Cory Booker, American Hero

Cory Booker first appeared on my radar while I was researching New Jersey news stories for a tv station. Booker was coming under fire because he wanted to cut city spending on toilet paper. It wasn't a popular move, but if you think about it, how bad is it?
Newark isn't exactly loaded, so why not cut spending where possible?
Cutting spending where possible, as it turns out, is one of the tenets of Booker's leadership as is privatization, yet he's managed to be popular with Democrats.
All in all, he strikes me as a pretty good, level-headed mayor.
But in a story that seems to be under-discussed, at least among my peers, he actually rescued a woman from a burning building. And from the accounts of the firefighters, it sounds like it was at great personal safety risk.
All in all, I think Newark's really lucky to have him as mayor, and I think this Forbes article, despite its messed-up title, gives good insight into why. Booker genuinely doesn't seem to care what other people think about him and is clearly hard at work to make his city a better place.
Whatever your policies, Booker represents the best in elected officials.

Depression, Happiness, and the Power of the Anonymous Article

It is possible, according to the anonymous author of this Guardian piece. Kind of long, so here are some highlights:
"I wanted to write this article to demonstrate that a successful career, mental illness and enjoyment of life need not be incompatible." Word.

"As proof of this, I don't feel able to 'come out' in this article. I am not ashamed but I do wonder how the relationship with colleagues, and pursuit of promotion might be affected if it was generally known that I suffer from depression." Fair enough. Two observations. I guess the most apparent one, the one I feel somewhat obliged to say, is the "this shows that there needs to be more open discourse about depression." True, and I think this writer is contributing to that. I can't, however, take issue with his decision to remain anonymous for a few reasons. First, I like the idea that "it could be anyone", and I'm sure that he is speaking for a number of people. Second, though he writes that he doesn't "come out" because he doesn't "feel able", he is also making the article about the issue itself rather than about him. I have a lot of respect of famous people who open up about their issues with depression, and we certainly need people to be the "faces" of depression (though those faces should not be associated solely with depression or it would take away the point), but the focus here is rightly placed on the issue. The writer does not need to flaunt his accomplishments, unlike Greg Smith did in the New York Times:

"My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts."

And this relates to Goldman how? Oh, because "Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement." Rather than boost his credibility with that little paragraph, Smith simply made people question his motives. The author of the depression piece doesn't do that.

To close, the author remarks:

Finally, I love the words of the Roman poet Catullus who was obviously suffering, when he said: "One day all this will seem funny." 

Nope, not Catullus. You're thinking of Vergil's line in the Aeneid, "forsan haec olim meminisse iuvabit." I was always taught to read it as "perhaps even this it will be pleasing to remember" but I know there are other more literal translations.

But in all seriousness, whoever you are, it was a good piece with an important message. Respect.

Meanwhile in Morningside Heights

So, Barnard and Columbia students are apparently at war with President Obama's decision to deliver a commencement speech at Barnard rather than Columbia. Time to weigh in. (Not literally, I'm a heavyweight).

• There's no excuse for the kind of commentary that has come from some of the Columbia students, and I'm disappointed that neither Barnard President Debora L. Spar or Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger have the guts to call them out on it. For some of the extreme comments, check out this Jezebel article. It should be noted that I find the term "feminazi" to be highly objectionable. In fact, I don't understand why the term "Nazi" is thrown around so casually in so many areas ("Grammar Nazi" etc.). Nothing about Nazism was funny. It was a terrible, terrible part of history.
• Obama's motives for this choice are interesting. If the New York Times article is correct on the fact that Obama has generally been unenthusiastic about his time at Columbia, then this does seem to be a jab at his alma mater. The decision to speak at a women's college is also obviously an attempt to appeal to women voters, but the choice of Barnard specifically can't be ignored. After all, if it was simply about promoting women's rights, why Barnard specifically? It's certainly a great school, but what about it makes it more worthwhile of his time than Wellesley, Smith, or Mt. Holyoke?
• Barnard and Columbia have a unique relationship as far as I can tell; I can't think of any other schools where the women's college is "independent" but also gets this kind of access. If you're looking at the women's college experience (which I never was), this would seem to offer you a great opportunity to have the women's college community while still taking classes and pursuing opportunities at a coed Ivy League university. (It's worth noting that Barnard athletes compete for Columbia sports teams.) That being said, many Columbia students are clearly of the opinion that the two are unequal partners, that Barnard students are undeserving of the access they have to Columbia activities and the Columbia name on the diploma. This incident seems to reflect a fairly tense relationship between the schools though this of course could be overstated by the few extremely obnoxious students that are present at every school (unfortunately). Based on these incidents, if I were interested in a women's college (I never was) but also wanted to experience a coed school, I might be more inclined to head to Smith or Mt. Holyoke, where I could be part of an all women's community but still take classes at coed Amherst or UMASS. New York City might have something to do with your interest in Barnard or Columbia, and they don't have that at Smith. And I do know of people who have had great experiences at Barnard and don't mean to knock it as a school. But it is an imperfect relationship.
• That being said, I highly doubt having Barnard students in Columbia classes is that large an impediment to learning. I know there have been concerns in the past over Barnard not agreeing to contribute to funding of clubs and Columbia students proceeding to kick Barnard students out of said clubs. That's an issue, to be sure. But I would need to see hard data to believe that Barnard students prevented Columbia students from learning course material.
• And the lesson is, as it almost always is: people should treat others with respect. Life will work much better that way.

The Bad Old Days

"I don't think other people are cool because they smoke ... [But] I think I'm cool because I smoke."

A Harvard student really said that. On the record.
While reading about the recent discussion on campus about the potential for a campus wide smoke-ban, I came across this gem of an article from 1998 that profiles various students who smoke.
I find it worth reading for the following reasons:

• Apparently Reverend Peter J. Gomes (now deceased, unfortunately) served as a faculty advisor for a Harvard Cigar Club, which held meetings at his house. The club was founded in 1997. Not sure how long it lasted. 
• Samuel Sheridan '98 is the most interesting character of the bunch. Sheridan started smoking while working on a merchant marine ship after high school and gives "I think it's important for young people to carry around a reminder of death" as one of his many justifications. As a nonsmoker, I am naturally skeptical of all of his reasons and wonder why he couldn't pursue other avenues for his "reminder of death" (like reading sad books or something). Apparently, though, he has continued to pursue this "reminder" in other ways and has done some interesting things, which I found out from this Boston Globe article from 2007.
• As for Gavin Moses: I'm glad he saved someone's life. That's great. Maybe he would have prolonged socializing with his friend anyway, but saving people's lives is always good. As for his initial reason: Who does something hazardous to one's health as a way to remember a past romantic relationship? When relationships don't work out, don't you try to forget them? Or take up healthy activities to help you move on? Moses took the complete opposite approach.
• I'm not sure whether the quotes were taken out of context, but some of these interviews give very stereotypical justifications for smoking. Aaron Mathes's thoughts on being cool are the most obvious; "It's part of the way I think of myself. It helps me constitute my identity." But many of the interviewed discussed how smoking helped them make friends. Isn't this why D.A.R.E. was founded in the first place? To combat this kind of peer pressure? It's sad that these pressures were so evident at a place like Harvard.
• There's nothing really wrong with the opening paragraph, but I find it interesting that the author takes the time to note that smoking is indeed bad for you. Didn't everyone already know that?
• Harvard's been a part of the cigarette-cancer connection from the beginning. Its researchers have contributed to the discovery of it, and one scientist, Dr. Carl C. Seltzer, refuted it. (Yikes)

Welcome back Dreamland!

Nantucket Dreamland is back!
The Dreamland is a Nantucket institution that has been a big part of the Nantucket experience for me, my mom, and especially my aunt who worked there one summer. Nantucket was lucky to have great operators in the past who made it a special place and is lucky now that the members of The Nantucket Dreamland Foundation were in it for the long haul and made it happen. With the real world beckoning, it's unclear when I'll be able to head to Nantucket again, but it's great to know that Nantucket's year round residents will once again be able to spend time there.
http://www.nantucketdreamland.org/index.php

UCLA and the Red Sox: when reporters delve into disasters

Today, I read two very interesting articles on the struggles of the once mighty UCLA basketball team. One, in Sports Illustrated, went through all the ways in which UCLA coach Ben Howland has failed to hold his athletes accountable to certain standards of behavior. The other, from Sporting News, attempted to defend Coach Howland and his team, attributing the team's struggles to a lack of home games. The level of research of the Sports Illustrated article makes it the more convincing of the two; the Sporting News piece never fully responds to Reeves Nelson's dangerous behavior among other issues. It's also worth noting that this is an exposé in a vein similar to the Boston Globe piece about the collapse of the 2011 Red Sox, so I'm going to use this blog to discuss that piece as well.
Here are my thoughts on the case as a whole:

• My heart goes out to the UCLA basketball players who were hurt by Nelson. I can't imagine being on a team with someone who made a conscious effort to hurt you. Of all of the issues brought up in college sports, this is certainly one you don't see every day. No wonder Matt Carlino transferred to BYU. I agree with his teammate's assertion "That wasn't quitting. That was just smart."
• One of the main issues here is entitlement, shown both by the players and by Howland itself. The Sports Illustrated article treats them as somewhat separate issues, but how separate are they really? If Howland considered himself too important to treat his assistant coaches well, perhaps he understood the players' own sense of entitlement and was therefore less inclined to call them out on it.
• Nelson is portrayed as one of the main villains throughout the piece. But I have to give him credit for the fact that he agreed to speak to the media and acknowledged the mistakes he made. It's clear this kid had problems and needed help. That's not to say what he did wasn't wrong; the article portrays him as a malicious bully, not as a nice person with occasional outbursts. But if you're in charge of a program and you see this kind of behavior happening, it's your job to stop it and your job to figure out whether this is a good kid with problems or a bad kid who doesn't belong on the team. Nelson is portrayed as the latter throughout the piece, but Howland never seemed to consider that he could be either.
• The Globe piece was about a professional sports team, not a collegiate program. Professional athletes should know that everything they do could be the subject of an article, but the UCLA athletes described as hard-partiers probably didn't think they'd appear in Sports Illustrated for it. But even high school athletes can make headlines for their troublemaking. Athletes, take note: if you play a sport, no matter the level, your life is available for public scrutiny. Learn how to deal with that because it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.
• Like the Globe piece, this one also relied on anonymous sources. But there's far less room to hide in the UCLA basketball program. Not only are basketball programs smaller, but these sources were identified specifically as players, not simply as members of the organization. That means that they were likely more motivated to talk to the reporters than the Globe's sources. I have much more respect for the basketball players who acted as sources. With nowhere to turn on the team, they found an outlet to ensure that the team's problems would finally see the light. The fact that things aren't going as badly this season drills a hole in that somewhat, but I tend to trust that these sources had good intentions. As for those who spoke to the Globe? If Chris Jones is correct in this Grantland piece that ownership was a major source, then I have no respect for that whatsoever. Actually, I don't have much respect for it anyway.
• I also agree with the Grantland piece on the use of anonymous sources. I tend not to like it.
• I wonder what the writers think they are accomplishing by these pieces. It makes you think about why you want to write, what the goal is. The purposes I see are: informing people of information they need to know, telling stories that teach important lessons or highlight great people, trying to persuade people to agree with you (though this is specific for opinion writing), and entertaining people. Where exactly do these pieces fit in with that goal? They can help us engage with some serious issues, but they can also hurt a lot of people. That's not to say that they shouldn't be published, but I want to know what the writers were thinking when the sent in these pieces.

Great Teddy Roosevelt Quotes

Happy Presidents' Day Everyone! I have a whole book of these, but as it is at home right now, I got many from here

1. Do what you can with what you have where you are.
2. Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.
3. It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.
4. There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country.
5. There are good men and bad men of all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope some day it may become, it must be by the general recognition that the man's heart and soul, the man's worth and actions, determine his standing.
6. Viewed purely in the abstract, I think there can be no question that women should have equal rights with men.
7. Women should have free access to every field of labor which they care to enter, and when their work is as valuable as that of a man it should be paid as highly.
8. Keep your eyes on the stars, but remember to keep your feet on the ground.
9. There were all kinds of things I was afraid of at first, ranging from grizzly bears to 'mean' horses and gun-fighters; but by acting as if I was not afraid I gradually ceased to be afraid.
10. Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

Va-Lin-Tine's Day Soundtrack

Valentine's Day, or Va-Lin-Tine's Day for Knicks fans and Harvard folks, is as good an excuse as any to listen to good music. If you're celebrating Lin's rise to power, why not check out the Jeremy Lin song?
If you're celebrating love or whining over being single, there are probably some songs that express your feelings. Not sure these express mine, but they're great tunes, nonetheless. These might not all be "love songs" per se, more like variations on the theme.
Many things by Nat King Cole
But L-O-V-E and Unforgettable are pretty hard to beat. For Unforgettable I posted the version with just Nat, but you can find the one with Natalie as well.
I Guess That's Why They Call it the Blues by Elton John
Sir Elton John, if you prefer.
Sister Golden Hair by America
Just one of many 70s songs I love.
Super Trouper by ABBA
ABBA is another great 70s band, but this song was actually released in November of 1980.
Only Time Will Tell by Etta James
This Grantland piece by Jay Caspian Kang informed me of this song. It's fantastic.
September by Earth, Wind & Fire
Try to sit still while listening to this. I dare you.
Cowboy Take Me Away by The Dixie Chicks
If you've got a little country in you.
Any Man of Mine by Shania Twain
If you've got a lot of country in you.
I'm Yours by Jason Mraz
The cutest song ever? It might be.
You Love The Thunder by Jackson Browne
Who doesn't love thunder?
That's What I Like About You by The Romantics
Keep on whispering in my ear, tell me all the things that I wanna hear.
Sweet Child O' Mine by Guns N Roses
If you listen to the lyrics, it's totally about a relationship. But you might be too busy enjoying the guitar.
Let's Spend the Night Together by The Rolling Stones
enough said.

...okay maybe my taste in music isn't that romantic.

Thinking of the Victims: Whitney and Rihanna

In the wake of the legendary Whitney Houston's death, the people I know are choosing to take the high road. I have not heard one condemnation of her drug abuse problems in the days following her death, only posts commenting on what a transcendent voice she had and how beautiful her songs were. This is as it should be. But perhaps it's not going far enough.
Because as society mourns Houston's death and acknowledges her to be a victim, it is also cheering on the return of Chris Brown, a talented musical artist and miserable human being. This article by Sasha Pasulka on Hello Giggles pretty convincingly elaborates all that is wrong with this decision as well as with many of the other responses that came after Brown physically abused his then-girlfriend Rihanna.
The incident certainly hurt Brown's reputation in the eyes of many, but what was shocking was the way in which Rihanna was vilified by many. When the incident became people, many felt that it was her own fault for getting hurt. When she chose not to press charges, so-called "feminists" called her out for it. They say she could have inspired many women to take action. That's certainly true. But no one has the right to criticize a victim of domestic violence for the way in which she responds. If she chooses not to press charges, that is her own decision. As Pasulka notes, Rihanna never signed up to be the "public face" of domestic violence. No one does. It's not the victims' jobs to become that face. Rather, people should make a public effort to condemn it.
And I think Rihanna's responded pretty impressively. She has turned out a number of musical hits where she has ventured into darker territory than she has before including "S&M", "All of the Lights", and "We Found Love", and the music video to "We Found Love" provides a pretty intimate look into her relationship with Brown. This kind of career bounce-back is certainly admirable.
But even if she were not to continue producing popular songs and Brown were to make timeless classics, Rihanna's is still the side we should take. As a victim of violence, she deserves all the support she can get.
Whitney Houston must not die in vain. While there are many reasons why people choose to engage in substance abuse, we must confront the ways in which domestic violence can destroy lives.
Some people say we pay too much attention to celebrities. We may indeed. But one of the benefits of following celebrities is that it gives up the opportunity to appreciate the goodness in people and speak up where we see the injustice. Rihanna is a strong, powerful, talented woman who has been the victim of things no one deserves to experience. Even if you are upset that she did not become a "role model" for domestic violence victims by pressing charges, she can be an example for victims in another way.
She is strong, beautiful, talented, and independent. And she was still abused. What victims can learn is this: what is being done to you is not your fault.

I can't believe this is even a question.

Sports Center asks "Better Underdog" with a picture of Jeremy Lin next to a picture of Tim Tebow. How on earth is this a question?
Let's compare
High School Hype
1. In high school, Tim Tebow was considered to be one of the top quarterbacks in the country. That's why he got a scholarship. While Jeremy Lin led Palo Alto to the California state championship, he couldn't get a Division 1 scholarship offer. That's why he went to Harvard. Lucky for us.
College Honors
2. Tebow won a Heisman Trophy and two national championships. Jeremy Lin was first-team All Ivy twice, was named a Lou Henson All American, and was one of 11 finalists for the Bob Cousy Award. All of these, of course, are great honors, but perhaps not a Heisman trophy.
Drafting
3. Pretty straightforward. Tebow was the Denver Broncos' number one draft pick and was 25th overall. Lin was undrafted.
Holding a Job
4. Sure, it wasn't always clear that Tebow would have the starting job. But he was a member of the organization. Lin's journey? He was signed to Dallas's summer team, then signed with Golden State. Then he was released by Golden State. Then he signed with the Rockets. Then the Rockets released him. Then he signed with the Knicks. Then the Knicks sent him to the D-League. And then...
Winning
5. Sure Tebow had some exciting wins, and the defeat of the Steelers was impressive. But he was helpless against a New England Patriots defense that really wasn't very good. Lin just took down Kobe Bryant and the Lakers.
Who's the Better Underdog? Pretty much a lay-up.