"John Q" Reveals Weaknesses of U.S. Health Care

August 8, 2007

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

I have just finished watching a movie called John Q, which i rented from NetFlix. I like the movie so much that I have seen it for a few times. This movie reminds me of the problems that I found in the U.S. health care system: Access, Cost, and Quality.

John Q. Archibald, played by my favorite actor Denzel Washington, is a behind-on-bills metal worker who has just been cut to half-time hours due to the recession and who has been out of luck looking for a second job. The income that he makes as a part-time worker and his wife, Denise, as a cashier at a grocery store apparently is not enough to financially support the family that they even need to let their car got reposed by the bank just so that they can pay the house rent.

Their family problem started to get worse when their only son, nine-year-old Michael, collapsed when playing baseball. After being rushed to the hospital, Michael was found to be seriously ill and needed an emergency heart transplant. Should he not get the transplant immediately, he would soon die for heart failure.

After deciding on the high-risk surgery, to their surprise, the hospital told them that John’s insurance will not cover the cost of a procedure the magnitude of this transplant, costing $250,000, an outrageous amount that the family obviously cannot afford. With Denise not receiving any health insurance at all from her employer, the family must race with time to accumulate at least $75,000 as a down payment just to put Michael as a prospective recipient on the donor list.

Then, John went to his employer asking about his health insurance, in which he was told that the company will only pay for the maximum payout limit of $20,000 for the procedure because of the restrictions on his policy as a part-time employee. Desperately seeking for help, he went to the State Service only to find out that those who qualify for financial assistance must be on welfare. Both the Medicaid and the County Medical Assistance, whose offices he visited, were of no help either. The money he receives from selling his low-priced assets, contributions from his neighborhood, and church donation is still not enough, while the hospital is already planning to send Michael home after the $30,000 cost of his treatment left unpaid.

With time and options running out, John unexpectedly made a bold move. Using a gun, he took the emergency room hostage, with several patients and a doctor inside it. John’s request is quite clear: to put Michael’s name on the donor list to avoid a blood bath.

The movie carries a strong argument that the U.S. health care system faces three major problems: access, cost, and quality.

Access to Health Care

First, it fails to serve every American. It only caters to the rich and well-insured middle classes while denying quality care to the uninsured and the poor. The Census Bureau reported that the number of Americans without health insurance had jumped from 39.8 million in 2000 to 45.8 million in 2004. Unfortunately, this trend will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

The Lewin Group, a private health consulting firm, reported that among those uninsured Americans, the African-Americans and Hispanics are less likely to be insured than the Whites. The fact that the Arhcibalds are African-American may coincidentally portray the reality of inequality of access to health care. John’s limited access is shown, for example, when he went to the County Medical Assistance, where he was denied coverage simply because Michael’s condition is congenital: a birth defect which pre-dates existing coverage. This is a problem since many Americans have exclusions in their policy that deny coverage for treatments related to conditions that preexisted initiation of their present coverage. This means that the cost of the care they are most likely to need is not insured.

Cost of Health Care

At $5,000 per person per year, America spends 40 percent more dollars per capita on its health care than the next most expensive nation, and more than twice as much as most. The increase spending for health care is expected to increase continuously. It is even predicted that Americans would be spending about eighty percent of their GDP to health care by the mid-point of the twenty-first century, compared to only 5 percent when contemporary health care began in the 1950s. It is equally embarrassing to know that with the glut of funding, the U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that does not guarantee health care to its people.

The movie touches on the cost subject when the Archibalds were asked to give the down payment just to put Michael’s name on the donor list. Denise asks “our son is upstairs dying and all you can talk about is money?” To the Archibalds, it is shameful that the hospital could not do one operation in good faith after getting nice profits from performing over three hundred surgeries the year before.

Looking at this, it is easy to say that the goal of health care should not be to maximize profits. By focusing on profits for both insurance companies and hospitals, the cost of health care will continue to rise. It is precisely because of the “wrong” thinking adopted in health care that a citizen like John does not receive adequate health care.

The incredibly high cost of health care, or heart transplant in particular, that John faces is exactly what many Americans are facing. In fact, because of this expensive procedure many Americans have decided to go overseas to have a certain operation done for a better price and, often, a better medical treatment. In general, offshore medical procedures can be performed for as little as one-tenth the cost of what would normally be charged domestically.

For example, while Americans pay $55,000 for heart bypass surgery at a U.S. hospital, patients would only pay $6,000 for the same procedure in India. Obviously, this cost-saving has attracted many American patients to go to India. It is, thus, not surprising that the McKinsey Consulting group estimated medical tourism will bring about $2.1 billion revenues for India by 2012, especially after it has established world-class expertise in cardiac care, cosmetic surgery, dentistry, and joint replacements.

Quality of Health Care

Quality of health care has been debated that an increasing number of scholars have expressed concern about the potential for failing standards of care. Indeed, the average American does not reliably receive care of high quality. It is because of the low quality in health care that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die needlessly every year due to medical error.

Although John Q puts emphasis more on cost and access as problems, it also shows that quality is a problem in health care. When the Archibalds were told that the hospital needed the big sum of money to do the surgery, John’s thinking of moving Michael to a county hospital for a cheaper cost was quickly discouraged by the hospital administrative supervisor. She ensured him that Hope Memorial is the better place to do the operation than the low quality county hospital, whose surgeons are not as well-trained as those at Hope Memorial.

Another major problem displaying the deficiency of health care quality that John Q shows is a common disrespect towards patients. For example, John was not even told that his employer switched to a different, less costly, carrier.

What the Movie Shows

John Q perfectly shows several major health care problems that each one represents an actual challenge in the sector. Indeed these problems have existed for years that many scholars have advocated for a fundamental reform in health care but continued to face numerous barriers that prevent it from getting implemented.

John Q shows us the complexity of the health care system during a conversation at the emergency room between male nurse Leo Maguire and the rest of the hostages, in which Leo says:

"You see, here's the problem, on the one hand, you've got your insurance companies who basically want you healthy or dead. That's how they make money. On the other hand, you've got your medical establishment, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, who don't want you healthy. They want you sick. That's the way they make money… and the individual is caught in the middle of this gigantic tug-of-war. It's a game. And the end result is, people don't get the treatment they deserve."

John Q also points out how much bureaucracy is involved in health care policy. So much that it impedes the processes. For example, when John asked Dr. Turner to give recommendations to put Michael’s name on the recipient list, the latter only said, “I am only a physician. I don’t make policy decisions…I make recommendations, all the time. Yet, the final decision rests with the board of trustees.” Additionally, John was upset with the bureaucracy in health care when he met his insurance representative and was told to file an appeal, which would take seven working days—a long process, indeed. He even got more irritated when the hospital administrator told him that he should have filed for another procedure instead, called grievance (since an appeal is only for an already existing claim)—which would take thirty business days. These two examples illustrate that health care policy is full with “red-tape” bureaucracy. Procedures must be followed. None would argue against such statement. Yet, in an emergency, often these procedures slow down the processes that they will produce unfavorable results, including low quality, high cost, inequality, access, and even the loss of life.

John Q has become a reminder to the public as well as policy makers of several major problems in health care that need to be reformed.

Einstein: the Father of Relativity?

March 7, 2007

Diaz Hendropriyono

Washington, DC

Albert Einstein is unquestionably one of the most influential persons and a mathematical genius in the modern era. His huge contribution to science has transformed our understanding about the universe: from the very large to the very small particles. Einstein also radically challenged the then-established concepts of time and space. Who has not heard of E = MC²?

Einstein published eleven papers, six of which were about relativity. Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity at the young age of 26, a discovery that abandoned the concept of time and space as absolute entities. He asserted that there was no absolute motion in the universe, only relative motion, superseding the 200-year-old theory developed by Newton. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is seen as having two separate parts: special relativity in the world of microscopic physics, which was presented in 1905, and general relativity in the world of astrophysics and cosmology, which was not published until 1916.

According to his special theory of relativity, the speed of light was the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the source of the light. He also said that observers moving at constant speed should observe the same physical laws. Having these two together, he said that it could only happen if “time intervals and/or lengths change according to the speed of the system relative to the observer's frame of reference.”

An experiment showed that an atomic clock traveling in a jet plane tick slower than if it were stationary. This experiment lead to the thinking that time travel is not impossible. Provided that one can travel at, or close to, the speed of light, one can travel to the future. For example, say, Bill travels to space at a speed of light, while Ted is on earth doing his regular activities. At the time of Bill’s arrival on earth, Ted is going to be much older than Bill.

Einstein then said that the theory of relativity—the E = MC², showing that matter and energy are interrelated and even equivalent—operates in the absence of gravitational field. Thus, he formulated another theory that took gravity into account. This theory is known as the General Theory of Relativity, which provides “the law of gravitation and its relations to the other forces of nature.”

Basically, this theory suggested that gravity and motion can affect the interval of time and space. The idea was based on the Principle of Equivalence, where gravity pulling in one direction is completely equivalent to an acceleration in the opposite direction. Thus, it said that a uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniform acceleration.

For example, imagine a person in two situations. In the first situation, the person, standing at rest on earth, is feeling the downward gravitational pull. In the second situation, the person is standing inside an elevator in space, and the elevator is moving upward at the rate of 32 ft/sec squared. In both situations, the person would feel the same downward gravitational pull. This contradicts Newton’s view of “gravity as a force acting at a distance”.

However, I think that Einstein’s greatest contribution to our civilization is not in physics, regardless of how huge of an impact that has on us. Not because he proved Newton’s theory wrong. Not that he received many awards—among them the Bernard Medal, Copley Medal of the Royal Society, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a Nobel Prize in physics—that he was considered a great person.

His greatest contribution goes beyond the advancement of electronics and the possibility of space travel. It is about peace. He warned us that, “as long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable” (Einstein, 1945). And for those jihadists who go to war for the sake of religion, Einstein had warned them that, “science without religion is lame [and] religion without science is blind,” (Einstein, 1941). If everyone would think before he acts, would use logic rather than emotions, and no nation on earth would not compete to be the most powerful entity, peace may be upon us. After all, one week before his death, Einstein left a note for all nations to give up nuclear weapons. His purpose, clearly, was no other than international peace. He should be the father of peace.

A Flawed Policy in Lebanon?

September 18, 2006

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington DC

In mid-July, Hizbollah ground forces ranged across the Lebanese border into Israel, capturing two Israeli soldiers, killing three and sparking a destructive month-long war. The clash included at least 15,500 Israeli Air Force sorties into Lebanon and the firing of 4,000 Hizbollah Russian-made Katyusha rockets into Israel. The casualties stand at more than 1,500 Lebanese and 40 Israeli civilians.

On Aug. 11, the United Nations Security Council passed UN Resolution 1701. It calls for the cessation of hostilities, the disarmament of the guerrillas, and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Hizbollah expressed reservations at the outset, but eventually both sides agreed. The mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon was extended until Aug. 31, 2007 to ensure the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon and to restore peace.

World democracies responded favorably to this plan to end the conflict. The resolution authorized a 15,000-member peacekeeping force, and the European Union provided the backbone by pledging a deployment of 6,900 troops. At least three countries with Muslim majorities (Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia) also promised to send soldiers to fill the remaining slots. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda recently announced the government's plan to send 1,000 troops.

While sending Indonesian troops may quell domestic anger over the Middle East conflict and dissuade militants from going to Lebanon to conduct jihad, this foreign policy move may prove damaging. First, although it eventually agreed to Indonesia's participation, Israel initially resisted the involvement of countries that did not recognize the Jewish state, including Indonesia, which has the world's largest Muslim population. Consequently, Indonesia's troop participation may stave off any form of relationship between these two countries, or perhaps between Indonesia and the U.S. -- Israel's largest foreign aid donor since 1976, bestowing $357 million in Economic Support Funds and $2.2 billion in Foreign Military Financing in fiscal year 2005 alone.

Furthermore, French President Jacques Chirac said the 15,000-member force, alongside another 15,000 troops from the Lebanese army, is simply excessive. If he is correct, then an additional 1,000 Indonesian soldiers may be superfluous, and may have no significant impact on the peace process.

Third, Indonesia's financial constraints may hamper the plan's implementation and distract from other, more pressing needs. The House has approved a budget of Rp 355 billion (about US$39 million) for the peacekeeping operation, which is a burden on the state budget. Whether the UN will fully reimburse the spending, as Indonesia claims the international body has promised to do, remains to be seen. In fact, House budget committee leader Emir Moeis has said the UN will only reimburse logistical and operational costs, which unfortunately account for a mere 20 percent of the total budget. That leaves Indonesia to pay the remaining Rp 287 billion.

The money allotted for the purchase of 32 armored cars from France could be used for other purposes. It could rebuild about 20,000 houses destroyed by the recent natural disasters in Central Java and Yogyakarta, at a cost of approximately Rp 15 million each. The funds could also be used to increase the promised oil subsidies in 2007 and to sustain the affordability of gasoline in anticipation of future gas price volatility. Additionally, the amount spent on troop deployment could help offset the upcoming payment of the 13th month salary and pensions of civil servants and retirees.

Even if these monetary outlays are partially or fully reimbursed, the potential for Indonesian casualties is real, and those losses would be truly irreplaceable. During last month's conflict, four UN Truce Supervision Organization members from Austria, Finland, Canada and China were killed in Israeli air attacks.

The current administration does not have to turn a deaf ear to the public outcry over the Middle East crisis. However, there are other ways to help. Sending tents, sleeping beds, pillows, medicine, food, water and other essentials is a more practical approach, especially since more than 900,000 Lebanese and tens of thousands of Israelis were displaced by the conflict. Furthermore, Indonesian citizens could participate in the relief efforts by contributing to reliable humanitarian organizations such as Islamic Relief, LIFE, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and many others. The administration must assume a central role to encourage Indonesians to participate.

The writer is PhD student at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University.

Taken From: http://old.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060918.E02

War in Iraq Imprudently Decided During Financial Turmoil

June 14, 2006

Diaz Hendropriyono

Washington, DC

Until now, I am still puzzled by the Bush policy to start the War in Iraq. How could he decide to go to Iraq when the financial situation in the U.S. was not conducive to fund the war? The decision to go into Iraq was made when the U.S. was faced with financial troubles.

First, the federal government had just experienced a deficit of $158 billion in 2002, after enjoying a surplus since 1998, in which it produced $69 billion. It was the federal government’s first surplus since a $3 billion surplus in 1969. The government’s finance was characterized by large annual budget deficits from the early 1980s through the early 1990s. Factors contributed to this situation included a severe recession in the early 1980s, a sharply increased spending for national defense during the 1980s, and a continued expansion of spending on entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Second, the U.S. economy was experiencing a downturn in the early part of the 21st century. The National Bureau of Economic Research announced that the world’s largest economy sank into a recession in March 2001, marking the end of the nation’s longest economic expansion of ten years. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth slowed by summer of 2001 and then declined over the second half of the year before finally picked up. Business fixed investment fell sharply, declining an estimated 3.6% in 2001 after eight straight years of growth above 8%. Real consumption only grew 3% compared to 5% for the last three years. U.S. employment fell by 1.1 million jobs while the unemployment rate increased to 5.8%, showing its highest level in seven years. In reaction to the weak economy in 2001, U.S. employers cut around 415,000 jobs, the biggest since May of 1980, which involved 460,000 job losses.

Third, the events of 9/11 changed federal spending dramatically, especially on strengthening homeland security. For example, through the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Congress created the Transportation and Security Administration (TSA), charged with developing policies to ensure the safety of U.S. air traffic. TSA personnel took over airport security from the airlines employing private screeners and replaced them with a better-paid and better-trained work force a few months after the attacks. The move to federalize airport security obviously did not come without any cost. The Bush Administration originally submitted a $4.4 billion budget request for TSA for fiscal year 2002 and $4.8 billion for fiscal year 2003 in the Emergency Supplemental bill. While the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its request, the House cut the funding for the newly-created agency to $3.85 billion for fiscal year 2002, or $550 million below the administration’s request. Its approved budget for fiscal year 2003 was $4.95 billion. And the remainder of the agency’s budget would come from user fees, such as a security fee on airline tickets.

The Anthrax attacks have also increased the nation’s financial burden. The outbreak, which caused four deaths, including two postal workers, cost the United States Postal Service $5 billion in equipment damage, clean-up efforts and lost revenues.

Fourth, in June 2001, President Bush signed a $1.35 trillion tax cut into law. Although the relief, which would occur slowly over the next decade, was smaller than the $1.6 trillion amount that he originally proposed, Bush hailed it as major victory. After fulfilling his campaign promise, he stated that tax relief has only occurred twice since WWII, during the Kennedy’s administration and Reagan’s presidency. “And now it’s happening for the third time, and it’s about time,” said he. Although tax cut would normally boost national economy, a study conducted by Peter Yoo of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in 1996 concluded that consumers saved most of a tax cut in the months immediately after the tax relief occurred. He found that the 1964 tax cut did not result in an immediate increase in spending. This tax cut would substantially contribute to deteriorating the budget outlook. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the tax cut coupled with the increases in discretionary spending would worsen the budget outlook by $550 billion in fiscal year 2002.

Fifth, on September 22, 2001, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2926, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to “provide compensation to any individual, or relatives of a deceased individual, who was physically injured or killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001,” as stated in Section 403, Title IV of ATSSSA. By December 2003, a total of 2,823 death claims, averaging $1.8 million per claim, in addition to 3,517 injury claims were received. The $18 billion federal bailout was also meant to help the airline industry since the families receiving the compensation must renounce all rights to sue airline companies whose airplanes were used in the attacks. Rand Corporation study reported that by November 2004, these individuals as well as businesses impacted by the attacks had received $38.1 billion in compensation. Of this, the federal assistance amounted to $15.8 billion, insurance companies contributed $19.6 billion, and charitable groups donated $2.7 billion.

Sixth, in February 2003, the U.S. national debt had become so high that Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling to maintain the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and avoid any negative repercussions both at home and abroad. Such a request came with criticisms as the borrowing limit had just been upped by $450 billion to $6.4 trillion in June 2002. Representative Ron Paul described the request to increase the debt limit showed the administration’s fiscal irresponsibility and would endanger the U.S. economy. Senator Kent Conrad stated that the Bush administration “wants our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.” The House, however, agreed to a $984 billion increase as part of its 2004 budget blueprint.

Seventh, the War on Terror was launched in October 2001 with the deployment of U.S. military troops to Afghanistan. At the start of the war, the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments estimated the Afghan invasion, aided by the United Kingdom and the NATO alliance, would cost “a staggering $400 to $800 million in its first 25 days of action.” Initially, Congress provided $17.4 billion to the Defense Department for the overall war on terrorism. However, in March 2002, President Bush requested another $14 billion to fund for the remaining months of the fiscal year. Such a request was considered reasonable knowing the high costs of war (A carrier-based F/A-18 fighter-bomber costs $5,000 an hour to fly; 90 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, used by the U.S. Navy, cost about $1 million apiece). Thus, it is not surprising that the Afghan War had already cost $4.4 billion since the start of the war through Feb 2002. At a price tag of around $1 billion a month the Afghan War had become the nation’s most expensive war since Vietnam (For comparison, the 78-day air attack against the Serbians in Kosovo in 1999 cost about $3 billion, and the Gulf War in 1991 only cost $2 billion, after the original cost of $14 billion was offset by reimbursements from a few grateful Persian Gulf Nations).

Finally, the decision was made when the U.S. economy was suffering from a sluggish growth in the first quarter of 2003 and when was facing the growing costs of entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid—costing $397 billion and $438 billion in 2002 and 2003, respectively.

Knowing all these financial difficulties that the US was facing, how could Bush decide to go to Iraq when we all knew from the beginning that the U.S. could not afford to wage this war—at least financially.

The federal deficits, significant economic decline since March 2001, the increased security measures in response to the 9/11 attacks, the tax cuts in 2001 (which inevitably would fuel more deficits), the compensation package given to the family of 9/11 victims, the rise in national debt, and the already-high price of executing the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, should have shown the clearest evidence that the funding of the Operation Iraqi Freedom was going to be problematical from the very start.

Is There Any Benefit to be Gained from the Iraq War?

May 1, 2006

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

At the time when the Iraq War was launched, the Bush administration expected that one major benefit of the war included the elimination of Iraq’s alleged WMD. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has been the U.S. greatest security challenge. Acting assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation Stephen Rademaker asserted that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are capable of killing on a massive scale and it is imperative that “such weapons be kept out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists.”

Next, there was a belief that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda. Then-Secretary Colin Powell claimed that eliminating Iraq’s WMD defeated the possibility that such weapons could be used by Al-Qaeda’s terrorist networks to attack the U.S. And by defeating Saddam, the U.S. also defeats al-Qaeda’s ally.

Another potential benefit for invading Iraq was to restore democracy in the country. President Bush stated that democracy is a universal idea that is highly valued by any human being. He continued that in many Middle Eastern countries, especially Iraq, poverty is deep and spreading, women lack rights and denied schooling, democracy has failed and totalitarianism has extinguished the hopes of millions in the region. During his remarks at the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush noted that there were about 40 democracies in the world in the 1970s. The number had become around 120 at the end of the 20th century as Portugal, Spain, Greece, South Africa, and many countries in East Asia and Latin America adopted this belief. The U.S. has been committed to support democracy to be adopted by countries throughout the world.

Fourth, predicting what would happen to oil prices in the aftermath of the War in Iraq may not be an easy task. Joseff Herbert argues that the fluctuation of oil prices would be highly dependent upon the length of the war, the world’s oil markets during the war, and the level of damage suffered to the Gulf oil fields. Nonetheless, the Bush administration was convinced that the Iraq War would bring oil prices down, which was peaking at $37.87 per barrel on March 12, 2003, and would create a more economically healthy U.S. economy. A chief economist at Chevy Chase Trust mentioned that “once the war is launched…I expect big drops in oil prices, and [even] gold prices, a strengthening US dollar and a rally in the stock market.”

With an estimate of 112.5 billion barrels in oil reserves, Iraq is the world’s second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration hoped that in the post-war era, with Iraqi’s oil production back in the pipeline, oil prices would significantly decrease. If oil prices could be brought down to $20 per barrel, the U.S. economy would receive a boost between $55 billion and $60 billion a year. This appeared likely. In fact, the Bush administration predicted that oil production in Iraq would exceed the pre-war level of 2.5 million barrel per day and increase to over 3 billion per day by the end of 2003.

The estimate grew more optimistic as it was known that only 15 of Iraq’s 74 discovered oil fields were developed, and only 125 of the 526 oil deposits had been drilled. Consequently, then US-backed Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi stated that “there’s not an oil company out there that wouldn’t be interested in Iraq… [and] American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.”

The fifth benefit that was hoped to be had was an increase in the number of U.S. alliance throughout the world, especially the Middle East. When the war started, the Coalition of the Willing, countries which militarily supported and participated in the Iraq invasion and subsequent peacekeeping duties, consisted of 49 nations. These include the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Japan, Denmark, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, among others.

Although Arab countries did not sound their support for the Iraq War, presumably thinking that it was not wise to be associated with military action and publicly identified with the U.S. action, these Gulf States would actually benefit from the Iraq War. When the war started in March, the world’s major stock markets were heading south. The U.S. Dow Jones industrial average downed 171.85 to 7568.18, the Nasdaq composite decreased 26.92 to 1278.37, and the S&P 500 Index lost 21.41 points to become 807.48. The London’s FTSE 100 index closed 3.1% lower at 3,743. Frankfurt’s Xetra DAX index slid 5.2% to 2,573. The CAC 40 in Paris plummeted 5.7% to 2,726. And while Milan’s MIB30 index slowed 3.1% and Zurich’s SMI dipped 5%, the AEX index in Amsterdam was hit a little bit worse, slumping 6.4%.

However, stock exchanges of nearly every Gulf State within easy reach of Iraq experienced the opposite. The Kuwait Stock Exchange index started the year at 2,352 and had reach 3,397 by the end of April, an increase of 44%. Qatar’s Doha Securities Market was up for more than 20%, while Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul index witnessed a surge of 16% within the same period. Furthermore, the Muscat Securities market in Oman and the EMNEX index in the United Arab Emirates increased by 14% and 9%, respectively. Indeed, two of Kuwaiti’s biggest mobile phone companies immediately established movable transmission towers that could be transferred across the border to start up service in its neighboring Iraq. In addition, Kuwait’s real estate prices had continued to expand fivefold. Dubai’s Jebel Ali port would play a major role as a transshipment hub following Iraq’s Umm Qasr port eventual development. And Qatar was confident that Iraq could become a potential market for its huge reserves once reconstruction starts. It was further expected that Saudi Arabia’s major companies—such as Savola, which manufactures edible oils, and the Zamil Group, which produces air conditioners and other household appliances—were seen to be among the best to gain new businesses in Iraq.

With these benefits anticipated to be gained by Iraq’s neighboring countries, the Bush administration was convinced that the Iraq War would strengthen its relation with these Arab States, and improve economic trade between the U.S. and those nations. More specifically, it was expected that Saudi Arabia’s exports to the U.S. would increase to at least over $20 billion a year and imports from the U.S. rise to over $5 billion a year in the post-Iraq war. The improved trade relation appeared very likely to occur, particularly knowing that the U.S. would topple a regime which owed $9 billion to the Saudi government.

Unfortunately, none of these benefits materialize, making the War in Iraq look like a war without any benefit at all.

For example, it was reported that neither stockpiles of chemical weapons nor evidence of recent WMD production has been found in Iraq. At this point, U.S. chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said that inquiries into WMD in Iraq have “gone as far as feasible.”

Furthermore, there was no relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Although President Bush insisted that “Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks,” the public seemed to think otherwise. In fact, the Iraqi President himself denied any connection between his administration and al-Qaeda and boldly said “if we had a relationship with al-Qaeda…we wouldn’t be ashamed to admit it.” Additionally, the September 11 commission reported that although there had been contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, there has been no “collaborative relationship” between them. The discord was then exacerbated as former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson admitted that “the CIA was under pressure from the vice president to twist facts to make it appear that Iraq was an imminent nuclear threat.”

Third, the idea of installing democracy in Iraq has also been criticized. There have been several reasons as to why democracy in Iraq is not only undesirable, but also unfeasible. For example, there are still other alternatives to democracy that ensures more stability in the country. Then, with the Iraqi society that is too fragmented, Iraq is actually not ready for democracy. Next, the transition to democracy would be too dangerous and risky that it would take many lives. Also, the government that is created out of democracy is predicted to be too weak to run the country, as Iraqis are still hostile. In short, democracy in Iraq is expected to fail.

The fourth benefit that has not become a reality is the reduction in the price of oil. In September 2003, the price of standard crude oil on NYMEX was $25/barrel. By the following year, the price went up to $60/barrel. On August 29, 2005, it had reached $70.8/barrel. And on fears of Iran’s intensifying dispute with the West, by April 19, 2006, oil price hit a record $74 a barrel. This increased gasoline price in the U.S. to $3.11 per gallon is the highest since 1981 at $3.03 per gallon after adjusted for inflation. Although several factors contributed to the price increase—such as political problems in Venezuela, instability in West Africa, the fear of Iran’s nuclear program, the crippled supply flow of oil from the U.S. Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and Saudi Arabia’s internal instability—the Iraq War fears have also lifted oil price.

Finally, it is obvious that the last benefit has not materialized either. A few years after the war started, the U.S. is still losing coalition partners in Iraq. Furthermore, the U.S. image in the Moslem countries, especially in the Middle East, has actually continued to worsen since the war began.

“What other kinds of benefits can be gained from the war?” I asked.

War in Iraq has Little Impact on Deficit?

April 12, 2006

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Hold on a second! You know what? The cost of funding the Iraq War might have been made deliberately to appear to have a little effect on the deficit. Although the use of supplemental appropriations dwindled in the 1990s, spending through supplementals soared, as the War on Terror unfolded. Both the Afghan and Iraq Wars were funded through emergency supplemental appropriations. By doing so, the deficit in the president’s annual budget proposal would look smaller, as a huge chunk of spending is taken out of the regular budget and put in the budget later during the year. It's quite tricky, isn't it? It's like magic!

Some costs associated with the Iraq War should be definitely taken out of the emergency supplementals as many of the expenses could have been anticipated in the regular budget. Such a practice used by the Bush administration may have been performed to defend the economic viability to fund the Iraq War.

Why the War in Iraq is (not) Cheap !

April 10, 2006

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

The War in Iraq certainly has not been, and is not going to be, cheap. But, i always wonder why it is so, considering what many thought, before the war began, that it was not going to be an expensive war.

When President Bush announced the War in Iraq, various differing opinions emerged in public in regards to the financial consequences of the war. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the war would cost at least $44 billion. The House Budget Committee expected that it was going to be a short kind of war, one that could be accomplished within two months, followed by a three-month occupation. It was estimated to cost from $48 to $60 billion

The Bush Administration, however, forecasted that the cost of the Iraq war would not exceed the total cost of the first Gulf War, $80 billion in 2003 dollar, and on March 23, 2003 requested $74.7 billion to fund for an emergency spending plan. The cost would include $62.6 billion to fund for the Iraq War, $4.24 billion for antiterrorism defense in the U.S., $5 billion for key allies, and $2.4 billion for humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq

The administration argued that the estimated cost of the Iraq War would amount to less than 1 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and would be considered much cheaper than other wars. The Korean War and the Vietnam War cost U.S. taxpayers 15 percent and 12 percent of U.S. GDP respectively, while World War II spent a whopping 130 percent of GDP, or around $3 trillion, in 2003 dollars. It was then believed that the war could be executed at reasonable cost. John Cogan of the Hoover Institution defended that “at 1% of GDP, the war looks like a bargain.” Furthermore, the defense spending of other countries—such as Israel, the United Kingdom, and Germany, which spent 8.1%, 2.5%, and 1.5% of their GDP in 1999, respectively—made the Iraq War budget appear reasonable.

When considering the cost of the Iraq War, an alternative strategy should also be looked at. Economists from the University of Chicago considered the cost of continuing containment of Saddam. The direct cots of troops and equipment were expected to be $13 billion a year. Since past containment efforts had not been successful, the budget for containment may need to be increased by 50%, raising the cost to $19 billion a year. Furthermore, containment would have to be in place for at least 33 years, an optimistic duration considering the lifetimes of Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba. When the expected cost of containment is discounted to the present, the cost of containment of Saddam would be around $380 billion. Adding the cost for homeland security would bring the total cost to $630 billion. The high cost an alternative strategy made the cost of Iraq War look incredibly small, and thus the Operation Iraqi Freedom was considered the more favorable strategy.

In his testimony to the House Apropriations Defense Subcommittee on September 30, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged legislators to approve the $87 billion supplemental request for FY 2004 as an investment in peace in the Middle East. Rumsfeld compared the administration’s request with the Marshall Plan, or the European Recovery Program. The Marshall Plan provided the basis for European economic recovery after World War II, in a hope to prevent the influence of the communist parties in Western Europe. The reconstruction plan cost about $6 billion. Yet, Rumsfeld continued, “It cost about $90 billion in today’s dollars,” justifying the cheap cost of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Finally, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Richard Myers claimed that the U.S. would not be “going it alone” in these wars. At least 49 nations would send their troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. The North Atlantic Alliance would also participate. And he was convinced that 70 other countries around the world would help the war on terror worldwide. These factors have driven down the cost of the War in Iraq reflected in the budget request and made the budget seem even more appealing.

Unfortunately, U.S. policies are full of uncertainties. It is mainly because of these that the cost of war becomes unmanageable.

As the Operation Iraqi Freedom continued, uncertainties began to appear. The U.S. military has to always deal with some local resistances: the Jihad group led by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the Saddam loyalists, such as the Ba’athist, the Fedayeen, and the Republican Guards, independent Islamic extremists, and other criminals who kidnap individuals for profits. This unexpected and relentless confrontation has extended the U.S. operation in the area and thus has contributed to the increased costs of the war.

What was once thought to be a cheap operation, then, turned out to be one of the most expensive wars in the U.S. history. At $252 billion, the war’s costs in Iraq and Afghanistan had already exceeded those of World War I and the first Gulf War by mid 2005. Although the amount spent on the War in Iraq had only hit $186 billion by that period, budget professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University Linda Bilmes estimated that it will cost $1.4 trillion by 2010. Meanwhile, economist Joseph Stiglitz assessed the final figure at $1 trillion to $2 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimated more conservatively, however, that the war expenses will amount to $600 billion. It seems plausible that these costs will expand as the Pentagon is spending around $6 billion a month on the Iraq War, according to CBO. In fact, the spending increase is reflected in President Bush’s $2.77 trillion budget request in early February 2006, which included increased outlays for the Iraq War.

With the staggering estimates offered by those scholars, it is perhaps arguable that the War in Iraq would still be cheaper than the containment strategy of Saddam Hussein mentioned earlier, estimated to cost around $630 billion.

In addition, The hope that the costs of war and reconstruction efforts could be shared by other allied forces has not fully yet become a reality. Rather than having more allied forces joining the war, the U.S. has started to lose its coalition partners as uncertainties occurred. Bulgaria withdrew its troop in January 2006 after losing 13 soldiers and two truck drivers, who were kidnapped and killed by the Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi group, and two-thirds of its 7.8 million citizens at home voiced out opposition with the war. Ukrainian troops left Iraq in December 2005 after losing 18 soldiers and having three engineers taken hostage. Meanwhile, Nicaraguan soldiers left Iraq for financial reasons, as its President Enrique Bolanos emphasized that the country could no longer afford to keep them there.

As more and more forces left Iraq because of these uncertainties, the U.S. will likely bear most of the costs of the War in Iraq. Thus, a continued budget increase for the war is simply unavoidable. Furthermore, the fact that the U.S. did not win a widespread support as it did in the first Gulf War—that its allies agreed in advance to share the costs of war—forced the U.S. to put much financial burden on its taxpayers, said Leon Panetta, a former budget director for the Clinton administration.

Life is full of uncertainties. Had the world not filled with them, the War in Iraq was actually going to be a cheap war. Really. Perhaps, the current administration just does not realize the extent of these uncertainties on the cost of war.

U.S. Constitution Needs an Update

February 20, 2006

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

The U.S. Constitution was written not only to create and distribute federal power into three separate branches, but also to ensure that it was exercised legitimately. And most importantly, it was to be considered as the “Supreme Law of the Land.” The Constitution was meant to be a broad guideline for the republic that, like most rules and regulations, it does not encompass specificity. Regrettably, I argue that for this very reason the Constitution, to a certain extent, fails to serve its purpose.

The Constitution could have been intentionally written broadly, avoiding details. William J. Brennan Jr. asserted that the Framers had anticipated that a changing society would need an elastic and flexible document that could conform to the ages. For example, the word “slavery” was not clearly mentioned in the Constitution although three provisions refer to it: the three-fifths clause in Article 1 Section 2, the importation clause in Article 1 Section 9, and the fugitive clause in Article IV Section 2. It was believed that such a word was impossible to be stated clearly because it was an embarrassment for the American people to allow slavery. In fact, the Framers themselves hoped that this practice would be abolished in the future. And allowing slavery at that time was only a way to secure the Union using general words that would neither sanction slavery nor stain the Constitution.

More elaborately, Frederick Douglass claimed that slavery was treated as a “scaffolding” to build the Union. And once the “building” is built, it was to be removed. It seems that the vagueness of the Constitution was a deliberate attempt by the Framers, realizing that they could not agree on everything, and thus decided that it was wiser to leave interpretation to future generations.

Unfortunately, as a result of these ambiguities in the Constitution, Americans have unnecessarily quarreled over the content and the meaning of the text. For example, the issue of separation of power that the Constitution establishes has created confusion. Each of the three branches is supposed to perform a different and independent task. However, although Article I Section 1 states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress,” the other two branches could actually become legislative in practice as well.

While the Congress is still entrusted to make laws, the president, having the attention of the public, retains the greater power to propose legislation and veto what the Congress proposes. And even though the Supreme Court is tasked to interpret the law, some of its decisions—such as the 2000 presidential election, criminal procedure and abortion—have turned it into a law-making body. Therefore, a gray area in the Constitution has created a loophole that resulted in an interdependent relationship among the three branches rather than a pure system of separation of powers.

Realizing that these branches share power does not mean that each has an equal power. In fact, each dangerously tries to increase its power over the others. For example, the Supreme Court declared in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that it could nullify an act of Congress if it found the act to be in conflict with the Constitution. The practice of judicial review has altered the balance of power among the three branches. It came as a surprise knowing that the Supreme Court in its early years was not powerful and did not have much “energy, weight, and dignity,” as John Jay said when he was leaving his Chief Justice post to become the Governor of New York in 1795.

The ambiguity of the Constitutional role of the executive power, whether a president is a clerk or a leader, has had a profound impact on the placement of public administration—which actually has no place in the Constitution (well, some say it’s implied). Supporters of a strong legislative branch maintain that the president is the former since he is to execute whatever the Congress legislates. Yet, others argue otherwise by comparing two Articles in the Constitution.

Article II Section 1 states “The executive power shall be vested in a President” while Article I Section 1 states “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” The omission of the word herein granted in Article II suggests that the president may legislate whatever the Congress does not legislate. That is, according to some, Congress only possesses legislative powers that are granted by the Constitution. Obviously, this uncertain condition forces public administrators to choose their constitutional master, whether the Congress or the president.

Because of the confusion of who has the power to do what, public administrators are forced to use their own “instinct” to determine an acceptable behavior, which I think is difficult to establish. For example, in 1832 President Jackson worked to dismantle the Bank of the United States and asked the Treasury Secretary William J. Duane to divert the U.S. government deposits away from the Bank. The Secretary refused and thus was replaced by the more cooperative Roger Taney. Duane’s refusal to comply with such a directive provides an ethical argument. Those who believe that the President has the executive power and “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” think it ethically unacceptable to have refused such a presidential order. Yet, others emphasizing the impeachment clause from Article I Section 2 think otherwise. The President and his “men,” whom he shall commission, are actually the Congress’s “men.”

Therefore, although constitutional ambiguities have brought positive effects—such as securing the Union—its ambiguities of the separation of power, the executive and the legislative power, and even the place of the public administration in the government structure, has also created a havoc. Unless this “Supreme Law of the Land” is written in a much more specific manner, this balance of power would undoubtly prevail. I am not asking for intricate details to be added to the U.S. Constitution. But, at least some part of it needs to be updated to avoid unnecessary complication, confusion, and quarrel, so that it provides a clearer balance of power within the three branches without giving the chance for one branch to be harmfully more powerful than the others.

The House that Joko Built

April 7, 1998

Diaz Hendropriyono

Northfield, VT

Banyan trees are the first things you see before entering this place. One would wonder what is behind this massive three-meter high brick wall covered with beautiful green vines of ivy. At the center of this immense wall is a huge iron gate with two computerized doors operated by a sentry in the guardhouse behind this fence. With the exception of special events, cars are forbidden to come in through the gate. As one approaches this main gate, the sentry in uniform would come out asking for an identification card before permitting you to make an entrance. Once you are given permission to proceed through the gate, you will see a two-meter-wide asphalt road that brings you through a forest-like environment with nothing but big trees on each side whose leaves and boughs sometimes fall on the street, reflecting the janitors’ negligence.

The shaded road and the overpowering scent of Indonesian garden flowers make you feel as if you were in the celestial Kingdom. In addition, the sounds of birds chirping seem to “embellish” the divine atmosphere. You would feel unusually cooler walking through this esplanade because of the sheltering trees.

After going through this winding confined avenue, you would eventually gaze in awe at one of the most wonderful views in the world: an enormous two-storied white house which, on the front part, has a beautifully sculptured figure of a corpulent child with its right hand pointing to the west, as a direction for the Moslems of where to pray. A small “reservoir,” with a water fountain that keeps spurting up around this figure, whose gushing reminds you of a brook, surrounds the statue of the naked cherub. This imposing sculpture, which is always kept illuminated throughout the night, is encircled with the road that proceeds from the main gate, with another going off to the exit gate.

A spacious ravishing garden and its multitude of beautiful flowers color your vision around the house with naturally green scenery. The big trees no longer obscure the sky. You can see the ethereal beauty of this gigantic, yet meticulously built, house in the middle of an exquisite garden that stretches for approximately five hectares.

East of the statue is a walkway which ends up with a three-step staircase leading to the main door of the extravagant palace-like house. The two white giant pillars, with some intricate decorations on them, at the front part of the house and the oval terrace make you feel as if you were about to enter the White House.

On the left and right hand side of the front door are two statues, in the form of human beings--male and female--from the Stone Age only wearing a piece of cloth, kneeling to each other, as if showing respect to people entering the house. Usually a butler, who is always impeccably dressed in a clean white uniform, would open the door as he courteously greets you with a warm Indonesian welcome saying “Selamat datang.” The butler would have probably been told by the guard of a guest’s arrival.

As soon as the door is open, you would see a vast lobby with a gigantic crystal chandelier hung from an approximately four-meter-high arched roof. On each side of the hallway, you would be dazzled by two plushly red carpeted stairways ascending in an outward archlike manner to the second floor.

The room seems to glitter because of the gold colors found in it: the ornate gold-gilded frames of the paintings hanging on the wall, the decorations on the roof and wall, the luster of the marble floor, several Grecian urns, and the glistening crystals.

As you advance inside the house, you would find two paintings, each about two meters in length and 1 ½ meters in width, of my grandfather and grandmother. Continuing on, you would behold some pictures, in much smaller sizes, of the families of my grandparents’ children. These pictures are hung at eye level enabling everyone to see them. My family picture, taken when I was about fourteen, is among them.

The several rooms in this house are luxuriously furnished and decorated. Some rooms even boast private features such as saunas and spa baths. The elegance of the rooms can be seen by noticing the huge beds that can probably fit six people, the extravagant parlors just off the bedrooms, and the marble-in-laid bathrooms that are kept scrupulously clean by the maids.

At the rear of this edifice, you will witness an enchanting extensive golf course with an architecturally man-made pond. As you progress with your dainty steps towards the verge of this golf course, which has a hilly contour, albeit hindered by several big trees, alas, you would see in a far distance an impoverished village down the hill from where you are standing. Amongst those little huts, where you will see a few peasantry who seem to hover on the brink of destitution working on their farms, is a large sign indicating the name of the village: “Desa Gandok, Jogjakarta, Indonesia.”

As you are going back to the front part of the house heading to the exit gate, going through a different way from where you entered, you will see an inscription autographed by a man, who was believed to have been an opulent Dutch entrepreneur, whose nick name was Joko.

My grandfather once told me that his father bought the house from this person, whose real name was unrevealed, when the country was colonized by the Dutch. After going through another forest-like environment, you will see this plaque hung on the exit gate next to another guardhouse.

Banyan trees are the last things you see when exiting. One would keep recalling this historical house that had been refurbished many times.

This is the house that Joko built

I Met an Alien

23 March 1998

Diaz Hendropriyono
Northfield, VT

Many people do not believe whether Alien exists. The governments, of any country, seems to have kept its existence or sightings a secret as many demand to know the truth. Well, at least i am fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to know the truth by having seen one.

One night, a few years back, my sleep was disturbed by the hubbub of voices outside the house. Wanting to know what was happening, I opened my eyes. The clamor of voices seemed to be getting louder; my room was filled by a very bright light. Then, I heard steps coming towards my room. A heavy object leaped through the window shattering the glass.

Along with a buzzing sound, I saw a grotesque creature. I jumped off my bed in consternation. This creature emitted the worst odor I have ever smelled. I thought I had just detected some feces. It had an asymmetrical round head. Its ears did not resemble a human’s. The nose did not look like a human’s either. Its straight and small nose seemed to be overwhelmed by its big head. The mouth was unimaginably tiny. It made me think that the creature did not have one. Its neck, which was probably as scrawny as the arms of the deprived children in Ethiopia, stood approximately 30cm from its body. The huge head did not seem to have enough support from its neck. Thus, the creature’s head appeared to be wobbly as if it were about to fall down or come off.

As I hesitantly positioned myself in front of this heinous-looking freak, I saw its many eyeballs, which looked more like beads floating around in a disorderly fashion, in its round shimmering red eyes; they, at once, stopped as soon as its head faced me. These numerous “beads” began to shine lights through its eyes towards me. What I had in my mind was that it must have been aiming at me, as if it were about to shoot me with its probably much more advanced and sophisticated weapon than we have in this universe.

There were only three fingers on each of this being’s hand. Each of these fingers was much longer than a human’s. The arms extended further down, like those of a Chimpanzee’s. The two arms looked emaciated. They seemed to have neither elbows nor joints; yet, they could bend.
I could not really estimate how tall it was since it did not stand straight; it always bent over. Its body looked very gaunt, very much similar to rocker Marilyn Manson. As it was in my room, it kept bouncing as if it had a sense of buoyancy.

In terms of clothing, it seemed that it had not followed the latest fashion in New York: it did not wear anything. Its body looked as if it were smeared in lotion and seemed as if it had been polished. The combination of the yellow and white color of its body gave me the illusion that it was wearing clothing.

Like its body, its long and as-thin-as-its-arms legs had never stood straight. The two protruding knees reminded me of a person suffering from goitre. Both of its feet were much longer than humans’ feet. I did not pay as much attention as to how many toes it had.

After gawking at me for a few seconds, it attempted to demolish me by hopping towards me with its two hands in the air trying to grab me. Still in fright, I evaded its attack. I could not think of trying to counter its assault since I was in a panic.

Its movements were very fast. All of a sudden, it had its left hand seizing my neck. Somehow, its right hand’s fingers turned into scissors, exactly like the hand of Edward Scissor-hands. With a nimble movement, it cut my T-shirt revealing my chest. As it advanced with its right hand towards my countenance, I screamed as loud as I could. I, then, began to keep a distant from it after it let go of my neck. I threw my first punch right on its face. It did not look hurt. There was no change in its facial expression, except for its eyes: they turned green. The whirring sound began to get louder and louder, as an engine about to spurt and eventually blow.

My feeling of dread grew stronger as I heard more steps coming towards my room, realizing that more of the creatures were coming. Abruptly, the door was kicked open. I saw my mom and my maid at the door. Both of them gaped in shock looking at me in my bed. I saw the window was not smashed. I realized at once that I just had a nightmare.

My mother approached me and asked me, “What happened to you?”

I told her, “I just met an Alien!”

Indonesia, Like the Titanic, is Sinking

February 18, 1998

Diaz Hendropriyono
Northfield, VT

Titanic could be the most popular and most profitable movie ever made. Who has not seen the movie more than once? Many of us went back and forth to the movie theater to watch the same movie over, and over again. Indeed, I like the movie as much as others do. It is a great movie, with a great storyline, and played by great actors. Who does not adore DiCaprio and Winslet, anyway, especially after watching the movie?

However, what I think most interesting about the movie is not one of those I just mentioned. The movie, specifically, reminds all of us, Indonesians, what we are going through right now. It serves as a great analogy to the financial crisis that stifles the nation.

The movie is about a huge ship, once thought to be unsinkable, that sank in 1912. One reason for its accidental dive that killed 1,500 passengers may be the owner’s arrogance and overconfidence in relying fully on the massive ship. The people on the upper decks (mostly the rich)—when the Titanic was sinking—left with some boats, leaving hundreds of people on the lower deck (the poor) behind. The people on the lower decks of the Titanic may not know the statistics of this immense ship. Unfortunately, when the Titanic hit the iceberg, the ones who felt the leakage the first were those on the lower decks.

When the financial crisis came to Asia, Indonesian economists and government officials were confident that it would not come to Indonesia; nonetheless, it did. The poorer Indonesians, similar to people on the lower decks may not know the monetary system, and how it works; however, when the Indonesian “ship” began to leak, they were the ones who felt the changes first, such as price hikes and the likes. The fortunate, on the other hand, may have gained more money and left the country with those “boats,” leaving hundred thousands of lower-income people, who are struggling for life, behind.

While the movie is quite entertaining, that it makes us smile, and sad (especially at the end when DiCaprio shivered to death), it reminds me of a true sadness that we are all facing in reality as the Asian financial crisis continues to deepen. It reminds me of the gap between the haves and the have-nots in Indonesia. It reminds me that only the rich would be safe when a crisis occurs, and the poor would die because of the greediness of the elites.