Tuesday, April 16, 2013

The Test


The Test
I had a dream last night.

I was sitting at a desk in a room with no furniture. I had a number two pencil in my hand. There was a test laying in the center of the desk. At least I thought it was a test. On the cover was a blank page. I picked it up and flipped through it. It was not heavy. It was three pages. The second page had three questions. The third page was another blank page. I turned to the second page.

Question 1: Why do you matter?
A. Well, I was born for a reason.
B. I don't.
C. Because I will improve the society I live in.
I bubbled in "C". 
Question 2: What do you want to do with your life?
A. Survive and advance.
B. Travel the world.
I answered "B". 
Question 3(A): Are you truly passionate about something?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know.
I filled in the "A" bubble.
Question 3(B): Have you been taught to cultivate your passion?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know. 
I filled in the "B" bubble.

That was easy enough. I think I aced it. My life compacted into three multiple choice questions. Whoever makes these standardized tests are quite talented at boiling down a complicated subject into a few vague inquiries. 

A teacher of mine always wants to read us interesting stories from non-curriculum related history books or relay to us a morsel of information in the news regarding some simple historical pleasure like the recent unearthing of King Edward's body. And a student always asks if we should take notes. "No, just listen." This response works as an excuse for everyone to fiddle with their iPods or mentally plan the rest of their day or stare, unresponsive, at the wall while he wistfully recounts just how terrible Ivan really was. Why learn for the sake of learning? Grade-obsessed students are at a loss when questions like this are posed, questions which require critical thinking and will not affect their GPA.

I'm writing this while he talks about a recent Rembrandt art theft, or something like that. We don't have to take notes yet. I'm guilty of it too. There is no thirst for knowledge any longer. I justify it by saying I'll learn later, once I have the means to travel and have life educate me. Not only is there no incentive to succeed and learn beyond the quantified grade system, but trying to do so could be harmful. If you spend time writing poems or short stories, you lose time studying, you get worse grades, and you can't get past high school. Elementary math. 

So yes, I am against CAPT testing. I am against AP testing. I am against the "OLA" test used to evaluate teachers, the "OLA" test that students are forced to take at the beginning and end of every semester or quarter. I'm against midterms and finals and pop quizzes. I'm against tests. I hate that the three students with the best GPA are the ones that deliver speeches at graduation. This is not to take away from their accomplishments, but are they the best writers? The best orators? I hate studying. And I hate facing the anxiety of the ordeal. I know, I'm every student. But I hate it because successfully memorizing information like dates and formulas does not benefit the student in any area aside from their GPA. I hate it because it reduces a student to a number. A teacher to a number. Months of learning and years of experience to one final grade. 

I understand the value of hard work, but the current grading system does not reward intelligence. Is there nothing else to discover? Are dogmatic Quadratic formulas the only equations left to be known? Is there no other philosophy to be created? Was Voltaire the last freedom fighter? Locke the last idealist? Newton the last theorist? That's how it feels when I'm sitting at a desk filling out a test or taking the mandatory notes we need to memorize for the test. When an entire lesson plan is based around being ready for the test. Life becomes a test rather than a journey of self discovery. Creativity is being slowly exterminated. We are young people with old ideas.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Politically Correct

Politically Correct
Sten Spinella

Valley Regional is a great school. We can all admit that. The teachers are fantastic, the opportunities abound, the students enjoy each other's company. But let's not pretend it's perfect. If high school prepares a student for the rest of their life, unrelenting positivity, heavy handed micro managing, the stifling of an increasingly more difficult to discover school spirit, and censorship, are not viable ways to foster a student's intellectual and social abilities or to run such a crucial four year school system. 

I do understand where the proponents of such suppressive behavior draw their strength. They tend to cite the need for a "high sense of ethic responsibility" and a "positive atmosphere". Well, I can't argue with that. Yet, such a tightly controlled and overly orderly environment cannot last for long, is not realistic to a student's future, and is not conducive to a constructive learning experience. This is not to say that the situation at Valley Regional is all bad, but in order to create a more perfect union, a student's, also known as a human's inalienable rights must be protected.

Before I get into specific examples regarding the recent encroachment on student rights, I'll offer a bit of background. It is difficult to understate the importance of supreme court cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, both of which had disastrous consequences for a student's right to free speech. Essentially, schools were awarded the jurisdiction of censoring the school sponsored newspaper (a power which has been wielded with the utmost authority here at Valley with reference to teacher firings, opinion columns, and various statements that were "too negative", but I digress). In addition, if the school deemed for an event such as a protest to be "disruptive to the school environment", or inflammatory, the demonstration could be immediately extinguished, with obligatory punishments to be doled out. 

So here we stand. Let us first examine the now more strictly enforced hall pass rule. Such a laughable regulation is mocked in countless movies, where the archetypal uppity student hall monitor delivers citations to peers for roaming the halls without a pass. What wild animals. But this is real life. Students will soon be in college or have a job and they will be walking freely (many times with a backpack because, you know, it helps carry stuff more conveniently, and a coffee mug, because getting up at six ain't easy, but we'll get to that later). I can guarantee you that 100% of the time these former high school students will not be asking their professor or their boss for a hall pass. They would be laughed out of the office or the classroom. But now, students can face disciplinary action for walking twenty feet to the nearest bathroom without the all powerful hall pass. What is the justification for not trusting students enough to walk freely (this foreign word "freely" being the operative term) from classroom to classroom or bathroom? And are the teachers who have to write out these passes perhaps annoyed by taking time out of class to usher a student to their destination? Here again is the issue at hand: Forcing students to carry hall passes is not only a waste of time, but it poorly prepares students for the future. If a student strolls aimlessly through the halls, which happens less often than one would think, then that is their own decision, for better or worse. Students will not be under such a watchful an omnipotent eye when they graduate from the sheltered halls of Valley Regional. Then again, how would I know, I'm only a student here. I have no idea what's best for me.

I will move to free speech in a moment, but first allow me to touch on two more cockamamie decrees, these being the ban on any admittedly and undoubtedly subversive coffee related activity in the school, as well as the entirely too rebellious and bothersome wearing of pajama pants during a school day. 

I will concede two points regarding pajama pants. One, they do not look good in school, or anywhere else for that matter, in the sense that they look bad. Also, it is in the Valley handbook that students cannot wear pajamas to school. This includes pajama pants. At the risk of sounding unsophisticated, this is a stupid rule. If a student wishes to look like a lazy bum who just woke up, that is their right. I do not attend some strict, stuck in the past, uniformed school, at least I thought I didn't. I live in the school with the best debate team, basketball team, soccer team, sports fans, writers, singers, actors, artists, scientists, and teachers in the state of Connecticut. Is the wearing of pajama pants a great threat to that legacy? The reason I bring this up is a friend of mine, and I will refrain from names as I have for the entirety of this piece, told me he was harshly reprimanded for his oft-donning of pajama pants to school, and warned not to do it again. Re read that sentence and consider the absurdity.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy waking up at the crack of dawn after a long night consisting of a basketball game and hours of homework, but it can be burdensome. By this I mean, without coffee, I feel, at times, as if I will fall asleep. And, at times, I do (when I go without coffee). For the purpose of this piece let's excuse my addiction to the sweet, sweet caffeine, and instead focus on the issues of choice, productivity, and a power structure taking on the role of an obsessively compulsive mother. 

If I wish to drink coffee in school, I will drink coffee in school. I've got a nice mug that feels warm against my hands, and it starts the day off right. In a few words, you can pry my coffee mug from my cold, dead, hands. Now, if students are forced to wake up at such an ungodly hour, students should be allowed the means (within reason) to work through it. The options are sparse, but the godsend that is coffee remains. Without coffee, students are liable to become unproductive and inattentive due to exhaustion. 

So why is coffee not allowed? Apparently, administrators are worried about coffee stains dirtying this new and cleanly institution. First of all, there's no evidence that disallowing coffee in the classroom will cut down on stains. Also, stains can be immediately cleaned up. It seems to me that the benefits of students drinking coffee in school largely outweigh the disadvantages. Students will be doing the same in the office or the college classroom, and the teacher's efforts will be better rewarded. Instead of totally outlawing the drinking of coffee, let us instead arrive at a sensible solution. I propose that if students are to bring in coffee they must carry it in closed-top mugs, and if a deadly spill were to occur the student would immediately be bound to clean it up. I'm sure the students would be capable of this.

I have so far been focusing only on the petty ordinances enacted in order to control the student's actions. Censorship is a much more serious matter to me, one that our country was founded against, and one that is synonymous with matters of life and death throughout history. I'll have graduated in a few months so this may seem an overreaction, and maybe it is, but I don't care. While the general legal structure of the school system allows for the administration to claim they are in the right in situations of free speech, they are often unabashedly wrong, and at times, even abusive in their enforcement.

I was recently called down after first block to have a discussion in the conference room (better known as the I.S.S. room) with two school officials and four of my peers. We were labeled the ringleaders of the fan section at boys' and girls' basketball games. The conversation we had with the officials was cordial, well-mannered, and at times verging on philosophical. I understand that both of the officials mean well for their students and hold the conviction that the fans should not be cheering against the other team, and should instead focus solely on positive chants for the home team. They "suggested" that we should keep from chants like "In your head" or "Winning team, losing team" (see me for a reenactment of both chants) and that one person alone is not allowed to yell during a free throw, and if the world was perfect we would sit on our hands during the opposing team's free throws because the fans are not to affect the outcome of the game and everybody is always on your side no matter what you do or how long you live.  

This is a special kind of censorship. Chants and cheers were not singled out, and the officials were careful not to specify anything we could not say, because that would be blatant suppression of free speech. The officials framed the debate as one between moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. If we weren't a bunch of "thugs", we would not be negative to the opposing team. Valley Regional is better than those other schools with unruly fan sections. I was nearly crippled from the sheer tonnage of these fallacies. A high school fan section is not a reflection of how good a school is. The fan section is, however, an indication of how much spirit a school has, and at times, how much creativity it has. A high school basketball game should not have the same polite audience that a venue such as Carnegie Hall does. But, as one official said, Valley doesn't have to conform to the toxic "American sports culture." Why? As in sports, there is conflict in life. I have best friends that are Yankee fans. I'm a Red Sox fan. The same goes for Patriots and Giants. Valley and HK students share a special connection because of the back and forth battle between the opposing fan sections. And yet, I still have not reached the most appalling part about this continuing attack on student's rights.

In a recent game versus North Branford, a game in which the Valley boys' basketball team won by 54 points, new developments took place. To begin the game, the fans planned on executing a silent protest against the infringement upon their first amendment rights, and in a brilliant display of creativity, newspapers were circulated throughout the crowd to be held up and read nonchalantly until halfway through the first quarter. Well, the Valley watchdogs would have none of that, and when this dangerous activity was spotted, the newspapers were promptly confiscated. One of the "ringleaders" called down to the conference room was singled out: "Do you want to get thrown out before the game even starts?" Apparently, he did not, and neither did the other fans, so they responded to this threat by handing over their newspapers in a penultimate exhibition of irony. This compliance is part of the problem, but I'll get to that later.

The game began and the Valley faithful took to chanting "Let's have fun!" in a mocking tone, and even cheering for the opposing team when the Warriors had the game in hand. With a 48-18 lead in the second half, the fans were lead in a rousing cheer that went something like this.

Solitary leader: Is that score not 48?
Congregation: Yes that score is 48!
Solitary leader: Is that score not 18?
Congregation: Yes that score is 18!
Solitary leader: Is that (points to the Warriors) not the winning team?
Congregation: Yes that is the winning team!
Solitary leader: Is that (points to North Branford) not the losing team?
Congregation: Yes that is the losing team!
All together: Winning team! Losing team! Winning team! Losing team!

This statement of fact was immediately squashed by the unscrupulous Valley monitors. One waded through the crowd to chew out the leader and escort him off the stands and into the hallway to be shouted at by another official in the same manner that a boxer would punch a punching bag. The threat was neutralized, the leader detained in the hallway. 

The situation could not have been handled more poorly. Americans, even if they are immature, untrustworthy high school students, have a strong sense about what's really wrong and what's really right, and when they are being lied to. While the thrashing of North Branford continued (The Warriors had no problem with destroying the Thunderbirds on the court), the Valley fans erupted. They chanted "First Amendment!", "Free [leader's name]", "We want [leader's name]" and straight up "[leader's name]." With about a minute to go, they got their wish. The leader returned to his people triumphant, arms raised in victory, basking in a glorious chorus of screams, applause, back slaps, and manic laughter. The rebels now had a symbol to allude to in their confrontation with tyranny. 

Similar incidents occurred last year. A National Honor Society induction speech was eliminated for being too negative (although it was wonderfully written and thoughtful). The Valedictorian graduation speeches were carefully scrutinized and shortened to three minutes. Newspaper articles are heavily edited or completely stricken if they did not spew enough positive propaganda. Nothing substantial was done in opposition to these travesties. 

As I mentioned earlier, I will be gone soon, hopefully to a place where I can express myself freely and drink coffee and where pajama pants in public. But even if the underclassmen can be annoying and at times a touch too confident (save it for senior year), I have respect for everyone, no matter what age level, as humans. I hope they will be treated with a degree of basic decency in their future years of high school after I have gone, and with the understanding of people who were kids once too. The future is why we can no longer sit idly by and do our damnedest to comply. As one of the officials told me in the meeting in the conference room, Valley is headed in the wrong direction. We have fundamentally different views of how to change this though. While the official promoted more rules and regulations, I thought to myself: that's what's gotten us in to this mess.  Even if Valley was contributing to an argument culture, the real world remains the same, argumentative and divisive, and you need to have tough skin if you're going to deal with it. This truth is not something I learned from the Valley Regional curriculum. It's what I learned in my dealing with injustice. 

I was first truly awaken to injustice in a meeting with a top school official in the library my junior year, my first year as editor of the newspaper. She brought a thick law book and graciously highlighted a section for me concerning student speech rights. I must thank her now for being so forthright in her unveiling of the power vested in her to commit injustice. 

The students of Valley should be passionate about these issues, and if you're half as passionate as I am, your heart is in the right place. Next time, do not give up your newspapers. Do not stop toting your coffee mugs. Wear any type of pajama pant, no matter how ugly. At sporting events, be as creative and loose and free as you like, and root against the other team if that helps your team, isn't that how the free market works? If you are told to do differently, then you are told wrong. If you do differently, you are doing wrong. In yet another exercise of irony, this essay will undoubtedly be censored, and I could face disciplinary action, and if the administrators had their way, this essay would be burned in an analogous fashion to Fahrenheit 451. But it doesn't have to be like this. In America we have the luxury of reading and saying and doing the controversial in order to open minds. May this essay be shared both physically - passed from hand to hand - and through the internet - posted inbox to inbox - in order get the word out. As we saw in Egypt, it is a new age, even if some people wish to revert to the old and traditional.

Before I depart let me leave you with this. The vast majority of students, faculty, and parents are against what I have detailed in this piece. In this way, Valley does resemble real life. There is the illusion of democracy, but the power remains with the few, and to the dismay of the many, the few will do all they can to maintain it. 

#FreeOskar

Monday, January 28, 2013

The Alleyways of Democracy



I woke up in the dark at six A.M. on a Thursday morning. Schools across the Connecticut Shoreline were closed, and our electricity from Sandy remained extinguished. I ambled out of bed and to the bathroom to brush my teeth and shave. It was 35 degrees outside.

My mom and I began our journey to Pennsylvania. The New Jersey Turnpike was a disaster, packed with vehicles from throughout the East Coast. After a few ill advised turns and much traffic, we arrived at the Pennsylvania office at noon, concluding a torturous five and one half hour trip.

I had planned this excursion two months in advance. The election was to come down, as it often does, to a handful of swing states, or battleground states. In the spirit of full disclosure, I passionately believed Barack Obama deserved to be elected over Mitt Romney, and helping this cause in Connecticut would be fruitless as we nutmeggers vote almost exclusively Democratic in presidential elections. I signed up to become a volunteer for Barack Obama's Vote Corps online, and was stationed in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

West Chester County leaned Republican in most elections, while Pennsylvania as a whole leaned Democrat. In 2010 the GOP won the midterm elections handily both in West Chester and across the nation. The Obama campaign led by David Axelrod and Jim Messina studied the modern electoral map following this election, scrutinizing each county in every battleground state. They strategically spent money on campaign offices in specific counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, and Virginia. These offices, like the one I worked in, were heralded after the election for their sophisticated "ground game", designed for base voter turnout.

Keith Miller, the Field Director for the OFAPA (Organizing for America, Pennsylvania) office met us outside upon arrival. I said a hurried goodbye to my mother, who was having second guesses after worrying she was dropping me off with a few hundred dollars in an office in Pennsylvania where I knew no one, had no clear cut transportation, and had only a muddied view of where I would be staying at night. This was no matter of importance I told her, when democracy was at stake.

I was immediately set to work upon entering the office. A tall, bearded, Jewish man who majored in history and was a longtime fellow of OFAPA West Chester by the name of Josh gave me directions on how to make calls. He had a bass-heavy voice and if you listened to him close enough, he threw in dry wisecracks with nearly every remark. He was tired. He seemed spent. He peppered his instructions with expletives and impressions of disgruntled callers at the other end of the line, and I soon understood the camaraderie of the office, especially between the fellows. 

The fellows are the employees in the office. Some fellows, like Annie, Clara, and I, do not get paid, as we are strictly volunteers who work long hours. Other fellows, like the field directors, Keith and Dan, and the field director at West Chester University, Erica, have been at the office since the summer working for a paycheck in order to get the President reelected. 

I was calling for volunteer recruitment the first day, trying to find people who would spend time making calls for voter turnout that weekend or those who would go door to door canvassing. With the weekend came "GOTV", which was the Get Out the Vote campaign, the event the fellows had been preparing for since August. The main objective of the operation was to increase voter turnout amongst the liberal base, contradictory to the commonly held belief that missions like these were meant to sway undecided voters. 

The ordeal that was the phone bank reminded me of a movie montage. I called hundreds of numbers only to find no one at the other line and to hang up in disappointment. Someone did eventually pick up, but I was so accustomed to the answering machine that I was caught off guard. Thankfully, this first person was friendly and a strong Obama supporter (though she had no time to volunteer), so I did not have to deal with a rude caller on my first day.  

Keith helped set me up a "Vote Builder" account so that I could enter data from calls and canvassing when I was not making calls, or canvassing, or sorting stickers, or decorating the office, or making packets, or eating, or sleeping. Entering data was another mundane task, but one that had to be done and had been done since the summer. Data entry allowed for the Field Directors to know who we should no longer contact, and who we need to call based on past experience. Calls and visits to homes were focused mostly on registered democrats, but there was more than a handful of republicans I spoke to, many who planned to vote for Obama, and a couple who were even able to come to the office and volunteer. Apparently, in West Chester County there were a lot of "RINOS", or, Republicans in name only. RINOS are a dying breed, or as some may call them, moderates. 

The walls of the office were draped with signs: "African Americans for Obama, Forward., Yes We Can, Jewish Americans for Obama, Latinos for Obama, LGBT for Obama, Women for Obama, Asian Americans for Obama, Students for Obama" and a few cartoons and articles attacking Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan. One sign stated simply: "Romney-Ryan economics, It didn't work then, it won't work now."  There were also a couple 10X10 "Pennsylvania for Obama" banners. I thought these signs were ploys to appeal to certain demographics, but I found out they were originally paid for by outside groups created by independent Obama supporters like "LGBT for Obama". These factions were previously unaffiliated with Obama until they came to his campaign's attention. Only after this did they receive aid from the campaign. Obama's appeal to this wide range of voting blocs is what many believe drove his election victory. He won only 39% of the white vote, yet he won 93% of the black vote, 71% of the Latino vote, 55% of females voted for him, and he took 73% of the Asian vote.

The part of the office I was most often in, the phone banking room, was a small, chaotic place with a mini fridge, a fan, four old desktop computers, two long tables with nine phones on each, a table in the back with food and drinks, a couch, and a stack of call tally sheets to give to the volunteer callers. I was struck when I first entered the office bathroom, for there was a toothbrush, toothpaste, shaving cream, a razor, and deodorant. I was later told the Field Directors and a couple of fellows often slept over the office. Keith took time to warn me against working on campaigns during a drive to his house, due to the long and irregular hours. 

West Chester is a microcosm of the United States, reflecting both the division between political parties and the modern American melting pot. There are wealthy suburbs and developments, as well as large and expensive homes which dot hillsides and are secluded from the rest of West Chester. Many of these homes congregate near golf courses. These areas were both strong Romney, though the developments had some Obama supporters. 

Keith's parents lived in an upscale area like this, and he divulged to me that their liberal leanings must remain clandestine for fear of "preferential" treatment by the police, or even home invasions. There was a degree of sincerity in his claims. 

West Chester also contained middle class suburbs and apartments. The downtown apartments were expensive, but the middle class areas in the "Borough" were less so and housed mostly industrial workers. There were factories in this area and many men in overalls chatting and smoking cigarettes. These places leaned towards Obama. The University was full of Obama supporters, and an entire faction of the West Chester office was dispatched there to make sure thousands of students were able to vote. 

Parts of the Borough were mostly made up of minorities and low income housing. These places favored Obama, and the challenge for the office I worked in was to get most of those in the Borough, including many minorities, to go out on November 6th and vote. In fact, the West Chester office volunteers were enlisted for an all out effort to assist the people at a makeshift office in Coatesville, a poor area of projects twenty five minutes away. Canvassers from West Chester, including me, stormed homes with flyers and information and questions of support. After the successful invasion, a top fellow in the West Chester office could be heard saying on her phone: "We had a problem in one of our heaviest African-American districts today but our entire staff went down there and got the vote out. I couldn't have walked into a better situation. These guys have worked they asses off, man. I'm tired." 

The first night I was in Pennsylvania I ate at a Chipotle near the office with Nate, Clara, and Josh. Nate was a white 22 year old. He was a laid back college student and was attending McGill University in Canada. He mostly worked the local West Chester University, finding volunteers there and making sure the students voted. Nate had been working with the campaign for awhile. 

Clara was a 21 year old white woman. She was from Texas, a Republican stronghold, and wanted to make a difference for President Obama, keeping in mind there was nothing she could do to help him in her home state. She signed up for the Vote Corps and chose to go to Pennsylvania, where she had previously attended Carnegie Mellon for a year. She was a self proclaimed feminist and someone who liked to talk, and I worked closely with her over the next week. Her and Nate seemed to have taken a shining to one another. Infatuation at first sight of another liberal.

Back at the campaign office we ate and continued to make calls and enter data. Keith finally departed the office at 12:30 that night. He provided me with shelter for the first three nights of my trip at his parents house, where he was also taking refuge. Keith was a small, wiry man, anywhere from 24-26 years old. He had attended Davidson College and transferred later so he could continue to play soccer. He was polite and professional in the office with the volunteers, but with the fellows, especially outside of the office, he was different than I had expected. The fellows raved about how wild he was after hours, and also about his genuine compassion for all the people with whom he worked. Keith was pleasantly crass and jaded from the campaign, and maintained a distinguishing sense of humor. He worked tirelessly. He spoke with freedom and conviction about the political situation in West Chester, where he had lived his entire life. The three Field Directors Keith, Dan, and Erica were all homosexual, and conservatives in the area liked to joke about the office: "You come in high, and you go out gay." Keith relayed that slogan to me with amusement.

The people I worked with and met during the trip were the reason why the experience was so impactful. The majority of my acquaintances were like minded in their push for President Obama and their personal political beliefs, but there was an engaging story behind each person. Most importantly, I came to realize there was beauty in being around people united under a common cause much larger than themselves. Politicians should understand the culture of a campaign office and the people involved with it in this respect. Part of my penchant for the President is what I believe to be his honest appreciation of the people who work for him in offices like OFAPA, as evidenced by his tearful address of a field office in Ohio following his election. This is not to say other politicians are not as genuine, although most are not.

I had contact with innumerable people, coworkers, volunteers, and citizens alike, who gave meaning to a memory that remains with me. A soft spoken woman named Sandra warmed to me quickly. She was a thirty three year old white woman who was proud of her cultural background. She had a hint of an accent, a vocal inflection that can only be described as well-mannered. She had spent extensive time in Chile and the Czech Republic, and told me she saw many differing attitudes towards the U.S. during her time in other countries. She relayed to me that many people were angry at how the U.S. tends to play "international police." She was making calls because she believed Obama would be a better foreign policy candidate, even citing a BBC poll of 21 developed countries in which 20 favored Obama over Romney. 

A white man, at least 45, with glasses, a Phillies shirt, a vest, and a dusting of facial hair was confused about the call process and continued to question the methodology. Josh was finally able to help him wrap his head around it after a royal fuss. He was back the next night.

I spoke with an 83 year old registered Democratic woman who told me she would be voting for Romney. I politely tried to talk her out of it, giving in to some improbable belief that I could get her to come around to my side. We ended up having an insightful chat. She told me 62 years ago, when she was 21, she was a registered Republican. Ten years later a friend of hers ran for Democratic office, and being a reliable companion, she volunteered for her, and consequentially, for various Democratic campaigns for the next 50 years. This was the first time she had neither volunteered nor voted for a democrat since she was thirty years old. She felt Obama had his chance, but now it was someone else's turn. We ended the conversation with a laugh, as I told her even though she's not voting for my guy, I hoped she'd be able to get to the polls, and we would supply her with transportation if necessary.

I spoke with one registered Democrat on the phone who had to pause our conversation to take a call on his landline. I heard in the background: "This is a recorded message from the Republican National Committee -" he immediately hung up. When he picked up his cellphone he said to me: "Just like those Republicans to leave a recorded message while the Democrats volunteer." He came and worked at the office that weekend. 

I canvassed with a Jane Austen para-novelist and her baby. She was the wife of one of the canvassing directors at the office, John. She had been to Italy, Paris, Puerto Rico, Atlanta, New Orleans, the Netherlands, and Ireland, among other areas. She was a Delaware resident and she came with her husband to Pennsylvania, where her parents live, for election season. She was talkative and peppy, cutting in so much on my responses that her conversation was more with herself than it was with me. She was vehemently against an election bought by large-scale corporations, and she of course detested Citizens United. She was proud of being a writer and doing what she loved despite making no money, and she liked to say words like theoretical. She fed her two year old daughter biscotti and quiche, and told me she would only bear another child if Obama won the election.

Karen was a black woman around the age of fifty who I soon grew fond of. She told me she was not interested in politics until she witnessed Obama's famous 2004 Democratic National Convention address. She had not voted before that day. She followed Obama after the event, and cried with joy the day he was elected. Karen was a fellow at the office, who bonded with me over classic R&B. One late night in the phone bank room as I was sorting stickers and loading cell phones with minutes beside Clara, I decided it was a fine time to play Marvin Gaye. Karen also happened to be in the room, organizing canvassing packets for the next day. She instinctively whipped around at the sound of "Ain't No Mountain High Enough", and shook her head with nostalgia as I unintentionally attempted to ruin the song by singing along. When the tune finished, she talked with me wistfully about Tammi Terrelle and Marvin Gaye's complex relationship. She slipped into an emotional state as she told me: "She was younger than him, but he just felt comfortable around her. I don't think it was a sexual thing, I think he was protective of her, like a father or a brother. I remember watching that video for the first time." She trailed off. Karen is also the mother of Kaelyn, a junior at American University who came for the last two days leading up to and during the election.

One of the fellows in the office was also a Connecticut native. Annie Rosenthal was a 22 year old, white, liberal roamer from Middletown. She had been in Pennsylvania for a few months, and had just taken a non-profit environmental policy job in D.C. Annie became my mode of transportation to most places, and I learned a lot about her in the car rides. She was sharp and sarcastic, and attuned to the relationships and attitudes in the office.

My place of lodging for the last three days of the trip was a canvass director's downtown apartment. Susanna was a 42 year old white woman who lived with her 15 year old son and her 22 year old niece. She was a public defender, and was familiar with the area we were working in. She, like all the fellows, had worked fervently for months, and this weekend was the weekend. Dedicated and intense, she was also disorganized and disheveled, writing my name on her hand to remember to bring me back to her house Sunday night, and habitually smoking two cigarettes after each major event. She was cool. I watched The Walking Dead with her family the fourth night of my stay; and she was fond of saying it was okay to swear incessantly until election day.

The grand GOTV weekend began with a speech from Vice President Joe Biden's wife, Dr. Jill Biden. There was a considerable amount of preparation to be done for her event. A secret service agent with a smart suit and gelled hair scouted the area for two days leading up to Saturday morning. Jill Biden's aide was also there to make sure all went well. She was a small, nervous blonde woman who was both nice and demanding. I had to take down and put up many signs, including a "Forward." sign. I asked why. Biden's aide told me it was because the new slogan was, "Forward!" The lack of excitement around the campaign was a concern for many democrats, with prominent pundits and even Jon Stewart exposing the discrepancy between the idealistic "Hope and Change" of 2008, and the sober "Forward." of 2012. 

The office that usually housed twenty five people became a rally of 160 Saturday morning. There was a podium set up outside the entrance to the phone bank, and there was a camera crew along with about eighty people inside of the phone bank. One of the field directors, Dan, gave a quick introduction, followed by Ashley Biden, daughter of Joe and Jill. Ashley detailed her mother's career and achievements before the speech. When Dr. Biden stepped to the podium, I was made fully aware of the energy famously exuded by the Bidens. Dr. Biden excitedly ran through the usual Obama stump speech: "The President killed Bin Laden, he saved the auto industry, he created 5.4 million private sector jobs," the like. She delighted the crowd when she put her own spin on it, including appeals to veterans and women. She ended her speech with a call for women to vote democratic, "for we all value control over our own healthcare decisions." Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter concluded the event with a spirited and aggressive speech, telling the room: "Romney thinks he can come down her on this last weekend and spend a bunch of money. But we have a chance to tell Romney: You can't buy Pennsylvania!" He was referring to Romney's last minute push for Pennsylvania, hoping for an electoral upset in the state.

While everyone attempted to file out who was not already volunteering for the day, Keith, Dan, and the other fellows corralled most of the spectators and prevailed upon them to work for a few hours. A group of student Democrats from Albany College in New York came down for the weekend, who preferred staying in the phone banking room to much else, while only occasionally picking up a phone. The day, and the next four until election day, were fatiguing and frantic, with volunteers rushing in and out, new assignments forcing current ones to go unfinished, and with the mess and the beauty of the political process on full display.

An unfortunate symptom of Obama's 800 campaign offices, as well as Romney's 300, is the warlike atmosphere. Each volunteer that works at either office is secluded in a bunker, or bubble, of like-minded political opinions. The field director comes out of his tent to visit his volunteers now and then, offering an inspiring word to keep up soldierly morale, and then returns to his post to strategize with his top advisors. This creates an us vs. them mentality, brings polarization to its most blindingly obvious light, and encourages the discourse level of a sporting event that reaches a fever pitch on election night. This is the sickness that is election season. To tell the unfortunate truth, I loved it. 

I phone banked for most of Saturday, while canvassing, calling, and entering data Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. The phone banking room was now manned by Rick, an amicable and awkward graduate of American University. After a day he came to be known (due to my constant efforts) as Slick Rick. He was also working to get a local congressman with the last name "Trivedi" elected. Unlike phone bank director, this was a paid job. His candidate lost, as most Democratic congressional candidates do in West Chester county. When Annie or Rick were busy, I directed the volunteer callers. 

The phone bank room was in disarray and filled to capacity from nine in the morning to nine at night each day during the GOTV campaign. The cast of characters was vast and amusing. Two eight year old girls came in at separate times with their mothers. They read the call script verbatim, saying "Personally, today I'm here because the president ended the war in Iraq." They were confident, not to mention adorable.

I heard two women talking about their husbands, and how they recently converted them from conservative to liberal. "He doesn't even watch Fox anymore! I catch him watching MSNBC all the time."
"Does he stay up for Rachel?"
"Yes! Rachel's his new favorite!"

A short stocky Filipino college girl, Victoria, was proper, pushy, and effective on the phone. She came in every night around five, didn't say a word to anyone, made calls for three hours, and left. 

At this point, the people on our call lists had been contacted at least twice; for every 25 people who demanded that the volunteer stop calling, only one person warmly received our advances. When people told us they could not volunteer because they were poll watching, Keith became irate: "Poll watching doesn't win elections. Knocking on doors wins elections."

My diet for the week consisted of all the "hoagies" (Pennsylvanian grinders) money could buy, and whatever was on the table that people brought in. Sometimes pasta, or pulled pork, other times doughnuts, or cookies. There was little time to eat though, and starting my fourth morning, I was on the move and canvassing regularly. 

I went door to door with a middle aged black woman, Phyllis, who was a nurse with a husband and a daughter. She had squeezed in a few volunteer hours at the end of a busy work day. We canvassed in a development, and with the yards so far apart, she drove house to house while I jumped out and spoke to residents about voting to make sure they would be able to get to the polls and they knew all the necessary information. Phyllis had her own opinions about the election: "Romney doesn't know what it's like to be poor. He lives in a fantasy land where those who don't have jobs are lazy or dependent - that's just not true!" She became quite animated at this point, and I solemnly nodded while she told me why she would vote for the sitting President. Her reasons mostly consisted of personality and background rather than policy. 

I canvassed a with Clara in low income neighborhoods. Most of the people we spoke with were strong Obama supporters, and I had a pleasant chat with a man who was trying to launch a rap career. He showed me a few of his videos. I did the talking while Clara took care of the paperwork, such as giving people stickers and keeping track of the statistics: How many people were not home? How many people were strong Obama supporters? How many were undecided?

The last two days were the height of GOTV. I trekked across West Chester in every conceivable area with every possible partner. I canvassed with Susanna and her son who efficiently passed out flyers in Coatesville. I went to hundreds of apartments with Annie and Clara, doing the same. I spent the majority of the last two days with Kaelyn, Austin, and Rachel. Kaelyn drove us to our targets over the last day and a half. She loved holiday music and had a strong urge to tear down every Republican sign, whether local or federal, that she witnessed. Austin is a goofy white senior in high school with a distinct running style which he displayed while running from house to house. 

Rachel was with us on the last day. She was a fearless, ambitious, and lovely senior in high school who wants to be president in 2040. She had spent her summer working as an intern in the office. She went to a high school in West Chester and was well acquainted with all the fellows, but had stopped working at the office so she could focus on school. Five minutes after we met she playfully criticized all I did. 

Monday and Tuesday the four of us, in different combinations, argued about music and thumbed our noses at Romney/Ryan signs. Two times we saw a man driving around with a dog crate strapped to the top of his car with a sign across the back of the crate saying "Beware of dog." We talked face to face with hundreds of people all the way up to the 7:00 voting deadline Tuesday night.

My proudest moment for the week was an encounter I had with a man behind the apartment door I knocked on in the afternoon of election day. We had a long conversation with topics ranging from the national debt and healthcare to liberalism, conservatism, and Keynesian economics. He told me he was not going to vote. Such an appalling sentiment is not completely his fault, for, politics is not currently a popular occupation. I tried to appeal to his sense of civic duty. He did not budge. He agreed taxes should be raised to help reduce the debt, but believed Obama would spend too much. He believed, correctly, Romney would not raise taxes, but he also believed he would cut spending. He saw the two candidates as synonymous. I tried to tell him Romney would double the defense budget and add to the debt while Obama would make the military smaller and save money. He didn't buy it. Twenty six minutes in, with my foolishly idealistic hope that I could convince this man to vote rapidly fading, I made a final attempt at persuasion. "If you won't vote for either candidate, think about how Romney would leave thirty one million people without healthcare, as he vows to do by repealing Obamacare." 
"So if I don't vote for Obama, I'm killing thirty one million people."
"Basically." 
He got in his car and voted for Obama. 

Rachel, Kaelyn, Austin and I went on a last mission Tuesday night. We scoured West Chester University to make sure all the students had voted. The deadline passed, and those who had voted for Obama were congratulated by us, while those who voted for Romney were berated. Rachel became visibly angry at Romney supporters, but for my part, I wanted to know why a citizen would have voted for the former governor of Massachusetts. Inevitably, the people I questioned took it as heckling, and my question went unanswered. 

We returned to the office anxious to see results. Kaelyn could not contain herself, declaring Obama or Romney winners in certain states when only one percent of the precincts had reported. A nervous cheer erupted from the office when Obama took Pennsylvania. The legal drinkers began to uncork wine and champagne and crack open beers, and the tension leading up to the result was short lived. About half an hour later, Obama was declared the winner of Ohio, and therefore, had attained the necessary amount of electoral votes to become a two-term president. 

The entire office was swept into emotional hilarity. Hugs and tears flowed liberally, with shouts and shrieks of triumphant expletives and joyful shouts echoing through the unassuming building. Susanna and Karen both came to me and while hugging me spoke through tears: "You have a future. You have a future." Rachel jumped on me and I lost my balance and almost fell. Annie lay silently smiling on the floor. Clara was with Nate. Slick Rick and I chest bumped. The familiar call originated anonymously and was taken up by the entire staff: "Fired up!"
"Ready to go!"

We went to Jazmine, a restaurant, to celebrate. I talked to Rachel for a while over Ginger Ales. We had been monitoring the election for a while and were more than content to talk policy, or gloat on the victory, or chat about some article we read in The New Yorker  that reaffirmed our beliefs. There was no time for that at the moment though. This was about the thing we no longer had to compete for, a personal, but impersonal victory, a victory for all the people I had met on the trip and would never see again. There was no debate on what the next move would be; how the fiscal cliff negotiations would be handled; how the polarization would be fixed. There was only the understanding that those who had toiled in the unglamorous alleyways of democracy, some for six months, some for a week, had been vindicated. All that needed recognition was the understanding that we were in a moment, one of those points in your personal history where you would eternally remember where you were when it happened.

President Obama emerged from backstage to address his constituency, invigorated and inspired as his oratory tends to be. He harkened back to the days of not being "a collection of red states and blue states". The foolish idealism had returned, and it didn't matter that it would soon slip away. The President spoke directly to his volunteers: "To the best campaign team and volunteers in the history of politics. The best. The best ever." This elicited an uproar from the restaurant.  

Despite the civil rights lawyers at the polls, the videos of voting machines changing votes, and the long lines, Democracy was once again justified. In the words of the president, "That's why we do this. That's what politics can be. That's why elections matter. It's not small, it's big. It's important. Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy. "

I caught a train back to Connecticut, and typed this account while rain and snow pelted the windows and roof of my silver Amtrak chariot. I passed by streets and graffiti and houses and apartments and entire states. The election and the politics surrounding it seemed a distant novelty when I considered the people surrounding me on the train, the four college kids laughing behind me, the two middle aged women drinking across from me, the man typing furiously in front of me. No matter the antipathy toward our political system, each person I encountered during my trip had been profoundly affected by their government and the election process, just as U.S. citizens since the 1700’s have deeply influenced the government they elect and the society they inhabit. My overwhelming amount of homework was but a small price. In a personal rendition of “my dog ate it”, I told my teachers – “Democracy was at stake.” My president seemed to agree:

"I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We're not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America." 

Friday, January 18, 2013

The Dangers of Safety

Unbeknownst to most, the prolific writer H.L. Mencken held various conservative values. He believed in almost no government at all, and often identified himself as a libertarian. Yet his emphatic liberalism on issues such as free expression was quite the opposite. What can we make of his paradoxical philosophies? Mencken once wrote, "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe." With these words written some sixty years ago, Mencken encapsulates not only the entirety of his beliefs, but also two debates currently being waged in modern American society.

Mencken's words sound remarkably similar to sound bytes one might hear from a Republican congressman or conservative pundit, and in this way, Mencken's view on freedom is applicable to that of the contemporary conservative. The majority of the modern Republican party believes the U.S. is split between the takers, who, in the words of Mencken, simply want to be safe, and the makers, the capitalists, who wish only to be free from government regulation. Granted, Mencken was not a vocal fan of capitalism, but the country's current economic debate is framed in this manner.

His quote provides a modern philosophical lens as well, that of the unthreatening college major in economics, or, conversely, the hopeful singer, writer, or Peace Corps member. This division between passion and safety, as well as that of a paternal government or an unhindered capitalist, are the current societal connections to the words of the late H.L. Mencken.

Following President Obama's reelection triumph, conservative pundits like Bill O'Reilly could be heard making statements such as, "People like stuff." This is the conservative explanation for Obama's reelection. Members of the Tea Party, conservative libertarians, and Republicans all ran on a platform of freedom in their 2012 election. Freedom from a government of largesse, with its hands in the pockets of the populous, and principally, freedom from taxes. Though Democrats did not run on a platform of "safety," the contrast is a friendly one for conservatives, who wished for their constituents to believe Democrats are bribing voters with government hand-outs like Social Security or food stamps (though, of course, Medicare was never mentioned in a an apparent gesture of pandering to an elderly conservative base).

This brings us back to Mencken, who had similar beliefs regarding government oversight. Republicans usually take this to mean the lazy degenerate on the take from the government, living life safely, but as a vegetable, versus the ambitious "maker", who only wishes for the freedom to make money. This prevailing conservative ideology is now in vogue, an economic style perpetuated chiefly by Paul Ryan, a disciple of Ayn Rand. Rand, like Ryan, is (was) a firm believer in hands-off government and Laissez-Faire economics. This contributes to the concept of freedom vs. safety, though the idea has been distorted by modern conservative thinkers as one that is black and white.

This same concept has become popular recently in education. In a cut and dry hypothetical, consider a student, who, for lack of a better term, wished to "chase their dreams" of dancing or cooking or playing the harp. Should this student be free from the constraints of the confining desk job and its effects on body and mind? Or should said student instead focus on monetary success in an unsure economic landscape? Should students become perpetrators of a system, content to score well on the SAT's and attend a prestigious university and become a doctor, or lawyer, or accountant, or Nick Carraway, a bonds salesman?

Who could blame them? In this situation they'd be able to pay their bills with a sense of safety, marry a safe spouse,  safely give birth to children, safely go for a jog or get a cup of coffee. The conflict between safety and freedom, in this case freedom being synonymous with passion, is a difficult one, one that only Mencken would have an immediate answer to: "I have no qualms with the student who chooses the safe route. The student wouldn't have to worry about college loans or a car being repaired. Yet this student would, essentially, be admitting that he is average."

Being average isn't altogether bad, as long as the person that retains their average sensibilities accepts the fact that they are. Mencken would probably praise the freedom-seeker, the one that wished to affect change within their chosen passion, yet he would warn them, freedom is not always safe.

The freedom of choosing a career one is passionate about has been in danger for some time now. As a result, the choice between safety and passion is one that has been increasingly made when erring on the side of caution. Students can't pay for college otherwise. Libertarians like Mencken would refrain from admitting this, but freedom in its most primal form is not an absolute good. In the case of conservative economics it is, in fact, a very bad thing. When a Republican talks about freedom from taxes or Laissez-Faire economics or lack of regulation on business, think back to the George Bush recession or the Herbert Hoover depression. The conservative's fetish for economic freedom is a dangerous one, one that Mencken himself would probably abhor. While the philosophy strongly supports those who already have made their fortune, it disproportionately affects those making their choice between freedom and safety on the lower rung of the ladder; students.

Students who opt for safety are facing the harsh reality of twenty first century life after college. Similar to freedom, the "safe" choice is becoming the dangerous one.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

I really don't know what to say


There's nothing anyone can say. There is no sufficient explanation to offer, no solution, no foresight, no understanding. There is only the recognition that 27 people were killed in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, 2012. There are only the difficulties that accompany tragedy.
As time passes, the cycle will once again cement itself. Arguments about gun control, arguments about whether it's too soon for gun control arguments, calls for mental screenings of every child five and up to try to detect signs of mental illness, the vilification of media for paying more attention to the shooter than the victims, the media's attempt to create a compelling narrative for the murderer's actions, all eventually evaporating as we become reinvested in our daily lives. We took our pause. We paid our respects. We moved on.

How can this be? Our desensitized attitude and inevitable inaction towards violence is owed to the fact that, according to "Politifact", since 2002, there have been over 9,000 gun deaths in the United States each year leading up to this past Friday. The ones that receive national attention are those that boast the highest casualties. The others have become a part of the daily local news cycle. The National Disaster Center's numbers point to upwards of 40 murders in the U.S. a day, 30 of them being by way of the gun. The deaths resulting from domestic disputes or street corner violence have become regular occurrence. 

But freedom, freedom is our legacy, one that is protected by our inalienable rights, for the people have the right to rise up against a tyrannical government. Yet the Bill of Rights doesn't mention what an onerous task it was to load guns in 1788. The 1700's are incomparable to the twenty first century, whether the comparison be by guns or government. We have so much to debate. The Constitution didn't tell us what to do with the Westboro Baptist Church. They have the right, under the Constitution, to protest funerals for military members or kindergartners because of their belief that their deaths are a result of God's retaliation to homosexuality. The opinion of the minority is protected under the Constitution, no matter how gross a minority it is.

The events at Sandy Hook and the ensuing discussion cannot only be a gun control issue. As is true in any social, theological, economic, or moral dilemma, there is no cut and dry solution, no black or white, only grey. The paramount obligation to the public is to honor the lives of those who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time that day. Ironic, because that day, those lost were participating in a noble American ideal - education for all.

According to the Huffington Post, if one were to add together all the gun deaths in the 23 wealthiest countries, per capita, the U.S. would account for a staggering eighty percent of them. So it is a gun issue. This is not an insensitive topic for the victims of shootings. It is one that coincides with the preservation of their memory. A discussion to save lives is a worthy one, granted, the implementation of tighter gun restrictions will not single handedly amend our violent culture. One can only hope that with the senseless deaths that have occurred, something will change. There have been 31 school shootings since Columbine. There has hardly been an alteration in gun law. This is due largely to the National Rifle Association's lobbying machine.

But our energy cannot be entirely focused against the NRA. Nor can it be entirely focused for the NRA. Our energy cannot be entirely focused on prayer, yet it can not all be focused on action, as this meditative process is therapeutic for all involved.

It is apparent that we cannot focus on only one side of the issue. Yet, our ultimate failure after each horrific event is our lack of focus on any one thing. Our country is a beautiful one. We have better circumstances than most. And we are lucky that our largest problem is our lack of ability to decide upon our largest problem. But make no mistake, our indecision is our number one issue.

Still, in such a confusing, muddied, depressing, and sobering time, it is decidedly unanimous that every American has love and empathy for every victim and family affected by the shooting. We at Valley Regional and people throughout the globe have taken part in thinking, and praying, and crying, and hoping, and reflecting with sincerity on those lives that were lost and never should have been. Let's have that same sentiment for those in combat, whether their battle be with the military, their social condition, powers beyond their control, or themselves.

With respect:

- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Rousseau, 6/1982, female
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female
And, in a separate, recent, incident, Valley's own, 23 year old Steven Grich