I still remember my first experience with a horror movie. I think I was six, and we had a vhs claymation movie about prehistoric times. Triceratops and a T-Rex got into it with one another. T-Rex took a chomp out of Triceratops, but Triceratops came back by goring T-Rex’s stomach. There was clay blood. It was scary.
I never really liked watching that movie, and I always closed my eyes at the scary part. It wasn’t graphic at all by today’s standards, but at the time it was terrifying for me. I don’t think the death itself really bothered me, though. It’s just that it was so calculated, so protracted, and so inevitable. Even though T-Rex started the fight, I still felt badly for him as he was disemboweled. Of course, this type of thing happens among animals every day, from insects in my backyard to lions and antelope on the Serengeti. You gotta eat, and in the animal world, for many species that entails chasing something down and defeating it in battle. I always identified with Wilbur from Charlotte’s web. He understood cruel reality, but he never quite got over the fact that Charlotte had to kill her trapped insects. If he could change things, he would.
He couldn’t, though.
Charlotte still sucked the blood of her victims. Bambi’s mom still caught a bullet. Even king Mufasa was run down by a stampede of wildebeest.
So when I think about the harsh reality of death in the animal kingdom, I’m supremely glad to be a human. In most scenarios, I won’t have to face off against a predator. It’s very unlikely that I will be hunted down for food. In fact, I do not have to hunt my own food either. I don’t have to kill if I would rather not. I can even choose to be a vegetarian if the idea of animals dying for my sustenance bothers me.
Cartoons aside, real animals do not have the ability to plot out a murder in malice. Most certainly, they do not have the wherewithal to torture a victim. Of course, some animals have it worse than others. Cats play with their food all the time, and sometimes the prey dies slowly. However, no animal inflicts pain or distress on another for the purpose of seeing it suffer.
This is where I’m not quite as glad to be a human… because while we don’t have so much to worry about from the animal kingdom, we have a lot to be concerned about from one another.
I was reminded of this recently when I saw a trailer for the new Saw movie. I’ve never watched the series, but from what I understand, the antagonist traps victims and puts them in scenarios where they must gore, maim, or otherwise torture themselves to live. While it’s true that I have a particularly weak stomach, I’ve never been able to understand how anyone who values human life could enjoy watching torture. It is so abhorrent to me that I refuse to watch anything to do with it. The thought of a person causing fear and pain like that on purpose angers me. Last year, I went to see a movie with some friends. Within the first two minutes, it was evident that it would be focusing on torture. I asked the girls I was with if we could leave and watch something else, and they were kind enough to agree (I don’t think it bothered them like it did me).
I’ve asked friends what they enjoy about this type of entertainment in the past. I’ve never been able to understand how someone who values human life could enjoy watching torture. Some have defended the Saw series by explaining that it actually extolls the value of human life. Apparently, it teaches us how far we should be willing to go to protect it.
Seriously?
I cannot see how watching multiple gruesome scenes does anything but lower the value of human life in our eyes. Of course, I am not saying that everyone who watches these movies is in support of torturing and maiming people. In fact, many people who seem to enjoy watching Saw movies are the same ones who call for swift justice upon hearing news stories where someone is kidnapped and tortured. So apparently, while a situation is horrid and vile in reality, it is… entertaining when posed as fiction?
Politically, I hold libertarian views, so I’m not calling for government censorship of these types of movies. What I am asking is for those of us who are Christians to think about what we consume. Some will tell me to get off my high horse and recognize that there is a difference between fiction and reality. Truly, there is. Why not use that argument with pornography? Sexually immoral behavior in real life: sinful. As entertainment? OK. I think we have bought into too much of our culture’s assertions about fantasy. Namely, that what occurs in the heart is not as important as what occurs through our bodies. Jesus taught that what comes out of the mouth reflects what is in the heart, and that what is in the heart makes someone “unclean”. “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Similarly, when it comes to physical sins like murder or adultery, Jesus taught that entertaining the act in one’s heart amounts to the same thing as committing it.
I believe our culture is beginning to face the consequences of that truth now. We have continued to expand the outer limits of what is considered acceptable in terms of violence and sexual deviance. Of course, we are not the only culture to have done this. Toward the very end of Rome’s existence as a Republic, gladiatorial games came into mainstream use as a form of entertainment. POWs, slaves, and sometimes volunteers fought to the death for the entertainment of the populace and at the behest of political leaders. It is telling that only animals and second or third class citizens acted in this capacity. Legally speaking, citizens were forbidden from acting as gladiators because it would endanger their lives (this was not always enforced). In other words, the Romans respected life for some groups, but not others.
The patron of the games (or the crowd, in many instances) could determine whether an obviously defeated gladiator would live. The preference would be indicated by pollice verso, or “with a turned thumb”. It’s not clear whether this gesture is the same “thumbs up” (or down) with which we’re familiar today, but either way, the defeated gladiator was at the mercy of the audience. Now, we’re talking about people who were entertained by watching a fight to the death. Unless the defeated was popular, he had a very good chance of dying for his loss.
When I look at my culture, I see a people who is increasingly bloodthirsty. I see a people who requires more and more suffering to be satiated. I see the beginnings of barbarism creeping into mainstream acceptance.
I can think of no time in our country’s history in which we have more closely identified with the Romans. For many decades now, our legislature has eschewed the values of a republic and moved towards the perceived virtues of empire. If we are to repeat history, this change will continue to our own demise. Whether the decline of the state instigates the moral failure of the people, or whether the reverse is true, we would do well not to ignore the symptoms of this move. The devaluing of human life combined with the thirst for suffering can only lead to disaster.
An early Christian writer, Tertullian, commented on his culture’s ambivalence toward the gladiators:
On the one and the same account they glorify them and they degrade and diminish them; yes, further, they openly condemn them to disgrace and civil degradation; they keep them religiously excluded from council chamber, rostrum, senate, knighthood, and every other kind of office and a good many distinctions. The perversity of it! They love whom they lower; they despise whom they approve; the art they glorify, the artist they disgrace.
Could we not say the same of ourselves? If we patronize faithfully an art that glorifies torture, how can we condemn those who practice it in earnest? We have already done this in the sexual arena. If, in private, we are sexually immoral or consume pornography to no end, how do we then look down on prostitutes and use words like slut in our vitriol? Indeed we have fallen prey to the same attitude Tertullian condemned, and we are accelerating down that path even still.
The Roman empire which provided such excesses of cruelty in entertainment did not avoid it in public practice. It adopted the form of execution, which, even by its own standards was excessively cruel. This “ultimate penalty” is what Jesus of Nazareth suffered under the orders of Pontius Pilate.
I do not write this to condemn those who have chosen to patronize movies like Saw, most particularly if they do not consider themselves followers of Jesus. Certainly, it is not the place of Christians to judge those who do not believe. I do, however, want those of us who are Christians to consider what we are approving. Perhaps more importantly, we should ask ourselves where we are headed. After all, the cruelty of the arena was ultimately extended to Christians under Nero, Domitian, and even the relatively benign Marcus Aurelius.
It would be a shame to find ourselves giving the thumbs up to our own demise.
In part one, we discussed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s initial plan to bail out failing banks, former President Bill Clinton’s suggestion to place a moratorium on foreclosures until they can be manually reviewed, and finally, what foreclosure really means for banks and for the economy. Now, let’s watch the second half of Clinton’s interview:
This section of the interview is occupied with the upcoming election rather than the financial crisis at hand. Nonetheless, I’d like to focus on a couple of statements before we move on. Clinton pointed out that many voters will support the candidate with whom they most identify. Staunch supporters are not really the audience here, but rather those who are either not committed or not voting at all. He was so right when he said that those people will “love” Obama if they think he loves them. I could write a sermon here, but I’ll save it for Sunday. Suffice it to say that Clinton has successfully described what motivates most humans to love, including Christians (and it’s not necessarily a bad thing).
Around the 2:00 mark, Stewart pointed out that our nation is divided culturally, with the “left demonizing the right for being narrow-minded and the right demonizing the left for elitism.” I’m seeing a fair amount of this, to some degree or another, even among the religious blogging community. You’ve got Obama viewed as a socialist and a proponent of abortion from the right, and McCain viewed as a harbinger of totalitarianism and a warmonger from the left. My only point here is that Stewart is right: we are a severely divided nation, ideologically. Unfortunately, neither of these candidates is addressing the important issues when it comes to power structures in our nation and fiscal policy. All the left/right debate is serving as a supreme distraction from these essential problems.
Last time, I promised we’d discuss how Congress is involved with the bailout situation. If you’ve been reading this blog recently, then you know that a bailout bill was negotiated between the Democrats and the Republicans and placed before the House of Representatives for a vote. It was expected, at least by President Bush, that this measure would pass. Amazingly, it ended up being blocked by a narrow margin. At this point a modified bill is being presented to the Senate for a vote today. At the moment, it seems the biggest change is to increase the FDIC insurance from $100K to $250K. I can’t seem to figure out what difference that makes in terms of the bill itself. I might be wrong, but do any of you have over $100K stored in a bank account somewhere that you’re really concerned about? I certainly don’t. No, friends, this is just smoke and mirrors — a sad attempt to divert attention from the American public’s massive opposition to this bill.
Just so we understand the role of Congress here, all they are doing is determining whether the U.S. Government will take financial responsibility for defaulted or risky debt in order to allow commercial banks to lend us more money. What Congress is unable to do, at the moment, is to keep the Federal Reserve from pumping more credit into the system on their own through pure inflation and international borrowing. Indeed, they have already done so to the tune of $630 billion and continue to do so on a regular basis. Let’s remember, the Federal Reserve IS NOT a branch of the U.S. Government, and they have no oversight whatsoever in terms of their own activities. The only reason Congress is voting is to determine whether these private banks that comprise the Federal Reserve will be on their own on this one, or whether Uncle Sam will underwrite the bill.
President Bush is convinced of the necessity for strong government intervention to “save” our ailing economy and the banks that are failing as a result. He was none too happy when the bailout bill failed in the House on Monday. It is my personal opinion that the Federal Reserve and those who benefit from it have fed him the notion that our economy will fail without this measure. They might even believe it themselves. Obviously, stock market investors do, because the NASDAQ dropped over 700 points in a single day as a result. That is the largest numerical drop (though not the largest percentage drop by a long shot). Even now, with the Senate poised to vote on a version of this bill today, informal polls are not indicating strong support by the public:
As you may have discerned by now, I disagree strongly that government intervention is necessary or wise in this case. Many intelligent friends (and others around the country) have been asking what we do in lieu of this bill, and how we can survive if something is not done. Most people recognize that there is a problem, but few know what we can do to ameliorate it. Even now, with the Senate poised to vote on a version of this bill today, informalpolls are not indicating strong support by the public.
I am prepared to propose an alternative solution, and I plan to have it up later on today. Stay tuned, and as always, I’m looking forward to your comments and questions.
It matters little what path a bill takes to become law; what matters, is that we get a law.
I can’t believe we’ve been so silly as to subscribe to a legislative process… after all, it is complicated — and it can be contentious! Maybe we should just have a king instead. Then we could avoid this complicated process and bypass voting altogether!
This is the letter of thanks I sent to my Congressman, Jeff Miller for voting against the recent financial bailout bill. If your House representative voted against this bill and you agreed, please write or call them and let them know you stand by them. Those who voted against this bill are going to be feeling particularly vulnerable right now because of the market’s reaction. Make no mistake, there is nothing we can do to avoid some level of recession at this point. However, the vote today prevented us from exacerbating the situation, and I was pleasantly surprised. Who knew you could get fired up about Congress?
Congressman Miller,
THANK YOU!!! I just want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the stand you made today with your constituents. You made the right call. I believe what you have done today prevented us from throwing gasoline on an already burning building. Please continue to stand your ground if this bill is recycled in some other form, and I will continue to support you however I can. Thank you again!
It seems Comedy central finally found something funnier than Colbert.
I will be reviewing a segment on the Daily Show regarding the current bailout situation. Part two of this blog will cover the second half of Clinton’s interview.
Hopefully, by this point you’ve heard at least part of the outrageous legislature proposed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Seriously??? This guy should be replaced and charged with treason for even proposing such a bill. Fortunately, many citizens have been calling their Senators and Representatives, demanding that they vote against it. What we’re seeing now is an upwelling of constituents and members of Congress who recognize that we’re in an untenable situation. Unfortunately, it seems most lack a fundamental understanding of how we arrived at this predicament in the first place.
Clinton says if we put up this $700 billion, we should have a moratorium on foreclosures, and then have each mortgage reviewed for possible write-downs. It sounds like a good plan, but let us examine just how it would work:
The moratorium would have to be very short term and the manual reviews completed quickly. On the surface, it seems like “homeowners” (I use that term loosely, because I would not consider someone who has a 0.5% stake in a house the owner) would get a break. They get a chance to have the bank write down their debt without losing their house. The bank only loses interest they would’ve earned with the larger debt, and it doesn’t become insolvent and risk a run — the federal government underwrites the loss (that means we pay for it). Even assuming that congress could find qualified reviewers and implement this plan quickly, there are fundamental flaws.
Foreclosure is simply a means of enforcing debt. If you can’t pay your mortgage, the bank is able to keep the interest you’ve paid them over time, and the property which was collateral for the loan. The borrower loses any money he or she has invested in the house, and is unlikely to secure another loan for some time, due to credit reporting. You might be asking yourself a few questions at this point. If the banks have been implementing so many foreclosures, and if they have gained both the property and the interest paid since the origination of the loan, then why are they failing? It would seem that they are now richer than they were when they started. That makes sense, but it is not the truth. If you read my post about creating money from debt, you’ll remember that when you obtain a mortgage, the bank is not actually loaning you their own money. Literally, they are just writing that amount into your account out of thin air. Our government allows that check to be treated as real currency and to be payable in real dollars at other financial institutions where the seller might deposit or cash it.
In order to keep their balance sheets straight, the banks keep two separate accounts. One says how much they have written on all those outstanding loan checks, and the other says how much they have been paid back. Just like they didn’t actually have that money to lend you in the first place, they don’t get to keep it when you pay it back. When you make a payment, part goes to principle and part goes to interest. The principle amount is deducted from your overall debt to the bank, and hence it is also deducted from the total amount the bank has lent out on those loan checks. In simpler terms, the money disappears back into nothing since it didn’t exist to begin with. The banks have a limit on how many of those loan checks they can lend out from thin air, and this is called fractional reserve banking. Typically, they can lend up to 9 times the amount they have on reserve at the central federal reserve bank. So, when they get principle payment back from you, they are free to lend out that money again to someone else and earn even more interest on it. The interest amount is the bank’s profit which goes to pay employees, stockholders, or it may even be deposited at the central bank to allow them to lend out even more money.
What happens when there is a foreclosure and you can’t pay it back? In that case, the overall amount the bank has lent out on those checks stays high. Therefore, the money is not freed up for them to lend out to others. They have lost both the interest you would have paid them and the interest they’d earn if they had freed up that money to lend out to others. On the upside, they do have the house and land as collateral. So… can’t they just sell that? Yes, but it will usually not cover the amount of unpaid principle, and it costs the bank money to take over the maintenance of the house. When someone loses their house due to foreclosure, they’re usually not a happy camper. When I was trained in mortgage lending, I was told that often people will destroy the house out of spite or take whatever materials can be sold for scrap (metal, wood, etc.). Even if the house is in good condition, there is another problem. Too many houses on the market drives the price down, which means the bank cannot recuperate their costs. As you can see, foreclosure isn’t going to make the bank richer.
You might also ask yourself why the Congress can’t just change the laws and allow the banks to lend out more money to gain interest. If the fractional reserve requirement allows nine dollars to be lent out for one dollar on reserve, why not make it ten? Or twenty? Or a hundred? What difference does it really make as long as we save the banks? Wouldn’t this be better than paying 700 billion dollars to bail them out? Absolutely not, and the reason is inflation. As the banks are creating money from debt, that money is being circulated in the economy. More money being moved around for the same amount of goods and services is called inflation. It means the money is worth less than it was before. Now you understand why a dollar doesn’t go as far as it used to; there are too many dollars in the system. Sometimes less really is more. The federal reserve wouldn’t want to increase the ratio because it would lead to hyper-inflation, a severe and rapid reduction in the value of money. This is one of the factors that caused the Great Depression, it is why counterfeit money is illegal, and it is the cause of economic turmoil in many other countries.
So then, what if Clinton’s moratorium on foreclosures becomes law? Consider this: why would someone worry about paying their mortgage if they can’t lose their house? They wouldn’t. You pay your mortgage before you pay your cell phone bill because you can’t live without your house. Once the threat of losing it is gone, you are free to use your money for other purposes. People won’t pay back their mortgages because foreclosure isn’t an option. The banks will have lent out the $700 billion from the government as new mortgages, which also won’t be paid back in a timely fashion because, once again, foreclosure isn’t an option. In this case, the banks are still out of money and back in the position they were, only now the government has invested stockpiles of money to stave off collapse for a short period of time. Not only this, but it exacerbates the inflation problem described above. The money out there from these bad loans is not being repaid so that it can disappear back into nothing. Also, $700 billion are being infused into banks allowing them to create even more money from debt. This will cause hyper-inflation and the complete collapse of the dollar much sooner than even the first scenario I described above.
In the second half I’ll discuss how Congress plays into all of this, President Bush’s plea for cooperation, and what it would look like if we just let the banks fail. See you then!
