2.28.2018

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 115

Here are some excerpts from a book I recently read, "First Class: The Legacy of Dunbar, America’s First Black Public High School," by Alison Stewart and Melissa Harris-Perry:



Over time, more and more schools were formed in black churches and in private homes with progressive Northerners serving as teachers. Among them were Mrs. Mary Billings’s School, St. Frances Academy for Colored Girls, the McCoy School, and the Ambush School, to name a few. This shadow education system was necessary because, very simply, the original law requiring public schools in the District of Columbia clearly stated that the funds would support public schools for whites only.



In 1867, less than two decades removed from the active Washington, DC, slave trade, colored Washingtonians gained the right to vote. And vote they did. By the end of the decade, seven colored men had been elected to the District’s city council. The laws began to change. The council passed an ordinance that declared that “any quiet and orderly person” who was “well behaved and respectable” should be welcome in establishments, taverns, restaurants, shops, and concerts in the District regardless of race—and all people should be treated the same. In reality this didn’t happen, but for a time these laws were on the books. In the same moment, the city elected Mayor Sayles J. Bowen, the most radical of Republicans, a white man who believed wholeheartedly in integration.



Paul Laurence Dunbar was an intelligent and gifted man who, despite his original station as the son of slaves, persevered and became the best and the first of his kind in his field. He represented what the founders of the colored high school dreamed for their own children and their race: success through determination and hard work. Not only would the new colored high school in Washington be named after Dunbar, it would also take on one of his poems as its core value, its guiding principle, its mantra, and its official motto. On page eight of his very first book, Oak and Ivy—the one he self-financed through elevator sales—is a poem called “Keep A-Pluggin’ Away” that begins: 

I’ve a humble little motto 
That is homely, though it’s true,— 
Keep a-pluggin’ away. 
It’s a thing when I’ve an object 
That I always try to do,— 
Keep a-pluggin’ away. 
When you’ve rising storms to quell, 
When opposing waters swell, 
It will never fail to tell,— 
Keep a-pluggin’ away. 
If the hills are high before 
And the paths are hard to climb, 
Keep a-pluggin’ away. 
And remember that successes 
Come to him who bides his time,— 
Keep a-pluggin’ away. 
From the greatest to the least, 
None are from the rule released. 
Be thou toiler, poet, priest, 
Keep a-pluggin’ away. … 

To this day, ninety-year-old Dunbar graduates can recite those lines by heart.



The first three Negro women to get PhDs were all connected to Dunbar: Dr. Sadie Tanner graduated from there in 1915, Dr. Georgiana Simpson taught there, and Dr. Eva Dykes was both a Dunbar graduate and teacher. Dr. Tanner received the first doctorate of the three—but how that came to be is a bit of a funny story. Dr. Tanner was first because the University of Chicago held its ceremony in the morning. Dr. Simpson got hers the same day from the University of Pennsylvania, but in the afternoon. Yet Dr. Dykes was actually the first of the three to complete all the requirements and earn the distinction—Radcliffe simply had its official ceremony a few weeks later.

2.26.2018

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 114

Here's an excerpt from an article I recently read, "Perryman’s Culture of Listening and Trust," in Tharawat Magazine:




Your family business started with a fascinating founder’s story. Could you tell us a bit about its history and how it all came about?

When my father was growing up in the 1940’s and 50’s, it was a time when your parents were your career mentors and trainers. In other words, your first jobs were working for whoever your parents worked for. My grandfather was employed at a company called Black’s Bridge Building Company, so naturally, my dad ended up working with him, building steel bridges all over the southeast. But my father started to realise that the job wasn’t interesting enough for him – he wanted to do more.

So he decided to enlist in the Korean War. During the war, my dad learned masonry, plumbing, and carpentry, skills he acquired as a result of prepping bases for the troops. One of the more important things that I remember from his stories from that period was about his change in mindset after dealing with different ethnic groups as a part of his war experience. He explained how the war either heightened or eliminated the issues of race as he got a chance to see people from different parts of the world work towards a common goal.

When he came out of the military, he, of course, had to come home and integrate back into society. He said to himself, “I’ll go back and get my old job with Black’s Bridge Building Company. And life moves on.” But when he returned, what he saw gave him a different perspective. Even though he had changed, Evergreen Alabama had not. He had become a much more open person, but his community remained closed-minded. It was very apparent to him that his newly formed worldviews were not welcome in a place where he had lived and worked for his entire life prior to his time in the military.

He realised he had to go out and make it on his own. So in 1954, he decided to start a company, and he called it Perryman Building

2.23.2018

A Big Step in the Right Direction

A friend of mine recently asked me if Philly felt noticeably different a couple of weeks out from the Eagles’ historic Super Bowl win.  It’s a great question, which as a non-native perhaps I am ill suited or well suited to answer.

There is certainly a degree to which the answer is yes and no.  Yes, in that we are still giddy from the newness of being world champs, with all the euphoria and bragging rights that come with it.  No, in that we are still hungry, still gritty, still with a chip on our collective shoulder.

But I think there’s more to this story than just one win, albeit an incredible and life-altering one.  Philly teams have long reflected and embraced the psyche of their city: blue collar, tough as nails, big hearted.  But there was always a “but.”  Eagles fans in particular – and, this is a great, four-sport city, but I don’t think it’s too controversial a statement to say that football is where this city’s greatest passions lie – always had a sense of dread hanging over them.  One learned never to get too high after a victory or imminent victory, because things would invariably come crashing down. 

Perhaps I am engaging in some revisionist history here, but I’d have to say that while both the 2004 and 2018 Eagles had a “happy to be here” vibe on the eve of their respective Super Bowl games, there was far more enthusiasm and optimism about this year’s version actually winning the game. Buoyed by a closer-than-you-remember divisional championship (we all remember the goal-line stand at the end, but don’t forget that right before the Eagles' only touchdown of the game Nick Foles averted disaster by falling on his own fumble at the 1) and then a blow-out conference championship, and with a clear sense of identity and destiny heading into the Super Bowl (i.e. “underdogs” taking on the perennial champs and their “pretty boy” leader Tom Brady), fans throughout the region went from “could this be” to “this could be” right before my eyes. 

Even down to the final quarter, possession, and play, when the game’s outcome hung in the balance, there wasn’t sense of dread, as if something bad was inevitably going to happen.  Rather, there was a sense of excitement and possibility, that we weren’t quite across the threshold yet but it was possible we were actually going to make it.  In other words, the butterflies and heart-pounding of any other sports city that didn’t feel as doomed and defeated as Philly had seemed for so many decades.  It may seem like a subtle difference, but I’m sure fans in Cleveland understand.

We have a ways to go as a city and a region, and one win isn’t going to get us all the way to where we know we want to be.  But it was a big step earlier this month, and how we braced for it and then celebrated it is indicative that we had already taken a bunch of big steps leading up to it.  So, it’s the same Philly, but with a little bit of a spring in our collective step, because we know we’re going in the right direction, and it feels good.



2.22.2018

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 113

Here are a couple of excerpts from a book I recently read, "
Furious Cool: Richard Pryor and the World That Made Him," by David Henry:



If you read transcripts of his breakthrough routines, you’ll find nothing remotely funny in the words themselves as printed on the page. It was all in his delivery, his empathy, his willingness to give himself fully to the characters he portrayed, and to let them take possession of him—so much so that it seems blasphemous to speak of “other comedians” when discussing Richard Pryor. There are no others. No one else could do onstage what Richard Pryor did. As his friend David Brenner says, “He stands alone.” 

Stories abound from the early days of radio when white comics would trek uptown to the Apollo, pencil and paper in hand, and help themselves to the best gags. One clear mark of Richard’s genius is that his comedy remains absolutely theft-proof. No one else could do his material. No one else would dare.



Right away there was trouble with the network. Despite having the full weight and support of Lear and Yorkin and their hit series All in the Family behind him, Foxx ran into a brick wall when he insisted that black writers be hired for the show. Specifically, he wanted Richard Pryor and Paul Mooney. NBC wouldn’t budge, despite both their track records and the unassailable authenticity they would lend to the show. None of that mattered. The network insisted on using “established” writers. As Mooney has often observed, racism trumps capitalism. And nobody, it seems, likes being told that they don’t understand the black experience.

2.20.2018

Politics in America


It’s been a contentious month in a contentious era at a contentious stage in the life cycle of this thing we call America.  Issues as diverse as gun control, immigration reform, and gerrymandering are generating extraordinary levels of heat in the public discourse.  And rightly so, for they get at deep-seated conflicts like constitutional rights versus children’s safety, being a nation of immigrants versus a nation of laws, and being a representative democracy versus changing the boundaries on which representation is based.

You can probably easily imagine, based on where I live, which side most of the heat is coming from around here.  You might even be able to imagine what my position is on these issues.  But it is my temperament and my obligation to try to understand both sides, and the internal logic and underlying values behind them.  And it is my belief that in most cases, both sides are not really hearing or respecting the other, and yet both sides need to work together if we want to actually make progress.

If you are angry at or dismissive of that sentiment, consider how feasible or desirable the alternatives are:

1.       We become a dictatorship and just do things by fiat (well, actually, I know a lot of people who consider this highly desirable, as they watch China be able to decide on, initiate, and complete major projects in ways that we can’t seem to be able to in this country)

2.       We say to hell with the other side and just do things without involving them (R’s and D’s take turns being outraged with executive orders and related actions, depending on who’s in power)

3.       We cajole, insult, and shame the other side in the hope that they will wake up one day and say, “you know, I’ve been wrong all along” (based on how nasty the cajoling, insulting, and shaming has become, it's hard to see this happening)

The political process in a representative democracy in a large and diverse country like ours is frustrating as heck.  But it is also the only form of government and the only nation in the history of mankind that I would want to be a part of.  God bless America.

2.16.2018

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 112

Here are some excerpts from a book I recently read, "Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama," bu David Garrow:



Over a quarter century later, Obama would say that he saw the change from Barry to Barack as “an assertion that I was coming of age, an assertion of being comfortable with the fact that I was different and that I didn’t need to try to fit in in a certain way.” With his Oxy friends “he would never correct you” if he was addressed as Barry, Asad explains, but when Obama returned to Honolulu for Christmas 1980, he told his mother and his sister that from now on he would no longer use his childhood nickname and instead would identify himself as Barack Obama. But to his family, just as with Hasan, Eric, and Bill, the name change signified no break in who they thought he was. As Snider explained, “I did not think of Barack as black. I did think of him as the Hawaiian surfer guy.”



Obama also realized that the beer drinking, pot smoking, and cocaine snorting that Oxy, like Punahou, offered him, and that had cemented his reputation as “a hard-core party animal” to some friends, was incompatible with any self-transformation into a more serious student and person. Sim Heninger and Bill Snider believed that Obama’s decision to apply to Columbia sprang from a desire for greater self-discipline, and over a quarter century later Obama would remark, “I think part of the attraction of transferring was it’s hard to remake yourself around people who have known you for a long time.” He knew he was at a “dead end” at Oxy and needed a fresh start, that “I need to connect with something bigger than myself.” So when Barack mailed his transfer application sometime just before Oxy’s spring break began on March 20, at bottom he was making “a conscious decision: I want to grow up.”




“They called truces here and there, but it kept popping back up” that Saturday afternoon, as “she screamed and they fought.” Sheila’s voice came through loud and clear: “That’s wrong! That’s wrong! That’s not a reason,” she was heard saying. As the others talked quietly, the explanation of what they were hearing was shared: Barack’s political destiny meant that he and Sheila could not have a long-term future together, no matter how deeply they loved each other. But she refused to accept his rationale: “the fact that it was her race.” It was clear—audibly clear—that “she was unbelievably in love with him,” that “the sex for her was the way to bring it back.” Barack “was very drawn to her, they were very close,” yet he felt trapped between the woman he loved and the destiny he knew was his. According to one friend, Barack “wasn’t black enough to pull that off and to rise up” with a white wife.





As early as his second year at Oxy, Barack had felt “a longing for a place,” for “a community . . . where I could put down stakes.” The idea of home, of finding a real home, “was something so powerful and compelling for me” because growing up he had been a youngster who “never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always . . . wanting a place,” “a community that was mine.” His “history of being uprooted” allowed Barack to develop in less than two years what Sheila knew was “his deep emotional attachment to” Chicago, one that was almost entirely a product of Greater Roseland, not Hyde Park. 

“When he worked with these folks, he saw what he never saw in his life,” Fred Simari explained. “He grew tremendously through this,” through what he acknowledged was “the transformative experience” of his life, through what Fred saw was “him getting molded.” Greg Galluzzo saw it too and said that Barack “really doesn’t understand what it means to be African American until he arrives in Chicago.” But, working with the people of the Far South Side, Barack “recognizes in them their greatness and then affirms something inside of himself.” Through “the richest experience” of his life, through discovering and experiencing black Americans for the first time, Barack “fell in love with the people, and then he fell in love with himself.”




Asif thought Sheila had a deeper commitment to their lives together than did Barack, and now, listening to Barack talk about his goals, Asif understood that his friend “wanted to have a less complex public footprint” as a future candidate for public office, particularly in the black community. Asif recalls Barack saying, “The lines are very clearly drawn. . . . If I am going out with a white woman, I have no standing here.” 

Asif realized just how profound the tension had become for Barack between the personal and the political. “If he was going to enter public life, either he was going to do it as an African American, or he wasn’t going to do it.” When asked if Barack had said he could not marry someone white, Asif assented. “He said that, exactly. That’s what he told me.”





Dozens of Obama’s classmates remember him consistently waiting until a discussion’s latter part before he chimed in, with comments that he thought synthesized what others had said. “He never really took a very strong, argumentative position,” Ali Rubin recalled. Dozens laughingly recalled his insistent usage of the word “folks” as well as his regular introductory refrain of “It’s my sense” or “My sense is,” phrases that DCP members remembered hearing regularly during his time in Chicago. Barack “particularly loved to engage with Professor Parker,” Haverford College graduate Lisa Paget recalled. She has a “vivid” memory of Barack remarking, “Professor Parker, I think what the folks here are trying to say is” so as “to synthesize what other people were saying.” Barack “clearly liked to speak,” but “sometimes people got frustrated because they didn’t feel like they needed him” to speak for them. “‘Say what your own thinking is, don’t tell him what we’re thinking!’”

Decades later, particularly for classmates who had become jurists or prominent attorneys, recollections of just how intensely irritating Obama’s classroom performance had been were burnished with good humor. But even though he was always prepared, always articulate, and always on target, many fellow students tired of Obama’s need to orate. Barack “spoke in complete paragraphs,” Jennifer Radding recalled, but “he often got hissed by us because sometimes we would all make comments” and then “he would raise his hand and say ‘I think what my colleagues are trying to say if I might sum up,’ and we’d be like ‘We can speak for ourselves—shut the fuck up!’” Radding thought Obama was “a formal person, reserved” but “always friendly.” Yet “I’m not sure he related to women as well on a colleague basis” as he did with older male friends like Rob, Mark Kozlowski, and Dan Rabinovitz, a former community organizer interested in politics. Jennifer remembered Barack asking Rob and Dan substantive questions, and “then he’d ask me did I party over the weekend.” One day “I called him on it, and I just said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. You’re someone who’s so liberal, and so women’s rights, and you talk to women like they’re not on the same level.’ It horrified him to hear that,” and “I wasn’t the only one who felt this way.” 

The joking about Obama’s classroom performance intensified as the fall semester progressed. One classmate, Jerry Sorkin, christened him “The Great Obama” because “he had kind of a superior attitude,” Sorkin’s friend David Attisani remembered. “Barack would start a lot of his speeches with the words ‘My sense is,’ and Jerry would walk around kind of stroking his chin saying ‘My sense is.’” Gina Torielli recalled that when Obama or especially Sherry Colb raised their hands to speak, more than a few of the younger men would “take out their watches to start timing how long” they talked. In time it became a competitive game, one played at many law schools over multiple generations, and often called “turkey bingo,” in which irritated classmates wager a few dollars on how long different gunners would exchange comments with the professor. Section III named its contest “The Obamanometer,” Greg Sater recalled, for it measured “how long he could talk.” But Sater explained how there “was a great feeling of relief to all of us whenever he would raise his hand because that would take time off the clock and would lower the chances of us being called upon.” 

No one questioned the value of what Barack, Sherry, or David Troutt had to say, but much of Section III got tired of hearing the same voices day after day. With Barack, Greg said, “we were envious of him in many ways because of his intellect,” self-confidence, and poise, but that did not stop the Obamanometer. “We’d kind of look at each other and tap our watch,” he recalled. “You might raise five fingers,” predicting that long a disquisition, “and then your buddy might raise seven.” Jackie Fuchs remembered the label a little differently, explaining that students would “judge how pretentious someone’s remarks are in class by how high they rank on the Obamanometer.



Before Barack’s return to Cambridge, Michelle told Craig, “I really like this guy” and made a request. She had heard her father and Craig say that “you can tell a lot about a personality on the court,” something Craig had learned from Pete Carril, his college coach at Princeton. Michelle knew that Craig played basketball regularly at courts around Hyde Park, and he remembers her asking: “I want you to take him to play, to see what type of guy he is when he’s not around me.” Craig agreed to take on this task, but he recalled, “I was nervous because I had already met Barack a few times and liked him a lot.” 

Craig quickly scheduled a meet-up, and they played “a hard five-on-five” for more than an hour. Craig’s nervousness quickly fell away because he could see that Barack was “very team oriented, very unselfish,” and “was aggressive without being a jerk.” Craig was happy he could “report back to my sister that this guy is first rate,” and Michelle was pleased. “It was good to hear directly from my brother that he was solid, and he was real, and he was confident, confident but not arrogant, and a team player.” Craig saw only one huge flaw in Barack’s skill set, but it was not relevant to Michelle’s question. “Barack is a left-handed player who can only go to his left.”



Gross recalled how Barack’s “tie would always be off by the time the class started” and “he was really insistent, in every class and on every subject, that we clearly articulate all of the arguments on all sides.” Susan Epstein was struck by how it was “a very diverse class in an otherwise largely white school,” a class with “a real wide range of political perspectives.” Even with each session featuring what Adam remembered as “really hard discussions about incredibly complicated issues,” everyone was always “incredibly respectful” and Barack did “an amazing job” of “making certain we teased out all sides,” that “every angle and every nuance” was covered. 

In sharp contrast to many Chicago professors, particularly the fiery and intense Richard Epstein, whose Socratic questioning never left any doubt as to what the right answer was, Barack’s approach was “incredibly refreshing.” Susan Epstein realized that Barack “never really said what his view was,” and 2L Rob Mahnke believed Barack “was very guarded about what he was thinking,” as if “he was masking his own views.” 

During the second half of the quarter, when the students’ group presentations took place, discussions were “very student-directed” and Barack “didn’t talk that much,” Adam remembered. When Barack did speak up, he talked about “what policies could be enacted that would make a true difference,” Susan recalled. Barack “spent a fair amount of time talking about political rhetoric,” asking that “even if this might be a good policy, how would you get it enacted—what pragmatic steps would you need to take in the framing of it?” Yet despite eight weeks of persistent questioning by Barack, “I couldn’t tell you at the end of it what his views were.”



Matt knew Barack was “much more interested in a political career than a legal career,” and that night at dinner, after “everybody had had a lot of very good red wine to drink,” the conversation turned to how “politics are really sleazy here.” That theme was music to Michelle’s ears, because when Barack had first broached the possibility of succeeding Palmer, Michelle’s reaction had been highly negative. 

“I married you because you’re cute, and you’re smart, but this is the dumbest thing you could have ever asked,” Michelle later said she told Barack. “We would always have discussions about how do you create change,” debates that had stimulated her move from her city job to Public Allies, but “politics didn’t come into the discussion until the seat opened up,” Michelle later said. “I wasn’t a proponent of politics as a way you could make change,” and she believed “that politics is for dirty, nasty people who aren’t really trying to do much in the world.” So Michelle’s response had been “No, don’t do it,” an attitude also informed by her strong desire to have children and a strong belief that her offspring should enjoy the same sort of upbringing she and her brother Craig had had. 

“They were a very, very close-knit family,” her sister-in-law Janis explained, “and Michelle really liked the idea that her parents were present for whatever she was involved in. So she had the same expectation for her husband, so she was conflicted because she knew that Barack was going to have some kind of job that would take him away” if he ran for a state office. “So she had a little bit of hesitation,” and that night at dinner, with Matt in particular kidding Barack about wanting to be a politician, Michelle enthusiastically chimed in. 

“Barack was looking a little somber,” and when Matt went to the bathroom, Barack waylaid him before Matt could return to the dining room. He “grabbed me by my shirt and he pushed me into” another room “and he said ‘Listen, god damn it, Michelle doesn’t want me to get involved in politics, and I’ve already made the decision that I have, and now if I can’t count on my friends to help me with this, I’m really going to get nowhere, so I’d appreciate it if you would be quiet and stop everybody from talking about it.’” It was clear that “the wine was kind of talking,” yet Matt recalled, “I was quite shocked. . . . There was both an assertiveness and a familiarity” in Barack’s manner, and while he was “not angry,” there was no doubt that “he was real serious.” Michelle’s comments that night “made it clear she wanted him to get on a tenure track at UC Law School” and that “she was not at all interested in being a politician’s wife.” 

Years later Michelle remembered, “I thought Barack would be a partner at a law firm or maybe teach or work in the community,” but by late June 1995, there was no question that Barack had his eyes firmly set on succeeding Alice Palmer in the Illinois state Senate if she gave up her seat to run for Congress. Barack later said that Michelle finally relented, telling him, “Why don’t you give it a chance?”



One careful reader concluded that “there’s a very oddly detached quality to the book, almost as if he’s describing somebody else.” But only Jonathan Raban, an experienced world traveler as well as a distinguished novelist, would accurately take Dreams’ full measure. The book “is less memoir than novel,” he realized, an insight that the historian David Greenberg later echoed in calling Dreams “semi-fictional.” In truth, as Barack’s actual life story from the 1960s to the 1990s would subsequently reveal, Dreams From My Father was neither an autobiography nor a memoir. A prescient reader like Raban would note how many characters are “composites with fictional names,” how Dreams’ “total-recall dialogue is as much imagined as remembered,” and how “its time sequences are intricately shuffled” while reflecting upon how novelistic Dreams actually was. 

Less than a decade later one journalist rightly emphasized that Barack “was already weighing a political career when he wrote the book.” Keith Kakugawa, just like Mike and Greg, wondered why Dreams so dramatically magnified their teenage years’ racial tensions, but the explanation for their and others’ puzzlement about Dreams’ depiction of the Punahou years was transparently obvious if one realized how Barack’s embrace of his own blackness during his initial three years in Chicago, and then in Kenya, had retroactively led him to reshape his entire self-presentation of the first twenty-four years of his life. 

As the multiracial author Gary Kamiya perceptively put it, in Dreams Barack “made himself black.” And, as Greg Galluzzo realized in comparing the Barack of Dreams to the young man with whom he had spent scores of hours, “his book could be called A Journey to Blackness.” Barack enthusiastically told one later questioner that “I love to write,” that “I love fiction, I love to read fiction, but I’m not sure I have enough talent to write fiction.” Yet for once in his life, if only for one sole time, Barack Obama sold himself short. Dreams From My Father was not a memoir or an autobiography; it was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question a work of historical fiction. True to that genre, it featured many true-to-life figures and a bevy of accurately described events that indeed had occurred, but it employed the techniques and literary license of a novel, and its most important composite character was the narrator himself.




2.15.2018

Toward a Unified Theory of Cities


We are in the midst of a tug-of-war between different kinds of communities – urban, suburban, rural – that has generational, racial, and political dynamics and that is at times contentious in nature.  I hope with today’s ramblings not to add heat but perhaps to shed light.

First let me say that all kinds of communities are important and necessary to a vibrant nation, society, and economy.  And that is because different people have different preferences.  Sometimes we city-lovers, perhaps not realizing just how big a chip we have on our shoulders from all the city-bashing we’ve endured, can act as if people’s aversion to cities is due to ignorance or worse.  “If you’d just keep an open mind and try us out, you’d realize how awesome we are” is the sentiment.  And there’s truth in that sentiment.  But there’s also truth in the sentiment that different people have different preferences, and that some people prefer not to live in cities, and that preference has nothing to do with lack of exposure or close-mindedness.  It has to do with the fact that where you live is a bundle of goods, and that bundle looks different in different places, in ways that cause me to choose one place and you (with a different set of criteria for what is important and what is tolerable) to choose another place. 

Second, let me say that because all kinds of communities are important, it is important to be fair and balanced in making sure that all places have an opportunity to compete for resources – for residents, businesses, investments, and services – and that all places feel a sense of connection to other places.  We shouldn’t give up on certain communities, because we need them.  And we shouldn’t put certain communities against other communities, because there’s a lot of ways our respective wellbeing is connected such that somebody’s gain can also be somebody else’s gain.  Easier said than done in a time of scarce resources and rampant inequality, but no less true and therefore no less necessary to believe and implement.

Third, and at the risk of sounding like I am contradicting everything I have just now said, there is something to be said about the importance of cities and of investing in cities.  Since as far as we can look back, the concentration of people and activity that cities have represented has unleashed the best of human progress.  To be sure, that progress is uneven and not always equitably shared.  But density gives us the best chance for both innovation and inclusion rather than stagnation and segregation.  We are most innovative, not in a vacuum, nor when we are others like us, but when we are near others different from us and given many opportunities to intersect and iterate.  And we are most inclusive when we are given opportunity to, by choice and by accident, rub elbows with people different from us, from which we can realize how valuable and pleasurable it is to be exposed to new ideas (and foods and cultural practices and life perspectives). 

The nitty gritty of pulling this off in cities around the world is hard work involving billions of details.  But a few big-picture themes seem to warrant focus:

1. Mind the places and programming that allow different people to be together and exchange ideas.  Cities are full of people brimming with ingenuity; will we make it easy for them to find and connect with each other?  Or will we, through omission or commission, encourage more isolation and segregation?

2. Don’t make it hard to form new businesses, start new initiatives, or build new housing.  When physical and emotional space seems crowded, it can be tempting to be stingy towards the new.  But the urban form thrives precisely because it is dense and can get denser, so we need to be OK letting it do that.  Let a thousand flowers bloom!  Some may not survive, and that’s OK, but the rest will attract and engage a wider swath of people and expand the circle of participants and contributors further.

3. Invest in infrastructure of all kinds so that people can physically circulate freely, easily, and pleasurably.  The killer app of cities from Chicago to Shanghai.  Large concentrations of people and activity in one place can only happen when we invest in transportation forms that can scale accordingly.

4. Invest in education of all kinds so that people can professionally circulate freely, easily, and pleasurably.  Just as transportation infrastructure allows people to physically move around, education allows people to move freely professionally and vocationally, yielding huge returns to them and to society as a whole as they weave in and out of ideas and industries. 

That’s my unified theory of cities.  What do you think?

2.12.2018

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 111

Here's two excerpts from a book I recently read, "Dear Ijeawele, or A Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions," by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie:



Be a full person. Motherhood is a glorious gift, but do not define yourself solely by motherhood. Be a full person. Your child will benefit from that. The pioneering American journalist Marlene Sanders, who was the first woman to report from Vietnam during the war (and who was the mother of a son), once gave this piece of advice to a younger journalist: “Never apologize for working. You love what you do, and loving what you do is a great gift to give your child.” 

I find this to be so wise and moving. You don’t even have to love your job; you can merely love what your job does for you—the confidence and self-fulfillment that come with doing and earning.



We teach girls to be likeable, to be nice, to be false. And we do not teach boys the same. This is dangerous. Many sexual predators have capitalized on this. Many girls remain silent when abused because they want to be nice. Many girls spend too much time trying to be “nice” to people who do them harm. Many girls think of the “feelings” of those who are hurting them. This is the catastrophic consequence of likeability. We have a world full of women who are unable to exhale fully because they have for so long been conditioned to fold themselves into shapes to make themselves likeable. 

So instead of teaching Chizalum to be likeable, teach her to be honest. And kind. 

And brave. Encourage her to speak her mind, to say what she really thinks, to speak truthfully. And then praise her when she does. Praise her especially when she takes a stand that is difficult or unpopular because it happens to be her honest position. Tell her that kindness matters. Praise her when she is kind to other people. But teach her that her kindness must never be taken for granted. Tell her that she, too, deserves the kindness of others. Teach her to stand up for what is hers. If another child takes her toy without her permission, ask her to take it back, because her consent is important. Tell her that if anything ever makes her uncomfortable, to speak up, to say it, to shout.

2.09.2018

Step by Step Approach

I was recently asked how it was possible to get to 20,000 steps in a day, which I manage to hit maybe once or twice a week.  On days that happens, big chunks of that come from when I go for runs (outside or on a treadmill) and/or if I have a particularly long stroll (walking Jada to choir, or hoofing it over a mile to a work meeting or to see a friend because there are no easy transit choices). 

But my baseline steps on days when none of that happens is still pretty high, usually easily 10,000 steps.  I chalk this up to our urban environment and to choices I make.  A few months ago, I recorded my movements fora week, so let’s take a look at one of those days and deconstruct how even short walks can add up to a lot of steps.  

I’ve intentionally picked a day that I didn’t run or do an unusually long walk.  And yet look at that schedule again, and notice how urban living generates lots of very short (i.e. easy) walks:

7:00a-8:30a walk Asher to YMCA for a quick swim.  The Y is about ¾ mile away from our house, and takes about 15 minutes to walk to, so right there that’s a mile and a half.

8:30a-9:00a walk to 46th Street Station, subway to 5th Street, walk to meeting at DVRPC.  The subway station is five blocks from my house, and in this case dropped me off three blocks from my meeting.  So that’s about ¾ mile right there.

11:00a-12:00p walk to 5th Street, subway to 15th Street, walk to office, work emails (0/1/0).  Three blocks back to the station and then three more blocks back to my office is another ½ mile.

5:30p-6:00p walk to Walnut/Locust, take subway to AT&T, walk to Wells Fargo Center (0/1/0).  This subway station is less than a block from my office, and once I took it to the end of the line, it’s maybe another 6-8 minutes to the arena.  So call that another ½ mile.

9:30p-10:30p SEPTA home.  Arena to station, and then station to home…that’s another 15 minutes of walking, so call that ¾ mile.

All told, I count 4 miles of walking, never really breaking a sweat and all of it pleasant because of the surroundings.  At 2,000 steps per mile, that’s 8,000 steps right there.  And this doesn’t count all of the steps you put in just getting around the house, office, and other buildings, which are probably another 2,000 steps for a whole day of moving around.  So before you account for going for a jog or working in a really long stroll, that’s already halfway to 20,000. 

What’s interesting to me is how uninteresting the above itinerary is.  In other words, it’s just par for the course if you live in a city and have a largely auto-free existence.  Contrast that with the more suburban setting of many of my friends and family, in which you rarely have to walk more than a city block’s worth of distance to get to your car or to go from your car.  I suspect that the base number of steps for the suburban version of me is, instead of 10,000, probably something on the order of 2,000 to 3,000.  If that’s true, I could go for a 5-mile jog every morning and still struggle to break 10,000 steps, let alone 20,000.  Conversely, when I hit 20,000 for the day, it’s not as much because of anything special I’m doing as it is that’s how things work in an urban environment.  

2.05.2018

We Win!!!

So, there was a football game last night.  I figured I'd stay up for it.

Seriously, you all know it was a great game, and by the end (really, for the entire fourth quarter) my heart was pounding.

When it ended (and it took awhile for me to realize that it was all the way over, because I didn't realize the last play was actually the last play), I fell to my knees.

I couldn't scream, because everyone else in my house was asleep.  I probably wanted to scream.  There were certainly a bunch of screams (and honks and fireworks) outside.

Instead, I wept.  Not sure what got me so emotional.  But the tears, they flowed.

I came to Philly 26+ years ago, which is forever ago.  But I'll never be "from here."  But I've lived here long enough to plant some roots and to develop some attachment to this fair city.  I think it's fair to say that when it comes to Philly, I use "we" now. 

And let me tell you: we needed this.  Everybody says stuff like "nobody believed in us," but folks around here have been taking that sentiment personally for a little bit now.

I wish I could tell you that when people dis my adopted town, that it doesn't bother me.  But it does.  We are white-collar and blue-collar, glamorous and gritty, past and future.  We are world-class.  But people sleep on us.

Again, I wish I could say that that doesn't matter, that we'll just continue to be this best-kept secret.  But it does matter.  I want the world to know.

Yeah, it's just a football game.  But it's the biggest one, and all eyes were on us.  And we won.  And we beat the dynasty to do it.  So, this is a big deal, and in one fell swoop (no pun intended), the world is waking up to Philly.  Which makes me emotional.

Oh, and we're winning Amazon next. 

2.02.2018

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 110

Here's an excerpt from a book review I recently read.  The book review is titled "The Gospel According to David Bentley," by Paul V. Mankowski.  The book is titled "The New Testament: A Translation," by David Bentley Hart.



These pedantries should not obscure the measure of Hart’s achievement and the principal virtue of his translation: He conveys exceptionally well the urgency of the New Testament. The message itself is of supreme and burning importance, and the authors were in a hurry to get it out, and Hart lets us feel this “from the inside”—most successfully in his version of the gospels. His translational prose is emphatically nonprofessorial. He conscientiously preserves the rough-and-ready grammar of the original and its “wartime-footing,” functional vocabulary that combines homely household words with sublime theological concepts, with the result that the peculiar tang of New Testament Greek comes through with vividness and immediacy. Here is his rendering of Luke 23:50–52:

And look: A man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a man good and just—This man had not agreed with the Council and their actions—from Arimathea, a city of the Judaeans, who was awaiting the kingdom of God. Approaching Pilate, this man requested the body of Jesus.
Hart lets us hear a man who, though not precisely breathless, does not have a complete sentence in view before he begins it, but is nevertheless concerned to communicate all the essential information and whose second thoughts and explanations interrupt and crowd their way into his exposition. The prose itself—we don’t need a footnote—reminds us that St. Luke was not an essayist or a biographer but an evangelist, a man with a message of life-or-death importance to deliver.

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 522

  Here are a few excerpts from a book I recently read, "Moby Dick," by Herman Melville. Again, I always go to sea as a sailor, bec...