Sixth Man of the Year Award shows just how far Timberwolves’ Naz Reid has come

posted in: News | 0

Fans stalked the staircase, peering down onto the stage for Naz Reid’s NBA Sixth Man of the Year acceptance press conference Thursday morning in Minneapolis. Reid always dreamed of having such a relationship with a fan base, particularly at this level.

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA – APRIL 14: Devin Booker #1 of the Phoenix Suns draws a foul against Naz Reid #11 of the Minnesota Timberwolves in the first quarter at Target Center on April 14, 2024 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by David Berding/Getty Images)

Timberwolves fans adore Reid, partially because they’ve had a front-row seat to his evolution into major piece in a playoff year that continues with Game 3 of their first-round series against the Suns in Phoenix. The Timberwolves lead the best-of-seven series 2-0.

“I changed my body, changed my mentality, changed the direction I wanted to go in life,” Reid said Wednesday on TNT’s NBA playoffs pregame show.

Reid and his family struggled financially growing up. He wanted something more in his life. But that was far from a given, particularly as Reid went undrafted out of LSU in 2019. He didn’t even watch the draft that night. Minnesota called him shortly after the show, and he committed to sign with the Timberwolves.

Still, it was a humbling experience.

“I just had to dial in at that point, I went to summer league with the right mindset,” Reid said. “I think I went into summer league with a killer’s mentality. I just wanted to show everybody that I belong.”

That’s all he has done since. Reid said he entered the NBA at around 285 pounds — more offensive tackle than basketball player. It reeked of bad habits, and habits often don’t change. But Reid went in knowing “I was going to change something.”

In reality, he changed everything. An outsider on draft night could easily have perceived Reid as lazy. Speaking at Thursday’s press conference, Wolves basketball boss Tim Connelly said the opposite.

“No one’s more deserving, nobody works harder than Naz, nobody brings the energy you bring — it’s consistent, and it’s a huge commitment to us,” Connelly said.

Head coach Chris Finch said Reid’s honor is “a reflection of the work” he has put in. Reid is viewed as perhaps Minnesota’s greatest player development success story. Every single season he has made major strides in various parts of his game.

He went from overweight to a lean, athletic build. Because of that, he can defend just about any position on the floor. But even as he has lost girth, he has become a better rounder. He’s an elite knockdown shooter and an excellent quick-decision maker who keeps Minnesota’s offense moving.

Coaches always plan for the development of young players, but the rate of Reid’s ascension has surprised Finch on many occasions.

“I remember having conversations with him to try and stay patient, that he was backing up an All-NBA center (in Karl-Anthony Towns) and that might cap his opportunities at 14 to 16 minutes a night,” Finch said. “But he kept just pushing the envelope to play, play more, find more ways to play him.

“When Tim came into the organization, he kind of circled Naz as the guy (whose role) we can grow. Since that moment in time, he took off. We’ve had to find opportunities (for him).”

Those opportunities seemed destined to dwindle with the acquisition of Rudy Gobert in 2022. Suddenly, Minnesota had two All-NBA centers, and Reid was out of the rotation to start the 2022-23 campaign. But he didn’t sulk or complain. He kept working.

“I’ve been through so much things growing up, so many moments that I’ve been able to dig myself out of, kind of grow as a person, as a basketball player and as an individual,” Reid said. “I think those tough moments you see what kind of person you are. For me, I’m going to keep showing that I belong. And I think that’s what I did.”

Every time he got a shot to play — from the preseason to early-season garbage time opportunities that fall — Reid shined. Eventually, it was clear he had to play. The Timberwolves were better when he was on the floor.

While Sixth Man of the Year is often an offensive award for reserves, Reid has developed into the total package. And yet the 24-year-old’s growth still appears to be in the infant stages.

“Who knows what’s next?” Finch said.

It’s difficult to put a ceiling on someone with Reid’s skill and drive. No one is quite sure where he’s going, but Reid knows exactly where he came from, and he was determined not to stay there.

“How hard are you willing to fight? How hard are you willing to dedicate yourself to your dream?” Reid said. “I just wouldn’t accept or allow myself to slide any way, shape or form.”

That relentless pursuit led him to Wednesday evening’s announcement, which he celebrated with family and friends who know just how far he has come. The journey made the destination — perhaps only a pit stop – all the more joyous for people like Reid and his mom.

“We both kind of know what it means to be at the bottom and now at the top. We’re just super excited to be in this position,” he said. “We can’t be more excited than sharing this with everybody else here, as well. We came a long way from where I come from to where I am now.”

Related Articles

Minnesota Timberwolves |


Timberwolves’ Naz Reid named NBA Sixth Man of the Year

Minnesota Timberwolves |


Anthony Edwards’ Game 2 wasn’t loud, but it helped surging Timberwolves

Minnesota Timberwolves |


Jace Frederick: Timberwolves’ dedication to identity is showing in playoffs

Minnesota Timberwolves |


Dane Mizutani: If Jaden McDaniels plays like that, the Timberwolves can’t be beat

Minnesota Timberwolves |


Timberwolves force Phoenix into submission in Game 2 blowout to take 2-0 series lead

Alcaldía aconseja a inmigrantes dormir en sillas en los “centros de acogida” nocturnos

posted in: News | 0

Según la alcaldía, dormir en el suelo supone un riesgo en caso de incendio. Pero las normas parecen estar sembrando confusión al menos en un “centro de acogida” en Brooklyn, donde a los residentes se les dijo a principios de este mes que no se les permitía dormir hasta las 2:30 a.m., de acuerdo con un video obtenido por City Limits.

Daniel Parra

Un cartel en el Centro de remisión de pasajes para inmigrantes y solicitantes de asilo (Reticketing Center) en el East Village, donde los inmigrantes pueden solicitar otro refugio, aconseja a quienes necesiten un lugar donde pasar la noche que acudan a una iglesia de Brooklyn que ahora se utiliza como centro de acogida (Drop-in center).

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 24 de abril. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

El camino hacia el cumplimiento de un nuevo acuerdo sobre realojamiento de inmigrantes recién llegados por parte de la alcaldía ha sido accidentado: la administración ya incumplió un plazo judicial para eliminar la lista de espera de quienes buscan refugio.

Ahora, la alcaldía está animando a los inmigrantes a dormir en sillas en lugar del suelo en los centros de acogida (drop-in centers) de la ciudad —donde a menudo hay pocos servicios y quienes esperan una nueva cama pueden pasar la noche—, según ha revelado City Limits.

El 8 de abril, la ciudad de Nueva York empezó a aplicar nuevas normas de refugio a los inmigrantes recién llegados, exigidas como parte de un acuerdo de conciliación tras meses de negociaciones entre la ciudad y los defensores de las personas sin hogar sobre el derecho de los neoyorquinos a refugio.

Por décadas, ese derecho obligaba a la ciudad a proporcionar una cama a cualquiera que la necesitara, al menos temporalmente. Pero la administración de Eric Adams sostiene que nunca se pretendió aplicarlo a las “circunstancias extraordinarias” a las que se enfrenta ahora la ciudad, con decenas de miles de nuevos solicitantes de asilo que han entrado en el sistema de albergues en los dos últimos años.

Según los nuevos términos del acuerdo de conciliación, los inmigrantes recién llegados sin hijos que vuelvan a solicitar una cama después de una estancia inicial de 30 o 60 días sólo podrán optar por una prórroga bajo “circunstancias atenuantes“, como si tienen un procedimiento médico próximo, una audiencia de inmigración o han hecho esfuerzos significativos para salir del refugio. Los funcionarios dijeron a City Limits a principios de este mes que todavía están trabajando para establecer un sistema para hacer esas evaluaciones. 

Quienes estén a la espera de conseguir un refugio, según el acuerdo, pueden ahora pasar la noche en uno de los tres centros de acogida (Drop-in centers), dijo la alcaldía.

Si bien el acuerdo exige que los refugios de la ciudad cumplan unas normas mínimas —como número de personal adecuado y acceso a duchas y catres—, los ahora llamados “centros de acogida” no tienen los mismos requisitos.

Estos centros funcionan como los drop-in centers del Departamento de Servicios para Personas sin Hogar (DHS por sus siglas en inglés), donde la gente puede pasar la noche y dormir en una silla, pero no hay camas porque se trata de un espacio temporal y no se considera un refugio, explicó Josh Goldfein, abogado de Legal Aid Society, una de las organizaciones que negociaron el acuerdo sobre el derecho a refugio.

Antes del acuerdo de conciliación de marzo, los inmigrantes que volvían a aplicar esperaban a menudo días o semanas a que se les asignara otro refugio, pasando las noches en una de las cinco “salas de espera” de ese entonces, lo que significa que la ciudad utilizaba estos lugares como albergues de facto. Esta es una de las condiciones a las que el acuerdo pretendía poner fin.

“Tienen que dejar de utilizar las salas de espera como refugios”, explicó Goldfein.

El tiempo de espera actual para una nueva cama en el sistema de albergues es ahora mucho más corto, unas 24 horas, dijo la alcaldía. Según los nuevos términos del acuerdo, seguirán funcionando algunos centros de acogida para inmigrantes, destinados a atender a quienes rechazan otras ofertas de refugio, llegan tarde por la noche o solicitan un espacio temporal para permanecer bajo techo.

Daniel Parra

Fila en la antigua escuela St. Brigid’s de East Village el lunes, donde los inmigrantes cuyas estadías iniciales en albergues han expirado vuelven a solicitar refugio. La ciudad debía eliminar los tiempos de espera antes del 8 de abril como parte del acuerdo de conciliación.

Pero la transición parece estar sembrando confusión sobre las normas, al menos en un centro de acogida de Brooklyn. Durante los dos primeros días bajo el nuevo acuerdo que entró en vigor el 8 de abril, como informó City Limits, los inmigrantes que volvía a solicitar refugio fueron enviados a un  “overnight hospitality center” (centro de acogida para pasar la noche) en la Historic First Church of God en Crown Heights.

Durante dos días, 8 y 9 de abril, varios migrantes durmieron en el suelo de la iglesia. Pero las normas cambiaron el 11 de abril, según dijeron personas que pasaron la noche en el lugar. Un vídeo obtenido por City Limits muestra a un empleado del albergue diciendo a los migrantes esa noche que no podían dormir hasta las 2:30 de la madrugada.

“Por el momento, las reglas están cambiando, desafortunadamente eso es lo que nos dijeron hoy. No sabemos si va ser lo mismo mañana”, dice el trabajador en español a un grupo de migrantes sentados en mesas redondas en la sala de la iglesia, según el vídeo. “Hoy el estado nos dijo que hasta las 2:30 no se pueden dormir”.

“¿El estado?” alcanza a preguntar una mujer antes de que se alcen voces por la sala.

En ese momento, otro miembro del personal dijo en inglés: “Si quieren irse, pueden irse también”, muestra el vídeo obtenido por City Limits.

“Esto es nada más una ‘sala de espera’ para que no estén afuera”, dice el empleado en español más adelante en el vídeo. “No supone que se duerma, pero nosotros sabemos que son seres humanos y los dejamos que se acuesten, pero es ilegal”.

“Yo trabajo mañana, ¿entonces qué?”, pregunta un hombre a los empleados poco después en el vídeo. 

La alcaldía no pudo explicar por qué el personal dijo a los migrantes que no podían dormir hasta las 2:30 a.m., pero dijo que recomiendan a la gente dormir en la silla y no tumbarse en el suelo. La razón, dijo la alcaldía, es evitar un riesgo en caso de incendio al tener a la gente en el suelo.

“La salud y la seguridad de todos los inmigrantes en nuestro cuidado es siempre una prioridad. Por eso se pide a quienes decidan utilizar nuestros centros de acogida que no duerman en el suelo para evitar cualquier riesgo de incendio”, dijo Kayla Mamelak, portavoz de la alcaldía en un comunicado.

La oficina del alcalde dijo que no se trata de una norma rígida y que no se echará a nadie si intenta dormir en el suelo. Agregó que el personal de la iglesia de Brooklyn está contratado por MedRite, una de las empresas contratadas por la alcaldía para gestionar los refugios para inmigrantes. MedRite remitió las preguntas a la alcaldía.

Una persona que se alojó en la iglesia, quien pidió no ser identificada por temor a represalias, dijo que la noche en que se grabó el vídeo, los trabajadores no les dejaron dormir hasta pasadas las 2 a.m. “Al que se quedaba dormido lo despertaban”, dijo en español el colombiano de 34 años.

Permitir que los solicitantes de asilo y los inmigrantes descansen pero no duerman es similar a la decisión de la administración el año pasado de prohibir a los jóvenes sin hogar dormir en los centros de acogida gestionados por el Departamento de Juventud y Desarrollo Comunitario (DYCD por sus siglas en inglés) , según Jamie Powlovich, directora ejecutiva de Coalition for Homeless Youth.

Pero la alcaldía dijo que ya ha enviado normas actualizadas a los centros de acogida actualmente en uso para evitar que vuelva a producirse el malentendido sobre la hora de dormir. “Nos estamos comunicando con el personal in situ para asegurarnos de que disponen de la información adecuada para transmitirla a quienes pasan la noche”, añadió Mamelak.

Dave Giffen, director ejecutivo de Coalition for the Homeless, cree que “puede haber algunos problemas con algunos de los centros de acogida que no tienen claro lo que pueden y no pueden hacer”, mientras la ciudad sigue aplicando las condiciones del acuerdo. 

“Pero esperamos que todo el mundo actúe con compasión, humanidad y respeto por el hecho de que se trata de personas que ya han pasado por mucho y necesitaban un lugar donde descansar la cabeza”, agregó él.

“El personal intenta hacerlo lo mejor que puede”, dijo Goldfein, “en una situación en la que la verdadera solución es ayudar a la gente a conseguir vivienda”.

Reportería adicional de Jeanmarie Evelly.

Para ponerse en contacto con el reportero de esta noticia, escriba a Daniel@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Bon Jovi’s long career documented, warts and all, in new Hulu series

posted in: News | 0

Jon Bon Jovi acknowledges that the new documentary “Thank You, Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story” is “a little overwhelming, emotional.” It’s also a proverbial warts-and-all presentation of his life, as well as the 40-plus-year career of the band that bears his name.

But Bon Jovi wouldn’t have it any other way.

“All I’ve ever wanted to sell was the truth,” the 62-year-old New Jersey rock icon explains via Zoom. “If you’re not gonna show it warts and all, don’t bother. This wasn’t a VH1 ‘Behind the Music.’ I wasn’t interested in a puff piece.”

“Thank You, Goodnight” — premiering Friday, April 26 on Hulu — is anything but that.

Over four episodes weighing in at nearly five hours, director Gotham Chopra, the son of philosopher Deepak Chopra and best known for his sports documentaries, digs into all aspects of the band, which has sold more than 120 million albums worldwide and been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Jon Bon Jovi performs during Rock In Rio at Cidade do Rock on Sept. 29, 2019, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Photo by Alexandre Schneider/Getty Images)

Chopra had access to band members present and past, including former guitarist Richie Sambora, controversial former manager Doc McGhee, Bon Jovi’s rarely interviewed wife, Dorothea, and others in the band’s orbit.

It’s also framed around the voice problems Bon Jovi has encountered in recent years that required vocal cord surgery in 2022.

The band has a new album, “Forever,” due out June 7 but Bon Jovi isn’t sure he’ll ever be able to tour again.

“The ‘if’ is getting smaller and further in the distance on a daily basis, but it’s up to God at this point,” he said.

Jon Bon Jovi performs at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas in 2013. Two years ago he discovered one of his vocal cords was atrophying and has since had surgery to repair it. The full story is chronicled in the documentary, “Thank You, Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story,” premiering Friday on Hulu. (David Bergman/BonJovi/TNS)

Jon Bon Jovi performs in 2010. Two years ago he discovered one of his vocal cords was atrophying and has since had surgery to repair it. The full story is chronicled in the documentary, “Thank You, Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story,” premiering Friday on Hulu. (David Bergman/TNS)

of

Expand

He has no regrets about sharing that struggle — and other issues — in the documentary.

“It was uncomfortable,” he says. “People of our era, our age, we didn’t grow up with discussing mental health issues … alcoholism or anxiety. Now it’s commonplace, and so I don’t mind discussing those issues personally with our listeners because I find they’ve experienced the same things I have.

“If anything, I want them to feel closer to me as a man, as a writer, because I’m experiencing what you are — just differently.”

Related Articles

Music and Concerts |


After 4 decades in music and major vocal surgery, Jon Bon Jovi is optimistic and still rocking

Music and Concerts |


Concert review: Three decades on and Tim McGraw’s still got it

Music and Concerts |


Concert review: Kane Brown blows up country conventions at Target Center

Music and Concerts |


TaikoArts Midwest, Minnesota Latino Museum among culture groups eyeing new homes in St. Paul

Music and Concerts |


2024 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees to be announced

Did Texas Police Violate First Amendment Rights of Pro-Palestine Protesters?

posted in: Society | 0

On Wednesday, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) arrested and charged 57 people, including one journalist, with criminal trespassing on the University of Texas at Austin’s campus during a protest against Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gaza and the university’s investments in weapons manufacturing. DPS and Governor Greg Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to an Observer request for comment.

Dr. Amy Sanders is a tenured associate professor at UT-Austin, a licensed attorney, and journalist. She has taught courses on media law, journalism ethics, and global protections on speech, press, and protest. In the aftermath of Wednesday’s arrests, Sanders talked to the Texas Observer about free speech protections and the First Amendment. 

TO: UT is a public university, and the protests yesterday were taking place outdoors. Isn’t that a public forum, fully protected for free assembly and free speech under the First Amendment?

So let’s not even talk about the First Amendment first. If you look at UT’s own policy regarding freedom of expression, they open up public outdoor common areas on campus for these kinds of activities. UT actually has a policy that says assemblies of the public are permitted in outdoor campus spaces. 

The real issue yesterday is whether or not you believe it was a peaceful protest. Universities, of course, have a right to ensure the physical safety of their students, staff and faculty. 

When expressive activities get out of hand and turn violent, or when people begin engaging in speech that is not protected by the First Amendment—true threats, fighting words—the university has the right to step in and stop that kind of protest. I have seen nothing to suggest that is what occurred yesterday.

What kind of speech would constitute a true threat or fighting words? 

There’s been a lot of confusion about anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hate speech against Jewish people—and it is fully protected by the First Amendment. 

Unless we’re getting into actual targeted threats of physical violence, protesters have a right to engage in antisemitic speech. Again, I haven’t seen evidence that that’s what was occurring yesterday. But even if it was, that speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not protect any kind of physical action that would harm someone’s safety. You have no First Amendment right to push, shove, kick, hit other people. But, often in the case of peaceful protests, like we saw yesterday, there is of course pushing, and people are moving. Oftentimes, police exercise restraint in allowing some of this movement to happen, understanding that you can be in a crowd and come into contact with someone without intending to hurt them. 

I think the presence of armed riot police always increases the tension in these kinds of situations—and I think it’s the wrong move.

A pro-Palestine rally at the Texas Capitol in February Gus Bova

Does the First Amendment differentiate between journalists and other members of the public? There was a reporter arrested yesterday—he’s a photojournalist for Fox7, and he was arrested and charged with criminal trespassing.

That arrest in my opinion is absolutely unlawful. Police obviously have the right to ask journalists to move to keep them safe. But from the video I have seen, he was doing nothing unlawful, other than engaging in the practice of journalism. The First Amendment protects journalists who are in the process of covering a news story on public property.

Did you see any basis for a dispersal order yesterday?

Obviously, I wasn’t everywhere—I haven’t seen everything. But I suspect that that was a tactic to try to calm the situation. I don’t know that it was lawful. I also don’t think it was effective. 

(Note: The Observer was present on campus when one of the dispersal orders was read out around 6:15 p.m. Wednesday. The crowd of protestors moved off campus, and then police left en masse—and protestors promptly returned to UT’s South Lawn in the heart of campus where many of the arrests took place, according to videos posted on social media by local journalists. The group continued to peacefully protest, while a couple drones buzzed overhead.)

Can police or elected leaders in Texas declare public forums to be criminal trespass zones?

Generally speaking, when members of the public are engaged in a peaceful protest in a public space—assuming they are not obstructing traffic, or disrupting campus activities—there is very little legal basis for law enforcement to demand they leave. 

For the protesters and journalists arrested yesterday, are the charges likely to be dropped? 

Having spent time in a prosecuting attorney’s office, I would anticipate that nearly all of these charges will be dropped. 

(As of mid-morning Thursday, nearly 50 of the charges had been dropped, according to the Austin Chronicle.)

Then what was the point of sending riot police and arresting people?

The point is absolutely to intimidate the students and other protesters into not exercising their First Amendment right to speak. The whole goal of sending in riot police, of making the statements that the governor of Texas made, is to chill freedom of expression. 

It is to make clear that you don’t approve of their views, and that you will attempt to punish them for expressing their views—even if what they’re doing is protected by the First Amendment. It’s an extremely effective tactic.

The fear of getting arrested—the fear of spending a night in jail—without a doubt discourages some people from participating.

A pro-Palestine demonstration in Austin in 2021 Ivan Armando Flores/Texas Observer

Can police arrest protesters on public property when they’ve not broken any laws? And can police arrest protesters on public property if they believe that protesters plan to break laws?

The idea that we would take all of this action preemptively to try to prevent harm is not something that the First Amendment permits. This standard when we’re talking about incitement speech, for example, which is not protected by the First Amendment, is extremely high.

The phrase that the courts use is “imminent, lawless action”—and that has two components to it: lawless action requires unlawful behavior. Imminent means the the threat is real, and it’s happening now. 

I just don’t see, based on the posts from protesters and organizers that I’ve seen, based on what happened yesterday—I just don’t see it rising to the level of incitement speech, where you could attempt to take action preemptively. 

That’s not the way our country works. We don’t allow the government to censor speech before it happens. There are instances where you can be punished for speaking after the fact, but this country has a long history of not allowing the government to preemptively silence people.

Editor’s Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.