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

Enough introduction. As a service to my readers, if you’ve ever been wondering about where I stand on the political spectrum, here you go:

I am a liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness. Liberals stand for tolerance, magnanimity, community spirit, the defense of the weak against the powerful, love of learning, freedom of belief, art and poetry, city life, the very things that make America worth dying for. … What liberals must conserve is the middle class: the stable family who can afford to enjoy music and theatre and take the kids to Europe someday and put money in the collection plate and save for college and keep up the home and be secure against catastrophe. [from Homegrown Democrat by Garrison Keillor, ch. 2]

Yep…that’s me!

-E

Blogs have long debated if we’ll have a “Year of the Linux Desktop.” In summary, it’s when Linux takes over significantly more market share than the 1% it currently enjoys. For some, it’s yet to come; for others, it’s already passed.

We all know that on servers, Linux is a force with which to be reckoned. For desktops, we’ve seen bits and pieces with the early versions of the Ubuntu operating system. Netbooks were released with a custom Linux distribution that popularized other distributions when users realized that the stock distribution was sub-par. But we just haven’t overcome that threshold of making Linux a truly viable desktop operating system.

But unless the FOSS community comes to its senses and overcomes a few macro-level “big obstacles,” I don’t think that we’ll ever have a “Year of the Linux Desktop.”

Big Obstacle #1: Just because it’s proprietary/closed-source software doesn’t mean it’s bad.
This is something that the FOSS community can’t seem to accept. And instead of seeing what the closed-source software is doing right and trying to adopt some of these technologies to FOSS development, we’re cursing them out. Really, Free Software Foundation? There are a plethora of other reasons why Windows is so popular that have nothing to do with illegal activities.

Look at some of the big pieces of software that we use on a daily basis: Flash. MP3/MP4 codecs. Java. Google Chrome. These are closed-source (but zero-cost) pieces of software that make computers work. To install them on Linux systems takes a good arm twisting and a sense of trying to outwit the computer. Look, the world isn’t going to switch to open-source/open-standards formats. MP3 and MP4 will be more popular than OGG/Theora because more consumer devices support MP3/MP4 instead of OGG. Can one play OGG-formatted files on one’s iPod? No.

Another big issue is power management. Laptops and netbooks running Windows have native power managers that control devices and limit power consumption. Natively, there is nothing for Linux. There are a couple power managers that are developed by individuals in the community but are for one distribution or certain hardware.

Big Obstacle #2: Sometimes, bleeding-edge isn’t the best thing.
I think that as a marketing campaign to try to attract users to the various Linux distributions, it’s effective. But bringing people to Linux is different than keeping them on Linux. Let’s not have a thousand poorly-developed features; instead, let’s have a stable operating system that works. My first adventure in Linux was on Ubuntu operating system, starting in May 2008 with Ubuntu 8.04. It was a great operating system because it just worked. But the developers decided that with each new release, the edge had to be pushed and bleeding-edge became the norm…usually at the expense of core features.

With Ubuntu 10.04, designated as a long-term support release, I was hopeful that a lot of the smaller bugs that definitely pestered me (and I’m sure the community at large, as well) would have been resolved. Take inserting and removing flash drives. I save almost everything to a flash drive. Each time I inserted a flash drive, my computer screen locked up for a minute. The same thing happened when I tried to open a folder from either the desktop or the “Places” menu.

This issue wasn’t resolved. And, as blogger and Linux guru fewt (Andrew Wyatt) explains, there were many more serious issues that weren’t resolved. Instead, the most new notable feature was the shifting of the title bar buttons from the right to the left side, much to the consternation of many. It’s as though the eye-candy took precedence over making a stable, usable operating system. For a long-term support release, it just doesn’t seem to make sense.

Big Obstacle #3: Simplify, simplify, simplify!
Whenever I have to install a fresh operating system on any computer, it’s always a pain to install proprietary drivers, closed-source software, and various other utilities.  The problem with Linux is that unless you’re well-versed in the command line, you’re lost.

Take installing Flash, for instance. Instead of just double-clicking an executable file to install it like I would on Windows, I had to download one file, add something into the software repositories, install a whole host of files from the command line, create a couple symbolic links, and only then was I good to go.  Or to install MP3/MP4 codecs, I really had to convince my operating system that I was okay with installing non-free software despite Linux’s philosophical diatribes on why closed-source/proprietary software is bad.

If Linux is going to have any shot of having a chance of working for consumer desktop operating systems, there should be a way to install drivers/modules for hardware that isn’t natively supported in the Linux kernel. The most promising thing I saw was Ubuntu’s “restricted hardware drivers” program. On my laptop with a nVidia graphics chipset, and Broadcom wireless card, it recognized them both, installed the default drivers, and then just worked. It was all automated and required no input from me. When I switched to Fedora, installing the nVidia drivers required manually adding them into DKMS, installing them on the kernel, modifying GRUB to disable the standard graphics drivers, and restarting the computer. The first time, it didn’t work and I had to reinstall the operating system.

I’m sorry, but computer users are fickle. If that’s what it takes to install something, they’ll ditch Linux and move back to Windows or Mac.  Why do users love Windows or Macintosh? They’re simple. They’re easy to understand. And often times, they just work. Perhaps a way to fix this would be to redouble the Linux community’s efforts onto one or two distributions, package managers, and desktop environments. By having scores of distributions and desktop environments, everyone is making baby steps on their own systems whereas if the community collaborated and worked together, think of the progress that would be made. I’ll start by making a couple suggestions: Let’s stick with Debian, use RPM packages, and GNOME. Why? These have been around for a while, have stood the test of time, and have the greatest potential to “just work.”

Big Obstacle #4: The Linux “community” must be more open to criticism.
If there’s one thing that Linux has that no other operating system has, it’s a great community-level support structure.  Each of the major Linux distributions has a fantastic community system that I can’t find within or without computing.

But that community has to realize that there are people with varying degrees of experience to Linux. It can’t denounce people that complain about Linux as “paid Microsoft shills.” If Desktop Linux is to stand a chance, and especially if Desktop Linux should be taken seriously, the community has to realize that Linux is now on the same playing field as Windows or Macintosh. There are people who are going to try a Linux distribution, say that it doesn’t work, and go back to Windows because something on Linux just didn’t work or because their favorite software title wasn’t available to Linux or whatever. To be cursed at by Linux zealots will only reinforce the notion that Linux isn’t for them. Rather than denounce that person, that criticism should be taken to heart and work on an improvement.

This leads me to the biggest of the big obstacles:

Big Obstacle #5: Desktop Linux won’t have one big saviour. It will have to come from community collaboration.
I think the thought within the Linux communities is that it will be one distribution that will save Desktop Linux, which would come at the expense of all the progress that’s been made on other distributions. I don’t see it that way. The saviour of Linux will be its community but only if it realizes that it must collaborate with and not put down other Linux communities. This goes back to my point #3: by consolidating Linux development into one or two core distributions, significant progress can be made to make Linux a truly viable desktop operating system that can compete with Windows and Macintosh.

Finally, don’t say that “I don’t get Linux.” Maybe I do, maybe I don’t. I think that the great thing about Linux is that there are so many different flavors, versions, and features. But if we’re going to have this long-awaited “Year of the Linux Desktop,” the current models haven’t gotten us anywhere. I’m prepared to argue that they’ve taken us back a few steps. Some change is seriously needed.

So…I’m wondering what your thoughts are on this. There are a lot of blog posts that have been written before this one, and these are just my two cents. Is there anything I missed?

Cheers-
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

Terms of Use
Life as Edward Jensen and the News from Downtown Phoenix by Edward Jensen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

The opinions presented on this blog are solely and exclusively those of the author, Edward Jensen, and are well-researched, well-reasoned, and insightful.  They are, however, not necessarily the opinions of Arizona State University, any of its affiliated institutions, or other institutions with which the author has been known to associate.

Discussion Policies
As part of the public forum, all comments and their authors to this blog are expected to follow a few basic standards of etiquette.

Comments are welcomed on posts published within the past ninety (90) days. Once a post has been live for 90 days, the comments will close for that post.

First, it is my hope that everyone’s opinions are considered; as a means to that end, please make your comments and submissions using your real names and not aliases. The commenting system provides you with a way to link your comment with your Facebook, Twitter, OpenID, Yahoo!, Disqus, or other web-based profile; if you don’t have any of these, then please leave your comment using your real names. Comments left under an alias will neither be approved nor posted. No exceptions.

Second, comments are posted by readers in the community and are not necessarily my opinions. With this said, you are more than welcome to disagree! As a colleague and friend of mine said once, “Discourse, dissent, and disagreement are the cornerstones of democracy,” so differing viewpoints are welcome and encouraged here.

Third, as I am able to stand by any claims I make, I hope you are able to do the same in your comments. Any arguments and claims you make must be backed up with verifiable evidence (e.g. links or citations). Personal attacks, spam, and arguments made without verifiable evidence will neither be approved nor posted.

Questions?
For questions, email terms-of-use [at] edwardjensen [dot] net.

The Downtown Devil reported on their Facebook page that Mr. Cano’s and Mr. Vaughn’s ticket received 453 votes to their opposition’s (Christian Vasquez and Jessica Abercrombie) 321 votes.

The reason: Late on Wednesday (toward the end of the voting period), someone filed a violation against their campaign. It apparently was the metaphorical straw that broke the camel’s back, and rather than stage a new election, Mr. Cano’s and Mr. Vaughn’s ticket was automatically disqualified thus making Mr. Vasquez and Ms. Abercrombie as this campus’s next President and Vice President.

Quite the way to win an election, no?  Hope someone else fails?

The reason why we vote for one candidate instead of another is because we endorse one candidate’s platform instead of another’s.  Of those that voted, almost 60% voted against Mr. Vasquez’s and Ms. Abercrombie’s platform.  Only 40% voted against Mr. Cano’s and Mr. Hillyard’s campaign platform.

First off, that elections violations can be tendered during the voting period is simply shameful.  If a candidate is to be disqualified, it should be before people start voting so they can learn more about another candidate’s platform or to submit a write-in candidate.

Second, that this violation came in the waning moments of the voting period makes me–and many–raise  an eyebrow.  It’s likely that the perception will be that an insider did this to change the outcome of the vote.  Whether this is true, however, will never be known.

Third, that Mr. Vasquez’s and Ms. Abercrombie’s campaign will be seated despite not winning a majority of the vote and without a runoff election goes against ASASUD elections code. I present Section 6.2:

If during the general election no one ticket receives at least fifty-one percent of the votes there will be a mandatory run-off election.

We shall see what happens. Until then, my perceptions that ASASUD is a feckless institution shall remain.

-Edward Jensen

There are two well-qualified tickets for the ASASUD (Associated Students of ASU at the Downtown Phoenix campus) presidency: Andres Cano and Vaughn Hillyard are one ticket and Christian Vasquez and Jessica Abercrombie are the other.  Ms. Abercrombie, Mr. Cano, and Mr. Hillyard are currently ASASUD senators; Mr. Vasquez is the director of parliamentary procedures for ASASUD.

Whilst both tickets present well-founded and bold platforms, it is Mr. Cano’s and Mr. Hillyard’s platform that is better for the development of the Downtown Phoenix campus.  That is why I am endorsing and voting for Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard to be President and Vice-president of ASASUD.

A president of a campus’s student government should be on that campus more than he is not.  Mr. Vasquez’s major is sociology, a Tempe campus program.  (In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, Ms. Abercrombie’s major is journalism, a program located on the Downtown Phoenix campus.)  Mr. Vasquez’s connection with the Tempe campus makes me wonder if he will try and shape this campus to be a miniature version of the Tempe campus.  Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard are both students in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Communication.

Going forward, the Downtown Phoenix campus needs to develop its own identity.  It should not be a miniature version of the Tempe campus.   The recent facilities fee (which, in full disclosure, I opposed) seemed to place the Downtown Phoenix campus on a path to becoming an extension of the Tempe campus.   This campus has its own heart and soul and must be allowed to come into its own.  The campus and the area’s established institutions should mutually benefit each other.  We do not need a student recreation center: we have the Lincoln Family YMCA.  We do not need a student union: we have Downtown Phoenix proper.  We do not need to reinvent the wheel and provide student-exclusive services: we have the depth and breadth of Downtown Phoenix’s established services that benefit all from our presence in the community.

With the economy in the state it is, and with state government’s support of higher education (and education in general) shrinking, tuition increases are unfortunately on the horizon.  On top of the ever-increasing tuition fee comes all the student fees.  Students are not unlimited funding sources for the whims of student government’s pet projects.  This is not only not true but it is unethical and immoral as well.  As an ASASUD senator, Ms. Abercrombie supported the increased facilities fee.  Mr. Cano voted against the fee.

Mr. Vasquez’s and Ms. Abercrombie’s platform seems to harness key buzzwords but doesn’t address concrete steps in which they will accomplish their agenda.  To borrow from the cliché, they look at the forest instead of the trees.  Their campaign equates sustainability (a word with which I have issues) with increased recycling bins.  They seek to reform ASASUD instead of effecting real change for the students; they seek to partner ASASUD with organizations instead of empowering students and student organizations to do likewise.  While their administration might prove beneficial, with the economy as it is, ASASUD needs to work for, on behalf, and with students and be an advocacy group for them.  We do not need change simply for change’s sake.

Not only does Mr. Cano’s and Mr. Hillyard’s campaign platform identify specific issues, it provides an action plan by which they will effect change.  In addition to adding recycling bins, Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard propose increasing the number of safe parking facilities for bicycles.  They propose extending the hours for Information Commons, the library and computing center for this campus.  They look at extending current initiatives to increase campus security, including police aide escorts and the emergency call boxes.  They seek to empower students and student organizations to network and to reach out to the community that is Downtown Phoenix.

Their attention to detail and their focus on the trees instead of the forest is why I will be voting for Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard.  All the same, though, irrespective of your preferred candidate, your voice needs to be heard.  Voting takes place Tuesday 6-Wednesday 7 April 2010 at asasud.com.

-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

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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1criD7cMfs

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0

-Edward Jensen

Surprise: this is another post on that same topic.  But, as preface, remember that I’m in the Urban and Metropolitan Studies program at Arizona State University, and as such, this is what we study.  What makes cities work?  What makes them not work?

[Author’s note: Yes, I know that Radiate Phoenix is tomorrow night and that this topic is the main item on the agenda.  It’s just that this is horrendous timing with Thanksgiving being a couple days away.  The holiday is pretty important to me and it's big in my family and, as strange as it might seem, I’m going to need all the preparation I can get.  I write this as my two cents’ worth to the discussion.  But I wish you all a spirited and productive conversation.]

Why is Downtown Phoenix not what we want it to be?  How can it get there?  I’m prepared to argue that Phoenix (its downtown, the city as a whole, and the region) focuses too much time and energy on the things that bring people here but not keep them here.  In August, I wrote a series of posts that explored this issue. As proof for this thesis, know that for every five people that are enfranchised by the area and come here, three people are disenfranchised and leave (source: Making Sense of Place – Phoenix: The Urban Desert).

It’s important to take a step back and look at the region’s recent history.  After World War II ended, those that were stationed in the various military outposts in this region came and settled here with their family.  With the land readily accessible, developers built new houses on virgin land outside the central core.  This began, inevitably, a culture and a mindset that if something isn’t just quite right, then just forget about it and build again—anew.  Downtown Phoenix began to become desolate, and so rather than quickly fixing the problem when it would have been an easy fix, we (true to form) ignored the problem and built new urban villages away from the core.  Those who could afford to leave did; those who couldn’t became disenfranchised as policy and governance focused on the new things, because they were politically more “sexy.”

This pattern repeated and repeated and that’s how we’re in this present state.  Rather than maintaining and sustaining present infrastructure, we’re always looking for that next “crown jewel” in the desert.

Downtown Phoenix has many different crown jewels that are already here.  Just because something is new and shiny does not mean that it’s automatically one of those jewels.  Let’s focus on that infrastructure which is already here.  From a physical infrastructure point of view, what’s here already is fantastic.  Now we have to fill in the gaping holes with a sustainable people infrastructure.

What is this people infrastructure?  I’m thinking places where people go: bars, restaurants, coffee shops, schools, parks, etc.  This is what academics like to call third places—places outside of one’s home and office.

What can we do to support this people infrastructure?  Make it a habit to shop and buy local.  Go beyond our elected leaders’ response to shopping local (what seems like mere lip service).  Tell friends, family, fellow students, colleagues, coworkers, anyone, and everyone about your favorite local places.  And go with them to these places!  I cannot tell you how much it pains me to see so many Starbucks cups carried by students, faculty, and staff on the ASU Downtown Phoenix campus, given the fact that the wonderful Fair Trade Café is set in the Civic Space Park.

How do we “fix” Phoenix?  Recognize our past.  Learn from our mistakes.  Diversify how and what we build.  Recognize that a healthy city needs a vibrant downtown core.  Focus on institutions that keep people here instead of those that just attract new blood.

-Edward Jensen

epilogue. Join me in making a pledge to purchase all your holiday gifts at locally-owned shops across the Valley.  If you’re throwing a party or preparing a big meal for your family to mark the season, shop at places like the Phoenix Urban Market or, if you must go to a supermarket, then there’s Bashas’.

As preface/context, I am pursuing dual undergraduate degrees at Arizona State University: Urban & Metropolitan Studies (UMS) through the School of Public Affairs and Sustainability through the School of Sustainability.  Being in the fifth semester of my UMS studies and in my second for Sustainability studies, I am taking the introductory classes to the latter.  And while the curriculum for Sustainability is what I thought it would be and that I understand the importance of such a program, there are just a couple of concerns I have.

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.

If an institution is going to be sustainable in all three uses of the definition, then it should just be sustainable and not talk about it. It should not talk up how ‘environmentally friendly’ it is but use the term ’sustainable’ to talk about it. If we were going to promote environmentally friendly practices, sometimes the way it’s been done is the best way to do it.

-Edward Jensen

Preface given. Back a couple of weeks in the Dean’s Office of the College of Public Programs, friend and colleague Lonni Summers were discussing this same thing. Where’s the METRO light rail gift shop? Where can I buy a bumper sticker that says, “My other car is METRO light rail”? Or what about a keychain with a model of the trains?

The Phoenix METRO’s success isn’t really hinged on how many people ride it during the week. A recent New York Times article posited that it was the weekend users that make our light rail a success. My point here is that Phoenicians do it differently.

Why just limit this to the light rail? Who wouldn’t want a little replica of Her Secret is Patience (the art installation hanging over the Civic Space park) sitting on their desk? (I do!) Yes, the Grand Canyon might be the most clichéd and tourist-exploited place here in Arizona, but what about for urbanistas?

The economy is bad. Cities need to be creative in generating new revenue. So why not start here? And I really want my light rail tchotchkes.

-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

What really inspired me to write this post was the discovery that the assessments (read: quiz) feature of Blackboard (ASU’s course management system) is incompatible with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8. And then I got to thinking about the big questions of the Internet: the whys and the hows.  Over the summer, I was enrolled in a non-ASU online course (the institution shall remain nameless for its sake) that required the use of Internet Explorer and whose accompanying e-textbook was solely for Windows environments.

I understand that I’m in the minority of home computer users: I solely run Ubuntu (a Debian-based Linux distribution) on my machines. A few programs I use still require Windows, and so I have a virtualized installation of Windows XP on two of my machines that I can call up whenever I need (but if and only if they don’t work in WINE). But in the end, I’d like not to use Windows or have my computer masquerade around as Windows. If the world is moving more toward the Internet, shared knowledge, and cloud computing, then shouldn’t the operating system be irrelevant?

But here’s the big question: Isn’t the point of the Internet (let alone distributed learning and shared knowledge) that it transcends operating systems and Internet browsers? Isn’t that why we have standards like HTML (hypertext markup language)?

Forget Internet Explorer and its slow adoption of Internet standards. Forget the fact that some instructors and institutions mandate certain computing requirements for their courses. As I see it, if an instructor is going to have an online course or if an institution is going to mandate an online course management system, then it shouldn’t just support 90% of computers (read: those that use Windows). It shouldn’t just support the big two operating systems (read: Windows or Macintosh). It should support the entire realm of computing, so the Windows-based instructor can talk to their Ubuntu-based student who can in turn talk to others in class who run Macintosh or Windows.

At the macro level, the Internet, it seems, is a standard. All browsers should support 100% of that standard. Enabling “compatibility modes” in an Internet browser seems silly and stupid, as IE8 users in Blackboard must do.

Come on, people. Goodness gracious.

-Edward Jensen

First, here’s a video from the PBS program NOVA scienceNOW that is quickly becoming appropriate:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z82B1zsvyZU

The wisdom of the crowds. In modern society, there are those things that some will see as necessary while there are things that some see as wasteful. And, according to the theory presented in the video, the whole of society will make the best decision. So, I have my visions for what will make Phoenix great, or at least continually improve it until it is significantly better than what it is now. And there are a lot of people who are striving for this change.

There’s a great grassroots community on social media -- blogs, Twitter, Facebook -- that discusses how to make Phoenix and its surrounding area better. But a common theme that emerges is that those in government are working against our grassroots movement.  We know the value of locally-owned businesses to a local economy but our leaders tout projects that will bring in outside entities.  We know the value of having a strong downtown core but our leaders want to decentralize.  We know the value of having a strong regional mass transportation system but our leaders are still stuck in the 1950′s mentality of having a predominantly automobile-based transportation system.  We know the value of good public schools but our leaders are sabotaging their budgets.

So rather than all of us working together, it’s we the people against those who supposedly represent us. Wasn’t this an impetus for one of the American Revolution’s most famous rallying cries?

~ ~ ~

I’m afraid that my justification for staying here in Phoenix will be because I’m too comfortable here rather than because I believe in this city and its resilience.  I know that Phoenix -- and Arizona -- will bounce back from its present afflictions and horrible governance, but am I patient enough to allow it to happen and am I willing to be an even more vocal proponent of that in which I believe?

-Edward Jensen