See more at Indexed. Link via More Than 95 Theses.]]>
"Low-income urban students know they attend substandard, second-tier schools that lack the technology, resources and extracurricular programs commonplace in schools of more affluent communities. And yet we continue to expect these students to prioritize education when budgetary and funding inequities demonstrate that urban education is neither a local, state, or national priority."
Will Okun, Chicago high school teacher
Okun's columns (which run roughly biweekly on Nick Kristof's New York Times blog) are some of the best you'll find on teaching, urban issues, and life in general.
]]>My goodness, I can't even write. Clause after dependent clause, strung together by commas. I better watch some TV to dull the pain for a while.]]>
Today was a bit distressing, though. First came a link to this story in the Wall Street Journal. That's about as disheartening a story as you'll hear. I don't claim to know what would be the best way for getting healthcare to Americans, but clearly a system like the current one isn't the way to do it. "Institutional evil" is the best phrase I know of to describe it.
From there, we move on to institutional incompetence so great that it masks whatever institutional evil may also be going on. Destroying the evidence? Seriously? Have you never heard of government employees getting into more trouble for the cover-up than for the nastiness beforehand?
Top that off with a bit of personal nastiness so great, it reminds you that creativity in the service of an evil intent can be just as shocking as what people do collectively, especially when it draws out the worst in others as well.
Perhaps I need to find a less depressing way to start my mornings.
]]>
See more at Indexed. Link via More Than 95 Theses.]]>
Besides saving time, the new competition should put pressure on airlines to reduce fares. A 2002 study by the Brattle Group, a consulting firm, estimated that an open-skies agreement between the United States and the European Union would generate a 10 percent increase in passenger traffic in formerly restricted markets, which could reduce fares 4 to 10 percent.I don't get it. It seems to me to be saying that as passenger traffic increases, fares decrease. But why would that happen? If there is the same number of flights, but these flights are more full, that won't bring about a decrease in fares. It's not like airlines will say, oh, we've made enough money on this flight, let's lower the ticket price on those last few seats. No, they do the exact opposite, as anyone trying to catch a last-minute flight can attest. The only time they lower fares (from what I can tell) is when they have lots of empty seats and are trying to fill the plane at whatever price they can.
So the increased passenger traffic must come from there being more flights between two airports. I guess the idea is, if both Continental and Northwest are flying between Brussels and Boston instead of just Continental, then the free market dictates that the fares on both will have to be lower. I suppose so, but I suspect this overestimates the degree to which one company cares about the prices set by another company. (Do you think Wal-Mart cares if it sells its widgets for less than Target on anything other than doorbusters? I'm sure they know, but they don't care. I suspect this competitive lowering happens only in areas where there is a decent amount of widespread price-comparisons by consumers, like on electronics and cars. And, I must admit, air fares.)
Now, the fare decrease is most likely to happen in the markets that are currently underserved. New York to London probably won't change much, since these markets are well served, and may see a decrease in traffic as people won't need to use London (or Amsterdam or Zurich) as a connector for flights they can now get directly. Since the new flights will be opening up primarily in markets that are currently underserved, I can see how it will probably be cheaper to fly to those places. So is the 4-10% decrease to be attributed primarily to this subset of all the flights? Or will *all* flights supposedly go down in price? Because *that* I don't get. Is it because, with fewer people connecting through London, there will be more open seats on those planes, so the fares will go down?
The situation, it seems to me, will be that opening up these markets will allow for a fare decrease due to competition in a couple areas, with no change in others. And this is a good thing. I'm not complaining. But if that's what's happening, it's not very well expressed by saying that there will be a 4-10% decrease in fares. If tuna goes on sale at the supermarket, but I only buy peanut butter, that price decrease won't mean much. ("Supermarket prices now 1% lower!") Same if I fly NY-London: knowing I can save 7% on a flight to Brussels doesn't mean much.
A search of The Brattle Group website was supremely unhelpful. So I don't know whether I should be expecting a price drop on all flights to Europe or just a select few. The internet has failed my armchair economics yet again.]]>
My theory about why Obama attends Wright's church, which I've been cultivating for a while, is that Obama finds Wright to be a healthy counter-point to his own optimism. Like many intellectually curious and reflective adults, Obama would likely want to keep a dissenting voice in his ear. It's the best way to be intellectually responsible and optimistic. Otherwise, optimism descends into naivety. Perhaps, then, conversely, Wright has a nugget of optimism buried in his diligent criticisms, and Obama serves as his best chance to see his deep-set pessimism fail. What pessimist doesn't secretly want his or her pessimism to fail at the end of the day?]]>
A lot of the talk about how this speech was a failure seemed to doom Obama to failure just for giving this speech. The argument is that now Obama is no longer the candidate who transcends race, but is "the race candidate." I hope the flaws in that thinking are obvious. If you demand a candidate give a speech on race, you can't then groan about that candidate giving a speech on race. Apart from the irrelevance of this attack on policy issues, it gets at something that is central to Obama's campaign. A lot of people see Obama as a new sort of politican: a uniting figure, not mired in "politics as usual" or the stalemates of those who came of age in the Sixties. That may or may not be true. Frankly, I think that puts a bizarrely huge and unfair burden on a candidate. Not, would this person make a good president, but will this person fix everything that is wrong with this country? The standard becomes political messiah instead of best candidate for president.
Whatever other qualifications Obama has for president, it does seem relevant to many people that he is not white. To this extent, Geraldine Ferraro's comments are not out of keeping with many Obama supporters. To many Obama supporters (and a few critics), part of Obama's appeal is his mixed racial heritage and his time overseas as a child. It represents something they see as a positive for a candidate, both in what it represents about America and in how it would improve America's image overseas. Even if you don't feel that way, though, I think that many Obama supporters hope that his candidacy represents a new kind of politics and a new kind of political discourse. I think these hopes are largely misplaced, but I'd rather see people with these hopes than with apathy, antipathy, cynicism, and distrust towards their politicians - although I think all of these can be healthy in moderate doses.
]]> When I read the text of his speech, which apparently Obama wrote by himself (not by speechwriters) over two intense days, I was very impressed and very moved. Rhetorically, it is extremely impressive in its blend of the personal, the practical, and the political. The story about the young woman organizing for him near the end was especially powerful, I thought. Beyond that, though, the content seemed to get at important issues regarding race in America. (Not all the issues; many people's pet issues got left out, which caused a lot of needless attacks on the speech.)What about the Rev. Wright? Did Obama distance himself enough? Whether he in fact swayed people's minds is the sort of political-hack, talking-head nonsense that I'll leave to spin doctors and media pundits and political bloggers. But whether he did the right thing in how he handled the now-retired pastor of his church for twenty years is something I am interested in. My impression from the speech is that he finds many of the Rev. Wright's statements to be way off the mark, "divisive," and opposed to what he believes. Yet he continued to attend his church because of the ties his family had to the Rev. Wright and the church community. And, as others have pointed out, this does reflect the reality of many church-goers in America.
A quick, but important, digression. Many people attend the church they do because they agree with everything being said. When they hear something they don't like, they complain until it changes or they leave. These people will have trouble understanding why someone would continue to attend a church where that person disagrees with a preacher's political or theological views. Others don't attend church, and this will add to their reasons to avoid the whole mess. Many of us, though, don't expect to agree with everything said from the pulpit and actually find disagreement (to some tolerable extent) part of a healthy theological dialogue. I find myself in this camp. Some of the best church services I have ever attended are ones where I left mulling over what was said and why I disagreed. Too much of this, of course, and one might find the need to leave the church.
So the question becomes, how much is too much? When many people heard Rev. Wright's comments, they sounded like a line had been crossed such that one had a moral obligation to leave his church. And since he didn't leave, people were then stuck wondering to what extent Obama agreed with the ugliest of these comments. Now, I have no idea what goes on in the mind of another person, especially one so far removed as a politician I have never met. But bear with me as I speculate. I think that Obama was probably attracted to Wright's sustained critique of America's gap between its ideals and its practices, its failures in confronting the problems faced by African-Americans in urban centers like Chicago, and the failure of white Americans to recognize these problems. This is part of a long tradition in African-American preaching, which is helpfully discussed by Diana Butler Bass here. Even when Obama thought these claims were misguided or even repugnant, it comes with the package, so to speak. This is how I understand Obama's remark that he could no more reject Rev. Wright than reject the black community. (The political messages that Wright may have been conveying are discussed here by David Schraub.)
One thing that impressed me about the speech was the way that Obama handled how to respond when someone you like and respect says something you find morally atrocious. The way I think a person should respond in this situation is to be clear with the person (personally, first, then - if needed - publicly) that you disagree and why. Then, demonstrate to this person that you have not given up on that person but will continue to work with them and love them. And this is, essentially, what Obama did with Wright, from what I can tell. Maybe it's a dumb thing for a politician to do. I don't know. But I think it's the right thing for a person to do. And that's why I'm one of those people who find hope in Obama the politician: because I respect Obama the person. I'm not an especially hopeful person when it comes to politics. So I don't have much hope that politics would be radically different with Obama as president than with anyone else. But it is nice to respect and admire a politician. It's refreshing.
It should be obvious, though, that respecting a politician isn't good enough reason to vote for them. There are many people I respect but wouldn't vote for, and there are people I would vote for, but don't respect. If I have any hope for Obama, it's the possibility that there is a candidate I could vote for and respect. That's a possibility I'm willing to hope for.
]]>This is creepy. Anthropology was never so close to home.]]>
(1) Boxer, The National
Beautifully crafted sonic atmospheres create spaces for reflection, regret, and recommitment. The lyrics are strong, walking the delicate line of alliteration, while the melodies sneak up on you and stay stuck in your. There is no bad song on this album. Simply wonderful.
(2) Challengers, The New Pornographers
This is how you build an album. The song order is perfect, squeezing the most out of each moment. A lot less pop than their previous efforts, these songs meander at their own pace to places both common and profound. Except for the weak final track, this is simply great songwriting.
(3) Neon Bible, Arcade Fire
A less personal, more political follow-up to their acclaimed debut. The sound is exquisitely muddied as the band crams in as many instruments as fit into their recording studio/church. A rich blend of spiritual, political, and topical themes are buttressed by claustrophobic, exhausting instrumentation. “Antichrist Television Blues” is the most forceful statement of the band’s themes and sounds to date.
(4) The Broken String, Bishop Allen
Matthew Sweet’s playful lyricism joined with Sufjan Stevens’ playful orchestral pop. Not as good as either of these at their best, but a wonderful indie pop album.
(5) America, Romantica
A local Minnesota act that draws on the best of the new wave of rootsy alt-country and traditional folk music. It’s singer-songwriter music for those who find the genre boring. Lyrical complexity enhanced by smooth crooning and precise guitar playing.
(6) Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destoyer?, Of Montreal
Heady, noisy, art-pop that delicately blend lyrics of dread and loneliness with party music. Some of the most complex pop music being written today.
(7) La Radiolina, Manu Chao
Political, world-spanning, genre-hopping album with plenty of punk, Afro-Cuban, and reggae influences blended together in a frenetic 21-track opus that doubles back on itself, repeating guitar riffs and ideas without falling into the trap of a “concept” album. Seven tracks shorter, and this would have challenged for album of the year.
(8) The Trumpet Child, Over the Rhine
Nobody blends American musical traditions – jazz, folk, country, blues, gospel – better than Over the Rhine. At first I was disappointed that the melancholia of Drunkard’s Prayer was gone, but this experiment in joy really grew on me. Here are some great songs that stand well on their own, but not an especially cohesive album.
(9) Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga, Spoon
Spoon continues their recent trend toward stripped down production and shoving more intriguing guitar riffs into an album than most bands muster in their career. “My Little Japanese Cigarette Case” is great, but nothing on par with “The Way We Get By.” Still, a very good listen.
(10) The Reminder, Feist
A vocalist who is all about the melodies, but I would like to see more structure to these songs. A great singer-songwriter with pop chops, who could use a great backing band.]]>
EP of the Year
The Wizard of Ahhs, Black Kids
Incredibly fun. I can't wait for a full album.
Second Tier – Good, Not Great
The Bird of Music, Au Revior Simone
Synth-pop that David Lynch loves.
Cease to Begin, Band of Horses
A lot of nice melodies, but not enough of what made Everything All the Time one of the best of 2006.
The Flying Club Cup, Beirut
French drinking songs for fans of Devotchka.
The Undisputed Truth, Brother Ali
The best Muslim albino African-American rapper from Minnesota you will ever hear.
Widow City, The Fiery Furnaces
So complex, so fascinating, so good.
Proof of Youth, The Go! Team
Their sloppy playing only adds to the energetic, marching-band nostalgia.
The Shepherd’s Dog, Iron & Wine
More rhymically interesting than Sam Beam’s previous work, with a few wonderful moments.
Heaven, Mobius Band
If you like some sugar in your indie rock cereal, Heaven’s a great place to be.
Person Pitch, Panda Bear
Like Brian Wilson playing around in the studio before the Pet Sound sessions.
Under the Blacklight, Rilo Kiley
The common comparison is to Fleetwood Mac, but I hear a lot of Blondie in Rilo Kiley’s aspirations to time-stamped pop music.
Raising Sand, Robert Plant and Allison Krauss
Two vocalists of different genres honor the music they love.
Leaves in the River, Sea Wolf
Moody, dark, occasionally overwrought. A nice debut.
Wincing the Night Away, The Shins
A couple killer songs, but too much like everything else they’ve done.
Never Hear the End of It, Sloan
A great way to bridge the gap from classic rock to indie rock.
Third Tier – A Few Hits, Lots of Misses (I Tell You the Hits)
Places Like This, Architecture in Helsinki
“Heart It Races,” “Same Old Innocence”
Wild Mountain Nation, Blitzen Trapper
“Country Caravan,” “Wild Mountain Nation,” “Summer Town”
23, Blond Redhead
“23," "Silently"
I Can’t Go On, I’ll Go On, The Broken West
“Down in the Valley,” “So It Goes,” “Slow”
The Fight of My Life, Kirk Franklin
“I Am God,” “Jesus”
The Redwalls, The Redwalls
“Summer Romance,” “Each and Every Night,” “Modern Diet”
In Our Bedroom After the War, Stars
“Bitches in Tokyo,” “Window Bird,” “Midnight Coward”
Icky Thump, The White Stripes
“Rag & Bone,” “Icky Thump”]]>
Afterwards, I decided I would share with everyone one of my favorite moments. (I have too many favorite moments in this movie to name it my very favorite, but it might be that.) So here's my first embedded video. I'm including one of my favorite scenes to quote from when I was a kid, which comes just before the great song-and-dance number with Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor.
And since we've now broken the video barrier, I'll throw in two more. The first is a clip of the Nicholas Brothers, performing what Fred Astaire reportedly called the greatest dance number ever put on film. (It was also apparently done in one take, even though it is not a continuous shot.) I've included the lead-in with the fabulous Cab Calloway. Then comes a clip that is very different, yet equally incredible in its physical prowess. (That one ends at 5:30, the rest is just clapping.) Enjoy.
]]>