Mega-churches and Luckenbach, TX

So First Baptist Church Dallas (FBCD) just announced they are building a new church building for $130 million. It’s going to be built with green construction technologies and will be all around state-of-the-art.

My initial reaction was harsh. I referred to it as grotesque, a phallic symbol, and a monument contructed to show the world how great they are. I regret the last two because as my friend Josh Mesker pointed out, I don’t know them personally or their precise motivations. He also pointed out to me that they many of their resources go to important things like prison, gang, English as a Second Language, and literacy ministries. Those are points well taken and I thank him for them.

However, I continue to have a hard time with this one because of the sheer cost and size of this project. The church is saying they want the building to “boldly assert its place in the Dallas skyline.” Why? Likewise, I have a real problem with this one because, as Ryan Byrd pointed on on his Twitter feed, FBCD used some major proof-texting to justify the project on Biblical grounds. Check out their very well produced video that, in effect, asserts the building is an example of Biblical notions of transformation. Those two things are why I can’t let the “grotesque” part go.

I have no doubts that FBCD has done and continues to do lots of things that impact people’s lives for the better. I commend them on spending resources to fund and promote the ministries that Josh mentioned. However, for better or worse, I cannot help but think they could build something that suited their needs and then used the other $100+ million to make those outreach projects even more effective and widespread.

Ultimately it’s none of my business and really just personal time wasted though. I don’t go there and I don’t give them a cent of my money. Because I strongly believe there should be a complete paradigm shift in church resource management, I tend to get a little irritated and amused (somehow at the same time) when I hear things like this.

What does this have to do with Luckenbach, TX? One Facebook friend posited that FBCD was trying to keep up with the Joneses and the new Cowboys Stadium, which naturally led to the great Waylon Jennings song and made me think that we need to get back to the basics of love. And church resources.

(It’s more prolonged fun to figure out the positive things that I can do to change the world, but occasionally I have to indulge the negative and vent for a bit. My blood pressure is back down now though and the two hours I have spent with it on my mind are likely the last two.)

Much ado about (almost) nothing

I have not followed the NY23 election between Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens as closely as most other fellow political geeks. There are a few reasons why not, but the biggest is that I don’t see it as having any kind of major political implications. This race has pundits, 24 hour cable news channels, tweeters and bloggers falling all over themselves trying to shoehorn it into a movement election akin to 1932.

I don’t think it provides an ounce of commentary on Democrats as a whole or on President Obama. For the last several days, I have looked for any kind of reason to believe otherwise because I have heard that posited ad nauseum from teabaggers and other uber-conservatives. Yes, Obama carried the district in 2008. However, Republicans have controlled that congressional seat since 1871; to say it’s a Republican controlled seat would be a gross understatement. Forgive me if I don’t find it groundbreaking when a Republican wins a Republican seat.

What may be worth discussing is how Hoffman came to be the (de facto) Republican candidate. We know that the moderateliberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava was pushed out by teabaggers, Club for Growthers and other ubercons. Purely from a political theater aspect, I think that’s pretty cool.

However, it’s a mistake to believe this is any indication of a broad national movement. As much as they believe otherwise, ubercons constitute no more than 15-20% of the American electorate. On raw numbers, however, that’s a lot of people. Their power will be obviously be amplified when they’re able to pour all of their time, energy and resources into one single race—which they can do this year with this race. Let’s see what happens when that fairly small group of Americans has to stretch itself out and run hundreds of races in a cycle.

I know this take isn’t exactly rare or original, and I also know that many of the ubercons think anyone who believes this is spinning. But, all I can do is acknowledge by left-of-center political leanings and say that I’m trying to be as objective as possible. In fact, ubercons have gone through such great links to paint it as a national movement election that they are probably the ones spinning a lot more than the other side. Either that or they’re all (sincere) heart like my buddy Wade who thinks that if Romo has one 350 yd, 4 TD game he’s the greatest QB of all time.

For the record, I’m happy that Hoffman is having this success. I’m happy that he was able to push Scozzafava out. And it’s perfectly fine with me that he will beat Owens too. In the final analysis, I think the purification of the Republican Party by ubercons, should it ultimately be completed, is a ticket to perpetual irrelevance. Of course, I could be coming back a year from now and eating crow about all of this. We will see.

Side note: I know both sides have their carpetbaggers, but what I really need to be convinced of is that it’s truly representative democracy for a person to receive 95% of his funds from outside the district, consider district-specific issues parochial, and not even reside in the district. Just doesn’t seem like what was intended those 230 years ago.

The ongoing filesharing conversation

I have been particularly involved in the conversation lately with my friend Ryan; you can read his point of view about it here. (I’m the one who left the comment pointing out the fallacy of the Doug Pagitt quote.)

I have not had the benefit of watching the documentary Good Copy Bad Copy that Ryan reviewed, but he undoubtedly did a fair and accurate job of summarizing. A couple of arguments that he mentioned seem to be gaining steam. Part of the documentary focuses on the property thief artist Girl Talk, who basically takes other people’s creations, chops them up, and passes it on as something new. Here’s a quote from Ryan’s blog:

he (Girl Talk)begins the film by setting the stage as an advocate for artists like himself to have the freedom to use copyrighted music in whatever way they see fit. his argument is primarily based on the idea that he and others… wouldn’t be able to produce this art form with the current copyright structures because the licensing of all 322 songs would cost literally millions of dollars.

He and others go on to argue that the music industry, original artists and the culture as a whole would be enriched by doing away with many of the copyright laws in existence. That concept is further discussed in a recent Relevant Magazine article.

You know what? Maybe they are right. I don’t know. And maybe Ryan (and scores of others) are right when they argue that illegal filesharing increases exposure to new artists, which will in turn lead to future financial support (buying albums, attending concerts, etc.). However, that is not relevant because it’s just not their decision to make. The decision rests solely with the parties who have ownership of the property (usually some combination of artists and record companies). You can’t just take over someone’s business and make the argument to him that you’ll do a better job promoting it, whether you would or not.

I could almost see the reasoning behind that if a person listened to the illegal music once and immediately tossed it either because they didn’t like it or because they were going to purchase it. But, let’s be honest, most people don’t do that. I think that argument is particularly weak considering every artist has a sample of songs on their website or myspace page. It’s not as if you really have to illegally download songs to get an idea of what the artist is producing.

A couple of weeks ago I spent some time with a couple of friends in Austin, TX. These (married) folks are musicians who have enjoyed a successful songwriting career. Out of their own experiences, lives, emotions, thoughts, etc., they have written a handful of songs that have been performed and made pretty darn famous by popular singers/bands. They worked tirelessly on their craft with blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice and made it, but not to the point of being wealthy.

Unfortunately, when illegal filesharing became commonplace 10 or so years ago, their royalty checks got exponentially smaller and they had to do other things to supplement their income. One area that they are now going to have to pinch pennies in is health care. Due to the rising cost of it (another subject) and their lowered income as a result of people stealing music, they are now canceling their policy and hoping for the best.

Apart from the whole idea of chopping someone’s personal pains, joys, emotions and thoughts up and doing something artistically with it the creator doesn’t approve of, illegal filesharing does have real life consequences for people.

I’m not a filesharing Nazi and don’t preach about it, but because it has come up in conversations with several folks lately I thought I’d put my thoughts on the record. The bottom line for me is this: if the creators and owners don’t have a problem with it, then I don’t. If they do, it shouldn’t be done. It is stealing and there’s no legal (or even logical) way around it.

(/soapbox)

Matthew 25 awareness…

Here are a couple of things that friends have asked me to let folks know about.

First, a friend and fellow Eikon Church person has helped take the lead in SOAR Network, which is a “growing network of Agencies, congregations, businesses and individuals in the Central Arkansas Area that are coming together to share information, ideas, and resources to help the homeless in our area.”

Second, a great friend has started Prayers for Rob, a Facebook page dedicated to Robert Fredrickson. Mr. Fredrickson is currently incarcerated and awaiting trial in Conway, AR on a number of charges. Have a read and let me know if you have any questions you’d like for me to pass along.

Jason & Jesse’s Rule 37 hearing update

(This is copied verbatim from my friend Holly Ballard’s Facebook note. She is in the courtroom writing. It will be up on Arkansas Take Action’s site in a bit.)

I left the last round of hearings encouraged by the brilliance of the defense witnesses, sometimes darkly humored by their demonstration of the ridiculous legal proceedings masquerading as justice in this case. However, driving up last night, I began to dread the twisted grasping by the prosecution as it would try to resurrect an unfounded and unconscionable case. So far, it turns out those fears were unfounded. All the prosecution has managed to do is rehash the search that led to the bodies, making a feeble attempt to “prove” that no animals were present at the crime scene. Defense attorneys Blake Hendrix and Michael Burt fairly easily rebutted this testimony. I’d say this has actually been one of the most anticlimactic days in court so far, but it’ll be in the news again, which is almost as important as any bearing it will have on Burnett’s decision.

First witness: Mike Allen

Allen is currently the Asst. Chief of the West Memphis Police Department and was a sergeant in 1993. Testimony began by Allen describing aerial photographs of the area surrounding the “10-Mile Bayou,” the drainage ditch where the boys’ bodies were found. Allen testified that in the process of retrieving a tennis shoe that had been earlier spotted floating in the water, he fell in. He was knee- to thigh-deep in the water when he felt with his leg something in the water. When he lifted his leg, he discovered the first body (Michael Moore), which had not been visible and “kind of floated to the top.” He testified that the water was not totally stagnant but was not moving very fast, that the bottom felt “kind of mucky,” and that he did not see any animals in the woods nor any type of aquatic life in the ditch. When the body surfaced, he backed out of the water and stood on the bank until other investigators arrived on the scene. Detective Bryn Ridge then searched downstream and located the two other bodies. As far as security is concerned, Allen testified that the crime scene was roped off with tape and a log was kept of everyone who entered the crime scene. The bodies were removed from the water and placed on the bank. Detective Ridge found clothing pinned to the bottom of the ditch with sticks. The ditch was sandbagged and the water was pumped over the sandbags. Again, Holt asked Allen if he noticed any aquatic wildlife during the pumping process or that remained after the pumping was complete. Here’s where I chime in on this issue: ever seen a kid chasing tadpoles? I’d think any five-year-old could tell you that if you stir up water in a creek, wildlife scatter, which Hendrix later pointed out on redirect. Besides that, Allen testified that the floating shoe was the “furthest thing from his mind” after the bodies were found. True, they searched the ditch bed for 6 or 7 hours for evidence (weapons, etc.), but were they focused on looking for turtles, tadpoles, etc.? Would they have noticed if they’d been there? He also testified that the mosquitoes either were not present or he didn’t notice them. Any Arkansan will tell you it had to have been the latter. (Later, following Hendrix’s cross-examination noted below, Jessie’s attorney Michael Burt took and drove these points home. He asked Allen if he was aware that Ridge had been on the scene that morning, I think I heard on a three-wheeler, obviously scaring away animals. Allen testified that it did occur to him that poisonous snakes and other dangerous animals might be in the water, but that he didn’t notice these or any turtles, etc., on the surface of the water. Burt again pointed out that Allen wouldn’t have been able to see to the bottom of the water.)

Once Holt rested, Defense Attorney Blake Hendrix picked up to cross-examine, at which point Allen’s memory suddenly began to fail. I wish I had a dollar for every, “That I don’t recall.” Allen testified that three other people were there when he arrived, but he was the first person to actually get into the water and the only person to do so that day. (At least, that’s what I understood, but maybe I was mistaken because later he testified that it was Ridge who found the last two bodies.) Allen actually fell in the first time he attempted to reach the shoe and then crossed over the ditch and entered the water again. Hendrix pointed out the splash that falling in would have made, and the fact that if the water was murky enough not to be able to see a body, they wouldn’t have been able to see marine life either. Allen testified that he couldn’t say whether, by 1993, he’d had any training in child homicides, and said that he had not had any training regarding bodies found in water. Regarding Ridge’s methods, all Allen could say was that Ridge found the bodies by starting upstream and wading in the water. Hendrix eventually got Allen to concede that all this movement could plausibly have scared any marine life away. Hendrix then asked a pointed question: was Allen aware that animal hairs were found on the bodies? All Allen could say was a quiet, “No sir.” After Burt’s cross and Holt’s redirect, Allen stepped down.

So, although testimony was relatively tame, there were a few surprises. I was surprised, for example, to see Pam Hobbs in the courtroom today, since I hadn’t seen her here before (though she’s been openly supporting the WM3 for a while now). I spoke with her briefly during lunch recess, and she said she was here to request a chance to speak in court. She hopes to tell the court that this case was a rush to judgment, and to consider this new evidence rather than the scant circumstantial evidence presented in 1994. I expressed to her how impressed I am with her courage, and I think I speak for all of us in telling her that I hope for justice for her son as well as for the West Memphis 3. As I left the courtroom, she was speaking to Cecilea Pond-Mayo from Channel 4, and I believe 7 and 11 were filming as well.) I was also surprised not to see John Mark Byers, and more surprised still that I was able to win a staring contest with Judge Burnett (not so much because I won, but because he had his eyes open at all). Also, I just overheard that a suited gentleman I’ve been wondering about all morning is a representative from Attorney General’s office. (For those of you who don’t know, Dustin McDaniel is notoriously unsupportive of this case and is connected to those who helped convict the WM3 in the first place.)

Right before they kicked me out of the courtroom, I overheard Holt say that Bryn Ridge was bringing him something, so I’ll be interested to see what comes out after recess. I actually passed Ridge getting into the elevator, and I hear Peretti is waiting in the wings to testify. It’s so bizarre seeing these people face to face after all this time.

Recess has ended, and the prosecution is carrying in several blown up maps and photos. I’ll update again at the next recess or after the hearings end today.

The People Speak

I recently repurchased Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States; it had been some time since I had read it. The latest edition runs from 1492-the 2000 election, so it touches on events throughout our history.

For those not familiar, the various chapters of the book are told from the perspectives of the least among society during that time or event. For example, it talks not of Columbus’ triumphant arrival in the New World, but of the natives of Hispaniola and other islands who were enslaved, starved, gruesomely murdered, literally worked to death, etc. (often in the name of Christianity) once he and his men came ashore. He explains the history of slavery from the perspective of slaves, labor history from the perspective of those taken advantage of, civil rights from the perspective of African-Americans, etc. He gets into the nitty gritty that most people and history books gloss over, mischaracterize or outright lie about and in doing so he provides some small degree of justice for them.

Zinn tells a difficult and moving side of American history that needs to not only be told, but taught to students. Unfortunately, Zinn’s politics and globalist views often cause people to discount all of his writings. He is very much to the extreme left politically and even describes himself as an anarchist. So while he is way to the left of me and most Americans, I think it takes a certain degree of intellectual immaturity to not be able to appreciate his contributions to the U.S. history discussion based on his political leanings.

Some Zinn supporters fail to understand that he sometimes frames things in ways that are unfairly critical because it suits his point of view to do so. For example, he is highly critical of Bill Clinton and that leads him to cast a pall on his 1992 election. He states, “with 45% of the voting population staying away from the polls, he (Clinton) only received 43% of the vote.” While factually accurate, that sounds a little more depressing than saying Americans voted in a higher percentage (55%) than they had since 1972—which they did—and that Clinton had to best two pretty popular opponents (he does note that Perot got 19%). He also fails to note the election was an electoral landslide (Clinton 370-Bush 168), which I find a little strange since that’s how we elect presidents. Perhaps it didn’t fit his theme. Additionally, he sometimes places editorial comments in the middle of historical facts. This is both a pro and a con, imo.

Despite my critiques, I really appreciate his contributions. And knowing what I know about him, the last thing he would want is for people to study his work without a critical eye. I am happy to say that many of the voices in his books will be brought to life by Matt Damon, Marisa Tomei, Morgan Freeman and other talented actors in the History Channel’s presentation of The People Speak. Air date is TBD, but it should be sometime very soon. Here’s the promo:

2 prestigious legal groups support new trial for Damien Echols

For Immediate Release

NATIONAL LEGAL GROUPS ASK ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT TO GRANT DAMIEN ECHOLS NEW TRIAL

Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Cite “Confession” and Juror Misconduct in Amicus Brief

(Little RockAR, September 17, 2009) – The Arkansas Supreme Court today received the completed appeal from Damien Echols requesting the court overturn the lower court’s decision and grant him a new trial based upon new DNA and forensic evidence, as well as recently uncovered evidence of shocking juror misconduct that took place during the original trial.

Two prominent national legal organizations jointly presented an Amicus Curiae brief to the court asking the justices to set aside Echols’ conviction, citing the original jury’s violation of the constitution and the judge’s instructions by openly discussing and considering Jessie Misskelley’s false confession during the trial. The “confession,” which was barred from the Echols trial because Jessie had immediately recanted and refused to testify against Damien and Jason Baldwin, was nevertheless purposefully introduced to the jury by Kent Arnold, the jury foreman, who admitted that he was trying to convince other jurors to convict based upon news reports of the so-called confession.

“Compounding the jury foreman’s misconduct is the fact that the Misskelley confession is highly unreliable,” said Steven Drizin, Legal Director of Northwestern University School of Law’s renowned Center on Wrongful Convictions, who co-authored the amicus brief. “Juveniles and the mentally retarded are much more likely than adults to falsely confess when pressured by police, and Misskelley’s confession bears all of the hallmark traits of a false confession.”

According to the amicus brief, “It is now known that Echols’ jury violated the constitution and the judge’s instructions by discussing Misskelley’s confession during deliberations, not long after one juror told his attorney that he was growing frustrated by the State’s weak collection of circumstantial evidence and that if prosecutors did not present something powerful soon, it would be up to him to secure a conviction.” (see www.Freewestmemphis3.org)

“Echols’ conviction and death sentence have been gravely tainted by the jury’s improper consideration of the extraordinarily prejudicial – and extraordinarily unreliable -confession of Jessie Misskelley. If any reasonable juror were confronted today with evidence of the Misskelley confession’s unreliability, along with the petitioner’s DNA evidence that excludes Echols as a source, he would surely conclude that Echols is not guilty. Accordingly, Amici hereby request this Court to grant petitioner Damien Echols a new trial. Failure to do so could bring about a terrible injustice: the execution of an innocent man.”

Crime Scene DNA Does Not Match Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley

In addition to the juror misconduct and Misskelley’s false confession, new evidence presented to the court includes DNA and forensic findings that link others to the crime scene. Dozens of pieces of evidence found at the crime scene conclusively show that no DNA from the murders matches Echols or the other two men. DNA testing, however, links Terry Hobbs, stepfather of one of the murdered children, to the crime scene. A hair found in the knot used to bind the victims matches Terry Hobbs. DNA testing linking Hobbsto the crime scene was not available at the time of the trial.

Scientific evidence from the nation’s leading forensic experts also demonstrates that most of the wounds on the victims were caused by animals at the crime scene, after their deaths – not by knives used by the perpetrators, as the prosecution claimed and was the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case. Moreover, evidence presented that a knife recovered from a lake near one defendant’s home caused the wounds was completely discredited by the pathologists. As well, these forensic scientists deemed the testimony of a jailhouse informant and a faux “expert” who testified that the knife wounds were part of a satanic ritual, incredulous.

Unprecedented Legal Support

The Center on Wrongful Convictions Youth (CWCY) is part of Northwestern University School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic and is a joint project of two of the Clinic’s highly acclaimed Centers: the Children and Family JusticeCenterand the Center on Wrongful Convictions. The CWCY’s unique mission is to uncover and remedy wrongful convictions of youth, as well as to promote public awareness and support for nationwide initiatives – such as efforts to reform juvenile interrogation techniques – aimed at reducing the frequency of wrongful convictions.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is a non-profit organization with a national membership of over 12,000 attorneys. Its membership also includes more than 35,000 affiliate members from 50 states, including private criminal defense lawyers and public defenders, as well as former U.S.attorneys, prosecutors and judges. One of the NACDL’s critical missions is to ensure justice and due process for the accused, and seeks to promote the proper and constitutional administration of justice, and to that end concerns itself with the protection of individual rights. NACDL routinely files amicus curiae briefs on various issues in the United States Supreme Court as well as other federal and state appellate courts.

Steven A. Drizin and Laura H. Nirider from the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Northwestern University School of Law, and Barbara Bergman, Co-chair Amicus Committee, of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, submitted the amicus curiae brief. Drizin, who has studied hundreds of false confessions and recently co-edited a new book, entitled “True Stories of False Confessions” filed on behalf of a new project he founded – the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth (CWCY). The CWCY, the sole organization in the country dedicated to exonerating youth who were convicted of crimes they did not commit, felt compelled to submit an amicus curiae brief after learning that Misskelley’s confession was used to convict Echols.

The Arkansas Supreme Court is expected to hold oral arguments in Echols’ request for a new trial this fall. Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley’s hearing for a new trial in Jonesboro, before Judge David Burnett, resumes October 1.

What this blog ain’t

So right when I was starting to get into (and enjoying) the discipline of blogging, I started receiving some unwanted attention from over-zealous political hounds. So, let me state–again–that none of my social media activity (Blog, Facebook, Twitter) in any way reflects the views of my boss. I do not blog as a congressional staffer, so there will never be any breaking news, inside scoop, scuttlebutt, etc. about my job or who I work for.

I love the bloggers who exist to break political news. I think they offer an invaluable service and I admire the non-bombthrower variety a great deal. But, that ain’t me and it ain’t this blog (yes, I know that ain’t proper English). So, y’all can stop with direct messages, etc. sniffing around about it. Please respect that.

These are just my musings, points of view, ramblings, conversations, etc. I expect there will be a good dose of information about what’s going on at Eikon Church and there may be times when I speak for the church on this blog, but that’s just because I don’t fear my pastor enough to worry about the consequences there.

With that said, I hope to get back to enjoying and getting better at this whole thing.

Difference between Obama and Bush

Simply put, W. is a panderer and Obama is a stand-up guy no matter the setting. You want proof? I have it in photos. A few years ago, Pres. Bush went to St. Louis to throw out the first pitch for a Cardinals game. As a die-hard Cardinals fan and noted critic of Bush, the photo to the left pains me. However, I’m willing to offer it as proof. Everybody knows that W is a Rangers fan, yet he pandered by decking himself out in Cards gear.

Now, let’s contrast this with Obama. Last night he walked up into the same Busch Stadium in the same swing state in front of largely the same Cardinals crowd. Instead, he was man enough to stand in front of them in the gear of his favorite team, the White Sox. Honesty. Integrity.

(lighten up people)

What do we do with Doretta?

I’m a huge fan of the book and movie Dead Man Walking because it asks not if an innocent man should be executed—that one is easy—but if a guilty man should be. It asks the question after the criminal is humanized and his life is contextualized. That is the spirit of this post. What do you do with a person who meets every negative stereotype imaginable?

Last week Shannon and I met Doretta, a homeless lady who sleeps in Allsopp Park. When Shannon first asked her if she needed anything, Doretta asked for dairy products, an obvious sign of a distressed digestive system. She then needed quarters, ostensibly for the payphone at Kroger. She produced an appointment card, which was marked for an appointment that had already been missed at the state hospital; Shannon called only to have someone tell her to call back on Monday. We offered for her to take a shower at the house and have a meal. She said she would do it another day. I made some calls, found an all-female shelter that would take her in, and then offered to drive her. She refused because she didn’t want to detox.

We left Doretta there in the park to go to a neighborhood ice cream/live music shindig on Kavanaugh in Hillcrest. An hour later Doretta was at the local liquor store purchasing her fix, most likely partially with the funds that we provided. We returned from a couple days out of town to find Doretta sitting on our front steps; it was clear that she had no memory of us. She was afraid that we were coming outside to remove her from our property. She told us that she was waiting for the bus to take her to the other side of town because the folks in Hillcrest were judgmental of her, but those on the other side of the tracks (i.e. I630) weren’t.

She also told us that she had called a local detox and rehab center and learned she could come there and stay if she met certain criteria, which she most likely met. I offered to drive her, but she said she needed some time to get her courage up. (She said she’d be back on Wednesday for the ride). We offered numerous other things, but she refused. Instead she hemmed and hawed trying to get out of the conversation. She was admittedly desperate and enslaved to the disease alcoholism; it is her god and has led her to a life of homelessness and desperation.

People in the throes of a disease like that have a great ability to BS. But, weeding through her BS, we could piece together part of her life. She is a comely person who was a stay-at-home mom with no professional skills. Her husband and father died suddenly and nearly simultaneously, leaving her with nothing. Her plan for her life wasn’t to be sleeping in Allsopp Park, with her legs bleeding from insect bites, carrying Vodka in a water bottle and repulsing the society around her.

The questions that have been on my mind are many. What should a civilized, rich society do for people like her? People who know they need help, but refuse it when it gets too real. What should folks who profess Christianity do for her? Did Shannon and I do enough, or did we get just to the point of Doretta not being too much of an inconvenience for us? I don’t know, and it bothers me.