Don't say you're moving to Canada, don't say you're moving to Canada...

I generally hate those people who say things like "If [fill in the blank politician] wins, I'm moving to Canada" because 1. they never follow through and they're usually the kind of people whose move you would welcome; and 2. Canada? That's saying nothing about their conviction.  It's a great country with better healthcare, cleaner air, better schools and a more logical system of government.  It's probably a move we should all make anyway.  Now if someone said, "If [whoever] wins I'm moving to Zimbabwe" - there's real commitment.  They really hate that candidate.
However, these words almost passed my lips last night, as I sat watching the first (real) Republican debate on CNN.   My roommates got to see me at my most ridiculous: yelling, rocking myself, babbling, grabbing my hair.  It's more or less how I imagine getting through my twilight years.  Only less cursing.
But before I discuss the many, many thoughts I had on this topic, let me talk about one place I went in the last week, which will actually end up connecting.  I'm pretty sure.
Last week I went to happy hour with a good friend of mine from my grad program.  She is one of the only Republicans, and she reminds me so so much of Ainsley Hayes. She's blond, she's adorable, she's uber-conservative, she is wicked smart.  (One of my favourite West Wing scenes of all time: Ainsley arguing against the ERA).  Anyway, we went to Nooshi, this great sushi place in Dupont Circle, and I highly recommend it.  I had a "white peach bellini".  I like my alcohol to be juice with nice after-effects.
We talked a lot about her job - she's an intern in the senate - and Weinergate and, of course, the Republican primary.  (See what I did there?)
Of course, at that point the debate hadn't happened yet and so obviously my opinions have changed drastically since then.  I sometimes wonder if anyone's mind gets changed by these debates.  After all, if you like a candidate they either "showed their true merit" or "had a bad performance".  And if you dislike them, you come up with equal excuses for a good performance - softball questions, empty rhetoric, etc.  But then, I tend to hang around people with strong opinions, so what do I know.
The one overarching thing I did learn from this debate is why all my favourite Republicans are Republicans with a lot of caveats and qualms.  In other words, I learned why the Republican party has abandoned its people.
First of all, read this article.
If you did not read that article, then let me summarize for you.  Essentially, conservatism is supposed to be rooted in realism - in the belief that you must capitalize on what reality tells us people will do in certain situations, rather than what, ideally, we would like them to do.  We limit government not because government is inherently evil, but because we have seen that leaders, left to their own devices, will seize more and more power.  The current Republican party is based purely on ideology - we cut taxes because we're supposed to cut taxes, even though we see in historical evidence that it has led to massive deficits and does not help spur economic recovery.  In debating healthcare, the Affordable Care Act was just wrong even though the final CBO numbers said it would reduce the deficit by $140 billion over the next ten years, and approximately .5% of GDP in the ten years after that.  Repealing  the PPACA would increase the deficit by $210 billion.
On Monday night, we saw seven people spewing ideology and ignoring facts.  What I found most distressing was the lack of will to correct each other.  Bachmann made so many idiotic self-contradictions (somehow Obama simultaneously led from behind on Libya AND acted too quickly!  Amazing!  In addition, she would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman BUT would not overturn state laws!  A totally new constitution!) and yet no one said anything.  I understand they were all following Reagan's 11th Commandment, but there is no respect for true facts versus spin, in a way that I don't believe is true across the aisle.  When the health care debate was taking place, you did not see every single Democrat supporting the legislation whole-heartedly.  You did see every single Republican vote no, even though the bill had many of the same elements as were put forward by Republicans in the 1990's - an individual mandate, government-sponsored exchanges, etc.  They stopped voting on logic and started voting on ideology and party biases.  In the debate, the candidates were asked if they could think of a single thing Obama had done that they liked or agreed with.  No one could say anything.  That's either stupidity or intellectual dishonesty.  I may have disliked W severely, but if someone asked me if there is anything he did of which I approved, I could come up with something.  Because in a real, nuanced debate that is based in reality and not on partisan grounds, we all agree in some places and disagree in others.


Apart from the disregard for the facts, we also saw on Monday night that the Republican party truly is captive to its far right constituents.  Now, to be fair, the reason Democrats don't have the same issue with the left is not because they are smarter, better people.  As is true for most of these other issues.  Kidding.  Sort of.  Democrats don't have the same issues because we are just a more right-leaning country.  Thank you, American Spirit of Individualism.
But when a very smart voter in the audience said, (paraphrasing) "I'm a moderate Republican, and you kind of need us to win, and we're scared that you're too captive to the tea party, so how are you going to win us back?" the response was essentially, "Don't worry, you'll grow to like the tea party and they're not that extreme anyway".  (You can look at the transcript here - the question comes in about a quarter of the way down.)  That is a terrifying answer.  The Tea Party is a nonsense, illogical organization that uses its status as kind-of-a-party-kind-of-not in an inconsistent and frustrating way, and they bring nothing but useless anger and a distrust of government as a whole to the table.  It is disappointing that none of the candidates seem to want to separate themselves, especially since, from a purely political point of view, they don't need to pander.  Those people are not voting for Obama anyway.
The thing is, I'm usually all in favour of saying both parties are just as bad as each other, etc, etc.  But I don't buy that anymore.  I think debate on the left is more rigorous, more based in fact, more honest.  Someone prove me wrong.


On a side note, the opening remarks by the candidates on Monday were hilarious.  In the contest of who has the most children, this was essentially the exchange (again, paraphrasing):
Santorum: 7
Bachmann: 5 children...oh yeah, and TWENTY THREE foster children.  Bam.
Gingrich: Wait I'm supposed to talk about children?
Romney: 5 sons, 5 daughters-in-law and 16 grandchildren.  (Biological ones count for more)
and my favourite, Paul: Oh we want to talk about children?  Yeah well I delivered 4000 babies.  Take that, bitches.

Multi-faceted

Well obviously about a week after saying that I would write about politics, I am going to not write about politics.  If you've ever heard me discuss the history of my career plans, made a date with me for any time not five minutes in the future or been with me in a kitchen while I bake, this will not surprise you.  It's not that I'm flaky or flippant about any of my endeavors.  I'm just really, really interested in a lot of things and I get distracted.  I had to swear of Wikipedia for any kind of preliminary paper research , not because of admonitions from professors that it isn't accurate or scholarly (professors of the world, it is time to stop having principles about Wikipedia...all your students use it. Get over it.) but because it would zap hours upon hours of my life.  I learned lots of things about lots of subjects - for example, did you know that your Hebrew name does not actually need to be Hebrew?  Since ancient times the Jews have borrowed names from lots of other languages.  I learned this while writing a paper on Invisible Man.
Anyway, I will not be writing about politics; I will be writing about my neighbourhood and a news story that's been haunting me since one of my TFA friends posted it on their facebook last night.
So let's start with a look at the bright side of life, before I move to one of the most depressing things you will read all day.

I love my neighbourhood.  I live in the SW quadrant of DC and it is a dynamic, diverse section of the city.  We recently opened The Arena Stage, which is doing a fantastic play right now called "Ruined" about a brothel in Rwanda during the genocide.  We have a pretty new Safeway with its own sushi bar.  By the way, when choosing an apartment, sight unseen, from California, this was a major draw.  Not the sushi bar.  Just the Safeway.  We have fun events like the 7th Street Landing, which features a farmer's market and live bands and beer and wine tasting.  At the most recent one, I was struck by how many different kinds of people were present - not just racially, but also students and elderly couples and young families.  All different socio-economic classes were represented.  In a city like DC, with its stark SES/racial/everything divides, this is a true feat.  But I think the thing I love most about our quadrant is its underdog status.  I still get this look of sympathy whenever I tell people where I live.  "Below the mall, you say?  They have houses there?  Oh..."  The thing is, I never correct them.  I am happy for everyone to keep thinking there is nothing here - I will maintain my low rent and the distinct lack of tourists and ability to get a table at a bar on the waterfront at the height of happy hour, thank you very much.  Judge away. 
Side note: part of my enthusiasm for this underdoggery comes from watching a neighbourhood that I moved into in Brooklyn go from livable-on-a-teacher's-wage and diverse and relatively quiet and safe to a haven for hipsters, complete with outrageous prices and lines for every single restaurant and unicycles tied to trees, in the space of about six months.  Goodbye, Prospect Heights.  It was fun while it lasted.

Ok, and now for a nice little dose of depression.  In case anyone reading this doesn't know me, I taught in Newark with Teach for America, and thanks to the wonders of Facebook, I still get to keep in touch with many of my colleagues.  One of them now works at a charter school up there, and posted this story.  I can't imagine how those poor little children will ever recover.  I can't imagine ever being able to trust another human being again.  But of course, children are amazingly resilient and I hope that the city gives them the needed resources to get back to a normal life.
But that's not the point of posting that story.  The point is this: the Bible says some crazy things.  It says to take daughters who disobey out to the city gates and stone them.  Doesn't like braids or make-up, etc.  Tells lots of people they will die in fiery pits.  It is strongly anti-fig.  And yet anyone who has spent time in a halfway decent church or knows my dad knows that this is not what Christianity is all about.  It is about loving your neighbour, taking care of one another, keeping the peace, talking to God about things as much as possible.  This crazy man who is using Christianity and Christ as some kind of a shield for his inexcusable actions is insane.  He can probably quote verses at you to justify what he did,  but that doesn't change the fact that he in no way representative of the religion as a whole.  I think most people get that.
The Qu'ran says some crazy things.  It says to get rid of infidels.  Wants us to stone daughters who disobey (hey look, a place for compromise!).   Doesn't like the Jews too much.  And yet anyone who has spent time around Muslims knows this is not what Islam is all about.  It is about loving your neighbour, taking care of one another, keeping the peace, talking to God about things as much as possible.  Those crazy people who use Islam as some kind of shield for their inexcusable actions are insane.  They can probably quote verses at you to justify what they did, but that doesn't change the fact they are in no way representative of the religion as a whole.  I think most people...sigh.

A confluence of thoughts

When I was teaching, I used to only be able to listen to music on the train to and from work.  Audiobooks, podcasts, etc., stressed me out because my job drained every last iota of energy from my body and I couldn't process anyone else talking to me, even if it was just my own headphones.  Bad side effect: there are bands I love, whom I can no longer listen to because they make my chest tighten.  I am instantly transported back to that PATH train on my way to Newark and I want to just get in a cab to the airport and leave and never come back.

But this is no longer the case.  My job no longer zaps the will to live out of me, so I can listen to podcasts (as this is obviously the main purpose of life, no?).  And boy do I listen to podcasts.

My current podcast roll:

Slate Political Gabfest

Slate Culture Gabfest

Slate Spoiler Special Podcast

Hang Up and Listen (Slate's sports podcast)

Manners in the Digital Age (also by Slate...yes, I will read/listen to/worship anything they create)

This American Life

Wait Wait Don't Tell Me

Start The Week

NPR's Intelligence Squared

The Week Ahead (an Economist podcast)

And my current favourite: The History of The World in 100 Objects

I listen to these when I walk to work, walk to school, walk to a bookstore, walk for funsies, sit on a bus, sit on a train, etc., and I always feel like a better person for it.  Or at least like I can make a decent conversation with more people.

But the point of all this is to say that the most recent podcast I listened to was an episode of AHOW on an "early writing tablet" from Mesopotamia (#15 in the series) that shows how much a worker was to be paid in rations of beer.  I think I know a few of my classmates who would happily convert to such a payment system.  But anyway, this is one of the earliest known examples of writing, so the series took the opportunity to talk about how the ability to write did more than just open up worlds of literature - it allowed for more complex mathematics, philosophy, science, and perhaps more importantly, it allowed for a system of government.  You could write down how much people were owed and how they should be paid and suddenly, some people had power and others did not and it was not based on whether or not they could hit you harder with a big stick.  So obviously my mind flew to educational inequity.  And actually it flew there from two different directions.

1. I am no luddite.  I love technology (if you couldn't tell from my podcast obsession) and my mother taught me to value "whole new concepts", successful or not - we had many As Seen on TV products in our home.  My favourite was the "Buttoneer", a thing that was supposed to attach buttons for you without involving any sewing, an activity that gives my mom anxiety.  In reality, it managed to take one of the easiest tasks of all time and turn it into an overly-complicated process of plastic fasteners and hole-alignment.  It also might have been my favourite because obviously it was buy one get one free, so we had one that I believe to this day is sitting in its plastic casing in a junk drawer somewhere in my parents' house.  But goodness I have gone off topic.  The point is, I love technology and think the internet is just fabulous and that technology should be integrated into every classroom.  But I can't help but wonder, if writing in the first place was what opened up whole new worlds of complex thought, does dumbed-down writing produce dumbed-down thought?  I think it does.  And this worries me because, truth be told, suburban school are still, for the most part, producing kids who may have terrible grammar in their text messages, but they can put together an essay.  High poverty schools are not.  There was an attitude at my school in Newark that grammar and spelling etc were going going by the wayside anyway because of technological advancement (in 5 years we'll be doing state testing on computers! they'd say) so let's not focus on that.  

But the thing is (and skip ahead if you get scared of a high levels of grammar nerdiness) a complex sentence is more than the sum of its parts.  It shows an ability to see relationships between clauses - things depend on other things, semicolons serve different functions than colons and represent different levels of importance for different parts of the sentence.  Knowing how to use an adjective versus an adverb and hearing the beauty of a well-crafted description shows an understanding and respect for language that just can't be conveyed in words that are half numbers and half letters.

So when we give up on teaching kids to spell because they'll use spellcheck anyway and we give up on anything more than basic grammar because language is constantly morphing anyway, I worry that we are giving up on complex thought for those kids.

2. Which brings me to direction #2 of my brain-plane.  (I wrote train originally, and then realized I had written "flew" before, so that didn't make sense.  See, someone along the way taught me to be consistent in my metaphors.)

Republicans make no sense to me.  Granted, this is a thought that pretty much goes through my head all the time anyway, regardless of brain-planes, but this time it was tied to a specific context.  They complain about rampant entitlement spending.  About "welfare queens" and "victim mentality".  And yes, we do spend over 60% of our budget on entitlements.  Note: a huge portion of this is on Social Security and Medicare, most of which goes to white, older Americans, most of whom vote overwhelmingly Republican.  But I digress.  We do also have issues with welfare system abuse and fraud, and lots of people think of themselves as victims, I'm sure.

So how do you make that go away?  You empower people.  How do you empower people?  Through education.  Who wants to slash funding for education in inner-cities and at failing schools that most need it? Oh wait.

I don't see how out of one side of your mouth you complain that people are not taking enough personal responsibility, and then out of the other, deny the resources to move people out of a state of perpetual dependency.  My kids, and I loved them to death and will never stop calling them "mine", are screwed.  I tried to help, of course, but almost all of them will graduate with almost no reading, writing or mathematical skills.  In other words, we are guaranteeing that they will have no choice but to be told how much they're owed and how they'll be paid, and some people will have power and others will not, and it's still not based on whether or not you can hit someone with a big stick.  This time it's just based on your school district.

In related news, my peregrination: for Memorial Day weekend, I went to the Maryland version of the Jersey Shore.  Ocean City was pretty fantastic - I got a great tan and ate some delicious crab.  But after a weekend of these kinds of sightings, I think you see the obvious connection to lack of complex thoughts and beer rations.