Thus far, the fight over whether insurance plans must offer free birth control has been presented (and presented itself) as a two-sided struggle. On one side -- people who want to encourage preventive health care by making it free and consider birth control a form of preventive health care. On the other side, people who consider it vitally important not to compel people to do anything that goes against their religion. Both sides have presented their parade of horribles that will happen if the other side prevails. My side believes that the religious freedom argument is largely a smoke screen for people who don't want any form of contraception made available to unmarried women, who would like very much to require women to present a marriage certificate before being allowed to buy it. And the other sides believes (no doubt sincerely) that this is part of an overall government war on religion.
But following comment threads (and sometimes Republican candidates), I reach the conclusion that there is a third side here as well. This is the libertarian side that regards all economic regulation and all requirements for any insurer to cover anything at all as acts of illegitimate tyranny. In this latest uproar, they have seen an opening to attack one particular mandate, but their ultimate goal is to sweep aside all economic regulations of any kind.
I base this on comments on the threads and the fall-back position of Republican candidates. Commenters on the threads are eager to see employers (and universities) given maximum "choice" in the benefits they offer. The possibility that their choices might have a harmful impact on employees (or students) is dismissed out of hand. If you don't like it, get another job (or go to another school). It is quite clear that these people don't see employees, as workers, as having any sort of moral claim. So long as you are free to quit, your employer, by definition, cannot wrong you, because if it was really bad enough, you were always free to find another job. The same rationale has been offered as to why there is no need to require insurance companies to cover any particular condition, or really to do anything at all. If you don't like it, get another insurance company.
Republican candidates, when called out, have said much the same thing. In response to the argument that Obama's new compromise does not require the employer to cover birth control, but lets the insurance company and the woman work that out, they reply that they want to protect the economic freedom of the insurance company. Rick Santorum, after his famous statement that insurance companies should not be required to cover prenatal testing because it would lead to more abortions, backtracked. Yes, he said, he favored prenatal testing, he just didn't want the economic freedom of insurance companies to be infringed.
The same argument gets implicitly made when Republicans are asked why they formerly supported the mandate and subsidy system that is, after all, the basis of Obamacare. Apart from some sneers about 2700 page bills, the usual answer is that Obamacare is a complete government takeover of healthcare, and they did not favor a complete government takeover of healthcare. No one ever seems to ask in what what Obamacare is a complete government takeover. So far as I can tell, the big difference between this mandate and subsidy and what the Republicans formerly proposed is that the current plan requires all insurance companies to offer a standard benefits package, and a fairly substantial one. Republicans generally favored a mandate and subsidy of a bare bones coverage, with the option to buy more out of one's own pocketbook. The argument does not strike me as all that convincing. After all, once you agree to the mandate and subsidy format, the exact contents of the mandate should be negotiable. But then again, I am not one of those people who thinks that any and all economic regulations are acts of tyranny.
What is interesting, though, is that, although Republicans sometimes use the libertarian argument as a fallback, they have generally avoided it. It is not hard to see why. The argument that employers should be free to deny employees coverage for anything they want no doubt has considerable appeal among Evangelical small business owners and aspiring small business owners, who make up a substantial portion of the Republican base. But its appeal is apt to be more limited among the broader public. And the argument that insurance companies should be free to deny coverage any time they want is unlikely to have much appeal outside the Cato Institute.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Contraception, Religious Freedom, and Law
It is a bit late in the game, but the contraception and religious exemption controversy gives no sign of going anywhere, so I might as well weigh in on the issue. Actually, I will not give my own opinion on the relative merits of these two important matters, religious freedom, and access to healthcare. I will stick to the law.
My guess is that, as the Supreme Court currently inteprets the First Amendment, there is no constitutional requirement for the federal government to carve out a conscience exemption for employers who do not want to offer employees free birth control coverage in their health insurance. This is based on Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 Supreme Court decision. In Smith, members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs for using peyote, a generally illegal drug that is nonetheless used as a sacrament in the Native American Church. The Oregon Employment Division denied their application for unemployment insurance on the grounds that they had been fired for misconduct. The church members appealed to the federal courts, on the grounds that use of peyote in their religion was a First Amendment right. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Antonin Scalia, disagreed. It held that so long as the infringement on religious freedom is under a neutral law of general applicability, not intended to interfere with religion, it is constitutional under the First Amendment.
It seems a reasonable assumption that the regulation requiring employer-based health insurance to offer free contraceptives is a neutral law of general applicability, not intended to discriminate against religion. Therefore, if Scalia is honest and consistent (perhaps a dubious assumption), the requirement should pass constitutional muster.
However, our analysis does not stop there. Congress responded to Smith by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, pronounced Rifra). RFRA originally forbade any government, federal or state, from substantially burdening anyone's religious practice unless it is the least restrictive means to meet a compelling governmental interest. The Supreme Court later found RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states, holding that the federal government could not impose such a burden on the states. However, it left RFRA intact as applied to the federal government, seeing no problem with the federal government imposing such a burden on itself. Congress, incidentally, responded by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA, and no, I have no idea how to pronounce it), which applied the same standard to states only in certain cases of land use, and in any state prison using federal funds (which is all state prisons).
Thus although the contraceptive mandate should pass constitutional muster, it may very well violate RFRA. Incidentally, that invalidates the argument that why should such a requirement be forbidden at the federal level when 28 states already have similar mandates. Because RFRA does not apply to states, and RLUIPA does not extend to insurance regulations.
So, even if it passes constitutional muster, will the contraceptive mandate be acceptable under RFRA? And what happens when one person's religious practice steps on another person's toes?
Unfortunately, "compelling governmental interest" has no fixed or even coherent definition. Anything can be claimed as a compelling governmental interest, and anything can be denied. A compelling governmental interest is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and they have not seen fit to give the rest of us any guidance on the subject. As for what happens when one person's religious practice infringes on another person, well, during my first year of law school I found a throw away line in one case that says that in accommodating a religious practice, courts must take into account the burden on beneficiaries, but almost nothing on what that actually meant.
One effect of RFRA was to reveal that substantial government burdens on the religious practice of free people is actually quite rare. Most RFRA and RLUIPA suits take place in a prison context. Maintaining prison security is indisputably held to be a compelling governmental interest. Furthermore, religious accommodations in prison rarely have much impact on prisoners who are not accommodated. I have seen cases allowing restrictions on access to Indian land and a case allowing an Evangelical Christian couple in bankruptcy to tithe, despite a loss of resources to creditors. Traffic hazards might be too great a burden on non-beneficiaries.
In short, any attempt to guess how the Supreme Court might rule on the matter is reading tea leaves.
My guess is that, as the Supreme Court currently inteprets the First Amendment, there is no constitutional requirement for the federal government to carve out a conscience exemption for employers who do not want to offer employees free birth control coverage in their health insurance. This is based on Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 Supreme Court decision. In Smith, members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs for using peyote, a generally illegal drug that is nonetheless used as a sacrament in the Native American Church. The Oregon Employment Division denied their application for unemployment insurance on the grounds that they had been fired for misconduct. The church members appealed to the federal courts, on the grounds that use of peyote in their religion was a First Amendment right. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Antonin Scalia, disagreed. It held that so long as the infringement on religious freedom is under a neutral law of general applicability, not intended to interfere with religion, it is constitutional under the First Amendment.
It seems a reasonable assumption that the regulation requiring employer-based health insurance to offer free contraceptives is a neutral law of general applicability, not intended to discriminate against religion. Therefore, if Scalia is honest and consistent (perhaps a dubious assumption), the requirement should pass constitutional muster.
However, our analysis does not stop there. Congress responded to Smith by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, pronounced Rifra). RFRA originally forbade any government, federal or state, from substantially burdening anyone's religious practice unless it is the least restrictive means to meet a compelling governmental interest. The Supreme Court later found RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states, holding that the federal government could not impose such a burden on the states. However, it left RFRA intact as applied to the federal government, seeing no problem with the federal government imposing such a burden on itself. Congress, incidentally, responded by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA, and no, I have no idea how to pronounce it), which applied the same standard to states only in certain cases of land use, and in any state prison using federal funds (which is all state prisons).
Thus although the contraceptive mandate should pass constitutional muster, it may very well violate RFRA. Incidentally, that invalidates the argument that why should such a requirement be forbidden at the federal level when 28 states already have similar mandates. Because RFRA does not apply to states, and RLUIPA does not extend to insurance regulations.
So, even if it passes constitutional muster, will the contraceptive mandate be acceptable under RFRA? And what happens when one person's religious practice steps on another person's toes?
Unfortunately, "compelling governmental interest" has no fixed or even coherent definition. Anything can be claimed as a compelling governmental interest, and anything can be denied. A compelling governmental interest is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and they have not seen fit to give the rest of us any guidance on the subject. As for what happens when one person's religious practice infringes on another person, well, during my first year of law school I found a throw away line in one case that says that in accommodating a religious practice, courts must take into account the burden on beneficiaries, but almost nothing on what that actually meant.
One effect of RFRA was to reveal that substantial government burdens on the religious practice of free people is actually quite rare. Most RFRA and RLUIPA suits take place in a prison context. Maintaining prison security is indisputably held to be a compelling governmental interest. Furthermore, religious accommodations in prison rarely have much impact on prisoners who are not accommodated. I have seen cases allowing restrictions on access to Indian land and a case allowing an Evangelical Christian couple in bankruptcy to tithe, despite a loss of resources to creditors. Traffic hazards might be too great a burden on non-beneficiaries.
In short, any attempt to guess how the Supreme Court might rule on the matter is reading tea leaves.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Tribulation Force, the Movie, Part 8
I apologize for the lack of posting. I haven't been quite well this week, and my mental energy has suffered. We are now on Part 8 out of 10. And guess what? The lips are still not perfectly matched to the sound, but much improved! Let us give thanks to the gods of lip synching.
Buck, heading off to mortal peril, looks at the string of pictures of himself and Chloe and puts them in his breast pocket. Rayford walks in and asks Buck if he is ready. Buck has the camera and the uplink to GNN, but doesn't know how to get to the Wailing Wall. Rayford says just get Ben-Judah there, he (or God) will take care of it. They do guy talk, try to be light-hearted and unconcerned, but Buck says he can't imagine how Ray feels after losing his wife and son and Ray admits his pain. They pray (well, Buck prays; Ray silently bows his head while Buck speaks).
Back at the church, Chloe is still working the first aid station in latex gloves and a loose smock. She gets a phone call and is much relieved to hear Buck's voice. They exchange affection, then Buck tells her he is still going to the Wailing Wall. Chloe warns him the UN has given the order to shoot on sight, but he insists, tells Chloe to pray for him. And maybe what I said about their lips being better synched was premature. They are still way off.
In Jerusalem, Buck meets with Ben-Judah. Although in the last clip he still appeared unconvinced, apparently he has changed his mind. "The sooner we go, the sooner we put an end to their lies," Ben-Judah says. At the wall is an iron gate, guarded by masked soldiers with a red stop sign, warning in Hebrew and English that anyone proceeding will be shot. As Buck and Ben-Judah openly approach and are turned back, Ray is sneaking up on the side, apparently about to step into the forbidden zone to create a distraction and be shot.
Suddenly the mysterious woman in white who talked to Rayford several clips back steps up and takes his hand. Apparently she is not his new love interest, but his guardian angel. Fred Clark says she is referred to in the credits at the "angelic woman." She says, "May you walk in the faith of the Lord." (The same phrase Irene used in the dream. Is she, perhaps, sent by Irene to watch over him? Do RTC's believe in that?) She begins singing "Amazing Grace." Buck turns to look. Ben-Judah does not respond. Perhaps only RTC's can see or hear her? Then the soldiers turn, so maybe they do hear her, or maybe they just see Rayford coming. She and Ray, holding hands, walk past another shrine, with candles burning to the names of the raptured, and head toward the gate. The soldiers, rattled by someone who shows no fear, yell to them to stop. Ray drops her hand and moves forward. She stops in front of the candles, but goes no singing. After yelling to stop, the lead soldier shouts something else, but I can't quite tell if he is saying, "That song!" (indicating that he does see and hear her and is offended), or something in Hebrew.
The soldiers raise their guns to fire and suddenly freeze. Ray, Buck and Ben-Judah proceed, as her singing fades into the background. While Buck and Ben-Judah head toward the Wall, Ray looks back and she is nowhere to be seen.
Buck and Ben-Judah approach the witnesses, in long robes, turbans and beards. As Buck sets up his camera, Ben-Judah steps forward and speaks to them in Hebrew. They respond, with Hebrew and English words echoing together. Ben-Judah turns to translate, but Buck says he understands; they are speaking in English. Telepathy, one presumes. Ben-Judah (lips terribly synched) denounces them as false prophets.
"For God will bring every deed into judgment," they say. To my untrained ears, it just sounds vaguely Biblical, quite possibly something Ben-Judah would accept as canonical. This is where it's very useful to have Fred Clark. He explains that this is from the New Testament, John 3, and therefore not scripture to a Jew, though not theologically objectionable. They then address him directly, though still not being sectarian (Christian), "I, the Lord, search the heart. I test the mind. And I will give every man according to his ways and according to the things he has done." Ben-Judah answers that he has kept the Commandments. (A very important matter to a traditional Jew, even more important than being a believer).
Then the Witnesses take a step in a more Christian direction, "By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in His sight. For by grace you are saved, through faith. It is not for yourselves. It is the gift of God." Here I must confess to being out of my depth. Certainly I know that Jews acknowledge that everyone sins and is imperfect in the eyes of God, that no one can be perfect and sinless by effort alone. But they do their best. I do not know whether grace or faith are important concepts to Jews, or even concepts at all. But definitely not as important as they are in Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity. Ben-Judah must be beginning to understand these prophets do not adhere to Jewish orthodoxy. Buck eagerly films to get this out to the world.
Carpathia is watching this on TV as they say, "Not through works that no one can boast." (Again, we are in distinctly Christian territory here). Chloe and Pastor Bruce are taking a break from hospital work and watching this in Bruce's office. Carpathia says cut it off. It cuts off, with a sign saying that GNN is experiencing technical difficulties. And Buck has presumably now blown his cover and will soon get his 72 virgins or whatever RTC's get in Heaven.
The cutoff is just in time (from Nicolae's point of view) because it stops before the Witnesses start spouting unmistakeably Christian theology about substitutionary atonement. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. For God so loved the world that He gave His One and Only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but will have everlasting life." This cuts to the very core of Christian theology. This is definitely not any theology that Ben-Judah, as a Jew, would accept and orthodox, let along canonical. They go on for a while and then say, "He who does not believe is condemned already because he does not believe in the Name of the only Begotten Son of God." Of course, Ben-Judah asks for his name and is told Jesus Christ.
We don't get to see Ben-Judah's reaction to that, because just then the soldiers have un-frozen and begin firing at them. Buck and Ben-Judah duck for cover. While they huddle on the ground, two soldiers in black masks run up and start spraying the general area with bullets, but the two prophets stand their ground and are not hit. Then the prophets breath out fireballs. The soldier's clothes catch on fire and they run screaming, fall down, and die. Buck crouches on the ground, watching, while Ben-Judah runs away. I am not sure which reaction is worse.
Then, although Buck and Ben-Judah were to all appearances alone at the wall, we see a general panicked flight away. Buck and Ray meet each other in the general panic. Ray has bad news from Chloe. The broadcast was cut off. Nobody heard it. Well, that is only half-true. They heard the beginning of it, and they heard it starting to shade off in a Christian direction when talking about faith and grace. It just got cut off before they explicitly get into substitutionary atonement. Buck admits he doesn't know how Ben-Judah reacted; he ran off before Buck could ask. "It's in God's hands now," Ray says.
Back in Chicago, Ivy, now in cutoffs instead of a miniskirt, comes by the church first aid center to bring Chloe some food. The burn victim actually looks a bit better, but apparently he realizes he is dying because he tells Chloe he is ready for God. Chloe says to tell him. So the burn victim says about the same prayer Buck said in the first movie, "Dear God, I'm so sorry I've sinned against you. Please forgive me. I want to do the right thing. Jesus, thank you. Thank you for dying for me." And then, apparently he dies. Fred Clark says so. So I cheated and peaked into Part 9 and he does, indeed die. I suppose the point here is supposed to be that RTC's don't need any Catholic-style last rites because they can administer them to themselves. But in effect, Chloe has just administered the last rites.
Update: According to commenters at the site, the sign in Hebrew and English does not have actual Hebrew words, but transliterates from English! And it runs the letters from left to right! It even uses "v-v" for "w" (in will) and S-H in shot!
Buck, heading off to mortal peril, looks at the string of pictures of himself and Chloe and puts them in his breast pocket. Rayford walks in and asks Buck if he is ready. Buck has the camera and the uplink to GNN, but doesn't know how to get to the Wailing Wall. Rayford says just get Ben-Judah there, he (or God) will take care of it. They do guy talk, try to be light-hearted and unconcerned, but Buck says he can't imagine how Ray feels after losing his wife and son and Ray admits his pain. They pray (well, Buck prays; Ray silently bows his head while Buck speaks).
Back at the church, Chloe is still working the first aid station in latex gloves and a loose smock. She gets a phone call and is much relieved to hear Buck's voice. They exchange affection, then Buck tells her he is still going to the Wailing Wall. Chloe warns him the UN has given the order to shoot on sight, but he insists, tells Chloe to pray for him. And maybe what I said about their lips being better synched was premature. They are still way off.
In Jerusalem, Buck meets with Ben-Judah. Although in the last clip he still appeared unconvinced, apparently he has changed his mind. "The sooner we go, the sooner we put an end to their lies," Ben-Judah says. At the wall is an iron gate, guarded by masked soldiers with a red stop sign, warning in Hebrew and English that anyone proceeding will be shot. As Buck and Ben-Judah openly approach and are turned back, Ray is sneaking up on the side, apparently about to step into the forbidden zone to create a distraction and be shot.
Suddenly the mysterious woman in white who talked to Rayford several clips back steps up and takes his hand. Apparently she is not his new love interest, but his guardian angel. Fred Clark says she is referred to in the credits at the "angelic woman." She says, "May you walk in the faith of the Lord." (The same phrase Irene used in the dream. Is she, perhaps, sent by Irene to watch over him? Do RTC's believe in that?) She begins singing "Amazing Grace." Buck turns to look. Ben-Judah does not respond. Perhaps only RTC's can see or hear her? Then the soldiers turn, so maybe they do hear her, or maybe they just see Rayford coming. She and Ray, holding hands, walk past another shrine, with candles burning to the names of the raptured, and head toward the gate. The soldiers, rattled by someone who shows no fear, yell to them to stop. Ray drops her hand and moves forward. She stops in front of the candles, but goes no singing. After yelling to stop, the lead soldier shouts something else, but I can't quite tell if he is saying, "That song!" (indicating that he does see and hear her and is offended), or something in Hebrew.
The soldiers raise their guns to fire and suddenly freeze. Ray, Buck and Ben-Judah proceed, as her singing fades into the background. While Buck and Ben-Judah head toward the Wall, Ray looks back and she is nowhere to be seen.
Buck and Ben-Judah approach the witnesses, in long robes, turbans and beards. As Buck sets up his camera, Ben-Judah steps forward and speaks to them in Hebrew. They respond, with Hebrew and English words echoing together. Ben-Judah turns to translate, but Buck says he understands; they are speaking in English. Telepathy, one presumes. Ben-Judah (lips terribly synched) denounces them as false prophets.
"For God will bring every deed into judgment," they say. To my untrained ears, it just sounds vaguely Biblical, quite possibly something Ben-Judah would accept as canonical. This is where it's very useful to have Fred Clark. He explains that this is from the New Testament, John 3, and therefore not scripture to a Jew, though not theologically objectionable. They then address him directly, though still not being sectarian (Christian), "I, the Lord, search the heart. I test the mind. And I will give every man according to his ways and according to the things he has done." Ben-Judah answers that he has kept the Commandments. (A very important matter to a traditional Jew, even more important than being a believer).
Then the Witnesses take a step in a more Christian direction, "By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in His sight. For by grace you are saved, through faith. It is not for yourselves. It is the gift of God." Here I must confess to being out of my depth. Certainly I know that Jews acknowledge that everyone sins and is imperfect in the eyes of God, that no one can be perfect and sinless by effort alone. But they do their best. I do not know whether grace or faith are important concepts to Jews, or even concepts at all. But definitely not as important as they are in Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity. Ben-Judah must be beginning to understand these prophets do not adhere to Jewish orthodoxy. Buck eagerly films to get this out to the world.
Carpathia is watching this on TV as they say, "Not through works that no one can boast." (Again, we are in distinctly Christian territory here). Chloe and Pastor Bruce are taking a break from hospital work and watching this in Bruce's office. Carpathia says cut it off. It cuts off, with a sign saying that GNN is experiencing technical difficulties. And Buck has presumably now blown his cover and will soon get his 72 virgins or whatever RTC's get in Heaven.
The cutoff is just in time (from Nicolae's point of view) because it stops before the Witnesses start spouting unmistakeably Christian theology about substitutionary atonement. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. For God so loved the world that He gave His One and Only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but will have everlasting life." This cuts to the very core of Christian theology. This is definitely not any theology that Ben-Judah, as a Jew, would accept and orthodox, let along canonical. They go on for a while and then say, "He who does not believe is condemned already because he does not believe in the Name of the only Begotten Son of God." Of course, Ben-Judah asks for his name and is told Jesus Christ.
We don't get to see Ben-Judah's reaction to that, because just then the soldiers have un-frozen and begin firing at them. Buck and Ben-Judah duck for cover. While they huddle on the ground, two soldiers in black masks run up and start spraying the general area with bullets, but the two prophets stand their ground and are not hit. Then the prophets breath out fireballs. The soldier's clothes catch on fire and they run screaming, fall down, and die. Buck crouches on the ground, watching, while Ben-Judah runs away. I am not sure which reaction is worse.
Then, although Buck and Ben-Judah were to all appearances alone at the wall, we see a general panicked flight away. Buck and Ray meet each other in the general panic. Ray has bad news from Chloe. The broadcast was cut off. Nobody heard it. Well, that is only half-true. They heard the beginning of it, and they heard it starting to shade off in a Christian direction when talking about faith and grace. It just got cut off before they explicitly get into substitutionary atonement. Buck admits he doesn't know how Ben-Judah reacted; he ran off before Buck could ask. "It's in God's hands now," Ray says.
Back in Chicago, Ivy, now in cutoffs instead of a miniskirt, comes by the church first aid center to bring Chloe some food. The burn victim actually looks a bit better, but apparently he realizes he is dying because he tells Chloe he is ready for God. Chloe says to tell him. So the burn victim says about the same prayer Buck said in the first movie, "Dear God, I'm so sorry I've sinned against you. Please forgive me. I want to do the right thing. Jesus, thank you. Thank you for dying for me." And then, apparently he dies. Fred Clark says so. So I cheated and peaked into Part 9 and he does, indeed die. I suppose the point here is supposed to be that RTC's don't need any Catholic-style last rites because they can administer them to themselves. But in effect, Chloe has just administered the last rites.
Update: According to commenters at the site, the sign in Hebrew and English does not have actual Hebrew words, but transliterates from English! And it runs the letters from left to right! It even uses "v-v" for "w" (in will) and S-H in shot!
Friday, February 24, 2012
Tribulation Force, the Movie, Part 7
They arrive in Jerusalem. Buck is in his hotel room. Apparently he is nervous, fearful that he is being watched and that the Antichrist might be on to him because when he hears a knock on his door, he looks through the peep hole before letting Rayford in. They put Rayford's disk into the laptop to look up Ben-Judah's speech. (For some reason Buck highlights it, as if he wants to edit it).
Then they get to Ben-Judah's reading of purported messianic prophecies. **Eye roll.** Fred Clark criticized the authors of Left Behind for their cut-and-paste approach to biblical prophecy, but the authors of Left Behind are in good company. The Gospels are full of exactly the same cut-and-paste approach, taking a little bit of the Hebrew Bible here and a clip there, completely disconnecting them from their context. and plunking them down in the middle of the Gospel as prophecies that Jesus is the Messiah. No one reading the Old Testament without such preconceptions would reach anything like the interpretations found in the Gospel. That included, say, any Jew interpreting what the Bible says about the Messiah.
"The Messiah will be pierced without breaking a bone," Buck reads, followed by an explanation of how this applies to Nicolae. Okay, I think everyone knows what that refers to. But let's take a few steps back to see if it makes any sense at all for a non-Christian. First of all, out of the four Gospels, it appears only in John. Mark, Matthew and Luke all agree that Jesus was crucified and expired much sooner would normally be expected, by none of them mention either piercing or breaking bones. Matthew and Luke, as well as John, also say that two bandits were crucified along with him. (Mark does not mention them). All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. John, and only *John, says that the Jewish authorities did not want men on crosses on the Sabbath, especially during Passover and asked the Romans to finish them off. This was done by breaking their legs, to that they could no longer push upward and would quickly suffocate. Finding that Jesus had already expired, the Romans did not break his legs, but did pierce him with a spear. John says that this was in fulfillment of the prophecies, "A bone of him shall not be broken," and "They shall look upon him whom they pierced."
Tracing these prophecies, we see the no bones broken refers to Exodus 12:46, giving instructions on how to prepare the Passover lamb, saying "Thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof." Numbers 9:12 has similar instructions about not leaving any of the Passover lamb until morning, or breaking any of its bones. Presumably this means you are not to eat the marrow. Of course, Christians say the Passover lamb is merely a symbol of Jesus, but a non-Christian would not think that so obvious. Finally, Psalms 34:20. A general hymn of praise it says, "(19) Many are the afflictions of the righteous, bu the LORD delivereth him out of them all. (20) He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken."
As for the piercing, that comes from Zechariah 12:10. Chapter 12 is a general prediction that Jerusalem shall be besieged and suffer greatly but ultimately be delivered. Verse 10 says,
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they shall look upon me (sic) whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
I can see here how a Christian would identify mourning one's only son and God apparently being the one pierced with Jesus as God and the Son of God. But once again, this passage would merely be confusing to a non-Christian. There is nothing here that says it refers to the Messiah, much less the preparation of a Passover lamb. The Bible is a big book, written over centuries. There is no reason, none whatever, for a Jew to regard these passages, in different books, describing unrelated events, and never once mentioning an Anointed (Messiah) as describing a single event that will characterize the Messiah.
Next Buck quotes that the Messiah will travel to Egypt as a child. This one comes from Matthew and only Matthew. According to Matthew, Herod the Great, hearing the Messiah had been born in Bethlehem, ordered every boy under two in Bethlehem to be slaughtered, but Joseph was warned of the impending massacre in a dream and fled to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. First of all, there is no mention of such a massacre anywhere except in Matthew, including Luke, which simply says that Mary and Joseph dedicated Jesus in the temple and then went home to Nazareth. One would think such an atrocity would be recorded somewhere. Second the Flight into Egypt (it is customarily capitalized) is supposedly in fulfillment of the prophecy, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." This is a conveniently clipped quote from Hosea 11:1, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Okay, so the "son" is clearly the people of Israel, and the calling out of Egypt refers to the events of Exodus. Once again, there is no reason whatever for a Jew to link this to the Messiah.
Anyhow, to get back to the story, Buck realizes that Ben-Judah is about to proclaim Nicolae the Messiah, and that that was Nicolae's true motive in bringing Buck to Israel. Rayford asks, then if the speech is Ben-Judah's, why did Nicolae thank Steve Plank for writing it. They realize that Ben-Judah was going to proclaim Jesus the Messiah, but they changed the speech to proclaim Nicolae instead. This means that Ben-Judah is under Nicolae's power. Um, I don't get it. Clearly being a saved RTC protects you from Nicolae's mind control powers. So if Ben-Judah has figured out that Jesus is the Messiah, doesn't that make him a born again RTC who should be protected? Neither Buck nor Ray (nor the makers of the movie) seem to think of that. Instead, Buck proposes to break Nicolae's power by taking Ben-Judah to the Wailing Wall to meet the Witnesses. Rayford, less heroic, is skeptical.
Incidentally, Fred Clark comments, and I agree, that this is the right way to do the Tribulation Force. They can't stop Nicolae from taking over the world, which is predestined, or interfere with prophecied events. But they can get the Word out and save souls, and they can affect events not covered by prophecy. Ben-Judah proclaiming Nicolae as the Messiah is not prophecied, so they can hope to get him to proclaim Jesus the Messiah instead and carry the message to a huge audience. The only trouble with this plan is that it seems likely to blow their cover and get them executed. Granted, it will be martyrdom in a good cause and they will get their 72 virgins in Heaven, but it will also be the end of the series.
The next scene is in the lobby of a large office building, presumably GNN's Jerusalem headquarters. Buck meets with Steve Plank, asks to speak to the two guys at the Wailing Wall, saying he hopes to discredit them. Steve says no, the Wailing Wall is off limits, the best way to defeat those guys is to deny them attention. He is also clearly under Nicolae's power, saying that Nicolae has everyone's best interests in mind and wants to unify the world, not divide it. Unity is clearly a bad word for RTC's. Fred also notes that, once again, Buck is lying without compunction to the Antichrist (or his agent, anyhow). So much for the book's elaborate scruples on the subject. After all, if lying bothers you, you probably shouldn't be a double agent.
Meanwhile, back at the church, it is once again doubling as a medical center. Okay, we know the patients aren't in the sanctuary because that still gets used as a sanctuary. We know they aren't in Pastor Bruce's office because he needs the peace and quite to study prophecies and hold Tribulation Force meetings. I can only assume it's in Reverend Billings' office, since he doesn't need it anymore. The burn victim who appeared to be dying is still alive, but badly burned and bandaged. Chloe is reading from the Bible to him. He is familiar. Either he is a believer (then why wasn't he raptured?) or a recent convert. Fred comments that while before she lost her nerve and couldn't face the badly burned man, now that she is together with Buck, she can. He sees that as sexist -- men are saved by Jesus Christ and women by their men. I think that is unduly harsh. It is actually a reassuring message, that just because she has taken Jesus Christ as her personal savior doesn't mean she is perfect. Stressing over her feelings toward Buck made her bitchy and faint-hearted. The human problems in her live still need to be dealt with in a human manner.
And speaking of human problems, Ivy comes in, wearing a mini-skirt. They try to reconcile, but their meeting is basically tense and hostile. Ivy looks at Chloe's Bible and says, "So, you believe in that stuff?" Chloe tells her that faith is "not just reading, it's believing." She also says, "I guess it’s like my mom said, faith is a choice. And it comes from the heart, so you either want to believe it or you don’t." So apparently faith is something you can switch on and off at will. Ivy says it has never been a strong point for her, but Chloe has planted a seed, so presumably we will see Ivy saved later on. We end with a brief glimpse of Pastor Bruce watching over so we will know that we are in the church.
In Jerusalem, we see some sort of indoor-outdoor cafe with an open fire, live goats and chickens (on the menu, perhaps?) and Hasidic Jews in broad-brimmed hats, beards and sidelocks. Buck has Ben-Judah's picture. He is wearing a Hasidic hat, but is clean-shaven. When Buck meets the Rabbi, he is actually wearing a yarmulke instead of a broad-brimmed hat. He recognized Buck, with a faint tone of hostility. And he is clearly under Carpathia's spell. He worries about the men at the Wall dividing the world instead of uniting it (again with the fear of unity!) and he says, "There is no Heaven, no Hell. There is only us." Buck is alarmed, seeing the Antichrist at work. He pulls the go to the Wall to discredit them schtick again, and calls Ben-Judah "the world's most knowledgeable and respected religious scholar." He promises to film the whole thing "for the world-wide GNN audience to see." Talk about blowing your cover!
Buck does not seem to be making much headway with Ben-Judah, but Steve Plank is alarmed. He warns Nicolae that Buck is heading to the Wailing Wall to "discredit" the witnesses. Nicolae orders a 24-hour monitor on all GNN broadcasts and immediate notification on any broadcast from the Wailing Wall and issues a press release that all trespassers to the Wailing Wall will be shot on sight. Steve Plank appears to agree, though whether because he is under Carpathia's control or because he is sure Buck will not take the chance is not clear. The segment cuts off in mid-sentence.
It has, however, raised suspense to a high level as we are left to wonder what will happen next.
____________________________
*Although, to be fair, just because this is not in any other Gospel does not necessarily mean it was not true. Nothing in the passage in intrinsically unlikely. Romans who wanted to finish up a crucifixion did, indeed, do so by breaking the victim's legs. It is entirely probably that the Jewish authorities would not want crucifixions to continue on the Sabbath, especially during Passover. And, obviously, if Jesus had already expired it would be pointless to break his legs. But even assuming John's account is true, his explanation sounds very much like retrofitting Bible passages (that are not even prophecies) to fit events.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Deflation
A while back I saw a column [can no longer find] by Matt Yglesias commenting on the growth of barter networks in Greece. These barter networks, he commented, are signs of deflationary pressure. Downward pressure is being exerted on prices, but prices are proving sticky and resisting falling, so instead people build barter networks in order to make trades without the medium of money.
I was glad to hear about that for two reasons. One was, after reading endless stories about the Greeks rioting and burning things down, it was good to hear that the rioters do not speak for all Greeks and that some are responding to the crisis by doing something constructive. The other is that it confirmed my longstanding suspicions of that what was happening in Russia in the 1990’s was actually severe, though disguised, deflation.
So what was happening in Russia in the 1990’s. Basically, currency had stopped circulating. People were working in the coal mines 12 months a year and only getting paid two months a year. Pay was equally rare in other industries, with employers paying in products instead of money. Trades between enterprises were also generally by barter with only a tiny fraction taking place in cash. The Christian Science Monitor (apparently expressing conventional free market wisdom of the time) commented that this system of paying in kind was really just disguised unemployment, and that instead of taking necessary but painful measures, Russians were avoiding the necessary pain of laying all those people off and shutting down industries that couldn’t afford to pay in cash.
Their advice seemed outrageous. Coal miners were working 12 months a year and getting paid for only two months. That is to say, their pay had fallen to a sixth of what it once was, only instead of taking home paychecks for only a sixth of their usual pay, miners were getting their full paycheck only a sixth of the time. Coal was the fuel of much of the Russian economy. Was what it needed really to cut coal production to a sixth of its former level? The article also mentioned heavy boots, a popular and necessary item in Russia. Boot companies were paying in boots instead of cash. Did the Monitor really think Russia would be better off if people stopped making boots and started losing toes to frostbite? Attempting my own analysis, I figured out somewhere along the line that actually what Russia was experiencing was not disguised unemployment, but disguised deflation.
This impression was strengthened when I learned how Russia got into such a mess in the first place. It was a fascinating mirror opposite of the Weimar inflation. Contrary to popular belief, the Weimar inflation did not occur because France demanded unsupportable reparations so Germany responded by printing the money. Or rather, that may be an oversimplified explanation, but it really is not adequate. In fact, the French sought to foreclose such a possibility by demanding reparations in gold or in kind such as coal. The Germans did, indeed, debase their currency to promote exports so they could raise the gold to meet French demands. Inflation was in the double digits in 1920, triple digits in 1921 and quadruple digits in 1922. What sent it from quadruple digits to off-the-chart scientific notation levels in 1923 was that the Germans defaulted on their payments. The French then sent troops into the Ruhr (Germany’s industrial heartland) to collect reparations by force. The people of the Ruhr responded with a general strike. But they could not afford to stay on strike without getting paid, and employers could not afford to pay their workforce if they weren’t producing. So the government sought to fund the resistance by printing money.
Russia, by contrast, was borrowing huge sums and was unable to pay them back. The IMF agreed to give Russia a loan to tide them over, but only on the condition of making major cuts in expenditures, including coal miners’ wages. Presumably this was an attempt to force the Russian government to privatize the coal mines. But the government, fearing the mines would instead shut down and bring the entire economy to a screeching halt, instead took the desperate measure of keeping the coal miners on the job but not paying them. Without paychecks, the miners could not pay cash for groceries, and over time the cash shortage spread throughout the land. In other words, the Weimar hyperinflation was caused by paying people for not working. The Russian hyperdeflation (if there is such a word) was caused by working people without pay.
But it is only very recently that I have begun to understand that deflation is always disguised. This is because wages and prices are sticky and resist falling. Instead, downward pressure introduces distortions into the economy. While I was right to recognize Russia’s switch to a barter system as disguised deflation rather than disguised unemployment, only now am I beginning to understand that unemployment itself is often a form of disguised deflation. Other signs of disguised deflation are growing barter networks, working off the books, and the growth of the “informal sector.” Part of the trick to recognizing deflation is recognizing the distortions that it causes.
I was glad to hear about that for two reasons. One was, after reading endless stories about the Greeks rioting and burning things down, it was good to hear that the rioters do not speak for all Greeks and that some are responding to the crisis by doing something constructive. The other is that it confirmed my longstanding suspicions of that what was happening in Russia in the 1990’s was actually severe, though disguised, deflation.
So what was happening in Russia in the 1990’s. Basically, currency had stopped circulating. People were working in the coal mines 12 months a year and only getting paid two months a year. Pay was equally rare in other industries, with employers paying in products instead of money. Trades between enterprises were also generally by barter with only a tiny fraction taking place in cash. The Christian Science Monitor (apparently expressing conventional free market wisdom of the time) commented that this system of paying in kind was really just disguised unemployment, and that instead of taking necessary but painful measures, Russians were avoiding the necessary pain of laying all those people off and shutting down industries that couldn’t afford to pay in cash.
Their advice seemed outrageous. Coal miners were working 12 months a year and getting paid for only two months. That is to say, their pay had fallen to a sixth of what it once was, only instead of taking home paychecks for only a sixth of their usual pay, miners were getting their full paycheck only a sixth of the time. Coal was the fuel of much of the Russian economy. Was what it needed really to cut coal production to a sixth of its former level? The article also mentioned heavy boots, a popular and necessary item in Russia. Boot companies were paying in boots instead of cash. Did the Monitor really think Russia would be better off if people stopped making boots and started losing toes to frostbite? Attempting my own analysis, I figured out somewhere along the line that actually what Russia was experiencing was not disguised unemployment, but disguised deflation.
This impression was strengthened when I learned how Russia got into such a mess in the first place. It was a fascinating mirror opposite of the Weimar inflation. Contrary to popular belief, the Weimar inflation did not occur because France demanded unsupportable reparations so Germany responded by printing the money. Or rather, that may be an oversimplified explanation, but it really is not adequate. In fact, the French sought to foreclose such a possibility by demanding reparations in gold or in kind such as coal. The Germans did, indeed, debase their currency to promote exports so they could raise the gold to meet French demands. Inflation was in the double digits in 1920, triple digits in 1921 and quadruple digits in 1922. What sent it from quadruple digits to off-the-chart scientific notation levels in 1923 was that the Germans defaulted on their payments. The French then sent troops into the Ruhr (Germany’s industrial heartland) to collect reparations by force. The people of the Ruhr responded with a general strike. But they could not afford to stay on strike without getting paid, and employers could not afford to pay their workforce if they weren’t producing. So the government sought to fund the resistance by printing money.
Russia, by contrast, was borrowing huge sums and was unable to pay them back. The IMF agreed to give Russia a loan to tide them over, but only on the condition of making major cuts in expenditures, including coal miners’ wages. Presumably this was an attempt to force the Russian government to privatize the coal mines. But the government, fearing the mines would instead shut down and bring the entire economy to a screeching halt, instead took the desperate measure of keeping the coal miners on the job but not paying them. Without paychecks, the miners could not pay cash for groceries, and over time the cash shortage spread throughout the land. In other words, the Weimar hyperinflation was caused by paying people for not working. The Russian hyperdeflation (if there is such a word) was caused by working people without pay.
But it is only very recently that I have begun to understand that deflation is always disguised. This is because wages and prices are sticky and resist falling. Instead, downward pressure introduces distortions into the economy. While I was right to recognize Russia’s switch to a barter system as disguised deflation rather than disguised unemployment, only now am I beginning to understand that unemployment itself is often a form of disguised deflation. Other signs of disguised deflation are growing barter networks, working off the books, and the growth of the “informal sector.” Part of the trick to recognizing deflation is recognizing the distortions that it causes.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Why Liberal Should Agree with Friedman on This One
Milton Friedman was famous for urging developing countries to adopt more free market policies. The typical policy package adopted consisted of deregulation, lowering trade barriers, opening up to foreign investment, privatizing public industries, and pegging the currency to the dollar. But, if asked, Friedman would assure you that one of these things was not like the others.
I am well aware that Milton Friedman is a hated name among liberals above a certain age.* But on macro issues we really should listen to him, whatever we think of him on micro issues. Milton Friedman was not, for instance, one of those economists who believed that depressions must be passively endured to shake out earlier excesses; he favored countering them with aggressive monetary expansion. He also, as discussed before, warned against the dangers of fixed exchange rates. Focusing greatly on the importance of money as determining the fortunes of an economy, he warned that fixing exchange rates forced the entire economy to adjust to maintain an exchange rate, rather than allowing an exchange rate to adjust to meet the needs of an economy.**
Until I started in a hard course of self-education since the Crash of 2008, I had no concept of just how economically harmful an overvalued currency is. I realized, of course, that an overvalued currency harms an economy in the sense that it hurts exports by pricing them too high. But surely an overvalued currency was a minor, technical issue that was easily resolved, not one that could inflict serious damage on an otherwise healthy economy. There were several important factors that I missed.
For one thing, I thought from the vantage point of an American. Our economy is large enough that foreign trade makes up a relatively small portion of it. If our economy is otherwise strong, we can make up for a loss of exports by consuming more. But the smaller the economy, the more dependent it tends to be on exports, and therefore the greater the damage from pricing them too high.
Second, an overvalued currency floods the country with cheap imports. This is great fun for consumers, but undermines domestic industry. This is not a protectionist argument. One need not argue that domestic industry should be artificially shielded by protectionist policies to believe that domestic industry should not be artificially undermined by over valuing the currency and allowing imports to be undervalued.
Third, an overvalued currency creates deflationary pressure in export sectors. The smaller the economy, the larger a portion of the economy feels immediate deflationary pressure. But since export sectors necessarily compete for workers with the rest of the economy, deflationary pressure spreads. And deflationary pressure (for reasons I will get to) is devastating.
Finally, measures to keep an exchange rate up worsen the crisis. To keep an exchange rate high, you have to encourage money to come into the country, or at least not to leave. The best way to attract money into a country is to raise interest rates. This makes borrowing painful, chokes off credit, and harms the economy. Economic stress, in turn, makes investors want to take their money out of the country, forcing central banks to raise interest rates even higher to convince them to stay, inflicting further distress and perpetuating the cycle.
None of this is to suggest that devaluation is a painless alternative. It is not. Many people across the political spectrum object to currency devaluation because it raises import prices with no corresponding increase in wages, and therefore hurts living standards. But there is no painless way out of an overvalued currency. A currency crisis usually happens when a country has been importing more than it exports for a prolonged period of time and financing the imports with foreign credit. This state of affairs is not sustainable; sooner or later the foreign credit cuts off. Under these circumstances, living standards cannot be maintained; some decline is inevitable. There are two ways to do it, by currency devaluation, i.e., inflation, and by “internal devaluation,” i.e, deflation.
Currency devaluation lowers real wages by inflation. Import prices rise, with no corresponding increase in wages. The effect of rising import prices spreads throughout the economy (the larger the import sector, the greater the effect). Consumption falls across the board. Everyone is pinched. But exports sectors prosper, and over time domestic industry also grows when no longer undercut by cheap imports.
“Internal devaluation” means lowering wages by deflation. Import (and other) prices remain unchanged, but nominal wages have to fall instead. However, wages tend to be “sticky” and resist falling, so downward pressure on wages leads to unemployment. Declining consumption is unevenly and capriciously distributed. Furthermore, deflation inflates domestic debts and raises the debt burden. It also raises the value of cash savings, even as the value of tangible wealth and most financial investments falls. This encourages hoarding of cash instead of investing it in productive uses. Deflation also makes real interest rates higher than nominal rates, making lending onerous and further discouraging investment. And because prices as well as wages tend to be "sticky," other distortions also enter the system.
In short, currency devaluation is bad, but "internal devaluation" is a lot worse. Milton Friedman got this one right.
___________________________________
*I am also showing my age here. Plenty of younger liberals have never heard of Milton Friedman.
**And, it should be added, he decisively broke with the gold bug faction of libertarianism, regarding it as even more absurd to build an entire economy around the price of a single commodity.
I am well aware that Milton Friedman is a hated name among liberals above a certain age.* But on macro issues we really should listen to him, whatever we think of him on micro issues. Milton Friedman was not, for instance, one of those economists who believed that depressions must be passively endured to shake out earlier excesses; he favored countering them with aggressive monetary expansion. He also, as discussed before, warned against the dangers of fixed exchange rates. Focusing greatly on the importance of money as determining the fortunes of an economy, he warned that fixing exchange rates forced the entire economy to adjust to maintain an exchange rate, rather than allowing an exchange rate to adjust to meet the needs of an economy.**
Until I started in a hard course of self-education since the Crash of 2008, I had no concept of just how economically harmful an overvalued currency is. I realized, of course, that an overvalued currency harms an economy in the sense that it hurts exports by pricing them too high. But surely an overvalued currency was a minor, technical issue that was easily resolved, not one that could inflict serious damage on an otherwise healthy economy. There were several important factors that I missed.
For one thing, I thought from the vantage point of an American. Our economy is large enough that foreign trade makes up a relatively small portion of it. If our economy is otherwise strong, we can make up for a loss of exports by consuming more. But the smaller the economy, the more dependent it tends to be on exports, and therefore the greater the damage from pricing them too high.
Second, an overvalued currency floods the country with cheap imports. This is great fun for consumers, but undermines domestic industry. This is not a protectionist argument. One need not argue that domestic industry should be artificially shielded by protectionist policies to believe that domestic industry should not be artificially undermined by over valuing the currency and allowing imports to be undervalued.
Third, an overvalued currency creates deflationary pressure in export sectors. The smaller the economy, the larger a portion of the economy feels immediate deflationary pressure. But since export sectors necessarily compete for workers with the rest of the economy, deflationary pressure spreads. And deflationary pressure (for reasons I will get to) is devastating.
Finally, measures to keep an exchange rate up worsen the crisis. To keep an exchange rate high, you have to encourage money to come into the country, or at least not to leave. The best way to attract money into a country is to raise interest rates. This makes borrowing painful, chokes off credit, and harms the economy. Economic stress, in turn, makes investors want to take their money out of the country, forcing central banks to raise interest rates even higher to convince them to stay, inflicting further distress and perpetuating the cycle.
None of this is to suggest that devaluation is a painless alternative. It is not. Many people across the political spectrum object to currency devaluation because it raises import prices with no corresponding increase in wages, and therefore hurts living standards. But there is no painless way out of an overvalued currency. A currency crisis usually happens when a country has been importing more than it exports for a prolonged period of time and financing the imports with foreign credit. This state of affairs is not sustainable; sooner or later the foreign credit cuts off. Under these circumstances, living standards cannot be maintained; some decline is inevitable. There are two ways to do it, by currency devaluation, i.e., inflation, and by “internal devaluation,” i.e, deflation.
Currency devaluation lowers real wages by inflation. Import prices rise, with no corresponding increase in wages. The effect of rising import prices spreads throughout the economy (the larger the import sector, the greater the effect). Consumption falls across the board. Everyone is pinched. But exports sectors prosper, and over time domestic industry also grows when no longer undercut by cheap imports.
“Internal devaluation” means lowering wages by deflation. Import (and other) prices remain unchanged, but nominal wages have to fall instead. However, wages tend to be “sticky” and resist falling, so downward pressure on wages leads to unemployment. Declining consumption is unevenly and capriciously distributed. Furthermore, deflation inflates domestic debts and raises the debt burden. It also raises the value of cash savings, even as the value of tangible wealth and most financial investments falls. This encourages hoarding of cash instead of investing it in productive uses. Deflation also makes real interest rates higher than nominal rates, making lending onerous and further discouraging investment. And because prices as well as wages tend to be "sticky," other distortions also enter the system.
In short, currency devaluation is bad, but "internal devaluation" is a lot worse. Milton Friedman got this one right.
___________________________________
*I am also showing my age here. Plenty of younger liberals have never heard of Milton Friedman.
**And, it should be added, he decisively broke with the gold bug faction of libertarianism, regarding it as even more absurd to build an entire economy around the price of a single commodity.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Tribulation Force, the Movie, Part 6
I've had acute withdrawal going for two weeks without any Left Behind posts on Slacktivist, but at last we get Part 6.
I see we have the same hideously mismatched dubbing. We begin completing Buck and Chloe's reconciliation. Chloe figures out that her father lied to her, but doesn't resent it.
Next morning the four are meeting at New Hope Church (lawn covered with trash, vagrants picking for scraps). Buck has Carpathia's approval to cover any story he wants in Israel. Pastor Bruce has misgivings. It seems odd to him that the Antichrist would approve a story that could expose him for what he is. (Uh, yes, that does seem strange). He also fears that Nicolae may have powers they can't even comprehend. But Buck assures him that he has convinced Nicolae it's all for world unity, Chloe will pray for him, and Rayford will be backing him up on the ground, so Pastor Bruce's doubts are overridden.
Meanwhile, Nicolae is, indeed, worried about the witnesses at the Wailing Wall, saying they will promote religious division. But he declines to arrest them, but merely increases the guards on the Wall. ("This isn't a dictatorship." I think the audience is supposed to react much as Republicans reacted when Obama said, "I'm not an ideologue.") Nicolae wants a one-world religion, "Tolerance, harmony and peace." To do this he wants Pastor Billings' video on the rapture off the air (how did it get on the air?) and Buck.
Next scene, Buck and Chloe, now happy together, play and joke around at an airport that is somewhat militarized but, alas, not so far from the norm these days. He even gives her a peck on the cheek before heading through security. She then says a tearful farewell to her father, who will be piloting the plane, and he gives her a fatherly peck on the cheek.
On board the plane, Rayford's copilot is not (I think) Chris, but he does tape pictures of his (presumably raptured) wife and two children to the wall. Rayford steps out of the cockpit, sneaks by Carpathia, Plank and Hattie discussing business (remember, this is furnished with all the comfort of a private plane), and starts rifling through the Antichrist's effects. Someone sneaks up on him, but relax, it's just Buck. Listening in on them from an unoccupied briefing room (that really reminds me of Star Trek), Rayford overhears them talking about revisions to Ben Judah's speech. (Remember Ben Judah? In the last segment Plank told Buck that Ben Judah is about to make an announcement that will be the most important, the biggest story of Buck's career). It is not clear, though, whether Buck has passed this information on to Rayford.
Either way, Ray opens an unoccupied laptop and finds (surprise!) that it is on, that, among several mundane looking items, is a revised version of Ben Judah's speech. When he pulls up the text, we don't see enough to see the speech at any length, but it includes the words "our Messiah" and "our Bible." He downloads it to a disk, hides the disk, and closes the laptop just in time not to be doing anything obviously incriminating when the door opens and the Antichrist steps in. Rayford says he was looking for Hattie to give her their ETA. (Apparently it is acceptable to lie to the Antichrist after all. It's not a very convincing lie, though. Even a jumbo jet serving as a private plane only has so many places to look, and Rayford had to get past the three of them meeting to get to the briefing room in the first place). Carpathia at least pretends to be fooled. He changes to topic to Hattie, asks probing questions, particularly whether their relationship extended beyond the workplace. (Is this a hint that his relationship with Hattie extends beyond the workplace? That was clearly the case in the book. In the movie there has been nothing up till now to suggest it). Ray lies to the Antichrist again and says that it did not extend beyond the workplace.
Then, just as Rayford turns to walk away and the tension seems to ebb, Nicolae says, "Captain, why don't you give me that." Rayford turns around and his face clearly telegraphs alarm. But Carpathia turns down the tension again; he was just asking for the ETA. Rayford, relieved, hands him the ETA. Carpathia takes his hand and suddenly his face turns into a hideous mask of evil. Rayford's face clearly gives away what he is seeing.
Presumably Rayford's RTC power allows him to see the Antichrist for what he is upon touching him. This raises an awkward question of why that didn't happen when Buck shook his hand earlier in the movie, but let that go as one of those annoying plot inconsistencies that never get explained. The Antichrist now presumably knows that Rayford is onto him, and presumably staged the whole scene at least in part because he suspected. That does, indeed, ratchet up the tension about what will happen next time.
Here is Fred Clark's take.
I see we have the same hideously mismatched dubbing. We begin completing Buck and Chloe's reconciliation. Chloe figures out that her father lied to her, but doesn't resent it.
Next morning the four are meeting at New Hope Church (lawn covered with trash, vagrants picking for scraps). Buck has Carpathia's approval to cover any story he wants in Israel. Pastor Bruce has misgivings. It seems odd to him that the Antichrist would approve a story that could expose him for what he is. (Uh, yes, that does seem strange). He also fears that Nicolae may have powers they can't even comprehend. But Buck assures him that he has convinced Nicolae it's all for world unity, Chloe will pray for him, and Rayford will be backing him up on the ground, so Pastor Bruce's doubts are overridden.
Meanwhile, Nicolae is, indeed, worried about the witnesses at the Wailing Wall, saying they will promote religious division. But he declines to arrest them, but merely increases the guards on the Wall. ("This isn't a dictatorship." I think the audience is supposed to react much as Republicans reacted when Obama said, "I'm not an ideologue.") Nicolae wants a one-world religion, "Tolerance, harmony and peace." To do this he wants Pastor Billings' video on the rapture off the air (how did it get on the air?) and Buck.
Next scene, Buck and Chloe, now happy together, play and joke around at an airport that is somewhat militarized but, alas, not so far from the norm these days. He even gives her a peck on the cheek before heading through security. She then says a tearful farewell to her father, who will be piloting the plane, and he gives her a fatherly peck on the cheek.
On board the plane, Rayford's copilot is not (I think) Chris, but he does tape pictures of his (presumably raptured) wife and two children to the wall. Rayford steps out of the cockpit, sneaks by Carpathia, Plank and Hattie discussing business (remember, this is furnished with all the comfort of a private plane), and starts rifling through the Antichrist's effects. Someone sneaks up on him, but relax, it's just Buck. Listening in on them from an unoccupied briefing room (that really reminds me of Star Trek), Rayford overhears them talking about revisions to Ben Judah's speech. (Remember Ben Judah? In the last segment Plank told Buck that Ben Judah is about to make an announcement that will be the most important, the biggest story of Buck's career). It is not clear, though, whether Buck has passed this information on to Rayford.
Either way, Ray opens an unoccupied laptop and finds (surprise!) that it is on, that, among several mundane looking items, is a revised version of Ben Judah's speech. When he pulls up the text, we don't see enough to see the speech at any length, but it includes the words "our Messiah" and "our Bible." He downloads it to a disk, hides the disk, and closes the laptop just in time not to be doing anything obviously incriminating when the door opens and the Antichrist steps in. Rayford says he was looking for Hattie to give her their ETA. (Apparently it is acceptable to lie to the Antichrist after all. It's not a very convincing lie, though. Even a jumbo jet serving as a private plane only has so many places to look, and Rayford had to get past the three of them meeting to get to the briefing room in the first place). Carpathia at least pretends to be fooled. He changes to topic to Hattie, asks probing questions, particularly whether their relationship extended beyond the workplace. (Is this a hint that his relationship with Hattie extends beyond the workplace? That was clearly the case in the book. In the movie there has been nothing up till now to suggest it). Ray lies to the Antichrist again and says that it did not extend beyond the workplace.
Then, just as Rayford turns to walk away and the tension seems to ebb, Nicolae says, "Captain, why don't you give me that." Rayford turns around and his face clearly telegraphs alarm. But Carpathia turns down the tension again; he was just asking for the ETA. Rayford, relieved, hands him the ETA. Carpathia takes his hand and suddenly his face turns into a hideous mask of evil. Rayford's face clearly gives away what he is seeing.
Presumably Rayford's RTC power allows him to see the Antichrist for what he is upon touching him. This raises an awkward question of why that didn't happen when Buck shook his hand earlier in the movie, but let that go as one of those annoying plot inconsistencies that never get explained. The Antichrist now presumably knows that Rayford is onto him, and presumably staged the whole scene at least in part because he suspected. That does, indeed, ratchet up the tension about what will happen next time.
Here is Fred Clark's take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)