It's Mother's Day here in Mexico. Quite a celebration, let me tell you. Last night the jovenes group from the church (jovenes being high school to twentysomethings) set out to do a little late night serenading in the streets of Agua Prieta. Armed with two busted up guitars, some hand written lyrics sheets, a list of Mexican Mamas, and a few flashlights, three cars set out to wake up all the women of the church with off key singing and the promise of group hugs. 3:30 in the morning later I finally made it to bed, surprised by how quickly I have adjusted to a post college life (well before 2:00 a.m., my former bedtime, I was way past still wanting to be awake). I managed to confuse some of my Mexican (and American) friends yet again last night by being both very detached socially and also willing to sing quite loudly. A sure sign that it's time for a nap.
I have been really fortunate this year to take part in a whole mess of Mexican customs that I didn't understand or know anything about prior to arriving at the border. A lot of people have been very gracious by opening up their homes to me and letting me share a small part of their lives with them. This was one of those times.
I thought about calling my own mother to wake her up for some singing, but in the end decided that muffled and incomprehensible noises at two in the morning might not be the most compelling way to tell her how much I appreciate her. But there's always next year.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
From my gmail inbox...
A link to this video:
And a suggestion:
"Now think in terms of Jesus"
One of my favorite short films set to music (yes, I made that genre up myself) from one of my favorite orchestra/post-rock/post-genres/unbelievable bands.
Glosoli by Sigur Ros. Thanks Jo.
And a suggestion:
"Now think in terms of Jesus"
One of my favorite short films set to music (yes, I made that genre up myself) from one of my favorite orchestra/post-rock/post-genres/unbelievable bands.
Glosoli by Sigur Ros. Thanks Jo.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
New York City for the win.
From the Times:
Recalling a movement that challenged United States policy in Central America in the 1980s, several religious congregations in New York and other cities will announce a campaign Wednesday to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants who face deportation.
As of Tuesday, the organizers of what is being called the New Sanctuary Movement said that five churches in New York City had already offered assistance to two families — one from China and one from Haiti — and would provide them with shelter if the federal government moved to enforce the deportation orders filed against them.
“We’re launching now because we’re fed up with detentions, deportations and raids,” said the Rev. Dr. Donna Schaper, the senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village. “We felt it was not morally possible to remain silent.”
Recalling a movement that challenged United States policy in Central America in the 1980s, several religious congregations in New York and other cities will announce a campaign Wednesday to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants who face deportation.
As of Tuesday, the organizers of what is being called the New Sanctuary Movement said that five churches in New York City had already offered assistance to two families — one from China and one from Haiti — and would provide them with shelter if the federal government moved to enforce the deportation orders filed against them.
“We’re launching now because we’re fed up with detentions, deportations and raids,” said the Rev. Dr. Donna Schaper, the senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village. “We felt it was not morally possible to remain silent.”
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Death season.
Yesterday I was digging around my comptuer for pictures of the Migrant Resource Center when I found this map. It's a map of migrant deaths from the year 2003. Sorry that the graphic is so small. If you click on the map you should be able to see a full size image.
Sometimes I worry that my posts here are too negative (edit: especially recently), or that there are too many negative posts and not enough of the positive. There's so much hope down here, but it's a lot harder to share over the internet.
That being said, we're now entering the "death season" (hence the title of the post). Heat, more than anything else down here, kills. It was a colder than normal winter, I'm praying that the summer stays cool as well.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Police Brutality Is Like Soooo 1990's.
Video from the May 1st migrant march in Los Angeles. When will the LAPD ever learn that there are always cameras in the City of Angels?
I guess it's a good thing that Rage Against the Machine are back.
I guess it's a good thing that Rage Against the Machine are back.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
This post is for Rachel.
The Gospel, as brought to you by the New York Times.
(You might need to sign up for a free membership to view the link)
(You might need to sign up for a free membership to view the link)
Saturday, April 28, 2007
The Quarter Life: Romantic Relationships Rd. 2
My great friend Mike wrote a really amazing piece for the last Quarter Life. Check it out here.
After writing my last installment of The Quarter Life I got a comment from my friend Lexie asking me to answer some questions she had about that post. Here are a few of my thoughts. Anything for a friend, Lex.
I think that experience, the experience of ourselves in a relationship, and the experience of an intimate encounter with another person, is probably the strongest argument out there for why dating is a fantastic idea. I have learned a great deal about myself from dating. I have also learned a tremendous amount about women/men/God/life/love/etc. from dating, much more than I could ever possibly relate to you here. And learning for learning's sake, as any liberal arts grad will tell you, is a very good thing. Unfortunately, most of what I learned from some of those relationships was learned the hard way. And just because I learned something does not mean that those relationships were a good idea to begin with, or functional by any stretch of the imagination. Calling some of them relationships, in all honesty, might be too kind. Was some of that hardship and hurt necessary? Possibly. Immaturity, "life issues," ideas about what dating should be, etc., all played their part in making some of my past relationships memorable for all the wrong reasons. But poor choices about when and who I should date did not make things any better.
So "learning about yourself" is great, but it can be a messy and dangerous affair. Even more so if that is your primary, or only purpose, in dating that specific person. Going into a relationship (or even a date) thinking "I like them-ish," while not a sure recipe for disaster, does raise some ethical questions. Starting to date someone without a clear sense of why you are doing it or what you want out of it opens yourself up to a host of complications, but it also leaves you very much in danger of hurting the other person. Do they share your vision of dating? If not, your "learning about yourself" could be their "getting rejected by someone I really, really liked." Like I said in my last post, I don't believe that we date because we desire it, but because we must. Ideally the two coincide.
Dating in the right context is clearly very good. To put this in a somewhat (ok, very) crude manner, marriage is not a product that we should buy without shopping around a little bit first. So in that sense, I'm all for dating. I'm just not all for dating every person (or even most people) that come your way. In high school there were a few girls that I should have asked out on a date but didn't because I was afraid of rejection. Clearly that was not a healthy way to date (or, more specifically, not to date). I also dated a girl in high school that I barely knew because she came on to me very strongly (i.e. I knew that rejection wasn't likely) and that turned out, not surprisingly, very poorly. In the first example I needed more initiative, in the second, more wisdom and self-control.
I personally don't believe that a "season of dating" is a very good idea for many reasons, but for a few especially compelling ones in particular. Relationships, ideally, are special. We value our family (in many cases) more highly than our friends, and our friends more highly than our acquaintances. This formula (there's that word again) becomes more complicated when we insert Christ into our lives, but I won't go into that here. The point is that most people feel that different types of relationships are, well, different, and that some of them are more special than others. Dating should be a special act reserved for people we really care about.
The most serious problem with a season of dating, in my opinion, is the potential for that season to turn into a long-term (or even lifetime) commitment. How many people do you know who started seeing someone casually ("just to see"/hooking up at parties/season of dating/we're just friends) and just never stopped? This scenario doesn't always end badly, I can think of many happy couples who started off this way. But is it something to which we should aspire? What other major life choices do we take "just try it out" or "we'll see what happens" attitudes with? Is that how you chose a college? Plan to buy a house? This might make me conservative, but I think that dating is something to be respected and, in some sense, feared. In my experience it is much easier to never date someone at all than to stop dating them once the process has been started. And once you start dating, going back to being friends is always a difficult process. In many cases it simply doesn't work. Since most people that you will ever meet are going to be friends instead of dates, why not preserve those friendships rather than explore dating just because it's fun?
I also think that a "season of dating" sort of misses the point of a "season of not dating." At various times I have resisted the urge to enter into potentially great dating situations because of time constraints/outside pressures/personal issues/need to grow with God/whatever. But that should be the exception, not the rule. The default for any single Christian should be "available for dating," unless there is other work in your life that needs to be done. For many of us, there is. So a season of not dating is a way to recognize a unique situation and make an intentional choice about it. A season of dating, to me, seems like a license to do things that you wouldn't do otherwise. "I don't really like him that much, but I'm trying to date a lot right now." See my point? What prompts a season of dating? Why doesn't that prompt being open to dating in general, as long as the person is right?
When I think back on just my time here in Agua Prieta, let alone college, there are a number of women that I probably could have started dating at one time or another. I do not believe that any of those relationships would have been a very good choice. So my dating here has been more than conservative, it has been non-existent. But I believe it has also been the most healthy and faithful choice that I could have made. I haven't done it perfectly, but it could have been a lot worse.
I have some more thoughts that I could but I think I'll leave it at that. I'd love to hear what you (or any of you) have to say about this.
After writing my last installment of The Quarter Life I got a comment from my friend Lexie asking me to answer some questions she had about that post. Here are a few of my thoughts. Anything for a friend, Lex.
Very conservative philosophy Aaron!! This reminds me of a guy i dated in high school who broke up with me by saying "I can live without you." it made me so mad. Anyhoo, what do you think of dating just to learn more about yourself/others? Like the Townsend/McCloud philosophy? Or the idea of focusing on dating itself/trying to date a lot as a particular season, much like seasons of intentionally not dating?
I think that experience, the experience of ourselves in a relationship, and the experience of an intimate encounter with another person, is probably the strongest argument out there for why dating is a fantastic idea. I have learned a great deal about myself from dating. I have also learned a tremendous amount about women/men/God/life/love/etc. from dating, much more than I could ever possibly relate to you here. And learning for learning's sake, as any liberal arts grad will tell you, is a very good thing. Unfortunately, most of what I learned from some of those relationships was learned the hard way. And just because I learned something does not mean that those relationships were a good idea to begin with, or functional by any stretch of the imagination. Calling some of them relationships, in all honesty, might be too kind. Was some of that hardship and hurt necessary? Possibly. Immaturity, "life issues," ideas about what dating should be, etc., all played their part in making some of my past relationships memorable for all the wrong reasons. But poor choices about when and who I should date did not make things any better.
So "learning about yourself" is great, but it can be a messy and dangerous affair. Even more so if that is your primary, or only purpose, in dating that specific person. Going into a relationship (or even a date) thinking "I like them-ish," while not a sure recipe for disaster, does raise some ethical questions. Starting to date someone without a clear sense of why you are doing it or what you want out of it opens yourself up to a host of complications, but it also leaves you very much in danger of hurting the other person. Do they share your vision of dating? If not, your "learning about yourself" could be their "getting rejected by someone I really, really liked." Like I said in my last post, I don't believe that we date because we desire it, but because we must. Ideally the two coincide.
Dating in the right context is clearly very good. To put this in a somewhat (ok, very) crude manner, marriage is not a product that we should buy without shopping around a little bit first. So in that sense, I'm all for dating. I'm just not all for dating every person (or even most people) that come your way. In high school there were a few girls that I should have asked out on a date but didn't because I was afraid of rejection. Clearly that was not a healthy way to date (or, more specifically, not to date). I also dated a girl in high school that I barely knew because she came on to me very strongly (i.e. I knew that rejection wasn't likely) and that turned out, not surprisingly, very poorly. In the first example I needed more initiative, in the second, more wisdom and self-control.
I personally don't believe that a "season of dating" is a very good idea for many reasons, but for a few especially compelling ones in particular. Relationships, ideally, are special. We value our family (in many cases) more highly than our friends, and our friends more highly than our acquaintances. This formula (there's that word again) becomes more complicated when we insert Christ into our lives, but I won't go into that here. The point is that most people feel that different types of relationships are, well, different, and that some of them are more special than others. Dating should be a special act reserved for people we really care about.
The most serious problem with a season of dating, in my opinion, is the potential for that season to turn into a long-term (or even lifetime) commitment. How many people do you know who started seeing someone casually ("just to see"/hooking up at parties/season of dating/we're just friends) and just never stopped? This scenario doesn't always end badly, I can think of many happy couples who started off this way. But is it something to which we should aspire? What other major life choices do we take "just try it out" or "we'll see what happens" attitudes with? Is that how you chose a college? Plan to buy a house? This might make me conservative, but I think that dating is something to be respected and, in some sense, feared. In my experience it is much easier to never date someone at all than to stop dating them once the process has been started. And once you start dating, going back to being friends is always a difficult process. In many cases it simply doesn't work. Since most people that you will ever meet are going to be friends instead of dates, why not preserve those friendships rather than explore dating just because it's fun?
I also think that a "season of dating" sort of misses the point of a "season of not dating." At various times I have resisted the urge to enter into potentially great dating situations because of time constraints/outside pressures/personal issues/need to grow with God/whatever. But that should be the exception, not the rule. The default for any single Christian should be "available for dating," unless there is other work in your life that needs to be done. For many of us, there is. So a season of not dating is a way to recognize a unique situation and make an intentional choice about it. A season of dating, to me, seems like a license to do things that you wouldn't do otherwise. "I don't really like him that much, but I'm trying to date a lot right now." See my point? What prompts a season of dating? Why doesn't that prompt being open to dating in general, as long as the person is right?
When I think back on just my time here in Agua Prieta, let alone college, there are a number of women that I probably could have started dating at one time or another. I do not believe that any of those relationships would have been a very good choice. So my dating here has been more than conservative, it has been non-existent. But I believe it has also been the most healthy and faithful choice that I could have made. I haven't done it perfectly, but it could have been a lot worse.
I have some more thoughts that I could but I think I'll leave it at that. I'd love to hear what you (or any of you) have to say about this.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Everything's bigger in Texas
What a charmed life I live.
The view from my balcony, room 529 at The Crescent Hotel in Dallas.
My feet getting ready for my "mani and pedi." Yeah, seriously.
What shines more brightly, the Rolls' logo or my freshly manicured nail? The car was parked right outside the hotel- across from an Enzo and next to a pair of Bentleys.
Jimmy, Nate (the groom), and Garrett channeling their inner CEOs. Alternate caption: Go on brush your shoulders off. First runner-up: I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man.
Milli (the bride) gets henna applied on her hand at the Mehndi party.
Junia and I share a moment at the airport.
The view from my balcony, room 529 at The Crescent Hotel in Dallas.
My feet getting ready for my "mani and pedi." Yeah, seriously.
What shines more brightly, the Rolls' logo or my freshly manicured nail? The car was parked right outside the hotel- across from an Enzo and next to a pair of Bentleys.
Jimmy, Nate (the groom), and Garrett channeling their inner CEOs. Alternate caption: Go on brush your shoulders off. First runner-up: I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man.
Milli (the bride) gets henna applied on her hand at the Mehndi party.
Junia and I share a moment at the airport.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
And it came to me that every plan is a little prayer to father time.
The world in which we live.
The State Department issued a travel warning for northern Mexico. Drug related violence has been shockingly high this year in many cities. AP, thanks be to God, still seems relatively safe.
The Border Patrol agent who shot and killed Francisco Dominguez Rivera, 22, has finally been charged with murder. Nicholas Corbett, 39, will stand trial on four counts related to the shooting. It's tragic that both of these families are losing their sons.
Bodies were found this week near Douglas/Agua Prieta on both sides of the international border. A body was found about thirty feet away from one of our water tanks on the Mexican side, and another was found at an undisclosed location in the U.S.
Update: The body of a journalist from Agua Prieta who has been missing for several weeks was found near Janos in the state of Chihuahua. Early reports are saying that he was tortured.
I'm not sure about using this as a theology, but right now I'm thinking that the greatest gift Jesus has ever given us is the gift of Hope.
The State Department issued a travel warning for northern Mexico. Drug related violence has been shockingly high this year in many cities. AP, thanks be to God, still seems relatively safe.
The Border Patrol agent who shot and killed Francisco Dominguez Rivera, 22, has finally been charged with murder. Nicholas Corbett, 39, will stand trial on four counts related to the shooting. It's tragic that both of these families are losing their sons.
Bodies were found this week near Douglas/Agua Prieta on both sides of the international border. A body was found about thirty feet away from one of our water tanks on the Mexican side, and another was found at an undisclosed location in the U.S.
Update: The body of a journalist from Agua Prieta who has been missing for several weeks was found near Janos in the state of Chihuahua. Early reports are saying that he was tortured.
I'm not sure about using this as a theology, but right now I'm thinking that the greatest gift Jesus has ever given us is the gift of Hope.
Friday, April 13, 2007
What is it that you do? Version 2.0
This just in from the Migrant Resource Center: January-March 2007
Total number of people served: 2,315
Men served: 1857 (80.2%)
Women served: 370 (16.0%)
Children served: 88 (3.8%)
Bottles of water distributed: 1,792
Food distributed: 1,739
Persons who received orientation: 1,242
Persons who received first aid: 114
Socks distributed: 371
Shoes distributed: 80
Clothing distributed: 371
Total number of people served: 2,315
Men served: 1857 (80.2%)
Women served: 370 (16.0%)
Children served: 88 (3.8%)
Bottles of water distributed: 1,792
Food distributed: 1,739
Persons who received orientation: 1,242
Persons who received first aid: 114
Socks distributed: 371
Shoes distributed: 80
Clothing distributed: 371
This might be the only post in the blogworld today that isn't about Don Imus.
Sorry for the prolonged absence, I have been a busy little bee this week spending all of my time hosting a great group of students from Seattle, WA.
Here's a little update on my life:
On Tuesday Meghan and I got to spend the day with a group of friends from Tucson and Phoenix (the Presbyterian Pope, some people from No More Deaths, the Catholic Worker House, John Fife) camping, eating delicious food, and running some class three rapids on inflatable kayaks. An amazing time, to say the least.
I love to be out in nature, and I love it even more when it gives me a chance to connect with such amazing people. I thought of the New Zealand crew and Galatians. "For freedom Christ has set us free."
Tomorrow we're having a bi-national border fiesta over in Naco, Sonora/Naco, Arizona. We're going to set up a stage that sits on both sides of the fence, have a potluck, and play volleyball using the international boundary as a net. Promises to be a great time.
In the afternoon I'll be heading up to Tucson to catch my flight out to Dallas. I am REALLY looking forward to next week and to Nate and Milli's wedding (and it's not just because her parents are putting us up in this hotel). Although now that I mention it, apparently the hotel has a really sweet pool on the roof. Meghan has a tendency to make obscene hand gestures when I gloat about it. Haha.
I'll also be meeting my great friend Jo's baby Junia for the first time (exciting!), and getting my first chance to reflect on my time down in Mexico in an environment outside of the borderlands (or Chiapas).
To be honest, I'm a little nervous about how I'll do with the culture shock. It's always a tough transition from one place to the next, one language to the next, and one economic reality to the next. I'm praying that I can adjust "well" and enjoy myself.
Here are a few things that caught my interest on the old www:
Brianne's post for the most recent Quarter Life.
Zach links to a great site called Kiva, an interactive online bank that lets you lend money to start small businesses in the Two-Thirds World and then stay in touch with the person who borrowed the money. I need to look for a loan that I can afford! Anyone want to split one?
Ariah writes a post about biking (something I have come to love) and links to this incredible invention: a bicycle powered washing machine. Brilliant. I want one.
I don't know how much blogging I'll be doing next week, but I expect to put up at least a few posts for you folks that I'm working on right now.
And by the way, He is risen indeed.
Here's a little update on my life:
On Tuesday Meghan and I got to spend the day with a group of friends from Tucson and Phoenix (the Presbyterian Pope, some people from No More Deaths, the Catholic Worker House, John Fife) camping, eating delicious food, and running some class three rapids on inflatable kayaks. An amazing time, to say the least.
I love to be out in nature, and I love it even more when it gives me a chance to connect with such amazing people. I thought of the New Zealand crew and Galatians. "For freedom Christ has set us free."
Tomorrow we're having a bi-national border fiesta over in Naco, Sonora/Naco, Arizona. We're going to set up a stage that sits on both sides of the fence, have a potluck, and play volleyball using the international boundary as a net. Promises to be a great time.
In the afternoon I'll be heading up to Tucson to catch my flight out to Dallas. I am REALLY looking forward to next week and to Nate and Milli's wedding (and it's not just because her parents are putting us up in this hotel). Although now that I mention it, apparently the hotel has a really sweet pool on the roof. Meghan has a tendency to make obscene hand gestures when I gloat about it. Haha.
I'll also be meeting my great friend Jo's baby Junia for the first time (exciting!), and getting my first chance to reflect on my time down in Mexico in an environment outside of the borderlands (or Chiapas).
To be honest, I'm a little nervous about how I'll do with the culture shock. It's always a tough transition from one place to the next, one language to the next, and one economic reality to the next. I'm praying that I can adjust "well" and enjoy myself.
Here are a few things that caught my interest on the old www:
Brianne's post for the most recent Quarter Life.
Zach links to a great site called Kiva, an interactive online bank that lets you lend money to start small businesses in the Two-Thirds World and then stay in touch with the person who borrowed the money. I need to look for a loan that I can afford! Anyone want to split one?
Ariah writes a post about biking (something I have come to love) and links to this incredible invention: a bicycle powered washing machine. Brilliant. I want one.
I don't know how much blogging I'll be doing next week, but I expect to put up at least a few posts for you folks that I'm working on right now.
And by the way, He is risen indeed.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
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?
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.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
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.
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.
-Bart Campolo.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
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:
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
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:
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:
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.
Hey! I wrote about you for my research, I know.. this is kinda creepy, butI also received a link to her account right here on blogspot.
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!
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 profileTo 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?
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
