CAN'T STOP 'TIL I GET ENOUGH...

'Ya know, I used to worry that if I started a blog, I wouldn't have the discipline to keep it up.  Now, I don't seem to have the discipline to stop!  I believe that in the last week or so alone, I've become or am becoming what one Internet friend aptly describes as a "blogging fool."  Today, my attention is delightfully split between the entertainment and political worlds, and in both, I wish to take this opportunity to give credit where it is due. Unfortunately, it seems like I'll have to split it up into two blogs, but... that's okay.  In the words of Leslie Gore, "It's my party, I can do what I want to."  Do what I want to, do what I want to...

Finishing up what I essentially started with the last two blogs, I'm going begin in the political world... with none other than President Barack Obama, himself!  Yes, I'm actually going to give him credit for something GOOD, although it has mixed feelings behind it because of certain underlying things I think it might represent.  The relevant news story can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-ads-sometimes-overboard-162733921--election.html.  In what is, for some reason, an unaired segment of a 60 Minutes interview, Obama admits to the "extremes" of some of his campaign ads' attacks on rival Mitt Romney.  Of course, he goes on to defend them as being par for the course in politics - which I grudgingly have to concede - and insists that the facts are still important to him.  Unfortunately, I wonder whether or not the facts are as important to the voters, themselves, if for no other reason than that they tend to inherently distrust anything and everything that isn't telling them what they want to hear about their party and candidates' of choice.

In a way, I'm confused about my own feelings here.  On the one hand, I'm obliged to acknowledge the necessity behind those contrasts.  I value the choice we have as American voters and that choice would mean much less without that contrast.  It is, in my opinion, one of the tragedies of the extreme partisanship that we're seeing right now on both sides that those with unwavering confidence in their own party and its policies act as if their side and only their side should ever win an election - period.  To me, that's not only naive, but dangerous.  After all, America was always a great experiment, and part of what has made that experiment great has been the incorporation of its diversity into its system of government, particularly the diversity of ideas and paths represented in American politics.  Even as a Republican, I was delighted when the Democratic candidate won my city's (Jacksonville, Florida's) recent mayoral election because despite my general high regard for the underlying ideals of conservatism, I knew that the previous Republican mayors had left the city in a precarious state and what little I knew of the new mayor's plans just felt like the right things to do under the circumstances.

Having said all that, I believe the reason that President Obama is saying this in an almost confessional tone is that this "sharp contrast" might also be a symptom of the very extremism that I just mentioned. From what I can tell, the extremism of the voters seems to be pushing the politicians to their own extremes, making it particularly more difficult for them to expand their bases. This is arguably because there do seem to be fewer and fewer truly "independent" and "undecided" voters in America from one election to the next.  For example, while I can't recall where, I saw a panel of allegedly independent and undecided voters interviewed on television recently and, from what I could tell, even though they left their ultimate decision open to change, they all seemed to lean in decidedly clear directions - either the left (Democrat) or the right (Republican).  It came across in their tone when talking about one candidate versus the other and in the way in which some were more concerned about some issues than others. 

Tonight, this reminded me of a President and his famous Treasury Secretary that took particular heat for their policies on the eve of the Great Depression.  I looked it up and it was actually three presidents under which famous banker Andrew Mellon served in that post - Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and the notorious Herbert Hoover.  The policies of Mellon were summed up in a statement that reminds me a lot of the embattled policies of former President Bush's Administration, of current candidate Romney and the Republican Party, in general.  He wrote:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.

His goal, apparently, was to cut spending and repay the debts incurred during World War 1.  As a noted philanthropist, himself, he seems to have gambled that the wealthiest of Americans would be so gratified by lower tax rates (which Mellon seems to have felt they deserved, anyway) that they would willingly pay more - if not in taxes then to create businesses and jobs and engage in generally philanthropic activities. Ultimately, he achieved his goal of lower taxes and did reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, Mellon was an older man with somewhat old-fashioned perspectives when he took the post.  He had been also been wealthy for some time and, in the end, was either unaware or unconcerned about the sort of recklessness with which the rich were making risky investments and consciously manipulating the price of stocks to suit their own ends, treating the relatively new Stock Market, in particular, like just another game.  Of course, by the time the roaring 20's were underway, they'd convinced the middle and lower classes to play the game, too, but because they probably didn't earn as much and definitely lacked the financial savvy and the inside knowledge of the wealthier investors, they wound up paying most of the consequences for what, at that time, anyway, were the wealthier investors' mistakes. 

In the end, Mellon probably had a good idea, but at the wrong time - or, at least, a good idea that wound up turning bad because it didn't take into account human fallacy and recklessness.  It's a story that eerily echoes some of those ad's of the Obama campaign that also make the "sharp contrasts" in that they do paint Mitt Romney - born into a family of public service, I think, and fairly successful from an early age - as another Mellon, but potentially worse in that he could potentially be THE PRESIDENT... where the buck stops, as I think Jimmy Carter put it.  Of course, if there were any real cooperation in Washington, as there seems to have been in decades past when the biggest complaint was about gridlock and how slow the government was, we would have calculated compromises and a much better blending of both policies. 

In conclusion, I applaud Obama for his admission - even if it might, on the surface, represent a sort of apologetic weakness for which more fervent liberals seem to have recently come to criticize him.  This should, whether it does or not, be an eye-opener to voters that teaches them the difference between the forms that policies take on the campaign trail versus the form they must inevitably taken when they need to be implemented in the real world, with real world considerations at stake.  While I'm no expert, I think that the loopholes should be closed and that taxes on the wealthy should be raised - TEMPORARILY, though, and not just because they happen to represent percentages higher than those paid by the average "secretary."  In the short-run, at least, we need the revenue, and the behavior of the private sector since, say, the mid-90's, at least - from Wall Street to Main Street - suggests that bets need to be hedged and that perhaps, for the moment, the government needs to be the responsible one when it comes to the nation's money if the private sector won't. I'm not sure Romney sees this, and if he does, I'm not sure he cares because, again, he doesn't seem to have that personal stake in things that might have helped Mellon avoid his alleged mistakes. The balance, however, also comes in the fact that the government also needs to learn a few lessons in responsible money management.  Solyndra, though minor in the grand scheme of things, does not look good on the Obama record, nor does the ease with which people seem to have recently defrauded the government out of emergency aid money that, I think, was supposed to go to flood victims in the mid-South last year or the year before.  Politically, the left needs to show a little bit more respect for the necessity of small businesses in our economy, for their owners and operators and for the hard work that they DID put into CREATING such businesses. Whether they like it or not, this is still a free market and an economy that is designed to be driven, first and foremost, by private sector needs and decisions.  Obama's remark that you didn't create this was and remains so controversial, I think, because the government aid to which it likely refers arguably comes from the taxes paid by people like those that own and operate businesses large and small. Even if most of that revenue comes from tariffs and little, miscellaneous fees and such applied to larger, global trade, in America, it still involves and relies upon the innovation and productivity of private sector businesses and businesspeople.

(NEXT BLOG: Say bye-bye to politics!  For now... As The Dark Knight Rises for what is probably the last few times on big cinema and Imax screens before the saga's final entry bows on DVD and Blu-Ray this winter, many are basking in what they believe will be Christopher Nolan and crew's shining and hard-to-beat legacy, not only in the world of Batman movies but in that of modern superhero movies, in general.  Still, I'm compelled to remind everyone that will listen of another trailblazer, one still active in the industry, but whose own Bat-contributions seem to have been a bit overshadowed of late.)

DISMISS THE "CLASSES," BRING ON REFORM

After this, I promise to get off of this political kick for a while, but right now, I just have to say that sometimes, I think if I hear the term "middle class" one more time, I'm going to have a psychotic break.  I recognize that there are social distinctions based upon income that, to some extent, are unavoidable and even necessary, but it's gotten to the point at which being "middle class" is, in a political context, akin to being some kind of saint. If you're too poor, then you're lazy.  If you're too rich, then you're greedy.  Worse, if you're already in the middle class nowadays, you can expect roadblock after roadblock upon trying to get out of it. I understand that there are some that just are not suited to the types of jobs and/or lifestyles that
are going to make them very rich, and that's fine. As both a Christian and a person whose disabilities make earning a lot of money very difficult, to say the least, I believe in being content with what you have... so long as what you have is earned or, at the very least, not squandered.  The problem today is that beyond a certain point, there seems to be an unspoken stigma attached to the attainment of wealth and success. I feel this has become especially true since we're starting to believe that if you're not already rich, the economy, both as-is and as it's predicted to be for quite some time, makes getting rich impossible short of doing things that are downright unethical. 

Here is a personal example of how the system essentially discourages transition from the lower to the upper income classes.  At 33, I've been disabled my entire life and have technically held only 3 jobs, all of them part time and, because of that, none of them paying much per hour.  Fortunately, I have Social Security income and good Medicare and Medicaid coverage, primarily because of my parents' work history, but this has nothing to do with why I don't currently have a traditional job.  Social Security and Medicare both have transitions-to-work programs that help people get off of these entitlement programs and get back to work if they want to, and at least on the surface, we're encouraged to do just that.  However, my particular disability means that not only do I lack the stamina to sustain full-time employment - which I would need for an income I could live on - but require frequent follow-ups and treatments with physicians that constitutes potential time away from work.  This is why I had to give up my last job in 2005, but in the meantime, having any kind of work at all actually proved to be a FINANCIAL BURDEN!  Why? Because programs like Medicare, in particular, seem to be so overextended that the moment any recipient starts earning private income, it becomes harder to justify the same level of coverage.  Besides not paying much to begin with, part time work almost never offers health care coverage, so what little money I was making to supplement my Social Security income was, at the time, going almost entirely towards my medical expenses.  Those expenses suddenly went from about $20 for a doctor's visit and a maximum of $5 for a generic prescription to about $140 for a doctor's visit and up to $30-$50 or more for a single prescription, even the generic kind. It simply was not a sustainable situation, but believe it or not, it gets even worse. NOW, not only am I allegedly entitled to better, more comprehensive health care coverage under Medicare than either of my parents - who worked good jobs and paid taxes for the better part of 40 years before recently retiring - but my food stamp money has recently been REDUCED by ONE DOLLAR because even without a job - living on Social Security money I didn't pay-in to begin with - MY INCOME IS TOO HIGH TO PLACE ME IN THE POVERTY BRACKET.  Normally, I'd be ashamed to even admit this stuff - and strictly speaking, it's probably still  not the best of ideas - but I feel it necessary to illustrate just how screwed up things really are in the arena of government programs and entitlements.  Clearly, I can't afford to begrudge their existence, but something has to give. 

I often wonder if people think I'm crazy or just retarded for being a Republican that is dependent upon government as much as I am, regardless of whether or not I can help it.  I don't begrudge anyone their perspectives and, to be honest, I'm not really inclined to argue given the evidence they have at their disposal.  For at least the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, I don't think Social Security amounts went up once - and that may be due to a stagnation in the cost of living - but I was actually encouraged by that! I'm in an interesting position, as a disabled person, in that what I was born with could have killed me; but since I got treatment and since it didn't kill me, there's really nothing that is threatening my life right now or in the near future that isn't related to my own choices (i.e., nutrition, etc.). As little money as I get to begin with relative to what it costs most people to live year in and year out, I'd rather have to tighten my
financial belt even more NOW than risk having little or nothing later. I remain as I am, politically, because my future depends upon it and because I know that doing "right" for people is more than just doing things to benefit them in the short-term.  As cliched as it sounds, "right" is teaching a man to fish - if he's able -
instead of constantly giving the fish to him every time he's hungry.  It's because so long as he knows he can get the fish just by asking, he's going to stay perpetually hungry.  It's just human nature, and it's exactly what has happened in America, with our environment and natural resources AND with the over-expansion of these social and entitlement programs.  There's little appreciable difference. The more these programs have been leveraged by politicians to get votes instead of being managed properly for those that genuinely need them, the more people feel entitled to get what they have to offer, to get more of it at younger ages and with less given back.  Romney may have been way off when it comes to why 46% to 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes, but there is still enough represented within that number to suggest the need for stringent reform. In college, I encountered people whose major criteria for choosing a career seemed to be the age at which they could retire with the most money and benefits - and to them, the sooner, the better.  Those are fine considerations, to be sure, but aspirations of personal achievement and contribution to society often came a distant second, or even third. Even then, I thought that was terribly sad, and it's even sadder to me now because, on the surface, I don't seem to have much of a choice in the matter. 

In conclusion, is this "stringent reform" going to be fun or easy?  No, I seriously doubt it.  Are some people going to get hurt that probably don't deserve it?  Well, unfortunately... yeah, I think so. IT COULD EVEN HURT ME! Yet I fear that even more people are going to get hurt worse later on if we don't get this kind of reform. As for a way in which this reform should begin, I think a good start would be weaning people off of the habit of thinking of themselves and others in terms of "lower," "middle" and "upper class" people.  Relative to some other places in the world, America is still literally the land of opportunity, and NOBODY should be stuck in "class" or either discouraged or punished for taking full advantage of that opportunity. They say that necessity is the father of invention and innovation.  Perhaps we need to make more independent and responsible living NECESSARY again.  In my opinion, it's better that fewer people need these entitlement programs than that more money can be taken to fund them.

Candid Camera Feat. Mitt Romney!

As I'm new to blogging and this is only my second post, it could still be some time before I get into the real swing of things.  As I said, my two major interests when it comes to writing topics is the entertainment industry and politics.  Today, I have politics on the brain - generically speaking, that is.  On the radio, I heard the host of NPR's game show Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me joke that for all our complaints about politicians not being honest, the new video of Mitt Romney seems to prove that being honest is not really a smart move in politics. There's been a lot of criticism of candidate Romney for what he says in the video, and rightly so, to some extent.  His comments about the 47% that don't pay income tax are insulting in that they lack context - context being WHY those people don't or no longer pay.  It's also off-putting to many voters, particularly the undecided, to hear that a particular politician just isn't going to bother trying to convince those outside of his own party.  Then again, as the game show host implied, isn't this just what we already knew or assumed about Romney and the Republicans in general?

I grant that I'm a conservative Republican, but I've never been a big fan of Mitt Romney.  To me, as to many others, he's just... boring... and though the economy may be the most important issue right now, I don't feel that he has much of substance to offer when it comes to other issues that Presidents have to deal with.  Specifically, the ease at which he seems to be when it comes to the prospect of war with a country such as Iran over nuclear capabilities is... disconcerting to me, especially given our lack of success with non-nuclear parts of that region.  All that aside, I think that the fuss over this video and his comments is mostly much ado about nothing, despite what the fervent news coverage would suggest.

Consider that when the video was recorded, Romney was unaware that he was still being taped, talking to people that probably wanted the answers he gave.  Call him naive for not just assuming that someone was watching (and, these days, recording), but even so, the whole thing could almost be a setup.  Per the comments, again, for better or worse, they're not really earth shattering considering conservatives' and Republicans' image in today's world. Looking closely, I think it's been at least 15 years or so since the GOP really made great strides by catering to the independents and swing voters.  In 2000, discounting the influence of the recount and the Florida Supreme Court, it could (arguably) be said that George W. Bush was elected president almost solely by the Evangelical Christian wing of the Republican Party.  It has even been documented that campaign leaders like Karl Rove set out from the beginning to take advantage of that part of the Republican base, which includes the very big and very wealthy Southern Baptist Convention.  His 2004 re-election was most likely the result of people being underwhelmed by John Kerry and feeling that whether or not it was a good idea in the first place, the only one that could even conceivably make something good come out of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts must be George W. Bush and the Republicans that had been into it from the beginning.  For their part, the Democrats acted like they just wanted out - win or lose - and I don't think that was very palatable to many Americans that felt like they'd already made so many sacrifices, especially so close to 9/11.

Ethical questions are almost moot points here.  Even if a candidate like Romney wants to eventually sway and represent independent and swing voters as president, he can't do that without first getting elected.  If that means appealing almost solely to the base, well... what's the problem? What, exactly, have Obama or the Democrats done to really sway or seduce right-wing conservatives?  More than that, what is anyone going to do about it?  He's the candidate - the choice is between he and his team.  Looking at his options, it seems to me as if many public universities won't even allow conservative speakers onto their campuses, let alone actual candidates and least of all the ones that are openly religious and/or Christian.  What's more, Romney has spoken to Latinos and to groups such as the NAACP during his campaign run, and not once do I remember anyone from those constituent groups coming out, eager to even give Romney the benefit of the doubt.  At best, they commend him for something trivial, like maybe making more eye contact than usual.  Yet in the end, no matter what is said, they cannot fathom that he or any Republican could represent their interests or do anything that would benefit them. 

To me, the controversy surrounding this really is petty, and that's not purely a partisan observation, either.  Those that would still jump on the "birther" bandwagon when it comes to Obama's origins are equally petty at this point considering that Obama has already been elected once and served four years - as are those that would still try in futility to overturn Roe V. Wade or oppose the legalization of gay marriage based almost solely on (allegedly) moral grounds.  Still, if this is going to have repercussions all the way through Election Day, then I think it will be the 47% comment that does the most damage.  Amongst that 47% are retirees and veterans that probably either worry about the impact of Obama's Affordable Care Act or are just inherently Republican because the party has a distinct image of strongly representing the interests of veterans and the military.  I do think it bears mentioning that not only was Romney unaware of the taping at the time - which was four months ago - but likely talking to people that, again, expected or wanted those very comments and/or answers to whatever questions they may have been posing. Whether or not more centrists or leftist news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC (as opposed to the EXTREMELY right-wing Fox News) have mentioned or will mention those things, I don't know.  It's a topic for a whole other post, but the increased partisanship of the increasingly commercialized television news outlets these days is made worse, I think, by the unbalanced, on-air ratio of loud-mouthed political pundits to those that actually report the news in as objective a manner as possible.  It's why, for better or worse, I've cut down on my watching of "the news" lately in favor of just reading AP articles online and taking in the occasional Time and/or Newsweek analyses.

This and the reaction to it just seems to enhance the feeling I've had of late that when push comes to shove, it's not going to matter all that much who wins the upcoming Presidential election.  Just as people put too much stock into things said on the campaign trail in relation to what a candidate might actually do in office (despite knowing better), there's also way too much blame and credit, alike, attributed to Presidents for both the good times and the bad, especially when it comes to the economy.  I'm not ashamed to say that while the Iraq war (and, arguably, the massive new Homeland Security Agency) represents a lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of former President George W. Bush, when it comes to the overall economic crisis in which we find ourselves now, Bush not only DIDN'T, but COULDN'T have singlehandedly caused it the way some would have us all believe. Trends in the economy often have far deeper roots, as this particular trend has roots going back to the mid-1990's, to banks wanting to lend more without taking on more risk, to a government under President Bill Clinton that made it easier for them by repealing the Glass Steagall Act (or some of it, anyway) in 1999, and to a private sector from Wall Street to Main Street that saw Bush's tax cuts across the board as an excuse to do stupid things, such lending to unqualified applicants, paying off credit card debt with credit cards, and putting down payments on old homes and trying to fix them up just enough to raise their value and make a profit on resale... before those homes had to be paid-off, in full.   

In conclusion,, I think the House (and Senate) races will be of much greater significance. Perhaps the biggest tragedy of the Obama Administration and the extremes of its first two years is that, inadvertently, it not only created, but helped grow the otherwise well-meaning Tea Party.  Now, a group that was never supposed to be an actual political party, and was ONLY supposed to be about responsible spending and spending cuts in government, has since filled the House of Representatives with right-wing ideologues that have big ambitions, but virtually no prior governing experience or political capital (to help pass their legislation) in DC.  They now make up most of what is being called the "do nothing Congress" and a House with one of if not the lowest approval rating(s) in history.  To me, it is a side-effect of the nation's blanket distrust of anyone and everyone that is in or has ever worked in Washington, DC, naively equating virtually all political savvy and lobbying to corruption... period.  Now, we've got a Presidential incumbent that went from having an almost savior-like image in the minds and hearts of his party and, indeed, of many independent voters upon election, to now being neck-and-neck with an opponent whose own party's support has rarely been more than lukewarm because of his religion and his record as a former governor.

It's fine if you don't agree with everything, of course, but given all of that, I'd bet that the only thing lending this candid video of Romney any real importance is the fact that I just wrote such a LONG blog about why it isn't that important! ;)

On The Advice of Counsel...

I'VE STARTED THIS BLOG.  'Way to state the obvious, right?  For the past two years or so, I've used Facebook almost exclusively for decidedly topic-oriented discussion.  Rarely do I engage in the now-common posting of things such as what I had to eat or where I went at such-and-such a time on which whim.  I've had a habit of actually posting rather infrequently on my own accord, but of turning other people's posts - for better or worse - into often long and sometimes contentious "conversations" played out in the Comments Sections.  Thus, as I said, on the advice of counsel - counsel being my best friend Kevin - I'm launching this blog.

First, a little about me.  I go by JD Moores and I'm 33 years old, living and functioning with the rare congenital disease of Larsen's Syndrome. I'm unemployed, but for mostly financial reasons.  It's a long story, but basically, my "disability" inhibits my stamina so, with its lower pay and lack of benefits, I've learned from experience that most of the part-time jobs I could get would be counterproductive and actually saddle me with MORE expense and LESS money.  Still, I'm fairly educated, with a degree in Communications, and both a published writer and an indie writer/producer of short films (mostly digital, no-budget).  I'm NOT content to just sit around and live on the government without giving anything back, so I'm about to (as of now, September 18, 2012) start a crowdfunding campaign to help launch the Woodlane Channel - a channel, basically, on BlipTV and/or YouTube that will start with a short film and continue with at least one, rather ambitious, professionally-made web series entitled The Pilots' Lounge. 

Again, The Pilots' Lounge will be the first series and will center around a young, private aviator and flight instructor named Albert McNeil in the years just after 9/11 and, in format, will be a sort of sitcom-soap hybrid, roughly 20-25 minutes per episode... long for most "webisodes," but still shorter than the episodes for the fan-made Star Trek shows that have been going for years now.  You can begin to get a better idea of all this by going to these sites - http://www.woodlane-ent.com, for my company Woodlane Enterprises, and http://pilots-lounge.jdmoores.com, tentatively for the web series.  Ultimately, the Internet provides what has always been exceedingly difficult for independent and low-budget filmmakers to get: Promotional EXPOSURE and DISTRIBUTION.  Given these things, the Internet can be used by filmmakers and producers, like myself, to hopefully establish reputations that can be built upon in the future.  Drawing upon the interactive nature of this medium will hopefully be the Woodlane Executive Producers' Group (http://www.wleproducersgroup.com), a club whose members pay either a monthly or yearly fee to not only get production updates and promotional gifts, but collective producer credit on every production that benefits from their membership (see web site above). 

As far as this blog goes, well... at the moment, anything goes, but my two main interests are the entertainment industry and the political arena, which rather conveniently intersect more often than not.  So, I figure I'll split my time here between analyses and pontification on both of those topics, combining the two when and where relevant and feasible.  For the record, I'm a registered Republican and, in my personal life, I tend to be pretty conservative, but I think... I hope... that you'll find that more often than not, I strive to recognize and acknowledge both sides of most any issue and do not reserve either my criticism or my praise for one side or the other.  Although I am decidedly in favor of the right's idealogy of self-discipline and self-reliance and its encouragement of faith-based morality, I recognize that too few of the so-called representatives actually embody what their party of choice should and/or claims to represent.  Both parties have undergone changes at various times in their 150+ years together (the Republicans were an offshoot of the Whigs, beginning really with President Lincoln) and many of those changes seem to have been pretty extreme of late, at least since the mid-to-late 1970's. 

In conclusion, I was going to repost something I put on Facebook today, but I think this is enough for the first blog.  Hopefully, the rest won't seem quite so formal or agenda-driven.  Either way, I hope you enjoy what you see (whether you always agree with it or not) and return often.

JD Moores...