...wife and kid in the living room, which is just behind the entrance of the house...
...gate left open...
...knocking...
We live in a time where on any given newscast, we are inundated with news items that double as cautionary tales. News of random robberies, assaults...it's a scary, negative world, and it seems so random. Basically, if you watch the local news, you'll be inclined to never, ever trust anyone.
On top of that, my neighborhood has a history, one that from any Google search of my street, would deem it a mostly BAD history. Without giving away too much detail, there is actually a Hispanic gang named after my street.
But I don't know what it is about me.
Maybe Catholic guilt. Maybe Anthropologist, 'let's-see-where-this-goes' mentality.
I crack open the door, but not our steel screen door so that there remains a barrier between me and this unknown individual. I can kind of see him, but he can't see me. He's shortish, mid-50s black man.
I ask him what's going on.
He says that he used to live in the very house that I live in today. Says his name is 'Bobby.' He says that the neighbors know him.
I think to myself, "well how come they don't help him out?"
He says that he was just in the neighborhood and got into some kind of fight.
He tells me that I have to help him.
There's a desperation in his voice that I would avoid on Metro trains. But him being here, in my house, on my family's property, means that I can't just ignore him.
He asks if I could drive him to his place in South Los Angeles.
By this point, I'm blown away. I'm glad he doesn't solicit money. I don't really want to turn him away, but I still don't know who the fuck he is or what he's doing here. However, if all he wants is a ride, I instantly get an idea.
"Hey man, what if I call you an Uber?"
The idea is my way of helping with something without spending money or necessarily directly dealing with him.
He keeps going on about how he just wants to go to his home in South LA and how he is known in this neighborhood.
He never really answers the question, but tacitly he seems to approve as I explain that it's like a Taxi. I pull up my phone and order it up from my app. I order it, but I also want to warn the Uber driver by calling her; the driver never picks up the phone. 11 Minutes.
I tell him it is ordered, and that they're coming in 10 minutes.
I take a closer look and see that he's bleeding just above the mouth. I just try to continue conversation about what the neighborhood was like, trying in earnest to verify his claim to the neighborhood.
He said that he grew up in my house during the 1980s. He said it was where he grew up. Kept saying that he knew people around, but conveniently were nowhere to be found on this chance school night.
When I see the Uber is getting close, I finally open the screen door so I could go outside and meet the man.
I tell him that the Uber is there, and he's still talking about going to South LA. He's talking the whole time.
A middle-agish "alternative" looking white lady in a black sedan pulls up in front of my neighbor's house, and I spot her. She has another passenger seated in the front seat, also another woman.
I immediately claim responsibility and say I ordered the Uber and ask if its OK.
She nods, and says, "It's fine."
Bobby hops into the backseat and I thank her with the profusion of a million suns.
But now, I just hope I don't see a local news story about an Uber driver something something by her passenger...
A Few Wednesdays Later
A white station wagon is parked right in front of my drive way where I normally would park after a day of work.
It is about 2 in the afternoon.
I usually get that parking space, and it is sometimes a big deal when someone takes it.
Today, it is taken.
By Bobby.
He is talking to a neighbor that I don't talk to and greets me as soon as he sees me.
Says that he was here to repay me for calling that Uber.
He gives me $20, and says that we should barbecue some time.
Dodgers Radio Team on AM 710 Is Kinda Biased
...and that would be expected. Heck, maybe it's what the station managers told them to do to keep their main listeners listening and interested.
But, from my perspective, it is cringe-worthy listening to their in-game commentary while rooting for the other team.
Yes, I am a Cubs fan, and have been since Triple Play 2000 for the Playstation (1) and a pixelized Sammy Sosa was featured on the CD cover. Though I will admit that I've only dropped in and out of following them depending on their fortunes --- this year I am glad I get to tune out of UCLA football, phew less sports to follow.
I had only listened to these Dodgers announcers once, on Tuesday, for Game 3 and I already decided then that I was done with them unless the Cubs were winning thoroughly.
The only reason I bothered listening is because I was on the way home from work, captive to the radio, and the Cubs were already up 8-2, or so last I'd checked on my The only reason I bothered listening is because I was on the way home from work, captive to the radio, and the Cubs were already up 8-2 last I'd checked about 5 minutes before I got to the car.
My Evidence
When I tuned in yesterday at the top of the 9th inning, they spent a Cubs at-bat talking about how some Cleveland Indians' player had a wedding registry. I'd already figured them as homers and were bellyaching so bad, so it was kinda satisfying to hear them blabbering on about something else.
But what annoyed me was this.
They use A LOT of hopeful, suggestive intimation towards Dodgers good fortunes, whether it's suggesting how the Dodgers could do this, or the Cubs (or the team the Dodgers are facing) could fuck it up.
For example, when I was listening to the game on Tuesday, which the Dodgers won 6-0 with Rich Hill's pitching beating out Jake Arrieta's. The Dodgers were able to get lots of people on base. Throughout the commentary they kept mentioning how Arrieta and the Catcher Miguel Montero were not good at preventing runners from stealing bases. They then juxtaposed that talk with describing how fast the Dodgers runners were.
What made it annoying was not that they mentioned this at all, but that they flooded their commentary spelling this out, almost acting as a primers for Dodgers' coaching strategy. It was like they were egging on, rather than just remarking on it.
Another example, Cubs closer Aroldis Chapman was pitching yesterday. The Cubs were already up by 6 runs. The Dodgers were able to put some runners on base. One of them kept mentioning that he had not thrown a ball over 99...meaning...obviously...COMEBACK! He did let us know that a pitch had reached 100, but he glossed over that. They just kept talking about how a closer could come in rusty or how perhaps the Dodgers could tire him out for Game 6 by upping his pitch count.
Anyhoo, full disclosure obligatory mention of Billy the GOAT. I still remember 2003, and genuinely feel sorry for Steve Bartman.
But, from my perspective, it is cringe-worthy listening to their in-game commentary while rooting for the other team.
Yes, I am a Cubs fan, and have been since Triple Play 2000 for the Playstation (1) and a pixelized Sammy Sosa was featured on the CD cover. Though I will admit that I've only dropped in and out of following them depending on their fortunes --- this year I am glad I get to tune out of UCLA football, phew less sports to follow.
I had only listened to these Dodgers announcers once, on Tuesday, for Game 3 and I already decided then that I was done with them unless the Cubs were winning thoroughly.
The only reason I bothered listening is because I was on the way home from work, captive to the radio, and the Cubs were already up 8-2, or so last I'd checked on my The only reason I bothered listening is because I was on the way home from work, captive to the radio, and the Cubs were already up 8-2 last I'd checked about 5 minutes before I got to the car.
My Evidence
When I tuned in yesterday at the top of the 9th inning, they spent a Cubs at-bat talking about how some Cleveland Indians' player had a wedding registry. I'd already figured them as homers and were bellyaching so bad, so it was kinda satisfying to hear them blabbering on about something else.
But what annoyed me was this.
They use A LOT of hopeful, suggestive intimation towards Dodgers good fortunes, whether it's suggesting how the Dodgers could do this, or the Cubs (or the team the Dodgers are facing) could fuck it up.
For example, when I was listening to the game on Tuesday, which the Dodgers won 6-0 with Rich Hill's pitching beating out Jake Arrieta's. The Dodgers were able to get lots of people on base. Throughout the commentary they kept mentioning how Arrieta and the Catcher Miguel Montero were not good at preventing runners from stealing bases. They then juxtaposed that talk with describing how fast the Dodgers runners were.
What made it annoying was not that they mentioned this at all, but that they flooded their commentary spelling this out, almost acting as a primers for Dodgers' coaching strategy. It was like they were egging on, rather than just remarking on it.
Another example, Cubs closer Aroldis Chapman was pitching yesterday. The Cubs were already up by 6 runs. The Dodgers were able to put some runners on base. One of them kept mentioning that he had not thrown a ball over 99...meaning...obviously...COMEBACK! He did let us know that a pitch had reached 100, but he glossed over that. They just kept talking about how a closer could come in rusty or how perhaps the Dodgers could tire him out for Game 6 by upping his pitch count.
Anyhoo, full disclosure obligatory mention of Billy the GOAT. I still remember 2003, and genuinely feel sorry for Steve Bartman.
A Vanishing America
Great photo set of LA from the 1950s from LAist.
http://laist.com/2016/09/01/amateur_photographer_charles_w_cush.php#photo-25
Marked for future reference.
However, just one word set off a ripple of alarms, cowbells, and racing firetruck engines...in my head.
"vanishing"
She used it in this sentence, "The Chicago Business took 14,500 images between 1938 and 1969, capturing a vanishing America. [emphasis mine]
I don't know if that was intentional and/or added by an editor, but I instantly get a sense of someone who is in love with an idyllic image of 1950s America, back when America Was Already Sooo Great, if you catch my drift.
http://laist.com/2016/09/01/amateur_photographer_charles_w_cush.php#photo-25
Marked for future reference.
However, just one word set off a ripple of alarms, cowbells, and racing firetruck engines...in my head.
"vanishing"
She used it in this sentence, "The Chicago Business took 14,500 images between 1938 and 1969, capturing a vanishing America. [emphasis mine]
I don't know if that was intentional and/or added by an editor, but I instantly get a sense of someone who is in love with an idyllic image of 1950s America, back when America Was Already Sooo Great, if you catch my drift.
No Wonder There's the Idea that Public Radio is Just For White People...
I've been in Bakersfield for work the
past few weeks.
A whole lot of driving.
A whole lot of radio.
The radio stations once you make your way down the Grapevine are the following: people questioning evolution, Christian rock, Christian country, mariachi, banda, banda, mariachi, morally-questionable but annoyingly earwormy "hip-hop", and country...
It took me a while to find 89.1 --- it wasn't until my last trip in the late/early hours of a weekday morning when the familiar Morning Edition voices assured me that there was SOMETHING here in the San Joaquin Valley.
I kept it there...
9AM.
Classical.
12 PM.
Classical.
2 PM
Classical.
It seemed like the only genre that the programmers knew. Made me wonder, was it just cheaper to acquire the rights to play all this classical? Do they think that's the only way to enhance the mind? What the fuck.
THAT, was public radio for the San Joaquin Valley, at least on a weekday. Valley Public Radio.
The content reminded me of what I thought Public Television once was. Inaccessible, high and mighty, and not really part of my world. Meaning, white people.
Thinking about the content of the public radio in the San Joaquin, and its listeners is quite the juxtaposition to seeing the young kids of color blasting the catchy earwormy "hip-hop."
I know in LA, you can find even more young kids blasting the catchy earwormy "hip-hop" and could find a contrast, but it seems that KPCC, if someone does not know and listens long enough for any stretch of time, will eventually come across a topic that they're interested in: where they're discussing abortion, schools, bike lanes, gun control, Donald Trump, or hell, even a comics convention. Something for everyone, very much unlike Valley Public Radio.
A whole lot of driving.
A whole lot of radio.
The radio stations once you make your way down the Grapevine are the following: people questioning evolution, Christian rock, Christian country, mariachi, banda, banda, mariachi, morally-questionable but annoyingly earwormy "hip-hop", and country...
It took me a while to find 89.1 --- it wasn't until my last trip in the late/early hours of a weekday morning when the familiar Morning Edition voices assured me that there was SOMETHING here in the San Joaquin Valley.
I kept it there...
9AM.
Classical.
12 PM.
Classical.
2 PM
Classical.
It seemed like the only genre that the programmers knew. Made me wonder, was it just cheaper to acquire the rights to play all this classical? Do they think that's the only way to enhance the mind? What the fuck.
THAT, was public radio for the San Joaquin Valley, at least on a weekday. Valley Public Radio.
The content reminded me of what I thought Public Television once was. Inaccessible, high and mighty, and not really part of my world. Meaning, white people.
Thinking about the content of the public radio in the San Joaquin, and its listeners is quite the juxtaposition to seeing the young kids of color blasting the catchy earwormy "hip-hop."
I know in LA, you can find even more young kids blasting the catchy earwormy "hip-hop" and could find a contrast, but it seems that KPCC, if someone does not know and listens long enough for any stretch of time, will eventually come across a topic that they're interested in: where they're discussing abortion, schools, bike lanes, gun control, Donald Trump, or hell, even a comics convention. Something for everyone, very much unlike Valley Public Radio.
Delineating 'Predatory Policing'
I'm continuing my thoughts from this post.
This morning at around 9:15 AM, after the rush hour has come and gone, I was driving back to my house in Compton along Central Ave.
I'm driving about the speed limit.
And right on cue, in my back mirror, an LASD sheriff's black and white is tracking behind me.
My heart sinks. My eyes zip right over to the speedometer, meticulously making sure that I'm driving 40.
About 10 seconds elapse, I check to see if the black and white is gone. Nope still there, behind my relatively slow drive, as I cross 120th and Central.
Finally, I breathe an air of relief when the LASD black and white switches lanes around 135th and Central.
Predatory policing: when the police make it seem as if they're out to get you, as if they're waiting for you to do something wrong. That's in opposition to what I think police should do as peacekeepers; responding to problems.
An incident of predatory policing actually happened to my wife two years ago in the City of Carson. She got the most frivolous ticket ever. She once got a ticket from an LASD sheriff for bringing her dog to the park.
The City of Carson actually has written into code that you can't bring dogs...to...a...park. Yes, you read that write, you...CANNOT...bring...dogs...to...a...park. No dogs at a park within City of Carson maintained facilities.
The signage wasn't all that visible in the parking lot nor elsewhere in the park. There was even two separate people who brought even bigger dogs immediately after her run-in with this sheriff.
Luckily, when I tried to bring this ticket to City Hall in Compton to pay for it, or take it in to see what would happen, the ticket was not in the system, and the clerk herself was confused about why exactly we got the ticket.
This morning at around 9:15 AM, after the rush hour has come and gone, I was driving back to my house in Compton along Central Ave.
I'm driving about the speed limit.
And right on cue, in my back mirror, an LASD sheriff's black and white is tracking behind me.
My heart sinks. My eyes zip right over to the speedometer, meticulously making sure that I'm driving 40.
About 10 seconds elapse, I check to see if the black and white is gone. Nope still there, behind my relatively slow drive, as I cross 120th and Central.
Finally, I breathe an air of relief when the LASD black and white switches lanes around 135th and Central.
Predatory policing: when the police make it seem as if they're out to get you, as if they're waiting for you to do something wrong. That's in opposition to what I think police should do as peacekeepers; responding to problems.
An incident of predatory policing actually happened to my wife two years ago in the City of Carson. She got the most frivolous ticket ever. She once got a ticket from an LASD sheriff for bringing her dog to the park.
The City of Carson actually has written into code that you can't bring dogs...to...a...park. Yes, you read that write, you...CANNOT...bring...dogs...to...a...park. No dogs at a park within City of Carson maintained facilities.
The signage wasn't all that visible in the parking lot nor elsewhere in the park. There was even two separate people who brought even bigger dogs immediately after her run-in with this sheriff.
Luckily, when I tried to bring this ticket to City Hall in Compton to pay for it, or take it in to see what would happen, the ticket was not in the system, and the clerk herself was confused about why exactly we got the ticket.
Counter-stories to Orientalism, Othering, and De-Humanization
Ho-Hum Memorial Day Weekend.
My most favorite channel on Television ever, PBS World Channel, is showing a documentary on Navy SEALS, detailing their history from Iraq all the way to the present day.
World Channel is my favorite channel because their content consists of documentaries about things that got me interested in Anthropology in the first place. Their range is amazing, particularly in their mainstay shows such as America Re-Framed and Independent Lens. The topics stretch from a documentarian documenting the care of her aging parents to schoolchildren to archaeological explorations.
However, I wanted to talk about the one time that I've watched possibly the only thing I don't agree with on this channel, and that's contained within the previously mentioned Navy SEALS documentary.
I don't really mind, the Navy SEALS as a group being explored. I'm an Anthropologist. Almost anything goes.
In fact, I'd spent an hour reading an ESpN article about Tiger Woods and his obsession with the Navy SEALS. I had never read an article with such breadth and depth. I even google searched a few Navy SEALS things for a few days afterward.
My problem isn't so much World Channel showing a documentary on Navy SEALS, its just that the documentary is something I might find on the History Channel with the underlying narrative of American moral superiority.
Serving that thread of moral superiority, we see hours of SEALS in battle and recalling their battles.
We see a lot of footage in war in bombed out urban centers in the Middle East and North Africa.
We see footage of Islamic militants carrying their guns and "evil."
We see footage of masses of brown people crying in grief over what they have lost.
That is all the same stuff you would see on CNN, where the average citizen is in no position to understand nuance in the Middle East (myself included) beyond bad (brown) guys and good guys.
It's a contrast to why I think I usually like the documentaries on the channel: they follow individuals or a group of people, good or bad. They show how they deal with situations and/or a journey sometimes bumping into everyday complexities that they face.
When I watched that Navy SEALS documentary, I was just left wondering what it means for the viewing public's understanding to keep oversimplifying the region, by showing just bits of these urban centers only when they are bombed out, seeing these brown people only crying in grief, all while keeping emphasis on the idea that this is the fault of one religion when they keep saying "Islamic state."
I wonder, what were those urban centers like before?
What were those brown people like before?
Can we not get insight into their daily intricacies?
My most favorite channel on Television ever, PBS World Channel, is showing a documentary on Navy SEALS, detailing their history from Iraq all the way to the present day.
World Channel is my favorite channel because their content consists of documentaries about things that got me interested in Anthropology in the first place. Their range is amazing, particularly in their mainstay shows such as America Re-Framed and Independent Lens. The topics stretch from a documentarian documenting the care of her aging parents to schoolchildren to archaeological explorations.
However, I wanted to talk about the one time that I've watched possibly the only thing I don't agree with on this channel, and that's contained within the previously mentioned Navy SEALS documentary.
I don't really mind, the Navy SEALS as a group being explored. I'm an Anthropologist. Almost anything goes.
In fact, I'd spent an hour reading an ESpN article about Tiger Woods and his obsession with the Navy SEALS. I had never read an article with such breadth and depth. I even google searched a few Navy SEALS things for a few days afterward.
My problem isn't so much World Channel showing a documentary on Navy SEALS, its just that the documentary is something I might find on the History Channel with the underlying narrative of American moral superiority.
Serving that thread of moral superiority, we see hours of SEALS in battle and recalling their battles.
We see a lot of footage in war in bombed out urban centers in the Middle East and North Africa.
We see footage of Islamic militants carrying their guns and "evil."
We see footage of masses of brown people crying in grief over what they have lost.
That is all the same stuff you would see on CNN, where the average citizen is in no position to understand nuance in the Middle East (myself included) beyond bad (brown) guys and good guys.
It's a contrast to why I think I usually like the documentaries on the channel: they follow individuals or a group of people, good or bad. They show how they deal with situations and/or a journey sometimes bumping into everyday complexities that they face.
When I watched that Navy SEALS documentary, I was just left wondering what it means for the viewing public's understanding to keep oversimplifying the region, by showing just bits of these urban centers only when they are bombed out, seeing these brown people only crying in grief, all while keeping emphasis on the idea that this is the fault of one religion when they keep saying "Islamic state."
I wonder, what were those urban centers like before?
What were those brown people like before?
Can we not get insight into their daily intricacies?
The Grocery Outlet in Compton: Its OK...So Far...
If Trader Joe's and Food4Less had a baby, it would be called Grocery Outlet.
The Grocery Outlet is what has officially replaced the Fresh N'Easy.
So far, not so bad, though I'm getting a lot more critical and noticing things with each visit.
In the few weeks its been open, I've already been there five separate times.
Far as I can tell, it seems like their strategy was to rope people in with noticeable, big, "organic" brands, and then eventually as people come in, push the cheaper, unknown brands. For example, when we first went there, about 2 or 3 weeks ago, during Easter break, I noticed the coffee creamer they had: Dunkin' Donuts!!!! We jumped on it. A week later when I returned, it was replaced by a brand called "International."
I'd a given it a 5 after the 1st trip.
After 5 trips, if I were to give it a rating on a scale of 1 through 5, with 5 being the highest recommended number, I would give it a 3.5. Definitely worth trying but keep a critical eye on it.
Good:
The Grocery Outlet is what has officially replaced the Fresh N'Easy.
So far, not so bad, though I'm getting a lot more critical and noticing things with each visit.
In the few weeks its been open, I've already been there five separate times.
Far as I can tell, it seems like their strategy was to rope people in with noticeable, big, "organic" brands, and then eventually as people come in, push the cheaper, unknown brands. For example, when we first went there, about 2 or 3 weeks ago, during Easter break, I noticed the coffee creamer they had: Dunkin' Donuts!!!! We jumped on it. A week later when I returned, it was replaced by a brand called "International."
I'd a given it a 5 after the 1st trip.
After 5 trips, if I were to give it a rating on a scale of 1 through 5, with 5 being the highest recommended number, I would give it a 3.5. Definitely worth trying but keep a critical eye on it.
Good:
- A Family parking space, which will probably get controversial
- A really ergonomic cart, complete with a coffee holder
- Four packets of strawberries for $5
- Some recognizable organic brands; Kashi, Toms, Clif bars
- Kind of low on the Gardein meatless products --- all they have are the fishless filets which are not bad but my wife isn't a fan of it
- Little physical space, meaning little choice, which seems to get worse every time. Yesterday I went to get Silk soy milk. All they had was cashew milk from Silk, which isn't really one of the "mainstream" milks from silk.
- Volatile selection of items. As mentioned, the soy milk. I also noticed the rapid decline in their non-dairy ice cream products. There was So Delicious at first, but it descended onto more of the mainstream, regular ass dairy products.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)