San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, January 18, 2013

Meredith C.Carroll Is A Massive Hypocrite

Meredith C. Carroll is an Aspen, Colorado based writer whose column appears every Friday in the Denver Post.  She is nationally known and frequently quoted in national publications and in various heavily read websites.  She is also a huge hypocrite.  Allow me to explain.
On October 31, 2012 she wrote a piece for (  The article was entitled "The Biggest Non-issue in the Presidential Election" and was about how her constitutional right to get an abortion should be a non-issue in the upcoming election.  In the article she favorably quotes Thomas Friedman of the New York Times when he wrote, "You don't get to call yourself pro-life and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency....You don't get to call yourself pro-life and oppose programs like Head Start....You don't get to call yourself pro-life and be against common sense gun control."  Yep, Ms. Carroll is a flaming, militant, femi-Nazi, pro abortion, keep your hands off of my body, bleeding heart liberal.  That is what makes what I read in her column in today's Denver Post so interesting.  For all of her high sounding talk about how the state should keep its hands off the bodies of its citizens, when a medical issue comes up that she wants to control, she is in complete favor of a dictatorial rule of the state over its citizen's bodies.  Allow me to explain.
Meredith does not like to get sick.  She is disturbed by the sounds coming from the bodies of people who are sick.  She writes about how bothered she is by "the cacophony of nose blowing while waiting in the coffee shop" or " trying to avoid the line of fire from the hacking cougher in the produce section at the grocery store."  Clearly Ms. Carroll does not like having to hang out with the rabble of society, especially when they are ill.  She then quotes Colorado's State Epidemiologist Lisa Miller and asserts that "less than 40% of the US population has received the annual influenza vaccine this winter, despite the fact that its being hailed as one of the worst and deadliest flue seasons in a decade."  No doubt you can see where this is going.  She believes that everyone should get a flu shot.  She believes that it would be a good thing for the state to force everyone to get a flu shot.  She continues her tirade against those who are sick by using a little guilt manipulation.  She writes, "Getting the flu shot is not just about a personal responsibility, but also a responsibility to the community....Unfortunately, no one can force you to get the flu shot.  But on behalf of those who choose to get it and did to those who don't and didn't :  Kindly stay home until springtime." 
Meredith complains that there is no law forcing everyone to get a flu shot.  Meredith pines away for the day when the state will make a law that will force me to get a flu shot.  Meredith clearly believes that it is in her best interest for the state to put its hands all over my body and force me to get a flu shot against my will.  Ladies and gentlemen, that is called hypocrisy and Meredith Carroll is a hypocrite.  When it comes to protecting an unborn child from the homicidal intentions of its mother she says the state has no right to touch a person's body.  When it comes to allegedly protecting her from getting the flu she says the state should have the right to forcibly inject unwanted chemicals into a person's body.  She can't have it both ways.
To justify her position that the state should force all its citizens to obtain a flu shot she quotes erroneous statistical evidence about the effectiveness of the flu shot.  She writes, "Many opposed to the flu shot argue this year's vaccine is only 62 percent effective, while others cheer the fact that with it, they have a whopping two in three chance of avoid the flu."  Meredith should do a little study in the field of statistics.  I will grant that her 62% effectiveness rate is correct, just for the sake of argument.  What she ignores, however, is the fact that the vaccine is only 62% effective against a small minority of influenza viruses.  Each year, when the powers that be are preparing the flu vaccinations, they make their best guess about which virus will be here come flu season.  They rarely guess accurately.  So, it may be true that the present vaccine protects 62% of those who receive it from a couple of potential influenza viruses.  It does not follow that 62% of the population who receive the vaccine will not become ill with the flu.  When other strains of flu virus are factored in most statisticians believe the flu vaccine is about 1-2% effective in preventing all forms of flu in a season.  Meredith is misleading her readers on this issue in order to bolster her case for state intervention against the bodies of the citizens of this land.  That is a strange thing for a lady in favor of abortion to be doing.  Furthermore, if Meredith really believes that the flu shot she received will protect her from the flu, why is she so concerned about catching it?  Her fear betrays the reality of which she is aware...the shot is not very effective in preventing the flu. 
Another argument used by Meredith is revealing about her view of the all powerful nanny-state.  She writes, "Sure, kids will likely be home sick a certain number of days per year, which keeps you from going to the office.  But how many vacations days do working families have to sacrifice from preventable illnesses because other families choose not to at least try and thwart the flu?"  Amazing.  Ms. Carroll is willing to allow her neighbor to murder her unborn baby but she is not willing to lose a vacation day because she had to stay home with her sick child for a day.  It is quite revealing that government school teachers are seen as little more than baby sitters in Ms. Carroll's world.  It is their job to babysit her children so she can work and earn more money.  It is bothersome to her when she is forced to actually have to take care of her sick child.  Rather than performing her duty as a parent she decides to lash out at those who have not received a flu shot and blame them for her brief, momentary need to actually behave like a parent.
I do not know whether getting a flu shot is good or bad.  I am not familiar enough with the science nor the statistics to give a definitive answer on the issue.  If you want more information on the potential risks associated with flu shots, Google "Dr. Mercola/Flu Shots" and read what he has to say on the issue.  One thing, however, that I do know is that it is not the business of the state to tell me what injections I must receive.  The state needs to keep its hands off of my body.  Meredith Carroll professes to believe in that truth, until it becomes inconvenient for her and then she jettisons it like an unwanted baby.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Bellyaching About The Broncos

For those of you who are unaware, the Denver Broncos were expected to win the American Football Conference and compete in the Super Bowl this year.  Last Saturday those hopes were dashed as the Broncos fell to the Baltimore Ravens 38-35 in double overtime.  As would be expected in this day of misplaced priorities, the backlash from disappointed Bronco fans has been powerful.  Tuesday's Denver Post had two interesting letters to the editor that illustrate my point.
Dave Potak of Littleton believes that John Elway is an evil man.  The presuppositional basis for this belief is Dave's socialism.  Here is what Dave has to say, "John Elway represents the modernized corporate management that undermined American's once great corporations by substituted long term vision with quickie success....Enter modernized Elway who kicked Tebow to the gutter in favor of a quickie $90 million investment in a rejected senior citizen--held together with pins--for a quickie Super Bowl championship....Elway's modernized management are the typical failure patterns that brought us Enron, Silverado, the Vail monorail, shale oil, the 2008 financial industry meltdown, etc."  Wow!  In Dave's mind there is a connection between evil corporate bankers who were responsible for the Great Recession and a football game played last Saturday.  And people say that I am nuts!
Are any other senior citizens out there as offended as I am by Dave's remarks?  As a person who is qualified to join AARP, but who hasn't because it is a socialist institution, I take great offense at the way Dave asserts that a younger player (Tebow) is superior to an older player (Manning) simply because of the age differential.  Dave should be arrested for the hate crime of age discrimination!
Dave gives us a long list of alleged corporate events that presumably illustrate the management style adopted by Elway that is destroying the Broncos.  Silverado is a reference to the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s where about 700 of the 3200 savings and loan banks in the Socialist Democracy of America became insolvent.  That crisis was entirely the product of government intervention and interference in the free market.  It had nothing to do with the management style of the bankers at Silverado.  The Vail monorail is simply a proposal to try and deal with the problem of excessive traffic in the I-70 corridor from Denver to Vail.  The highway is owned by the government.  The proposal comes from employees of the government.  What any of this has to do with corporate management styles is difficult to see.  Oil shale is a reference to the collapse of the oil shale industry in Colorado in 1982, when Exxon shuttered its oil shale project in Parachute.  The project had only come into existence because of government subsidies provided to the oil companies as a response to the energy crisis of 1973, which happened to have been entirely the creation of various government actors.  Finally, Dave believes that Elway and the Great Recession are somehow related and that last Saturday's football game is clear evidence of that relationship.  I have written a lot about how the Great Recession was entirely the product of government interference in the marketplace and I will not reiterate that position here.  It should be sufficient to say that Dave appears to be really angry that the Broncos lost and he is looking for someone to blame.  Elway, who is known to wear nice suits and have lots of money, is an easy target for anyone who is riddled with envy. 
Ron Hunnicutt of Visalia, California takes a very interesting contradictory position.  Ron identifies himself as a Christian.  As a Christian he is a fan of fellow believer Tim Tebow.  Ron believes that because he is a Christian and Tebow is a Christian it becomes the moral responsibility of the Denver Broncos to keep and play Tim Tebow.  As most of you probably are aware, the Broncos traded Tim Tebow to the New York Jets during the off season.  That trade angered a lot of Broncos supporters but it is hard to argue with the results.  Under Tebow the Broncos went 8-8.  Under Manning, and with essentially the same teammates as under Tebow, the Broncos went 13-3.  I do not believe any objective football analyst would assert that the Broncos are a superior team with Tebow at quarterback.
Ron writes, "...I am sure glad that John Elway's plans for a Super Bowl crashed and burned to a crisp.  As a Christian I was thrilled to see Tebow make some progress with the Broncos....But Elway was as giddy as a weasel in a chicken coop when he offloaded Tebow.  Very irritating.  I am mad at the Broncos and Elway and I will try to stay that way for a while."  Wow!  Ron first claims to be a Christian and then he concludes his letter with the decidedly unchristian assertion that he is going to endeavor to maintain his hatred for John Elway as long as he can.  Why does he hate Elway?  Because Elway traded away his beloved Tebow. Momentary flashes of the sinful emotion of hatred are understandable and to be expected.  Promises to foster and nurture a continual hate against an innocent man is unconscionable, especially for a professing Christian. 
All of this reminds me of a scene near the end of Clint Eastwood's Trouble With the Curve movie that came out this past fall.  Eastwood's character and his on screen daughter have found a pitching prodigy in a young Latin man who is not allowed to play baseball by his mother until his grades in school improve.  Eastwood brings him to the Atlanta Braves major league park for a tryout.  During the session he is asked to pitch against the Braves highly touted number one pick.  It is about as intense a situation as a young pitcher could be put into.  As the young man stands on the mound and prepares to deliver his first pitch he appears to freeze.  Concerned about the pressure being put upon him, Eastwood's daughter goes to the mound to see if he is OK.  He looks at her and with a gentle smile and wisdom well beyond his years he says, "It is just a game mam."   

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Newtown School Massacre vs. Aurora Movie Massacre

I read an article in the Denver Post a week or so after the Newtown school massacre.  It was an AP piece and the headline for the article stated "Attorney General Says Connecticut Not Liable For Mass Shooting".  The article goes on to say that "Connecticut's attorney general says he sympathizes with families affected by the deadly Newtown school shooting but the state isn't liable for the harm inflicted."  All things being equal, I would tend to agree with the assertion of the attorney general.  All things, however, are not equal.
The Denver Post reported today that one of the families of a man killed in the Aurora movie theater massacre has filed suit against the female psychiatrist who was "treating" the killer just prior to the massacre.  The suit also names her employer, the University of Colorado, and five other parties (not described in the article) as defendants in the suit.  According to the article, eleven other families impacted by the massacre are expected to file suit in the next couple of days.  My question is a simple one.  Why has the Colorado attorney general not come out and informed the parties related to the Aurora movie massacre that nobody is criminally or civilly responsible for the crime?
I wrote an article in this blog (July 26th, "Observations on the Aurora movie massacre") in which I predicted that a deluge of lawsuits would eventually be brought against anybody even remotely associated with the killer.  Since then dozens of plaintiffs have filed suits against the owners of the theater and other distantly related parties.  I discussed that issue in my August 29th post entitled "Aurora movie massacre money madness."  In their never ending search for a free lunch, the families of the victims of the massacre continue their violent and immoral legal assault upon the free market and innocent individuals who are about as morally culpable for the massacre as I am.
We are all aware of how the system operates.  Anyone associated with a true victims takes the mantle of victim upon himself and then goes out in search of wealthy people and businesses to sue.  The activities of the envy filled victim are all justified as being conducted in order to "ensure that something like this never happens again."  Of course, that has nothing to do with the real issue.  People sense that there is an opportunity to win the litigation lottery and they rush to get in line at the courthouse.  It does not matter if the defendants named in the lawsuits really had any moral culpability in the massacre. All that matters is that they are rich or they have an insurance company that is rich.  Once that has been determined the game is on.
I find it fascinating that the State, in this case the State of Connecticut, is able to understand that it is impossible to predict and prevent the actions of random individuals bent upon committing massacres.  The attorney general has no problem seeing that there is no legal basis whatsoever for permitting lawsuits against the school, the teachers, the principle, the company that constructed the school, the company that made the paint for the crosswalks outside the school, the electric company that generates the electricity for the lights at the school, or any other related party in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre.  It is obvious to anyone who has a lick of common sense and who is not inflamed by greed at the prospect of winning an enormous sum of money in the litigation lottery that massacres are unpredictable and unpreventable.
The fact that massacres are unpredictable and unpreventable goes flying out the window when those who can be sued are institutions other than government institutions.  Then the rules change.  The underlying presupposition, of course, is that businesses are evil to begin with.  Profitable businesses are even more evil.  Large profitable businesses are yet even more evil.  Large, profitable insurance businesses are worse than Hitler.  Under the new rules it is understood that the common man is given a providential opportunity to take back some of what really belongs to him (it was taken from him by the evil businesses as they exploited him by giving him things he wanted at a price he was willing to pay) by means of a lawsuit.  Now, suddenly, there is no moral aversion to lawsuits.  The State falls strangely silent when the gun is pointed in the direction of business.
The poor psychiatrist who had the shooter as a client is really in a bind.  She is being accused of failing to have him incarcerated on a 72 hour mental health evaluation hold.  The wildly ridiculous assertion of the plaintiffs is that if she had had him incarcerated the massacre would not have happened.  Can these people and their attorneys be any more stupid?  Even if the psychiatrist had reported her soon-to-be shooter client to the mental health police and even if the mental health police had imprisoned him for three days, how does it follow that he would thereby have been prevented from conducting the massacre?  The entire argument is utter nonsense.  The only reason people unrelated to the case tolerate such idiocy is due to the fact that most folks continue to have some sense of sympathy for those affect by the massacre.  I do not.  They are evil, money grubbing monsters in search of a lifetime retirement pension.  They deserve to be thrown out on their ears. 

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

King Obama, Please Ban All Guns Now

Recent gun control debate in the public arena has convinced me that I have been wrong about my position on guns.  Up until today I believed that owning a gun was a free market decision, much like owning a power tool or a lawnmower.  Thanks to the inescapable logical necessity of the arguments used by the anti-gun faction I now realize that it is guns that kill people, not people who kill people.  If all guns were eliminated there would be no more homicides via gun play.  The only moral thing to do is to ban all guns.  How could I not have seen something that is so amazingly simple?
I also realized how wrong I have been about the nature of law.  Up until now I have operated under the erroneous assumption that laws would and could not control human behavior.  After pondering the nature of law for the last couple of days I have now come to the conclusion that human behavior can be changed with the passage of proper laws.  How silly of me to not understand that Congress and the King are capable of altering our behavior with the mere passage of a law.  Why else would Congress, the King and most of the citizens in the Socialist Democracy of America spend so much of their lives discussing the laws we need to have if those laws did not actually accomplish their stated goals?  As I pondered our history I realized that law has always been successful at changing human behavior.  Look at this list of laws that have utterly eradicated the offensive behaviors they were enacted to prevent:
  • The greatest single example of law bringing about the desired eradication was Prohibition.  After the Constitution was amended to make the production, sale and consumption of all alcoholic beverages illegal they immediately ceased to exist in this wonderful country.  People voluntarily modified their behavior and drinking disappeared overnight.  What I do not understand is why that fantastic Amendment to the Constitution was ever repealed.  After banning all guns we need to readdress the issue of banning all alcohol.
  • Prior to passing no-fault divorce statutes, most states had laws prohibiting the act of adultery.  Do you remember the good old days when nobody committed adultery?  Every husband was faithful to his wife and every wife was faithful to her husband.  It makes me wonder why the states decided to abolish the anti-adultery laws.  It seems to me that they should be brought back so we can eradicate the practice of adultery just like we eradicated the practice of drinking alcoholic beverages.
  • Most states had laws forbidding the practice of homosexuality.  Sodomy laws were entirely successful in keeping homosexuals from giving into their forbidden desires and engaging in homosexual activity.  Although I would never forbid any person from having sex with anything that he/she might want to, the old sodomy laws still serve as an excellent example of how laws can eradicate certain behaviors, even desirable ones.
  • I am so thankful that, thanks to laws enforced by the Internal Revenue Service,  nobody cheats on their taxes in this land.  In this day of the fiscal cliff it is vitally important that everybody pays his fair share of the tax burden we share to live in this amazingly free and prosperous land.  Thanks to laws that make it illegal to be a tax cheat, we have no tax cheats in this land.  Praise the politicians who enacted those laws!
  • Where I live it is against the law to steal things from your neighbor.  As a result, we have no theft.  We can all leave our doors open during the summer, even when we are not home.  We can all leave our doors unlocked at night.  We can leave our cars unlocked and the keys in the ignition.  We all can rest with total assurance that our property is secure because we have an entire series of laws that guarantee nobody will ever even think about stealing something that belongs to someone else.
  • Perhaps the greatest modern example of behavior modification through the enactment of law is the stark reality that nobody uses any pharmaceutical products that are not first approved by the government.  Government tells us which drugs are good for us, and therefore legal, and which drugs are bad for us, and therefore illegal.  A complex series of laws exist to specify each class of drug and, thanks to the power of law, nobody in this beautiful land ever takes an illegal drug.  
  • I have a dream.  I have a dream where our politicians are courageous enough to stand up to the homicidal maniacs in this land and take away their guns.  I have a dream where nobody is ever harmed by an evil gun.  I have a dream that I can walk down the street without being in mortal terror of being shot by a gun.  All that it takes is a new law.  All that it takes is one new law.  Make all guns illegal and no one will ever be killed with a gun again.  Praise the power of the State!
Now there are certain consequences that necessarily follow from the law to ban all guns.   Just like agents of the government are not permitted to cheat on their taxes, steal from their neighbors or use illegal drugs, so those same agents of the state will also not be permitted to own and operate evil guns.  If guns kill people, and they do, then all guns must be eliminated.  No government agent should be tempted by the evilness of a gun to do something harmful to his fellow man.  Plus, no government agent will ever need a gun because no bad guy will ever have one.  This means the police may no longer carry or own guns.  This means that the military may no longer use guns.  This means the CIA, FBI and Secret Service may no longer have guns.  This means that when King Obama goes out into public with his entourage of body guards surrounding him, none of them may carry a gun.  There will be no need for them to carry a gun because the citizenry will be unarmed.  That is the inevitable result of wonderfully crafted gun abolition laws.  My dream is being fulfilled before my very eyes.....a land in which nobody is assaulted by a gun.  All it takes is the courage to ban all guns forever. 
King Obama does not have to wait for Congress to enact an anti-gun bill.  He has the power of the Executive Order.  This very day, this very minute, this very second, our Most High and Reverent King could bring about an immediate cessation of all gun violence.  All King Obama needs to do is write an Executive Order banning all guns forevermore and they will cease to exist.  Does he really love us like he says he does?  Does he really care about us like he says he does?  If so, he can end the killing today.  We petition you, our King, to stop the guns today!

Monday, January 14, 2013

Les Miserables

A small group of us ventured to the local cinema-plex on Sunday afternoon to view Les Miserables, the Oscar nominated (and eventual winner for Best Musical) rendition of Victor Hugo's original novel.  For those of you who do not want to know the story and who plan on seeing the movie you should probably stop reading this post as I will reveal a great deal of the plot details below.  I was aware of the story prior to going to the movie and was hoping that it would present a fair version of the novel.  Except for one major exception, revealed below, this movie was worth far more than the cost of admission.
Les Miserables tells the story of Jean Valgean, a man who has served 19 years in prison under forced labor for the crime of stealing a single loaf of bread.  He is eventually released from prison only to continue to suffer under France's draconian parole laws which essentially guaranteed his eventual re-incarceration.  He makes the decision to drop out of the parole system and thereby incurs the wrath of the local enforcer of the rules, Police Inspector Javert.  Jarvert is obsessed with capturing Valgean and returning him to prison.  Most of the movie is dedicated to describing the years in which Valgean is on the lam and conducting his life as a Christian man while being continually pursued by Javert.  
The turning point of the movie occurs early when Valgean, on the edge of despair and utterly incapable to provide for himself, finds himself taken in by Bishop Myriel.  In return for the kindness extended to him by the Bishop, Valgean steals the family silver and slinks off into the night.  He is soon caught by the police and brought back to Myriel who, to the astonishment of Valgean, pretends as if he had given him the silver.  Indeed, Myriel goes so far as to inform Valgean that he neglected to take all of the silver he had given to him and gives him two additional candlesticks.  The police believe the story and Myriel tells Valgean that his mercy for him stems from God's mercy towards him and urges him to dedicate his life to God.  Valgean is converted and, at that point, decides to break parole and start a new life.
The movie deals with a surprising array of theological issues including original sin, covetousness, envy, biblical law, grace, mercy, election and reprobation.  These doctrines are presented in a historical context and through the eyes of characters that are so utterly pitiable that I found myself incapable of maintaining emotional distance from them.  The most amazing parts of the movie are anytime the character of Fantine is on the screen.  Played by Anne Hathaway (who deservedly won the Oscar for her performance), we meet Fantine as she is being cast out of her factory job by envious co-workers.  With no place else to turn to provide for her young daughter, who is being cared for by two exploitative wretches in another town, she resorts to selling her hair, having her teeth pulled out for cash and, eventually, to prostitution.  The soliloquy she sings after her first encounter with a paying customer had me sobbing uncontrollable in my seat.  A more perfect example of the devastating effects of sin could not be portrayed on the screen.  It is absolutely heart-wrenching.
Fantine crosses paths with Valgean shortly thereafter through a chance encounter in which he rescues her from the police and takes her to the hospital for care.  He learns of her plight and pledges to provide for her daughter as long as he lives.  The scene of the two of them together in the hospital as she dies is another that will turn all but the most stone-hearted into crying heaps.  Valgean is good to his promise, rescues her daughter, Cosette, and provides for her until his death.
Economic issues are prominent in the story.  The historical setting for the story consists of the civil war between those who were loyal to the Monarchy, most notably Inspector Jarvet, and a bunch of young communists who speak much of justice but spend most of their time drinking and destroying things.  Both sides are guilty of terrible offenses against the citizenry.  The law that Jarvet enforces on the common people is unbearably unjust and punitive.  The justice desired by the communists is little more than class envy and the desire to get something for nothing by means of force.  In both instances the people caught in the middle are oppressed. 
The one shining light in this cesspool of spiritual economic immorality is Valgean who has started a business and now employees over 100 people, all of whom have been rescued from desperate poverty.  Although the waring factions talk much of social justice, it is only Valgean who, through pursuit of his own economic self interest and his indefatigable generosity, has done anything about the wretched condition of the masses.  Time and time again this humble Christian man rises up as the unsung hero of the story. 
In the background Jarvet is constantly in pursuit of Valgean.  They have numerous encounters but Valgean always manages to escape.  Their relationship comes to a cinematic climax when through a series of circumstances Jarvet has been captured by the young communists and Valgean is given the privilege of executing him.  Valgean spares his life by pretending to kill him and then setting him free.  Jarvet is a man who is so utterly consumed by the enforcement of the unjust law of men that he is incapable of understanding how anyone could ever engage in a merciful action.  He believes that every man's character is set in stone and that once a man is declared to be a criminal he will remain a criminal until the day he dies.  He is the perfect caricature of the reprobate man.  He is so confused by the mercy that he receives from Valgean that he eventually takes his own life rather than having to deal with the metaphysical consequences of receiving a merciful gift. 
In the end Valgean realizes that his dear Cosette will be given to another man as his wife and sees to it that she is properly married and endowed.  The man who marries Cosette is a former leader of the revolution who Valgean rescued from battle in order to preserve his life for Cosette.  The final scene in the book, but not the final scene in the movie, occurs when Valgean returns to the church to die.  Cosette and her new husband rush to his side and find him in anguished prayer to God asking that he might die and go to his reward.  I found this scene in the movie very hard to watch.  Hugh Jackman (who also won the Oscar for his performance) does such a stellar job portraying the dying Valgean that I felt like a voyeur into this most personal act of prayer.  As Valgean dies we are treated to the incredible scene of his body being embraced by his beloved Cosette and his soul being transported to heaven where he meets up with the angelic Fantine.  Once again I was unable to prevent the tears and I let them flow freely.  This was the way Hugo ended the novel and it is also the way the movie should have ended.
Being a Hollywood production I should have expected that some corruption would be introduced into this incredible story of spiritual redemption  After Valgean has been ushered into heaven the final scene shows everyone who has died throughout the course of the movie gathered together at the scene of the gory battle between the monarchists and the communists.  Everyone, of course, goes to heaven.  Everyone, despite their hatreds in life, are united in heaven.  They are singing the song that had been previously sung by the communists as their rallying cry for socialist redistribution of wealth.  However, careful attention to the words reveals that they have changed.  Rather than singing about political freedom the song is entirely about spiritual freedom and salvation.  Placing this song in the context and setting of the final military battle is a huge discredit to the movie and the intentions of the author.  The producers were unable to keep their socialist leanings out of the story.  Here are the lyrics of the final song.  Trust me, they are not written to talk about the joys of political freedom.  This final song is about the joys of eternal salvation.
(Update:  Friday, January 18th.  I believe I am in error with my references to the Oscar in the above piece.  I do not follow all of the various awards that entertainers give to themselves but I believe I should have written the "Golden Globe" rather than the "Oscar".)


     Do you hear the people sing
     Lost in the valley of the night
     It is the music of a people
     Who are climbing to the light
     For the wretched of the earth
     There is a flame that never dies
     Even the darkest night will end
     And the sun will rise.
     They will live again in freedom
     In the garden of the Lord
     They will walk behind the plough-share
     They will put away the sword
     The chain will be broken
     And all men will have their reward!
     Will you join in our crusade?
     Who will be strong and stand with me?