Much has been made about the 90+ thousand pages of documents leaked about American involvement in Afghanistan and the geopolitical struggle in the region.  Jon Stewart (of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) weighs in on this. Readers and viewers be advised, this contains strong language:

If ever there was a reason to support the troops, it would be to get them out of Afghanistan. We’re fighting alongside an Afghan army that could, quite frankly, care less about their safety and security. We’re fighting against a well-financed insurgency that might even be financed by the Pakistani government, which is in turn financed by us. We’re also fighting history: nobody has ever won a war in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan.

This war will not be won by military prowess alone. It will take a lot of well-choreographed diplomacy. Throwing money at Afghanistan (and Iraq) will not solve the problem.

I am a pacifist but there are times when even I believe that war is necessary. As Scripture says, “There is a time for war and a time for peace.”  We’re past the time for war. Now is the time for peace.

Support the troops: End this unsustainable war.

-E

www.youtube.com/watch?v=drE5cHe6c3s

-E

Listen to the press conference held this morning:

Nick Bastian, the owner of the ever-popular RailLife.com, has some interesting pictures from today’s press conference that feature the now-drained Tempe Town Lake.

It’ll be interesting to see how the recovery takes place. We shall see!

-E

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

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

Yep…that’s me!

-E

This is good and well as it highlights the great culinary scene in Downtown Phoenix. But it misses out on the full picture.

Read for yourself:

Yet, strangely, despite noting in the guide that it covers the area from 7th Street to 3rd Avenue and Fillmore to Jackson streets, the pull-out map spans from 7th to 7th, all the way up to McKinley, leaving the fringes of the map looking noticeably empty. Is the map doing a disservice to many restaurants within the map’s confines?

Likewise, a feature story on the Urban Grocery & Wine Bar, a block outside of this radius on Pierce Street, is one of the main sections of the guide. But the cluster of restaurants on 1st and Pierce streets do not even receive a spot on the map, let alone a mention in the guide. [source]

One certainly can’t begrudge the DPP for promoting shops, restaurants, venues, and events in its defined area; however, the DPP must realize that it is a mutually beneficial relationship between shops/venues in its formal area and the greater downtown community. A downtown area whose marketing model is to bring people to big events–sports games, concerts, and other big festivals–must realize that the little shops in the area’s periphery keep people in the area. Whilst Roosevelt Row, Grand Avenue, and these areas’ shops/restaurants aren’t within the Downtown Phoenix Partnership’s boundaries per se, they are a part of Downtown Phoenix and are a significant part of the Downtown Phoenix tapestry.

I’m not going to go as far as to say “shame on the DPP” for excluding these peripheral shops. Most tourists to Downtown Phoenix, and most likely most students at the ASU Downtown Phoenix campus, will receive the Downtown Phoenix Dining Guide and think that nothing exists outside of those ninety blocks. This unfortunately paints an inadequate picture of Downtown Phoenix as a place where one goes to participate in big events instead of a place to be.

If Downtown Phoenix is to thrive, it must become a place to be.

-E

Fast forward to yesterday: This video (below) appeared in my YouTube recommendations list. So you have an idea of what’s going on, watch:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC3IryWr4c8

Yay computers!

Cheers-
E

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This leads me to the biggest of the big obstacles:

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

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

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

Cheers-
E

I’m reworking my blog to suit its current readership and purpose. A while back, it was decided that blogging wouldn’t be a key part of the Student Ambassadors for Recruitment initiative at my college, the ASU College of Public Programs.  Whilst I’ve had my qualms about this, I’m okay with it.  So I have to figure out what I’m going to write about and we’ll go from there.

I’ll tell you that research has taken a lot out of me. I’ll have a post about that when I can sit down and write something eloquently. I’m also writing a post concerning when we might have “the year of the Linux desktop.” Unfortunately, we might never get to have that year…

If you’ve missed me, check out my Facebook page and my Twitter stream. There’s a lot of catching up to find there.

So welcome back! I’ve missed you all.

Cheers!
Edward Jensen

I must ask, then: How’s that whole “drill, baby, drill” thing working?

In all the madness, I’ve been trying to figure out what SB1070 means for me, my community, and greater Arizona. I believe that SB1070 is misguided and does nothing to solve the true issue at hand, immigration reform.  I firmly believe that SB1070 was passed because we’ve let fear drive the conversation instead of reasoned, rational debate.  As Emerson said, “Fear always springs from ignorance.”

It’s been hard putting words to how I feel. I understand the frustration on the parts of those who support this law. The Federal government has definitely let us all down in passing any sort of immigration reform. I hope that Arizona’s passing of this misguided law is a wake-up call to the Federal government to start a new dialog on immigration. Unfortunately, seeing how this is an election year, I’m not holding my breath that a humane, sensible, and comprehensive immigration policy will be passed as candidates will pander to their ever-increasingly polarized sides.

I know that it’s all too easy to say that the law will only impact those who aren’t legally in this country. I believe that this will impact everyone. It has only raised the already-heightened sense of fear in the community.  Those who support the law have publicly squirmed when they try to come up with criteria besides skin color of what an “illegal immigrant” might look like. We have a sheriff that goes on media blitzes to brag about how many undocumented immigrants he and his office have apprehended. Laws like SB1070 will only further enable him to do that.

I’m not writing this to downplay the issue of undocumented immigration in Arizona. It is a big deal. For too long, it seems like we’ve let this issue slide because there was enough resources to help immigrants and because we recognized the positive effects they’ve had on the economy. Only now are we realizing that operatives of drug cartels are operating in the local schools. Now that Arizona’s economy is in a nosedive, the state legislature and a somewhat silent citizenry are scapegoating the immigrant community for these problems. It’s their fault that Arizona is losing money.  It’s their fault that crime is on the rise. It’s not our fault, it’s their fault.

It seems like an excuse to pass this law is the increased border violence, drug transportation, and its localized crime. If this is the case, why was there not an element in the law deploying the Arizona Army National Guard to the border area to defend against this criminal element? Why are we focusing on people who are here already instead of stopping the real threat to our safety and security?  The framers of this bill have said that we want safer communities and that this will help mitigate the criminal element inherent in immigration. So why, then, are we focusing on those who have innocently set up their lives here to escape the violence and bloodshed in their homeland instead of those committing the violence and bloodshed?

One has to understand that it is a small percentage of the total immigrant population that is giving everyone a bad name. The media and its unchecked commentators are quick to highlight on a few stories that prove their points. We were spoon-fed stories about a southern Arizona rancher allegedly being murdered by an immigrant yet evidence is now emerging that an American citizen is the alleged suspect. We hear of a rise in crime, but that crime is usually localized and insider crime that is tied to smuggling. It’s not random.  As Dean Nicholas Knisely+ of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral wrote in an essay on this very topic, “There are some very bad people coming across the border. There are also many people desperate to find work coming across as well, because the crushing poverty in their home communities makes [it] impossible to feed and care for their families.”

There have been many parallels drawn that connect Arizona to Nazi Germany. As an Arizonan, I’m offended. Nobody likes their home state compared to a brutal régime that systematically killed millions of Jews. Yet that does not mean that I’m oblivious to these parallels. Those who support this law say that those who are here with the appropriate paperwork have nothing to hide. But this now means that entire groups of people will now have to carry with them the appropriate papers to show that they are either citizens or immigrants in the country legally.

I’ve been convinced that SB1070 will never actually go into effect because there are a multitude of legal challenges and injunctions that will be filed against it. I hope this is the case. I’m a proud Arizonan and I don’t like that my home state, the state in which I was born, is the butt end of jokes. The Arizona in which I live is open, welcoming, and tolerant of other peoples. The Arizona that is unfortunately being portrayed to the media is a xenophobic, old, and rancorous state.

For those who care about this state, we’ve been let down. We’ve been let down by a state legislature that passes policies blaming one group of citizens for the state’s troubles. We’ve been let down by politicians that put their careers before their constituents. We’ve been let down by a federal government that has neglected to address immigration reform thus enabling states to pass draconian laws such as these. We’ve been let down by the media that is using opinions as the basis for facts and not vice versa.

I’ve publicly debated on this blog whether or not I’ll stay in Arizona once I’ve finished my Master’s degree. I think that now is the time that I should stay here and fight to change Arizona to be the Arizona in which I want to live. The quotation by Mohandas Gandhi is increasingly pertinent: “We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.”

We need change. Desperately. But that change has to be relevant, humane, sensible, and comprehensive.

-Edward Jensen

To demonstrate the amazing things that College of Public Programs students are doing, here’s a quick note that she sent to her family, friends, and colleagues about a program that she implemented during her internship:

A program my supervisor and I implemented at my internship was featured on the channel 99 for those who have cox cable. This is a great program that teaches kids to be peaceful in their communities as well as in school or their homes. They have given service in the community and donated money to charities. This is a school in which 97% of the students receive free lunches due to socio-economic status and live in inpoverished neighborhoods and crime ridden environments. They are such an inspiration to me as they try to teach others to be more peaceful and see the good in each other. They truly give hope in places where hope is not often found! I’m so proud of them! This is an example of what schools can do and the good they can bring, yet they are in danger right now. This school is slated for closure should proposition 100 not be passed. Please watch this video and think about whether these kids deserve to keep their school and continue the good work they are doing. Vote YES on prop 100, not for you, but for their future!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqugHm0NPSg

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: There is so much amazing stuff that my college does. Most higher-education institutions say that they teach students to change the world. There’s one difference, though: the College of Public Programs actually does change the world.

I’m proud to be a student in my college, the College of Public Programs.

-Edward Jensen

Yeah, I know it’s a marketing commercial for the Discovery Channel, but it reminds us of all the great things on this planet.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0jZzBEKIMc

Stay strong.

-Edward Jensen

Second, at no time have I ever been affiliated with the Andres Cano and Vaughn Hillyard campaign.  I was, am, and will be an independent student at ASU.  My two preceding posts on this issue were written on my own accord with no influence from any members of Mr. Cano’s and Mr. Hillyard’s campaign.  My original endorsement post, penned 30 March 2010, was written because I chose to write down and outline the reasons why I would vote for Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard, exercising my First Amendment rights and also to fill a gap in original material on this blog.  Had I known that my endorsement would have been of significant detriment to their campaign leading to their disqualification, I would not have written it.  My follow-up post on the disqualification of Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard, penned 8 April 2010, was written because I felt there were serious flaws in the the last-minute disqualification of that ticket and why they should be seated since they won a majority of the popular vote.

Never did I think that I’d end up in the middle of an elections kerfuffle.

In being at ASU, I had hoped to keep a low profile (well, as much as possible) and ruffle as few feathers as possible.  If you haven’t been living in a cave over the past 48 hours, you know what’s been going on with the recent ASASUD elections-gate.  If you have been living in a cave and have no idea what’s been going on, click here for the Downtown Devil‘s coverage.

The thing that I find fascinating is that my blog post wherein I endorsed one ticket instead of another was chalked up as one of the three strikes against that ticket.  Newspapers and other media outlets endorse candidates.  For example, then-Senator Barack Obama lauded that he was endorsed by The New York Times to be this country’s 44th President.  Senator John McCain did the same with the endorsement of his hometown newspaper, The Arizona Republic.  Candidates laud that they have been endorsed by public safety, education, or public service workers’ unions all the time.  Why should student government candidates not be able to do the same thing?

I’m not going to mention the double standard that applies to current ASASUD officers in publicly endorsing candidates.  Tania Mendes is the current President of ASASUD, and on 26 March, she posted the following to the “LAST CHANCE TO VOTE Vasquez & Abercrombie for ASASUD” Facebook group page’s wall (see for yourself in the screen capture below):

"I wish you both all the best. You guys have done a great job this year by taking ASASUD to another level. Thank you for not just talking the talk but walking the walk. I applaud you for your involvement commitment and enthusiasm for ASASUD. Win it all!!!" -ASASUD president Tania Mendes (click image for larger version)

But no, I’m not going to mention that.  Nor am I going to be shallow and mention that Ms. Mendes, a journalism major, fails to include appropriate punctuation.  And I’m not also going to mention that the other ticket’s Facebook group page, “Vote Andres & Vaughn for ASASUD!,” didn’t feature any such high-level endorsements.  Nor am I going to mention that one can’t have it both ways.

I was not–and still am not–affiliated with any of the candidates for ASASUD student president.  I chose one side instead of another, and I chose to outline the reasons I voted for them on my blog and publicly endorse them.  I do not hold any position of elected or appointed student leadership anywhere.  On 4 February 2010, I stepped down from the only position of formal student leadership I ever held whilst at ASU, the President of BLAST’D, the Barrett Honors College Leadership and Service Team at the Downtown Phoenix campus. (If I were still in that position, I would have never publicly endorsed a candidate.  I would have voted and encouraged others to do the same.)  Presently, though, my only perceived conflict of interest might be that I am employed by the College of Public Programs; however, it is clearly noted on my blog that my opinions are my own and not those of ASU or any of its affiliated institutions.  I own my blog, ASU does not.  I exclusively control my blog’s content, ASU does not.

The big thing is that people assume things and don’t read everything.  After my endorsement blog post, I received an email from the ASASUD Elections Committee saying that “many students at the downtown campus [sic] found the title of your blog post…misleading” and that they “feel it implies that ASASUD Executive Board and Senate both support the Andres and Vaughn Campaign.”   There’s one problem to their argument: it clearly shows that they didn’t read the post.  The first person is employed throughout, meaning that these are my opinions and nobody else’s.  Upon prodding the Elections Committee, “many students” turned out to be seven students.

I’m sorry, but seven people’s confusion–perceived or otherwise–doesn’t merit me to rename anything. That’s just the way it goes.

When I post something, I spill everything.  You don’t have to read between the lines because I’ve given you the stuff between the lines.  To the chagrin of my colleagues and friends, I’m rather detailed in my correspondence.  (My former BLAST’D colleagues will agree with me!) I’m a believer in getting the word out correctly the first time so that no additional correspondence is needed.  It’s just who I am.  I don’t leave room for interpretation because it’s usually misinterpretation.

That’s enough from me.  Barring anything even more unusual happening, this is my last post on this subject.

-Edward Jensen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Edward Jensen

Phoenix Chorale Third Friday Open Rehearsal
When: Friday, April 16 at 6:30 PM
Where: Trinity Episcopal Cathedral (100 W. Roosevelt)

The Phoenix Chorale continues hosting its free Open Rehearsals during downtown Phoenix’s monthly Artwalk. These events are FREE and open to the public and take place inside Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, located on Roosevelt Row. Take Metro Light Rail to the Roosevelt Arts District stop.

The Chorale will hold a raffle at the rehearsal for great prizes from local organizations, including tickets to the Phoenix Symphony.  Arrive early—the first 50 visitors to the rehearsal will receive a goodie-bag that includes a free raffle ticket and music download!

Ola Gjeilo in Concert with Ted Belledin
When: Monday, April 26, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Where: Trinity Episcopal Cathedral (100 W. Roosevelt)

Phoenix Chorale Composer-in-Residence and pianist Ola Gjeilo performs a special concert in April with special guest, saxophonist Ted Belledin. The concert features the two musicians in a duet creating new music, completely improvised on the spot, and in the stylistic vein of improvisers like Keith Jarrett and Jan Garbarek. The hauntingly beautiful music will be just as informed by classical and world music as by jazz and unlike a lot of free-improv jazz, it will be melodic and unabashedly lyrical.

Tickets are just $10 and can be purchased by calling the Phoenix Chorale office at 602-253-2224. Please note: “25 & Under Free” is not eligible for this concert.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsFaUl4rPWs

[source: Danielle Chavez, intern, Phoenix Chorale]

-Edward Jensen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Edward Jensen

This is one of those shameless promotions, and this is for a good cause. (Double win!) Elizabeth Apodaca, the events coordinator for the College of Public Programs, is organizing an interesting event called Guys who Give. Basically, it’s a bachelor auction whose proceeds benefit the Leukaemia & Lymphoma Society.  See the poster:

(In full disclosure: I’m not up for auction. This is definitely a good thing.)

If this is your thing, check out http://guyswhogive.com/ to learn more and buy tickets.

And good work, Elizabeth!

-Edward Jensen

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnXiBC-qiBQ

-Edward Jensen

I’ll level up and be perfectly honest here: my political beliefs tend to lie left of center. I voted for the then Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 elections. (My current opinions on him, though, are irrelevant to this post. Though a recent post by Paul Krugman did resonate with me.) I believe that there is an appropriate role for government in our daily lives.

The other thing in which I believe is that although we may disagree on an issue, that doesn’t mean that we have to be any less civil toward others. Too often, society unfairly casts its members into different buckets—this or that, white or black, conservative or liberal, and so on—that for the many people who don’t share that polarized worldview, it’s disheartening. What happened to people engaging in debate? I don’t mean superficial chatter like what’s found on the 24-hour cable news channels; I mean meaningful debate that takes place in the public square.

What doesn’t really need debate is the fact that the federal Congress has low approval ratings. Rather than coming together and effecting meaningful change for their constituents, the House and the Senate squabble over trifle and pure minutiae. Debate in the House and Senate have devolved into talking points instead of consensus.

That leads me to the whole website thing I talked about earlier. I don’t list my political viewpoints as most people; instead, my political viewpoints are “http://www.bettertogether.org/”.

You see, I’m all about community building. I’m all about generating social capital in communities. I’m currently reading Robert D. Putnam’s book Bowling Alone, and the current level of social capital in this country is astounding low. Dr. Putnam’s thesis is that people don’t interact with each other as much as previous generations and that is leading to social decline.

It’s certainly leading to a decline in how people interact with each other. I’m prepared to argue that this is why this society is becoming increasingly polarized. People watch political commentary disguised as news (and that commentary is usually from one side of the spectrum, not all) and begin to identify with what’s being said there. When we read blogs and other Internet sources, they’re also from one side of the spectrum. (I’ll confess; I’m guilty of this.)

And that’s where the title of this post comes into play. Meet me in the middle. I’m sure that we both want the same ends but our different means make it seem like we want completely different things. Almost all of the most-polarizing issues—healthcare reform, climate change, the role of government in our lives, etc.—have some middle ground.

Maybe we need a new way of thinking. Instead of healthcare reform, let’s focus on effecting meaningful change in individual health. Instead of debating whether climate change is real, let’s focus on protecting our natural resources. Instead of debating “big government” vs. “limited government,” let’s look at how government can be more efficient. And so on.

Debating contemporary challenges with antiquated thinking won’t work. The challenges before us require meaningful debate and consensus from everyone.

So meet me in the middle. This is where I’ll be.

-Edward Jensen

UPDATE (20 March 2010): Peter Sagal, the host of NPR’s ever-funny weekly quiz show Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, chimed in on his blog. Read it here.

if you cannot see the video, click here

Don’t be knocking my sport!

-Edward Jensen

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTev5pSuYLk

-Edward Jensen

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

-Edward Jensen