I just now caught Sunday's edition of the Times Union laying around and in a section ironically entitled "Reason," there's an article about the "Rise of the New Rich" - and it's written, albeit subtly, as if this is a problem. It classifies the "new rich" as upper-middle-class, making $250,000 per year or more at some point in their lives, but often falling below that threshold later on. The article is full of subtle contradictions, going from reminding us that these people still tend to be white but, later, saying that they also tend to have more non-whites and be more politically diverse, at least when it comes to social issues. In fact, their featured, interviewed and photographed example of a "new rich" person is a professional African American man! What confuses me is this: Morally and on the whole, are Americans supposed to get richer or poorer?
I'm confused because whenever there is data to suggest that ANYONE is suddenly doing better economically these days, it's treated more like some new symptom of income disparity than as the good thing it really is. Since the last recession, the attitude seems to be that since the majority of people suffered and are unlikely to ever have it even as good as they did before, anyone that doesn't fall into that category is an almost intolerable exception and must be greedy and/or lacking in compassion and understanding. At the moment, I'm pretty much at the bottom of the barrel, but if anyone is to blame for that, it's me. What's more, nothing that Wall Street or any corporation can do is possible unless WE let them do it - unless WE incur the debt that's sold and WE conveniently ignore what should obviously be deals that are too good to be true... like "no down payment for 2 years" crap that basically counts on the buyer becoming complacent, NOT paying things off in the 2 year time frame and, in most cases, accruing enough interest and potential fees that they wind up paying almost twice as much in the long run. The worst part, of course, is that we live in an age in which the average homeless person can walk into a library or an Internet cafe and access a world's worth of information on pretty much every topic in sight. So, if knowledge is power, then why are so many with so much access to knowledge also so allegedly powerless? With information so readily available and accessible, how is ignorance any excuse?
What these articles often fail to mention - perhaps intentionally - is that, for the most part, long-term wealth is NOT all about high levels of income but about management, which is why a raise in the minimum wage isn't likely to do much good and why uproar over the so-called income gap that President Obama says will be a major issue next year is such bunk. The rich are often characterized as people that stockpile and hoard money, but hoarded money tends to lose value in relation to the ever-rising cost of living. The rich can only stay rich most of the time by investing their money in something that will replenish it. This, to be sure, is not the same as buying a bunch of junk that loses at least half its value immediately upon first purchase and then excusing it as collecting. It may not go towards philanthropy, but how philanthropic can ANYONE be with money they don't have! How much can you pay in taxes if you don't have much money to tax to begin with? Historically, redistributed wealth simply means that you lose that upper-class and its reservoir of funds, which generally causes a problem later on when it becomes more and more expensive for whatever government is doing the redistribution to keep their promises and suitably take care of what are often growing populations.
Per the income gap - yes, there has been a loss of traditionally middle-class jobs, particularly in manufacturing, which this article cites. A lot of it, I suspect, simply has to do with the side effect of improving technology taking the place of some workers. Be that as it may, the more you earn, the more you can potentially spend, and if you spend all your money - no matter how much that is - you're left with little or no money. Period. That goes for the rich CEO as much as it does for the burger-flipper behind the drive-thru, and it's a fact no matter how either side of the political line tries to complicate matters. I've known educated, hard-working people go from great wealth to bankruptcy and poverty while others with barely a high-school education and a middle-class income, at best, wind up retiring better off financially than many successful entrepreneurs. These are people that have managed or not managed well over the course of years and decades on end, through economic up's and downs and whether DC was controlled by Democrats or Republicans. It is - or, rather, it should and CAN be - the beauty of a free market economy that, with few exceptions, individuals and their families need not be slaves to the consequences of actions on the parts of people they don't and will likely never meet or know. Only when a society loses sight of that and starts feeling sorry for itself during down times or when too many have made mistakes with consequences that they are unable or unwilling to deal with is it in danger of turning that much-maligned "income gap" into a whole society of people neither rich nor poor because ALL are living below, at or just barely above what once was the poverty level.
So, again, what is the desired outcome here: For people to have more money or less? Because if you're going to complain when people suffer from poverty and income disparity, it seems STUPID to also complain when others - however few - start doing well. If anything else, the most liberal, tax-hike-loving person in America NEEDS those rich guys to be able to pay most of the higher taxes to fund the social "safety nets."
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
WHY WE ALL TALK POLITICS! + MY GOALS FOR THE NEW YEAR
Growing up, I was always hearing older family members talk not only about history of the past, but current events, as well. It rubbed off and manifested in my affinity as an adult for following and talking about current events and, particularly, what's called "politics" here in America (and sometimes elsewhere). Nobody has really held that against me - why would they? However, on occasion, my mother, for example, would frown at my timing. You know how it goes - one doesn't talk politics at the dinner table, etc. I was always a little confused about that. I understood wanting to avoid unnecessary social tension at what are meant to be cordial gatherings and such, but how can people not grow bored talking about meaningless trivialities? I eventually came to realize that it wasn't politics that people were avoiding, but disagreement. They simply did not want the conflict, but to avoid politics altogether? That, in fact, is impossible.
It all comes down to how we define the word, "politics." Do you live in a community with others? Have you talked with others in your community? Have you had to buy, sell, trade or otherwise come to some kind of an agreement with somebody else, either within your community or another's? If so, then you've engaged in politics, and you've certainly talked politics, too.
Most people associate politics with issues of governance, which affect a great many people in different ways within the same group and can be sensitive topics because of their dramatic, long lasting and far reaching implications. However, Merriam Webster has a slightly expanded definition of politics as being, "...the total complex of relations between people living in society." In other words, you cannot be social and not engage in politics. For that matter, you cannot live in the modern world, period, and not engage in pure, unadulterated politics. After all, relations are interactions and societies are little more than organized groups of people sharing values and property.
Coming up on the New Year, I plan to put this blog to greater and better use. It's been languishing virtually untouched for about a year now - more, really - and if I'm going to accomplish any of the goals I have set for myself, that has to change. Be warned, though, that even when I'm talking about things like movie production, I'll be talking about it in a political context. Why? Because as an art form, movie making is probably as political as it gets. To do it as most conceive of it being done, in order to tell a story with actors in front of a camera and so forth, you have to have something of a political mind and take a slightly political approach. Whether you're at the top or the bottom of the proverbial chain, you're engaged in an activity that is fundamentally rooted in somebody's ideas and opinions which are, nevertheless, being interpreted and brought to life by a group of individuals that likely have slightly different viewpoints and ideas about how to go about everything. If you're at the top, you have to be flexible and adaptable while still representing something of a cohesive vision and capable of leading everyone towards a common goal. If you're at the bottom, it seems as if you need only do what you're told, but in the process, you may have to do things you don't want to do or in ways you don't want to do them, and unless you don't mind losing your job, you have to be able to deal that fact and deal with those in charge without either letting yourself be run over or stepping out of bounds.
My primary goals for the New Year is to successfully launch The Woodlane Council, which I initially conceive as simply a gathering of people - preferably professionals from different key sectors of the local economy - coming together online, at first, to discuss how and why more and better motion picture productions in the region and a better standing for that region in the film and entertainment industry can be accomplished and achieved and can even benefit those that seem to have no stakes in "the business" whatsoever. By motion picture, though, I don't just mean those for the big screen or even television. I also mean those distributed and marketed online, which nowadays represents a great opportunity in an ever-expanding market even for those with generally fewer resources because of the availability and cost-effectiveness of the resources offered online. My overall motivation hinges on a problem I've seen for years in the so-called "film making community" of which I've tried with varying degrees of success to be a part of for over ten years now, and that is an attitude of exclusivity and of basically deserving opportunities and recognition that has not yet been earned... either because, when confronted, they say it's too difficult or they just don't have time (etc., etc.).
When some writers and directors, in particular, are told to treat their work "like a business," they are mortified. They instantly think of art-by-committee, watered down by purely commercial interests into drivel with no other meaning or purpose save for conformity and the maintenance of a certain comfort level for the less sophisticated, less discriminating masses. To some extent and, perhaps, in still too many instances, they're right. A LOT of what the professional industry puts out is very much about identifying a trend in the general public and following it to the letter over and over again to where certain types of movies almost seem to self-replicate for years on end, differentiated only by minor details such as the names of actors and characters and little details here and there in the plots and stories. That said, treating it like a business simply means that you care about being able to do what you do well, over and over, and about how many customers you have and how many people you reach with your product and, in this case, your message. The fact is that if your goal really is to say something new and meaningful and worth being seen and heard, you really risk wasting your time if you do not do whatever you can to get that message before as many people as possible. That requires the sometimes difficult task of delivering your newer and perhaps controversial message in a more familiar and comfortable package. Yet, it's a task that pretty much every successful film maker and producer has had to master for almost a hundred years now.
All of it comes down to politics, which is less about the message, itself, than about how that message is relayed. In communications, we're taught the widely accepted idea that, "The medium is the message," which I interpret to mean that the way in which you're putting your message out - whether through movies, music, still imagery or the written word - you have to do so in a way which ensures that people will accept the medium first so that, hopefully, they'll get the message in the process. If your message is in music, you make sure it's being delivered via good music by a musician. If it's in literature, then you make sure that you or whoever is writing it for you knows how to write well. If it's in photographs or a painting, you need to be or employ a good photographer or painter. Whatever the case, the effectiveness of the message has a lot to do with how it is delivered. Once that is accepted, you stand a greater chance that message will be accepted. This, finally, is politics: The way in which you deal with others to get across what you have to say and do what you have to do.
Although their reasons are understandable, I believe that too many people where I live that WANT to make movies, for example, and want the community to have a better standing in the movie making industry and to attract more and bigger productions from Hollywood so as to create better opportunities and more resources, but they don't want to get into the politics of it. They bemoan their shortage of resources, but they don't want to go to anyone that they don't know or that isn't "in the business," as it were, to ask for help because they either think it's a waste of time or they simply do not want other, less knowledgeable hands reaching into the proverbial pot. Instead, they do the next best thing and go to the government, whose goal is always to generate more income for their communities, so they beg for tax incentives and such to attract the big Hollywood productions that accomplish the politicians' goals of helping put more more money into the local economy, but that don't stay long because our shortage or absence of industry-grade facilities and don't hire many, if any locals because by the time they get here, they already have everyone they need and can usually only hire unionized workers, anyway. Alas, most film production people and people here, in general, are, by and large, non-union - and they stay that way because they cannot find the work they need to gain the experience and credibility to earn meaningful union membership.
In conclusion, I believe that people need to have a more inclusive definition of the word, "politics," because the word really does have a much broader meaning than most people believe. In the process, it also needs to lose its stigma of being associated almost solely with conflict and embraced as the only means to pretty much any social end. Part of my task with the Woodlane Council will be to motivate others like me, that are into film production and/or want to engage in meaningful film production, to join with "non-industry" people in the rest of the region to be more political and enter into a mode of communication and of give-and-take with the only source of support really accessible to them at the moment IF they'll properly seek it out: The surrounding community. After all, movies aren't just made by writers, directors, actors and technical crew. They employ lawyers, accountants, drivers, cooks, security personnel, advertisers, public relations people, artists, carpenters, electricians, plumbers... need I go on? When George Lucas formed Industrial Light and Magic in the mid 1970's to make the first STAR WARS film, a majority of the people that worked there had little or no experience in motion pictures whatsoever. They were simply people that could do things - draftsmen that could draw up concepts and plans, people that could build, put parts together, etc. Most were just college kids needing a job, hired to do nothing but recycle model kits in order to paint and glue together pieces to eventually form TIE-Fighters and X-Wings.
Ultimately, my motivation is my desire to have what I need to make movies, but getting to that place is going to require something on the order of a political discussion and a political... campaign, of sorts! Wish me luck. ;)
It all comes down to how we define the word, "politics." Do you live in a community with others? Have you talked with others in your community? Have you had to buy, sell, trade or otherwise come to some kind of an agreement with somebody else, either within your community or another's? If so, then you've engaged in politics, and you've certainly talked politics, too.
Most people associate politics with issues of governance, which affect a great many people in different ways within the same group and can be sensitive topics because of their dramatic, long lasting and far reaching implications. However, Merriam Webster has a slightly expanded definition of politics as being, "...the total complex of relations between people living in society." In other words, you cannot be social and not engage in politics. For that matter, you cannot live in the modern world, period, and not engage in pure, unadulterated politics. After all, relations are interactions and societies are little more than organized groups of people sharing values and property.
Coming up on the New Year, I plan to put this blog to greater and better use. It's been languishing virtually untouched for about a year now - more, really - and if I'm going to accomplish any of the goals I have set for myself, that has to change. Be warned, though, that even when I'm talking about things like movie production, I'll be talking about it in a political context. Why? Because as an art form, movie making is probably as political as it gets. To do it as most conceive of it being done, in order to tell a story with actors in front of a camera and so forth, you have to have something of a political mind and take a slightly political approach. Whether you're at the top or the bottom of the proverbial chain, you're engaged in an activity that is fundamentally rooted in somebody's ideas and opinions which are, nevertheless, being interpreted and brought to life by a group of individuals that likely have slightly different viewpoints and ideas about how to go about everything. If you're at the top, you have to be flexible and adaptable while still representing something of a cohesive vision and capable of leading everyone towards a common goal. If you're at the bottom, it seems as if you need only do what you're told, but in the process, you may have to do things you don't want to do or in ways you don't want to do them, and unless you don't mind losing your job, you have to be able to deal that fact and deal with those in charge without either letting yourself be run over or stepping out of bounds.
My primary goals for the New Year is to successfully launch The Woodlane Council, which I initially conceive as simply a gathering of people - preferably professionals from different key sectors of the local economy - coming together online, at first, to discuss how and why more and better motion picture productions in the region and a better standing for that region in the film and entertainment industry can be accomplished and achieved and can even benefit those that seem to have no stakes in "the business" whatsoever. By motion picture, though, I don't just mean those for the big screen or even television. I also mean those distributed and marketed online, which nowadays represents a great opportunity in an ever-expanding market even for those with generally fewer resources because of the availability and cost-effectiveness of the resources offered online. My overall motivation hinges on a problem I've seen for years in the so-called "film making community" of which I've tried with varying degrees of success to be a part of for over ten years now, and that is an attitude of exclusivity and of basically deserving opportunities and recognition that has not yet been earned... either because, when confronted, they say it's too difficult or they just don't have time (etc., etc.).
When some writers and directors, in particular, are told to treat their work "like a business," they are mortified. They instantly think of art-by-committee, watered down by purely commercial interests into drivel with no other meaning or purpose save for conformity and the maintenance of a certain comfort level for the less sophisticated, less discriminating masses. To some extent and, perhaps, in still too many instances, they're right. A LOT of what the professional industry puts out is very much about identifying a trend in the general public and following it to the letter over and over again to where certain types of movies almost seem to self-replicate for years on end, differentiated only by minor details such as the names of actors and characters and little details here and there in the plots and stories. That said, treating it like a business simply means that you care about being able to do what you do well, over and over, and about how many customers you have and how many people you reach with your product and, in this case, your message. The fact is that if your goal really is to say something new and meaningful and worth being seen and heard, you really risk wasting your time if you do not do whatever you can to get that message before as many people as possible. That requires the sometimes difficult task of delivering your newer and perhaps controversial message in a more familiar and comfortable package. Yet, it's a task that pretty much every successful film maker and producer has had to master for almost a hundred years now.
All of it comes down to politics, which is less about the message, itself, than about how that message is relayed. In communications, we're taught the widely accepted idea that, "The medium is the message," which I interpret to mean that the way in which you're putting your message out - whether through movies, music, still imagery or the written word - you have to do so in a way which ensures that people will accept the medium first so that, hopefully, they'll get the message in the process. If your message is in music, you make sure it's being delivered via good music by a musician. If it's in literature, then you make sure that you or whoever is writing it for you knows how to write well. If it's in photographs or a painting, you need to be or employ a good photographer or painter. Whatever the case, the effectiveness of the message has a lot to do with how it is delivered. Once that is accepted, you stand a greater chance that message will be accepted. This, finally, is politics: The way in which you deal with others to get across what you have to say and do what you have to do.
Although their reasons are understandable, I believe that too many people where I live that WANT to make movies, for example, and want the community to have a better standing in the movie making industry and to attract more and bigger productions from Hollywood so as to create better opportunities and more resources, but they don't want to get into the politics of it. They bemoan their shortage of resources, but they don't want to go to anyone that they don't know or that isn't "in the business," as it were, to ask for help because they either think it's a waste of time or they simply do not want other, less knowledgeable hands reaching into the proverbial pot. Instead, they do the next best thing and go to the government, whose goal is always to generate more income for their communities, so they beg for tax incentives and such to attract the big Hollywood productions that accomplish the politicians' goals of helping put more more money into the local economy, but that don't stay long because our shortage or absence of industry-grade facilities and don't hire many, if any locals because by the time they get here, they already have everyone they need and can usually only hire unionized workers, anyway. Alas, most film production people and people here, in general, are, by and large, non-union - and they stay that way because they cannot find the work they need to gain the experience and credibility to earn meaningful union membership.
In conclusion, I believe that people need to have a more inclusive definition of the word, "politics," because the word really does have a much broader meaning than most people believe. In the process, it also needs to lose its stigma of being associated almost solely with conflict and embraced as the only means to pretty much any social end. Part of my task with the Woodlane Council will be to motivate others like me, that are into film production and/or want to engage in meaningful film production, to join with "non-industry" people in the rest of the region to be more political and enter into a mode of communication and of give-and-take with the only source of support really accessible to them at the moment IF they'll properly seek it out: The surrounding community. After all, movies aren't just made by writers, directors, actors and technical crew. They employ lawyers, accountants, drivers, cooks, security personnel, advertisers, public relations people, artists, carpenters, electricians, plumbers... need I go on? When George Lucas formed Industrial Light and Magic in the mid 1970's to make the first STAR WARS film, a majority of the people that worked there had little or no experience in motion pictures whatsoever. They were simply people that could do things - draftsmen that could draw up concepts and plans, people that could build, put parts together, etc. Most were just college kids needing a job, hired to do nothing but recycle model kits in order to paint and glue together pieces to eventually form TIE-Fighters and X-Wings.
Ultimately, my motivation is my desire to have what I need to make movies, but getting to that place is going to require something on the order of a political discussion and a political... campaign, of sorts! Wish me luck. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)