The Quarter Life: Romantic Relationships

It's the moment that you've all been waiting for, round two of The Quarter Life. My first Quarter Life, a post on friendship and community, can be found right here. Bryce's first Quarter Life post can be found here, and his new post, like all of his other fine writing, can be found over at Six Hours On Sunday.

If you're new to this blog since we started The Quarter Life I suggest checking out the old posts first to see what it is that we're doing up in here. I'm also well aware that some other folks are probably going to be jumping in on this, so if you are over the age of twenty (and under the age of thirty), and feel like writing a post for this, let me know and I will link it up here.

One final note. I have written this post from my own perspective, i.e., the perspective of a man who engages in romantic relationships exclusively with women. This is not to exclude other types of relationships, but rather to avoid speaking about things which I have not experienced for myself. Just so you know.



When I think about "romantic" relationships and the period of life that I am in right now, my thoughts immediately separate into two distinct categories. In the first category are memories of past relationships, my current thoughts about women, love, and associated nonsense, and finally, my desires and prayers for my relationships in the future.

The second category, which I must confess is substantially more active than the first at this present moment, is filled with my thoughts about, memories of, and great hopes for my friends' relationships, their better halves, and in some cases, their future spouses.

As I am prone to do, I find that I have processed the entirety of romantic love down into two neat packages: my own, and everybody else's.

I could write a monster of a blog post if I chose to talk about both of these things, so instead I think I'll just stick with myself. It's not that I don't love my friends, it's just that I'm such a great topic choice. I jest. I'm also not going to say very much about God in this post as it would stretch an already long post to the point of breaking. Instead I will say that my thoughts here are informed so deeply by my faith that to dwell on them would be like pointing out the sun when looking at the sky. And I'll leave it at that.

Ok, it's confession time. If I'm going to talk about relationships, I have to get this one out of the way: I used to have this sort of formula thing for dating. That sounds pretty sick, I know. I used it in order to figure out who I should date, and when I should date them. It's an odd thing to have to admit to. To be honest, if someone were trying to get me interested in dating their friend, finding out that said friend had a "dating formula" would just about guarantee that the two of us would never see the inside of a movie theater alone. Ah hypocrisy.

But I basically used that formula to guide my romantic life for years, and to some extent I still do. I have acquired the good sense to stop thinking about it as a formula, but much of the philosophy from those days does in fact remain. In my defense, I will say that both the formula and the philosophy were either stolen directly from my sister, or developed in the context of her own reflections about her dating experiences. And now she's happily married with a really cool dog, so it can't be all bad, right?

So what was the formula? Well before I get into that let me talk a little bit about the philosophy behind the formula. My general sense when I first started using the formula was that dating, as most of us practiced it, was a bad thing. Bad in the sense that that most of my friends and I just sort of stumbled into dating with the vague notion that it felt good and everyone else was doing it.

I did have the good sense, even at that tender age, to realize that not dating was sort of a bad idea as well. Josh Harris never convinced me that "kissing dating goodbye" was something to which I should aspire. The transition from being single to a lifetime of marriage, no matter how much some Christians (*cough Boundless webzine cough*) like to talk about "courtship," seems like it should have at least a few intermediary steps. And some of those steps should include dinner and a movie with someone you aren't committed to sharing a bed with for the rest of your earthly days.

So my formula for dating was born from a sense that dating is a great thing when practiced with extreme restraint. And the formula helped me to figure out when I should enter into the wonderful mystery that is a relationship, and when it'd be best if I just stayed clear of it and, sigh, her, altogether.

Here's the formula: If I began to like a woman, that is to say, favored her above any of the other women in my acquaintance, the first step I would take was to hurry up and wait. Doing nothing was a key strategy in my dating formula. Why nothing? Well, nothing gives you a lot of time for the deer-in-the-headlights attraction to go away and a little bit of clear thinking to return to the situation. That incredibly smart/attractive/fun girl in my Women's Studies class? Also a devout atheist. Hmmm, guess it's a good thing I didn't ask her to dinner. To be quite honest, doing nothing is what I have done for most of my life. I have spent years doing nothing with one girl or another. I'm great at doing nothing.

And that's basically the way that the formula works. It's nothing if not simple. If you notice yourself liking a girl, the most important thing that you can possibly do is to say nothing to her and never do anything about it. Nothing is the backbone of the whole system.

Ok, you got me. The one problem with my formula is that if you always do nothing then there's a pretty good chance that you will never date anyone. Ever. That's not a formula, that's a religious order. It's a fair criticism. This is where the exception clause comes in. You always do nothing until someone comes along who is so compelling that you absolutely must must make an exception for them. So you break the cardinal commandment of doing nothing and you actually say something to her. You might even ask her name. Kidding.

At this stage in life there are always good reasons why, at any given time, I probably shouldn't be dating. And there are always pretty compelling reasons why I shouldn't be dating most of the women that I might be interested in. But sometimes you meet someone so great that none of that matters. So dating, in my opinion, should be reserved for the times when that woman is so incredible that not getting into a relationship with her would be a folly of the highest order.

And this is where I can start to get myself into trouble. The thing is, I know A LOT of incredible women. A multitude. A plethora. A surplus even. I know more awesome women than I can be friends with, let alone date. But clearly I am not trying very hard given that I am currently seeing none of them. Which is an observation that actually takes us into a different philosophy I have on relationships. The "table" philosophy, as I like to call it.

The four legs of any successful relationship (hence the table) are spiritual, intellectual, relational, and physical. I think that's pretty self-explanatory. For a relationship to work, two people need to be compatible in those four ways. And as most of us know, that isn't exactly easy to achieve. So the question is not "Is this girl amazing?" but rather "Is this girl amazing for me?" Because of this the question "Are you dating anyone right now?" always struck me as mostly harmless, but the ensuing "Would you like to be?" always rubbed me the wrong way. Dating, I have always believed, is something that you embark upon not because you would like to at any given time, but because you encounter someone so incredible that you have no other choice but to share at least some part of your life with them.

And so that's where I'm at. I've stopped using the formula, but I'm still using the philosophy. I still look at dating with quite a bit of hesitancy, and at marriage with a sense that "I really want this- at some point in the future." And I still weigh my interest in women (one woman at a time, naturally) against whether or not dating one of them is the only sensible thing I could possibly do. Not very romantic, I know. But I hope that it's fair to me and fair to potential partners, and I pray that it's faithful. And one day in the future I believe that it will lead me to someone to hike with, watch BOTH versions of "Pride and Prejudice" with, to argue with, and to play with. Most importantly, I pray that it will bring me into the steady presence of someone who will travel with me on a path that will bring both of us closer to the people that God would have us be.

That is just about as close to living happily ever after as I would care to have it.

I've got my hands up high, my feet down low...

Time lapse of the Migrant Resource Center, a story captured in moments.

Last Night- While trying to pour himself a cup of coffee a young man accidentally spilled the not-quite-hot-yet liquid all over his hand, where it dripped off to form a pool on the plastic table. I was heating up some burritos for his 25 companions just steps away. Seeing the coffee streaming off the table and onto the floor I began to laugh.

Turning to me the man said, in perfect English, "Do you think that's funny?"
"Yes," I replied, my laughter having sprung forth not from his misfortune, but from a deep well of appreciation for a coffee machine that defies logic in its dispensation of the aforementioned liquid.
"Well I don't think that's funny," he cut back, the tension rising in his voice.
"Lo siento, I'm sorry," I said, in the best accent I could muster. "Friends?"

My plea for peace went unanswered. Rebuffed. Setting down the cup, he turned his back and walked out the door into the April night.

Last Week- I arrived at the Center totally spent, bankrupt in every conceivable way. It soon became apparent that I wasn't going to be much good for conversation, less so in Spanish. Leaving my friends sitting at the desk I headed to the front door, setting up a post to await the "customers" that would undoubtedly pass by. My fatigue defeated my attempts at reading, and I soon found myself "waiting" under a blanket, flat on my back. From there I migrated over to a cot, a little metal bed that's tucked away in the space that used to house Viagra and Cialis back when the Center was a pharmacy for snowbirds in search of a deal. Three hours later I woke up. A more honest telling of the story would be that I was awoken. I had slept through the coffee, the burritos, the jokes, and all of the night's migrants.

Two weeks ago- My friend James and I sat behind the desk, fighting off the sleep that wooed us back towards pillows and sheets. Public policy, migration, education, and old times weighed heavily on our minds and spilled freely from our lips. Migrants passed by the open doors to the Center. I let them go, knowing only too well how few resources we had to give them. Sometimes it's better to save the burritos for the person hungry enough to come searching for them.

Three weeks ago- I was sitting at my desk, chatting up (I was hoping) the leader of a group of high school kids. Five migrants had come in about thirty minutes before, a group of cousins traveling together, all under the age of 17. All of a sudden I realized that both the visiting students and the migrants were standing in a big circle in the space by the door. Unexpectedly, the entire group burst into song. One by one the students stepped forward into the circle, each one in their turn taking up the mantle to cut the proverbial rug. An impromptu dance party. At first it was clear that the migrants had no idea what was going on, and even less idea of what they should do. But the mood was infectious. They started dancing. I started dancing. Everyone was singing. Before you knew it there were two lines and we had broken into a soul train. And just then it dawned on me: this is why I have come to the border. This is what the kingdom of God looks like. No border. No fence. No desert. Just some teenage kids and a dance party. And who doesn't love that?

"I'm from Rhodesia mate"

The economy of Mugabe's Zimbabwe has entered what one long term observer is calling its "death throes."

What does that mean exactly?

Two figures that stand out:

80% unemployment
1,700% inflation

Sadly, Zimbabwe is one of the most well educated countries in Africa.

Those two figures alone are shocking, but this is the clincher:

In a continent of scandalously low life expectancies, Zimbabwe now has the lowest.

37 years old for men.
34 years old for women. (women are more likely to be infected with HIV)

That's the bad news. What are we doing to change it?

In the photo (Reuters): A woman holds up a U.S. ten dollar bill, and the current equivalent in Zimbabwe dollars.

I like both this and TV On the Radio...

does that mean that I'm a David Bowie fan now?

All the king's horses and all the king's men

One by one they all fall away.

Taken from the New York Times via Josh Marshall

I hope to see Mr. Dowd in "Africa or South America doing something that was like mission work" one of these days. I imagine the two of us sitting down to a meal of fresh fruit, rice, and free range meat, imagining a world of greater "gentleness."

The world is changing.

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

Love God. Love people. Nothing else matters.

-Bart Campolo.

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