Work Overload and Genetic Fatalism

I want to apologize now for any complaining I've done in the past about being too busy at work.  Or too bored, for that matter.  Either way, I had no idea what "busy" meant.  Nobody does "busy" like the US Senate.  Yesterday I stood on my feet and wrote memos and took notes and made folders and ran bills and amendments around like a crazy person for 10 straight hours.  And I was the first person in my office to leave (I've never been so grateful for class).

And all so a bill to rewrite No Child Left Behind could go to committee markup the next day so it could not pass.

You're welcome, tax payers.

While I would love to talk about all the things that made my life hellish yesterday, this is in fact the highest level of detail I can go into.  Maybe I'll come back and edit this post after everything goes public.  Suffice it to say, if I didn't hate Senate Republicans before, I sure do now.

A huge part of my job for the past few weeks in preparing for this markup process has been to get intimately familiar with the old NCLB and the '65 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB's predecessor).  In an interesting (and nerdy) parallel, I've also been watching Ken Burns' new documentary Prohibition on PBS, and it seemed like that particular amendment went through a checklist of bad legislative traits.

• Good intentions, not well thought-out
• No plan for implementation
• Overly strict and unrealistic goals
• Started off with broad public support, but no one wanted those standards actually applied to them
• Huge demands placed on states with little to no funds for support
• Stifled public debate, in part because of its good intentions

Sound familiar?  It did to me.

As for somewhere I've been recently, we hosted another seasonal brunch this past Sunday at our house.  It was lovely, and we had a great turnout and amazing food.  I stole a recipe for sweet potato hummus from my aunt and one for pumpkin rice pudding from a friend from undergrad who writes that blog.  Don't spend too much time looking around that blog though...the degree to which her whole life is put together and adorable will depress you.  Anyway, I made both of those things, along with a loaf of french bread to accompany my roommate's Bacon Bourbon Jam, and it was a hit.

So now for the genetic fatalism.

We decided, before this brunch started, that we were determined to have a minimum amount of leftovers after this shindig.  So we bought ziploc baggies and and containers in advance to hand out to guests as they left, with the idea that they could load up on some leftovers and reduce our burden.  People were annoyingly resistent.  I took it upon myself to be the pusher.

"That bag is hardly full."

"You barely ate anything!  You'll starve on the way home."

"This is how you repay us for hosting you."

"Who doesn't need a few scones for the road?"

If someone had brought me a shawl and some orthopedic shoes, I would have officially become my Jewish grandmother.  It's a good thing nobody in the room owed me a phone call.

Stealing from Myself

I'm required to blog weekly for my Ethics class, so usually those are short and not very interesting.  However, this is what I posted this week, and it's a little longer and better.  So I'm reposting it.

I don’t know if anyone else likes podcasts at all, or Slate.com, but if you like either, you should listen to their “Political Gabfest” podcast.  It’s one of my favourites.  Anyway, a point they’ve made several times on their show is that campaigns and primaries have the perverse effect of narrowing the field down to egomaniacs who either have extreme ideologies or are willing to lie and say they do for a while – either way, not a desirable candidate.

When I was reading the Warwick piece and got to the end bit about central ethical principles we should want to see public servants possess, I found myself thinking about that podcast and that particular point.  Campaigns and primaries do seem like a great way to weed out all five of those ethical principles.

-Public Orientation: you have to have money to run a campaign.  You have to say things that please interest groups to get money.  Having a general “public interest”, unfortunately, just won’t win you the money you need.

-Reflective choice: especially during primaries, there are just certain values we demand our candidates say, whether they actually believe them or not.  I’m thinking specifically of how Romney recently had to run away from his own health care policies.

-Veracity: fudging, stretching and otherwise distorting the truth is a fundamental part of campaigns.  While of course ideally a candidate should be able to present facts fully and honestly, I know from my own campaign work that omissions and distortions are presented to campaign staff as serving the higher good of election, and thus acceptable.  I’m sure they’re presented the same way to the candidate.

-Procedural Respect: especially in our current climate, you are not going to get elected saying that “Washington has its flaws, but the institutions are there for a reason so I’ll probably keep most of those in place.”

-Restraint of means: 1. Campaigns spend like crazy, and more money is always, always better; and 2. Campaigns are not won with small, reasonable promises.  They are won with big, sweeping, expensive promises of change.  Even promises to cut spending all over the place are not tempered and do not reflect a thoughtful restraint of means.

Finally. I know.

[Insert apologies here].  However, I genuinely had nothing interesting to say.  At least I can recognize that in myself and act accordingly, right?  I feel like if every 24-hour news network had this same trait...there would be a lot of dead air.  Now I'm just imagining TJ Holmes standing there saying "Yeah, not a whole lot today.  Don't want to just rehash exactly what I said yesterday.  So I'm going to write my grandmother.  You should, too.  Probably a better use of time."  Notice my Jew-guilt coming out.

Somewhere I've been this week: Shophouse in Dupont Circle.  It was started by the Chipotle folks, but it's the Southeast Asian version.  These are super popular around here - we have an Indian Chipotle, a Mediterranean Chipotle, a Japanese Chipotle.  Of course, none of these are actually from Chipotle themselves, but it's the same basic idea.  Anyway, Shophouse was surprisingly delicious!  I mean, you have to approach these things with the same mindset as you do Chipotle - it is not meant for real, authentic Mexican, it's meant for an enormous burrito that likely shortens your life by a couple years, but makes it much more enjoyable.  In that spirit, I got a pork and chicken meatball bahn mi with green papaya and peanuts and it was fantastic.  Highly recommended.  Killer lines though...hopefully those will die down once it's been open for a few months!

So I've gotten totally obsessed with the WTF with Marc Maron podcast.  He interviews these comedians about their lives and backgrounds and it is always totally fascinating.  He also vaguely reminds me of my old professor, Rick Hess.  Same level of directness, similar sense of humor, comparable amounts of cursing.  I loved his class so much.  I recommend starting with the Amy Poehler or Louis CK interviews.  Both incredibly moving pieces of journalism.

One of the most recent that I listened to was with a comedian I hadn't heard of before.  His name is Anthony Jeselnik.  Apparently he wrote for Jimmy Fallon and was famous for an outstanding roast of Donald Trump.  So I looked up that clip and I guess for that kind of comedy it was good?  I don't really know.  Everyone else seemed to be laughing.  To be honest, I don't understand roasts.  All I can think about is how much I would be crying if I were the roast-ee.  Yet another reason for me to never be famous.  But he did seem better than the other people, so good for him.  Anyway, one of the things he said in his interview with Maron that really stuck with me was that he actively seeks things that should be offensive and tries to make people laugh about them.  At one point he said, "yeah, I can't seem to find a good punchline for rape yet."  He got actively mad about people in his audience who found his language or his messages offensive.  He kept essentially saying they needed to grow a pair.

I had been thinking about this, and feeling very conflicted.  On the one hand, life is too short to be sad about everything.  Sometimes you just have to laugh and move on with life, and people who take things too seriously do harm to themselves and others.  Also I like the idea that as a society, we should be able to talk about anything and not cut people out of the conversation because they need to approach it in a humorous way.  I get making jokes about cancer or about disabilities - a lot of people who live with those things say that people tiptoeing around them makes it worse and it's something they have to live with anyway so they'd rather joke.  On the other hand, I don't like jokes about rape.  (Unless Always Sunny makes them.  Then it's hilarious.)

And then today the discussion happening in my mind (yup) took a new turn.  An ex-student of mine added me on facebook.  I went to look at his profile, and he's holding a gun.  He has a teardrop tattoo.  When I had him as a student, he read sci-fi books and stayed after class for homework help.  He got teased a lot.  I thought he would either have to go to an amazing charter school or he would get "toughened" up at the general high school beyond repair.  Looks like the latter happened.  And today, I was sad.

I was just sad.  My heart just hurt.  A lot.  I understand that some people aren't ok with that emotion, but I think it's on them to change.  There is a place for pure sadness in our lives and in our society.  Maybe it's ok to mourn, to not move on immediately or be ok with people making fun of things.  So to all the people who get angry at people who get offended and say they're too sheltered, I say this: I think you're too sheltered.  Not being sheltered means embracing a wide range of emotions, including shame and sadness.  Grow a pair.