In 1917, Jeannette Rankin, an avowed pacifist and member of the Republican party,[1] became the first woman elected to serve in the United States Congress. Since that time, only 275 other women have served in that august and rather insular body.
Stop and think about that for a moment. In the 95 years that have passed since Rankin’s election, only 275 other women have been elected to the United States Congress. Why is that?
Why is it that women make up 18.9% of the world’s legislatures,[2] but only 17.4% of the United States Congress?[3] How is it that this progressive, democratic, world-shaping empire actually elects fewer women to public office than other regions in the world?
[1] In an odd historical footnote, Rankin is also known as the only member of Congress to have voted against the United States entering into both World War I and World War II.
2012 is going to be an interesting year. Assuming the Mayans got it wrong and the world does not end on December 21st, we are looking at year of ever-increasing instability. As the Arab Spring shows no signs of letting up, as the economy continues to struggle amidst the euro-crisis, and as the national debt continues to soar, we Americans will be charged with the task of deciding who it is that we believe can best guide us through these tumultuous waters?
Unfortunately, as we approach the November elections, we do so as a people newly crippled by what the New York Times calls the “most conservative” Supreme Court in decades.[1] Back in 2008, a non-profit corporation called Citizens United fought for the right to air a film called Hillary: The Movie within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. At stake was the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which sought to regulate the financing of political campaigns. While the lower courts upheld the 2002 BCRA, the Supreme Court took up the case on appeal in January of 2008 and reversed the ruling of the lower courts.
So what does that mean in practical terms? Well, in short, the case did not alter the ban on corporations and unions donating to either candidate campaigns or political parties. Those limitations are still in effect. But what it did do was make it legal for corporations and unions to pump unlimited amounts of money into politically oriented groups that theoretically operate independently of individuals seeking office.
Still not seeing the problem? Well let’s take Newt Gingrich as an example. Prior to this ruling, no one could make a contribution to Gingrich’s campaign that was greater than $2500. And that is still true. But now, what someone can do is make a $30 million donation to a theoretically independent group that can invest that money into the election cycle in any way that it sees fit.
So what are candidates such as Gingrich, Romney, Obama, etc. doing? All of them are creating Super-PACs, which can raise and spend as much money as they want. Technically, these Super-PACs are not allowed to directly coordinate with any particular campaign. But what happens is that supporters of each candidate create a Super-PAC on behalf of their candidate of choice and use the money solely to support his/her campaign. Then, as happened last spring in Gingrich’s campaign, an aide will leave the official campaign to take on a leadership role with the affiliated Super-PAC. Following that, the candidate will legally begin to raise money for his or her Super-PAC, effectively by-passing the limitations on how much an individual, corporation or union can contribute to the candidate.
Can you see where this is going? In the past, Big Tabaco was prohibited from contributing money directly to an individual candidate. Sure, there were other ways that pressure was applied, but there were limitations in place that sought to protect the integrity of the election process. Now, if Big Tabaco wants a favorable ruling to pass, it has all the power of its bankroll at its disposal. “Hey Newt. You want a nice $20 million dollar donation going to your Super-PAC? This is how you’re going to vote. And if you don’t, we’ll take our $20 million elsewhere …”
In an interview with Time Magazine, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter had this to say:
“We’re suddenly entering a very different world where people with large sums of money, if they choose, are going to be able to spend it easily in ways that may buy elections.”
This is a problem for all American citizens. But for those of us who profess to believe in Jesus the Christ – for those of us who are charged with defending the poor – this is monumental. For the voice of the poor, which is already severely muted in our society, is only going to get weaker when money of this magnitude is allowed to be funneled into politics in this manner. This is why, we, as Christians, should be on the forefront of the fight to restore campaign finance restrictions. While I understand the issues related to the first amendment and the protection of free speech, we have to ask the question: whose right to speak is being protected here? The vox populi or the vox opulenta?
On the heels of a less than stellar movie-going season in 2010, it appears as if Hollywood is gearing up to give us another mediocre batch of flicks. From Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon to Bridesmaids, theaters have been filled with a glut of vacuous, idea-free diversions that are completely devoid of both substance and style.
Having said that, there have been some interesting smaller films released in the last few months and there appear to be a few more on the way. So as a occasional screenwriter and as a lover of film, I offer these to you in the hopes that you might give them a chance.
The Adjustment Bureau (Available on DVD / Blue Ray). A highly stylized and very enjoyable look at the “free” choices we make and the powers that lie behind them. It was nothing like what I expected; and far better than I would have imagined.
The Ides of March (Currently in wide release). Set during the frenetic last days of a heavily-contested presidential primary race, this is an intimate look at one man’s choice to become part of the machine or to reject it. Quite possibly, the finest political thriller I have seen in recent memory.
Source Code (Available on DVD / Blue Ray). This is the second major film by Duncan Jones, and an excellent entry point into the work of a promising young director. Entertaining, tense, and surprisingly filled with questions surrounding issues related to the quality of life and the right to die.
The Tree of Life (Available of DVD / Blue Ray). Without a doubt, this will be the most ambitious, poetic film on this list, due to one reason and one reason only: Terrence Malick. In two-and-a-half hours, Malick explores all of the major God-questions through a coming-of-age story interspersed with extensive, meditative shots of nature. In all honesty, this will be a film unlike anything you have likely seen before.
The Descendants (Nov. 16). Already being touted as a front-runner for the Best Actor Oscar, George Clooney stars as a man whose life begins to fall apart after learning that his wife, who is in coma, is in the middle of an affair. Of course, the true start may be Alexander Payne, director of such notable works as Sideways, About Schmidt, and Election.
Hugo (Nov. 23). Based upon the acclaimed chidlren’s novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, this is the latest film from the legendary Martin Scorsese. Added bonus: several inspired casting choices including Chloe Grace Moretz, breakout star of Kickass and Let Me In.
The Muppets (Nov. 23). If you don’t understand why this is on the list … well, what more can I say? I pity you.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Dec. 9). My wife and I have a mutual love of well-crafted spy movies. This film, starring the incomparable Gary Oldman, is based upon the classic Cold War novel by the master story-teller, John le Carre. While I suspect Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol will clear more money on opening weekend, true lovers of spy fiction will know where the wise money is to be spent.
We Need to Talk About Kevin (Dec. 9). Based upon a novel by the same name, this psychological thriller explores the divide between nature and nurture, as a mother (Tilda Swinton) struggles to come to grips with her son’s evil inclinations.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Dec. 21). David Fincher, the director of Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Social Network gets to play with the source material by Steig Larrson. And if that doesn’t excite you as a film afficianado, I don’t know what will. (Warning: This film wrestles with the notion that our society dismisses and then legitimizes violence against women. Some content may be highly offensive and/or disturbing.)
Finally, I give you three more films that show some promise, but for one reason or another, haven’t fully caught my attention just yet.
Rampart (Nov. 23). The main draw here is Woody Harrelson, an underrated actor, in the role of a Vietnam veteran-turned-L.A. cop. As for the main concern: it’s Woody Harrelson, a man not always known for judicious choices.
The Adventures of Tintin (Dec. 21). The pedigree is impeccable. Based upon a popular comic book series, the film is produced by Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame and directed by Steven Speilberg, the acknowledged master of the modern day blockbuster. Still, I’m not there yet.
We Bought a Zoo (Dec. 23). This film intrigues me for one reason and one reason only: Cameron Crowe. Back in the day, he wrote and directed such films as: Say Anything, Singles, Jerry Maguire, and Almost Famous. But more recently, he’s given us the far more lackluster: Vanilla Sky and Elizabethtown. Will this be a return to form?
In 1917, Jeannette Rankin, an avowed pacifist and member of the Republican party,[1] became the first woman elected to serve in the United States Congress. Since that time, only 275 other women have served in that august and rather insular body.
