Posted on 04/07/2013 5:52:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
I never paid much attention to what Roger Ebert said about movies.
Given that I usually take-in only three or four films a year, Ebert’s analysis of any particular film or actor or “scene” just wasn’t going to be something that would capture my attention.
But the final seven years or so of Ebert’s life offer some seriously thoughtful and thought provoking lessons, for those who still care to learn. Whether you reside on the right or left side of the political and cultural aisle doesn’t much matter. Consider some of the facts of Ebert’s final years, and the implications of his actions.
First, Ebert suffered with multiple bouts of cancer for over a decade, yet he and his wife Chaz Hammelsmith Ebert remained married and supportive of each other. Initially diagnosed with cancer of the thyroid in 2002, Roger would discover cancer in his salivary gland a year later. After being in remission for periods of time, he eventually contracted cancer in his jaw bone (which necessitated the removal of his jaw), and he lost his voice. Through all of this, he and were seemingly inseparable.
The things that the Eberts said and wrote about each other during their roughly twenty years of marriage were sufficiently extraordinary, even for otherwise healthy spouses. Yet despite Roger’s immense health struggles, neither of them seemed to have been deterred. Even in the past few years as a voiceless Roger absolutely needed Chaz to speak on his behalf, both out in public and in television interviews, never once did you see either of them convey anything short of love and respect for the other, and neither of them ever seemed awkward or uncomfortable with Roger’s diminished functioning. In a country where the legal definition of marriage remains a widely contested public policy issue all the while more than half of the nation’s marriages end in divorce, the Eberts, whether they intended to or not, publicly emulated what a marriage should be about -both in sickness and in health.
Secondly, Roger’s determination to remain professionally and publicly active despite his debilitations says some extraordinary things – both about Roger’s character, and about the value of human life itself. Losing your voice and having your face become severely disfigured is undoubtedly awful for anybody, but for someone who makes their living in front of tv cameras, such circumstances could be a career killer.
But not for Roger Ebert. Despite the loss of his voice Roger could still write, and what couldn’t be written Chaz could say for him. That’s how things went for Roger over the last seven years or so. Do an online search and story after story emerges of the Eberts playfully appearing at film festivals and movie premiers, Roger offering his signature “two thumbs up” gestures with Chaz doing the talking.
An extraordinary example of the Eberts’ “grace under fire” appears in a video on Youtube. Roger and Chaz are sitting on the set in a remote studio being interviewed by a CNN Host at the Anchor desk. The Host, noticeably awkward with Roger’s appearance and inaudible gestures, thanks Roger for his courage to continue appearing on TV, noting that Roger had been such a handsome on-camera performer for so many years. Through hand signals, scrawling on a note pad, and some vocal help from Chaz, Roger shoots-back at the host and says “what do you mean I was handsome? I think I’m still looking pretty good!”
The fact is, Roger looked rather odd with his jaw removed, but that apparently didn’t matter to the confident and in-love couple known as Roger and Chaz. The value of one’s life transcends their immediate physical appearance and level of functioning, and Roger’s sustained presence in the public square was a testimony to that ultimate truth. Yet on this point, Roger’s final years were an anathema to those who are quick to advocate for rationed healthcare and euthanasia, believing that people as old and incapacitated as Roger quite naturally have a “duty to die.”
Tragically, during the same week that the courageous Roger Ebert left us, some horrific news broke about Medicare, the federal healthcare program for senior adults. Under the federal Obamacare law, funding for Medicare is being gradually cut to allow for increased expenditures on Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for the poor, and on the Obamacare program itself. As a result, a new trend has emerged: Medicare is increasingly denying treatment to elderly cancer patients (Is this the “change” you were “hoping” for?).
From a raw political standpoint, this makes sense. Sickly senior citizens are a less-viable voter-block than are younger and middle-aged citizens (those who can benefit from Obamacare and Medicaid). But from a moral standpoint this is an abomination. Is the life of every elderly cancer patient as valuable as Roger Ebert’s was? In political terms, the answer is “no.”
Thank you Roger and Chaz for some important lessons. Are Americans willing to learn from them?
No comment.
Likewise....if anyone wants a comment, go ask Ebert....maybe he’ll rise up and give his two cents.
His ‘wife’ was a man, right? ‘The Eberts’?? Oh give me a break.
This will come as an awful shock to Mrs. Ebert.
Very little to be known about his wife.
His final years were a model of courage and resiliency.
I wish the author had not parroted that falsehood. It gets tossed out as a truism as much as global warming.
Never worry. Ebert would still have had good medical coverage with his income. This abomination will only come about when the Government starts to fine Doctors who continue to treat the ‘elderly’ when the Governbment says their lives aren’t worth it anymore.
Roger’s final years were an anathema to those who are quick to advocate for rationed healthcare and euthanasia, believing that people as old and incapacitated as Roger quite naturally have a “duty to die.” ...Under the federal Obamacare law, funding for Medicare is being gradually cut to allow for increased expenditures on Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for the poor, and on the Obamacare program itself. As a result, a new trend has emerged: Medicare is increasingly denying treatment to elderly cancer patients (Is this the “change” you were “hoping” for?).Ebert wrote porn 'screenplays', and no doubt voted for Obama three times. It's great that his death is being spun like this.
.seriously, who is going to pay for this?...
..if my elderlly inlaws are any example, she never worked outside the home and he got an early retirement from his company...since about age 56...
they're mid 80s now...multiple mri's, and cat scans, and bypass surgeries, and many meds, often doing the same thing of multiple other meds, knee surgeries, hip surgeries, shoulder surgeries, blood tests, and the physical therapies for aches and pains..and the home visits too...etc etc etc...
the taxpayers have spent about a million on those two alone....multiple that by many millions....
perfect example of medicare are those SCOOTERS that cost the govt thousands apiece...now why in the world would the govt pay people NOT to move?...not to get up and walk?...but encourage more sedentary lifestyles...
anytime the govt gets involved, there is excess and redundancy and ridculousness....no wonder Medicare is bankrupt.....there has been obscene overuse of it and now when people really need treatment....for cancer....the money is not there...
maybe they should stop paying for those stupid scooters to start...
Oh thanks.
When did Ebert convert?
Heard his mass just now and thought WTH
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.