On Education Reform and Unlabeled Photos

Ciao, Tutti!

I’m sorry that I have to keep writing so often. For those of you who haven’t seen, I just posted yesterday evening about the debate and a series of releases, mainly having to do with motion pictures. Please go ahead and read why I think Obama kicked major butt in the debate yesterday. If you want. No pressure.

I do want to revisit one aspect of the debate today, that of the education platforms of the candidates. I don’t really want to talk about vouchers (and, come on, the voucher system in Washington D.C. is not doing a great job, guys), but I want to talk about a very important statistic that John McCain mentioned. In defense of his argument against Obama’s big spending plans, he said that the United States puts more money into our schools than any other country in the world, yet our schools are ranked among the worst among developed nations. McCain went on to say (and repeat a few times) that we can’t afford to throw money at the problem and that the best course of action is reform. Obama asserted that he would do both, reform and fund, saying his catch phrase about No Child Left Behind leaving the money behind.

As much as I hate to say it, McCain nailed it on the head.

However, identifying a problem is only half the fruit pie. I’m not thrilled about the solution to our education system’s woes being a voucher system based off a Washington D.C. experiment. Here is what will happen if the voucher system is implemented and people have the free-market choices McCain claims they will have: people will choose the best schools if possible, and the worse schools will decline even further. In other words, the gap between the rich and poor, the good and the bad, will widen between schools. In the aggregate we may see an overall per capita increase in the achievements of our nation’s students, but a lot will be, how should I put this, left behind.

This is all assuming that everyone has access to perfect information and the capacity to make a choice indiscriminately. Of course a middle class family would choose a better school over a worse school. But some families simply don’t have the information to determine which schools are better than others and some families don’t have the option (or don’t want to have the option) of choosing a school far away from home, no matter its superior quality. According to Mike Davis, the main choices made by the poor are due to location and people sacrifice quality of living for a central location close to work. This would logically apply to choices regarding schools as well.

So it would seem McCain’s plan, a very neo-liberal, free market approach at schooling, would help some people, yes, but end up making poor people even more worse off. However, I do think he is right that we can improve our education system without pouring more money into it. I am probably going to be ridiculed forever for saying that. But McCain’s fact – yes, folks, a fact and not an exaggeration – shows very clearly that other countries know something about investing money that we don’t. We’re not using our money in the most effective way.

Let me demonstrate what I mean with an analogy. Yay, analogies!

Today the New York Times released an article today (“Infant Deaths Drop in U.S., But Rates Are Still High,” by Gardiner Harris) wondering why the infant mortality rate in the United States is so high compared to other countries in the world; we rank 29th in the world with an infant mortality rate of 6.72 out of 1000, I believe (just so you know, the top three countries are, in order, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan with around 3.5 per 1000 infant deaths). However, we put more money into our medical system than most other developed countries. Somehow I think this article relates to what I was just talking about.

The article goes on to interviews with doctors and other medical experts, bemoaning the failure of the medical system. Some use it as a rallying cry for more centralized control of the system, others for more privatization. However, the consensus was that the problem is caused by a failing health care system. The article cites the fact that African American women birth the most infants that die before age 1, even if they have access to high-quality health care.

There are a couple of other ways to look at this problem that may make it easier to invest our money in the best places. First of all, the pure statistic “infant mortality rate” lumps the United States with countries much smaller than itself, like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. Our larger population is completely ignored by this statistic (Joel would like this). Whether or not the size of our population actually has a bearing on our infant mortality rates is up to someone who feels like researching it, but I would guess the answer is yes, as we shall see in a second.

Secondly, the article makes the assumption that everyone in America has access to health care. It seems absurd, but the article never considers the infant mortality rates of people who don’t have access to quality health care. It could possibly be the case that the U.S.’s high infant mortality rate is the result of more people within this country lacking access to health care than while people in Singapore have much better access to health care in general. This is where the population aspect resurfaces. The U.S. probably has a fairly large proportion of people with access to proper health care, but the percentage who don’t still make up a larger physical number than those of other countries.

As the health expert I am, I think the problem of our high infant mortality rates may be more due to people not having access to the health care system, not the operation of the health care system itself with respect to its patients. This means, you guessed it, that we should be looking into issues of poverty in order to solve the infant mortality problem, since those are the people who are least likely to have access to the system.

Actually, I’m not a health expert, but I do think we’ve got to approach these sorts of problems from multiple angles. It’s worth looking into. It would be a lot better than throwing money at a problem.

So how this all relates to the education system seems obvious, but it would take a lot of studies to really identify education’s unique problems. Both Obama and McCain call for reform, but neither do much specifying what kinds of reforms they want, always phrasing their positions based on No Child Left Behind, my least favorite piece of legislation other than the Patriot Act. We do need reform for the education system, but we need the right reform, and I don’t think anyone knows quite what that is. I certainly don’t. To solve a problem where we are throwing an exorbitant amount of money at something that isn’t working as well as it should, we should keep the health care article in mind. We must investigate how our statistics on education mislead us and cloud our perceptions of reality when we compare ourselves to other countries. We must also avoid at all costs the simple explanation that the education system is failing simply on its own merit or because it lacks the funds. We need to think like Billy Bean, using what we have to get the most we can by using science and statistics correctly (the “Moneyball” analogy doesn’t work so well this year seeing how poorly the A’s did. But when you look at the expensive Tigers and Yankees who basically bombed despite their high budgets it becomes obvious that success in no way hinges on money.).

Basically, we don’t exactly know what’s wrong with the education system, and it would be foolish to jump to haphazard conclusions about where the real problem lies. From the approach of access to quality being the problem, McCain’s vouchers seem like a good plan at first, but in reality it would not increase everyone’s access to higher quality like he hopes; the poor would be even more displaced than they are now. If we want to improve education across the board, vouchers are not the way.

To say anything else with any meaning would only be possible if I was some sort of expert on education policy.

Whew, that took a long time to write. I think I’ll explain the unlabeled photos from yesterday’s blog some other time.

-Sam goldsmith

Release

Ciao, Tutti!

I write just before the debates begin. I figure you all deserve a happier me for the beginning of the blog at least. Needless to say, I am not anticipating a very... civil debate, and I expect to be doing more of my recently patented cursing out windows afterward.

But there is no need to be depressed, because there have been major releases in my life lately! Yipee! Here are some of them:

I am literally less than a chapter away from finishing book one in my trilogy of novels that I have been working on since January. I have written about 470 pages, so this is pretty exciting. Only two more books to go! Ah, well, now it's time to start editing, which usually takes me about an hour per page per draft, which there will probably be about five... sigh!

Crap, the dabate's starting.

The Debate



Wow. I mean, wow.

"Joe the plumber, Sen. Obama want to spread the wealth! He want to redistribute the wealth! He wants socialism! Oh, crap, did I really just say that out loud? Mrs. Palin told me to say that, I swear!"

So the gloves came off, just like I thought they finally would (even though George Stephanopolis says this was a civil debate, which it was). There is so much to talk about in this debate, namely the fact that I was actually laughing during it rather than scared out of my mind (let's see what happens when the analysts come on). Looking at McCain's expressions throughout, I could not help but think that Jon Stewart is going to have some fun with video editing tonight.

First, and unimportantly, I have never seen John McCain so flustered. He ended up settling down as the debate goes on, but in the beginning he almost seemed like Sarah Palin in his random regurgitation of key words and phrases. His face was rigid and unrelaxed. It was actually sort of funny to watch him, sort of like watching a basketball team fight to win the sixth game to send it to a do or die. However, as I watch the analysts right now, the popular view seems to be that McCain had his best performance yet. I would disagree.

The part of the debate that made the biggest impression on me was for the question about the ugliness of the campaigns, and this was why I felt Obama won, though I suppose some people I know could view it the other way. Obama wanted to talk about the issues, McCain wanted to go on the attack. Obama was much less interested in attacking McCain as a person, at least until the mention of ACORN and Ayers. There was a long back and forth on this question, and Barack Obama spent more time insisting on a discussion about the debates. This could be viewed as a weakness, an unwillingness to fight back, or trying to downplay his scandals, but I have been hoping for a campaign on the issues for SO LONG and it was refreshing to hear it. According to the New York Times, two thirds of Americans agree with me.

It actually seems to me that Obama has stuck to the issues more, though this is of course debatable. Let me explain. First of all, it is seriously easy to make fun of Sarah Palin, which I have talked about in previous blogs. The question was asked about the Vice Presidential candidates gave Obama a softball possibility to crush a Palin homerun, but Obama did the right thing and refused to question her qualifications. He doesn't need to, and his campaign has by and large laid off since the Couric interviews, though he has picked up criticism again since the terrifying comments made at some of Palin's rallies. The point is that Obama did not attack on personal issues, save for the siting of the NY Times fact I quoted earlier and the accusation that Ayers has become McCain's main campaign issue. Obama was trying to bring the debate back to the questions and the issues, as one analyst said, "rope a doping," taking the attacks and returning to the main subject of debate. So. Obama did a very good job of defending himself in the face of John McCain's consistent regurgitation of already disproved facts.

In an assessment of how amazing it was that Obama refrained from attacking McCain's misleading statements or contradictory policies, I was yelling at the television the most since the Pistons lost to the Celtics. Here's an example. McCain was talking about choosing a judge who was qualified. That was the most important characteristic of a judge, he repeated. I shouted out, "Yeah, picking qualified people is something you're really good at, John." My roommate knew I was talking about Sarah Palin. But Obama knew he had no need to bring the debate to such a low. I hope he has that attitude throughout the rest of the campaign.

I was also impressed with Obama when McCain had his apparently shining moment (according to the analysts), when he said, "I am not George Bush. If you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have run four years ago." Taken out of context, this seems like a strong statement, something McCain should have been saying all along from the beginning (yeah, he probably should). Then he proceeded not to explain how his economic policy differed from Bush's in the slightest, emphasizing difference in energy policy, education, health care, and other things. Obama had just compared McCain to Bush, but was clear to say so only in the context of economics, first taking the time to commend McCain for his odd-ball positions of the past. Obama then reasserted that McCain's economic policy was a continuation of the past four years. Obama did a very good job here. Too bad we're going to keep hearing that quote out of context for a few days, because otherwise I don't think there was anything in that debate for McCain to be proud of.

I take that back. I did like how McCain hammered Obama on the subject of public finance, something I'm pretty upset at Obama for. Obama didn't really have a response for that, dodging it like the other attacks, and I could see at that moment why Obama's defensive stance might not work so well on other voters, especially the undecideds. However, despite John McCain's assertiveness (I saw it more as nervous energy), I thought Obama simply answered the questions better. He stuck to the questions more than I've ever seen from him, in comparison to the last debate (people said afterward that he won, for some reason) where he was muddled, confusing, and uncoordinated. Here he was focused, clear, and succinct, and he answered the questions with facts (not all correct, like the 100% negative TV ads comment) and refuted McCain's strong statements with compelling facts. One example: McCain challenged Obama, asking him to name a time when he had stood up to party leadership. Obama retorted that the first bill he ever voted on the Senate floor was against the party leadership, and he named a few more after that. McCain came back at him, saying his argument was unconvincing, though not really saying why. Obama knew he didn't have to say anything else about it.

Some analysts were wondering why McCain did not attack Obama on the experience factor again, something that seems to poll well for McCain. It seemed pretty obvious to me. Obama has, throughout the debates, presented himself as more than capable of becoming the next president in terms of qualifications. McCain can attack his innexperience all he wants, but we have seen a calm and composed Obama so many times now that the undecideds are getting the image of a capable leader in Obama. This is not to say they are leaning in his direction per se, but McCain's attacks on Obama's experience would only have worked if he had maintained it up until this point, which he hasn't. Now when we see Obama the inexperience is not something we think about. McCain would much rather have us think about how he's raising taxes, talking without precondition to unfriendly foreign leaders (McCain brought this up in the debate in a totally off-topic way. Wasn't this settled in the first debate when Obama explained what a precondition was?), and friends with Ayers and ACORN. This is how McCain wants to portray Obama. The image of the inexperienced young senator is no longer important in this campaign.

The last thing to talk about is Joe the plumber, our favorite American who has everyone's misconception about Obama's health and tax plans. Obama has to explain again and again that his policy won't tax people like (sigh) Joe the plumber, but poor old Joe has been misled by the McCain advertisements and thinks his health insurance costs and taxes will go up under Obama. Honestly, the two candidates were fighting for his vote like guys fighting to carry a cheerleader's books. This time McCain took a new approach to the tax policy: why would you raise taxes on anyone at all? Immediately my mind went to the second debate when the question, "What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make?" was asked. Asking wealthy companies to help share the burden (rather than dumping $700 billion and then another $250 billion and more to come in their laps) seems more than logical to me. And this is when McCain started his jargon about "sharing the wealth, you damn commie, I mean, good friend." The message was clear. McCain wanted to portray Obama as taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

Sounds to me like Obama needs to make a Robin Hood campaign shirt.

Obama's equivalent to McCain's shining moment was when he told (sigh) Joe that he would be fined "zero" because small businesses are exempt from those fines in Obama's plan. That actually stopped McCain from reasserting what was false, just as Obama stopped associating McCain with Bush earlier in the debate. It was a powerful moment for Obama in the debate, sort of like saying, "How many times do I have to say this? How much more clearly can I say this?"

So, yeah, I thought Obama came out on top. By quite a lot. However, this is in the campaign style I wanted to see. People who are worried about Obama's credibility and his social connections (Wright, Ayers, ACORN) might see his defensive stance as a retreat. It all depends on whether people re voting on the issues or on perception. Obama won on the issues debate, I thought. I also thought he won on the appearance side, but this is so up to interpretation that I can't begin to think of how the effects of this debate will play out over the next three weeks.

Either way, it was the debate performance I had been hoping for from Obama since he announced his candidacy.

Back to Where I Was



So, um, where was I?

Oh, yes. Releases.

Mid term season just ended. I wanted to write a blog before then, but I had papers due and tests to study for, so I just didn't. I wanted to write one for Yom Kipur, but that never happened. Anyhoo, I am just glad not to have to think about any big tests or papers coming up for a while, which is actually more like a week. It takes a load off my chest.

I hope I did well.

I am also very interested in some movie releases. This, from the guy who doesn't even like movies!

1) 11/14/2008 Quantum of Solace (007) Yeah, it was about time another one of these came out. It should be super sweet! Anyone in Michigan want to see it with me when I'm out there for Thanksgiving? There's about no way I'm seeing it here in New York. I just don't see movies in New York. I don't even know if I could find a good theater.

2) 2009 - a live action Akira will come out from Warner Brothers. This was an animated classic about 20 years ago. I didn't really like it very much, but it's nice that it's being remade into live action.

3) 2009 - Speaking of anime being turned into live action (I think maybe one - maybe - will care about this), Steven Spielberg is directing a movie adaptation of the anime series Ghost in the Shell. Someone tell Joel about this for me, though I don't know how much he'll care. This is supposedly made to compete with Akira. If I would have to guess, I don't have high hopes for either, since Akira has a lousy plot and Ghost in the Shell has a director who'll probably ruin it.

4) Sometime - Watchmen. When is this going to come out already? I've been hearing about it forever! Please! Just come out already!

5) 7/2/2010 - Are you sick of hearing about this? The Last Airbender's first movie now has a release date. Now I can count the days down... such a dork! I suppose this means it's actually going to be made, then, so that's good, I hope... Keep the spirits up! It's going to be a great movie! Please!

Another release would be that of my high school and college friend Julian Pollack's new CD with singer Grace (some last name). Their CD release party will be on October 23rd, 2008. I don't have to wait two freaking years for this.

My roommate's band is featured prominently in a romantic comedy with Katherine Zeta Jones slated to come out in March, 2009. Keep your ears out for "Love Pass It On" when you're watching. He's seen the pre-release and he says it's pretty innovative for a romantic comedy, and also quite comedic. Anyway, I might need to see that.

Also, a move I think called "Rachel's Getting Married" is featuring Tunde Adebimpe, one of the lead singers from TV on the Radio, as the male lead. I have to see it for that purpose alone, even it that takes me to my romantic comedy limit. I don't quite know when that's coming out. I could just look it up while I'm here on the computer. I could do that. Heh!

Well, I need to sleep. Nightmares of McCain's angry expressions dancing through my head. Nevermind. No sleep tonight.

Yeah, my conclusions have been different from the mainstream media's every time, so I dread to see what's in the papers tomorrow.

Now, seriously, I'm done.

-Sam goldsmith

P.S. If you're scared as well, please feel free to write. I don't bite, but sometimes I respond. You have been forewarned!

What I Did Not See

Ciao, Tutti!

I should be doing homework right now instead of blogging, but some important political event just happened and I feel the urge to blog about it. I'll probably fall behind in school work and graduate into a lousy job in a failing economy and...

Well, let's just say I've been down on myself for not working hard enough lately. Life has been distracting me. Let me count the ways.

1) Me and a couple of friends from the Florence program got together this weekend to play music. We're going to be, I say hopefully, an indie band. We all play guitar and piano, and we all sing. No bass player or drummer, but there is a MicroKorg that can play bass for us. We don't need bass and drums anyway. We immediately connected at the jam session. We met at 8:00, none of us having eaten dinner yet, expecting a short, hour long rehearsal and catch-up after. Instead we found ourselves eating Italian food in a diner at 1:00 in the morning. We were starving and tired but couldn't stop playing. So, just a heads up, you may hear a lot more of my voice on CD in the coming however-long-it-takes-for-us-to-get-something-recorded.



2) I am still horribly unqualified to teach Constitutional law, but I have to anyway. Thanks to a scheduling confusion, team teaching the first day was done by seven people, four of whom were in the law school. Needless to say, I didn't have much of a role. However, I did notice a few things, like how smart the students were. I totally underestimated them, not just for their critical thinking capacities but also for their incredible retention of basic facts (dates, names, clauses, etc.). I also noticed a place for me in the class, a historical niche that the law students were conveniently overlooking. Historical context is something me and my other undergraduate team teacher can help out with while the law students unload their database of rote law information. Together we will be unstoppable! Anyway, I'll be reading the constitution a few times, if I can get away from obsessing about life, as well as some court cases and reviewing revolutionary history.



3) TV on the Radio plays in Brooklyn a week from today, but the only apparent way to buy tickets is through their site, and I don't want to become a member and receive a bunch of random emails about concerts in Oslo and the like. Well, I did anyway, only to find out that the pre-sale is sold out. I have to find some other way to get to the show. Does anyone have experience with this, by the way?

P.S. I will be seeing Of Montreal on Friday night, but it won't be the same...



4) I am still terrified of Sarah Palin. This may be a part of me not sleeping well, along with eating dinner at 1:00 after jamming for too long. Now, as you all remember, I'm scared of her incompetence (I've watched the Couric interviews now...) and I'm scared of how everyone perceives her performances. But now I have a new fear: how people in the jazz department at NYU make fun of her. It is gross. People use the acronym MILF to describe her, which I probably am not allowed to spell out, and they talk about performing acts which, well, I probably can't spell out either. Is it any wonder that I have trouble sleeping! Perhaps there was a good reason only old white men used to run for president. This whole thing reminds me of the good old days when making a sexual joke about Nanci Pelosi was an unforgivable act.

5) The second presidential debate was tonight, a town-hall style format that McCain is particularly comfortable in. I have to say, I didn't quite know what to expect. Luckily I had watched the first debate, and there wasn't all that much different tonight, even considering the new economic situation. This is what I did not see or hear: any mention of either Ayers or Rev. Wright; any personal attacks at all; any new policies, save for McCain's new housing approach to the dismal housing market; a constant linking between McCain and Bush; or a gaff of any kind. This being the case, I don't think there was a clear "winner" or "loser." This was not a debate that would earn anyone major points.

Of course that's what I'll say. You all know who my guy is. But, if the truth be told, I actually thought John McCain actually came out on top tonight (town-hall, not like we expected anything different, right?). There was one example when the clock-watching Tom Brokaw asked a question, I think about energy plans (this is why I'm a blogger, not a journalist), about mid-way through. Both of the candidates answered with the same substance. Something about decreasing US dependence on foreign oil. Obama went first, and he's answered this question plenty of times before and he had his script to go by. This being one of the sole issues the two candidates agree on, they answered fairly similarly, but McCain's answer made much more sense. He spoke more slowly and he used language that was far less technical, and he physically reached out to the audience. There was something in his speaking that I could identify with, even if I can't stand the guy. Obama, on the other hand, as one TV analyst from PBS said afterward, elicits no emotion from the audience during a debate, much different than watching the man orate. I hate to say it like this, but McCain was simply better at conveying his opinions to the world than Obama was. Problem is I don't agree with any of his opinions. Obama was obviously better when answering the questions after McCain rather than being the ice-breaker. He needed time to prepare. I could even see his speech relaxing in the middle of answering a question, like I could hear his mind working out an answer as he said catch phrases he had rehearsed beforehand. I know he's not a great debater like Denzel Washington, but I was a bit dissapointed in this.

The only time I thought Obama actually outperformed McCain, and this is a surprise, was in foreign policy, near the end (Obama did get better as the night went on. He needed to relax!). McCain made the assertion, as he had before, that Obama could not simply announce that he was going to invade Pakistan. He invoked Theodore Roosevelt's famous adage, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," asserting that Obama only spoke loudly. Obama returned with the reference, as usual, to McCain's support of the war in Iraq ("Bomb, bomb, bomb!") and his comment that the US could simply "muddle through" Afghanistan. Basically a summation of McCain's foreign policy gaffs. McCain should have been prepared for this sort of attack, but for some reason he wasn't. It was his vaguest point in the entire debate, the only one where his response had nothing specific or insightful in any way. He repeated Obama's gaff (that he had just cleared up) and tried to emphasize Obama's inexperience and naivete. He actually looked tense on stage and struggled finding words.

It's a good thing that point came near the end of the debate because otherwise I'm fairly certain McCain would have been considered the winner of the debate for sure, especially considering his fairly effective attacks on Obama's economic policy, making a dent in what has evolved into one of Obama's strongest positions.

Well, the red light is flashing. I suppose that means I'm out of time.

6) Midterm season approaches. And I have two essays due in the same class (!) a week from tomorrow. The day after the TV on the Radio concert where, I assume, I will not eat dinner until 1:00 in the morning again, thus not sleeping at night. Again. But hopefully the papers will be done by then. Regardless, being a double major in history is much harder than I ever thought it would be. It makes me glad I'm antisocial, I don't play an instrument that gets me many gigs, and I don't have a long-distance relationship anymore. I'll bet my parents are sad they don't get to hear me call every other day anymore.

7) Of course I have time to call my folks every day, but that time ends up being taken up by the difference in time zones as well as, shall we say, other obsessions. I suppose I will call this obsession, "plot." I just love stories that are about things (so therefore not "The Namesake," no matter how well it was written). Stories, novels, TV shows, movies, people's lives, cartoons, you name it. Plus I like to make things up that have plots, too, like short stories and novels. It happens every November too, and may even stop my blogging for quite a while. But, ooh, is it worth it! So, sorry, Mom and Dad!

Sigh! It's so hard when I've got so many exciting or terrifying things in my life distracting me from living! I mean, I do have to do schoolwork at some point, don't I? I suppose this is the price I pay for having so many interests I want to investigate. That's a nice way of saying I'm indecisive and like to dream up fantasies. Which is a mean way of saying I have a lot of interests I want to investigate.

Until next whenever-I-need-another-distraction-from-homework-or-there-is-another-debate,

-Sam goldsmith

5 Things That Scare Me

Ciao, Tutti!

I am writing today, after just writing yesterday, for a few reasons. First and foremost, I watched the debate yesterday after posting, and, needless to say, I have a lot more to write. You may even be able to tell where this is going from the title of today's blog. I also figured the subject will allow me an opportunity to touch on some things I wasn't able to last week because of the Avatar thing (you didn't actually read that, did you?). We need to get that stuff out of the way and let the important stuff come in.

I do have issue with this title, though. I really did not want to talk about fear, to be honest. It's been a key Republican tactic to manipulate our fears and scare us away from the democrats and our own consciousnesses, in turn creating more cynicism. Either way, I did not want to give in to fear, but I fear that I have failed. The plan worked. I'm scared s***less. To find out why, well, you'll have to keep reading.

The 5 Things That Scare Me That Could Actually Happen



5) The 2008-2009 Sports seasons.

Even though I am specifically referring to basketball, I am talking about all of them. Even hockey. Every team I have any connection with seems to be going down. A's and Giants out of the playoffs, Tigers wasting their money on has-beens, Cubs about to be swept... again... I may have to root for the Devil Rays. That's sad. In football there hasn't been much to root for in at least a decade, and this year is no exception. Hopefully Brady's injury will keep New England out of contention this year. At least I don't care about football very much. The NCAA basketball and football teams from all four colleges I pay attention to, Cal, Stanford, MSU, and UM, don't seem to have anything special going for them, though I must admit I am not as avid a college fan as a pro fan. But the NBA has the worst of it all. The Warriors are out their star from last year and his back-up for the start of the season, and they were only able to replace him with Corey Magette, who is okay. The team will do well, but not well enough to make the playoffs in the power-packed west. And, finally, I sing my swan song for the Pistons team I feel like I've grown up with. After announcing each player except for Stucky was up for trade, Dumars couldn't pull anything together but an over sized contract for a proven nobody, and we all know Detroit has no more need for anyone named "Kwame." You are looking at the most unmotivated team in basketball. For the third year in a row. It will be painful to watch.



4) Needles.

I dread needles. This is an irrational fear. I can't even blame the Republicans for this one.



3) Movie Adaptations.

This is not just about Avatar. This is about every good book or TV show or comic book out there that someone looked at and hastily made a movie that just didn't work. Here are two perfect examples: "The Count of Monte Cristo" and "The Golden Compass." There are other examples I don't need to get into. What terrible wastes of good ideas these two movies were! However, things did not have to be like this. Three examples of movie adaptations that went amazingly well: "Lord of the Rings," "No Country for Old Men," and "The Princess Bride" (confession: I didn't actually like "No Country" that much). We all know how well Batman has been doing and how poorly the Fantastic Four went, and, on the subject of superheroes, no one can quite realize that the Hulk should just be put down for a while. The main point is that it is possible to do a great adaptation or fail miserably. When you take a medium that already exists, you have the weight of all the fans on your shoulders.

There are two adaptations I am talking about, one I talked about at length last week (correction: while unconfirmed, I heard that the Avatar movie coming out in 2010 is the first in a trilogy. That changes my "advice" from last week a little). I am also referring to, of course, "Soon I Will Be Invincible," former UC Berkeley English graduate student Austin Grossman's movie adaptation of his amazingly written novel. If the movie is half as good as the book it should be fine. But the problem is that we expect so much more now that the standards are set so high. Perhaps this isn't a problem but simply a risk. I've heard risk-taking isn't a good move in this economy. Speaking of the economy, that should be on this list. What did I write "needles" for? Who cares about that?



2) Teaching Constitutional Law

Yes, I forgot to mention this yesterday. Every Saturday morning, starting tomorrow, I will team teach a class of about 20 high-school upperclassmen about the constitution and important Supreme Court cases. I am completely unqualified for this job and I just got the teaching manual yesterday. However, I do know a thing or two (three at most) about the constitution, which makes me more qualified than some of the other undergraduate students teaching in the program. Plus I'll have two law students to help out, so it should be fine. Emphasis on the third to last word in that sentence. Should. I am still quite a bit scared about this, not knowing what the class will be like, not knowing how much charge I should take, how much the team teachers know, and so on and so forth. Basically, I'm scared. It's the Republicans' fault.

As the Onion says: "Undergraduate Student Under Graduate Student."

Whatever that means.



1) John McCain's Running Mate.

This is the real reason I wanted to blog today, and this is the real reason I am terrified.

First, some clarification: Since Sarah Palin was selected to be McCain's running mate on the day I flew back to Detroit, I have never seen Sarah Palin or any comedian looking like her speak. I never saw the famous SNL skit with Tina Fey and I never saw the equally famous interview with two of my least favorite people in the world, Katie Couric and Sarah Palin. I never even saw John Stewart or Stephen Colbert talk about her. I researched her stances on the New York Times as news stories about her came out, skipping over the dumb scandals that reporters began to dig up. I found out her stance and was already pretty scared of that. It was all I wanted to know, as I said yesterday. I refused to let her become important to me until this debate. Yesterday was basically my introduction to Sarah Palin.

I have to me make myself more clear. I am not actually most scared of Sarah Palin herself. She might be somewhere in my top 100. I am not even scared enough of her policies to put them on this list. I don't like them and I think the world would be in a terrible place if they were implemented, but they were always there, in some politician or another. It didn't have to be about her. The fact that she stands for everything I stand against, it seems, is scary, but not why I write today.

I am not even writing about how scared I am that she could actually become vice president. Not just that! A year from now we could all be under a Sarah Palin presidency! That is truly terrifying, much more than needles. More than bad movie adaptations, too. If M Night Shyamalan took time to campaign for Obama and won him the election and his trilogy suffered because of that, I would forgive him in a heartbeat. Same for you, Austin Grossmam.

But that is not why I write. You see, I watched the debate in horror. I had never seen Sarah Palin before since she was nominated, don't forget. Her policies scared me, yes, but not nearly as much as what was obviously lacking. That is, any knowledge about anything she was talking about. She had her positions and all she was doing was stating them and using incendiary language, trying every once in a while to inset her two or three memorized facts to support her side. It was obvious when there was a question she had rehearsed for because she would wink at the camera and pull out her smile and "normal person's" accent from the fingertip-land of America. Otherwise she would freeze up and start spewing catch phrases and diverting the question (yes, I know, not answering questions is an important aspect of debates). No matter what she had to stick to her limited political vocabulary and very limited political knowledge and repeat her empty speech constantly.

I could not look at this like an undecided voter, no matter how hard I tried. But I could look at it like someone who was undecided about Sarah Palin. And, as someone who had never seen her before, I could not believe how badly Biden out-debated her. I had to ask my friends if Biden was really that good a debater or if she was just making him look good. It was a massacre. Every time she said something Biden always could come back with at least a satisfactory answer (though never quite the best answer), while Palin never gave an answer to Biden's challenges that was even remotely convincing. All she had was her Alaskan charm and her catch phrases. I swear, she said "team of mavericks" so many times I thought she was talking about Dirk Nowitzki and Mark Cuban.

I got a pretty bad impression of her. I'm not exactly a fair judge, but it was obvious she was terrible. I also don't like McCain's super right-wing policy, but this doesn't change the fact that I think he debates on a higher level than Obama. It was blatantly obvious that Biden blew Palin out of the water.

Now for the scary part: after the debate the commentators on ABC said their initial reaction was that it was about EVEN! They said an undecided voter probably would not have been able to tell who won. They said Palin did great at portraying herself as a common person and attacking Obama while Biden showed incredible calm and restraint. The New York Times called it a "recovery performance" and that she "exceeded her expectations." Sarah Palin said she thought "things went very well last night." I couldn't believe it; I still can't believe it. Did they watch the same debate as me?

The problem was that they all had watched the devastating interviews with Katie Couric and heard all of her gaffs, which I was filled in on by my friends and family after the debate. She did so poorly before that everyone thought she did WELL yesterday, even though she definitively lost the debate in my mind and my mind only. The only reason it was a so-called tie was because she didn't gaff. Everyone was expecting her to make a huge, career-ending blunder, and because she didn't the debate was a tie.

Excuse me while I go curse out a window for a moment.

So I guess number 0) of the things that scare me is all of you! What's wrong with you all? How come our standards have become so low that we can accept this travesty? The New York Knicks could improve their record and still be the worst team in basketball, and would disgruntled Knicks fans say it was a successful season? If yesterday's debate shows Sarah Palin at her best, then we are in serious trouble, people! Not f***ing up is not good enough for our vice president! Just because we all expected to see her fall down like it was a boxing math or something doesn't mean she tied or did well. Let's get this straight:

She did well by her standards AND ONLY HER STANDARDS. She isn't even on the same playing field as John McCain, Joe Biden, or the uninspiring debater Barack Obama. She's barely even at student council level. I am fine with considering it a success FOR HER. The McCain campaign did not collapse with the economy yesterday, as some expected it might. That is a success FOR HER. That's a success? Listen, people, this woman could possibly be president in a year, and we need better than not screwing up.

Hey, but she seems like a nice person to have a beer with. I'll bet she's more coherent when she's drunk.

Please email me and tell me why this shouldn't scare me so much. But only do so if you really, truly think I shouldn't be scared about all this. Especially the needles. And the economy. Why didn't I write about the economy?

I think more cursing out of windows is necessary here.

-Sam goldsmith

This is Beginning to Feel Like the Long Winded Luz of Forever

Ciao, Tutti, and happy New Year!

Sorry for not writing so much lately. It seems that New York City is infinitely less inspiring and motivational than Florence. I suspected as much.

Before I get into the items of importance that bring me to write today, I would like to send a shout out to everyone who made it to my show at the Bowery Poetry Club last Sunday. It was the best performance of Guest Artist yet, and I was lucky enough to have guests from New Jersey, Michigan, and as far as California who aren't even students at NYU! I had family visits that were heart-warming as we rapidly approach the dreaded east coast winter.

As far as the blog goes, I would like to try a new format, as you will see. I've got some sections of important items I want to talk about. Basically, that's it. The blog will be categorized into subjects rather than locations as before, since my days of tourism are on sabbatical currently.

Music Events

I would like to take this opportunity to announce the creation of my second garage band CD, "I Don't Know," by my band First Regrets, featuring me, me, me, and me. The first CD, "The Rest Of The Days Of My Life," has been effectively ended when my pre-amplifier broke and I've had to rely on garage band sounds and my own voice to record everything. Seems rough, but I found out by making "Not a Love Song" that it could all actually work out to my advantage. As soon as I figure out how to embed it into the blog I promise to do so as a preview. Or just send your email address to samgoldsmithvibes@gmail.com and I'll send it off to you.

My NYU enemble with Ralph Alessi has a gig planned for November 5, the day after the election, at my favorite venue in New York City: the Jazz Gallery. I am super-duper excited to play there because a) I have always wanted to, b) it's my favorite jazz club in New York City, and c) the only way to play there with your own group is if you've played there before. Needless to say, this is going to be great fun for me and the rest of the ensemble.

Nothing coming from the Inspiration Sextet anytime soon, though as soon as I'm done recovering from the concert and my first batch of essays, I'll look into another recording project. No promises, though!

Politics: Debate and the Bailout

Everyone's favorite subjects of discussion these days.

I plan to watch the debate tonight with my friends from freshman year, even though I constantly assert that it isn't important in the slightest. I've said this many times before: Sarah Palin was a publicity stunt and is only important because it proves John McCain can't make important decisions in the clutch. However, as we saw, the historic publicity stunt worked out quite well for Mr. McCain. The choice was obviously for winning the election, not because he actually thought she could do a good job, and she has been pretty easy to fashion an image for since no one knows anything about her.

Everyone already knows all this. But leaving this all behind and looking strictly at policy, the two "mavericks" have some disturbing trends. I actually don't know how they can say they're mavericks at all, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to say this. Focusing on Sarah Palin, it seems her one claim to fame is her opposition to Ted Steven's famous bridge to nowhere. Good for her. She opposed the old boy's club and has now joined them. She's been a huge opponent of abortion rights and loves drilling, which, statistics say, won't even give temporary relief from the oil crisis we're in (this is a part of Obama's platform I'm not so thrilled with either). We all know about Sarah Palin's foreign policy, namely that she probably can't even find Iraq on the map, even if the names of the countries were there.

Congratulations, John McCain. You followed in Bush's footsteps by choosing a vice presidential candidate who is so much scarier than you that you will never be assassinated, no matter how bad a job you do.

This is just a summary, of course. If you wanted to read about the election I'm sure you wouldn't come to my blog to do it. The reason this affects me is that I, like a lot of people I know, am most interested in watching this debate because I hope and expect Mrs. Palin to make a fool of herself at some point in this debate. It's like last year's World Series; no one expected the Rockies to win anyway. So why watch? Well, this time the vice presidential debate is actually important. Even if their only job is to fall asleep until a tie in the Senate or take over the president's job if he/she can't do it, the vice presidency has become a symbolically important role in the administration. As much as I hate to admit it, this debate is actually important.

Switching gears, it was quite interesting to be so close to Wall Street for the last few weeks. You see people in suits and ties on the streets with empty coffee cups begging for cash.

That is an exaggeration.

Some things about the bailout: a) We don't have 700 billion dollars, and if we did, it would be better used to fund education systems, a national health care plan, research on alternative energy, social security, and a slew of other options. Either way, we have to stop our borrowing fetish as soon as possible, and this is not the answer.
b) One thing about capitalism is the inevitability of ups and downs. We can't throw this kind of money in order to, in Mr. Paulson's words, avoid the potential for a "recession." I thought it already was a recession.
c) Either way, this seems to be a total waste of money and no one knows if it'll even work.
d) I am sick of trickle down economics.
e) I am already going to have to pay for the Iraq war. Now I'm probably going to have to pay people on Wall Street, too.
e) I have a lot of problems trusting a Bush Administration economic plan. Call me paranoid.
f) My bank went under and was bought out. Property value in New York City - New York City, for goodness's sake! - is dropping because no one wants to start a new business or invest in anything. Local small businesses are dropping like flies. They say that if your neighbor loses his job it's a recession, but if you lose yours it's a depression. I haven't lost my job, but money doesn't seem to do everything it used to do. I don't like this bailout, but something has to be done. If I were an economic expert I may be able to do more than just complain.

Important Events in My Life



Dear Science

TV on the Radio's new CD finally came out on September 23, though I had to wait a few more days so I could open it up as a birthday present. I was rabid on the 23rd. This was possibly the most exciting thing that had happened to me since declaring my double major in history. Hm, that's not a great comparison. Let me put it this way: I had spent hours each day listening to the pre-release tracks on the TVOTR website. They had only posted 2 tracks.

I was fairly excited for this CD release.

For this CD to meet my expectations would have been virtually impossible. It would have had to be one of the best CD's ever made, topping even some of Peter Apfelbaum's, in order to match my excitement for it. It didn't. I was nearly moved to turn it off with disgust during to cliched catchy second track, "Crying." It was too poppish, it wasn't nearly as original as the TVOTR I knew, and the beats were too happy and upbeat. The CD does get better as it goes, not counting the excellent single "Dancing Choose," especially the melodic "Love Dog" and edgy "DLZ," whose lyrics give today's blog its name. The problem was it took until "DLZ," the 10th track, for anything really edgy rather than poppy to come out of the disc. I was disappointed.

This CD rewards multiple listenings. It really does. I cannot emphasize how much better everything sounded the third or fourth time. It's a lot like "Return to Cookie Mountain," their previous release, in that way. You have to get used to it. In reality, it IS quite original, a TVOTR take on pop music. They are always searching for a new sound, and I just had to get used to it being more like sounds I already knew. But the most amazing thing about the CD is its freshness. It's not quite edgy, it's not quite poppish. It is best described as fresh. The recordings are crisp, the lyrics are witty, and they never let you fall into autopilot listening mode; the songs are always changing.

Plus, singer/guitarist Kyp Malone has the coolest beard.

M Night Shyamalan

You must be wondering why I am writing about the director of "The Sixth Sense," which I have never seen before. In fact he has directed many other movies that I have never seen and never cared to see. In fact, I probably took more effort than I needed to simply to look up how to spell the guy's last name.

Well, funny thing. In 637 days (I'll be graduated then, I think), M Night Shyamalan is releasing a movie that, secretly, I wanted to write. I have been planning it out since the beginning of September, even going as far as to research screenwriting procedure. I hadn't planned on writing this movie for years, maybe even decades, but it would be worth the wait. Now it seems it'll only be two years (only!), and it won't be my movie. It'll be a real movie-maker's movie.

I wouldn't trust myself with writing a movie anyway. My tastes in movies are somewhat... strange. That's what I told myself as I cried myself to sleep last night after I found this out, and now I have to tell someone, so therefore I write this blog.

So what is this movie I wanted to make so bad? You'll never guess. I wouldn't have either a few months ago. I'll give you some hints: It has to do with my recent obsession with arrows. It is based on an animated television show. It's not Rurouni Kenshin or Death Note, though I suppose I could always do Kenshin if I really want to. It really needs to be done well.

It's a kid's show (come on, just because I'm 20 now doesn't mean I'm not a kid anymore!).


(I don't know if I'm allowed to put this photo on my blog or not)

As heartbroken as I am that I will not be able to make a movie based on "Avatar: the Last Airbender," I'm glad that it's being made by someone who knows what he's doing. Still, there's no way he's going to take any of my ideas. But I do have some advice for M Night Shyamalan that doesn't have anything to do with the direction I would have taken in making the movie. You see, part of my planning on making the movie myself was finding what needed to be changed with the show, and believe me, there isn't much. The show is by and large fantastic. Perfect for its audience, almost. There really doesn't even need to be a movie made of it at all. Anyway, straight to my unsolicited advice, which is actually more like a list of pleas:

1) Don't F*** up.

2) Change the ending. I have serious problems with the ending, namely that it doesn't make sense (I'm pretty sure my readers aren't going to watch this show, so if you're worried about spoilers, skip ahead to part 3). It's too perfect! First of all, I have major problems with a guy who's naturally gifted at everything and never really has to work all that hard, as Zukko says, getting everything he wants in the end. Second of all, there is no reason for Katara to like him that way. The only reason the hit it off in the end is because the viewer wants them to. A few episodes she was seriously not into him, and nothing changes by the end in terms of their relationship. The whole thing sort of comes out of the blue, just a forced writing convention to resolve all the plot lines roughly together. It works for the kids audience, but it generally doesn't make sense.

3) Be careful when dealing with Toph. She is a good character, and the writers of the show were thorough in keeping her character consistent, a tough thing to do with blindness (trust me, I have experience in that vein). There are some problems, though, to deal with. Mostly I am referring to her sometimes supernatural abilities to "see" things with her feet far away, or so minuscule that it's hard to believe. My favorite example of this is that she can tell if someone is lying just by feeling the vibrations of their heart. Now, come on. This is simple to avoid, though. Just make it so that in the plot it isn't necessary for that part of her to come out. There, problem solved. Toph also has the problem in the show of ping ponging between unlikely extremes, especially when interacting with Katara (she always seems to bring out Katara's bad, aggrivatable side and her motherly side, which I think is almost as bad). She can be tough and strong willed in one moment and teary and affectionate in another. This can work, of course, but it was one weak point in the show during the parts where her character was developed.

4) Develop the bad guys a bit. After watching Heath Leger play the Joker in "The Dark Knight," Dad said that villains will always be more interesting characters than heroes. Avatar is one exception to this rule. The bad guys, as well as the entire fire nation, are all flat and two-dimensional, excluding Zukko and Iroh, who I don't even count as villains. I am mostly talking about Azula and Ozai, but the entire organization of the fire nation isn't really humanized until very late in the show, and even then it isn't done very well. Basically, I take issue with the whole association with "fire nation" and bad guy that pervades the story. It's not there 100% of the time, though, and it would be a good idea to draw out the balance of nations as well as unique fire nation culture that makes them more than just an evil empire. As far as Azula and Ozai go, there may not be enough time to develop them, but there isn't really anything going on in their heads but a big power trip. This could be a lot more interesting.

5) The season finales of seasons 1 and 2 don't really work very well. Important things happen, like Aang nearly being killed by Azula's lightning, and Princess Yuei, the most unimportant and poorly paced character in the show, turning into the moon (my favorite line in the show: "My first girlfriend turned into the moon." "That's rough, buddy."), and Ba Sing Se falling. But there are some serious problems. The story in the north is terribly paced and awkwardly told. Things happen that have to happen, like Zukko capturing Aang, like Zhao, another unimportant character, dying. But the whole moon being blotted out thing is introduced and resolved too fast. However, I like Koh, the Face Stealer enough that I would try to keep him involved. The story in Ba Sing Se is a little different. The build up is nice, with the cultural conspiracy keeping the war secret from everyone in the city, including the king. But it's all downhill from there until the final two episodes of the season. To discover the Dai Li
's secret hideout they rely too much on luck and the brainwashed Jet. Too many coincidences for me. And I never really understood why they just left Jet in the secret underground lair. How's he supposed to get out without an earth bender anyway? And after that, the earth king is way too easily convinced of Long Feng's treachery. I don't see him trusting the children for a single moment. However, that makes it hard to move the plot forward, so what choice do we have? I have problems with it, but it ma just have to stay that way.

6) Really plan out what to do with all the extra characters. They're important in the invasion or they appear periodically, but they're so minor it could be really easy to get tripped up in them. I'm talking Haru, Jet, the Boulder, the swamp guys and Hugh, the flying men, Suki (she's kind of more important), Bato, the Blue Spirit, Boomie, Mai and Tai Li, Combustion Man, Joon, and others. Fans of the show would hate to see some of these characters go, but how can you fit them all in a movie? It's one of the problems moving a TV show to the big screen.

7) What's up with the giant Lion Turtle? (Spoiler) I like the solution of taking away Ozai's bending rather than killing him, but what is going on with this lion turtle? On one hand, I kind of like how I don't know what's going on. It's modern. On the other hand, it's an interesting writing convention. It seems like lucky avatar stuff. I sort of want things more explained to me, and I sort of like the mystery. It contradicts with the story telling of the entire rest of the show, though. You have to make a conscious decision of what to do about that part and what you want out of it.

8) Kataang? Zutara? I choose Katara, though I would rather see Kataang than Zutara. My honest appraisal of Katara's character is that she simply cares uniformly for everyone. She loves them all like family, but she is not really interested in romance. Most of the affection she shows towards Aang she also shows towards her brother Sokka. Even the kisses on the cheek are easily seen as sisterly. She seems much more interested in minor characters Haru and Jet, but it doesn't take a college student to realize this. There are only two times I see Katara show any romantic affection for Aang (spoiler): the episode when they dance with the fire nation school, and the final scene of the show. I particularly latch onto the scene where she blatantly threatens Zukko with death if he thinks of hurting Aang once Zukko joins the group. She only shows an interest in Zukko when she touches his scar in the crystal catacombs (I still don't get why she does that!). I've got my biases, but I think if the movie ends with Katara having a love interest, there better be a darned good reason because she doesn't exhibit it in the show.

9) The "field trips" with Zukko once he joins the group are great for the TV show, but they don't make any sense in a movie. There just isn't enough time for that sort of thing. Unfortunately, I think this means there will never be a time in which Katara ever trusts him. Her field trip sort of reeks anyway.

10) I have nothing bad to say about Sokka. He's like my cousin Andrew, which makes him a great character. It could be easy to let him fall into the role of "funny guy for slap-stick," but he's a really fleshed out character that should be tapped.

11) "The Storm," in season 1, had a big error for the TV show makers. Aang's guilt for running away is probably the best part of his character, flowing seamlessly with his fun-loving goofiness. At the end of this episode he declares he's done dwelling on the past (even though it's not true) and stops having those nightmares. Bad move. This should be something that plagues Aang throughout the plot. Here's why: Aang has nothing much to humanize him. He is a goofy kid who loves to procrastinate and pal around, while his innate talent for bending makes it so he doesn't have to work very hard to accomplish anything. It's a wonder he can somehow get serious enough to meditate. He's a prodigy. Zukko compares him to his sister in this way, not a positive comparison. Mastering the elements is depicted as a simple chore throughout the show. Aang only really struggles with a couple of things constantly throughout the plot: the main plot line, that is trying to master the elements and confront Ozai, and his unrequited love for Katara. The only struggle of these that the viewer can identify with is the unrequited love, but there is so much more there to exploit in Aang's character. Namely, this guilt he has for running away and failing in his avatar duties. This is a part of him that he can carry with him for the whole movie, and it conveniently resolves at the end.

Do I really have to come up with more? Honestly, there isn't really any way to screw up this show. It's pretty flipping amazing. I'm going to have a hard time waiting 2 years for it. I can't find much to criticize about it, and what I can find is easily explained by, "it's a kid's show." It is a great show, and that's why I have obsessed about it like this and taken up your time with my ramblings. I can't wait for the movie to come out, but I guess I'll just have to somehow. In the meantime, we can all wish for arrows pointing to our noses.



I guess I should get on with my life...

-Sam goldsmith