#3482

The young man sits in his wool woven seat, cracked at the ends from his unusual posterity, moving the mouse to place the Queen on top of the King. He thinks this game is won and were it not for the black swan of an error in his fidgety fingers when he was going through the deck he probably would have caught his mistake.

This is the thirty second game he's played since his shift started and he has won none of them. He doesn't feel disheartened, though. He's much too apathetic to feel really anything about this silly game of solitaire on this silly machine. The only reason he plays solitaire is to pass the time, anyway. He could always move on to Hearts but its a little too complicated for him, what with the trading of the cards and then figuring the suits into the strategy. Then there's, what, spider solitaire? The young man doesn't believe in variations of classics. The young man doesn't consider himself slow or stupid. The young man is just trying to pass the time.

He receives the radio relay signaling him to meet the prisoners at the elevator in order to transfer them into the visitors room. This young man closes his current game and walks over to meet this next batch of delinquents.

And delinquents is what they are. He has seen prisoners of all types; from the violent repeated offenders to the remorseful strayards. He has little interest in actually engaging in anymore contact than he needs to with these peoples, hence, his position as detainee transfer deputy.

The young man doesn't fear for his safety with these men. That isn't why he chose his career in law enforcement as a DRD. The man simply doesn't care to engage in the drudge society anymore than he already does. Their luck has reached its limit and though he isn't superstitious, he isn't quite sure if he isn't either.

He leads the prisoners into a temperate room. On one side is where the prisoners sit; aluminum stools have locked themselves onto the ground and the floor is stone pavement. On the other side is where the visitors damn or cry or often just stare. Their seats are more comfortable.

The young man unshackles the chains, one by one, making sure to re-shackle them onto the stools. Then, the young man exists the room, leaving the criminals to their own thoughts before the visitors are allowed to enter theirs.

He walks out and back to his woolen chair adjacent to the Plexiglas where the prisoners sit. He looks at the time; roughly two hours left in his shift. Deciding he doesn't yet want to begin his wager, he tilts his head though not his eyes through the plexiglas. This way he can still generally examine them without regarding them. One of the jailed sits in his stool, hands clasped and head down, though not praying, waiting for his visitor, whom will likely be a future visitor of this cage. The other jailed paces as far as his chain will let him, eyes glaring through the glass, waiting to be given the chance to strike at fortuna. The last jailed is obviously out of place; his eyes red, he trembles at the smell of justice and nods his head back and fourth. The prisoner diversity intrigues him.

By any regards, the man thinks, these delinquents would be regarded in a much more lamentable status than him. Their solemn looks stand testament to that. On this day, he speculates their thoughts. Some may surely be damning the stars. Still others may be damning him. Rare it is when compunction leaden their souls. Though the man has never engaged in conversation with any of the prisoners, he feels their travesties are finite behavioral nuances. Here, these prisoners can either be sentenced to their hell or blessed a rebirth.

Before becoming consumed in his thoughts, their thoughts, the young man pops game #3482 on the screen. The young man moves the ace up to the top right of the screen and longs for a deck of his own.

When I was 13 I went through this phase where I read books by and about Che and writings from Subcomandante Marcos and Noam Chomsky . I didn't quite grasp the "practical" (as practical as Che or Marcos or Chomsky writings could be) ideas that these icons solicited but I did understand one thing-- these guys were revolutionary because they were fighting "the system." Now, I didn't exactly know what "the system" really meant, I just knew that my parents were working their asses off day and night between work and owning their own business and the results were disillusioning. It just wasn't fair to me that one could work so hard, be such a good person, and be slapped with such cruel luck throughout their life. I attributed this "cruel luck" to "the systems" lack of compassion and inability to distinguish between those who work hard and patiently await the fruit of their labors and those who scum their way through life.

I wanted to be like these guys. Not in their way but in mine. I wanted to disconnect myself with the commercial reality. I slept outside under the stars. I'd refuse to have my parents drive and pick me up from school. I wanted nothing to do with technology. It lasted only a week. Maybe two. The thing was that I didn't really expect it to last. When I did wake up on the last day I was keeping with my ritual, I knew it would be the last. It just felt right to stop. I think my parents thought I was on drugs.

I don't know why I stopped but I did. I think a part of me knew it was just an experiment. But there would be no way to feel what I wanted to feel without going ahead and doing that. In the end, I realized there was no use in pretending I wasn't born to a family that loved me. To a home where I was lucky enough to have breakfast every morning (well, that's kind of a lie since I don't really remember ever eating breakfast) and dinner every night. To the luxuries that other folks were not lucky enough to have. And I say lucky because that's exactly all it is. What prevented me from being born in the midst of the Hutu and Tutsi conflict? The Bosnian conflict? The Spanish Inquisition? Nothing.

An intimate friend was discussing her interpretation of Into the Wild the other night and I think that caused me to remember this. It's nice to have ideals. It's nice to have principles to live by. But when your principles go against the very person you know you are, then it becomes deceit by ones own idealism. Yes, you must be the change you wish to see, but if you have never seen the change you wish to see then your very interpretation of what needs to change can be dangerously misinterpreted. And for that reason, nothing is more important than staying true to yourself. Whatever that may be. You can always affect what you wish to effect but one just needs to tap into the proper medium. A rose is a rose is a rose.

Art.

let yourself feel. from Esteban Diácono on Vimeo.

That was soo 3 Months Ago...

This phrase, this idea, this mantra that if it's not new and shiny than it's worthless, has been taking this world by storm. This plague has manifested itself as a cancer in the heart of most bloggers, hip-hop fiends, and lovers of anything that is indie. If you're late on Lykke Li, Bon Iver, Phoenix, or the next Drake mixtape don't bother bringing it up during a conversation. There's no witty remark there, just don't bring it up because you will only feed their smug sense of superiority. "Oh you're only finding out about Phoenix now? Wow that was like 3 months ago, homie." But what is really the harm in someone now just discovering Fleet Foxes? Why are you bothered that Kings of Leon sold out the Forum? There's this idea out there [this especially plagues the indie world] that once a band has outsold its little lounges that they used to play, brought in a new dynamic of fan, and basically make it in the music industry, that somehow makes them uncool and makes them a sell-out. Youth Novels or The Renaissance aren't any worse than they were last year. You music-heads out there should be happy that the musicians that you listen to are getting more and more popular. Yes, there are plenty of fucks out there who pretend to be "down" with the what's new and end up being really late, but that really shouldn't affect your opinion of the band. Your affection of a band ideally shouldn't be based on the fans that they hold, but of the sounds coming out of the speakers. What they eat don't make you shit. It doesn't matter if you discover it now or discover it 6 months from now, enjoyment doesn't have a start/stop button. If you just discovered Maxwell because of BLACKsummer's Night, then more power to you. Fuck what the gatekeepers of the indie world feel, music doesn't lose its shine just because you discovered it late, because if it did then we'd all be wiping the rust off of Abbey Road.


P.S. I am certainly guilty of being a douche over bands. Thanks for the update.

Glastonbury Tor, UK

Barney Frank Goes Hard.

Dear Misinformed Conservative Lady,
Did you really just get roasted by Barney Frank?

Oh yes, yes you did.

10 Meanest Cities.

To some people, the Land of the Free doesn't always seem so free. And America the Beautiful doesn't look so pretty.

That's the viewpoint of two Washington-based groups — the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, and the National Coalition for the Homeless — that have targeted the country's mingiest municipalities.

Without further ado, the groups' Top 10 Meanest U.S. Cities are:

1. Los Angeles

2. St. Petersburg, Fla.

3. Orlando, Fla.

4. Atlanta

5. Gainesville, Fla.

6. Kalamazoo, Mich.

7. San Francisco

8. Honolulu

9. Bradenton, Fla.

10. Berkeley, Calif.

The list is part of the organizations' "Homes Not Handcuffs" report. Released on Monday, the survey shows "an increase in the trend in cities around the country to criminalize homelessness," says NLCHP Executive Director Maria Foscarinis. Her group has been monitoring the issue since the early '90s.

The report, covering 224 cities, is an updated version of a 2006 study. In the past three years, according to the groups' findings, there has been a rise in laws that directly affect homeless people — including an 11 percent increase in anti-loitering laws and a 7 percent rise in regulations that ban camping in certain public spaces.

It's tempting to look at other, less serious ways cities might be ranked among the most mean. Largest number of quick-changing yellow traffic lights, for instance. Or least garbage pickups per month. A great city, Aristotle said a while back, is not to be confused with a populous one.

The meanest cities, Foscarinis says, are cracking down on people for "living in public places and for begging and eating and for seeking assistance in public places. Some cities are also punishing organizations and some people who are trying to help by offering food to poor people in public places."

In other words: Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. Just make sure they don't huddle and mass in public places.

Is such a narrowed view fair? A city that is deficient in one category might be abundant in another. Take the case of Kalamazoo. Just last month This Old House magazine named a Kalamazoo neighborhood as one of the best places to buy an old house. (OK, irony alert.) And it was only last year that the city was showcased by the Wall Street Journal for its successful economic development ventures.

And what about Berkeley? "We are famous around the globe as a center for academic achievement, scientific exploration, free speech and the arts," the city's Web site says. "Berkeley is a constantly changing mix of longtime residents and new neighbors, and whether you just arrived from Albany or Azerbaijan, you are welcome here."

And San Francisco? Why is the lovely, open-minded City by the Bay on the list? "Because it's mean," says Bob Offer-Westort, civil rights organizer at the San Francisco office of the National Coalition for the Homeless. "There are a number of efforts to criminalize homeless people in the city that stem from City Hall.

"Over the past year and half, San Francisco has started spending money on prosecuting cases — such as sleeping in parks and sleeping on sidewalks — that specifically target homeless people."

He also points to the Community Justice Center, a newly funded court in the Tenderloin neighborhood designed to cut down on "quality of life" crimes such as panhandling and public indecencies. Many of the court's cases, The Associated Press reported, have involved sleeping outdoors, blocking public passageways and creating a public nuisance.

And who will speak up for the "meanest city" of all? Casey Hernandez, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, comes to her city's defense. The report, Hernandez says, "fails to detail the city's housing-first strategy, which reflects national best practices for housing and services that help homeless individuals stay off the streets."

"The assertion that Los Angeles criminalizes homelessness," she says, "is simply false. ... Since 2007, Mayor Villaraigosa has dedicated $100 million annually to housing for the homeless."

Since taking office, Hernandez says, "the mayor has committed city funds to more than 1,078 permanent supportive housing units, creating more units to serve the homeless and those at risk of homelessness than in the previous 12 years combined."

In addition to permanent supportive housing, Hernandez adds, Los Angeles has worked to reduce crime in areas with high homeless populations. Hernandez credits the city's Safer City Initiative with helping reduce serious crime by more than 35 percent. "The city's first priority is to protect our most vulnerable residents from violent crime. The city dedicated an additional 50 officers to Skid Row to protect its residents and remove a significant criminal element that historically hinders efforts to provide services to the homeless."

The skid row initiative is specifically cited in the meanest cities report. According to a 2007 study by UCLA, the $6 million that the city was spending on the Safer City Initiative was more than the $5.7 million it was spending for homeless services. "Advocates found that during an 11-month period, 24 people were arrested 201 times, with an estimated cost of $3.6 million for use of police, the jail system, prosecutors, public defenders and the courts. Advocates asserted that the money could have instead provided supportive housing for 225 people," the report states.

To make the mean streets less so, Maria Foscarinis urges cities across the country to take more constructive approaches: providing housing, jobs and social services. In the end, she says, "that's more cost effective than deploying more police and spending more money on prisons and jails.

Linton Weeks NPR

In Las Vegas you can be fined up to $1000 or spend up to six months in jail just for feeding someone who is homeless. So how can you tell if someone is homeless? Well, as a Las Vegas statute puts it, "An indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive public assistance." But what if I am not a reasonable person and I decide to feed a homeless person? Would it hold up in court that because I am not of reasonable mind, therefore I cannot be charged with the misdemeanor? Probably not. Those who are in favor of cracking down on the homeless are doing so because they feel that those who help feed the homeless are just enablers and are truly just holding the homeless back from getting jobs and being productive members of society. Cool. Or they're just trying to cover their own asses and pretend that poverty does not exist in their "beautiful" city and to do so all they have to do is arrest and jail these "pests." Great job.