New short..."What happened to the Drug War?"
Posted 10-15-2008 at 09:40 AM by cibao
I did a new short on the DEA and the lack of drug enforcement policy coming out from either party or candidate. It seems to me as if a billion dollar industry should get some attention from the presidential candidates.
Something of interest; as Joe Friday says, I just put the facts into a documentary, trying to hide my own feelings and opinions. But for every one of my documentaries that revolve around the Presidential race and issues associated with the race, I always get a beating from someone on one of the sides. Why? They can't fight the facts. The facts are the facts. I don't present opinions of any kind as facts (something that a lot of "modern" documentaries do over and over and over!) I have done, "experts say", but I can give you the experts, and you can find the experts on your own. And if you don't like my experts, then find your own and prove mine wrong. But why does a "side" always assume that the presentation of facts is an attack against them, unless they don't like the facts?
The funny thing is that one the first documentary, I dealt with congress and the lack of leadership there. I praised a Democrat turned Independent (who is in the position he is in because the Democrats in Congress allowed him to keep his position as Chairman... a gutsy and smart move on their part), and a Republican for conducting important hearings. I said bad things about a Republican Senator, as well as an entire House committee (both Republicans and Democrats). Here's the criticism, "Fear mongering at its finest. Blame the democrats & absolve the republicans is the underlying message." I had another say that they didn't "get" the connection between terrorists having nuclear weapons, and Iran being close to developing nuclear weapon grade material. I guess a lot of people missed Iran's hate for the U.S. and support for terrorist groups (openly!).
A week later, Senator Obama did a 30 second commercial saying that he was concerned with the same issues that I brought up in my short. Did he or his people see my short and respond? I very much doubt it, but it is quite interesting.
My second one didn't get many comments, good or bad. But a week or so after it came out ("attacking the fact that candidates for President continue to get paid for jobs that they don't do...Senators and Governors...Republicans and Democrats), both candidates decided that they "needed" to go back to D.C. to do their jobs as Senators, over the economic "bailout" bill. Did they see my short and respond? I doubt it.
Now my latest about the drug war...well a friend sent word to an independent web site that "represents" the people of DEA, that I did the short. It's sort of a bulletin board, but you can't post directly, you have to go through this guy named Phill Coleman. Well this is the response:
"This is not a "short film" by someone "starting a film career". This is a political statement in an election season. It is also anonymously produced.
With the exception of the voiceover name there are no attributes for producer, contact information, political affiliation. It deliberately
skirts the 523 regulation by citing both candidates but obviously targeting one. In other words, it is a garage-made 'hit job' made by a Republican who is unhappy with McCain but overtly anti-Obama. Tell the guy who made this
'short film' he needs to re-do his film to make it declarative and not weasel-worded. Viewers aren't fools. The producer of this 'short film'
shouldn't treat viewers as if they were fools.
-- DEA Watch
The Voice of the Drug Enforcement Agent
deawatch.com
Main: http://members.aol.com/deawatch/dea.htm
Daily Reports: http://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htm"
Excuse me? Just because I didn't support who he wants to win the election (and he admits that I didn't support the other guy either!) he calls it a "Hit job". In addition to the other "facts" that he presented that are not true or at the very least are his opinions, he rambles and insults me and my work, because the truth is not what he wants to hear. So this guy practices censorship, based solely on his opinion. Yet he has the audacity to claim to be the voice of DEA agents.
What's the deal with that? What's the deal with all these people who attack based solely on nothing but their prejudice, refusing to even deal with the facts. I just don't get it. Facts aren't part of the equation anymore. It's all about the lie...the bigger the better. Attack someone on their work based upon your dislike of the facts. I can take criticism, but at least admit that your opinion is your opinion, and not fact. Tell me you hate my work. Don't censor it though. Did he show that anything that was in my short was untrue? No. Just opinions and garbage. I deal with the facts, and get attacked on opinion.
I guess no one told me that making documentaries would be a piece of cake.
Chris
Something of interest; as Joe Friday says, I just put the facts into a documentary, trying to hide my own feelings and opinions. But for every one of my documentaries that revolve around the Presidential race and issues associated with the race, I always get a beating from someone on one of the sides. Why? They can't fight the facts. The facts are the facts. I don't present opinions of any kind as facts (something that a lot of "modern" documentaries do over and over and over!) I have done, "experts say", but I can give you the experts, and you can find the experts on your own. And if you don't like my experts, then find your own and prove mine wrong. But why does a "side" always assume that the presentation of facts is an attack against them, unless they don't like the facts?
The funny thing is that one the first documentary, I dealt with congress and the lack of leadership there. I praised a Democrat turned Independent (who is in the position he is in because the Democrats in Congress allowed him to keep his position as Chairman... a gutsy and smart move on their part), and a Republican for conducting important hearings. I said bad things about a Republican Senator, as well as an entire House committee (both Republicans and Democrats). Here's the criticism, "Fear mongering at its finest. Blame the democrats & absolve the republicans is the underlying message." I had another say that they didn't "get" the connection between terrorists having nuclear weapons, and Iran being close to developing nuclear weapon grade material. I guess a lot of people missed Iran's hate for the U.S. and support for terrorist groups (openly!).
A week later, Senator Obama did a 30 second commercial saying that he was concerned with the same issues that I brought up in my short. Did he or his people see my short and respond? I very much doubt it, but it is quite interesting.
My second one didn't get many comments, good or bad. But a week or so after it came out ("attacking the fact that candidates for President continue to get paid for jobs that they don't do...Senators and Governors...Republicans and Democrats), both candidates decided that they "needed" to go back to D.C. to do their jobs as Senators, over the economic "bailout" bill. Did they see my short and respond? I doubt it.
Now my latest about the drug war...well a friend sent word to an independent web site that "represents" the people of DEA, that I did the short. It's sort of a bulletin board, but you can't post directly, you have to go through this guy named Phill Coleman. Well this is the response:
"This is not a "short film" by someone "starting a film career". This is a political statement in an election season. It is also anonymously produced.
With the exception of the voiceover name there are no attributes for producer, contact information, political affiliation. It deliberately
skirts the 523 regulation by citing both candidates but obviously targeting one. In other words, it is a garage-made 'hit job' made by a Republican who is unhappy with McCain but overtly anti-Obama. Tell the guy who made this
'short film' he needs to re-do his film to make it declarative and not weasel-worded. Viewers aren't fools. The producer of this 'short film'
shouldn't treat viewers as if they were fools.
-- DEA Watch
The Voice of the Drug Enforcement Agent
deawatch.com
Main: http://members.aol.com/deawatch/dea.htm
Daily Reports: http://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htm"
Excuse me? Just because I didn't support who he wants to win the election (and he admits that I didn't support the other guy either!) he calls it a "Hit job". In addition to the other "facts" that he presented that are not true or at the very least are his opinions, he rambles and insults me and my work, because the truth is not what he wants to hear. So this guy practices censorship, based solely on his opinion. Yet he has the audacity to claim to be the voice of DEA agents.
What's the deal with that? What's the deal with all these people who attack based solely on nothing but their prejudice, refusing to even deal with the facts. I just don't get it. Facts aren't part of the equation anymore. It's all about the lie...the bigger the better. Attack someone on their work based upon your dislike of the facts. I can take criticism, but at least admit that your opinion is your opinion, and not fact. Tell me you hate my work. Don't censor it though. Did he show that anything that was in my short was untrue? No. Just opinions and garbage. I deal with the facts, and get attacked on opinion.
I guess no one told me that making documentaries would be a piece of cake.
Chris
Total Comments 0
