This is an article I published today on the Portland Indymedia site. It is written specifically for people who live in the Portland metro area. Of course, I guess it could apply to people in any other metro area as well.

DECLARING WAR ON THE HOMELESS

The homeless of Portland are beginning to face an uphill battle, the likes of which has never been seen. Two recent ordinances have been passed that criminalize homelessness, and a shooting downtown has added to a public conception of a "threat" posed by the homeless in downtown Portland. When corporate retail executives survey the area, they are not looking at real human beings. They are seeing potential threats to their precious profits, and are using their influence within the city government to try to eradicate these people from their environment.
This is a very troubling development. The level of tension on the streets has increased significantly in the last week. I have spoken with many homeless people downtown who feel that they are being targeted, and have nowhere else to turn. It angers me to no end to see my friends who live on the streets victimized by an overall negative and pejorative attitude toward the homeless that is fueled by biased media coverage. What is a person to do?

I realize that there are many steps that need to be taken. The homeless downtown need people who are willing to stand up for them and challenge the validity of the recently adopted ordinances. This will be a long and arduous process, like anything else in city politics. However, there is also something that anyone reading this can do, and chances are it won't put you out of your normal routine at all. It's very simple: just go downtown.

That's right, just keep going downtown. After last week's shooting, the city and downtown business are all but expecting a wave of fear to sweep the city. If people stay away from downtown for fear of their lives, those in power will have even more ammunition in their war against the homeless. They will be able to saddle them with the blame for keeping people away from downtown. So it is very important that we prove them wrong. Downtown Portland is, for the most part, not a dangerous place. The shooting last week was an isolated incident that really had nothing to do with the "homeless problem" or "aggressive panhandling." Do not let the media's uneven coverage of this incident change what you already know. This is just like the Bush administration's manipulation of the fear of terrorism to justify an illegal war. Well, the city is about to begin an illegal war on the homeless unless people show the city that they are not going to be swayed by fear mongering.

So go downtown. Enjoy the vibrant culture of Portland. Spend some money somewhere. If you are inclined to go shopping at a mall, don't go to Lloyd Center or Clackamas, just go downtown! Show them that you are not afraid. And while you're down there, actually talk to some of the homeless people downtown. You'll find that most of them are just regular people who have been dealt a bad hand. Many of them are amazing musicians, writers, and artists. In fact, there are even venues around the city where you can see their work, hear their music, etc. The bottom line is that we need to show the city that the homeless are not a threat, they are a part of the community that deserve our respect.

I realize this is not the most radical technique for helping those in need. But it is a small part that anyone and everyone can do. The ball is rolling in the war that the city is declaring on the homeless, and we must act as quickly as we can to change the tide.

After the recount of the votes in the governor's race in Washington, the Democrat Christine Gregoire seems to have won the election by something around 140 votes (sorry for my laziness in not checking out the exact amount). Of course the Republican camp is incensed at this report and will continue to fight, although it appears that according to the state law there can be no more recounts. This race never seems to end, and neither side can simply give up and concede. Of course, I realize that each side has invested a great deal of time and money into their campaigns and could not be expected to give up easily.

Still, the suggestions coming from the Republicans sound a little hokey. They are claiming that some of the ballots that weren't counted came from military personnel stationed in Iraq, whose absentee ballots did not arrive on time. How do they know this? Well, some party representatives were quoted saying they heard from the families of the service members that the ballots did not arrive on time. How would the family members know this? I have voted while stationed overseas, and I can be sure that my family did not have any idea when my ballot arrived. The reports get even sillier when claims arise about ballots from soldiers wounded in Fallujah, etc. These appear to be desperation tactics from a side that has little more to offer.

Apparently elections in this country are going to be riddled with controversy from now on. The extremism of partisan politics has created a situation where neither side can bear to give an inch to the other, and any victory must be challenged with accusations of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, situations like this frustrate the public and probably prevent justice from being done in cases where the voting system actually was manipulated by one side.

Like I said previously, this election is a can of worms. The societal effects of the 2004 election will be felt for many, many years to come.

A Flood of Troubled Soldiers Is in the Offing, Experts Predict
By SCOTT SHANE
New York Times
Published: December 16, 2004


WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The nation's hard-pressed health care system for veterans is facing a potential deluge of tens of thousands of soldiers returning from Iraq with serious mental health problems brought on by the stress and carnage of war, veterans' advocates and military doctors say.



An Army study shows that about one in six soldiers in Iraq report symptoms of major depression, serious anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, a proportion that some experts believe could eventually climb to one in three, the rate ultimately found in Vietnam veterans. Because about one million American troops have served so far in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon figures, some experts predict that the number eventually requiring mental health treatment could exceed 100,000.

------------------------------------
Such costs of war, personal and financial, are not revealed by official casualty counts. "People see the figure of 1,200 dead," said Dr. Kanter, of Seattle, referring to the number of Americans killed in Iraq. "Much more rarely do they see the number of seriously wounded. And almost never do they hear anything at all about the psychiatric casualties."

As of Wednesday 5,229 Americans have been seriously wounded in Iraq. Through July, nearly 31,000 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom had applied for disability benefits for injuries or psychological ailments, according to the Department Veterans Affairs.

Are we prepared for a new generation of psychological casualties of war? We have gotten very accustomed to the image of the crusty old homeless Vietnam vet, but are we ready for the young homeless Iraq war vet? This is not an issue of whether the war is right or wrong, this is simply a fact that is going to have a long-lasting effect. People involved in any type of social services work need to be aware of what's coming and learn how to respond in a caring and loving way. We now have the hindsight to prevent a post-Vietnam scenario if we are able to be proactive.

I have decided, against all sensibility, to post a link to my Diaryland site on this page again. I complained in the previous I Hate Blogs post that this blog is not really about me, it is just about issues and meant to inspire conversation and thought. Well, the diary site is definately about me. Some of it is ugly and confusing, and I don't know where it comes from. But it is definately me. So please go there if you're interested. Otherwise leave me alone :)

I had an interesting conversation while shopping at the Buffalo Exchange the other day. A young gentleman started talking to me about camouflage pants, and before I knew it we were discussing politics. The fellow told me that he was planning on going "out on the road," leaving his job and seeking a life of freedom. He remarked that "if you really hate Bush, you can't support him." I suppose that by his rationale, working and paying taxes would be considered supporting the current administration.

I can't say that I agree with his conclusions necessarily, but his approach caused me to think. This man had a belief, and that belief translated into necessary action for him. Since he truly believed that the Bush administration was wrong in every way, he could not imagine giving any support to it. He was willing to go to extreme ends to live out his conviction. This led me to question the motivations behind my own actions.

Christianity tends to bring the word "belief" into the conversation quite a bit. We read the Bible, we hear sermons, and we are told certain things that we either agree or disagree with. Based on this set of propositions we formulate our "beliefs." But what does it mean to simply agree or disagree? If a belief is merely a set of facts, does it become part of the subconscious worldview that drives my actions? In other words, is it unthinkable for me to act in any way that contradicts what I believe?

Maybe I am idealizing this interesting person I met at the Buffalo Exchange. But I think that I met him precisely so that I would begin to question this idea of belief. It appeared to me that his belief had become so internalilzed, so much a part of his very rationality, that to act in opposition to it would seem to him absurd. So now I turn back to myself. Do my Christian "beliefs" form my reality? Or are they simply intellectual constructs that I add to a list of facts?

For example, I believe that Jesus instructed us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Do I just pay lip service to this belief? Or have I so internalized this belief that to act in any way toward my neighbor other than lovingly will offend my sense of reason? Honestly I can't say that I have gotten to that point yet. But I am glad that God sends me into unusual circumstances in order to speak to me through unlikely messengers.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (CNN) -- A 25-year-old man stormed the stage at a heavy-metal rock concert Wednesday night, shooting and killing Pantera founder and Damageplan guitarist "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott and three others before a police officer shot and killed him, Columbus police said.



I realize that I am writing about this sad and unfortunate incident a few days late. However, I have found the time necessary to collect my thoughts about something so terrible, so shocking. This incident really touched home with me for a variety of reasons.

First, Pantera was one of my favorite bands growing up. I was in high school in the early 90's, during the heyday of the "thrash metal" movement. Pantera was a band that influenced me greatly and contributed to my interest in being a musician. They were a powerful, tight and vicious band that really changed the paradigm for metal at the time. When metal moved from the hair bands of the 80's into the speed metal realm, bands like Metallica, Anthrax and Megadeth led the way. However, after a little while these bands started to have an air of pretentiousness around them. They were the "gods" of metal, and on each album they became more complex. Pantera smashed through all of this with visceral, agressive music. They were not graduates of Berklee; they were just some regular kids from Texas. In my opinion, Pantera paved the way for the do-it-yourself spirit in music that became so prevalent in the 90's and manifested itself best in Seattle grunge.

But Pantera, too had its icons. To a guitar player like myself, Dimebag Darrell was an inspiration. He was not classically trained and did not play expensive custom guitars. He was like us: he was a kid who loved music, a guitar player who just wanted to grow up to be like Ace Frehley or Randy Rhodes. Of course, we wanted to grow up to be like Dimebag Darrell. His prowess on the fretboard was matched by very few in the metal realm. But not only was Darrell a certified rock star, he was a man of the people. Darrell always took time out for his fans, even at the apex of Pantera's fame. That's when I met him.

My friend and I had gotten dropped off at San Diego's Starlight Bowl ampitheater about three hours prior to the Pantera concert. We were sitting outside the venue, trying to think of something to occupy the time before the gates opened. Suddenly, a large tour bus pulls up right alongside us. The doors opened, and out runs a spastic dwarf of a man with a video camera. The long curly hair and magenta-dyed goatee confirmed it for us: it was Dimebag Darrell! Darrell had seen a small group of his fans hanging out outside the venue and decided to come talk to us. This was a transcendent moment in the life of a 14-year old metalhead kid. We talked with Darrell about music and life and got autographs. My friend and I even had Darrell autograph our forearms, which we did not wash for several weeks thereafter. I was always impressed that this man spared not a moment in hopping off the bus and meeting his fans. This was at the height of Pantera's popularity; they were in regulalr rotation on MTV and had been nominated for Grammy awards. But Darrell still took the time out to recognize that his young fans made him who he was, and I am sure that he was grateful even until the day of his death.

It is a terrible irony that someone so close to his fans would ultimately have his life taken by one of them. This story shows us the terrible lengths that some people go to when they ascribe deity to a celebrity. It also raises serious issues about safety at concerts. How did the guy get in there with a gun in the first place? But these issues are beside the point for now. Right now I just want to remember an amazing musician who affected many lives during his short life. Our crossing of paths inspired me to follow my dreams, and I know that up to his death Darrell was still chasing his.

Scott Bridwell just posted some interesting stuff regarding his blog. It seems that certain circumstances required his removal of some links he had on his site, followed by a disclaimer that explained the author's non-endorsement of any links that he may post on his site. This has led me to ask a few questions. Maybe these are your questions as well.

1) Is this blog really you? And who the heck are you anyway?
Although I do enjoy the art of blogging and find it to be a fun, cathartic exercise for wasting away the hours, I actually hate blogs. Well, maybe not hate them. But I hate the fact that in blogs, information is presented with little or no context around it. In other words, you don't know me, you don't know my situation, you don't know what circumstances prompted me to write this post or that post. When I write, I certain do expose many aspects of who I am. But that's not really why I write -- this is not a cyber-dating site. I write to bring up issues that I think are pertinent, issues that trouble me, and issues that require conversation. Sometimes I write simply to (hopefully) inspire thought in others. In this aspect, I feel that there is no such thing as a "dangerous" blog. Today we are innundated with information, usually in the form of pithy sayings and slogans. We tend to adopt beliefs based upon the charisma of the orator, the cleverness of the slogan, etc. We say things like "I am a conservative evangelical Christian," because we seem to agree with what other people who call themselves conservative evangelical Christians are saying. I am sure that when you read this blog, you place me in some sort of convenient category as well. But it's just not that simple. There is a lot more to me than you will ever know from reading this blog. If you want to know me, send me an email and meet me for coffee (on you). But if you want to engage in a critical thinking exercise and figure out what you really believe and where you really stand on issues, read on.
Which leads me to ....

2) Do you support the views of the people you link to???
The links over there on the right side of your screen are sites that I visit regularly. They are sites of personal friends, as well as people I have never met or even spoken to. They all have one thing in common: they make me think. They bring up issues that require more discussion than a simple agreement or dismissal. They provide a variety of perspectives on issues, allowing me to set aside my presuppositions (of which I may not even be aware) and view things from the eyes of another. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are somewhere in between and confused. But I am not afraid of any of them. If I am afraid to read erroneous views and biased propaganda, that must mean that I am afraid that what I believe will not make the cut. I used to be afraid to read Nietzsche. Now I read his works and see his obvious biases, failures, and even some elements of truth. Had I never opened the book, I would never have known about him or learned more about myself.

Due to the growing length of this post I will continue later.

There was an op-ed piece in the NY Times today about John Stott. It was a very favorable piece, and the one interesting thing about it was the writer's comparison of Stott to Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton, who appeared on Meet the Press last Sunday. I'm not quoting verbatim, but the writer basically said that people like Stott are probably closer to what evangelicals are really like.

Maybe it's just lip service, but it's good to see positive coverage of Christianity in the MSM for once. I cringed after reading the transcript of Sunday's show (didn't see it). Basically Al and Jerry got into a catfight, shouting back and forth at each other. I thought, how appropos that the media would choose these two as representatives of Christianity. People who don't know, people who haven't ever been in a church, don't understand the fine distinctions between people. All they know is, they see these two clowns bickering at each other. It certainly does not paint a favorable picture.

I think the time is ripe for Christians to start thinking about a new apologetic. I posted this topic on the Ooze a while back and got some good discussion out of it. Apologetics is usually thought of as the art of debate, or being able to answer questions about the logical difficulties of the faith. In today's environment, that type of apologetics may be falling to the background. What I see is a need for apologetics more in tune with the original use of the word. This refers to the early church apologists such as Justin Martyr and Theophilus. These writers often wrote to clear away common misconceptions about Christianity. In the early church days, it was considered an "immoral" religion by many Romans! I think that the same type of attitude exists today -- the common person on the street probably sees Christianity as immoral, in that it opposes the commonly held values of today. While I agree that many of society's "values" are more like vices, I believe that Christianity gets cast in a light that makes it appear antithetical to true values like love, justice, etc. I have opinions on how this comes about, but that't not the point of this post. What I am saying is that it is our task to set the record straight.

We can't let talking heads do the talking for us. If we think that the average person simply writes off people like Falwell and Sharpton we are sadly mistaken. They are the ones that are perceived, and perception becomes reality. The NY Times article gave me hope that people who oppose the stereotype can also be spokespeople. Perhaps the world is giving us a chance to say who we really are. Let's not drop the ball.