I Kind of Miss Those Damned Potatoes

I get asked a lot if I plan on moving back to Idaho at some point in my life.

This question usually comes after a discussion of where I'm from and why I left. I generally tell people that I have every intention of moving back to Idaho, but I'm starting to wonder about that. I'm starting to really think Idaho might never recover to a point where it's tolerable.

I lived in Idaho for the first eighteen years of my life. I lived in the same house, went to school with the same people, and enjoyed living there. Of course, there were times I wished I could leave. There were plenty of times I told everyone I was leaving Idaho and never coming back. Only after I moved to Portland did I realize just how much I loved Idaho. I realized that, despite being vegetarian, allergic to pine, and progressive, I'm a Rocky Mountain kid to the core. I love Idaho, and I love my new adopted state of Utah. They both have their definite quirks, but they both have a lot of aspects to love.

So when people ask if I'm ever moving back to Idaho, I used to say ten years. Sure, in ten years I could see myself back in Boise. But then Idaho's political scene pretty much lost its damned mind. A lot of states lost their damned minds, which is funny because the economy is getting better, not worse. In fact, at this point the only reason anything could get worse is because a bunch of states did irreparable damage to their economic scenes.

Idaho legislators do not value students. They do not value teachers. While they're fine with taking away what few rights educators might have, they want to cut the governor's budget by only 1.9%. It's heartbreaking to hear about these kinds of insane actions. It makes me wonder what happened to discussion. It makes me wonder if those Republicans who voted for Loony's insane plans care about the future. To me, it seems like they don't. It seems like they honestly couldn't care that the brightest and best students are leaving in droves because they feel like they don't matter.

I left the state of Idaho because I didn't feel like any of their institutions of higher learning had anything good to teach me. I felt like the only way for me to get a valuable education was to leave, and I was right. I'm considering going to medical school, and I have access to a plethora of departments and subjects. I don't think I could have had these kinds of opportunities if I had stayed in-state.

It seems pretty obvious that none of those legislators were thinking about the future of their state. If they were, they would invest more money in their state schools, hire more teachers, and come up with more comprehensive, personalized education plans. High schools, at the very least, ought to be more like college. Students ought to be able to have more choice available in their education. Primary schools should have more physical education and free time, not less- kids retain information better if they have more physical activity.

If they cared about the future, they'd want to make staying in-state more attractive. They would want people like me, people like kids I know who also left, to stay and participate in Idaho's economy. The future of Idaho does not lie in agriculture. The future of Idaho lies in a diverse economy, something that falls on deaf ears in the state legislature. I left Idaho because I didn't see enough promising opportunities.

So now, after watching the Republicans who are supposed to be representing the interests of Idaho dismantle the education system, I'm not feeling too optimistic. I almost feel like a refugee. I can't help but be glad that I escaped Idaho when I did, and I feel sorry for my sister, who still has three and a half years to go. I feel heartbroken every time I think about it, because I love my home state. The sad part is that while it's been run by morons my entire life, now the morons are actually doing highly destructive things to the state. The Republicans in Idaho always seemed like a mildly threatening joke to me, but now they've crossed the line from being slightly stupid to being legitimately harmful.

So I'm not going back in ten years. It's pretty sad when the people who represent the future don't even feel welcome in their home state. I don't think Luna or Otter value well-educated people, and I don't think they see the value in trying to attract educated people. Sadly, Idaho is really going to take it in the shorts for being so stupid, and I don't want to be there for that. I'll probably consider moving back in twenty years. Hopefully by the time I'm forty, Loony will be in a nursing home.

Recycling

I love recycling. I really, really do. I think it's pretty much the best idea ever. Why wouldn't we want to re-use the crap we accumulate? The fact that the school newspaper can be turned into more newspaper makes me actually read it every day. I don't feel guilty about using great big cardboard boxes, because I know it can be turned into more boxes once I'm done with it.

There hasn't been a period in my life when I didn't recycle. My family has recycled stuff my entire life. We aren't hippies or anything (maybe a little) but we recycle. It's not because we are crusaders for the salvation of Planet Earth, it's because it makes sense.

When I lived in Portland, you recycled. There was no question about it. They highly discouraged throwing out things that could be turned into new things. You recycled or risked your health and well-being. I recycled, even though I normally resist such totalitarian proclamations, simply because I was used to recycling.

So then I moved into my apartment, which I love dearly and have enjoyed every day since moving here. However, there is no recycling. That was a problem.

Now, my roommate is also a recycler, trained by similarly-minded parents. We've become pack-rats of sorts- we try to keep every potentially-recyclable thing that crosses our path. We clean out milk jugs, and jars, and plastic containers, and we sort them into different bins with the intention of taking all of this to a recycling center. Unfortunately, we're both too busy to do that.

So, lo and behold, today rolls around. Valentine's Day, my least favorite of the religious-turned-secular holidays. I was in a decent enough mood, but when I got home, my day brightened substantially.

We received a flyer stating that our apartment is getting a recycling service. No one could have given me a better present for the holiday celebrating Hallmark. I can't wait to get our recycling bin. The Higher Deity know we have some crap that needs to be turned into more crap.

Is Happiness a Warm Gun?

I do not own a gun. I do not own a gun, and I don't really want one.

That said, my family owns guns. I know plenty of people who own guns. mean, come on; I grew up in Idaho and now I live in Utah. If I had a problem with guns, I would not have stayed in "gun country." I've been around guns. I've held guns. I personally do not want a gun, but I understand the people who do want them and have them.

I also understand those who don't like guns. I can sympathize with those who feel that guns are dangerous and no one should have them. Maybe guns don't kill people, but they sure assist someone in doing just that. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a bunny than a gun.

Guns do tend to protect people. There's a pretty big caveat with that, though- guns are only effective in protection when wielded by someone who knows what the hell they're doing. The reason I don't own a gun is because I do not have training when it comes to guns. I would not trust myself to handle one properly when under the extreme stress that comes with a situation where you need a gun. Could I fight back if attacked? Sure, you bet I could. But could I trust myself with a gun the same way I trust myself with a bow or with knives? Not really.

The dispute over guns is one that will not go away, ever. Guns are a huge part of our history. Gun violence is also a part of that same history. We have far more gun-related deaths than other comparable countries. We also have far more relaxed gun laws than other countries.

The incident in Arizona was the catalyst that comes along every few years- it was Virginia Tech before that, and Columbine before that. Every time, it is the same back and forth- guns kill people vs. guns save lives.

We're not going to get anywhere any time soon with that argument. I could bring up the Second Amendment, and my personal interpretation of that, but it's not going to be particularly relevant. My suggestion is this- perhaps we need to take a better look at the way guns are treated, and the way they are tracked, rather than how many are sold and where they are carried.

Guns are a convenient tool for violence. Do they increase violence? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure that could be truly proven. Would there be violence even if we got rid of guns completely, world-wide? Of course. We've been beating the crap out of each other since antiquity, and we will continue to do so. But maybe it would be better if we actually understood who had guns, and where those guns were going.

We can track people by using Twitter and Facebook. We have security cameras covering the developed world. Why, then, do we not have a sufficient gun tracking system? Why have they not engineered some way to follow guns as they move through the country?

And why are weapons permits a state right? Why do states get to choose how certified a person can be to own a weapon that could potentially affect someone in a different state? What good does New York's attitude towards guns do if someone in Utah hardly has to do a thing to get a weapon?

With all the proposed legislation to allow guns on various college campuses, and legislation to designate "State Guns," trying to argue that we should eliminate guns is futile. They aren't going away. To argue that guns make people safe is ultimately just as futile, because guns were constructed to kill, not to save.

The argument is not whether or not people have the right to a gun. The argument ought to be how we assess whether or not someone is mentally and physically capable of using a gun in a "safe" way. The argument ought to be how we implement a system of assessment in a universal way, rather than state-by-state.

The reality is that guns don't kill people- people who can't use guns in a responsible way kill people.

And When You Graduate, You Get to Keep the Laptop!

Have you ever had something you really loved, because it seemed unique and designed especially for you? Have you ever had that thing turned into a mass-produced mandate that stripped away everything that made it such a good idea in the first place?

Recently, the Grand Poobah of Idaho Education decreed that he wants to give every student a laptop. He wants every student to take online courses in addition to their in-school classes. He has a whole slew of other "wants," too, but I'm not here to analyze all of his proposals.

My senior year, as I've said before, I only had two classes that were physically at school. The rest of my courses were correspondence courses. This system worked really well for me. I was able to work at my own pace on each, individual class. I finished Health in a day, because it was not a hard class and I did not need help with it.

This said, I am not about to say that this system works for everyone, or with every class. If I had tried to take calculus online, I would have failed. If I tried to take French online, I probably would not have done well. There are some classes- Technical Reading and Writing, Economics, Health, to name a few- where I didn't need a physical teacher. I knew enough about the subjects already, and I didn't need to really study the material. Now, that in itself could be a reflection on how ridiculous some of our graduation requirements are, but I'm not here to discuss that today, either.

I did well because the subjects were fairly simple, the work was fairly easy, I'm fairly smart, and I have a fairly good work ethic. That is all on a personal level. For someone like me, this system worked. The old system wasn't working- the moment I get stuck in a boring class, I mentally check out of it. However, the traditional butt-in-seat system does work for a lot of people. There are plenty of students out there who need something explained at every step. They need the motivation to do their work that comes with going to class. There are a lot of people out there who won't just sit down and read their textbook on their own time.

Beyond the fact that online classes don't work for everyone's learning style, there's the more glaring problem- computers. The idea of giving every Idaho student a laptop is ridiculous. It's beyond that; it's unfeasible. It's no going to save the state any money at all do try and put any of this into place. Think about it. Think about your own computer. Think about everything that it does, good and bad.

I paid a lot for my computer. It does a lot of cool things, and it's also a pain in the butt sometimes. If you don't stay on top of constantly updating software, drivers, graphics cards, et cetera, your computer doesn't work well. How is the state supposed to make sure all those laptops are up-to-date? How are they supposed to make sure those computers don't get viruses? Are they going to pay for virus checkers? Do you even know how expensive Norton is? How is the state supposed to stay on top of every computer and make sure they all are working? What happens when a kid's computer dies, or something is faulty? Do they get penalized for missing whatever material was online while their laptop is broken? Do they get a kind of proverbial doctor's note, signed by a technician instead of a physician? How exactly is all of this supposed to work, Loony?

Then there is the worst of all assumptions in his proposal- how exactly do students get access to their online materials? In a place like Boise, even if your family doesn't have internet access, there is free WiFi everywhere. Fast food restaurants have wireless internet now. However, what about the rest of the state? There's a pretty good chance that internet is scarce in a place like Ola, Idaho. A pretty high portion of the Gem State's population lives at or below the poverty line. They can barely afford food, let alone internet. (If you've been to WINCO at the first of the month, you know what I'm talking about) Even if they might have internet access, it has to be a certain speed for online classes to work effectively. That means if you have dial-up, you're just SOL, my friend.

It's not just unfeasible, it's insulting. Luna really cares so little for his constituents that he would suggest that if you don't have internet access, you do not deserve to be educated in our system. I'm sure to this he would say that students could stay at school to get internet access, after classes. For most people who are in a situation where they already can't afford internet in their homes, they certainly don't have the resources to spend extra time at school. The truth of it is that Luna does not care about Idahoans. He does not care about education. He does not care about students. The fact that correspondence courses worked for me because I have different education needs than my students is lost on him. His concern is the bottom line. His concerns lie with the people paying for his campaigns. He does not care that people line up by the hundreds at their grocery stores with food stamps during the first week of the month. He does not care that school lunch is likely the only meal a large number of kids will get during the day. He does not care that a majority of Idahoans do not have the means to deal with online classes for their kids. He cares about money, and he cares about getting elected.

Why, then, would he have won elections multiple times? If he was really so bad for education, why do people vote for him? The truth is that people will vote for anyone, so long as that person says the right things. Certainly, at a superficial level, getting a free laptop sounds great. Getting a free anything is great. But the moment you contemplate the implications that proposal has, as I did, you realize it's a trick. This will never happen, and it's insulting that Luna tries to sound like these are legitimate ideas. He's simply saying the right things to please those who put him in office.

It's akin to high school elections. It's like a person saying, "If I'm elected to be your student body president, there will be doughnuts for everyone, every day." Is that realistic? Of course not. There would be no way to provide for a promise like that. But would that person get elected?

Well, it worked for Luna.