Debunking the deceptive ads about the ballot proposals

There is more to this election than deciding whether or not Obama gets a second term. In Michigan, voters will be faced with six state ballot proposals and, depending on where in Michigan they live, a potential slew of county and city proposals. There have been ads on TV for five of the six proposals, and a lot of those ads are filled with lies. Here now I try to debunk some of those lies.

Proposal 2 aims to protect collective bargaining, and has been described by opponents as "forced unionizing." One of the opposition ads claims that with Proposal 2, a teacher can be caught drunk on the job five times before getting fired. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see anything at all in the ballot proposal language that tells me "teacher has five chances to be drunk on the job."

Another item with a number brought up by anti-Prop 2 ads is that Prop 2 would jeopardize 170 laws. I don't dispute the count of the affected laws, since the ballot proposal language does reference "future and existing" laws. But what I wonder is this: why are those laws worth keeping intact? The ads don't say.

Proposal 3 would require energy companies in Michigan to use at least 25% renewable energy sources by 2025. Predictably this scares energy companies, which have put out ads claiming Proposal 3 would hike a customer's energy bill up to $2,511.40. Given that the average energy bill is $72.00, the $2,511.40 figure sounds very scary. But the ballot language explicitly puts in a 1% cap on rate increases. The $72.00 bill would go up to $79.20. Oh my God, the humanity. There are actually good reasons to reject Proposal 3, but the energy companies have insulted the intelligence of the voters by employing scare tactics and lies instead of simple, logical arguments.

The only Proposal 4 ads I've seen show seniors and medical professionals expressing their endorsement of the home care amendment. I can't really object to that, though I plan to vote no on the measure.

I've only seen one ad about Proposal 5. The opposition ad tells it like it is: the initiative is from billionaire bridge owner Matty Moroun, who is determined to reduce his taxes to $0 if at all possible. The measure would require a 2/3 majority of the state legislature or a statewide vote at a general election to raise any tax by any amount for any reason. It's hard to know how many state legislators have been bought and paid for by Moroun, but my guess is more than a third. Therefore, the effect of Proposal 5 would be to effectively kill any future tax increases, no matter how necessary for a state that already takes in less in taxes than what it needs to provide vital services.

But the proposal that is nearest and dearest to Scrooge Moroun's heart is Proposal 6, which would  require the people to vote on any international bridge project. The ads in favor of Proposal 6 are outrageous lies in service of Moroun's short-sighted greed. But a lot of people have been fooled, making me want to scream: CANADA IS PAYING MICHIGAN'S HALF OF THE BILL!!! And if they renege, we can invade their country.

By ignoring the inconvenient little fact of the agreement with Canada, ads in favor of Proposal 6 then go on to raise the question of how is it possible for there to be money for a new bridge but not money to pay police and firefighters (some localities in Michigan have had to drastically cut back their first responder staff). Let me scream again: FEDERAL MATCHING ROAD FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ROAD PROJECTS, AND NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. If Michigan doesn't do a road project for something like the bridge, then the federal matching money goes to another state.

Do we really need a new bridge? That's a valid question. Moroun's deeds have told the truth where his words have not: If you drive on Fort Street by St. Anne, you will see that Moroun started construction on a new bridge right next to his Ambassador Bridge. But since neither the American nor Canadian governments gave him permission to do this, Moroun's new bridge stops well short of the Detroit River.

Be sure to vote this Tuesday. But first be sure to educate yourself on the difference between the proposals' stated intentions and their true consequences if enacted.

More lies from the Bridge Company

There is yet another deceitful ad on the Detroit and Windsor airwaves from Matty Moroun's company railing against the "government bridge." Supposedly, the Michigan Legislature voted no, but Gov. Snyder is going to build the government bridge anyway and stick taxpayers with the bill, because tolls are not going to be enough to pay for it. What are they gonna say next? That Snyder is going to get in a time machine and kill George Washington and Jesus Christ?

Here is the truth about the Legislature vote: they didn't even get a chance to vote on it. The state senators that Moroun has bought and paid for stopped the issue from being voted on by the the full Legislature. There are just so many lies coming out of the Moroun camp that the 3-part series from the Detroit Free Press, "Detroit-Windsor bridge battle: Separating out the truth," doesn't debunk all of them! It would be a book longer than War and Peace if it did.

Let me close with a truth that many people aren't even aware of: The Ambassador Bridge is owned by Matty Moroun, a billionaire who refuses to fix up or tear down the infamous train station where white suburban thrill-seekers injure themselves trespassing (yeah, it's their fault for trespassing, but Moroun bears a lot of responsibility in that matter, too). One more truth not many people are aware of (because most tourists take the tunnel rather than the bridge to go to Windsor from Detroit): the Ambassador Bridge, one of the most traveled international crossings, is in serious need of repairs, and not just the bandages Scrooge Moroun allows every now and then.

You ARE a photographer, though maybe not a good one

Outside of working hours, I don't often talk about my day job running a photography department at a midcap company. Some of my colleagues at my day job enjoy looking at YouAreNotAPhotographer.com, a website that calls out photography "impostors" with the same zeal some other people go after Navy SEAL impostors, or Medal of Honor impostors. I think that website's scorn is misplaced. It's not just because there is a big difference between someone who pretends to be a Navy SEAL and someone who thinks that some bland photo will lead to a profitable photography business.

Here's where I'm coming from: I see that in the corporate world, photographers are not appreciated. Executive types see photographers as essentially servants with cameras, while bean counters think their company's photographic needs can be met through a combination of stock photos grabbed from the Web and shots by random employees using point-and-shoot cameras. A lot of upgrades to Adobe software present for me an exercise in picking my battles: minor versions, no; but major versions are not automatic, and I might not always get the Extended version.

It's not much better in the art world: it's impressive that you can put oil to canvas and make it look like something, but don't assume that photography is just pointing a camera and pressing the shutter. All the jokes about lawyers in the world don't change the fact that lawyers are held in high esteem, and photographers are really not.

So... where is the prestige in being a photographer? Why should it bother me that some dumb schmuck with a camera thinks he's a professional photographer? Are "fauxtographers" really to blame when an old pro is laid off, or when a new pro lowers his already low expectations for income? No, the real villain here is a corporate culture that puts profits before people.

Just so we're clear, I am occasionally amused by what I see on YouAreNotAPhotographer.com. But those people don't deserve the hatred of professionals. And lastly, some definitions to keep in mind here:

• A photographer is anyone who has ever used a camera to take a picture.
  
• A professional photographer is anyone who gets paid to take photographs.

When to speak your native language

The 2003 film Shanghai Knights is a worthy sequel to Shanghai Noon. This even though the cleverly choreographed action sequences do start to feel a little routine, and it gradually gets very tiresome to see all the Forrest Gump-style manufactured prescience. But the nit I am picking here today concerns the matter of when characters speak their native language (and consequently there are subtitles on the screen).

When Roy (Owen Wilson) meets Chon Wang's sister Lin (Fann Wong) in a London prison, she and Wang (Jackie Chan) exchange a few words in Chinese, prompting Roy to practically command that they don't talk about him in their native tongue. Out of courtesy, they don't talk about him in Chinese any further, regardless of whether or not he is present.

Roy falls in love with Lin and asks Wang to put in a good word for him. Wang talks to Lin in private, and for no good reason, they talk about Roy in English, not Chinese! They might not know that Roy is eavesdropping (and it does seem somewhat improbable that he can hear anything clearly), but if they suspect it, would it not make sense for them to have this conversation in Chinese?

Also, how exactly is it that Lin and Wang learned English? For someone who hasn't been in an English-speaking country all that long, Lin seems to have a stronger command of the English language than her brother who has spent so much time in the American West.

Of course I do know the reason that that particular conversation is in English rather than Chinese: screenwriter's necessity. The screenwriters wanted a reason for Roy to get mad at Wang over something overheard, to parallel Wang getting mad at Roy over something overheard in the first movie. Dialogue like "Loy悪男LoyBaloney非常不誠実" might just not have quite the same impact on Roy's ego—in fact, that would have allowed him to hear what he wanted to hear, and in any case Lin does seem to like Roy back.