Found clickbaity video entitled "Stop the government from buying your home (the SOLUTION)"

It's hard to use a blog article to criticize a YouTube video.  I've tried before, and will keep trying.  I'm just not interested in the idea of making actual reaction videos (yet).  Anyway, sometimes I run across an op-ed that's so bad in my opinion but presented so slickly, it makes me want to respond.  "Stop the government from buying your home (the SOLUTION)" is one of those videos.  In this video, the presenter is someone who claims to be involved in real estate.  However, he provides opinions that ultimately seem to me to be questionable. 

There's a lot of conflation of information and opinions in this video.  In my opinion, this leads the video to support a conclusion that really doesn't amount to much.  This is a very disappointing presentation.

As someone who grew up in low-income housing, I find the presenter's comments about government-directed affordable housing to be rather nonsensical.  He pulls some very specific and extraordinary examples of supposed failure and presents these as if they are the norm.

Worse, the presenter comments about specific problems for some affordable housing projects in NYC as if they are general to all affordable housing projects in NYC, or anywhere in the US.  Ironically, at least some of the problems he ties to affordable housing are actually pretty common in NYC, even in the most expensive skyrises.  

Hell, the presenter even conflates affordable housing with eminent domain, as if every effort for affordable housing by government requires the use of eminent domain.  This simply isn't true. 

The presenter's solution is to rely on developers, but in a way that appears to ignore local democracy.  A major portion of this video shows a developer talking about process for a real estate development project.  Nothing talked about by the real estate developer seems unreasonable. The process for real estate development includes the sited steps in order to protect the interests of the people already living within the city and provide adequate support for new denizens.  Further, the presenter completely ignores the fact that such projects also sometimes require the use of eminent domain. 

To me, this video feels like watching a "60 Minutes" hit piece more than something that's actually factual and useful.  Worst still is that the title of the video appears to be pure clickbait, as this video doesn't address how to actually stop the government from buying your home.  A more accurate title might be "One idea on how to address housing shortage over time."

Ring Mining for Profit music release!

 

Other ED inspired music:
Explorer's Path
Cloud View
Orbital Dance

Ring Mining for Harmony

Ring Mining for Profit

Is breakfast cereal a soup? Nope! It's a salad!

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CetvforJnhT

Evolution isn't running backwards, I promise!

Here’s a sneak peek of the “Lonely Nights” music video

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cecilia Castleman (@ceciliacastleman)

Check out spacy ambient music inspired by mining activities in planetary rings in Elite Dangerous

 

Spacy ambient music inspired by mining activities in planetary rings in Elite Dangerous

Other ED inspired music:
Explorer's Path
Cloud View
Orbital Dance

Ring Mining for Harmony

Ring Mining for Profit

Bitter, there are bitter things or why I don't touch coffee

Fishy Cold Place Sweden Mandela Effect

So, have you heard of The Fishy Cold Place and wondered why your friend called it Sweden?  Well, it's not the Mandela Effect.  It's Julie Nolke.  I know.  I know.  Hard to believe, but it's true.  BTW, this post is an experiment based on the comments for Julie's video:

Hi!

Letter (at least some) that we should think about restoring to English

Eight years ago, I wrote an article about the letter thorn, that used to be used in English to represent TH sound.  Before that, I wrote about even more common sounds in English that aren't represented by English letters. Well, a few years ago, Austin McConnell also covered this topic in his video 10 Letters We Dropped From The Alphabet. In particular, my mind was blown at learning the origin for the name of "&".

Out of all these letters, I think we'd benefit from the restoration of thorn, and maybe some modification thereof so that the voiced and unvoiced TH sounds can both be represented.  (Much like Austin, I'm not a fan of eth.)

In N Out Burger in the snow

Larimer County, Colorado

 

"Face Plant" @ Summit House Restaurant

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaxcgDbPLTg/

Crystal Mountain Resort @ Mt. Rainier

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CasidovvQ9U/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CasjbkfviUH/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaszvxHvJnz/

Ink monster

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaNzLc9lTxL/

Confusion about why audiences of Star Trek and Star Wars were alienated in recent decades

 

Chris Gore is an America writer and founder of Film Threat magazine.  I remember him when we was on Attack of the Show on the now defunct G4 cable channel.  The video above, titled "How To Alienate The Audience - Chris Gore", is a recent interview where he discusses how modernization of story franchises alienates audiences.  In my opinion, he badly misses the mark.  His argument is that franchises shouldn't be modernized, instead they should be told in the traditions within which the story originated.  His examples (vague references to Star Wars and Star Trek) are based on either his own opinion about style or bad examples of storytelling in general.  But, instead of recognizing bad storytelling as just that, he incorrectly links his examples to a generalization about modernization of franchises. 

Gore first talks about the movie adaptation of Lord of the Rings, in which he admits he's not read the original books, but he is a fan of the Peter Jackson's movie trilogy.  While I agree that great choices were made in the production of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, I disagree where Gore tries to extent his argument to all franchises that are based on older source material.

For example, I don't agree with his reference to Star Trek reboot's use of Beastie Boys music.  His snide comments seem to suggest he is too close to the subject matter.  The Beastie Boys song is an intentional period piece choice that represents what a major character is experiencing.  As such, it's no more out-of-place or dated than any Disney animated movie with a musical number that does EXACTLY the same thing.  Why is 20th Century rock/rap taken so much less seriously than 20th Century faux-classical music?  

Maybe some Sci-Fi fans are turned off by this music choice in Star Trek reboot. However, this rejection may have more to do with established and predictable expectations for Sci-Fi movies more so than what makes a good Sci-Fi movie.  Why are some dismissive of music in a Sci-Fi movie that isn't written by Danny Elfman, Alexander Courage or John Williams?  Even in the original Star Trek series, non-traditional music was used for particular scenes to capture a particular emotion for that scene, so I would challenge Gore's argument on this point as well.  There's nothing inherent to the Star Trek franchise that precludes rock/rap music. 

Gore then states his issues with the quote "It felt only natural to us that an adaption of the author's work would reflect what the world actually looks like."  His issues with this quote reinforce to me that he is confusing bad storytelling with the concept of modernization of franchises.  Well, as I mentioned above, bad storytelling is not the same thing as modernization of a story franchise.  Modernization can include bad storytelling, but you don't necessarily make a story bad because you've modernized it. 

Basically, what works for Lord of the Rings may not work for other story franchises.  Retelling stories in difference periods from the original works often necessitates updation.

Maybe Gore would benefit by exposing/re-exposing himself to Joseph Campbell works about storytelling of myths and how each Age needs to retell stories for that Age.  We don't need to tell stories to preserve them indefinitely for future generations.  We should tell stories so that they make sense for us today.  Future generations will determine if or when a story becomes timeless.