Easter Hope

 

Easter Bombing in Pakistan

Today, I reproduce a post written ten years ago about attacks on Christians at Easter time. Ten years later I still find it difficult to understand why so many hate Christians and Easter.

*************************

 Reputed members of the Islamic State murdered four nuns of the Missionaries of Charity working in an elder care facility in Aden, Yemen on March 4, 2016. The only crime of these nuns, like some many thousands of others brutally persecuted in recent years, was that they were Christians. What is so bad about Christianity? 

Personally, I like practically everything about it, especially the belief in, and hope in the resurrection from the dead. 

It is clear from Scripture that, even after the Resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday, his subsequent Ascension forty days later, and the incredible events of Pentecost, St. Peter did not fully understand the implications of the Resurrection. Only after a personal vision convinced him that Jesus died and rose for all, did Peter see the light. He said,

“Now I really understand that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. He sent his word to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (who is Lord of all). You know what took place throughout Judea: for he began in Galilee after the baptism preached by John: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and he went about doing good and healing all who were in the power of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did in the country of the Jews and Jerusalem; and yet they killed him, hanging him on a tree. But God raised him on the third day and caused him to be plainly seen, not by all the people, but by witnesses designated beforehand by God, that is, by us, who ate and drank with him after he had risen from the dead. And he charged us to preach to the people and to testify that he it is who has been appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness, that through his name all who believe in him may receive forgiveness of sins.” *

I have come to believe with Peter that “God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Nevertheless, I like being a Christian, especially a Catholic.  As I said, I like a religion that believes in and holds out hope for resurrection, for a life after death. 

I like to think that the four nuns murdered in Yemen by Moslem fanatics earlier this month are living a new life, and that they are not just rotting bodies being picked apart by vultures. It also strikes me that those four nuns, like tens of thousands of other Christians who have also been brutally persecuted in our own time, had already given up their lives in the service of others when they took their initial vows. Like Jesus, they went about doing good and healing.

Even today, the day after Easter, there is the terrible news that Taliban suicide bombers murdered at least 65 people and wounded over 300 in Pakistan just because they were Christians celebrating Easter.

###

*Acts of the Apostles 10: 25-37.

Silver Mania

 

For years I’ve held 500 shares of ishares Silver trust (SLV) in my investment portfolio. During that time it usually hovered around $20 a share and did little else. I’m not sure why I held on to it. It never paid a dividend or provided any income. Perhaps I thought it would be a haven if all else went to hell.

But in the last 12 months things changed. I checked one day and found that last October, the share price had jumped to around $50, a gain of about 150%. I have always believed that when any asset goes up that far and that fast, it is time to sell and take profits. I don’t like to be greedy. So, I sold 400 shares and netted about $20,000. But for some reason I held on to 100 shares.

Incredibly, the price of metals like gold and silver continued to soar, and by January of 2026, my SLV shares had jumped to $105 per share. I sold my remaining shares at what now looks like a top and netted over $10,000. 

I don’t know who bought my shares that day. Millions of SLV shares were being traded every day in January. The volume indicates that major investment firms were involved. Many of these entities use sophisticated computer programs in decision making.

Then, weeks before the USA attacked Iranian military sites on February 28, gold and silver prices started to drop causing speculative buyers to take big losses. On March 24, SLV closed around $64 a share, down about 40% from the January high. That’s big money. Of course, the shares are still considerably higher than they were last March, but if you bought in January, you took a big loss.

I’m trying to understand what this precious metal mania meant for ordinary people. As the price of gold and silver soared, it obviously took more dollars to buy an ounce of each metal. That means that as gold and silver prices rose, the dollar weakened and had an inflationary effect. It just took more pieces of paper to buy an ounce of gold and silver, or anything else. Now that metal prices have dropped, does that mean the dollar is stronger, and will that impact inflation figures?

Unfortunately, I could find little information or interest in the movement of gold and silver prices in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, or various media outlets over the past year. So, I can only guess about what happened. I certainly don’t want to try to predict what will happen going forward.

Was it just a speculative mania or “bubble” that finally burst in January? Or perhaps the meteoric rise was caused by investors who feared that President Trump was not bluffing about Venezuela and Iran and who were seeking what is normally a safe haven for their money. 

Despite the rise in precious metal prices, inflation moderated and oil prices stayed relatively stable. Only after the attack on the Iranian military sites on February 28 did oil prices spike.  Even though energy prices are not included in official inflation figures, ordinary people are feeling the effect at the pump.

During the past year major stock indices continued to rise to record levels, and people would have seen substantial increases in their 401k and other investment accounts.  The Dow Jones Average and other market averages hit all-time highs in early February but began to drop a few weeks before the attack on Iran.

Everyone knows that real estate prices have risen over the past year. A quick check on Zillow indicates that my modest home has reached an all-time high value. But like most people, if my wife and I wanted to cash in, where would we go?

Most people don’t consider that their homes fluctuate in value like stocks and precious metals but maybe it doesn’t matter. At least we can live in our homes no matter what the value.

### 

Bogart and Bacall

  

 

Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall are among the most celebrated couples in movie history both on-screen and off. They first met on the set of To Have and Have Not in 1944. Bogart, age 44, was a star and Bacall a 19-year-old newcomer recruited by film director Howard Hawks after a brief New York modeling career. They immediately clicked. The four films in which they appeared are among my favorites. Here are brief notices.

 

To Have and Have Not.  Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall co-star in this 1944 wartime drama loosely based on an Ernest Hemingway story. It seems obvious that the filmmakers attempted to cash in on the success of Casablanca, the very popular 1942 war time drama that established Bogart as a huge star.

Both films are set after the fall of France in colonies under the control of the French Vichy government, a puppet of the German conquerors. Casablanca is in Morocco, and To Have and Have Not takes place in the French Caribbean colony of Martinique. 

As in Casablanca Bogart plays a tough, jaded American who just wants to go about his business without any involvement in the war or politics. In Casablanca he ran a popular night club but in To Have and Have Not Bogart is a charter fishing boat captain barely eking out a living. Still, much of the action takes place in a saloon/night club which even has its own likeable piano player, this time played by Hoagy Carmichael.

I suppose the greatest difference in the two films is the female lead. In To Have and Have Not the nineteen-year-old Bacall made a spectacular film debut. Instead of the sophisticated Ingrid Bergman of Casablanca fame, Bacall is a sexy and sassy young woman just passing through. The on-screen chemistry between her and Bogart makes this film a joy to watch.

The dialogue between them, written by Jules Furthman and William Faulkner, the renowned novelist, pushes the envelope of Hollywood’s Production Code. Although condemned by modern critics, the Code forced writers to be really creative in expressing sexuality without becoming offensive to their 1940s audiences. The scene in which Bacall teaches Bogart how to whistle is the highlight of the film. 100 minutes. CC.

The Big Sleep.  The successful pairing of Bogart and Bacall led to three other films in very short order. They next starred in a 1946 adaptation of famed crime novelist Raymond Chandler’s novel, The Big Sleep.  Bogart plays Chandler’s legendary private eye, Philip Marlowe, on the trail of killers, pornographers, gamblers, and a bevy of beautiful young women. In this film and in the earlier Maltese Falcon Bogart created the private eye. No one else ever came close. 

Despite a convoluted plot, once again director Howard Hawks brought out the chemistry between the now famous couple who had actually fallen in love on the set of To Have and Have Not, and married soon after. This time Bacall plays a wealthy sophisticated woman but the dialogue, especially between the two stars is discreetly sexually charged. 

Interestingly, there is an added feature on my DVD that sheds light on the creative process in Hollywood in those days. Before the film’s release Bacall’s agent saw a preview and thought it would destroy his client’s budding career. He wrote a long letter to the studio head asking that some scenes be re-shot to improve Bacall’s role. The studio agreed and the result is a classic film noir. 114 minutes. CC.

Dark Passage. Bogart and Bacall star in this 1947 film about a man who breaks out of prison after being falsely convicted of murdering his wife. Based on a novel by crime writer David Goodis, Bogart plays the escaped con, and Bacall plays another sophisticated woman who, for reasons of her own, provides a hideout for him in her lavish apartment.  

Nevertheless, to escape the law, he takes the advice of a friendly cabbie who in the middle of the night arranges an appointment for him with an outlaw plastic surgeon who claims he can make him look like anything, even a monkey, in 90 minutes, no more no less. Sure enough, the doctor, played hilariously by character actor Houseley Stevenson, turns him into Humphrey Bogart once the bandages are removed.

Next to the scene with the plastic surgeon, my favorite part of this film is the ending with the couple meeting to the tune of “You’re Just Too Marvelous.” 106 minutes. CC. 

Key Largo. John Huston directed this 1948 drama that would be the last film in which the famous couple appear together, but their roles are strangely subdued. Bacall plays a war widow who runs a small hotel in the Florida Keys with her wheelchair bound father, played by Lionel Barrymore. Bogart's character had served with her husband during the war, and though he survived, the war has had its effect on him.  He is not the tough self-assured guy of the earlier films.  

Bogart’s character wants to meet his deceased friend’s family, but arrives at the hotel in the midst of a hurricane warning only to find that there is danger within. Edward G. Robinson practically steals the show playing an over the hill gangster on the lam from police. His gang has taken over the hotel until they can find passage to Cuba.  Claire Trevor won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress playing the gangster’s mistress, an ex-nightclub singer turned alcoholic. 101 minutes. CC.

I prefer to watch on DVD with no annoying commercials. In addition, the DVDs sometimes include informative features.

###

Finish the Job, Sir

 

                                           

 

Although the attack on Iran has been an unqualified military success, commentators wonder about the so-called endgame.  What will happen in future weeks and months? Does anyone know? 

Actually, the overwhelming destruction of Iran’s military capabilities means that we are now in the endgame. Let’s consider the condition of the 90 million people in Iran, a country twice the size of Texas. Although USA and Israeli bombing has so far been pin-pointing military targets with remarkable accuracy, the impact on the civilian population could be catastrophic.

Food supplies must be scarce. There must be widespread hunger, even starvation in some areas.

Their water supply system must have been severely impacted. Drinking water availability and quality must have been compromised. Waste removal and sewage systems may not be functioning.

Electricity must be out in many parts of the country with not only loss of light but also heat. Communications networks must be impaired if working at all. 

Needed medical services for the sick, injured, and elderly must be almost non-existent.

Just imagine your own neighborhood without food, water, light, heat and phone communication during a winter storm. Inevitably, we can expect crime and looting as people struggle to survive.

We have won the war, but we will find ourselves responsible for avoiding a human tragedy of enormous dimensions. Look what Israel had to do after the war in Gaza. Iran will require a much greater humanitarian response. What can we do?

This Monday, March 9, President Trump provided a relatively short report on the status of the war, and on its potential aftermath. Anyone who dislikes the President for the things he says should take the time to view the 30-minute report as well as the questions he handled afterwards.

He claimed that the attack on Iran had been an unqualified success, and that our military had achieved in three days what planners had thought would take weeks, even months to achieve. 

He did spend much time on what might come next. He did not sound like a belligerent conqueror out to impose his will on the Iranian people, or even the remnants of the current regime.

The President indicated that he does not intend to repeat the mistakes of the war in Iraq. He intends that Iran’s oil be used to finance the rebuilding of the country and not fall into the hands of terrorists. He also believes that when the supporters of the regime in Iraq lost their jobs, they joined ISIS. He hopes that the policy of accommodation working in Venezuela can work in Iran.

He also stated that shipping lanes in the area will be protected so that the flow of oil will continue to the rest of the world. He pointed out that using our naval resources to keep the Straits of Hormuz open is not for our benefit since we are now energy independent. In particular, this policy will especially benefit China, a country largely dependent on oil imports. Wisely, he does not intend to use success in Iran to drive the Chinese back to the wall. 

He then took questions from the assembled reporters. It is amazing that Trump haters cannot credit Trump’s willingness to take questions. He seems to be out there every day taking questions. Have his opponents forgotten that President Biden rarely held a press conference, and that former President Obama always used a teleprompter?

Anyway, he took about 18 questions from the assembled reporters, and I don’t believe there was one that asked about the astonishing military success we achieved. Today’s media seems no longer interested in reporting what has actually happened, but they focus on what they fear will happen in the future especially with President Trump in command.

Despite the success of the mission, most of the questions were designed to find fault. The extraordinary precision of our bombing in striking only military targets in contrast to most modern war, or the terrorist tactics of the Iranian regime and its proxies went unmentioned. 

Questioners tried to drive a wedge between the President and Vice-President Vance and even suggested that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unfit to conduct negotiations with Cuba. 

The last question was especially telling. The reporter asked how many casualties President Trump was willing to accept in this war.  In three days, we had destroyed Iran’s Russia and China supplied air defense system, neutralized its 1000 plus ballistic missile arsenal, sunk its entire navy, and decapitated its leadership, and we had taken only eight casualties. 

The question was insulting but the President, as usual, handled it well. He mentioned that he had already met with the families of the eight soldiers, and that despite their grief, they urged him to “Finish the job, Sir, finish the job.”

###