Loaves & Fishes and "communitarian liberty"

The blockquote below [in brown text] is from Chris Hedges’ new book The Death of the Liberal Class (2010), pgs 156 & 157, which pretty much explains the political position where we find Loaves & Fishes these days, with its creation and promotion of SafeGround after indoctrination techniques used on [or against, as I would say] homeless people who have come to use L&F’s services. And, it explains where Loaves & Fishes is with respect to its unflagging rootedness in the Catholic Workers Movement. [An area at Loaves & Fishes is named after CW founder Dorothy Day.]

Hedges’ (and L&F’s) values relate to communitarian liberty which necessarily advances a huge and invasive government presence to impose a supposedly-just society. They want to “kindle outrage” to go backward to a system that has proved over and over and over again THAT IT DOESN’T WORK. In the Twentieth Century there was massive experimentation with the idea of an invasive government presence. It did not go well; people under the boot of Big Brother hated their circumstance, the certain evolution of massive corruption and truth twisting, and the deaths of a hundred million [A HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE DEAD!!] who were not comfortable with giving up all freedom to be meaningless pawns of the Great Leaders.

Hedges’ and Loaves and Fishes’ ideas misplace incentives in a society; disrupt efficiencies in production; put communities in a circumstance where Truth is malleable or arbitrary; and where the end justifies the means.

Hedges wrote,

Capitalism, as Marx understood, when it emasculates government and escapes its regulatory bonds, is a revolutionary force. And this revolutionary force is plunging us into a state of neofeudalism, endless war, and more draconian forms of internal repression. The liberal class lacks the fortitude and the ideas to protect the decaying system. It speaks in a twilight rhetoric that no longer corresponds to our reality. But the fiction of democracy remains useful, not only for corporations, but also for the bankrupt liberal class. If the fiction is exposed as a lie, liberals will be forced to consider actual resistance, which will be neither pleasant nor easy. As long as a democratic facade exists, liberals can engage in a useless moral posturing that requires no sacrifice or commitment. They can be the self-appointed scolds of the Democratic Party, acting as if they are part of the debate, vindicated by their pathetic cries of protest.

-

The best opportunities for radical social change exist among the poor, the homeless, the working class, and the destitute. As the numbers of disenfranchised dramatically increase, our only hope is to connect ourselves with the daily injustices visited upon the weak and the outcast. Out of this contact we can resurrect, from the ground up, a social ethic, a new movement. We must hand out our bowls of soup. Coax the homeless into a shower. Make sure those who are mentally ill, cruelly abandoned on city sidewalks, take their medication. We must go back into America’s segregated schools and prisons. We must protest, learn to live simply and begin, in an age of material and imperial decline, to speak with a new humility. It is in the tangible, mundane, and difficult work of forming groups and communities to care for others that we will kindle the outrage and the moral vision to fight back , that we will articulate an alternative.

Dorothy Day, who died in 1980, founded the Catholic Worker movement with Peter Maurin in the midst of the Great Depression. … Two Catholic Worker houses of hospitality in the Lower East Side soon followed. Day and Maurin preached a radical ethic that included an unwavering pacifism. They condemned private and state capitalism for its unfair distribution of wealth. They branded the profit motive as immoral. They were fervent supporters of the labor movement, the civil-rights movement, and all antiwar movements. They called on followers to take up lives of voluntary poverty. And when the old Communist Party came under fierce attack in the 1950s during the anticommunist purges, Day, although not a communist, was one of the only activists to denounce the repression and attend communist demonstrations.

If Dorothy Day and her movement had gotten their way in the 1930s, we would all be speaking Japanese and German. [That is, Day and the Catholic Workers Movement opposed America’s entry into World War II.] Every Jew, Black person and gypsy would be long exterminated. With my scoliosis, I would be killed. Living as well as people now do in North Korea would be something people of our day could only dream about.

If Dorothy Day and her movement had gotten governance in this world that they wanted, things would certainly have devolved such that we would all be suffering in a Soviet world where individuals are meaningless, and life is wholly drudgery. And, again, living as well as people now do in North Korea would be something people of our day could only dream about.

I agree that America, today, is offtrack, but it has a long history of doing a great many things right and of finding its way — albeit quite true that the US can be painfully slow at finding its way, oftentimes.

Destroying the country [in the Revolution that Cat Williams fervently promoted] to save it, wouldn't save it; it would just destroy it.

Case Dismissed

I have been informed by the Pro Per Co-ordinator that charges against me for trespassing on Loaves & Fishes' property have been dismissed by the District Attorney's Office. No reason was given.

I had mentioned the trespassing thing previously in this blog in a post on October 6: "'Justice' in Sacramento is disturbing."

I am still required to appear at my next scheduled court appearance, which had been for a Trial Readiness Conference. At that 'appearance,' I guess I may learn more about what's happened.

But, frankly, I'm not at all surprised about the dismissal and I am disappointed. Very disappointed. As much as I've been fretting lately, I was, also, looking forward to the trial. I would have cleaned the DA's clock.

Flier dispersal at City Hall

The Sacramento City Hall complex.  I handed out fliers in the area between the old and new buildings.

I passed out more Ugliness of SafeGround fliers at City Hall yesterday afternoon, in advance of the city's Workshop on Homelessness.

The fliers were those 'left over' after the handout of fliers at the Sacramento Community Homeless Forum two weeks ago.

Most of the fliers were given to employees of the City, including a couple council members and a few councilpeople's staff members.¹ I was greeted happily by five people who were aware of my activities or this blog. One woman was effusive in telling me she agreed with the content of the flier.  Some fliers went to a very few homeless people who came by.  I did not offer a flier to any of about three people who were wearing SafeGround T-shirts.

Libby Fernandez, CEO of Loaves & Fishes, came by, accompanied by a man I didn't know. She said, "Tom, Do you have something for me to read?" and then added, without pausing, "I guess not" and spun on her heels, and walked toward the door, her hair bouncing pertly. She and the man set at a window near the door, far in front of which I was handing out the fliers. Shortly thereafter, a guard — likely the head of security — came out and asked for a flier. I gave him one. He was reading it as he walked back into the new building at the City Hall Complex.  Apparently, there was no problem; I didn't hear from the guard again.
--
¹ I'm guessing; I wasn't able to clearly distinguish who was who except from knowing some faces [from viewing the City webspace and attending a few meetings] and by badges worn and how fancily dressed some folks were.

County approves funding for 50 beds this winter, beginning Dec 1

In a report that seems dire and stinting on the part of the County of Sacramento, the Sac Bee tells us that that $150,000 has been "found" to provide winter beds for homeless people, from December 1 through March 31.

Two shelters will provide 25 beds each for the four-month period. The Volunteers of American will manage the facilities at 3547 Myrtle Ave., in North Highlands, and 3671 Fifth Ave., in Sacramento. There is no news as for what category of homeless each facility is designated, but judging by the small number of beds, it is likely that one facility is for solo men, and the other for solo women.

There is nothing yet up at the VOA of Northern California website on the newly funded shelters.

Mayor promises "a place [for every single person] to lay their head this winter"

A late-in-the-day report from the Bee's homelessness writer, Cynthia Hubert, quotes Mayor Johnson at a press conference at Trinity Cathedral saying "We're going to make sure that every single person in the city of Sacramento has a place to lay their heads this winter."

The press conference is preliminary to a Workshop on Homelessness Issues to be held at City Hall, tomorrow at 2pm.  Here, the 28-page agenda packet concerning the 'workshop,' at the City of Sacramento website.

Joan Burke, Loaves & Fishes' Advocacy Director, sent a missive to the nonprofit's Action Alert database of supporters, titled "City Council Workshop of Homelessness to Discuss SafeGround" trumpeting the workshop and possible subsequent actions by the city council as a SafeGround matter.  She used the term SafeGround five times in the text of her short 160-word email.

Burke wrote, "Your presence will show support for SafeGround. This is an opportunity for City Council members to discuss SafeGround in the context of a path out of homelessness and into traditional housing. It is consonant with our "SafeGround, Homeward Bound," motto and Sacramento Step's Forward's commitment to ending homelessness." [SafeGround was not mentioned in the Bee report. I'm sure reporter Hubert will get thumped for that.]

A quick scan of the Agenda packet showed nothing specific about SafeGround's core homeless folk frolicking at Hawthorn Suites Hotel for four months, again, this winter as they did last year, during which time a homeless man froze to death downtown. [Or, died during extreme cold, I should say. It was early December, 2009, and the nighttime temperature dropped to the mid-20s.]

UPDATE 10/26: Cynthia Hubert's story in today's paper mentions Safeground -- spelling it like that, as one word, no capital-G in the middle -- twice, at the end. One usage has the Mayor saying, "Safeground is just a small component of an overall strategy. At the end of the day, long-term housing is what it's all about." Ooooooo, Joan Burke's gonna be mad! For her, long-term donation-gathering for empire building is solely what it's all about.

Why am I interested in the term safe ground / safeground / SafeGround / Safeground!? Because the Communist contingent of homeless-services providers are using confusion for their polical ends, a la Orwell. See prior posts in this blog "What the hell is 'safe ground,' now?" and "Strategies of Confusion: Duckspeak in Homeless World and the Mayor's Office effort to misinform."

A new women's shelter

There is some good news in regard to the adequate-shelter-this-winter problem that will soon take command of our full attention here in Homeless World Sacramento:  a new shelter for solo women is very very likely to go "on line" soon, hopefully before the first blast of extreme coldness and wetness.

Jeff vonKaenel, the all-things power behind Sacramento News & Review writes in his column this week …

Earlier that week, Moe Mohanna had taken me on a tour of his new homeless shelter for single women near the Loaves & Fishes complex. This new and controversial shelter has not yet been approved by the city, but it could certainly help provide much-needed housing this winter.

Please, please approve the shelter — dammit — city. This is NOT a year to be choosy.

I don't know what the issues are with respect to this new shelter, but any bed is a good bed, pretty much, in these economically-troubled times.  And since Moe Mohanna has sawbucks aplenty, I would expect that this new shelter is more-than-adequately adequate, despite MM's bit of a reputation for having a few not-up-to-code properties downtown, from time-to-time.

Not the usual star

Somewhere out there is an unusual star, covered over by the gloss of a forgotten galaxy.

It may seem dim, and less than ordinary, but in the homeless community of Sacramento there are more than a few candidates for a kind of stardom.

They go unnoticed.  They have been fully overlooked.  You have to pay keen attention.  They have been lost — you could say.  Like a gem covered in the sand.  But they are not just unusual, but the best of their sort.

Monkey and man

This common image that suggests that man directly evolved from the monkeys and apes that are exactly like those that exist today is misinformative. 

Recently, a friend of mine from the mission tried to press a point that I couldn’t understand. He said that he just didn’t see how we evolved from monkeys. He felt that the very idea was absurd. We are God’s complex creatures, uniquely made in His image, he said. The fact of our being here, on earth, is proof of God and proof of Creationism.

As we discussed the issue, I came to understand how he understood the late steps in the evolution of man: that homo sapien had emerged from what were, essentially, modern monkeys, becoming man as we know us, today.

Thus, in how he envisioned things, monkeys were static, and, somehow, we are to believe that humans emerged out of that. A vast silliness, he thought.

Well, that’s not how our evolution is understood to have happened. Here’s the matter, pithily explained, quoting from the “evolution” webpage at PBS:

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I do believe, and say often, that Evolution is the most proved and certain thing other than 1 + 1 = 2. I am always taken aback to see polling that shows how few Americans are as certain as I am that Evolution is The route by which humans got here, on earth. [Was my schooling that different than the majority of Americans!? How can it be!?]

The idea of Evolution pre-existed Charles Darwin’s 1859 book “On the Origin of the Species” and has been rigorously proved in a dozen different disciplines since, yet Darwin takes the brunt of the glory and blame for the “theory.” People were breeding dogs for many millennia before Darwin’s book. We knew that traits could be “selected for” in that species and others. We certainly have known since before written history began that family traits can get carried down from generation to generation. The evidence was piled high already before Darwin collected his own evidence to produce his controversial book.

Recent science has shown the great similarity between us and monkeys, even though our bloodlines diverged five- to eight-million years ago. Not only is our DNA 95% in synch with chimps, but our brains are, too, despite our supposing our human selfs to be so very vastly more complex and superior [or, as many Christians think, on a different order of being than that of (non-human) animals].

Frans de Waal, Director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta, wrote recently in an essay in the New York Times:

If we consider our species without letting ourselves be blinded by the technical advances of the last few millennia, we see a creature of flesh and blood with a brain that, albeit three times larger than a chimpanzee’s, doesn’t contain any new parts. Even our vaunted prefrontal cortex turns out to be of typical size: recent neuron-counting techniques classify the human brain as a linearly scaled-up monkey brain. No one doubts the superiority of our intellect, but we have no basic wants or needs that are not also present in our close relatives. I interact on a daily basis with monkeys and apes, which just like us strive for power, enjoy sex, want security and affection, kill over territory, and value trust and cooperation. Yes, we use cell phones and fly airplanes, but our psychological make-up remains that of a social primate. Even the posturing and deal-making among the alpha males in Washington is nothing out of the ordinary.

The Evolution of Man doesn’t disprove the existence of God, nor undermine the Book of Genesis. It does, however, require us to understand Genesis’ Creation Story as being metaphorical — which is a good thing! Metaphorically, the story of Adam and Eve is layered and rich in symbolism and meaning. Taken only as literally true, the story is an assault on our experience of life and sense of justice. Indeed, even most who believe the Adam and Eve story to be literally true, understand it metaphorically, whether they admit that or not. It is only from delving into its meaning that the Garden, temptation, knowledge of good and evil, suffering and the challenges after the fall become keenly interesting.

Besides, no person was there at the time Adam and Eve were, supposedly, in the Garden, to take notes and report on the interactions between the first man, first woman, God and the serpent. I maintain that what happened is what is rather obvious: A very clever guy, in the year 1000 BC — give or take 500 years — ‘created’ the best storyline he could conger up to explain human existence and our suffering. And that story, changed and enhanced a dozen times on its way to us, 3000 years later, is what we have (and are stuck with, for good or ill), today.

Recommended reading re Evolution:

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne
"Tom's First Sermon at Union Gospel Mission" written by me, from my other active blog, Homeless Tom

Freedom of Speech in California

The Constitution of the State of California is interesting.  Wikipedia tells us that the constitution is one of the longest in the world, superceded in length by only those of Alabama and India.  [Go figure.]

With 512 amendments, the Constitution of California is eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution and has been criticized as “a perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be” and derided for being “more about legal technicalities than principles; an embarrassment for an otherwise cutting-edge state.”

But it does have a nice, pithy statement regarding Freedom of Speech which is a cornerstone of the State and, famously, a cornerstone of our mostly-great country.  It is something  we Liberals revere and the totalitarian and imperious leaders in the Leftist wing of the homeless-services industry in Homeless World, based on their actions, want scuttled.

From the Constitution of the State of California:

ARTICLE 1, SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write
and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible
for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty
of speech or press.

And here the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in toto:

AMENDMENT 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

At the Sacramento Community Homeless Forum

I showed up at the so-called Sacramento Community Homeless Forum at Sacramento State University, put on and taught by ‘the usual suspects’ in the Leftist wing of the homeless services industry, here. I didn’t come to see the event, but to pass out fliers to attendees.

SafeGround was, somehow, the prime sponsor — though that group is tauted as homeless persons and not scholarly homeless experts — but, hey, wherever they want to funnel the money. [At the bottom of their poster, there’s a form that advises “All proceeds benefit Safe Ground Sacramento, Inc.”]

The poster for the event reads thus:

Join distinguished and innovative — scholars, social service providers, homeless leaders, advocates, law enforcement and business and civic leaders from our community — engaging in an interactive dialogue about homelessness in a time of crisis.

I didn’t see anybody that was “distinguished and innovative,” though people of that depiction did arrive later. Any audience, from the university or public, they might have wanted was surely far under expectations. I printed up 100 fliers, but had forty-two left over after having been out front from thirty minutes before the event to twenty minutes past its scheduled start.

This is a guess that is a little wild, perhaps, but the Redwood Room at the university, where the event was held, was pretty fair sized, big enough for 300 people in 'lecture configuration.' If fifty students or others from the university or pubic were there, I’d be surprised. UPDATE: While attendence early at the event probably was very low, later on, long after I'd left, many showed up to hear Mayor Johnson, and others. I saw no homeless people outside the SafeGround mob. [The presenters weren't there in the array advertised, unless they ducked in the back or, very possibly, many were coming much later to the, yowza, four-hour event.]

I’m giving y’all this information since, according to form, the homeless-services usual suspects (and, possibly, their media toadies) will taut the event as A Success! It Was a Success! in the usual straight-out-of-the-Chairman-Mao-guidebook style. [Everything's a success, damnit!  Never admit to problems.]

You know, my “problem” is I wouldn’t mind some success (that is, some real success). I am by no means doing cartwheels because if their event was a bust under attended and not meaningful. Winter will come and there will be people suffering from that out on the streets. It is just that the people putting on today’s event are the crowd of oblivious automatons that are the city’s Keystone Cops of Homelessness, not key players at enacting any remedies. They’ve proved a dearth of worth more than a few times, now. Homeless people have died and almost gotten killed, and things get run in ways so lacking in competence … that sometimes the shit comes down SO heavy I feel like I should wear a hat¹.
---------
¹ Quote from the movie Body Heat.

Odds and Ends

A friend of mine recently saw two movies - The Social Network and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.  Of the two he preferred the second.  And, knowing me, he recommended Wall Street, a movie likely to be better appreciated by someone of my (advanced) age (of 56).  The Social Network, after all, was geared for young adults and their rather-troubling mores.

Since, this late-morning, I had five bucks that was burning a hole in my pocket and was depressed as all get out, I started to look around for what movie I wanted to see.  The reviews of The Social Network are interesting. While the youthful sensibility of the movie was a drawback, the biggest drawback was that it had a 97% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Yipes.  Anything that gets 97% approval from critics just has to be good in a bland way, beyond redemption. 97% is what Disney animated movies get that are competently done and wholly non-offensive. I am a movie connoisseur: my interest, (somewhat) always, is in "the new."  And from all reports, despite its overly high RT rating, The Social Network has something 'new' about it.  Something that hadn't been tried before.

As a piece of work, The Social Network is fascinating.  It is original in many ways and addresses issues relating to Our Time.  It's also funny, and funniest when it's subtly funny, and I like that.  And some of the 'jokes' worked mostly because they were delivered especially well; good delivery is, um, a good thing.  It a key aspect of good acting.  Too, the lead actor in the movie, Jesse Eisenberg, was fully amazing.  It was a performance for the Ages, maybe, even if the film ends up being mostly appreciated just in our current decade.
-----
I had another legal meeting thing early this morning.  It was very embarrassing.  I don't have a storage locker, so I have to carry around my stuff, which weighs a ton, since I inherited my mother's pack-rat personality aspect.  The x-ray machine - or whatever you rightly call it - was out-of-whack at the courtroom annex where the 'thing' was and so I had to open my dufflebag for direct examination.  Woe, I am poor and a bit eccentric, I 'spose.  My "save everything" thing was on display.

Waiting in the waiting area, a couple of male lawyers - including 'my opponent' - were talking about feet, shoes and pedicures for men.  The lawyers were fancily dressed, spoiled rotten by every indication, talking about aspects of spectacularly expensive shoes and where to go to get your feet dipped into a mountain of fur (or, something like that).  Lotions, nail polish, scrubbing, cleanliness, softness all came up, as did the information that one of the lawyers had a wife and that the other lawyer was excellence at motorcycle maintenance.  [I think the macho thing came up at the end because otherwise the two men were on a vector toward spending the night together.] The stinking rich live in a different, much-cushier world than I do.  It's bad to be poor, but it's not a bad thing not being rich.

When we went into the judge's chamber, my impoverishedness was apparent, of course. I chose to sit on the couch rather than in the line of chairs.  The judge said something confirming that I could, indeed, sit there, since things were paid for with my tax dollars.

I said I hadn't been paying much in taxes, lately.

I was combative, more as a role than a representation of real indignation, but some real indignation was floating around inside me.

The judge told me, at one point, that I had all the rights of a litigant/lawyer making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and it was clear that that [how much a lawyer MADE] was the standard.  I took offense, inartfully [and nonsensically, I think the judge thought], but was glad I did.

"Justice" in Sacramento is disturbing

Yesterday, I was arraigned in Sacramento Superior Court regarding an alleged trespassing misdemeanor.¹

In Department 3 that morning there were perhaps sixty other people in a circumstance similar to mine: arraignments for misdemeanor tickets.

A few [guessing: five] had attorneys they'd secured.  Others [guessing: thirty] had Public Defenders they had secured prior to the arraignment date.  Yet others, like me, came without having sought an attorney.  Those of us who had incomes of less than $2500/mo. did have a chance to get a Public Defender.

For the arraignment, we were told we could act on our own without an attorney — but this did not mean that anyone was acting as their own attorney, just that people were meant to make some important decisions, quickly, on the fly.

Those of us without attorneys were put in a circumstance such that you didn't really know what you were being charged with, yet you were told the maximum punishment and the possible costs of an unsuccessful litigation.  Then came Monty Hall.

You were given an "opportunity" to accept a beautiful deal, all wrapped up with a bow on it, coming from the DA's office.  In my case, "the deal" was that I could accept one-thirtieth the maximum jail time [six days, instead of six months]; no incarceration relating to a probation violation; and a 'stay away' from Loaves & Fishes.

With that, there's no negotiation:  Take it, or leave it.  To take the deal, you plead either No Contest or Guilty — which for someone without a subsequent civil-suit risk is a distinction without a difference (is my understanding).

What you don't know are any valuable statistics — like what penalty an average person charged with your 'crime' might receive.  Or, basically, "What might be just?"  [I recognize that that question is a doozy: It remains, perhaps forever, a large mystery as to what in the way of 'punishment' might be appropriate relating to any misdeed.  And yet.]

In our nation of incarcerating people by the multiple many millions, the highest per-capita rate in the world, and seven times the per-capita rate of any other civilized country², having SOME REAL CONTEXT to make an important decision, like that, is, ya know, important.  Yet, people, like me, were being lured into accepting the DA's deal on what I think was greatly inadequate and likely misleading information.

Looking at my situation, the DEAL means I (seem to) get a 97%-off super-saver.  Very hard to pass up, particularly when you consider that I entered Loaves & Fishes on the day when I would be getting 86ed as a complete rube.  I didn't 'bring witnesses with me,' I wasn't prepared for anything, whereas the Loaves & Fishes people were prepared.  The DEAL, isn't just for the guilty, it's one you're supposed to take when you're innocent of the crime; you avert the chance that the Truth might not win out.  You take the deal to avoid the stain from injustice.

Basically, being homeless and subjected to the hard reality that poor people go through has been an awakening I'm grateful for.  I'm spectacularly disappointed that justice [and the world 'out here,' generally]  isn't what I was taught it was in elementary school, or [in the case of justice] from watching "Perry Mason" or "Dragnet" on TV.  It doesn't even have the "do the right thing in an imperfect world" feel of "Law & Order."

I know that the court system and DA's office are racing through things at breakneck speed to keep expenses down in these hard times of ours.  But what I witnessed and am now going through is a vast vast craziness.

Of course, what really starts to happen is that crime isn't penalized all that much, the REAL penalty is for contesting the charges.  That's loony tunes.  People are supposed to have a right to justice in this country.

BTW, I certainly, completely feel I'm innocent of the crime I'm charged with.  I stated that I was Not Guilty, and chose to represent myself in the upcoming proceedings.³ I had two lines of defense yesterday; but now I have three, the new one relating to a procedural problem that looks like a whopper.

----
¹ You can find my criminal file online.  Go to saccourt.ca.gov. Hit "Search our Case Index"; then, "Proceed to Search System"; then, in 'Case type' choose "Criminal"; then enter my last [Armstrong] and first [Thomas] names.  Hit "search." Then 'select' Armstrong-Thomas-Edward.  And, finally, click 'details' for case 10M06539.

² Per wikipedia, "The United States' incarceration rate is, according to official reports, the highest in the world, at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000 (as of 2005). A report released in 2008 indicates that in the United States more than 1 in 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison. The United States has 4% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population."  We put people in jails and prisons AN AWFUL LOT in the United States.  You'd think we were a nation of particularly terrible people.

³ I'm fairly sure I was the only person in the courtroom who wasn't taking a route of getting some kind of (supposedly!-) reduced sentence, and I'm very sure I was the only person in the courtroom going the "pro per" route, of choosing to defend himself.

[Note:  Bleak House is a Charles Dickens novel that involves a legal problem that was continued near-forever in the High Court, that ended up with lawyers' fees eating up the wealth of a great Estate.  While my proceedings won't be slow -- they'll be fast -- it is all a plenty-bleak business.]

What does "Christ is my savior" mean?

M. Scott Peck, in his “Stages of Spirituality” from his book The Different Drum touches on the idea of what the statement “Jesus is my savior” would mean to people at different levels of spiritual growth.

Peck expanded his view on how Jesus is a savior in an interview / book review by Ben Paterson, published in Christianity Today, timed for the release of Peck’s then-new book People of the Lie (1985).

Quoting Paterson from the review:

I asked [Peck] what he meant when he called Christ "Savior." He suggested that there are three ways to understand what it means to call him Savior. One way is to think of him as Savior in the sense that he atones for our sins. Peck termed that "my least popular level." A second way is to see him as Savior in the sense that he is "a kind of fairy godmother who will rescue you when you get in trouble as long as you remember to call upon his name." Peck believes that Jesus does just that. A third way to see Jesus as Savior is to see him as the one who shows the way to salvation through his life and his death. So Peck likes Jesus the Savior as fairy godmother (a term I am sure he does not use flippantly) and as exemplar, or one who shows us how to live and die. But he does not like the idea of Jesus the atoner.

•Jesus as atoner: Jesus makes amends for your bad deeds. •Jesus as rescuer: Jesus gets you out of trouble. •Jesus as exemplar: Jesus is an example of how you should be.

In all fairness, Peck does not reject the idea of Jesus as atoner, he just does not see that as very helpful in the healing of human evil. Why? Because, in his view, it compromises human responsibility. He thinks that as long as we think Jesus has done it all for us we will be encouraged to live passively in the face of our own sin and evil.

At the mission, and I suppose - from my limited knowledge - it is true for Protestant Christianity, generally, “saved by grace” is the key, and the doing of good deeds is widely disparaged.

As I understand it [and accept as Scriptural, reasonable and logical, thanks to David's (of Heart Talk Ministries) help], good-deeds doing is rejected because of the inclination people might have to do good for the wrong motivation. If you’re doing good in an effort to, effectively, “buy your way” into heaven, then you are leading yourself astray.

The ticket to heaven comes to you “as a gift,” we are told. You just have to accept it. It is in this sense that Jesus is just, merely the atoner. But what kind of justice is this? And what kind of heaven can there be if the place is filled with people who very self-interestedly snatch the easy-to-grab ring to escape responsibilities for whatever awful things they did in life?

The problem, then, with going for the easy grab [“saved by grace”] is that it’s little different than the problem of good deeds done for the wrong motivation [getting to heaven via good works]. Both can be wholly selfishly motivated.

Another Christian path to heaven, that Peck doesn’t mention, is the combination of “easy grab” — accepting the gift of salvation — and necessarily following up on it with the ‘goodness’ of deeds and works that are rightly motivated. This would fill the bill of “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” as proclaimed in the Book of James 2:20.

OK, fine. But what, exactly, are good works rightly motivated? Faith motivates good works in a right way, how?

I think that here it has to be that one is now using Christ as one’s exemplar. To have faith in Christ and then take action, the action you take has to be with the same feeling Christ had for the meaning of life: to be unselfish; feel others’ suffering; and be motivated by compassion to act for others’ well-being.

And this "rightly motivated" action must not be faked!  Just as we're supposed to not be self-satified self-righteous individuals but, instead, actually be righteous in such a way that it is internalized and without our self-congratulating, looking-down-on-others awareness, we should have Christ as our exemplar without faking it. We should act in the way that we want to, and the way that we want to act should be good and compassionate because that [That! That!] has become our nature.

So. Peck is right (I think)! Jesus as exemplar is the most-proper meaning of "Christ as savior." I do wonder how many people, at the mission either at the pulpit or seated on the floor of the chapel, think of “Christ is my savior” in that way. [I write that, not because I think there are none; it is just that I don't know.]

I think most of my Christian friends would object:  It all comes from faith, not from 'imitating' Christ, they'd say.  Faith, once you've stewed in it, awhile, manifests in you becoming a new being. And the fruit of being made anew is the drive to be good, act good, do good.

Yes. Yes.  But I don't think that 'faith alone' carries that much oomph.  People from many religions find their way to be Christ-like.  There are realized Sufi mystics, and Buddhist mystics and Taoist mystics and Hindu mystics, all of whom share qualities found in Christ.

Chelsea's Law and the Union Gospel Mission

California has not effectively prioritized when making policy decisions about the management of convicted sex offenders. Many decisions seem to have been made for political reasons or what feels good at the time. As a result, money and time have been wasted on policies and programs that are politically popular but do not make our communities safer.  — from the conclusion in the California Sex Offenders Management Board report, sent to the governor last April

It was the first of the month, yesterday, with a long string of nice-weather days forecast in the ten-day, but it wasn't the expected easy day for a homeless guy to secure a bunkbed for the night.

The reason beds were competative was because it was the day that Chelsea's Law went into effect.

I learned today that the bill creating the law was passed unanimously in both houses of the California legislature and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 9. It was prompted by the rape and  murder of 17-year-old Chelsea King last February and of 14-year-old Amber Dubois in 2009 by John Albert Gardner, 31, who had been convicted of child molestation ten years prior.

The Office of the Governor website describes the law, thus:

… Chelsea’s Law will enact a one-strike, life-without-parole sentencing option for the most dangerous sexual offenders; increase sentences for forcible sex crimes; increase parole terms for those who target children under the age of 14, including lifetime parole; restrict sex offenders from entering parks; require sex offenders’ risk assessment scores be made public through the Megan’s Law website; revise California’s mentally disordered offender laws to provide for continued detention of offenders where evaluation and assessment deem necessary and require the state to implement a first-in-the-nation containment model and dynamic risk assessment structure.

The "restrict sex offenders from entering parks" part means that homeless guys, on parole after a sex-offense conviction, who have camping equipment and were staying with SafeGround, or living out on their own, in American River Park or Discovery Park or any other park, needed to find somewhere else to sleep.

It also means that they have to stay completely out of all places designated as parks at all times, or they are subject to being re-incarcerated.

As if the coming winter wasn't going to be a mighty hassle for the Sacramento homeless population, already, this will add to the tension, competition and suffering for all homeless guys.

Understand, I am not excusing the conduct that led to the arrest and conviction of the guys in Homeless World who are required to wear ankle bracelets, to track their whereabouts in an effort to deter future crime. Pedophilia is horrific, but the tiniest minority of men with sex crimes on their record are murderous sociopaths like Gardner.  While Chelsea King and Amber Dubois have to have been terrorized beyond any conception we conger up in our minds, we must not discard sweet reason for emotion in dealing with problems in the always-curious world be live in.

I wonder if this new law makes sense and if it is much more harmful than helpful.

Our politicians these days are no longer statesmen and deep thinkers on matters relating to the public good.  They blow in the political winds, trying to quickly please the powerful, the hateful and the simpleminded.  I think that any legislation that targets men convicted of a pedophilia offence could be passed into law, just because it appeals to the mob mentality.

But, at some point, if we are to remain a civilized society, we have to limit the punishment to what fits the crime and properly, realistically protects society, including society's imperfect citizens. And we have to make distinctions such that a significant subgroup, who are overwhelmingly unlikely to re-offend, are not targeted in a blanketing law to suffer mightily to please the mob.

Chelsea's Law is a blanket, covering a wide variety of paroled sex offenders without making distinctions. Yes, a "dynamic risk assessment structure" is called for, down the line, but for now, at least, it is a ham-handed law that probably provides little in the way of protection of the public and metes out a lot in the way of misery.

Surely, allowing convicted sex-offenders who are not likely to re-offend to find their way to having a pleasant, productive, happy, law-abiding life, going forward, is in the interest of everybody. Let us have legislation that promotes this.

For further reading, see the op-ed "Chelsea's Law wasted opportunity" in Al Rodbell's blog. Rodbell, who lives near the scene of the two Gardner slayings in San Diego, looked into the legislation that was moving far-too-quickly to be fully responsible. It is from him that I kiped the conclusion in the California Sex Offenders Management Board [CSOMB] report which appears at the beginning of this blog post.

In a letter, albeit in support of the Chelsea's Law legislation [Assembly Bill 1884], addressed to Assemblyman Fletcher and copied to dozens of other California legislature members, the CSOMB wrote:

Not all sex offenders pose the same risk over their lifetimes.  In light of the state's fiscal situation, California needs to be smart about allocating our state's scarce resources.  Sex offenders should be tiered according to risk level and dangerousness, as is done in most states.

It's a strange kind of calculation to make, but if we truly want to save the lives of children, it would be most productive to crack down yet harder on teenage smoking and unsafe driving.  Smoking and dangerous driving kills people in the tens of thousands every year.  Almost certainly, dollar-for-dollar, many more young lives can be saved in this arena where so very very many are lost.

Vegetables and fruit matter

There’s an American government website, called “Fruits and Veggies Matter,” sponsored by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention; the Department of Health and Human Services; the National Cancer Institute; and the US government, generally.

All that head muscle from big-brained government experts on health suggests that mighty amounts of knowledge, from research from reputable sources around the country and around the world, about what we all should be eating to be healthy have been amassed.

Our government has some weighty responsibilities in this sphere, getting data out to us to let us know about what nutrients we need, and from what sources we can get what we need. We aren’t forced to eat healthily, but nowadays a person with the means to choose what he eats can.

Of course homeless folk are in a pickle, here, often not having the monetary resources to have much, or any, say in what they must consume.

At the home page of Fruits and Veggies Matter the first thing we’re told is this:

Almost Everyone Needs to Eat More Fruits and Vegetables

A growing body of research shows that fruits and vegetables are critical to promoting good health. To get the amount that's recommended, most people need to increase the amount of fruits and vegetables they currently eat every day.

It then links to a mini-questionnaire that asks one’s gender, age, and level of physical activity to compute the amount of fruits and vegetables the person should consume daily.

As a homeless man, aged 56, who walks briskly and is loaded down more than a little with belongings, I rate a daily need of two cups of fruit and three-and-a-half cups of vegetables. That’s a lot! And, particularly so, when you note, as the website does, that the non-bitter varieties of lettuce, the most common vegetable in Homeless World Sacramento, is nutritionally wimpy such that a cup of it translates as only a half-cup for consumptive-calculation purposes. [Iceberg and the other mild-tasting lettuces that are served 'out here' are mostly just water.]

In addition to needing many servings of fruits and vegetables each day, people need a variety of such foods over a span of days to get the full spectrum of nutrients we each need. Just eating lots and lots of apples and a whole head of lettuce, habitually, day in day out, does not cut the mustard. Variety is not just the spice of life, it’s the key to proper nutrition consumption.

Benefits from Eating Properly

A central benefit of eating properly is that it allows you to feel good and it allows your brain and body to function at their best. Given proper nutrition intake, you are appropriately energized to accomplish things and act as you should. And, importantly, good nutrition helps your body combat disease.

Diabetes has become an epidemic in our country, with the type 2 version accounting for 90% of all diabetes cases. Type 2 is usually the result of years of improper nutrition, being obese and having a sedentary lifestyle. Improper or inadequate nutrition, and high intake of sugars, can cause changes in cell DNA, resulting in poorly-formed body cells that no longer have appropriate protein receptors for insulin. Proper nutrition clearly plays an important role in preventing type 2 diabetes.

The rate of those who have had cancer in the year 1900 was just 3% of the population, whereas now it’s 25%. It is believed that proper nutrition is the key to reducing the current high-incidence of cancer. It is probably the case that none of the risk factors for cancer are more significant that what we choose to eat. There are other risk factors — including genetics, lifestyle and environmental toxins — but what we eat to get proper nutrition is the one important factor we can readily control (IF we have enough say in what we eat!). Update 10/3/10: Some of the information that I relayed now seems weak, at best. According to the EPIC study, completed earlier this year, using data from ~400,000 European adults, no significant correlation between consumption of fruits and vegetables and the reduction of cancer risk was found.

What homeless Sacramentans eat

Homeless Sacramentans, in overwhelming number, do not consume a proper diet. Circumstances for individuals differ, of course, but typically the homeless here eat a lot of stale baked goods that homeless-services organizations receive free from grocery chains, Starbucks and other bakery sources.
 
Foods that have a long shelf-life, like pasta and rice, are consumed in large quantities, daily.  [Boy, I'll bet Loaves & Fishes could and will fill it's new $1.7 million warehouse, when it's completed, with rice and pasta.]
 
There are fruits and vegetables served 'out here,' of course, but it is very very hard to get many helpings from this nutrition source.
 
BUT, we are lucky. IF the homeless-services organizations want to make things better for us, they, likely, can.  WE LIVE IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, a mighty food-growing bonanza of a place!  BUT only homeless-services organizations that give a damn are likely to do something, and THAT, dear reader, limits the possibilities.  Sadly, many Sacramento homeless-help executives just aren't plugged in to the homeless experience.  You can tell who those execs are from them prattling on and on, using the same-old time-worn bathos to describe homeless people to snooker donors.
 
The public should know that the benefits from feeding poor people better are likely to be enormous.  A healthier homeless population can do more for itself, and individuals in the homeless community are thus more likely to emerge from the homeless circumstance to become, again, productive citizens.

Compassion defined

You can have no greater ally in the war against your greatest enemy, your own self-grasping and self-cherishing, than the practice of compassion. It is compassion, dedicating ourselves to others, taking on their suffering instead of cherishing ourselves, that, hand in hand with the wisdom of egolessness, destroys most effectively and most completely that ancient attachment to a false self that has been the cause of our endless wandering in samsara. That is why in our tradition we see compassion as the source and essence of enlightenment and the heart of enlightened activity.
  — from Glimpse of the Day, based on the book Glimpse After Glimpse - Daily Reflections On Living And Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche; Entry for Oct. 1. [This post was snagged via a tweet by William Harryman.]