Much has been made about the 90+ thousand pages of documents leaked about American involvement in Afghanistan and the geopolitical struggle in the region.  Jon Stewart (of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) weighs in on this. Readers and viewers be advised, this contains strong language:

If ever there was a reason to support the troops, it would be to get them out of Afghanistan. We’re fighting alongside an Afghan army that could, quite frankly, care less about their safety and security. We’re fighting against a well-financed insurgency that might even be financed by the Pakistani government, which is in turn financed by us. We’re also fighting history: nobody has ever won a war in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan.

This war will not be won by military prowess alone. It will take a lot of well-choreographed diplomacy. Throwing money at Afghanistan (and Iraq) will not solve the problem.

I am a pacifist but there are times when even I believe that war is necessary. As Scripture says, “There is a time for war and a time for peace.”  We’re past the time for war. Now is the time for peace.

Support the troops: End this unsustainable war.

-E

Listen to the press conference held this morning:

Nick Bastian, the owner of the ever-popular RailLife.com, has some interesting pictures from today’s press conference that feature the now-drained Tempe Town Lake.

It’ll be interesting to see how the recovery takes place. We shall see!

-E

I must ask, then: How’s that whole “drill, baby, drill” thing working?

In all the madness, I’ve been trying to figure out what SB1070 means for me, my community, and greater Arizona. I believe that SB1070 is misguided and does nothing to solve the true issue at hand, immigration reform.  I firmly believe that SB1070 was passed because we’ve let fear drive the conversation instead of reasoned, rational debate.  As Emerson said, “Fear always springs from ignorance.”

It’s been hard putting words to how I feel. I understand the frustration on the parts of those who support this law. The Federal government has definitely let us all down in passing any sort of immigration reform. I hope that Arizona’s passing of this misguided law is a wake-up call to the Federal government to start a new dialog on immigration. Unfortunately, seeing how this is an election year, I’m not holding my breath that a humane, sensible, and comprehensive immigration policy will be passed as candidates will pander to their ever-increasingly polarized sides.

I know that it’s all too easy to say that the law will only impact those who aren’t legally in this country. I believe that this will impact everyone. It has only raised the already-heightened sense of fear in the community.  Those who support the law have publicly squirmed when they try to come up with criteria besides skin color of what an “illegal immigrant” might look like. We have a sheriff that goes on media blitzes to brag about how many undocumented immigrants he and his office have apprehended. Laws like SB1070 will only further enable him to do that.

I’m not writing this to downplay the issue of undocumented immigration in Arizona. It is a big deal. For too long, it seems like we’ve let this issue slide because there was enough resources to help immigrants and because we recognized the positive effects they’ve had on the economy. Only now are we realizing that operatives of drug cartels are operating in the local schools. Now that Arizona’s economy is in a nosedive, the state legislature and a somewhat silent citizenry are scapegoating the immigrant community for these problems. It’s their fault that Arizona is losing money.  It’s their fault that crime is on the rise. It’s not our fault, it’s their fault.

It seems like an excuse to pass this law is the increased border violence, drug transportation, and its localized crime. If this is the case, why was there not an element in the law deploying the Arizona Army National Guard to the border area to defend against this criminal element? Why are we focusing on people who are here already instead of stopping the real threat to our safety and security?  The framers of this bill have said that we want safer communities and that this will help mitigate the criminal element inherent in immigration. So why, then, are we focusing on those who have innocently set up their lives here to escape the violence and bloodshed in their homeland instead of those committing the violence and bloodshed?

One has to understand that it is a small percentage of the total immigrant population that is giving everyone a bad name. The media and its unchecked commentators are quick to highlight on a few stories that prove their points. We were spoon-fed stories about a southern Arizona rancher allegedly being murdered by an immigrant yet evidence is now emerging that an American citizen is the alleged suspect. We hear of a rise in crime, but that crime is usually localized and insider crime that is tied to smuggling. It’s not random.  As Dean Nicholas Knisely+ of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral wrote in an essay on this very topic, “There are some very bad people coming across the border. There are also many people desperate to find work coming across as well, because the crushing poverty in their home communities makes [it] impossible to feed and care for their families.”

There have been many parallels drawn that connect Arizona to Nazi Germany. As an Arizonan, I’m offended. Nobody likes their home state compared to a brutal régime that systematically killed millions of Jews. Yet that does not mean that I’m oblivious to these parallels. Those who support this law say that those who are here with the appropriate paperwork have nothing to hide. But this now means that entire groups of people will now have to carry with them the appropriate papers to show that they are either citizens or immigrants in the country legally.

I’ve been convinced that SB1070 will never actually go into effect because there are a multitude of legal challenges and injunctions that will be filed against it. I hope this is the case. I’m a proud Arizonan and I don’t like that my home state, the state in which I was born, is the butt end of jokes. The Arizona in which I live is open, welcoming, and tolerant of other peoples. The Arizona that is unfortunately being portrayed to the media is a xenophobic, old, and rancorous state.

For those who care about this state, we’ve been let down. We’ve been let down by a state legislature that passes policies blaming one group of citizens for the state’s troubles. We’ve been let down by politicians that put their careers before their constituents. We’ve been let down by a federal government that has neglected to address immigration reform thus enabling states to pass draconian laws such as these. We’ve been let down by the media that is using opinions as the basis for facts and not vice versa.

I’ve publicly debated on this blog whether or not I’ll stay in Arizona once I’ve finished my Master’s degree. I think that now is the time that I should stay here and fight to change Arizona to be the Arizona in which I want to live. The quotation by Mohandas Gandhi is increasingly pertinent: “We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.”

We need change. Desperately. But that change has to be relevant, humane, sensible, and comprehensive.

-Edward Jensen

Second, at no time have I ever been affiliated with the Andres Cano and Vaughn Hillyard campaign.  I was, am, and will be an independent student at ASU.  My two preceding posts on this issue were written on my own accord with no influence from any members of Mr. Cano’s and Mr. Hillyard’s campaign.  My original endorsement post, penned 30 March 2010, was written because I chose to write down and outline the reasons why I would vote for Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard, exercising my First Amendment rights and also to fill a gap in original material on this blog.  Had I known that my endorsement would have been of significant detriment to their campaign leading to their disqualification, I would not have written it.  My follow-up post on the disqualification of Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard, penned 8 April 2010, was written because I felt there were serious flaws in the the last-minute disqualification of that ticket and why they should be seated since they won a majority of the popular vote.

Never did I think that I’d end up in the middle of an elections kerfuffle.

In being at ASU, I had hoped to keep a low profile (well, as much as possible) and ruffle as few feathers as possible.  If you haven’t been living in a cave over the past 48 hours, you know what’s been going on with the recent ASASUD elections-gate.  If you have been living in a cave and have no idea what’s been going on, click here for the Downtown Devil‘s coverage.

The thing that I find fascinating is that my blog post wherein I endorsed one ticket instead of another was chalked up as one of the three strikes against that ticket.  Newspapers and other media outlets endorse candidates.  For example, then-Senator Barack Obama lauded that he was endorsed by The New York Times to be this country’s 44th President.  Senator John McCain did the same with the endorsement of his hometown newspaper, The Arizona Republic.  Candidates laud that they have been endorsed by public safety, education, or public service workers’ unions all the time.  Why should student government candidates not be able to do the same thing?

I’m not going to mention the double standard that applies to current ASASUD officers in publicly endorsing candidates.  Tania Mendes is the current President of ASASUD, and on 26 March, she posted the following to the “LAST CHANCE TO VOTE Vasquez & Abercrombie for ASASUD” Facebook group page’s wall (see for yourself in the screen capture below):

"I wish you both all the best. You guys have done a great job this year by taking ASASUD to another level. Thank you for not just talking the talk but walking the walk. I applaud you for your involvement commitment and enthusiasm for ASASUD. Win it all!!!" -ASASUD president Tania Mendes (click image for larger version)

But no, I’m not going to mention that.  Nor am I going to be shallow and mention that Ms. Mendes, a journalism major, fails to include appropriate punctuation.  And I’m not also going to mention that the other ticket’s Facebook group page, “Vote Andres & Vaughn for ASASUD!,” didn’t feature any such high-level endorsements.  Nor am I going to mention that one can’t have it both ways.

I was not–and still am not–affiliated with any of the candidates for ASASUD student president.  I chose one side instead of another, and I chose to outline the reasons I voted for them on my blog and publicly endorse them.  I do not hold any position of elected or appointed student leadership anywhere.  On 4 February 2010, I stepped down from the only position of formal student leadership I ever held whilst at ASU, the President of BLAST’D, the Barrett Honors College Leadership and Service Team at the Downtown Phoenix campus. (If I were still in that position, I would have never publicly endorsed a candidate.  I would have voted and encouraged others to do the same.)  Presently, though, my only perceived conflict of interest might be that I am employed by the College of Public Programs; however, it is clearly noted on my blog that my opinions are my own and not those of ASU or any of its affiliated institutions.  I own my blog, ASU does not.  I exclusively control my blog’s content, ASU does not.

The big thing is that people assume things and don’t read everything.  After my endorsement blog post, I received an email from the ASASUD Elections Committee saying that “many students at the downtown campus [sic] found the title of your blog post…misleading” and that they “feel it implies that ASASUD Executive Board and Senate both support the Andres and Vaughn Campaign.”   There’s one problem to their argument: it clearly shows that they didn’t read the post.  The first person is employed throughout, meaning that these are my opinions and nobody else’s.  Upon prodding the Elections Committee, “many students” turned out to be seven students.

I’m sorry, but seven people’s confusion–perceived or otherwise–doesn’t merit me to rename anything. That’s just the way it goes.

When I post something, I spill everything.  You don’t have to read between the lines because I’ve given you the stuff between the lines.  To the chagrin of my colleagues and friends, I’m rather detailed in my correspondence.  (My former BLAST’D colleagues will agree with me!) I’m a believer in getting the word out correctly the first time so that no additional correspondence is needed.  It’s just who I am.  I don’t leave room for interpretation because it’s usually misinterpretation.

That’s enough from me.  Barring anything even more unusual happening, this is my last post on this subject.

-Edward Jensen

This is one of those shameless promotions, and this is for a good cause. (Double win!) Elizabeth Apodaca, the events coordinator for the College of Public Programs, is organizing an interesting event called Guys who Give. Basically, it’s a bachelor auction whose proceeds benefit the Leukaemia & Lymphoma Society.  See the poster:

(In full disclosure: I’m not up for auction. This is definitely a good thing.)

If this is your thing, check out http://guyswhogive.com/ to learn more and buy tickets.

And good work, Elizabeth!

-Edward Jensen

I’ll level up and be perfectly honest here: my political beliefs tend to lie left of center. I voted for the then Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 elections. (My current opinions on him, though, are irrelevant to this post. Though a recent post by Paul Krugman did resonate with me.) I believe that there is an appropriate role for government in our daily lives.

The other thing in which I believe is that although we may disagree on an issue, that doesn’t mean that we have to be any less civil toward others. Too often, society unfairly casts its members into different buckets—this or that, white or black, conservative or liberal, and so on—that for the many people who don’t share that polarized worldview, it’s disheartening. What happened to people engaging in debate? I don’t mean superficial chatter like what’s found on the 24-hour cable news channels; I mean meaningful debate that takes place in the public square.

What doesn’t really need debate is the fact that the federal Congress has low approval ratings. Rather than coming together and effecting meaningful change for their constituents, the House and the Senate squabble over trifle and pure minutiae. Debate in the House and Senate have devolved into talking points instead of consensus.

That leads me to the whole website thing I talked about earlier. I don’t list my political viewpoints as most people; instead, my political viewpoints are “http://www.bettertogether.org/”.

You see, I’m all about community building. I’m all about generating social capital in communities. I’m currently reading Robert D. Putnam’s book Bowling Alone, and the current level of social capital in this country is astounding low. Dr. Putnam’s thesis is that people don’t interact with each other as much as previous generations and that is leading to social decline.

It’s certainly leading to a decline in how people interact with each other. I’m prepared to argue that this is why this society is becoming increasingly polarized. People watch political commentary disguised as news (and that commentary is usually from one side of the spectrum, not all) and begin to identify with what’s being said there. When we read blogs and other Internet sources, they’re also from one side of the spectrum. (I’ll confess; I’m guilty of this.)

And that’s where the title of this post comes into play. Meet me in the middle. I’m sure that we both want the same ends but our different means make it seem like we want completely different things. Almost all of the most-polarizing issues—healthcare reform, climate change, the role of government in our lives, etc.—have some middle ground.

Maybe we need a new way of thinking. Instead of healthcare reform, let’s focus on effecting meaningful change in individual health. Instead of debating whether climate change is real, let’s focus on protecting our natural resources. Instead of debating “big government” vs. “limited government,” let’s look at how government can be more efficient. And so on.

Debating contemporary challenges with antiquated thinking won’t work. The challenges before us require meaningful debate and consensus from everyone.

So meet me in the middle. This is where I’ll be.

-Edward Jensen

UPDATE (20 March 2010): Peter Sagal, the host of NPR’s ever-funny weekly quiz show Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, chimed in on his blog. Read it here.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=83R8RHIuR34

-Edward Jensen

Concerts:

• Friday 26 February, 12.15pm: William Barnett  (past interim organist, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Phoenix)
• Friday 5 March 12.15pm: James Gerber (director of music and worship at St Francis Xavier Catholic Church, Phoenix)
• Friday 12 March 12.15pm: Ilona Kubizczyk-Adler (music director, Episcopal Church of the Nativity, Scottsdale)
• Friday 19 March 12.15pm: Skye Hart (director of music and liturgy, St Maria Goretti Church, Scottsdale)
• Friday 26 March 12.15pm: Erik Goldstrom (Canon Musician, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Phoenix)
• Sunday 14 March 4.00pm: Choral Evensong for Mothering Sunday

Trinity Cathedral is at 100 W. Roosevelt St., in Downtown Phoenix.  It is readily accessible from the Roosevelt/Central Ave light rail station and the Downtown Phoenix DASH.  All these concerts are free of charge.  For more information, visit azcathedral.org or call 602.254.7126.

Thus begin the Amendments to the United States Constitution. As anyone who’s taken a civics course knows, the US Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” (cf. Article VI par. 2; also see the 14th Amendment).

Consider also the late developments happening with Crossroads United Methodist Church. As preface, they had a homeless ministry at their church, Central Avenue and Northern in the quasi-upscale North Central neighborhood. Then the neighborhood didn’t like seeing homeless people in their posh neighborhood, complained, got the city involved, and the city made a decision that Crossroads had to stop this ministry. After an appeal made by Crossroads, the city still stood by its decision.

Depending on your angle, it’s NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) at its finest or its worst.

Granted, when one thinks of the neighborhood around Central and Northern, one doesn’t really think about homeless ministries. Most of the homeless reside in and near Downtown Phoenix. I would think that if Crossroads wanted to do this in a more effective (whatever this means) fashion, then doing outreach and meal service would be more effective there. There’s a fantastic human services campus at 12th Ave and Jefferson–maybe a partnership there should be in the works.

But that’s irrelevant to my argument. I am, however, reminded of something from Scripture:

“I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” [excerpted from "The Judgment of the Nations," Matthew 25:31-46 NRSV]

As The Rev. John Petty (All Saints’ Lutheran Church, Aurora, Colorado) noted in his blog Progressive Involvement,

In liberation theology circles, this is called the “preferential option for the poor,” which is supposed to be controversial, but, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why. All four gospels state very clearly, one way or another, that Christ is a friend of the poor, identifies with them, is found with them. It’s not for nothing that Jesus was born to a poverty-stricken Jewish family from a hick little town. [source]

Jesus was a friend of the poor. Christians – followers of Christ – should be friends of the poor as well.

This brings me back to the original crux of this entry, taken from the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Let’s make a few assumptions here. First, that the Gospel of St Matthew is accepted canon in Christianity. Second, Christianity is accepted as a religion. In essence, the city is redefining Christianity. Christianity by city policy.

If a church wants to reach out to “the least of these” in a homeless ministries program, then it has its Constitutional rights to do so. NIMBY-ists can complain until they’re blue in the face, but it should be a Constitutional right. Wait: it is.

Lord, have mercy!

-Edward Jensen

epilogue. In writing this post, I consulted with a couple people whom I know are involved in this program but aren’t the official “spokespeople” for the mission. In my conversations back-and-forth, what I’m about to post was shared. This person has graciously and generously allowed me to post their comments here but has requested that they remain anonymous, again, because they aren’t the official spokesperson. Respecting that and keeping this in mind, here goes:

Just a couple of details to help bring some clarification…

The homeless that attend don’t come out of the south downtown area (like Jefferson and 12th Ave, several miles away), but rather out of the north (just a couple of miles away, on the other side of the canal) in Sunnyslope (living in the same zip code, or the annexed zip code).

While there are homeless in attendance, there are also A LOT of families and people who live in poor housing who attend and are just a paycheck or two from being homeless. We bus people in so they don’t have to walk across the neighbors yards (although, some still take public transportation and come in).

Several of the people who attend the service, consider it their “community of faith.” It is a worship service (the worship service is NOT just an afterthought – but worship music is played while they sit and wait for breakfast and I preach for about 20 minutes to a half hour, Communion and prayer line forms).

There is an offering box where those who attend have given loose change and dollars and have supported an orphanage in Belarus (yes, caring for those who are even in more dire straights than they are!).

The church and outreach to the poor have reached out to the neighbors – supplying a 24 hour call line and regular public meetings for complaints and positive responses too. But a handful of neighbors have expressed, “Even if you don’t serve food, we want you shut down because of who is coming.” The neighbors have lied about many of the details to the media to shut us down, while the outreach has not “slimed” the neighbors but have talked nicely and worked to love all.

There are neighbors who attend the service as well. Not just the needy.

The entire grounds are cleared and the “homeless” are gone by 10 am. The “homeless” help to clean and put everything away – then they leave.

A message of hope and having a “God-given dream and purpose” has helped to turn lives around. Many have come off the streets, off of drugs, into poor housing, into jobs, into better housing, and even going to college because of the hope found in these meetings. There’s a core community who encourages each other and prays for each other.

While there are homeless people who attend, it is this core group of the poor in recovery who attend and makes this a community of faith so special (they are walking on own journey to a better life for themselves and encouraging those beside them on the way).

Thanks for your reporting on this.

With apologies to Stanley Kramer, it’s a mad, mad, mad, mad, county…

-Edward Jensen

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1criD7cMfs

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0

-Edward Jensen

And, strangely, all I can think of is the Large Hadron Rap:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM

-Edward Jensen

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Paul Manz was a church organist who took the liberty of being creative at the keyboard. He liked to introduce hymns that the congregation at Minneapolis’ Mount Olive Lutheran Church would sing with improvisations. Church members loved them, and word about his compositions eventually led to Manz playing at hymn festivals nationwide.

For 37 years, he led music at Mount Olive at 3045 Chicago Av. S., where his music will be played and prayer services will be held from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday to mourn and honor him. He died Wednesday in St. Paul following a long illness. He was 90. [source]

Now, he’s with the company of Bach, Handel, Buxtehude, Mozart, and the entire company of saints. He will be missed but his music lives on.

-Edward Jensen

“It’s appropriate that this program brings together two retiring Valley icons,” said the city’s acting Public Information Office Director Deborah Sedillo Dugan.

The program features testimonials by professional sports magnate and civic leader Jerry Colangelo; C.A. Howlett, US Airways senior vice president of public affairs; Bill Post, Pinnacle West Capital chief executive officer; Ioanna Morfessis, president of IO.INC, a national economic-development consulting firm; Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox; former City Councilman Calvin C. Goode; former Deputy City Manager Jack Tevlin; and Lionel Lyons, director of the city’s Equal Opportunity Department.

The Fairbanks family shared many personal photos for the program, which depicts Phoenix’s growth and development under Fairbanks’ leadership.

The 63-year-old Phoenix native, whose last day is Thursday, Nov. 5, was appointed city manager in 1990. He has held the position longer than any previous manager. Under his leadership, Phoenix earned major accomplishments and grew to the fifth-largest city in the country.

Visit phoenix.gov/11 to view the replay schedule.

PHX 11 is the city’s award-winning news and information station broadcast on Cox Cable and accessible on the city’s Internet site, phoenix.gov. Viewers also can follow PHX 11 on Twitter: twitter.com/watchphx11.