Most recent public comments by Aislyn Rivera https://nowcomment.com/users/18891 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505922 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505922 I definitely agree that the choices the media makes to expose, exploit, and exacerbate certain issues to make a better story but I don't think its just because they can. Media outlets are driven by profit and making a lot of money, and what they primarily focus on are issues that will sell or topics that are filtered by whomever is funding them. With that being said, I'm not even sure if the "truth" would be exposed even if money was not an incentive, but I honestly don't know. Mon, 04 Apr 2016 22:21:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505911 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505911 I completely agree that both The Wire and Alexander illustrate cycles of injustice and oppression, and I know Alexander is speaking on issues relating more directly to the social oppression side of the war on drugs, but I see similarities in the idea of history repeating itself with the Moskos reading. In Moskos's chapter "Prohibition", he argues that drug prohibition prompts similar issues that the country faced earlier with alcohol prohibition. Its interesting, however, that Moskos' argument was for the continuation of the cycle and the repetition of the moves the government made for legalizing alcohol, (but with drugs) rather than breaking free of the cycle. It made me wonder, then, what kind of hope this reading and the Wire brings to the table, because I, too, didn't feel like the end of The Wire necessarily brought hope in a change of the "never-ending cycle" John describes. This reading didn't offer the same kind of hope the Moskos reading did, but I think that by even acknowledging that cycles of racial oppression do exist and that it is a problem offers some kind of starting point to make some kind of progress. Mon, 04 Apr 2016 22:06:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505874 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505874 This reminds me of the conversation that we have in class about exceptionalism in the media and how it focuses on individuals who transcend circumstance unlike The Wire, which gives viewers a better depiction of the reality of how systems and our society operates as a whole. Its interesting to think of how the "current system of control" that Alexander is talking about can be further reinforced by the media and how The Wire, in many ways, challenges this. Mon, 04 Apr 2016 20:07:01 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505870 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505870 Although I know Alexander is specifically is talking about incarceration rates and not arrest rates, I think this relates to the issues brought up in Moskos "Cop in the Hood". Moskos discusses certain cops' approaches to handling the war on drugs, some arguing that the best approach is making numerous arrests. The "lack of correlation between crime and punishment" supports the argument against making arrests as a helpful approach, and elucidates further that the issue at hand is with the institutions themselves that are at play, not the specific reactive measures. Tue, 05 Apr 2016 19:25:02 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=483629 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=483629 I agree but I think at the same time, De'londa is just trying to equip Namond with her understanding of their world and to be successful but in terms of the street. I think her reasons behind reinforcing what Anderson describes as the "street code" is selfish in many ways, but she is not necessarily trying to keep him from being his best. I just think she honestly does not know her son and thinks whats best for him (and her) is if he moves up in the drug trade. As mentioned in class, at least on the street, adopting "decent values" is not necessarily the best thing for a kid, and De'Londa's encouragement may actually be whats best for his situation at that time. Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:34:25 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=483569 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=483569 I think that these are thoughtful questions and I would try to answer some of them by pointing out that I do not think it would be fair to completely blame the school system for the fate of a student, although its very easy to see (at least based on The Wire's depiction of the school system) that there are several flaws in the institution. I think there are multiple factors that lead a student astray from being successful in school, perhaps some resting on the individual but there are major social and cultural issues at play that cannot be ignored. After all, according to Anderson's code and reinforced by The Wire's depiction of an inner-city school environment, being a good student is not necessarily respected within the community. What is valued is being street smart, therefore there is a lacking incentive to be a good student to begin with. Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:48:28 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=483567 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=483567 I think this line accurately highlighting Dr. Edward’s ignorance in thinking that uprooting Vicky and her family from their environment is the solution to essentially solving all their problems. Their environment has impacted them to such a powerful degree that transcends space and cannot be solved with a mere change in scenery. In a way, I’m reminded of Stringer Bell, because he is a character who is able to move back and forth between the different “worlds” of Baltimore marked by class and race. He is able to go to business school, manage his business in real estate, while also handle the Barksdale drug business. However, when he isn’t in the poor areas of Baltimore, he can’t seem to shake off his street knowledge and the way he has learned to cope with issues. The street has impacted him to such a degree that I don’t think he ever really could be a straight-edge businessman. The physical space of one's environment is not a sole influence on a person, but the culture, social values, and in this case, horrors within and surrounding that environment can create a lasting impact on a person that one cannot escape by moving. Tue, 01 Mar 2016 21:11:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=483527 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=483527 I think this school relates in many ways to the inner city schools like Tilghman Middle in The Wire, just based on the fact that both are pretending to prep but not actually prepping students for a future. The No Child Left Behind Act leaves the school prepping them for tests rather than teaching them valuable information in ways they can understand. I think this paragraph also suggests that it is not the intellect of the children that can keep them from a successful academic career path but the actual institution itself. The school itself can bar kids from moving on up, so to speak, and I think that’s true for Tilghman. Most of the children shown in Prez’s class are struggling to learn basics in math and language arts, but at the same time the school isn’t accommodating their needs but focusing on the school’s stats and standardized testing. Their priorities are not necessarily where they should be, although I do understand what a complicated situation it is (low stats could mean no more school). I think its important to note, then, the similarities between these two schools, fictional and real, and how this issue is not just plaguing inner city areas. Tue, 01 Mar 2016 20:46:14 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=483523 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=483523 I don't feel like the excuse that the "gang problem" being around "a long time" is valid for ignoring acts of what Leap describes as "urban terrorism" in LA. I also can understand a little better where Mark is coming from because from this comment I realize how hopeless he is for the future of gang violence, but I can't help but wonder if this view is extended to the entire LAPD and is an idea reinforced by the department rather than his own personal opinion? Is that the reason behind ignoring "urban terrorism"? This also reminds me in part of "Hamsterdam" in The Wire, simply because it seemed like an act that showed, at least to some degree, that the streets could get better given a certain radical initiative. If LAPD had their own kind of initiative like "Hamsterdam" would they shift focus on what Leap wants them to? Sat, 12 Mar 2016 19:04:14 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=483516 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=483516 Leap doesn’t offer the full context for this quote, but based on the quote alone, I can’t help but be reminded by The Wire's Season 3 in which many powerful people in command, such as Mayor Royce, make decisions with nothing in mind but securing their high standing position in the hierarchy of whatever institution they are working in. There were a lot of political motivations behind certain decisions (I remember Mayor Royce spent hours in his office trying to figure out a way to “spin” Hamsterdam to the press in his favor) that were arguably not for the greater good of Baltimore County but for themselves. In one seemingly small stray quote, Grasso implies the mayor wouldn’t listen to department issues if he wasn’t interested in reelection, suggesting that similar kind of political motivations influencing powerful people in The Wire's Baltimore are also influencing people running LA. Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:49:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=483494 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=483494 I think that this is a great question and although I do not have an answer, I think the show does a great job of portraying this kind of “urban terrorism”. For example, later in the 4th season of the show, Randy was not even able to leave his house for school because his foster mom was worried about what people (i.e. Marlo's gang) would do to him if he left. Although there was a cop car stationed outside his house, Baltimore police’s priorities shifted once they got a call that a fellow cop was supposedly getting shot at, leaving Randy and his foster mom in real danger. The scene doesn’t illustrate a case between foreign and urban terrorism, but it does show a poor organization of priorities on behalf of show’s Baltimore Police, similar to the poor organization of priorities that Leap sees within the LAPD. I don’t know if the Wire is directly suggesting that Baltimore Police is flawed or that maybe not everyone can be promised help, but I think the show is at least prompting the viewer to ask critical questions, such as yours, about what issues in urban environments like Baltimore deserve priority and whether or not those issues are getting the attention they need by the institutions that are supposed to help. Tue, 01 Mar 2016 18:29:08 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=483484 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=483484 I think this is a good point and I would like to add that detectives/police almost need to be desensitized in a way in order to do a good job. I'm not trying to say that that is the only way they could be good detectives or cops, but at least in the show, it seems like it helps them take a step back from the situation and look at it from a logical standpoint. I remember at some point in the 4th season Bunk tells Kima (when she is a rookie in homicide) that she needs to have “soft eyes” when investigating a crime scene, meaning she needs to be open to the possibilities of what could have happened, rather than have a sort of tunnel vision, focusing on only one part of the scene, leaving her ignorant to the bigger picture. I would say that the opposite of soft eyes, “hard eyes”, if you will, could include that someone is so emotionally invested they shut themselves off from the bigger picture, rendering them a poor detective or investigator. So in some ways I could see how desensitization, in some ways, can be helpful, almost necessary, for their line of work. Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:27:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=478873 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=478873 I agree that there are other factors involved in the transformation of their group but I would have to disagree about Namond. I think that while his mom was pressuring him to sell drugs, he was upset not because she was telling him to become more involved in the drug trade, but because she wanted him to still go to school. From the start of season 4, he seems uninterested in being involved in the drug trade at all, but I would say that a different kind of influence changed his outlook, or at least made him reconsider the position. His visit to his father in prison gave me the sense that because his dad was involved with drugs, he wanted to be involved with drugs to prove his manhood and establish a closer connection with his father, especially after he becomes locked up. Even imagining following in his father's footsteps seemed to give him a sense of pride and he did idolize the job simply because his dad had it. I do agree his mother played a large part, but on an emotional level, being involved in drugs made him feel closer to his dad. Wed, 02 Mar 2016 12:33:12 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=478872 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=478872 This description of a part-time father seems to fit D'Angelo's character, in a sense that we see him with Donette and his son when it was convenient for him. He doesn't show particular attachment for Donette and although I do think he loved his son, he didnt take to the idea of living together as a family (ex: when he got annoyed when he found his son's truck in the fridge). However, his family's money largely supported Donette and his son and I can't help but wonder what kind of father D'Angelo was, then? Was he a good father? What does it mean to be a good father, based on Anderson's descriptions of fatherhood in lower class, urban society? Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:51:37 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=478852 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=478852 I'm not sure if this idea can extend to The Wire. Yes, there are many deaths in the show that are taken pretty hard by people close to the deceased, but I think for the most part the young people seem almost numb to the idea of death (aside from Wallace). I'm thinking specifically in season 4 with the younger kids and how they handle death. For example, when Dukie shows his friends the dead body in the abandoned house, they all are relieved to see that the body is lifeless (and not a zombie). Randy even uses his knowledge of the death as a bargaining chip with Mrs. Donnelly to keep her from calling his foster mother. Randy is shown as being affected by the death because he was unintentionally involved, but I don't see these kids taking it "especially hard". Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:00:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=478849 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49884?scroll_to=478849 I think those who are victims are the people who are directly threatened in the stick up i.e. the person or persons with the gun pointed at them and I think that is what Anderson is talking about. However, I think that is still a good question to ask (whether or not the drug dealers are victims of Omar) and while I think technically they are, labeling them as victims implies that on some level they are powerless, and characters like Marlo prove that to be untrue. I would not consider Marlo to be a victim in that sense and, especially given his character, I find it hard to identify with him and feel bad. I also would agree that Omar is cunning to a certain degree because he does carefully plot his moves, but I'm not sure I would consider his moves to be creative. He is very upfront and fearless during his stick ups, usually just walking into the room and pulling out his gun confidently. I don't know if I would call that creative but to his credit he does plan them well. Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:49:03 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=453128 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=453128 I can see how Simon's ideas on capitalism play out in The Wire, especially in the first season. Several characters in the first season make many references to “the game”, especially when talking about an individual’s place in society. For example, when D’Angelo is explaining chess to Bodie and Wallace, the viewer soon becomes aware that chess is a metaphor for the “game” that the Barksdale gang is playing in the drug trade. I think by describing their relationships to each other in this way, they all become objectified and, by extension, become devalued as people. This scene relates to capitalism because in a capitalist society virtually everything is objectified as a commodity. So in this respect, I can see how Simon’s beliefs are translated to the world in The Wire. Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:25:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=453121 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=453121 I definitely agree that the show feels so realistic but I would also like to add that its important to remember how much effort has been expended into crafting both the script and the scenes in the show. The show feels like it is real (and I am not trying to say that the issues the show presents are not real) but the show is technically a fictional representation of Baltimore. I think its kind of ironic that the show seems authentic in large part because the producers, creators, set designers etc. tried hard to make it that way. Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:59:28 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=453111 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=453111 I think the clips we saw in class comparing how The Wire treats murder versus how The Shield treats murder can be helpful in this conversation. I think its crucial for The Wire to leave out the “good people” in order to focus on the good in people who are so frequently depicted as bad, like young African American men, as discussed in class. I agree with Shanelle that the point might be to see the good in everyone. I feel like the show would not be as successful as doing this if they included some all around good characters. I also agree with Lauren and Ryan that by leaving out the “decent people”, that depicts humanity more accurately (although I don’t necessarily think that the show’s intent is to portray reality completely accurately). Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:41:25 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=453097 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=453097 I thought I understood what Bowden means when he says Simon’s “fiction shouldn’t be mistaken for fact” but I became a little confused when he describes the Wire as reflecting “Simon’s own prejudices”. By using the word “prejudices” I feel like it kind of devalues Simon’s concerns about the institutions of Baltimore (specifically its journalism industry, as explained in this article). I'm not sure if this is what Bowden means when using the word "prejudices" but to me, at least, it implies that Simon's concerns are not based on fact or experience; that he has no real basis for his concerns and that he is perhaps a little ignorant. I wonder if Simon’s take on Baltimore is coming from a vindictive and personal place like the article describes, does that discredit in any way the broader issues the show is highlighting to its viewers? I’m also thinking about how Ted Burns works into all of this. Simon is not the sole creator of the show. I’m questioning if Burns feels similar about Baltimore the same way that Simon is described as feeling in this piece, especially as a former Baltimore police officer and teacher. Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:16:29 -0500