Anybody watch South Park?
Well, I do. As the hippest critic of social and political capital, South Park basically satirizes anything interesting on the social or political radar-- if it's relevant, they make an episode. Tonight, "Night of the Living Homeless" appeared on Comedy Central.
I had intended to write a short post that I would update after the episode, but the commercial during which I started this ended, and before I knew it, the episode ended.
[spoiler warning]
The subtext of the episode is that Evergreen, a nearby town, has "solved" their homelessness problem by attracting them to South Park. The remaining Evergreen citizens in the post-apocalyptic town say Texans sent them these homeless, and for lack of any other effective solution, Evergreen moved the homeless out of the way. The boys are appalled that the problem isn't really being solved, and yet they lure all of South Park's homeless to Southern California with a great karaoke rendition of Dr. Dre's "California Love."
[spoiler ended]
And, like most of South Park, they're kind of right. No, local municipalities aren't plotting to luring the homeless to other cities, but it's true that nothing has really happened to the problem except that it's been moved around. As soon as a city implements a law negatively targeting the homeless, the population either declines or recedes into hiding. I have no evidence to substantiate this and am too lazy to actually research it, but the problem has only gotten worse lately (as evidenced by the existence of my neighborhood bum, and that I wade through at least three at the bus stop before school every morning, up from one just a year ago), and surely our local governments have tried to solve this problem before.
I was a little disappointed that this episode merely satirized the issue, instead of calling us idiots for not doing x. You know, solving the problem, or at least doing something more productive about it.
By the way: I highly, highly recommend watching the scene where the boys lure the homeless to California by singing over loudspeakers a cover of Tupac's/Dr Dre's "California Love." I highly, highly recommend watching this scene/song over, and over again. You can find it by searching YouTube for "South Park - California Love" before Viacom makes YouTube take it off, because Viacom is lame and has no sense of humor.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Not long ago I read an article or some such in which some cities were criminalizing homelessness. The National Coalition for the Homeless issued a report in 2006 on trends in criminalization of homelessness and in the report the top 20 "meanest" cities are listed... mine is number three on that list. It's rather sad that instead of doing something to help the homeless, we're instead intent on punishing them for being homeless.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/index.html
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Huxley
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." -Gandhi
And what does that accomplish?
Burdening the taxpayers?
"Its all very well to practice but it will never work in theory."
Notta.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Huxley
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." -Gandhi
I saw the commercials for that South Park and I knew I'd hear something about it from you. haha
Its amazing how bad homelessness has gotten. Not too long ago (several years) the city I live in was the Safest city in the United States and now that its grown its dropped considerably. And I dont blame this on the fact that now their are homeless people, but its funny how the two correlate.
"Its all very well to practice but it will never work in theory."
Well, you know, I'm just cool like that.
Or something. I'm waiting on tenterhooks for Gavin Newsom's miracle cure for homelessness before the end of his term.
First, I should probably let you know that I refuse to watch South Park (despite my husband's objections to my refusal; I will not let him watch it while I am in the house). I watched the first season, but that was it. So I have not seen the episode you are referring to in this blog.
However, I do see your point about the homeless. They seem to be forcefully migrated into other areas and "shoved off" as "someone else's problem". Of course, this doesn't solve the problem at all; just move it out of sight.
And perhaps that's the point--out of sight, out of mind-- sort of speak. Many of us know (in the back of our minds) about problems that are happening, but none of us make any real attempts to solve the problems, or we don't recognize the problems that are apparent because we cannot see them.
---------------------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
May I ask what has turned you off to it? To be fair, I didn't really like the 1st season.
What's funny about the "out of sight, out of mind" theory is that by ignoring or shoving the problem off, more homeless proliferate. Like, when the homeless aren't in shelters because nobody wants them around the corner, they have no where else to go but your front porch. Is that better?
Well, it's rather silly, but sure I'll tell you :)
When the first season of South Park came out, I was just finishing Broadcasting school with a degree in "Electronic Media". A friend of mine from class was given a job to write for South Park a few months before it began airing.
Well, Mike took the job without question; even dropped out of school to move and begin working right away. He wrote for the entire first season and wrote ahead for many episodes (I think he said it was for another 24 episodes, but I'm not positive, it was a number of years ago).
Well, the creators of South Park decided to buy all of his episodes, and paid him a rather good amount of money for his stories; something in the ballpark of $60,000 for all of them, in one lump sum.
Then, after the third episode aired, they fired him as a writer and kept his stories, saying that the stories were now their property. He didn't fight them at that point at all. He had signed a contract stating that any stories he had turned into them would become their property.
But, they never listed him on the credits, even for the episodes later that they used. So, later, he went for new jobs with other companies, and would place South Park as on his resume. When the potential jobs called to check his reference, they said that no, he had never written for them.
Mike tried to sue, but lost because he had signed the contract that gave them the property rights of his stories.
In the eyes of the law, they were right, of course. But, I found that this practice was so abhorrent that I could not bring myself to watch another episode. I was so disgusted with how they treated Mike.
Mike ended up, and is still now, writing for the Family Guy, but it took him a long time to get the job since he couldn't use South Park on his resume.
Since then, it has become more a matter of principle to me. Despite how many people seem to love the show, I just cannot bring myself to watch it because of what I know about how they run. They offer writers a choice, they can either be paid, or receive a notation on their credits. In a few cases, it is both (but at a smaller amount of pay) and I just think that is wrong. Credit should be given where credit is due, whether they were paid monetarily or not...
---------------------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
I heard of a similar instance with The Simpsons when some animators came to give a talk for a class I was in.
That's really awful, but unfortunately I find that it's common practice. I totally understand boycotting it, but I feel like at this point you'd have to avoid watching TV at all anymore, just because writers get treated so poorly everywhere.
It's no different in the theater; I had the choice of getting paid hourly for a little more work with no credit for my resume, or getting paid in a stipend (that works out to pennies per hour) and credits in the program. I think pretty much any gig in the entertainment industry is bound to have shady aspects, and part of getting settled into it is sucking it up when it sucks and reaping the benefits later.
And to answer your other question...
I was brought up to believe that "out of sight, out of mind" is a fallacy that never really works. I think it is ridiculous, which is why I do what I can whenever I see a problem regardless of whether it directly affects me or not.
Basically, my mother would tell me that the people who ignored problems that weren't right in front of their face were "lazy"; and she taught me to look for problems and try to fix them.
As far as the homeless problem within the United States, it sucks to be sure, but I do also think it could be worse. I had a friend that used to work as a courier to Puerto Rico. And he told me that at one point he had seen these big brick walls up just outside of one of the cities. When he asked about it, he was told that the homeless live ther to keep them from view rom the resorts nearby (basically, so tourists wouldn't recognize that there were any homeless).
---------------------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
What about homeless shelters? Aren't there some places for these people to go? Not all homeless people are just lazy bums (excuse the pun). Some are just people who hit hard times.
There aren't enough shelters, and most of the shelters in the Bay Area, in order to serve as many homeless as possible, only let people stay for a few days at a time (in order to be admitted in the shelter, people must 'register' and present a card that's punched with how frequently you attend/get meals, or something to that effect. Certain services are available on a more frequent basis than a bed to sleep in).
Taxes only go so far, and the demand far exceeds the supply of shelter services. Not to mention NIMBY, which is a strong inhibiting factor to further development, especially in North and East Berkeley.
Here is some of why we have so many homeless in our country...
"Nationwide, 20-25% of homeless people suffer from serious mental illness."
"Most could live in community settings with appropriate treatment and housing, but many homeless people who are mentally ill are not able to obtain the supportive services they need to find and maintain housing."
"Homeless people with severe mental illness tend to remain homeless for longer periods of time, have less contact with family and friends, encounter more barriers to employment, tend to be in poorer physical health, and have more contact with the legal system than other homeless people."
"At least one-half of severely mentally ill homeless people are estimated to have a co-occurring substance abuse problem. This increases the likelihood that they will be chronically homeless."
For more info: www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov
"A prime part of the history of our Constitution...is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." ~US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Thanks for the info.
One of my projects that I hope to pick up is doing more research during the summer on the subject. I probably should be more well-versed, since my sister served on a local Committee on the Shelterless (COTS) for several years, but I guess I kind of had my head in the clouds those years...
Thought about posting it as a blog...
While researching I found quite a bit of information regarding mental illness and homelessness, but I did not include it in my paper because my paper was on a different topic, but as I think about it I think it actually ties in and am now trying to figure out how to revise my paper.
But I am glad I could help.
"A prime part of the history of our Constitution...is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." ~US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It's fascinating how closely linked the two are, but in many cases it doesn't surprise me.
From what I remember (which could be poorly remembered), many mental illnesses that afflict the homeless are progressed forms of treatable, livable illnesses, and many were as simple as stress.
I can imagine it being pretty stressful to be unable to get a job because one's homeless, and unable to get out of homelessness because one can't get a job.
I posted my paper on mental illness if you want to check it out...
Am hoping that I'll get some constructive criticism.
http://www.progressiveu.org/010136-mental-ilness-and-the-negative-effects-of-stigma
"A prime part of the history of our Constitution...is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." ~US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
...that helps homeless people find jobs. Your post made me think of it. Its a really neat program and really simple. They set voicemail boxes at this programs building for people so that when they apply for jobs they can give the employer a number to call. The employer can call, leave a message, etc. It has been very successful for starting a process of change.