The Socialism of Liz Rogers: Why Mahogany’s failed in Cinncinnati

It was obvious that Liz Rogers was going to fail at Mahogany’s on the Banks when she gave the interview on the radio shown below. She stated that she was guided by faith, not sight and that she was destined to bring an African-American owned restaurant to the plush riverside development in Cincinnati. The city to encourage the endeavor threw a lot of money at her—which was unprecedented, because they wanted the politics of the deal. They wanted the feel good stories, progressive political support, and a success for minority owned businesses. Liz had a nice place in downtown Hamilton that was working, so developers wanted her to expand to a second location. But there was baggage with her from the start, which everyone ignored and the Mahogany’s deal turned out to be a disgrace. In the end the restaurant failed and Liz asked people not to judge her based on what she owed monetarily—but on her love for food. What?????????????????????

Liz Rogers lives in my community and I think is a nice lady. I think her intentions were good. But her business approach belongs in the Twilight Zone, expecting judgment based on her personal desires to cook food, and that she approaches the business with feelings—not thought. In other words her approach to the Banks deal was similar to saying standing before a tall wall, metaphorically, “I have faith that I will be lifted above and beyond that wall.” But the lift never comes leaving her standing in the same spot stuck with ineptitude. The proper approach would be to say, “I will construct a rope and climb over that wall.” That is a plan that can lead to a profitable enterprise. Having faith doesn’t do it. Faith can help you get up in the morning, but it won’t deliver tasks completed.

Now Liz is out of the Banks location and she is looking to make a deal with the city—which should have never been involved in the Rogers endeavor from the start. She is threatening to sue Cincinnati for her failure on the grounds that the types of development city government promised her would take place—which never quite manifested the way they proposed. What is unfathomably naive about her threat is that she actually believes that the fault of her business is the city’s problem. Her location was right next to The Holy Grail and was plugged numerous times on 700 WLW—most of the time in a favorable way regarding her food. She failed to retain the curiosity customers by making them into repeats. Good or bad press she has had loads and loads of free advertising—the name of Mahogany’s has been on every television station, radio station and received plenty of news print. She has had her chances to take a freak show and turn it into a legitimate business opportunity—which is much more opportunity than any other business have had in Cincinnati in years. Just getting the name out for a new enterprise is difficult at best.   If anything, the city gave her a golden opportunity to become gloriously rich—and she failed epically. The city responded to her threat with the following article:

The city of Cincinnati won’t take up Mahogany’s owner Liz Rogers‘ offer not to sue it in exchange for forgiving the balance of a $300,000 loan the city made for her to open the restaurant at the Banks.

“In a letter last week, the city expressed its position on this matter,” said Rocky Merz, a spokesman for City Manager Harry Black. “Due to the potential for litigation, we have nothing further to add. We wish Ms. Rogers all the best in her future endeavors.”

Rogers wrote a letter to the city offering not to sue it over promises she says were broken when she agreed to open a restaurant at the riverfront development, including that there would be a hotel and office workers there. She also proposed that for $12,000 the city would sell her the furniture and restaurant equipment the city’s $300,000 bought. Rogers, who said she would open another restaurant in Cincinnati, gave the city until Thursday to take the deal.

Mahogany’s closed last week after it was evicted by its landlord, NIC Riverbanks One. Rogers has denied allegations made in the eviction letter sent by the landlord.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/16/cincinnati-to-mahogany-s-owner-no-deal.html

It is obvious that Liz Rogers is a believer in socialism as she does not attribute her actions to success or failure of her business, but in the promises of government to provide or not provide. She brought with her business venture an obvious lack of embrace in capitalism which scared away her potential customers. She failed because of her philosophic position. She was the one given a gift, nearly a million dollars in opportunity—loads of free advertising and a site across from the Great American Ballpark and one of the hottest developments with residential living right over her head—nearly guaranteed customers if she produced a decent product. But, there was a lot of competition, and she couldn’t hack it—and due to her failure, she sought socialism and racism as the excuse. That is absolutely pathetic.

I didn’t write much about her at this site because part of me felt sorry for her, and I didn’t want to pile it on. I knew from the first time that I heard her speak that she would fail, so it didn’t come as a surprise to me when she did no matter how many opportunities were placed before her feet. But what did surprise me was that she actually believes she has the right to sue Cincinnati because of her failure. That is really astonishing and is a direct symptom of a very broken society that people actually believe such things. Liz Rogers failed because her product wasn’t very good. Her food may have been good, but the experience in dinning in her restaurant as opposed to other places did not have appeal to enough people. That is the whole issue. She was given an opportunity to give Cincinnati visitors at the Banks “soul food” and they rejected it. She may do better in Over-the-Rhine or even Forest Park, but at the Banks—people expect other options and they voted with their wallets. And she went out of business—and because she was not using her sight—she failed to make corrections to her presentation so to keep her customers and make them want to come back. Nobody wants to spend good money in a restaurant where the owner is a victim. They want to brush elbows with success—because it makes them feel good to do so. Instead of Mahogany’s Liz’s customers likely went on down to the Moerlein Brewhouse on the river and conducted their dining experience at that establishment for similar value for the dollar. It was up to Liz to figure out what they were doing and to adjust—but she didn’t. Instead she blamed everyone but herself for a failure that is in her sole possession. If the city government did anything wrong it was that they tried to help her in the first place giving false hope to a person who had not earned a chance that wasn’t theirs to give in the first place.

Rich Hoffman  

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Failure of Religion: Santa Claus, Star Wars, and the Kingdom of Heaven

I have a long history with religion. Where I currently am with the existing forms is that those who believe adherently to some form of religion are like children who believe in Santa Claus. Children need the mythology of Santa Claus to articulate to them the complexity of the Holiday Season while adults should have advanced to an understanding of serenity that is free of such mechanisms. Thus, many weak-minded people need religion to hold their thoughts about the world together in context to the mysteries of the universe. For them, they need to believe that there is still hope for them once they enter death that all the sins of their life can be washed away and that they can sit down with Jesus and share some bread in the Kingdom of Heaven, or hang out with Abraham and practice sacrificing their first-born children to some bearded deity skipping rocks across the solar system. Unfortunately for most of them is that they never learn that the kingdom of Heaven is and will always be all around them—just as Jesus tried to explain to people thousands of years ago. Attending a religion or a church is not a country club pass to the ever-after—but then again to the immature mind, it is equivalent to the need to believe in Santa Claus.

Religion does not take my mind where it needs to go, so I have had to part with it in its current form. That is not to say there is no value—I used to believe in Santa Claus and have many fond memories of my childhood while believing in such a thing. And the same for religion—I have many fond memories. But if you grow mentally, eventually you have to step out of those old shoes into something bigger—more universally encompassing. But what is next once such a thing is done? That is the problem that many find—is it in becoming an atheist or some other variation—or is it something else?

That is where mythology comes into play. Religion is simply a mythology and when it stops working, the facts of observation cannot be ignored so to stay true to the mythological stories. One cannot pretend that Santa lives at the North Pole when they know that it is scientifically impossible. They cannot ignore that impossibility and still serve reality just to continue supporting a mythology of Santa Claus living in such a desolate place. So a new mythology must be invented, such as like what the movie Miracle on 34th Street attempted—to explain that Santa bends space and time to deliver gifts to the world in one night.

Santa Claus represents the spirit of Christmas, but the adult mind knows that the season is about more than just receiving gifts. The relationship to the Holiday Season for society is much more complex, and when the human mind is ready for such a concept, they stop believing in Santa Claus and expand their understanding to encompass the more complex nature of the Holiday. At least in theory—thus the same should occur in regard to religion. However, too many people insist that their membership to a particular religion gives them access to the after-life without having to live up to the judgment of their actual lives. In this regard the drunk can enter Heaven because he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savor—passing off the responsibility of good conduct in life to a third-party sacrifice. Or for the Islamic radical, they believe they can enter the after-life by killing infidels. The Buddhist believes they can enter the spiritual realm by living life as a play and not falling in love with innate forms–the Hindu much the same only being resurrected as a frog, or a cow which used to be a beloved uncle. For those who step back and look at the situation properly, religion is a pretty stupid concept because the mythology of those religions has shrunk with time and knowledge requiring an expanded mythology to renew the importance of the values which religion is supposed to introduce to society. The failure that most people openly participate is the belief that a particular religion will do the trick—what they miss is the essence of what Jesus tried to convey—that the Kingdom is all around them—all the time—but they do not see it. What people must have are the values to unlock those secrets in the everyday life and understand that nothing really dies—but lives forever as an essence. We are all the light no matter what the religion—we are not the light bulb—the gross matter of the mind and body. The mind in command of the body is the essence of that immortality used like a vehicle to navigate through life.

To understand such a thing properly requires a new mythology which is why I am so excited about Star Wars. It is much more than a science fiction series of books, television shows and movies. It is a new mythology designed to build upon the religions of the past for a new era of thought—and it works. Simon Kinberg knows this and is the executive producer of the new Star Wars: Rebels animated series. George Lucas, as a student of mythology for many years and a key board member of the Joseph Campbell Foundation has personally trained these next generation filmmakers and Rebels is the first real step in that new direction. I have known this was coming for two decades—because of my involvement with the JCF. But now it is here and to understand how much potential impact it will have on world culture read the article below. The essence of the summation is that Santa Claus needs to be updated as a mythology to stay relevant to the modern youth—and there are stories which attempt to do that in modern movies and television shows. But the same needs to happen in religion—which for the fearful and unfocused is a terrifying prospect. For them, Star Wars is about to change their life for the better in ways that they have never thought possible. Religion is needed for the human race, but in the day and age we live in presently—it needs a much bigger shoe. For that—Star Wars offers a size that fits for the potential growth of an inquiring mind that is already living in the Kingdom that Jesus always talked about—and knows it.

And for those who didn’t listen to me when Disney bought Lucasfilm, shame on you. You could have almost doubled your investment dollars in just two years. But guess what—an 82% increase in value is just the tip of a mountain of what’s coming behind Star Wars: Rebels. A lot of people are going to get rich—and they will deserve it. The monetary value directly is connected to the intellectual value and the evidence will come in quickly starting in the fourth quarter of 2014. Now for an important article that offers proof of what I have said about religion and Star Wars.

“Star Wars 7″ Is Still a Year Away; Here’s How Disney Is Profiting in the Meantime

A bridge to an old favorite

Next month, the studio debuts Star Wars Rebels on Disney XD with a one-hour movie. Early data suggests fans are nearly as excited for the animated epic as they are the next live-action film. According to a quick search at socialmention.com, social networking users were searching for the terms “Star Wars Rebels” and “Star Wars episode 7″ once every 22 seconds. Google’s Trends data shows a similar correlation:

The message? Fans don’t necessarily care what channel or type of media it comes in; they just want more Star Wars. In the case of Rebels, they’ll get a story that looks and sounds like the 1977 version of Star Wars: Episode IV-A New Hope. But don’t take my word for it; listen to the whine of the Tie Fighters in this extended preview:

Star Wars Rebels kicks off with a one-hour movie on Oct. 3. Credit: Disney/Lucasfilm.

What history says about extending the Star Wars franchise
If my experience at San Diego Comic-Con is any indicator, fans will take to Rebels as easily as they did Star Wars: The Clone Wars, another animated epic that debuted with a movie. But in that case, fans had to brave the box office to see Anakin, Obi-Wan, and padawan Ahsoka Tano in a new adventure. Plenty did exactly that.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars took in $68.3 million at the global gate, and earned another $23.8 million in home video sales. Lucasfilm spent an estimated $8.5 million to produce the movie, which opened in August 2008. A spinoff TV show premiered that October and ran for six seasons, the last of which is available exclusively on Netflix.

To this day, the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television show remains one of the most-watched animated series in sci-fi history. More than 1 million have rated the show on Netflix. In 2010, the Guinness World Records named Clone Wars the “highest rated sci-fi animation” on television at the time.

New stories mean new merchandising opportunities

Rebels may never be as popular as Clone Wars; but you know what? Disney investors will profit anyway. Just having the show allows the House of Mouse to greenlight entirely new merchandising lines.

Add-ons like these are why Disney brands are responsible for more than $40 billion in annual retail sales, and why its Consumer Products group — which writes the contracts and cashes the checks — has enjoyed five consecutive fiscal years of expanding operating margins. With new Star Wars gear on the way, a sixth seems likely.
Foolish takeaway

October marks two years since Disney announced its $4 billion bid for Lucasfilm. The stock is up more than 82% since, mostly due to the franchise-establishing success of comic book movies such as Guardians of the Galaxy. How much higher it goes depends on fans’ appetites for properties that exist outside the Marvel Cinematic Universe. None in Disney’s lineup have as much potential as Star Wars.
“I feel the greatest responsibility to Star Wars because I think it’s a religion greater than any other story of the last century,” Rebels Executive Producer Simon Kinberg said in an interview at San Diego Comic-Con. Fair? Blasphemous? I suppose that depends on your point of view. Either way, the pantheon grows when Star Wars Rebels begins airing next month.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/14/star-wars-7-is-still-a-year-away-heres-how-disney.aspx

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Steve Almond’s Salon Review of ‘Atlas Shrugged Part III': Rush Limbaugh’s Dream

Whenever one of these Atlas Shrugged films hits the marketplace or something along the same lines—the hard core left reveals their true beliefs.  Out of all the negative reviews of Atlas Shrugged Part III by progressive types one by the ultra liberal Salon Magazine writer Steve Almond jumped out as exceptional for all the wrong reasons.  Of course, being like a young twenty something child who thinks they rolled over in the morning and knew everything about the world there was to know because somebody told them so—the typical New York liberal believes the rest of the world is driven by the same vagina minded passivity which motivated them—and they actually believe that all counter thoughts to their progressive tripe is “fringe.”  The fly-over states to the west of New York City is a scary place full of dangerous right-wingers who listen to talk radio—not readers of Salon, or the European salivating New York Times.   But on rare occasions they find a way to get their thoughts down in writing for all to see, allowing some measure of their disjointed philosophy to be measured.

Below is a recent article written by Almond as referenced by a Rush Limbaugh dream disguised as a review of Atlas Shrugged Part III.  It is hilarious and before anybody at Salon decides to take it down at any point in the future, I have put it below including the link. I even provided the link to Almonds anti-football book.  (Yes, he is on a campaign against American football as well).  It is hard to believe there are people out there who know so little about the world, yet think they know so much.  So for proof, please read this Salon article in its entirety below.

Here’s what I think happened. I think Rush Limbaugh had a lousy day at the office and drowned his sorrows in bad Mexican food — something along the lines of three El Charrito’s Enchilada Grande packs — and then I think Rush fell asleep on his sofa and had a beautiful dream.

In this dream, all the most powerful and talented Americans finally get fed up with big government and its bureaucratic parasites and follow a hunky guy named John Galt to a gorgeous valley in Colorado, where together they declare themselves on strike against the government. This means they get to live in harmony and throw awesome Caucasian dinner parties and invent miraculous technological devices and pay for everything with shiny gold coins.

And because this is all happening inside Rush Limbaugh’s mind — with its misty yearnings for underage third-world prostitutes and endless Oxycontin — the production values of this particular dream have the quality of an off-brand soap opera.

It’s all pretty awesome. Weaselly government leaders meet in back rooms filled with cigar smoke to plot new ways to steal money from rich people and nationalize industry and force scientists to invent torture devices so as to control the population. Then they swish brandy around in snifters and blow smoke rings.

Meanwhile, back in paradise, this hot babe named Dagny, who runs American’s only remaining train company, crashes her plane and John Galt finds her and carries her back to his pad where he doesn’t have sex with her — not just yet. First, he’s got to introduce her to all his badass friends, like the doctor who examines her with his killer new medical gizmo and says, “It’s amazing what can be accomplished without red tape!” Or the mom who explains that she’s home-schooling her kids because “I wouldn’t put them in an educational system that doesn’t teach them to think.” That’s maybe the coolest thing about this particular utopia: Everyone speaks in Republican National Committee talking points.

Unfortunately, Dagny has to leave paradise before she even gets to have sex with John Galt, because the government has nationalized her train company and is running it into the ground. Bummer. In fact, the entire country is falling to pieces without men like Galt, who is both a brilliant engineer and a professional hair model. But that serves America right because, as Galt explains, “the powerful try to make us feel guilty for our success.” And that is so totally not cool.

Alas, Dagny leaves the valley and heads back to grubby old America and it’s just as poorly lit and effed-up as you’d expect, though she does get to have sex with John Galt (who comes to rescue her), an act of coitus that is performed on her desk. This sort of eases the comedown of living in a reeking dystopia.

Then John Galt gives a big speech on TV during which he asks some tough questions of the American people, who are mostly huddled outside pawn shops staring at televisions through the security bars. “Have you noticed that as everything in your world seems to decline, one thing still grows?” he asks. Everyone kind of nods. “It is the power of your rulers. None of their plans and directives have solved your problems or made your life better. The only result has been the increased control over you at the cost of your freedom.” He goes on to explain how business leaders got tired of being called “greedy exploiters” and decided to follow him. Why? Because they finally “recognized the honor they deserved and rebelled against the guilt you wanted them to feel.”

It’s not exactly “The Gettysburg Address,” but the media response is off the charts. Sean Hannity appears on-screen, looking engorged with gravitas. He loves the speech. Glenn Beck salutes Galt’s moxy. Ron Paul arises from his Cycronic crypt to predict the End Times, which is sort of a reflex at this point. The crowds outside the pawn shops start chanting John Galt’s name. It’s a movement.

Naturally, government thugs capture Galt and drag him to a secret lab where they strip off his shirt and punish him using their special new Torture Machine, which involves a lot of sparks. Galt looks a lot like Jesus Christ, if you can imagine Christ with stubble and chinos. But then Dagny and her pals rescue Galt and all the ubermenschen fly off together to their mountain hideaway where, Rush is pretty sure, they eventually build a PGA-quality golf course and hire Playboy Bunnies to wax your balls.

Except — spoiler alert! — Rush wakes up before this last part can happen. Worse yet, he has diarrhea. The beautiful thing is that even in the midst of his diarrhea, Rush is able to get online and right there in his email in-box is an invitation to the premiere of the new film, “Atlas Shrugged III.”

And now El Rushbo realizes why his dream felt so gosh darned familiar: because it’s the plot of the third and final part of Ayn Rand’s 1957 potboiler, which will debut tomorrow, Sept. 12, mostly in those precincts of the country where citizens still call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression.

If this were an actual movie review I would, at this point, pretend to give a shit about the film’s quality. But as anyone who sits through “Atlas Shrugged III” will tell you, the filmmakers themselves don’t give a shit about the film’s quality.

Back in 2011, when the first installment came out, most reviewers agreed to regard it as a “major motion picture,” though it was funded not by a studio but by an exercise machine mogul named John Aglialoro. As a piece of art, and a form of entertainment, “Atlas Shrugged I” flopped hard.

But if there’s one thing the conservative movement of this country has proved, it’s that it can move even the most imaginatively inert product. With the ardent promotional support of Fox News and the Tea Party’s corporate arm, the film managed to earn out in video. And thus we got a second “Atlas,” with an all-new cast and even lower production values. This final chapter has an exhausted, obligatory air. It’s like watching the final phases of a botched plastic surgery.

The director — and co-writer — is a man named James Manera, whose previous work includes a documentary about music and an episode of the television show “Nash Bridges,” which he directed in 1996. I think I’ve said enough about the movie.

The larger curiosity here is Ayn Rand herself. It would be easy to write her off as a demented Cold War hack no longer relevant to our cultural and political discourse. But that would be a huge mistake. Because Rand’s slobbering conception of laissez-faire capitalism is not only alive and well, it remains a galvanizing ideological force.

Consider the young darling of conservative circles, former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Ryan worships Rand. He once gave a speech confessing that he went into public service because of her. He also asked his staffers to read her novels, so they could learn about the free market. During the 2012 campaign, Ryan did a good job of playing down his devotion, because Rand was an atheist.

But her fingerprints are all over his famous Budget Plan. To the “takers” in our society — the aged and the sick — Ryan would provide rationed healthcare. Federal budgets for education, transportation, energy and veteran services would be slashed. The rich, meanwhile, would be handed billions in tax cuts.

The whole idea is to do like John Galt says: obliterate any restraints on personal greed. The Ryan Plan is a document so enthusiastic in its fraudulence, so casual in its cruelty, and so certain of its own virtue that it could only have been dreamed up by a man born into money, educated by Ayn Rand, and given finishing lessons in Congress.

For all the low-budget absurdity of this new movie, the famous speech Rand penned for John Galt back in 1957 still stands as the Rosetta Stone of modern conservatism. This country wasn’t built by men who sought handouts! Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms! On and on Galt yammers, forever propelled by grievance and self-pity.

His vision of capitalism is a cartoon that plays over and over again on Fox News: no poverty or environmental ruin or lack of equal opportunity. Mercy is a mug’s game in this world, a false impulse. The pursuit of wealth, by contrast, is a form of heroic purity. If only bureaucrats would get out of the way, our intrepid industrialists would beat a path to paradise and leave the moochers to rot. Rand’s mission — now taken up by Ryan and company — is to present capitalism not as an economic philosophy, but an impeccable moral system.

The writer and critic Gore Vidal characterized the philosophy of Ayn Rand as “nearly perfect in its immorality” and a number of critics described “Atlas Shrugged” (the novel) as a narrative driven by hate.

But my take on the book, as well as the movies it spawned, is just the opposite. For all the contempt that Rand (and Galt and Ryan) aim at the government, the predominant emotion they express is one of unbridled self-love. Rand herself was a kind of golem of narcissistic excess, a woman with delusions of grandeur. And she tapped into the crushing insecurity of the wealthy, the manner in which they must constantly remind themselves how much they deserve their privilege.

What animates these people and drives their chintzy propaganda isn’t rage at all, but a kind of annihilating self-hatred.

Rush is going to love “Atlas Shrugged III.”

It’s not just a movie to him. It’s a dream come true.

Steve Almond’s new book, “Against Football” will come out next month.

MORE STEVE ALMOND.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/11/sean_hannity_and_glenn_beck_in_a_bizarre_ayn_rand_fever_dream/

That is just hilarious!  Amazingly short-sighted, ignorant, presumptuous, and impossibly foolish—a piece of work which belongs exclusively to Steve Almond and Salon Magazine.   Please visit their site at the link provided.  They likely need the web traffic, so help them out with some pity for the good laugh.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Treachery of Mr. Thompson: Thorium’s tenacious enemy

For me, there were several moments in the new film Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt which was particularly powerful.  But the most powerful attribute of the film based on the 1957 novel by the same name was the actual electric motor invented by John Galt which runs nearly self-sustaining and provides all the power needed in Galt’s Gulch.  In the film when the police come to arrest Galt and take him to see Mr. Thompson they attempt to break into the room where the magic motor is kept only to discover that there is nothing there.  This was a neat concept as the motor seemed to be hidden from the world through a dimensional fold in space-time continuity which further substantiates the quality of the John Galt figure as an expert in physics.  In the film it was science fiction, but little do many know that such science is actually quite factual.

Several years ago I wrote an article about the technology of Thorium—which has the ability to provide power—extremely clean energy, and cheap to every home in the world.  A revolution in Thorium could give the simple hut in the middle of Africa or Brazil electric power without complicated infrastructure, and costly imports from foreign suppliers.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.    By clicking that link, you will see dear reader that the kind of energy shown in Who Is John Galt is not just science fiction, but is entirely rooted in reality.  But as usual, the reason that we do not have such technologies are the same ones provided in the film—the desire for power by characters like Mr. Thompson prevent technology from arriving to the marketplace because it denies the intellectually insecure control over the delivery method.

I have been a student of management methods for most of my life and I know all too well the cause of most misery in the world—its self-inflicted neurosis by the power-hungry to control the many through laws, technology, and other forms of manipulation.  There are many who work for organizations like the Red Cross—who get invited to Washington parties due to their altruistic endeavors overseas who would despise seeing a Thorium reactor powering a village in Africa.  Deep down inside they want African people dependent on charity organizations to bring food and medical supplies to the poor so that they have something beneficial to do with their lives.  They want the death and misery because they believe it will get them into heaven through some distorted grasp of Biblical teaching.  They cannot accept that by giving the people of Africa power that they might care for themselves—therefore not needing the West to care for them at all.  So they deem Thorium technology dangerous and a threat to the earth—so to take the debate off the table.

Another set of characters who do not want Thorium power, or anything like it, are those who work in the dirty energy business—oil and coal.  Although there are great uses for these energy providers today, at some point in the future—we can do better.  Thorium is but one potential source.  However, the energy industry does not want to alter their market plans—their labor unions don’t want the competition, so they lobby politicians to maintain the status quo.   Many publications against fuel sources like Thorium are created through this method—to scare the public into submission of dirty fuel forever—leaving greenie weenie activists plenty of ammunition to utilize against such industries as environmentally hazardous.  So in a stalemate between the environmentalists who believe the printed articles against Thorium and the dirty energy companies making great livings off the old technology—nothing happens.  After all, the goal of the typical progressives is not to advance forward as mankind but to make the developed world more like the undeveloped—to demonize technology until everyone lives in a kind of hut—like the poor Africans.  Watch the following video documentary about Thorium to learn much more.  

Since I wrote that article about Thorium nothing much has happened to advance the technology just as nothing much has happened regarding the Mollar flying car.  The technology is there to cure cancer, to fix bodies through regeneration, to have self-sustaining electrical power, to completely revolutionize the transportation industry—but what is in the way are too many people like Mr. Thompson in Atlas Shrugged Part III.  For those who criticize Atlas Shrugged, if people like John Galt were free to think and act without restriction, world hunger would be eliminated, poverty would be nearly eradicated, disease destroyed, cancer solved and society would advance greatly.  But the trouble is we allow people like Mr. Thompson to stand between us and fate.  We give them power because we fear the responsibility of it.  Mr. Thompson in the film Atlas III was a complete idiot, he does not fear that responsibility, but is addicted to the power it gives him making him an opposite menace.  There are many like him running governments and companies the world over and they are there because we fear what might happen when altruism is stripped from our reasoning.  Society fears not having problems that require charity—because their ideals of religion and good living have been defined by misery—and stupidity.

So it was wonderful to see the science fiction of a world where at least someone has broken through the shroud of foolishness and actually built a perpetual motor that runs off static electricity naturally existing in the world around us—which never ceases to run and does not need government, infrastructure, labor unions, or the Red Cross to operate.  As usual it is groups of people who stand in the way of what human beings can invent for themselves to advance their culture—but through advancement those who currently have power would lose it if they could not adapt to the changing circumstances.  It is those who run those groups who fear losing their power to the self-empowering technology that comes with invention.  It almost always comes down to poor management ability of personal and external resources and the secret desire to control those resources so that options are limited.  Some examples might be the fearful husband who tries to keep his wife lacking a car because he fears she may seek to cheat on him.  It doesn’t occur to him that if he were a better husband, that such temptations might be avoided.  So rather than deal with the effect of the cause, he denies the mechanism for performing the task out of fear of losing control of the wife.  The same might occur when a boss sees in a subordinate ability that might challenge their authority in the future, so they find ways to clip the wings of the subordinate through management tricks so to keep them grounded and under control.  This actually happens every day in virtually every place of business on the face of planet earth.  Or consider the lazy parent who attempts to make their children fearful of everything because they don’t want to get up off the couch to help teach a curious child—so they numb that curiosity with fear so that they can be free in the afternoon to catch Jerry Springer at 5 PM.

Governments run by people like Mr. Thompson have strangled our future through such methods and most accept that reality as a fact because they are beaten and defeated people intellectually crippled at birth by an anemic education system and faulty parents.  But a few, people who went to see Atlas Shrugged Part III and enjoyed it—even with all the flaws of the film technically were able to see the miracle of the John Galt motor and know that the possibility for such a thing is very real—and immensely intriguing.  I think I’m going to see that movie a few more times before it leaves the theater just for the pleasure of seeing such a world alive even in the fantasy of a darkened theater.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics

There comes many times over any given year where I find myself in a situation that in order to explain a basic elementary ideal to someone who requires a vast background education just to grapple with the topic at hand, I have to find some way to show them a proper metaphor to bring them up to speed.  They do not have the foundation understanding to build anything of merit conversation wise–when they ask a question, or series of questions just to understand the answer given to them.  Sadly, modern culture has failed to deliver those foundations to the last couple of generations.  There is a part of me that feels sorry for those people, but not to the extent where I am willing to sacrifice my own happiness to quell their suffering.  The reason is logic and a foundation belief system that is rooted in another time when the world made a lot more sense.  It wasn’t however that long ago, but just long enough for modern society to completely revert to the animal mindset of a scribble.

I feel fortunate to have grown up in a time when one of my favorite cartoons was called The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics which played continuously on the Looney Tunes half hour afternoon lineup every day after school.  It was my favorite cartoon as a young kid which came out in 1965 and was directed by my favorite animator, Chuck Jones.  I watched his cartoons as a child and read his book as a young man in my twenties and soaked up every word.  That particular cartoon was a masterpiece and a needed lesson for every young male looking for love.  Watch that classic cartoon below before continuing:

That cartoon reflects an interesting period in American history, and such a time is mandated to return.  Because if it doesn’t, there will not be a civilization to behold in any capacity.  The cartoon is about values and the three-way romance between a dot, a line, and a scribble.  In 2014 America, it is the scribbles who rule the world in virtually every aspect of our society.  As a line who has forced himself to bend into many angles, I understand the line in the story very, very well.

The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics (ISBN 1-58717-066-3) is a book written and illustrated by Norton Juster, first published by Random House in 1963. The story was inspired by Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, in which the protagonist visits a one-dimensional universe called Lineland, where women are dots and men are lines.

In 1965, famed animator Chuck Jones and the MGM Animation/Visual Arts studio adapted The Dot and the Line into a 10-minute animated short film for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, narrated by Robert Morley with the narration almost verbatim to the book. The Dot and the Line won the 1965 Academy Award for Animated Short Film.[1] It was entered into the Short Film Palme d’Or competition at the 1966 Cannes Film Festival.[2]

The cartoon was released as a special feature on the The Glass Bottom Boat DVD in 2005. The cartoon is also featured on the 2008 release of Warner Brothers Home Entertainment Academy Awards Animation Collection and the 2011 release of the Looney Tunes Platinum Collection: Volume 1 Blu-ray box-set on the third disc as a special feature. In 2005, Robert Xavier Rodriguez made a musical setting of the book for narrator and chamber ensemble with projected images, and in 2011 he made a version for full orchestra.

The story details a straight line who is hopelessly in love with a dot. The dot, finding the line to be stiff, dull, and conventional, turns her affections toward a wild and unkempt squiggle. The line, unable to fall out of love and willing to do whatever it takes to win the dot’s affection, manages to bend himself and form an angle. He works to refine this new ability, creating shapes so complex that he has to label his sides and angles to keep his place.

The dot realizes that she has made a mistake: what she had seen in the squiggle to be freedom and joy was nothing more than chaos and sloth. She leaves with the line, having realized that he has much more to offer, and the punning moral is presented: “To the vector belong the spoils.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dot_and_the_Line

Clearly the story of the dot and the line is a morality tale about values; the scribble didn’t have much to offer the dot once she realized that the line had advanced himself into a sophisticated dynamic.  To my young mind it took me nearly twenty years to forgive the dot for neglecting the line in the first place running off with the scribble.  I always sympathized with the line and always—always hated the scribble.  Hate actually may not be a strong enough word—but the human language has not yet come up with something stronger—so for now we’ll let it stand.  But as the years moved on and my life experiences filled me with observation I realized that the journey of the dot running toward the scribble is what drove the line to become better.  If such a thing never happened, the line would have remained one-dimensional and un-sensational.

I have learned throughout time that many women behave like the dot in the story.  They are drawn toward the scribbles of existence constantly pursuing a fantasy of reforming them—mothering them into health.  Women are often not interested in a straight line which does not require their love and affection—they are almost biologically drawn toward scribbles by default.  This is a painful realization if you were born to be a line.  However, if competition is embraced, the line can become something more than normal and if he forces himself to the task, can become much more powerful than the scribbles of existence.  The dot is the female goddess who brings out in the clash of males the best between the two through competitions for her affection.  Without that bar of measurement, then scribbles are the default mode of males.  What has happened to our current society is that females have given up hope of ever seeing a refined line and are just giving up and falling for scribbles.  If scribbles rule the world, then the world becomes their image.  Without the refined, well-managed—articulate lines—the world crumbles.

In this romance the dot plays her part in being the vehicle of transformation of the line into something better.  The scribble plays his part as a rival for the line to work against, but the line is most important—because it is he who brings order and morality to the world through his refined action.  Without that understanding, there is no way for any contemporary conversation about value between males and females to take place.  But make no mistake about it—the villain of life itself is the scribble.  The morality of the scribble is not something to be cherished on any level—but despised and beaten utterly.  There is no choice in the matter.  It is the way things have to be.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

‘Atlas Shrugged Part III’ Movie Review: The value of a gift–a scribble and a diamond

I have received many gifts from people over the years that were expensive, and well crafted.  However, some of the best gifts I have received came from children whose minds were just coming into their own and what they gave me was a scribble on a piece of paper that to them looked like a da Vinci painting.  To me it looked like scribbles but I saw within their gift all the hopes and dreams of their thoughts which have more meaning personally than a Rolex watch, or a new Mercedes car.  Society the world over may look at such scribbles and think them inferior to the diamonds, and other luxury items, but not me.  I’d rather have the childlike scribbles of ambition and innocence than the refinement of cultural creations.  And that is exactly how I felt walking out of the new film Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt.   The film itself was far from technically perfect—the filmmakers themselves without the polished background of the greater Hollywood community are like children coming of age—but even their shortcomings garner superiority when compared to the standard product coming from the vast ocean of entertainment culture.  I’d rather see two or three movies per year like Atlas Shrugged Part III than twenty polished blockbusters lacking a heart and soul.

The third film in a series of three Who Is John Galt was a movie about values.  Based on the treasured novel Atlas Shrugged, it did a good job of Cliff-Noting through the most important topics of the American classic.  The famous John Galt speech from the novel to the movie was greatly condensed and enormously effective.  The sections of the movie containing the speech along with the scene between John Galt and Mr. Thompson was powerful.  Just a few weeks prior to the release of Who Is John Galt, I watched Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln and can declare that there was nothing in that great movie about the last days of the Lincoln presidency that eclipsed the value of John Galt being offered all the power of the world by Mr. Thompson and Galt laughing in his face saying, “nobody should have that kind of power.”  For me, it was the most powerful scene in the movie—one I would pay again and again to see—just for that one scene.  There is within that exchange between Thompson and Galt the keys to most modern problems and Galt has the answer delivered with excessive minimalism.  The movie shines most during this moment.

Regarding Galt, Kristoffer Polaha played one of the most iconic literary creations wonderfully. There hasn’t been a better character of such swagger and confidence since many of the old Clint Eastwood movies.  Polaha was wonderful in the role and the movie could have excelled if it could have featured him more prominently—but there were a lot of characters and a limited time to get to the point of the movie.  So Polaha had to share a lot of screen time.   Of those other characters, they were as portrayed in Atlantis, the hidden world deep in the Colorado Mountains unlike any other characters in cinema.  Leading up to the movie the previews for upcoming releases featured two Reese Witherspoon films and a Bill Murray picture that were politically and ideologically 180 degrees in the opposite direction as Atlas.  In those films the characters in the Gulch would have been the villains.  In Atlas Shrugged those characters are the heroes.  It was clear that the target demographic for the typical Hollywood product had no idea who the viewer for Atlas Shrugged Part III would be because it was evident in the previews before the film.  Another television series was previewed at the Regal Cinemas called The Affair—as if the ideal of illicit romance was conducive to the message of Atlas Shrugged Part III—which of course it wasn’t.    One actress from The Affair declared during the preview—“We are all just trying to get by,” as opposed to the message of Atlas III by John Galt, “The world you desire can be won.  It exists…it is real…it is possible…it is yours.”  The philosophy of Atlas III is unlike anything being put out by Hollywood in any capacity—so for many people it is a very foreign concept.

My wife and I went to see Atlas III with our kids at the Regal in Mason, and didn’t expect much by way of a crowd.  We arrived about 25 minutes early to get a good seat.  I was a bit shocked to see that the only seats available for the 8:10 PM showing were high up in the stadium seating, which is not where I normally like to sit.  By the time the movie started, the theater was nearly full.  It was very close to a sellout, which was very encouraging.  Several times during the movie people cheered.  At the end of the film the audience clapped.  It had been a long time since I have seen that occur at the end of a movie.  So in spite of the parade of bad reviews and complaints about the technical aspects of the film, the audience I saw the picture with loved it—and were hungry for the message.  Most of the audience was above 40 years of age, and most were couples—(a man and a wife.)  However, dotted among the male and female heads of the audience were a few intelligent looking college students bright-eyed and excited—as if they were on the edge of a wave in thought.  There was rebellion in their eyes as if by coming to the movie, they were participating in a dirty little secret that the rest of society wish to conceal—and they’d be right.  Those same snickers came from young people who used to see The Rocky Horror Picture Show in 1975 and routinely since attend the midnight showings which promotes homosexual relationships and transgender exploits.  The Rocky Horror film is a terrible monstrosity of a movie that is now considered mainstream.  Any critic of the quality of the Atlas films needs to think long and hard about talking low quality cinematography, editing, and acting but praising The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  They can’t have it both ways.  Refreshingly, Atlas Shrugged Part III did have a sex scene that was very PG.  As written in the novel, it could have been rated NC17, but under John Aglialoro’s production value, it was greatly scaled back to nearly a G rating.  The filmmakers wisely knew that their audience was conservative and did not want the uncomfortable distraction of gross sexual imposition which comes in droves at the Rocky Horror Picture Show screenings.  For today’s young people, Atlas Shrugged is the new rebellion—and that delights me to no end.  It’s about time!

I will see Atlas III many more times and will treasure it for it’s worth.  I see the Atlas films as difficult to make and attribute most of their technical challenges to pushing the philosophy of Objectivism up an extremely steep hill.  My experience tells me that the panic of Mr. Thompson at the end of the movie is true and that the few people flying away in the helicopter at the end was 100% accurate.  There are always only a few people who do everything and that is a terrifying message to the masses who hope and pray that Mr. Thompson’s view of the world can be true.  Atlas Shrugged Part III tells them that it isn’t—and it is in that utterance that the anger toward the film is shouted loudest.  Atlas III is a work and offering of love by filmmakers who are coming into their own with the best tools available to them, like children trying to prove to the adults of the entertainment world that they have something important to say too.  The adults look at their offerings and see a scribble which they laugh off and make fun of.  But for me, I’d rather have the scribble of the Atlas Shrugged film makers than the polished diamond of Hollywood with messages that are false and completely ignorant.  It is for that reason that going to see Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt was more like a gift than an entertainment experience.  And it is one that I will proudly hang from my refrigerator like many of the fine art pieces that my kids have provided over the years on their progression toward expertise, to enjoy as a daily reminder of something that has value where others only see a scribble.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

11 Ways You Know You Live in a Country Run by Idiots: The sad truth of our modern age

 

There has been a lot of talk in the news lately about abused wives who stay with husbands who beat them—primarily due to the latest round of NFL domestic violence cases. The level of amazement persists from millions who wonder why gold digging women would stay with men who beat them routinely. But for the answer, all anyone need to do is look at themselves and wonder why they allow the same type of abuse when their government is doing the same on a larger scale. That abuse tends to be more psychological as opposed to physical, but it is still abuse and representative of a dysfunctional household. Below are 11 ways that you know you live in a country run by idiots prone to abuse. To continue to allow these idiots to have such power over the population is allow an abusive relationship to continue. Here they are:

1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.

2. If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.

3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt, you live in a country run by idiots.

5. If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.

6. If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.

7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.

8. If a seven-year old boy can be thrown out of grade school for saying his teacher’s “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, you live in a country run by idiots.

9. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones, you live in a country run by idiots.

10. If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work, you live in a country run by idiots.

11. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

There is no dispute in these assertions. Yet they continue and prosper—and the reason comes from the same people who point to the NFL and call for Rodger Goodell’s head for allowing domestic violence to occur from his players. The government is engaging in far worse abuses—yet we keep coming back time and time again. The reason is the same as the abused NFL wife—because people become comfortable even within abusive relationships as they function from low self-esteem—which a predator like the government will always take advantage of.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/10/glenn-beck-reads-11-ways-you-know-you-live-in-a-country-run-by-idiots/

 

Rich Hoffman  

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com