Where rust and moth consume....

Watched a 1938 film for the first time last week. Actually watched most of it taped then put the remainder on my iPad and finished it off on a plane ride. It's a bit scary to see how the issues of the day don't seem to have changed one iota. Technology only seems to have hidden the unchanging quality of human nature.

The following year Capra made 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington' with pretty much the same cast. Amazing how the actors are able to bring you into their new characters and cause you to forget who they were the last time you saw them. The writing is hilarious and the story is simple yet engagingly deep. Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur are a match made in heaven. I find Arthur's unique voice, zaniness, disarming good looks, and genuine expression a joy to watch. Stewart plays off her flawlessly.

The theme is as the title says. The movie contrasts the pursuit of wealth against the pursuit of happiness, contentment, friends and family. The dialogue is priceless and makes the film. It has an ability to develop relationships through a light hearted comedy. As old people tend to say, "They don't make them like this anymore". While I am a current day movie fan, it does amaze me that I can be completely absorbed in a movie, made on black and white film, 76 years ago. Again a testament to the never ending relevance of fundamental life principles.

Capra was greatly disturbed by the changes that went through Hollywood causing these masterpieces to be socially shelved forever.

He wrote in his autobiography, "The winds of change blew through the dream factories of make-believe, tore at its crinoline tatters.... The hedonists, the homosexuals, the hemophiliac bleeding hearts, the God-haters, the quick-buck artists who substituted shock for talent, all cried: "Shake 'em! Rattle 'em! God is dead. Long live pleasure! Nudity? Yea! Wife-swapping? Yea! Liberate the world from prudery. Emancipate your films from morality!".... Kill for thrill – shock! Shock! To hell with the good in man, Dredge up his evil – shock! Shock!"

For the future to unfold as it's foretold, these types of things have to be done away with. And for the most part they have been. These small reminders are a welcome relief from the endless daily losses being racked up against the Christian remnant. It is a slow death but we will and should hang on till the end. Look for him in whatever indirect expression he happens to show himself.

The Ugly American

One might wonder why becoming an American citizen is anyone’s desire. The country is maligned from within and without for pretty much anything it is, was or will be. From the treatment of Indians, racism, imperialism, arrogance, exceptionalism to what was coined in this book, “loud and ostentatious”; Americans are besieged with hatred and malevolence from around the globe.

Many in Hollywood threaten to leave the country if so and so is elected or such and such policy becomes law. Regardless of the result they remain. Why? Because they can’t bite the hand that feeds them. And a different hand won’t feed them.

While the current government is doing all that it can to invade the lives of private citizens it still has a long way to go. By comparison America remains a beacon of freedom when compared to the rest of the world. That is why droves of people risk there lives to sneak across the border and the waiting list for legitimate entry is years long.

Many point to the many failings of the country but ignore comparisons to realities elsewhere. The complain about the war in Iraq but ignore the brutalities of the Saddam regime. The complain about the war in Afghanistan but ignore the Russian invasion of that country. The marched and protested endlessly about Vietnam but ignore the Soviet invasion and the treaties with South Vietnam. American has been the global protector of the oppressed for a number of generations and the thanks she gets is hatred and insult. These counties get the enormous economic benefit of a non existent military budget while berating it’s ‘taken for granted’ defender.

As America is brought to it’s knees this will end. We will soon see the effect of the loss of the big stick. All those endless complainers will get the world they wanted. A world without America the Beautiful.

(click on Dinesh’s book cover for a lengthy excerpt on why America IS great)

Orwell

Orwell's response to a correspondent who asked why his writing was more complimentary about him after the two met:

“Even if when I met you I had not happened to like you, I should still have been bound to change my attitude, because when you meet anyone in the flesh you realize immediately that he is a human being and not a sort of caricature embodying certain ideas,” replied Orwell. “It is partly for this reason that I don’t mix much in literary circles, because I know from experience that once I have met & spoken to anyone I shall never again be able to show any intellectual brutality towards him, even when I feel that I ought to.”

Thump This

I was watching Bill O’Reilly go hard at Laura Ingram the other day. (available on YouTube) It took a while but now I’m going to toss out what it meant to me. The unusual thing is they’re basically both conservatives with very similar views. During the festivities O’Reilly even threw out that she had the best radio show out there; objective, smart, thinking etc. . . . From the other side Laura endlessly commended Bill for his consistency and legitimate perspectives. (“I love you”) So what was the big row over?

During O’Reilly’s discussion on effective tactics to fight out the gay marriage conflict he rules out “bible thumping” as an effective means of debate. The evangelical community was ‘offended’ by this particular statement and O’Reilly was a little ticked that they would respond this way. In fact, he basically said they weren’t offended. Laura was trying to explain the ‘why’ of the offense but Bill was having none of it. It got very heated to say the least. Laura could see why they were offended but Bill was thinking this had to be a ‘secular’ argument, this was blatantly obviously from his view, so why all the stink?

This actually goes to the heart of integration, the law and apologetics. Laura appealed to Bill as both being ‘Catholics’ so he should understand the offense. Bill was working hard at showing he can separate the religious from the secular and argue one without the other as though this was some positive trait. “IT’s ABOUT POLICY!” He basically called Laura a numbskull because she wasn’t distinguishing between the two. Laura facetiously conceded she had no education. The religious should understand that this is a court/secular context and the arguments can’t be defended by thumping on a religious book.

I could see both sides of the conversation and agreed with neither. The religious community should be ticked at Bill. ‘Bible thumping” should mean using the logic and reason from that evidentiary source as the basis for its arguments. Nothing really wrong with that since marriage is really a religious institution and should not be high jacked by the secular world for their perverted purposes.

Laura’s only plea was for Bill to appreciate why they would be offended by his statement which he never did. But Laura didn’t really offer a true resolution either. She basically agreed with Bill’s side and said it was simply a matter of the wording he choose rather than any real offense, meaning his ‘language’ required amending.

My view is that Bible thumping is what is in order but not legalistic bible thumping. (as O’Reilly rightly objects to) Not taking dictums from either the Old or New Testament and hammering those as an argument, but rather using it as an opportunity to show that marriage is religious. If you want to talk about secular ‘civil unions’, that is another matter. I think the fundamental problem is that the secular word is attempting to steal the beauty and magic of the marriage act which only bears those characteristics when it’s executed as God intended. A brief perusal of either book makes it explicitly clear the homosexuality is not part nor parcel of this union.

Bill is primarily talking about civil unions and in that secular arena we need to generate a different type of argument devoid of religious affiliations. (ie. Bible thumping) But that’s the rub, the country was/is great because of the religious/faith core that started it. If you use secular arguments you’ve already lost. Christianity was the basis for the country and culture. Marriage is spiritual and done in/through the church. The non-believers want to say it’s theirs as well, without the acknowledgement of he who created it. And of course that is what happening on every front on every topic. God is being stripped of his authorship of all creation and it’s being replaced by a Satanic man-centered creator, at least in the minds of the lost.

Should we use a secular argument as to why we should continue to call it Christmas rather than a Happy Holiday? Should we use a secular argument to say why life begins at conception? When Thomas put his fingers in the holes in Jesus, was that secular? Secular arguments are atheistic arguments. They deny reality when it has a Christian flavor. They reject the supernatural out of hand. Why is this any better than a bible based argument? I believe O’Reilly’s desire to come across as independent causes him to prefer secular to supposedly religious arguments. In reality there is only one truth and it interconnects throughout everything. But both Laura and Bill’s unsurprising legalistic view of religion, compartmentalizes religion from the world, so their ability to effectively argue from a spiritual perspective is inoperative.

It becomes somewhat obvious at this point why the right wing media is so ineffective at convincing the rest of America who is who in the zoo. They don’t know themselves.

The Heart of the Matter

Having studied the Kennedy assassination in some detail and a frequent 'Factor' watcher, I looked forward to reading Killing Kennedy. My son had purchased both this and Killing Lincoln for my Christmas presents. I've noticed in my TV watching that Bill O'Reilly seems to have placed greater emphasis on him being an 'independent'. In my way of thinking this is a cause for reservations. If you've read my post on the integrated Mind Map you'll see why I believe you cannot get away from ideological underpinnings. Bill regularly rails saying "this is not ideological" but I think ideology is the oxygen we breath. There are no independent 'bubbles' we can go to devoid of ideology. The facts themselves can be independent but how we treat them, prioritize them, interpret them are based on our philosophy of life or ideology.

So I began my reading thinking Bill would simply follow the facts and it would lead him to affirm the conclusions I had already reached from the same journey. As I turned the pages I had the sense I was reading a docudrama. Meaning a loosely based documentary with creative license taken to fill out the story. This was totally unexpected. In fact it was more like "are you kidding me?" My first thought was isn't this the type of socially palatable, dumbed down information you so detest? You interview people who avoid the facts or the obvious conclusions to be drawn and you rightly call them out. How is this style of writing not the same thing?!

Bill explains it in the first few paragraphs. The book is a narrative form which only goes as far as "the evidence takes us". It is a "fact based book" which will "cut through the fog and "bring you the facts". So for Bill and Martin Dugard it's all about the facts. Then there's this, "We are not conspiracy guys, although we do raise some questions about what is unknown and inconsistent". We are not conspiracy guys?! Let me say the book follows the completely unbelievable ballistics that vomited out of the Warren report. Two bullets caused all the damage to Kennedy and Connally.

Arlen Spector was given the responsibility for the ballistics analysis chapter of the Warren Commission report. Perfect for his fence sitting, wishy washy views that can be twisted to serve whatever means required. So there were 3 bullets. One missed completely. One is the kill shot that took off the right side of his skull. Then the magic bullet that went through Kennedy's back, came out his neck, through Connally's chest, wrist then lodged in his leg to be later found on a stretcher at Parkland memorial. As Wikipedia puts it, "If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone."

So these are the hard dug out facts? Really? Again, are you kidding me? So the authors state they aren't conspiracy guys. Fine. But please don't pretend to be fact based. Not a chance. While the Warren Commission can throw this garbage out to a hungry public to assuage their conspiratorial fears (pre-public release of the Zapruder film) there is no way this can hold ground with what we know today. Not even close.

I could go on but choose not to. I have a large post on Peter Jenning's special on the Kennedy assassination which delves into a number of the major issues. They are far too severe to be called inconsistencies. Throughout my readings there are regular flagrant denials of the truth and flat out cover ups at the highest levels. The bullet theory is the basis of the Commission's non-conspiracy conclusions. When that falls apart, which it completely has, the conclusions are no longer tenable. For whatever reason, Bill and Martin don't want to go there.

One final quote from the book and comment. "Those conspiratorial arguments will become so powerful and so involved that they will one day threaten to overwhelm the human tragedy of November 22, 1963. So let the record state, once and for all, that… " What follows is a type of love poem to JFK's impact on the world. My question is shouldn't the probably of a conspiracy and the necessary implications through the highest levels of the government overwhelm the human tragedy? Yes, it's awful that the beloved leader of the free world was shot in broad daylight sitting beside his beautiful wife. But it's worse that those who perpetrated this crime had internal support within the government and those responsible are not being held accountable.

I thought Bill would dig through the various conspiracy theories and let the evidence guide him to a unified theory explaining the events of that awful day. Nope, he wrote a eulogy to someone he obviously reveres. Yes, the text is fact laden, some of them new and interesting, but where it counts we follow familiar lines that leaves thinking American people with a hole in their hearts and minds. An audience I thought Riley's book was targeting, but now I know better.

Writing on the Wall

The end is drawing nigh.

The significance of the latest election result in the United States looks to me like it's being flat out ignored. The conservative media continues to rail as they always have, yet there is something new here. Perhaps that is the cause of the lack of extrapolation, their jobs are at an end.

When someone rules this country as poorly and apathetically as the sitting President has, especially on the heels of the disgustingly obvious Benghazi lying and deceit, not to mention throwing trillions of hard working people’s tax dollars to his special interests and yet the people chose to reinstate him, there's been a quantum shift.

It means the majority of the people in this country prefer this style of being governed. They don't want to make a life for themselves, they want it to be given to them. And of course, this naive view of a Ponzi world will shortly come to a sputtering end. Those who produce will begin to smell the roses and pull up stakes. I don't know how the 'right' can think there’s some re-establishment coming in their future. The principles they stand for no longer have value in the slippery moral slope this country has become. By the way it's a slope and it's slippery.

I think it signals the end of any significant tie back to Christianity as the source of reality. The current residue is floating on cultural fumes; hardly grounded on rock as the analogy goes. The United States appeared to be the only country with some potential of blow-back against the onslaught of Satan's relentless, predictable tactics. Nope, that’s no longer the case. It is simply a matter of time as I guess it always was.

He truly does rule this world. That day is coming.

When He Lies, He Speaks His Native Language – John 8:44

I recently watched two movies back to back. Dinesh D’Sousa’s 2016: Obama’s America and Tate Taylor’s The Help from the original story by Kathryn Stockett. Both impressed me with the immense diversity of culture yet underneath a real commonality regarding the human plight.

D’Sousa lines up Obama’s behavior with an anti-colonial perspective that has a left wing flavor but does not spring from the same roots. In support, the film traces Obama’s past and chronicles his affiliations and relationships that would create such a view. Contrary to some other opinions, I found his connections believable and consistent with Obama’s own statements and behavior.

Beth Fouhy from Associated Press takes issue with Dinesh’s presentation calling it “almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best”. She thinks that the almost nonexistent contact with his father would prevent Obama from acquiring his views. Dinesh goes into this in some detail showing how Obama idolized his father causing him take on a mythological stature. This could only occur at a distance as his alcohol abuse and womanizing in closer proximity would prevent this view from being sustained. Also, if he has no impact in shaping his view then why would Obama write a book called “Dreams From My Father”? I’m not sure what Fouhy is attempting since the evidence cleanly supports Dinesh’s take on it.

Following this she refers to the interview with Paul Vitz who provides a psychological opinion of the affect of absent fathers. She opens the next paragraph with “From there, the evidence D’Souza uses to support his assertion starts to grow thin”. Actually the opposite occurs. Vitz’s comments more accurately fit her ‘subjective’ classification. After this, Dinesh digs into some direct influence’s on Obama’s thinking that are heavily supported. So much so that he coins them Obama’s founding fathers. Obama acknowledges them directly in his various statements and writings.

Frank Marshall Davis: Long time Obama mentor and Communist party card no. 47544. He was on FBI’s security index which indicates he can be held in the event of a national emergency

Bill Ayers: Co-founder of Weather Underground which is a communist revolutionary group. He was involved in bombing public buildings as protest to the Vietnam war. He said he wasn’t a terrorist because his acts were not “random” but “Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States.” (FBI poster at left; standing on flag below)

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr: Pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ. Embraces black liberation theology. Famously said “God Damn America” in one of his rants and constantly derides America as evil. In describing the Sept 11 terrorist attacks he reasoned, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought home to roost”. Obama distanced himself as the 2008 election approached since most American's found Wright's views abhorent.

Edward Said: Obama studied under Said at Columbia University. Said served as a member of the Palestine National Council which allowed him to work closely with Yasser Arafat. He views America as a power with a “history of reducing whole peoples, countries, and even continents to ruin by nothing short of holocaust”. Said believes that violence is justified against Israel as the land properly belongs to Palestine. The state of Israel is basically a western plant to spread later day colonialism.

The West is guilty of a “subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture." We basically see Moslems and Arabs as “either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.”

This view can be clearly seen in Obama’s treatment of Israel vs the Muslim world. Our historical friend he shuns and our avowed enemy he befriends. His frequent and endless catering to the Muslim world casts doubt on any depth to his statement of being a Christian. Since the Koran says the disciples made up the story in the gospels and Jesus never died and therefore never resurrected. Since this Muslim sacred text cannot be in error it is at complete odds with the heart of the Christian beliefs. Obama has repeatedly and naively encouraged all religions (meaning the Christians because the Muslims cannot) to set aside their differences and focus on their common goals. Peace, harmony, charity blah, blah, blah. There is no mixing this oil and water.

Roberto Unger: Taught Obama law at Harvard. He is a philosopher and politician from Brazil. He believes that natural underlying principles do not exist. Everything is merely historical carryovers from previous generations not necessarily the best to create a prosperous society. We need to acknowledge this and push forward with renewed non-institutions that better release the human potential or as he says, "make us more god-like".

I briefly perused Unger's "The Future of Religion" and found it consistent with the philosophically laden texts of my Divinity courses. Many words with all hidden meanings. A sample from page 3:

“The second obstacle to overcome is the sentimental attitude to religion. The false supposition that, with respect to claims about God and about God`s work in history, there is some middle position between believing in their (literal) truth and not believing in their (literal) truth. The slide from Feurerbach to Bultmann and beyond as an expression of a will to believe combined with a monumental dose of self-deception.

There is no such middle position. A common intellectual confusion allows us to pretend that there is one. It is one thing to suppose, in the tradition of Christian theology for example, that the narrative of transactions between God and humanity deepens (by analogy) truths already manifest to us in our relations with one another. It is another thing to turn the analogical imagination into a pretext for equivocation about the truth or falsehood of our religious beliefs.

The sentimental attitude to religion weakens the power religion to undermine us and our societies, and makes it easy for us to turn its scandalous provocations into a play with words. One of these sentimentalists about religion tells us that today we have belief without belonging. We are more likely to entertain pretend belief as a ticket to belonging.”

To take some liberty I will attempt to translate. We cannot accept the literal truth of God's work in history (Christ's resurrection). This is self-deception. The historical side cannot translate into day to day perspectives or criticism of other beliefs. We mostly want to belong so we go along with the pretense of belief. Or something along those lines. Basically a complete denial of the only thing that gives religion any validity, the historical death and resurrection of Christ. If you'd like to read more be my guest but no doubt an intellectual unplugged from reality. Not surprisingly, much like the student he mentored.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/unger/english/pdfs/tanner_lectures/the_future_of_religion.pdf

Interestingly Unger has recently released a video detailing why Obama should be defeated in 2012. Heading up the list is Obama's inability to "advance the progressive cause in the United States". His video 'Beyond Obama' goes into great detail as to Obama's failures and what he thinks needs to be done to right the country.

You could really throw Saul Alinsky in as well. While Saul came from another generation and passed away in 1972 he wrote the textbook for modern protest tactics. Like Obama his fundamental position was to take from the haves and give to the have nots regardless of whether it was earned or owed. Obama received 8 days of intense training at the Industrial Areas Foundation in Alinsky style tactics and taught his “Power Analysis” as a professor at the University of Chicago. Alinsky’s son says that Obama has learned his father’s lessons well and was “proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing.”

When combined together it becomes fairly clear where Obama has derived his perspectives from. And his actions as a senator and now President confirm that view. The fact that this information was fundamentally invisible to the American public shows both the shrewd efforts to conceal the facts combined with the willingness of the public to choose a leader on entertainment type criteria. We have reaped what we have sown.

Obama prefers this type of voting constituency. That is why he gives away trillions to those who haven't earned it. He's trying to tip the scales where the producers are the minority and the looters are the majority and thus he locks in the vote. Case in point the recent video of a woman imploring people to vote for Obama because she received a ‘free’ government provided cell phone. (of course this was paid for by the American people) But the thought that Obama 'gave' this to her is exactly what he's been saying.

The government 'allows' you to have what you have. You didn't make or earn anything. This type of dogma directly aligns with his upbringing and preferred influences. He will take what he has no right to and give it to those who haven't earned it. This is clearly evidenced in this film and supported by his own actions. This thinking dictates that Obama will work for the demise of America as it was intended to be, bleeding it's resources and efforts to those who will squander them. This, while thinking all along that he is doing what is right for the world.

So how does this play into the dramatically different film "The Help". What's common is that two distinctly different cultures exist side by side without an inkling of the reality that exists underneath. The negro maids of the south bear the responsibility of raising their white employers children all the while being treated with the racial prejudice predominant in the 1960's. They won't let them use their indoor toilets so build separate ones for them to use outside. The endless abuse hurled onto their 'help' is tolerated for fear of termination and reprisal with the support of the entire community.

A book is undertaken by Eugenia Phelan (white) with the assistance of two of the maids that details the real goings on in the community. The predominantly white population wants their dirty laundry under complete wraps so they can continue the awful status quo. The book is finally published, turning the entire community on it's rear.

In some reverse way Dinesh's documentary does the same for Obama and his past. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the eventual positive resolution of the Help is what will result from Dinesh's work. It's fascinating for me to see the easy recognition and agreement with the thesis of prejudice in the Help in contrast to the desire to not acknowledge and willingly accept the abuse wrought onto the American people by this administration.

Prejudice knows no race, creed or color and is equally hurled and any and all. Perhaps the most hated people in American are the white, middle class, middle management bracket. They have nothing and no one on their side. Every negative being hurled is always straight at them. They work their entire lives getting abuse from above and below while all their efforts are belittled and their production is stolen and given to others. Yet they are actually the heart of what has made America great.

This is all eerily akin to Atlas Shrugged. Eventually the producers will be sucked dry and the looters supply will dry up. At that point there will be an implosion of sorts as you see in Europe. Entire populations wanting to be 'given' what they think is their due. The country's leadership has already spent those assets and much, much more. The leadership that the unhappy population continually voted for so they could steal from the future. As we can see, it's a thinly veiled ponzi scheme. Perhaps Bernie Madoff wasn't so far off, he was just going with the flow.

NewsDream

I caught the 2nd or 3rd episode of “Newsroom” many moons ago on HBO. I was intrigued by Aaron Sorkin’s writing as I was when his “West Wing” was on the video waves. Obviously, if you’ve read anything I’ve written, our views are diametrically opposed. Nevertheless, I appreciate good writing and the creation of characters that are more than skin deep.

Sorkin has a staccato style that I think more mirrors reality than his critics give him credit for. When people are familiar with one another, especially in a work environment, there’s a type of tribal communication that eventually takes hold and much is communicated with very few words. I like the way this is captured and exists in every relationship.

So I returned to Episode 1, (shout out to HBOGO), and seamlessly caught up on Season 1 in the proper chronological order. I then took up the weekly viewing on Sunday evening or in the subsequent days through activating my blessed PVR. While I thoroughly enjoyed the characters being developed, their interplay, their dialogue, I was, perhaps to a greater degree, thoroughly annoyed, by the unbridled liberal dogma. In the final episode of the season it turned into a tasteless, totally predictable, stream of propaganda for the left and the associated Democratic Party.

Now to a great degree I expect this from Sorkin. On the other hand I don’t. If that’s all it was I would never have watched it at all. On the West Wing there were some issues that were at least wrestled over and both sides brought to light. It didn’t matter that the fictitious administration almost always came down on the left side of the tracks; at least there was an agreement on the problems that face the country and/or the people. And in the end it was simply a difference of vision. That is not what the Newsroom has become.

In one of the opening dialogues Will (main character) is asked in a College auditorium what he thinks is great about America. He goes into a long dissertation on why American is not the greatest nation on earth then follows up with many great things in America’s past.

While I don’t agree with which items are on which side of the list, at least it’s not a blanket negative condemnation of America. And basically that is what follows. A blind, relentless rejection of everything Republican and praise for all that is left wing.

So I heard that Sorkin had said that he didn’t know much about politics and was going to have a Republican consultant for Season 2. I don’t know whether he said it or not but if he did it’s a bunch of BS. Clearly Sorkin is well versed in the political issues of this day and the context of the show is to reestablish the historical contribution a supposed objective Newsroom provided in the last generation. So I don’t buy that, especially on the heels of West Wing. And second, why hire a Republican consultant?; no way it’s an admission of not being fair and balanced. I may watch the beginning of the second season to see if the trend continues or abates. But like Glee’s endless drumming about the Gay universe I can only bear so much to enjoy the trappings of the music. And the magic words of Sorkin are lovely icing but not to be eaten on a soiled cake.

It’s Just a Movie – The Fantasy that is ‘Contact’

I recorded "Contact" the other day, thinking I would breeze through it and hit some highlights for my enjoyment pleasure. My remembrance is not altogether favorable but just in a general way. The highlights are quite specific: Ellie’s first signal (music!), machine CGI, all scenes with John Hurt playing H.R. Hadden and the closed eyes, "okay to go" scenario. As expected, I thoroughly enjoyed these pieces for the umpteenth time along with the score that is obviously magic.

Unintentionally, the items that detract from the film were clearer than ever before. Not being a fan of Carl Sagan who wrote both a 'Contact' novel and contributed heavily to the film, it comes as no surprise. The entire religious presentation is a naive, surface appreciation of those issues as one would expect from a pseudo scientist. But even at that level you'd think the film would portray 'evidence = conclusions' in a logical manner. Nadda.

So Ellie's testifying before Congress, and they're asking her if she can supply a shred of evidence that supports her claim that she actually went on this inter stellar journey. Her answer is no, she cannot. Now Ellie has been painstaking portrayed, the entire movie, as basing everything on facts, scientific facts. She pooh poohs religion as BS. Yet she tells Congress (when asked) that yes, she's asking them simply to 'believe' her.

So here's the deal. Shortly after this scene the White House Chief of Staff is talking to the National Security Advisor (who headed up the Ellie inquisition) and asking him what he thinks of the 18 hours of static on her recording device when apparently she took seconds to fall through the machine. Nothing is made of this. It wasn't raised at the Congressional investigation. He basically snorts in response but why wasn't this raised as evidence?

When Ellie comes back on video after her "so called fake" journey she asked in a groggy tone, "What day is it?" "How long have I been gone?". They respond by saying it was only seconds, she fell right through. Yet, at the beginning of her testimony she mentions a journey of 18 hours!!. Didn't notice this until I watched it this time around. Where the hell did that come from! She had no idea how long she was gone. If the 18 hours came from the static on the tape why not mention that as evidence. Pretty conclusive considering that's impossible given the time frames.

When I got to thinking I wondered about the chair they added to the sphere for her safety. During the insane wormhole journey it became dislodged or better put ripped from it's mooring. How is that explained if the pod simply dropped as expected. It couldn't handle the drop? It was designed as a safety device to at least handle the drop. She was magnetically locked into it. It fell off when she hit the net and subsequent water? It would have killed her if it smashed her head into the side of the sphere. Solid evidence that something beyond what they cameras captured had occurred.

Along with this is that she was on the floor of the pod. To get there she had to undo herself from the gear that had locked her into the seat. She was flat on her face, completely disorientated. Did she really have time, in the milliseconds that she dropped through the machine, to have the presence of mind to undo the suit and drop to the floor. And why would she, she's clinging to the chair out of sheer terror and imminent potential death.

My final point is the phenomena that the machine itself caused. When the translucence began to occur on the sphere it was accompanied by an unbelievable generation of energy from the machine. No one had predicted or even knew how the machine operated. When it ramped up to 100% the light and power was blinding or how about mind blowing. This isn't even discussed as evidence that something beyond the sphere simply falling through had occurred. How did the rotation of the massive rings cause this phenomenal energy release? Why assume it was simply a light show with no purpose?

When reading some reviews/discussions of this movie, Zemeckis (director) stated that he "intended the message of the film to be that science and religion can coexist rather than being opposing camps." I guess that's the core of why I'm blogging about this movie. They present a scientist who in the end acts like a non-scientist or better said, an idiot. And they present religion as nothing like it is in reality. So in that regard they do coexist, in the fantasy land that belongs to Contact. In the real world, science and religion do coexist, and in fact are one and the same. No effort needs to be made to align them with one another.

But this is only if we're talking about real religion and real science. Not the pseudo science of evolution or the people who believe anything that makes them feel good regardless of the evidence. Jesus encouraged Thomas to put his hands in the holes in his sides (evidence) and believe the truth of his resurrection. (conclusion) If you don't believe that historical written record, then state why you don't and provide evidence that it's not what it's purported to be. What is common is that neither area is using evidence anymore. It is the subjective world of opinion that is preferred and best serves the needs of this current generation. How long am I to bear with you.