<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Comments by Jesse Leichtentritt</title>
    <description>Most recent public comments by Jesse Leichtentritt</description>
    <link>https://nowcomment.com/users/12818</link>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://nowcomment.com/users/12818/comments"/>
    <item>
      <title>Interesting Point</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=482120</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=482120</guid>
      <description>You make an interesting point when discussing the interactions between Bodie and Carv.  This section made me think about Stringer, who walked the social tightrope exceptionally well until his death (granted that this show and the characters are fictional.)  Receiving an education, or any attempt at decency, we see through Stringers character, he attends community college and attempts to legitimatize his business dealings. On the other hand when Avon is released from prison, he stands at stark opposites for all that Stringer represents.  Despite having more money than they could ever spend, neither character is able to convert the other character over to see things the way that they see it.  The perks of education, decency and success have Stringer blinded to the perks of the street life and code that Avon lives and vice a versa. </description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:47:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Robin Hood Phenomenon is BS</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=482113</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=482113</guid>
      <description>This is an interesting concept and I think its bullshit.  From the Disney cartoon I remember, Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, and it may be loosely based on English events from the 15th century.  As opposed to drug dealers, not stealing from the rich, but feeding off of the addictions that they helped propagate across a weaken lower socioeconomic class of society, for their own personal growth. Congratulations!A drug dealer helped pay for a family members surgery, who cares.  Personally I don't know the statistics or correlations, but this entire reading suggests that the drug trade is enmeshed with violence, so there is a strong chance that this drug dealer caused many hospital visits for many others before he had enough money to pay for a surgery, but its ok to overlook that because hes a contemporary Robin Hood killing off a section of our society that needs the most help yet he was nice enough to take care of a family member of his.  </description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:30:57 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Don't know if its good or bad</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=482099</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=482099</guid>
      <description>In considering the concept of what Colvin tried, I think there are pros and cons to it, however it side steps a big issue- essentially legalizing drugs without actually legalizing them.  It seems odd for the government to create plans and programs to facilitate an illegal activity- its like having a DUI checkpoint but instead of giving you a ticket they give you a beer and call you an Uber. Yes there will be less accidents from DUI's but we are kind of missing the point.  My example my sound silly, but it is still relevant.  The other little thing worth noting is that I wouldn't make a judgement based on a fictional tv show that created a hypothetical situation and one potential hypothetical outcome.  Regardless of how the &quot;stats&quot; changed for the better in the show, that doesn't carry much weight because of the simple fact that this is fictional. Also I'm not against legalizing drugs, thats not my point or stance, but rather that working around the law as opposed to within the law seems counter intuitive.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:14:39 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Attitude for Show</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=482096</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=482096</guid>
      <description>This paragraph, along with another stating similar issues of identification stuck out as extremely interesting.  The suggestion here is that &quot;law abiding and decent youths will imitate aspects of the fast life&quot; for personal gains, yet they are not specifically interested in the fast life but only surrounded by a community or atmosphere that thrives on it. The similar paragraph spoke about the clothing and being hip and wearing pants well below the waist, and again this was all about identifying in, to be part of their surrounding community/atmosphere.  What struck me strongest, given that I have lived in a few different places in the US, with differing economic situations, the concept of identifying in applies to almost all large groups.  Unlike other communities where identifying in can lead to more opportunities, here a balance is created between legality and street status.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:03:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
