Trump and Hillary Exposed by Ted Cruz

              "Not Easy" is an ad by the republican Ted Cruz in the 2016 election. This ad is a functions two main purposes. In the first half it is a slander ad against Hillary and Trump, and the second is a promotion of Ted's character. The ad starts off with Hillary and Trump both painting themselves like they are average people with the same kinds of turmoil as a regular American. In both clips the candidates both say how it has "not been easy" for them. He then shows a picture of Trump and Hillary conversing at some fancy gathering, both dressed very nice, having a quite easy time. At the same time, these videos are popped out, allowing for a background video. This shot is an aerial of New York City. This could be because he had just gotten out of New York campaigning and was in Pennsylvania, New York's Neighbor. New York City is also just a iconic city that could inspire patriotism in the viewer.

              The second half of the ad centralizes around Ethos. It starts saying how Trump and Hillary just don't get it, but Ted does. Seven slides then show up depicting reasons to vote for Ted, each with his name on them. The first says he will cut taxes. The image behind this slide shows a white family with a man cooking the food and a mother helping the children with reading or some sort of work. This paints Cruz as a progressive president. The next says he will make more jobs, with a mechanic in the background. Another shows an old couple with the word security on the front. These slides are an attempt to connect with some people for a slight extra boost. However, in this whole ad, there are nobody but white people, which counteracts some of the progressiveness he was showing earlier. The font of these slides was white with an alternating text box of red and blue, showing some patriotism. In the end it shows him looking foreward and slightly up, which just portrays him in a powerful and stern way.

Founding Falsities: Why Hamilton the Musical is Not a True American Story

Hamilton is one of Broadway’s top shows, receiving acclaim for its cast diversity. Critics say it has revolutionized the definition of a Broadway musical. However, Hamilton plays into the ideology of the ‘self-made man’ and fails to address elitism and racism in American politics. Hamilton picks and chooses details from the past to manufacture a false, though entertaining, story of America’s origins.

Alexander Hamilton’s story is one of a rise from poverty to fame. However, from the political elitism of colonial times to the Industrial Revolution’s business monopolies, patterns have shown that to rise through the classes is an exception, not a common truth. Yet the musical emphasizes how Hamilton was “non-stop”, as though hard work, rather than luck, can pull someone to elite status. It also ignores Hamilton’s elitism. He thought that the masses of people were untrustworthy and power should be given to a trusted - and rich - few.

Hamilton is also a false story because it ignores that most of the founding fathers actively supported slavery. The author, Lin Manuel Miranda stated that Hamilton allows people to, “leave whatever cultural baggage [they] have about the founding fathers at the door” - which is exactly what makes the story false. The lyrics mention John Laurens’ abolitionism but barely acknowledge Jefferson’s affair with Sally Hemmings. Alexander says of the South’s economy, “we know who’s really doin’ the planting”; but this is the only time slavery is mentioned in a political context. It seems as though Miranda is mentioning slavery just enough to be deemed politically correct, but little enough that listeners can forget that the founding fathers were white slave owners and their politics relied on slavery.

Poverty and racism are still around today, and they are entwined within each other. Systematic racism gives people of color unlivable wages, evicts them from their homes, and arrests them disproportionately more than white people. Classism and racism have been ingrained in American society since before the country even existed, and no matter how inclusive the casting call for Hamilton is, the musical forgets these issues and tells a false story of American history.

In the 1/14/16 republican debate Ted Cruz was asked to respond about a statement the president made about the economy and responds with something that has nothing to do with the economy. He says, "I want to get to the substance on jobs, but let me start with something, Today, many of us picked up our newspapers and we were horrified to see the sight of ten American sailors on their knees with their hands on their heads and that state of the union president Obama didn't so much as mention the ten sailors that had been captured by Iran. President Obama is preparing to send 100,000,000 dollars to or more to the Ayatollah Khomeini. And I'll tell you it was heartbreaking but the good news is the next commander in chief is standing on this stage." Here Ted Cruz uses a Red Herring to pull aware from the intended question and appeal to ethos  and pathos to cause an uproar in the crowd and improved his worthiness of being president. Not only was he talking about something that was completely irrelevant to the question, he also insulted both the president and the democratic party, by guild of association. Even though he ended up answering part of the question in the end, he used a red herring to avoid the complexity of the question and ended up giving a very simple answer. This logic is faulty for several obvious reasons: he talked about a topic that was completely unrelated to the questions, he attacked a party while doing it, and he meant to evade the complexity of the question, so that he might be able to give a simple answer and seem patriotic while doing it.      

No Such Thing as an Illegal Person

Immigration is an extremely hot topic these days, and with candidates such as Donald Trump taking such an extreme stance on one side of the issue or the other, people don't seem to have a clear consensus as to what we should do about the issue of immigration and illegal immigrants. Let me start off by saying that illegal immigrants are actually an extremely integral part of our economy, with them helping pay for social security as well as growing a very large portion of produce and making up a large part of work forces overall. Because Trump's immigration plan seems to be the leading plan right now (I'm shuddering just thinking about a Trump presidency), let's just take a look at what would happen. 11 million workers would disappear. Our real GDP would take a $1.6 trillion hit, and it would take 20 years to completely remove all illegal immigrants. The price of strawberries, bananas, and any other farm-produced products would skyrocket, as well as farm income dropping severely. Not to mention how illegal immigrants actually create jobs that often go to U.S. natives. Though it may seem a bit paradoxical due to the wording, illegal immigrants play an extremely crucial part in our nation's economy. Thus, though it may make plenty of people angry, the most beneficial and easy solution to this "problem" is to provide citizenship to these immigrants. Putting them on the record would make them legal workers, eliminating all the scares created by raiding factories and trying to find illegals, as well as keeping the benefits of these workers being here.

Analysis of Carson Vs Rubio in terms of Ethos

When only given 90 seconds to win over an audience, appearance is everything. Many would think that it's easy to 'win' a debate merely by saying what the audience wants to hear but the audience is not a machine that grades a performance fairly. The 4th Republican GOP Debate's audience was composed of hundreds of persons watching the candidates for future president as intensely as they were listening to what they had to say. In comparing Rubio to Carson, one could easily select which candidate most people would recognize as a focused individual and a potential leader without even turning on the sound.

When given the stage in the very beginning of the debate, Carson acknowledges his family in the crowd including his 3-year-old granddaughter. This is a rhetorical move that could prove effective in a less serious climate than a debate taking place during a protest. Carson proceeds to give a very simple description of the minimum wage, speaking very slowly, and it is obvious that he is speaking straight from his beliefs on what happens when you raise the minimum wage. This makes for good logical knowledge that anyone could follow: When the minimum wage goes down, jobs go up and when the minimum wage goes up, jobs go down. Being so straightforward and not just speaking from a rehearsed speech is effective but not when it is delivered in a slurred, almost tired manner. Marco Rubio provides the perfect antithesis to this slow and unenergized performance.

Marco Rubio is given the stage immediately after Carson and acknowledges his family as well, but not in the same way. Rubio uses his parents as background knowledge of himself and as examples of what he envisions America to be, not just people to detract time away from himself. He says that his parents raised four children, including himself, and raised them to be better off and more successful than themselves through hard work, rather than dependently relying on a system to care for their needs. With his words, in this one statement, he simultaneously tells each person in the audience his stance on the minimum wage issue, what he believes in as far as what he will do for the nation's economy, and that he is an example of a successful hardworking American, while Carson only conveyed the first of these three ideas. With his composure, he tells the audience he knows what he is talking about by his confident voice and that he is passionate about what he says by his hand gestures. Carson only managed to let people know that he either is uncomfortable in the debate setting or he was not able to sleep well the night before.

Irony, O'Malley, Education and Debt

When talking about student debts, O'Malley stresses the ridiculous interest rates imposed upon student loans. He finds it absurd that the government is charging 7-8% interest on student loans. O'Malley referenced his daughters graduation from college. He said, "We were proud of them on graduation day but we are going to be proud every month for the rest of our natural born lives." His clever sentence was fallowed by laughter and clapping from the audience. His statement was a very good example of situational irony. While we expected a possibly heartfelt ending he connected his family life to a problem many Americans, and voters, suffer today.

Political Rhetoric

Political candidates use lots of ethos, pathos, and logos to form their argument. With their arguments, they try to persuade the people of America to vote for them. In order to grasp the attention of Americans, political candidates try to connect with the audience. By connecting with the audience, they use lots of pathos. They use stories that the people could relate to or they speak on topics that Americans find very familiar. The 2016 campaign is a great example of where you can find the use of these rhetorical terms.

Is Donald Trump a joke?

Clown for President?

Why is it that people say that Donald trump is a clown or a joke? To some it is obvious, but to others he is a legit presidential candidate. As to why he is leading the polls, some marvel, but there are reasons. Not only does he have a loud mouth, that he loves running like a weed whacker on rocket fuel, but he also has Charisma. His flippy blond hair might not scream attractiveness, but his charm does have its way. He promises a brand new, fully functioning economy. He promises to make america great again, under his leadership. However, these are all blank promises, which he forms, using every buzz word in the book. Unfortunately, we are not in need of a Charisma driven leader like Trump, who will end up ruling for himself as he viciously climbs his way to the top. Stepping on who ever is in the way, charisma driven leaders often only work for themselves. Although he may drive the economy into a new healthy state, he will drive the rest of the country into the dirt.  

Is Donald Trump a joke? I would be hesitant to say yes; I see him as a smart businessman, who would be successful in building an economy, but has no idea how to run a country, especially the most powerful one in the world.

How Do We Teach 9/11?

Today marks the 14th anniversary of 9/11. A question arises among many history teachers in the U.S. “How do we teach 9/11?” In years past, there was no real reason to teach 9/11 to high school students because many were old enough to remember what happened. Since there is no set curriculum to teach about 9/11, teachers have used it to lead into discussions about Afghanistan and the war on terror.

 George Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because the Islamist extremist who hijacked the planes “hated our freedom.” This is a ridiculous and poorly researched assumption about the hijackers motives. What should be taught in high schools is that the hijackers true hatred, is hatred for Modernity in the Western World. Bernard Lewis, the eminent scholar of Islam, defines Modernity as “secular culture of reason, science, individualism, progress, democracy, and capitalism.” All of these are associated with modernity, and all of these goes against Islamist beliefs and ideologies. Along with Modernity, resentment of western politics and decisions is another reason Islamist extremists targeted America. The Atlas Society asks a very intriguing question, “Do our enemies hate modernity because it is Western, or hate the West because it is modern?”

To understand the causes of 9/11, one has to truly understand the reason for each target the planes crashed into. Each target was an essential part of Modernity. If all parts were successfully destroyed, Modernity (and the West) would fall. The Twin Towers were selected because they were the centers of trade and capitalism. The next plane that hit the Pentagon was intended to eliminate the center of the U.S. military. Luckily, the plane crashed into the recently reinforced outer wall so the damage done was much smaller than it could have been. The fourth and final plane landed in a field in Pennsylvania, it was intended to hit the White House, the Capitol building or even Camp David. Destroying any of these targets would have destroyed a big part of the government. With all of these institutions destroyed, Modernity would fall as well as the West.

History about 9/11 should be taught through analysis and evidence. It should not be taught through close-minded assumptions such as, “they hated our freedom”.

Rags to Riches?

The United States has long been known as the land of equality and opportunity, but today, how much of this creed still rings accurately? Most would agree that in comparison to many of the world's countries, the United States is one of the most prominent nations in which social growth, over generations, or even in one generation, is possible.

Both of my parents endured extremely difficult childhoods in order to become the people they were today, but for how many is this true? My mother grew up in Astoria, New York, to a family of divorced parents, an abusive father and brother, and a bipolar mother. She struggled to feed herself and her younger sister, and endured many traumatic and difficult times in her childhood. Through determination and hard work, she managed to waitress herself through college, and after years of perseverance and hardship, she is now a successful doctor, living comfortably and happily with three young children.

While extremely proud of both of my parents for who they are today, despite the challenges they faced, it bothers me to think that there are so few who can tell stories like those. Every one of my mother's friends from childhood still live in poverty in Astoria, and it's that majority that conveys the difficulty of true social growth.

It has become an unfortunate truth in our world today that for a large part of the population, if born into poverty, it's difficult to be exposed to opportunities in order to climb the social ladder. Nevertheless, as my parents prove, it is while extremely difficult, possible. Did my parents work any harder than any of their friends? Who knows. What I do believe is that in upcoming discussions and political events, this is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed, in order to afford more the opportunities that my parents received.

Aquatics Facility at OPRFHS

Recently, the school board of Oak Park and River Forest High School has been debating on locations and a budget for a new aquatics facility. Estimated at around $35 million dollars, the aquatics facility - including upper-level bleacher seating, locker rooms on the first floor, and an Olympic-sized pool - has been considered for three different locations: the baseball/softball field, the area occupied by the existing parking garage, and the athletic field on Lake Street. The projected completion date would be sometime in 2017.

Personally, I have no objections to the pool itself. The high school could certainly use an up-to-date aquatics facility with proper seating for teams and spectators and a regulation size pool - though I do think Olympic-sized is a bit much. Isn't that about double the normal high school length?

None of the three proposed locations seem to be very suitable for this facility. By building it on the baseball/softball fields, the contractors take away the already limited space that sports and other extracurricular activities need. The parking garage was recently built - for $7 million. And the Lake Street athletic fields were also recently installed, and teams use them frequently. Why remove useful places already being used for a third pool?

On the estimated cost - there are so many things the school board could do with that money other than spend it on another pool. They could update the existing athletic facilities - maybe even the existing pools. They could put more money into academic pursuits. They could do things for the community. Or, my personal suggestion - they could fix the decrepit school cellos for the orchestra.

Yes, I know, sports teams bring in more money and publicity than the music department can. Yes, I know, there are other issues that require funding more than a few heaps of plywood the school tries to call cellos. (Though in my opinion, the orchestra should be the top priority. Cello player talking, here.) But would it really be that detrimental to the school's bank account to spend a few thousand to update the orchestra instruments? It is incredibly frustrating when there are twelve cello players and only six or seven working cellos. Some don't have endpins or all the fine tuners. On others, the bridges are broken or the fingerboard is falling off. One is literally coming apart at the seams. And the school spends $35 million on an aquatics facility.

Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing against a new aquatics facility. I only think the money required could be spent a bit more wisely - or, barring that, if the school wants to burn through a few million, the least they could do is fix the cellos.

Teacher Salaries: Who Should Be Making the Money at OPRF?

OPRF is a house of intellectually rich, diverse, and hard-working staff that does everything in their power to make the best out of the students that are put into their hands. However, there is an issue with the distribution of rewards towards the teachers. As with any other field of work, certain people are better suited for their job than others with the same job. Certain jobs are more important than others. Some people work significantly harder than others. Currently, it is apparent that certain members of the faculty are making a significant amount more than they are entitled to.

Anybody can go online and see the salaries of all their teachers; juicy information. It almost seems wrong, but it's a temptation many, including myself, cannot resist. Upon looking at the listings of salaries, anybody with a predisposition that some are more worthy of higher pay than others may be quickly surprised. The highest paid teacher at OPRF is not scholar. It is a gym teacher. And this isn't simply an anomaly resulting from one single, hard working P.E. teacher. It is one of many examples of a common trend on the chart. Some of the highest paid teachers at the high school are, frighteningly, P.E. and Driver's Ed teachers. These are not fields that open doors to students in any way. While driving and personal health may be important, they are not areas of study that need to be shoved down our throats and that we should then praise excessively through massive salaries for their teachers.

As students, we need to decide to whom it is that we owe our debts. There ought not to be a reward waiting down the road for the teachers that are indifferent to the true need of the students, with that being academic enlightenment. We need passionate teachers that can nurture passionate students. For this reason, tenure ought to be removed from the system, and a reassessment of all teachers should take place. After this, there should also be a balanced redistribution of salaries based upon which teachers are most dedicated toward the pursuit of knowledge.

Response to an Op-Ed on Germany's Economic Optimism

In the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson wrote an opinion editorial on Germany's economic optimism. An international poll took place asking a wide range of people from 44 countries how confident they were in their nation's economy. The results were as follows:

"In Tory Britain, 55 percent said the economy was bad; in the Obama-led United States, 58 percent said the same. In nationalist-Keynesian Japan, the figure was 63 percent; in Socialist France, 88 percent; in conservative Spain, 93 percent. The gloomiest continent (including both its advanced economies and such emerging economies as Poland and Ukraine) was Europe, where 88 percent said their economies weren’t doing well.
Except for Germany. Fully 85 percent of Germans said their homeland’s economic situation was good. How do we account for this German exceptionalism?"

Meyerson then continues to explain why the German economy is ultimately superior to that of the US and others. The main reason is that most of Germany's large companies are privately owned. Although this fact seems negligible, it directly impacts the formation and prosperity of the economy as a whole. Companies are not pressured to reward large shareholders which usually entails slashing of wages, cutting back on worker training and research and development and buying back stock. This allows companies to increase the minimum wage and to find ways to benefit their workers collectively. 

Ironically, in the 80's and 90's, the US discouraged Germany from using systems such as these. They simply continued on in their fashion and eventually surpassed the US. Now, the US is facing large economic obstacles which wouldn't have formed if we had simply followed their example.

OPRF's New Pool Plan

In case any of you didn't know, OPRF has recently been considering spending between 35 and 60 MILLION dollars on a new pool. The plans were to build a third one either on the current baseball diamond, where the parking garage currently is (and tearing down the parking garage,) or across Lake Street on the road between Ridgeland Commons and the OPRF track.

Now, what the school SHOULD be doing is reconfiguring the entire south end of the school (south hall onward, including track.) According to the Wednesday Journal, OPRF enrollment could grow from our already staggering 3,500 students to an even greater figure of 4,000. OPRF is crowded as it is. In my opinion, all of the gym facilities need to be moved to where the the track is right now. (Plus, the track team doesn't use the track, they take buses to Concordia. The track is just poorly designed and not optimal for track practice.) This way we can take down the fieldhouse and reconfigure that part of the building to accomadate for the growing student body. And no, we shouldn't tear down the parking garage, because just several years ago, it was built for $7,000,000. That's not a low amount of money, all unto the burden of the taxpayers.

Secondly, WHY WOULD WE SPEND $60,000,000 OR EVEN $1,000,000 ON A NEW POOL!? Imagine everything that the world could do with that money!! We could feed hungry! Donate to non-profits in the community! Fund academic clubs! Fund academics! We could be the school who makes teachers high-paid workers! But, instead, the school board wants to spend 60 MILLION DOLLARS ON A POOL!? Does anyone even think we need this thing besides the school board? Seriously, ask yourself! We have two pools, do we really need a new one? And for that price?

Just take some time to think about that. Seriously. One million dollars. Thirty-five million dollars. Sixty million. Imagine what the community could do with that.

And the board wants to make a freaking pool.

Independence for a Price

Today, citizens from Scotland voted to decide whether or not they wanted to be a part of the United Kingdom or separate and become their own governed nation. After being controlled by England for more than 300 years Scottish citizens are now given the chance to split from the UK. If the citizens vote and the referendum is successful Scotland will be separated from England in 2016. As votes are being tallied it is fairly tied, but with the "no" vote slightly in the lead, as half of the population seem to disagree with one another. 

Personally, if I was a citizen of Scotland I would have to vote "no" for many reasons but most 
importantly because of the economic downside of the separation. Compared to Britain's $2.5 trillion 
economy it seems as though Scotland will be on the downside of the "yes" vote with a merely $250
billion economy. The "yes" vote has caused many speculators to believe that Scotland's economy
will be weaker if it leaves England. Not only that but the headquarters of many major banks in the
UK will also plan to split if the referendum passes and the headquarters will most likely move to
London where the money will most likely be. UK public spending may also detach itself from 
Scotland as the country is projected to lose over £65 billion after a "yes" vote. Another reason voting "no" would be a wise decision is because the oil revenue, which many Scottish citizens believe will be able to support them, is also projected to drop this year and next. Scotland will not only be constantly losing money if the majority of the vote is "yes" but they will also be losing their currency and will have to switch to using the euro, which is would be a horrible choice as the euro is beginning to fail many countries, or create a brand new currency, but with the economy being horrible everywhere it would seem as though creating a new and strong currency would become rather difficult. Unless Britain let's them use the pound or if they use it without Britain's consent it would be very hard to accustom to another currency.

I believe that if Scotland removes itself from the United Kingdom that it will not go as well as they would have wanted it to go. Although voting "no" would force citizens of Scotland to continue under Britain's reign, it would be wise to build up the economy before voting for separation so then it would be much easier for citizens live on without having to worry about an economic downfall in their country. If the majority of the vote doesn't go to "yes" vote hopefully through this close encounter Britain will be more lenient to Scottish needs because although Scotland would have been worse off with the separation Britain and the UK would also have downsides of a separated UK, mostly with England losing most of the revenue of the oil refineries, losing a home for their nuclear weapons, and not to mention having to create a whole new flag which would also void many flags and merchandise bearing the UK flag, Hopefully, citizen's of Scotland vote "no" for the benefit of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Sources:
http://rt.com/business/188720-economy-scotland-yes-vote/

Save the Orca Slaves: an op-ed against SeaWorld

My mother’s first job at 16 was as cashier at SeaWorld for a fish and chips stand. As a young child, I often went to SeaWorld when I visited my extended family in San Diego, California. When you are young and you absent-mindedly watch the circus shows put on before you it is easy to ignore that an intelligent animal with a complex social structure is being enslaved in a pool, deprived of the vast and expansive space it should have to explore.

After ignoring this enslavement for many years, I watched the documentary film Blackfish and it forced me to acknowledge many horrifying issues associated with orcas held in captivity. I have come to the conclusion, based on copious amounts of evidence highlighting orca health and the danger placed on trainers, that these animals should by no means be enslaved and exploited any longer. 

Besides the multiple deaths of humans caused by orcas that are held in captivity, scientists support the idea that captivity is harmful for orcas. The most obvious example of this is the life span of orcas in captivity versus the lifespan of orcas in the wild. The mortality rates of orcas in captivity is 2.5 times higher in captivity than in the wild. The average life expectancy in the wild for males is 60-70 years and for females it is 80-90 years. In captivity the average life expectancy of a male is 31 years and for females it is 46. 

 In addition to this, living in captivity causes orcas to develop psychological issues and chronic stress that in turn cause them to have an inadequate immune system, which often leads to lethal infections and other health problems, not to mention the whale on whale aggression that occurs as a result of living in close quarters.

The undeniable danger that exists for all SeaWorld trainers who are in the water is yet another reason why orcas should not be in captivity. Over the years, there have been over 100 incidents where orcas have acted aggressively towards their trainers. This includes the largest incident SeaWorld has ever faced, the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau. Before Dawn was attacked it is clear that Tilikum, the 13,000 pound orca, was under stress. Tilikum’s stress and psychological damage was a result of living for years in a concrete box.  Every time a trainer gets in the water with one of these psychologically damaged apex predators, SeaWorld is blatantly disregarding the risk to human life performing with the orcas entail all for the sake of greed.

The rampant exploitation that exists at SeaWorld towards marine life is mind boggling. The most powerful predators in the sea are being enslaved and forced to perform circus acts for an ignorant audience who think what they are watching is somehow animal friendly. What’s the endgame? Money. This slavery exists to exponentially fatten the pockets of the people who run this corporation. They are exploiting these amazing creatures and putting the lives of their trainers at risk while making it seem like a fun and family oriented place to bring your children. 

 The guilt I feel for ever being a part of this exploitation will haunt me for the rest of my life, so I will continue to advocate for the freedom of the these giant fish who possess their own cultural identities, much like you and me.

No Country for Reasonable Thought Process

The film No Country For Old Men, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, is centered two characters who are both pursuing 2.1 million dollars in cash. One of them is willing to do anything to keep this treasure, while the other man is wanting to return it to the drug cartel from which it came, by any means necessary. No Country For Old Men perpetuates the ideology that all humans are consumed by a need for money.

This film supports the idea that people are powerless to refuse a large sum of money and that they will do anything to acquire it. For example, when Llewelyn, the film's protagonist, finds a couple million dollars in cash out in the desert at the gruesome scene of a shootout, instead of reporting the horrific massacre to the authorities, he is blinded by the money that he finds among the rotting carcasses and takes it for himself. The protagonist usually exemplifies the ideal hero that always does the right thing, but this is not the case in No Country For Old Men, where Llewelyn abandons reason for monetary gain, which reinforces the idea that no one can refuse money.

Later in the film, Llewelyn is hunted by the somewhat rightful owners of the money. After he is chased and wounded badly, he is given a chance to save his wife by surrendering the money to his pursuer, but Llewelyn declines this merciful deal because he is filled with greed and values the money more than he does the life of his own wife. Although he is the protagonist of the film, he is still poisoned by an unhealthy lust for money that is supported by the fact that he is willing to sacrifice the safety of his wife for money that, at this point, has nearly cost him his life.

From not reporting a mass shooting to the authorities, to abandoning your own wife, No Country For Old Men supports the ideology that people are consumed by money.