Regarding the new movie The Wolf of Wall Street in an article I found on Yahoo!: "According to Wikipedia, the word “f--k” is used 506 times over The Wolf of Wall Street's 180-minute running time."
What I want to know is: Why? I know the "real world" doesn't resemble a 19th century tea room in Buckingham Palace, but does Hollywood really think that this sort of excessive vulgarity is ALWAYS realistic - or even amusing? Because, well... I don't... and I've heard plenty of people that used the F-word frequently in their speech. If nothing else, it comes down to this: Even movies with realistic themes and believable emotions are not necessarily at their most effective while simultaneously being the most "realistic." As a writer, it occurs to me that such language and other devices have become crutches in the decade since the death of the Hays Code in the late 1960's - excuses for lazy writing, a lack of general creativity or even for just not knowing how to otherwise or as effectively convey an emotional idea. I've also seen plenty a "hard-R" rated movie praised as Oscar worthy when the only significant elements absent from other, supposedly less worthy, less realistic or even less "artistic" movies are their frequent instances of vulgarity, whether it be language or even sexual explicitness. Even if you removed morality from the equation, you're still left with whether or not it is always or even usually necessary or effective and, I think, most would, if honest, say, "No."
A few years ago, I noticed that Alfred Hitchcock's original Psycho is actually rated R. Now, that ratings system didn't actually exist in 1960 and different copies for sale may indicate differently, but at least one copy of the film that I've seen has it bearing an R rating. This was arguably the first American slasher movie - albeit so much more... beneath the skin, so to speak - and it still generates controversy going beyond the sheer intensity of the inventively disconcerting shower slaying into the sometimes incestuous territory of Norman's sexuality, not to mention the more minor issues of would-be infidelity and whether or not the ends justify the means when Marion ("Mary" in the book) steals the money. While I'm on the subject, I've read Robert Bloch's original and very short novel and can recall hardly any cursing in it whatsoever. Though the movie takes its share of liberties, it pretty much follows the same story line give or take some details, mostly related to Norman's characterization.
Even if I did not have my distaste for the current trend of blaming Wall Street for everyone's financial woes, I now think I'll avoid this movie. Don't get me wrong: I like Scorsese and I even like Oliver Stone's original movie, Wall Street, but I will not succumb to the idea that I'm missing out on some incredibly enlightening, intellectual or even entertaining cinematic experience by not seeing this movie. Frankly, at this point, it doesn't even appear to be all that original in terms of its approach to the themes and subject matter. After all, when was the last time we saw a movie about a GOOD person that worked on Wall Street? By that, I mean genuinely good, not just some endearingly flawed character that has to ultimately reject his lucrative job to find some proletariat's idea of redemption.
Whatever the perceived realities and opinions related to this issue, for me, excessive vulgarity anywhere - in art or in life - is unnecessary and represents a fundamental lapse in intelligent thought and expression.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
I WONDER... ARE GOOD, DECENT AMERICANS SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING RICHER OR POORER THESE DAYS?
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."
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."
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. ;)
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
"The Way You Make Me Feel!": Winning Elections (In My Opinion)
Love 'em or hate 'em, the unique thing about the Republican Party, the path it takes on issues and its overall attitude, especially since Reagan, is that regardless of the facts - regardless of whether or not they win a Presidential election or regain or lose a majority in the House and/or Senate - most of them at the forefront of the conservative Republican movement behave as if America is still winning and they're winning - or will win in the end. They complain plenty from time to time, they have their doomsday scenarios about the "other side" just like the left's liberals, but in the end, most Republicans seek to replicate the indomitable spirit and surface-friendly, "Morning in America," pro-American smile that arguably defined Reagan's political success and the success of Republicans since that have tried to follow in his footsteps. It can even be said that this spirit - this belief in his own optimism (however some believe it was affected by Alzheimer's) - sealed his friendship with Gorbachev and helped his successor to end the Cold War once and for all.
This may not be the most "realistic" approach, but my OPINION is that if you're serious about advancing a cause - ANY cause - then what matters first and foremost is what can put you in the position to do what you want. In politics, it's rarely enough to convince people that you're competent or knowledgeable or even right - at the end of the day, those supporting you have to FEEL GOOD about it because if they don't, they're more likely to fall into apathy and compromise your success. It's what happened in 2004 with Kerry and again in 2008 with McCain and for election after election before. I distinctly remember 2008, when push came to shove and those that were asked why they liked Obama, especially the youth, DID NOT talk about his experience in law OR his record in the Senate (such as it was - and if they even knew about it in specific terms), but boiled their so-called reasoning down to the fact that he pushed "hope and change" instead of war and the status-quo. Period. He made them feel good and let's face it - unless you're a racist, I think it felt good to see a black man win the Presidency for the first time, regardless of what party you belonged to. It did me.
If you can't win the race to get into the White House or the Congress or Senate or governorship, etc., then your idealism, your facts, your competence - they mean NOTHING. People complain that even when the right loses, it figures out a way to get its way - or to subvert the efforts of those wanting to move America "forward" (to quote Obama) - and many attribute this to the fact that there is just too much money in the hands of Republican voters. If you want to be "realistic," you'll realize that when you look at the statistics, most of the blue, Democrat states are those on America's borders, and they include some of the biggest in America, both geographically and economically - New York, Massachussetts, California... even Michigan, which has lost a lot of its economic strength, but is still the historic home of the American auto industry. You would think, then, that since money is so powerful and with so many "wealthy" (if debt-ridden) states in their collective pocket, we'd have... LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE, LEGALIZED MARIJUANA, TRULY SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, etc. But, we don't - not even with Obamacare - for better or worse.
He hasn't won yet, as I write this, but I've seen Democrats on here wonder aloud how on earth a super-rich, out-of-touch guy like Mitt Romney could fool so many struggling lower and middle-class people into believing that he gives a damn about them. At first, I wondered the same thing, given his initial lack of charisma, but I think that while Democrats tend to vote for individuals like Kennedy, Clinton and Obama, Republicans and conservatives vote for the party, at large, for the unity within that includes the candidate(s) (most of the time) and for the winning spirit that the party at least tries to put forth, regardless of circumstances. Once someone is in the White House or the Congress or wherever, THEN reality matters, and that's not at all to say that Republicans haven't disappointed because Bush did, in the end, and this last 101st "do-nothing" Congress definitely has. Until then, though, it's hard to get excited about voting for the leader or would-be leader of a country that you are convinced has too much weighing on its conscience. Why, I ask, do you care if America has a good leader when you act as if you don't even think she deserves it? I think that Obama's "YES WE CAN" slogan and chant had as much to do with his 2008 appeal and ultimate win as anything because it contrasted with the usual feeling that I, at least, get from Democrats, which is something along the lines of, "Yes, we should, but probably won't if so-and-so doesn't compromise or fall-in-line or hold our hands and chant, blah, blah, blah." Frankly, I think even some Democrats would agree with that, even if they still don't agree on the actual issues
.
In conclusion, attitude matters, as does appeal, which even Rush Limbaugh admitted today right after saying that conservatism was a purely intellectual thing (not sure I completely agree, even though I understand where he's coming from). I'm obviously a Republican, though I know I'm not always right. That said, there are some stances that more liberal people in my "Friends" list promote that I agree with and would more readily get behind if they'd just stop with the rude and lewd jokes and the woe-is-me accusations that serve as excuses for their cited lack of progress. 'You want me to sympathize? BE SYMPATHETIC! Make and stick to the LOGICAL case that I know exists for these things instead of constantly trying to make everyone feel guilty, even if it's only by association. Romney may not be a sympathetic candidate, but he's definitely upbeat (in general... and why the hell shouldn't he be with all that money? LOL), as is Ryan and as are many on the right because believing in their cause, they also believe what Lincoln did and what many Democrats say they do when quoting him: That right makes might. You might not ever make complete sense of BELIEF, religious or otherwise - AND, as I said in an earlier post, it should never make you begrudge someone else their particular choice, especially in a Democratic Republic - but there's a lot to be said for BELIEF and for its power as a necessary first step in advancing any cause. If you BELIEVE you're right and and you truly believe Lincoln, then there are no excuses and no if's, and's or but's. There's only the path you follow and the reasons you think others should follow, too.
This may not be the most "realistic" approach, but my OPINION is that if you're serious about advancing a cause - ANY cause - then what matters first and foremost is what can put you in the position to do what you want. In politics, it's rarely enough to convince people that you're competent or knowledgeable or even right - at the end of the day, those supporting you have to FEEL GOOD about it because if they don't, they're more likely to fall into apathy and compromise your success. It's what happened in 2004 with Kerry and again in 2008 with McCain and for election after election before. I distinctly remember 2008, when push came to shove and those that were asked why they liked Obama, especially the youth, DID NOT talk about his experience in law OR his record in the Senate (such as it was - and if they even knew about it in specific terms), but boiled their so-called reasoning down to the fact that he pushed "hope and change" instead of war and the status-quo. Period. He made them feel good and let's face it - unless you're a racist, I think it felt good to see a black man win the Presidency for the first time, regardless of what party you belonged to. It did me.
If you can't win the race to get into the White House or the Congress or Senate or governorship, etc., then your idealism, your facts, your competence - they mean NOTHING. People complain that even when the right loses, it figures out a way to get its way - or to subvert the efforts of those wanting to move America "forward" (to quote Obama) - and many attribute this to the fact that there is just too much money in the hands of Republican voters. If you want to be "realistic," you'll realize that when you look at the statistics, most of the blue, Democrat states are those on America's borders, and they include some of the biggest in America, both geographically and economically - New York, Massachussetts, California... even Michigan, which has lost a lot of its economic strength, but is still the historic home of the American auto industry. You would think, then, that since money is so powerful and with so many "wealthy" (if debt-ridden) states in their collective pocket, we'd have... LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE, LEGALIZED MARIJUANA, TRULY SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, etc. But, we don't - not even with Obamacare - for better or worse.
He hasn't won yet, as I write this, but I've seen Democrats on here wonder aloud how on earth a super-rich, out-of-touch guy like Mitt Romney could fool so many struggling lower and middle-class people into believing that he gives a damn about them. At first, I wondered the same thing, given his initial lack of charisma, but I think that while Democrats tend to vote for individuals like Kennedy, Clinton and Obama, Republicans and conservatives vote for the party, at large, for the unity within that includes the candidate(s) (most of the time) and for the winning spirit that the party at least tries to put forth, regardless of circumstances. Once someone is in the White House or the Congress or wherever, THEN reality matters, and that's not at all to say that Republicans haven't disappointed because Bush did, in the end, and this last 101st "do-nothing" Congress definitely has. Until then, though, it's hard to get excited about voting for the leader or would-be leader of a country that you are convinced has too much weighing on its conscience. Why, I ask, do you care if America has a good leader when you act as if you don't even think she deserves it? I think that Obama's "YES WE CAN" slogan and chant had as much to do with his 2008 appeal and ultimate win as anything because it contrasted with the usual feeling that I, at least, get from Democrats, which is something along the lines of, "Yes, we should, but probably won't if so-and-so doesn't compromise or fall-in-line or hold our hands and chant, blah, blah, blah." Frankly, I think even some Democrats would agree with that, even if they still don't agree on the actual issues
.
In conclusion, attitude matters, as does appeal, which even Rush Limbaugh admitted today right after saying that conservatism was a purely intellectual thing (not sure I completely agree, even though I understand where he's coming from). I'm obviously a Republican, though I know I'm not always right. That said, there are some stances that more liberal people in my "Friends" list promote that I agree with and would more readily get behind if they'd just stop with the rude and lewd jokes and the woe-is-me accusations that serve as excuses for their cited lack of progress. 'You want me to sympathize? BE SYMPATHETIC! Make and stick to the LOGICAL case that I know exists for these things instead of constantly trying to make everyone feel guilty, even if it's only by association. Romney may not be a sympathetic candidate, but he's definitely upbeat (in general... and why the hell shouldn't he be with all that money? LOL), as is Ryan and as are many on the right because believing in their cause, they also believe what Lincoln did and what many Democrats say they do when quoting him: That right makes might. You might not ever make complete sense of BELIEF, religious or otherwise - AND, as I said in an earlier post, it should never make you begrudge someone else their particular choice, especially in a Democratic Republic - but there's a lot to be said for BELIEF and for its power as a necessary first step in advancing any cause. If you BELIEVE you're right and and you truly believe Lincoln, then there are no excuses and no if's, and's or but's. There's only the path you follow and the reasons you think others should follow, too.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
MY VOTE: Hello, Mr. President... Goodbye, Mr. Nice Guy
I filled in my absentee ballot the other night and very purposefully, albeit predictably, voted for Mitt Romney. Sadly, I exercised the very tendency I've so vehemently and publicly despised and "blindly" voted "Republican" all the way down, even though I knew little or nothing about some for whom I voted. That, however, isn't what bothers me most about the fact that my choice this time was less a matter of party loyalty and genuine admiration of a candidate and more a feeling of NEEDING to do it.
I remember being a kid and dreaming of meeting celebrities, which included the President. As a kid, of course - at least depending upon the age and environment in which you grow/grew up - you don't really think of Presidents in direct relation to political parties and such. That said, I think the President should be someone that we WANT to meet because he (or she... eventually) is supposed to embody what America stands for at the moment and the direction in which it is going. Unlike many of my fellow Republicans, I DO NOT hate President Obama. In fact, based upon what I've seen, he seems like he'd be a great person to meet some time. As for Romney, I'm, well... indifferent at best.
It's not that I think Romney's wealth separates him out from the "average American" as a person - an argument that I think is piss-poor considering that few if any seem to have felt that way about the filthy-rich Roosevelts or Kennedys, both Democrat. He just seems boring to me, with little imagination and little to offer in terms of personality in a first encounter. That said, maybe someone like that is what we need. The decidedly right-wing Fox News has, this morning, been criticizing the "mainstream media" for acting like the economy is really recovering when, for example, the percentage of jobs growth in the third quarter of this year is actually lower than it was last. The "mainstream media" maintains that any and all growth is because of Obama, though, and cites the stimulus, but if people will stop and think for a moment, they might recall that the stimulus package issued by Obama was actually developed in cooperation with the Bush Administration during its final days - in meetings in which both Obama and McCain participated (and for which McCain took heat when he suspended his campaign to do so). If anything, the only thing Obama may have done was to expand that stimulus, and that wound up controversial because people resented so much money going to the very banks and financial institutions that they blamed for the crisis in the first place.
Obama's policies are why the entire country lost money on Solyndra. They're why many small businesses are about to drop health insurance on their employees fearing the cost and consequences of the Affordable Care Act. They're arguably why the deficit is higher than ever, making this administration as bad as or worse than the last. The divisive and elitist manner in which the Democrats conducted themselves during 2009 and 2010, passing a health care bill that neither side is particularly fond of and generally abusing their "majority" in DC in pretty much the same way they say the Bush Administration and Republicans did for years before. This is why groups like the Tea Party - which only came into existence because of Obama's election and what Obama was saying in 2008 - has grown stronger rather than weaker, further impeding Obama's plans and effectiveness, but unfortunately, filling the House of Representatives with extreme ideologues (mainly from the small business community) that have little or nothing in the way of legislative experience or political capitol. They now make up the "do-nothing Congress" and are really a threat to BOTH parties and major candidates.
Like I said, I don't dislike Obama. What's happened that compels me to vote for a would-be President I wouldn't necessarily care to meet is, I think, a consequence of what I've said all along, which is that Obama is a decent President that was elected and put into office at the wrong time, too early in his political career and without certain private sector experiences - such as running a business or serving in the military - that might have really helped him make better decisions. I think he also started out, more or less, as a puppet of the Democratic Party, which seems to be the weaker party in its current incarnation because when push comes to shove, it's more concerned with image than with impact. Instead of focusing with intensity on what it CAN do - on what NEEDS to be done to confront the necessities of a nation - Democrats and candidates like Obama try to please EVERYONE, lumping the need to fix the economy in with placating those that want government to pay for birth control, or for gay marriage to be legal... none of which are pressing issues right now, but ALL of which are purely political hot-spots and buttons that the Democrats push to get attention and get every little vote they can when they really have little else of substance to offer. Republicans have been guilty of the same thing in past years, putting too much emphasis on potentially repealing or curtailing the Roe Vs. Wade abortion law when most know by now that it will probably never be done and, at this point, shouldn't be done for more logical, common sense reasons. They're still putting too much energy into blocking the legalization of gay marriage, which I think should be done just because it's the Constitutional thing to do - regardless of morality, which a personal matter, not a government one. That said, candidate Romney came to the scene with a specialty in the economy and, in a time in which we need a candidate with that specialty the most, he has made that the lynch pin of his campaign. I used to think as others did and still do - that it limited him too much - but it gives voters a very clear and important reason to vote for him.
Obama can SAY he'll balance the budget and deal with America's debt, but he's never actually DONE it - at least not when it comes to, say... a business or a corporation, which could easily be compared to the government in structure. Like a corporation, the government serves a certain group of people with a President, a Vice President and, in its case, a very big board of directors in the form of the House and Senate, along with smaller groups that operate within the corporation to deal with certain issues and things like public relations and other smaller details. The only significant difference between a government and a corporation is the government's ability to print its own money, which is precisely why we need someone with small business and/or corporate experience to make sure that such economic powers are not abused by the government/corporation at the expense of its customers, the American people. Is Romney's record perfect? Did everything in which Bain Capital invested succeed? No. Nobody is perfect and investments in any business are risky, but to my knowledge, neither Bain nor Romney were directly responsible for those business failures or for those firings and layoff's. Ultimately, though, Romney and Bain GAVE to America and its economy. Obama has only ever really taken, and "taking" from the wealth and hard work of the American people is at the heart of just about everything he proposes, including the ridiculously random 30% tax hike on the rich. Not only is it a bad idea in the short term, at least at that high a percentage, but at some point, the regulation and taxation of the Democrats will, long-term, discourage the creation of private sector wealth while eating up so much that eventually, no tax hike will be sufficient.
In conclusion, I can understand why people would try to vote based upon which candidate might potentially do "what's right" for the most Americans, but sadly, we don't live in a time that affords us that privilege, and realistically, I'm not sure we ever did. Nothing is ever going to satisfy EVERYONE, and sometimes, you have to be willing to endure a little pain in the short term to really be able to accomplish something in the long-term. I grant that both parties ask for certain potential compromises from different segments of the American population, but at least the compromises asked for by the Republicans don't also punish those Americans that have contributed the most, have been the most successful and SHOULD be held up as examples and role models instead of being the targets of knee jerk resentment and put-down as scapegoats for the fact that more aren't just like them. It does bother me that I'm not impressed with Romney as someone I can imagine as a really cool, likable guy, but if he elected, he wouldn't be the first such President with those qualities (or lack of qualities), nor would he be the first of his kind to otherwise be exactly what his country needs when it needs him.
I remember being a kid and dreaming of meeting celebrities, which included the President. As a kid, of course - at least depending upon the age and environment in which you grow/grew up - you don't really think of Presidents in direct relation to political parties and such. That said, I think the President should be someone that we WANT to meet because he (or she... eventually) is supposed to embody what America stands for at the moment and the direction in which it is going. Unlike many of my fellow Republicans, I DO NOT hate President Obama. In fact, based upon what I've seen, he seems like he'd be a great person to meet some time. As for Romney, I'm, well... indifferent at best.
It's not that I think Romney's wealth separates him out from the "average American" as a person - an argument that I think is piss-poor considering that few if any seem to have felt that way about the filthy-rich Roosevelts or Kennedys, both Democrat. He just seems boring to me, with little imagination and little to offer in terms of personality in a first encounter. That said, maybe someone like that is what we need. The decidedly right-wing Fox News has, this morning, been criticizing the "mainstream media" for acting like the economy is really recovering when, for example, the percentage of jobs growth in the third quarter of this year is actually lower than it was last. The "mainstream media" maintains that any and all growth is because of Obama, though, and cites the stimulus, but if people will stop and think for a moment, they might recall that the stimulus package issued by Obama was actually developed in cooperation with the Bush Administration during its final days - in meetings in which both Obama and McCain participated (and for which McCain took heat when he suspended his campaign to do so). If anything, the only thing Obama may have done was to expand that stimulus, and that wound up controversial because people resented so much money going to the very banks and financial institutions that they blamed for the crisis in the first place.
Obama's policies are why the entire country lost money on Solyndra. They're why many small businesses are about to drop health insurance on their employees fearing the cost and consequences of the Affordable Care Act. They're arguably why the deficit is higher than ever, making this administration as bad as or worse than the last. The divisive and elitist manner in which the Democrats conducted themselves during 2009 and 2010, passing a health care bill that neither side is particularly fond of and generally abusing their "majority" in DC in pretty much the same way they say the Bush Administration and Republicans did for years before. This is why groups like the Tea Party - which only came into existence because of Obama's election and what Obama was saying in 2008 - has grown stronger rather than weaker, further impeding Obama's plans and effectiveness, but unfortunately, filling the House of Representatives with extreme ideologues (mainly from the small business community) that have little or nothing in the way of legislative experience or political capitol. They now make up the "do-nothing Congress" and are really a threat to BOTH parties and major candidates.
Like I said, I don't dislike Obama. What's happened that compels me to vote for a would-be President I wouldn't necessarily care to meet is, I think, a consequence of what I've said all along, which is that Obama is a decent President that was elected and put into office at the wrong time, too early in his political career and without certain private sector experiences - such as running a business or serving in the military - that might have really helped him make better decisions. I think he also started out, more or less, as a puppet of the Democratic Party, which seems to be the weaker party in its current incarnation because when push comes to shove, it's more concerned with image than with impact. Instead of focusing with intensity on what it CAN do - on what NEEDS to be done to confront the necessities of a nation - Democrats and candidates like Obama try to please EVERYONE, lumping the need to fix the economy in with placating those that want government to pay for birth control, or for gay marriage to be legal... none of which are pressing issues right now, but ALL of which are purely political hot-spots and buttons that the Democrats push to get attention and get every little vote they can when they really have little else of substance to offer. Republicans have been guilty of the same thing in past years, putting too much emphasis on potentially repealing or curtailing the Roe Vs. Wade abortion law when most know by now that it will probably never be done and, at this point, shouldn't be done for more logical, common sense reasons. They're still putting too much energy into blocking the legalization of gay marriage, which I think should be done just because it's the Constitutional thing to do - regardless of morality, which a personal matter, not a government one. That said, candidate Romney came to the scene with a specialty in the economy and, in a time in which we need a candidate with that specialty the most, he has made that the lynch pin of his campaign. I used to think as others did and still do - that it limited him too much - but it gives voters a very clear and important reason to vote for him.
Obama can SAY he'll balance the budget and deal with America's debt, but he's never actually DONE it - at least not when it comes to, say... a business or a corporation, which could easily be compared to the government in structure. Like a corporation, the government serves a certain group of people with a President, a Vice President and, in its case, a very big board of directors in the form of the House and Senate, along with smaller groups that operate within the corporation to deal with certain issues and things like public relations and other smaller details. The only significant difference between a government and a corporation is the government's ability to print its own money, which is precisely why we need someone with small business and/or corporate experience to make sure that such economic powers are not abused by the government/corporation at the expense of its customers, the American people. Is Romney's record perfect? Did everything in which Bain Capital invested succeed? No. Nobody is perfect and investments in any business are risky, but to my knowledge, neither Bain nor Romney were directly responsible for those business failures or for those firings and layoff's. Ultimately, though, Romney and Bain GAVE to America and its economy. Obama has only ever really taken, and "taking" from the wealth and hard work of the American people is at the heart of just about everything he proposes, including the ridiculously random 30% tax hike on the rich. Not only is it a bad idea in the short term, at least at that high a percentage, but at some point, the regulation and taxation of the Democrats will, long-term, discourage the creation of private sector wealth while eating up so much that eventually, no tax hike will be sufficient.
In conclusion, I can understand why people would try to vote based upon which candidate might potentially do "what's right" for the most Americans, but sadly, we don't live in a time that affords us that privilege, and realistically, I'm not sure we ever did. Nothing is ever going to satisfy EVERYONE, and sometimes, you have to be willing to endure a little pain in the short term to really be able to accomplish something in the long-term. I grant that both parties ask for certain potential compromises from different segments of the American population, but at least the compromises asked for by the Republicans don't also punish those Americans that have contributed the most, have been the most successful and SHOULD be held up as examples and role models instead of being the targets of knee jerk resentment and put-down as scapegoats for the fact that more aren't just like them. It does bother me that I'm not impressed with Romney as someone I can imagine as a really cool, likable guy, but if he elected, he wouldn't be the first such President with those qualities (or lack of qualities), nor would he be the first of his kind to otherwise be exactly what his country needs when it needs him.
ROMBAMACARE: A Big Reason This Election Is So Whacked
I've long been interested in history, politics and current events, but this election and its stakes seem to have made me increasingly and disturbingly angry. Despite espousing the virtues behind the choices we have, which form the very definition of a "democratic" republic, in recent conversations, I've found myself provoked into becoming the fiery partisan I've tried (or thought I'd tried) so hard not to be. In my defense, though, I caught a rerun this morning of Frontline about Romney and Obama and where they come from. It clearly illustrated what I already suspected: However similar or different it may be from past election cycles, this one is chaotic, fundamentally hypocritical and almost corrupt. I believe that to be a fact and one best illustrated by the issues of health care and, to some extent, national security, as it has been confronted by both candidates... often IN THE SAME WAYS!
It starts, in earnest, between 2002 and 2006, when Republican governor Mitt Romney has been almost totally, politically impotent in and amongst what is otherwise an almost totally Democrat state legislature. Desperate for a political and legislative victory upon which he can build a legacy, he chooses health care and fixates upon the idea of the individual mandate requiring all to buy health insurance as a way to lure Democrats - including the lion of the Senate, himself, Ted Kennedy - to his side. It works, the bill is passed and dubbed Romneycare. What a majority of working class, grassroots conservative Republicans and future-voters-for-President don't know - besides Romney, himself - is that the lynch pin of this state's version of "universal health care" is predicated upon the mandate as first put forth by the Heritage Foundation, A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK!
Flash forward to now, beyond Romney's failed run for the candidacy in 2008, and not only has he become more socially conservative to appeal to the base, but he's running, in part, on the promise to overturn the biggest and most controversial piece of legislation that Obama has passed - the Affordable Care Act - even though it was not only inspired by Romney's prior bill, but devised in an advisory capacity by some of the same consultants! Somehow, as seems to happen way too often, partisanship on the right has become so extreme that in their opposition to Obama and, I guess by default, the Affordable Care Act (an opposition I nevertheless join, regardless of where it came from), that it seems to have blinded them to the fact that what they and their candidate-of-choice is now opposing was born on their side! That Romney passed a similar bill is what they know and why Romney has a rough time coming up in the ranks, but the rest... it's the equivalent of white noise on the right.
Of course, as I said, this seems to happen often nowadays, and it's happened on the left, as well. Seemingly unable to run on his domestic record and failed to realize his great goal to bridge the political gap in Washington, Obama has shifted to a more adversarial standpoint that sharply delineates the choice everyone has in this campaign season. In the meantime, he's also deviated from his party in his treatment of national security, ending the war in Iraq (albeit forced to do so by the Iraqi government's refusal to grant troops legal immunity), but approving and even reinforcing covert and other military, ground operations around the world. After a decade of his party calling Bush and the Republicans war hawks and imperialists, he slams the brakes on any effort to shutdown Gitmo and then intervenes militarily in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi, aiding suspected Al-Qaeda members in the resistance and justifying it later with basically the same excuse that Bush had for going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq after no nukes were found - that America had/has a moral responsibility to intervene where people are oppressed by tyrants!
Yesterday, I read a comment from a very liberal associate that despite his dismay at what he called Obama's war policies, he was going to stick with Obama because the Republicans HAVE NOT challenged that policy (even though they have, to some extent and for better or worse), which indicates to him that the Republicans would be as bad or worse. Maybe, maybe not, but this is like the Republicans with what I now call ROMBAMACARE: Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is the refusal to acknowledge the roots of what they oppose on the other side because it might threaten their comfortable partisanship.
I filled out my absentee ballot early and voted for Romney - but NOT because of anything said here. Though I don't much like or trust Romney much more than I do Obama, the fact remains that Romney - coming into the Presidency - would not only be older and more fundamentally experienced, but have more substantive knowledge and experience in BOTH the private and public sectors. In confronting an issue such as the economy and any reasons for repealing the Affordable Care Act (although I doubt it can or will ever be totally repealed), Romney will confront it having actually managed a corporation - which is structured much like the government, itself, and thus faces similar fiscal issues. He will confront the promise to balance and adhere to a more realistic and responsible national budget having actually created, balanced and adhered to similarly BIG budgets in both the private and public sector. Obama, on the other hand, is a law professor that basically forfeited his chance at significant, real-world experience in the legal world to become an author, then a Senator and, then - because of his performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I think, as well as his race - to run for and become President. This all leads into my next blog, in which I feel compelled to explain why I'd rather meet Obama instead of vote for him and vote for Romney instead of meet him, as well as why that might a necessary, if unfortunate conclusion at which to arrive.
It starts, in earnest, between 2002 and 2006, when Republican governor Mitt Romney has been almost totally, politically impotent in and amongst what is otherwise an almost totally Democrat state legislature. Desperate for a political and legislative victory upon which he can build a legacy, he chooses health care and fixates upon the idea of the individual mandate requiring all to buy health insurance as a way to lure Democrats - including the lion of the Senate, himself, Ted Kennedy - to his side. It works, the bill is passed and dubbed Romneycare. What a majority of working class, grassroots conservative Republicans and future-voters-for-President don't know - besides Romney, himself - is that the lynch pin of this state's version of "universal health care" is predicated upon the mandate as first put forth by the Heritage Foundation, A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK!
Flash forward to now, beyond Romney's failed run for the candidacy in 2008, and not only has he become more socially conservative to appeal to the base, but he's running, in part, on the promise to overturn the biggest and most controversial piece of legislation that Obama has passed - the Affordable Care Act - even though it was not only inspired by Romney's prior bill, but devised in an advisory capacity by some of the same consultants! Somehow, as seems to happen way too often, partisanship on the right has become so extreme that in their opposition to Obama and, I guess by default, the Affordable Care Act (an opposition I nevertheless join, regardless of where it came from), that it seems to have blinded them to the fact that what they and their candidate-of-choice is now opposing was born on their side! That Romney passed a similar bill is what they know and why Romney has a rough time coming up in the ranks, but the rest... it's the equivalent of white noise on the right.
Of course, as I said, this seems to happen often nowadays, and it's happened on the left, as well. Seemingly unable to run on his domestic record and failed to realize his great goal to bridge the political gap in Washington, Obama has shifted to a more adversarial standpoint that sharply delineates the choice everyone has in this campaign season. In the meantime, he's also deviated from his party in his treatment of national security, ending the war in Iraq (albeit forced to do so by the Iraqi government's refusal to grant troops legal immunity), but approving and even reinforcing covert and other military, ground operations around the world. After a decade of his party calling Bush and the Republicans war hawks and imperialists, he slams the brakes on any effort to shutdown Gitmo and then intervenes militarily in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi, aiding suspected Al-Qaeda members in the resistance and justifying it later with basically the same excuse that Bush had for going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq after no nukes were found - that America had/has a moral responsibility to intervene where people are oppressed by tyrants!
Yesterday, I read a comment from a very liberal associate that despite his dismay at what he called Obama's war policies, he was going to stick with Obama because the Republicans HAVE NOT challenged that policy (even though they have, to some extent and for better or worse), which indicates to him that the Republicans would be as bad or worse. Maybe, maybe not, but this is like the Republicans with what I now call ROMBAMACARE: Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is the refusal to acknowledge the roots of what they oppose on the other side because it might threaten their comfortable partisanship.
I filled out my absentee ballot early and voted for Romney - but NOT because of anything said here. Though I don't much like or trust Romney much more than I do Obama, the fact remains that Romney - coming into the Presidency - would not only be older and more fundamentally experienced, but have more substantive knowledge and experience in BOTH the private and public sectors. In confronting an issue such as the economy and any reasons for repealing the Affordable Care Act (although I doubt it can or will ever be totally repealed), Romney will confront it having actually managed a corporation - which is structured much like the government, itself, and thus faces similar fiscal issues. He will confront the promise to balance and adhere to a more realistic and responsible national budget having actually created, balanced and adhered to similarly BIG budgets in both the private and public sector. Obama, on the other hand, is a law professor that basically forfeited his chance at significant, real-world experience in the legal world to become an author, then a Senator and, then - because of his performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I think, as well as his race - to run for and become President. This all leads into my next blog, in which I feel compelled to explain why I'd rather meet Obama instead of vote for him and vote for Romney instead of meet him, as well as why that might a necessary, if unfortunate conclusion at which to arrive.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Talks with Iran = NO MORE RESPECT FOR OBAMA!
SEE RELATED LINK: White Hosue Prepared To Meet One-on-One With Iran
Even as a registered Republican, I've tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on some things and credit where due - even going so far as to (rightfully) criticize Romney and the Republicans - but this is too much. Even though I think a military confrontation with Iran would inevitably lead us into yet another costly, prolonged and, this time, much more dangerous conflict in the Middle East, just Obama's willingness to "negotiate" with the leader of a nation like Iran that denies the Holocaust and essentially wishes extinction on the entire Jewish race is going too far. If Obama's treatment of Israel so far doesn't make this bad enough, these supposed talks would be bilateral and likely overseen by the European Union, which has been borderline disastrous in helping to govern its own nations and has all but encouraged the pre-existing and growing anti-U.S. sentiment in places like England and France, among other nations - "ally" or not. Even Obama's own people apparently have little confidence in this and, if I read the article right, haven't even owned up to the talks actually happening. The article says:
"...the direct talks with North Korea have yet to bear fruit and U.S. officials warned that talks with Iran may not yield anything either."
I'm not going to call Obama a Communist or a closet anti-American, but something is seriously wrong with this picture. The article says that the intended strategy originated with the Bush Administration, but it was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now that is made worse by what appears to be Obama's sympathetic attitude towards the Muslim World, in general.
First, I think it's important to remember that a European nation - France, I think, if not the European Union, itself - was the one that successfully urged Obama's intervention in Libya last year. The U.S. military went in, conducted a few strikes, then left right before the uprising eventually succeeded in the death of Ghadaffi; yet a year later, Libya is still violently unstable and at the time, the Administration knew so little about the "freedom fighters" they helped that those fighters could well have also been members of Al-Qaeda! In response to criticism, Obama's stance now is that America has a moral duty to intervene on behalf of a nation oppressed so violently by such a tyrant, but how does that NOT justify Bush's war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam... the one that Democrats and Obama, himself, so vehemently opposed and still criticizes?
Secondly, Ahmadinejad is evil, but he's not an idiot - nor is he now or in the future even a potential ally of the U.S.. This is clearly a stall tactic, probably to ease sanctions. If so, it's bad enough that such sanctions probably need the U.S. to have even the impact they're having, but if push comes to shove, it's pretty clear that Iran could easily call-in Russia - again ruled by Putin, who has not been a big fan of the U.S. recently - to not only ease the effects of the sanctions but, theoretically, to help Iran to finally FINISH their development of nuclear power and/or arms. This could have any number of outcomes, all bad for the region and for the U.S., including a premeditative strike on Iran by Israel - igniting a war - and/or the final fulfillment of Ahmadinejad's wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth... permanently.
Last, but not least, Obama's alleged openness to these "talks" does, in my opinion, prove not only the President's decidedly pro-Islam/Muslim sympathies, but further illustrates how Iran, like other parts of the Middle East, continue to successfully manipulate the U.S. and its lukewarm allies by using our ideals of tolerance and diversity against us and to ultimately blind us to the fact that ALL of this has, at its core, to do with Islam and the way it practically defines that region of the world. If Washington isn't blinded, then it's either in denial or outright lying when it says that the West is not at war with Islam, because if you remove Islam and its place in Middle Eastern governing from the equation, you remove the source of a lot of suffering. You remove much, if not all, of the motivations of any number of Middle Eastern factions, tribes and nations to fight. Take Islam away, and Ahmadinejad has almost no reason to hate Israel, and Israel has little or no reason not to share with Palestine. Take away what has been Islam's almost 2,000 year reign in that region, and you're left with practically no reason why those people could not only be (on the whole) more advanced technologically, but civilly, with tolerance for other ideas, cultures and religions and actual respect for women and their rights. I've not read the Quran, so I don't know the true tenets of Islam, but even my older half-sister - a converted Muslim since the late 80's - would admit that as often manifested in extremes in the Middle East, Islam justifies or is used to justify a LOT of violence and death and conflict and all manner of atrocities. It's also why the U.S. and Europe can help overthrow one oppressive, Islamist regime, giving the region's people their choice of leadership, only to watch a more benign and maybe less oppressive, yet still Islamist regime take over. More specifically, from my standpoint, it's why an otherwise legal exercising of free speech in the form of that infamous video, "The Innocence of Muslims," finally gave the U.S. government the justification it needed to actually look into and eventually arrest a known criminal. This was a man still engaging in criminal activity, separate from this video, but who probably (it seems) would not have been investigated, let alone caught, if not for his video and its alleged motivation of the attack on a U.S. Embassy that killed an ambassador.
In conclusion, I don't claim to have the ultimate solution to the U.S.'s problems in the Middle East, but I do believe that the less presence in the region and the less direct involvement that the U.S. has in Middle Eastern affairs, the better. Until some drastic, radical and, frankly, unlikely changes occur, the U.S. relationship with Iran and pretty much every other Islamic nation in the Middle East should be economically-driven - ONLY - and immediately, mutually beneficial, period. Since 9/11, Al-Qaeda has been weakened and its foremost leaders killed, including Bin Laden, himself. The only thing that could possibly make any nation in the Middle East a serious, direct and physical threat to the United States is the policy of the United States - its naive willingness to "negotiate" with implacable enemies and, sadly, its unwillingness to strengthen and enforce its immigration policy, including the more stringent vetting of everyone from the Middle East either visiting or requesting citizenship in America.
Even as a registered Republican, I've tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on some things and credit where due - even going so far as to (rightfully) criticize Romney and the Republicans - but this is too much. Even though I think a military confrontation with Iran would inevitably lead us into yet another costly, prolonged and, this time, much more dangerous conflict in the Middle East, just Obama's willingness to "negotiate" with the leader of a nation like Iran that denies the Holocaust and essentially wishes extinction on the entire Jewish race is going too far. If Obama's treatment of Israel so far doesn't make this bad enough, these supposed talks would be bilateral and likely overseen by the European Union, which has been borderline disastrous in helping to govern its own nations and has all but encouraged the pre-existing and growing anti-U.S. sentiment in places like England and France, among other nations - "ally" or not. Even Obama's own people apparently have little confidence in this and, if I read the article right, haven't even owned up to the talks actually happening. The article says:
"...the direct talks with North Korea have yet to bear fruit and U.S. officials warned that talks with Iran may not yield anything either."
I'm not going to call Obama a Communist or a closet anti-American, but something is seriously wrong with this picture. The article says that the intended strategy originated with the Bush Administration, but it was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now that is made worse by what appears to be Obama's sympathetic attitude towards the Muslim World, in general.
First, I think it's important to remember that a European nation - France, I think, if not the European Union, itself - was the one that successfully urged Obama's intervention in Libya last year. The U.S. military went in, conducted a few strikes, then left right before the uprising eventually succeeded in the death of Ghadaffi; yet a year later, Libya is still violently unstable and at the time, the Administration knew so little about the "freedom fighters" they helped that those fighters could well have also been members of Al-Qaeda! In response to criticism, Obama's stance now is that America has a moral duty to intervene on behalf of a nation oppressed so violently by such a tyrant, but how does that NOT justify Bush's war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam... the one that Democrats and Obama, himself, so vehemently opposed and still criticizes?
Secondly, Ahmadinejad is evil, but he's not an idiot - nor is he now or in the future even a potential ally of the U.S.. This is clearly a stall tactic, probably to ease sanctions. If so, it's bad enough that such sanctions probably need the U.S. to have even the impact they're having, but if push comes to shove, it's pretty clear that Iran could easily call-in Russia - again ruled by Putin, who has not been a big fan of the U.S. recently - to not only ease the effects of the sanctions but, theoretically, to help Iran to finally FINISH their development of nuclear power and/or arms. This could have any number of outcomes, all bad for the region and for the U.S., including a premeditative strike on Iran by Israel - igniting a war - and/or the final fulfillment of Ahmadinejad's wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth... permanently.
Last, but not least, Obama's alleged openness to these "talks" does, in my opinion, prove not only the President's decidedly pro-Islam/Muslim sympathies, but further illustrates how Iran, like other parts of the Middle East, continue to successfully manipulate the U.S. and its lukewarm allies by using our ideals of tolerance and diversity against us and to ultimately blind us to the fact that ALL of this has, at its core, to do with Islam and the way it practically defines that region of the world. If Washington isn't blinded, then it's either in denial or outright lying when it says that the West is not at war with Islam, because if you remove Islam and its place in Middle Eastern governing from the equation, you remove the source of a lot of suffering. You remove much, if not all, of the motivations of any number of Middle Eastern factions, tribes and nations to fight. Take Islam away, and Ahmadinejad has almost no reason to hate Israel, and Israel has little or no reason not to share with Palestine. Take away what has been Islam's almost 2,000 year reign in that region, and you're left with practically no reason why those people could not only be (on the whole) more advanced technologically, but civilly, with tolerance for other ideas, cultures and religions and actual respect for women and their rights. I've not read the Quran, so I don't know the true tenets of Islam, but even my older half-sister - a converted Muslim since the late 80's - would admit that as often manifested in extremes in the Middle East, Islam justifies or is used to justify a LOT of violence and death and conflict and all manner of atrocities. It's also why the U.S. and Europe can help overthrow one oppressive, Islamist regime, giving the region's people their choice of leadership, only to watch a more benign and maybe less oppressive, yet still Islamist regime take over. More specifically, from my standpoint, it's why an otherwise legal exercising of free speech in the form of that infamous video, "The Innocence of Muslims," finally gave the U.S. government the justification it needed to actually look into and eventually arrest a known criminal. This was a man still engaging in criminal activity, separate from this video, but who probably (it seems) would not have been investigated, let alone caught, if not for his video and its alleged motivation of the attack on a U.S. Embassy that killed an ambassador.
In conclusion, I don't claim to have the ultimate solution to the U.S.'s problems in the Middle East, but I do believe that the less presence in the region and the less direct involvement that the U.S. has in Middle Eastern affairs, the better. Until some drastic, radical and, frankly, unlikely changes occur, the U.S. relationship with Iran and pretty much every other Islamic nation in the Middle East should be economically-driven - ONLY - and immediately, mutually beneficial, period. Since 9/11, Al-Qaeda has been weakened and its foremost leaders killed, including Bin Laden, himself. The only thing that could possibly make any nation in the Middle East a serious, direct and physical threat to the United States is the policy of the United States - its naive willingness to "negotiate" with implacable enemies and, sadly, its unwillingness to strengthen and enforce its immigration policy, including the more stringent vetting of everyone from the Middle East either visiting or requesting citizenship in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)