What Hollywood could learn from Fireproof

This weekend I saw a movie named Fireproof. This movie is a religious movie with overtly religious themes. I am not suggesting the Hollywood start making exclusively religious movies.

The movie centers around a couple who has seen the spark leave their marriage. They have forgotten how to respect each other and they have forgotten simple decency. They are moving head long toward divorce. This is where the faith came in. At the beginning of the movie neither the husband or wife were faithful people. Through guidance from his father he comes to God and saves his marriage. He undertakes a "Love Dare" to try to save his marriage.

What I believe Hollywood could learn is about telling a story. This movie could have been made from a secular point of view and been equally as compelling. It starts from a perspective that marriages are better saved than not. I believe most people in our country believe that. That is not a common belief in the artistic community. The aspects that the character follows through the dare while backed up by scripture are not religious in nature. The first day he is dared to do something for your spouse to help them they would not expect. It says to do these things with no return in mind, just spontaneous kindness. This is not a religious component. We can all agree I think that kindness is not exclusively religious. We can also agree that a change in a relationship will never happen as long as both parties are practicing everything except kindness. Along the way he is to plan a romantic dinner. This again is not religious in nature. The events in the dare caused the person to think of the other persons point of view and get out of their own skin for a moment.

Another thing that Hollywood would not understand is that you can have romantic scenes without overt sexual references. During the movie the character of the wife has a flirtation with a doctor at the hospital where she works. I can envision if this were a Hollywood movie we would be treated to steamy sexual liaison where they would have consummated their relationship. If a secular movie were made we could get the idea of a physical relationship without seeing it plastered on the screen. I am not suggesting the physical love is never to be tolerated on screen, just not here. This was a movie about relationships and a physical scene may have taken away from that.

One last thing to Hollywood. I personally don't need to see a movie where every actor is a blockbuster A list actor. This movie had a cast that was mostly made up of unknown people from the church who sponsored the movie. In a secular setting how about keeping the budget down by using lesser known actors. That way I might be able to take my family to the movies for less than $50.

There were aspects of the movie that are predictable and formulaic. I admit this, but we also get that from secular Hollywood. Hollywood proves again and again they have no clue of what the vast majority of people outside of New York and California are looking for in entertainment. If they cared to find out they might make more movies that deal with relationships that resemble the rest of us and not them. I don't expect to see this any time soon. I don't even expect them to stop making the dark melodramas they love so. Just make a few for the rest of us. We might even give them some of our money if they did.

A nation of cowards

If Attorney General Holder wanted a conversation about race he may have to ask himself some questions. First a preface, if you are African American and reading this please read what I write and not what you think I meant. I speak in no code words, I do not try to hide behind anything in this essay. I will mention things that are controversial but part of any conversation on race will contain controversy.

Every liberal politician likes to say we need more dialogue about race. I don't agree. I think we talk too much about race. If AG Holder wants more conversation about race, he needs to be willing to hear opinions he doesn't agree with without calling them racist or extreme. Larry Elder is an African American columnist who writes from the center right. On Townhall.com the following columns are present:
Elgin Baylor: The hero and the race card (a discussion about elgin Baylor)
Obama the magic negro (he discusses a song based line in the LA Times)

Walter Williams is an economist who also writes from the right (mostly libertarian). He has the following columns right now
A minority view

Thomas Sowell is another economist who writes from the right. He also on occasion writes on racial topics. On Townhall I don't see any of his pieces strictly on race. My challenge is this: read any of the three and ask yourself if a white columnist had written any of these pieces would he be called a racist by the popular press?

I will agree with AG Holder on his statement partially. I do not have in depth conversations about race with friends I have that are black. There is a reason. If I don't know how they feel on different subjects I do not want to offend them by saying something that is construed as offensive. I do the same things in conversations with women. I tend not to mention generalizations related to gender. It is simply too easy to be misunderstood and considered to be sexist or racist. Many issues should be discussed at greater length. Just a few I can think of are racial profiling, why sentencing to black males is perceived to be more severe, the general mistrust society has of young black males. These are important issues and can be discussed by blacks, but if a white takes them on they risk either their friendship or their livelihood if they disagree with the popular societal belief. If we could discuss race more openly more discussion is needed about race based preference and the destruction they do to blacks, we could discuss why out of wedlock births are destroying blacks in our inner cities. When these subjects are brought in the main stream the person bringing it up is generallly attacked at great length.

I wrote last year about Don Imus and his idiotic comments about the girls on the basketball team. While I don't consider his comments to be a serious discussion about race, I will point out that if you make similar remarks about a white male, a southern male, a Christian fundamentalist, or a Republican politician you will not lose your job you will get a television show. I don't mean to say that those subjects should also be taboo, far from it. When Imus made his remarks he should have been regarded as what he is, a loud mouthed comedian who frequently makes stupid remarks. If the adolescents that consider him to be funny, want to listen let them do what they will. If his employer thinks it is too far, they will act. They did not consider it too far until the race hucksters came out of the woodwork. That is a subject for another essay, if we had a more serious discussion on race men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have to get actual work.

Some years ago Rush Limbaugh made comments on a football pregame show concerning Donovan McNabb and his relationship with the media. Those comments were at the time not taken up by his fellow panelists, some of whom were black former players. I want to stress here his comments were in no way connecting race with performance, only that the national media elevates his performance based on his race. The point itself can be agreed with or disagreed with, but was in no way racist. The comments actually were entirely about the sports media and not McNabb himself. The substance was never debated only the fact that he made the comments. I think it would have been interested to have some substantive comversation about the point, which at the time I disagreed with. As the years have unfolded I think he was right.

Just this week the New York Post had a cartoon with a chimp in it. Is was regarded as racial. While it is not advised to ever have a chimp, monkey or any other such animal in a cartoon with the president because of obvious comparisons, I saw no racial basis in the cartoon at all. The point being made was against the stimulus package. Obama nor his advisers wrote the stimulus so how could it have been about them? There is not obvious racial comparison. In this case the perceived offense overrides the message the cartoonist intended. Whether the cartoon gets its message across or not can be up for debate, the automatic outrage is a deterrent to serious debate about race. I don't think this cartoonist nor any other will publish any kind of cart0on about race any time soon, (nor about chimps). It is simply not worth the risk. That being pointed out the cartoons some time back about Condeleeza Rice that were blatantly racial were never elevated to this level of controversy however. This again is another problem. Political beliefs can be a factor in deciding whether a subject is racist or not.

Whites and blacks alike need to face very uncomfortable aspects of our cultures and relationships with each other. I agree that changes will need to be made long term. Until controversial opinions are tolerated from whites, this will not happen. The risk is simply too great.

So what is the difference

The stimulus package becomes law today when President Obama signs it. There is nothing we can do to stop it. It is time though to analyze the differences between the two camps of this subject. I have pontificated at length that I believe the private sector is the best way to stimulate the economy. The Democrats seem to believe that the government is the best. We need to understand the differences if we are to make informed decisions.

Government based stimulus has never worked, not even one time. We have been taught that the New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression, but all economic metrics show depression as late as 1939. That was seven years after FDR's election. His own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. stated frankly that the programs did not produce growth nor reduce unemployment. We added tremendous debt to boot.

Vice President Biden (it hurts me to use those words in a sentence) in supporting this bill said we need to get money into the economy and fast. This is why it was necessary to get this done and signed. If we left money in the economy that would otherwise be sent to government that would also get money into the economy. If we made tax increases that are slated to happen next year not happen that would also add money into the economy albeit not until next year (remember up to 70% of the current stimulus will not be spent until 2010 and 2011 so that is not a problem in this example either). What that would do is add stability to investors and employers. Markets do not like uncertainty. President Obama promised to let the tax cuts of 2003 expire but has recently said he would not raise taxes until the economy improves. That is a good thing, but adds to the uncertainty. Any tax increase at this point would have disastrous effects.

Now if we left money in the economy, for example by cutting the Corporate tax rate to say 18% from 32%. This would leave a great deal of money in the economy that would otherwise be sent to Washington. So here is the question to ponder: Leaving money in the economy or taking money from one group to give to another, what is the difference and why does President Obama favor the direct payments over the reduction of rates? My judgement is that he believes that he and his advisers know better how to use your money than you do. I reject that belief. Let us do a thought experiment. Let's say that the reduction in corporate tax rate all went to the 'wrong uses' in his opinion. Let us say every fat cat in the country used that money to buy yachts, private planes, swimming pools, redecorated their offices etc. What would be the net effect? Airplane companies would need more factory workers, boat builders would need to supply the increased demand for boats, and would need more workers, decorators would be in demand, pool cleaners would be in demand (rich people don't clean their own pools after all), and pool installers would also be in demand. Of all the jobs I mentioned not one of them is a 'rich person job'. We of course know that is not what would happen if corporate tax rates were reduced. We would be more competitive in the capital markets. Companies would be much more willing to invest in our markets, because the risk reward ratio would be increased. There is an old adage that customers pay corporate taxes not corporations. That means that the corporation no matter how large of small has to pass that along in its price. Increase the tax and either prices have to go up or costs have to go down. Guess what the first cost to be cut is? Go to the head of the class if you said labor. You reduce labor costs by laying people off.

I again ask what is the difference? The truth is if they left money in the economy, they do not get to pick the winners and losers in this exercise. They don't trust you to pick winners and losers. That doesn't sound like freedom to me. It also doesn't sound like hope to me. If they left money in the economy teachers unions don't necessarily win, union construction workers don't necessarily win, community organizers don't win, University Presidents don't win unless you and I choose that they do. That won't do for the demand economy fans like President Obama. I say we can do better than them. We won't get to find out for at least four years. What a shame!

Government exists for the whole not the groups

We the people, of the people by the people and for the people. Founding phrases and the stuff of greatness. Somewhere along the way (I believe it was 1932) we stopped being for the people and for the groups.

President Obama exists for a small set of groups. Nancy Pelosi exists for groups. Arlen Spector exists for groups. Groups get politicians elected. This is unmistakable. Prior to every election we hear the pollsters tell us candidateA is doing well with white males, candidateB is doing poorly with hispanic females. Who is here to help the Joe Citizen? The guy who is trying to teach his children that you are in charge of your destiny. The guy who is trying to put away enough to live in retirement without turning to the government. The guy who wants his children to grow up with the values the he has. Don't get me wrong I believe all politicians believe they are doing just that. They stand up for the 'little guy'. We hear it all the time. By doing so they encourage the little guy not to stand up for himself. Roosevelt called him the forgotten man. He made great prose by espousing the forgotten man. He went to work attacking the powerful. President Obama wants to stand up for 'main street instead of Wall Street'.

Unfortunately we don't live in groups, we live as individuals and families. I know a man that has two houses because he had to move closer to his extended family that couldn't take care of themselves and can't sell his old house. He is in financial straits. He has kept his mortgage current, although it takes an incredible balancing act. President Obama wants to help those who took out mortgages they couldn't afford. There is no stimulus for those like my friend. By the way I don't want more people covered in the stimulus. The problem with government being the savior to all is they can only be savior to a small percentage of the population. In doing so they have to punish one group to help another. They leave very credible 'forgotten men' on the field.

I was having a debate with another friend the other day. This friend was very concerned about the poor who can't live as well as she does and she worries about how much it costs to go to the doctor. I strongly support the compassion and agree with it. Her savior of choice is government, mine is the people themselves. I happen not to believe that getting more and more people addicted to the debilitating power of government is compassion. While the intentions are good, the results are disastrous. Health care insurance is a problem for many people. My friend looks for the government to step in and make her doctor bills go away. Unfortunately we have found nowhere in history where government health care insurance has done that without creating shortages in actual health care as opposed to health care insurance.

President Obama makes pretty sounding speeches, he attempts to put a struggling people's minds at ease. His solutions have never worked in the history of man. They will however get him votes with the groups he needs to get re-elected, whether he accomplishes his goals or not. He looks to FDR as a model of how to fix this crisis. FDR got re-elected without fixing any economic ills. FDR did however make his groups feel like he cared about them. I would rather a leader that respects me. A leader that believes I can make better choices about my money than his planners can. Do we have any of those leaders today? Leaders that believe that the American people one American at a time is more powerful than the America made up of lobbying groups? A leader that will tell the people you can fix your life far better than I and my planners can? I sure hope so, we need one now.

Class Warfare won't stimulate spending or hiring

President Obama continues to prove that hope and change won't come from him any time soon. As he tours the country selling his pork spending plan, he seems more intent on scaring poor and middle class citizens than anything else. He has told us that if we don't enact this legislation we may never recover. He has told us that any plans Republicans have are moot because the election decided everything. Using that belief we should have had a dividend tax rate of zero after the Bush tax cuts of 2003. Yes that was his preferred rate. Didn't happen did it? The Democrats didn't believe that his election settled the matter. They shouldn't have, we need competition of ideas, even when they are tired old failed ideas like government spending stimulating an economy as Democrats believe.

President Obama in my opinion is showing his inexperience. He is in permanent campaign mode. That makes sense since the only real governing he did was in the Illinois state Senate where when tricky issue came up he voted 'Present'. He needs to understand that he is the President and what he says has an effect. When he consistently tells us we can't be trusted with our own money people simply will not take risk. When there is reduced chance of recouping risk in investing they will act on safe investments only. People consistently putting money in government bonds cannot stimulate the economy. It has never worked. Like it or not we need a vital and expanding private sector. If the leader of our nation tells us we cannot succeed without the nanny state saying so, we will not choose risky ventures. This is done through actions and not through words.

Demonizing the rich and business will also not cause the economy to expand. Whether we like it or not the rich create the majority of jobs. This is not arguable. I have written it so many times, but rich people are not harmed by higher incremental tax rates. They simply find safer but less profitable places to invest. What the end game of this is amounts to less poor and middle class people finding jobs in new enterprises.

A couple of recent examples, he has chastised TARP recipients for having meetings in Las Vegas and purchasing private jets. While I don't think these expenses were the smartest in trying times, these events do stimulate the economy. Union workers build these airplanes. Rich people don't work fueling airplanes. Middle class people do. Rich people don't staff Vegas hotels. Middle class people do. Rich people don't serve as flight attendants on airplanes. Middle class people do. I cannot begin to make a judgement as to whether the plane is a good investment, but without reviewing a cost benefit analysis neither can President Obama. He can sure use it to make you think someone powerful is ripping you off. That way he can continue to sell his liberal group payoff plan and convince you he is the knight in shining honor to the dragons of the business world. It is a cheap stunt and beneath the President of the United States. To a President who has never had to lead, it is business as usual. President Obama has capped corporate bonuses at $500,000 for TARP recipients. On the surface I have no problem with these caps since they are belly of the bar of the government trough. I think we can expand this policy though. University president feel no shame about accepting mult-million dollar salaries despite receiving government money. CEO's of government contractors are not forced into the Obama price control scam, despite accepting government money. Naturally this example is a bit of tongue in cheek. The President should not have anything to say about what anyone makes. This is a prescription for disaster. Government should never be in the business of choosing winners and losers. President Obama needs to learn this, but judging by his first three weeks in office, will not. Hope and change will have to wait while he solidifies his rule over his subjects, whether loyal or not.

Partisan bickering

We have heard a lot about partisanship lately. I have been lead to believe that partisanship is wrong. President Obama tells us every day we don't have time for partisan bickering. The stimulus bill he tells us is too important. Too many people are depending on it. To that I say, you have the votes right now, pass it.

Of course the truth is they passed it in the House along party lines. The word on the Hill is that they may have the votes or maybe not in the Senate. With fifty eight Senators from his party and not to have a clear majority, maybe the problem isn't partisanship, it seems to be within his own party. Let words mean what they should. Now lets define what we mean, remember I have written since I started writing this blog that words mean things and we can't come together until we let the same words mean the same things for everyone.

For example the Congress just passed the SCHIP bill to radically expand the popular program for children's health care assistance. The plain truth is President Bush wanted to sign the re authorization last year. He just didn't want the spending levels they wanted. It was dropped by the Democrat controlled Congress who made a judgement that they would be able to get everything they wanted under a new president which they expected to be of their party. Partisan bickering or effective political calculation? You decide that.

Way back in 2003 then President Bush called for stronger regulation Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He warned us that they were causing future problems because they were lending money irresponsibly. The Democrats teamed up with centrist to left leaning Republicans and stopped the bill. Partisanship, or political execution of their principles? Again you decide.

We have more than one point of view. I have written this continually. This goes back to the Hope and Change argument. Many people simply don't agree with President Obama's prescriptions for what ails us. I think we have good arguments, but that doesn't make us obstructionists. That being said I think it is up to the Republicans to make their arguments to the people. In the past they haven't had too many people that can string together effective sentences to do that. Maybe that will change with Michael Steele as the party chairman. Time will tell.

For today we have a very bad stimulus bill in front of the Senate. It will eventually pass. I believe the job for Republicans is to get as much pork out of it as possible so it will do the least possible harm. If that makes the Republicans partisans, then so be it. Let them wear it as a badge of honor, but explain to us mere mortals why you are stopping it and not let the other side frame the argument. The more the public learns about this bill the less they like it. Good! Let the light of day shine on this abomination and get to work putting in policies that will allow people to invest and spur the economy. Call it a stimulus package if you like but put in pro growth policies and not government give ways.

What makes a winner?

I'm sure many books have been written on this subject. I started looking at this in the sense of sports. Last night was the Super Bowl of course and being from Browns country I was not pleased. The Steelers won again. Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl for the sixth time, the most of any franchise. I though about how tired I am of the Steelers and their fans.

I will state here I am not making a point or trying to convince anyone of anything in this essay. I am truly curious and would love to hear from other people and their opinions. I started wondering what makes them the best and most consistent? Unlike baseball where there are great disparities in salaries and revenue, football teams have a salary cap as well as total revenue sharing. So why is it that a few teams, the Steelers, the Cowboys, the Giants, the Patriots and a few others are always in the top echelon, and others are always in the bottom? The perennial basement dwellers include Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati. So why is it?

When you look at the Steelers they do it with different coaches, different General Managers but still manage to come out on top. Using life outside of sports as a guidepost I think I can make some assumptions. Attitude is a great predictor. Looking outside of sports, when we have people who are born leaders, who are used to success and are willing to go to the lengths necessary to succeed, usually do. In life the winners seem to do what is necessary to learn what needs to be done to win. I think this has to play a part. The Detroit Lions for example have a top 5 pick in the draft nearly every year. They are perennial bottom dwellers, and cause their fans much frustration. Their draft picks almost never turn into star players. So are the players substandard to start with or do they play down to the expectation of the organization? I can't claim to know the answer to that not having been involved in pro sports.

Here is another variable. Bill Belicheck. He has become one of the truly elite coaches in professional football. His first head coaching job was in Cleveland, and had extremely lackluster results. He was despised by the fans and basically run out of town. Did he become a genius, or was he always that skilled and held back by a terrible organization, or maybe the market of the team? The organization was the old Browns that moved to Baltimore and won the Super Bowl shortly after. Again, the only common ground is the city. I honestly don't see how fans can make a team bad, especially when the fans of Cleveland are among the most loyal and rabid in all of football. Once again no conclusions here.

Lets go back to the Steelers, one of the most prolific football teams, but one of the most frustrated baseball teams. Revenue and salaries can explain some of that, but what of Cleveland and Minneapolis. In Cleveland after forty years of frustration, since 1994 Cleveland has been very respectable. While no World Series titles, two trips to the World Series and two more just short. The Minnesota Twins have been very good in the last ten years, with revenue streams very similar to Pittsburgh.

I am still looking for the answers and am interested in others opinions. I think I can learn something about life by looking at sports.