(e:metalpeter) left a comment on my last journal that is right on. I had to give it a hell yea.
I guess the basic idea is that, in America we've slowly lost our sense of community, and that may be our biggest problem.
I probably worry way too much about America, and our problems. But you know what... in my frantic search for solutions, I often come back to the idea that we are all a little too isolated, a little too fearful, and a little too detached from one another.
Community.
That really is the the path to a better world, and a better life in your own skin.
Somewhere along the way, we were fooled into thinking that if we could just take more and more for ourselves, we would be happier. But I think the opposite is true. You have to give, in order to be happy. Cause you'll never have complete control, the world is disorderly, life is unpredictable, and if you think you can take enough from the world to make you happy, you're missing the point. Rich people can be miserable, and the dirt poor can be joyful. The thing that matters, is the people in your life. And if the people around you matter, then selfishness has no place.
Fear of eachother, and self-centered values. I'll bet that's hurt our society more than anything.
Yea, we moved out of our towns and cities. So we could get away from all those people. Get our own grass, our own pool, our own swingset, our own everything. But self indulgence has not made us happier, and fuckin'a we worked so hard to get it.
I think we're starting to come full circle though. Technology drove us apart, but now it's starting to bring us together again.
You know, I make eye contact with anyone I walk by. I want to know my neighbors. And sitting home alone I can relax, but I need people in order to have fun.
By the way, thanks (e:strip) for bringing people together, thanks paul for making it exist and enviting us to your house. And for improving the site all the time. I won't let you launch the new site without sending you a donation. I'm a cheap bastard, but I put my money where it matters.
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
03/24/2009 23:17 #48189
CommunityCategory: life
03/19/2009 12:18 #48121
NYS Rockefeller Drug Laws, more newsCategory: news
Lots of interesting things in the News today. The stabbings on Elmwood which (e:James) Mentioned.
Drug Laws
Also Rod Watson takes on the Drug Laws in NYS for 2 reasons;
One the laws target Minorities. 90% of the people in NYS who are locked up for non-violent possessions charges are black or Hispanic, though whites use drugs just as much. Here's a statistic "blacks made up 53 percent of drug offenders in state prisons nationwide, while comprising only 13 percent of the population."
Second reason is the waste of money. "it costs $45,000 to $50,000 to lock someone up for a year. That compares with about $30,000 for residential drug treatment, and about $14,000 for outpatient treatment."
I'm glad we're getting some sane discussion on this issue. In the past just questioning the drug laws could make people label you some sort of self centered hedonist, who values nothing except being in a drunken stupor, and doesn't care about somebody's children.. or something like that. It's a ridiculously simple and shortsighted argument, but a popular one that tends to stop rational discussion.
Least Compotent Criminals .or. Not My Neighbor Anymore
Another Article in the news is about an idiot in South Buffalo who used to run the Moose Lodge on my corner. Apparently he fired bullets into a house because the guy inside was going to testify against him about breaking a somebody's nose in a bar fight. So instead of an assault charge, now this moron has felony witness intimidation, reckless endangerment, illegal possession of a firearm, and a host of other stuff. And he's unemployed, cause he was booted from the moose lodge. So good riddance to him. But it does make me wish that our Prisons were better at being 'correctional' facilities.
Updated......
One Bit of National News relating to the AIG bonuses and the public uproar they are causing.
The public has a right to be pissed. We definitely talked about this issue when the stimulus was being discussed a month ago, and as far back as the election, "Golden Parachutes" was the term being used them. So it should be no surprise that the revelation of these bonuses and others in the industry has caused an uproar. So now some people are trying to use this anger in a political way. I saw Cantor on the TV trying to say "this is exactly the reason why no republicans voted for it". Personally I do think people should have had time to read the bill before voting on it. not that I think much would have changed.
Anyway people are looking for some scapegoats and political windfall from this. So I wanted to dig a little deeper. Chris Dodd (D) chair of the senate banking committee, has been named as a culprit. I looked into it a bit, and I don't think he deserves any of the blame. You can see a video here it's on Huffington post, but the pest part is the 8 minute CNN interview where he sets the record straight.
After reading a little more about this, I think you can fairly blame Timothy Geitner for loosening the restrictions. And maybe Lawrence Summers a bit though he technically doesn't have as much power. But I think Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Obama are fine. They all wanted a tougher bill, and they seemed compelled to change things in the compromise. I never really liked Geitner, and there was some article a month back, in Politico I think, about him getting heat, getting laughed at, and argued with, when he was pushing the market's interests in a meeting where most people were most concerned about taxpayers. I think Geitner got what he thought was best, and not it's bitten us all in the ass.
Drug Laws
Also Rod Watson takes on the Drug Laws in NYS for 2 reasons;
One the laws target Minorities. 90% of the people in NYS who are locked up for non-violent possessions charges are black or Hispanic, though whites use drugs just as much. Here's a statistic "blacks made up 53 percent of drug offenders in state prisons nationwide, while comprising only 13 percent of the population."
Second reason is the waste of money. "it costs $45,000 to $50,000 to lock someone up for a year. That compares with about $30,000 for residential drug treatment, and about $14,000 for outpatient treatment."
I'm glad we're getting some sane discussion on this issue. In the past just questioning the drug laws could make people label you some sort of self centered hedonist, who values nothing except being in a drunken stupor, and doesn't care about somebody's children.. or something like that. It's a ridiculously simple and shortsighted argument, but a popular one that tends to stop rational discussion.
Least Compotent Criminals .or. Not My Neighbor Anymore
Another Article in the news is about an idiot in South Buffalo who used to run the Moose Lodge on my corner. Apparently he fired bullets into a house because the guy inside was going to testify against him about breaking a somebody's nose in a bar fight. So instead of an assault charge, now this moron has felony witness intimidation, reckless endangerment, illegal possession of a firearm, and a host of other stuff. And he's unemployed, cause he was booted from the moose lodge. So good riddance to him. But it does make me wish that our Prisons were better at being 'correctional' facilities.
Updated......
One Bit of National News relating to the AIG bonuses and the public uproar they are causing.
The public has a right to be pissed. We definitely talked about this issue when the stimulus was being discussed a month ago, and as far back as the election, "Golden Parachutes" was the term being used them. So it should be no surprise that the revelation of these bonuses and others in the industry has caused an uproar. So now some people are trying to use this anger in a political way. I saw Cantor on the TV trying to say "this is exactly the reason why no republicans voted for it". Personally I do think people should have had time to read the bill before voting on it. not that I think much would have changed.
Anyway people are looking for some scapegoats and political windfall from this. So I wanted to dig a little deeper. Chris Dodd (D) chair of the senate banking committee, has been named as a culprit. I looked into it a bit, and I don't think he deserves any of the blame. You can see a video here
it's on Huffington post, but the pest part is the 8 minute CNN interview where he sets the record straight. After reading a little more about this, I think you can fairly blame Timothy Geitner for loosening the restrictions. And maybe Lawrence Summers a bit though he technically doesn't have as much power. But I think Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Obama are fine. They all wanted a tougher bill, and they seemed compelled to change things in the compromise. I never really liked Geitner, and there was some article a month back, in Politico I think, about him getting heat, getting laughed at, and argued with, when he was pushing the market's interests in a meeting where most people were most concerned about taxpayers. I think Geitner got what he thought was best, and not it's bitten us all in the ass.
metalpeter - 03/19/09 18:44
I think a lot of it is a Race/Class thing. Not all drug dealers are rich. Hey if you get busted and they take the drugs and the money how do you get a good lawyer? I think that is a big factor. I also think that there is more crime in the areas that are poor so that brings in more law enforcement. I think it is a good idea to make nonviolent criminals do less time. However I (the guy who wants it all legal) Do have a problem. How can you tell if the dealer is in a gang or not? Just because he is in a gang doesn't mean he is shooting or beating people up. So how does one figure this part out.
In terms of the bonuses. I thought I saw on line that a New Law just got passed. I didn't read all the details. Anyone who got a bonus from a company that got a bailout and makes over $250,000 will be taxed at 90%. With out knowing all the details that sounds good to me.
I think a lot of it is a Race/Class thing. Not all drug dealers are rich. Hey if you get busted and they take the drugs and the money how do you get a good lawyer? I think that is a big factor. I also think that there is more crime in the areas that are poor so that brings in more law enforcement. I think it is a good idea to make nonviolent criminals do less time. However I (the guy who wants it all legal) Do have a problem. How can you tell if the dealer is in a gang or not? Just because he is in a gang doesn't mean he is shooting or beating people up. So how does one figure this part out.
In terms of the bonuses. I thought I saw on line that a New Law just got passed. I didn't read all the details. Anyone who got a bonus from a company that got a bailout and makes over $250,000 will be taxed at 90%. With out knowing all the details that sounds good to me.
jason - 03/19/09 15:16
I totally agree with you about the need to reform the law. Clearly it is another bad example of government social engineering. It costs us too much, it doesn't solve the underlying issue, and it overcrowds our prisons. For these reasons alone it is obvious that reform is necessary.
I suspect that the race issue has more to do with enforcement of the law. Are white suburban hustlers going to be as likely to be prosecuted? My guess is no. While that is in no way a statement about the law on its own, and it is silly to try to equitably distribute jail time across all races based on percentage of population, what it does tell me is that if the law can't be properly enforced, it's damned useless and should be scrapped on principle.
I totally agree with you about the need to reform the law. Clearly it is another bad example of government social engineering. It costs us too much, it doesn't solve the underlying issue, and it overcrowds our prisons. For these reasons alone it is obvious that reform is necessary.
I suspect that the race issue has more to do with enforcement of the law. Are white suburban hustlers going to be as likely to be prosecuted? My guess is no. While that is in no way a statement about the law on its own, and it is silly to try to equitably distribute jail time across all races based on percentage of population, what it does tell me is that if the law can't be properly enforced, it's damned useless and should be scrapped on principle.
jenks - 03/19/09 14:57
i have mixed feelings on the drug laws, but I do have a friend in town who served 10 years for cocaine possession... and now works in law firm and is one of the most successful people I know.
i have mixed feelings on the drug laws, but I do have a friend in town who served 10 years for cocaine possession... and now works in law firm and is one of the most successful people I know.
03/22/2009 23:12 #48160
Simplifiying the Stupid EconomyCategory: politics
I'm frustrated. I don't even know where to start. I think Washington hates change. it seems like they're doing everything possible to preserve the current systems that have destroyed the country. Life changes, circumstances change, and you have to adjust, or else you're screwed. I think we're getting closer and closer to "screwed".
So much of our way of life is unsustainable, but it seems like our politicians are trying to preserve all of it. As if they think a lifestyle based on importing chinese crap, exporting weapons, moving our manufacturing to Mexico, building McMansions on farmland, running our lives on credit, saving zero dollars as a nation, shrinking the middle class, letting our cities rot, and leaving our healthcare up to insurance companies instead of doctors, is something we should be fighting for.
I thought we had finally hit bottom, but now I'm not so sure. Corruption runs deep. There are a lot of people making money off of our misery. I was hopeful that we'd finally see some progress now that the people on top are hurting too, because of the Stock Market. But these bailout proposals look like free cash for Wall Street.
And why the hell does big business think they're entitled to free cash and aid from the government without penalty? Oh, right, cause there's no such thing as a free market, we always bail out the fat cats, that's the way it's always been.
two big issues are bugging the shit out of me. Healthcare and the Economy. I've decided to start with the Economy.
2 Opinions about the economic problem
There seems to be two general opinions on what the problem is in the Stock Market.
1) the first opinion is the Tim Geitner, Paulson, Wall Street perspective
2) the second opinion is the Krugman, Stiglitz, Robert Shapiro, Richard Freeman, and dcoffee perspective. Along with all the others who support wasting as little money as possible, protecting the public, and letting the lying gamblers on Wall Street who got us into this mess go broke.
1) the first opinion;
The main problem is that investors are scared. There is too much instability in the market, and nobody has confidence that they can make money. But things are fundamentally sound, the assets and most of the companies are OK, they're just undervalued because nobody is buying right now. But eventually things will go back to normal.
2) the second opinion;
Some of the money that people had on paper never existed, or it was grossly inflated because of the crazy housing bubble and other bundled debt that was sold. So actually there are 2-3 trillion dollars missing from the stock market, and it's not coming back.
these two ideas are not really compatible. Sure there is a crisis of confidence, that is obvious, but the money either exists or it doesn't. And if it doesn't exist, we'll have to find out what's worthless sooner or later. Or we can let the government buy the trash and save Wall Street's ass.
1) the first opinion supports the idea of giving 'aid' and 'relief' to financial institutions to help them get through this troubled period. Everything will go back to normal eventually, but right now the usual investors are just acting irrational. Maybe the government could buy the worst assets that nobody really understands, and nobody wants. Then it's our problem, instead of Wall Street's, and wall street can at least go back to normal.
2) the second opinion says that, there was a lot of gambling going on in the market, there was a lot of deception, and everybody lost money in the end. Now the public as a whole is in danger because our money was in that corrupt system. The government is the only one who can stabilize the market for the sake of protecting us all. This involves firing the people who got us into this mess, taking control of all the assets from that institution, not just the 'toxic assets'. The government reestablishes confidence by figuring out what all that stuff is really worth, and sells it back once we've made sense of it. We've done this in the past, in the 80's during the savings and loan crisis, maybe you forgot about that crisis, cause the nationalization plan worked damn well.
1) you might call the first option, cash for trash. Or a Bailout.
2) you might call the second option, detox. Or Nationalization.
The fundamental disagreement is weather the money exists or not. Call me crazy, but I don't think people on Wall Street can't accept that the money is gone. If you're on Wall Street you cannot be objective, because you want that money, you expected it, and the fact that it's gone is just impossible, no matter how much research you see to the contrary.
What happened to the money? A lot of it was based on mortgages and other debt. Everyone assumed that housing prices could only go up. So you got a big mortgage, and bought an amazing house. Your house was like a huge credit card that not only had a big credit limit, but its value went up, and eventually you could sell it and make a profit, or at least pay off a chunk out of the debt you owed on it. You wanted an expensive house, so even lame houses became expensive, and you didn't care, cause the value could only go up. At least, that's what everyone said.
The money was based on all of our debt, and we had a shitload, we still do. But we're not so sure we can pay it back, and neither are the banks, cause unemployment is rising. When you take out a 20-30 year mortgage at 4% - 5% you end up paying double, that's right, double, go ahead do the math. So that means the banks, as soon as they gave you that mortgage, they acted like they had cash in their hand. They figured about a quarter of the overall money they were owed wouldn't be paid back. So you get a $200,000 loan, they double it to $400,000, and subtract a quarter, and they guess they're going to make $100,000 from the interest over time. so they took that money, and used it on the stock market.
Add our consumer debt to that pile. And you realize this money is not coming back.
There's a hole in the market, that money is gone. The part that bugs me is that this problem was created on Wall Street, and they expect the taxpayer to bail them out. We should bail ourselves out, and put the greedy crooks who crashed the system in jail.
So much of our way of life is unsustainable, but it seems like our politicians are trying to preserve all of it. As if they think a lifestyle based on importing chinese crap, exporting weapons, moving our manufacturing to Mexico, building McMansions on farmland, running our lives on credit, saving zero dollars as a nation, shrinking the middle class, letting our cities rot, and leaving our healthcare up to insurance companies instead of doctors, is something we should be fighting for.
I thought we had finally hit bottom, but now I'm not so sure. Corruption runs deep. There are a lot of people making money off of our misery. I was hopeful that we'd finally see some progress now that the people on top are hurting too, because of the Stock Market. But these bailout proposals look like free cash for Wall Street.
And why the hell does big business think they're entitled to free cash and aid from the government without penalty? Oh, right, cause there's no such thing as a free market, we always bail out the fat cats, that's the way it's always been.
two big issues are bugging the shit out of me. Healthcare and the Economy. I've decided to start with the Economy.
2 Opinions about the economic problem
There seems to be two general opinions on what the problem is in the Stock Market.
1) the first opinion is the Tim Geitner, Paulson, Wall Street perspective
2) the second opinion is the Krugman, Stiglitz, Robert Shapiro, Richard Freeman, and dcoffee perspective. Along with all the others who support wasting as little money as possible, protecting the public, and letting the lying gamblers on Wall Street who got us into this mess go broke.
1) the first opinion;
The main problem is that investors are scared. There is too much instability in the market, and nobody has confidence that they can make money. But things are fundamentally sound, the assets and most of the companies are OK, they're just undervalued because nobody is buying right now. But eventually things will go back to normal.
2) the second opinion;
Some of the money that people had on paper never existed, or it was grossly inflated because of the crazy housing bubble and other bundled debt that was sold. So actually there are 2-3 trillion dollars missing from the stock market, and it's not coming back.
these two ideas are not really compatible. Sure there is a crisis of confidence, that is obvious, but the money either exists or it doesn't. And if it doesn't exist, we'll have to find out what's worthless sooner or later. Or we can let the government buy the trash and save Wall Street's ass.
1) the first opinion supports the idea of giving 'aid' and 'relief' to financial institutions to help them get through this troubled period. Everything will go back to normal eventually, but right now the usual investors are just acting irrational. Maybe the government could buy the worst assets that nobody really understands, and nobody wants. Then it's our problem, instead of Wall Street's, and wall street can at least go back to normal.
2) the second opinion says that, there was a lot of gambling going on in the market, there was a lot of deception, and everybody lost money in the end. Now the public as a whole is in danger because our money was in that corrupt system. The government is the only one who can stabilize the market for the sake of protecting us all. This involves firing the people who got us into this mess, taking control of all the assets from that institution, not just the 'toxic assets'. The government reestablishes confidence by figuring out what all that stuff is really worth, and sells it back once we've made sense of it. We've done this in the past, in the 80's during the savings and loan crisis, maybe you forgot about that crisis, cause the nationalization plan worked damn well.
1) you might call the first option, cash for trash. Or a Bailout.
2) you might call the second option, detox. Or Nationalization.
The fundamental disagreement is weather the money exists or not. Call me crazy, but I don't think people on Wall Street can't accept that the money is gone. If you're on Wall Street you cannot be objective, because you want that money, you expected it, and the fact that it's gone is just impossible, no matter how much research you see to the contrary.
What happened to the money? A lot of it was based on mortgages and other debt. Everyone assumed that housing prices could only go up. So you got a big mortgage, and bought an amazing house. Your house was like a huge credit card that not only had a big credit limit, but its value went up, and eventually you could sell it and make a profit, or at least pay off a chunk out of the debt you owed on it. You wanted an expensive house, so even lame houses became expensive, and you didn't care, cause the value could only go up. At least, that's what everyone said.
The money was based on all of our debt, and we had a shitload, we still do. But we're not so sure we can pay it back, and neither are the banks, cause unemployment is rising. When you take out a 20-30 year mortgage at 4% - 5% you end up paying double, that's right, double, go ahead do the math. So that means the banks, as soon as they gave you that mortgage, they acted like they had cash in their hand. They figured about a quarter of the overall money they were owed wouldn't be paid back. So you get a $200,000 loan, they double it to $400,000, and subtract a quarter, and they guess they're going to make $100,000 from the interest over time. so they took that money, and used it on the stock market.
Add our consumer debt to that pile. And you realize this money is not coming back.
There's a hole in the market, that money is gone. The part that bugs me is that this problem was created on Wall Street, and they expect the taxpayer to bail them out. We should bail ourselves out, and put the greedy crooks who crashed the system in jail.
metalpeter - 03/23/09 19:54
This is going to sound crazy but I think a lot of this is caused by people moving out to the Suburbs also known as sprawl. Yes there are towns and cities and Villages but that not what I mean, well maybe a little bit. When everyone lived in the city everyone was close. Now as people move out they depend on cars and gas. But what happens is you lose community. When you live and work in the same area you care about the people where you live. I think that lost sense of community makes it easy to ship jobs of china or some other country. You don't see the guy who loses his Job because he works at a place that made that part. Even if you don't see that guy you don't care about him either way since the sense of community and what is important for the whole instead of you. That is one thing that I do like about China (yes it can be bad to) That the good of the whole is more important then the one. I think we could use some more of that in our country, but no so much so that we take rights away. I also think that moving out to the burbs destroyed housing markets. What do you do with houses that you have no one to buy because more houses where made but now you don't have enough people to live in these nice city houses. Even if they could then what would you do with the poor homes. Well what you do is you find renters and try to get them to buy a house. But see they don't have the money so you give them a loan anyways. Again I think that if a Banker really knew someone or knew that person knew someone else they knew they wouldn't lend them money, again the community thing. I think one other factor is that it used to be Banks could only be open in one State. Yes all banks could only be state banks and some where that changed. Again with the community. Yes there are some banks that are only in one state (M&T still might be one). I'm not saying people still wouldn't be greedy. But I think it makes making a bad choice tougher to make if the it costs the guy on your softball team or in your bowling league is job.
This is going to sound crazy but I think a lot of this is caused by people moving out to the Suburbs also known as sprawl. Yes there are towns and cities and Villages but that not what I mean, well maybe a little bit. When everyone lived in the city everyone was close. Now as people move out they depend on cars and gas. But what happens is you lose community. When you live and work in the same area you care about the people where you live. I think that lost sense of community makes it easy to ship jobs of china or some other country. You don't see the guy who loses his Job because he works at a place that made that part. Even if you don't see that guy you don't care about him either way since the sense of community and what is important for the whole instead of you. That is one thing that I do like about China (yes it can be bad to) That the good of the whole is more important then the one. I think we could use some more of that in our country, but no so much so that we take rights away. I also think that moving out to the burbs destroyed housing markets. What do you do with houses that you have no one to buy because more houses where made but now you don't have enough people to live in these nice city houses. Even if they could then what would you do with the poor homes. Well what you do is you find renters and try to get them to buy a house. But see they don't have the money so you give them a loan anyways. Again I think that if a Banker really knew someone or knew that person knew someone else they knew they wouldn't lend them money, again the community thing. I think one other factor is that it used to be Banks could only be open in one State. Yes all banks could only be state banks and some where that changed. Again with the community. Yes there are some banks that are only in one state (M&T still might be one). I'm not saying people still wouldn't be greedy. But I think it makes making a bad choice tougher to make if the it costs the guy on your softball team or in your bowling league is job.
dcoffee - 03/23/09 10:09
More reading. I'm a little crazy this morning, I think it's going to be a two computer day, one for work, one for news.
Here are some articles arguing for nationalization.
Stiglitz :::link:::
Krugman :::link:::
Obama could lose his credibility if he doesn't handle this right :::link:::
More reading. I'm a little crazy this morning, I think it's going to be a two computer day, one for work, one for news.
Here are some articles arguing for nationalization.
Stiglitz :::link:::
Krugman :::link:::
Obama could lose his credibility if he doesn't handle this right :::link:::
03/18/2009 00:19 #48095
Harry PotterCategory: books
I've been reading more fiction lately. A good book is like watching a movie in your head. It's always tricky turning a book into a movie, and I guess it's typical to say that a movie is never as good as the book. But I loved the Lord of the Rings books, and I thought the movies were good too, even though I completely knew the story ahead of time and they left out some good stuff.
I just watched Harry Potter Order of the Pheonix, and I am so glad I read the book first. This movie was awful! absolutely terrible. It was stupid, it made no sense. My wife went to bed cause she didn't know what was going on. It was so fast that it was totally clumsy and confusing.
I'm so glad I started with the book. It was so interesting that I read it within 2 weeks, and I only spent about 7-10 of those days actually reading it. Yea, it's the type of book you can read for 6 hours straight and go to bed at 2am.
I liked the story way better in my head, I almost want to reread the book just to put the thing back together again. The book is long, and there's some stuff that obviously didn't need to be in the movie, but really I could summarize the movie in about 3 paragraphs.
I saw the first Harry Potter movie and thought it was a lot of fun, so I watched the next 3 too and enjoyed them. I started reading more and after the 4th movie I thought that the story was about to get complicated, and I should read the book, the books are really popular so I might as well try reading one right? I'm glad I did, and from now on I'm reading the book first, I don't care how long it takes.
Ok, I'll just talk about one part. This evil wench comes to take control of the school, she's from the governing board of wizards, which is currently corrupt. She acts all nice to everyone's face, but really she hates students and just wants them to obey orders and take tests, rather than do anything practical, kind of like our system. Point is, she's a bitch and you totally hate her, really bad. So finally she gets some control over the school and the students revolt, they're creating chaos, magical fireworks and swamps in the hallways. She's a weaker wizard and has no idea how to handle this stuff. All the students seem to be competing for "troublemaker in chief", and you enjoy watching the wench lose control cause she totally deserves it, you spend the first half of the book learning that she is evil. Even the teachers don't care, cause she likes power so much, let her be in control of dealing with it the havoc she inspired. The movie totally ruins it, maybe it's impossible to recreate I don't know, maybe they don't want kids setting off fireworks in school, whatever, but when they got to the scene it was a total buzzkill, I was looking forward to the special effects and it was totally wrong. And Professor McGonagall is supposed to be the wench's opposite, a strong woman, who knows how to teach and how to keep children in line, but is willing to give you credit and can recognize an unfair situation. I think she had one scene and two appearances in the movie, lame.
Dammit, I'm writing too much again.
Anyway, the first couple movies are quite good, I'm sure the books are good too. But whatever you do, make sure you read the Order of the Phoenix,
I was going to mention some of the other good books I like, but I gotta go to bed. see ya.
I just watched Harry Potter Order of the Pheonix, and I am so glad I read the book first. This movie was awful! absolutely terrible. It was stupid, it made no sense. My wife went to bed cause she didn't know what was going on. It was so fast that it was totally clumsy and confusing.
I'm so glad I started with the book. It was so interesting that I read it within 2 weeks, and I only spent about 7-10 of those days actually reading it. Yea, it's the type of book you can read for 6 hours straight and go to bed at 2am.
I liked the story way better in my head, I almost want to reread the book just to put the thing back together again. The book is long, and there's some stuff that obviously didn't need to be in the movie, but really I could summarize the movie in about 3 paragraphs.
I saw the first Harry Potter movie and thought it was a lot of fun, so I watched the next 3 too and enjoyed them. I started reading more and after the 4th movie I thought that the story was about to get complicated, and I should read the book, the books are really popular so I might as well try reading one right? I'm glad I did, and from now on I'm reading the book first, I don't care how long it takes.
Ok, I'll just talk about one part. This evil wench comes to take control of the school, she's from the governing board of wizards, which is currently corrupt. She acts all nice to everyone's face, but really she hates students and just wants them to obey orders and take tests, rather than do anything practical, kind of like our system. Point is, she's a bitch and you totally hate her, really bad. So finally she gets some control over the school and the students revolt, they're creating chaos, magical fireworks and swamps in the hallways. She's a weaker wizard and has no idea how to handle this stuff. All the students seem to be competing for "troublemaker in chief", and you enjoy watching the wench lose control cause she totally deserves it, you spend the first half of the book learning that she is evil. Even the teachers don't care, cause she likes power so much, let her be in control of dealing with it the havoc she inspired. The movie totally ruins it, maybe it's impossible to recreate I don't know, maybe they don't want kids setting off fireworks in school, whatever, but when they got to the scene it was a total buzzkill, I was looking forward to the special effects and it was totally wrong. And Professor McGonagall is supposed to be the wench's opposite, a strong woman, who knows how to teach and how to keep children in line, but is willing to give you credit and can recognize an unfair situation. I think she had one scene and two appearances in the movie, lame.
Dammit, I'm writing too much again.
Anyway, the first couple movies are quite good, I'm sure the books are good too. But whatever you do, make sure you read the Order of the Phoenix,
I was going to mention some of the other good books I like, but I gotta go to bed. see ya.
metalpeter - 03/19/09 18:38
(e:Theecarey) said something that made me think about something else. This isn't true all the time but sometimes things get changed around in the movies because of Marketing or Even so there is a Hollywood ending. I didn't read the Golden Compass but some I know who read it, got mad at the movie because there where some things changed around. I saw Wicked and thought it was really good, and wished I saw it years ago. Someone I know who saw it I talked to them and they explained things that where different in the book. I'm guessing that sometimes for an audience who is going to view something editing things makes it better for that media.
(e:Theecarey) said something that made me think about something else. This isn't true all the time but sometimes things get changed around in the movies because of Marketing or Even so there is a Hollywood ending. I didn't read the Golden Compass but some I know who read it, got mad at the movie because there where some things changed around. I saw Wicked and thought it was really good, and wished I saw it years ago. Someone I know who saw it I talked to them and they explained things that where different in the book. I'm guessing that sometimes for an audience who is going to view something editing things makes it better for that media.
theecarey - 03/18/09 18:29
Agreed! Reading the book prior to watching the film allows freedom to use the imagination and to understand the original intent of the story. While movies can be really good, in comparison, there is often too much lost from what we get from the book.
JK Rowling wanted the transfer to film to be as accurate as possible, which occurred in the first three (and pretty well with the fourth). Rowling insisted on having characters (and story) that closely depicted what the reader had experienced with the books. I have to wonder how much of this was effected by the changing of directors & producers?
Chris Columbus- #1&2
Alfonso Cuaron(& C.Columbus)-#3
Mike Newell- #4
David Yates- #5,6 (coming soon) and both parts of #7 (will be two movies, filmed at same time)
As the movies progress, the format transitions from being faithful to the original story to promoting a more stylized presentation. Fun, but readers sense the loss, as you did with the Order of the Phoenix. Good movie, but it missed on some of that special stuff. By the way, The Order of the Phoenix was the shortest film and the longest story of the series, respectively. More could have been incorporated, in my opinion- especially as you mentioned, with McGonagall.
If you go back and read the first few books, you will likely find that they are a very quick read. The story is appropriately less complex, and becomes more so as the story and characters evolve.
All in all, both the books and the movies have been a welcome nugget of entertainment. I highly look forward to the Half Blood Prince to finally be released into the theater.
Agreed! Reading the book prior to watching the film allows freedom to use the imagination and to understand the original intent of the story. While movies can be really good, in comparison, there is often too much lost from what we get from the book.
JK Rowling wanted the transfer to film to be as accurate as possible, which occurred in the first three (and pretty well with the fourth). Rowling insisted on having characters (and story) that closely depicted what the reader had experienced with the books. I have to wonder how much of this was effected by the changing of directors & producers?
Chris Columbus- #1&2
Alfonso Cuaron(& C.Columbus)-#3
Mike Newell- #4
David Yates- #5,6 (coming soon) and both parts of #7 (will be two movies, filmed at same time)
As the movies progress, the format transitions from being faithful to the original story to promoting a more stylized presentation. Fun, but readers sense the loss, as you did with the Order of the Phoenix. Good movie, but it missed on some of that special stuff. By the way, The Order of the Phoenix was the shortest film and the longest story of the series, respectively. More could have been incorporated, in my opinion- especially as you mentioned, with McGonagall.
If you go back and read the first few books, you will likely find that they are a very quick read. The story is appropriately less complex, and becomes more so as the story and characters evolve.
All in all, both the books and the movies have been a welcome nugget of entertainment. I highly look forward to the Half Blood Prince to finally be released into the theater.
metalpeter - 03/18/09 18:06
Not really a potter fan. But that being said you can't compare a book to a movie. The Media isn't even close to the same. Think about the book you read then think about the movie. Think about all the stuff that was in the book and if they used all of that how long the movie would be. Besides again they are different Media. Or think of it this way, think about a movie you really like or at least a good one. If you took that story and expanded it and added stuff to the story and plot and added scenes how would it be as a book, guessing not so good. But there is another factor, that is true with music, and sports and might be true here. How ever you first see it you enjoy more. For example sports and music are different live and on a CD or on TV. Often you hear a band live and they sound great get the CD and it is like who is the band and sometimes it is the other way around. With Lacrosse I watched it in person and it looks really fast, but then when I saw a game on TV it looked slow. I think that what form you view something in first effects how you see the other one.
Not really a potter fan. But that being said you can't compare a book to a movie. The Media isn't even close to the same. Think about the book you read then think about the movie. Think about all the stuff that was in the book and if they used all of that how long the movie would be. Besides again they are different Media. Or think of it this way, think about a movie you really like or at least a good one. If you took that story and expanded it and added stuff to the story and plot and added scenes how would it be as a book, guessing not so good. But there is another factor, that is true with music, and sports and might be true here. How ever you first see it you enjoy more. For example sports and music are different live and on a CD or on TV. Often you hear a band live and they sound great get the CD and it is like who is the band and sometimes it is the other way around. With Lacrosse I watched it in person and it looks really fast, but then when I saw a game on TV it looked slow. I think that what form you view something in first effects how you see the other one.
03/15/2009 21:09 #48063
St Patricks Day PicturesCategory: life
Hey Everyone!!
Just wanted to show everybody some pictures from the Parade on Saturday. Yep Saturday, the one on the "Old Neighborhood" down in the valley, at South Park and Elk.
It was sooooooo fun! I had a ball, it was so authentic and comfortable, and there was a huge crowd, the parade went on for about an hour and a half. Then we went to the Valley Community Center afterword for some corned beef and potatoes. Plus live music and dancing. Did I mention it was a lot of fun? I was so satisfied I didn't even bother going to the parade on Delaware today.
I wanted to post these pics yesterday but my computer has been giving me a hard time, it keeps freezing. But it's happy now, so I better hurry up and post something!
This is how we started our day, 10:30 we're on the front porch and we see this festive pickup truck plating Irish music just 3 houses down the street from us. Molly says 'maybe there's a parade?' So we look it up online, shove some food in our face, fill a plastic bottle with red wine and hit the road.
These dudes are seriously riding motorized coolers! I gotta build one of these.
These kids were so cute, running around collecting candy in their little bags.
This little guy was so excited about the loot he collected, but I really just wanted to take his picture cause he has a green mohawk :)
Old neighborhood parade
This is where the festivities ended, classic Irish party at the Valley Community Center. Lots of kids, live Irish music, corned beef, potatoes, $2 beers. Molly got a sweet hoodie for $10. I talked to some local politicians and block club people.
I'm even more proud to be from South Buffalo now. What a fun crowd. You guys should go next year. Sure there's parties all over the city, but this just has a unique charm. and it's a great excuse to drink beer at noon :)
Just wanted to show everybody some pictures from the Parade on Saturday. Yep Saturday, the one on the "Old Neighborhood" down in the valley, at South Park and Elk.
It was sooooooo fun! I had a ball, it was so authentic and comfortable, and there was a huge crowd, the parade went on for about an hour and a half. Then we went to the Valley Community Center afterword for some corned beef and potatoes. Plus live music and dancing. Did I mention it was a lot of fun? I was so satisfied I didn't even bother going to the parade on Delaware today.
I wanted to post these pics yesterday but my computer has been giving me a hard time, it keeps freezing. But it's happy now, so I better hurry up and post something!
This is how we started our day, 10:30 we're on the front porch and we see this festive pickup truck plating Irish music just 3 houses down the street from us. Molly says 'maybe there's a parade?' So we look it up online, shove some food in our face, fill a plastic bottle with red wine and hit the road.
These dudes are seriously riding motorized coolers! I gotta build one of these.
These kids were so cute, running around collecting candy in their little bags.
This little guy was so excited about the loot he collected, but I really just wanted to take his picture cause he has a green mohawk :)
Old neighborhood parade
This is where the festivities ended, classic Irish party at the Valley Community Center. Lots of kids, live Irish music, corned beef, potatoes, $2 beers. Molly got a sweet hoodie for $10. I talked to some local politicians and block club people.
I'm even more proud to be from South Buffalo now. What a fun crowd. You guys should go next year. Sure there's parties all over the city, but this just has a unique charm. and it's a great excuse to drink beer at noon :)
metalpeter - 03/16/09 18:09
Great Pictures thanks for posting them.
Great Pictures thanks for posting them.
dcoffee - 03/16/09 10:47
I wouldn't say that Lauren, I think these are just more seasoned drunks, they don't go just for the thrill of getting drunk in broad daylight, they go to enjoy each other's company. Seems more like of a celebration of spring and community, rather than a celebration of drinking. I didn't see a single puke puddle or bear case hat. They may have been drunk, but they weren't sloppy, just friendly.
Jenks, when I have kids I'm totally signing them up for that!! There are boy dancers too.
Mike, next year you gotta go to this one, and bring the kids too! you won't regret it.
I wouldn't say that Lauren, I think these are just more seasoned drunks, they don't go just for the thrill of getting drunk in broad daylight, they go to enjoy each other's company. Seems more like of a celebration of spring and community, rather than a celebration of drinking. I didn't see a single puke puddle or bear case hat. They may have been drunk, but they weren't sloppy, just friendly.
Jenks, when I have kids I'm totally signing them up for that!! There are boy dancers too.
Mike, next year you gotta go to this one, and bring the kids too! you won't regret it.
lauren - 03/16/09 09:35
Looks like a lot of the same stuff...less drunk people though?
Looks like a lot of the same stuff...less drunk people though?
jenks - 03/16/09 08:44
I love those Rince na Tiarna girls. :)
I love those Rince na Tiarna girls. :)
mrmike - 03/15/09 21:38
Looks great. This irishman skipped Delaware ave once more. Just doesn't do it for me.
Looks great. This irishman skipped Delaware ave once more. Just doesn't do it for me.
First of all thanks. Second of all you are right to thank (e:Paul) for the site. I'm often not very social of a person. One of the things that I like about (e:strip) is that yes it is a social networking site, but it is also set up to be a community site. I don't mean an internet community that is something different. It is a way to also have a community off of the internet. Thirdly again maybe it is part of the keeping to myself but I don't know any of my neighbors. Yes I come home and some times there are lots of Asians playing ball out side, then some cop used to maybe he still lives a couple houses over. Not that I remember it but I have heard there was a time that if You where doing something you shouldn't (maybe smoking by the railroad tracks) you're mothers neighbor would fix you good and then when you got home, it would be Dad's turn if it was something really bad, and you would hide in fear. I don't only want to blame the suburbs cause they are not the only reason we have lost that. What the other reasons are I'm not sure. I know that I should know the people who live around me, but sometimes it is tough. For an example I was walking home one day and these two guys asked for help. It was the dried up extra black top stuff, I had seen them the few days previous working on some construction thing, so I figured fine the extra scrap is there's. So a couple days later I read about some guy who broke into a church and got caught. So I run into the black guy who I helped and he tells me the white boy who was with him, tried to have sex with his girlfriend (they where friends or something not sure) and that he broke into a church, and this was the guy I was trying to help, now I don't want to try and help any one. How am I supposed to trust anyone. So I go home and watch my TV or maybe a movie or something, yes gadgets are nice but they can make you more isolated.