Category Archives: Current Events

Woody Allen films and the issue of guilt (Woody Wednesday Part 3)

Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt

Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress

In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. Actors flock to his projects just to have a chance to work with him. He is funny, creative, and philosophical in his musings about love, life, and death.

Woody Allen is an Oscar award-winning director and screenwriter. His latest film, “Match Point,” has garnered another screenwriting nomination for Allen from the Academy. And while industry buzz is growing behind “Crash” screenwriters Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco to win, Allen’s nomination is not a courtesy nod to an aging dinosaur. Most critics have hailed “Match Point” as Allen’s comeback film – a movie that demonstrates that Allen is still performing at the height of his powers. “Match Point” most closely resembles another of Allen’s Oscar-nominated films – 1990’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Comparing these two critically-acclaimed films shines a light not only on Woody Allen’s dark and cynical writer’s journey, but also on a culture that consistently chooses to honor his work.

Crimes and Misdemeanors – Sin and Struggle

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” is an odd morality tale. Judah Rosenthal is an ophthalmologist who has been carrying on an affair for over two years. When his mistress threatens to call his wife, he contracts to have her killed. Throughout the film, characters attempt to make sense of their moral universe. Judah struggles with his guilt and at one point seems so driven by his belief that he must be punished for his sin that he nearly decides to call the police to turn himself in. He is dissuaded by a veiled threat from his mob-connected brother Jack (who arranged the murder at Judah’s request). As time goes by, Judah finds that he is not punished – not by the secular authorities or by God. After a while, even the guilty feelings fade away. He decides that the idea that evil is always punished is only true in the movies. In real life, people get away with it. Judah pushes aside his guilt, returns to his privileged life and walks off, with his wife, into the sunset.

Allen comes down on the wrong side of the moral equation in “Crimes and Misdemeanors” because he is unwilling, or unable, to take into account the judgment of God in the world to come. His materialist-informed worldview discounts or denies that the reality of eternity is more significant than what happens in this life. What made the film noteworthy was its depiction of the moral struggle that people go through when they sin. What made the film chilling is the knowledge that the rationalism engaged in by Judah in the movie represents more than fiction. Psalms and Proverbs are full of pleas from weary saints who complain to God about the prosperous wicked. We cannot know the mind of God. Some sins are punished swiftly; others apparently are not punished at all in this life. But God declares that one day everything done is darkness will be revealed in the light (1 Corinthians 4-5).

Match Point – No Sin, Just Luck

Fifteen years later, Allen gives audiences “Match Point,” the story of Chris Wilton, a British social-climbing tennis pro who marries for money and prestige, but continues to lust after a poor American actress, Nola Rice, who is dating his future brother-in-law. The affair with Nola begins and ends before Chris’ marriage, but picks up again when Nola returns to England. What begins as animal attraction turns complicated as Nola begins pressuring Chris to leave his wife. Chris is torn between his feelings for Nola and the wealth, power, and privilege that he enjoys by being married to his wife, Chloe. Ultimately he determines that he must be rid of one of them. How best to do it while risking the least for himself? Kill one – but make it look like someone else did it. The audience is left guessing whether he will kill Nola, thereby covering his tracks and keeping his wife, or kill Chloe, inheriting her wealth and gaining the sympathy of her family, and then take up again with Nola. Once the deed is done, there is the crying and terror over the prospect of being found out and punished that must accompany any such act. But when word of the homicide appears in the paper, and the fictional motives that Chris hoped to plant are printed as if they are fact, Chris discovers that he has gotten away with it.

The theme of “Match Point” is hammered into the audience over and over again – the world runs on luck. From Chris’ tennis career, to his marriage to a rich and beautiful woman and into a paternalistic and helpful family, to plot twists involving incriminating evidence, everything just falls his way at crucial moments. And while some characters continue to extol the virtues of hard work and perseverance, Chris recognizes and, in the end, vocalizes that the best attribute to possess is good fortune. There is no justice; there is only the slim divide between being caught and getting away with it. No one is smart enough to cover all the bases, so in the end much of it comes down to luck. Chris has it; his victim did not.

Unlike “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” no great struggle over guilt and sin is played out on the screen. The only scene that looks remotely like remorse occurs right after the act. Beyond that, Chris merely lies to those he knows and stonewalls the police. He is like the boy who kills his parents and then begs the judge for leniency because he is an orphan
– only in this case, he gets off.

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” could be rationalized as a depiction of one side of the sin debate – that sometimes the wicked prosper. The struggle for Judah’s soul is represented by his brothers: the mafia-connected Jack and Judah’s rabbi brother Ben. In this case, Ben loses, but there is, haunting the background, the idea that it could be otherwise. No such spiritual subtext exists in “Match Point.” Audience members can only get out of the film what they bring to it – it is a case brought before us for judgment.. Those who believe in a just God will find Chris to be a calculating killer who rightly needs to be punished. For those who enter the film believing that humans are merely animals seeking to satisfy drives with no true spiritual component; who believe that guilt only exists if you get caught; who believe (whether they know the source or not) that Nietzsche was right when he said that the hallmark of human existence is the will to power – Chris is a kind of hero. He got everything he wanted, succeeded in destroying those who stood in his way, and emerged unscathed because he was favored by a series of uncalculated quirks in the universe. No objection to such assessment is placed in anyone’s way.

The Weaving of Cultural Threads

Thomas Frentz, noted rhetorical critic, argues that by comparing products of our culture over time, we can begin to discern emerging moral patterns. Cultures, Frentz claims, are always moving toward, or away from, some optimal moral end state. If Frentz is right, then looking at these two similar films from Woody Allen can tell us a little about the state of moral struggle. I do not know whether Allen’s film intends to move us, or if it is merely a reflection of the culture as he sees it. Either way, what Allen appears to be saying is that we have moved beyond morals and simply must deal with what is. In his earlier film, Allen asserts that there is no objective moral lens through which to view the world – ignore morality and it will go away. Now he is saying that if you happen to share the world with people who still hold to the “myth” of morality, “hope you are lucky and then you can get away with it.”

But there is yet a ray of hope.

Anyone watching “Match Point” will come to the conclusion that Chris “got away with it.” The concept of “getting away with something” could not exist in a truly amoral world, because the term itself presupposes punishment. If no punishment is objectively due, then there is nothing from which to “get away.” The concept of escape only exists in a world in which something is pursuing. Even conventional laws implicate an overarching moral sensibility of right and wrong. My fear is not that Allen is predicting some evolutionary leap in moral thinking where all codes are abandoned, but that he is rightly illustrating a growing trend – the searing of the western conscience.
Marc T. Newman, PhD (marc@movieministry.com) is the president of MovieMinistry.com – an organization that provides sermon and teaching illustrations from popular film, and helps the Church use movies to reach out to others and connect with people.

Other posts concerning Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

What can we learn from Woody Allen Films?August 1, 2011 – 6:30 am

Movie Review of “Midnight in Paris” lastest movie by Woody AllenJuly 30, 2011 – 6:52 am

Leo Stein and sister Gertrude Stein’s salon is in the Woody Allen film “Midnight in Paris”July 28, 2011 – 6:22 am

Great review on Midnight in Paris with talk about artists being disatisfied,July 27, 2011 – 6:20 am

Critical review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”July 24, 2011 – 5:56 am

Not everyone liked “Midnight in Paris”July 22, 2011 – 5:38 am

“Midnight in Paris” one of Woody Allen’s biggest movie hits in recent years,July 18, 2011 – 6:00 am

(Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)July 10, 2011 – 5:53 am

 (Part 29, Pablo Picasso) July 7, 2011 – 4:33 am

(Part 28,Van Gogh) July 6, 2011 – 4:03 am

(Part 27, Man Ray) July 5, 2011 – 4:49 am

(Part 26,James Joyce) July 4, 2011 – 5:55 am

(Part 25, T.S.Elliot) July 3, 2011 – 4:46 am

(Part 24, Djuna Barnes) July 2, 2011 – 7:28 am

(Part 23,Adriana, fictional mistress of Picasso) July 1, 2011 – 12:28 am

(Part 22, Silvia Beach and the Shakespeare and Company Bookstore) June 30, 2011 – 12:58 am

(Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution) June 29, 2011 – 5:34 am

(Part 16, Josephine Baker) June 24, 2011 – 5:18 am

(Part 15, Luis Bunuel) June 23, 2011 – 5:37 am

Advice to Gene Simmons Part 6, (“Tip Tuesday” Part B)jh16a

Gene-Simmons-tvae-23.jpg

Gene Simmons Family Jewels, Shannon Tweed, 54 yrs old, has been with Gene Simmons 27 years and raised two children with him.

The series I have been doing on “Advice to Gene Simmons” that I am starting what I am calling “Tip Tuesday.” For the next few months we will be looking at the Simmons family.

The Sacrificing Husband (John MacArthur)

Uploaded by on Sep 8, 2010

http://www.gty.org/Blog …The world tells husbands, “Don’t let anyone tell you what to do. Be a macho man. Grab the gusto. Live for the moment.” The Bible’s message to husbands is exactly the opposite—”Crucify yourself.” Here’s how Paul put it in Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for her.” That raises a question: Even a great Christian husband, on his best day, can’t match Christ’s loving sacrifice for the church. What does Paul expect? John MacArthur answers…

_____________________________

In his therapy session with Dr. Ann Wexler, Gene continued to make the point that his behavior is defensible because his meeting was, at the end of the day, something that would result in more money in the bank.  

Dr. Wexler saw it differently.

“I think that lots of times when you do things when you’re not considering her or other people, you use making money as an excuse. As a defense.  It’s like, if you’re making money then a lot of your behavior is excused.   

And I don’t think making money excuses a lot of your behavior.”

“You don’t?” asks Gene in disbelief.

_________________________________

What is going on here with Gene Simmons is very clear. He goes on tours and is guilty of having affairs and he justifies it because he is keeping up the hard rock image that he has always had. This brings in money and that is why he keeps pointing that out and trying to say that by bringing in the money he is showing his love toward his family. However, the truth is that he is using as an excuse to have affairs.

 Now it seems his whole world is caving in on him because his wife has left him and his kids have condemned him for not doing the right thing.

On these tours he is putting himself in a position that makes it easy for him to fall morally. That should be avoided at all costs. My former pastor Adrian Rogers used to have a sign on his desk which said, “If you don’t want to fall then don’t walk in slippery places.

Brandon Barnard, who is a teaching pastor at Fellowship Bible Church here in Little Rock in his message on July 24, 2011 made the point that we should WORK TO ELIMINATE EXPOSURE TO SEXUAL PRESSURES AND INCREASINGLY EMBRACE THE PROMISES OF GOD.

Then Brandon read through the following scriptures.

 

Philippians 4:8-9

English Standard Version (ESV) 

 8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

Matthew 5:27-30

English Standard Version (ESV)

 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Job 31:1

Amplified Bible (AMP) 

Job 31

 1I DICTATED a covenant (an agreement) to my eyes; how then could I look [lustfully] upon a girl?

Psalm 101:3

English Standard Version (ESV)

3I will not set before my eyes
   anything that is worthless.
I hate the work of those who fall away;
   it shall not cling to me.

Matthew 5:8

English Standard Version (ESV) 

 8“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Romans 8:6

English Standard Version (ESV)

6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.

More pictures from 'Gene Simmons Family Jewels'

Prime minister looks at breakdown of nation’s families as real cause

What caused all the riots in England that resulted in five deaths? Prime Minister Cameron thinks it is a result of the breakdown of the family units in England. I think he is right on this point.

“We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people’s lives hell and we will fight back hard.”

David Cameron speaks at a youth center in his constituency on August 15, 2011 in Witney.David Cameron speaks at a youth center in his constituency on August 15, 2011 in Witney. Photograph: Getty Images.
It is time for our country to take stock.Last week we saw some of the most sickening acts on our streets.

I’ll never forget talking to Maurice Reeves, whose family had run the Reeves furniture store in Croydon for generations.

This was an 80 year old man who had seen the business he had loved, that his family had built up for generations, simply destroyed.

A hundred years of hard work, burned to the ground in a few hours.

But last week we didn’t just see the worst of the British people; we saw the best of them too.

The ones who called themselves riot wombles and headed down to the hardware stores to pick up brooms and start the clean-up.

The people who linked arms together to stand and defend their homes, their businesses.

The policemen and women and fire officers who worked long, hard shifts, sleeping in corridors then going out again to put their life on the line.

Everywhere I’ve been this past week, in Salford, Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, people of every background, colour and religion have shared the same moral outrage and hurt for our country.

Because this is Britain.

This is a great country of good people.

Those thugs we saw last week do not represent us, nor do they represent our young people – and they will not drag us down.

But now that the fires have been put out and the smoke has cleared, the question hangs in the air: ‘Why? How could this happen on our streets and in our country?’

Of course, we mustn’t oversimplify.

There were different things going on in different parts of the country.

In Tottenham some of the anger was directed at the police.

In Salford there was some organised crime, a calculated attack on the forces of order.

But what we know for sure is that in large parts of the country this was just pure criminality.

So as we begin the necessary processes of inquiry, investigation, listening and learning: let’s be clear.

These riots were not about race: the perpetrators and the victims were white, black and Asian.

These riots were not about government cuts: they were directed at high street stores, not Parliament.

And these riots were not about poverty: that insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.

No, this was about behaviour…

…people showing indifference to right and wrong…

…people with a twisted moral code…

…people with a complete absence of self-restraint.

Now I know as soon as I use words like ‘behaviour’ and ‘moral’ people will say – what gives politicians the right to lecture us?

Of course we’re not perfect.

But politicians shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality…

…this has actually helped to cause the social problems we see around us.

We have been too unwilling for too long to talk about what is right and what is wrong.

We have too often avoided saying what needs to be said – about everything from
marriage to welfare to common courtesy.

Sometimes the reasons for that are noble – we don’t want to insult or hurt people.

Sometimes they’re ideological – we don’t feel it’s the job of the state to try and pass judgement on people’s behaviour or engineer personal morality.

And sometimes they’re just human – we’re not perfect beings ourselves and we don’t want to look like hypocrites.

So you can’t say that marriage and commitment are good things – for fear of alienating single mothers.

You don’t deal properly with children who repeatedly fail in school – because you’re worried about being accused of stigmatising them.

You’re wary of talking about those who have never worked and never want to work – in case you’re charged with not getting it, being middle class and out of touch.

In this risk-free ground of moral neutrality there are no bad choices, just different lifestyles.

People aren’t the architects of their own problems, they are victims of circumstance.

‘Live and let live’ becomes ‘do what you please.’

Well actually, what last week has shown is that this moral neutrality, this relativism – it’s not going to cut it any more.

One of the biggest lessons of these riots is that we’ve got to talk honestly about behaviour and then act – because bad behaviour has literally arrived on people’s doorsteps.

And we can’t shy away from the truth anymore.

So this must be a wake-up call for our country.

Social problems that have been festering for decades have exploded in our face.

Now, just as people last week wanted criminals robustly confronted on our street, so they want to see these social problems taken on and defeated.

Our security fightback must be matched by a social fightback.

We must fight back against the attitudes and assumptions that have brought parts of our society to this shocking state.

We know what’s gone wrong: the question is, do we have the determination to put it right?

Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations?

Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences.

Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort.

Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control.

Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged – sometimes even incentivised – by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised.

So do we have the determination to confront all this and turn it around?

I have the very strong sense that the responsible majority of people in this country not only have that determination; they are crying out for their government to act upon it.

And I can assure you, I will not be found wanting.

In my very first act as leader of this party I signalled my personal priority: to mend our broken society.

That passion is stronger today than ever.

Yes, we have had an economic crisis to deal with, clearing up the terrible mess we inherited, and we are not out of those woods yet – not by a long way.

But I repeat today, as I have on many occasions these last few years, that the reason I am in politics is to build a bigger, stronger society.

Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger society.

This is what I came into politics to do – and the shocking events of last week have renewed in me that drive.

So I can announce today that over the next few weeks, I and ministers from across the coalition government will review every aspect of our work to mend our broken society…

…on schools, welfare, families, parenting, addiction, communities…

…on the cultural, legal, bureaucratic problems in our society too:

…from the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights that has undermined personal
responsibility…

…to the obsession with health and safety that has eroded people’s willingness to act according to common sense.

We will review our work and consider whether our plans and programmes are big enough and bold enough to deliver the change that I feel this country now wants to see.

Government cannot legislate to change behaviour, but it is wrong to think the State is a bystander.

Because people’s behaviour does not happen in a vacuum: it is affected by the rules government sets and how they are enforced…

…by the services government provides and how they are delivered…

…and perhaps above all by the signals government sends about the kinds of behaviour
that are encouraged and rewarded.

So yes, the broken society is back at the top of my agenda.

And as we review our policies in the weeks ahead, today I want to set out the priority areas I will be looking at, and give you a sense of where I think we need to raise our

ambitions.

First and foremost, we need a security fight-back.

We need to reclaim our streets from the thugs who didn’t just spring out of nowhere
last week, but who’ve been making lives a misery for years.

Now I know there have been questions in people’s minds about my approach to law and order.

Well, I don’t want there to be any doubt.

Nothing in this job is more important to me than keeping people safe.

And it is obvious to me that to do that we’ve got to be tough, we’ve got to be robust, we’ve got to score a clear line between right and wrong right through the heart of this country – in every street and in every community.

That starts with a stronger police presence – pounding the beat, deterring crime, ready to re-group and crack down at the first sign of trouble.

Let me be clear: under this government we will always have enough police officers to be able to scale up our deployments in the way we saw last week.

To those who say this means we need to abandon our plans to make savings in police budgets, I say you are missing the point.

The point is that what really matters in this fight-back is the amount of time the police actually spend on the streets.

For years we’ve had a police force suffocated by bureaucracy, officers spending the majority of their time filling in forms and stuck behind desks.

This won’t be fixed by pumping money in and keeping things basically as they’ve been.

As the Home Secretary will explain tomorrow, it will be fixed by completely changing the way the police work.

Scrapping the paperwork that holds them back, getting them out on the streets where people can see them and criminals can fear them.

Our reforms mean that the police are going to answer directly to the people.

You want more tough, no-nonsense policing?

You want to make sure the police spend more time confronting the thugs in your neighbourhood and less time meeting targets by stopping motorists?

You want the police out patrolling your streets instead of sitting behind their desks?

Elected police and crime commissioners are part of the answer: they will provide that direct accountability so you can finally get what you want when it comes to policing.

The point of our police reforms is not to save money, not to change things for the sake of it – but to fight crime.

And in the light of last week it’s clear that we now have to go even further, even faster in beefing up the powers and presence of the police.

Already we’ve given backing to measures like dispersal orders, we’re toughening curfew powers, we’re giving police officers the power to remove face coverings from rioters, we’re looking at giving them more powers to confiscate offenders’ property – and over the coming months you’re going to see even more.

It’s time for something else too.

A concerted, all-out war on gangs and gang culture.

This isn’t some side issue.

It is a major criminal disease that has infected streets and estates across our country.

Stamping out these gangs is a new national priority.

Last week I set up a cross-government programme to look at every aspect of this problem.

We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people’s lives hell and we will fight back hard.

The last front in that fight is proper punishment.

On the radio last week they interviewed one of the young men who’d been looting in Manchester.

He said he was going to carry on until he got caught.

This will be my first arrest, he said.

The prisons were already overflowing so he’d just get an ASBO, and he could live with that.

Well, we’ve got to show him and everyone like him that the party’s over.

I know that when politicians talk about punishment and tough sentencing people roll their eyes.

Yes, last week we saw the criminal justice system deal with an unprecedented challenge: the courts sat through the night and dispensed swift, firm justice.

We saw that the system was on the side of the law-abiding majority.

But confidence in the system is still too low.

And believe me – I understand the anger with the level of crime in our country today and I am determined we sort it out and restore people’s faith that if someone hurts our society, if they break the rules in our society, then society will punish them for it.

And we will tackle the hard core of people who persistently reoffend and blight the lives of their communities.

So no-one should doubt this government’s determination to be tough on crime and to mount an effective security fight-back.

But we need much more than that.

We need a social fight-back too, with big changes right through our society.

Let me start with families.

The question people asked over and over again last week was ‘where are the parents?

Why aren’t they keeping the rioting kids indoors?’

Tragically that’s been followed in some cases by judges rightly lamenting: “why don’t the parents even turn up when their children are in court?”

Well, join the dots and you have a clear idea about why some of these young people
were behaving so terribly.

Either there was no one at home, they didn’t much care or they’d lost control.

Families matter.

I don’t doubt that many of the rioters out last week have no father at home.

Perhaps they come from one of the neighbourhoods where it’s standard for children to have a mum and not a dad…

…where it’s normal for young men to grow up without a male role model, looking to the streets for their father figures, filled up with rage and anger.

So if we want to have any hope of mending our broken society, family and parenting is where we’ve got to start.

I’ve been saying this for years, since before I was Prime Minister, since before I was leader of the Conservative Party.

So: from here on I want a family test applied to all domestic policy.

If it hurts families, if it undermines commitment, if it tramples over the values that keeps people together, or stops families from being together, then we shouldn’t do it.

More than that, we’ve got to get out there and make a positive difference to the way families work, the way people bring up their children…

…and we’ve got to be less sensitive to the charge that this is about interfering or nannying.

We are working on ways to help improve parenting – well now I want that work accelerated, expanded and implemented as quickly as possible.

This has got to be right at the top of our priority list.

And we need more urgent action, too, on the families that some people call ‘problem’, others call ‘troubled’.

The ones that everyone in their neighbourhood knows and often avoids.

Last December I asked Emma Harrison to develop a plan to help get these families on track.

It became clear to me earlier this year that – as can so often happen – those plans were being held back by bureaucracy.

So even before the riots happened, I asked for an explanation.

Now that the riots have happened I will make sure that we clear away the red tape and the bureaucratic wrangling, and put rocket boosters under this programme…

…with a clear ambition that within the lifetime of this Parliament we will turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families in the country.

The next part of the social fight-back is what happens in schools.

We need an education system which reinforces the message that if you do the wrong thing you’ll be disciplined…

…but if you work hard and play by the rules you will succeed.

This isn’t a distant dream.

It’s already happening in schools like Woodside High in Tottenham and Mossbourne in Hackney.

They expect high standards from every child and make no excuses for failure to work hard.

They foster pride through strict uniform and behaviour policies.

And they provide an alternative to street culture by showing how anyone can get up and get on if they apply themselves.

Kids from Hammersmith and Hackney are now going to top universities thanks to these schools.

We need many more like them which is why we are creating more academies…

…why the people behind these success stories are now opening free schools…

…and why we have pledged to turn round the 200 weakest secondaries and the 200
weakest primaries in the next year.

But with the failures in our education system so deep, we can’t just say ‘these are our plans and we believe in them, let’s sit back while they take effect’.

I now want us to push further, faster.

Are we really doing enough to ensure that great new schools are set up in the poorest
areas, to help the children who need them most?

And why are we putting up with the complete scandal of schools being allowed to fail, year after year?

If young people have left school without being able to read or write, why shouldn’t that school be held more directly accountable?

Yes, these questions are already being asked across government but what happened last week gives them a new urgency – and we need to act on it.

Just as we want schools to be proud of we want everyone to feel proud of their communities.

We need a sense of social responsibility at the heart of every community.

Yet the truth is that for too long the big bossy bureaucratic state has drained it away.

It’s usurped local leadership with its endless Whitehall diktats.

It’s frustrated local organisers with its rules and regulations

And it’s denied local people any real kind of say over what goes on where they live.

Is it any wonder that many people don’t feel they have a stake in their community?

This has got to change. And we’re already taking steps to change it.

That’s why we want executive Mayors in our twelve biggest cities…

…because strong civic leadership can make a real difference in creating that sense of belonging.

We’re training an army of community organisers to work in our most deprived neighbourhoods…

…because we’re serious about encouraging social action and giving people a real chance to improve the community in which they live.

We’re changing the planning rules and giving people the right to take over local assets.

But the question I want to ask now is this.
Are these changes big enough to foster the sense of belonging we want to see?

Are these changes bold enough to spread the social responsibility we need right across our communities, especially in our cities?

That’s what we’re going to be looking at urgently over the coming weeks.

Because we won’t get things right in our country if we don’t get them right in our communities.

But one of the biggest parts of this social fight-back is fixing the welfare system.

For years we’ve had a system that encourages the worst in people – that incites laziness, that excuses bad behaviour, that erodes self-discipline, that discourages hard work…

…above all that drains responsibility away from people.

We talk about moral hazard in our financial system – where banks think they can act recklessly because the state will always bail them out…

…well this is moral hazard in our welfare system – people thinking they can be as irresponsible as they like because the state will always bail them out.

We’re already addressing this through the Welfare Reform Bill going through parliament.

But I’m not satisfied that we’re doing all we can.

I want us to look at toughening up the conditions for those who are out of work and receiving benefits…

…and speeding up our efforts to get all those who can work back to work

Work is at the heart of a responsible society.

So getting more of our young people into jobs, or up and running in their own businesses is a critical part of how we strengthen responsibility in our society.

Our Work Programme is the first step, with local authorities, charities, social enterprises and businesses all working together to provide the best possible help to get a job.

It leaves no one behind – including those who have been on welfare for years.

But there is more we need to do, to boost self-employment and enterprise…

…because it’s only by getting our young people into work that we can build an ownership society in which everyone feels they have a stake.

As we consider these questions of attitude and behaviour, the signals that government sends, and the incentives it creates…

…we inevitably come to the question of the Human Rights Act and the culture associated with it.

Let me be clear: in this country we are proud to stand up for human rights, at home and abroad. It is part of the British tradition.

But what is alien to our tradition – and now exerting such a corrosive influence on behaviour and morality…

…is the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights in a way that has undermined personal responsibility.

We are attacking this problem from both sides.

We’re working to develop a way through the morass by looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights.

And we will be using our current chairmanship of the Council of Europe to seek agreement to important operational changes to the European Convention on Human Rights.

But this is all frustratingly slow.

The truth is, the interpretation of human rights legislation has exerted a chilling effect on public sector organisations, leading them to act in ways that fly in the face of common sense, offend our sense of right and wrong, and undermine responsibility.

It is exactly the same with health and safety – where regulations have often been twisted out of all recognition into a culture where the words ‘health and safety’ are lazily trotted out to justify all sorts of actions and regulations that damage our social fabric.

So I want to make something very clear: I get it. This stuff matters.

And as we urgently review the work we’re doing on the broken society, judging whether it’s ambitious enough – I want to make it clear that there will be no holds barred…

…and that most definitely includes the human rights and health and safety culture.

Many people have long thought that the answer to these questions of social behaviour is to bring back national service.

In many ways I agree…

…and that’s why we are actually introducing something similar – National Citizen Service.

It’s a non-military programme that captures the spirit of national service.

It takes sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds and gets them to work together.

They work in their communities, whether that’s coaching children to play football, visiting old people at the hospital or offering a bike repair service to the community.

It shows young people that doing good can feel good.

The real thrill is from building things up, not tearing them down.

Team-work, discipline, duty, decency: these might sound old-fashioned words but they are part of the solution to this very modern problem of alienated, angry young

people.

Restoring those values is what National Citizen Service is all about.

I passionately believe in this idea.

It’s something we’ve been developing for years.

Thousands of teenagers are taking part this summer.

The plan is for thirty thousand to take part next year.

But in response to the riots I will say this.

This should become a great national effort.

Let’s make National Citizen Service available to all sixteen year olds as a rite of passage.

We can do that if we work together: businesses, charities, schools and social enterprises…

…and in the months ahead I will put renewed effort into making it happen.

Today I’ve talked a lot about what the government is going to do.

But let me be clear:

This social fight-back is not a job for government on its own.

Government doesn’t run the businesses that create jobs and turn lives around.

Government doesn’t make the video games or print the magazines or produce the music that tells young people what’s important in life.

Government can’t be on every street and in every estate, instilling the values that matter.

This is a problem that has deep roots in our society, and it’s a job for all of our society to help fix it.

In the highest offices, the plushest boardrooms, the most influential jobs, we need to think about the example we are setting.

Moral decline and bad behaviour is not limited to a few of the poorest parts of our society.

In the banking crisis, with MPs’ expenses, in the phone hacking scandal, we have seen some of the worst cases of greed, irresponsibility and entitlement.

The restoration of responsibility has to cut right across our society.

Because whatever the arguments, we all belong to the same society, and we all have a stake in making it better.

There is no ‘them’ and ‘us’ – there is us.

We are all in this together, and we will mend our broken society – together.

SOCCER SATURDAY: W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher top ten soccer videos (Part 4)

I thought about this one to be number one but I changed my mind.

George Best- ‘The Best Tribute’!

George Best

_______________________________

Wilson’s 1st pick is both

Young Lionel Messi – Rare Clips HD

shows rare clips of the best player ever, Messi!!!

Lionel Messi 2011 – This is my life story

I love this video!!!

___________________________

Here are some of the videos that Everette considered as his number one:

Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) crazy goal vs North Korea (Korea DPR) 7-0 FUNNY

HOWEVER , MY FINAL CHOICE IS:

Arkansas Times Bloggers: “Are you good without God? Millions are.” (Part 2)

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (10 of 14)

Christianity vs. Secular Humanism – Norman Geisler vs. Paul Kurtz

Published on Oct 6, 2013

Date: 1986
Location: The John Ankerberg Show

Christian debater: Norman L. Geisler
Atheist/secular humanist debater: Paul Kurtz

For Norm Geisler: http://www.normgeisler.com/

______________________

Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler)

Published on Jun 6, 2012

Norm Geisler argues via Kalam Cosmological Argument for the origins of the universe with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much evidence Geisler gave, Paul Kurtz refused to fully acknowledge the implications of it, while NEVER giving evidence for his own interpretation of the universe’s beginning.

_____________________

Paul Kurtz pictured above.

August 11, 2011 on the Arkansas Times Blog many nonbelievers ranted about the requirement that an atheist group had to put down a $15,000 deposit in order to advertise the phrase “Are you good without God? Millions are.”

I personally know of many atheists who are very fine moral people who have a wonderful marriage and a great family life. I could go on and name a bunch of names.

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (11 of 14) (to motivate people to be good without God)

One of the Arkansas Times bloggers that used the username  mountaingirl noted on August 12, 2011:

Recently I read “Divinity of Doubt, The God Question” by famed author and successful prosecutor and trial lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi.

It is very thought provoking and addresses some of the issues mentioned here.

Gary DeMar in the article, “Vincent Bugliosi: Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury of God,” observed:

In the Epilogue to Outrage, Bugliosi bears his soul and the struggle he has had with justifying God’s goodness with the presence of evil in the world and God’s “inaction” in the trial in allowing a murderer to go free:

When tragedies like the murders of Nicole and Ron occur, they get one to thinking about the notion of God. Nicole was only thirty-five, Ron just twenty-five, both outgoing, friendly, well-liked young people who had a zest for life. How does God, if there is a God, permit such a horrendous and terrible act to occur, along with countless other unspeakable atrocities committed by man against his fellow man throughout history? And how could God–all-good and all-just, according to Christian theology—permit the person who murdered Ron and Nicole to go free, holding up a Bible in his hand at that? When Judge Ito’s clerk, Deidre Robertson, read the jury’s not-guilty verdict, Nicole’s mother whispered, “God, where are you?”[8]

I have an article below that really does a great job responding to that.

Answers the problem of evil and a good God… puts the issue squarely in the lap of the skeptic asking the question (where it belongs).

_________________________________________

In his article “A Conversation with an Atheist,” Rick Wade notes:

The problem of evil is a significant moral issue in the atheist’s arsenal. We talk about a God of goodness, but what we see around us is suffering, and a lot of it apparently unjustifiable. Stephanie said, “Disbelief in a personal, loving God as an explanation of the way the world works is reasonable–especially when one considers natural disasters that can’t be blamed on free will and sin.”{17}

One response to the problem of evil is that God sees our freedom to choose as a higher value than protecting people from harm; this is the freewill defense. Stephanie said, however, that natural disasters can’t be blamed on free will and sin. What about this? Is it true that natural disasters can’t be blamed on sin? I replied that they did come into existence because of sin (Genesis 3). We’re told in Romans 8 that creation will one day “be set free from its slavery to corruption,” that it “groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.” The Fall caused the problem, and, in the consummation of the ages, the problem will be fixed.

Second, I noted that on a naturalistic basis, it’s hard to even know what evil is. But the reality of God explains it. As theologian Henri Blocher said,

The sense of evil requires the God of the Bible. In a novel by Joseph Heller, “While rejecting belief in God, the characters in the story find themselves compelled to postulate his existence in order to have an adequate object for their moral indignation.” . . . When you raise this standard objection against God, to whom do you say it, other than this God? Without this God who is sovereign and good, what is the rationale of our complaints? Can we even tell what is evil? Perhaps the late John Lennon understood: “God is a concept by which we measure our pain,” he sang. Might we be coming to the point where the sense of evil is a proof of the existence of God?{18}

So,… if there is no God, there really is no problem of evil. Does the atheist ever find herself shaking her fist at the sky after some catastrophe and demanding an explanation? If there is no God, no one is listening.

Arkansas Times Bloggers: “Are you good without God? Millions are.” (Part 1)

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (1 of 14)

Christianity vs. Secular Humanism – Norman Geisler vs. Paul Kurtz

Published on Oct 6, 2013

Date: 1986
Location: The John Ankerberg Show

Christian debater: Norman L. Geisler
Atheist/secular humanist debater: Paul Kurtz

For Norm Geisler: http://www.normgeisler.com/

______________________

Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler)

Published on Jun 6, 2012

Norm Geisler argues via Kalam Cosmological Argument for the origins of the universe with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much evidence Geisler gave, Paul Kurtz refused to fully acknowledge the implications of it, while NEVER giving evidence for his own interpretation of the universe’s beginning.

_____________________

Paul Kurtz pictured above.

August 11, 2011 on the Arkansas Times Blog many nonbelievers ranted about the requirement that an atheist group had to put down a $15,000 deposit in order to advertise the phrase “Are you good without God? Millions are.”

I personally know of many atheists who are very fine moral people who have a wonderful marriage and a great family life. I could go on and name a bunch of names. However, I will mention my good friend John George who passed away a couple of years ago after a battle with cancer.

He wrote a book published by Prometheus which was started by Paul Kurtz. Kurtz was the originator of the Humanist Manifesto II. I have corresponded in the past with him and I have found him to be a very kind man. I highly recommend his debate concerning humanism on the John Ankerberg Show. I have included clips of that show.

I do not question the fact that many atheists live moral lives. However, this idea that humanists and atheists can come up with a logical moral system that rules out murder is not realistic. Rationally they can not do it. Without God in the picture then you only have this world of time and chance. If evolution teaches us the survival of the fittest then why would “might makes right” ever be wrong?

The movie maker and atheist Woody Allen knows this best.

allen_woody

I am a big Woody Allen movie fan and no other movie better demonstrates man’s need for God more  than Allen’s 1989 film  Crimes and Misdemeanors. This film also brought up the view that Hitler believed that “might made right.” How can an atheist argue against that?  Basically Woody Allen is attacking the weaknesses in his own agnostic point of view!! Take a look at the video clip below when he says in the absence of God, man has to do the right thing. What chance is there that will happen?

Crimes and Misdemeanors is  about a eye doctor who hires a killer to murder his mistress because she continually threatens to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. Afterward he is haunted by guilt. His Jewish father had taught him that God sees all and will surely punish the evildoer.

But the doctor’s crime is never discovered. Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his father had with Judah’s unbelieving Aunt May during a Jewish Sedar dinner  many years ago:

“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazi’s, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says Aunt May.

Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”

Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”

Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”

Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”

Judah’s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”

The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it?  The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God  has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).

Crimes and Misdemeanors (Woody Allen – 1989) – Final scenes

It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism.

Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (11 of 14) (How to motivate people to be good without God?)

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (3 of 14)

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.1

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.1

Jason Tolbert on his blog made these comments:

The next couple of days will lead to major events in Iowa impacting the Republican 2012 Presidential race, including tonight’s Fox News debate and the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday. 

We have already seen Mitt Romney have an interesting “Corporations are people, my friend” moment with a heckler at the state fair, which sort of reminded me of Charlton Heston in Soylent Green.  Tomorrow, Sarah Palin will be making a surprise stop on her bus tour.  It is not completely clear exactly why – something about preferring fried butter-on-a-stick to peas.  Mike Huckabee will also be making the round airing his Fox News show live and playing the bass guitar at the booths of candidates that he likes.

Here is my take on how the events can affect the candidates from a right-leaning blogger located 600 miles away.  For insight from Iowa bloggers, I would recommend Iowa Independent and Iowa Republican.

Michelle Bachmann – Expectations for Bachmann are sky-high going down the stretch.  Since the last debate a couple of weeks ago, she has become the Iowa “non-Romney” front-runner.  Anything less than a first-place finish in the straw poll and a solid debate performance could burst her bubble.

Ron Paul – Mark my words, Paul will do well at the straw poll.  His supporters are die-hard and would walk through walls to vote for him.  The problem for Paul is that he shows no signs of being able to attract support from the other 80 to 90 percent of the party.  His supporters will have a big weekend, but it very well could be the high point of their campaign.

Tim Pawlenty – In my opinion, this weekend is “make-or-break” for Pawlenty.  He has completely fallen off the map in the last couple of months and a poor showing in Thursday’s debate and/or the straw poll will all but end his chances.  However, unlike Bachmann, the expectations for Pawlenty are very low.  A third place finish could be a glimmer of hope that keeps him alive for another day, but anything less and he really ought to drop out.

Breakout candidates – There is a chance for a long list of candidates to surprise folks with a strong showing.  Rick Santorum probably stands the best chance of doing this as he appeals to the socially conservative Iowa Republican voter.  Herman Cain could get a small boost from the FairTax group, although they are not providing him anywhere close to the support they provided Huckabee four years ago.  Newt Gingrich could also surprise people, but I doubt it.  I have not figured out why he is still running.

Mitt Romney – Romney is still the national frontrunner, but is making the conscious decision to ignore Iowa.  After tonight’s debate, he is leaving Iowa and heading to New Hampshire.  Iowans do not like to be ignored and he will probably pay the price at the straw poll

What is the cause of the U.S. credit downgrade? (Part 1)

moore

Movie Clip Canadian Bacon Prt 1

What is the cause of the U.S. credit downgrade? (Part 1)

 
Still of Alan Alda, John Candy, Kevin Pollak, Rip Torn, Michael Moore and Rhea Perlman in Canadian Bacon

7 January 2011
© 1995 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Still of Alan Alda, John Candy, Kevin Pollak, Rip Torn, Michael Moore and Rhea Perlman in Canadian Bacon

Michael Moore is a liberal movie director and his films have been pitiful. However, I did enjoy the movie “Canadian Bacon” which was very funny. Above is a clip from that movie.

Liberal firebrand Michael Moore called on President Obama to respond to the U.S. credit downgrade by arresting the leaders of the credit-ratings agencies.

On his Twitter feed Monday, the Oscar-winning film director also blamed the 2008 economic collapse on Standard & Poor’s — apparently because it and other credit-ratings agencies did not downgrade mortgage-based bonds, which encouraged the housing bubble and let it spread throughout the economy.

“Pres Obama, show some guts & arrest the CEO of Standard & Poors. These criminals brought down the economy in 2008& now they will do it again,” Mr. Moore wrote.

Standard & Poor’s, one of three key debt agencies, stripped the U.S. federal government of its AAA status Friday night and reduced it to AA+ for the first time in the nation’s history.

___________________________

I don’t think that Standard and Poors did anything wrong and I think they would have been wrong if they did not act because of all the political pressure they were receiving from the Obama administration. My views are much closer to those below.

GOPers Romney, Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum blame President Obama on S&P credit downgrade

BY Aliyah Shahid
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Saturday, August 6th 2011, 12:10 PM

The GOP‘s cadre of anti-Obama presidential candidates are hammering their nemesis for the first credit downgrade in U.S. history.Late Friday night, following months of bruising, rancorous debate in Washington over the debt ceiling and America’s future deficit, the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded the country’s sterling AAA credit rating to AA+. The other two major ratings agencies — Moody’sand Fitch — maintained the nation’s AAA rating.”America’s creditworthiness just became the latest casualty in President Obama‘s failed record of leadership on the economy,” said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a statement.

“Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama. His failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of our nation’s prized AAA credit rating.”

The Obama administration slammed the credibility of the analysis S&P used to downgrade the nation’s credit rating, insisting there was a $2 trillion error in S&P’s calculations. The ratings agency conceded the error, but did not alter its conclusion.

Tea Party darling Rep. Michele Bachmann — who voted against the debt-ceiling deal — also laid into Obama, declaring that the “President has destroyed the credit rating of the United States.”

She even went as far as calling for the resignation of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman described the downgrade as a result of a “lack of leadership in Washington,” adding that “for far too long we have let reckless government spending go unchecked and the cancerous debt afflicting our nation has spread.”

And ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum blamed Obama for not taking more responsibility.

“I understand the U.S. Treasury is going back to Standard and Poor’s to say that a two trillion dollar mathematical error by S&P contributed to the downgrade,” he said. “So, in addition to blaming President Bush for all of its problems, now the White Houseis blaming S&P – but this happened on the President’s watch – and he has to deal with it.”

 

Can Bill Halter beat Representative Tim Griffin?

With President Obama on the top of the ticket in 2012, I just don’t think that Bill Halter can beat Representative Tim Griffin. Red Arkansas seems to agree with me:

Today we consider Bill Halter, the former Lt. Governor of Arkansas who has a slightly creepy relationship with an old guy wearing polyester Bike coaching shorts and has instilled much love from such Arkansas Democratic luminaries as Marion Berry, Dustin McDaniel, Mike Beebe, Mike Ross and Keith Ingram.

You see, Mr. Halter has caused two looney leftie bloggers to get all ver clempt over the mishegoss that he might unseat Rep. Tim Griffin in 2012.

To wit, we offer the pie in the sky ramblings of the Blue Arkansas Blog:

I don’t see why a strong Democrat couldn’t run a competitive race outside of Pulaski and into Perry, Van Buren, Conway, and even Faulkner.  Halter would be that sort of Democrat for sure, and with the kind of fundraising he could manage and grassroots excitement he could generate he would definitely be a major threat to Tim Griffin.

We’d like to offer a slight edit to BAB’s post by changing the phrase “grassroots excitement” to “union-financed smurfturfing.” Furthermore, we’d also like to point out the following 2010 AR-02 election results from “Perry, Van Buren, Conway, and even Faulkner” counties:

We guess Joyce Elliott would not be considered a “strong Democrat” by the BABlers. That’s got to sting a little bit.

Now we move on to the left-headed stepchild at non-content partner Talk Business, former Halter staffer Michael Cook. Mr. Cook writes that “Bill Halter can beat Tim Griffin,” adding:

I’m told by multiple sources, outside of the Halter camp, that recent polling shows Griffin is beatable and weaker than many realize.

Of course, the new go-to liberal blogger for DPA (read: consultant) oppo-dumps and talking points offers no proof to back his claim. (Hey, didn’t he moan about a similar lack of proof recently?)

Mr. Cook also spins a creative story as to how “ticket-splitting is ingrained in our political culture.” He cites the following examples as proof:

In 2004, John Kerry lost the 2nd Congressional District, but Vic Snyder cruised to victory over a well-funded opponent.  In 2002, Arkansans voted out Republican U.S. Senator Tim Hutchinson, but re-elected Republican Governor Mike Huckabee. In 2000, Al Gore lost Arkansas, but Mike Ross defeated Republican Congressman Jay Dickey for Congress.

Funny how that, according to Mr. Cook’s view, the only ticket-splitting occurs when Republicans are on the top of the ticket. We’ll put the fact that Mr. Beebe won the Second District 66%-32% while Mr. Griffin won 58%-38% out of our minds then. (BTW, it sure looks to us that there were a few Democrats who dared to stray from Da Guv–no telling what they’d do when Da O is atop the ballot.)

Shall we deconstruct in chronological order?

  • 2000: While Al Gore lost Arkansas, he won AR-04.
  • 2002: Do we really need to get into Tim Hutchinson’s marital issues and that Mark Pryor traded on his daddy’s name?
  • 2004: Vic Snyder raised $891,220. Marvin Parks raised $576,854. (By comparison, Mr. Griffin raised $1,855,578 in 2010.)

That was fun.

Since Mr. Cook likes to toss out info with nothing sourced, we’d like to follow suit by adding that–according something we heard from some guy–Mr. Halter’s “big donors” indicate that he may take a pass.

We’re not real sure if that is in reference to local donors or if it means Richard Trumka and the AFL-CIO will not be spending another $4.5 million in independent expenditures on behalf of Mr. Halter like they did in 2010.

According to Woody Allen Life is meaningless (Woody Wednesday Part 2)

Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7}

Is there an answer to the question “Is there meaning in life?” Woody Allen does not believe so, but I would like to offer one below.

Good review of “Midnight in Paris” below and the writer also refers to Woody Allen’s view that life is meaningless:

Roger Arpajou /Sony Picture ClassicsOwen Wilson plays Gil, a Hollywood screenwriter on vacation in Paris who wishes he could escape back to the 1920s. David Edelstein says his performance is one of the finest by a lead in a Woody Allen film — and rivals many of Allen’s performances, too.

Owen Wilson plays Gil, a Hollywood screenwriter on vacation in Paris who wishes he could escape back to the 1920s. David Edelstein says his performance is one of the finest by a lead in a Woody Allen film — and rivals many of Allen's performances, too.
Roger Arpajou /Sony Picture ClassicsOwen Wilson plays Gil, a Hollywood screenwriter on vacation in Paris who wishes he could escape back to the 1920s. David Edelstein says his performance is one of the finest by a lead in a Woody Allen film — and rivals many of Allen’s performances, too.

Midnight in Paris

  • Director: Woody Allen
  • Genre: Comedy, Romance
  • Running Time: 88 minutes

Rated PG-13 for some sexual references and smoking

With: Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Michael Sheen, Owen Wilson, Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody

text size A A A

May 20, 2011

Woody Allen isn’t religious, but he has a rabbinical side, and over the past decade his films have become more and more like Talmudic parables for atheists. On the surface, these movies are streamlined, even breezy, and they often have voice-over narration to get the pesky exposition out of the way fast. Philosophically, Allen has settled on resignation, a cosmic shrug: There’s no God, no justice, people are inconstant, life is meaningless — so where do you wanna eat?

I have a problem, though, buying into the worldview of someone whose world is a closed ecosystem. There’s no evidence that Allen lets any contemporary culture penetrate his hard, defensive shell. Music stopped in the ’40s, if not earlier, ditto literature, ditto film — with a pass for select European directors. He seems locked in a daydream of the past.

The good news is that Allen has made the lure of nostalgia the theme of his supernatural comedy Midnight in Paris, which might be why this is his best, most emotionally pure film in over a decade. It’s a romantic fantasy that’s also a sly act of self-criticism.

The time-traveling hero, Gil, played by Owen Wilson, is a successful Hollywood screenwriter on holiday in Paris with his brisk, upwardly mobile fiancee, Inez, played by Rachel McAdams. Gil considers himself a hack and, to Inez’s horror, wants to write novels instead of movies. How he wishes he could be a writer in Paris — better yet, Paris in the ’20s, alongside Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, and all those other giants living high yet creating enduring works of art.

You can almost hear the familiar Woody Allen cadences in the film, yet Owen Wilson isn’t the usual East Coast intellectual Allen hero, and he makes the lines his own. Apart from Mia Farrow in The Purple Rose of Cairo, this is the finest lead performance in an Allen film that wasn’t by Allen — and finer than many of Allen’s, too. You sense the vein of wistfulness under his stoner cool, the longing for definition behind his spaciness. It’s a thrilling moment when he sits forlornly on some steps in the rain at midnight, a vintage automobile rumbles by, the champagne-swilling occupants invite him in, and he’s suddenly back in the ’20s.

EnlargeRoger Arpajou/Sony Picture ClassicsOwen Wilson, playing the time-traveling hero Gil, wants to write novels instead of movies, much to the horror of his fiancee Inez, played by Rachel McAdams.
Owen Wilson, playing the time-traveling hero Gil, wants to write novels instead of movies, much to the horror of his fiancee Inez, played by Rachel McAdams.
Roger Arpajou/Sony Picture ClassicsOwen Wilson, playing the time-traveling hero Gil, wants to write novels instead of movies, much to the horror of his fiancee Inez, played by Rachel McAdams.

How? No explanation. Allen just breezes past all that, the way he did in Purple Rose and, before that, in his great 1970s short story, “The Kugelmass Episode,” happily eliminating the sci-fi wheels and pulleys that tend to suck up so much screen time. Gil is just there — counseling Scott about Zelda, drinking with Hemingway, showing parts of his novel to Gertrude Stein, and falling in love with a woman named Adriana, played by a stunningly beautiful Marion Cotillard. Adriana bonds with Gil over his love of the past — except the past she loves is the 1890s and not her vulgar present. His ’20s ideal woman hates the ’20s — a bitter irony.

Allen doesn’t do anything interesting with Scott and Zelda — my guess is he’s too in awe of them. But his Hemingway, played with forthright manly-manliness by Corey Stoll, is a riot; and as Gertrude Stein, Kathy Bates proves that in an absurd context, playing it straight can make you funnier than a thousand clowns.

Midnight in Paris is a doodle, but it’s easy and graceful, and its ambivalent view of nostalgia has all kinds of resonance. As I watched, I felt a different sort of nostalgia: not for the Parisian ’20s but for the days in which Allen regularly turned out freewheeling, pitch-perfect tall tales in print and onscreen. The movie is so good it takes you back to those days, which were the days, my friend.

____________________________________

Below is an excellent article on the meaning of life and it includes a reference to Woody Allen:

_______________________________

What’s the Meaning of Life? Print E-mail

Written by Jerry Solomon

Meaning in Everyday Life

Cathy has been married to her husband Dan for twenty years and is the mother of two teenagers. She is very involved in family, church, and community activities. Many consider her to be the model of one that “has it together,” so to speak. Unknown to her family and her many friends, lately she has been thinking a lot about her lifestyle. As a result, she has even questioned whether there is any ultimate meaning or purpose underlying her busyness. At lunch one day she finds herself in an intimate conversation with a good friend named Sarah. Even though they have never talked about such things, Cathy decides to see how Sarah will respond to her questioning. Lets eavesdrop on their conversation.

Cathy: Sarah, Ive been doing some serious thinking lately.

Sarah: Is something wrong?

Cathy: I dont know that I would say something is wrong. I just dont know what to make of these thoughts Ive been having.

Sarah: What thoughts?

Cathy: This may sound like Im going off the deep end or something, but I promise you Im not. Ive just started asking some really heavy questions. And I havent told another soul about it.

Sarah: Well, tell me! You know you can trust me.

Cathy: Okay. But you promise not to laugh or blow it off?

Sarah: Stop being so defensive. Just say it!

Cathy: Sarah, why are you here? I mean, what is your purpose in life?

Sarah: (She pauses before responding flippantly.) Youre right, you have gone off the deep end.

Cathy: Sarah, I need you to be serious with me here!

Sarah: Okay! Im sorry! Im just drawing a blank. Actually, I try not to think about that question.

Cathy: Yeah, well, denying it doesnt work anymore. It just keeps rolling around in my head.

Sarah: Cant you talk to Dan about it?

Cathy: Ive thought about it, but I dont want him to think theres something wrong between us.

Sarah: Well, what about talking to your pastor? I bet hed have some answers.

Cathy: Yeah, Ive thought about that too. Maybe I will.

Is Cathy really “weird,” or is she an example of people that rub shoulders with us each day? And what about Sarah? Was her nervous response typical of how most of us would respond if we were asked questions about meaning and purpose?

James Dobson relates an intriguing story about a remarkable seventeen year old girl who achieved a perfect score on both sections of the “…Scholastic Achievement Test, and a perfect on the tough University of California acceptance index. Never in history has anyone accomplished this intellectual feat, which is almost staggering to contemplate.”{1} Interestingly, though, when a reporter “…asked her, What is the meaning of life? she replied, I have no idea. I would like to know myself.”{2}

This intellectually brilliant young lady has something in common with Cathy and Sarah, doesnt she? She is able to understand complicated subject matter, but she has no idea if life has any meaning.

Our goal in this essay is to see if there is an answer for them, as well as all of us.

The Questions Around Us

As I was driving to my office one day I heard a dramatic radio advertisement for a book. It began something like this: “Would you like to find meaning in life?” As I listened to the remainder of the ad I realized that the books author was focusing on New Age concepts of purpose and meaning. But the striking thing about what was said was that the advertisers obviously believed that they could get the attention of the radio audience by asking about meaning in life. Some may think it is advertising suicide to open an ad with such a question. Or perhaps the author and her publicists are on to something that “strikes a chord” with many people in our culture.

Questions of meaning and purpose are a part of the mental landscape as we enter a new millenium. Some contend this has not always been the case, but that such questions are an unprecedented legacy of the upheavals of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.{3} Others assert that such questions are a result of mans rejection of God.{4}

Even though most of us dont make such issues a part of our normal conversations, the questions tend to lurk around us. They can be heard in songs, movies, books, magazines, and many other media that permeate our lives. For example, Jackson Browne, an exceptionally reflective songwriter of the 60s and 70s, wrote these haunting lyrics in a song entitled For a Dancer:

Into a dancer you have grown
From a seed somebody else has thrown
Go ahead and throw
Some seeds of your own
And somewhere between the time you arrive
And the time you go
May lie a reason you were alive….{5}

Russell Banks, the author of Affliction and The Sweet Hereafter, both of which became Oscar-nominated films, has this to say about his work: “Im not a morbid man. In my writing, Im just trying to describe the world as straightforwardly as I can. I think most lives are desperate and painful, despite surface appearances. If you consider anyones life for long, you find its without meaning.”{6}

Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7}

Even television ads have focused on meaning, although in a flippant manner. A few years ago you could watch Michael Jordan running across hills and valleys in order to find a guru. When Jordan finds him he asks, “What is the meaning of life?” The guru answers with a maxim that leads to the product that is the real focus of Jordans quest.

Even though such illustrations can be ridiculous, maybe they serve to lead us beyond the surface of our subject. We often get nervous when we are encouraged to delve into subject matter that might stretch us. When we get involved in conversations that go beyond the more mundane things of everyday life we may tend to get tense and defensive. Actually, this can be a good thing. The Christian shouldnt fear such conversations. Indeed, Im confident that if we go beyond the surface, we can find peace and hope.

Beyond the Surface

Listen to the sober words of a famous writer of the twentieth century:

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy…. I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions.{8}

These phrases indicate that Albert Camus, author of The Plague, The Stranger, and The Myth of Sisyphus, was not afraid to go beyond the surface. Camus was bold in exposing the thoughts many were having during his lifetime. In fact, his world view made it obligatory. He was struggling with questions of meaning in light of what some called the “death of God.” That is, if there is no God, can we find meaning? Many have concluded that the answer is a resounding “No!” If true, this means that one who believes there is no God is not living consistently with that belief.

William Lane Craig, one of the great Christian thinkers of our time, states that:

Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving the lie to our worldview.{9}

Francis Schaeffer agrees with Craigs analysis, but makes even bolder assertions. He also maintains that the Christian can close the hopeless gap that is created in a persons godless worldview. Listen to what he wrote:

It is impossible for any non-Christian individual or group to be consistent to their system in logic or in practice. Thus, when you face twentieth-century man, whether he is brilliant or an ordinary man of the street, a man of the university or the docks, you are facing a man in tension; and it is this tension which works on your behalf as you speak to him.{10}

What happens when we go “beyond the surface” in order to find meaning? Can a Christian worldview stand up to the challenge? I believe it can, but we must stop and think of whether we are willing to accept the challenge. David Henderson, a pastor and writer, gives us reason to pause and consider our response. He writes:

Our lives, like our Daytimers, are busy, busy, busy, full of things to do and places to go and people to see. Many of us, convinced that the opposite of an empty life is a full schedule, remain content to press on and ignore the deeper questions. Perhaps it is out of fear that we stuff our lives to the wallsfear that, were we to stop and ask the big questions, we would discover there are no satisfying answers after all.{11}

Lets jettison any fear and continue our investigation. There are satisfying answers. It is not necessary to “stuff our lives to the walls” in order to escape questions of meaning and purpose. God has spoken to us. Let us begin to pursue His answers.

Eternity in Our Hearts

The book of Ecclesiastes contains numerous phrases that have entered our discourse. One of those phrases states that God “has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart. . .” (3:11). What a fascinating statement! Actually, the first part of the verse can be just as accurately translated “beautiful in its time.” Thus “a harmony of purpose and a beneficial supremacy of control pervade all issues of life to such an extent that they rightly challenge our admiration.”{12} The second part of the verse indicates that “man has a deep-seated sense of eternity, of purposes and destinies.”{13}But man cant fathom the vastness of eternal things, even when he believes in the God of eternity. As a result, all people live with what some call a “God-shaped hole.” Stephen Evans believes this hole can be understood through “the desire for eternal life, the desire for eternal meaning, and the desire for eternal love:”{14}

The desire for eternal life is the most evident manifestation of the need for God. Deep in our hearts we feel death should not be, was not meant to be. The second dimension of our craving for eternity is the desire for eternal meaning. We want lives that are eternally meaningful. We crave eternity, and earthly loves resemble eternity enough to kindle our deepest love. Yet earthly loves are not eternal. Our sense that love is the clue to what its all about is right on target, but earthly love itself merely points us in the right direction. What we want is an eternal love, a love that loves us unconditionally, accepts us as we are, while helping us to become all we can become. In short, we want God, the God of Christian faith.{15}

We must trust God for what we cannot see and understand. Or, to put it another way, we continue to live knowing there is meaning, but we struggle to know exactly what it is at all times. We are striving for what the Bible refers to as our future glorification (Rom. 8:30). “There is something self-defeating about human desire, in that what is desired, when achieved, seems to leave the desire unsatisfied.”{16} For example, we attempt to find meaning while searching for what is beautiful. C.S. Lewis referred to this in a sermon entitled The Weight of Glory:

The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things–the beauty, the memory of our own past–are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have not visited.{17}

Lewis remarkable prose reminds us that meaning must be given to us. “Meaning is never intrinsic; it is always derivative. If my life itself is to have meaning (or a meaning), it thus must derive its meaning from some sort of purposive, intentional activity. It must be endowed with meaning.”{18} Thus we return to God, the giver of meaning.

Meaning: Gods Gift

Think of all the wonderful gifts that God has given you. No doubt you can come up with a lengthy record of Gods goodness. Does your list include meaning or purpose in life? Most people wouldnt think of meaning as part of Gods goodness to us. But perhaps we should. This is because “only a being like God–a creator of all who could eventually, in the words of the New Testament, work all things together for good–only this sort of being could guarantee a completeness and permanency of meaning for human lives.”{19}So how did God accomplish this? The answer rests in His amazing love for us through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Consider the profound words of Carl F.H. Henry: “the eternal and self-revealed Logos, incarnate in Jesus Christ, is the foundation of all meaning.”{20} Bruce Lockerbie puts it like this: “The divine nature manifesting itself in the physical form of Jesus of Nazareth is, in fact, the integrating principle to which all life adheres, the focal point from which all being takes its meaning, the source of all coherence in the universe. Around him and him alone all else may be said to radiate. He is the Cosmic Center.”{21}

Picture a bicycle. When you ride one you are putting your weight on a multitude of spokes that radiate from a hub. All the spokes meet at the center and rotate around it. The bicycle moves based upon the center. Thus it is with Christ. He is the center around whom we move and find meaning. Our focus is on Him.

When the apostle Paul reflected on meaning and purpose in his life in Phillipians 3, he came to this conclusion (emphases added):

7…whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Did you notice how Christ was central to what Paul had to say about both his past and present? And did you notice that he used phrases such as “knowing Christ,” or “that I may gain Christ?” Such statements appear to be crucial to Pauls sense of meaning and purpose. Paul wants “to know” Christ intimately, which means he wants to know by experience. “Paul wants to come to know the Lord Jesus in that fulness of experimental knowledge which is only wrought by being like Him.”{22}

Personally, Pauls thoughts are important words of encouragement in my life. God through Christ gives meaning and purpose to me. And until I am glorified, I will strive to know Him and be like Him. Praise God for Jesus Christ, His gift of meaning!

Notes

1. James Dobson, Focus on the Family Newsletter (May 1996).
2. Ibid.
3. Gerhard Sauter, The Question of Meaning, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982).
4. Charles R. Swindoll, Living on the Ragged Edge (Waco, TX: Word, 1985).
5. Jackson Browne, “For a Dancer,” in James F. Harris, Philosophy at 33 1/3 rpm: Themes of Classic Rock Music (Chicago: Open Court, 1993), 68.
6. Russell Banks, in Jerome Weeks, “Continental Divide,” The Dallas Morning News (2 March 1999), 2C.
7. Woody Allen, Hannah and Her Sisters, in Thomas V. Morris, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 54.
8. Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, trans. Justin OBrien (New York: Vintage, 1960), 3-4.
9. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 71.
10. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1968), 122.
11. David W. Henderson, Culture Shift: Communicating Gods Truth to Our Changing World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 186.
12. H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1952), 90.
13. Ibid., 91.
14. C. Stephen Evans, Why Believe? Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God, revised ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 58-60.
15. Ibid.
16. Alistair McGrath, A Cloud of Witnesses (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 127.
17. C.S. Lewis, in “The Weight of Glory,” quoted in Alistair McGrath, A Cloud of Witnesses, 127.
18. Morris, 57.
19. Ibid., 62.
20. Carl F.H. Henry, God Revelation and Authority, Vol. III (Waco, TX: Word, 1979), 195.
21. D. Bruce Lockerbie, The Cosmic Center: The Supremacy of Christ in a Secular Wasteland (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1986),127-128.
22. Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuests Word Studies From the Greek New Testament, Volume Two (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), 93.

©1999 Probe Ministries.


About the AuthorJerry Solomon, former Director of Field Ministries and Mind Games Coordinator for Probe Ministries, served as Associate Pastor at Dallas Bible Church after leaving Probe. He received the B.A. (summa cum laude) in Bible and the M.A. (cum laude) in history and theology from Criswell College. He also attended the University of North Texas, Canal Zone College, and Lebanon Valley College. Just before Christmas 2000, Jerry went home to be with the Lord he loved and served.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe’s materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

Probe Ministries
2001 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano TX 75075
(972) 941-4565

info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Copyright information