Thoughts on reaching 50
Obviously it starts with my mother, Ida my grandmother Estella, Grandfather John Marshall Perkins, and many of my elders who are now ancestors, too many to name, but they all made an indelible mark on my life.
Surrogate mothers
Then there are what I called surrogate mothers, Jackie in Chicago, Edna in Vegas, Helen Bailey, Piggy and Gwennie (RIP), and many others.
Following the arrow
For those who know me, I am a student of astrology. I read once it's not the Centaur, but its the arrow that gives insight to Sagittarius energy, follow the arrow as it points to the mythical center of the universe, headed for home, headed for Truth.
As such the energy of Sagittarius is one of travel higher learning and the development of your own personal moral code. With that as a backdrop it is clear to understand that only a full blooded Sagittarian mother will concoct a baptismal road trip to the Bahamas.
One of the more interesting aspects of that trip was the flight home. My mother and I were on one flight, my grandmother and others were on another. I and my mother were to fly from Nassau to Miami then from Miami to St. Louis. On the way back over the Caribbean there was a loud noise, as one of the engines on a double engine plane when dead, the pilot literally glided the plane back to Nassau. I was most shocked to land in at the same airport that I just left – at age four I knew something was amiss. My mother sat next to a pilot who calmly told her as soon as they heard the sound “that sounds like one of the engines died”. Needless to say my mother refused to take the next flight out so we waited until the next day to return. Another side bar about the trip was my grandmother who at age 64 had never flown (it’s a testament to her that she probably logged more airplane miles than I have in the last 30 years of her life). My mother got her to go, by getting her best friend Camille to go. Once we got to the Bahamas we met a guy who had a small private plane, he offered to take my mother up she said no, but my grandmother – and me flew, it was breathtaking I will find some of the photos taken from that flight and add them to my album.
In 1964 much to the chagrin of my grandmother I flew solo to Atlanta to visit Edna and her family who drove down from South Carolina to pick me up. Their daughter Lisa is the one next to me in the White house photo) my mother grumbled, “They wouldn’t have put Lisa on a plane to come up here”. The rode trip that followed was the one for the ages, and still is the longest time I have ever spent in a car, as my mother drove from St. Louis to South Carolina to get me, and then drove to New York to meet some family members. Highlight of the trip, a bleach bottle as an emergency urinal – read in to this comment what you will, but my 4 year old thought was I am supposed to put this in that? The other highlight was the magnificent beautify of the Chesapeake bay as we drove up 95 I never saw so many colorful sailboats.
Once in New York it was fun for all of us. My mother got to see Theolonius Monk in concert, we went to the Empire State Building, my grandmother went to Ellis Island, we all went to Harlem and had one of the most fascinating evenings I had ever had. Coming from a small family, an only child of an only child, the vibrancy of the family we met in Harlem was unforgettable.
There were not many other trips, skiing in Lake Geneva, in the 71, the trip to the west coast in 1969, but not trip, nor any year of my life evokes emotions, and memories like 1968.
1968
Humphrey Humphrey he’s our man Nixon belongs in the trash can. Me, Pewee and Buggy – Fall of 1968
April 4
7:10 CST, me and my best friend at the time Dineen (that’s a dude by the way) were watching the flying nun. A news bulletin “Dr. Martin Luther King has been shot in Memphis…..” fifteen minutes later the announcement came that he was dead.
June 6
2 in the morning the phone rings, Sandy (another surrogate mother) calls screaming that bobby had been shot. There was no need to ask Bobby who.
Two weeks later I am DC announcing to all that will listen, I need to go to Arlington to “bless” the Kennedy brothers. My mother took all over DC, the White House, I saluted in front of Lincoln, stood transfixed at Robert Kennedy’s Senate seat, but she did not want to go to Arlington, she thought
“Who does my son think he is – the Pope?” she had a headache all day, but to Arlington we went. A nine year old mind could not get their arms around how a flame never goes out.
Other noteworthy events was visiting Resurrection city, the last organized movement of Dr. Martin Luther King. My mother went to a night club and got an album autographed by a local prodigy named Roberta Flack.
1968 also begin my love for sports. The favored world champion St. Louis Cardinals blew a 3-1 World Series and lost the 1968 World Series to the Detroit Tigers.
To be continued
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Managing a Big Tent
The Democratic Party that was revived under Franklin Roosevelt has been a party of diverse sub-coalitions. Unions, blacks, Catholics, city dwellers, etc. By the 60’s they were joined by the anti war, and pro-choice movement. In the last generation, gay activists, environmentalist, and Hispanics, have found a safe haven within the confines of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party prides itself on its diverse makeup by calling it a big tent. Those subsets that formed the Democratic Party have looked for party leaders, and candidates to be change agents, reformers, progressive, and often an alternative to the more conservative, right leanings of the Republican Party. Those groups expect in exchange for their party loyalty, shares of the political prize which run the gamut from support to their causes, to high ranking appointments and rightly so.
In the years of the administration of George Bush, and under the influence of Karl Rove, the Republican Party moved further and further right and in doing so incurred the wrath of those core Democratic “tent dwellers”. The manner in which John McCain ran his 2008 campaign, and the selection of Sarah Palin all were in homage to that extreme right wing base of a Republican Party seemingly intent on stunting their growth. At the same those Democratic coalitions found in presidential candidate Barack Obama, a true reformer. They came to the Obama Campaign with both a wish list in one hand, and a promise of support in the other. The gay community wanted the repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, anti war groups wanted a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, more “hawkish” in the progressive crowd nothing short of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney sent to prison for war crimes, Hispanics saw an opportunity for a kinder gentler immigration policy. Environmentalists hoped for more aggressive action on global warming. Ironically the one group linked more closely to Barack Obama, the African American community offered very little in the way of an electoral quid pro quo, and was promised the least. Candidate Barack Obama save for his dramatic speech on race in Philadelphia, said very little on race, as he understood with clarity the dangers in presenting himself as the black candidate – ergo in the minds of others - the black messiah.
Now the election is over, and those groups are marching to the White House with their due bill in hand. It is amusing that now five months after the inauguration; Fox News competes with the progressive standard bearers like Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, and MSNBC’s Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow on who can slam the Obama Administration the hardest. The growing mantra from the left is how President Obama has either reneged or watered down campaign promises. The natives are getting restless. But lets’ be real clear, from the perspective of the left so much of this is their own hubris and political anxiety. Hunkering down for eight years during a Bush Administration that tilted the rewards and political booty so far too the right, the now left wants to restore balance, on there terms, and on their time table. And they saw in Barack Obama a pliable newbie whom they could manipulate. They hoped he would fill his administration roster with other neophytes and Left leaning acolytes so that their voice would be heard, but when he started filling his administration with holdovers from the Clinton Administration, and head bangers like Raul Emmanuel it gave them pause. But what the Left either forgotten, or ignored is that while they were rolling up their sleeves for a restoration of a progressive agenda, Barack Obama was moving chairs and tables to make room in the tent for disaffected Republicans, Independents, and a slice of middle class Americana that heretofore had little to do with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. While the Left was planning how they would micromanage Barack Obama; the Obama administration is eyeing bigger fish - the remaking of the Democratic Party. With his eyes dead set on those Democrats who left the party in 1980 with the election of Ronald Wilson Reagan, Barack Obama has visions of a new political grand coalition that pushes the Republican Party to the brink.
Astute commentators like George Stephanopoulos of ABC and others noticed the political impact and message of bringing Republicans into his administration. These moves both fulfilled campaign promises while at the same time further marginalizing the right wing of the opposition. Elections have consequences and often those consequences if managed correctly have long term effects. President Obama is taking the long view, and in doing so showing a capacity for political calculation that many are now just coming to recognize. Barack Obama came to govern, but in governing he is working to rebuild the Democratic Party which means the party of the big tent now must make room to the right and center. This strategy can work to neutralize Republican efforts to label his policies as socialistic, or view President Obama as a pawn of the left; moreover, this strategy recognizes the golden opportunity to take advantage of a GOP that is unraveling, lacking both vision and a visionary.
Finally this strategy reflects the unprecedented challenges facing President Obama, and that in order for him to govern effectively he needs to be centrist in his approach, and pragmatic in his vision. This is governance in real time, not just position papers, in the abstract. Barack Obama has shifted gears, the campaign is history - Tehran is real. Recent polls show that he has expended a significant amount of political capital in his massive and costly government interventions. In an increasingly dangerous world with North Korea saber rattling, Iran in near meltdown mode, and a resurging Taliban in Pakistan, does President Obama really want to pick a fight with his generals who have informed him “not now” on “Don’t ask – don’t tell? With reform in health care, and energy policy still on the table do the vast majority of Americans want President Obama to get bogged down in a protracted inside the beltway beef?
When President Obama speaks to the nation, he is not just speaking to his friends on the left, but to those who ‘held their nose’ and voted for him in November, as well as those who didn’t. He is offering not a quick fix, but a down payment. In the midst of the Bush administration it was the left that warned that President Bush was becoming a pawn to his base, at the detriment of his party – and to the country. Now as painful as it is for them to swallow, America can not afford at this critical time to have a President be a mere appendage to the left.
President Obama is a student of history, and as such he understands the nuances needed to govern, politics is often devoid of nuances, its either black or white, us versus them. The left needs to recognize that the key component of the change mantra of last year’s campaign was competence, not quick fixes, or political expedience. Memo to the Left – Barack Obama is here for the long haul, strap yourself in, and develop some patience. Governance is about prioritizing, leading and consensus building, not merely responding to wish lists. Under President Barrack Hussein Obama the Big Tent is getting bigger, relax, have a glass of cabernet and make room for new friends.
In the years of the administration of George Bush, and under the influence of Karl Rove, the Republican Party moved further and further right and in doing so incurred the wrath of those core Democratic “tent dwellers”. The manner in which John McCain ran his 2008 campaign, and the selection of Sarah Palin all were in homage to that extreme right wing base of a Republican Party seemingly intent on stunting their growth. At the same those Democratic coalitions found in presidential candidate Barack Obama, a true reformer. They came to the Obama Campaign with both a wish list in one hand, and a promise of support in the other. The gay community wanted the repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, anti war groups wanted a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, more “hawkish” in the progressive crowd nothing short of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney sent to prison for war crimes, Hispanics saw an opportunity for a kinder gentler immigration policy. Environmentalists hoped for more aggressive action on global warming. Ironically the one group linked more closely to Barack Obama, the African American community offered very little in the way of an electoral quid pro quo, and was promised the least. Candidate Barack Obama save for his dramatic speech on race in Philadelphia, said very little on race, as he understood with clarity the dangers in presenting himself as the black candidate – ergo in the minds of others - the black messiah.
Now the election is over, and those groups are marching to the White House with their due bill in hand. It is amusing that now five months after the inauguration; Fox News competes with the progressive standard bearers like Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, and MSNBC’s Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow on who can slam the Obama Administration the hardest. The growing mantra from the left is how President Obama has either reneged or watered down campaign promises. The natives are getting restless. But lets’ be real clear, from the perspective of the left so much of this is their own hubris and political anxiety. Hunkering down for eight years during a Bush Administration that tilted the rewards and political booty so far too the right, the now left wants to restore balance, on there terms, and on their time table. And they saw in Barack Obama a pliable newbie whom they could manipulate. They hoped he would fill his administration roster with other neophytes and Left leaning acolytes so that their voice would be heard, but when he started filling his administration with holdovers from the Clinton Administration, and head bangers like Raul Emmanuel it gave them pause. But what the Left either forgotten, or ignored is that while they were rolling up their sleeves for a restoration of a progressive agenda, Barack Obama was moving chairs and tables to make room in the tent for disaffected Republicans, Independents, and a slice of middle class Americana that heretofore had little to do with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. While the Left was planning how they would micromanage Barack Obama; the Obama administration is eyeing bigger fish - the remaking of the Democratic Party. With his eyes dead set on those Democrats who left the party in 1980 with the election of Ronald Wilson Reagan, Barack Obama has visions of a new political grand coalition that pushes the Republican Party to the brink.
Astute commentators like George Stephanopoulos of ABC and others noticed the political impact and message of bringing Republicans into his administration. These moves both fulfilled campaign promises while at the same time further marginalizing the right wing of the opposition. Elections have consequences and often those consequences if managed correctly have long term effects. President Obama is taking the long view, and in doing so showing a capacity for political calculation that many are now just coming to recognize. Barack Obama came to govern, but in governing he is working to rebuild the Democratic Party which means the party of the big tent now must make room to the right and center. This strategy can work to neutralize Republican efforts to label his policies as socialistic, or view President Obama as a pawn of the left; moreover, this strategy recognizes the golden opportunity to take advantage of a GOP that is unraveling, lacking both vision and a visionary.
Finally this strategy reflects the unprecedented challenges facing President Obama, and that in order for him to govern effectively he needs to be centrist in his approach, and pragmatic in his vision. This is governance in real time, not just position papers, in the abstract. Barack Obama has shifted gears, the campaign is history - Tehran is real. Recent polls show that he has expended a significant amount of political capital in his massive and costly government interventions. In an increasingly dangerous world with North Korea saber rattling, Iran in near meltdown mode, and a resurging Taliban in Pakistan, does President Obama really want to pick a fight with his generals who have informed him “not now” on “Don’t ask – don’t tell? With reform in health care, and energy policy still on the table do the vast majority of Americans want President Obama to get bogged down in a protracted inside the beltway beef?
When President Obama speaks to the nation, he is not just speaking to his friends on the left, but to those who ‘held their nose’ and voted for him in November, as well as those who didn’t. He is offering not a quick fix, but a down payment. In the midst of the Bush administration it was the left that warned that President Bush was becoming a pawn to his base, at the detriment of his party – and to the country. Now as painful as it is for them to swallow, America can not afford at this critical time to have a President be a mere appendage to the left.
President Obama is a student of history, and as such he understands the nuances needed to govern, politics is often devoid of nuances, its either black or white, us versus them. The left needs to recognize that the key component of the change mantra of last year’s campaign was competence, not quick fixes, or political expedience. Memo to the Left – Barack Obama is here for the long haul, strap yourself in, and develop some patience. Governance is about prioritizing, leading and consensus building, not merely responding to wish lists. Under President Barrack Hussein Obama the Big Tent is getting bigger, relax, have a glass of cabernet and make room for new friends.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
iM Films Partnership Opportunity
iM Films is seeking Fiscal Sponsors
Fiscal Sponsorship
Though daunting, raising money to make a film is not an impossible task, and fiscal sponsorship can be an invaluable means to securing funding. Depending on the nature of your project, you may want to consider affiliation with a tax-exempt organization in order to broaden your base of potential support.
By partnering with an established 501(c)(3) organization, artist-driven projects with nonprofit goals can apply for grants and solicit tax-deductible donations to support their work. The Sponsor’s tax-exempt status, which includes board oversight, inspires donor confidence because the sponsoring organization has a recognized charitable purpose, has a structure for accomplishing its goals, and is accountable to the public.
In this type of arrangement, a nonprofit would act as your fiscal agent, receiving and administering the grant (or donation) for you. It is important that you begin looking for a sponsor at the same time that you start researching potential grantmakers and/or donors.
In some cities, media-related nonprofit organizations provide fiscal sponsorship as a core service. Alternatively, a filmmaker can find a nonprofit organization whose work complements the purpose and/or constituency of the proposed project. For example, a historical society might be willing to be the fiscal sponsor of a documentary about World War II veterans.
At minimum, the Sponsor signs grant contracts, receives the awarded funds, sets up an account for the Project, writes checks, and issues the charitable donation receipts required by the Internal Revenue Service. But a Sponsor may take a much larger role. It could be an active fundraising partner, provide space or equipment or offer consultation services.
In return for its services, the Sponsor usually takes an administrative fee, which can range from 2 percent to 15 percent (or more) of monies received on behalf of the Project. Although fees vary, 5 percent to 10 percent is generally considered typical and fair.
The key to understanding fiscal sponsorship is that there are three players — the Project (an artist, artists’ collaboration or emerging arts organization), the Sponsor (a tax-exempt organization) and the Grantmaker (corporation, foundation, federated campaign, government arts agency or individual arts patron) — and the players must be clear about their expectations and responsibilities. In addition, those working on the Project must be willing to submit a detailed proposal to a Grantmaker and then execute the Project as outlined in the proposal. Some artists find this arrangement too restrictive.
Typically, the filmmaker begins the process by identifying a potential funding source. But the legal status of the Project is an obstacle because most foundations, corporations and government arts funding agencies restrict their grantmaking to tax-exempt organizations. So the filmmaker must find a Sponsor — commonly called an “umbrella” or “fiscal agent” — an organization with 501(c)(3) status that will sign on as a sort of chaperone, lending its tax-exempt status to the Project and providing the oversight required by the donor.
All too often this relationship is formed in haste, with little foresight or judgment. Unfortunately, the way some artists approach the need for a fiscal sponsor might be likened to some teens lurking around a movie theatre ticket line, desiring admition to an R-rated movie, and looking for an adult who will accompany them into the theatre. As soon as the tickets are sold, they ditch the adults.
Similarly, some artists mistakenly believe their relationship with a fiscal sponsor to be just as disposable – after the sponsor signs the grant application they can simply wave goodbye and enjoy the benefits of the grant. Other artists are less casual, but might – along with the Sponsor – misunderstand crucial aspects of the relationship, and make assumptions at the outset that cause trouble down the road.
A story: An organization that promotes literacy agrees to sponsor a filmmaker whose project is a documentary on the problems faced by illiterate adults. The filmmaker submits the documentary on time, but the Sponsor isn’t happy with its content and the filmmaker refuses to alter it. The dispute prevents the film from ever being released, damages the Sponsor’s relationship with the Grantmaker and likely discourages all three parties from ever again considering fiscal sponsorship.
Fiscal sponsorship offers tremendous opportunities for experimentation, diversity, social change, collaboration and a willingness to support the work created by artists who are not normally or regularly employed by nonprofit organizations or major cultural institutions.
Fiscal Sponsorship
Though daunting, raising money to make a film is not an impossible task, and fiscal sponsorship can be an invaluable means to securing funding. Depending on the nature of your project, you may want to consider affiliation with a tax-exempt organization in order to broaden your base of potential support.
By partnering with an established 501(c)(3) organization, artist-driven projects with nonprofit goals can apply for grants and solicit tax-deductible donations to support their work. The Sponsor’s tax-exempt status, which includes board oversight, inspires donor confidence because the sponsoring organization has a recognized charitable purpose, has a structure for accomplishing its goals, and is accountable to the public.
In this type of arrangement, a nonprofit would act as your fiscal agent, receiving and administering the grant (or donation) for you. It is important that you begin looking for a sponsor at the same time that you start researching potential grantmakers and/or donors.
In some cities, media-related nonprofit organizations provide fiscal sponsorship as a core service. Alternatively, a filmmaker can find a nonprofit organization whose work complements the purpose and/or constituency of the proposed project. For example, a historical society might be willing to be the fiscal sponsor of a documentary about World War II veterans.
At minimum, the Sponsor signs grant contracts, receives the awarded funds, sets up an account for the Project, writes checks, and issues the charitable donation receipts required by the Internal Revenue Service. But a Sponsor may take a much larger role. It could be an active fundraising partner, provide space or equipment or offer consultation services.
In return for its services, the Sponsor usually takes an administrative fee, which can range from 2 percent to 15 percent (or more) of monies received on behalf of the Project. Although fees vary, 5 percent to 10 percent is generally considered typical and fair.
The key to understanding fiscal sponsorship is that there are three players — the Project (an artist, artists’ collaboration or emerging arts organization), the Sponsor (a tax-exempt organization) and the Grantmaker (corporation, foundation, federated campaign, government arts agency or individual arts patron) — and the players must be clear about their expectations and responsibilities. In addition, those working on the Project must be willing to submit a detailed proposal to a Grantmaker and then execute the Project as outlined in the proposal. Some artists find this arrangement too restrictive.
Typically, the filmmaker begins the process by identifying a potential funding source. But the legal status of the Project is an obstacle because most foundations, corporations and government arts funding agencies restrict their grantmaking to tax-exempt organizations. So the filmmaker must find a Sponsor — commonly called an “umbrella” or “fiscal agent” — an organization with 501(c)(3) status that will sign on as a sort of chaperone, lending its tax-exempt status to the Project and providing the oversight required by the donor.
All too often this relationship is formed in haste, with little foresight or judgment. Unfortunately, the way some artists approach the need for a fiscal sponsor might be likened to some teens lurking around a movie theatre ticket line, desiring admition to an R-rated movie, and looking for an adult who will accompany them into the theatre. As soon as the tickets are sold, they ditch the adults.
Similarly, some artists mistakenly believe their relationship with a fiscal sponsor to be just as disposable – after the sponsor signs the grant application they can simply wave goodbye and enjoy the benefits of the grant. Other artists are less casual, but might – along with the Sponsor – misunderstand crucial aspects of the relationship, and make assumptions at the outset that cause trouble down the road.
A story: An organization that promotes literacy agrees to sponsor a filmmaker whose project is a documentary on the problems faced by illiterate adults. The filmmaker submits the documentary on time, but the Sponsor isn’t happy with its content and the filmmaker refuses to alter it. The dispute prevents the film from ever being released, damages the Sponsor’s relationship with the Grantmaker and likely discourages all three parties from ever again considering fiscal sponsorship.
Fiscal sponsorship offers tremendous opportunities for experimentation, diversity, social change, collaboration and a willingness to support the work created by artists who are not normally or regularly employed by nonprofit organizations or major cultural institutions.
iM Films Exective Summary & Vision Statement
2009- 2020
STRATEGIC PLAN
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“You like history so much, go out an make it”
Emelda Harris 8th grade teacher June 1973
On November 22, 1963 the world changed. The public execution of President John F. Kennedy ushered in an era that has led to what many call the new world order. This was the world I grew up in. 1968 remains one of the most important years of my life. Change was not limited to global politics. I witnessed the destruction of the inner city, a generation of lost souls, and the struggle for black people to expand their consciousness beyond the narrow prism of Eurocentric indoctrination. My films therefore are a reflection of what I have witnessed in nearly a half century. Documentaries such as Beyond Vietnam - Dr. King’s Last Year and RFK Out of the Shadows are my tributes to two of the last giants of the 20th century.
Local projects such as When They Were Kings, honors the many great athletes who represented of the St. Louis Public High School League (PHL) during its glory years.
Narrative Projects like the Prodigal Son © 1996, Ashes of Winston Alexander © 2000, and Help is on the Way © 2002 are tasteful representations of the African American experience, which bow in homage to ancient African traditions such as ancestor veneration, as well as and dealing with human issues of karma, relationships, and spirituality.
The Fab Five 1998 ©, and The Final Hole © 2002 take a “what if” approach to modern day sports. As IM Film grows, we will add adaptations of thought provoking novels to our film inventory.
Filmmaking is storytelling. IM Films promises to honor that tradition.
II. VISION STATEMENT
It is the dream and hope of IM Films that through our creativity, and vision, we hope to raise community awareness, redefine quality, and challenge traditional norms. We want to use the creativity that IM Films fosters to bring about awareness and in many cases a re-awakening of long dormant spiritual and cultural traditions. We also hope to redefine some of the ways that we as a society view traditional institutions such as religion, politics, and education. IM Films through the use of both documentaries and docudramas will revisit historical moments and figures with the hopes of bringing accuracy and truth where the reality has been blurred by inaccuracies.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, the message of holistic lifestyles will be present in many of our works, using the creative art of film making as instrument for teaching, and healing. We hope to introduce non-traditional concepts of learning, loving, teaching, healing, and spirituality to a wide audience.
STRATEGIC PLAN
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“You like history so much, go out an make it”
Emelda Harris 8th grade teacher June 1973
On November 22, 1963 the world changed. The public execution of President John F. Kennedy ushered in an era that has led to what many call the new world order. This was the world I grew up in. 1968 remains one of the most important years of my life. Change was not limited to global politics. I witnessed the destruction of the inner city, a generation of lost souls, and the struggle for black people to expand their consciousness beyond the narrow prism of Eurocentric indoctrination. My films therefore are a reflection of what I have witnessed in nearly a half century. Documentaries such as Beyond Vietnam - Dr. King’s Last Year and RFK Out of the Shadows are my tributes to two of the last giants of the 20th century.
Local projects such as When They Were Kings, honors the many great athletes who represented of the St. Louis Public High School League (PHL) during its glory years.
Narrative Projects like the Prodigal Son © 1996, Ashes of Winston Alexander © 2000, and Help is on the Way © 2002 are tasteful representations of the African American experience, which bow in homage to ancient African traditions such as ancestor veneration, as well as and dealing with human issues of karma, relationships, and spirituality.
The Fab Five 1998 ©, and The Final Hole © 2002 take a “what if” approach to modern day sports. As IM Film grows, we will add adaptations of thought provoking novels to our film inventory.
Filmmaking is storytelling. IM Films promises to honor that tradition.
II. VISION STATEMENT
It is the dream and hope of IM Films that through our creativity, and vision, we hope to raise community awareness, redefine quality, and challenge traditional norms. We want to use the creativity that IM Films fosters to bring about awareness and in many cases a re-awakening of long dormant spiritual and cultural traditions. We also hope to redefine some of the ways that we as a society view traditional institutions such as religion, politics, and education. IM Films through the use of both documentaries and docudramas will revisit historical moments and figures with the hopes of bringing accuracy and truth where the reality has been blurred by inaccuracies.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, the message of holistic lifestyles will be present in many of our works, using the creative art of film making as instrument for teaching, and healing. We hope to introduce non-traditional concepts of learning, loving, teaching, healing, and spirituality to a wide audience.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Health Care Obesity and the FDA
Sometime between Supreme Court nominations, automobile bailouts, Pakistan, and the torture debate, the Obama Administration will hone in on his campaign promise to radically change the health care system in this country. This looms to be a major fight, and already in the pre-fight background the battle lines are being drawn. If the first few months of the Obama Administration proves to be an indicator, his plan will draw fire from both the right and the left. I have been both amused and disturbed by the attacks from the left especially when too often they developed alacrity to fight old battles rather than move forward.
However, I will be watching the health care debate not with interest on the political battles that are waged, but rather the manner in which President Obama uses this issue to speak to perhaps the most insidious health issue facing this country – obesity and the role of the Federal Government to protect the American food consumer. Part of the Obama message throughout his campaign and after his election has dealt with accountability. Well let the truth be told, we as a nation cannot ignore the manner in which we have allowed the combination of poor eating habits, and sedentary lifestyle to be the breeding ground for disease, and burgeoning health costs.
In 2003 the Office of the Surgeon General released a report titled the Obesity Crisis in America. In his opening remarks, then U. S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, called obesity the fastest cause of disease and death in America, and implicated obesity in one out of every eight deaths in America. His report went on to report that in the year 2000 the cost of obesity was $117 billion dollars – that’s billion with a “B”. To be far, in the last few years there have been efforts on several fronts to reduce obesity, but clearly this is a war that in many ways threatens America more than the far away and costly battles in Afghanistan, and Iran.
In a 2004 report by health watchdog organization Truth for American Health went further, stating that America lacks “aggressive and coordinated” strategies to combat this crisis, and as a result deepens the impact of this crisis. In 2004, the FDA created an Obesity Task Force, designed to put emphasis on the issue, yet there are many who think the FDA’s relationship with the food industry undercuts their role as a true advocate for health. One such critic is Byron Richard founder of Wellness Resources, who authored - Fight for your health: Exposing the Betrayal of the FDA. Mr. Richard is not alone in his criticism of the FDA. All which makes any effort by President Obama to wage war on obesity much the tougher. To wage a successful war will require a national strategy that involves community, industry, medical, and educational system to be on the same page, but that war will also include an Obama administration to review with diligence the relationship between the FDA and the food industry.
It is irrefutable that burgeoning health care cost are both intolerable and unsustainable, but to approach health care cost, solely from the delivery side, and ignoring a basic human maxim, “you are what you eat”, is a flawed health care policy. Changing generational and societal lifestyle patterns will take time, and is subject to the reality that there are many Americans who utterly refused to change unhealthy eating and lifestyle choices. However, the government can and must be proactive in managing the nation’s food supply.
That is the job of the FDA. The FDA is under the direction of the Department of Agriculture. It wasn’t too long ago that Bill Clinton’s secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy was indicted for taking bribes from Tyson foods, one of the most powerful and influential food processing companies. That long arm of influence by the food industry, should give pause. In December of 2008, Nicholas Krisof of The New York Times suggested that an overhaul of the Agriculture Department was needed. In his OP Ed Piece Titled “Obama’s Secretary of Food? he cites - In the Defense of Food author, Michael Pollan who wrote “We’re subsidizing the least healthy calories in the supermarket — high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated soy oil, and we’re doing very little for farmers trying to grow real food…all at taxpayers expense.”
Mr. Obama still has considerable political and populous wind in his sails, and plans to take a very assertive, and proactive approach to health care, as he wants little confusion that this Health Care plan is an Obama plan. That is a very practical and strategic approach. In the months of Obama Presidency he has delivered very straight talk, in his recent speech in Cairo, President Obama left no stone unturned as he methodically spoke to the key issues with respect to Islam and America. As President Obama begins to make his public case for health care, I am certain that an open discussion on how his Administration plans to make sure that the Agriculture Department is working for the American consumer, not the food industry would be a welcome addition to the debate. President Obama plans to bring all the “players” to the table in bring his health care plan to fruition, it is my hope that he understands without “change we can believe in” within the FDA, his Health Care plan is not playing with a full deck.
However, I will be watching the health care debate not with interest on the political battles that are waged, but rather the manner in which President Obama uses this issue to speak to perhaps the most insidious health issue facing this country – obesity and the role of the Federal Government to protect the American food consumer. Part of the Obama message throughout his campaign and after his election has dealt with accountability. Well let the truth be told, we as a nation cannot ignore the manner in which we have allowed the combination of poor eating habits, and sedentary lifestyle to be the breeding ground for disease, and burgeoning health costs.
In 2003 the Office of the Surgeon General released a report titled the Obesity Crisis in America. In his opening remarks, then U. S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, called obesity the fastest cause of disease and death in America, and implicated obesity in one out of every eight deaths in America. His report went on to report that in the year 2000 the cost of obesity was $117 billion dollars – that’s billion with a “B”. To be far, in the last few years there have been efforts on several fronts to reduce obesity, but clearly this is a war that in many ways threatens America more than the far away and costly battles in Afghanistan, and Iran.
In a 2004 report by health watchdog organization Truth for American Health went further, stating that America lacks “aggressive and coordinated” strategies to combat this crisis, and as a result deepens the impact of this crisis. In 2004, the FDA created an Obesity Task Force, designed to put emphasis on the issue, yet there are many who think the FDA’s relationship with the food industry undercuts their role as a true advocate for health. One such critic is Byron Richard founder of Wellness Resources, who authored - Fight for your health: Exposing the Betrayal of the FDA. Mr. Richard is not alone in his criticism of the FDA. All which makes any effort by President Obama to wage war on obesity much the tougher. To wage a successful war will require a national strategy that involves community, industry, medical, and educational system to be on the same page, but that war will also include an Obama administration to review with diligence the relationship between the FDA and the food industry.
It is irrefutable that burgeoning health care cost are both intolerable and unsustainable, but to approach health care cost, solely from the delivery side, and ignoring a basic human maxim, “you are what you eat”, is a flawed health care policy. Changing generational and societal lifestyle patterns will take time, and is subject to the reality that there are many Americans who utterly refused to change unhealthy eating and lifestyle choices. However, the government can and must be proactive in managing the nation’s food supply.
That is the job of the FDA. The FDA is under the direction of the Department of Agriculture. It wasn’t too long ago that Bill Clinton’s secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy was indicted for taking bribes from Tyson foods, one of the most powerful and influential food processing companies. That long arm of influence by the food industry, should give pause. In December of 2008, Nicholas Krisof of The New York Times suggested that an overhaul of the Agriculture Department was needed. In his OP Ed Piece Titled “Obama’s Secretary of Food? he cites - In the Defense of Food author, Michael Pollan who wrote “We’re subsidizing the least healthy calories in the supermarket — high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated soy oil, and we’re doing very little for farmers trying to grow real food…all at taxpayers expense.”
Mr. Obama still has considerable political and populous wind in his sails, and plans to take a very assertive, and proactive approach to health care, as he wants little confusion that this Health Care plan is an Obama plan. That is a very practical and strategic approach. In the months of Obama Presidency he has delivered very straight talk, in his recent speech in Cairo, President Obama left no stone unturned as he methodically spoke to the key issues with respect to Islam and America. As President Obama begins to make his public case for health care, I am certain that an open discussion on how his Administration plans to make sure that the Agriculture Department is working for the American consumer, not the food industry would be a welcome addition to the debate. President Obama plans to bring all the “players” to the table in bring his health care plan to fruition, it is my hope that he understands without “change we can believe in” within the FDA, his Health Care plan is not playing with a full deck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
