tagged w/ reversal
-
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and... more
-
-
Solar-cell manufacturing in Frederick, Maryland, dates back to the mid-1970s. BP Solar, one such company, was so profitable it was in the middle of building a $97 million expansion to create more jobs in the solar panel industry. Now the BP Solar building is being demolished and 320 people in Maryland are unemployed.
What happened?
The answer is, the federal government got involved and destroyed the free market generated profitability of the making of solar panels. Here’s how: the Obama Administration has spent billions of dollars to create “green jobs.” Through his tax incentives and credits for those businesses that manufacture renewable energy products, he created a glut in the marketplace. With so many businesses now producing solar panels (most of them overseas in anticipation of a booming U.S. market), the cost of panels has been nearly cut in half, making it impossible for businesses like BP Solar to stay in business in the U.S. In an effort to create green jobs, hundreds of green jobs that had been around for 30-plus years were lost. Ironic isn’t it?
Because companies like BP Solar can’t survive in the U.S. anymore, due to the market being over-inflated with far too many subsidized companies creating a surplus of solar panels, they move to where business is more cost effective. Places like China, India, Mexico and Poland, where less overhead, lower labor costs and fewer taxes make for a friendlier business environment. Businesses in the U.S. pay huge corporate and property taxes, as well as absorb skyrocketing energy costs. Even if the government subsidized BP Solar, like it has done with so many other green industries, it would not have been enough.
Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government flatly states, “The market is no longer sustainable because of the glut caused by the overproduction of solar panels. This is a problem unless the government plans to subsidize these companies forever.”
Not only is the U.S. hard on businesses to begin with, but by meddling in the free market, the federal government has made conditions far worse — for everyone.
“320 jobs. That is absolutely absurd,” says Audrey Scott, former Secretary of Planning for the Ehrlich Administration, about the number of jobs lost at BP Solar. “In the Western part of the state jobs are a very critical issue. It’s all about jobs, jobs, jobs.”
You can lay some of the blame of the closing of BP Solar on the State of Maryland’s laws and regulations. Other businesses have left the state and moved to Pennsylvania or elsewhere to more business-friendly environments.
“Maryland is very anti-business and that is one of our issues,” Scott says. “What our government is doing here in Maryland at the present time is getting in the way of the job creation. The regulations and the horrendous atmosphere and environment for jobs and for business here in Maryland are just unacceptable.”
Sound familiar? While Maryland’s drop in 2007 to 47th worse business tax climate, according to a nonprofit Tax Foundation report played a big role in BP Solar’s decision to close, the overall business climate in the U.S. contributed to the shutdown as well. It’s not only solar panels that are being manufactured overseas, it’s other renewable energies as well — even by those companies that received “help” from the federal government.
For example, of the $2 billion already spent on wind power alone, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year, nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines. And wind energy is just another industry receiving some of money spent on this “green” initiative. There are still billions more dollars being spent by the federal government on this initiative.
Obama’s method of subsidizing these renewable energy companies and interfering in free market environments is not original. Spain is a good example of a country that has done exactly what Obama is trying to do. An Institute of Energy Research (IER)-commissioned study coming out of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada found that, for every green job created, 2.2 jobs in other sectors have been destroyed. Furthermore, Spain’s government spent $758,471 to create each green job and used $36 billion in taxpayer money to invest in wind, solar, and mini-hydro from 2000-2008. The country’s unemployment rate is currently at 19.4% and is nearing insolvency.
Does the U.S. really want to continue down this same path?
It is time to learn from the mistakes of others before it is too late. America is next in line to becoming insolvent, as ALG News has previously reported.
“It is lunacy to expect top-down, Soviet-style economic planning to work in America,” says Wilson. “It has failed all over the world. We need to let markets work. Before the government got involved, 320 Americans were profitably building solar panels in Maryland. Now, they are unemployed.”
When walking the streets of Frederick, Maryland, you sense sadness and frustration. Peoples’ hopes are replaced with despair. Maybe if the federal government would have left the free market system alone, BP Solar might have had a chance and continued to produce solar panels and more jobs.Solar-cell manufacturing in Frederick, Maryland, dates back to the mid-1970s. BP... more
-
-
In its April list of films to be discontinued, Kodak announced that it will no longer manufacture the slow-speed black & white Plus-X stock. This comes as a significant blow to the global film community, many of which still use Plus-X due in part to its beautiful contrast and fine grain. The legendary stock has been in circulation for over 70 years.
Like all filmmakers, I am fully aware of the digital era that we are currently engrossed in. However, large companies such as Kodak often claim that they wish to give filmmakers as many creative options as possible. However, eliminating Plus-X in ALL OF ITS FORMATS (5231/35mm negative, 7231/16mm negative and 7265/16mm reversal) seems to counter that aforementioned notion. Many of us still shoot in black & white (I just completed a film on 16mm Plus-X negative) and digital has not yet come close to attaining the range of any black and white film stock.
This leaves us with only Double-X (5222/7222, 35mm/16mm negative) and Tri-X (7266/16mm reversal.) Although useful in certain circumstances with its wider latitude, Double-X is not a practical replacement for Plus-X due its increased grain and lower contrast. Also, Plus-X reversal has been a favorite of film educators and film students for many years due to its ability to achieve a beautiful image on film at affordable rates. Now, education in film will be even more limited with the elimination of the reversal stock.
Along with a number of other filmmakers from around the world, I have begun a corporate campaign to prevent Kodak from removing the Plus-X stocks from its motion picture catalog. Please read the first draft of a petition I have written and posted on my company website:
http://www.richprod.com/plus_x_petition.pdf
If you are as passionate as myself and others are about this, and would like to be included in this petition, you can send your contact information to
bill@richprod.com
YOUR INFORMATION WILL NOT BE SHARED WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN KODAK!!!
You may include as much information as you like, but please send your FULL NAME and E-MAIL ADDRESS at the very least. I hope to get as many names on this as quickly as possible and to send it to as many divisions of Kodak as I can.
As someone pointed out, everything is headed towards digital. That is the future. My response was that that is inevitable. But when you are down three points and there are only ten seconds left on the clock, you can either sit on the sidelines and watch everything unfold, or you can try for the fifty-yard field goal.
Thank you for reading this and PLEASE HELP KEEP PLUS-X ALIVE!!!
-William DiPietra
Filmmaker
Founder/President of Richmond Productions, Inc.
http://www.richprod.com
bill@richprod.comIn its April list of films to be discontinued, Kodak announced that it will no longer... more
-
-
wd675
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
In its April list of films to be discontinued, Kodak announced that it will no longer manufacture the slow-speed black & white Plus-X stock. This comes as a significant blow to the global film community, many of which still use Plus-X due in part to its beautiful contrast and fine grain. The legendary stock has been in circulation for over 70 years.
Like all filmmakers, I am fully aware of the digital era that we are currently engrossed in. However, large companies such as Kodak often claim that they wish to give filmmakers as many creative options as possible. However, eliminating Plus-X in ALL OF ITS FORMATS (5231/35mm negative, 7231/16mm negative and 7265/16mm reversal) seems to counter that aforementioned notion. Many of us still shoot in black & white (I just completed a film on 16mm Plus-X negative) and digital has not yet come close to attaining the range of any black and white film stock.
This leaves us with only Double-X (5222/7222, 35mm/16mm negative) and Tri-X (7266/16mm reversal.) Although useful in certain circumstances with its wider latitude, Double-X is not a practical replacement for Plus-X due its increased grain and lower contrast. Also, Plus-X reversal has been a favorite of film educators and film students for many years due to its ability to achieve a beautiful image on film at affordable rates. Now, education in film will be even more limited with the elimination of the reversal stock.
Along with a number of other filmmakers from around the world, I have begun a corporate campaign to prevent Kodak from removing the Plus-X stocks from its motion picture catalog. Please read the first draft of a petition I have written and posted on my company website:
http://www.richprod.com/plus_x_petition.pdf
If you are as passionate as myself and others are about this, you can send your contact information to
bill@richprod.com
You may include as much information as you like, but please send your FULL NAME and E-MAIL ADDRESS at the very least. I hope to get as many names on this as quickly as possible and to send it to as many divisions of Kodak as I can.
As someone pointed out, everything is headed towards digital. That is the future. My response was that that is inevitable. But when you are down three points and there are only ten seconds left on the clock, you can either sit on the sidelines and watch everything unfold, or you can try for the fifty-yard field goal.
Thank you for reading this and PLEASE HELP KEEP PLUS-X ALIVE!!!
-William DiPietra
Filmmaker
Founder/President of Richmond Productions, Inc.
http://www.richprod.com
bill@richprod.comIn its April list of films to be discontinued, Kodak announced that it will no longer... more
-
-
wd675
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
I have no story. I don't even know who made this but I can't stop looking at this pic.
It is so weird.
I just had to share it.I have no story. I don't even know who made this but I can't stop looking... more
-
