Woody Allen’s search for God in his latest movie “Midnight in Paris”(Part 37)

In Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris,” the reference is made to the cold heartless universe. This points out that Woody Allen is trying to look for some hope in this universe somewhere. Did he find any lasting answers? The review of the movie below notes: “The call of the artist is to find an antidote to the emptiness of the present.” Actually that is the instruction that Gertrude Stein gives to Gil during the movie. I agree totally and I have suggestions to offer Mr. Allen.

I read an excellent article by David Mishkin concerning Woody Allen’s search for God and I wanted to share a portion of it with you.

God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen by David Mishkin

March 1, 1993

This is an archived article. It originally appeared on March 1, 1993. Some information may be outdated. 

A red-haired boy sits next to his mother in the psychiatrist’s office. She is describing her son’s problems and expressing her disappointment in him. Why is he always depressed? Why can’t he be like other boys his age? The doctor turns to the boy and asks why he is depressed. In a hopeless daze the boy replies, “The universe is expanding, and if the universe is everything…and if it’s expanding…someday it will break apart and that’s the end of everything…what’s the point?”

His mother leans over, slaps the kid and scolds: “What is that your business!”

This scene from Annie Hall typifies Woody Allen’s quest for understanding! Allen touches on various topics and themes in all his cinematic works, but three subjects continually resurface: the existence of God, the fear of death and the nature of morality. These are all Jewish questions or at least theological issues. Woody Allen is a seeker who wants answers to the Ultimate Questions. His movie characters differ, yet they are all, in some way, asking these questions he wants answered. They are all “Woody Allens” wrestling with the same issues. He explains:

Maybe it’s because I’m depressed so often that I’m drawn to writers like Kafka, Dostoevski and to a filmmaker like Bergman. I think I have all the symptoms and problems that their characters are occupied with: an obsession with death, an obsession with God or the lack of God, the question of why we are here. Almost all of my work is autobiographical—exaggerated but true.1

But Woody Allen does not allow himself to dwell too long on these universal problems. The mother’s response to her red-haired son’s angst is typical of the comedic lid the filmmaker presses over his depressing outlook to close the issue. True, Woody Allen has made his mark by asking big questions. But it is the absence of satisfactory answers to those questions that causes much of the angst—and humor—we see on the screen. Off screen we see little difference.

Allen’s (authorized) biography, published in 1991, sheds some light on his life and times. Woody Allen, whose given name was Allan Konigsberg, was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. Allen describes his Jewish family and neighborhood as being from “the heart of the old world, their values are God and carpeting.”2 While he did not embrace the religion of his youth, his Jewishness is ever present in his characters, plots and dialogue. Jewish thought is intrinsic to his life and work.

One can see this in the 1977 film Annie Hall, where Allen’s character, Alvy, is put in contrast to his Midwestern, gentile girlfriend. In one scene he is visiting Annie’s parents. Her grandmother stares at him, picturing him as a stereotypical Chasidic Jew with side locks, black hat and a long coat. The screen splits as Alvy imagines his family on the right and hers on the left. Her parents ask what his parents will be doing for “the holidays”:

“We fast, to atone for our sins,” his mother explains.

Annie’s mother is confused. “What sins? I don’t understand.”

Alvy’s father responds with a shrug: “To tell you the truth, neither do we.”

Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the mind.3

Allen suggests that the greatest thinkers in history died knowing no more than he does now.

In Crimes and Misdemeanors Woody Allen tackles the issue of morality on a much more serious level. Wealthy ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal has been having an extramarital affair for two years. When he attempts to end his illicit relationship, his mistress threatens to tell his wife. When backed into an impossible corner and offered an easy way out, Judah finds himself thinking the unthinkable.

Judah’s moral confusion is presented against a backdrop of the religion of his youth. Though he has long since rejected the Jewish religion, he is continually confronted with memories that activate his conscience. He remembers the words of his childhood rabbi:

“The eyes of God are on us always.”

Judah later speaks with another rabbi, a contemporary of his. The rabbi remarks on their contrasting worldviews:

“You see it [the world] as harsh and empty of values and pitiless. And I couldn’t go on living if I didn’t feel with all my heart a moral structure with real meaning and forgiveness and some kind of higher power and a reason to live. Otherwise there is no basis to know how to live.”

These words are ultimately pushed aside, as Judah succumbs to the simple solution of hiring a hit-man to murder his demanding lady in waiting. After the crime, Judah experiences gut-wrenching guilt. Judah Rosenthal finds the case for morality so strong that after the murder he blurts out:

“Without God, life is a cesspool!”

His conscience pushes him to great despair as, again, he examines the situation from a past vantage point. He envisions a Passover seder from his childhood. The conversation becomes a family debate over the importance of the celebration. Some of the relatives don’t believe in God and consider the ritual a foolish waste of time. The head of the extended family stoutly defends his faith, saying, “If necessary, I will always choose God over truth.”

Perhaps this is why Judah rejected his religion—he could not see faith as anything other than some sort of noble delusion for those who refuse to accept life’s ugly truths. As Judah continues to dwell on his crime, he has another vision in which his rabbi friend challenges him with the question: “You don’t think God sees?”

“God is a luxury I can’t afford,” Judah replies. There is a final ring to the statement as Judah decides to put the entire incident behind him.

Judah almost turns himself in; however, the price is too high and so he chooses denial, the most common escape. “In reality,” he says in the last scene, “we rationalize, we deny or else we couldn’t go on living.”

Another character, Professor Levy, speaks on morality in one of the film’s subplots. Levy is an aging philosopher much admired by the character played by Woody Allen, a filmmaker. The filmmaker is planning a documentary based on Levy’s life, and we first see the professor on videotape, discussing the paradox of the ancient Israelites:

“They created a God who cares but who also demands that you behave morally. This God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, who is beloved to him.…After 5,000 years we have not succeeded to create a really and entirely loving image of God.”

Levy eventually commits suicide. Despite his great learning, his final note discloses nothing more than the obvious: “I’ve gone out the window.”

Professor Levy’s suicide leaves Allen’s character stunned. Still, his humor ameliorates the situation as the filmmaker protests,

“When I grew up in Brooklyn, nobody committed suicide; everyone was too unhappy.”

The final comment on Levy’s suicide is a surprising departure from Allen’s security blanket of humor:

“No matter how elaborate a philosophical system you work out, in the end it’s gotta be incomplete.”

Remember, all of the dialogue is written by Woody Allen. Though his own character supplies comic relief to this dark film, his conclusions are just as bleak. Everyone is guilty of something whether it’s considered a crime or a misdemeanor.

Yet, Allen’s theological questions rarely address the nature of that guilt. The word “sin” is reserved for the grossest offenses—the ones that make the evening news—or would, if they were discovered. Judah Rosenthal’s crime is easily recognizable as sin, while various other infidelities and compromises are mere misdemeanors.

Sin against God is not something Allen appears to take seriously in any of his films. When evangelist Billy Graham was a guest on one of Allen’s 1960s television specials, the comedian was asked (not by Graham) to name his greatest sin. He responded:

“I once had impure thoughts about Art Linkletter.”24

However, when he distances himself from the personal nature of sin and looks to crimes or sins against humanity, Allen speaks with a passion.

In Hannah and Her Sisters the viewer is introduced to the character of Frederick, an angry, isolated artist who is disgusted with the conditions of the world. Of Auschwitz, Frederick remarks to his girlfriend:

“The real question is: ‘Given what people are, why doesn’t it happen more often?’ Of course, it does, in subtler forms.…”

In Allen’s theology, all have fallen short to a greater or lesser degree, but ironically, his view of human imperfection never appears in the same discussion as his thoughts about God.

He does admit to being disconnected with the universe:

“I am two with nature.”25

But he doesn’t mention a connection with a personal God because he doesn’t see a correlation between human failures and the question of connectedness to God.

While Allen is a unique thinker, he seems to be pedestrian when it comes to wrestling with problems of immorality and even inhumanity. While he calls the existence of God into question, he does not deal with our responsibility in acknowledging God if he does exist.

It is simple to analyze sin on a human level. The more people get hurt, the bigger the sin. But the biblical perspective is quite different: Any and all sin causes separation from God. One cannot view such a cosmic separation as large or small based on degrees of sin. Ironically, one of Allen’s short stories underscores the foolishness of comparison degrees of sin:

“Astronomers talk of an inhabited planet named Quelm, so distant from earth that a man traveling at the speed of light would take six million years to get there, although they are planning a new express route that will cut two hours off the trip.”26

The biblical perspective of separation from God is similar. Having “better morals” than the drug pusher, the rapist or the ax murderer makes a big difference—in our society. We should all strive to be the best people we can be, if only to improve the overall quality of life. But in terms of a relationship with God, doing the best one can is like being two hours closer to Quelm. God is so removed from any unrighteousness that the difference between “a little unrighteous” and a lot is irrelevant.

The question his films and essays never ask is: Could being alienated from God be the root cause of our alienation from one another…and even our alienation from our own selves?

“It’s hard to get your heart and your head to agree in life. In my case they’re not even friendly.”27

Woody Allen has a unique way of expressing the uneasy terms on which many people find their heads and their hearts. Perhaps that is why he has received 14 Academy Award nominations. Allen will shoot a scene as many as twenty times, hoping to capture the actors and scenery perfectly. His biographer says “he doesn’t like to go to the next thing until what he’s working on is perfect—a process that guarantees self-defeat.”28

Is filmmaking Woody Allen’s escape from the world at large? His biographer notes, “He assigns himself mental tasks throughout the day with the intent that not a moment will pass without his mind being occupied and therefore insulated from the dilemma of eschatology.”29

It is a continual process—writing takes his mind off of the ultimate questions, yet the characters he creates are always obsessed with those very same questions. Allen determines their fate, occasionally handing out a happy ending. And he seems painfully aware that he will have little to say about the ending of his own script.

There is much to be appreciated and enjoyed in Woody Allen’s humor, but it also seems as if he uses jokes to avoid taking the possibility of God’s existence very seriously. Maybe Woody Allen is afraid to find that God doesn’t exist, or on the other hand maybe he’s afraid to find that he does. In either case, he seems to need to add a comic edge to questions about God to prove that he is not wholehearted in his hope for answers.

Will Woody Allen tackle the problem of his own halfhearted search for God in a serious way in some future film or essay? Maybe, but if the Bible can be believed, it’s an issue that God has already dealt with. The prophet Jeremiah quotes the Creator as saying: “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jer. 29:13).

____________________________________

Earlier I wrote a post about the “golden age fallacy” that Woody Allen destroys in this film. The thinking that things would be better if we lived in a different time or a different place. However, Allen is still searching for meaning in life and deep down he knows in his heart that God made him for a special reason and not to just live a life without any lasting meaning. That is the reason he keeps bringing up these issues in his films.

Here I wanted to make two further suggestions to Mr. Allen myself: 


1. You may not have as much resources as  Solomon but you can still start on a spiritual search for the afterlife. .

 A.  Go to the Grand Canyon and see if you can deny the outward witness of God’s handiwork. That leads me to the scripture in Ecclesiastes 3:11, “…{God} has planted eternity in the human heart…”

B.   Rent a dvd of the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS by Woody Allen and see if you can answer this simple question: Do evil man like Hitler get off or will they be punished in an afterlife?
 

2. Read John 3:1-21 and see what happened when Jesus spoke to a true seeking skeptic of his day named Nicodemus. .
John 3:1-21

 1 There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. 2 After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. “Rabbi,” he said, “we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.”  3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again,[a] you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”  4 “What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?”  5 Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.[b] 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.[c] 7 So don’t be surprised when I say, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.”  9 “How are these things possible?” Nicodemus asked.  10 Jesus replied, “You are a respected Jewish teacher, and yet you don’t understand these things? 11 I assure you, we tell you what we know and have seen, and yet you won’t believe our testimony. 12 But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man[e] has come down from heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.[f]  16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.  18 “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. 19 And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. 20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. 21 But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.[g]”

Endnotes

  1. Eric Lax, Woody Allen, (New York: Knopf Publishing, 1991), p. 179.
  2. Ibid., p. 166.
  3. Manhattan, 1979.
  4. Lax, p. 141.
  5. Stardust Memories, 1980.
  6. Lax, p. 150.
  7. Sleeper, 1973.
  8. Hannah and Her Sisters, 1986.
  9. Woody Allen, “My Speech to the Graduates,” Side Effects, (New York: Random House Publ., 1980), p. 82.
  10. Sleeper.
  11. Lax, p. 183.
  12. Woody Allen, “Death (A Play),” Without Feathers, (New York: Random House Publ., 1975), p. 106.
  13. Woody Allen, “My Philosophy,” Getting Even, (New York: Warner Books, 1971), p. 25.
  14. Allen, “Early Essays,” Without Feathers, p. 108.
  15. Allen, “Selections From the Allen Notebook,” Without Feathers, p. 10.
  16. Allen, “My Apology,” Side Effects, p. 54.
  17. Stardust Memories.
  18. Allen, “My Speech to the Graduates,” Side Effects, p. 82.
  19. Sleeper.
  20. Allen, “Selections From the Allen Notebook,” Without Feathers, p. 8.
  21. Allen, “Examining Psychic Phenomena,” Without Feathers, p. 11.
  22. Lax, p. 41.
  23. Love and Death, 1975.
  24. Lax, p. 132.
  25. Ibid., p. 39.
  26. Allen, “Fabulous Tales and Mythical Beasts,” Without Feathers, p. 194.
  27. Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1989.
  28. Lax, p. 322.
  29. Ibid., p. 183.
  30. Josh Goller’s Take a Trip to the Darkside: Midnight in Paris

    Midnight in Paris

    with JOSH GOLLER

    The call of the artist is to find an antidote to the emptiness of the present. So goes the pulse of Woody Allen’s latest feature Midnight in Paris. Allen’s trademark themes of existential angst, restlessness, and fear of death permeate this film as well, but with a charm that’s a welcome departure from the more formulaic and forgettable pictures he’s added to his stable in recent years. A writer/director as prolific as Allen (who manages to churn out a new movie yearly) can’t avoid hits and misses, but his work has been trending toward the latter in the autumn of his career.

    Not so with Midnight in Paris. Once obsessively fixated in New York, he’s found a voice in Europe of late, and this latest endeavor glorifies Paris almost as fawningly. Standing in for the character Allen certainly would have played himself in his prime, Owen Wilson portrays Gil Pender, a restless Hollywood hack with literary aspirations on holiday with his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) in the City of Light.

    Gil and Inez may mesh when it comes to the little things (they both enjoy the “pita bread” at Indian restaurants, for instance) they butt heads on the grander scale. He enjoys walking through the rain and regrets never having moved to Paris when he once had the chance, while she’d prefer to furnish their home in Malibu with $20,000 desks.

    Though not explicitly revealed in the film’s trailers, it’s no great secret that Gil winds up stumbling into the Paris of the past, much like Jeff Daniels walked off the silver screen in Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. Inexplicably, Gil finds himself rubbing elbows with his late artistic heroes, the likes of Hemingway (Corey Stoll), Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), and Dali (Adrien Brody). He’s soon smitten by Picasso’s muse Adriana (Marion Cotillard), while wrestling his own displeasure with the present day.

    Wilson carries the picture as Gil, innocent and likable as he subtly shifts through time without the need of a vortex or DeLorean or hot tub. And he’s much more suited and capable of the Allen stand-in role than predecessors such as Will Ferrell or Larry David. Cotillard is warm and alluring while McAdams is cold but no less stunning. The film itself is shot with soft light but vivid colors and the story enchants without carrying too much philosophical heft.

    With a feast of literary and art references, the humor is of an esoteric brand and much of the film will be lost on the uninitiated. Still, Allen creates a world within a world that will delight even those who might not grasp why others in the theater are laughing. As usual, we may have to endure several more years of lesser works before arriving at another gem, but with Midnight in Paris Allen proves that, though we may yearn for the golden age, he can still make us happy in the present.

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about the saving the American dream project released May 10, 2011? (Part 1)

Limiting Government …and Cutting What It Can’t Do Well — Saving the American Dream

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beachis one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, and today are some of the conclusions of this study.

Economic and Fiscal Results

Scoring Fiscal Plans

The Heritage plan produces strong economic growth by reducing burdens on
taxpayers and businesses, reducing the government debt, increasing investment,
and encouraging competition. It also brings federal spending into balance and
maintains revenues over the next decade at the average historical level of 18.5
percent of GDP, which as noted earlier is the upper limit that Americans have
indicated a willingness to pay. The economy typically has grown quite well under
this average level of taxation. Taxes above this level often have had a negative
impact on the economy.

With the expansion of the federal government not just slowed but reversed,
the economy grows swiftly, creating new jobs and raising incomes for Americans.
A stronger economy strengthens the tax base and helps to achieve the plan’s
revenue targets. When combined with sharp reductions in spending, the Heritage
plan’s revenues are sufficient to reduce deficits and, thus, the debt.

As a part of its Solutions Initiative,[4] the Peter G.
Peterson Foundation asked Heritage and the five other organizations to prepare
their own solutions to the long-term budget crisis and to score their plans
using the same baseline. Thus, The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data
Analysis (CDA) modeled the Heritage plan using a “static” scoring against a
close approximation of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) extended baseline
that was developed by the Peterson Foundation.[5]

A static score assumes some behavioral changes by
individuals and markets, but leaves the overall economy unchanged. A dynamic
model assesses the economic effects of policy changes, and the CDA will
separately publish a dynamic scoring of the Heritage plan, using the CBO’s
alternative fiscal scenario as the baseline.[6] This alternative scenario, widely used in
budget discussions and comparisons, assumes that Congress will continue its
current policy and thus practices, such as adjusting the unindexed Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT) threshold, suspending payment reductions to Medicare
physicians (the “doc fix”), and extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief.

When available, the CDA used and updated reform proposals analyzed by the
CBO, such as the effect of some policy changes to Medicare. For analysis of the
impact of tax changes, the CDA used its tax and health care models.

A number of important insights into the fiscal effects of the Heritage plan
can be obtained by examining the static, or conventional, changes in federal
revenues and outlays resulting from fully implementing the Heritage plan under
this Peterson/CBO baseline. However, the methodology for static scoring does not
account for macroeconomic changes that result from changes such as higher tax
rates or lower spending. These economic changes can significantly affect fiscal
items, including revenue, because in reality more economic growth will increase
the tax base. Thus, policies that create more economic growth also generate more
tax revenue than a static model would indicate. To show the full benefits of the
Heritage plan, the CDA will publish a separate dynamic analysis of the plan to
supplement the static analysis presented in this report.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 90)

 

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

 

  • The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $100 billionin potential spending cuts.
  • Because of overstaffing, the U.S. Postal Service selects 1,125 employees per day to sit in empty rooms. They are not allowed to work, read, play cards, watch television, or do anything. This costs $50 millionannually.
  • Washington will spend $2.6 milliontraining Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.
  • Stimulus dollarshave been spent on mascot costumes, electric golf carts, and a university study examining how much alcohol college freshmen women require before agreeing to casual sex.

Brummett: Time for backup plans on debt ceiling debate

I know that a lot of people are getting nervous about the potential problems that may come from a government shutdown on August 2, 2011. However, I really am not worried and I think things will turn out fine if the Republicans do not blink. Nevertheless, Brummett is right when he says it appears that they are blinking.

John Brummett in his article, “Your hero is the one blinking,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 14, 2011 observed:

So it happened on Tuesday that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, bless him, blinked.

He’d already blinked a little, declining to filibuster a debt ceiling solution by which Republicans could kill any deal by invoking 60 votes. But this time he told a news conference that, while it was all Obama’s fault, the nation needed an escape hatch, a parachute, so that America would meets its debt obligations in the likely event a spending-cut compromise couldn’t be reached by Aug. 2.

So he proposed that, for a last gasp, Republicans would reject any real debt ceiling resolution and merely vote to give Obama periodic authority to make unilateral and short-term adjustments in the debt ceiling.

That would permit America to make its debt payments on time while permitting Republicans to run against Obama as the wild socialist spender who keeps personally piling up our innocent grandchildren’s unsustainable debt.

Remember that McConnell is on record saying the sole purpose of his Senate service is to get Obama beat.

_____________________

I had been hopeful that the Republicans would stay the course. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute expresses my views below on this debate.

McConnell’s Cave-In and Boehner’s Opportunity

Posted by Chris Edwards

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has offered the president a way to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion without having to cut spending. The WaPo reports that “McConnell’s strategy makes no provision for spending cuts to be enacted.”

This appears to be an epic cave-in and completely at odds with McConnell’s own pronouncements in recent months that major budget reforms must be tied to any debt-limit increase.

House Republicans should obviously reject McConnell’s surrender, and they should do what they should have done months ago. They should put together a package of $2 trillion in real spending cuts taken straight from the Obama fiscal commission report and pass it through the House tied to a debt-limit increase of $2 trillion. Then they shouldn’t budge unless the White House and/or the Senate produce their own $2 trillion packages of real spending cuts, which could be the basis of negotiating a final spending-cut deal.

For those who say that House tea party members won’t vote for a debt increase, I’d say that $2 trillion in spending cuts looks a lot better than the alternative of having Democrats and liberal Republicans doing an end-run around them with McConnell’s no-cut plan.

For those who say that House members are scared of voting for specific spending cuts, I’d say that they’ve already done it by passing the Paul Ryan budget plan. I’d also say that you can’t claim to be the party of spending cuts without voting for spending cuts.

Obama’s Fiscal Commission handed Republicans ready-made spending cuts on a silver platter—Republicans will never get better political cover for insisting on spending cuts than now.

Tommy Smith is back on the air at 103.7 the buzz in Little Rock this morning

On the way into work this morning I heard Tommy Smith back on the radio at 103.7 the buzz this morning for the first time since he had been arrested. He told David and Roger that he was sorry for all the lies and he never wanted to lie again about drinking. He never wanted to take another drink in his whole life.

He is back from Palm Springs, California where he was at a facility to treat his addiction. Fifty days later he is back and last night he went to bed at 9:30pm but did not get but an hour and half of sleep because he was so nervous about this morning.

Smith said he was sorry for what he did. At first he resented the local media for blowing the whistle on him, but he realized about 5 days later that it was not their fault, but in fact their job to report everything that happened.

Smith got to watch TV every night in Palm Springs two hours every night . One hour every night after dinner then another hour after their last class of the evening. Smith also mentioned that he had found God and had been praying a lot.

A lady caller noted that she had been alcohol free for about 5 years now in a very emotional call. She noted a rainbow over Little Rock this morning and wished Tommy good luck.

Here is the report from earlier:

Popular Little Rock DJ Tommy Smith has been arrested for DWI, leaving the scene of an accident, possession of a controlled substance and failure to stop. According to Arkansas Online, the 56-year old co-host of “The Show with No Name” on 103.7 The Buzz, an Arkansas State Police officer caught up with Smith after a hit and run on Interstate 430 was called in. The driver had crossed the median. That driver turned out to be Smith
who appeared drunk and admitted to drinking two pints of liquor and taking a Xanax. He refused a breathalzyer. Bond was set at $500.

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Medicare:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 7)

Michael F. Cannon on Government Run Health Care

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beachis one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, but I will start off with the section on Medicare.

The Bottom Line

By moving to a premium-support program, Congress can introduce the powerful
forces of consumer choice and competition into Medicare, forcing health plans
and providers to deliver value for taxpayer and beneficiary dollars. Similar
approaches to health care financing and delivery have been used in Medicare Part
D and the FEHBP, the program that covers Members of Congress. The record shows
that this approach can successfully control and slow the growth of health care
costs while increasing patient satisfaction.

Medicare today is less a traditional social insurance program, in which
beneficiaries pay for their benefits, and is becoming more of an income transfer
program. Today’s enrollees are not, in fact, “paying for” their Medicare
benefits, since it is really a “pay as you go” system with today’s workers
paying for today’s beneficiaries. Even so, payroll taxes pay for just a portion
of one part of Medicare, and the premiums that seniors pay for the other parts
cover less than a quarter of those costs.

Taxpayer subsidies account for 85 percent of total Medicare program costs. If
Medicare is left unreformed, our children and grandchildren will pay those
higher taxes even as they work and save to provide for their own families.

By reducing the level of tax subsidies for seniors with higher incomes, the
Heritage plan reduces both the burden on future taxpayers and dependence on
government. By adding catastrophic protection against serious illness and
targeting funding to those who are most in need, the plan strengthens Medicare
as safety-net insurance for all Americans and guarantees them better health and
economic security. Finally, by reducing the role of bureaucracy and red tape in
the delivery of medical care, the Heritage plan makes the practice of medicine
more attractive, thereby encouraging dedicated and talented individuals to join
the health professions.

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 36, Alice B. Toklas, Woody Allen on the meaning of life)

 I have been going through all the historical figures mentioned in Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris,” and today I will be discussing Alice B. Toklas. Also I will take a look at Woody Allen’s search for the meaning in life in connection with this film.
In one scene Ernest Heminingway brings Gil to meet Gertrude Stein. Alice opens the door and Heminingway greets her. That is the extent of her involvement in the film.
Jump to: navigation, search
https://youtu.be/_6ac2aw0YaA

Alice B. Toklas, photographed by Carl Van Vechten, 1949

Alice B. Toklas (April 30, 1877 – March 7, 1967) was an American-born member of the Parisian avant-garde of the early 20th century.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Biography

[edit] Early life, relationship with Gertrude Stein

She was born Alice Babette Toklas in San Francisco, California into a middle-class Jewish family and attended schools in both San Francisco and Seattle. For a short time she also studied music at the University of Washington. She met Gertrude Stein in Paris on September 8, 1907 on the first day that she arrived. Together they hosted a salon that attracted expatriate American writers, such as Ernest Hemingway, Paul Bowles, Thornton Wilder and Sherwood Anderson, and avant-garde painters, including Picasso, Matisse and Braque.

Acting as Stein’s confidante, lover, cook, secretary, muse, editor, critic, and general organizer, Toklas remained a background figure, chiefly living in the shadow of Stein, until Stein published her memoirs in 1933 under the teasing title The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas. It became Stein’s bestselling book. The two were a couple until Gertrude Stein’s death in 1946.[1]

In Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris,” Allen seems to offer hope for the future even though everyone knows he has always been a person that has embraced nihilism. It is my view that deep down Woody Allen knows that God has created him and this world is not a world made by chance. Therefore, he continues to search for that missing part of his life though his agnostic views tell him that he must say that the world is meaningless.

Allen is also looking at this issue of “golden age thinking” in his film “Midnight in Paris.” Take a look at this quote below from Allen.

Woody Allen: The Film Comment Interview (Expanded Version)

Written by Kent Jones

You’re revisiting something with this movie that you opened up with A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy and The Purple Rose of Cairo.
It’s a recurring, nagging feeling of mine that the reality we’re all trapped in is, in actual fact, if you dissect it, like a nightmare. I’m always looking for ways to escape that reality. One escapes it by going to the movies. One escapes it by becoming involved in the trivial nonsense of “Are the Yankees going to win?” or “Are the Mets going to win?” When in fact it means nothing. But life means nothing either. It means as much as the ballgame. So you’re constantly looking for ways to escape from reality. And one of the fallacies that comes up all the time is the Golden Age fallacy, that you’d have been happier at a different time. Just as people think, “If I moved to Paris I’d be happier” or “If I moved to London…” Then they do, and they’re not. Even though these places are great, they’re not happier, because it isn’t the geography that’s eating them up, it’s the existential reality of how grim a predicament we’re in. So, I’ve played around with that before, the notion of wanting to get out of the real world, get out of time. Here, Owen does get a chance to go back, and it’s fine. But he realizes as he looks around that those people want to go back too, and that it doesn’t matter where you go, that life is unsatisfying whether you lived in the renaissance or la belle époque or now or 100 years from now. It’s an unsatisfying situation.

You mean, because it’s never going to be all-embracing, and you’ll never have the perfect conversations and the perfect sympathy that you want.
You’re always looking for some way to beat the house, but you can never do it. You get to Paris in the Twenties, you see that everyone there is unhappy too and they want to be someplace else, and there’s a lot of downside—you go to the dentist and there’s no novocaine, there are a lot of negatives. So you have to eventually conclude that you’re in a meaningless and even tragic predicament. Starting from these grim ground rules, you’ve gotta figure out how you’re going to navigate through life and why it’s worth it. This is all grim stuff for comedy.

_________________________________

Others have struggled with this same question of meaning. Below I examine some of their searches along with Allen’s.

Conclusions on the Meaning of Life from Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas
Just like King Solomon of ancient Israel, all of these individuals are very wealthy, famous, and successful. Yet after reaching the top of their fields, they still were seeking the answers to life’s greatest questions even though it seemed they had experienced all the best the world had to offer.

Unlike many the past grammy winners of “Best Rock Album,” Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends by Coldplay is filled with songs that deal with spiritual themes such as death, the meaning of life and searching for an afterlife.

Leadsinger Chris Martin notes, “…because we’ve had some people close to us we’ve lost, but some miracles — we’ve got kids. So, life has been very extreme recently, and so both death and life pop up quite often” (MTV News interview, June 9, 2008).

The subject of death is prominent in the songs “Death and All His Friends,” and the “Cemeteries of London.” Then the song “The Escapist” states, “And in the end, We lie awake and we dream, we’re makin our escape.” In the end we all die. Therefore, I assume this song is searching for an afterlife.

The song “Glass of Water” sheds some more light on where we could possibly go: “Oh he said you could see a future inside a glass of water, with riddles and the rhymes, He asked ‘Will I see heaven in mine?’ ”

Coldplay is clearly searching for spiritual answers but it seems they have not found them quite yet. The song “42“: “Time is so short and I’m sure, There must be something more.” Then the song “Lost“: “Every river that I tried to cross, Every door I ever tried was locked, I’m just waiting til the shine wears off, You might be a big fish in a little pond, Doesn’t mean you’ve won, Because along may come a bigger one and you will be lost.”


Solomon went to the extreme in his searching in the Book of Ecclesiastes for this “something more” that Coldplay is talking about, but he found riches (2:8-11), pleasure (2:1), education (2:3), fame (2:9) and his work (2:4) all “meaningless” and “vanity” and “a chasing of the wind.”

All of his accomplishments would not be remembered (1:11) and who is to say that they had not already been done before by others (1:10)? This reminds me of the big fish in the little pond that Coldplay was talking about. Even if you think you are on top, are you really and for how long? Overshadowing it all was  Solomon’s upcoming death which depressed him because both people and animals alike “go to the same place — they came from dust and they return to dust” (3:20). Woody Allen made a similar point, “My 70-plus years will be spent better than those of a beggar on the streets of Calcutta. But we’ll wind up the same place.”
In 1978 I heard the song “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas when it rose to #6 on the charts. That song told me that Kerry Livgren the writer of that song and a member of Kansas had come to the same conclusion that Solomon had. I remember mentioning to my friends at church that we may soon see some members of Kansas become Christians because their search for the meaning of life had obviously come up empty even though they had risen from being an unknown band to the top of the music business and had all the wealth and fame that came with that. But just like Solomon  they realized death comes to everyone and “there must be something more.”

Livgren wrote:

“All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”

The movie maker Woody Allen has embraced the nihilistic message of the song “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas. David Segal in his article, “Things are Looking Up for the Director Woody Allen. No?” (Washington Post, July 26, 2006), wrote, “Allen is evangelically passionate about a few subjects. None more so than the chilling emptiness of life…The 70-year-old writer and director has been musing about life, sex, work, death and his generally futile search for hope…the world according to Woody is so bereft of meaning, so godless and absurd, that the only proper response is to curl up on a sofa and howl for your mommy.”

The song “Dust in the Wind” recommends, “Don’t hang on.” Allen himself says, “It’s just an awful thing and in that context you’ve got to find an answer to the question: ‘Why go on?’ ”  It is ironic that Chris Martin the leader of Coldplay regards Woody Allen as his favorite director.

Lets sum up the final conclusions of these gentlemen:  Coldplay is still searching for that “something more.” Woody Allen has concluded the search is futile.

Both Kerry Livgren and Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same  interview can be seen on youtube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible Church. Hope is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.

You can hear Kerry Livgren’s story from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

Solomon’s experiment was a search for meaning of life “under the sun”(1:3). Then in last few words in the Book of Ecclesiastes he looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.”

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 89)

 

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

  • The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500 companies.
  • The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.

USA wins 3-1 over France to get in World Cup Final

United States' Abby Wambach celebrates scoring her side's 2nd goal during the semifinal match between France and the United States at the Women’s Soccer World Cup in Moenchengladbach, Germany, Wednesday, July 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)

United States’ Abby Wambach celebrates scoring her side’s 2nd goal during the semifinal match between France and the United States at the Women’s Soccer World Cup in Moenchengladbach, Germany, Wednesday, July 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)

MOENCHENGLADBACH, Germany (AP) — The United States is in the World Cup final for the first time since it last won the title in 1999, and once again Abby Wambach came up big for these Americans, scoring in a 3-1 victory over France on Wednesday.

Wambach broke a tense tie with a monstrous header — what else? — off Lauren Cheney’s corner kick in the 79th minute. Cheney delivered the ball perfectly to the far post, and Wambach jumped over the scrum and pushed the ball past French goalkeeper Berangere Sapowicz. It was Wambach’s third goal of the tournament and 12th of her career, tying her with fellow American Michelle Akers for third on the all-time World Cup scoring list.

Alex Morgan added an insurance goal in the 82nd, the first for the World Cup rookie.

The Americans will now play either Japan or Sweden in Sunday’s final in Frankfurt.

Other related posts:

Mexico defeats USA 4-2 in Gold Cup

USA vs Mexico (2-4) All goals and highlights 2011 Gold CUP FINAL PASADENA, Calif. –  In just a few short minutes, Mexico turned the tables on the United States, then ran away with its second straight Gold Cup win. This one means more than the title they took in 2009 against a second-team USA. Now […]

Various video clips of Mexico 4-2 over USA for Gold Cup in soccer

USA vs Mexico (2-4) All goals and highlights 2011 Gold CUP FINAL USA Vs Mexico 2-4 – All Goals & Match Highlights – June 25 2011 – CONCACAF Gold Cup Final – [HQ] USA VS MEXICO 2-4 Highlights CONCACAF FINAL USA vs Mexico [2-4] AMAZING Giovani Dos Santos goal Other posts on soccer: Top 10 […]

Predictions on Gold Cup Semifinals by W. Hatcher and E. Hatcher

  Wilson Hatcher picks Mexico to win 3-2 and the USA to win 2-0. Everette Hatcher picks Mexico to win 4-1 and the USA to win 1-0. US looks to apply lessons learned     Carlos Bocanegra (R), Armando Cooper during the US and Panama’s June 12 meeting.       Ives Galarcep is a […]

video clip of USA vs Jamaica 2-0

The United States scored early to seal the deal against Jamaica with great communication. Panama will be much harder to beat but I know America can beat anyone in CONCACAF. In the News: U.S. advances in Gold Cup soccer Jermine Jones broke a scoreless tie early in the second half, leading the United States to […]

Top 10 most Controversial World Cup Games (W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher, Part 5)

Italy Four Time World Cup Winner 1934 – 1938 – 1982 – 2006 AP Photo With Europe on the brink of war, Mussolini’s Italian team, defending champions, reveled in their role as tournament heel. Their fixtures in France drew boisterous mobs of exiled Italian anti-fascists, up to 10,000 strong, who came to jeer their country’s […]

Video of USA v. Guadalupe and Gold Cup Prediction

Guadalupe Vs United States 0-1 “Full Highlights”Resumen Everette Hatcher: My prediction is that the USA will win 4-3 today. Wilson Hatcher : My prediction is that the USA will win 1-1 in penalty kicks over Jamaica. Other posts about soccer: USA must defeat Guadeloupe in Gold Cup in KC tonight June 13, 2011 – 10:07 am […]

USA must defeat Guadeloupe in Gold Cup in KC tonight

The Kansas City Star reported: The Kansas City Star reported: Less than 24 hours after a history-making loss, the United States men’s national soccer team landed in Kansas City bloody, but unbowed. Not only did a 2-1 defeat against Panama on Saturday night mark the Americans’ first group-play loss in the 20-year history of the […]

Donovan “We were …lackadaisical…” against Panama

LA Galaxy reported: Gold Cup: USA at loss for answers after historic loss No explanation for lackadaisical start, says Donovan after loss Simon Borg MLSsoccer.com June 11, 2011 (Getty Images) TAMPA, Fla. – It’s a script the US national team has seen play out plenty of times over the last year or so: Slow start. […]

The best soccer goal of the year in 2011?

Yahoo Sports reported: The rivalry between the Seattle Sounders and the Vancouver Whitecaps goes back to their days in the old NASL in the 1970s, but the final 10 minutes of their first MLS match against each other on Saturday night might have been the best yet. The Sounders’ Mauro Rosales pulled the score even […]

Mitch McConnell’s alternate plan on debt ceiling not going to work

Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation took McConnell to task on July 12, 2012:

Earlier today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell floated a proposal that, essentially, cedes the authority for raising the debt limit from the Congress to the president.

Under McConnell’s plan, President Obama would propose three incremental debt limit increases between now and the end of 2012.  Congress could only vote to disapprove these requests, which President Obama could then veto. Without a 2/3 majority in Congress to override that veto, which is very unlikely, the debt limit increase would become automatic.

This plan is insufficient and is obviously a non-starter. At a time of record deficits and an ever-worsening economy, it would be the height of irresponsibility to raise the federal debt ceiling $2.5 trillion without at the same time implementing sweeping systemic reforms that would restore our nation’s economy.

First, this plan effectively eliminates Congress’ authority and responsibility for the federal budget.  We won’t know if real cuts will even exist, rather than the smoke and mirrors Americans have been suckered by in the past.

It’s obvious the President’s has very liberal spending priorities, meaning defense would be cut while Obamacare and stimulus projects continued to be fully funded.

But the plan is also based on small hopes for future cuts in spending, with no hope for systemic reform and virtually guarantees $2.5 trillion will be added to our federal deficit.

Regardless, this proposal raises several serious constitutional concerns.  Depending on exactly how the legislative language is drafted, it well might violate the Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses for the making of law, the separation of powers regarding Congress’s control over the budget and spending, the legislative Recommendations Clause, and it might also be struck down as an attempt to grant the President the equivalent of a line-item veto.  It is also unclear whether the unconstitutional portion would be struck down by the courts and severed from the rest of the statute (which would eliminate Congress’s ability to veto the cuts) or if the entire scheme would be struck down.  But, at a minimum, the proposal is highly dubious as a matter of constitutional law.

The American people sent this Congress to Washington last November with a mandate to get government under control, not do their best to place blame for its insolvency. We cannot kick this problem down the road, and we cannot spend time developing escape hatches rather than solutions.

The only bipartisan agreement in Washington right now is that the debt ceiling cannot be raised without real and tangible spending cuts. Let’s not retreat from that important position.

We understand that the plan, by design, puts the onus on liberals in Washington to finally propose some way to address out of control spending. They have not passed a budget in more than 800 days.  Unfortunately  political maneuvering in a time of such high stakes is not sufficient.

Jason Tolbert noted:

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman’s office spokesman tells the Tolbert Report that he has “yet to see a plan” and declined to comment specifically whether Boozman may ultimately support McConnell’s proposal.  Spokesman Patrick Creamer said that Boozman is committed to only supporting a compromise that includes spending cuts and will oppose any tax increases. 

“Boozman’s position continues to be that Washington does not have a revenue problem, but a spending problem,” said Creamer