The economy in my dads's eyes
by Kerry Toole
When I first started to talk about the economy I went to talk about it with my mom and dad. My dad started to explain what had happen. So this is what my understanding about what is going on. Banks give out loads and people must go to the banks to get the loads. The banks are then supposed to approve if the people coming to them for loans are ok applicants. The banks then started handing out loans to people who was not supposed to get a loan.
So after my dad gave me what was going on in the economy in a nut shell. I asked him what we could do. He said that if you give everyone 1million dollars. By giving everyone a million dollars people would start spending money. This would then help bring the economy up. If we have enough money to keep bailing out the banks and the auto companies we should be able to bail out the people.
I am mostly lost in why we are helping out the big business and not helping out the little ones who are struggling. As the economy shuts down something that makes me really said is how Broadway plays are shutting down due to the economy. We are no longer just losing money but we losing something that people come to American from all over the world to see. So many things we want our children to see and or do are being shut down due to the drop in the economy.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Blacklist of Bailout Bonuses
I'm not sure if it's amusing or angering when companies bailed out with tax payer money decide to pay six-plus figures in bonus salaries to their upper echelon employees. Aren't they receiving the funds in the first place due to irresponsible behavior and lack of judgment... They sure learned.
Everyone is up in arms (including Steven Colbert with a pitchfork) over the recent revelation that AIG, the financial institution that received one of the largest allocations of TARP money, paid out $165 million in bonuses. The company has refused to release the names of these employees due to fear of public reprisal of violence. This is some scary shit.
Edward Liddy, the company's CEO, said he is attempting to cooperate with federal lawmakers in order to have these funds returned. Right now Congress is trying to pass a law that would require all companies receiving bail out cash to pay a 90% tax of such payment if it is used in the same fashion as AIG. Such a law would only apply to 2009 allocations.
Unfortunately, what most people don't know, is that back in the end of 2008, Meryl Lynch gave close to $3.5 billion (no, that is not a typo) in bonuses, making AIG look like they're passing around chump change. According to a FoxNews blog, because the transaction occurred last year, the government will most likely not be able to claim any funds from the firm.
I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
By Justin Ellis
Everyone is up in arms (including Steven Colbert with a pitchfork) over the recent revelation that AIG, the financial institution that received one of the largest allocations of TARP money, paid out $165 million in bonuses. The company has refused to release the names of these employees due to fear of public reprisal of violence. This is some scary shit.
Edward Liddy, the company's CEO, said he is attempting to cooperate with federal lawmakers in order to have these funds returned. Right now Congress is trying to pass a law that would require all companies receiving bail out cash to pay a 90% tax of such payment if it is used in the same fashion as AIG. Such a law would only apply to 2009 allocations.
Unfortunately, what most people don't know, is that back in the end of 2008, Meryl Lynch gave close to $3.5 billion (no, that is not a typo) in bonuses, making AIG look like they're passing around chump change. According to a FoxNews blog, because the transaction occurred last year, the government will most likely not be able to claim any funds from the firm.
I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
By Justin Ellis
Who's under fire now...
By Michelle Koyanagi
Seeing that this is our last blog assignment and reading some of the blogs already posted, I just want apologize if this will be a rather boring blog to read.
For this week, I looked at blogs about one of the most current topics being discussed on Capitol Hill: the controversy over AIG’s bonuses. Like the rest of America, I too am perplexed, angry, and ashamed of AIG (and other financial groups because AIG can’t be the only one) and certain government officials (Senator Chris Dodd, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, etc.). I’m sure President Obama is extremely frustrated about this also.
Bloggers have commented on how controversies like this show us just how quick Congress can move when they are scared of their constituents turning on them. As an intern for my Congresswoman, I know just how angry some people can get when they call in to the office and voice their opinions about this messy situation.
However, there was one particular caller I got this week who not only voiced his complaints about AIG, but also voiced complaints about many other financial groups and people who he felt should also get put under fire, but at the moment, they were not.
This made me wonder… with all this talk of scandals, our government officials and big companies who were found to owe back taxes—how much more troubling would it be if the public found out that this sort of stuff was going on for decades, but we just never heard about it? I mean, surely there are many other politicians, companies who have hidden skeletons in their closet. How much more disturbing would it be to find out exactly how often crimes like these go on and how many people get away with it.
Seeing that this is our last blog assignment and reading some of the blogs already posted, I just want apologize if this will be a rather boring blog to read.
For this week, I looked at blogs about one of the most current topics being discussed on Capitol Hill: the controversy over AIG’s bonuses. Like the rest of America, I too am perplexed, angry, and ashamed of AIG (and other financial groups because AIG can’t be the only one) and certain government officials (Senator Chris Dodd, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, etc.). I’m sure President Obama is extremely frustrated about this also.
Bloggers have commented on how controversies like this show us just how quick Congress can move when they are scared of their constituents turning on them. As an intern for my Congresswoman, I know just how angry some people can get when they call in to the office and voice their opinions about this messy situation.
However, there was one particular caller I got this week who not only voiced his complaints about AIG, but also voiced complaints about many other financial groups and people who he felt should also get put under fire, but at the moment, they were not.
This made me wonder… with all this talk of scandals, our government officials and big companies who were found to owe back taxes—how much more troubling would it be if the public found out that this sort of stuff was going on for decades, but we just never heard about it? I mean, surely there are many other politicians, companies who have hidden skeletons in their closet. How much more disturbing would it be to find out exactly how often crimes like these go on and how many people get away with it.
People need to take a chill pill
Lately I’ve noticed that people don’t know how to relax. We live in such a rushed society that the slightest inconvenience makes people impatient and downright rude. We have a demanding society in which people are always on the go to their next destination and just don’t have time to slow down. People just need to let loose a bit.
My sister deals with impatient people everyday at her work. Everyday she comes home with a new story about the customers. They’ll complain to her if they’ve had to wait five minutes in line as if it was my sister’s fault. Or even worse, they’ll get snappy at her if there was a mistake on a previous transaction, although she was not even the one who processed it in the first place. In her words, “Everyone just needs to chill out!”
I’ll admit that I am a victim of our rushed society. One of my pet peeve’s is when I’m stuck behind someone walking ridiculously slow. I can’t stand it. However, as I was on my way home for spring break I had to stop to load my SmartTrip metro card. So I’m fiddling in my purse for money and a girl comes to get in line and she stands right… next…to…me. I turn around and there she is hovering over me with her arms crossed waiting to get a metro ticket. Really now. I wanted to tell her that standing on my tail isn’t going to get her a ticket any faster. Could I have some personal space? We’re all going to get on the metro. I’ll also mention that the same thing happened to me on my way back to D.C. A man stood right next to me as I was loading my card, impatiently waiting his turn.
People just need to learn how to take a breath and relax. You’ll get to your destination. There’s nothing you can do if the train isn’t coming until another ten minutes. Your transactions will be fixed. The world isn’t over. Everything will work out. Just CALM DOWN.
Layal Brown
My sister deals with impatient people everyday at her work. Everyday she comes home with a new story about the customers. They’ll complain to her if they’ve had to wait five minutes in line as if it was my sister’s fault. Or even worse, they’ll get snappy at her if there was a mistake on a previous transaction, although she was not even the one who processed it in the first place. In her words, “Everyone just needs to chill out!”
I’ll admit that I am a victim of our rushed society. One of my pet peeve’s is when I’m stuck behind someone walking ridiculously slow. I can’t stand it. However, as I was on my way home for spring break I had to stop to load my SmartTrip metro card. So I’m fiddling in my purse for money and a girl comes to get in line and she stands right… next…to…me. I turn around and there she is hovering over me with her arms crossed waiting to get a metro ticket. Really now. I wanted to tell her that standing on my tail isn’t going to get her a ticket any faster. Could I have some personal space? We’re all going to get on the metro. I’ll also mention that the same thing happened to me on my way back to D.C. A man stood right next to me as I was loading my card, impatiently waiting his turn.
People just need to learn how to take a breath and relax. You’ll get to your destination. There’s nothing you can do if the train isn’t coming until another ten minutes. Your transactions will be fixed. The world isn’t over. Everything will work out. Just CALM DOWN.
Layal Brown
strange death
It strange how quickly something as innocent as falling on a bunny hill ski slope can change into a tragic death for a talented individual. We all take things as simple as skiing as granted, and no one thinks that a small bump on the head will turn into a brain injury that kills them. Most people are shocked by the news, and there are plenty of blogs out there discussing the most recent The Parent Trap actress, Natasha Richardson, death. James Meikle writing for Gaurdian, a blog from the U.K. suggests that perhaps it should be a requirement for people participating in sports such as skiing to wear a helmet to prevent freak accidents such as the one Richardson experienced. Many other bloggers mention that she didn’t receive medical attention immediately after the fall either. ..and I doubt she thought she needed to. It’s just an unfortunate thing that makes us all wonder when where we should take precautions, and what we should consider something serious enough to be looked at.
~Amanda Yerby
~Amanda Yerby
Tent Cities
By Alissa Scheller
A few weeks ago, Oprah decided my hometown’s tent-city was a newsworthy story. I don’t really know why, though.
Of course, there’s the recession, which has unarguably caused people to lose their homes, and I’m not denying that Sacramento is home to many people who do not, in fact, have homes.
But the tent city near the Sacramento Loaves and Fishes has been there for years. In my memory, at least, there have always been homeless people living down by the river. This is not news.
This article from the Huffington Post discusses the great American tradition of tent cities. Sure, it’s not glamorous, but I can’t quite bring myself to believe it’s news either.
The thing about news is that it’s generally new, and tent cities are not. We had Hoovervilles in the 30s, and John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath years ago.
Sacramento’s Mayor Kevin Johnson recently said that the tent city would be coming down. While I think it’s commendable that the city, along with homeless advocates and others, are doing something to help the people who live there, I have to wonder what the motivation for doing it now is. The tents have been there for years. Did it really need a huge economic recession and Oprah’s mention to become an issue worthy of this much discussion?
A few weeks ago, Oprah decided my hometown’s tent-city was a newsworthy story. I don’t really know why, though.
Of course, there’s the recession, which has unarguably caused people to lose their homes, and I’m not denying that Sacramento is home to many people who do not, in fact, have homes.
But the tent city near the Sacramento Loaves and Fishes has been there for years. In my memory, at least, there have always been homeless people living down by the river. This is not news.
This article from the Huffington Post discusses the great American tradition of tent cities. Sure, it’s not glamorous, but I can’t quite bring myself to believe it’s news either.
The thing about news is that it’s generally new, and tent cities are not. We had Hoovervilles in the 30s, and John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath years ago.
Sacramento’s Mayor Kevin Johnson recently said that the tent city would be coming down. While I think it’s commendable that the city, along with homeless advocates and others, are doing something to help the people who live there, I have to wonder what the motivation for doing it now is. The tents have been there for years. Did it really need a huge economic recession and Oprah’s mention to become an issue worthy of this much discussion?
What Were We Supposed to Write on Again?
By Jordan Coughenour
Epic.
I thought we were supposed to write on Congress, so I was going to do something about DC Voting rights, because it was the most interesting thing I could possibly think of to write about Congress. It always amazes me when TV anchors and bloggers can find something quirky and weird to write about what's happening on 'The Hill." Usually you can tell it's the result of some deep digging. Like when Fox found catfish in the stimulus package. Well- money going to a catfish farm.
My personal take on DC Voting Rights is neither shockingly exciting nor particularly valid. Even if DC did receive actual voting rights, I would most likely not be taking use of them- for two reasons. The first being, that I am registered in Colorado, and plan to keep it that way, thus avoiding my civic duty of forced jury servitude. (I don't really know if it works that way, but 30 Rock says it does, so I'll believe it) The second being that, though I am over 18 years old, a legal US resident and not currently incarcerated, I have not ever voted in an election.
30 Rock demonstrates another brilliant another brilliant way of avoiding jury duty
Voting has been built up to such a mighty expression of liberty and freedom, that do carry out the action of it without the strongest convictions in your preferences seems almost blasphemous nowadays. I mean- did Susan B and the other feminist leaders march and fight just so people like me could bubble in who they might sort of kinda think was the best candidate? I just don't really have that strong of a sway to any party or particular person in politics. When I confer my failure to vote to those around me, their reaction is frequently somewhat akin to that crazy German kid who wanted to play "Unreal Tournament."
Only, you know, with my face as the keyboard
Sometimes I just walk away from the confrontation, but other times I counter back with a witty and intellectual philosophic retort, such as, "Well, did you vote in ComicVine's poll yesterday about which race was the most superior in World of Warcraft?" or "Who did you invest your sacred democratic trust in for today's imdb poll on which Alan Moore adaption was the best?" There's more than one way to express your civic duty! Life's too short to go through it whining about the latest stimulus bill in a droning manner on your politic blog no one who doesn't go home and cry themselves to sleep every night actually reads. Put your trust in something a little more reliable than a politician- the ability of a humor to lighten a dreary time.
Which would you prefer- this video or a HuffPost article about CEO's and back taxes?
The Forgotten Art of Ice-Fishing
Alex Haines
My father comes from Detroit, Michigan, a state home to Swedish ice-fishers of every variety, temperament, and disposition. It is simply a lost art that we, as a society, have forsaken due to our great neglect and tragic forgetfulness. Without the great ice-fishers in our time, generations of northern Americans, including my father, would have had nothing to survive on or satiate themselves.
Longer fishing expeditions can be mounted with simple structures. Larger, heated structures can make multi-day fishing trips possible, but these are eschewed by many seasoned fishers, who fish with no protective structure, attired only in heavy winter wear.[citation needed].
A structure with various local names, but often called an ice shanty, ice shack, fish house, shack, bobhouse, or ice hut, is sometimes used. These are dragged or trailered onto the lake using a vehicle such as a snowmobile, ATV or truck. The two most commonly used types are portable and permanent. The portable houses are often made of a heavy material that is usually water tight. The two most common types of portable houses are when your shelter flips behind the user when not needed, or a pop up shelter so the only means out is through a door. The permanent shelters are made of wood or metal and usually have wheels for easy transport. They can be as basic as a bunk heater and holes or having satellite TV, bathrooms, stoves, full size beds and may appear to be more like a mobile home than a fishing house.
In North America, ice fishing is often a social activity. Sometimes, the consumption of alcohol is involved. Some resorts have fish houses that are rented out by the day, often, shuttle service via Snow Track or other vehicles modified to drive on ice is provided.
In Finland, solitary and contemplative isolation is often the object of the pastime. In Finland, fishhouses are a rare occurrence, but wearing a sealed and insulated drysuit designed of space-age fabric is not.
In North America, Houses appear to create a city at locations where fishing is best.
Many fishermen will go out with 2.5 inches of good ice for walking, but the recommended is 4", 5-6 inches for Sleds (Snow Machines, Snowmobiles) 7-12 for light cars and 14-16 inches for full sized trucks. Care must be taken, because sometimes ice will not form in areas with swift currents, leaving open areas which freeze with much thinner ice. On the Great Lakes, off-shore winds can break off miles-wide pans of ice stranding large numbers of fishermen. Just such a circumstance occurred in Lake Erie in Feb. '09, with 100 fisherman having to be rescued by helicopters, local authorities and the Coast Guard, and one man who'd fallen into the water dying on the rescue flight.
Late-winter warm spells can destroy the texture of the ice, which, while still of the required thickness, will not adequately support weight. It is called "rotten ice" or soft ice and is exceedingly dangerous. Some ice-fishermen will continue to fish, since even with the bad ice normally 8 inches is more than enough. Fisherman may carry a self-rescue device made of two spiked handles connected by a string to pull themselves out of the water and onto the ice.
Many cars, trucks, SUVs, snowmobiles, and fish houses fall through the ice each year. Current environmental regulations require the speedy recovery of the vehicle or structure in this situation. Divers must be hired, and when the trouble occurs far from shore, helicopters may be employed for hoisting.
Other risks associated with ice fishing include carbon monoxide poisoning from fish house heaters and frostbite due to prolonged exposure to wind and low temperatures, although most new houses are fitted with air exchange systems that allow air flow preventing poisoning.
My father comes from Detroit, Michigan, a state home to Swedish ice-fishers of every variety, temperament, and disposition. It is simply a lost art that we, as a society, have forsaken due to our great neglect and tragic forgetfulness. Without the great ice-fishers in our time, generations of northern Americans, including my father, would have had nothing to survive on or satiate themselves.
Longer fishing expeditions can be mounted with simple structures. Larger, heated structures can make multi-day fishing trips possible, but these are eschewed by many seasoned fishers, who fish with no protective structure, attired only in heavy winter wear.[citation needed].
A structure with various local names, but often called an ice shanty, ice shack, fish house, shack, bobhouse, or ice hut, is sometimes used. These are dragged or trailered onto the lake using a vehicle such as a snowmobile, ATV or truck. The two most commonly used types are portable and permanent. The portable houses are often made of a heavy material that is usually water tight. The two most common types of portable houses are when your shelter flips behind the user when not needed, or a pop up shelter so the only means out is through a door. The permanent shelters are made of wood or metal and usually have wheels for easy transport. They can be as basic as a bunk heater and holes or having satellite TV, bathrooms, stoves, full size beds and may appear to be more like a mobile home than a fishing house.
In North America, ice fishing is often a social activity. Sometimes, the consumption of alcohol is involved. Some resorts have fish houses that are rented out by the day, often, shuttle service via Snow Track or other vehicles modified to drive on ice is provided.
In Finland, solitary and contemplative isolation is often the object of the pastime. In Finland, fishhouses are a rare occurrence, but wearing a sealed and insulated drysuit designed of space-age fabric is not.
In North America, Houses appear to create a city at locations where fishing is best.
Many fishermen will go out with 2.5 inches of good ice for walking, but the recommended is 4", 5-6 inches for Sleds (Snow Machines, Snowmobiles) 7-12 for light cars and 14-16 inches for full sized trucks. Care must be taken, because sometimes ice will not form in areas with swift currents, leaving open areas which freeze with much thinner ice. On the Great Lakes, off-shore winds can break off miles-wide pans of ice stranding large numbers of fishermen. Just such a circumstance occurred in Lake Erie in Feb. '09, with 100 fisherman having to be rescued by helicopters, local authorities and the Coast Guard, and one man who'd fallen into the water dying on the rescue flight.
Late-winter warm spells can destroy the texture of the ice, which, while still of the required thickness, will not adequately support weight. It is called "rotten ice" or soft ice and is exceedingly dangerous. Some ice-fishermen will continue to fish, since even with the bad ice normally 8 inches is more than enough. Fisherman may carry a self-rescue device made of two spiked handles connected by a string to pull themselves out of the water and onto the ice.
Many cars, trucks, SUVs, snowmobiles, and fish houses fall through the ice each year. Current environmental regulations require the speedy recovery of the vehicle or structure in this situation. Divers must be hired, and when the trouble occurs far from shore, helicopters may be employed for hoisting.
Other risks associated with ice fishing include carbon monoxide poisoning from fish house heaters and frostbite due to prolonged exposure to wind and low temperatures, although most new houses are fitted with air exchange systems that allow air flow preventing poisoning.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
What's going on in Congress Right Now?
-dara duratinsky
I believe the topic for this week was issues in Congress right now. According to huffingtonpost.com, on Thursday (tomorrow) Congress will be voting on taxing AIG bonuses. I will be the first to admit that not matter how many articles I read on the economy, AIG, bailouts, whatever, all the information is just way over my head. But, I do understand that there is anger over the AIG bailout. But I did a little research and according to an abc news blog, AIG were supposed to receive under $200 million in bonuses. Bonuses? Really? AIG was supposed to get $30 billion from the government. Bonuses are unnecessary, gaudy, and if I were in government with THIS economy, I would definitely tax the bonuses.
Okay, I wanted to put an intellectual piece in my blog about Congress right now. But I also think that this whole twitter business is hilarious! I'm a little late on the topic but, in a way twitter can be a medium, possibly a type of blog. So, here's a blog on twitter. During Obama's speech to Congress journalists were shocked to see so many politicians on their phones, twittering. Every news outlet tried to describe to their middle-age audience what twitter was. Here's a note to everyday people twittering: I really do not need to know what you're doing, the exact time you're doing it. I could care less if you just scored high points on tetris, or are painting your nails. However, I see how twitter can come in handy when it comes to politicians. tweetcongress.com is a great website to follow twitter updates from those in Congress. I find it interesting to read Chris Dodd's update about his Executive Compensation Amendment and Nancy Pelosi's update that the Chairman and CEO of AIG testified in Congress. But to Claire McCaskill: I do not care that you are making Chicken Parm tonight, or what non-fat ingredients you are using.
I believe the topic for this week was issues in Congress right now. According to huffingtonpost.com, on Thursday (tomorrow) Congress will be voting on taxing AIG bonuses. I will be the first to admit that not matter how many articles I read on the economy, AIG, bailouts, whatever, all the information is just way over my head. But, I do understand that there is anger over the AIG bailout. But I did a little research and according to an abc news blog, AIG were supposed to receive under $200 million in bonuses. Bonuses? Really? AIG was supposed to get $30 billion from the government. Bonuses are unnecessary, gaudy, and if I were in government with THIS economy, I would definitely tax the bonuses.
Okay, I wanted to put an intellectual piece in my blog about Congress right now. But I also think that this whole twitter business is hilarious! I'm a little late on the topic but, in a way twitter can be a medium, possibly a type of blog. So, here's a blog on twitter. During Obama's speech to Congress journalists were shocked to see so many politicians on their phones, twittering. Every news outlet tried to describe to their middle-age audience what twitter was. Here's a note to everyday people twittering: I really do not need to know what you're doing, the exact time you're doing it. I could care less if you just scored high points on tetris, or are painting your nails. However, I see how twitter can come in handy when it comes to politicians. tweetcongress.com is a great website to follow twitter updates from those in Congress. I find it interesting to read Chris Dodd's update about his Executive Compensation Amendment and Nancy Pelosi's update that the Chairman and CEO of AIG testified in Congress. But to Claire McCaskill: I do not care that you are making Chicken Parm tonight, or what non-fat ingredients you are using.
Jim Cramer gets Crossfired
By Chris Collins
Wow.
A girl just walked past my door panting, "Oh my god....Brittany....guess what....I was watching Wheel of Fortune and this girl....SHE HAD THE SAME DRESS I HAVE!"
Oh, college. You promised sanctuary from such people. How you dissapoint.
Anyways, Jim Cramer.
He went on the "Daily Show" last Thursday and, in a replay of the Stewart-Crossfire incident 5 years ago, was exposed as a media hack who not only shunned his journalistic duties but had a role in the economic collapse. So his television career is screwed.
And I'm not sure how I feel about that.
On one hand, he's a reckless prick. His show encouraged short selling, where you buy stocks and quickly sell them for a higher price soon after. I THINK that's what it is. Anyway, he helped convince viewers to buy into these lucrative yet high risk stocks that brought on the recession.
If you've never seen Kramer's show "Mad Money," watch it. Or watch a clip via youtube; it might not be airing on CNBC much longer. It's so frickin bizarre. The set might have been designed by Nickelodean, or maybe it was borrowed from the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 people. There's big red buttons; they make noises. There's flashing lights, loud red bits of plastic. And yet Kramer manages to act gautier than his surroundings. He hobbles about the stage, sleeves rolled up, eyes pulsating, forehead sweating, face reddening.
It's a winning format: an accesible, entertaining stock market show that makes investing short and easy. Don't research where your money's going, just listen to Cramer.
He's ace at what he does.
He really is. Want proof? Jane Sherman. She's Brian's mom (a friend from home.) WASPY, blond, lock jawed, conservative, always clad in golf wear or inconspicous formal attire, she would sit in the sunroom of the family's white-washed lakehouse (complete with gym and wine cellar) in a white wicker sofa surrounded by stacks of Wall Street Journals and a TV- on which Mad Money would play.
It was funny. Partly due to her reserved disposition, but mainly because we all knew SHE knew her shit, having managed a Los Angeles investment firm in the 80's. Why spend time with Cramer? "Because he REALLY know his stuff. He's it," she'd respond.
Cramer isn't just some cheap layman's sage. He's revered amongst the elite, regarded as one of the best analysts and financial reporters out there. And yet he dedicates his time to a program that promotes lazy entrepreneuralism. It asks the viewer to buy without asking why, because it's easier that way, because Cramer says so.
Here's where Stewart was pissed. Cramer, Stewart said, failed his responsibilities as a financial journalist. He steered his viewers away from the bigger picture and focused on specifics that might make them rich. Worse yet, those "specifics" were risky buys, the ones that led to the collapse. Stewart went as far as accusing Cramer of erroding the work ethic of Americans, by fostering an environment in which a game of economic roullette outweighed the value of real work.
It was intense. And while Stewart did a fantastic (and neccesary) job of reprimanding Cramer, using the Daily Show's arsenal of archival footage to expose the man as a coniving twit, I can't help but ask, was it fair?
Cramer did, after all, have the guts to come on the show, to participate in a real dialogue between Wall Street elitist and outsider, and to publicly accept his share of the blame for the meltdown. His decision was a far cry from the behavior exhibited by bank CEO's and investment guru's since October, who've isolated themselves from the public in an effort to avoid blame or worse, continue to operate under the delusion that their methods need not be altered.
The interview's ramifications won't be good for Cramer. His credibility lies in ashes. His show will be off the air soon as a result. Sure, he has blood on his hands. But it's unnerving that he's the only one who seems to be paying for his actions. Or ever will. Thing is, after Stewart's interview, the likelihood of other wrongdoers sitting down with serious, probing journalists seems grim.
Wow.
A girl just walked past my door panting, "Oh my god....Brittany....guess what....I was watching Wheel of Fortune and this girl....SHE HAD THE SAME DRESS I HAVE!"
Oh, college. You promised sanctuary from such people. How you dissapoint.
Anyways, Jim Cramer.
He went on the "Daily Show" last Thursday and, in a replay of the Stewart-Crossfire incident 5 years ago, was exposed as a media hack who not only shunned his journalistic duties but had a role in the economic collapse. So his television career is screwed.
And I'm not sure how I feel about that.
On one hand, he's a reckless prick. His show encouraged short selling, where you buy stocks and quickly sell them for a higher price soon after. I THINK that's what it is. Anyway, he helped convince viewers to buy into these lucrative yet high risk stocks that brought on the recession.
If you've never seen Kramer's show "Mad Money," watch it. Or watch a clip via youtube; it might not be airing on CNBC much longer. It's so frickin bizarre. The set might have been designed by Nickelodean, or maybe it was borrowed from the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 people. There's big red buttons; they make noises. There's flashing lights, loud red bits of plastic. And yet Kramer manages to act gautier than his surroundings. He hobbles about the stage, sleeves rolled up, eyes pulsating, forehead sweating, face reddening.
It's a winning format: an accesible, entertaining stock market show that makes investing short and easy. Don't research where your money's going, just listen to Cramer.
He's ace at what he does.
He really is. Want proof? Jane Sherman. She's Brian's mom (a friend from home.) WASPY, blond, lock jawed, conservative, always clad in golf wear or inconspicous formal attire, she would sit in the sunroom of the family's white-washed lakehouse (complete with gym and wine cellar) in a white wicker sofa surrounded by stacks of Wall Street Journals and a TV- on which Mad Money would play.
It was funny. Partly due to her reserved disposition, but mainly because we all knew SHE knew her shit, having managed a Los Angeles investment firm in the 80's. Why spend time with Cramer? "Because he REALLY know his stuff. He's it," she'd respond.
Cramer isn't just some cheap layman's sage. He's revered amongst the elite, regarded as one of the best analysts and financial reporters out there. And yet he dedicates his time to a program that promotes lazy entrepreneuralism. It asks the viewer to buy without asking why, because it's easier that way, because Cramer says so.
Here's where Stewart was pissed. Cramer, Stewart said, failed his responsibilities as a financial journalist. He steered his viewers away from the bigger picture and focused on specifics that might make them rich. Worse yet, those "specifics" were risky buys, the ones that led to the collapse. Stewart went as far as accusing Cramer of erroding the work ethic of Americans, by fostering an environment in which a game of economic roullette outweighed the value of real work.
It was intense. And while Stewart did a fantastic (and neccesary) job of reprimanding Cramer, using the Daily Show's arsenal of archival footage to expose the man as a coniving twit, I can't help but ask, was it fair?
Cramer did, after all, have the guts to come on the show, to participate in a real dialogue between Wall Street elitist and outsider, and to publicly accept his share of the blame for the meltdown. His decision was a far cry from the behavior exhibited by bank CEO's and investment guru's since October, who've isolated themselves from the public in an effort to avoid blame or worse, continue to operate under the delusion that their methods need not be altered.
The interview's ramifications won't be good for Cramer. His credibility lies in ashes. His show will be off the air soon as a result. Sure, he has blood on his hands. But it's unnerving that he's the only one who seems to be paying for his actions. Or ever will. Thing is, after Stewart's interview, the likelihood of other wrongdoers sitting down with serious, probing journalists seems grim.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Earth Hour
Kate Pinkerton
What will you be doing on March 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm?
I will be turning off my lights. I will be part of one of the biggest environmental movements. I am going to push for change.
So, what are you doing?
Hopefully you will also participate in Earth Hour, one hour when the entire world will turn off their lights. Major landmarks such as the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge and Rome's Colessium will go dark as we take a stance on our environmental future. This started 2 years ago in Australia where 2.2 million people turned off their lights, and it grew last year with 50 million people across the world turning off their lights for an hour. This year, Earth Hour states that their goal is 1 Billion people, and so far a large amount of people have committed.
This Earth Hour is especially important because turning off your lights is like a vote for the Earth, according to Earth Hour.org. This vote matters in the upcoming decision at the conference in Copenhagen that will decide the future international policies on Environmental standards and regulations. We need to show the world we care, and that we want strong Environmental Policies.
Last year had some dramatic results. Obviously many more people participated-2.2 to 50 million people is a huge jump.
The White House obviously did not participate in 2008 and it will be interesting to see if Obama convinces the White House to participate. Google even participated last year. According to the 2008 video, Sydney's original goal was to reduce energy use by 5% during the hour, and they reduced it by more than 10%! If Earth Hour reaches its goal, the environmental effects within that hour will be amazing!
Sources such as the Rebel Yell suggest many different ways of experiencing the hour. One suggestion is having a candlelight party with card games. Candlelight is something that people do not experience enough. While it is a slight fire hazard, especially if the card games involve alcohol, the atmosphere that candlelight creates is magical. Many other fun things happen in the dark- flashlight tag, hide and seek, sleeping...etc.
Colleges such as Ohio University are pledging to turn off their lights for the hour. This is in their favor since OU's price per hour of keeping the lights on is $686. American University would benefit a great deal in this economic crisis simply by encouraging environmental practices like conserving energy. Eco-Sense, AU's Environmental Club, has made an effort to convince students to participate in Earth Hour, but we could definitely make a stronger one.
Earth Hour obviously doesn't mean that we should keep our lights off all the time. It just is something to show that a lot of people care about the environment. There are clean energy alternatives to keeping the world lit, but it's also important to remember to turn off lights when they are not needed. Wasting energy is a huge source of pollution.
It's weird that something so simple can have such a large effect. It has grown so much that it is obvious that environment is important to a lot of people, cities, organizations, and businesses. This is the kind of push we need to show representatives going to Copenhagen this fall that we want environmental progress in the world.
If you are interested, there is a facebook group you can join!
What will you be doing on March 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm?
I will be turning off my lights. I will be part of one of the biggest environmental movements. I am going to push for change.
So, what are you doing?
Hopefully you will also participate in Earth Hour, one hour when the entire world will turn off their lights. Major landmarks such as the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge and Rome's Colessium will go dark as we take a stance on our environmental future. This started 2 years ago in Australia where 2.2 million people turned off their lights, and it grew last year with 50 million people across the world turning off their lights for an hour. This year, Earth Hour states that their goal is 1 Billion people, and so far a large amount of people have committed.
This Earth Hour is especially important because turning off your lights is like a vote for the Earth, according to Earth Hour.org. This vote matters in the upcoming decision at the conference in Copenhagen that will decide the future international policies on Environmental standards and regulations. We need to show the world we care, and that we want strong Environmental Policies.
Last year had some dramatic results. Obviously many more people participated-2.2 to 50 million people is a huge jump.
The White House obviously did not participate in 2008 and it will be interesting to see if Obama convinces the White House to participate. Google even participated last year. According to the 2008 video, Sydney's original goal was to reduce energy use by 5% during the hour, and they reduced it by more than 10%! If Earth Hour reaches its goal, the environmental effects within that hour will be amazing!
Sources such as the Rebel Yell suggest many different ways of experiencing the hour. One suggestion is having a candlelight party with card games. Candlelight is something that people do not experience enough. While it is a slight fire hazard, especially if the card games involve alcohol, the atmosphere that candlelight creates is magical. Many other fun things happen in the dark- flashlight tag, hide and seek, sleeping...etc.
Colleges such as Ohio University are pledging to turn off their lights for the hour. This is in their favor since OU's price per hour of keeping the lights on is $686. American University would benefit a great deal in this economic crisis simply by encouraging environmental practices like conserving energy. Eco-Sense, AU's Environmental Club, has made an effort to convince students to participate in Earth Hour, but we could definitely make a stronger one.
Earth Hour obviously doesn't mean that we should keep our lights off all the time. It just is something to show that a lot of people care about the environment. There are clean energy alternatives to keeping the world lit, but it's also important to remember to turn off lights when they are not needed. Wasting energy is a huge source of pollution.
It's weird that something so simple can have such a large effect. It has grown so much that it is obvious that environment is important to a lot of people, cities, organizations, and businesses. This is the kind of push we need to show representatives going to Copenhagen this fall that we want environmental progress in the world.
If you are interested, there is a facebook group you can join!
Monday, March 16, 2009
America's Beef With Nudity
When one of my housemates came back from spring break in Miami she commented about how she was disturbed by a topless beach she "accidentally" stumbled upon. Knowing her it probably was an accident, but that's aside the point.
So I asked her, "What was so bad about it, do those women have something you're not accustomed to?" She snapped back at me and said that people should not be naked in front of complete strangers. But boy do I love playing the devil's advocate. So I pressed her for some better reasoning, "But nudity itself isn't harmful. If I'm just walking around the beach with nothing on, how does that affect you?"
She stumbled for an answer. Ultimately she simply said that she doesn't want to see other people
naked. Fair enough. I still didn't think that was good reasoning to force people to wear clothes, but she was getting a bit annoyed and I didn't feel like having to eat dinner by myself so I dropped the issue.
But it did keep me thinking about our perception of nudity for some time. In the United States nudity is seen as a taboo, something that must be avoided for us to remain pure and innocent. That's why kids giggle when their parents accidentally take them to that PG-13 movie that shows a nipple.
But why are we like that? Why is there such a pervasiveness to nudity? There seems to be a double standard.The image to the right is ostensibly crude: we see David's penis. But no... it's ART! But if that wasn't a statue and was just some man standing there being photographed (like this) it would be considered soft pornography by some.
But when it comes to advertising we're back to no holds barred. Calvin Klein does a great job selling their underwear by selling sex. Just take a look at the image below. And that ad is perfectly acceptable for us to admire in any magazine that we would let our 12 year old kids read. Some of those ads can be found in the magazines in your doctor's office.
And when it comes to movies... 3 second penis or boob shots are all the rage. But what is interesting is that while boobs appear on the TV for sexuality purposes, a penis only comes on the screen to make people laugh. Remember that scene from Borat, I'm sure you do. Some people would just say thats because a hanging testicle isn't as "beautiful" as a women's bosom. And that is what really bothers me. That is only true because our society has constructed a man's genitalia to be "ugly" while a women's bare chest is seen as "artistic" and "sexual." There is absolutely no good reason for that. It is an entirely artifical creation that we have developed.
Now how does this all relate to nude beaches? I contend that the only reason nude beaches are not the norm in the U.S. is because our society has constructed an image of nude beaches as being places where really dirty things happen and where everyone is just flaunting their sexuality. And the movie industry has done a great job on entrenching this notion by the way. Just as we've been primed to view David's penis (above) as artistic, we've been trained to think of nude beaches as "disturbing" and X-rated.
So I asked her, "What was so bad about it, do those women have something you're not accustomed to?" She snapped back at me and said that people should not be naked in front of complete strangers. But boy do I love playing the devil's advocate. So I pressed her for some better reasoning, "But nudity itself isn't harmful. If I'm just walking around the beach with nothing on, how does that affect you?"
She stumbled for an answer. Ultimately she simply said that she doesn't want to see other people
naked. Fair enough. I still didn't think that was good reasoning to force people to wear clothes, but she was getting a bit annoyed and I didn't feel like having to eat dinner by myself so I dropped the issue.But it did keep me thinking about our perception of nudity for some time. In the United States nudity is seen as a taboo, something that must be avoided for us to remain pure and innocent. That's why kids giggle when their parents accidentally take them to that PG-13 movie that shows a nipple.
But why are we like that? Why is there such a pervasiveness to nudity? There seems to be a double standard.The image to the right is ostensibly crude: we see David's penis. But no... it's ART! But if that wasn't a statue and was just some man standing there being photographed (like this) it would be considered soft pornography by some.
But when it comes to advertising we're back to no holds barred. Calvin Klein does a great job selling their underwear by selling sex. Just take a look at the image below. And that ad is perfectly acceptable for us to admire in any magazine that we would let our 12 year old kids read. Some of those ads can be found in the magazines in your doctor's office.
And when it comes to movies... 3 second penis or boob shots are all the rage. But what is interesting is that while boobs appear on the TV for sexuality purposes, a penis only comes on the screen to make people laugh. Remember that scene from Borat, I'm sure you do. Some people would just say thats because a hanging testicle isn't as "beautiful" as a women's bosom. And that is what really bothers me. That is only true because our society has constructed a man's genitalia to be "ugly" while a women's bare chest is seen as "artistic" and "sexual." There is absolutely no good reason for that. It is an entirely artifical creation that we have developed.Now how does this all relate to nude beaches? I contend that the only reason nude beaches are not the norm in the U.S. is because our society has constructed an image of nude beaches as being places where really dirty things happen and where everyone is just flaunting their sexuality. And the movie industry has done a great job on entrenching this notion by the way. Just as we've been primed to view David's penis (above) as artistic, we've been trained to think of nude beaches as "disturbing" and X-rated.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Mooching
What bothers me more than anything is someone who does not contribute and who takes a free ride from those who do shell out. There are unwritten rules within our society of college students that some people do not understand.
During college there are certain things that a group should pay for, such as a party. The problem, with a party is, someone always has to pay and someone ALWAYS stiffs another. There are always those people who say, “they will pay” or “later” but that’s a bunch of BS.
It is not that big of deal in retrospect, it is just annoying when some people do not contribute their fair share and expect to gain the same privileges as someone who does pay.
What people do not understand when in a social group or organization is how to not only share the cost fiscally, but also the cost of time and effort. For example, cleaning up. If you use the dish, you clean the dish, it is that SIMPLE, but some people think they are above cleaning up after themselves.
Another annoying thing that someone who mooches does is minimal work in a group. Someone will pick a smart group so they have to put less effort in and get a good grade. Again, it goes back to doing their equal share and contributing to the whole team.
Teams rely on people to work together, businesses rely on people to stay afloat by everyone doing their own part. When one person does not do their job to 100%, then everyone has to pick up their slack and it can get annoying.
PEOPLE NEED TO STOP MOOCHING.
-Brian Galm
During college there are certain things that a group should pay for, such as a party. The problem, with a party is, someone always has to pay and someone ALWAYS stiffs another. There are always those people who say, “they will pay” or “later” but that’s a bunch of BS.
It is not that big of deal in retrospect, it is just annoying when some people do not contribute their fair share and expect to gain the same privileges as someone who does pay.
What people do not understand when in a social group or organization is how to not only share the cost fiscally, but also the cost of time and effort. For example, cleaning up. If you use the dish, you clean the dish, it is that SIMPLE, but some people think they are above cleaning up after themselves.
Another annoying thing that someone who mooches does is minimal work in a group. Someone will pick a smart group so they have to put less effort in and get a good grade. Again, it goes back to doing their equal share and contributing to the whole team.
Teams rely on people to work together, businesses rely on people to stay afloat by everyone doing their own part. When one person does not do their job to 100%, then everyone has to pick up their slack and it can get annoying.
PEOPLE NEED TO STOP MOOCHING.
-Brian Galm
Housing Crisis
Brian Galm
Living in the city and in the dorms, I do not see much of the problems with the housing crisis that affect many people across the country. Going home for spring break has shown me that there is a real problem and that America is being hit hard. In the city, we see it thriving; nothing is closing as much as it is in the suburbs. After looking into it more, I see that the housing crisis is really affecting a lot more than many think.
It not only affects the thousands of home owners, but it affects lenders, builders, as well as students who cannot qualify for student loans due to the mortgages. My neighbor is a builder and he has lost much business because no one is buying houses. Not only is the housing industry affected, but it seems that now its time for the auto industry to be affected by the real estate foreclosure crisis. With banks and auto lenders tightening their loans and worried of getting caught in the recession, hundreds of American consumers are not being able to get any loans.
So now, people are not buying cars, which then leads to less jobs in factories with these large companies such as GM, and less money in the system. It seems like this is a never-ending process.
With real estate the number one industry and the auto industry the second, if these two fail, then there does not seem to be a back up.
The housing crisis is the first that needs to be solved and if that works itself out, then people will be more confident in society.
Living in the city and in the dorms, I do not see much of the problems with the housing crisis that affect many people across the country. Going home for spring break has shown me that there is a real problem and that America is being hit hard. In the city, we see it thriving; nothing is closing as much as it is in the suburbs. After looking into it more, I see that the housing crisis is really affecting a lot more than many think.
It not only affects the thousands of home owners, but it affects lenders, builders, as well as students who cannot qualify for student loans due to the mortgages. My neighbor is a builder and he has lost much business because no one is buying houses. Not only is the housing industry affected, but it seems that now its time for the auto industry to be affected by the real estate foreclosure crisis. With banks and auto lenders tightening their loans and worried of getting caught in the recession, hundreds of American consumers are not being able to get any loans.
So now, people are not buying cars, which then leads to less jobs in factories with these large companies such as GM, and less money in the system. It seems like this is a never-ending process.
With real estate the number one industry and the auto industry the second, if these two fail, then there does not seem to be a back up.
The housing crisis is the first that needs to be solved and if that works itself out, then people will be more confident in society.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Housing Crisis in Simple Terms Please
After reading some blogs on the housing crisis, I still did not understand the situation completely. Many blogs either complained or praised the actions of the government but I wish they would have explained the situation in simple, elementary terms. I am not an economics major and neither is most of the country, I didn’t understand some of the technical terms the blogs threw at me.
Surprisingly I found a housing crisis blog in the Comics/Humor section of the New York Times of all places. It discussed the idea of nationalizing banks and how the government was thinking about basing its banks off the Swedish model. I just wish it explained what exactly the Swedish model was and explained plain and sweet the logistics of the crisis. Rather than simply mocking the government’s decisions, a mixture of opinion and fact would have been nice.
Another problem I noticed with these housing crisis blogs was that they were ridiculously long. Thehousingbubblebog.com gave a good analysis of the crisis filled with quotes of various people’s opinions. But the blog went on for at least five pages worth of information. I quickly lost interest when I glanced at the shrinking scroll bar.
To keep to the point: economic bloggers should make their explanations short and in simple terms so that the average population knows what the heck is going on.
Layal Brown
Surprisingly I found a housing crisis blog in the Comics/Humor section of the New York Times of all places. It discussed the idea of nationalizing banks and how the government was thinking about basing its banks off the Swedish model. I just wish it explained what exactly the Swedish model was and explained plain and sweet the logistics of the crisis. Rather than simply mocking the government’s decisions, a mixture of opinion and fact would have been nice.
Another problem I noticed with these housing crisis blogs was that they were ridiculously long. Thehousingbubblebog.com gave a good analysis of the crisis filled with quotes of various people’s opinions. But the blog went on for at least five pages worth of information. I quickly lost interest when I glanced at the shrinking scroll bar.
To keep to the point: economic bloggers should make their explanations short and in simple terms so that the average population knows what the heck is going on.
Layal Brown
Thursday, March 5, 2009
How the Housing Crisis Affects Immigrants
By Michelle Koyanagi
The housing crisis is a huge issue in America right now, not just because of the foreclosures, but because it includes so much more than just “housing.” The blogs I’ve seen reflect this. We cannot talk about the housing crisis without also talking about the economy, immigration, the government, the banks…etc. There are so many angles one could take with this issue. The one that comes to my mind is immigration.
It is no surprise that the housing crisis affects many immigrants in America. One of the blogs entitled, “Housing Crisis Hurts Immigrants More” (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/housing-crisis-hurts-immigrants-more/?partner=rss&emc=rss) talked about the housing situation for immigrants in New York. The blog talked about a report entitled, “Confronting the Housing Squeeze: Challenges Facing Immigrant Tenants, and What New York Can Do.” The report even accused some private equity investors of using questionable tactics to raise rents because of purchases they made in places with high immigrant populations.
I understand that business exists solely to make profits, but hearing about reports such as this one only makes me feel more shameful of American capitalism. I realize there are many more corrupt deeds that go on every day with businesses, but instead of hearing more and more about these kinds of wrongdoings, I wish there were more stories out there that talk about the good things and the good practices businesses are doing. Hearing about investors that follow the law and practice good business tactics would not generate as much “buzz” as hearing reports that have uncovered the “wrongdoings” of businesses, but it would make some Americans feel a little more hopeful about the future state of things—at least I think so.
Going back to the report, the author also talked about some tactics New York immigrants are using such as creating two family homes to deal with the housing shortage problem. Some of those tactics are illegal under the current building and zoning regulations, but the blogger did mention a proposal in the report that suggested legalizing those units that are currently illegal but safe. I completely agree with that proposal and I hope it happens. This definitely is not a solution to the housing shortage, but it just goes to show that people are doing what they can to deal with the situation and they should not be punished for that.
The housing crisis is a huge issue in America right now, not just because of the foreclosures, but because it includes so much more than just “housing.” The blogs I’ve seen reflect this. We cannot talk about the housing crisis without also talking about the economy, immigration, the government, the banks…etc. There are so many angles one could take with this issue. The one that comes to my mind is immigration.
It is no surprise that the housing crisis affects many immigrants in America. One of the blogs entitled, “Housing Crisis Hurts Immigrants More” (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/housing-crisis-hurts-immigrants-more/?partner=rss&emc=rss) talked about the housing situation for immigrants in New York. The blog talked about a report entitled, “Confronting the Housing Squeeze: Challenges Facing Immigrant Tenants, and What New York Can Do.” The report even accused some private equity investors of using questionable tactics to raise rents because of purchases they made in places with high immigrant populations.
I understand that business exists solely to make profits, but hearing about reports such as this one only makes me feel more shameful of American capitalism. I realize there are many more corrupt deeds that go on every day with businesses, but instead of hearing more and more about these kinds of wrongdoings, I wish there were more stories out there that talk about the good things and the good practices businesses are doing. Hearing about investors that follow the law and practice good business tactics would not generate as much “buzz” as hearing reports that have uncovered the “wrongdoings” of businesses, but it would make some Americans feel a little more hopeful about the future state of things—at least I think so.
Going back to the report, the author also talked about some tactics New York immigrants are using such as creating two family homes to deal with the housing shortage problem. Some of those tactics are illegal under the current building and zoning regulations, but the blogger did mention a proposal in the report that suggested legalizing those units that are currently illegal but safe. I completely agree with that proposal and I hope it happens. This definitely is not a solution to the housing shortage, but it just goes to show that people are doing what they can to deal with the situation and they should not be punished for that.
Simplify, Please
By Alissa Scheller
I really just don’t understand anything financial, and my microeconomics professor will probably back me up on that.
This whole housing crisis is also confusing, but I think I get the basics: people took out loans they couldn’t afford to pay back. Americans seem to like living beyond their means and faking prosperity – which is all fun until you have to pay off your debts.
This article from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paul/federal-efforts-to-suppor_b_170954.html) explained it all to me pretty well. The writer argues that proposals to “bail out” indebted homeowners (in the same vein as TARP, which bailed out financial institutions) is not a solution. He losses are real, and shifting them around won’t do any good.
Most of the articles and blog posts I found about the lending crisis were complicated. They had all this financial jargon and things that I just didn’t understand. I realize that the economy has a lot to do with economics, and therefore economic language is needed to describe it.
However, I strongly suspect that the average American would not understand most of the articles I read about the lending crisis. It was really hard to find anything that simply explained what was going on – most offered intricate plans to “save” the economy – as if we weren’t already past that.
So, this is what I would say to blog writers if I could: write simply, so that others may simply read. Stop it with the jargon. Some of us are just trying to pass econ so we can graduate.
I really just don’t understand anything financial, and my microeconomics professor will probably back me up on that.
This whole housing crisis is also confusing, but I think I get the basics: people took out loans they couldn’t afford to pay back. Americans seem to like living beyond their means and faking prosperity – which is all fun until you have to pay off your debts.
This article from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paul/federal-efforts-to-suppor_b_170954.html) explained it all to me pretty well. The writer argues that proposals to “bail out” indebted homeowners (in the same vein as TARP, which bailed out financial institutions) is not a solution. He losses are real, and shifting them around won’t do any good.
Most of the articles and blog posts I found about the lending crisis were complicated. They had all this financial jargon and things that I just didn’t understand. I realize that the economy has a lot to do with economics, and therefore economic language is needed to describe it.
However, I strongly suspect that the average American would not understand most of the articles I read about the lending crisis. It was really hard to find anything that simply explained what was going on – most offered intricate plans to “save” the economy – as if we weren’t already past that.
So, this is what I would say to blog writers if I could: write simply, so that others may simply read. Stop it with the jargon. Some of us are just trying to pass econ so we can graduate.
Foreclosure Confusion
-Dara Duratinsky
I will be the first to admit that anything about finances confuses me. When it comes to the economy and housing foreclosures, I need a book from the ".....for dummies" collection. This is why I am so disappointed by the many blogs I read about the housing foreclosure crisis. I can't possibly be the only person in this country who does not fully grasp what's going on, and all that the media is telling me is that there's a HUGE problem, and I should probably be worried. More legitimate news blogs like huffingtonpost.com seem to be the biggest offenders. Either that, or I am a terrible researcher.
In an article dated Feb. 15, 2009 from huffingtonpost.com, the writer, Hurst, goes on and on about how there is a financial crisis and a housing foreclosure crisis. The most he goes into detail about this subject is that the U.S. is in deep and the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. Oh, and did you know that the Republicans and Democrats are not agreeing on the stimulus bill? Seriously Hurst? I don't know how many times i've read and heard about how much worse our economy can get or how much Democrats and Republicans can not agree. Can't you give me anything new?
Though I am not a frequent visitor of blogs, I can't recall reading anything that tells me about the housing crisis in average American speak. I want to know what exactly got us into this mess and how exactly this stimulus bill is going to effect ordinary Americans. And please, don't just tell me that the bill "aims to save or create as many as 3.5 million jobs through massive government investment while boosting consumer spending through modest tax cuts" or that the bill will help homeowner on the brink of foreclosure. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Give me details!
Is Mad Money the Nostradamus of Real Estate?
The housing crisis facing this country due to the sub-prime mortgage failures should be on the mind of every American. This is not a Democratic issue (the GOP didn't provide enough regulation). This is not a Republican issue (don't the Dems know that Fannie and Freddie were spawned by the government?). This issue is American, born and bred.
In the wake of such a fiasco, people do what they do best when they're pissed off and want answers- they find someone to blame. The truth is there are so many entities and individuals to hold at fault that focusing efforts on one of them is pointless and counterproductive. The problem is that all of them fed off each other, refusing to take personal responsibility and use the appropriate judgment.
The government was stupid to pile every single deed in two gigantic companies. The bank was stupid to lend money out to a (potential) homeowner that they knew couldn't afford to pay it back. That same (potential) homeowner was stupid to attempt to take out a loan they knew was outside of their means. Wall Street was stupid to give companies positive credit ratings when they were really in the toilet. The list goes on. They all thought the housing bubble would continue to expand and there was nothing to stop it. Everyone involved deserves an equal slice of the blame.
But instead of being such a pescimist (which essentially equals a realist right now), let's stop taking names and take a look at how/when this catastrophe will end.
Remember, don't tell me the problem, give me the solution.
An LA Times blog quoted Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's "Mad Money" and a former Wall Street insider, as saying that the trough ("bottom" for those who aren't familiar with economic jargon) may arrive as soon as the third quarter of this year... Yay!!! He mentioned how "an increase in sales spurred by falling prices; a slowdown in home building; federal efforts to help troubled borrowers; and population growth that will spur household creation and demand for housing."
And for those who have been hit the hardest, I'm talking to you Arizona, California and Florida, he also went on to say, "The first to fall is usually the first to return."
Booyah Jim...
By Justin Ellis
In the wake of such a fiasco, people do what they do best when they're pissed off and want answers- they find someone to blame. The truth is there are so many entities and individuals to hold at fault that focusing efforts on one of them is pointless and counterproductive. The problem is that all of them fed off each other, refusing to take personal responsibility and use the appropriate judgment.
The government was stupid to pile every single deed in two gigantic companies. The bank was stupid to lend money out to a (potential) homeowner that they knew couldn't afford to pay it back. That same (potential) homeowner was stupid to attempt to take out a loan they knew was outside of their means. Wall Street was stupid to give companies positive credit ratings when they were really in the toilet. The list goes on. They all thought the housing bubble would continue to expand and there was nothing to stop it. Everyone involved deserves an equal slice of the blame.
But instead of being such a pescimist (which essentially equals a realist right now), let's stop taking names and take a look at how/when this catastrophe will end.
Remember, don't tell me the problem, give me the solution.
An LA Times blog quoted Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's "Mad Money" and a former Wall Street insider, as saying that the trough ("bottom" for those who aren't familiar with economic jargon) may arrive as soon as the third quarter of this year... Yay!!! He mentioned how "an increase in sales spurred by falling prices; a slowdown in home building; federal efforts to help troubled borrowers; and population growth that will spur household creation and demand for housing."
And for those who have been hit the hardest, I'm talking to you Arizona, California and Florida, he also went on to say, "The first to fall is usually the first to return."
Booyah Jim...
By Justin Ellis
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Could Immigration Be a Solution?
Reading these blogs about the housing crisis is really giving me a headache. Most of them are blaming one party or another, while others are discussing possible solutions to it. A lot of people are suggesting loosening up the immigration laws. James Stalling on his personal blog says the solution can be immigrants. He proposes to “temporary widen legal immigration quotas to three million with conditions.” He says if we ask them to come, and force them to purchase a home, and live in that home, and put at least 20 % down on that home, and reward them by accelerating a path to new citizenship, then not only is that a great lure to immigrants, but a good solution to our own housing problem. Tori Gattis says,”offer an immediate green card to any foreigner …and it is only good as long as they continue home ownership.” There are others out there that argue that immigration is definitely NOT the answer. Bruce Cain mentions that if we let more immigrants in, then there is a chance they will taking more of our jobs. The job market is already down in most of the US, and by having a policy that makes the legal immigration policy easier, then we are threatening ourselves even more. Diana Olick from CNBC makes a point when she says, “immigrants will ease some of the pain, but let’s not start making our immigration policy arguments based upon mistakes made right here at home.” In a way easing up on immigration due to the housing crisis has its ups, and it has its downs. The housing market would probably go up—if they buy, but that doesn’t mean more jobs would be created as Bruce Cain mentioned. No matter how you look at the housing crisis, coming up with the solutions are sticky situations all over.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A Bug's Life and a Dog eat Dog World: The Housing Crisis from the Animal Perspective
By: Kate Pinkerton
It is all over the news, the web, and word of mouth: The Housing Crisis. Many people are angry because the government is helping people who accepted loans they couldn’t afford. They are mad because their tax dollars are helping people who shouldn’t have taken those loans in the first place to have houses that were beyond their means. They are also mad at the banks who gave those loans out in the first place. It is hard to point the finger of blame to when there were multiple parties involved making bad decisions. It’s one of those times where you just feeling like throwing your hands up in the air and saying, “Whatever! I’m done!” and groan and moan.
The unfair part is that these bad decisions are affecting people who were making the right decisions and living within their means. The people who managed their money well are giving their tax dollars to support the stupid people, but they have to let that happen. This is where it got fuzzy for me. I kept thinking, “Why does it matter whether or not the government helps these people?” Besides it being a moral matter of so many people losing their homes, I couldn’t
understand why these mistakes affected everyone who owns a home. NBC News finally clarified that when people foreclose on their house, the value of that house goes down, as well as the value of the houses around it. On Meet The Press (32 Minutes Into that Video Clip) David Gregory states that the problem is that “doing nothing is not a good option.” Even if people are mad because they made their payments by adding a second job or something, they can’t complain about federal funding because it’s the only way that the housing market will stabilize and their homes will maintain their value. Someone on Meet the Press said that people feel like they are the Ants taking Care of Grasshoppers (A Bug’s Life anyone?) The only difference there is that grasshoppers, at least in the movie A Bug’s Life, pressure ants to do all the work, whereas, this was a case of misjudgement, greed, and ignorance.
Humans aren't the only ones being affected by the housing crisis: pets are too. When homes are foreclosed and people are losing jobs, petowners often have to move to renting situations, where pets aren't always allowed. For example, the Berkshire, where many AU students reside, does not allow dogs, and only allows cats for a certain amount of money. Even if a family who recently foreclosed on their home could keep their pets in their renting situation, they most likely are struggling financially and are forced to give up their pets. According to Shankblog, people are doing this left and right, and not just the typical drop them off in the shelter method- they are simply leaving pets behind in the houses they can't afford. What happens to them, then? So not only do the people who have been handling their money well pay the taxes to support others, but not they have to pay up to $150 for adoption of pets
who are now homeless.
As negative about this situation as I sound, I honestly think the giving of people who have been able to maintain their lives to those who have had some trouble and made bad decisions show how well this country can support each other. We all make mistakes, and this happened to be a widespread, financial crisis-size mistake, but it is something our country can make it through.
It is all over the news, the web, and word of mouth: The Housing Crisis. Many people are angry because the government is helping people who accepted loans they couldn’t afford. They are mad because their tax dollars are helping people who shouldn’t have taken those loans in the first place to have houses that were beyond their means. They are also mad at the banks who gave those loans out in the first place. It is hard to point the finger of blame to when there were multiple parties involved making bad decisions. It’s one of those times where you just feeling like throwing your hands up in the air and saying, “Whatever! I’m done!” and groan and moan.
The unfair part is that these bad decisions are affecting people who were making the right decisions and living within their means. The people who managed their money well are giving their tax dollars to support the stupid people, but they have to let that happen. This is where it got fuzzy for me. I kept thinking, “Why does it matter whether or not the government helps these people?” Besides it being a moral matter of so many people losing their homes, I couldn’t
understand why these mistakes affected everyone who owns a home. NBC News finally clarified that when people foreclose on their house, the value of that house goes down, as well as the value of the houses around it. On Meet The Press (32 Minutes Into that Video Clip) David Gregory states that the problem is that “doing nothing is not a good option.” Even if people are mad because they made their payments by adding a second job or something, they can’t complain about federal funding because it’s the only way that the housing market will stabilize and their homes will maintain their value. Someone on Meet the Press said that people feel like they are the Ants taking Care of Grasshoppers (A Bug’s Life anyone?) The only difference there is that grasshoppers, at least in the movie A Bug’s Life, pressure ants to do all the work, whereas, this was a case of misjudgement, greed, and ignorance.Humans aren't the only ones being affected by the housing crisis: pets are too. When homes are foreclosed and people are losing jobs, petowners often have to move to renting situations, where pets aren't always allowed. For example, the Berkshire, where many AU students reside, does not allow dogs, and only allows cats for a certain amount of money. Even if a family who recently foreclosed on their home could keep their pets in their renting situation, they most likely are struggling financially and are forced to give up their pets. According to Shankblog, people are doing this left and right, and not just the typical drop them off in the shelter method- they are simply leaving pets behind in the houses they can't afford. What happens to them, then? So not only do the people who have been handling their money well pay the taxes to support others, but not they have to pay up to $150 for adoption of pets
who are now homeless.As negative about this situation as I sound, I honestly think the giving of people who have been able to maintain their lives to those who have had some trouble and made bad decisions show how well this country can support each other. We all make mistakes, and this happened to be a widespread, financial crisis-size mistake, but it is something our country can make it through.
Does Anybody Care?
By Jordan Coughenour
Not more than four or five months ago, the housing crisis was the center of the recession-related news. Every blogger was giving their input as to how it could be resolved, drawing connections between it to anything and everything, most notably the influx of "It's a Wonderful Life" related articles around Christmas time.
In the period that has passed since then however, the financial depression (can we call it that already?!) has gotten infinitely more complicated and large in scope. Realtors at one point were the only group who had a bulls eye painted on their forehead for their careless lending and mortgages. Now we can take aim at everyone from insurance agents to Congressmen to Wall Street traders and executives. The blame game has grown so much that the origins of these financially strained times are muddled, and near lost in the trillions of dollars being thrown around by the government. Huffington Post blogger William K. Black recently took it upon himself to refresh our memories on these issues with his article, "The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Understand the Housing Crisis." Though the piece was well written and the documents well chosen, the majority of commentors seemed to reject his claims and instead went to what they believed to be the crux of the issue- the bankers and the bailouts. I can't remember the last time that one of those looming "foreclosure" signs haunted the front page of prominent blogs such as The Huff Post or, even on the opposing end of the spectrum, the Drudge Report.
Who cares about a few billion dollars worth of houses sitting vacant, or their past owners' debt troubles when Wall Street executives are losing twelve zeros worth of bucks every day? If housing is covered, it's thrown in with another topic, such as Detroit automakers' woes. The bredth of the situation has simply grown too large, with stakes that go beyond a fancy living room and a golf course view, that housing crisis seems to be only one of many larger issues covered by bloggers in this wide-reaching time of ruin.
Not more than four or five months ago, the housing crisis was the center of the recession-related news. Every blogger was giving their input as to how it could be resolved, drawing connections between it to anything and everything, most notably the influx of "It's a Wonderful Life" related articles around Christmas time.
Maybe Pottersville wasn't such a bad idea after all...
In the period that has passed since then however, the financial depression (can we call it that already?!) has gotten infinitely more complicated and large in scope. Realtors at one point were the only group who had a bulls eye painted on their forehead for their careless lending and mortgages. Now we can take aim at everyone from insurance agents to Congressmen to Wall Street traders and executives. The blame game has grown so much that the origins of these financially strained times are muddled, and near lost in the trillions of dollars being thrown around by the government. Huffington Post blogger William K. Black recently took it upon himself to refresh our memories on these issues with his article, "The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Understand the Housing Crisis." Though the piece was well written and the documents well chosen, the majority of commentors seemed to reject his claims and instead went to what they believed to be the crux of the issue- the bankers and the bailouts. I can't remember the last time that one of those looming "foreclosure" signs haunted the front page of prominent blogs such as The Huff Post or, even on the opposing end of the spectrum, the Drudge Report.
What about me?!
Who cares about a few billion dollars worth of houses sitting vacant, or their past owners' debt troubles when Wall Street executives are losing twelve zeros worth of bucks every day? If housing is covered, it's thrown in with another topic, such as Detroit automakers' woes. The bredth of the situation has simply grown too large, with stakes that go beyond a fancy living room and a golf course view, that housing crisis seems to be only one of many larger issues covered by bloggers in this wide-reaching time of ruin.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire stole the show at the Oscars. People are calling this movie a Cinderella-like story. It was an underdog movie that almost went straight to DVD in the United States and now it has won eight Oscars. Not only was it a success as a movie but the people in the cast had their own Cinderella story. One of the boys in the film is from the poor neighborhood in Mumbai and because of the movie's success the government is planning to give him a real home. This story of hope that demonstrates everyone that even in a time of an economic crisis there is hope
Fashion at the Oscars
It was Oscar season last week and Hollywood was buzzing with stars strutting down the red carpet in hopes of taking home the coveted trophy. Now I know that the Oscars focus around cinema and film but to be honest, I’m not a movie buff. Occasionally, I’ll go out 2 or 3 times to see the latest movies but for the most part I haven’t heard of half of the films nominated except for Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, and the Dark Knight, etc. But really, that’s the extent of my movie knowledge for this year. I don’t know why, but going to the movies is just not as exciting to me as doing something else with my time. Don’t get me wrong, I love watching them but I really don’t like spending $10 a ticket. Sometimes there are just other things that I’d rather do.
However my lack of movie attendance didn’t keep me from looking forward to watching the Oscars. Of course I’m interested in seeing who snags the best Actress and Actor award and the performances are always my favorite part of the award ceremony. But, I must say that every year the one thing about the Oscars I ALWAYS anticipate the fashion. Every year the red carpet is littered with glamorous people strutting the latest (and priciest) fashions of long gowns from trendy designers. Although I missed watching the pre-show when everyone displays who and what they are wearing, I was sure to observe during the awards ceremony. I also caught up on a bunch of blogs commenting and showing pictures of the women in their beautiful dresses. And I must agree with the consensus of blog comments: celebs were either wearing white, sparkly, ruffled fairy-princess dresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Anne Hathaway) or dark-colored slightly drab frocks (Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet). A guidespot.com blog described the top of Nicole Kidman’s dress as “one of those spiny fish that you don’t want to step on.” I would probably have to agree but the dress looked great on her in my opinion. And I’m still on the fence on the gown Beyonce wore. She was on the worst dressed list for the night, her gown being described as “grandmother’s curtains or a china vase”. However, I also found her black and gold floral gown to be unique. I would have to say that I adored the fushia color of Natalie Portman and Alicia Keys’s dress, as they wore two of the few brightly colored gowns that evening. However, my favorite pick of the night would have to be Angelina Jolie. Her black floor-length gown complimented with glimmering emerald earrings and ring got mixed fashion reviews but she looked elegant and I loved the hint of color and flash of her jewelry.
Hopefully next year, the fashion selections will be a bit more varied and we’ll see more color on the red carpet.
Layal Brown
However my lack of movie attendance didn’t keep me from looking forward to watching the Oscars. Of course I’m interested in seeing who snags the best Actress and Actor award and the performances are always my favorite part of the award ceremony. But, I must say that every year the one thing about the Oscars I ALWAYS anticipate the fashion. Every year the red carpet is littered with glamorous people strutting the latest (and priciest) fashions of long gowns from trendy designers. Although I missed watching the pre-show when everyone displays who and what they are wearing, I was sure to observe during the awards ceremony. I also caught up on a bunch of blogs commenting and showing pictures of the women in their beautiful dresses. And I must agree with the consensus of blog comments: celebs were either wearing white, sparkly, ruffled fairy-princess dresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Anne Hathaway) or dark-colored slightly drab frocks (Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet). A guidespot.com blog described the top of Nicole Kidman’s dress as “one of those spiny fish that you don’t want to step on.” I would probably have to agree but the dress looked great on her in my opinion. And I’m still on the fence on the gown Beyonce wore. She was on the worst dressed list for the night, her gown being described as “grandmother’s curtains or a china vase”. However, I also found her black and gold floral gown to be unique. I would have to say that I adored the fushia color of Natalie Portman and Alicia Keys’s dress, as they wore two of the few brightly colored gowns that evening. However, my favorite pick of the night would have to be Angelina Jolie. Her black floor-length gown complimented with glimmering emerald earrings and ring got mixed fashion reviews but she looked elegant and I loved the hint of color and flash of her jewelry.
Hopefully next year, the fashion selections will be a bit more varied and we’ll see more color on the red carpet.
Layal Brown
The Best Part about the Oscars is…
By Michelle Koyanagi
So, like some of the others in our class, I didn’t watch the Oscars this year—no surprise there. My excuse was, “I had no TV to watch it on.”
Anyway, the good thing about having this week’s blog topic be about the Oscars is, I won’t be out of the loop the next time someone brings up Slumdog Millionaire or Heath Ledger in the Dark Knight. Unfortunately, I have yet to watch either movie.
This week, I was busy sifting through Oscar blogs trying to find some commentary other than talk about the winners, the losers, the best dressed, the worst dressed…
It’s not that I find all that talk boring—I don’t. I like looking at the pictures and reading the bios about the nominees and winners.
I just wanted to find some commentary that would inform me about what the Oscars was really about—what was beneath all the superficial stuff—the stuff that really matters (the stuff people would be talking about in class next time).
Yeah, perhaps the musical numbers and all the glitz and glamour seemed out of touch with the rest of the country. Even though I really enjoyed the opening musical number and the musical medley (both of which I watched on Youtube), they did seem out of place—I didn’t see any big, musical movie up for an award this year.
One could argue that the gowns, the glittering chandelier, and the whole Broadway-feel of the show are what the Oscars are all about. It’s a fairytale-like, princess-like world—but I want to go further than that.
Because even in that world, one can still find heart and that is what gets some Oscar cynics interested in this glitzy production. I do think one of the reasons why those winners are required to give speeches after accepting their coveted award is so viewers who normally see them in film and TV roles can see them for who they truly are.
Sure, one could argue that those speeches are prepared, that the person about to win knows exactly what he or she is going to say and how to say it, but I for one am amazed when the camera zooms in and there is nothing but pure joy and speechlessness on their faces.
Everyone likes to be appreciated for their hard work.
I won’t go into detail. Most of us already know about the speech Heath Ledger’s family gave on behalf of his posthumous Oscar or the sincere words the actors gave each other.
Beneath everything that is "The Oscars," lies a carefully crafted production designed to bring out the “little moments.” And on top of all the talk about who wore and who won what, there still are those moments.
And in the end, that is what viewers will remember fondly about the Oscars.
So, like some of the others in our class, I didn’t watch the Oscars this year—no surprise there. My excuse was, “I had no TV to watch it on.”
Anyway, the good thing about having this week’s blog topic be about the Oscars is, I won’t be out of the loop the next time someone brings up Slumdog Millionaire or Heath Ledger in the Dark Knight. Unfortunately, I have yet to watch either movie.
This week, I was busy sifting through Oscar blogs trying to find some commentary other than talk about the winners, the losers, the best dressed, the worst dressed…
It’s not that I find all that talk boring—I don’t. I like looking at the pictures and reading the bios about the nominees and winners.
I just wanted to find some commentary that would inform me about what the Oscars was really about—what was beneath all the superficial stuff—the stuff that really matters (the stuff people would be talking about in class next time).
Yeah, perhaps the musical numbers and all the glitz and glamour seemed out of touch with the rest of the country. Even though I really enjoyed the opening musical number and the musical medley (both of which I watched on Youtube), they did seem out of place—I didn’t see any big, musical movie up for an award this year.
One could argue that the gowns, the glittering chandelier, and the whole Broadway-feel of the show are what the Oscars are all about. It’s a fairytale-like, princess-like world—but I want to go further than that.
Because even in that world, one can still find heart and that is what gets some Oscar cynics interested in this glitzy production. I do think one of the reasons why those winners are required to give speeches after accepting their coveted award is so viewers who normally see them in film and TV roles can see them for who they truly are.
Sure, one could argue that those speeches are prepared, that the person about to win knows exactly what he or she is going to say and how to say it, but I for one am amazed when the camera zooms in and there is nothing but pure joy and speechlessness on their faces.
Everyone likes to be appreciated for their hard work.
I won’t go into detail. Most of us already know about the speech Heath Ledger’s family gave on behalf of his posthumous Oscar or the sincere words the actors gave each other.
Beneath everything that is "The Oscars," lies a carefully crafted production designed to bring out the “little moments.” And on top of all the talk about who wore and who won what, there still are those moments.
And in the end, that is what viewers will remember fondly about the Oscars.
Oscars Blog
I didn't get a chance to actually watch the Oscars this year, and have yet to find time to watch them online so I was a little bummed because I had seen a few of the movies this year, like slumdog millionaire, who like many predicted took home awards. One blogger on The Carpet Bragger blog mentioned that is was "The darling of the Oscars, winning eight Oscars, including the award for Best picture." Other blogs concentrated on what many people watch any of these award shows for--Who is wearing what, and did they make the right choice? Access Hollywood's live blog captured the stars arriving on the red carpet starting at 4pm, and had some strong opinions of the fashion attire. "Melissa George from "In Treatment" and Grey's Anatomy arrives in a white dress that looks like its missing the top layer" , and also we couldn't forget to mention "how fabulous Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie look." There were also live blogs that gave their opinions throughout the whole event, from the fashion, to the winners, to the losers. Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Oscars.
by Amanda Yerby
by Amanda Yerby
Working hard
Unfortunately or fortunately for me, depending on which of my other fellow bloggers you ask, I was unable to watch the Oscars. I was at work. While millions of people were watching the Oscars, I was working for a solid 10 dollars an hour. I was studying at work while most of the people in this country and around the world, or as I like to think of them as Pavlov's Dogs, were watching famous celebrities get together, once again to celebrate and congratulate who else- themselves! I love movies as much as the next person. I still get chills every time Tom Cruise yells, "Did you order the code red on Santiago?!" every time. But, do I need to know where Keanu Reeve's date got her socks? When I watch the Oscars, I watch them for the same reason as everyone else does. To see who died this past year. My earliest memories of this award show is sitting on the couch with my parents as they say, "Oh no, I didn't know he/she died" for about 10 minutes. Yes mom, Walter Matheau has been dead for more than a decade now. The next best part of the Oscars is when they get the hottest comedien to host the show, which explains Hugh Jackman. Apparently they think the Wolverine with a porn name is just as funny as Billy Crystal or Jon Stewart. I wish I was alive during the days when Johnny Carson or Bob Hope hosted. Who's going to host next year? Flavor Flav. Welcome to the mother effin Oscars Boyyeeeee!!!
http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/football/bob_blog/flavorflav.jpg
Maybe I can watch it next year, when I'm making 11 dollars an hour and can watch Sandra Bullock wear earings that can pay my full tuition at American.
http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/football/bob_blog/flavorflav.jpg
Maybe I can watch it next year, when I'm making 11 dollars an hour and can watch Sandra Bullock wear earings that can pay my full tuition at American.
The Oscars: Best Dressed, Best Film, Best Actor
Most of the blogs I have read have been about Oscar fashion and who was the best dressed. I cannot personally say which outfit I liked the best. Angelina Jolie looked nice in a plain dress, I liked Kate Winslet's mostly because I like her, and I didn't think Jessica Biel looked as bad as everyone said she did. The new york mag blog said Amy Adams, Freida Pinto, and Natalie Portman were the best dressed. I DEFINITELY disagree. (I know it would help to have some pictures here, but my internet is really slow making that impossible).
Slumdog Millionaire won best film and a whole slew of other awards. I think that that is great. It was a great film about people generally ignored in Hollywood. Of course this win, in my opinion does not warrant a blog. They were expected to win and that subject is so over.
Though many people might want to talk about the late Heath Ledger's Supporting Actor win, I would say that that was also expected, thus I don't want to write about it in excess. Though I will say, I think he was great in the Dark Knight, but it seems a curious win for the Academy. I will even dare to say he won because there was so much question about it. But, hey, good for him.
My favorite win of the night was Sean Penn for "Milk". First of all I was excited that he won and not Mickey Rourke. I didn't see "The Wrestler", but it would make me sick if an actor won for playing a "wrestler". I also think it was important for Sean Penn to win because of the role he played, a gay man in political office. Seeing as how now we are dealing with discrimination put into law by Prop 8, a man playing a gay character might change a few minds. Sure the film industry has always been extremely liberal, but if the regular day people see that an actor playing a gay politician won, maybe they will first see the movie if they haven't already. Then, after seeing the movie, they will change their minds about Prop 8 and hopefully gay marriage will be made legal throughout the country. (Don't you just love how I did throw in Politics in a blog about the Oscars?)
-Dara Duratinsky
Sorry mom...
By: Kate Pinkerton
It was 8 o'clock Sunday night and I called my mom to talk about various things in life. I don't call that often, so you would think this would be a great moment in her life. All of sudden, I hear whimpering from the other side of the phone, and I immediately said, "Mom, mom...are you okay? What's wrong?" The most unexpected response came out:
"I've been waiting for the Red Carpet all week and you are talking through it! I just wanted to see all the pretty dresses and you just keep talking!"
I didn't know whether to cry or laugh.
My mom normally isn't like this. It was very odd and she normally loves talking to me since it doesn't happen very much. I guess the Oscars was just that important. For most people, if they miss the red carpet, they can TiVo or Google it later, but for my mom, who has 7 TV Channels, a phone that is still attached to a cord (in a different room from the television) and Dial-Up internet, it was her moment, and I was ruining it. I didn't know it was so important, and if I had, I certainly wouldn't have talked to her to the point of tears....oops.
As for the red carpet, there were definitely some yays and nays. I think Anne Hatheway looked like an Oscar in her simple, yet glamorous gold dress. Anjelina Jolie went simple, and then had stunning earrings, which is something I've always admired. I also didn't realize how many tattoos she has (Brad Pitt's fetish maybe?) Then there were some pretty horrendous dresses. See below. Heidi Klum and Jessica Biel, while beautiful people, did not make such great choices this year. Who wears a dress with a large flap on the front? Really? It's like a napkin tucked in for barbeque.
Popwatch said that Reese Witherspoon might have had the worst dress, but I definitely think that award goes to the scary Snow Queen of the Lion Witch and Wardrobe. Personally I liked Witherspoons dress, and thought it was really elegant. Tilda Swinton's dress, however, could maybe be separated into a shirt and skirt sold at H&M for five bucks.
All in all it was a great night. There were numerous hilarious performances, included the opening act by Hugh Jackman, the amazing musical numbers towards the end, and the ridiculous, but hilarious Pineapple Express skit. See below for video.
Ps. I still haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire, and probably should. Oops =/
It was 8 o'clock Sunday night and I called my mom to talk about various things in life. I don't call that often, so you would think this would be a great moment in her life. All of sudden, I hear whimpering from the other side of the phone, and I immediately said, "Mom, mom...are you okay? What's wrong?" The most unexpected response came out:
"I've been waiting for the Red Carpet all week and you are talking through it! I just wanted to see all the pretty dresses and you just keep talking!"
I didn't know whether to cry or laugh.
My mom normally isn't like this. It was very odd and she normally loves talking to me since it doesn't happen very much. I guess the Oscars was just that important. For most people, if they miss the red carpet, they can TiVo or Google it later, but for my mom, who has 7 TV Channels, a phone that is still attached to a cord (in a different room from the television) and Dial-Up internet, it was her moment, and I was ruining it. I didn't know it was so important, and if I had, I certainly wouldn't have talked to her to the point of tears....oops.
As for the red carpet, there were definitely some yays and nays. I think Anne Hatheway looked like an Oscar in her simple, yet glamorous gold dress. Anjelina Jolie went simple, and then had stunning earrings, which is something I've always admired. I also didn't realize how many tattoos she has (Brad Pitt's fetish maybe?) Then there were some pretty horrendous dresses. See below. Heidi Klum and Jessica Biel, while beautiful people, did not make such great choices this year. Who wears a dress with a large flap on the front? Really? It's like a napkin tucked in for barbeque.
Popwatch said that Reese Witherspoon might have had the worst dress, but I definitely think that award goes to the scary Snow Queen of the Lion Witch and Wardrobe. Personally I liked Witherspoons dress, and thought it was really elegant. Tilda Swinton's dress, however, could maybe be separated into a shirt and skirt sold at H&M for five bucks.All in all it was a great night. There were numerous hilarious performances, included the opening act by Hugh Jackman, the amazing musical numbers towards the end, and the ridiculous, but hilarious Pineapple Express skit. See below for video.
Ps. I still haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire, and probably should. Oops =/
In Defense of the Academy...
By Chris Collins
It’s elitist. It’s irrelevant. It’s dull.
Such was said a lot this year about the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. Most of the hate I read on message boards, the posters primarily die-hard Dark Knight fans angry over its Best Picture snub. But some of the hate came from respected journalists, who The Academy Awards are rapidly heading into obscurity.
The 2008 nominations seemed to prove them right. Despite Slumdog Millionaire’s populist appeal, the institution was still blasted for lacking insight and being “out of touch.” How could WALL-E and The Dark Knight, both of which transcended their respective genres, received numerous accolades from critics, and won the adoration of audiences, be shut out from the best picture category? Why so many “films,” yet so little movies?
“Frozen River? The Reader? Whose heard of these movies other than a few effete intellectuals,” said a broadcast journalist. It’s true. More often than not, the academy fails in adhering to public sentiment. But should that detract from the institution’s merit?
No. The Academy deserves tremendous praise. Why?
Year after year, they call attention to small, low budget films that overcome tremendous obstacles in order to get produced. Sure, small productions like “The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” “Frozen River,” “Once,” “A History of Violence,” and “The Wrestler” failed to garner a best picture nomination, but at least the Academy shined a light on their achievements via other nominations, allowing for free publicity and hopefully more cash flow. Thank god they reward Slumdog Millionaire with 8 Oscars despite its lack of big name actors, showing that originality and execution will always be valued over star-power. The fact they could nominate and reward Milk deserves tremendous respect. Same goes for The Reader.
It’s comforting to know there’s an institution that values intellectual stimulation and risqué subject matter, and encourages filmmakers and actors to deliver well crafted projects and performances.
It’s sad to know the general public views such efforts as irrelevant and, in this year’s case, insulting.
It’s elitist. It’s irrelevant. It’s dull.
Such was said a lot this year about the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. Most of the hate I read on message boards, the posters primarily die-hard Dark Knight fans angry over its Best Picture snub. But some of the hate came from respected journalists, who The Academy Awards are rapidly heading into obscurity.
The 2008 nominations seemed to prove them right. Despite Slumdog Millionaire’s populist appeal, the institution was still blasted for lacking insight and being “out of touch.” How could WALL-E and The Dark Knight, both of which transcended their respective genres, received numerous accolades from critics, and won the adoration of audiences, be shut out from the best picture category? Why so many “films,” yet so little movies?
“Frozen River? The Reader? Whose heard of these movies other than a few effete intellectuals,” said a broadcast journalist. It’s true. More often than not, the academy fails in adhering to public sentiment. But should that detract from the institution’s merit?
No. The Academy deserves tremendous praise. Why?
Year after year, they call attention to small, low budget films that overcome tremendous obstacles in order to get produced. Sure, small productions like “The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” “Frozen River,” “Once,” “A History of Violence,” and “The Wrestler” failed to garner a best picture nomination, but at least the Academy shined a light on their achievements via other nominations, allowing for free publicity and hopefully more cash flow. Thank god they reward Slumdog Millionaire with 8 Oscars despite its lack of big name actors, showing that originality and execution will always be valued over star-power. The fact they could nominate and reward Milk deserves tremendous respect. Same goes for The Reader.
It’s comforting to know there’s an institution that values intellectual stimulation and risqué subject matter, and encourages filmmakers and actors to deliver well crafted projects and performances.
It’s sad to know the general public views such efforts as irrelevant and, in this year’s case, insulting.
A Standing No
This Oscar ceremony was like many others for me: I didn't watch even though I insincerely said I would to many people (including my film professor) and would give them a "film major's" opinion. Well, I guess I came up short once again and was doing something else after watching the surprisingly humorous and attention-grabbing opener and a few acceptance speeches. Other than that, I had a fraternity meeting and had to attend.
I definitely wasn't too upset either; as from what I heard, despite the revamped Kodak theater, the special guests, the few standout acceptance speeches, it was the same routine, just with a different haircut and a few highlights. Usually the Oscars is a rather trivial affair to me, citing its highly political voting process as a major deterrent. And although the dresses are something to be beheld and the great artists in film are speaking, I have never been witness to an Oscar ceremony that could keep my attention for its entirety. Originality is besmeared by routine and artificiality in the acts and most of the evening boils down to eye-candy offset by gleaming lights and velvet.
Although I was highly skeptical of Hugh Jackman as the pick for host, the opening ceremony revealed a sense of comedic energy within him that had flares of very funny and interesting performances (see: "I didn't see 'The Reader' segment). However the designers and producers of the Oscars try to inject originality and innovation into each ceremony, they fail almost every time, especially with the past actors and actresses passing off awards. I thought rather useless and unneeded. The comic relief of what is a big performance that could easily be reduced to 30 minutes becomes pretty much essential. In this, I heard it was at its usual medium, though also stunted by its artificialilty. When you see an acceptance speech like that of Dustin Lance Black being contrasted with a simple "Domo Origoto Mr. Roboto" or Jennifer Aniston and Jack Black's horribly stilted interaction, you just kind of cringe and take it for what it is.
But I suppose that is where I stop: I refuse to watch this thing if its just a night of highs and lower lows and doesn't really do anything to change it over time. After all, I am always just a click away from finding all the winners and acceptance speeches on Youtube. So what the hell, why do people, like me, who love film as much as I, still watch garbage like this and stick it through? Probably because of the sheer fact the ceremony is a five-hour recap of their world (or a part of it) from last year. Whatever the reason, the use of the Oscars still eludes me. Perhaps I'll get it sooner or later... Perhaps.
by Alex Haines
I definitely wasn't too upset either; as from what I heard, despite the revamped Kodak theater, the special guests, the few standout acceptance speeches, it was the same routine, just with a different haircut and a few highlights. Usually the Oscars is a rather trivial affair to me, citing its highly political voting process as a major deterrent. And although the dresses are something to be beheld and the great artists in film are speaking, I have never been witness to an Oscar ceremony that could keep my attention for its entirety. Originality is besmeared by routine and artificiality in the acts and most of the evening boils down to eye-candy offset by gleaming lights and velvet.
Although I was highly skeptical of Hugh Jackman as the pick for host, the opening ceremony revealed a sense of comedic energy within him that had flares of very funny and interesting performances (see: "I didn't see 'The Reader' segment). However the designers and producers of the Oscars try to inject originality and innovation into each ceremony, they fail almost every time, especially with the past actors and actresses passing off awards. I thought rather useless and unneeded. The comic relief of what is a big performance that could easily be reduced to 30 minutes becomes pretty much essential. In this, I heard it was at its usual medium, though also stunted by its artificialilty. When you see an acceptance speech like that of Dustin Lance Black being contrasted with a simple "Domo Origoto Mr. Roboto" or Jennifer Aniston and Jack Black's horribly stilted interaction, you just kind of cringe and take it for what it is.
But I suppose that is where I stop: I refuse to watch this thing if its just a night of highs and lower lows and doesn't really do anything to change it over time. After all, I am always just a click away from finding all the winners and acceptance speeches on Youtube. So what the hell, why do people, like me, who love film as much as I, still watch garbage like this and stick it through? Probably because of the sheer fact the ceremony is a five-hour recap of their world (or a part of it) from last year. Whatever the reason, the use of the Oscars still eludes me. Perhaps I'll get it sooner or later... Perhaps.
by Alex Haines
Emtional. . .touching. . .uplifting
Kerry R. Toole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P552i5xx8ww&feature=related
First off this year I didn’t do to see many movies. I didn’t have the time and or the money being in college. I guess I now have a one movie I must go see since to stole the show. But that’s not what I was the most impressed with. I was the most touched by how the handed out the Oscars to the best actress and actors.
As they showed the history of all the one whom had one it before I found it very enlightening that they it a very diverse group of winners. I was so touched by how they spoke to one another and really appreciated one another for their different talents. In the video you see that Anne Hathaway was full of joy that Kate Winslet had won. I know they are taught and trained not to show that they are upset by not winning but your could see the joy in most of the other nominees eyes.
Kate Winslet really touched my heart. I’m not to big on the speeches they give after winning I find them long and sometimes boring. But at one point she tells everyone that her parents are out in the audience. After she says that she goes on to ask for her father to whistle and he did. After she found him in the audience it really made me so happy to see the connection her family and her were able to make in such an emotional moment. The Oacars really opened my eyes to how talented these people truly are.
As I read the blogs people were making all different comments. Also of people were touched by Heath Ledger’s family but I was only able to watch it off you.tube. It was so great to see what his hard work did get recognized. I’m happy that his daughter Mildina will be able to hold something so special and a huge honor in memory of her father. Yet, my own personal moment was when five prior winners came to the stage and talked about the accomplishments that the nominees had done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P552i5xx8ww&feature=related
First off this year I didn’t do to see many movies. I didn’t have the time and or the money being in college. I guess I now have a one movie I must go see since to stole the show. But that’s not what I was the most impressed with. I was the most touched by how the handed out the Oscars to the best actress and actors.
As they showed the history of all the one whom had one it before I found it very enlightening that they it a very diverse group of winners. I was so touched by how they spoke to one another and really appreciated one another for their different talents. In the video you see that Anne Hathaway was full of joy that Kate Winslet had won. I know they are taught and trained not to show that they are upset by not winning but your could see the joy in most of the other nominees eyes.
Kate Winslet really touched my heart. I’m not to big on the speeches they give after winning I find them long and sometimes boring. But at one point she tells everyone that her parents are out in the audience. After she says that she goes on to ask for her father to whistle and he did. After she found him in the audience it really made me so happy to see the connection her family and her were able to make in such an emotional moment. The Oacars really opened my eyes to how talented these people truly are.
As I read the blogs people were making all different comments. Also of people were touched by Heath Ledger’s family but I was only able to watch it off you.tube. It was so great to see what his hard work did get recognized. I’m happy that his daughter Mildina will be able to hold something so special and a huge honor in memory of her father. Yet, my own personal moment was when five prior winners came to the stage and talked about the accomplishments that the nominees had done.
Another Heath Ledger Blog
By Spencer SiegelThey say that an Oscar is to die for. Some folks just take that too literally (see Heath Ledger).
Ok, even I must acknowledge that was a bit trite and disrespectful. But that is how I roll.
Some say that Heath Ledger won an Oscar because of his performance in "The Dark Knight." Others contend that while his role int he film was respectable, it only secured him the Oscar because of his untimely death. Ledger's family accepted the award on his behalf. It was a somber moment of the ceremony that you can view it here if you're the type that enjoys eulogies (or see the embedded video at the bottom).
But wait... there is still that possibility he can star in another film! No, he did not fake his death. No, some super-natural force is not going to resurrect him. No, it is not going to be a collage of various clips he's done in the past. In fact, it is much simpler: he was filming another movie at the time of his death: “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.”
Apparently Ledger died in the midst of filming whereas for "The Dark Knight" filming was already completed. This means that they producers did not have all the footage to actually make the movie. Tragic.
So who do you call when you've got a problem? Not the Ghostbusters, but our favorite pirate friend Johnny Depp and two other people you might have heard of: Colin Farrell and Jude Law. They stepped in to rewrite the script and turn Ledger's character into something that requires four actors to play the same character (no clue how this works, but you can read more on it by clicking here).
So what is the lesson of this story? Not really sure if there is a lesson to learn here. But you can walk away knowing that there is a possibility Ledger can win another Oscar; which would just be incredibly weird.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Working Links....
It appears two videos from my earlier links were yanked off YouTube.
Here's the clips. For those who missed the ceremony, they're worth watching. I also added Sean Penn's win and Judd Apatow's short film.
Hugh Jackman's intro: You'll enjoy it, even if not a Jackman fan.
Tina Fey and Steve Martin presenting. Only a partial clip of what I had, and without Dustin Lance Black's "MILK" win. Still funny though...
Judd Apatow's hilarious short film, featuring James Franco and Seth Rogan.
Sean Penn's "Milk" acceptance speech.
Here's the clips. For those who missed the ceremony, they're worth watching. I also added Sean Penn's win and Judd Apatow's short film.
Hugh Jackman's intro: You'll enjoy it, even if not a Jackman fan.
Tina Fey and Steve Martin presenting. Only a partial clip of what I had, and without Dustin Lance Black's "MILK" win. Still funny though...
Judd Apatow's hilarious short film, featuring James Franco and Seth Rogan.
Sean Penn's "Milk" acceptance speech.
All Work and No Play (minus Nicholson) Makes Oscar a Really Really Dull Boy
It's unbelievable. I never thought I'd be saying this. This was the first Academy Awards ceremony that I didn't watch- not one minute! This is coming from a guy who knew movies inside and out as a child. At one point, I even wanted to work in Hollywood, either writing scripts or directing pictures. I could tell you for any year who won what and for what movie. Those were my glory days in film. Now I'm caught up in professional football and couldn't be happier.
Unrelated to the projected output or any disinterest, my absence to the television coverage was due the fact that I was busy writing a paper in the library on conflicting think tanks for my public policy course. But even though my only live access to this years' Oscars came from my browser's refresh button as I typed away on the Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation, it seemed like I didn't miss much at all.
This is not to say the ceremony wasn't historical. It was only the second ceremony in its 81-year history to award the work and efforts of the presently deceased. Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in "The Dark Knight" was nothing short of outstanding. His creepiness and apathetic personality flawlessly embodied a character that we've seen played time and time again. My respects to Romero and Nicholson.
"Slumdog Millionaire" became the first film to win the coveted Best Picture Award using an entirely foreign cast. Though I didn't get the chance to see the film yet (kicking myself), I've only heard fantastic things about it and will be sure to see it at the earliest convenience.
But back to the negatives. I am bashing it, remember. I found a blog written by Mike Ward of Richmond.com, and I felt like the man was reading my mind. The single most prevalent point- no suspense whatsoever. The entire cache of award winners, however deserving as some were, was so predictable. No curiosity needed. When the nominations were announced last month, it was practically revealing the list of winners. Keeping it political (and P.C.) as Hollywood does, there was no doubt on the mind of any viewer that Sean Penn would walk away with Best Actor. While only Mickey Rourke could have contended (no pun intended) in "The Wrestler", this felt as if it were to spit in the faces of all those who supported Prop 8.
"Slumdog", Kate Winslet, the Clown Prince of Crime... they were all expected. Perhaps the only wild card, or at least potentially interesting decision, went to Penelope Cruz for "Vicky Cristina Barcelona".
And to sound off, maybe the Academy won't pick a nymphomaniac Australian as the host next year. Wonder who that could be?...
By Justin Ellis
Unrelated to the projected output or any disinterest, my absence to the television coverage was due the fact that I was busy writing a paper in the library on conflicting think tanks for my public policy course. But even though my only live access to this years' Oscars came from my browser's refresh button as I typed away on the Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation, it seemed like I didn't miss much at all.
This is not to say the ceremony wasn't historical. It was only the second ceremony in its 81-year history to award the work and efforts of the presently deceased. Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in "The Dark Knight" was nothing short of outstanding. His creepiness and apathetic personality flawlessly embodied a character that we've seen played time and time again. My respects to Romero and Nicholson.
"Slumdog Millionaire" became the first film to win the coveted Best Picture Award using an entirely foreign cast. Though I didn't get the chance to see the film yet (kicking myself), I've only heard fantastic things about it and will be sure to see it at the earliest convenience.
But back to the negatives. I am bashing it, remember. I found a blog written by Mike Ward of Richmond.com, and I felt like the man was reading my mind. The single most prevalent point- no suspense whatsoever. The entire cache of award winners, however deserving as some were, was so predictable. No curiosity needed. When the nominations were announced last month, it was practically revealing the list of winners. Keeping it political (and P.C.) as Hollywood does, there was no doubt on the mind of any viewer that Sean Penn would walk away with Best Actor. While only Mickey Rourke could have contended (no pun intended) in "The Wrestler", this felt as if it were to spit in the faces of all those who supported Prop 8.
"Slumdog", Kate Winslet, the Clown Prince of Crime... they were all expected. Perhaps the only wild card, or at least potentially interesting decision, went to Penelope Cruz for "Vicky Cristina Barcelona".
And to sound off, maybe the Academy won't pick a nymphomaniac Australian as the host next year. Wonder who that could be?...
By Justin Ellis
Slumdog Millionaire??
By Alissa Scheller
I didn’t even watch the Oscars this year.
I didn’t see most of the films up for awards, and more importantly, I just didn’t care – I would rather get in a couple more hours of sleep than watch celebrities cry on stage. I’m kind of cynical like that.
But, for all my bitchiness and cynicism, I’ve heard the Slumdog Millionaire hype. And to be quite honest, even though I didn’t see the film, I don’t get it. I considered paying an exorbitant amount of money at a movie theater to see it, but I was put off when I read reviews.
I know I shouldn’t believe everything I read, but I’m kind of cheap and shallow and don’t want to spend money on a movie I won’t like, but I heard the characters had no depth and the analysis of the South Asia condition was lacking.
I don’t know about the Academy, but to me, that just doesn’t sound like an Oscar-worthy movie. I realize I should see movies before I criticize them, but I really just don’t have that kind of money.
I realize that it’s good that South Asia was in the spotlight of this year’s Oscars, but I agree with this blog post – I’m not so sure that a movie that oversimplifies and stereotypes the experiences of South Asian people is the best way for that to happen.
(Also, part of me really, really wanted Milk to win…)
I didn’t even watch the Oscars this year.
I didn’t see most of the films up for awards, and more importantly, I just didn’t care – I would rather get in a couple more hours of sleep than watch celebrities cry on stage. I’m kind of cynical like that.
But, for all my bitchiness and cynicism, I’ve heard the Slumdog Millionaire hype. And to be quite honest, even though I didn’t see the film, I don’t get it. I considered paying an exorbitant amount of money at a movie theater to see it, but I was put off when I read reviews.
I know I shouldn’t believe everything I read, but I’m kind of cheap and shallow and don’t want to spend money on a movie I won’t like, but I heard the characters had no depth and the analysis of the South Asia condition was lacking.
I don’t know about the Academy, but to me, that just doesn’t sound like an Oscar-worthy movie. I realize I should see movies before I criticize them, but I really just don’t have that kind of money.
I realize that it’s good that South Asia was in the spotlight of this year’s Oscars, but I agree with this blog post – I’m not so sure that a movie that oversimplifies and stereotypes the experiences of South Asian people is the best way for that to happen.
(Also, part of me really, really wanted Milk to win…)
Free Advertising?
When you look at a magazine and see a advertisement you like, you look to buy the product. You may like a cardigan from the Gap or a handbag from Chanel. These advertisements entice you as a consumer to say; I can afford that and look into purchasing. When you see a dress at the Oscars, you think, wow, I wish I could afford that. Designers live for the Oscars because it is all about the FREE advertising. But nothing in life really is free.
After hours upon hours of designing and creating the perfect dress, the product will be a walking advertisement. There is a great effort put into these dresses because photo after photo will be taken. And if the dress is bad, it will be all over the Internet. No one wants to design a horrible dress, because intense scrutiny will ensue.
Designers rely on the celebrity to sell their product. “Household” names like Prada or Dolce & Gabbana are the premier designers to wear to Galas, awards shows and upscale parties. The Oscars and other highly covered award shows are like a gold mine for these designers. An icon like Sarah Jessica Parker will wear a dress from Dior and people will want to buy it. Or Tom Ford will design a tuxedo for the uber wealthy man to wear. Photos are taken and magazines, TV shows, blogs, newspapers, etc. all pick which was the “best” and “worst.”
The “best” list is where all designers want to be.
After hours upon hours of designing and creating the perfect dress, the product will be a walking advertisement. There is a great effort put into these dresses because photo after photo will be taken. And if the dress is bad, it will be all over the Internet. No one wants to design a horrible dress, because intense scrutiny will ensue.
Designers rely on the celebrity to sell their product. “Household” names like Prada or Dolce & Gabbana are the premier designers to wear to Galas, awards shows and upscale parties. The Oscars and other highly covered award shows are like a gold mine for these designers. An icon like Sarah Jessica Parker will wear a dress from Dior and people will want to buy it. Or Tom Ford will design a tuxedo for the uber wealthy man to wear. Photos are taken and magazines, TV shows, blogs, newspapers, etc. all pick which was the “best” and “worst.”
The “best” list is where all designers want to be.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Outside the Bubble
This year I turned my back on my country and forgot that the Oscars broadcast exists, and I didn't rembember until 11:50 PM on Sunday. I wandered out of my room, irritated, and found my floormates doing an odd appropriation of Bollywood dance in celebration of Slumdog Millionaire's Best Picture win. It was an odd sight, and certainly not worth leaving bed for.I love sparkly dresses and attractive actors. I love video montages and bad jokes and strange celebrity pairings. It follows that I should love the Oscars - and I do. So why didn't I watch this year's broadcast? Let's see some options:
A. I had a lot of reading
B. I don't have a TV in my room and our floor TV is horrible
C. The collapse of the entertainment industry left me, like so many other habitual Oscar viewers, disinterested in the ceremony and its offerings
D. Hugh Jackman scares me
While the answer is probably a combination of A, B and D, many observers and insiders talked a lot about C. Despite the slumping economy and resulting drastic reductions in ticket sales, the movie industry seemed to effect little change. Ticket prices went up, reducing viewership of many of this year's nominees. Films had shorter runs and more limited distribution. Although box office success technically has nothing to do with Oscar consideration, you'd be hard-pressed to find a film that no one bothered to see in contention for a major award. The Academy had a tough task: picking nominees that the public cared about while at least attempting to recognize films of high cultural and/or artistic merit. Many viewers thought the Academy failed, especially in snubbing Wall-E and The Dark Knight for best picture simply because they were respectively an animated and an action movie.
This certainly had an effect on my interest in the whole spectacle. I can count on one hand the number of nomiated films I saw this year (Milk, Iron Man and In Bruge). I couldn't really afford spending $8 to see a movie I didn't think warranted a big screen, and the few I did see were independent films that the Oscars wouldn't touch with a ten-foot stick. I am also incredibly lazy when it comes to this sort of thing, so I never even got around to seeing the aforementioned snubs. Maybe I'm just getting older, but the glamour can't justify wasting four hours when I could be studying.
The only thing I bothered watching on YouTube the next was Dustin Black's acceptance speech. At this point, the only thing the Oscars are useful for (other than wasting money) is giving winners a minute and a half to say whatever they want on any subject. Black's speech was touching without being overbearing, and as someone for whom Milk was a profoundly affecting film, he hit all the right notes in continuing the film's important message. Just goes to show that with the Internet, we can distill any video broadcast into only the parts we want to watch. I don't think I'll be tuning in next year, and there's no one to blame for that but the Academy.
By Zoe Leverant
A New Approach
By Chris Collins
I braced myself for a DARK NIGHT. I DOUBTed Hugh Jackman could carry the show, and expected him to MILK the same lame gags throughout the evening. Boy was I wrong. Sunday's production was A CURIOUS CASE though; designer David Rockwell re-worked the Kodak, allowing for an unprecedented level of intimacy, a far cry from the austere velveteen backdrop one's used to seeing come Oscar time. I'm no mind READER, but I had a feeling the nominees enjoyed the REVOLUTIONARY new ROAD the Oscars have decided to travel down.
Producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon gave the ceremony a total overhaul. They made it quicker, classier, and twice as swanky. The traditionally dull honorary award was trimmed down to half its air time. The usual comedic host was replaced by an actor; goodbye Billy Crystal, goodbye Jon Stewart, hello hunkish Australian dude. The curtains were made out of frickin' crystals (which is ironic, considering the Best Picture winner revolved around destitute Mumbai street dwellers.)
But why? Condon and Mark hoped to avoid a repeat of last year's telecast, the lowest rated in Oscar history (which is unfortunate, considering it honored two of the best film's of the decade: best picture winner No Country For Old Men and best picture nominee There Will Be Blood).
Their philosophy: bring back the social club atmosphere that defined the ceremony in the late forties and early fifties, and the spontaneity that came with it. If you can capture that, you've got a show people will want to tune into, not just for the night, but for years to come.
Early numbers show their approach has paid off; ratings are up 13% from last year.
Here's the best parts of the show:
Hugh Jackman: Surprisingly funny and in tune with Condon and Mark's old school mantra, as seen in his opening number:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUJ-7tCIHTU
The presentation order:
Condon and Mark aimed to familiarize the audience with the often ignored writing and technical awards. So, they presented them in the order you'd approach each when making a movie (i.e., you write a script first, so the writing awards were given out first, then you must build a set and costumes, thus art direction and costume design were given out second).
Here's Tina Fey and Steve Martin presenting Original Screenplay: very funny
And Dustin Lance Black accepting the award for Original Screenplay: touching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Dcvemkuzs
Talk about intimacy. Condon and Mark changed the method in which the acting awards were distributed. Five individuals came on stage, each delivering a message of praise for their respective nominee. It's hard to describe. Just watch.
This is best actress, being presented by Marion Cotillard, Shirley MacLain, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, and a Triceratops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P552i5xx8ww&feature=related
Heath Ledger winning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1VPRjd-x1g
The Crazy French dude from Man On Wire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD9jsx9mKtQ
Slumdog Millionaire winning Best Picture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt3FOv-Uils
Slumdog won 8 awards, including Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Cinematography. Other big winners: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3),
The Dark Knight (2), and Milk (2).
And sorry about the introduction paragraph. Just had to do it.
I braced myself for a DARK NIGHT. I DOUBTed Hugh Jackman could carry the show, and expected him to MILK the same lame gags throughout the evening. Boy was I wrong. Sunday's production was A CURIOUS CASE though; designer David Rockwell re-worked the Kodak, allowing for an unprecedented level of intimacy, a far cry from the austere velveteen backdrop one's used to seeing come Oscar time. I'm no mind READER, but I had a feeling the nominees enjoyed the REVOLUTIONARY new ROAD the Oscars have decided to travel down.
Producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon gave the ceremony a total overhaul. They made it quicker, classier, and twice as swanky. The traditionally dull honorary award was trimmed down to half its air time. The usual comedic host was replaced by an actor; goodbye Billy Crystal, goodbye Jon Stewart, hello hunkish Australian dude. The curtains were made out of frickin' crystals (which is ironic, considering the Best Picture winner revolved around destitute Mumbai street dwellers.)
But why? Condon and Mark hoped to avoid a repeat of last year's telecast, the lowest rated in Oscar history (which is unfortunate, considering it honored two of the best film's of the decade: best picture winner No Country For Old Men and best picture nominee There Will Be Blood).
Their philosophy: bring back the social club atmosphere that defined the ceremony in the late forties and early fifties, and the spontaneity that came with it. If you can capture that, you've got a show people will want to tune into, not just for the night, but for years to come.
Early numbers show their approach has paid off; ratings are up 13% from last year.
Here's the best parts of the show:
Hugh Jackman: Surprisingly funny and in tune with Condon and Mark's old school mantra, as seen in his opening number:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUJ-7tCIHTU
The presentation order:
Condon and Mark aimed to familiarize the audience with the often ignored writing and technical awards. So, they presented them in the order you'd approach each when making a movie (i.e., you write a script first, so the writing awards were given out first, then you must build a set and costumes, thus art direction and costume design were given out second).
Here's Tina Fey and Steve Martin presenting Original Screenplay: very funny
And Dustin Lance Black accepting the award for Original Screenplay: touching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Dcvemkuzs
Talk about intimacy. Condon and Mark changed the method in which the acting awards were distributed. Five individuals came on stage, each delivering a message of praise for their respective nominee. It's hard to describe. Just watch.
This is best actress, being presented by Marion Cotillard, Shirley MacLain, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, and a Triceratops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P552i5xx8ww&feature=related
Heath Ledger winning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1VPRjd-x1g
The Crazy French dude from Man On Wire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD9jsx9mKtQ
Slumdog Millionaire winning Best Picture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt3FOv-Uils
Slumdog won 8 awards, including Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Cinematography. Other big winners: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3),
The Dark Knight (2), and Milk (2).
And sorry about the introduction paragraph. Just had to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)