It was bound to happen.  Several people I know already called it “Linens-N-Shit,” a well-known hot spot for people who were helpless to recognize that they needlessly wanted to buy things they didn’t actually need.    And now, The Onion has dedicated an entire article to the retailer.

Speaking of The Onion, check out the Onion Network News for reports that The Bejing Olympics are actually a huge trap and this extra funny report on new wearable feedbags for Americans and this even funnier report on the limits of what humans are willing to eat. I suspect that there were some product placement fees involved in these last two reports, but I can’t be sure . . .

As a person who likes to play guitar with my hands, I’m especially impressed with people who play guitar with their feet. Here’s another good foot-guitar player:

I knew something was up when, in the opening scene of the film, an actor was playing the guitar but he really knew how to handle that guitar.

“Once,” which was written and directed by John Carney, is a low-budget ($160,000) Irish love story that deservedly won a slew of awards. The film features musicians Glen Hansard (a first-rate musician who has played with the Irish rock band The Frames) and Markéta Irglová as struggling Dublin musicians who fall in love, creating the atmosphere for their encounters with the music that they wrote and performed both in the movie and in real life (all but one of the many songs performed during the movie were written and performed by Hansard and Irglová. Carney knew of Hansard because Carney had played bass guitar in a band with Hansard prior to becoming a film director.

Anyone who has ever had the opportunity to make high-quality music with someone with whom they have a romantic urge knows a secret that I’m a bit hesitant to share: playing music really can be better than sex. Director John Carney knew that the music-making between the two costars had to be the focus because, in this film, the music carried the romance on several levels. The intensity of the romance was palpable throughout the film, especially during an early scene where the costars “borrowed” a music store as a scene for their first jam.

My wife Anne sings and plays the flute (no, not at the same time!) and I play guitar and sing. We’ve performed together as musicians–we thus know a thing or two about the intersection between romance and music. We arranged for Netflix to send us this DVD. We watched it tonight and we both thought highly of it. We were astounded at how incredibly personal the film was. I didn’t know anything about the actors until after the video had finished playing, but then we watched some of the special features and were amazed. It was only then that I realized that Hansard had almost no acting experience prior to this film and that the beautiful Czech Markéta Irglová had absolutely no acting experience. As it turns out, Hansard recommended Irglová for the part. Prior to this project, Irglová and Hansard had worked together as musicians (she plays guitar and piano).

Consider this: How often do you see an award-winning film starring two adults with almost no acting experience? In an interview, director Carney claims that “anyone can act,” but that it is a matter of bringing it out. He succeeded in bringing out the costars’ inner-actors by carefully setting the moods for each scene, drawing on lots of improvising during the shooting and utilizing lots and lots of carefully crafted hand-held video.

Fate assisted Carney in bringing out the chemistry between the actors in “Once.” The 37-year-old Hansard and the 19-year-old Irglová started falling in love with each other while this film was being shot. Carney recognized one of his roles, then, as trying to disguise some of these intense natural feelings between the actors, rather than trying to concoct them. Of course, the film gives us some complications along the way, enough to keep the film interesting.

The end result was phenomenal, and it didn’t hurt that the music was so musical. I’m not trying to be silly with his comment. So very often, music is assembled and cranked out rather than performed from the heart. It is for this reason that there are many terrific musicians with basic musical skills who are better musicians than professionals with higher-level technical skills. The ability to play from the heart is thus the great leveler of musicians.

I certainly won’t spoil the plot for any of you who might want to rent this fine video. When you’re done watching it, though, I guarantee that you’ll think of the characters as real life people who are still living their lives across the Atlantic Ocean. This video seemed so real that the actors commented that they have been approached by quite a few people (subsequent to the film’s release) who asked about how things were going these days, as though this fictional drama were a real-life documentary. Not that anyone could blame them for the confusion . . .

In 2006, Norman Solomon wrote War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. His book detailed the information tactics the American government uses to launch wars.

War Made Easy has been such an influential book that it has now been made into a movie of the same name. You can view it here or you can order a copy of the DVD here.

I was able to attend a viewing of “War Made Easy” last Saturday night at the National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis (NCMR2008). This crisply edited movie was narrated by Sean Penn. Much of what keeps this movie engaging are the dozens of carefully chosen news media clips generated during various American wars for the past 50 years, including large numbers of videos clips from the Vietnam war and the Iraq occupation. The magic of “War Made Easy” is that the directors carefully edited and arranged these clips to show us that nothing much has really changed: If an American president has decided that he wants to go to war, the watchdog American media is likely to become a lapdog and we will inevitably go to war.

Following the screening of “War Made Easy,” I attended a discussion of the movie led by media critic Norman Solomon and the co-director and producer of the movie, Loretta Alper. The following morning, Ms. Alper granted me the opportunity to interview her further regarding the making of “War Made Easy.”

Whenever we Americans go to war, we get there through a well-documented series of stages. As I watched “War Made Easy,” I saw better than ever that these stages are entirely predictable in the context of America’s warmongering ways.

Perhaps this characterization of America sounds too shrill, but just look around. The evidence is everywhere that war is a sport in America just as sports are warlike. Our TV shows and movies overflow with violence as a first-rate method of dealing with conflict. The toys we foist on our boys extol violence as the most obvious way of settling disputes. We challenge each other with statements like “support the troops,” no matter what those troops are doing (and see here ). We are all too ready to invoke the word “war,” because that word triggers a ready-made conceptual frame for freely and guiltlessly expressing ourselves with bullets, bombs and blood. In America, this frame of war is such an incredibly effective filter that we proceed to consider only the “benefits” of war and we ignore the massive damages inflicted on both war-zone civilians and upon millions of Americans (and see here).

For most Americans, it is difficult to see that we are truly a nation of warmongers. After all, we are so absolutely used to being the way we are that even the most obvious things have become difficult to see. As George Orwell once noted, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

Before seeing “War Made Easy,” I was already familiar with the FAIR study documenting the manner in which our media rolled over rather than risk being accused of being unpatriotic. How much does the media roll over? So much so, that Americans see only an extremely filtered set of images representing the war. We see pictures of happy soldiers shipping out to “do their duty.” Pictures of dismembered civilian children are much too inconvenient for American patriotism, however.

Yes, Americans have become warriors looking for wars. America is a place where the thinnest of excuses will get the whole war machine revved. It is one of the points made by “War Made Easy” that America is gasoline needing only a small spark of an excuse to get us exploding off to war. Almost any excuse will do, it seems, and it doesn’t matter whether that excuse entirely false. In the 1960s, all it would took was the Gulf of Tonkin incident, an incident which never actually happened at all (based upon a recently declassified NSA document and other evidence). Nonetheless, the claim of the Gulf of Tonkin incident opened the floodgates to the American military buildup in Vietnam.

In 1993, all it took was a few well-placed public officials to stir up worries about “weapons of mass destruction” that didn’t exist. At that point, the confirmation bias and the herd instinct take over. How warped has our national perspective become? Whatever any perceived outsider does, we will see in the worst possible light and we will make damned sure that every other American becomes equally xenophobic. When this level of dysfunction occurs in an individual, we call that individual mentally ill. When it occurs nationwide, we call it “patriotism.”

The above observations are necessary prelude to my understanding of “War Made Easy.” I needed to consider these issues because of a question I had trouble getting past: Why isn’t going to war easy for most countries other than the United States? One obvious answer is that most other countries have not invested in a massive military infrastructure. The U.S. is physically able go to war at the push of a button, while most other would first require a long-term military buildup. The next obvious question, though, is why most other countries have not invested in their military might to the same extent as the United States. My unfortunate conclusion is that the U.S. has a warmonger mentality. When the President of the U.S. says we need to go to war, the citizens are already half-primed to agree. This would not be the case with, for example, the Prime Minister of Norway.

“War Made Easy” is an illustration of the predictable steps that will occur as soon as the spark of a false threat hits the gasoline of American militaristic exceptionalism. We see this same pattern over and over. Here are some of the predictable steps that occur when an American president presses for war. All of these are well substantiated by “War Made Easy.”

I. Public dialogue becomes simplistic. Consider Pat Buchanan’s warning that “When the war begins, the debate ends.” The media clips offered by “War Made Easy” substantiate the claim that once war is under way, there is no more media coverage for the rationale for the war, but only for the progress of the war. Once war is under way, it is produced like a TV show. The information from the war zone is tightly controlled by the government. The media does not protest this tight control, because it desperately craves the access and the market share. Therefore, whatever labels the government gives to a battle or a war (e.g., “Shock and Awe”), the media readily embraces it.

II. The President’s case for war is always built upon deception; the official story is false or it omits numerous key facts. Instead, the case is made primarily upon spin.

III. Americans are portrayed as “reluctant fighters.” We’d rather not go to war, but circumstances are allegedly forcing our hand. (more…)

Tonight, I had the privilege to attend a private screening of Phil Donahue’s new movie, “Body of War.” The film was shown to several hundred people attending the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

In his introduction to the film, Donahue indicated that “We have the most sanitized war in our history.” His point was that the American people cannot deal appropriately about this war if they can’t see the images related to the war. He implored, “Show the people the sacrifices the men and women of this country are making.” The American people cannot feel the pain caused by this war, because the full story of the war is not available to them, thanks to the continuing media blackout of all inconvenient images and stories. Instead of learning about what’s really happening in Iraq, the American people keep getting distracted with things like entertainment parading as news or tax cuts.

Donahue stated that the US involvement in Iraq has caused more than 20,000 “grievous injuries,” a fact which he finds “beyond horrible.”

What are the kinds of images that the American people are denied? Everyone knows about the government’s attempt to keep Americans from seeing pictures of coffins of soldiers returning from Iraq. There are equally dramatic pictures available, however. One of those was briefly shown in the film, and it was run only in the Rocky Mountain News. It is a photo of a woman who wanted to sleep next to the coffin of her husband (James Cathey, an Iraq soldier) while military guards stood by. This was to be her last night with him. She slept on a little mattress almost underneath the coffin.

Donahue’s point is straightforward. “Show us the war. We are adults. We can then decide if you want to end this damn war now.”

Donahue learned of the subject of the movie, Thomas Young, while visiting with Ralph Nader. It was Nader who tipped off Donnie that there was a young man, recently returned from Iraq, who might serve as a good subject for the kind of film Donahue was interested in making. Donahue traveled to the military hospital where he met Thomas, though Thomas did not meet Donahue until later because he was then in a coma. When Donahue finally met a conscious Thomas Young (in Kansas City), he noticed antiwar bumper stickers on the family kitchen table. Until then, Donahue had no idea that the subject of his film, Thomas Young, had antiwar feelings. After he saw those bumper stickers, Donahue thought to himself, “Maybe we really have something here.”

It was at the same time that Donahue learned about Thomas Young that he also happened to meet Eddie Vedder of the band Pearl Jam (also through Ralph Nader). Vedder offered to compose music for the film, which he did in five days, free of charge.

I don’t want to ruin the film by discussing too many of the specifics, but I will reveal that it is an emotional journey for the subject of the film as well as the audience. Only five days after traveling to Iraq, Thomas Young was shot in the shoulder, which caused him to become a paraplegic. Much of the movie uses the way Young deals with his injuries as a backdrop for the fact that so many members of Congress were obtuse to the human cost of this Iraqi invasion. The film is made ever more emotionally poignant due to the intense involvement in Thomas’s life by his new wife and his mother. The film also features a two intense moments with Thomas’s stepfather, a ditto head.

Thomas Young turns out to be a hero both in the way he deals with his injuries and in the way he speaks out as an activist following his return home. All is not well for Thomas, however, and these challenges are a emotionally wrenching journey for filmgoers.

Another hero of the film is Senator Robert Byrd, who eloquently did everything in his power to turn back the tide of war-mongering in Congress. As it turns out, Byrd was one of only 23 senators who voted to deny George Bush powers to invade Iraq. The film cleverly intersperses the Congressional debate with the struggles of Thomas Young.

The superb editing of this film is apparent throughout. Donahue commented that he wanted to be very careful to not make the film “preachy,” and he succeeded in this.

“Body of War” is being released soon, though there is no distributor for the film. It will not be a financial success. Nonetheless, it has played to rave reviews. In fact, one of the members of Congress who voted “yes” to the Iraq invasion, privately viewed the film and told Donahue “This film should be shown in every college and every university in the country.”

At the conclusion of the showing at the NCMR2008, it received an extended standing ovation.

Donahue admits that there is no mass market for a film of this type, a fact that is utterly depressing given the need for films like this. As Donahue commented, “If you’re not going to use free speech, stop spilling their blood.”Luckily, the film does have an financial afterlife. It will apparently be picked up by Netflix, and there will be other availability in scattered markets. You’ll need to look closely to see if it’s playing in your town. You could even make some phone calls to try to get the independent theaters in your area to play this film.

Donahue explained that in the big media, “you are rewarded solely by the size of the crowd you can draw.” Therefore, we’ll never hear about stories like that of Thomas Young in the big media. In order to get this story out, we’ll need to build media from the grassroots up.

When the country is beating the drums for war, all movement is seen as progress, and anybody getting in the way of the military action is branded a coward. This is not a new theory. It was made plain many decades ago in a speech by Herman Goring. It is also a point made by another new movie, “War Made Easy,” which will be screened at this same media reform convention tomorrow night. The conclusion of that film is that if the President wants to go to war in this country, it will happen. That’s the nature of our politics, our media and our citizenry. It’s a very sad story, indeed.

After the film and Q&A, Donahue graciously stayed around to meet some of the people who attended the screening and to chat with them.

I shook Donahue’s hand and told him that I write for a blog that draws 4,000 visitors every day. I told him that when I sat down to watch his movie, I doubted that I would learn anything new because I’ve long been a serious student of the Iraq conflict and the political backdrop. I admitted to Donahue that was wrong, however, because this film got “under my radar and it was emotionally stunning.” Donahue looked at my badge and said “Dangerous Intersection . . . it would be good if you could talk about the film on your blog.” I told him that “That’s why I’m here.”

As many people know, Phil Donahue was host to a highly-ranked show on MSNBC in October 2002. In fact, it was a leading show on MSNBC. (more…)

Chimpanzees aren’t the only spectacularly intelligent animal species.  Sometimes human beings act intelligently!  Yes, humans are animals, as difficult as this is to believe for many people.

In this TED video, Joshua Klein reminds us about the intelligence of yet another species: crows.  Using their  intelligence, crows continue to flourish among human populations.

Today, my daughters and I had the opportunity to observe two male langurs fighting and then reconciling at the St. Louis Zoo today. First of all, here’s the fight (this is the tale end of a rough play session that turned noticeably unpleasant–the entire episode lasted about 3 minutes):

About 2 minutes after these langurs ceased fighting, I saw what clearly appeared to be a reconcilation. Here’s the progression. For most of the two minutes immediately following the fight, one of the langurs parked himself about 3 inches from me (separated by plexiglass). I wondered whether he was pouting or, maybe, whether he was a bit hurt. He looked to be checking out his foot.

After 2 minutes, he hopped up to a outcropping to join the other langur, where the two fighting langurs hugged for about 60 seconds.

I not certain I know how to interpret what happened next, but here’s the photo. It appeared to be of a sexual nature or, perhaps, grooming.

Langurs are marvelously athletic creatures. They bounce around in their enclosure, sometimes causing themselves to bounce off of the Plexiglas. They can jump up cliffs and grab ropes and swing without any apparent fear or effort. Check out the toes of the langur, which are much longer then the langur’s fingers.

I found this fight/reconcile exchange to be fascinating, especially in light of Frans de Waal’s discovery that primates often reconcile. He noted that these reconciliations often involve an expression of sexuality. I assume that this is what happened today.

This is a most unusual opening to a dance, involving precision moves.

McCain’s honesty problem has been condensed into this short YouTube video by Robert Greenwald.

The mainstream media needs to focus on what McCain himself has claimed.   This is not character assassination, but forcing McCain to deal with his own statements.

Have you seen Jon Stewart’s interview of Doug Feith?

It is obvious that Feith appeared on the The Daily Show in an attempt to try to:

A) salvage his own sordid reputation, and
B) convince the audience that the Bush Administration didn’t lead the charge to invade Iraq, drumming up false intelligence in the process.

Feith failed miserably on both accounts because Stewart refused to play the role of a nodding bobblehead. In fact, Stewart showed himself to be a better interviewer than most members of the mainstream news media. It was refreshing to see Stewart challenging Feith at every turn.

For an evidence-based version of how this country came to occupy Iraq, watch “Buying the War,” a Bill Moyers video, showing that the Bush Administration consciously and intentionally pulled all the necessary strings and the mainstream media marched in lockstep.

The United States didn’t end up in Iraq because of a series of accidents and mistakes, as Feith tries to argue. The Downing Street memo and Richard Clarke’s accounts, among much other evidence, shows that the Bush Administration planned to march into Baghdad regardless of the evidence. They got their way, and now they, including Feith, are acting like it’s not their fault. Now we’re seeing an extended media campaign of shameless revisionism.

The difference is that Bill O’Reilly really did explode on the set. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

This computer animation was dramatic. I’d never seen anything like it. It is a lively model demonstrating how DNA is copied and how DNA is transcribed into RNA, among other things. These critical activities certainly need to zip along, given the total unraveled length of the DNA in each human cell: six feet.

This animation was created by The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medicine at Melbourne, Australia.

When you watch this, you might think: “Well, sure. I could put together a highlight video like this by trying to make a bunch of difficult shots and then editing out the ones that didn’t go in.”

Nope. You’re wrong . . .

In addition to being a very smart animal, the octopus has no bones.  Hence, it can pull off this incredible manuver of sqeezing through a one-inch hole.

If you liked the first video, you’ll also enjoy this much more elaborate octopus video from National Geogaphic.

Will.i.am has done another impressive job of assembling a huge talented group of people to convey his message.

To learn more about this video, visit Soupy Trumpet.

For its entire existence as a sport bodybuilding has struggled to gain acceptance with a mainstream audience. Some say it never will. They say that the freakishly exaggerated physiques of bodybuilders will never be applauded by the general public. And so, bodybuilding remains a cult sport. Looked down upon by many as a freak show.

As hard as it is for male bodybuilders to gain acceptance as legitimate athletes, it’s even harder for female bodybuilders. The male bodybuilder creates an exaggeration of the male form. They have taken the shape and the characteristics of male-ness and pushed it to its limits. They give the impression of being a “super-male”. Though freakish to some, at least it’s consistent with their gender.

The problem for very muscular women is that as they become more muscular the general public sees them as becoming less feminine and more manly. This has been a growing problem for women’s bodybuilding since the early nineties as advances in training and chemistry have enabled female bodybuilders to far exceed their natural muscle building capacity. Debates about “feminity vs masculinity” in female bodybuilding are an eternally hot topic on bodybuilding forums around the world and discussed with the same fervor that “God vs no God” is debated here on Dangerous Intersection.

Into this fray jumps celebrated photographer Martin Schoeller. Martin’s latest project is a series on female bodybuilders that is being exhibited at the Ace Gallery starting in March. Known for his stark brand of portraiture, Martin’s work has a frankness that is often controversial. Presidents, royalty and celebrities have all sat in the glare of his harsh lighting. The result has been described as honest or raw; real or unflattering, depending upon your point of view.

Martin’s art intrigues me as a documentary filmmaker. Martin attempts to get a photograph of the “real” person by removing all artifice and getting them to let down their guard. He does this by stripping away every crutch that photographers, the photographed, and we as viewers have come to expect. There are no costumes, no props, no scenery, no backdrop, sometimes no makeup, no sense of place or time or fashion. What is left is deceptively simple and leads people to think that it is cheap or easy. It is not, because the hard part comes when he then attempts to disarm his subject, relax them and catch them off guard. A tactic that I endeavor to employ every time I shoot footage for my films.

True to form Martin photographs the bodybuilders when they are at their most vulnerable. Spirited away in the midst of their contests before they know their placings, some of them literally right off the stage, the women are exhausted, insecure and dehydrated. He then strips them of their last crutch…he does not allow them to pose. Asking a bodybuilder not to pose is like asking a singer not to sing, a dancer not to dance or a politician to be silent. There is nothing left to do but be yourself. (more…)

This speaker’s name is Randy Pausch. This video shows a farewell speech that Pausch originally gave to his students at Carnegie Mellon.

This video is well worth your eleven minutes, especially if you have far more than eleven minutes to live. One of Pausch’s closing lines: “If you live properly, your dreams will come to you.”

You can find an alternate site for this video here (he gave his speech a second time on Oprah).

For more information, here’s Randy Pausch’s homepage.

You know that life is out of balance.

If you are looking for a provocative film that allows you to feel this problem, I have a classic video to recommend.  I just saw it tonight for the first time: Koyaanisqatsi. The 1982 film was directed by Godfrey Reggio.  Ron Fricke provided the memorable cinematography and Philip Glass provided the haunting music.

In a documentary that accompanies the current version of the DVD, Reggio explains:

[T]hese films have never been about the effect of technology, of industry on people. It’s been that everyone: politics, education, things of the financial structure, the nation state structure, language, the culture, religion, all of that exists within the host of technology. So it’s not the effect of it’s that everything exists within [technology]. It’s not that we use technology, we live technology. Technology has become as ubiquitous as the air we breathe.

The title of the film comes from the Hopi language. At the end of the film, Reggio provided a multi-part definition based on the Hopi etymology: 

1. crazy life; 2. life in turmoil; 3. life out of balance; 4. life disintegrating; 5. a state of life that calls for a different way of living.

I really do enjoy these displays of gadgetry. Quite clever. I just wish I could read the little notes at the end of each episode–I assume I’m missing a good joke.

If you read and listen to enough information and testimony by proponents of Intelligent Design, you’ll discover that the basic premise is: “If I don’t understand exactly how something happens, then it must have been done by a supernatural agent.”

This telling phrase is rarely used by Design Proponents, who evolved from Creationists via the missing link “CDesign proponentsists” that was excavated from a draft of their textbook during discovery for the Dover Trial (click to watch the Nova Documentary of the trial).

One Intelligent Design website has an article it calls Intelligent Design in a Nutshell. Anyone with an understanding of science or information theory will find the unsupported and largely disproved assertions laughable. However, by mis-stating the scientific method, and claiming as supporting proof scientific conclusions that have long been discarded, it makes a convincing case.

Former child actor, and aging teen heartthrob Kirk Cameron is a visible proponent of this odd IDea (sic). Here’s a short video of a Fox News report interviewing him after he taped a debate against Richard Dawkins. There are some annotations placed by the video editor, but the interview itself is untouched. Watch it and see that my initial assertion is correct. Kirk actually says to the unapologetically supportive Creationist (”unbiased”) interviewer, that if he doesn’t understand how it could have formed, then we must accept that it was obviously designed.

(more…)

I was shown this clip at a conference today. It’s already made the rounds, but it’s worth a chuckle or two if your haven’t yet seen it.

On October 20 and 21st, 2007, Blumenthal attended the Value Voters Summit, “a massive gathering hosted by the Colorado-based Christian right mega-ministry, Focus on the Family, and its Washington lobbying arm, the Family Research Council.”

I admire Blumenthal’s work.  He sticks his nose under the tent to allow us to see what ordinary and celebrity neocons really think.  We get access to unvarnished ultra-conservatism at the click of a “Play” button, thanks to his persistent digging.  

This particular convention, the Value Voters Summit lets you see the far right the way they see each other.  It’s not the diluted version that they present when the national news shows come calling.  

For other videos by Blumenthal, see here (The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour) and here (his personal effort to draft College Republicans).

[If you found Blumenthal's video interesting, check out this 2007 Bill Moyers video regarding yet another ultra-conservative convention]

Here’s another of those memorable videos making the rounds on Stumbleupon.com.  It’s well worth a viewing or three or five. 

I have a seven year old daughter. It would be fun to watch her play the drums as well as this seven year old guy, but that will never happen. Not that I’m at all disappointed!

This is a truly extraordinary exhibition. This video left both of us shaking our heads. It is a performance originally aired on the Johnny Carson Show many years ago. I don’t know the specifics, and I can’t quite make out the name of the drummer. I’m wondering whether he ended up making a living as a professional drummer . . .

What does “No Child Left Behind” mean in real-life classrooms? I’ve discussed this topic with several grade school teachers. They are uniformly distressed that NCLB narrows the focus of classroom instruction to the point where children are too often “taught” factoids, ephemeral bits of information that will allow them to pass a test without significantly advancing their ability to understand the world around them.

Jonathan Kozol writes passionately about this point at this Huffpo post:

The poisonous essence of this law lies in the mania of obsessive testing it has forced upon our nation’s schools and, in the case of underfunded, overcrowded inner-city schools, the miserable drill-and-kill curriculum of robotic “teaching to the test” it has imposed on teachers, the best of whom are fleeing from these schools because they know that this debased curriculum would never have been tolerated in the good suburban schools that they, themselves, attended.

When I ask them why they’ve grown demoralized, they routinely tell me it’s the feeling of continual anxiety, the sense of being in a kind of “state of siege,” as well as the pressure to conform to teaching methods that drain every bit of joy out of the hours that their children spend with them in school.

“I didn’t study all these years,” a highly principled and effective first-grade teacher told me — she had studied literature and anthropology in college while also having been immersed in education courses — “in order to turn black babies into mindless little robots, denied the normal breadth of learning, all the arts and sciences, all the joy in reading literary classics, all the spontaneity and power to ask interesting questions, that kids are getting in the middle-class white systems.”

Kozol raises the issue of what to do about the many dysfunctional inner-city schools. It is, after all, a tragedy that we have so many buildings that look like schools but don’t function like schools. I happen to live near several dysfunctional inner-city schools. No thoughtful parent with options to do otherwise would willingly send their kids to such “schools.” I wrote about one teacher’s experience in one such school. I invite you to read the words of this conscientious teacher, who I called “Geri Anderson.” The epilogue to that troubling story is that “Geri’s” contract was not renewed. I have heard it over and over (from teachers and ex-teachers) that inner-city school teachers who show heartfelt enthusiam and creativity can expect to burn out or get fired in short order. In fact, one of my neighbors volunteered to tutor at that same school for several years. She spoke up last year when she noticed that a 2nd grader was getting none of the special education he required (and that school documents indicated he was getting). Epilogue II: My neighbor, the volunteer, was consequently “fired” (told that her services were no longer needed).

How do we fix these problem schools? I hate to sound like a broken record, but media reform is a big part of this problem (and most other big problems too). Stories of what it’s really like to go to these types of schools should be on the front page of local newspapers every day until we address the situation with real changes. We do have lots of available space on the newspaper front page–it’s often filled with advertising disguised as articles and other feel-good stories such as how to purchase a special Halloween-theme leash for your dog. Advertisers don’t like stories about failing schools, though. It makes people feel that they should tax themselves enough to fix the problem. It makes them feel guilty about buying those diamond bracelets, sporty new cars and the other non-essentials advertised in the paper.

Depriving children, our next generation of adults, of real education is a bill we will pay, within our lifetimes, with the high costs of prisons and social services. That’s the message that should be front and center every day.

Kozol is correct, in my opinion, that one important way to help the schools is to quit foisting NCLB onto teachers. Great teachers and good teachers don’t teach in ways that obsess with the narrow-minded tests required by NCLB. After all, when they grow up, these kids aren’t going to find jobs that require them to take trivial quizzes. They will need to know how to think so that they can continually tool up to meet the needs of jobs that don’t even exist today.

Kozol goes further, advocating a new round of inter-district busing, a system not based on race. I’m wary of such an approach for many reasons, however. Mainly, it’s an approach that doesn’t force bad schools to become better. Why not spend limited money on more teachers and better teachers rather than bus drivers? Politicians advocating another round of busing have no chance of getting elected in most of the U.S.

Instead, why not publish a constant steam of media stories about what it’s really like to attend class in a dysfunctional school. Cut the classroom photo ops and show the citizens that too many of the kids in the classroom are not getting a meaningful education. Do it until people can’t stand to see these articles anymore. If people stop reading the papers because they don’t want to do anything about this massive problem, then we have a much bigger problem, indeed. Especially in light of the fact that it makes economic sense to address this problem. Fixing this problem should appeal the self-interest of everyone.

In the meantime, Kozol is right that the status quo is intolerable. We need to put an end to fake education; no more bandaids. No more big government programs that actually make education worse. NCLB is a fraud being perpetrated on the public. It defrauds parents who send their kids to the horrible schools and it defrauds a public that assumes that other people’s kids are being educated when they are actually being turned into resentful robots. Those kids are being taught to be turned off by anything that goes by the name of “education.” That’s the state of education in all too many of our public schools.