Calling Governor Bobby Jindal on the carpet: Where did Louisiana’s new jobs come from?

The Lousiana State budget gets over half its operating budget from grants from the Federal government. Though unlcear, this budget does not appear to include the additional continued acceptance of Federal aid which is managed by the Lousiana Recovery Authority, LRA.

President Barack Obama gave his first unofficial state of the union speech last night, inspiring hope and optimism among the citizens of the United States of America amidst the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The speech was moving and I felt proud to be an American and proud to have elected such an intelligent leader who I am confident will help us recover from eight years of poor government management.

The Republican party chose Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to deliver the Republican response. The entire speech can be found on his official website.

The following morning, Governor Jindal boasted on NBC’s Today show that while the rest of the country is in an economic meltdown, his fine state of Louisiana does not need help from the federal government and that he plans to refuse millions in stimulus money intended for his state. “We are the only state last month that added jobs in this country," says Jindal. "We’ve continued to outperform the national economy. We’ve done it in part because we’ve cut taxes. We’re going to continue to do that.”

Wait a second! Let’s back up a minute.

LOUSIANA STATE GOVERNMENT GETS OVER HALF ITS REGULAR BUDGET FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Jindal claims that Louisiana was able to cut business taxes six times since he’s become governor. So, where is the money coming from to run the state government?

Currently, Lousiana now gets most of their operating money from the federal government.

The government for the state of Louisiana currently receives over half of its operating budget, $15,820,733,731 to be exact, of its nearly 30 billion dollar budget per year from federal grants. This amount is disclosed on the official Louisiana Treasury website.

MORE THAN KATRINA?

One of Governor Jindal’s criticisms of President Barack Obama’s stimulus package is that it costs more than the relief money spent after Hurricane Katrina. 

About $116 billion in hurricane relief had been spent by mid 2007 to aid those affected, the majority spent the first few months after the storm and $35 billion set aside for long term rebuilding projects. Although a small amount was spent in other states, the majority was spent in Louisiana. (Blueprint for Gulf Renewal, The Institute for Southern Studies report)

According to infoplease.com, the population of Louisiana is 4,468,976 and the pre-hurricane population of New Orleans was estimated at 454,863. At $116 billion, this amounts to $26,000 in relief money per every man, woman and child in the state of Louisiana.

The United States of America boasts a population of 303,824,640 as of July, 2008 according to the CIA website. This makes Obama’s stimulus plan of $787 billion seem like a bargain, costing only $2,590 per every man, woman and child in the United States of America, less than 10% of what was spent per person on Katrina relief.

LOUISIANA, A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW WELL FEDERAL STIMULUS AID CAN HELP

Is Governor Bobby Jindal really claiming that Louisiana’s exponential employment growth has had nothing to do with help from the federal government? 

Not true! If anything, Louisiana is the perfect example of how the federal government can help create jobs and stimulate the economy after a crisis. Rather than pretend his state has had no help from the feds, Governor Jindal should boast about how well his state has managed stimulus money in the form of Federal disaster relief. Most of the hard work occurred before Governor Jindal took office only a year ago in January 2008.

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina plowed into the state of Louisiana. Homes and businesses were destroyed and flooded. Residents evacuated in a mass exodus. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, swooped in to help where they could. Granted, FEMA could have done a better job. However, the State of Louisiana would now be in ruins if federal tax dollars hadn’t rescued it.

Hurricane Katrina caused a total of $89.5 billion in damage. However, by early 2006, the Bush administration had already funneled about twenty percent more than that, $105 billion in federal dollars, primarily into the state of Louisiana to rebuild (April 1, 2006 article Boston Globe) and $11 billion more for an estimated total of $116 billion since 2007 (Blueprint for Gulf Renewal report). (I was unable to find figures for money allocated after that date, but money is still coming in according to the Louisiana Recovery Authority, LRA website.) Federal money wasn’t just given to the local government. Louisiana based charities, private businesses, residents, and property owners were also given a helping hand by the government.

A quick look at the official State of Louisiana Treasury Department website is all it takes to find out how much federal government money is funneled into the formerly hurricane ravaged state. Click on Bond Commission and you will see a list of federal stimulus projects already set in place during the Bush administration.

There are the $7.9 billion “Tax-exempt private activity bonds (Gulf Opportunity Zone Bonds, or GOZA, of 2005),” which award low interest loans to qualified businesses “in order to rebuild.” GOZA allows private businesses to borrow money at cheap, tax-exempt rates of interest.”

According to a treasury report, $400 million in federally backed bonds were sold to the private sector to help cash strapped city governments and agencies in Louisiana raise capital to continue operations after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Federal money has also funded business grant programs headed by the State.

The Lousiana Recovery Athority, or LRA, formed in October 2005 after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the state, is a government agency designed to manage Federal money intended for rebuilding after the storm. On their website, the LRA lists projects they have funded and Federal monies they have received to pay for these projects. Under “Frequently Asked Questions,” the LRA lists about $15.1 billion in Federally funded projects to rebuild or repair roads, housing, infrastructure, schools, and levees; plus debris removal and hazard mitigation.

However, the lists of projects also includes $10 billion for community development (CDBG), which in part funds economic development programs.

$350 million was given in grants and loaned to small business owners.

$27 million was given to fishermen to help the ravaged fishing industry.

In this list, only $10 million in aid has come from private donations. The rest has come from the federal government.

One of the LRA’s task forces is the “economic and workforce development” committee. The website states: In the months after Hurricane Katrina, the state saw a 766 percent increase in initial unemployment claims and paid out more than $1 billion in unemployment insurance and disaster unemployment assistance benefits to 300,000 applicants. By February 2006, the committee and LRA had developed long-term priorities to provide financial assistance for businesses by attracting qualified workers, revamping the state’s tax structure, helping to start or grow companies, and create high paying jobs.

The LRA and Economic Workforce Development committee also strives to “develop new industries that take advantage of rebuilding efforts and regional resources and create high quality jobs.”

The LRA boasts that due to their efforts, within two years of the storm, Louisiana had climbed back to within 3 percent of it’s pre-storm employment. Where did this money come from to create jobs? It didn’t fall off a truck. It came from and still comes from the federal government. Even the operating budget for the LRA appears to come from the federal government for it does not appear on the Louisiana state treasury budget.

Why, after Louisiana claims so much success, does the state of Louisiana still need to get over half their operating budget money from the federal government? Why do they need the additional funds for rebuilding funneled through the LRA? Perhaps it’s time to cut the “hurricane recovery aid” off completely.

But, is Jindal speaking out of both sides of his mouth?

From Jindal’s own speech:

“We are grateful for the support we have received from across the nation for the ongoing recovery efforts.”

Housing Stimulus Package Treats Symptoms, Not Cure

Although not completely unreasonable, Obama’s housing stimulus package won’t really solve the foreclosure crisis because it addresses the symptoms, not the root of the problem, which is continued predatory lending.

Last summer, my husband and I easily qualified for a loan in order to purchase a home in Florida. We were approved in part because houses are cheap here, and the monthly mortgage payments with insurance and taxes were estimated to be about one quarter of our combined income.

However, due to the large number of foreclosures in Florida, we also had to put up our other house as collateral. We had just moved from Washington State, and were keeping our old home in case things didn't work out and we wanted to move back.

This was my third home loan with Countrywide Home Loans. But, this time, I left the closing table feeling I’d been ripped off. My mortgage payment would be about $200 more per month than what I was quoted when I put the offer in to buy this particular house. The closing costs were also about $7,000 higher than originally quoted several months before when I was first looking into buying a home, in part because the required percentage of down payment was higher. The interest rate had also gone up over the three months I’d been looking.

“Walk away,” some might say. “Find a new lender.”

Too late. I’d lose the chance to buy the perfect house that had taken me months to find as well all my earnest money which I’d put down as a deposit on the house a month earlier.

One of the clever ways Countrywide was able to justify their miscalculation of my monthly payment was to blame it on property tax. It is true that it is difficult to calculate tax since it’s all up to the property appraiser to decide how much your home is worth after you buy your home. New tax levies are also hard to pin down. The mortgage company was off their property tax estimate by about $100 per month, $1200 per year.

The first time you buy a house in Florida, whether you’re a long term resident or have just moved from out of state, can be a real shocker. Property tax on “non-homesteaded” homes is extraordinarily high. A $250,000 home will cost a “virgin” home buyer about $6,000 in taxes per year depending on the county and city where you buy your home. That adds another $500 per month onto your mortgage payment. This can be particularly upsetting when you learn that other homeowners in your neighborhood are only paying $500 a year, not $500 a month, for basically the same house, but that’s another story.

Second, I was told at the 12th hour, literally while signing on the dotted line, that I would have to pay PMI, private mortgage insurance. Unlike home insurance, PMI does me absolutely no good. It basically gives the lender back their money I borrowed if I default on my loan. At an extra $130 per month, this greatly increased my monthly payments. I haven’t had to pay PMI since I bought my first house, many years ago, at a young age and with only a small down payment. This particular extra charge annoyed me because I chose to go with Countrywide over Wachovia because I was given the impression that I would not have to pay PMI if I got my loan through Countrywide. The representative explained that it was in the fine print.

Once again, I felt I’d been ripped off. However, what was done was done. I would move on and move into my new home, choosing to cut my losses rather than start over the house hunting process from scratch.

Last fall, a few months after buying my new Florida home, I decided to consolidate my two home loans into one to lower my payment and remove the PMI. Once again, I talked to several lenders. Once again, I picked Countrywide over another because my quoted monthly payments would be lower. However, after receiving the paperwork, I discovered that I had been misquoted my mortgage payment by about $200 per month. Once again, Countrywide blamed it on property tax. However, this time, there was no excuse. The respresentative had all the numbers in front of him: principal, interest, property tax rolls, and insurance bills. A fifth grader could have done better math.

In addition, while reviewing the cryptic paperwork, I discovered that I had been charged points to lower my interest rate from an ungodly 9% down to 7.5%. (The rates on the two loans I was consolidating were between 5% and 6%.) As a former reporter, I’m pretty good at taking accurate notes, and the Countrywide representative used the term “you qualify for a discount,” not “you are buying points.” I had no interest in “buying” down my interest rate. I feel I should qualify for a very low interest rate based on excellent credit and equity alone.

In addition, $10,000 in fees were added to the home loan. Before you assume that I must be borrowing some enormous amount of money or have low equity to be charged 9% interest and $10,000 in fees, I must explain. The amount I would be borrowing was actually LESS than the amount of the original loan on the Washington State house. Plus, I now had MORE equity because I had wisely paid down the WA State loan early.

Only because I had the misquoted payments in writing, was I able to back out of the loan with no penalty. The representative, who’s demeanor had seemed as rosy and pleasant as a sunny day in Florida, turned nasty and defensive when I called him on the carpet. I expected an apology and discounted fees. Instead, he was insulting. I guess he was upset that he would lose his hefty commission.

I told my story to a lawyer friend who’s currently representing a city government in Florida in litigation with a mortgage company. He explained that after Bush deregulated everything, there currently isn’t an agency who oversees lenders to make sure they don’t underestimate monthly mortgage payments. "Unfortunately, in your case," he said, "there’s no one to complain to who will be able to do anything."

Obama’s stimulus package includes financial help for individuals who may lose their homes because they can’t afford to pay their monthly mortgage payments. The plan allows them to refinance their homes at a lower value than what their homes were originally valued at, which results in lower payments. So, if you bought a $300,000 home and still owe $280,000 on it, but it’s now only worth $200,000, you can refinance your loan at $200,000, which results in lower payments. Taxpayers pay the difference, the $80,000 back to the bank. (Update on 2/26/09: Details of how this will actually work are unclear. One local Orlando banker predicts that banks would only receive $6,000 per loan, no matter how much is owed. This has not been confirmed by any reliable news source.)

Other than the obvious, that this plan is unfair to people who are scraping by, taking second jobs, and doing whatever they have to do to make payments on time, it also makes no sense to me. The root of the problem is that the buyer was approved for this loan in the first place. I have to assume that the buyer isn't in trouble because they were out buying a new car, clothes, vacations, and electronics or sending their kids to private schools instead of making loan payments. I also have to assume that the buyer didn't take out a home equity loan which artificially raised the value of their home. And, I have to assume that the banks approved a loan with payments higher than the buyer could realistically afford. Why were banks allowed to do this in the first place?

Who’s watching the lenders to make sure they don’t continue to take advantage of customers by roping them in with the promise of lower costs by misquoting their payments and fees, then surprising them when it comes time to close? Why aren’t fees standardized so that the costs will be about the same between lenders? Who’s watching the fine print? Who even understands the fine print?

To fix the mortgage industry, we must fix mortgage lending practices. Mortgage companies shouldn’t be able to boost interest rates in order to make a profit. If one person can get a 5% interest rate for a primary home loan, shouldn’t everyone?

Fees should be standardized so that a borrower can not only understand what they are paying, but also so that they are the same from lender to lender.

A higher fee for a person with poor credit, or a higher fee for making a “no-to-low” down payment, should also be standardized across the industry.

Rates and fees should also be locked in for one year at no extra charge, about the time it takes to find that perfect house to buy.

“This will ruin the free market economy. This is socialism!” banks will cry.

No, this is no different than any other major purchase in life. Car dealers have to list fees and prices on the sticker and can woo customers with free oil changes for life. It’s easy to back out of what looks like a bad deal: You don’t have to make a deposit before signing for the car; you aren't locked into a loan for 30 years; and you can easily go to a different dealer to find the same exact silver Chevrolet Cavalier since cars are mass produced. Even utility companies and insurance companies must go before the Florida Legislature to justify price hikes. Credit card lending terms are written on every statement. Why can't mortgage costs be standardized?

Rather than winning over home buying customers by promising lower interest rates, fees, or payments, home mortgage lenders can promise better customer service. Your bank where you have your checking account can offer you convenience in transferring payments between accounts. Independent lenders, such as Countrywide, can offer flexible payment schedules or lower late fees for late payments to woo customers, or maybe throw in a free gift card to Haynes furniture.

There should be no surprises.

Banks are not only to blame. Florida counties and cities need to commit to listing anticipated property tax on homes for sale so you know exactly how much you will have to pay, even before you put an offer in to buy a home.

PMI? What’s the point? What good did PMI do amidst all the foreclosures. That’s one extra fee that should be eliminated entirely.

In addition, the current structure of loans sets borrowers up for failure by amortizing payments. What does that mean? The first few payments you make don't pay off your loan. Instead, they are attributed to interest. In fact, over half of your mortgage payments pay interest for the first 18-1/2 years of a 30 year loan. Crazy? Huh? No wonder so many people owe more than their homes are worth. The only way to pay less interest is to make extra payments earlier than scheduled. Wouldn't it be great if instead of paying $900 towards interest and $100 towards the loan, you paid $300 towards interest and $700 towards the loan each month from day one? After one year, you'd already have paid off $8400!

Obama wants to give an $8,000 tax credit to first time home buyers to help with the cost of buying a home to offset these costs. Too bad it's too late for the rest of us. We were all first time home buyers at one time.

I would prefer that the housing stimulus money be spent on a government regulatory agency that will standardize home loan costs for everyone. That’s the only fair way to spend tax payer money. We are one country. We are one people. We all pay taxes in one way or another. Let’s all reap the benefits of “club membership” of this United States of America.

In a Bad Economy, It’s Nice to See the Underdog Win at the 2009 Daytona 500

During the 2008 Daytona 500, I picked the M&M’s car as my favorite, because it was so cute. It also won the race. (Photo courtesy the M&M’s Racing website)

The rain began to creep into Daytona early in the morning of Sunday, Feb. 15, and my husband and I wondered if we weren’t in for an overdue drenching. It hadn’t rained much since the end of hurricane season in October, and not at all since the beginning of February, but God decided to pick today, of all days, the annual Daytona 500, to give Central Florida a much needed watering. Although we went out at noon to see pre-race activities amidst the cloudy drizzle, my husband and I decided to watch the race in the comfort of our own home in front of the TV.

Everyone knows that the first day of rain after a long dry spell spells trouble on the roads as the first sprinkles mix with grease and pollen and turn the road into a skating rink. The race track was no exception as wreck after wreck occurred. Although exciting to watch, it turned the race into a real nail-biter. I cringed with disappointment as my favorite driver from last year, Kyle Busch, was knocked out of the winning spot after Dale Earnhardt, Jr. turned a hard right into traffic, overcompensating to get back “in zone” after being nudged out of bounds by driver Brian Vickers.

Despite numerous cries of foul from the stands, Earnhardt, affectionately known as Junior, was neither blamed, nor penalized for the nine-car pileup, which badly damaged all three front runners: Kyle Busch, Jimmie Johnson, and Carl Edwards. I mourned when I watched film footage of pit crews hammering out the dents and applying patching tape to the formerly beautiful cars. Fortunately, no one was hurt. (New York Times, Feb. 15, 2009) (thatsracin.com, Feb. 15, 2009)

Last year, I picked Kyle Busch as my favorite because I liked his car. It’s true. I love M & M’s and the car was super cute, so I decided to root for whoever was driving it. Lo and behold, the car won the Daytona 500 in 2008, and from that point forward, Kyle Busch became my favorite driver. You might think I have cotton candy for brains to pick a favorite that way. Not true. Many, many years ago, I used to volunteer at qualifying races in Darlington and Rockingham and I got to know many of the drivers personally. I’m just tired of seeing all the famous race names and dynasties win over and over and over again. Who wants to see a heavily financially supported team win when the rest of us are worried about how we’ll pay for groceries?

This year, perhaps due to the bad economy, I had a fervent desire to see the underdog win. News stories of financial trouble in NASCAR worried race fans this season. Ticket sales were down and companies were cutting sponsorships in the wake of the failing U.S. economy. Fortunately, the Daytona 500 sold out after track management wisely cut ticket prices. Auto makers also justified supporting the sport because of the return advertising value in car sales to avid race fans. Race teams merged to cut costs. (Washington Post, Feb. 15, 2009) (Detroit Free Press, Feb. 15, 2009) 

As a result, over a thousand NASCAR workers were laid off last year. (Fox News, Feb. 10, 2009) Rather than disappear from the race scene into unemployment, some race mechanics agreed to work for free as volunteers. I suppose that it’s better to be busy and part of something great, even if you don’t get paid for it – that is, as long as no one else is getting paid, either.

Such is the case for the all-volunteer crew supporting the new one-car Tommy Baldwin Racing (TBR) Team, formed at the eleventh hour on January 6, 2009, after Baldwin lost his job at Bill Davis Racing, which closed it’s doors in December, 2008. (Hartford Courant, Feb. 14, 2009) (Wikipedia) (Bleacher Report, Jan. 7, 2009)

TBR’s goal: qualify for the Daytona 500 and earn a minimum of $250,000 for a last place finish. (Hartford Courant, Feb. 14, 2009)

The gamble paid off and TBR’s #36 Toyota not only qualified under 38-year old driver, Scott Riggs, TBR also earned two sponsors for the team’s Daytona 500 debut: Red Bank “Ale and Quail” Outfitters, a hunting trip organizer; and a last minute sponsor of Mahindra USA Tractors after their sponsored R3 Motorsports #23 driven by Mike Skinner didn’t qualify due to an oil pressure problem. (Hartford Courant, Feb. 15, 2009) (Wikipedia)

Driver Jeremy Mayfield also decided to take the opportunity to race under his newly formed, driver-owned team, driving the #41 Toyota Camry sponsored by All Sport drinks. (New York Daily News, Feb. 14, 2009)

After Kyle Busch was knocked out, I needed a new favorite for this year’s Daytona 500. True to form, I based my pick on “curb appeal” and decided to root for the Cheerios Chevrolet Impala. Perhaps I picked the car because I saw someone sporting a bright yellow Cheerios jersey shopping in the Altamonte Springs Costco on Saturday before the race and felt a kind of kindred spirit. There’s something very basic and no frills about Cheerios — no sugar added, just pressed and pre-cooked rolled oats — which I’ve relished since I was a kid and still eat every morning to this very day (except when I’m on a low-carb diet, of course). Plus, “33” is my favorite number.

This years’ Cheerios car driver was Clint Bowyer. I was excited to learn that Bowyer won the NASCAR Nationwide Series drivers championship last year. Cheery-O! He actually has a chance to win!

My favorite driver in this year’s Daytona 500 was the #33 Cheerios car driven by Clint Bowyer. I picked the underdog because I like Cheerios and the bright yellow car. This year, my favorite car came in fourth. (Photo courtesy the Cheerios Racing website).

Three quarters into the race during the 152nd lap, the race was called for rain. Like musical chairs, the lucky frontrunner, Matt Kenseth, found himself to be the surprise victor of the 2009 Daytona 500.

It didn’t matter to me that I had never heard of Matt Kenseth, driver of the #17 Dewalt tools car owned by Roush Fenway racing out of Concord, North Carolina. I was thrilled for him and his team and celebrated his victory. I also took comfort that I’d never heard of the other winning drivers: Kevin Harvick, #29 Chevrolet Impala SS, sponsored by Penzoil, and owned by Richard Childress Racing in second place; and A.J. Allmendinger, #84 Toyota Camry, sponsored by Red Bull and owned by Richard Petty Motorsports in third place. To my surprise, there he was, Clint Bowyer in the Cheerios car in fourth.

Picking an underdog to win is completely a psychological decision and not derived by logic, nor based on facts. I don’t follow the qualifying races the rest of the year, so I have no idea who’s favored to win and who’s got the big bucks to back them.

While doing research for this editorial, I was surprised to discover that although Bowyer might be a lesser known driver, his team is an institution. The Cheerios / Hamburger Helper car is managed by the incredibly successful, Richard Childress Racing team (RCR) out of Clemmons, NC, and was Dale Earnhardt’s old team. In fact, Bowyer started racing for RCR in 2005, perhaps as a replacement for Earnhardt’s oldest son, Kerry Earnhardt, who left the team to be a mechanic that year.

I was also surprised to discover that although this was Matt Kenseth’s first Daytona 500 win, he is no stranger to NASCAR. He’s paid his dues by winning multitudes of races since 1999. The Daytona 500 was his 17th Sprint Cup victory, a perfect climax for the number 17 car. (Dewalt Racing)

I was happy to learn that the new TBR team car driven by Riggs came in 25th, earning him a much needed $273,513, which team owner, Baldwin, said is already spent.

Jeremy Mayfield also qualified and finished at 40th.

Perhaps the biggest winner is Ford Motor Company, auto maker of the new Ford Fusion, the car which won this year’s Daytona 500. My guess is that potential car buyers will be lining up at dealers to test drive the winning vehicle this week. (Ford Racing)

Junior came in 27th. Perhaps, there is justice in the world.

AP Wrong to Claim Copyright Infringement

AP president and CEO Tom Curley may want to rethink suing Shepard Fairey for copyright infringement. I created this political portrayal of Curley by using a photo I downloaded from the Purdue University website. The photo contained no copyright notice, not that it matters. I still consider it fair use and the resulting image my own work of art. (Feel free to use this image at no cost. All I ask in return is that you credit me as the source.)

The Associated Press (AP), who provides a large amount of the photos, film footage, and articles regurgitated by many major news sources, has charged artist Shepard Fairey with violating copyright law for using an AP photo to create his famous iconic Obama image which was used in the 2008 election campaign. Fairey sold some of his posters for thousands of dollars and now the AP wants a piece of the action.

Bull hockey!

AP director of media relations, Paul Colford, says he would like Fairey to settle with them over the photo rights.

That would be a mistake on many levels. Fairey should stick to his guns and defend himself for his rights as an artist to use this or any other image to create works of art. If AP wins this case, it will set precedent over gazillions of creative works. Suddenly, everyone will want a piece of the starving artist’s pie. The only reason the AP is coming out of the woodwork is because, aghast! Fairey has made actual money! Imagine that! An artist, making money! Wow! What an anomaly!

AP has written their own article explaining the issue on February 4, 2009. In this article, they show the two images.

I have to say, there really is very little similarity. Obama’s head is redrawn from scratch, angled slightly and foreshortened, with different coloration and background, so much that I feel it is completely altered (unlike the photo of Tom Curley above, which I altered in photoshop, but which I still feel is now my original artwork). It took the photographer a split second to take the photo of Obama. It took the artist, Shepard Fairey, countless hours (I would estimate 50 hours) to draw and make prints of his iconic Obama image. Can the two images really be considered as having similar value?

An excellent opinion piece explaining the details of the case is published in a Feb. 8, 2009 Huffington Post article by Jonathan Melber.

While in grade school a few decades ago, my art teacher told us kids about the “ten percent” rule. He pulled out old magazines, such as National Geographic, Time, US News and World Report, and People Magazine, and told us to freely use at will any of the images we found. “Just change them by 10 percent,” he said. “So it now becomes your original work inspired by their work.”

We all cut and pasted photos of this and that. One classmate took a photo of a geisha girl from National Geographic, blew her up very large, cropped her to her eyes, and redrew her in bright cherry red pastels. She got oodles of awards and kudos for her work. Another classmate did a pencil portrait of Bob Dylan. I drew an oil pastel of ET. Fortunately, Spielberg was not in the building or he might have wanted a cut of the $5 offered to me for it. No one questioned whether the works we’d slaved over for hours and hours were now our own creation or not.

Years later, while in a Sunday painters club, someone brought up the usage of photos for creating art works. “I was told to change them by 10 percent,” one artist said.

Yep, that’s what I was taught, too.

There’s a big difference between a “copy” and a “transformation.”

We can’t all be wrong, can we? Millions of artists over the past hundred years have been redrawing, altering, and transforming photos to create our very own works of art.

Will it end with artwork?

Can Saturday Night Live be sued for parodying movies and television shows, such as their skit making fun of the Today Show which aired on February 7th? What about quoting famous authors? The next time I’m hired to give an inspirational speech at a convention, will I have to first run my lines by Penguin Books? “Call me Ishmael. I’m quoting Moby Dick, today. Where do I send the royalty check?”

What about Obama? It’s his face! Can he sue AP for taking his photo and then charging money for it? Does AP own the image of Obama or does Obama own his own image? What about the National Press Club who held the event where the photo was taken? Shouldn’t they get a cut? Where does it all end? Does the almighty dollar rule over common sense?

Warning to Martha Stewart: Kraft is calling and wants you to stop making macaroni and cheese. “Yes, I know your recipe is different, but it’s based on ours. You’ll have to recall all the books and tear that page out of your cookbook.”

“Hello, Thomasville Furniture? Chippendale wants their couch back. Just ship them all into the warehouse at 9th and Virginia Avenue and we’ll dispose of them for you.”

What about the AP website? It looks eerily familiar. Perhaps some code was copied. Hmm…

Just the thought of all the possible “copyright infringements” is exhausting.

What kind of artwork do we want for the next generation to enjoy? Are artists going to be scared into creating unrecognizable blobs of paint in fear that they’ll be sued, just in case someone claims that the painting was based on their photograph. “What’s the name of this painting again? Snowman in a snowstorm?”

I hope Fairey sticks to his guns and doesn’t settle. I hope AP rethinks their charges. Artists of all kinds need to feel free to base their works of art on a variety of inspirations. What makes all creative works enjoyable is that connection between man and his environment. There’s nothing more rewarding than the discovery of new ideas assimilated from old, such as new scientific conclusions based on old theories. We don’t live in a vacuum. We are all interdependent upon each other’s thoughts and ideas which we use to form our own.

Two Feet in the End Zone, Player Sizes,and Other Superbowl Inequities

Each year as the annual Superbowl is held, I am reminded of all of the inequities of the game:

TV SIZE?

How can TV manufacturers be allowed to list their TV size by the longer diagonal measurement, round up, and count the plastic frame on top? Shouldn’t they be required to give actual viewing size in height and width?

3D GLASSES?

If an advertiser is going to broadcast their $3 million commercial spots in 3D, shouldn’t the cable company send every viewer at least one pair of 3D glasses by mail in advance? Our local Publix grocery store which was the distributor of the 3D glasses in our neighborhood said they were out of the glasses within minutes of receiving them, just two weeks before the game. Having no way to view these splend-ific commercials, I decided to leave the room when they aired (great time for a make-more-snacks break!) I have no idea what was even being advertised.

FOOD?

Speaking of Publix grocery stores: Why are they listed under the “FOOD” category on the blue traveler restaurant signs along I-4 in Orlando? What a disappointment for all those out-of-towners driving to and from Tampa for the game. Seriously, if a grocery store deli doesn’t have a place for diners to sit down; doesn’t serve their ready-to-eat deli food on plates with utensils; doesn’t sell ready to drink beverages; doesn’t have rest rooms, a dedicated cashier, and door directly into their eatery; how can they be classified as a restaurant? I certainly wouldn’t put them in the same category as Starbucks or Chick Filet! If the Florida State D.O.T. is going to expand the “FOOD” signs to include deli departments in grocery stores, they’re also going to have to include 7-11, who serves ready to eat hot dogs right out the front door.

CALLING ME NOW?

Friends do not call friends during the Superbowl. It’s one game a year, dear. Unless, of course, you’re expected to attend a party at their house and are calling to offer to pick up supplies and ask, “Can I pick up some beer? Chips? Salsa?”

But, seriously…

TWO FEET CATCHING, TWO FEET CARRYING

Perhaps it’s time to institute a “two feet over the goal line” rule for touchdowns, whether catching or carrying the ball into the end zone. Only five minutes into the game, Pittsburgh Steelers’ Justin Hartwig (62) meant well when he pulled fallen teammate Roethlisberger (7) over the goal line on top of Arizona Cardinal linebacker, Monty Beisel (52) in an effort to make a touchdown. However, it just didn’t seem right to get a touchdown that way. Although his knee didn’t technically appear to be down, referees reversed the touchdown after a Cardinal’s challenge.

In my opinion, players should run or walk both feet over the line for a touchdown to count. Players are already required to have two feet down in the end zone for a caught pass to count.

THE BIGGER, THE BETTER? THE SCARIER!

I believe it’s also time to institute weight and size restrictions in professional football. Coaches do their best to recruit the largest possible defensive players to increase their odds for wrestling smaller offensive players to the ground. Is this really an ideal situation? Football, after all, is a contact sport and players are frequently maimed for life. If we institute weight classes for wrestling and boxing, shouldn’t we do the same for American football? It pains me to watch such carnage. Are we no more civilized than the Romans?

The Thursday before the Superbowl, a fundraiser was held in Tampa to raise funds and awareness to help disabled retired NFL players cover costs for healthcare.  Brighthouse news reported: “Guys get knocked on their [butt] pretty regularly, and sometimes it hurts,” said former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka. “You're going to get injured, and sometimes those injuries have long-term effects.” 

The Brighthouse article continues to report the escalating violence of football: Most of the men said that modern football has become even more “vicious” than in years past.

Is it really fair to match the Cardinal’s Michael Adams at 181 lbs. against Steeler’s Max Starks who weighs 345 lbs.? Or the Steeler’s 185 lb. Nate Washington against the Cardinal’s Brandon Keith at 343 lbs.? No wonder professional football players are sometimes killed in the line of duty.

Sometimes it seems the bigger the players, the better the team. Even the Steeler’s offensive players seemed HUGE! I was impressed with the Cardinals offensive strategy to keep their smaller players from being injured: throw, catch, drop and roll… It was a bit like watching a circus performer training camp on how to correctly fall off an elephant.

The facts back up my theory. The Pittsburgh Steelers 65 active players average 254 lbs each (ESPN Pittsburgh roster). This year’s worst team in the league, the Detroit Lions, have 73 active players who average only 242 lbs. each. (ESPN Detroit roster)

The Steelers also had 65 active players compared to the Cardinal’s 56 active players for who average 251 lbs. each. (ESPN Arizona roster)

Whatever the excuse, it’s time we took a more civilized approach to our entertainment.