Tag Archives: MPR News

An opinion of the 2017 housing market from a millennial who has gone through the home buying process (to a point)

986d4f-20170614-housing-market07.jpg

“Realtor Nene Matey-Keke of RNR Realty leaves a home after a showing in St. Paul on June 7, 2017. Tom Baker for MPR News” – Image from MPR

Disclaimer: This may seem as a lot of fluffy prose and metaphorical goo-goo, but I have no other way of free-playing this into reader’s minds as I wish to. This is not objective science but subjective thought from my experience. Please read this for what it is, an opinion about something I have limited understanding of.

***

Frogtown, USA–The housing market to me is paper thin, ask any realtor what they think about the market and they will say it’s great, it’s a seller’s market. But look beyond that.

MPR and other media cover obvious: the market is booming, it is also hard for Millennials to buy, and to no end. What they forget to mention is the other side. One-sided arguments: this is hard, nothing is changing.

Though, think of that change. The other side of the coin is the market crashing. Ask an honest person, my neighbor, who is a realtor, and she will tell you to save no wand in 5-7 years the market will crash.

As a novice of day-trading and stock market and any financial market in America, in relation to the housing market, I understand there is a pattern: things change.

The housing market is hot now, you can sell anything for far more than it is worth. Many people are flipping and buying flipped homes. Great for them, but this is a fad as everything else. It will eventually fade.

Instead of getting sucked in by low interest rates and ease of attaining a mortgage and buying because everyone else is, think. Because everyone else is and it is trendy now, should you do it?

I use the jump off of a bridge analogy. No, I wouldn’t. Though I almost bought a house with my wife. We realized it’s hard work. I do not envy the fixer-uppers.

Take a walk down the street, everyone is selling. But why? Because people will buy anything they think they need. Now you think you need a home. Something way more expensive than you thought it would be–and it is.

And for why? Yeah, you own it. It may appreciate. It may gain value. But at that price if it doesn’t work out and you lose your job it maybe get bad. That is why. I say wait it out, and others have said this too.

Watch the market collapse. Listen as everyone tells you it won’t. Or they cringe at the thought. Like the stock market, or any capitalistic market it is fragile, fragile yet resilient. It comes and goes.

It will come and go, don’t miss it. But don’t get caught up in the hype, the media juicing it because of sponsors. Listen to the radio. “We buy any house and sell it”, why? Because that is there job.

Realtors and lenders describe the market is ways that keeps them in business. That is why I say the market is paper thin, because it is as thin as the money you don’t have to buy it. I have heard get on the train before it leaves the station in reference to buying a home.

But what if that train is going somewhere I don’t want to be. What if it is a doomed train. I want to read more articles on how the market actually is not what people think of the market, ironically.

I want both sides of the story. I won’t read half of a book if the book isn’t finished, nor will I watch half of a movie. Pundits and those whose skin is at risk tell how it is, but where is the science. Every mountain has a peak and a base.

Look and you may see the man behind the curtain, look at you may see it for what it is. A show that is a market that makes those is the “know” a lot of money. The benefit is to make is seem as though it is a certain way when it is not.

***
Again: This may seem as a lot of fluffy prose and metaphorical goo, but I have no other way of free-playing this into reader’s minds as I wish to. This is not objective science but subjective thought from experience. Please read this for what it is, an opinion I have a limited understanding of.

Advertisements

The sequel: Controversial art exhibit at Walker Art Center found to be controversial again, MPR reports

Photo of “controversial art” by MPR News

For the second time in less than a month The Walker Art Center is perhaps again exhibiting controversial art as per an MPR News interpretative report suggests.

This suspiciously odd and seemingly obvious revelation came early yesterday afternoon as more publicity of Walker Art exhit generated local ire and honed activists’ interest–related to said controversial art, and as real news stories slowed down and the weekend came closer. 

A fortnight ago, the infamous “Scaffolds” art instillation dominated the local news cycle, adorned with underwritten ads and emotional subjective language, which prompted a protest and a public deconstruction of the artwork– which essentially became performance art itself, as covered by the media. 

This new “controversy” over controversial art has spurred more invaluable press coverage of The Walker Art Center in local news circles, ostensibly generating more interest in this perhaps controversial art exhibit for weekend visitors. 

In a time when any publicity is good publicity–visibility has value–the idea of controversial art seems completely redudnant yet especially breaking news worthy to this local news media, apparently art has never been controversial before now, ever.  

Theoretically, at any other network, publicity like this would potentially cost considerable weight in advertisement revenues.  However, this controversial art seems to be getting much attention on its own through certain respective media.

Perhaps now we are living in a world where we have to be told our exact feelings or interpretations of art, and what is right and wrong and loved and loathed about said art, as clarified by local news media.

The next question is when will we make art museums and art institutions safe spaces, as to protect posterity from that art which might painfully offend art viewers. The art world needs more uniform standards as to avoid further controversy.

Minnesota Legislature: allow individuals to sell their private information rather than the internet service providers they employ

Why does the Minnesota legislative think that it is acceptable to allow large corporation service providers to use individual citizen’s private information without a say, all while turning a profit? Why, when they could allow me as an individual to make money off of the product that is my own unique private information? I think I could best provide my information to the highest bid.

The idea of giving internet service providers, who charge customers for service, the right to the customer’s private information, as a product, and the right to sell it to grain profits, makes no sense. Why is the individual cut out of the loop in terms of selling a product they create. Our information has value, it is a unique commodity sold to companies looking to attract your unique demographic without your say or your benefit. That information is out product.

Oddly enough, you can’t sell a unique product you create because the internet service provider already claims this exclusive right. I grow the tomatoes, I just can eat the tomatoes. Every thoughtful search, every poignant post, every site you visit is specifically you, and used by corporations to specifically target you in order to buy their products. Again, oddly enough, internet service providers know this and make gains off of this information, your information.

Further, as adjunct to my initial idea, I posit questions: why does the Minnesota legislature stand with corporations in ways that don’t allow private individuals to protect, create, gain, and attain a sense of ownership of their information in whatever capacity they choose. Why is there no safeguard for this information? And why do large corporations, with a hold on the market get the upperhand?

We all have a true value, data unique to us, and have a vested and integral interest in our personal private matters, partialities, and quirks, it is our personal commodity alone, and allowed to be sold unbeknownst to those it is linked to for financial motivations. We all have stake in this matter, and internet service providers understand the value monetarily.

Not only is an individual citizen’s personal privacy, in relation to data and information and the ability to possess ownership of that data and information, important in ways that protect and individual from the maladies of corporate and marketing entities, but it is important in ways that could create income for those not making income on their unique product.

With information there is money to be made, but who by? Now is the time to empower the people and give them the capital they are owed for the commodity that they make, create, and provide, which is their–the product that is stolen and sold by massive corporations who hold a potential monopoly on the internet industry. Now is the time for the Minnesota legislature to stand up for individuals citizens over lobbyists and profits by capitalistic agencies.

Minnesota man to consider $5 donation during next MPR membership drive if he reads one positive unbiased article about Trump, published by the mainstream news organization

static.politico

President of the United States of America pointing across a room at an unknown person, one positive article to garner $5 donation to MPR from local man. Photo by Getty

Reports broke Tuesday that local Minnesota man, who happens to be a millennial, a college grad, and a recent republican voter–although no party affiliation at this time could be confirmed, to consider donating $5 to next MPR membership drive if they write one positive unbiased article about president Donald Trump.

This incredible news came to a slough of jeers, guffaws, and mumbles from friends, colleagues, and family who happened to be unflinching MPR supporters.  Their reaction was to vehemently detest the idea that MPR as an organization could be biased in anyway towards anyone with differing ideas always–those not of the Progressive-Democratic ilk.

Though, these reports are wholly unconfirmed and unverified, the local male will be watching reports and reading articles ever closely looking for any indication that objective reporting exists in the state of Minnesota, and as he suggested, if he finds this to be the case he will consider contributing his $5 donation and become a highly member.  We all wait with bated breath.

Gorsuch’s fate to be decided by bipartisan singing competition, Democrats and Republicans both agree that they love The Voice

ap_17080498237581

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch laying down the law about singing competition as he raises both hands for two questions confusedly during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Photo by MPR/AP

What seemed a strange outcome to what would potentially be a interminable filibuster, which would then transpire into the ever dreaded “nuclear option”, government representatives have agreed to settle their contrasting differences in an unprecedented singing competition, because both parties love The Voice.

Tension soared to new heights on Monday as Democrats poised to block the Gorsuch vote and waste more time just talking (for lack of purpose)–which they have immense practice at, and as the Republicans estimated ways they could eventually change the rules by reinterpreting them as not to break them.  Then, a silver lining, wonderful idea: sing it the fuck out.  Now instead of meaningless jabber, they will serenade!

In this astonishing change of heart, all humility was saved by what was at first a quiet suggestion of a fair competition, one that Russia could certainly not hack or manipulate the paramount results of, and still, a game that would give any one group an option to decide who is more right than the other unequivocally.  That’s when Gorsuch made the suggestions himself.

It was a risky move that was taken–very necessary though, very… to put that novel idea forward into the shark tank of US politics, and for once all parties agreed on something for a total of 20 seconds… an anonymous, yet, highly reliable source onlooker unaffiliated with CNN said.  It was incredible.  God… it was like they wasted the last year and just did something.  Holy shit.  Wow.  This is AMAZING… it’s like a kale salad.  another legitimate anonymous source partaking not associated with MPR said off the record.

Gorsuch went on to graciously expound that he got his unique concept of a singing competition from watching hit network television show The Voice, he thought of fixing all the world’s problems by singing about them seems absolutely realistic, and ironically very similar to a filibuster but more upbeat.  And everyone loves The Voice.

Today politicians are going to use their voices for the voices of the American people because of The Voice, and Gorsuch, and in this competition determine once and for all Gorsuch fate and the future of America.  

Beer over cars in Bruges; wants vs. needs

visit-flanders-660x394

Bruges Will Cut Traffic With…an Underground Beer Pipeline

Legalize Marijuana in Minnesota

MPR NEWS

MN Daily: Task force weighs medical marijuana law

          What is the problem with Medical Marijuana?  Why must we battle for such an innocuous herb to be legalized?  Was there a battle against Big Pharma when they introduced the plethora of drugs containing narcotics in the last five decades?  -I don’t recall.  One does not see protesting against pharmaceuticals made from far more dangerous substances, opiates and methamphetamines.  One does not hear speak of legislators creating laws to ban such substances that have, time and time again, killed, or put people in emergency rooms across the nation (CDC: Prescription Drug Overdose in the United States).

          We did not see this case argued when Ritalin was administered to children in the early 90’s, and still today (possibly under a different name).  I was a part of that, it was a reasonable remedy. 

          I wonder if anyone at this round table meeting mentioned concerns relating to abuse of currently legalized substances.

          Marijuana is a plant that can be grown locally, taxed locally, and administered/regulated locally, in a positive way.  The assumed pros outweigh the cons; economic benefits, patient benefits, offering alternative options to help patients attain the level of comfort deserved, in their unique and individual cases. 

          Why should the government allow one type of treatment and shun another?  Let’s take a hint from Washington and Colorado.  Let’s take a hint from patients.  The benefits of legalizing Marijuana are visible, and vast.  The country allows cigarettes, guns, prescription pills, and alcohol to be sold, with little question.  The war on drugs is over, apparently, yet we argue against facts. 

What is the difference?