There is a misconception about Jesus. Christ did share a gospel of love, acceptance, and service. But, he also got angry; and it was not about gays and lesbians.
The gospels illustrate Jesus' target of anger: the money changers and traders at the temple in Jerusalem. In a fit of rage, Jesus overturned tables and bemoaned the evils of greed. Theologians may argue that the cause of Jesus' rage was the disrespect shown to the temple. Such an interpretation ignores Jesus' other sermons (remember the eye of the camel analogy?).
Christ always spoke of the corrupting nature of avarice. It twists the soul. Worship of money can impede a person's salvation. The theme repeats over and over. One can celebrate success and wealth, but one should always remember: love others, serve others, and fulfill your purpose.
Given this instruction straight from Christ, a political observer would think that Republicans would adhere to its message. One large branch of the Republican party is the social conservative tent, or evangelical base. Far too often the evangelicals cozy up with those who alienate the poor.
Take two recent developments. First, the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted and passed a bill that would eliminate the estate tax. The fiscal cost is estimated to be over $250 billion over ten years. The proposed law would only help .2% of households, or a little over 5,000 millionaire/billionaire families. When asked why there was a need to kill the estate tax, Republican representatives cited the hardship of farm owners, who may have to sell their farms because of the tax. However, none could provide an example.
Second, in Kansas, Republicans voted and passed a law that would prohibit welfare recipients from spending their assistance money on movie theaters, swimming pools, cruise ships, and nail salons. Other restrictions show a disdain for the impoverished. Again, not one lawmaker gave an anecdotal story of how they saw a welfare recipient living it up on a cruise ship.
These examples show how cruel the Republican party has become -- award the rich and punish the poor. There is a mindset now that tax cuts to the wealthy can be paid for by cutting government spending for the struggling citizen. They sell the plan by using a chimera, poor farm owners and welfare queens soaking up the sun on cruise ships. In the meantime, they secure themselves campaign war chests and wall street jobs after their congressional service.
Poverty is not a choice for millions of Americans. By the stroke of bad luck, they are born into circumstances out of their control. It is unchristian and inhuman to demonize those who work hard to get ahead but remain impoverished, with little hope. They should be treated with dignity, with respect, not ridicule.
My republican friends claim to have a monopoly on patriotism, fiscal responsibility, and Christian values. By most measures, they seem to be failing on all fronts. Is Jesus angry?
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Children of God
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." - Matthew 5:9
Throughout the history of our great country, the United States, there has not been an invite quite like the invite made by Speaker John Boehner. Earlier in March, our top leader in the House of Representatives invited the prime minster of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak before a joint session of Congress.
A foreign leader asked to speak before Congress is not unusual, especially if it is an ally of the United States. Japan's prime minister will be giving a speech later this year. What was unusual, however, was the nature of the speech given, and the protocol by which the speech came about.
Mr. Netanyahu explicitly requested that our legislative branch forego support for the president. The arrogant orator asked the legislators to undermine an ongoing foreign policy strategy being implemented by the executive branch -- a branch which was given immense power in foreign affairs by the Constitution.
The historic disrespect for the office of the president was orchestrated by Republicans in Congress behind the back of the administration. No one from the White House, including Secretary of State John Kerry, who had met with the ambassador of Israel shortly before the invite was announced, was notified. They learned about the invitation after the fact. An unprecedented breach of protocol led to the controversial speech.
All of these events took place right before a close and heated election in Israel. The whole affair stunk of putrid politics.
Given the incomparable sleight, one would have expected it to be for a peaceful cause. To the contrary, the speech called for the nuclear negotiations with Iran to cease. Calling it, "a bad deal," although a deal had not been reached, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that he favored war. Because without a diplomatic deal, or a framework to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, war is more likely than not to occur.
Iran is backed into a corner, and rightfully so. The economic sanctions put into place by President Obama and the other security council members of the UN have been effective. But, the purpose of the sanctions was to get Iran to the negotiating table. By refusing to negotiate, Iran hardliners will be empowered and Iran will have to forge ahead lest it appear weak.
A majority of Americans support the talks, including myself. War and military campaigns should be the last option. Those who favor all or nothing diplomacy put the world at risk; each and every hawkish rhetoric puts our troops into the potential line of fire. Our leaders need to take that seriously. Our military men and women should have an unambiguous reason for putting their own lives at risk.
Peace through understanding can be accomplished. Certainly, we should celebrate those who are willing to fight for peace even if it is unpopular. At the very least, they should be given a chance.
Throughout the history of our great country, the United States, there has not been an invite quite like the invite made by Speaker John Boehner. Earlier in March, our top leader in the House of Representatives invited the prime minster of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak before a joint session of Congress.
A foreign leader asked to speak before Congress is not unusual, especially if it is an ally of the United States. Japan's prime minister will be giving a speech later this year. What was unusual, however, was the nature of the speech given, and the protocol by which the speech came about.
Mr. Netanyahu explicitly requested that our legislative branch forego support for the president. The arrogant orator asked the legislators to undermine an ongoing foreign policy strategy being implemented by the executive branch -- a branch which was given immense power in foreign affairs by the Constitution.
The historic disrespect for the office of the president was orchestrated by Republicans in Congress behind the back of the administration. No one from the White House, including Secretary of State John Kerry, who had met with the ambassador of Israel shortly before the invite was announced, was notified. They learned about the invitation after the fact. An unprecedented breach of protocol led to the controversial speech.
All of these events took place right before a close and heated election in Israel. The whole affair stunk of putrid politics.
Given the incomparable sleight, one would have expected it to be for a peaceful cause. To the contrary, the speech called for the nuclear negotiations with Iran to cease. Calling it, "a bad deal," although a deal had not been reached, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that he favored war. Because without a diplomatic deal, or a framework to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, war is more likely than not to occur.
Iran is backed into a corner, and rightfully so. The economic sanctions put into place by President Obama and the other security council members of the UN have been effective. But, the purpose of the sanctions was to get Iran to the negotiating table. By refusing to negotiate, Iran hardliners will be empowered and Iran will have to forge ahead lest it appear weak.
A majority of Americans support the talks, including myself. War and military campaigns should be the last option. Those who favor all or nothing diplomacy put the world at risk; each and every hawkish rhetoric puts our troops into the potential line of fire. Our leaders need to take that seriously. Our military men and women should have an unambiguous reason for putting their own lives at risk.
Peace through understanding can be accomplished. Certainly, we should celebrate those who are willing to fight for peace even if it is unpopular. At the very least, they should be given a chance.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
The Republican Model of Governance
Four republican governors, three of whom are running for president in 2016, have shown a model for governance. The substance and style of their state leadership possibly could be adopted nationwide. By looking at the numbers, one can determine whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing -- ultimately, the voter will have to decide for himself or herself.
Wisconsin has an all-star governor, at least right now in the conservative polls. Governor Scott Walker has survived a recall election, won campaign after campaign, and stood foot to foot with aggressive labor unions. He is agnostic on the faith and patriotism of the president. Mr. Walker, on a recent trip abroad, "punted" on a question related to evolution.
On economic issues, he has some problems. Wisconsin went from a $517 million surplus in June of 2014 to a projected $2.2 billion deficit. Like you will see throughout this post, Mr. Walker implemented supply-side (a.k.a. "trickle down") tax cuts. Considered orthodoxy in conservative politics, it is believed that tax cuts can result in higher revenues because of increased economic activity. Right-leaning economists have debunked this crank theory.
In conjunction with less revenues, Wisconsin has not expanded Medicaid via ObamaCare. The costs for Medicaid are squeezing the state budget, yet Mr. Walker remains obstinate on his position. It is estimated that if Medicaid were expanded, the state could save $200 million a year. With choices having to be made, Mr. Walker has decided to cut education. The university system in Wisconsin will have to deal with a 13% cut to its operations. Naturally, students and teachers are not happy.
Hundreds of miles east, Governor Chris Christie -- known for his pugnacity and straight talk, and bridge politics-- manages the state of New Jersey. Mr. Christie faces problems of his own. Recently the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that his unilateral cuts to the state pension fund were unconstitutional. Like Mr. Walker, Mr. Christie has to answer for a structural deficit of $7.3 billion. Since Mr. Christie refuses to raise taxes, he has proposed withholding property tax rebates, and refusing to fund state pensions. Toxicity surrounds Mr. Christie so now wealthy Republican donors are backing Jeb Bush rather than the New Jersey everyman.
Louisiana's governor is not quiet about his conservative credentials. Even after no-go Muslim zones were mocked and fact-checked, Governor Bobby Jindal stuck with it. Mr. Jindal embraces creationism, mocks climate change scientists, and courts birther voters. He isn't shy when explaining why the state's coffers are so depleted. It is all planned -- he wants to reduce the size of government.
Next year, Louisiana anticipates a $1.6 billion shortfall. Mr. Jindal has already spent money allocated for senior citizens, infrastructure, and reserve saving. His frantic strategies to pay for his own tax cuts have resulted in buildings sold and tax amnesties declared. Over $1 billion was added up from "gimmicks, games, and accounting tricks." Next year, Mr. Jindal may not be so fortunate -- the one-time sources may be dried up.
Like Messrs. Walker, Christie, and Jindal, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback ran passionately on his promise to cut taxes. He stated proudly that his conservative model would be a model eventually replicated across the country. Unfortunately for him, and for Kansas residents, the state is in trouble. Mr. Brownback has to find a way to fill a $280 million shortfall.
Similar to Mr. Christie, the Kansas Supreme Court declared Mr. Brownback's education cuts illegal. The schools are underfunded and the governor has to address it appropriately. One of the biggest tax cuts in history has led to fiscal ruin for the Midwest state.
One can see how a Republican would govern the nation. On the campaign trail, promises would be made about tax cuts, increased economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility. When eventually it came to governance, however, reality would kick in. A president cannot fudge the numbers; they would have to find a way to pay for their proposed tax cuts.
The data is out there. We all know the Republican model for governance. Let's hope that it is not adopted at the federal level. It's not as pretty as promised.
Wisconsin has an all-star governor, at least right now in the conservative polls. Governor Scott Walker has survived a recall election, won campaign after campaign, and stood foot to foot with aggressive labor unions. He is agnostic on the faith and patriotism of the president. Mr. Walker, on a recent trip abroad, "punted" on a question related to evolution.
On economic issues, he has some problems. Wisconsin went from a $517 million surplus in June of 2014 to a projected $2.2 billion deficit. Like you will see throughout this post, Mr. Walker implemented supply-side (a.k.a. "trickle down") tax cuts. Considered orthodoxy in conservative politics, it is believed that tax cuts can result in higher revenues because of increased economic activity. Right-leaning economists have debunked this crank theory.
In conjunction with less revenues, Wisconsin has not expanded Medicaid via ObamaCare. The costs for Medicaid are squeezing the state budget, yet Mr. Walker remains obstinate on his position. It is estimated that if Medicaid were expanded, the state could save $200 million a year. With choices having to be made, Mr. Walker has decided to cut education. The university system in Wisconsin will have to deal with a 13% cut to its operations. Naturally, students and teachers are not happy.
Hundreds of miles east, Governor Chris Christie -- known for his pugnacity and straight talk, and bridge politics-- manages the state of New Jersey. Mr. Christie faces problems of his own. Recently the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that his unilateral cuts to the state pension fund were unconstitutional. Like Mr. Walker, Mr. Christie has to answer for a structural deficit of $7.3 billion. Since Mr. Christie refuses to raise taxes, he has proposed withholding property tax rebates, and refusing to fund state pensions. Toxicity surrounds Mr. Christie so now wealthy Republican donors are backing Jeb Bush rather than the New Jersey everyman.
Louisiana's governor is not quiet about his conservative credentials. Even after no-go Muslim zones were mocked and fact-checked, Governor Bobby Jindal stuck with it. Mr. Jindal embraces creationism, mocks climate change scientists, and courts birther voters. He isn't shy when explaining why the state's coffers are so depleted. It is all planned -- he wants to reduce the size of government.
Next year, Louisiana anticipates a $1.6 billion shortfall. Mr. Jindal has already spent money allocated for senior citizens, infrastructure, and reserve saving. His frantic strategies to pay for his own tax cuts have resulted in buildings sold and tax amnesties declared. Over $1 billion was added up from "gimmicks, games, and accounting tricks." Next year, Mr. Jindal may not be so fortunate -- the one-time sources may be dried up.
Like Messrs. Walker, Christie, and Jindal, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback ran passionately on his promise to cut taxes. He stated proudly that his conservative model would be a model eventually replicated across the country. Unfortunately for him, and for Kansas residents, the state is in trouble. Mr. Brownback has to find a way to fill a $280 million shortfall.
Similar to Mr. Christie, the Kansas Supreme Court declared Mr. Brownback's education cuts illegal. The schools are underfunded and the governor has to address it appropriately. One of the biggest tax cuts in history has led to fiscal ruin for the Midwest state.
One can see how a Republican would govern the nation. On the campaign trail, promises would be made about tax cuts, increased economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility. When eventually it came to governance, however, reality would kick in. A president cannot fudge the numbers; they would have to find a way to pay for their proposed tax cuts.
The data is out there. We all know the Republican model for governance. Let's hope that it is not adopted at the federal level. It's not as pretty as promised.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Don't Import Austerity
In the land of Ulysses and gyros, far away from Washington D.C., and outside the minds of Americans, a new prime minster was elected. Greece elected Alexis Tsipras, a socialist from the Syriza party. A small country in the European Union and member of the Eurozone made a statement: enough with austerity!
Since 2008, when Wall Street's excesses caused the Great Recession, the world economy has struggled. At the height of the crisis, some Eurozone members --Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland -- were facing bank runs and liquidity problems. Debt buyers were skeptical; yields started to rise. Greece had it the worst, and with structural deficiencies, like corruption, unfunded government benefits, and crippling labor laws, a default seemed imminent.
To calm the markets and prevent a contagion in the Eurozone, the "Troika" (European Central Bank "ECB", European Commission, and International Monetary Fund) injected loans into Greece. The loans came with conditions -- spending cuts, tax increases, and economic reforms. Other Eurozone members entered into similar arrangements.
By most statistical measures, austerity has failed. The Eurozone continues to drag after seven years. There has been slow growth, and little hope. Unemployment in Greece is 26%. Across Europe, young adults face similar levels of unemployment. Deflation also threatens the economy. As prices fall, businesses will cut wages and capital expenditures, which will lead to slower growth and higher real debt.
Although the ECB has announced quantitative easing, which had great success in the United States, it isn't enough. The problem lies with insufficient demand. Households and firms do not have the financial means to speed up the recovery. Governments must spend more to spur economic activity -- and they have not.
In Europe, there is an ideological impasse between creditor and debtor nations. Germany, the largest economy in the Eurozone, has indicated that it does not want to spend its tax dollars to enable Greek irresponsibility.
The Eurozone faces real challenges because they are a union, unwilling to act as a union -- similar to the disjointed government of the early United States that prompted the constitutional convention. Until Eurozone states find that their fate is intertwined, there will be uncertainty.
Nevertheless, austerity policies have done real harm. Republicans, here in the United States, should take note. On a micro level, it makes sense to tighten the belt. If a household or firm borrows too much, it will go bankrupt. However, on a macro level, if everyone cuts back at the same time, including the state, there will be a depression.
Moreover, the United States is an investment haven. Deficit and debt obsession is misplaced because the United States can borrow at extremely low costs, and servicing its debt would be easy. Capital investments will pay for itself because when the GDP increases, the debt to GDP ratio will fall. But, Americans would be much better off -- instead of facing the depression across the Atlantic.
Our country has leaders akin to Germany's leaders. They accost government spending in difficult times. They praise "responsibility" like deficit reduction. Again, as discussed at length, those policies do not work. Austerity negatively affects real people, with real hardships.
We, as Americans, should send a message to Washington D.C. Like the Greeks, we should abdicate failed austerity policies, and push for investments in infrastructure, education, and clean energy. Our message is simple: spend more, don't import austerity.
Since 2008, when Wall Street's excesses caused the Great Recession, the world economy has struggled. At the height of the crisis, some Eurozone members --Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland -- were facing bank runs and liquidity problems. Debt buyers were skeptical; yields started to rise. Greece had it the worst, and with structural deficiencies, like corruption, unfunded government benefits, and crippling labor laws, a default seemed imminent.
To calm the markets and prevent a contagion in the Eurozone, the "Troika" (European Central Bank "ECB", European Commission, and International Monetary Fund) injected loans into Greece. The loans came with conditions -- spending cuts, tax increases, and economic reforms. Other Eurozone members entered into similar arrangements.
By most statistical measures, austerity has failed. The Eurozone continues to drag after seven years. There has been slow growth, and little hope. Unemployment in Greece is 26%. Across Europe, young adults face similar levels of unemployment. Deflation also threatens the economy. As prices fall, businesses will cut wages and capital expenditures, which will lead to slower growth and higher real debt.
Although the ECB has announced quantitative easing, which had great success in the United States, it isn't enough. The problem lies with insufficient demand. Households and firms do not have the financial means to speed up the recovery. Governments must spend more to spur economic activity -- and they have not.
In Europe, there is an ideological impasse between creditor and debtor nations. Germany, the largest economy in the Eurozone, has indicated that it does not want to spend its tax dollars to enable Greek irresponsibility.
The Eurozone faces real challenges because they are a union, unwilling to act as a union -- similar to the disjointed government of the early United States that prompted the constitutional convention. Until Eurozone states find that their fate is intertwined, there will be uncertainty.
Nevertheless, austerity policies have done real harm. Republicans, here in the United States, should take note. On a micro level, it makes sense to tighten the belt. If a household or firm borrows too much, it will go bankrupt. However, on a macro level, if everyone cuts back at the same time, including the state, there will be a depression.
Moreover, the United States is an investment haven. Deficit and debt obsession is misplaced because the United States can borrow at extremely low costs, and servicing its debt would be easy. Capital investments will pay for itself because when the GDP increases, the debt to GDP ratio will fall. But, Americans would be much better off -- instead of facing the depression across the Atlantic.
Our country has leaders akin to Germany's leaders. They accost government spending in difficult times. They praise "responsibility" like deficit reduction. Again, as discussed at length, those policies do not work. Austerity negatively affects real people, with real hardships.
We, as Americans, should send a message to Washington D.C. Like the Greeks, we should abdicate failed austerity policies, and push for investments in infrastructure, education, and clean energy. Our message is simple: spend more, don't import austerity.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
2014: The Year That Dire Warnings Did Not Come to Pass
Crystal balls are supposed to allow a viewer to gain an insight into the future. One allegedly can shake it up and glean information -- enough to shape behavior. Or so they say. I certainly do not believe such nonsense.
Conservatives of late have eagerly made predictions. Like oracles with crystal balls, they have issued dire warnings and prophesied tribulations. As time passed, however, the sky did not fall. Shaking of the earth was absent. Our financial system remained intact.
2014 must have been a disappointing year for those who exhorted gloom. Let's take a look at my favorite predictions gone wrong:
(1) ObamaCare will result in more people uninsured. During the debate of the Affordable Care Act, and actually up until today, despite positive numbers, opponents of health care reform have claimed that the law will result in a death spiral of coverage. It was said that no one would use the exchanges. In conjunction with the cancellation of illegal policies, more people would be without health insurance and out of luck. Not so. Tens of millions now have coverage.The uninsured rate in the country has gone down dramatically.
(2) Health care premiums will skyrocket because of Obamacare. Similar to the claims above, critics foresaw that premiums would increase substantially. Premiums rose only 2.8% nationally, which is much lower than the percentage increases years prior to the Affordable Care Act.
(3) Obama's economic policies will destroy the stock market. Matt O'Brien, a conservative pundit, opined that the market would crash due to President Obama. Quite the opposite has occurred. Both major indices, the DOW and S & P 500, have set records. For a Marxist, he should have to explain his economic track record.
(4) The President's war on coal and energy will mean astronomical gas prices. Perhaps no one saw this coming, but gas prices are extremely low -- with some parts of the country being able to purchase gasoline for under $2.00. While the causes vary, like the fact that global supply is up and global demand is low, the President's all-of-the-above energy policy has been helpful.
(5) The Affordable Care Act will make millions lose their jobs. 2014 was the best year of hiring since 1999. Unemployment is at 5.8% after the greatest recession since the Great Depression. No data suggests that individuals are losing their jobs because of ObamaCare. To the contrary, with more mobility, workers are now finding more fulfilling jobs.
(6) Hyperinflation is inevitable because of the Fed and Obama's monetary decisions. Inflation remains low despite quantitative easing and zero interest rates. Fiscal hawks in the GOP have cried foul but the Fed has not destroyed the dollar. Compared to other major currencies, the dollar's value has increased. Inflation cannot shoot up if there is insufficient demand, even if there is an increase in the money supply. Someone needs to teach that to our conservative representatives.
(7) Putin will outsmart Obama since he is a great leader. On Fox News, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani praised Putin for his leadership. Other conservatives discussed his masculinity and chess-like intellect. After Russia annexed Crimea and upset the sovereignty of Ukraine, the country is in free fall. The decreasing ruble has caused a run on banks and consumer goods. With an unbalanced national economy, gas prices have contributed to Russia's recession. And, western sanctions have resulted in deep pain to the economy. It appears that Putin was not so bright after all.
The new year is upon us. I won't make any predictions except this one: there will be more nonsense in 2015. It's time for the soothsayers to bring out their crystal balls. Let's toast to the hope that you will have better luck this year (not).
Conservatives of late have eagerly made predictions. Like oracles with crystal balls, they have issued dire warnings and prophesied tribulations. As time passed, however, the sky did not fall. Shaking of the earth was absent. Our financial system remained intact.
2014 must have been a disappointing year for those who exhorted gloom. Let's take a look at my favorite predictions gone wrong:
(1) ObamaCare will result in more people uninsured. During the debate of the Affordable Care Act, and actually up until today, despite positive numbers, opponents of health care reform have claimed that the law will result in a death spiral of coverage. It was said that no one would use the exchanges. In conjunction with the cancellation of illegal policies, more people would be without health insurance and out of luck. Not so. Tens of millions now have coverage.The uninsured rate in the country has gone down dramatically.
(2) Health care premiums will skyrocket because of Obamacare. Similar to the claims above, critics foresaw that premiums would increase substantially. Premiums rose only 2.8% nationally, which is much lower than the percentage increases years prior to the Affordable Care Act.
(3) Obama's economic policies will destroy the stock market. Matt O'Brien, a conservative pundit, opined that the market would crash due to President Obama. Quite the opposite has occurred. Both major indices, the DOW and S & P 500, have set records. For a Marxist, he should have to explain his economic track record.
(4) The President's war on coal and energy will mean astronomical gas prices. Perhaps no one saw this coming, but gas prices are extremely low -- with some parts of the country being able to purchase gasoline for under $2.00. While the causes vary, like the fact that global supply is up and global demand is low, the President's all-of-the-above energy policy has been helpful.
(5) The Affordable Care Act will make millions lose their jobs. 2014 was the best year of hiring since 1999. Unemployment is at 5.8% after the greatest recession since the Great Depression. No data suggests that individuals are losing their jobs because of ObamaCare. To the contrary, with more mobility, workers are now finding more fulfilling jobs.
(6) Hyperinflation is inevitable because of the Fed and Obama's monetary decisions. Inflation remains low despite quantitative easing and zero interest rates. Fiscal hawks in the GOP have cried foul but the Fed has not destroyed the dollar. Compared to other major currencies, the dollar's value has increased. Inflation cannot shoot up if there is insufficient demand, even if there is an increase in the money supply. Someone needs to teach that to our conservative representatives.
(7) Putin will outsmart Obama since he is a great leader. On Fox News, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani praised Putin for his leadership. Other conservatives discussed his masculinity and chess-like intellect. After Russia annexed Crimea and upset the sovereignty of Ukraine, the country is in free fall. The decreasing ruble has caused a run on banks and consumer goods. With an unbalanced national economy, gas prices have contributed to Russia's recession. And, western sanctions have resulted in deep pain to the economy. It appears that Putin was not so bright after all.
The new year is upon us. I won't make any predictions except this one: there will be more nonsense in 2015. It's time for the soothsayers to bring out their crystal balls. Let's toast to the hope that you will have better luck this year (not).
Sunday, November 30, 2014
The Power of Love in Current Cinema
Enough with the politics -- or at least for this month. One of my other passions is the cinema. The large screen, surround sound, and popcorn, with butter (but not too much lest my fingers get greasy), are all comforting. It is a mini getaway where my wife and I can enjoy each others company and forget about work, and other obligations.
So far we have seen some good movies this year, including Interstellar, Fury, and Guardians of the Galaxy. A lot of action. Even more special effects than the year before. Topics have covered time manipulation, world wars, and comic book heroes. We also recently saw Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I. It wasn't my favorite but I was touched by Philip Seymour Hoffman's last performance.
A common theme throughout a majority of the films that we have seen this year has been the capability of evil in mankind. Violence, pollution, and greed have been highlighted. Utopian societies with totalitarian leaders hungry for unlimited power is a favorite -- Divergent and Hunger Games.
There have been numerous films that are lighthearted. Do not get me wrong. Plenty of comedies and children-focused movies have graced the box office.
But of the top ten highest grossing films, eight have been about destruction. Moviegoers thirst for ruin. Godzilla grossed over 200 million. I forget how many cities were trampled upon.
Interstellar too, perhaps my favorite, was a perfect example of a world gone awry because of the actions of men. Earth was dying, because of the stewardship of humans, and the only hope to survive was Matthew McConaughey -- a resourceful astronaut and pilot. Even he was almost thwarted by a surprise actor who put his own interests ahead of the entire planet. One man nearly caused the extinction of man.
With every evil plot, there is the triumph of good men and women. Each movie that has shown great malevolence has also shown the powerful force of love. Take Interstellar, for example. The one constant motivation for the protagonist was the deep bond with his daughter. Similarly, Hunger Games, with its female protagonist, relies upon the personal affection that the character has with the other victors. The rebellion is collateral to her wanting to keep her family and friends safe.
Away from the theaters, we live in challenging times: civil war in a number of regions, Islamist terrorism in Iraq, divisive partisanship at home with biting disrespect. Film plays a part in our ability to deal with these negative stories bombarding our homes.
The movies also remind us of what is really important. Despite the wickedness in men, good will always prevail if we remember the golden rule. Strive to serve those around us no matter the cost. Be prepared to sacrifice your own interests if it will help those you love. As I sit next to my wife at the theatre, I am optimistic. The world can get ugly, but there is too much beauty in it to be afraid.
So far we have seen some good movies this year, including Interstellar, Fury, and Guardians of the Galaxy. A lot of action. Even more special effects than the year before. Topics have covered time manipulation, world wars, and comic book heroes. We also recently saw Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I. It wasn't my favorite but I was touched by Philip Seymour Hoffman's last performance.
A common theme throughout a majority of the films that we have seen this year has been the capability of evil in mankind. Violence, pollution, and greed have been highlighted. Utopian societies with totalitarian leaders hungry for unlimited power is a favorite -- Divergent and Hunger Games.
There have been numerous films that are lighthearted. Do not get me wrong. Plenty of comedies and children-focused movies have graced the box office.
But of the top ten highest grossing films, eight have been about destruction. Moviegoers thirst for ruin. Godzilla grossed over 200 million. I forget how many cities were trampled upon.
Interstellar too, perhaps my favorite, was a perfect example of a world gone awry because of the actions of men. Earth was dying, because of the stewardship of humans, and the only hope to survive was Matthew McConaughey -- a resourceful astronaut and pilot. Even he was almost thwarted by a surprise actor who put his own interests ahead of the entire planet. One man nearly caused the extinction of man.
With every evil plot, there is the triumph of good men and women. Each movie that has shown great malevolence has also shown the powerful force of love. Take Interstellar, for example. The one constant motivation for the protagonist was the deep bond with his daughter. Similarly, Hunger Games, with its female protagonist, relies upon the personal affection that the character has with the other victors. The rebellion is collateral to her wanting to keep her family and friends safe.
Away from the theaters, we live in challenging times: civil war in a number of regions, Islamist terrorism in Iraq, divisive partisanship at home with biting disrespect. Film plays a part in our ability to deal with these negative stories bombarding our homes.
The movies also remind us of what is really important. Despite the wickedness in men, good will always prevail if we remember the golden rule. Strive to serve those around us no matter the cost. Be prepared to sacrifice your own interests if it will help those you love. As I sit next to my wife at the theatre, I am optimistic. The world can get ugly, but there is too much beauty in it to be afraid.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Will (or Can) the Republicans Govern?
Tuesday, November 4 is the date of the midterm elections. Unless you have tuned out and are unaware (like the majority of Americans), this vote is primarily about which political party will control the upper chamber of Congress. There are battleground states with close races. Come Tuesday we will know whether Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid is the senate majority leader.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)