Friday, October 29, 2010
Okay, Just Admit It
He might not be the cutest thing you've ever seen, but only because you'd feel bad ranking him ahead of your own kids. Still, Padawan has to make some kind of short list for Most Adorable Child Ever.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Another Post About Me Hearting Public Education
MStanger posted this on his Facebook Page today: one of the few media sources I've read which is highly critical of the recent love affair with charter schools sweeping the country. Indeed, charter schools are about the only bi-partisan thing happening in this country right now, oddly enough. It takes a bit of time to read it, but it is wonderful, and worth passing along to every public school teacher that you know and love. My guess is that there are quite a few. My guess is that every one of you can cite a public school teacher as having had a remarkable effect on your life.
The posting was followed by a number of "yeah but" comments, and I started to respond, but there was just too much to say. So rather than clutter his page and quite possibly start an argument with some people I really like, I'll attempt some thoughts of my own here.
One of the lines of conversation on the thread went like this: that charters aren't actually necessary where there is open enrollment and school choice. I happen to live in a town with the most bizarre education system I've ever seen and my take is that open enrollment/school choice lends itself to a community that LOVES charter schools. The more the merrier!
I'll explain: the charter movement has been popular here because each parent/kid gets to attend exactly the type of school they want. Spanish, French and Japanese immersion campuses. Science academies. Art academies. Even the public high schools have mostly jumped on board and created mini-schools within each campus with different start times and isolation from other groups. If you have a curriculum you find and like and can get even 100 people to agree with you? Great! Apply for a charter. Our city is more than happy to give you money for a start up, despite the fact that many public middle and high school grade classes have upwards of 40 students in them. Oh, and don't forget about the very strong home-schooling movement in this area either. After ten to fifteen years with this local experiment, here are some of my observations.
Any time a teacher looks at a child wrong, the parent begins "shopping around" for a new school. I talk to parents all the time who are filled with nothing but criticisms and anger for previous schools they've attended, generally because of a single incident. (One mother pulled her daughter for the school's expectation that 30 absences for "illness" would be verified by a doctor.) Rather than attempting to sit down with concerned parties and solve issues in a way that is dignified and reasonable, the kids are pulled and sent some where else. The take home message, for the child, of course, is that your parents will always save you. That you only need to listen to adults when they say what you want to hear. That if you are unsuccessful at school, it can't possibly be your fault, or have anything to do with your parents. It must be the school's fault. But especially the teacher's fault. The long term message sent to these children is that quitting is the most effective answer to a difficult situation.
I have never been around so many young adults who have negative things to say about their teachers. In a town where competition for teaching positions is as competitive as any I've ever seen, I cannot believe that all of these teachers are truly awful. That they all took a pay cut and added classroom numbers this year because they just really hate kids. That they have some power-hungry, socialist agenda to ram down kids' throats.
I know kids in their mid-teens who have never moved, but have attended five or six different schools. Including, of course, the years of non-school that too many people call home school. The 12 teenage girls in my ward, an area of about 10 square miles, attend 3 different middle schools and five different high schools. There is no continuity in our church group, but neither is there any continuity in their neighborhoods.
When kids go to school where they live, and the teachers live in the same area, the entire community becomes invested in whether or not that school is successful. Parents and kids know what is going on with the other folks in their neighborhood because they have grown up keeping an eye on the local school, volunteering there and being involved. Neighbors know one another, because the school gives them a sense of shared purpose and involvement. The "buy-in" (A Greg Mortensen term) is less about property taxes and more about human resources--time, compassion, loyalty. When communities get attached to their local schools, they can have reasonable conversations about school board members, property tax issues and curriculum change. They see first hand how occasional tax hikes affect their community in positive ways and they know the people making decisions for the schools, and by extension, their kids. They might choose to run for this position themselves.
The article cited above is full of interesting facts, but the one I found the most telling is that a super-majority of Americans rate American education, as a whole, as being lousy and broken. However, the same super-majority (nearly 80%) gives their OWN public school a rating of A or B. Pretty damn good. You bet that inner city schools are failing regularly, but it is because inner city HOMES are failing. Even the best trained and most caring teachers in the world cannot overcome the direst circumstances for each child. It doesn't mean they won't try. Public or charter, it doesn't mean they won't try.
Without addressing the whole child failure-paradigm, we cannot fix it. Education is certainly one component, but health care issues need to be addressed, early childhood intervention, parenting, poverty, hunger. . . . kids who are falling apart before they even get a chance to meet that caring teacher in that new, beautiful school. I've looked into the eyes of 12 year-olds who, through no fault of their own, have seen enough despair and hopelessness to fill five lifetimes. There is no band aid for this problem. There is no idiot political solution that is the equivalent of "just pull yourself up by the bootstraps." The best system cited in the film--the Finnish--is also in the society Americans would term as being the most socialist. The least private. The most public. Is this ironic?
The truth is, when you run the numbers, there are just as many failing charter schools as there are public schools. Maybe more. It is also equally true that public schools can take lessons from the charter's philosophy toward smaller classes and hiring the best teachers. Abandoning one to give money to the other will only fix one school at the expense of another. And it has no hope of fixing the system as a whole.
I can promise you this: public or private or charter , your kids' teachers care. A lot. So much that they may spend time every day with your kids at the expense of spending time with their own. They work under enormously stressful conditions for pitiful pay. A mostly female workforce is constantly reminded by mostly male bosses and politicians that they signed up for a 3/4 job that is seen as barely more professional than any other public service. Besides being beholden to an employer and politicians, parents also claim some authority over teachers (what do we pay your salary FOR???). On any given day, your child's teacher is working to please a whole lot of different people, knowing that her whole job might hinge on a single mistake. The media bombards kids with images of stupid adults, particularly teachers, and parents allow them to watch such programming from an early age and then wonder why they have no respect for anybody or anything.
American kids aren't failing because of stupid teachers. They are failing because laziness and entitlement has become the norm. If you think I'm talking about inner-city kids here, think again. Nobody wants to major in engineering, because it is hard. They major in business because they want to make money. The only product we seem to manufacture in America anymore. Wait, scratch that, we manufacture plenty of cynicism also.
As I ponder taking out a loan to go back to school, so that I might have the tools to re-enter a profession I love, I am so disheartened. I grew up with such respect and admiration (read: hero worship) for the teachers who gave me so much. Once upon a time I had pretty decent grades. I might have been anything I wanted to be. I chose teaching because I'm passionate about education as a tool to overcome so many social ills. Because I believe in equality and democracy. Because I love America. And now, to be standing on the edge of the next part of my life, and hear so much invective for public school and see the competition for jobs coupled with some of the worst working situations I've ever seen for teachers, I feel that cynicsm creep inside of me also.
The posting was followed by a number of "yeah but" comments, and I started to respond, but there was just too much to say. So rather than clutter his page and quite possibly start an argument with some people I really like, I'll attempt some thoughts of my own here.
One of the lines of conversation on the thread went like this: that charters aren't actually necessary where there is open enrollment and school choice. I happen to live in a town with the most bizarre education system I've ever seen and my take is that open enrollment/school choice lends itself to a community that LOVES charter schools. The more the merrier!
I'll explain: the charter movement has been popular here because each parent/kid gets to attend exactly the type of school they want. Spanish, French and Japanese immersion campuses. Science academies. Art academies. Even the public high schools have mostly jumped on board and created mini-schools within each campus with different start times and isolation from other groups. If you have a curriculum you find and like and can get even 100 people to agree with you? Great! Apply for a charter. Our city is more than happy to give you money for a start up, despite the fact that many public middle and high school grade classes have upwards of 40 students in them. Oh, and don't forget about the very strong home-schooling movement in this area either. After ten to fifteen years with this local experiment, here are some of my observations.
Any time a teacher looks at a child wrong, the parent begins "shopping around" for a new school. I talk to parents all the time who are filled with nothing but criticisms and anger for previous schools they've attended, generally because of a single incident. (One mother pulled her daughter for the school's expectation that 30 absences for "illness" would be verified by a doctor.) Rather than attempting to sit down with concerned parties and solve issues in a way that is dignified and reasonable, the kids are pulled and sent some where else. The take home message, for the child, of course, is that your parents will always save you. That you only need to listen to adults when they say what you want to hear. That if you are unsuccessful at school, it can't possibly be your fault, or have anything to do with your parents. It must be the school's fault. But especially the teacher's fault. The long term message sent to these children is that quitting is the most effective answer to a difficult situation.
I have never been around so many young adults who have negative things to say about their teachers. In a town where competition for teaching positions is as competitive as any I've ever seen, I cannot believe that all of these teachers are truly awful. That they all took a pay cut and added classroom numbers this year because they just really hate kids. That they have some power-hungry, socialist agenda to ram down kids' throats.
I know kids in their mid-teens who have never moved, but have attended five or six different schools. Including, of course, the years of non-school that too many people call home school. The 12 teenage girls in my ward, an area of about 10 square miles, attend 3 different middle schools and five different high schools. There is no continuity in our church group, but neither is there any continuity in their neighborhoods.
When kids go to school where they live, and the teachers live in the same area, the entire community becomes invested in whether or not that school is successful. Parents and kids know what is going on with the other folks in their neighborhood because they have grown up keeping an eye on the local school, volunteering there and being involved. Neighbors know one another, because the school gives them a sense of shared purpose and involvement. The "buy-in" (A Greg Mortensen term) is less about property taxes and more about human resources--time, compassion, loyalty. When communities get attached to their local schools, they can have reasonable conversations about school board members, property tax issues and curriculum change. They see first hand how occasional tax hikes affect their community in positive ways and they know the people making decisions for the schools, and by extension, their kids. They might choose to run for this position themselves.
The article cited above is full of interesting facts, but the one I found the most telling is that a super-majority of Americans rate American education, as a whole, as being lousy and broken. However, the same super-majority (nearly 80%) gives their OWN public school a rating of A or B. Pretty damn good. You bet that inner city schools are failing regularly, but it is because inner city HOMES are failing. Even the best trained and most caring teachers in the world cannot overcome the direst circumstances for each child. It doesn't mean they won't try. Public or charter, it doesn't mean they won't try.
Without addressing the whole child failure-paradigm, we cannot fix it. Education is certainly one component, but health care issues need to be addressed, early childhood intervention, parenting, poverty, hunger. . . . kids who are falling apart before they even get a chance to meet that caring teacher in that new, beautiful school. I've looked into the eyes of 12 year-olds who, through no fault of their own, have seen enough despair and hopelessness to fill five lifetimes. There is no band aid for this problem. There is no idiot political solution that is the equivalent of "just pull yourself up by the bootstraps." The best system cited in the film--the Finnish--is also in the society Americans would term as being the most socialist. The least private. The most public. Is this ironic?
The truth is, when you run the numbers, there are just as many failing charter schools as there are public schools. Maybe more. It is also equally true that public schools can take lessons from the charter's philosophy toward smaller classes and hiring the best teachers. Abandoning one to give money to the other will only fix one school at the expense of another. And it has no hope of fixing the system as a whole.
I can promise you this: public or private or charter , your kids' teachers care. A lot. So much that they may spend time every day with your kids at the expense of spending time with their own. They work under enormously stressful conditions for pitiful pay. A mostly female workforce is constantly reminded by mostly male bosses and politicians that they signed up for a 3/4 job that is seen as barely more professional than any other public service. Besides being beholden to an employer and politicians, parents also claim some authority over teachers (what do we pay your salary FOR???). On any given day, your child's teacher is working to please a whole lot of different people, knowing that her whole job might hinge on a single mistake. The media bombards kids with images of stupid adults, particularly teachers, and parents allow them to watch such programming from an early age and then wonder why they have no respect for anybody or anything.
American kids aren't failing because of stupid teachers. They are failing because laziness and entitlement has become the norm. If you think I'm talking about inner-city kids here, think again. Nobody wants to major in engineering, because it is hard. They major in business because they want to make money. The only product we seem to manufacture in America anymore. Wait, scratch that, we manufacture plenty of cynicism also.
As I ponder taking out a loan to go back to school, so that I might have the tools to re-enter a profession I love, I am so disheartened. I grew up with such respect and admiration (read: hero worship) for the teachers who gave me so much. Once upon a time I had pretty decent grades. I might have been anything I wanted to be. I chose teaching because I'm passionate about education as a tool to overcome so many social ills. Because I believe in equality and democracy. Because I love America. And now, to be standing on the edge of the next part of my life, and hear so much invective for public school and see the competition for jobs coupled with some of the worst working situations I've ever seen for teachers, I feel that cynicsm creep inside of me also.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Caught
This morning I finished my newspaper route just before six o'clock. It was still very dark, but a perfect mid-fall morning: clear and cold. The crisp air made the stars seem even brighter, cutting straight down into me. Orion soared overhead in his winter habitat; Cassiopeia was even vividly recognizable from my childhood memories; the Big Dipper was tipped clear on its side, ladling its contents over hundreds of millions of square miles.
I was exhausted--I've been trying to get by on five hours of sleep too many days in a row--but I felt that contented sense of accomplishment that follows a job well done. Even a mundane job. I was eagerly anticipating crawling back into my warm bed and getting another hour's rest. The song on my iPod was "One" by U2, though it was the Mary J. Blige cover version. I think "One" is probably my favorite song of all time, and Ms. Blige's version beats the pants off even the sublime original.
I walked over to my car and looked up into that awesome, cold sky, held my arms aloft and let those remarkable lyrics just wash over me:
Did I ask too much?
More than a lot
You gave me nothing
Now that's all I got
We're one
But we're not the same
Will we hurt each other?
Then we do it again
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt
One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
One life with each other
Sisters.
Brothers.
One life
But we're not the same
We get to carry each other
Carry each other . . . .
I was transported a billion miles away from that cold dark street and I felt like a part of the music, like a key cog in the immense functioning of the universe, a person who might make a difference with the power to help carry others. Arms still aloft, I spun around and looked skyward at all of God's glorious creation, as if I might somehow embrace it all. It was one of those moments when you are completely by yourself, and yet your connection to every living thing is so powerful that you feel like a sister to each human child and red-gold maple.
Then I heard a noise.
I stopped and looked. A man with a dog, whom I sometimes see in the morning on a different street, was walking toward me, just fifteen feet away. He glanced at me in the dark and quickly switched to the other side of the street. No doubt to get away from the crazy woman, who at least had the sense to keep her barbaric yawping to herself. All my momentary poetry turned to prose and, holding my head down, jumped in the car, missing first gear in my haste to get away.
Ten minutes later I crawled into bed, all glorious sense of possibility drained away, today feeling no more or less special and essential than yesterday or the day before. Exhaustion was more powerful than my insight into the divine.
But for a moment, just before dawn, I knew that the whole universe was possible, my potential limitless, my capacity to DO immense. You must download that song--it is the best $1.29 I've ever spent.
I was exhausted--I've been trying to get by on five hours of sleep too many days in a row--but I felt that contented sense of accomplishment that follows a job well done. Even a mundane job. I was eagerly anticipating crawling back into my warm bed and getting another hour's rest. The song on my iPod was "One" by U2, though it was the Mary J. Blige cover version. I think "One" is probably my favorite song of all time, and Ms. Blige's version beats the pants off even the sublime original.
I walked over to my car and looked up into that awesome, cold sky, held my arms aloft and let those remarkable lyrics just wash over me:
Did I ask too much?
More than a lot
You gave me nothing
Now that's all I got
We're one
But we're not the same
Will we hurt each other?
Then we do it again
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt
One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
One life with each other
Sisters.
Brothers.
One life
But we're not the same
We get to carry each other
Carry each other . . . .
I was transported a billion miles away from that cold dark street and I felt like a part of the music, like a key cog in the immense functioning of the universe, a person who might make a difference with the power to help carry others. Arms still aloft, I spun around and looked skyward at all of God's glorious creation, as if I might somehow embrace it all. It was one of those moments when you are completely by yourself, and yet your connection to every living thing is so powerful that you feel like a sister to each human child and red-gold maple.
Then I heard a noise.
I stopped and looked. A man with a dog, whom I sometimes see in the morning on a different street, was walking toward me, just fifteen feet away. He glanced at me in the dark and quickly switched to the other side of the street. No doubt to get away from the crazy woman, who at least had the sense to keep her barbaric yawping to herself. All my momentary poetry turned to prose and, holding my head down, jumped in the car, missing first gear in my haste to get away.
Ten minutes later I crawled into bed, all glorious sense of possibility drained away, today feeling no more or less special and essential than yesterday or the day before. Exhaustion was more powerful than my insight into the divine.
But for a moment, just before dawn, I knew that the whole universe was possible, my potential limitless, my capacity to DO immense. You must download that song--it is the best $1.29 I've ever spent.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Perfect Fall Treat
As it turns out, there is more than one. I
Here are a few samplings. Each of these four pairings has something in common: they each include an ingredient that says "Autumn" like nothing else.
Apples.
Pumpkin.
Tomatoes.
Hazelnuts.
This first is an apple dip that can be made up in about 5 minutes, and everywhere you go, people will want the recipe and guess and guess about the ingredients without getting it right. Jedi Knight loves this stuff so much that when I start buying lots of really crispy new apples this time of year he begins asking for it every day. Years ago, I served it at a book group and when we polished the plate of apples off in about ten minutes, Plantboy came in, and with more than a little snark he asked if we just wanted spoons. I promptly replied, "Yes," and we finished the bowl so thoroughly that you could only hear clinking. We had too much dignity in front of one another to lick the bowl, but I believe if anyone of us had been alone the story might have been very different.
Apple Dip
1. Stir or beat two soft squares of cream cheese until smooth. (There are four here--none of today's pictures are actually mine.)
2. Add half a cup of packed brown sugar, stirring until well blended. The original recipe had a lot more sugar, but I really like being able to taste the cream cheese.
3. Stir in one bag of toffee chips. You can find these at the grocery store in the baking aisle, with the other kinds of chips. Heath sells both plain:
and chocolate covered:
Unfortunately (or not) my grocery store doesn't sell the plain ones. Therefore, we are forced to put chocolate in the apple dip. Too bad.
Any firm apple with some tartness to it works great in this treat. Our favorites are Granny Smiths:
And Yellow Delicious, of which I have to buy about a dozen a week this time of year (also, I said "Granny Smiths" as a plural. Should I say "Yellow Deliciouses?"):
Now wait, don't run to the kitchen just yet. We've got a couple more.
For my book group last week I served apple dip, but I wanted something to go with it. I settled on pumpkin bread. My bread turned out exactly as it was supposed to, and I used this recipe. It was entirely adequate, but not amazing. I cannot even say what it was missing, as the recipe was nearly identical to my zucchini bread, which I love. I even added that not-so-secret pinch of cardamom and it still didn't knock my socks off.
I want a pumpkin bread recipe so great that it makes me want to buy up canned pumpkin in great quantities in the fall so that I have it stockpiled for the off season, or in times of famine. I want it to melt in my mouth and leave me a little bit speechless with joy for the explosion of autumn in my mouth. Still, it was pretty remarkable when topped with the afore-mentioned apple dip. (Face it, dog poop might even be appealing topped with that stuff.) My favorite pairing for sweet bread, however, is with soft, spreadable cheese on it, like Laughing Cow; or in a tribute to my amazing grandmother--a thick slice of cheddar. But I can't bring myself to spread it with butter first the way she does!
This next recipe is for bruschetta. Now don't go scrolling ahead thinking you know all about bruschetta. I'm pretty sure you've never had Plantboy's bruschetta.
You have to start in the spring for his bruschetta--tenaciously hitting local nurseries for odd, heirloom tomato varieties. You have to plant them at exactly the right moment. It must be early enough for them to have the season to ripen, but late enough that the last spring freeze doesn't do in your tender starts. You must also put them in exactly the right spot. They need loads of sun, but you don't want to burn their leaves either. You must water and dig about them with organic fertilizer. You must whisper sweet nothings to them each long summer day.
Okay, maybe not the last, but I swear that is what Plantboy does.
I've had a half a dozen people this year tell me that they have NO tomatoes. Nada. Zip. Our vines are so full that Plantboy has taken to freezing them while we make time to can them.
When your heirloom and red tomatoes are ready to go, then you are ready to create Bruschetta that will make you believe any course beyond appetizer is over-rated.
Plantboy's Garden Bruschetta
2 cups chopped tomatoes (use a variety of types for colors and textures. Grape tomatoes, sliced in circles, are especially lovely!)
2 Tbsp really good olive oil. Costco sells an amazing one, when you unscrew the lid, it smells like a rich combination of flowers and fruit. I always feel like such a geek when I open it and just stand there for a few seconds, transfixed by the wonder and possibility of that smell.
3 tsp balsamic vinegar--the good stuff, old and syrupy
1/2 cup chopped fresh basil (and while we are at it, we should just admit that any recipe containing the words "chopped fresh basil" is going to be awesome, and make your kitchen smell awesome. Please put this in your garden next year if you are able. Even the plainest spaghetti from a jar can pass for special if you add this crucial herb.)
3 diced shallots (we've discovered that using shallot instead of garlic still gives a wonderful, garlicky flavor without overpowering the tomatoes as much as raw garlic. And without giving you breath that could drive away any lurking vampires or eager spouses. If you like garlic, throw in a clove or two on top of the shallot, or instead of. I'm not fussy; it is YOUR food, after all.)
Fresh ground black pepper to taste (a LOT! I used to use more salt to flavor things, but the problem with using salt in plant-based dishes is that it causes the food to lose its moisture. The plant cells lose moisture to surroundings that are too salt. This causes the cell membranes to sag against plant cell walls, resulting in limpness. Even vegetables that aren't overcooked go limp if they are salted. Put the salt on the table instead of IN stir-frys, salsas, veggie side dishes, etc.)
Toss everything together and pair with french or artisan baguettes that have been drizzled with olive oil and browned in a broiler. It is just so good.
As for the last dish, you heard me correctly when I said "hazelnuts." These delicious nuts are a real Oregon favorite, and most of the hazelnuts in the world come from the filbert orchards right here in the Northwest. This one might not be quite as easy to have at your house, but I would like to point out that the offer to visit still stands.
This pairing is so awesome because besides hazelnuts,
it also includes, you guessed it, chocolate.
Hazelnut Fudge Ice Cream with Brownies
I have to admit to having no recipe for hazelnut ice cream. There are several recipes on-line, most of which include some cocoa in them, making them pale brown in color.
We bought a locally made hazelnut icecream that has swirls of fudge in it and chunks of hazelnuts. Think tin-roof-sundae-on-speed. I do, however, have a divine brownie recipe:
1 stick (1/2 cup) butter
1/2 cup cocoa
1 cup sugar
2 eggs (room temperature)
1 tsp vanilla
1/2 cup all purpose flour
1/4 tsp. salt
1/2 cup chocolate chips or nuts (or both!)
Preheat oven 350 degrees, Grease an 8 inch square pan. In a microwave-safe bowl, melt butter. Add cocoa and stir until blended. Add sugar and mix well. Add eggs, one at a time, and beat well. Stir in vanilla, flour and salt, stirring until just blended. Fold in nuts and/or chips. Spread in prepared pan and bake 25 to 30 minutes until a toothpick comes out clean. Don't worry, they'll still be very soft!
Oh, good grief, I'm hungry.
Here are a few samplings. Each of these four pairings has something in common: they each include an ingredient that says "Autumn" like nothing else.
Apples.
Pumpkin.
Tomatoes.
Hazelnuts.
This first is an apple dip that can be made up in about 5 minutes, and everywhere you go, people will want the recipe and guess and guess about the ingredients without getting it right. Jedi Knight loves this stuff so much that when I start buying lots of really crispy new apples this time of year he begins asking for it every day. Years ago, I served it at a book group and when we polished the plate of apples off in about ten minutes, Plantboy came in, and with more than a little snark he asked if we just wanted spoons. I promptly replied, "Yes," and we finished the bowl so thoroughly that you could only hear clinking. We had too much dignity in front of one another to lick the bowl, but I believe if anyone of us had been alone the story might have been very different.
Apple Dip
1. Stir or beat two soft squares of cream cheese until smooth. (There are four here--none of today's pictures are actually mine.)
2. Add half a cup of packed brown sugar, stirring until well blended. The original recipe had a lot more sugar, but I really like being able to taste the cream cheese.
3. Stir in one bag of toffee chips. You can find these at the grocery store in the baking aisle, with the other kinds of chips. Heath sells both plain:
and chocolate covered:
Unfortunately (or not) my grocery store doesn't sell the plain ones. Therefore, we are forced to put chocolate in the apple dip. Too bad.
Any firm apple with some tartness to it works great in this treat. Our favorites are Granny Smiths:
And Yellow Delicious, of which I have to buy about a dozen a week this time of year (also, I said "Granny Smiths" as a plural. Should I say "Yellow Deliciouses?"):
Now wait, don't run to the kitchen just yet. We've got a couple more.
For my book group last week I served apple dip, but I wanted something to go with it. I settled on pumpkin bread. My bread turned out exactly as it was supposed to, and I used this recipe. It was entirely adequate, but not amazing. I cannot even say what it was missing, as the recipe was nearly identical to my zucchini bread, which I love. I even added that not-so-secret pinch of cardamom and it still didn't knock my socks off.
I want a pumpkin bread recipe so great that it makes me want to buy up canned pumpkin in great quantities in the fall so that I have it stockpiled for the off season, or in times of famine. I want it to melt in my mouth and leave me a little bit speechless with joy for the explosion of autumn in my mouth. Still, it was pretty remarkable when topped with the afore-mentioned apple dip. (Face it, dog poop might even be appealing topped with that stuff.) My favorite pairing for sweet bread, however, is with soft, spreadable cheese on it, like Laughing Cow; or in a tribute to my amazing grandmother--a thick slice of cheddar. But I can't bring myself to spread it with butter first the way she does!
This next recipe is for bruschetta. Now don't go scrolling ahead thinking you know all about bruschetta. I'm pretty sure you've never had Plantboy's bruschetta.
You have to start in the spring for his bruschetta--tenaciously hitting local nurseries for odd, heirloom tomato varieties. You have to plant them at exactly the right moment. It must be early enough for them to have the season to ripen, but late enough that the last spring freeze doesn't do in your tender starts. You must also put them in exactly the right spot. They need loads of sun, but you don't want to burn their leaves either. You must water and dig about them with organic fertilizer. You must whisper sweet nothings to them each long summer day.
Okay, maybe not the last, but I swear that is what Plantboy does.
I've had a half a dozen people this year tell me that they have NO tomatoes. Nada. Zip. Our vines are so full that Plantboy has taken to freezing them while we make time to can them.
When your heirloom and red tomatoes are ready to go, then you are ready to create Bruschetta that will make you believe any course beyond appetizer is over-rated.
Plantboy's Garden Bruschetta
2 cups chopped tomatoes (use a variety of types for colors and textures. Grape tomatoes, sliced in circles, are especially lovely!)
2 Tbsp really good olive oil. Costco sells an amazing one, when you unscrew the lid, it smells like a rich combination of flowers and fruit. I always feel like such a geek when I open it and just stand there for a few seconds, transfixed by the wonder and possibility of that smell.
3 tsp balsamic vinegar--the good stuff, old and syrupy
1/2 cup chopped fresh basil (and while we are at it, we should just admit that any recipe containing the words "chopped fresh basil" is going to be awesome, and make your kitchen smell awesome. Please put this in your garden next year if you are able. Even the plainest spaghetti from a jar can pass for special if you add this crucial herb.)
3 diced shallots (we've discovered that using shallot instead of garlic still gives a wonderful, garlicky flavor without overpowering the tomatoes as much as raw garlic. And without giving you breath that could drive away any lurking vampires or eager spouses. If you like garlic, throw in a clove or two on top of the shallot, or instead of. I'm not fussy; it is YOUR food, after all.)
Fresh ground black pepper to taste (a LOT! I used to use more salt to flavor things, but the problem with using salt in plant-based dishes is that it causes the food to lose its moisture. The plant cells lose moisture to surroundings that are too salt. This causes the cell membranes to sag against plant cell walls, resulting in limpness. Even vegetables that aren't overcooked go limp if they are salted. Put the salt on the table instead of IN stir-frys, salsas, veggie side dishes, etc.)
Toss everything together and pair with french or artisan baguettes that have been drizzled with olive oil and browned in a broiler. It is just so good.
As for the last dish, you heard me correctly when I said "hazelnuts." These delicious nuts are a real Oregon favorite, and most of the hazelnuts in the world come from the filbert orchards right here in the Northwest. This one might not be quite as easy to have at your house, but I would like to point out that the offer to visit still stands.
This pairing is so awesome because besides hazelnuts,
it also includes, you guessed it, chocolate.
Hazelnut Fudge Ice Cream with Brownies
I have to admit to having no recipe for hazelnut ice cream. There are several recipes on-line, most of which include some cocoa in them, making them pale brown in color.
We bought a locally made hazelnut icecream that has swirls of fudge in it and chunks of hazelnuts. Think tin-roof-sundae-on-speed. I do, however, have a divine brownie recipe:
1 stick (1/2 cup) butter
1/2 cup cocoa
1 cup sugar
2 eggs (room temperature)
1 tsp vanilla
1/2 cup all purpose flour
1/4 tsp. salt
1/2 cup chocolate chips or nuts (or both!)
Preheat oven 350 degrees, Grease an 8 inch square pan. In a microwave-safe bowl, melt butter. Add cocoa and stir until blended. Add sugar and mix well. Add eggs, one at a time, and beat well. Stir in vanilla, flour and salt, stirring until just blended. Fold in nuts and/or chips. Spread in prepared pan and bake 25 to 30 minutes until a toothpick comes out clean. Don't worry, they'll still be very soft!
Oh, good grief, I'm hungry.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
We'd Like to Interupt the Regularly Scheduled Programming
Plantboy is out of town.
That is why I'm blogging at 11:15.
It is probably why we've been eating chicken nuggets from paper plates for two days. It is why there is so much stuff on my bed that I might be sleeping on the couch, and going to bed way too late. It is certainly why I stayed up last night watching chick flicks and sipping hot cocoa.
And it might be why I dyed my hair. After all, the grow out line wasn't that dramatic.
Dying it as dark as I did is the fault of "A Room With a View." I was too engrossed to jump up and rinse right at 25 minutes. It might have been 35 minutes before I pulled myself away from Lucy and George and Italy.
Or 40 minutes. Yes, of course I have a pause button.
The point is that I've gone dark in the winter time the last few years and I really like it. After a few washes it will fade to a color people (including myself) are more familiar with. Seeing as how I've been blond since July, however, today's contrast is very stark.
Still, it was a bit harsh to run into a friendish sort of a person tonight who exclaimed, "Oh my GOSH!!! What have you done to your hair???" She is also much taller than me, so when she patted my hair I felt especially stupid. She followed her first remark with this gem, "I loved your pretty blond, what were you thinking?" I wanted to tell her EXACTLY what I was thinking. And a big part of me really wants to tell you too. But I won't. I think I'll just go lather, rinse and repeat.
I miss Plantboy . . . .
That is why I'm blogging at 11:15.
It is probably why we've been eating chicken nuggets from paper plates for two days. It is why there is so much stuff on my bed that I might be sleeping on the couch, and going to bed way too late. It is certainly why I stayed up last night watching chick flicks and sipping hot cocoa.
And it might be why I dyed my hair. After all, the grow out line wasn't that dramatic.
Dying it as dark as I did is the fault of "A Room With a View." I was too engrossed to jump up and rinse right at 25 minutes. It might have been 35 minutes before I pulled myself away from Lucy and George and Italy.
Or 40 minutes. Yes, of course I have a pause button.
The point is that I've gone dark in the winter time the last few years and I really like it. After a few washes it will fade to a color people (including myself) are more familiar with. Seeing as how I've been blond since July, however, today's contrast is very stark.
Still, it was a bit harsh to run into a friendish sort of a person tonight who exclaimed, "Oh my GOSH!!! What have you done to your hair???" She is also much taller than me, so when she patted my hair I felt especially stupid. She followed her first remark with this gem, "I loved your pretty blond, what were you thinking?" I wanted to tell her EXACTLY what I was thinking. And a big part of me really wants to tell you too. But I won't. I think I'll just go lather, rinse and repeat.
I miss Plantboy . . . .
Monday, October 04, 2010
Public School As Socialism
The Republicans are making it really difficult for me to vote as an independent this year.
Did you think we'd make it all the way to this midterm election without any political commentary from this quarter? I thought so; after all, I've said a lot (too much) before. By this time in 2008, I'd probably written 10 different posts that were tagged with the label "politics." My remarks today will be specifically about the Tea Party movement. Start your engines.
I'd like to first point out that for whatever disagreements I might have with the political motivation behind the Tea Party, there are things I love about it. It is a true grass roots organization, a real "of the people" situation. It is a wonderful example of America's great, democratic experiment. Its popularity has forced the major political parties to ask itself some hard questions. My understanding is that those affiliated with the movement aren't interested so much in becoming a political party, as an ideology--as a group who will fundamentally change the way Americans think about government. This is very interesting. People associated with the movement aren't shy about their disagreements on a variety of issues, their main commonality being a firm belief in a more limited government. This disharmony is something not tolerated very well in the mainstream parties. I've lamented before that the current system makes it very difficult for someone to be, say, a pro-life Democrat or an environmentalist Republican. Such questions are almost irrelevant to a Tea Party candidate--they don't think the government has any business regulating our personal lives or the environment.
Have I been complimentary enough? Good. Now for my other opinions.
* I deeply resent the take-our-country-back rhetoric I hear. Take it back from WHOM? People with different opinions? Minorities (who are noticeably absent in the TP)? Particularly Blacks who turned out in record numbers at the last election? The majority who voted for President Obama and other Democrats? This type of language is volatile. When coupled with the fact that another major area of agreement among Tea Party types is the right to bear arms, I just find that a little bit scary. Even if there is a landslide Republican victory in November, all of those people from which the country was taken back will also need to be governed. Their rights protected. Their voices heard. Even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree. That is the whole point of United States.
* Our country has to be governed as it is. Lamenting about how much they wish it was like 1790 is completely useless. I once worked at a school where the principal said, "We have to work with the kids we have, not the ones we wish we had." He did not mean that we shouldn't have a vision and goals for our kids . . . what he meant was that it was a waste of time and energy to grump around the faculty room complaining that our kids came to school so under-prepared. We just needed to roll up our sleeves and do all we could to get them ready for the next part of life and school. My metaphor is that a politician cannot be elected on a platform of returning the government to the pre-Depression status quo. Is it possible for politicians to reign in spending? I certainly hope so. But ultimately, most people would see it an enormous step backward to abolish the EPA (along with our clean water and air), the FDA (along with our safe food supply), Medicare (along with the ability to retire after a long working life), the National Park Service (and all of those maintained trails built by the CCC during the Depression), etc. etc.
*The Tea Party argues that people have become too dependent on government and that government is trying too hard to "big brother" us. That this government intervention is the thing that led our country to financial meltdown. (Though most economists and analysts claim that it was a LACK of regulation on the banking industry that was at the root of the problem. The Tea Party folks say that people need to act more moral. Well, they do, but when billions of dollars and millions of shareholders are thrown into the mix, ethics take a back seat to profits. You can take that to the bank.) And yet, the intense anger exhibited by so many of the people you see at the rallies is just another form of blame toward the government.
*The party wasn't really started (if such a nebulous group can be said to have a beginning) by somebody intending to run for office. Candidates have emerged over the last several months, many of whom have won primaries, even. This party was really started by pundits: people who make their money from expressing controversial opinions. The more controversial the opinions, the more viewers/readers/listeners they garner. And the more money they make. The profit machine at the top of this party will cease to function if the leaders move toward more moderate, conciliatory opinions. In short, these candidates, if elected, CAN NOT compromise when they go to Washington or they can't afford to run in another election. Politics, by definition, is the art of compromise. What possible good can these folks do with no other platform than to STOP the government? Maybe that is the point--they don't have a chance of completely reversing anything, and won't agree to any kind of watered down legislation, so I think we can expect to see two years of completely impotent government. And that always leads to re-election. (Snark.)
* Glenn Beck's recent rally carried a heavy emphasis on religion, encouraging Americans to turn back to God. That statement should be up above under things I like. Americans, in general, could do with a healthy commitment to Judeo-Christian values. In word AND deed. However, his going back to the Puritans (to be consistent with the Founding Fathers theme, I suppose) as models of religious citizenry disturbed me more than a little. Did anyone read The Scarlet Letter? The Crucible? As necessary as the Puritans were to the founding of our country--the fleeing for religious freedom and that tradition making its way into the Constitution--these were not a very nice group of people. They burned "witches." They put people in the stocks. They banished people who couldn't keep to their very rigid view of the commandments. Their religious leaders were also the magistrates. Their law was based primarily on their narrow interpretation of the Bible. Women were deeply repressed in that society; those who tried to speak out were often seen as fallen or practitioners of witchcraft. Is all of this sounding a bit Taliban? Yeah, that is what I thought. Is this actually the rallying cry of one of the leaders of this movement?
* Of course, Glenn Beck's ideas seem downright temperate when you compare them to Newt Gingrich's latest theory: Obama is an African Muslim who sought to become president in order to take down the entire American system. Really.
* If any person reading here, who is in favor of the Tea Party movement, can give me a reasonable, comprehensive list as to how the government has somehow curtailed your freedoms, please let me know. This is also common rhetoric from the party, that we are somehow not free. If you are unemployed, I'm especially sorry about that. However, I'm not certain that in most cases the government can be directly responsible for it, unless you had a government job that was cut. If that is the case, though, the Tea Party's goal would be to cut a majority of government jobs.
I'd like to point out that I haven't criticized any one person directly, just their ideas. I'm working very hard to keep within my no-name-calling parameters I wrote about last year when talking about civility in public discourse.
My last discussion point will seriously try my resolve.
My choices for Congress this year are very extreme. The Democrat I haven't been crazy about is trying to brag right now in his ads about breaking with the party when it came to health care and the bailout. Trying to appeal to independents, I suppose. However, what he doesn't say is that he broke with his party because he favored a more nationalized form of health care, and he didn't think the bailouts* were large enough. The man he is running against calls himself the "independent" choice. To me, independent candidates are stylized by their varied and balanced stances between the two parties, candidates who vote on issues instead of down party lines, and those who seek compromise.
Truthfully, however, Independent really just means that they don't affiliate with any particular party, so you can get any number of opinions from such a candidate. When I received the literature on this candidate, I was intrigued. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He styles himself as an "educator" in his material. He has worked outside the political establishment. I have often thought we needed more scientists, teachers, and "regular" folks to run for office. So far, so good.
Then I read further.
The candidate believes that America has been on a slow decline since the 1950's. (Let's not forget that since the 50's, Americans have been able to receive insurance and therefore medical care through the collective bargaining of unions and companies; there was a civil rights movement which expanded rights for women piggybacked; the voting age was lowered and America led a world wide technological revolution.) He maintains that we are now in the midst of an immoral, socialist regime under which we have few freedoms. He is a leader among the anti-global warming crowd, comprising less than 5% of the scientific establishment in this country. He criticizes most forms of alternative energy. His petition was an attempt to prevent Congress from passing laws regulating energy production. He is deeply opposed to any government intervention or regulation in anything to do with farming or forestry. He wants to send ALL illegal immigrants back to their country of origin without regard to how long they have been here or how they have contributed. He maintains that people will act with integrity and charity if the government would just get out of their lives. He calls for a repeal of socialized medicine. He calls this "Obamacare." It is interesting really, considering that we don't actually have socialized medicine in this country. Even under the new law.
But the jewel in his crown is his attitude toward public education. He says that the public schools have more than enough money, but a deeper dig indicates that he has a home schooling curriculum he sells because he really believes that public schools should be "abolished," that they are taxpayer-funded socialism, and school is government-sponsored child abuse. (I am not sure if I can recommend the home schooling course; his web page has a shocking number of grammatical and/or spelling mistakes. Including the word independ"a"nt.)
On the upside, there are things I like about him too. He is pro-nuclear energy, though he blames the government almost entirely for Americans choosing to not tap this resource. (Any official who tries to support this is immediately voted out of office, and even pro-nuclear Americans would probably say "not-in-my-backyard." We need more education, not less regulation of a potentially dangerous resource.) He raised a large family to be science-minded: his kids are all in science-related schooling/careers. He seems to be a man of integrity and intelligence. His official line on public education has a couple of helpful things--more local control and fewer administrators with less pay.
The thing is, I have no doubt that this candidate might be very appealing to some people. That is great. Go out and vote! But my husband is a public employee who works to conserve water and maintain its integrity. I am also a public employee. Most of our retirement money right now is in the state retirement system. I'm an educator and environmentalist. How can I support a candidate who honestly thinks my goal for becoming a teacher was to indoctrinate children with subversive political philosophy? Doesn't this border on a conspiracy-theory approach to reality?
On the other hand, my (barely) preferred candidate has a counter on his website called "The National Debt Clock," that runs continuously counting up and up and up. The speed at which is counts is seizure-inducing, and the 13 trillion and a whole lotta change nearly gave me a heart attack. And yet, he continues to vote WAY left of center.
Is this what our attack-style politics have created? The pundits have engineered an America where only the most extreme opinions get any traction. Where the angriest among us will make the decisions? Where the most extreme will argue themselves to a standstill? Maybe it is from the pundits we should take America back!
* A note on TARP: my paper reported last week that a vast number of economists are in agreement about its effectiveness in halting the recession, and that it won't cost as much money as anticipated. Jobs are always the last thing to recover, and the recession cannot actually reverse until those numbers are down. It should be noted that it took nearly 20 years, a major world war, rationing, and astronomically high taxes to reverse the Great Depression: the economic disaster this housing bubble most closely recognizes. I'm sorry; these facts don't read like government failure to me.
Did you think we'd make it all the way to this midterm election without any political commentary from this quarter? I thought so; after all, I've said a lot (too much) before. By this time in 2008, I'd probably written 10 different posts that were tagged with the label "politics." My remarks today will be specifically about the Tea Party movement. Start your engines.
I'd like to first point out that for whatever disagreements I might have with the political motivation behind the Tea Party, there are things I love about it. It is a true grass roots organization, a real "of the people" situation. It is a wonderful example of America's great, democratic experiment. Its popularity has forced the major political parties to ask itself some hard questions. My understanding is that those affiliated with the movement aren't interested so much in becoming a political party, as an ideology--as a group who will fundamentally change the way Americans think about government. This is very interesting. People associated with the movement aren't shy about their disagreements on a variety of issues, their main commonality being a firm belief in a more limited government. This disharmony is something not tolerated very well in the mainstream parties. I've lamented before that the current system makes it very difficult for someone to be, say, a pro-life Democrat or an environmentalist Republican. Such questions are almost irrelevant to a Tea Party candidate--they don't think the government has any business regulating our personal lives or the environment.
Have I been complimentary enough? Good. Now for my other opinions.
* I deeply resent the take-our-country-back rhetoric I hear. Take it back from WHOM? People with different opinions? Minorities (who are noticeably absent in the TP)? Particularly Blacks who turned out in record numbers at the last election? The majority who voted for President Obama and other Democrats? This type of language is volatile. When coupled with the fact that another major area of agreement among Tea Party types is the right to bear arms, I just find that a little bit scary. Even if there is a landslide Republican victory in November, all of those people from which the country was taken back will also need to be governed. Their rights protected. Their voices heard. Even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree. That is the whole point of United States.
* Our country has to be governed as it is. Lamenting about how much they wish it was like 1790 is completely useless. I once worked at a school where the principal said, "We have to work with the kids we have, not the ones we wish we had." He did not mean that we shouldn't have a vision and goals for our kids . . . what he meant was that it was a waste of time and energy to grump around the faculty room complaining that our kids came to school so under-prepared. We just needed to roll up our sleeves and do all we could to get them ready for the next part of life and school. My metaphor is that a politician cannot be elected on a platform of returning the government to the pre-Depression status quo. Is it possible for politicians to reign in spending? I certainly hope so. But ultimately, most people would see it an enormous step backward to abolish the EPA (along with our clean water and air), the FDA (along with our safe food supply), Medicare (along with the ability to retire after a long working life), the National Park Service (and all of those maintained trails built by the CCC during the Depression), etc. etc.
*The Tea Party argues that people have become too dependent on government and that government is trying too hard to "big brother" us. That this government intervention is the thing that led our country to financial meltdown. (Though most economists and analysts claim that it was a LACK of regulation on the banking industry that was at the root of the problem. The Tea Party folks say that people need to act more moral. Well, they do, but when billions of dollars and millions of shareholders are thrown into the mix, ethics take a back seat to profits. You can take that to the bank.) And yet, the intense anger exhibited by so many of the people you see at the rallies is just another form of blame toward the government.
*The party wasn't really started (if such a nebulous group can be said to have a beginning) by somebody intending to run for office. Candidates have emerged over the last several months, many of whom have won primaries, even. This party was really started by pundits: people who make their money from expressing controversial opinions. The more controversial the opinions, the more viewers/readers/listeners they garner. And the more money they make. The profit machine at the top of this party will cease to function if the leaders move toward more moderate, conciliatory opinions. In short, these candidates, if elected, CAN NOT compromise when they go to Washington or they can't afford to run in another election. Politics, by definition, is the art of compromise. What possible good can these folks do with no other platform than to STOP the government? Maybe that is the point--they don't have a chance of completely reversing anything, and won't agree to any kind of watered down legislation, so I think we can expect to see two years of completely impotent government. And that always leads to re-election. (Snark.)
* Glenn Beck's recent rally carried a heavy emphasis on religion, encouraging Americans to turn back to God. That statement should be up above under things I like. Americans, in general, could do with a healthy commitment to Judeo-Christian values. In word AND deed. However, his going back to the Puritans (to be consistent with the Founding Fathers theme, I suppose) as models of religious citizenry disturbed me more than a little. Did anyone read The Scarlet Letter? The Crucible? As necessary as the Puritans were to the founding of our country--the fleeing for religious freedom and that tradition making its way into the Constitution--these were not a very nice group of people. They burned "witches." They put people in the stocks. They banished people who couldn't keep to their very rigid view of the commandments. Their religious leaders were also the magistrates. Their law was based primarily on their narrow interpretation of the Bible. Women were deeply repressed in that society; those who tried to speak out were often seen as fallen or practitioners of witchcraft. Is all of this sounding a bit Taliban? Yeah, that is what I thought. Is this actually the rallying cry of one of the leaders of this movement?
* Of course, Glenn Beck's ideas seem downright temperate when you compare them to Newt Gingrich's latest theory: Obama is an African Muslim who sought to become president in order to take down the entire American system. Really.
* If any person reading here, who is in favor of the Tea Party movement, can give me a reasonable, comprehensive list as to how the government has somehow curtailed your freedoms, please let me know. This is also common rhetoric from the party, that we are somehow not free. If you are unemployed, I'm especially sorry about that. However, I'm not certain that in most cases the government can be directly responsible for it, unless you had a government job that was cut. If that is the case, though, the Tea Party's goal would be to cut a majority of government jobs.
I'd like to point out that I haven't criticized any one person directly, just their ideas. I'm working very hard to keep within my no-name-calling parameters I wrote about last year when talking about civility in public discourse.
My last discussion point will seriously try my resolve.
My choices for Congress this year are very extreme. The Democrat I haven't been crazy about is trying to brag right now in his ads about breaking with the party when it came to health care and the bailout. Trying to appeal to independents, I suppose. However, what he doesn't say is that he broke with his party because he favored a more nationalized form of health care, and he didn't think the bailouts* were large enough. The man he is running against calls himself the "independent" choice. To me, independent candidates are stylized by their varied and balanced stances between the two parties, candidates who vote on issues instead of down party lines, and those who seek compromise.
Truthfully, however, Independent really just means that they don't affiliate with any particular party, so you can get any number of opinions from such a candidate. When I received the literature on this candidate, I was intrigued. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He styles himself as an "educator" in his material. He has worked outside the political establishment. I have often thought we needed more scientists, teachers, and "regular" folks to run for office. So far, so good.
Then I read further.
The candidate believes that America has been on a slow decline since the 1950's. (Let's not forget that since the 50's, Americans have been able to receive insurance and therefore medical care through the collective bargaining of unions and companies; there was a civil rights movement which expanded rights for women piggybacked; the voting age was lowered and America led a world wide technological revolution.) He maintains that we are now in the midst of an immoral, socialist regime under which we have few freedoms. He is a leader among the anti-global warming crowd, comprising less than 5% of the scientific establishment in this country. He criticizes most forms of alternative energy. His petition was an attempt to prevent Congress from passing laws regulating energy production. He is deeply opposed to any government intervention or regulation in anything to do with farming or forestry. He wants to send ALL illegal immigrants back to their country of origin without regard to how long they have been here or how they have contributed. He maintains that people will act with integrity and charity if the government would just get out of their lives. He calls for a repeal of socialized medicine. He calls this "Obamacare." It is interesting really, considering that we don't actually have socialized medicine in this country. Even under the new law.
But the jewel in his crown is his attitude toward public education. He says that the public schools have more than enough money, but a deeper dig indicates that he has a home schooling curriculum he sells because he really believes that public schools should be "abolished," that they are taxpayer-funded socialism, and school is government-sponsored child abuse. (I am not sure if I can recommend the home schooling course; his web page has a shocking number of grammatical and/or spelling mistakes. Including the word independ"a"nt.)
On the upside, there are things I like about him too. He is pro-nuclear energy, though he blames the government almost entirely for Americans choosing to not tap this resource. (Any official who tries to support this is immediately voted out of office, and even pro-nuclear Americans would probably say "not-in-my-backyard." We need more education, not less regulation of a potentially dangerous resource.) He raised a large family to be science-minded: his kids are all in science-related schooling/careers. He seems to be a man of integrity and intelligence. His official line on public education has a couple of helpful things--more local control and fewer administrators with less pay.
The thing is, I have no doubt that this candidate might be very appealing to some people. That is great. Go out and vote! But my husband is a public employee who works to conserve water and maintain its integrity. I am also a public employee. Most of our retirement money right now is in the state retirement system. I'm an educator and environmentalist. How can I support a candidate who honestly thinks my goal for becoming a teacher was to indoctrinate children with subversive political philosophy? Doesn't this border on a conspiracy-theory approach to reality?
On the other hand, my (barely) preferred candidate has a counter on his website called "The National Debt Clock," that runs continuously counting up and up and up. The speed at which is counts is seizure-inducing, and the 13 trillion and a whole lotta change nearly gave me a heart attack. And yet, he continues to vote WAY left of center.
Is this what our attack-style politics have created? The pundits have engineered an America where only the most extreme opinions get any traction. Where the angriest among us will make the decisions? Where the most extreme will argue themselves to a standstill? Maybe it is from the pundits we should take America back!
* A note on TARP: my paper reported last week that a vast number of economists are in agreement about its effectiveness in halting the recession, and that it won't cost as much money as anticipated. Jobs are always the last thing to recover, and the recession cannot actually reverse until those numbers are down. It should be noted that it took nearly 20 years, a major world war, rationing, and astronomically high taxes to reverse the Great Depression: the economic disaster this housing bubble most closely recognizes. I'm sorry; these facts don't read like government failure to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)