It looks like you've been mining away in Aruba as well. This is gold. Pure gold.

Awww . . . sad panda face.

Love it -- it's the only logical conclusion. I actually became an elf for a while when I was in Iceland. I have the photographs to prove it. Great reading -- keep 'em coming.

I am disappointed and I am afraid. It is still my sincere hope that you will start to read your own words and the words of others with a greater degree of care. I'm fine with you dismissing my sarcasm, I get cranky when I'm hung over, but to have a conversation you will have to stop using labels like "shallow platitudes" to prop up a seemingly willful ignorance. Good luck again. This will be my last post.

It saddens me that we appear to be speaking a different language. Good luck with your quest. I hope you are able to save my buildings from the vandals of the future.

"While I regret that vandals have psychological problems, my sympathy lies much more with the victims: Property owners and all of us consumers and what it costs us." - Is this a given fact, that "vandals have psychological problems," and if so who has made this diagnosis? Are there any sources to support such a claim, or is this a well know fact like Jews are greedy and Mexicans are lazy? So the conclusion is that we should regret that those who suffer from psychological ailments exist less than we should sympathize with those who have to bear the financial burden of their existence? So economic hardship is worse than psychological suffering? If you really regretted the 'fact' that "vandals have psychological problems," wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to propose a way to help these unfortunate souls? Within your outlined logic helping vandals cope with their "psychological problems" is what is required to save the rest of us money, right? Or rather we shouldn't attack the symptom of tagging because it is not the root cause of the problem. So it seems your regrets should outweigh your sympathies, no? But perhaps you don't see taggers as having psychological problems (though you did state it as a truth), then it becomes clear that the real problem has to do with seeing the world in terms of dollar signs and possessions. "For example, if you like hamburgers and fries at Nationwide Meats (20th & H) , you're paying for the taggers' vandalism--big time last night." - Or hamburgers and fries? Is this now what I should be concerned about? By your own description there are gangs of people with psychological problems roaming the streets destroying property (or doing it for other reasons that we have conveniently ignored) and I should now feel called to action because my hamburger and fries are more expensive? Surely there are bigger issues that need to be considered? If this is my biggest care, then yes taggers should be locked up and put in prison so that my children can enjoy a cheeper Happy Meal. "Peanuts, you say. Au contraire! Painting out vandal tagging is expensive! Some property owners say that paint contractors--small or large--charge a minimum ranging from $200 to $300 including matching paint." - Peanuts (though "some property owners" should get a competing bid). You haven't even scratched the surface when it comes to cause and effect (nor tried). Do costs always have to have dollar signs in front of them? And do criminals always have to have justificatory labels in front of them (psychologically abnormal, gang member, black . . .). You may want to ask yourself; how did we get to this point and how can we begin to envision and actualize an alternate future? "So back to who really pays for it? The obvious answer is tenants who live in victim apartment buildings, shoppers who patronize victim stores, those who eat at victim restaurants, bar customers, students who attend victim schools and colleges such as USC extension, taxpayers for tags on government buildings. And how can we stop paying for it? Any solutions?" - Good questions. Reread Jake's post, you may learn something if you weren't so eager to prove yourself right. "Know any taggers? Hit 'em up for what they owe you." - Apparently we all owe each other much much more than you can imagine.

I concede. I will go ahead and quickly reread your comments with a degree of care, and perhaps you will join in and read yourself in return. I'll start from the beginning, saving my commentary on all of the more unfortunate elaborations for another day. And I will try to avoid any remarks regarding editing issues, as these can be dealt with on your own time. "On my morning walk today, I noted additional new graffiti in midtown." - You have made an observation. Thanks for sharing. What did you do about it, besides write an article for the Sac Press? "As readers may have noticed, there two distinct types of graffiti." - Why would we 'readers' have noticed this? Is this an empirical truth? Is it only a matter of time before I notice this fact, which is ever so obvious to someone as keen as yourself? Is how you notice things the same as how the rest of us 'readers' notice things? Is it my noticing that makes this typological distinction possible or is it a transcendental truth? How is such typological distinction determined? Why are there only two distinct types and how can we account for graffiti that does not fit into this established binary? "One type has some artistic merit." - How have you come to this conclusion? What gives it merit? Do I know it when I see it? Who is given the authority to determine said artistic merit? "The other type is made by vandals, including gangs, who mark their territory--much like dogs and cats when they urinate on various surfaces." - Is the marking of territory the only reason for such an act? If it is "their territory" are they not free to mark it? If it is not "their territory" then whose territory is it and how are such territorial claims legitimized? What forms of territorial marking are legal and how has this been established? Is the marking of a territory always considered vandalism when committed by a human? Why was the clarification "including gangs" necessary? If it is a territorial claim then does graffiti done by an individual differ from graffiti done by a group? What is the metaphorical significance of likening vandals to dogs and cats? In what way is the act of a vandal different from those committed by a dog or a cat? What is the effect of such metaphorical dehumanization? "Animals do it because it is their nature. Vandals do it for complex psychological unnatural reasons." - Are humans not animals as well? What makes humans distinct from animals? If it is natural for animals to mark territory then why is it unnatural for humans to do so? What does it mean for something to be deemed unnatural? Who is given the authority to make such a diagnosis? In what service does such a diagnosis serve? What implications are there to such negative labeling? If vandals do it for "complex psychological unnatural reasons" then is tagging merely a symptom of larger psychological issues? If it is a psychological issue then how does this relate to territorial claims? Where the Magdalenians also a culture overrun by roaming groups of psychologically aberrant and unnatural reasoners? "Those who paint graffiti for art purposes, sometimes find a permanent spot for their work." And what about those that do it for other reasons? Why would a permanent spot for such work be granted and why would it not? Do all taggers desire to have a permanent spot for their work? Why would some not desire this? Is the tag what is important or the act itself? If you grant a tagger legitimacy by calling it art and give graffiti a permanent venue what effect does this have on the act itself? Why would many taggers be weary of such purported opportunity? "I'm told that some photograph their work and sell it to interested magazines or for CD and DVD covers." - I'm told lots of things too. Isn't that great. "If any of them read this article, respond in comments, and I'll refer him/her to at least one property owner who would like to discuss some walls for painting." - I hope you don't end up with any of the psychologically unnatural ones. They could be dangerous. This is surely a sincere offer, though after being cast in such a negative light I doubt many taggers would even want to converse with you let alone accept your 'generosity.' And if you have already separated taggers into two distinct groups, then aren't you just saying you have space for someone to offer up their 'artistic' services while ignoring the issue of vandalism?

Dale - If you "call 'em as you sees 'em," perhaps you should consider the etymological significance of such labeling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals). There is a political dimension to destructive acts that needs to be taken into account and you can not simply attack the symptom of tagging without understanding that it is the product of far more complex social issues (not psychological ones). Through your own terminology you enact what many taggers are rebelling against - the establishment of normative conditions that ostracize and silence those who do not fit your understanding of what is "natural" or "normal". You have said that taggers are "thieves in the night," but what worries me more are those that rob me with their words during the day. And what a shame you are now paying more for your hamburger and fries.

Dos Coyotes is good, though I wouldn't call it auténtico.

Indeed, indeed. Good work boys.