Meet Your (Legalized?) Neighbors

This is going to be a long one.

As some of you may know, and as most of you almost certainly don't, a piece of legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives this week under the name the "Gutierrez-Flake STRIVE Act of 2007." From what I can tell it made a very small splash.

To make an almost seven hundred page piece of public policy mercifully short, it's an immigration bill. The jury seems to be hung on whether it's the one we've been waiting for.

Some specifics for you, as digested by me:

1. This STRIVE Act includes amnesty. That means, more or less, that anyone living inside the United States without proper U.S. documentation since June 1st, 2006 or before will be given the opportunity to gain legal status, and eventually the possibility of citizenship. Among the criteria that must be met are proof of employment, a criminal background check, and payment of a series of fines. Not surprisingly, the details are complicated. Supposedly priority would be given to reuniting families.
2. A new type of visa, the H-2C, would be created to accommodate at least 400,000 new temporary immigrant workers per year. Workers would be given legal status for a period of 3 years, with the possibility of a further three year extension. Spouses and children would be given legal residency status during this period as well. Workers would be forced to leave the country if employment lapsed for more than 60 days. Employers hiring these workers would be required to prove that they first sought, and failed to find, domestic employees. This program would be monitored by a new, still undeveloped, electronic government system to be implemented at businesses across the country. The employment of unauthorized immigrant workers would carry stricter punishments.
3. Both the DREAM Act of 2007 and the AgJOBS Act of 2007 are included in the larger bill. The DREAM Act works to allow undocumented children in the United States to pursue their education past the high school level. The AgJOBS Act specifically targets migrants seeking employment in agriculture and offers them modified benefits for consistent work in this area.
4. Large amounts of new funding would be allocated to the Department of Homeland Security to ensure "operational control" of the border. This is a fancy little Border Patrol term that means that we decide who comes in and who doesn't. Technology, staff, and infrastructure would all be increased drastically. That means more cameras, more helicopters, more trucks, more agents, more buildings, more fence, more roads. More more more. The amnesty and legal guest worker clauses in the law would only be implemented after the DHS can prove to an unspecified degree that border security is being increased and that the employee tracking system has been designed and implemented.
5. Increased penalties and enforcement for illegal smuggling, gang activities, etc., having to do with illegal immigrants.

That's basically it. Now let's break this thing down.

1. Amnesty is going to be highly unpopular with a massive number of people living in the United States. Lou Dobbs might literally explode in outrage. Why? The Reagan amnesty, more than any other single factor, is blamed by many people to have caused such a massive surge in immigration. A second amnesty, in their view, would be repeating this fatal mistake. In some ways it's a valid criticism. Why reward people for breaking the law? Why reward people who broke the law last year but not any of the people who want to come to the United States right now? There's a simple answer for all of that. Basically, amnesty is a compromise. It recognizes the work that illegal immigrants have done in this country and accepts that we can't really kick them out now.It's a way to bring millions of people, some who have lived almost their entire lives here, into the folds of the United States' legal order. This is good for everyone. Immigrants will be more likely to report crimes without fear for their own status. They will be more able to participate in the conventional economy, a boon for everybody. It's a win-win-win-win-win situation, as many people are stating. Amnesty, in my view, is good. The way this amnesty is done isn't. Some estimates for the time it would take to achieve citizenship are as high as 25 years. What, exactly, is the point of that? Who does it benefit? And how long will it be before the system even kicks in? Before you dismiss this criticism as unimportant, think about the logistical nightmare, for everyone, that millions of people trapped in legal limbo would create. How is that even being proposed as a policy? That's the current policy with a sugar coating.
2. Worker visas. The good: We are currently arresting 1.2 million people a year as they try to cross illegally into this country. Worker visas are a very good way to bring those people out of the deserts and through the ports of entry. This would save lives, make border enforcement both possible and ethical, and legalize millions of hard workers and the people who employ them. Sounds great. The bad: Again, this system would not kick in until some unspecified date. Securing the borders means getting workers out of the desert. One is impossible without the other. Temporary visas, while having some attractive qualities (more participants, the ability for people to earn money and return to their country, etc.), invite all sorts of unethical business practices. Nothing says "take advantage of me!" like the guarantee that in a short time they will be gone. Strikes? You don't work for 60 days, you're gone. No provision for workers organizing. That's bad for all laborers in the U.S. You know what else is potentially bad for all U.S. workers? Short term employees of any kind. Long term health care? Retirement benefits? Higher wages? All of these things could suffer, depending on the fields of employment, when you have a large and disposable pool of workers. And now the ugly: Speaking of disposable, where are the worker protections in this bill? If a worker loses his arm in a meat plant, what rights are that worker guaranteed? Their family? Also terrible, but more so from a policy perspective, who actually thinks that the government can set up this program to hold employers accountable? Who actually wants them to? Are they going to somehow lure away google engineers to do it? It's enough to make any liberal want to starve the beast.
3. Agricultural workers are clearly needed. Molly sent me an article talking about how Colorado, after tough new enforcement standards scared of laborers, is using prisoners to do the field work once done by migrants. But is it good for a nation that is morbidly obese (literally, 3 in 5 overweight, 1 in 5 obese) to have an unending supply of cheap food labor? Shouldn't we be pursuing sustainable policies instead, ones that promote a higher quality and lower quantity of food? This might be a pipe dream, but don't forget that once public policy gets made it can be hard to change. A precedent once set is, well, set. Think about it. I clearly won't knock the DREAM Act. Kids going to college? You bet.
4. Supporting this one sort of depends on which side you fall on for increasing border militarization. I'm in favor of decreasing it, but I'm not a fan of human trafficking, the violence of the drug smuggling trade, or international gangs. So I think having a few guys watching the line is a good idea. But this is an incredibly stupid way to do it. I'll say it as many times as I can so that the point sticks: the border is impossible to secure without at least 5 times the number of agents we have now, or a drastic decrease in the people trying to cross. Personally I believe that it is impossible to secure in its current state. There is ample evidence to support that. Bizarrely, this is the border equivalent of the Iraq surge. Send more people to realize unspecified goals in an unspecified length of time. Democrats knock it there but want to try it here? Legalizing people is the only way to make them stop crossing illegally in a quick and relatively painless manner. And haven't we pretty much all agreed that these workers are good for the economy? Who's opposing regulating who comes in and out of the country? No one. Stopping illegal crossers means drastically increasing legal ones. When all the maids and cooks and roofers are out of the desert the only people remaining will be the ones you really don't want. Instead, they apparently want to spend tons of time and money on a policy that is killing people, just to appease the military industrial complex (Eisenhower's term, not mine) and the far-right wing. Why? Democrats really need to stop worrying about looking tough and start solving policy problems. It's hard to knock success.
5. Increased penalties for committing crimes is another non-starter. Our prisons are already overcrowded. Doesn't it make more sense to enforce the laws that we already have for things like gang activity and smuggling? Again, wouldn't that be a lot easier if we had the people not committing crimes, just looking for work, in a legal system as soon as possible?

So let me put it this way: this is not the bill we've been waiting for. It's got amnesty, sure. It's got the DREAM Act, which you have to be insane not to support. And what else does it have? I guess the promise that maybe at some point in the conceivable future we would get people out of the deserts. But when would that be? And then what? This thing's a mess. But what if it's the only mess we're going to get? I don't think so, and I'll pass. This problem's not going away and there's gotta be a better way than this. Thankfully I think the Senate has a lot more up its sleeve.

I think I'll fill this out in a later post, but many of the terms that I used here I strongly disagree with. Illegal, undocumented, amnesty, operational control...I could go on. I think that they obscure the truth and treat good people like criminals as an operating principle. Just for the record.

By the way, in spite of this post and my last one, I got a surprising amount of work done today. Some days you just have to blog. Some days you just have to work. I guess today was both. Academic deconstruction, public policy analysis, and non-profit social justice work. Plus I ate an avocado AND at my favorite burrito joint. Aaron's day for the win. On the other hand I only slept four hours last night. I've been up since three in the morning. I'm bound to crash soon.

After all, one good turn deserves another

Yesterday I received a message on the facebook from Jen Huang, a student at one of the Claremont Colleges:

Hey! I wrote about you for my research, I know.. this is kinda creepy, but
not really! Read the blog and you'll see... you might find this interesting,
that's why I chose to send you a message instead of just posting it....
ciao!

I also received a link to her account right here on blogspot.

Her most recent entry seems to be the latest in a new series that she is writing about the facebook, or, more specifically, about the way people use the facebook to express themselves and relate to others.

See if you can guess who she's talking about here:

During my research I also tried to self-analyze a random profile
within three degrees of separation. I found a Pomona male, recently graduated
from Colorado. Declared single, liberal and heterosexual, he seemed active on
facebook and did not have many privacy settings. The first thing I noticed was
his religious view. He claimed that Jesus was Jewish, but didn't understand what
that made him. My first reaction: He was a Christian who had found out the truth
about Jesus and perhaps made the connection that all Christians were actually
Jewish.

Moving on, this man also seemed fairly active among his friends,
writing on walls, adding friends etc. He also claimed that he was currently in
Mexico, a traveller perhaps? He also had a blog on blog spot (oops, hope he
doesn't see this) and enjoys smuggling live animals and speaking spanish (ah,
now it all makes sense). In his "about me" he revealed that he was working close
to border patrol but I admit I could not tell if he was pro or con. I noticed
that he used the word "underbelly": A good word, in my opinion, a tad eccentric,
literary, and descriptive. I liked this guy! The Women's Studies major cinched
it, I had officially, without this man's knowledge added him to my mental "good
people" list.

To be quite honest I find some of her analysis more than a little baffling. At times I think it could even be called sloppy. Most of all I think it is just woefully incomplete. She didn't even talk about my quote, the content of my wall posts, or the music/books/films I like. What's with that?

Here's my real critique of her analysis:

For starters: My first reaction: He was a Christian who had found out the truth about Jesus and perhaps made the connection that all Christians were actually Jewish.

This, as a logical leap and a rhetorical nightmare, sticks out to me above all of the other faults in her analysis. If I thought that all Christians were actually Jewish, and I were a Christian, wouldn't that lead me to say that I was Jewish? How did my professed ignorance about my own religious views lead Ms. Huang to conclude that I self-identify as a Jew?

Or how about this one: In his "about me" he revealed that he was working close to border patrol but I admit I could not tell if he was pro or con.

The way she describes my "about me" section is both confusing and somewhat misleading. For those of you without keys to the magical world that is the facebook, my "about me" states:

The woman who used to have my job got arrested by the border patrol. Neato. Also, apparently they think we are smuggling people out of our office. These are the people keeping you safe from terrorists.

Now, after careful scrutiny, I can see how Ms. Huang might think that I was possibly pleased by the arrest of a former co-worker. Perhaps I received my job because she was arrested? Clearly plausible. But then, right after that, I go on to poke fun at, in a characteristically sarcastic manner, the very same Border Patrol that arrested her.

A pro-Border Patrol reading of me also doesn't really sync with some of her other findings, specifically my major. Nor, I hope, would it contribute to her conclusion that I am a "good [person]".

Ah, a "good [person]," let's end with that one: I had officially, without this man's knowledge added him to my mental "good people" list.

I must say that my first reaction to her appraisal of me was a sense of pride and worth. It is quite evident that, fleeting though it may have been, my positive response to her praise adds a great deal of legitimacy to Ms. Huang's topic of study. Clearly people relate in very real ways to little factoids expressed in binary.

I made a profile on the facebook for my enjoyment and that of my friends. When analyzed by an unknown outside researcher and declared to be "good" I was clearly pleased, although such an analysis, and her resulting approval, were never things that I had sought. Perhaps by not making my profile private she thought that, in some way, I was in fact soliciting those things. I don't know.

I will say that my profile remains open because I seek to live my life, in flesh and on the web, in a transparent manner. This stems from my "religious" beliefs. The way I have identified them on the facebook is a tongue-and-cheek representation of a very real ambiguity in my life. Jesus, to his death, was a Jew (King of the Jews, if you want to be picky). I am, any way you look at it, a gentile. So what does my belief that Jesus, the very same Jesus who lived his life as a Jew, in faith and ethnicity, walked back out of the tomb, make me? For the sake of identifying with a larger body, I guess it would be Christian. But Christian is a word that, to our knowledge, Jesus himself never used. So there you go.

After her analysis of me, Jen finishes her post this way: I suddenly went back to my profile to skim it over. Was it okay? Did it have wit? Would I come off as a good person. I couldn't tell.

Well Jen, I won't attempt to analyze you. And not just because your own profile is blocked from my view.

I will say that I find your own religious views amusing in a "where have I heard that before/feminist/"culture wars"/abstinence vs. sex-education" sort of way. If I thought really hard about them vis-a-vis your professed conservatism I'm not sure what conclusions I would draw. You might be a lovely person, but I won't try to make that call on such slight pieces of information as could be gleaned from even the most bloated of profiles. No offense, but I'd rather know you better, as a real person (albeit through the computer), or not at all. Too many anonymous faces on the internet.

Hopefully you take my critique of your analysis for what it is: the inability of a Pomona grad to let one analysis stand without another staring right back in its face. Should you continue your project I hope that you will give other people's accounts a more thoughtful scrutiny than you gave mine. And I hope you take this post of mine with more than a grain of salt. I will say that I have had several good laughs about the entire thing, been able to put off a whole morning of statistical analysis, and forget that someone in Mexico I barely know still has my credit card. Plus I got to do a little academic deconstruction. And coming from the Claremont Colleges you know that's how we like to get down.

p.s.- Do any of you guys remember this amazing website? So weird.

p.p.s.- I think it's time to update my profile.

Elephant Shoes Rachel, Elephant Shoes

A few playlists submitted for the approval of our little blogspot community:

Lent (read: can't buy and therefore must listen to on the internet)

Cold War Kids, Hang Me Up to Dry
The Arcade Fire, Windowsill
Cat Power, The Greatest

Commute (read: music I listen to on my iPod while avoiding dogs and trying not to get hit by cars)

Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong, Stars Fell on Alabama
Thursday, Sugar in the Sacrament
Miles Davis, So What
Weezer, Undone- The Sweater Song

In the Crib (read: songs I was playing on my guitar until the peg that holds my low e string broke in half this week leading to great weeping and gnashing of teeth)

Neutral Milk Hotel, King of Carrot Flowers Part 1
Death Cab for Cutie, I Will Follow You Into the Dark
Saves the Day, At Your Funeral
Dire Straits, Romeo and Juliet

Vacuum Mac, Vacuum.

Update: Border Patrol Shooting

From the paper two days ago:

Border Patrol agent's account of Jan. shooting doesn't match evidence, witness accounts

Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.26.2007

A U.S. Border Patrol agent's account of what led him to shoot and kill an unarmed illegal entrant in January doesn't match witness testimony or forensic evidence, records released Monday by the Cochise County Attorney's office show.

The documents appear to support the claims of witnesses, including family members of Francisco Javier Dominguez-Rivera, 22, of Puebla, Mexico, who have said the agent already had a gun in his right hand when he drove up to them in a Border Patrol vehicle the afternoon of Jan. 12 about 150 yards north of the border between Bisbee and Douglas. The area is southeast of the Paul Spur Lime plant and Arizona 80 and is routinely used for smuggling of both people and drugs.

The witnesses said the agent ordered them to the ground and had switched the gun from his right to left hand as he physically pushed Dominguez-Rivera, to the ground. That is when they said the gun fired.

The agent, Nicholas Corbett, has not cooperated with investigators. However, he reportedly told colleagues on the day of the shooting that he was in pursuit of three members of a larger group of illegal border crossers and had moved to intercept them in his vehicle. He exited the vehicle with his gun drawn and spotted a man at the rear of his vehicle with a rock in his hand.

When the man made a motion as if he were about to throw the rock, Corbett said he raised his weapon and fired a single round.

The bullet that killed Dominguez-Rivera entered the left side of his chest, passed through his heart and liver and exited the abdomen a couple of inches to the right of Dominguez-Rivera's navel, according to an autopsy report by the Cochise County medical examiner's office that was released along with hundreds of other pages of documents related to the shooting investigation.

The documents were released Monday because of a public records request from the Arizona Daily Star and other publications.

Cochise County Attorney Ed Rheinheimer said he has not yet decided whether the agent will face charges, noting that that decision will not be made until he's had a chance to review a video of the incident captured by a Border Patrol surveillance camera.

That videotape is in the hands of the FBI, he said, where it is undergoing "video enhancement."

Corbett has returned to active duty since the incident, Border Patrol officials said.

Can you really blow smoke rings? Radical!

Seymore/C-Macaroni and Chesse/C-Money/H to the Izzo V to the Izza (Wait, that's the Roc)

Happy Birthday Brotha!

Not surprisingly, I have some thoughts to share with you:

1. You really love profound thinking. And I REALLY love that about you. I don't know anyone who hasn't found themselves in an unexpectedly deep conversation with you only to realize that it has revealed a big truth about their life. How do you do that?

2. You have really been a part of a second family to me. Your parents treat me like one of their own kids. That makes us close like white and rice.

3. You, to be as cliche as possible, have taken some lickings and kept on ticking. You have what older people would probably call grit. I like that about you. I respect that about you. Sigue adelante, as we say here in Mexico. Roughly translated that means "keep on trucking son."

4. Tom Moore is your father, but I'm pretty sure that Bryce is your daddy.

5. I always sleep on top.

I love you brother.
Happy Birthday

Thorns

Thorns seem to cover the desert outside of Agua Prieta. Mesquite trees have thorns that can be up to three inches long. Migrants walk by night, tearing clothing and skin on things unseen.

Evangelical + Progressive + Radical + Loving = Sexiness

If you've ever thought: I'm way too conservative to be a "liberal," but there's no way I'm a Republican.

It's really dumb that the same people who get so worked up over abortion don't seem to have a problem with the death penalty at all. Those both seem like pretty bad ideas.

I want something different for my life. I want my life to be like the book of Acts, not like The Real World.

Women make really great leaders.

Drinking, smoking, and swearing seem like really silly reasons to send someone to hell.

Secular progressives really don't get me. Christian conservatives? I think they get me even less. Neither of them speak for me.

I really want to live faithfully, but sometimes it seems like the system is stacked against me. What does it mean to love people when I buy shoes? Go to my job? Decide where to live?

I like my sketchers, but I LOVE my Prada backpack.*

I wish that there were more singers/preachers/authors/prophets/leaders like Bart Campolo/Shane Claiborne/Rob Bell/Anne Lammott/Donald Miller/Derek Webb.

It's not my revolution if I can't dance to it.

Sex is so much more important than my friends make it out to be.

Fighting gay/lesbian/bi/trans/queer people just doesn't feel like love.

It's so great how many amazing people I know who love Jesus, love people, and are changing the world because of it.

If you've ever thought any of those things, then I have a confession to make: So have I. Cool, huh?

And apparently so have a whole bunch of other people. Read this article. It's long, but it's very very important.

Did you read the article? Because that was the whole purpose of this post. Seriously.Read it.

Something Bryce posted got me thinking about the problem that we as thoughtful/progressive/evangelical/radical/beautiful/sexual/intellectual/artistic followers of Jesus have. Well, it's several problems really, but mostly it's an image problem. People just do not understand how many of us there really are, what we believe in, or what we are trying to accomplish.

Secular progressives, perhaps rightfully so, get freaked out and run the first time they hear the word Jesus. Ditto for religious folks of a different faith. Kudos to AlterNet for posting this. Secular progressives complimenting suburban Christians can only be called miraculous. If you say evangelical to any one of my secular friends from Pomona, you would get a negative response. Or they wouldn't know what you meant. That's not a good sign.

"Traditional" evangelicals/Christians think that we're a bunch of tree-hugging hippies who have cast our lot in with the devil and his kin. To be fair, some of us are tree loving hippies. Sorry Erik, you'll just have to live with it. The positions that some of us hold (Bart Campolo: Gay marriage is good, Donald Miller: post-modern thought is good, Jim Wallis: Jesus cares about the environment) are so foreign to people like Dobson and Ralph Reed that we may as well not be Christians. When pressed, they might agree that we aren't.

And finally, "we" isn't really a we. This article makes it seem like there is an "us," but there really isn't. It's a BIG tent. Reading Relevant does not mean that you read Sojourners. Liking Donald Miller does not mean that you think American global capitalism has serious problems. Going to a church with women in leadership does not mean that you think that gay marriage is ok. On the whole, I think that all of that is good. Clearly it's important to have beliefs. But it's also important not to exclude people for holding well thought out, faithful positions, that aren't your own. Jesus probably loves them too. But that puts us in a classic progressive bind. How do you make people who have a lot in common feel like they are connected, powerful, and influential (which they are) without resorting to essentialist tendencies (ex: you must believe x,y, and z or you just aren't with us)? Last year Bart Campolo said, more or less, that he doesn't believe in a God who sends people to hell. If evangelicals could excommunicate, he would no longer be welcome to communion. In some places he probably isn't. So obviously we have some issues. But we have a lot more promise. More and more churches across the country are being transformed in ways that are very, very good. I am having more and more conversations with people who are involved in completely amazing grassroots action, willing the kingdom into being by the sheer force of their love. But I don't think any of us has really realized yet how many people are having these conversations. Am I excited? You bet I am.

Are you in?

Thanks to Zach Exley for writing this. I've been thinking it for years.
Thanks to Zach Lind for posting this link over at Finding Rhythm. P.S.- Zach is the drummer for Jimmy Eat World. You're right, he IS the man.
Thanks to all of you for being revolutionaries in a whole bunch of ways. The world is changing.

(In the photo: Tony Campolo gets his preach on)
*Ok, I haven't thought that. But I do love Ten Things I Hate About You.

Thanks facebook.

The power of the internets has just informed me that Karl F. Kling is part of a new project called The Pragmatic.

It has synths.

It has Karl.

You know I'm loving it.

Spin it to win it. Pull up your pants and do the rockaway. Act a fool. You know you want to.

On the fence, but not to offend

A shoe left along the trail. People who spend a week out there come back with raw hamburger in the places where they once had feet.

"We look at each other, wondering what the other is thinking
But we never say a thing.
And these crimes between us grow deeper.

Take these chances, place them in a box until a quieter time.
Lights down, you up and die."
-Dave Matthews, "Ants Marching"

I hope it's still yesterday in New Zealand...

Happy (belated) Birthday Erik!

Yesterday was the 21st anniversary of the birth of Erik Haagenson. I celebrated with you in my heart of hearts.

On this magnificent day I have a few thoughts that I would like to share with you:

1.You, more than any single one of "us," are a leader. Despite being younger than some, and a peer to others, you have been able to lead us into many great adventures. You make things happen, and "get it goin'." I will be forever grateful for so many memories.

2.You, in the face of great adversity, seek to be a safe place in the midst of a storm. You look towards love in the face of sickness, and hope in the face of grief. Keep walking that path, it leads to great beauty. You have been an inspirational figure in my life, more so than you will ever truly know. Through many long seasons of darkness in my soul, you have been a great light.

3.You have an amazing eye for beauty. Your pictures move me, and I look forward to having many of them on my (our?) walls.

4.You are a man that I treasure fiercely. It feels strange to call you my brother, as there is nothing else, in this world or the next, that you could possibly be.

I love you Erik. Happy Birthday.

Sail, belly up to the clouds...

A migrant super highway. Also known as a dry river bed outside of the borderlands.

Seeing the forest through the trees.

Trying to follow a friend from the CRREDA on a desert trip.

Coronado Pass

But oh, this desert life...

This next week is going to be insanely busy for me as we here at Frontera will be hosting 5 (FIVE!) groups in the coming six days.

Needless to say, I expect that blogging will be pretty light. I do hope to get some picture posts up during that time, and I'll start with this one:






These two pictures were taken last month up in the mountains about an hour away from Douglas. Mountains like these, and snow like that, were certainly not what I was expecting to find out here in the high desert. When I first got here I hated the desert. Now I find it beautiful, although it is a beauty tainted by the struggle and death experienced there. I've spent a number of months thinking about how to reflect on my experience of the desert, usually trying, and failing, to tackle it in one large piece. It's a project that can never work because that's not how I have taken in the desert. Instead of one large piece I am going to share this complex ocean of sand and scrub one image, one moment, at a time.

There's a night life falling down on me.
I just feel like a change.
Beneath the sun in summer, a sea of flowers won't bloom without the rain
But oh, this desert life, this high life here at the dying of the day.
I wasn't made for this scene baby, but I was made in this scene and baby it's just my way.
I don't want to go home alone, I wanna come on home to you.

-High Life, Counting Crows

I love Mexico.

This entire meal cost me less than $2.50. Just wanted to share that with you. It turns out that steak costs less than ground beef. It's a beautiful thing.

And no, I don't eat like that every day.
Aaron: 1 Cholesterol: 0

Feliz Cumpleanos.

Happy Birthday Chris!

Today is the 21st anniversary of Christopher Nicoletti's birth. Well, it is here. Only God knows what time or what day it is in the land of the Kiwis. I could probably find out, I'm just too lazy to look it up.

On this momentous occasion I have some thoughts to share with you Chris:

1. You, more than any other person I know, have an ability to connect with new people and become interested in their lives. It never ceases to impress me.

2. You, through a bunch of really crazy life situations, have sought to be a steady and faithful presence in the lives of the people around you. I continue to be inspired by the peace, patience, and love that you've shown to so many people.

3. You, even when I don't realize it at the time, always make any activity that we do together more interesting and more fun. If I see a wall, you see something to climb. If I see some paint, you see Kyle as the canvas.

4. You are a great man of God and a person I am proud to call my brother. I'd give anything to buy you a drink, but I can't afford the plane ticket.

I love you Chris. Happy Birthday.

I expected the Rocky Mountains to be a little rockier than this.

Dear Dr. Albert Mohler,

"Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!"

Love, Aaron


Well, he didn't totally redeem himself, but I respect what he said about Coulter. He didn't totally redeem himself because in the first post, speaking about homosexuality, he said that if a "biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin."

In response, I give you Jeremiah 1:5.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."


Albert Mohler, by the way, is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He's sort of a big fish you might say.

Albert's probably right though. Using chemicals on a baby seems like what Jesus would want us to do.

*I've got a gold star for the first person to get the quote right!

Anne Coulter Really Stole My Thunder On Edwards Controversies

You heard it here first. The criticism of Edwards' new house, the request for Kuo to ask about it, the posting of the interview, and now my response.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about then scroll down a little bit. It'll all come to you.

As an aside, I highly suggest watching the full beliefnet interview with Edwards, which can be found right here. First and foremost, it was pretty refreshing to see someone who used to work within the George W. Bush White House sit down with a presidential candidate from the Democratic Party for a discussion on personal faith and its role in public life. I thought that the interview itself was great. I really like the questions that Kuo posed, and I was more than impressed by many of the answers that Edwards gave. If you are not going to watch the whole thing then at least try to watch the part where he answers the question about the house.


The residence in question:




This article from the Carolina Journal Online reports that the 28,200 square foot complex, built on 102 acres of property, is valued at over 6 million dollars by the county tax assessor. Apparently it is now the most valuable house in the county.

The "Journal" writes that "the main house is 10,400 square feet and has two garages. The recreation building, a red, barn-like building containing 15,600 square feet, is connected to the house by a closed-in and roofed structure of varying widths and elevations that totals 2,200 square feet," and that "the recreation building contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated 'John’s Lounge'.”

Just so we all know what's being talked about.

Now on to business. Here's my transcript from that part of the interview:

Kuo: "Does the size of your house undercut your discussion on poverty?"

Edwards : "I think it's a fair question, first of all..I come from a very modest place and I've done well...and we have a very nice physical structure. It's completely unimportant. What matters is what happens inside that structure. I'm not for a minute suggesting that we're saints, or that we've done more than a lot of other people have done, but we have done...(lists "causes"...So, do I think we've done everything we could do? No, I don't think anybody does."

He clearly ducked the question about his house. To be honest, he didn't even duck it that well. What he tried to do, after a few brief remarks, was to steer the conversation away from his house and towards his charitable giving as well as his involvement in various "causes." If there's one thing I really hate, it's politicians ducking questions.

What is really telling, however, is the way that he explains why the size of his house is unimportant. That one sentence, "What matters is what happens inside that structure," stood out to me more and more as I continued to watch that part of the interview. What does happen inside that structure John? You can go swimming, play a massive game of hide-and-go-seek, plan national campaigns, use one of countless bathrooms...the list is endless really. But you can't identify with 99% of the American people, can you? Not living inside of that house. And let's face it, if you can't identify with Americans, you are definitely not going to be able to identify with the rest of the world. It's not even like he was just trying to keep up with the Jones' either. That's the most expensive house in the county. We get it John, you've done well for yourself.

The thing is, by ducking this question, Edwards called places doubt in my mind about the authenticity of his other answers. He didn't say that he wrestled with the decision, but believed it was ok with God, and compatible with his poverty work. He didn't say that he wanted to use it to further the Kingdom. He said, esentially, that he had done well for himself, so why not? That's just unacceptable to me as a Christian. If you read the Bible, talk about its role in shaping your beliefs on poverty, and still build that house, I believe that there is a fundamental disconnect somewhere. I will not question his faith, but I will question how willing he is to apply it to his own life.

I'm not saying that John Edwards and his family shouldn't enjoy their money in some capacity. I am saying that they have chosen to do so in a way that isolates them from the reality in which the rest of us live. The decision to spend six million dollars on a house that is 3/4 as large as the mansion owned by Bill Gates is just not one that I will ever be able to relate to. Can you relate to it? No matter how many scholarships he gives, or Habitat homes he sponsors, his decision that each member of his family needs more than one million dollars of home will never go away.

Someone once told me that if you want to make good decisions then you should ask for advice from people who have made good decisions in the past. This house makes me extremely skeptical about John Edwards' decisions in the future. Believing that a candidate will make good decisions is sort of an important component in wanting someone to be the leader of the free world.

Of course there is more that could be said. What about the environment? What does that house say about the need to care for this planet in an increasingly populated and industrialized world? What does it say about his commitment to that? I think I've said enough, however. Everything that I wanted to say, save this last little bit:

John, you had a chance to win me back. You had it, and you blew it. It was nice while it lasted. I still might support you for Vice again though.

p.s.- Thanks to Bryce for the link. If you want to see the video clip of Anne Coulter's remarks on Edwards it is posted right here.

A Little Update

I have been working long hours the past few days hanging out with a group from Gannon University.

Groups are a huge blessing to me because they remind me how much I love the ministry that I work for and how much I believe in the things that we do.

Also: God is amazing. Lately I have been thinking a lot about the Gospel of Mark (thanks InterVarsity!) and the ways that miracles work. One of the things that has really struck me is the way that Jesus' miracles are so personal. I think that's great.

Other goings on around here:

Cold War Kids (www.myspace.com/coldwarkids) are really making this Lent thing difficult. Not to mention new The Arcade Fire. Oh geez.

The police chief of Agua Prieta was murdered outside of city hall two days ago. He was shot to death getting into his bullet-proof Jeep. The conventional wisdom is that he was in bed with the drug smugglers, but nobody should die like that.

That's Unfortunate

In honor of the new Super Wal-Mart and Sam's Club Discount Warehouse being put up in Longmont:



Yeah, the picture is real.

I also just learned that Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in Mexico. The takeover continues.