An Open Letter To The GOP

Hey! Michael Steele! Knock it off!

So here I am, getting the mail, and stuck in the middle of the pizza coupons and the Time Warner Cable advertisements is a letter from the RNC. It's a "survey" (picture me putting my fingers up in the air to pantomime the quotes) that they are going to use to tell the GOP where we stand on the issues. I'm sure they sent it out to registered republicans as a way to rally the troops, so to speak. Oh, and they also want to raise money. There's an area on the back where I can write in my credit card number.

Of course, they worded every question in such a way that any good republican would have to answer in the way they anticipate. Even their "surveys" (insert visual of my fingers once again) are dripping with spin. Hey - Grand Old Party - this isn't helping you at all!

You see, it's the liberals that are the traditional rabble-rousers. They're the war protesters, the radicals, the parade marchers, the people who bitch incessantly. Now that the republicans are doing it, not only are they raising the ire of liberals and the DNC but they're actually deepening the divide that exists in the country. Do I mind the protests? No, not really. As a republican I'm pretty pissed off at what Obama is trying to do. I'm pretty angry about the snide comments coming from the mouths of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The utter contempt they have for the American people is disgusting.

But neither side is helping things any.

The democrats have essentially nationalized our banking and auto industries, and now they want to nationalize our health industry. They discount every attempt by republicans to work together to solve anything, except of course for the RNC's resident RINO, Olympia Snowe.

The republicans refuse to hold the industries accountable for their mistakes. The corruption on Wall Street, the crumbling of General Motors and the intense lobbying and unscrupulous practices of the pharmaceutical industry.

While I don't want the GOP to start to skew towards the middle on the majority of their policies, there are a few areas in which I believe there's room for some shuffling.

First: Regulation. I love capitalism. I believe that we should be able to keep what we earn because, well, we've earned it. But when large corporations aren't regulated, it leads to monopolies which leads to price gouging and inflation. Insurance is one area that needs intense regulation. They should be able to make a fair profit, but they shouldn't be able to deny covered claims. They should be able to shy away from pre-existing conditions, but they shouldn't be able to price gouge if they decide to cover someone with a PEC. Insurance companies should be able to sell across state lines to create more competition, but they should be regulated strongly so big companies can't swallow up small companies or out-price small companies so the competition ends up short-lived.

Similarly, credit card companies should cease their predatory practices. They should be prosecuted when their own due diligence is ignored. Credit card collection agencies should be restricted by federal law not to be harassing, rude and threatening. Credit card collection agencies should be required to offer information on credit counseling services that help people to get out from under their debt. Credit companies should not be allowed to raise fees the way they have been, without reason and without warning.

Wall Street... as much as I hate to say this, Wall Street needs a czar, or maybe a bi-partisan, non-governmental watchdog group to make sure that trading is fair, that ponzi schemes are noticed and shut down and that accounting reports are true and not fraudulent. Investors should not always see a return. That's not realistic. For books to be cooked in such a way that stock prices always go up so capitol can always be raised even if the company is failing - it should be a felony and we need someone there to be on top of it.

One of health care's biggest battles is cost. Some people go bankrupt because of medical bills. But the truth is that the costs of being a doctor can easily overwhelm a talented hand. Medical malpractice lawsuits are out of hand. Medically based litigation is on the rise. The amount of TV commercials for law practices who chase ambulances are at epidemic levels. We need to find a way to better regulate the judicial industry. It's sad that law has become an industry, but it has and it's every bit as unscrupulous as the world's oldest profession, only it's still legal.

Second: Education. One of the questions on my (see the fingers) "survey" (fingers down) was this... "Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the US is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability?"

How are you supposed to answer that? Jeez! Of course, any GOP member will say no to that. However, I have a different answer.

Of all things, I believe that YES, federal dollars should be spent on education. The dollars should be made available to the states so the states can ascertain troubled districts and sift the funds out proportionally to the need. We have smaller districts all around us with brand new schools, yet our city is still stuck in schools built in the early 1900s because despite living in a pretty affluent town, the levies for new schools keep getting voted down. Ohio's own system of distributing money to the schools has been regarded as unconstitutional. If dollars come from federal sources, new schools will be built. I believe that the fed shouldn't do it all, though. There should be a system in place for fund-matching so that if a district needs new schools, the municipality must come up with a certain percentage of the money as well. There needs to checks and balances though... if a school district like the one I'm in has the money but keeps saying no because of sentimental reasons, there needs to be a way for the fed to step in and work something out... or maybe the state steps in. Somebody needs to. Also, John McCain said that teachers should be held accountable and that bad teachers should be rooted out and sent packing. I agree, but it goes deeper than that. Right now, teachers teach for "the test". There's no creativity in the classroom anymore. There's not enough time for real education because teachers have to stick to an agenda. There are good teachers out there who find the time to prepare the children for their tests, but also find time to truly teach, and encourage, and inspire. Those are the teachers we need. If they're not willing to go that extra mile... g'bye!

Third: Pharmaceuticals. I know, I already mentioned them. But these guys need an ass kicking. They research a drug. They make it, pass it by the FDA, market it, sell it and so on. Then, they add another ingredient... something innocuous like, say, ibuprofen. Then they can say it reduces swelling or pain too! Wow! Then they charge a lot more for it and all they did was alter the first drug by some microscopic amount. That's bull! Sure, I get it, the money they make funds new research and development. Well, think of how much research and development money they would have if they would stop all of the ridiculous advertising they do! Their drug ads are so careless that they have to say 30 lines of disclaimers so people know the risks before they take them.

I think drug ads should be regulated the same way as liquor and cigarette ads. They shouldn't be on TV, billboards or radio because it can be argued that their concoctions can be every bit as dangerous as cigarettes or hard liquor. Then, with the money they save by not being able to advertise, they can put more money into research and development. Truly, the people who NEED to know about new drugs are the doctors, not the hypochondriacs at home watching Oprah or General Hospital.

Breast Cancer research is now an industry. What's the chance that someone hasn't already figured out a cure, but some CEO is holding it back because to reveal a cure for cancer means the end of the road for their company? That's pretty cynical - I know. Forgive me for that one.

I believe that herbal supplements SHOULD be evaluated by the FDA before they can be allowed to advertise. Truly, I've seen enough of "Smiling Bob" and his Enzyte commercials. If his crappy pill will really make my shlong longer, I want it to be proven by the FDA first. I want to see that the scientific research that went into that pill is sound and safe and has conclusive results. Otherwise they're just snake-oil salesmen in the back of their conestoga wagons hoping that some poor shmuck thinks his dong needs enhancement and will fall for it.

BUT: Some things the GOP has right are as follows. Government needs to shrink. Power needs to be retained by the states as allowed for in the 10th amendment to the Constitution. Government needs to spend less. If you don't have the money, don't spend the money. People who work should be allowed to keep more of their money. People who don't work should have to find some way to earn what they're given, should receive training so they can find work (and then pay that back once they find work... payment schedules should be fair, based on income and expenses) and should be limited as to what they receive from the government based on circumstances. Obviously, no one should go hungry, especially children. But we the people shouldn't have to pay for their food if the recipient is also paying Rent A Center for a big screen TV, Time Warner for cable and Road Runner, Alltel for their cell phone and 24 Hour Fitness for their daily walks and cardio workouts.

I've been told not to judge. I've been told that if people want to spend their money on those things that I shouldn't judge them for that. My view is that if a person puts a cigarette habit and a cable TV payment ahead of feeding their children, there needs to be someone to tell them no, you can't have public assistance. Learn to spend your money more wisely until you can afford to have the luxuries that are available.

Democrats have it wrong when they say that all people should be equal. The business-owner who worked for years and sacrificed his or her own sweat and life savings to make the business a success does have the right to succeed and reap some rewards. The illegal alien who sneaks across the border and wants that business-owner to pay their way... they're not entitled to anything except a ride back to their own side of the border.

Bottom Line

One way to end the party bickering is term limits. It's a fact. Politicians put their own careers ahead of the will of the people. (Our own Lt.Governor Lee Fisher continues to get paid by the taxpayers even though he's no longer running the ODOD and is focusing on running for Senator Voinovich's seat in Congress). They cater to special interests who offer big fat campaign contributions so they can be re-elected and keep their jobs. That makes for an ineffective leadership. BOTH parties do this. In 2010 we should get rid of all eligible incumbents regardless of party affiliation. We should then do it again in 2012.

The polarization of American politics is not going to get any better until party politics are out of the way. The best way to do this is to get rid of all the old dirt on the hill and bring in some fresh bodies. Without the special interests poking and prodding and asking for favors in lieu of campaign contributions, you'll find that politicians will be much more likely to do what's best for America... not what's best for their parties, or themselves.

...and that's the way I see it.

Petty Partisan PUNKS

Obama's White House is snubbing Fox News. MoveOn.org is asking people to sign a petition asking Democrats to similarly snub Fox News for the same period of time, 'til the end of the year.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

So, because Fox News isn't kissing Obama's backside and is actually holding his administration's feet to the fire, the liberals are pitching a big ol' hissy fit. They're pulling their toys out of the sandbox. They want their records back. They're starting a playground rivalry... "If you play with them, I'll hate you forever and I won't be your friend!"

The Republicans never pulled any crap like this! These old stodgy schmucks are so scared of dissent and the possibility that they may lose their seat that they're actually working to stifle free speech and to coerce some sort of faux adulation and ya know what? It's going to help them lose their seat even faster!!

Like it or not, Fox News is the #1 rated news network. For a Democrat to snub an entire network with better ratings than all of the other news networks means they would be snubbing more than half of their own constituencies, particularly since Fox's audience is made up of a large amount of independents as well as republicans and yes, some democrats too. You snub your constituencies, they snub you at the next election.

I'm not a politician. How can I understand this and our elected officials don't?! Here's why: They're so caught up in their politics and their White House mandates that they forgotten what they're there for - to serve ALL Americans, no matter their political ideology.

It's time to clean house (and senate). I don't care what party - if there's an incumbent they need to be defeated in 2010. When the kids can't get along, we send them home.

I'd give Congress a spanking, but they'd probably like it.

...and that's the way I see it.

MoveOn.please

President Obama went on Letterman last night. He got the whole show, except the monologue, which was wholly appropriate considering the fact that a sitting President is visiting a late night talk show. He was treated with the pomp and circumstance that the office deserves by Letterman and the rest of the posse, which is also wholly appropriate. Letterman was respectful and asked good questions, albeit it at times they were soft balls - but then, Letterman is an entertainer, not a news pundit (even though he seems to get confused about that sometimes these days, which is why I don't watch his show as much anymore).

I read a report that said that Obama has had more TV time so far than Bush and Clinton had accumulated combined by this point in their presidencies, so in a bit of constituent aggravation I posted a thought on Facebook that I thought Obama was getting too much TV time. I wasn't disrespectful, I said nothing idealogical and I wasn't even overly critical. I just commented that I thought he had more things to do than to spend more time yukking it up on TV.

Boy did the flood gates open - but they weren't the flood gates I expected. I expected demagogues to go at me over policy, or Obama-lovers to continue their slobbering love affair but instead I got something else, and as I think about it I guess I should have expected it more than I did.

Bush is gone, but the hatred and the nastiness hasn't faded. For the most part, Bush has remained silent and out of the way in regards to politics (I know, Cheney hasn't, but the hate isn't directed at him, oddly enough, even though Cheney is probably more deserving of it), yet everyone is continuing to lash out at George Bush. Even the Castro/Chavez loving power house that is Oliver Stone was more fair to Bush ("W.") than everyone else has been.

A couple of the retorts:

better on tv than at camp david like some other prez...

Better than him being on vacation most of the year...

I wasn't being mean to Obama, yet people from the left continue to go back in time and attack Bush rather than face today with open eyes and ears. Yeah, okay - Bush screwed up. He wasn't the smartest guy to ever take the office, he was incredibly polarizing because of his religious beliefs and he started a war in Iraq that most view as unnecessary (and I'll even go so far as to say that I was also opposed to extending the conflict to Iraq because the people that hit us on 9/11 were from Afghanistan, not Iraq). But he's not in office anymore.

It's like the schoolyard bully that just beat up the school dork. Except the bully isn't putting his arms up in defeat and walking away victorious. Instead he's continuing to piss on the guy, spit on him, taunt him... he's following him to his home and yelling at him through the screen door, "Come out here so I can kick the shit out of you again!"

"But you won! I lost! Isn't that good enough for you?"

"No! I still hate you and I want to step on your face with baseball cleets!"

"But I haven't done anything to you! I haven't bugged you at all!"

"It doesn't matter. If I keep beating you up, no-one will ever focus on the now and they'll make me stand on my own two feet. If I live in the past, everyone else will too, so get out here and let me womp on you a little more!"

Obama ran on an anti-Bush platform against McCain. Obama continues to roll Bush under the bus (whether it's investigating the CIA, deflecting economic blame, explaining the lack of global support on the Afghan war, or whatever). Even Letterman continues to punch Bush in the face, even when he's got Obama sitting in the wings waiting for the spotlight (again).

I don't want to spend the next 3 years and three months listening to the past. I would rather this administration and its admirers accept their victory and move on towards taking care of the things that need taken care of. Obama - get Bin Laden. That would be good. Obama - find a way to get the money back out of the banks and GM and pay down our debt to China and the taxpayers and whomever else you and your Congress borrowed from. Obama - reform the insurance industry (inflation stays stagnant but the premiums go up? WTF?). Obama - let's fix the financial industry by getting some oversight on Wall Street and by regulating the predatory practices of mortgage and credit lenders. Let's allow insurance companies to sell across state lines without federalizing the system, but let's also set up anti-trust committees to keep large companies (like Chase and AIG) from buying up all the little companies and eliminating the competition that will keep the prices from growing at an unsustainable, unaffordable rate.

In a nutshell. Obama - Quit Bush-bashing and live in the now. Quit taking up TV time and spend some time focusing on what's important. BUT - keep being likable and smiling a lot, because we as the American people need a confident, affable President just as much as we need an effective leader and Commander-In-Chief.

See? I can be politically centered when I want to be.

... and that's the way I see it.

Film Office Meetings

So, here's how it all began.

I got word that Christine Grozik was no longer with the Ohio Film Office. Since the office is so new and the tax incentives had just passed in the state, I was concerned that the position had been evacuated so early.

I posted the news item on Facebook and literally within minutes I had a private reply from someone looking for information so a resume could be sent. I furnished the contacts, but the next day was informed that the office had not filled the position, but that it was not available to the person who had applied, possibly because of the state's woeful budget. Either way, to not fill this position in a newly formed office under newly pass tax legislation was a kick in the teeth to Ohio's filmmakers, and I decided that I was not going to sit back and wait to see what was going to happen next.

I asked for a meeting with Alicia Reese, who's with the department of travel and tourism and is overseeing the film office in the interim, and Kimber Perfect, who's the chief communications and marketing officer with the Ohio Department of Development, which oversees the Ohio Film Office. Gail Mezey, director of the Greater Columbus Film Commission also came to the meeting.

First issue on the table: the position of director of the film office. They informed me that the person who said that the position was unavailable was misinformed. The ODOD hopes to fill the position by September, and they already have a nice clutch of candidates.

Second item: Funding for the office. Since the office was formed, it has been slave to the budgets of the Ohio Department of Tourism. When tourism ate into the budget it left less to work with for the film office. Either way, it was a pleasant surprise to learn that when the new budget passed, the Ohio Film Office was given it's own budget and will no longer be under the tourism budget.

As an aside, a note about Alicia Reese. I don't know her very well, but my first impression was very positive. Despite working under the tourism banner, Ms. Reese was well-informed and very willing to share information about the Film Office. On top of that, she agreed to meet with me on very short notice, as did Kimber and Gail, so any assumptions that nobody is willing to talk to the film community is unfounded. Their door was wide open, and I was made to feel welcome. Further, regarding Gail Mezey, all one needs to do is visit FilmColumbus.com or read her posts on the Mid Ohio Filmmakers Association Facebook page to know that there are opportunities for work out there, and that she's working hard to make sure we know about them.

Another note regarding the state budget... under the new budget, none of the city film commissions in the state are funded under any state budgets. It's now up to the cities they inhabit to fund those offices. Columbus is in a financial dungeon so we're going to need to help out our film office where we can both with our volunteer time and our financial support. Perhaps a nice film festival and fund-raiser is in order?

Third item on the slate: Tax incentives. Several filmmakers wrote to me and suggested that all of the money from the tax incentives were going to go to Cleveland, leaving Columbus and Cincinnati with nothing. The tax incentives were not set up to necessarily go to any specific place or person. They're first-come, first-served. If Cleveland just happens to have a qualified production underway before anyone else, they're going to get the first of the incentives up to $5-million dollars (the $10-million in incentives is capped at $5M per production, which means two big productions can clean out the incentives for this year. Next year we'll have $20M in incentives, but I'm not sure of the "per-production" breakdown for that.) It has to do with preparedness, not preferential treatment.

Another person mentioned that we needed to try to match Pennsylvania's incentive level. The rumor mill is churning about PA because their incentives may be short-lived. Indeed, North Carolina - a strong film making state - recently cut their incentives. Folks, there is a strong argument against tax incentives in a state without a thriving self-motivated film industry. If a big production comes here, say a $20M production, the state of Ohio will give them $5M, or 25% of the production budget up to $5M per production. The amount goes up if they hire Ohio crew. The problem is that Ohio is a mess financially and we don't have $5M to give. One would argue that the payroll taxes of the crew employed for the film will make up the difference, but in all actuality they won't even scratch the surface. Here's how it was explained to me:

1) So we now have a 25% tax rebate. So lets say a movie is being made in Ohio that is 20M… so the tax refund will be 5 M.

2) Basically the state is out 5 M in taxes BUT the state gets money back with all the money that is spent in our state right? Like taxes pertaining to wages and sales tax correct?

3) For the sake of argument lets assume that 50% of the production cost is labor. Estimated new income tax revenue on labor is $350,000. That is IF the production hires Ohio crews. .

4) Estimated Sale tax for goods and services would be $ 775,000

5) Add the income tax revenue and the sales tax revenue the New Tax revenue from the picture would be about 1.1M.

6) The loss to the state would be 3.9 Million dollars

Lowering the floor for tax incentives was brought up several times, and the film offices fought for that as well but the prevailing attitude was that the legislature wants Hollywood to come here with their big buzz and their big budgets. Alas, we will have to build our own incentives for smaller productions by recruiting investors and making sure those investors get paid back with a nice dividend. But then again - who knows what the future will hold?

In one instance the lower floor was specific to high-end commercials that we have lost to other states. Perhaps another measure needs to be introduced that's separate from the film incentives that cover things like commercials and corporate projects. It's a different industry so it possibly deserves its own legislation. Start calling your state leaders and asking about it.

Increasing the incentive level was also suggested more than once for sheer competitiveness, but again - the potential loss to the state is already hefty. The legislation is brand new - let's give it a chance to walk before we start asking it to go for a run.

These losses could be mitigated a bit if our Ohio film industry was stronger and contributing to the tax base more regularly (in theory).

Another comment made was about training our home-bases workforce to be more professional and more adept so when big productions come here we'd have more to offer, which could help reduce the amount of crew a production would need to import. The antithesis to that position is in the union argument. If a union production comes in, they're going to want to hire union workers. There's not a lot going on here as far as that goes, but there is one, union 209. This is how that was explained to me:

"As far as the unions go, if that person joins the 209.. they are in a crew union. Union commercial jobs come there and they hire folks from the 209 because it is the only union that exists here in Ohio for crew. These are script supers, grips, gaffers etc. The 209 is flexible with crew people here, and will let them work on non-union jobs too... it's called a financial core. There are plenty of people that work in other "crew" union's in this state. They worked on union jobs as a P.A. or whatever in the department they wanted to get their union card in and then accumulated hours for it... then they were in the union."

I further suggested that as far as training, if someone were willing to seek out an intern position in a filmmaking area... L.A., New York, even Vancouver, that's a great way to learn, and that knowledge could be brought back to Ohio. Finances are an issue with that, but it's an option.

Another person started talking about marketing and indeed, this is an area that I'm not so patient about. Marketing is a cumulative endeavor. Not one sole office or person can do it alone to a project's full potential. Furthermore, many productions aren't going the distance as far as getting the word out. The specific comment came as a result of poor attendance at the Oxford International Film Fest. I am under the opinion that a film office, no matter if it's on a state or a city level, should not only be working to get productions to come here, but should also be working to get the word out about the work that has been done or is being done here. For the film offices, staffing is an issue, so once again I suggested hiring interns to help with office communications. These communications need to be spread far and wide. In thriving film communities, everyone is talking about it. Either something's being done nearby, they're wanting to do something like act or write or whatever. Until our own people start talking about film and getting excited about film, the word won't spread far or fast enough.

You want filmmaking in Ohio to be sexy to those outside of it? Talk about it! Blog about it! Get others talking about it. Spread the word and shout it out loud. Don't wait for someone else to do it for you. Sure, ask for help, but help yourself too.

On top of that sentiment, Gail reminded me of something equally important - it should be a part of every production's business plan to promote their work. It should be a part of every film festival's preparation to promote their event, not just to the area or region, but to the state and beyond. A line item on the back page of Variety is a start, but if we can do better we should do better. The social networking pages are helpful, but they should not be relied upon to the negligence of good old fashioned media, phone calls and fax machines. Every event and production can hire - wait for it - INTERNS to do their press. Interns are cheap or free and they receive college credit and good resume credentials for the work they do. I have an intern helping me with the 48 Hour Film Project this year.

There are a TON a grant opportunities available for filmmakers as well, but they aren't often sought. Gail Mezey provided me with a huge list - she can do the same for you.

One person asked a question specifically about the animation industry, and to me that sounded more like a question for a venture capitalist or entrepreneur. Benefits to a specific genre isn't in question - if an animated film qualifies for a tax incentive, as long as there are still some available, they will receive some benefits. But as far as drawing in new businesses, that's up to entrepreneurs. They're going to have to build something of quality that can also compete with the middle-east in value for the dollar, and that may be tough. BUT - rumor has it that an animation company is setting sights on Ohio as well as other potential sites, so keep your fingers crossed.

I got a comment about the need for transparency. This is one area that didn't go over very well in our meetings. I mentioned that we have people in our industry who would definitely attend the focus group meetings if they were open to the public like a City Council meeting is, but the suggestion was completely deflected. I brought it up a second time and they suggested that all information can go to their website via e-mail and that suggestions could be handled that way.

Folks, one problem I see is that they seem to be building everything around their new website. They mentioned their website many times during our meeting. Sure, you can e-mail and get information. Sure, you can sign up and get e-mails about whatever is going on. But to me a webpage is like a speedbump that's built too big. You can see over it and get something out of it, but you can't get over it to really dig in. Again, their doors are open, but in the case of the focus group meetings, the doors are closed for whatever reason. This is one area that we need to focus on getting changed so we can at least attend the meetings and offer opinions via e-mail after they're over.

This is what I have so far as far as the outcome from my meetings in Columbus. All in all they provided some decent information, while also deflecting other questions I would like to have had answered.

Bottom line, the film office is in diapers. So are the tax incentives. We're just getting started here. We need to come together as a community and figure how to fill in the gaps left behind by the bureaucratic machine and the Hollywood-bait level incentives. We need to recruit our own investors and make sure they get paid back, plus 15-20%. We need to take it upon ourselves to get educated and trained in our chosen craft. We need to seek out grants and other financing options. We need to stop blaming others and expecting others to do our work for us.

If we work as a community and support each other, and help the film offices help us in turn we'll have a much stronger film industry that will be vibrant from within and ready for the challenges of what lies beyond.

...and that's the way I see it.

So, Not Everything Is As It Seems...

A few well-placed phone calls today turned out to be extremely revealing in regards to the Columbus/Central Ohio/State of Ohio film industry. My thoughts of yesterday were not entirely accurate as it seems some things have changed since I last checked in on the industry as we know it. As the tax incentives were a small victory for filmmakers, it was a defeat for the city film commissions of the state. Cincy, Cleveland, C'bus - none of them are funded through State dollars any more. The difference is in city solvency. Cleveland and Cincinnati have dollars to support their film commissions, at least at some level. Columbus is a city in deep financial doo-doo, so still Film Columbus goes unfunded.

More after my meeting on Wednesday...

Itchy Trigger Finger

There's a new sheriff in town... well, at least there will be sometime in the near future. It's an odd time for the Ohio film industry as Christina Grozik is leaving the still-in-diapers Ohio Film Office while at nearly the same time Ohio finally passed into law a modest tax incentive for film work in the state. In the meantime, Nehst Studios in Cleveland is now poised to make a huge investment in that city thanks to the incentives, Cincinnati has a fully funded film office as well, and in Columbus... crickets.

Oh, there's stuff going on. Good stuff, too. "Aidan 5", last year's winner of the 48 Hour Film Project is becoming a web series, "Randomocity", a feature length first time effort filmed in Findlay in 2006 has been doing well in festivals and is now poised for a minor theatrical release in Carmike Cinemas around Ohio, Actor Fyvush Finkel recently appeared in one of Arbor Avenue's films, "The Other Men In Black", the Ohio music video challenge was well received and of course, the 48 Hour Film Project is on the way soon too. But what else?

A had a discussion the other day about this with a friend who told me that Columbus is being overlooked because of a couple of blunders when "Traffic" came to the state for production. Rumor has it that there were a few less-than-pleasant boo-boos that occurred, and we all know that bad news travels faster than good news, and that's a whammy for Central Ohio.

So. How do we overcome this? I see a few things we can do.

1.) Fund the Greater Columbus Film Commission. From the intel I got, the nastiness on "Traffic" occurred as the previous director was leaving the Film Columbus post. After that happened, support for films in central Ohio dwindled, Taft pulled the plug on the Ohio Film Office, and the industry in Ohio was left for dead. Basically, the ick ran downhill.

With the Greater Columbus Film Commission funded as the the other city commissions in the state, we give that office a fighting chance to court new productions here, promote the incentives to existing Ohio companies with the means to support Ohio films and gather the right people in the right place at the right time and ask for support. Without a fully functional film office in Columbus, we may never climb back up the ladder and out of the sewer.

2.) Get someone in the Ohio Film Office that's dedicated to film, dedicated to enhancing Ohio's film industry, experienced with film and all that goes with it and resolved to working hand-in-hand with all of Ohio's city film commissions to get productions moving here. There's some political junk going on when the film commissions are concerned; some unnecessary and ridiculous competition in regards to territory, accolades and whatever. As Obama likes to say, "we all need to come together for the common good" and stop marking our territory. For a new office with new incentives, the Ohio Film Office has been pretty darn quiet since it got underway, other than the music video contest they sponsored earlier this year. Our film office needs to get a whole lot noisier if we want another "Traffic" or "Shawshank Redemption" to come here and, as icing on the cake, put our people to work on the production.

3.) Make some noise. There is some awesome stuff being created in Columbus and the area. We have the RED in several rental houses now, including Scott Handel's Ohio HD Video. The guys at RAVE have been working hard on a RED pipeline as well, and Phil Garrett's latest work was also filmed on a RED. That aside we have some great DPs that are using film, and we have some folks who are amazing with graphics and animation too. For smaller works, Peter John Ross's "The Relationship Card" is not only fun, but very cool as far as the effects go.

So, once we make this great stuff... then what? What do we do with it? Show it at MOFA, SOFA and IndieClub?

This takes the conversation back to steps one and two to a point. We need FilmColumbus to be set free so Gail can work with our filmmakers to not only get their films made, but to get them seen! Furthermore, the Ohio Film Office has got to rev it up and pop the clutch! They need to get our films out there, get them marketed and get people looking at Ohio again.

But most importantly, it's important for us to step up OUR game as well. We can't expect others to do our work for us. We need to get excited about our work, we need to get serious about getting our work seen in places that will raise some eyebrows and get some press and we need to coalesce our creative community into one dynamic machine with one goal... to get the world to see what we can do here.

That in mind, I want to make a movie. I want to gather Ohio's best together to make something that will blow people's minds. I want a big budget, and big cameras, and big ideas, and big excitement, and big crowds, and big staging - and I want the State of Ohio to help me pay for it.

We're going to get through the 48 Hour Film Project. Then, we're going to start the engines.

...and that's the way I see it.

My respite provides a fresh breath...

This entry is going to surprise some of you.

First, I've been pretty busy so I've dropped out of things for awhile.  No Rush, no Hannity, no O'Reilly.  No Dobbs, no King, no Olbermann.  No Nancy Grace - ever.  Please...

So, I come back into it last night to find out that there's a military murder by a convert to Islam, Obama's in Egypt and that controversial abortion doctor from Kansas, Tiller, has been murdered.  Plus David Carradine is dead which sucks beyond all other suckage of the day.

It was a great opportunity to get caught up on all sides.  I watched Fox News mostly because I really like Bill O'Reilly.  I do believe that he is one of the most balanced voices out there.  I think he is fair to both sides and although he interrupts too much, he does a nice job as devil's advocate to both parties.  He asks a lot of questions.  I respect that.

 I really don't like Hannity, but I watched Hannity as well because of his interview with Rush Limbaugh, with whom I agree about 75% of the time.

I also flipped over to CNN for "No Bias No Bull" and "AC360".  Here's what I found.

While I really can't stand the mainstream media's "slobbering love affair" with liberalism and Barack Obama, I was disappointed that Fox News commentators like Hannity only showed the portions of Obama's speech to Islam that they could harp on.  While Hannity is arguably less fair and balanced than the rest of the network, it does not suit the conservative movement to only show half of what gets said.  No matter what party one follows, it's not fair to exclude important information from talking points.  I don't want so much spin, from either side.

So, while the snippets that Fox News showed of Obama's speech really pissed me off, the snippets that AC360 aired were much more complete and gave me a little more to decide on.  As usual, Obama was overly apologetic.  He was soft.  He was pandering.  BUT, I did appreciate his pointing out his Christian faith and asking that America be judged more fairly by Islam just as Islam should be judged more fairly by America.

I disagree with much of Obama's posturing.  His spending is irresponsible and selfish.  His apparent seizure of industrial America is a socialistic abomination, particularly if his plan is to wrest the companies back into the eager hands of the unions rather than its ownership.  But, he wore his American flag pin, he's trying to open doors than have been closed for a long time and he's got his work cut out for him.

He does need to stop apologizing for America and bowing down in humility.  America is a strong, good country and he should be telling people that a lot more.

...and that's the way I see it.

Interview With The Democrat

What a blessing it is to have friends that don't agree with me.  The best way to learn the strength of your positions is to discover the weak points in that of your opposition.

I had a wonderful discussion today with a former teacher who has also worked in school administration and now continues working for education through another capacity.  Back during the campaign he sported a pro-Obama bumper sticker on his car, as did many of the other cars in the parking lot.  As aggravated as I was about this, I never challenged his allegiance to the Democrat party despite their increasing left-ward lean because he is a significant client who offers ongoing business and friendship.  But somehow today the conversation got started.

I asked him, "One can't help but notice that teachers, professors, universities and so on always lean liberal.  Why is that - is it because of the unions?"  To my surprise, he said that it really had nothing to do with the unions, but had more to do with the fact that their careers have been made in caring and educating children, and that the Democrat party has traditionally been the "huggy" party, fighting for unilateral equality, taking care of the "working man" and so on.

I thought that was an interesting perspective, but I had to retort, "Are you suggesting that the party of family values and, especially of late, faith and spirituality, isn't "huggy" in nature?"  He replied that it hasn't always been that way.  He suggested that the parties have been changing profoundly, that the Democrat party and Republican party are not what they have been traditionally.

I then asked, "I understand that the Democrat party has always been the 'working man's party', but The New Deal was probably the biggest enemy to the working man in history as it created a massive welfare state that it took Reagan, Bush I and Clinton to clean up.  Now in less than 100 days the Obama administration threatens to redistribute wealth and create an even larger welfare state than FDR started and Jimmy Carter fed voraciously.  At what point do you draw the line and stop feeding the monster, and tell the monster to put forth a little effort to go feed himself?"  He agreed that a line must be drawn but the argument for him is where it should be drawn.  He then volunteered, "Look, I'm not in lock step with the guy."  Then I got to hear what I wanted to hear... that he is not in favor of a one-world government with Obama as supreme leader, that the huge amount of spending is a catastrophe.  Then I got the money shot.

I mentioned to him how I feel about things as a business owner.  He said, "Look I can understand how you feel.  In all the years I've worked, never once have I gone without a paycheck.  I've always essentially worked for the government.  I have no idea how you feel as a person who owns a business."

I can tell you.  I can't ask for a levy from the taxpayers to make sure I get that paycheck.  If there's not enough money, I have to axe someone and I'll probably go without a paycheck.  So the paycheck he's always gotten came from the government, i.e., the taxpayer.  In a non-education scenario, that paycheck has to come from someone, a business owner, who may have gone without a paycheck while building that business.  Now Obama is rebuilding government dependance programs with the "huggy" idea of evening out prosperity, no matter the effort it takes to gain that prosperity.

I suppose if I always got a check no matter what, and if taxpayers paid for my insurance and benefits, and if a union "had my back" if the evil, nasty employer (that pays me) gets on my case in any way, I might look at things a different way as well.

But I have gone without a paycheck.  I can't ask the taxpayers for my salary.  I have others who receive paychecks from me and worry about mandated tax increases and health care that may cost them their job.

I appreciate my friend's ability to look beyond the rose-colored glasses that many Obama supporters put on last year and refuse to take off. 

I get that Dems hated Bush.  I get that Dems hated the war.  I get that Dems tend to believe in global warming and advocate green energy.  But Dems must be willing to do what I have done.  Get to know the other side.  Ask questions and engage in healthy conversations, free of debate and argument, so learning is possible.  Similarly, articulate your position, and do it without threatening or minimizing your opponent's opinion.

You may find, as I did, that you have a lot more in common than you might expect.

And that's the way I see it.

No Good Opinion Goes Unpunished

Geez-o-peats.

Ya ever have a donkey kick you in the back of the head?  Yeah, me either.  But it kind of feels like I got kicked in the head today.  

In my posts, I have a tendency to bloviate about politics which is something I never thought I'd have any interest in at all. 

I got very involved in the politics of gun ownership and game laws when I started a hunting and fishing website and started getting the word out about anti-gun initiatives.  In the midst of that, we started a new Presidential campaign cycle and the flood gates opened.  Now I'm an absolute news junkie, political student (unofficially) and unrelenting rabble-rouser.

But believe it or not, there are some issues that I don't have strong opinions on.  I may have opinions on them, but they're issues I don't get all crazy about.  

Abortion:  As a man I can have an opinion, however as a man my rights are limited, as are my perspectives - so I have a tendency to keep my thoughts to myself.   

Crime & Punishment: Since it's not an issue that affects me directly, I don't get all nuts about this.  I do have my opinions on this, though.  I used to do some website work for our local sheriff's office, and one of my jobs was updating the E-Sorn list (the list of local sexual offenders).  One of these days, if I get a wild hair, I may give you my perspectives on that.  Until that hair grows, it's not that important.

Education:  Sorry.  I don't get all goofy about this.  I know it's an important issue, but school was never an important part of my life, so I don't get all up on it.

Culture and Influence:  Yeah, this one I do get my ire up about sometimes.  I don't think it's right to tell off-color jokes in front of children, introduce racist or hateful thoughts to kids, or corrupt the "family hour" of television with a bunch of adult-based programming.  But is it something I need to blog about?  Nah... not now.  Maybe when something ticks me off.

Gay Rights/Equality Issues:  This is another area that I don't have a strong opinion about.  I inadvertently find myself getting dragged into debates about it, when actually I don't have what some would consider a personal stake in the issue, or some kind of strong stance like I do on other issues.  I normally try to stay neutral when I get involved in these debates, but somehow because I don't take a strong stance, someone gets a thorn in their butt.  I recently got into it with an old friend who now lives in Long Beach.  She was all in my face about Prop 8, when all I said was that the issue was legally placed on the ballot, legally voted upon and legally defeated.  I offered no opinions as to whether things should be one way or the other, just facts.  It took a long time to get it through her head that I wasn't taking a stand - except to suggest that the rule of law had been properly followed and that the majority vote needed to be respected, and not overruled by some activist judge that holds himself higher than the voice of the voters themselves.

Where is this blog leading?  I'm getting there...

I was watching the news and saw where Perez Hilton, famous for internet commentary, asked a Miss USA contestant from California about her opinions on gay marriage.  Gay marriage is a lava-hot issue in California as it was just voted down by the voters of California.  There have been protests after protests after protests about "Prop 8" in California, and it's not going to be resolved any time soon.  Anyway...

After Hilton asked her, Miss California remarked that she believed that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman.  She apologized to those who she may have alienated due to her opinion, but she stuck to her gut.  Shortly after the competition was over (she didn't win), Hilton, who is gay, posted a blog ripping her apart, calling her a "dumb bitch".

I made a comment on Facebook that I felt she was to be congratulated for having the guts to tell the truth based on her upbringing and opinion.  I further thought that Hilton needed to be chastised for the way he handled the whole thing.  When I was further asked about this issue as the blog progressed, I simply stated that I felt that Hilton chose the wrong forum in which to inject the debate, that as a judge in the pageant he unfairly put the contestant "on the spot" in front of a national audience about an incredibly polarizing topic and that his online reaction was abhorrently inappropriate because he's the one that put her in that position in the first place, asked her for her opinion and received an honest answer.  Later I even said that had Pat Robertson (700 Club) been a judge and asked the same question, and had the answer (opinion) had come back the opposite way, it would have been a travesty for him to call her a "heathen" on his blog, if he even has a blog.

In no way did I offer an opinion on gay marriage or civil unions, but my own sister-in-law, a stage actress in Houston, got her ire up because I defended Miss California for standing up for herself.  She's straight, but she has an increasing clutch of gay friends, and feels very strongly about the issue of equality.  Earlier, she agreed with me that Hilton was a pinhead, but as the conversation ensued, she somehow got the idea that the argument was about gay rights, not about whether Hilton was right or wrong in his behavior.  When I continued to mention that Hilton was in the wrong (for bringing up a divisive issue in an inappropriate forum and then profanely trashing someone for offering an opinion THAT HE ASKED FOR), the debate got more heated, and she ended up "unfriending me" on Facebook.

So, here's where the mule kicked me.  It doesn't matter if you're left or right, gay or straight, male or female, black or white... you're entitled to an opinion.  You're further entitled to keep your opinion to yourself.  Other people are fully permitted to have differing opinions too.  If for some reasons these opinions should be made public, and they are not in any way similar, it doesn't make one opinion WRONG or RIGHT... it just makes it different.  Because people are entitled to their own opinions, which are simply opinions and neither wrong nor right, it is inappropriate for one of those opinions to be called wrong or right, for it is just an opinion and opinions cannot be wrong or right.  (Catch the drift?)

Therefore, to attack someone over an opinion rather than have a useful debate that may either persuade or (at the very least) inform is inappropriate.  Further, to call someone a "dumb bitch" because of an opinion that she was asked to give doesn't solve, inform, persuade or ingratiate anyone.

I will further inject that opinions are different than judgments.  I may have an opinion about the way I want my life to proceed, and my opinion on what is right and wrong in this world.  It's an entirely different thing to place judgment on the things I opine as right or wrong.  Judgments are actionable, where opinions are not.  I not only offered no opinions on gay equality, but I similarly offered no judgments.

We live in a culture that if someone offers a differing opinion, they're wrong.  We've gotten so closed-minded that we're not even willing to listen to another point of view without getting our undies bunched up over it.  Respectful debate (without name-calling or finger-pointing) is a lost art.

I have challenged people to debate me, most recently on my last blog, if they have a differing opinion.  Truthfully, I'm interested in knowing dissenting views on the opinions I hold, because if I don't know the other side of an issue, how can I be fully informed enough to offer an intelligent debate for my own side?

I am white, straight and male, but I have friends that are not white, straight or male.  I can get along with just about anyone unless my personal pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is threatened.  If there's ever a time when our opinions differ, please respect my friendship enough to debate me respectfully.  I promise to do my best to offer you the same respect, even if I vehemently disagree with you...

...and that's the way I see it.

Ideology Challenged

Since Barack Obama became a serious contender for the American Presidency, there has been a great deal of talk about the ideologies that we adopt.  Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or one of the other parties, a conservative, a liberal, a statist, a progressionist, a moderate... what does it all mean?

Many of my friends have their political position noted as "liberal".  My opinion is that to many of these friends, "liberal" can be simply defined as not conservative, or in essence, not a Republican or even more to the point, in no way aligned with George W. Bush.  I surmise that many of these self-proclaimed liberals have done no research into the ideology they profess to follow, or the political path that liberalism suggests.

To be fair, I also must relent to the number of liberals who at least have a basis for their ideologies, most notably those with a family history of Democrat party affiliation, or those who have had a working history as a member of a union;  perhaps an auto worker, a teacher or professor, a construction worker,  a creative services provider (movies, radio, TV), or a member of some of the other aspects of the "labor class".

So, why do we feel the way we feel?

I've been doing quite a bit of research on this question, especially as of late.  The "tea parties" and tax protests brought out millions of people from all ideologies to debate governmental policy and the constitutionality of federal taxation.  Indeed, the tax party I attended brought out Obama supporters, Obama voters who had a change of heart, and Obama policy detractors.  Truly, the Obama supporters were not out in great number, but we did enjoy debating with a few, though unfortunately the points on either side really never went much deeper than a simple regurgitation of the talking points espoused by ideologues on either side of the issues.

"Obama is doing everything he can to help the American people and bring us out of this recession."

"Obama is going to get us out of these ridiculous wars and bring our manufacturing back home."

"Hey, I had to live through 8 years of George W. Bush.  We won - deal with it."  (That is the stupidest argument for anything, ever.  That simply follows a negative liberal media bias and does nothing to intelligently explain a political position.  It rivals, "just because!" in it's idiocy.)

I understand the power of the liberal media, even though they have never done anything publicly to explain why they lean the way they lean.  ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN, MSNBC - they're all pro-Obama, but they never adequately describe why.  Fox News personalities explain their positions regularly.  "Big government is bad because..." (ad infinitum).  MSNBC, to my knowledge, has never really said why big government is better.  Is it in the equalization of the working class?  I doubt it.  Katie Couric makes more than I do, but I've never received a check from her to level our economic playing field, and to apologize for her achievement-based successes that keep us at disparate economic levels.  Billionaire George Soros spends a lot of his fortune in efforts to reform American politics, but he does not apologize for the fact that he is a billionaire and I'm not.  As a matter of fact, much of his wealth is gotten through betting against the American dollar.  When America takes a dip, he's bathed in wealth.  

That aside, all the left-leaning media does is continually denigrate their opposition without a proper explanation as to why... but the public accepts it, believes it and regurgitates it as if the facts they espouse are their very own.

Many that's why liberals aren't very good at explaining themselves.

Well, maybe I can help explain a few things.  Maybe not.

A conservative talk radio host, Mark Levin, recently released a novel, "Liberty & Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto".   It has been celebrated by the right as one of the most important writings of our time.  Wanting to know why, I picked up a copy.  One chapter in, I realized that there was much to learn about both sides of the issue.  But where would I learn the other side? 

Well, for many Americans, conservatism is analogous to capitalism.  Thus, to research the reverse of capitalism, especially in search of a profound document that equals Levin's book, one must look for a defining document about capitalism's antithesis, socialism.  But the only document worthy of standing up for socialism actually regards it as a soft version of socialism's true origin, communism.  That document is "Manifesto of the Communist Party", written primarily by Carl Marx in 1848.  It's most notably referred to as the Communist Manifesto.

Now, uninformed liberals may not appreciate having their beliefs referred to as communist in nature, but we need to get past the stigma attached to the word communism.  In fact, the manifesto was written to try to convince the rest of Europe of the finer points of Marx's feelings of the superiority of communism, not as some foreboding cloud that signaled the march of the ideology throughout the region.  Consider it Marx's soft sell.  It wasn't successful as a recruitment device, but is does allow us some fantastic insights into the mind of the anti-conservative.

A defining quote from Marx is actually not found within the pages of the Communist Manifesto, but is actually found in the pages of another document, "Critique of the Gotha Program", written in 1875, but it generalizes Marx's true views as to economics and how the communist manifesto's suggested role of government can facilitate his vision. 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  The phrase basically says that we should all contribute to and consume from society in proper proportion, regardless of how much we give.  So, I could make 100 documentaries about green energy and the virtues thereof because I'm fully capable to do so, but if I'm single with no dependents I should still only make the money according to my needs, not my wants or aspirations.  Let's see.  My mortgage is less than $1,000 a month, my car payment is about $350, I eat between $200 and $300 worth of groceries per month, cell is $99 a month... okay, so according to my needs I should make about $25,000 per year.  I won't be able to afford an iPod, but hey - do I really NEED an iPod?  Plus, if my neighbor can't get an iPod, it really isn't FAIR for me to have one.

But, the Communist Manifesto goes even further.  It establishes a massive state of dependency.  Under true communism, you can't own a house.  You can only rent - according to your needs.  You need a roof over your head... what does it matter that you don't own it?

There are ten defining principles to socialism*, which is the soft side of communism:

1: Abolition of property in land an application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance

4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels (you move here, give us your stuff)

5: Centralization of the banks in banks of the state, by means of a national bank

6: Centralization of communications and transport in the hands of the state

7: Extension of factories/production owned by the state

8: Equal obligation of all to work, establishment of industrial & agricultural armies

9: Abolish distinction between town & country by combining the industries & their workers

10: Free education for all children in state public schools, combine it with industry (not child labor)

*http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism

These are also the 10 tenets laid out within the Communist Manifesto.

Of these tenets, several of them seem to have already taken shape under the Obama administration, and even to an extent, under the end of the Bush administration as well, particularly the centralization of the banks and the centralization of manufacturing.  But the biggest socialist tenet adopted by the Obama administration is the second tenet of socialism or communism, the graduated income tax.  The AIG executives received a bonus from the bailout money.  Then the government thought of taxing them 90% so they could get it all back and distribute the wealth fairly.  That's an exaggeration of the graduated tax, but it serves as the most visible example.  The most notable example is the new tax policy that raises federal taxes on any family making more than $250,000 annually, while "lowering" federal taxes on families earning less than that amount.  Redistribution of wealth.  From each, to each...

In our Declaration of Independence our founding father's established some inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This phrase alone destroys the possibility of socialism or communism in America as one could argue that the ability to own property itself is seen as a liberty.  Further, if my ownership of an iPod makes me happy, and it doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else, I should be able to buy one regardless of whether my neighbor has the money to purchase one himself. 

The Federalist papers suggested that a government was necessary to control the populace, but that it was just as responsible to control itself.  This idea was killed in the 1930s as FDR initiated "The New Deal" in an effort to get us out of the Great Depression.  A Democrat President and Democrat majority in Congress started wildly creating new federal projects, new entitlements, new agencies, new laws, setting price limits and production limits and threatened to re-seat the justices of the Supreme Court if they challenged it.  FDR's reign ran for four terms, and history has proven that the depression was defeated by the industrial revolution that followed WWII, and that recovery took longer because of the massive spending initiatives of FDR and his Congress.

Let's take a moment now to challenge capitalism, in all fairness.  People see CEOs and bank presidents making millions of dollars on the sweat of the people working for them who make far less.  They want equality.  Sure, the CEO should make more, but not that much more, right?  Some of that wealth should be redistributed to the workers.

There's something to be said for "competitive wages".  Why should I pay a worker $20 per hour when the prevailing market will enable me to get equally talented employees from a reasonably sized pool of applicants for $10 per hour?  One might argue that there are a lot more people in the $10 per hour pool of the working class than there are in the class of thinker necessary to run a multi-billion dollar corporation.  Should there be oversight?  Yes -  but not by the working class or even the government.  The oversight should come from the body of the ownership of the company.  They set the wage, they set the expectations, they hire the person - they should be the body to end the career of someone not effective in the position.

The liberal will say, "if that person has a better education, they should use it to make the company more money than can be distributed amongst all the people who work as a team to accomplish that company's goals."

The capitalist will say, "if that worker wants to elevate themselves to the level of CEO and all the riches and accolades that position entails, they should invest the time and money it takes to achieve that position... and they should be compensated well for that investment."

The first, liberal ideal above is purely socialist as per the teachings of Marx - "From each according to his ability to each according to his need", while the other Capitalist ideal allows for a person to achieve according to ones own pursuit of liberty and happiness.

Capitalism is not perfect.  There are charlatans and crooks who dole out crap that promises to cure the world of all its ills, but we the people have the power to stop those people where it warrants.  Product recalls, awareness (lead in paint on toys from China, anyone?) and the internet are proven to help consumers make informed choices.  If someone chooses to purchase without an informed decision, whether it's a baby-stroller or a financial investment, it's nobody's fault but that someone.

Is capitalism fair?  I think it is.  It encourages personal responsibility.  Caveat emptor is Latin for, "let the buyer beware", and that whole phrase had to originate from something that pissed someone else off.  But with a free society (free of oppressive government oversight that limits liberty) we do need to have the aforementioned personal responsibility.

The Communist Manifesto targets manufacturing and says that if you make too much of something, it's not out of need, it's out of a desire to profit which is not fair to others who don't stand to profit from its surplus manufacture.  That applies to a home woodworking shop to General Motors.  I can make a coat hanger for myself.  If other people like that coat hanger, I may make more than I need with a desire to sell some of them and make a profit.  There are lots of good cars in the world, but if GM comes out with it's newest Tahoe and I like it better than the 2005 I'm driving, I may buy it.  I already had a car, so GM didn't need to make it... but they hoped that someone like me may have an old one and want something newer in my pursuit of happiness.

Big government exists for one thing - to spread the government and its influence and control over the citizenry of the United States, which directly contradicts the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  Big government is about power and "equality" amongst the people regardless of the amount we each contribute (to each according to his need), which is Marxist by its very nature.

I challenge a "liberal" to do the research that offers a construct that differs from the origin or the ideology I've presented here.  I'm secure in the idea that the left-wing stance adopted by most liberals is simply "anti-Bush" and little more, because if the research was done in due earnest, they would not adopt that ideal with the same ferocity.

If I'm wrong, it means that all the people in college right now to be engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers and more are merely there so that they can invest their personal time and finances so that they can contribute their knowledge and the fruits of their sacrifice only to others and not themselves for the good of the people as a whole.  They want to be doctors to cure the sick, and not be financially rewarded for it, lawyers to defend the accused, and not ask for anything in return that's beyond their level of need and so on.

The truth is that if there are college students with that aspiration, that's great for them - that's their choice.  To have a government demand that of its people - that's not so great.  That's liberalism.  That's Marxism.  That's what the Democrat party has become.

And that's the way I see it.

The pant, wheeze and gurgle of a strangled voice...

I just put my money where my mouth is.  I've always said that if you're not willing to voice your opinion to the right people, you're wasting your breath.  So, I did it (again) and I called my US Representative and my US Senators.

Congress keeps asking us to be patient, to let the stimulus work.  So, why aren't they?  An additional TRILLION dollars is about to be printed and injected into the fed.  It's never been done before under this economic scenario and it runs the risk of sinking us into a depression, but also causing hyper-inflation at the same time.  This economic armageddon has happened in other countries... Zimbabwe, Germany... so the precedent of hyper-inflation AND depression is there, but they reached that sorry state under different circumstances.

So, what I'm saying is that if Congress wants us to be patient, THEY should be patient as well.  They're like the guy who gets his first checkbook and says, "how can I be out of money?  I still have checks left over."  They need to stop the spending.  When Obama took office our national debt was in the billions.  Clinton was able to balance the budget for the first time in a long time.  Bush did nothing to help that, I grant you, but now the projected deficit when the dust settles is close to 3.9 Trillion.  We've gone from billions of dollars of debt to TRILLIONS in less than 100 days.  So - what did I do?  I called Representative Jim Jordan and Senators George Voinovich and Sherrod Brown.

I suggested to Jordan and Voinovich that they need to start talking to us more.  I was informed by both offices that both have been doing a series of town hall meetings over the past few weeks and months, talking to their districts, answering questions and telling Ohioans what we're supposed to be doing about this catastrophe.  A call to Sherrod Brown's office went a little different.  His office asked me to be patient.  The call went something like this:

KC:  So, what is Brown's stance on all this spending?

Office Aide:  What do you mean, specifically?

KC: Specifically?  The spending.  The stimulus, the trillion dollar injection into the fed, health care, the budget, bail-outs - I want to know what Senator Brown thinks about all this spending.

Office Aide:  Well, you may be happy to know that there are billions coming to your state.

KC:   Sure, in the short term.  The media made a big deal out of Senator Brown leaving his mother's funeral to sign the bill.  The fact is that he flew to Washington to sign a piece of legislation that he had never read.  He flew to DC to sign a bill he hadn't read that's going to increase this country's debt into the trillions.  So, okay, there's money coming to this state so we can start doing "shovel ready" projects here.  And work may be created in the short term, but you can't call work "jobs".  Jobs and careers are what's in short supply.  Kids aren't going to college to find work, but that's what these shovel-ready projects are.  Secondly, when that funding runs out and we're still in a recession or even a depression, where's all that spending going to get us?  Bankrupt.  So - again, I ask you, what is Senator Brown's stance on that?

Office Aide:  Well, you're going to need to give the stimulus time to work.

END OF (not completely verbatim) TRANSCRIPT.

The American public got this forced down out throats.  We were willing to give it time, but the Democrats aren't.  How is printing a trillion dollars to feed the fed in any way analogous to waiting to see if it works?  I'm sick of him not listening.  Ohioans are sick of Brown putting party politics ahead of his constituents.  It's a government of the people, not the people of the government.  I'm his boss, and I'm tired of him not doing what I ask him to do.

I asked him to side with the constitution and the people on the Heller 'vs' Washington case.  What did he do?  Voted along party lines, against the US Constitution.

Now, to be fair - he's not completely worthless.  His Motor Coach Enhanced Safety Act is probably a good idea, really.  Glass that helps keep people from being ejected, roll cages in the roofs, tire monitoring systems, "black boxes"... all decent ideas, and really, it gets motor coaches on par with safety regulations required for automobiles and I don't hate that.  I don't think it'll save people on a bus that goes off a bridge somewhere like those ball players from Bluffton, but I suppose this act may actually create, or save some Ohio jobs.  I just don't want the government to pay for it.  If XYZ Charters wants safer busses to coincide with legislation, they will plan their business model accordingly so they can afford to replace their fleet, perhaps over a 10-15 year period.  New people getting into the venture would need to capitalize new standardized fleets now.  They will then charge people to ride on their busses.  The government passes legislation, they give the private sector appropriate time to react and all is well.  The government doesn't need to pay for it.  The bus companies will need to hire for added production of the new standardized vehicles, new engineers and designers will come in, and the free market will take care of itself.

Is it nanny legislation?  Yeah, maybe a little.  But I don't see much problem getting the mass-transit industry up to par with vehicle safety standards, especially since we're supposed to be finding ways to lessen our need for foreign oil.

That being said.  I'm an American, and I'm proud of it.  I'm proud of what our founding fathers set up, and I'm proud of the fact they did it to get away from the tyranny of the English.  We're facing our own tyranny here now, and the only way to do anything about it is to contact our representatives and senators and tell them how we feel.  They are public servants.  We give them their jobs.  We're the bosses.  It's time we stand up and take our rightful role as their boss and not let up until we truly get the change many Americans hoped for.

... and that's the way I see it.

Great game...Who won?

Charles Darwin, in "Origin Of The Species" suggestion that an element of evolution is the idea that the strongest will survive, and that the weakest will fall. According to Darwin, our very DNA suggests that there is an innate inequality that reinforces our individualism.

I sometimes wonder about individualism. I wonder if we truly have any individuals left. Nobody ever just dances anymore. People line up to do the "Electric Slide", a mindless, repetitive group dance that shows no creativity at all. The stupid thing has been around since 1990, and it's still happening. I'm glad I don't DJ anymore. The tattoo and piercing craze? Not individualistic if everyone's doing it. I digress.

Conservatives are starting to rally against Obama's ideas of leveling the playing field. The notion that we are our brother's keeper doesn't sit too well with hard-working Americans who all of a sudden are told that all they have worked for needs to be shared with the deadbeat next door, just because you have it and he doesn't. The idea isn't new. Underachievers (and their parents) have worked hard to level that field for eons.

Do you remember a ways back when some schools all of a sudden decided that they were going to discontinue the position of validictorian and salutatorian because it flaunted success in front of students who were less successful? Then later the news came out that some schools were going to be changing their grading policies because to give a student an "A" in front of another who received a "D" was cruel and unfair. Cruel and unfair? I still fail to understand why the student who studied and took school seriously should have to apologize for doing better than the one who got stoned in the graveyard the night before the quiz and crashed on the couch with his hand in a bag of Doritos rather than cracking his text book open and at least giving it a look.

Youth sports are following the trend in places around the nation, asking the kids not to keep score. So, you have the team that is organized and practiced and well coached battling the next team that may not be as so. Yet, the second team agreed to play the better team and live with the consequences of that decision. Every year Michigan decides they want to go ahead an play the Buckeyes despite the fact they know they're going to come away looking like the absolute abortion they are. The Wolverines play like the rest of Michigan drives - sloppy! I digress.

I watched a talk show tonight on which Keisha Knight-Pulliam (Rudy on the Cosby Show) was interviewed, and she was asked the secret of Tyler Perry's success. She said that she didn't know when the guy ever slept. She said that he was a hard-worker. She said that because of his dedication that he deserved the success he is receiving.

So, because he's dedicated and hard-working, he deserves that success. Is she also saying that people who aren't dedicated and hard-working don't deserve the same success?

We are all wired differently. Some of us have that special something that drives them to succeed. Other's don't. There's an old saying, "we reap what we sow". It's from the Bible. If I'm doing all the reaping and the sowing, the dude who isn't helping with the harvest sure as hell doesn't deserve any of the yield. Will I give him some? I might - but it should be my choice, not a mandate.

A losing team knows how to level the playing field. They practice, they change their leadership, they start to mimic the plays of the team that beat them... they work to improve. They work to deserve the win. It's not just handed to them. To be told that my hard work will be rewarding those who have not earned the rewards themselves is welfare, and it's anti-evolution for the people involved. No one evolves into something greater because there's no incentive to do so.

So - I'm going to continue to beat the pants off the rest of my family on the Wii because I know it will make them want to practice and eventually beat me. When they do, I'll practice and clobber them again. The little award ceremony will happen and I'll be on the top block doing flips and smiling big. Similarly, I'm still going to do my best to succeed in my business, and when I do I 'll hire people to enjoy a portion of that success - because, by golly, they're going to earn it.

And that's the way I see it.