I am as cynical as the next one when it comes to politics;
but when politicians parade themselves as 'Christians' and play to 'the base' with talk and turn around and do nothing,
that makes me worry about the ability of the 'base' to discern wolves from shepherds.
I think sincere people are being cynically manipulated by some very shrewd puppeteers.
What is that scripture about a good tree producing good fruit and a bad tree producing bad fruit.
Maybe we should check the 'branches' of Congress for good fruit; and throw out the bad fruit. :)
Vigilance.
No short cuts and forget 'the labels'. And we should get rid of our complacency and our apathy.
Then, maybe, we can keep our country intact and free.
Things are not looking so good.
The next post is a sign of some severe and, I think extremely misguided efforts to 'stir the pot' and eventually, what is sewn will be reaped.
" think sincere people are being cynically manipulated by some very shrewd puppeteers. "
I agree. That is what I think has happened to you with Obama. You believe his words without looking at his real deeds.
He has a brother living in poverty in Kenya. Literally. Yet, He made 4 mill on his book. Is that what you meant by those that call themselves Christian and their real fruit?
The next post is a sign of some severe and, I think extremely misguided efforts to 'stir the pot' and eventually, what is sewn will be reaped.
Wed Sep 23, 10:58:00 PM 2009
Such as comparing those who do not want government run health care to Nazi's? You could start there.
Dear LYDIA,
Perhaps you should read the point of comparison again:
I believe that the Nazis did not value human life.
If I'm going to make a comparison to the Nazis, then it would have to be to the people who are choosing the profit of their company over the health of their policy-holders.
The Nazis were able to prey on victims because many in the world looked the other way and permitted it to occur.
Going back to the basic question: what IS the value of even a single human life?
And, having answered that question, what is the responsibility of a Christian NOT
to 'look the other way' while innocents are made to suffer so some corporation may profit?
These are valid questions.
The side-trip into HOW not to look 'the other way' is another matter. There are multiple ways of acting to solve the health crisis. I am not wedded to any ONE of them. I want what will hold the profiteers accountable for their actions.
That is not the SAME as comparing those who do not want gov't-run health care to the Nazis, is it?
Unless, of course, they are working for the profiteers and are complicit in the abuse of policy holders.
Think about it.
Who is it that permits the HMO's to cut off some people's policies when they get sick?
Who is it that allows an HMO 'physician' to deny a life-saving operation for a policy holder?
In the end, Lydia, who has the ultimate responsibility for the deaths that will result?
There are a lot of questions about 'who' is responsible. My position is that when an entity threatens the health and well-being of our citizens, WE are responsible, as a people, for calling them to account.
I know you don't agree.
But, in your case, at least I hope you will not advocate the 'rights' of an HMO to make a profit by denying life-saving benefits to a policy holder, who then has no hope of survival.
Capitalism has a dark greedy side when people must die because of greed.
Maybe you don't agree?
If you do agree, what do YOU propose as a way of holding the HMO's accountable for their actions?
?
Love, L's
"That is not the SAME as comparing those who do not want gov't-run health care to the Nazis, is it?
Unless, of course, they are working for the profiteers and are complicit in the abuse of policy holders. "
L's, Spin it any way you want but the point has always been that the Nazi's had government run health care.
Chris,
I left out something in our discussion about the ideplogical implications of the continuum of limited government and government control of the population. And what it means to be conservative.
I have never liked the 'conservative' moniker because it does not describe limited government principles well at all. We were meant to be a capitalist country. And capitalism by its very nature is not 'conservative' and does not seek to 'conserve' but seeks constant change. Constant change is the very nature of capitalism and you see that fact by the very progress of our nation.
Like a wheel in motion it is constantly improving, seeking, improvising, risking.
Capitalism only thrives with limited government. As we move toward socialism, Facism and communism on the continuum, capitalism dies out.
This is what I was trying to explain that the 'right wing' moniker was a brilliant propaganda move by those opposed to limited government and captialism.
There was a time when people wanted government to protect the innocent who were victimized.
under-age children in sweat-shops
unsafe work environmentes (try reading about factory fires where many women burned to death before the gov't stepped in and ordered safe working places with escape routes.
They actually had to 'order it' by law, because factory owners felt that they didn't have to spend their money for the safety of their employees.
I think, Lydia, you might want to consider this word:
THE 'COMMONWEALTH'
This word is not one that is used politically so much as it is used to express what we all hold dear: that we have a right to a certain basic freedom from harm by those who are immoral. That immorality includes those that abuse workers, do not provide safe work places, pollute the environment and ground-water rather than spend money to clean up their manufacturing chemicals, create shoddy and unsafe merchandise, provide additives to foods that increase their profits but harm the consumers, and on, and on . . .
THE COMMONWEALTH of our people, of all of us together, that cannot be abandoned for the benefit of private profit, EVER.
Maybe that will 'reframe' the debate, in a way that makes sense to you. Love, L's
From what I have read of your blog, perhaps if I had known more Southern Baptists like you (and I am a graduate of Ouachita Baptist University, so I know a lot of Southern Baptists), I might not now be Episcopalian. I'm enjoying your posts very, very much.
Chuck writes a note which said "... this package kept me alive" - and left the package at the doorstep. This note turns the whole story upside down.
because we thought, till that moment, it is the first wife's memories that kept him alive in the island along with the picture of his wife in the heirloom. He admitted that when he came back to his wife saying that ... "though I have lost you now, but o am glad that you were there with me on that island every moment".
then he goes to deliver the package and confesses in a note that "... this package kept me alive".
So what kept him alive - the package or the picture of the wife in the heirloom?
a difficult answer may be that his wife was there in the island with him (heirloom) but what kept him alive to come back was the angle winged-package.
did he know that he had already lost her while in the island?
this is the confusion that the protagonist leaves behind .
Nuwan Peiris
Sri Lanka
50 words or less you knuckleheads, who cares about your precious delusions. Answer a question with facts for once.
It was a Hollywood Movie! Keep grazing Sheep.
Hi, Wade,
For me, the ending of the movie was a good example of symbolic interactionism within the spiritual dimension. He had a 'why' to live for (his fiancé); to quote Friedrich Nietzsche, "He who has a "why" to live can bear with almost any "how." However, although many self-help books on positive thinking claim that we create our own purpose or passion in life; I don't believe this to be so. Our purpose is divine, it comes from above, not from us mere mortals. As we know, Jesus' purpose came from above; He was doing God's will not his will. Here, I recall him saying to Peter, "...shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given Me?"
Anyway, it wasn't till the very end of the movie did the significance of the Angelic symbol play out. Profoundly then, this symbol on the FedEx package represented his Creator which embraced him and sustained him while he was 'casted away' per say, delivering the package was his worldly purpose, it was "how" he stayed alive on that island, on earth...as he said in the note he left with the package it 'saved' his life. However, when he saw the Angelic wings at the ranch and then subsequently on the tailgate as she drove away he knew what he once didn't know; he became saved for eternity, he was transformed. Well, so I like to think he was transformed, hence Romans 12:2 “Living Sacrifices… Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” Romans 12:2 (New International Version, 2001). He followed God's will, not his own. Thus, found his truly Divine purpose in life. As we all struggle to find our true purpose in life, I pray you and I are finding ours.
Here, we must make Him primary, and all else in our life secondary. In the movie's end, in my mind, he followed his Angel because that was his primary purpose in life, not delivering FedEx packages. His primary became secondary and his secondary became primary. We should spend our time wisely, on the primary, Him, it's the most valuable currency we possess.
Hope what I've written here makes some sense to you, the reader.
Prayers & Best Regards,
Ted
Post a Comment