How do you solve a problem like Detroit?

You may have caught Mark Binelli’s recent NY Times op/ed on the sad state the city of Detroit is in; if not, definitely check it out here. Binelli (who’s a contributing editor at Rolling Stone and the author of a book on Detroit) notes that while the Big Three automakers are recovering nicely since the GM and Chrysler bailouts four years ago, that has absolutely not translated into recovery for the city itself.  In fact, the city may be mere days away from bankruptcy. 

According to the most recent US Census, the population of Detroit has shrunk by more than a quarter in the last ten years.  More than 237,000 people left Detroit in that time--far more than the 140,000 who left New Orleans. 

Coming from a car-obsessed, Tigers-loving family, many a family vacation has been spent in Detroit and its environs.  If you haven’t been there, all I can say is that all the things you’ve heard about it are true. There really are entire city blocks that are empty.  There really are plants growing on top of old houses and abandoned buildings.  Going to many parts of Detroit is like being in the midst of a post-apocalyptic film.  Even the parts of downtown that have signs of life feel like they’re stuck in a time warp.

And one of the saddest things about it is that there is still so much that remains of its successful past and of the potential the city still has.  Due to the dearth of recent investment in the city, there are many buildings whose original early 20th century architecture is still present.  And the Detroit Institute of Arts is among my favorite art museums in the country; its prestigious collection is clearly a remnant of a time in which the city had significant cash. (If you happen to be there, definitely check out the huge Diego Rivera mural, a tribute to American innovation. It’s really a sight to behold.)

So Binelli talks about three recent suggestions that have been made to bring Detroit out of its economic funk. Among them: Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposal to turn Belle Isle (a city park in the Detroit River between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario) into a state park.  However, after the Detroit city council postponed a vote on the proposal (as Binelli puts it, “under pressure from a vocal minority suspicious of ‘outsiders’ looting Detroit’s few remaining assets”), Snyder withdrew the proposal last summer.  Yes, the Detroit city council is so entrenched, so resistant to change, that the Michigan governor is viewed as an outsider…

Binelli really boils the problem down to its essence in this one sentence: “Detroiters who are worried about ceding local power to Michigan’s Republican governor shouldn’t forget the ways in which power has already been ceded to an unelected oligarchy, whose members might, no matter how ostensibly well intentioned, possess questionable ideas about urban renewal.”  How could the city perhaps most traditionally associated with American ingenuity have ended up in such an ossified position today? Binelli hits the nail on the head: Detroit’s leadership is an oligarchy whose inaction to save the city goes largely unquestioned by the ever-shrinking populace.  If the members of the city council really care about the city’s recovery, they have a hell of a way of showing it. They may verbalize support for Detroit, but when it comes to making life better for the people who live there and attracting new residents, their actions (or inactions) often say the opposite. 

And while I do think that their resistance to new ideas comes from a partisan place, I also believe that they’re ignoring some good ideas from the left side of the aisle. Urban farming is a great example of this—parts of Detroit are in such a sorry state that urban agriculture projects may be the best way to use land that is currently uninhabited.  Not only would such projects create jobs for many Detroiters, but they offer the prospect of profit for those who start such enterprises.  Good for the environment, good for residents, and good for investors? Can’t get much better than that.

Well, it’s not so clear-cut to the Detroit city council.  Back in December, they narrowly approved the sale of land for the Hantz Woodlands project in Hamtramck (a bit north of downtown), which promised to be the “world’s largest urban farm.” Though the sale was approved, it met with oodles of opposition (check out this article for the details)—mostly on the grounds that the city government made it nearly impossible for individuals interested in smaller-scale urban farming to purchase land.

OK, let’s get this straight: on the table is a proposal to potentially transform Detroit’s landscape, put people to work, and get on the road to recovery.  But since the CITY ITSELF makes it hard for everyone to do so, no one should get to do so? Great idea—let’s keep moving down the same road and see what that does for us.

Kudos to the five city council members (and Detroit Mayor Dave Bing) who support the Hantz proposal. But seriously, what are the four other members thinking? Your city’s survival could depend on this, and because you think of this as a “land grab” by a big company, you are willing to set aside practicality for some greater “principle.” I just don’t get it.

The city will have to take extreme measures if it hopes to recover.   Yup, Detroit will have to go back to its roots of innovation to save itself. And at this point, all ideas should be on the table.  As Binelli writes, the “tragicomic” nature of recent proposals underlines the fact that Detroit is in dire straits, and that big, perhaps radical changes are needed.  Unfortunately, I won’t be holding my breath on this one…

All hail the fiber arts

Now, I am no Marxist (unless we’re talking about Groucho), but I think Karl really was on to something when he talked about the dignity of work and the alienation that many people feel from the work they do and what they produce.  In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx decried “the fact that labour is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential being”—this resulted in the “alienation of labour.”

A couple of years ago, I read a really fantastic book, Matthew Crawford’s Shop Class as Soulcraft. (If you haven’t read it yet, you really owe it to yourself to do so.)  Crawford is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University in Virginia, but just as importantly, he runs a small motorcycle repair business.   Prior to writing his book and starting his business, he was the executive director of a Washington-based think tank, and to be blunt, he hated it.  It didn’t offer him fulfillment or satisfaction—instead, he found much more happiness in working with his hands.

The motorcycle business may have paid a lot less than his think tank job, but the motorcycles were far more rewarding. As Crawford writes, he feels “a greater sense of agency and competence …doing manual work, compared to other jobs that were officially recognized as ‘knowledge work.’” This knowledge-based economy is quite different from the 19th century manual labor economy Marx talked about, but even now when knowledge work dominates, it’s hard to refute that we all feel “alienated” from the work we do sometimes.  Can anyone who sits behind a computer for eight-plus hours a day really feel entirely engaged with what they “produce” all the time?

So where do the fiber arts (or any craft involving yarn or thread) come in? I’m glad you asked! You may know that I am a long-time knitter (or “knit-wit,” as my dear boyfriend likes to call me).  It is something that I do for relaxation, but more than anything else, I love the process of creating something tangible.  I, like Crawford, love to work with my hands.  (I would have loved a home economics and a shop class when I was in school, but neither was offered.  I’ll come back to this another post, when I can give it the time and complaining it deserves.)

Although Crawford goes out his way to say that his description of the intrinsic rewards of manual labor do not translate to manual hobbies, I actually think that at least parts of his book are applicable to them. In fact, knitting is a perfect example.  Yes, it can be repetitive, but it also often presents problem solving challenges, whether they are in pattern design or in fixing mistakes.  (This is consistent with Crawford’s contention that manual work is often more intellectually stimulating than knowledge work.)  And the result, when the process is completed correctly, grants a nice sense of accomplishment and pride. It fills a void that knowledge work alone cannot fill.

Crawford maintains that “crafts” are not the same as manual labor, or “trades,” and this belief springs from the reason for the onset of the modern appreciation of crafts.  The Arts and Crafts movement which arose during the Progressive Era was largely “a form of protest against modernity.” Those who embraced arts and crafts did because they had the luxury to do so: “such spiritualized, symbolic modes of craft practice and craft consumption represented a kind of compensation for, and therefore an accommodation to, new modes of routinized, bureaucratic work.”  Translation: like Marx said, the new knowledge economy bites, and crafts make your life more bearable and remind you of the joy of human creativity. (Maybe the folks at Initech could have used some knitting needles and yarn.)

But here’s where I differ with Crawford: knitting is not only a leisure activity and something to be enjoyed among those who have the luxury of free time.  Its roots are in necessity—people knitted clothing to keep warm.  Yes, it is more a hobby these days than anything, but the skill is a valuable and a useful one, in my opinion. Furthermore, as someone who enjoys manual and non-manual work, I find I need to be engaged in both pursuits, and having the former as a hobby enriches my life, even if it is not how I make money.

For Marx, part of the reason why manual labor was alienating because workers were just cogs in the wheel—by only being part of the production process, you’re not really “in touch” with what’s being made. But the process of making something from start to finish is much more rewarding and fulfilling, because it is much more an expression of one’s self.  In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx has a line that really strikes me: “the less you express your own life, the greater is your alienated life.” He may be talking about estrangement from work, but I think it applies to a manual hobby just as much.  Wearing a sweater I made is much different from wearing one I bought at a store. However, it’s not just because I appreciate the art of a handmade piece; it is also the reflection of a skill I possess.  For me, at least, that is where most of the pride comes from.

As I said above, I’ll return to this topic, because oddly enough, it’s a rather political one (the growing separation between “thinking” and “doing,” and what that means for how we are educated and what skills we value as a culture). But for now, the latest expression of my own life:

The GOP needs to learn how to talk to girls

My friend Sabrina Schaeffer, who’s the executive director of the Independent Women’s Forum, was just interviewed for Glamour magazine’s website, all about women and conservatism. This is always one of those topics that really grabs my attention—not only do I belong to both the “woman” and “conservative” categories, women’s voting behavior is something that I’ve spent a lot of time researching of late.

It’s no secret that the GOP has been nothing short of abysmal in reaching out to women recently.  There are the obvious things: Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment, and Richard Mourdock’s controversial rape comments.  But there’s a deeper problem than just embarrassingly bad remarks. Much like an awkward 13-year-old with no moves, the GOP just doesn’t seem to know how to talk to girls.

My apologies if you’ve heard me tell this story already, but I came across a piece on Buzzfeed a few months before the 2012 election that really summed up the Republican “woman problem.” The article looked at the online stores for the Obama and Romney campaigns—more specifically, the women’s sections of the respective stores. Obama’s store offered three pages worth of merchandise for women, from Obama t-shirts to “Our Health, Our Vote” tote bags.  Romney’s store offered exactly three items for women: an Ann Romney button, and two bumper stickers—one proclaiming “Moms Drive the Economy” and the other “I’m a Mom for Mitt.”

Welp, I’m not a mom AND I’m car-less, so that knocks out two-thirds of the items for me.  And, to tell you the truth, walking around wearing a large Ann Romney button doesn’t really do it for me. So pretty much, for a young, single gal with (I like to think) a semblance of fashion sense, the Romney campaign really didn’t offer any women’s items worth considering.

In a way, I can see where Republicans are coming from—after all, the gender gap may be large (8 points), but the marriage gap is even bigger (21 points).  However, I don’t believe that the GOP should be waving the surrender flag when it comes to winning the votes of other women.  Many voters of both genders did not come of age in a time when a single political philosophy dominated, and so they were less likely to forge a lifelong devotion to one or the other party.  Their voting habits are more subject to fluctuation.

Back to Glamour: there are two things in Schaeffer’s interview to which I want to draw particular attention.  First, how should the GOP talk about the big elephants in the room (no pun intended) having to do with women—abortion and contraception. Honestly, these are really tough topics for the GOP, ones that highlight a fissure in the party that has to do with the very role of government.  While many Republicans oppose abortion (either entirely or in most cases), those who lean more to the libertarian side of things question whether the government should be involved with such private decisions.

For contraception, it’s more about who pays for it. This should be somewhat easier for conservatives and Republicans to argue: if the government should be kept out of the bedroom, then government should not pay for birth control. But instead, some have used name-calling, which only serves to undermine what could be a strong argument.

Schaeffer (correctly, I think) points out that “both parties are so focused on talking to women about so-called ‘women’s issues’ that they forget about the real issues facing women.” As a female, I find it more than a little bit demeaning that the parties think that all my “demographic” seems to care about is issues affecting our bodies.   Schaeffer says that just like men, women are thinking about the economy and jobs.  To say that women are concerned mainly with the politics of “lady parts” is not only insulting, it’s just plain incorrect.

And guess what? The stats back us up.  Take a look at this October 2012 Gallup poll.  About 4 in 10 of female registered voters believed that abortion was “the most important issue for women” in the 2012 election.  But when these same female voters were asked about which issues were most important in influencing their vote for president, “government policies concerning birth control” lagged behind unemployment, internal issues, healthcare, and the federal budget deficit and national debt.  Now, to be sure, 6 in 10 female voters said that the candidates’ respective positions on birth control were either “extremely important” or “very important” in influencing their vote, but that’s compared to 9 out of 10 female voters for the other issues I just listed.  In short, female voters seem to think that women care more about abortion and birth control as election issues than they actually do.

That takes me to the second point. I think Schaeffer is dead-on in her prescription for the GOP: “I think that Republicans don’t simply need to tweak their message, they need to really rethink the way they’re talking about everything.” Women’s lives have significantly changed since the days of June Cleaver, but the GOP doesn’t seem to realize that we’re not living in a Leave It to Beaver world anymore.  The percentage of unmarried women with kids is growing, especially among white women under the age of 30 with some college.  While the conservative ideal may be a stable, two-parent household, that’s just not the case for millions of women.  The GOP must learn to communicate with this growing audience—or it can write off their votes for good.

Phew, time to take a breath!  I’ll return to the topic soon.  Until then, please take the time to read the full Glamour interview—it’s really good stuff.

In praise of mentors

Having a great mentor is a really wonderful thing.  I think most of us would say we’ve had a good mentor along the way—maybe even several—who helped us figure out important things about our lives and careers, providing friendship in addition to guidance. It’s an amazing gift when we start to fulfill the promise of the faith they have in us—our successes are their successes as well.

I’ve been thinking a good deal about one of my greatest mentors lately, who passed away ten years ago last week.  Dr. Schatz was the first person who really made me feel like writing could be a possible career path.

When I was about 10, I began writing some NASCAR race reports for the monthly newsletter of the local chapter of the International Thunderbird Club, a group of Ford Thunderbird enthusiasts from the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia. A couple of years later, my parents and I ran into Dr. Schatz at the huge annual car show-palooza in Hershey, PA.   A chiropractor by day, he was the editor of the ITC’s Thunderbird Script bimonthly mag, and was single-handedly responsible for much of its content and its publication.  He told me how much he enjoyed reading my articles and asked if he could republish them in the Script!  An internationally-published writer at age 12? Yes, please.

For a club that didn’t have many young folks involved, Dr. Schatz made me feel that I had a valid opinion and always treated me as a writer instead of a dumb kid.  In fact, at the ITC’s 2000 convention, he gave me the club’s “Editor’s Award” for my contributions to the mag.

And did I mention that he played guitar?  Like seriously.  I have never seen anyone fingerpick like that in my life.  When he first heard that I played the guitar, he said that we had to play together at the next national convention.  And we did—at that convention and every subsequent one we both attended.  And it scared the heck out of me!  He was so good at playing, and I was so…MEH. But he was always very helpful and would show me new techniques to improve my playing.  Keep in mind: as a member of the ITC’s leadership, he would be super-busy at these conventions, and yet he still went out of his way to make time for me.

In short, for him, the club wasn’t about the cars, really. It was about the people; as much as he loved T-Birds, he treated them as a common interest that bonded a group of people together, across state and country lines. He made time for everyone in the club even though he had a full-time job.

When we got the call that he had died suddenly during my senior year of high school, I was devastated. He would never know how much I appreciated his help, how good of a mentor he had been to me.  In the days and weeks that followed, I wondered how best I could make good on the faith he had in me.  What I did was throw myself into my writing.  In addition to race reporting, I started to do interviews with NASCAR drivers whenever I got the opportunity and write feature articles for the magazine. The best way to pay tribute to him, I figured, was to not only keep on writing, but add to my skills.

Dr. Schatz has been gone more than a decade now, but I still think about how fortunate I was to have him as a mentor, especially at that point in my life.  I hope he is proud of me. If you’ve got a mentor, please do yourself a favor: send a little e-mail to him or her to say thanks.  Mentors are truly a blessing—we have to remember that and tell them while we have the chance.  RIP.

Does country singer Dwight Yoakam favor gun violence? Piers Morgan seems to think so.

One of the most fantastic bits of news to come out in the last couple of weeks is that the New York City radio market again has a country music station, after being without one for more than a decade.  The last one, Y-107, was a constant companion in the days when my deep and abiding love of the genre was just germinating, and it introduced me to many a great song and artist. Here’s hoping that NYC’s new country music foray will do the same for a new generation.

While I’m on the country music topic, permit me to step up on the soapbox to talk about a segment from CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” from earlier this week.  Why the heck was I watching?, you might be thinking. Well, the guest for said segment was none other than Dwight Yoakam, whose music has been among my favorite since about the time I discovered country music in the mid-1990s. His style of retro country-rock and superlative songwriting were so darn COOL—I quickly amassed all of his albums and wore them out. (For a little taste, check out the first Yoakam video I ever saw, back in about 1996. SO. DARN. COOL.)

Anyway, a bit of backstory to the Piers Morgan appearance: In 2012, Yoakam released his first album of new material in seven years (3 Pears), which quickly racked up oodles of critical acclaim and ended up on many “best-of” lists at the end of the year.  So it was not exactly a big leap to expect a discussion of the album’s success so far, maybe even a little performance, right?

No.  The topic of the interview was GUNS.

Now, Yoakam is not a political artist whatsoever.  I have no idea which party he supports (if any), nor do I care. He has never been outspoken on any policy topic as far as I know.  No, he is instead a Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter with a brand-new album, which should have provided plenty of material for a five-minute TV interview. Instead, Morgan led off by asking his opinion on guns and gun control (a favorite and controversial discussion topic of Morgan's for the past month).  Yoakam replied that he owns guns and is a Second Amendment supporter, but that guns are weapons and need to be treated with care.  The Sandy Hook shooting was an “anomalous horror,” Yoakam said, and that guns are “dangerous weapons.  And you got to be very cautious with them, around them, about them.”  In response, Morgan gave a reasoned defense of how greater control of firearms and ammunition could prevent the occurrence of such tragedies.

Actually, of course not! He decided to make some unfair attacks instead!  Morgan maintained that Yoakam’s 1988 song “Buenas Noches from a Lonely Room” (in which the narrator shoots his sleeping ex-girlfriend in the head for cheating on him) glorified gun violence.  Additionally, Morgan played a short clip from the movie Panic Room, in which Yoakam (an actor as well) appeared as a violent burglar brandishing a gun.  In short, Morgan was trying to place blame on Yoakam for helping to perpetuate a culture of gun violence. (You can judge for yourself by checking out the video of the segment here.)

Well, then. I suppose violent movies, violent songs, violent video games, violent TV programs, etc. are all out the window now.  I mean, if you have a hand in the production of such entertainment, that’s just as bad as pulling the trigger, right?

Look, I consider myself a supporter of the Second Amendment, but I’m also a supporter of the First Amendment.  And there seems to be a disturbing trend in the entertainment world of conflating the showing of an action with support for said action. I’ve got a piece up today on National Review Online about this trend and how it relates to criticism of Zero Dark Thirty (yes, shameless self-promotion: check it out here).  ZDT director Kathryn Bigelow, who has faced heaps of criticism about torture scenes in the film, responded in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed: “[C]onfusing depiction with endorsement is the first step toward chilling any American artist's ability and right to shine a light on dark deeds.”

I love that line—“confusing depiction with endorsement.” And that takes me back to the Piers Morgan interview: does Morgan truly think that Yoakam is okay with gun violence simply because he has appeared in violent movies and sung a song with a line about shooting someone?  The whole “depiction equals endorsement” idea is a pretty frightening one—and a pretty lazy conclusion to come to, I think.  Had Morgan and/or his researchers at CNN assessed Yoakam’s body of work as a singer, writer, and actor, they would have seen that arguing that Yoakam is okay with such violence is pretty ridiculous.  I don’t expect much from Morgan, but I do expect better than this from CNN.

Frankiln goes to Yelta

A recent study out of UCLA showed that DC is the best-educated of America's big cities. This picture might put a little wrinkle in that argument:

Let's just let this sink in for a minute.  This is from the "Dressing the Presidents" window display at the Brooks Brothers on Connecticut Ave.  Apparently, Brooks Brothers has been responsible for dressing 39 of 44 presidents. I suppose dressing the presidents doesn't mean you have to know how to spell their names correctly...

AND. If you look closely, you'll see that that's not the only misspelling on FDR's window! Excuse me, the "historic Yelta conference"?  Really?  At least Churchill, FDR, and Stalin would be able to agree on one thing: Brooks Brothers' English and history skills are in major need of some post-war reconstruction.

Perhaps Brooks Brothers should spend a little less time on suits, shirts, and sweaters, and a little more on spelling.

In the beginning...

Welcome to The Letter Jen! I've been looking forward to getting this blog started up for a while now, and it's good to finally make it happen.

So, to dispense with the obvious questions: who am I and what am I doing here?  I am among the great big sea of 20-somethings in Washington, DC trying to forge a career in the crazy world of politics and policy.  Making a mark in this city can sometimes feel like whispering in the middle of a hurricane, but it is truly a vibrant and inspiring place.  I hope to be able to share some of my own thoughts as shaped by my experiences here, both on life in the District and on the politics that pumps through my veins.  As a self-described "Jersey conservative," I've often got strong opinions, but I'm happy to debate and, hopefully, find some common ground. I love to write and think opinions through, and I hope this blog will be a great way to do just that.

At the same time, though DC is a city of fast-movers and ever-changing storylines, I am a lover of all things retro (and no, that does not mean I long for the days of dial-up Internet       :-)). Love old music, old movies, old neon signs...you get the idea.  So look for me to take a vintage turn every once in a while...or perhaps a bit more often.  And I will often work in posts about my, ahem, eclectic interests--everything from NASCAR and baseball to my latest foray into the fiber arts.

All in all, I can ensure you a view of life in the District through anachronistic eyes, all expressed with my inherent Jersey sass.

So let's get started!