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

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

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

-Edward Jensen

Our leaders think that we’re going to grow, and to satiate that growth, they’re calling for 400 miles (!!!) of new highways in the metro area over the next four decades. (In fairness, the plan does call for 320 miles of rail.)

What a boondoggle. What an environmental calamity. What an incredibly short-sighted 1950′s solution to a 21st century problem. What a waste of money.

Plus, how can we sustain that growth? I’m thinking in terms of water. With more growth comes the increased demand for more water. Water that is incredibly under-priced for desert living.

Do I need to remind you what happens when a region puts its entire economic development’s eggs in one basket? Phoenix was hit the hardest during this economic recession because our economy was because we had a growth-centric economy. Yeah, it provided fantastic revenues for the state when it was going gang-busters, but now that it isn’t, well…you know where I’m going.

Here’s my bold proposal: let’s institute a growth boundary around Phoenix. Like Portland, Oregon, for instance. Let’s force the 25 municipalities to play nice together and act in the region’s best interests. There’s minimal growth happening now, so this is the perfect wake-up call. Plus, there’s plenty of virgin land that’s been leapt over during the region’s explosive expansion. And there are a lot of places in Central Phoenix that desperately need attention.

Oh, wait, fixing what’s already here isn’t politically sexy.

-Edward Jensen

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2r9mQ7bUco

“For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” [Sen. Kennedy, 12 August 1980]

This is a textbook example of how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, colloquially known as the Stimulus Package, is supposed to work.  These are shovel-ready projects that can be started earlier with the help of matching Federal funds.

The largest mass transit project in the country got under way Monday with the help of federal stimulus dollars, as public officials broke ground on a second passenger rail tunnel beneath the Hudson River.

The new tunnel will link New Jersey with New York and eventually will double capacity on the nation’s busiest rail corridor, running from Washington to Boston, Massachusetts, officials said.

Officials participated in the groundbreaking for the $8.7 billion project as commuter trains passed behind them in North Bergen, New Jersey, before entering the existing train tunnel, which went into operation in 1908.

[more at CNN]

It will be interesting to see how this progresses. I’m definitely going to keep track of this. Thank goodness for Google Alerts!

-Edward Jensen

For those familiar with Downtown Phoenix, there are two free shuttles that connect various parts of the area: the Downtown Area Shuttle, or DASH. One travels from Central Station to the Arizona State Capitol (Government Loop) and the other meanders around the area, traveling to the two stadia and up to Roosevelt St (Downtown Loop). Both shuttles operate from 6.30a-6.30p. For the Government Loop, this may make sense since that’s when state offices are open. But it doesn’t make sense for the Downtown Loop: the areas served by the Downtown Loop start to come alive after that shuttle service is finished for the evening.

Here’s the proposal: get rid of the DASH Downtown Loop and replace it with a free-ride zone on the Metro Light Rail that extends from the Roosevelt St/Central Ave station to the 3rd St/Washington & Jefferson St stations.  Most major downtown areas have a free-ride zone to encourage people to take public transport to get from one part of the downtown to the other.  Phoenix should not be different.

It would work by not having fare enforcement officers check between the Roosevelt/Central Ave station and the 3rd St/Washington & Jefferson St stations.  There would still be ticketing machines at those stations so people who need to go outside of the free-ride zone can buy their tickets.

-Edward Jensen

The study, part of a class taught by ASU Associate Professor Elliot Rabinovich, examined the supply chain processes leading from Phoenix-area tourist resorts to a network of local groups that feed the hungry. The study was a collaborative effort between the Megapolitan Tourism Research Center in the College of Public Programs and the Center for Services Leadership at the W. P. Carey School of Business. W. P. Carey MBA students Ross Cain, Xicheng Zhou and McCall Baldwin wrote the report.

Waste Not Arizona has a fleet of four refrigerated trucks that run in the Valley six days per week, picking up food from donors and delivering to several organizations that feed the hungry. The study focused on the organizational structure, current supply chain processes, the pros and cons of different initiatives within Waste Not Arizona’s network, and ways to maximize how the organization carries out its daily activities.

“The ASU supply chain analysis completed for the logistics side of Waste Not was invaluable,” said Dee Mitten, executive director of Waste Not Arizona. ”The caliber of analysis and suggestions for improvement were well-thought out, realistic and attainable. We tremendously value and appreciate the commitment of time, energy and enthusiasm devoted to this project.”

Dr. Timothy Tyrrell, director of the Megapolitan Tourism Research Center, initiated the project that led to the study. “The tourism industry gives much more than jobs and tax revenues back to the community,” Tyrrell said. “Tourism contributes to a wide range of economic and social qualities of life for local residents. This study is a great example of how the university can help tourism do an even better job of serving the public good.”

Dr. Rabinovich, who supervised the course, said the project was also beneficial for the students who took a hands-on approach and were engaged in learning from Waste Not Arizona’s operations. “For the students, this was an educational experience, as well,” Rabinovich said. “They were exposed to an area of the economy they rarely get to see as part of their MBA curriculum.”

For information about the Megapolitan Tourism Research Center, visit http://mtrc.asu.edu. To learn about the W. P. Carey School of Business, visit http://wpcarey.asu.edu/.

The Sunlight Foundation is championing this cause through ReadTheBill.org.

Read on (from here):

Hey,

Here’s something terrifying: Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus bill and we’re pretty sure the people who voted on that legislation didn’t actually read it. And for sure you didn’t have a chance to look at it, either.

That’s not the first time important legislation has rushed through Congress in a matter of hours. By hurrying to vote on these bills, members of Congress might miss an earmark or tax break that could have a lasting impact on you and your community.

Let’s make sure this doesn’t happen again. Sign the petition and demand that Congress Read The Bill:

http://www.ReadTheBill.org/petition

Thank you for your support.

The link is above, and I’ve signed the petition.  You should, too.

-Edward Jensen

Something that we are taught in these introductory classes on sustainability is that true sustainability is the intersection of environmental protection, social equity, and economic justice.  If I may borrow from ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS, the parent organization of the School of Sustainability), a sustainable society

considers the interconnectedness of environmental, economic, and social systems; reconciles the planet’s environmental needs with development needs over the long term; and avoids irreversible commitments that constrain future generations. (from here)

Being a UMS major, I have taken a lot of classes rooted in policy analysis.  From those classes (and also from being a student of history), long-term policy changes are best achieved through incremental policy shifts.  In other words, it is not wise to disregard previous policy and enact a new set of policies.  This sets any institution up for serious failure.  While troubling times do call for widespread measures, the rule of thumb is to change present policy in an incremental fashion.  This might be the result of society’s teaching that we should look upon extreme movements with a cautious eye and critical analysis.  The simple cultural clues that we get in our early years – don’t go too far from mommy and daddy, ignore the person on the street yelling that “the end is near”, and so on – teach us to ignore (and quite possibly tune out) extreme points of view.

I am prepared to argue that this is why programs such as Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) might be looked upon with widespread cultural disdain.  These programs have adopted a wildly different policy agenda for (in their words) saving the planet.  For instance, PETA advocates for everyone to go vegan: one step above and beyond simple vegetarianism.  To live a vegan lifestyle means to eliminate everything produced by animals.  Generally, these products are more expensive than their non-vegan counterparts, and so those who find that basic food for survival is too expensive could not adopt this lifestyle.  While it might protect the environment, it is not economically just.

It seems like sustainability is the current buzz word.  But I fear that people automatically associate sustainability with liberal tree-hugging hippies.  I believe that the reality of sustainability and the genuine need for sustainability education is far from this perception.  As a disclaimer to both my introductory courses in Sustainability this semester, the instructors conceded that there is not a wide literature on the field.  With that justification, I fear that I am getting a perception that my instructors teaching this curriculum are adopting that mantra (sustainability=save solely the environment).  Using their School’s (GIOS’s) definition of sustainability (see above), there is a definite disconnect.

The first real acceptance of the importance of sustainability was back in 1987 when the Brundtland Commission (formally World Commission on Environment and Development) of the United Nations released their report, Our Common Future, and said (about sustainable development):

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

I bring this up to show that the idea of sustainability is relatively new.  The textbooks for both my introductory classes to the concept are from the disparate areas of sustainability: environment, economy, and society.  But the emphasis seems to be on the first of those areas.  The PETA agenda example I listed above just targets one of those disparate areas (environment).

Let me be clear that I am not dismissing that we need to change our current habits of consumption.  I am arguing that the best way to do this is in an incremental manner.  Take the customary New Year’s Resolutions that people make.  Most resolutions proposed are on a large scale: stop smoking, lose 30 pounds, or do some other behavioral change.  Most of those resolutions do not make it through the end of January.  I bring this up because this is an argument that we are creatures of habit.  We do things with the best of intentions but we fade back into our prior habits.  I fear that true sustainability, if its associated polices are not adopted in an incremental fashion, will be looked upon as a fleeting fancy and nothing will happen.

As I was discussing with one of my colleagues, there are a lot of incremental changes that individuals can make to affect the course of this planet and adopt sustainable living.  If everyone switched out one incandescent light bulb and replaced it with one compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).  The micro change that this would bring would be massive on the macro scale.  All being equal, however, it is still an incremental change.

I hope I have shed some light on this.  I was working on a book review assignment and I thought of  this issue.

-Edward Jensen

After the 2008 Republican National convention, I wrote up a quick entry touching on this same topic.  I said this:

What are your stances on policy issues, Republicans? I know I can go to your various campaign websites and see for myself, but I want a principled argument from your side why I should vote for you. To say that Obama is inexperienced – even if he might be – is not the basis for an academic argument.

So, let’s get back to the basics: if you, Republicans, are against President Obama’s budget and other policies, simply saying “no!” is not an appropriate response.  Let’s hear what your ideas are.  Political parties that are in loyal opposition to other parties would work best, I believe, if they offered constructive arguments and constructive dialogue to other groups.  Anything else, I believe, just doesn’t make the grade.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

With all the cuts in the Phoenix city budget and Maricopa County budget, there are going to be far fewer services to help the homeless get off the street and back into productive living. We need to step up and help – NOW. Whether it’s serving food at St. Vincent de Paul, or Andre House or getting involved at the Lodestar Day Resource Center or making a financial donation (even $5 will be welcomed) to CASS or SVdP — every little bit helps. In my experience, volunteering my time to help those in need provides far greater personal rewards than the help that I give. I particularly suggest it if you are having your own pity party about your personal financial situation. It helps put life into perspective. Donation and volunteer opportunities can be found at www.stvincentdepaul.net.

Please feel free to pass this along to your contacts and networks so that we can make Phoenix a better place, even if it is in a time of economic hardship.
-Edward Jensen

This is no delicate matter. I hope that everyone can come to a reasonable compromise.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

I truly believe that each of us are all worthy to have our needs met, and not one of us should go hungry. If you have the resources then give. It is not our job to judge, and we can never see into the hearts of others and know how they are feeling or where they really are in life. I hope that as we embark on this Christmas season we can all give gifts of second chances, gifts of service, and gifts of kindness to all those around us whether or not they are deemed ‘worthy or unworthy’. [excerpt from "worthy vs. unworthy" by Kirsten Martin]

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”

Happy Friday!
-EJ

We are torn and wrinkled by the experiences in life. Some experience more of this than others, but yet our value remains a constant. So many times it is easy to look at ourselves or at others and see the wrinkles and tears and feel like the value is not there or has decreased. It is essential to remember that this is not the case. … We still retain our dignity and self worth and in turn our value as a human being (excerpt from “The Value of People” by Kirsten Martin)

Cheers-
Edward Jensen