Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
The thing about free trade, is that unions and liberals have a lot to do with it. NAFTA and free trade were babies of GHW Bush, but it was Bill Clinton, with a democratic congress, that inexplicably signed NAFTA into law. Now, any CEO with a brain would rather relocate jobs than pay huge union salaries. This is terrible for the union workers, and a boon for the CEOS. The question I've always asked is — will this help in the long run?
Unfortunately, I think the answer is “NO”. Free trade supporters tout that free trade creates jobs, and they are right: there was a job increase over the past decade. But here's the rub, something the supporters of free trade leave out (and I might add, not all Republicans are free-traders): these jobs aren't good, stable, high paying jobs. These are the jobs that have accompanied the rise of fast food and Wal-Mart. Service jobs.
So what is happening is that the US balloon is losing altitude to meet the rising balloon of the rest of the world. I read an article where it said our standard of living is about like it was in 1979, and getting worse. I have not had one free-trade economist explain to me how free trade creates good, high-paying, stable jobs. When companies in the US aren't relocating, they are hiring foreign workers via the H-1b visa to replace them at home because, somehow, the Clinton and Bush governments allow them to work at a lower wage. The citizen is simply not heard anymore.
And all of this means curtains for the US down the road, something that should not be a party issue. Without a strong manufacturing and production base, we depend upon the rest of the world. We buy less because we make less, and as countries soar past us with their economies, we lose our ability to govern ourselves and pay for social security and defense. A huge economic crisis is just over the horizon, and the policy of free trade, which only helps one class, CEOS, is to blame. It is a massive redistribution of US wealth to the rest of the world in order to line the pockets of those controlling the means of production. Only when the US becomes a third-world country with no standard of living will we be able to start over. By then we might be overrun by countries that hate us, most specifically, China, who still regards us as enemy no.1.
Clearly, both parties have their hands dirty here.
James
Dear James:
I have no objections to the case that you make. This issue of free trade is one where there is no specifically Catholic angle. The question is whether the commonweal is advanced through free trade or not. I find your case persuasive.
James Fitzpatrick
***
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,
I just read your article on Catholic Exchange, titled Good, Clean Family Fun, and I have to say that I agree with many of the points that you have made. I agree that the illegitimate birth on Murphy Brown paved the way for a widening public acceptance of unwed mothers in television and film, and therefore in society in general.
I am 30 years old and I am ashamed to admit that co-habitation and illegitimacy are accepted as the norm by my generation. I don't know any couples outside of my closest Catholic friends that have not at least lived together before marriage, if not had a child. In fact, I have had many co-workers and other non-Christian acquaintances argue with me that co-habitation is a wise decision, and I am sure that much of Hollywood would agree with them. I am not so easily fooled.I would most definitely agree that Hollywood has helped to create the morals of the society that they are claiming only to 'reflect'.
But, there is something I have to call you on. I think that you have really missed the mark by judging the film What a Girl Wants — especially since you admit that you did not take the time to see it. I run the youth ministry program at my parish, and I am constantly encouraging my kids to analyze the messages that they hear. On road trips they will ask to listen to a popular CD, and clarify it for my by saying 'there aren't any bad words'. I let them listen to the cd – and then I ask questions. “What is this song really about?” “What are they trying to say?” “Does this song undermine our beliefs as Catholics?” “What kind of fruit does this artist produce? Is he/she producing the fruits of the Spirit? or the works of the flesh?” “Is this song helping or hurting my walk with Christ?” The message is not just in the bad words, or lack thereof. They need to learn how to pay attention and judge something to be good or bad.
The first step in that is to study the message in question. So I would tell you, that just because a movie has a bad word in it — in this case “unwed mother” — don't confuse that with the message. I have actually seen this movie and would say you've got a pretty decent story — and this is coming from an extremely critical Catholic person who intentionally seeks out teen culture so that I can help my kids to discern it – not a blind sheep cooing over a cute, sweet story.Your article makes some great points — many that I have made more than once myself. But to criticize a film that you didn't even take the time to see really only lends fuel to the other side of the fire. The often accurate generalization of the rigid, close-minded Christian isn't improved when you make biased presumptions and stereotype the culture of a generation.
In Christ,
Kelly Gilmore
***
Hi, Mr. Fitzpatrick,
I'm a frequent reader of your columns on Catholic Exchange. I enjoy your articles very much. I would like to make a comment about Good, Clean Family Fun. I personally see the change in society's acceptance of women who have children out of wedlock as a positive change.
It is a positive change with regards to the Gospel of Life for one. A woman does not have the social stigma as much these days of having a child out-of-wedlock and because of that more and more young women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy choose Life. They still have the diffiuculties of raising their child in a single-parent family, the hardship of trying to find a father for their child, and trying to support a child in poverty. It's a difficult grace, but no less a grace.
Children born out of wedlock are no less a 'blessing' and a precious 'gift'
of God.
Women who 'Choose Life' are heroes. They are courageous and I commend them. The stigma of unwed mothers is one 'traditional value' that I personally feel we can do without. In this instance I can applaud Hollywood and shows like Gilmore Girls for making heroines out of a Mom who chooses Life.
Janet Ackerman
***
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,
Thank you for your recent article on the film What A Girl Wants. I generally agree with everything you said in your article. I do think, however, that when you write about a film it is important to actually see the film and make judgements for yourself.
The Post article you cited was not exactly correct in its assessment of the situation in the film. In the film, the girls parents were married when they conceived her — granted the ceremony was a Bedouin ceremony — so would not be recognized by the Church — but they do take pains to have you see that they did go through a ceremony and in their eyes were married. When they went back to England to have presumably Christian ceremony — the Duke's royal handlers tricked the woman into thinking it would be better for him and his career if she were out of the picture. It should be noted that he does not know about the baby.
Meanwhile the woman raised her daughter by herself — yes — as a single Mom — but the movie also points out that she never has another man in her life. She is, in a sense, honoring the commitment she made in her “marriage” the Duke.
I know this may seem like rationalization — and by no means do I want to convince you that this film is a model of virtue. But I only wanted to point out that it is not nearly as bad as it reads on paper and it is far from the worse stuff out there. The man and woman do get back together in the end.
Thanks for listening — and for keeping us all on our toes about the culture!
God bless!
Tracy Ricciardi
Dear Ladies:
YOu all make good points. There is a danger in writing about a movie without seeing it. I take your word that What Every Girl Wants has some worthwhile things to say to young audiences. I might object that my column focused more on the role Hollywood is playing in the assault against traditional morality than on this particular movie, but if what I wrote gave readers a false impression — that should be noted.
James
***
