politics: the education ballywick

David Brooks writes about education in today's NYtimes here. I'm of two minds. One, I do agree that pre-K and after school programs help, but I find the idea that schools are centered around teacher and adult needs suspect. If perhaps, someone, somewhere, would outline what students' needs are, precisely, I'd be much obliged. I'm not even sure what an education system centered around students' needs would look like, except that it seems to serve a jargon short hand for charter schools, vouchers, testing, and getting rid of ineffective teachers. If we're serious about reforming the school system, perhaps a better system of training teachers is in order. If we're serious about reforming the school system, perhaps a better system of mentoring and developing teachers already working is needed. And if we're serious about reforming the school system, perhaps reforming the curriculum to reflect 21st century needs is what should happen. I've long thought that the high school curriculum is too narrow in its focus on presumably preparing every student for college. We've let go of the fine arts and the mechanical arts, both of which often helped keep students in school. At least, the drama and choir programs did so for my father back in the mid-70s.

world: the view from afghanistan

politics and sports: the end of the primaries and Euro Cup 2008

In an odd confluence of things that I am interested in, Senator Clinton will give some sort of speech or statement tomorrow to officially pass the torch to Senator Obama. I'm not going to call it a concession speech, primarily because I don't think it is quite the right term. An acknowledgment speech, perhaps? A support speech? At any rate, it's schedule for tomorrow. In effect, Obama's official general election campaign will get its champaign across the bow kick off tomorrow.

Euro Cup 2008 also begins tomorrow. Now, I'm still distraught that England did not make it to the finals. (Damn Steve McClaren.) Nevertheless, I need to have a team to root for. So, I've decided to back Germany, who I still think was robbed by Portugal in the 2006 World Cup. It doesn't hurt that Germany was the team that decimated San Marino in the preliminary rounds. Admittedly San Marino was never going to do particularly well, but losing 21 to 0 is highly unusual in soccer/football. And, yes, I do realize that professing my love for international football makes me a white person according to the Stuff White People Like blog.

On a side note, I've been ruminating on the convergence of politics and sports. One person was discussing how he was trying to make his father a "believer" in Obama. Now, most statements of this sort tend to be viewed through a religious lens. I think a sports one might be the more apt way to see this statement. You believe in your team, even when they are losing. You may go on to support someone else--see my Germany support--but you still have a deep commitment to the losing team.

writing: David Brooks and quiet writing

I've been a twee fan of David Brooks ever since reading Bobos in Paradise. I didn't even realize he was a conservative columnist until my mentor professor told me. At any rate, he and I have not always been on the same page the last few years, but his last ten columns or so have been really well done, even if I have disagreed. What made Bobos in Paradise work was Brooks's ability to be interested in odd minutiae and the bigger picture. He had a column last year on intelligence and height that was fascinating, for example. Today's look at Lincoln is probably one of the best columns I've read on the necessary temperament for being president. What I liked about it in particular is that he avoided the wrestling with the angels metaphor, which is a good one to be sure, but not entirely apt here. Of course, one of the things I appreciate about Brooks is that he's a smart, quiet prose stylist. I love Maureen Dowd for sheer imagery, but she too often browbeats. As a quiet writer myself, I tend to gravitate towards quiet writers. Hence, my adoration of Elizabeth Gaskell; Wives and Daughters is frequently elegiac. But back to Brooks. Today's column is astute, sweeping, informed, and leaves you with space to ruminate over his last point. Key graf:

"Somehow a leader conversant with his own failings wouldn’t be as affected by the moral self-approval that afflicts most political movements. He’d be detached from his most fervid followers and merciful and understanding toward foes. He’d have a sense of his own smallness in the sweep of events. He or she would contravene Lord Acton’s dictum and grow sadder and wiser with more power.

All this suggests a maxim for us voters: Don’t only look to see which candidate has the most talent. Look for the one most emotionally gripped by his own failings."

I like the idea of being "conversant" with your failings, particularly for a politician.