I’ve just completed writing a screenplay about the life of the Apostle Paul from, shall we say, “a unique point of view.” And by doing so, I’m happy to report that I’ve learned two things that I think are invaluable.
First, I’ve learned one of the easiest ways to become an instant social leper in this town – that is, other than to admit publicly that you are a politically conservative Christian. All you have to say to someone is something like, “Hey, I’ve just written a screenplay. Would you like to read it?” Instantly, their eyes cross just before they make an emergency phone call to get that root canal done early and flee.
Let’s see … oil is $117.00 per barrel -- gasoline is selling for nearly, if not in some places over, $4.00 a gallon -- gold is hovering just below $1,000.00 per ounce -- the dollar’s value is auguring into the ground against the Euro -- home foreclosures are soaring across the nation, and in California alone are 327% higher this year than last -- the U.N. is warning about regional food shortages threatening people’s lives around the globe in the near future – the sale of rice is being rationed at Wal-Mart -- and over 50% of the work force in Los Angeles is said to be made up of immigrants. And, in the midst of all this, our very own President Bush tells us that we are not at the advent of a possibly severe recession, if not in fact a depression … interestingly, that being said by him only a day after his doing another stand up comedy routine on NBC’s Deal or No Deal. Is it any mystery why he now has the highest disapproval rating of any President ever to be recorded in the Gallup Poll’s 70 year history? Only, it would seem, to the President himself. He tells us everything will soon not seem to be as bad as us who are mere mortals may presently perceive it to be. After all, he assures us, the Iraq war is “getting better”, whatever that means, and that the economy is set to resurge once each of us gets our grubby, greedy little inconsequential hands on a few hundred dollars of our tax money back from him in the months ahead. In response to this, only one word presently comes to mind … NOT!
Those who vainly profess the Constitution to be a “Living Document” might do well to note the following words of the late pundit, Samuel Francis: “The final and unpredictable irony of our [nation’s] history may be that we were more civilized at the beginning of it than at the end of it.”
One would think that all people of reason should wish to avoid the fulfillment of this dire prophesy. But it would appear that it is not that simple. One reason may be that it leaves us as a people with but one avenue of recourse that is not easily pursued. Collectively, we must be willing to develop and exhibit the character and integrity that is a prerequisite to our wanting to abide by the fundamental moral principles upon which this nation was founded as they were embodied by our nation’s founders in the United States Constitution. Our generation and the ones that follow must be made aware that when they wrote this document it was a direct response to their personal experiences of having lived under the shackles of tyranny. Foremost in their minds, however, was not only their desire to set in place a government that would avoid a recurrence of that misery, but to replace it with one that would enable all those governed by it to enjoy certain unalienable rights and freedoms that, at the very least, would ensure every citizen a foreseeable opportunity to obtain prosperity in their lifetime.
Just when you think you’re close to figuring it all out, you get hit with a series of contradictory events that seems to unsettle the structure of your philosophical perspective. That’s O.K., however. Sometimes we need to reflect upon the things we believe to evaluate their worth. Often it results in the philosophical structure becoming stronger than it was before the occurrence of such events. To understand this better, perhaps it would be best to start first with a story that was conveyed to me some time ago as being true before getting to the events of which I speak.
As my daughter used to put it when she was about three, once a “puddle” time there was a man of fabulous wealth. One night he and his wife, in the company of a couple of more modest means, were late getting to a banquet being held at their city’s most luxurious hotel to honor both this man’s many accomplishments and his extraordinary philanthropy.
Yet once again, liberals of America have been given but another opportunity to stand proud. With a remarkable economy of words one of their leaders, Barbra Streisand, expressed at a recent concert what I have long suspected is a common thought shared by many her followers toward the “unenlightened” masses … you know, those whom people living at the center of the universe (i.e. California) believe must reside “somewhere else” (i.e. the “red states”). To her chagrin, apparently a few of those “unenlightened” people found their way into her audience (i.e. they bought tickets) and then had the unmitigated gall to express their displeasure when she openly mocked their President. Her response? She rejoined them with a gentility only achievable by liberals who have obtained to the highest order by lovingly suggesting to them that they should: “Shut the F*** up.”
In many instances the value of something is determined entirely by the person in whose hands it is held. Okay, I confess, to most of you this point may seem so obvious that you wonder why it would be worth discussing. It’s because what is often not so obvious is the significant impact this principle can have in terms of either extinguishing or preserving human life. To appreciate this point, take a moment to consider the value of the following things: a nuclear bomb; a war-time business contract; and lastly the dollars sitting in our pockets.
First, the nuclear bomb. In the hands of most Americans (at least I would like to think) its value is priceless. In other words, were your average American to have one in his closet, it is not something he would consider trading or selling at any price. But now take the same bomb and put it in the hands of someone like Kim Jong Il and we would have a different situation. For a host of reasons (both political as well as economic), that bomb could well be given a price that not only is certain, but that some potential buyers of such stuff located around the world may find to be quite reasonable. Thus, an international market for nukes would be given birth, with all the life-threatening ramifications implicit to it.
Some time ago a friend described the process by which the criminal law administers justice by likening it to a physician attempting to perform delicate surgery with a meat cleaver. This week, it would seem this analogy might also apply well to international political affairs, considering that North Korea has now proclaimed it possesses a nuclear bomb. Bush and other global leaders have had much to say about it, but it is glaringly evident that they don’t know any more about what to do about it now that it has become a reality than they knew about how to prevent it from coming to pass. Beyond all the verbiage, I am left with the reality that today we live in a world that is greatly different than the one in which we lived just one week ago. All that seems to remain available to us is to consider its implications.
Speaking with a physician can often be a disconcerting affair. But you wouldn’t think it would have that effect when the subject is about something as innocuous as “spinach”. Boy, was I in for a mild surprise. Figuring that what was good for Popeye should be good for us all I asked, “What’s up with all this bad spinach and the outbreak of E-coli?” My doctor friend’s answer took the form of a series of questions about our current epidemic of sphincter spasms that caused mine to pucker. The conversation went something like this:
First he asked, “When you plan a trip to Mexico what does a doctor tell you to do?”
I was talking with a friend last week who manages a large apartment complex that houses over a thousand people. As such, she is exposed on a daily basis to what I would consider a pretty good cross-section of our society. That is why I found one comment she made to be particularly interesting. She said that, as time goes by, she finds fewer and fewer people she interacts with have what she considers to be “integrity.” I asked what she meant, and she said to her “integrity” is measured by the importance a person attaches to the virtue of telling the truth. In short, most people she deals with seem to have a predisposition to lie, even when, as she says, the truth would help them more. I, for one, think she’s on to something.
So, now we have Rob Reiner weighing in on the Mel Gibson imbroglio. He’s stated that, if Mel ever hopes to be absolved of his sins, he must start by admitting to us all that his anti-Semitic views have been reflected in his movies (i.e. The Passion of the Christ?). In other words, according to the Rob, only when the Mel has done that, can there even be a “beginning of some reconciliation for him.” My question is, “And then what?” After the Mel does that, what will he then have to do to make the Rob happy? At what point will the Rob ever say to the Mel, “Okay, Mel, you’ve done enough. You may now consider yourself to be fully redeemed.” Do you suspect, like I do, that such a time would most probably never ever quite be arrived at? And, if that’s true, the question then becomes, why should Mel even consider making any attempt whatsoever to gain the approval of a person like the Rob? The essence of the Rob’s demand is that, now that he perceives the Mel to be in a vulnerable and weak position, it is somehow appropriate to make him grovel and beg for a hand of mercy and forgiveness that will most likely never be extended. And, for what? So the Rob can coerce an admission from the Mel that will disgrace the Mel’s masterpiece forevermore. Bad move Rob. The reason? Because your demand now focuses the spotlight on you, rather than Mel.
|
