Tag Archives: Thought

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.

American news media unanimously agrees to write shorter articles saving readers time, triggering the advent of journalism without words

 

mainstreammedia.png

Frogtown, USA —This week an official report of an official study found that most people don’t read the news because it’s too long and takes too much time to read. In hopes to counter lack of readership and lack of attention to everything the mainstream media has decided to make all articles one to two sentences long, maximum.

The decision to make news articles one to two sentences long in their entirety was unanimously agreed upon by American news organizations on Monday eve after finding that no one reads anymore, or takes the news seriously, and this looming fact destroys potential for more advertisement revenue.

In what seems to be the demise of true journalism, a bastion of hope has been burrowed out of thin air in true optimism, from the idea of less is more, perhaps, and this sea change may just be the beginning of novel style of journalism that doesn’t require words at all, merely assumptions by inflection of personal interpretation. Not a far cry from where we are today, when journalism already doesn’t require legitimate sources at all.

To the news that all news articles would be only one to two sentences long, purposeful and sage Millennials rejoiced in having more time to like things on Instagram and craft new Facebook status updates, now instead of reading through articles with details and objective facts the reader could simply fill in the blanks to their liking. Creating a double positive: the story would be easier to read, and easier to digest mentally.

In a time where there isn’t much time in our busy lives, shorter articles will become a more positive experience for the reader, for the writer, and for the entire world in general; journalism with words, thought, and details will become a thing of the distant past. With the official announcement of shorter articles, the American news media is truly on course for a new style of the literary form, a new style of journalism without words.

Fake new about fake news found to be fake news about fake news because of fake news and fake news

FakeNewsTypewriter-840x460

the words “Fake news” printed on a fake typewriter graphic Adweek

In a shocking revelation yesterday an unnamed mainstream media source found that a story about fake news found to be fake news was fake news because of fake news and no one seemed to care.

Unbelievably the mainstream media source did nothing about the compromise of information, not going back on their sponsors promise, not pulling the fake news story.

The ads were in place, the story had to fill the page… one unidentified marketing sales manager at the publication explained, These papers are full of advertisements, they are paid for, they must be seen by a specific demographic…

This discovery of fake news is only one in a veritable rash of papers, the mainstream media seem to be just printing fake news for news when there is no real news simply to carry marketing spots, nothing objective to break for readers to think on.

Such an uncovering has shocked the news industry–and this problem goes back decades–as it limits trust and shows that stories are less important than underwriters and advertiser money. The readers suffer, and we can blame the decline on fake news…

We can only hope at point the news media goes back to what made them important, objective reporting, putting advertisements and sales in the background.  However, in a world where shock sells we can expect to see more and more fake news.

BREAKING: Russia hacks Netflix’s House of Cards 5th season 2016 election says Assange, Underwood concedes to Conway in landslide upset

30cards-refresh-slide-TF65-master768.jpg

President Underwood after his massive defeat to opponent Will Conway.  Source

In what turned out to be a shock that could only be something that is not really actually stranger than fiction, while watching Netflix’s House of Card 5th season the world realized that Russia also hacked the election in favor of Will Conway over Francis Underwood in the 2016 election, said Julian Assange.

592dae15c4618894658b465e.jpg

Julian Assange physically in disbelief with his hands spread wide over the Underwood defeat.  RT

In the extremely highly anticipated unbelievable inscrutable 5th season of House of Cards, the intense 2016 election was also hacked by Russia operatives and hackers out to destroy the election hopes of democratic nominee Francis J. Underwood, which is facutally tied to the Trump campaign.

The Will Conway victory came as a utter surprise to even Will Conway himself, as he poured his orange juice, readied for the day, and stretched out for a run he could not believe that he was set to win the hotly debated muchly contested presidential campaign trail, followed up by this closely watched election conclusion.

Ostensibly, when asked for a comment about Netflix’s new season of House of Cards, released May 30th on Netflix, unidentified, potentially high-level Russian informants gave no comment as to if they did have a hand in the election, or if they did not have a hand in the

49c364-20161106-trumprally01

President Trump explaining how he actually didn’t have a part in this.

Underwood/Conway election, unknown and unreliable sources have passionately confirmed.

Accordingly, a proverbial “witch hunt” is in store for the next 4 years, not as a distraction for the entire nation, but as an opportunity to prove that even though Underwood lost, he was and still is the right person for the job, and in some miraculous way there is still hope that a time machine may be invented to go back in time and remedy this err, for all humanities sake.

Underwood is slated to contest the election results for the foreseeable future, taking trips across the nation to subliminally slander and disparage Conway in all of his attempts to run his office proper, this will be a new opportunity for the much beloved Francis Underwood to get his campaign machine geared up for the next election cycle in House of Cards season 8.

Online Petitions (as Pennies in a Wishing Well)

“Everything that is beautiful and noble is a product of reason and calculation.” -Charles Baudelaire

St Paul, MN- In my opinion, petitioning everything we find disagreeable on the internet, that takes place in the United States of America, is like posting a new status on Facebook, or any other social media platform, it becomes useless.  To me, this action does very little, because those forums are monitored and controlled, like throwing a penny into a wishing well–it takes the intention out of the actor’s perception, it takes the accountability out of the petitioner’s (wisher’s) hands and puts the issue in a free fall of liquidity, placing the issue on something larger and misunderstood.  I guess I miss the reason, intention, and calculation of speaking to deaf ears.

Petitioning so visibly against matters on social media creates the same sort of sentiment that one sees when one throws a penny into a wishing well. The shiny object, the cent, goes away from our observation and into certain darkness.  The viewer of this spectacle finds that the actor in this setting has hope, has promise, has a wish with meaning. The penny falls and that is that. There is that nugget of hope left at the bottom of a wishing well. Accordingly, the petition is sent out, put forth, and left on the interwebs away from those with the ability to make change, and there it sits.  (I will attest that these petitions seem a spectacle for the mainstream media to make pennies off of as well, generating a story, while stoking a teasing interest.)

In relation to this metaphor, I aver we do something different for change, instead of a spectacle for others, we create a spectacle for ourselves.  Instead of casting a penny away, as an idea, or as a concern for a concept by writing or signing a petition, that may or may not get seen by eyes with authority and the ability to create change, one must, perhaps, write legislature, or run for office themselves; make the change they desire by becoming this change. Create the change you want by following your wishes or petitions to the top, to the office you aspire to. So often ideas become clouded by group-think and the initial principal becomes diluted, creating very little change.  With an individual seeing this principal through to fruition, those outside forces may be hampered.

The real matter at hand with petitions and pennies, perhaps, may be the level of accountability the person doing the signing, or throwing, or writing cares to do and be responsible for. We sign things all the time, this act is commonplace autonomous. I sign for coffee, I sign for sandwiches, I sign for others, I sign for packages, and I sign for beer. You do too!  How is this any different in a serious way, signing for something that is entirely important or unimportant to me? (Is changing the system important to you?  And how important?)  I find in order for change it must be a step above that kind of signing, a bit more convoluted, this giving up autonomy and comfort for belief.

Signing a petition on the internet for something you believe wholeheartedly may feel good.  You may feel you have done your part, but what part? Does this signing lack fervor though?  And how much will that well-meant signature do? To make change there must be the same amount of initiative or action or motivation as in the thought that caused it. Putting a status update on social media takes a few clicks, signing your signature is a swipe of the wrist–conditioning at this point–perhaps, neither of these actions are revolutionary (singularly alone). With them, there is only a wish and an idea thrown away, as the penny in the wishing well.  So how important is your status update or your signature for petitioning change in comparison to every other one placed in a universe of texts and signatures?

***

On the video at the top of this essay, and the “Faithless Elector” movement (I didn’t watch it, the thumbnail was nice.  So I used it.) Further, we knew about the electoral college and how it worked many years ago, perhaps it is as old as the American republic.  I will cite, as John C. Dvorak of the No Agenda Podcast pointed out, where some of the inspiration for my piece comes, and I paraphrase–I hope I do justice, change the system, change the law!  Again, I paraphrase, but the gist is there.  Change the way we do things, the system, and change the law.  Hear more from him at No Agenda Podcast.  And if you perceive me wrong, I guess I am witnessing the forest for the trees, I am missing their timber.  Change may take more effort than an online trend, spectacle, or people holding well-made signs.

Recount: Clinton’s Double Jeopardy; How Hillary will Win the 2016 Presidential Election

“My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

RT

Firstly, I will say that I am obsessed with the recount. I cannot go for a few hours without checking it, the news. This recount affinity is an intriguing part of my life. I enjoy critiquing the news and pundits and both sides of the parties–that never get’s old apparently, to me. Even though it is shit. Nothing changes–and nothing will. It is as if I still have Facebook. Sometimes I can’t escape it. That kind of social media… Those kind of clicks on a website. It is HUGE. Big money for “real” news. This recount thing is going to make history.

I must also say, holy shit. I never thought I would say this, but I think Hillary will actually win this thing. She will enact her magical double jeopardy of a recount; waiting for the blame to be called first, by Trump, having patience, calling in a favor, and then pouncing with limited time to form a proper and meaningful defense by the presumed winner. It seems too obvious now. The long wait (3 weeks have others have said), the third party candidate comes out of nowhere seemingly for innocuous purposes (globalist), and the media says the recount won’t change anything.

(To cover that last part, the media was wrong about the entire election. What makes them so sure that they will be right this time about the recount? I am not so sure, as a matter of fact I am concerned about how many news outlets say a change in votes is “highly unlikely” or “near impossible” or a “long-shot”. To me this talk directly mirrors the rhetoric used by the media to describe the chances of Trump winning the 2016 presidential election. (Which he did.) Pollsters had it wrong, the media bought in; now the media says they have it right, no count change in the recount, and most are buying in. Fuck.)

Aside from the above hypothesizing, the recount is really good for getting people to read the headline of an article only. Just throw in the word: recount. Put whatever shit you want to in the paragraphs below it: hyperbole, emotion, fallacies, etc. They will read. If you are a mainstream site you’ll get hits. If you are a WordPress blogger, yours truly, you may get someone to look harder at your page for a second. From onset of the recount, one thing I do appreciate is that talking about how horrible Trump’s transition team is won’t hold traction for long, for news sources, this is obvious. I won’t be the person to regurgitate this prediction. Thank you, No Agenda Show.

I posit, with celerity: Trump lost footing from the start by saying in the debates that he would challenge the election results. (No shit. I would too if it were warranted.) His opponent only needed him to say it once before they started pulling it apart; they are lawyers, these are words. Hillary conceded: she plays the victim now–people sympathize–and who couldn’t, only standing up again because others stood up for her. And of course no one will have the energy or time before inauguration to say, hey let’s recount the recount. This is after Hillary is ready to take office. Ready to play the role she has practiced for her whole life.

It sounds stupid, and easy. I know it’s a short theory, half-concocted, ridiculous, and thick with what a regular person would call a conspiracy theory. Yet, as my stepfather said over the phone the other night nothing would surprise him about this election. Certainly the media is making out great with these scatalogical themed stories. They come out ahead, ironically, seldom behind. If by chance something crazy happens in the recount–new votes are found, mysteriously, or if the numbers just don’t add up–don’t be surprised. No one has the right to be. We live in a world where losers no longer lose.

I’ll be straightforward with you, I got nervous the second people started discussing the date of December 19th, when the electoral college places their actual vote. I didn’t even know that was the date. And I have written more on the electoral college than most of my ex-progressive liberal alt-left friends have, the ones who came about and told me I was stupid for thinking that the electoral college would vote for us all, so don’t vote. Well, they did. And I did. Oops. Probably should have read that history. Now they want to change the rules of the game they played so hard to win. What do you do tho?

So, on December 20th, when you wake up to find Hillary Clinton has been elected president, don’t be surprised. It’s Clinton’s Double Jeopardy, she can’t lose the recount, even though she already lost the election; it was set in motion at the debates–when no one would accept the results, really. I mean, it is entirely possible. Don’t for one second skim through the headlines and think, oh, it couldn’t happen, because that happened to the majority of the popular voting people of America. They thought they had it. Don’t be like them. Don’t be sad.

Jill Stein and the Green Party’s Petition to Recount; Money, Promises and Politics as Usual

It’s hard to imagine that still, nearly two weeks out, people are contesting the 2016 presidential election as if it never happened.  The electoral college spoke.  And we cannot be satisfied with losing, we must challenge the game we banked so much on, emotion and passion.  We must recount.  To be right!  All that I can think of after hearing about a recount, one donated by the people to a political leader is, too little, too late, and if you can’t beat them join the.

This week, Black Friday–eh, surprising deal(!), a Green Party petition to recount the 2016 presidential elections results within Wisconsin has been submitted at the ever-exciting deadline.  (The media lucked out.)  Jill Stein has been the outlier, the iconoclast, the pariah throughout this election, as one half of the Green Party, now she perhaps has turned Democrat on the idea of a recount, and with your money.  Asking for funds to prove an accurate count through a serious recount.  She is contesting for change, to be certain because of said foreign “hacks”–of course by Russia.

This hacking revelation is no shocker–the more you talk about something–the idea of Russia being puppet-master– the more it is true.  The real shocker here, I posit, is that Stein cannot guarantee if the money will actually go towards a recount, or if it will go towards something more self-fulfilling.  Pundits have suggested the funds will go to the Green Party itself as it may lack future federal funding due to less votes in the 2016 Presidential election.  So, let me get this straight, you want money for something, but it might not go to that purpose, but you want more money?  Ok… I don’t know what that’s called.

After this election, again, as the dust settles, again, and again, we can all take a count, or a recount, ourselves, of politics as usual.  Those on a soapbox telling us they will create change for the masses, especially if the money is there to be had, shame.  The more donations and shares and inquiries on social media, through crowdfunding, surely the higher chance that will we sway the results, I mean, maybe.  It makes sense.  We will have to see, and see where that spending happens to make change.

Throughout the 2016 election, I felt that Jill Stein stood for something other than what the two main parties stood for, something other than big corporations and self-gain; I felt the Democrats and Republicans stood for money, power, and capitalistic influence, this last-ditch effort from the sidelines has suggested more of the same from a different party.

For intrigue of what most likely won’t happen, I am not that confused or conflicted about Stein’s decision to act, but rather how she chose to go about this challenge: raising money.  This situation has played out before in 2000, it was just less focused and by one of the two main parties, and the money came from elsewhere I imagine.  Either way, if the money goes to a recount or to the posterity of the Green Party, it serves a purpose, it keeps a mindset going, one that can not, and will not, accept a reality set forth by the framework of reality setters in America that a reality was set within.

If this petition to recount goes through and the 2016 presidential election results are actually changed it will set an incredible precedent for big government, one that won’t be opposed, presumably, until the recount of those results.  It will show that no matter how we think our national system is set up, it can be changed to our liking, no matter how fickle, diluted, or biased they may be.  Which perhaps, I assume, may be a good thing?  And that is why I never bet more than I can afford to lose, thank you Darrrin.

***

Keep in mind, if you like what you have read here on my blog, donate.  This kind of writing is unimpeded by corporate ideologies and mindsets.  All of the money, I can guarantee will go towards upkeep and future materials on my wonderful blog.  Hit the button in the corner.  Much thanks for the read, the share, the donation, and the love.  TS_