Individuality and Thinking Outside the Box.

I never planned to become so involved in education policies. By contrast, the things I’m interested in are so far away from structured education that they might as well be from another planet.

Fortunately, I understand why I feel this way. And I’ve covered it elsewhere in my other bodies of work. Google (institutional failure Rich Hoffman) and you’ll find much of what I have said about the dismal failure of thinking from within the conventions of a box.

My endeavors against the school levies are not an anti-education position for me. I’m not looking to destroy the schools, or to single handedly defeat communism, as some have said. But where my personal work and the work of standing up against the deceit of school systems looking to wrestle property tax money from residents in order to feed an institutional monster intersects with my personal interests and that is why I am involved. That is where the cowboy hats, and bullwhips come into the picture, because for me, those are symbols of individually and freedom. I think I’ll let Nicholas Cage explain it best for me. The following clip is from Wild at Heart, one of David Lynches greatest.

Individuality is what I’d consider to be the paramount trait of the human condition. Through individuality everything can be fixed. If everyone cared for themselves, there wouldn’t be a need for large institutions.

Progressives look at government as a job creation measure that assists the masses. I view the progressive kind of help to damage the individual gumption of mankind. And much of that progressive teaching is going directly to our youth through the school system. And that is where the schools cross over and interfere with my interests as an artist.

In my art, the promotion of bullwhips, cowboy hats, firearms, motorcycles, etc are all rooted in individuality, which I see being the elements lost in our American culture, and the key to the preservation of society. It is a long standing American tradition of one person making a difference. When a majority of Americans believe such things, they will therefore vote and participate in the republic. Films used to display such individuality, are embraced over a long span of time. Progressive themed films come and go and people quickly forget them. But films rooted in American tradition and individuality have staying power. In the following clip, Clint Eastwood takes over an entire town and punishes it for its corruption in the film High Plains Drifter.

Another American idea of one person taking on several others when grossly outnumbered, Clint Eastwood, Fistful of Dollars.

Star Wars was essentially a western set in space. One of the most popular characters in the entire Star Wars saga by most every survey was Han Solo. Another was Boba Fett, and Fett only has a couple of lines in the entire six film series. What both characters have in common are that they are both faithfully individualistic characters. This provides some insight into what the psychology of mankind if analyzed without filters will chose. In a classic scene from 1977, Han Solo kills a bounty hunter in a cantina. Notice Han shoots first and in cold blood. Solo is a survivor. He has a bounty hunter there to kill him, so why not shoot first.

However, later, and under pressure from his progressive friends, Lucas changed this scene 1997 to where the bounty hunter shot first, which turned out to be a joke among Star Wars fans that felt betrayed by the edit.

Here is one of the most humorous satires on the subject.

What this tells me is that people see through the thin vale of progressive thought. Movie goers do not like “team” players. Look at the James Bond franchise. In the modern era, Bond has been watered down as they have tried to make him more “human.”

But the James Bond that I grew up with was a survivor that always had a smart answer and enough wit to escape any situation.

Bond single handedly takes on some of the world’s most dangerous villains. He doesn’t work well with others and frequently thumbs his nose at his superiors. That is the key to Bond’s success.

Yet, in socialism, it is desired to remove such individualist traits. Here is the reality of socialism expressed well in the film Brazil.

Here is another scene from Brazil of an individual getting revenge on a symbol of the STATE.

In fact, Brazil should be seen by everyone. What are you waiting for? Go rent it now!

The fact is movies are boring when they involve flat characters that don’t have individual attributes that are defined and charismatic. The only way socialist principled films work is when shown in a negative light.

This clip from THX-1138, another GREAT FILM!

Here is a great speech by Jeff Bridges playing the wonderfully individualist Preston Tucker.

The point of all this is that collectivism does not work. It never has, and never will. And telling society to get into a box that it doesn’t want is wrong.

In my own work, I’ve dedicated my life to living, thinking, and teaching people to live outside the box. So I am not a fan of funding an education system that is teaching people to live inside a box. I’m fine with teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, college prep, and basic social skills. But the sex education, the counseling, the physical education crosses the lines, because all those types of social concerns have been reduced to a level of collectivism that paves the way to a much less individualistic society.

I already felt that public education leaned in a direction that went too far in that direction. But I put up with it because my community desires the services, so I go along with it for their sake. But, I see many, many aspects that are wrong with public education because the emphasis is not being applied to individualism. Only in sports does our society embrace individual traits fully, and that is a failure in social value.

I have spent a lot of my time figuring out what those values are, and have committed my life to preserving individualism. And I was doing this well before the Lakota Levy ever came to be.

Being involved in a political issue, I will tend to have a different approach because personally, I despise politics. The films I have displayed here provide some insight into my belief structure. The people I look up to are not the types that do what they’re told without question. I have no desire to become a politician, a board member, a congressman, even a governor or president. None of those jobs would be enjoyable for me.

As a concerned citizen, I’m fine to call things as I see them. But being a lover of individualism, I don’t require the approval of anyone else to act. I don’t need the approval of another to approve of my attire. And I don’t require any approval to weigh my comments in the context of history.

I am happy to share that lack of burden with others in order to free them of such shackles, because the answers are outside of the box. Not in it. But you have to enjoy the freedom of living shackle free.

So it is not of any offense to groups like unions, and political organizations that are wishing to maintain the status quo. I don’t pass judgment on your collective actions until you ask me for money, because at that point, you are involving me in your action. At that time, action on my part must be taken to eliminate the grip of your collectivism on my life style.

So criticize and belittle from your perspective the images of the traditional cowboy. But as evidence to what the true nature of mankind enjoys from the psychology of the darkened theater, I know that my position is supported by the infrastructure of individualism embraced by the masses from the vote of the movie ticket and film history.

The concepts taught by modern progressives are simply flimsy musings of sociological theory. And as for the direction of a one world identity, I would direct the world to the cowboy, not Al Gore or any like him.

And that is the platform I stand on. And that is my commitment for every endeavor I become a part of. There isn’t any class that can teach you to defend a position held within the institutional box-like thinking. The only kind of thinking I truly value is from outside the box.

Rich Hoffman!/overmanwarrior

Doc Thompson and the Ponzi Scheme of Busing Cuts

It was a cold day in December, approximately 1 month after the vote that defeated the Lakota School Levy when I went on the Doc Thompson show at The Big One. Two weeks earlier, the school board voted to cut the busing to over 9,000 students. Once that was announced, I received a fair amount of email proclaiming that it was my fault that busing was being cut.

This infuriated me. It’s one thing to have an intelligent discussion about budget issues. It’s quite another to have open extortion that is endorsed by organized political entities and leaving the blame on my doorstep. That is something that I will not put up with.

Doc Thompson shares with me a hope that we can cut through the extremist talk and arrive at a place where we can all have an intelligent conversation about education reform. Anybody with a brain can see that comments about cutting busing and not dealing with the excessive wage amounts is foolish. Wages and benefits comprise over 75%. Busing is less than 2% of the total budget. An intelligent group of budget analysts would obviously attack the 75% first. Not the 2%.

This led to a lively discussion on with Doc during his morning show. Click to listen to the segment.

Literally every education oriented law implemented; every mandate issued from the state has the imprint of the teacher’s unions in it, including the law that says the state must have step increases for teachers. What idiot legislature voted for that and made it a law?

That’s what we’re dealing with here folks. It’s a Ponzi scheme, except this one is created and enforced by government officials under the lobby power of the teachers union and their money. I understand that districts in Columbus pay out around $900 per teacher to the union, and that money then gets turned into political lobby power, typically toward the Democratic Party. In order for this to work, teachers need to make enough in salary to support their contributions to the union, so the union can continue to support the lobby power against the taxpayer by buying the votes of legislators. And as the wages continue to escalate in accordance with the step increases, at a rate in many cases of 9% a year, it doesn’t take long for a district to find itself in financial trouble once their tenured teachers arrive at their step increases at the same time.

That’s where Lakota finds itself. The public isn’t asking the school system to cut their budget of $160 million. We’re asking them not to let it grow any larger than that. But according to the school district, they are powerless to stop the increases to meet the step schedule, because the step increases are a state law.

What? You think calling this whole issue a Ponzi Scheme is unfair, or overly dramatic? Read below the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

Ponzi scheme
From Wikipedia

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.Still think it’s too radical? The bail out comes in the form of property tax increases. And if you don’t pay, they’ll make sure the tax payer feels the pain. The game is intentionally made complicated so nobody can ever fix it, and the average tax payer doesn’t want to take the time to figure things out.

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases. While the system eventually will collapse under its own weight, the example of Bernard Madoff demonstrates the ability of a Ponzi scheme to delude both individual and institutional investors as well as securities authorities for long periods: Madoff’s variant of the Ponzi scheme stands as the largest financial investor fraud committed by a single person in history. Prosecutors estimate losses at Madoff’s hand totaling roughly $21 billion, as estimated by the money invested by his victims. If the promised returns are added the losses amount to $64.8 billion, but a New York court dismissed this estimation method during the Madoff trial.

The scheme is named for Charles Ponzi,[1] who became notorious for using the technique in early 1920. He had emigrated from Italy to the United States in 1903. Ponzi did not invent the scheme (Charles Dickens’ 1857 novel Little Dorrit described such a scheme decades before Ponzi was born, for example), but his operation took in so much money that it was the first to become known throughout the United States. His original scheme was in theory based on international reply coupons for postage stamps, but soon diverted investors’ money to support payments to earlier investors and Ponzi’s personal wealth.

Knowingly entering a Ponzi scheme, even at the last round of the scheme, can be rational economically if there is a reasonable expectation that government or other deep pockets will bail out those participating in the Ponzi scheme.[2]

But to intentionally mislead the taxpayers, and to force further impositions against the community with such silly cuts like busing, and special needs programs is ridiculous and deserves to be called what it is.


Again, here is the definition of extortion —-Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual attainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]

Does cutting busing fall under “making somebody endure something unpleasant.”

This is a clear issue. Let’s call it what it is. And we have to know what it is before we can figure out how to fix it.

Rich Hoffman!/overmanwarrior