Dear Sir or Madam wouldya read my book?

New video for The High Dials' "Killer of Dragons"

Big fan of the High Dials, the great psych-pop group out of Montreal. Put on a very good show last fall at the Velvet Lounge here in DC and I did a little interview with them beforehand.

They just put out a new video for the lead single from Moon Country, a really strong album that just came out in the States last year. Check it out:

The Swell Season - "Levitate Me"

One of my all-time favorite Pixies tunes, covered by the Swell Season. Had the pleasure of seeing them a few years back in Richmond, VA and they did this one and it blew me away. Here's them covering it at Bonnaroo:



And the original:

The Pixies - "Levitate Me" (live in Madrid)

*thanks to Captain's Dead for the song.

digger dagger

Cats lose to South Carolina. We played poorly, John Wall in particular. Bledsoe was not good, Patterson was absent, and for a team with such great height, we were totally outmanned on the boards. Downey for the Gamecocks was tremendous, though he did only shoot 9-29 (which speaks to 2 things: his ability to get to the line and just how badly Kentucky played on offense).

But what really drives me nuts is that with Kentucky's first loss -- as the last undefeated team -- Digger Phelps now gets more screen time because of his theory that all teams need a loss going into the tournament. From a player standpoint, I could see where the pressure of continuing to win might eventually build to an unmanageable level, but from a practical standpoint, what is a coach or team really to do? Shouldn't teams aspire to greatness (not suggesting Kentucky is anywhere close yet)? Instead, we have to listen to Digger who parlayed his one-Final Four-career into a cushy ESPN "analyst" job on the back of ending UCLA's 88 game win streak.

Moral of the story: when previously undefeated teams go down, Digger Phelps wins, and that in itself is enough reason to always pull for the favorites.

The Redskins vs. the Colts

Watching the Colts-Jets game now. Just had a quick thought that was probably too long for Twitter, so I figured I'd throw it up here. The Colts right now are on the verge of clinching a Super Bowl berth on the back of two remarkable games by Austin Collie and Pierre Garcon. To me, that says two things. First, Peyton Manning can make anyone look like a great receiver. Second, as great as Manning is, he can't do it all, which means Collie and Garcon have to be fairly good on their own. And Indianapolis has the front office know-how and scouting set-up to draft two rookies out of virtually nowhere (Collie, a fourth rounder out of BYU, and Garcon, a sixth rounder out of D3 Mount Union College in Ohio).

I'm sure other teams had these guys on their radar -- at least Collie -- but without moving beyond the wide receiver position we've already pinpointed two big-time impact guys the Colts plucked from anonymity and inserted into the starting lineup. In the past five years or so, I can really only think of two 'Skins rookies who had a significant impact: Brian Orakpo, who was great but also a no-brainer first round pick, and Chris Horton, who was a genuine find but still has developing to do. The next couple months are huge for Bruce Allen. There's the saying that Washington always wins the offseason, free agent sweepstakes, but can they make the transition to sustainable development, a la building through the draft with shrewd picks like these? I'm not holding my breath.

Haiti: Racism and How To Actually Help

Did everyone see David Brooks' column in the NYT the other day about the ongoing disaster in Haiti? If not, I would recommend reading it -- though I wish somehow we could get around linking to it, I don't want the editors thinking this kind of race-baiting gets hits -- and really taking a moment to consider what he's saying. He tries to point blame for Haiti's lack of development somewhere (anywhere but here, actually), and decides its the backwards culture that's to blame. He notes, "There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized." Now he doesn't say where this comes from (time spent in the field, perhaps?), nor does he really explain what he means by social mistrust. He points to US ideas for fighting poverty like No Excuse schools, arguing for a sort of "no excuses" approach. That can be all well and good too, but 1) it never helps to gloss over real, lived historical experiences as processes experienced within a monolithic, unchanging culture, 2) it's (as Sam Martinez writes here) a little tactless at this particular moment, 3) using Mr. Clash of Civs himself, Samuel Huntington, ("cultures do change after major traumas) to make his point doesn't exactly strengthen the case, and, finally, 4) asserting the need for Haitian leaders with "middle class assumptions" to take ownership of these programs also means asking these potential leaders what they hope to achieve. What does "progress" and "development" mean to Haitians? Does they mean exactly the same thing to David Brooks? For this last point expressed eloquently, in detail, and with evidence, check out the AnthroWorks blog here.

I'd encourage everyone to get out there and read what's being written about Haiti. It's a sad, all too frequently occurring realization we have when we "discover" (or maybe "re-discover") a desperate part of the world (or our own city or town) only in the aftermath of a great tragedy or disaster. In the past week, tons of writers and scholars and students have been outspoken "experts" on Haiti, and while it might be a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss them, I do think this is the time and place to consider our place in the world and the actions we choose to take in relation to the myriad of other cultures, peoples, and places that share the Earth with us. Not everything written about Haiti has been groundbreaking or insightful, but, like I've done here, I think it's an important moment to bring more people into the fold, to let more people know about what's going on.

*On a somewhat biased note, my beloved Kentucky Wildcats put together a "Hoops for Haiti" fundraiser today that pulled in half a million dollars. Yeah, Kentuckians are wacky about basketball -- some might say "unbalanced" -- but think about how many Kentuckians that became aware and took action to help out Haitians simply because their favorite coach turned them onto it. That's a good thing.

Photo from Flickr user UNDP, Creative Commons.

WSJ on the length of football games

If you haven't read this article in today's Wall Street Journal Style section -- don't lie, you know WSJ Style is essential pre-lunchtime work-comp reading every morning -- then you ought to.

The basic thrust: for every NFL game you watch on television, you see, on average, 10 minutes and 43 seconds of actual football being played. 60% of what you watch is football players milling around and waiting: huddles, sidelines, Peyton flapping his arms and yelling nonsense word-number combos ad nauseum.

I love football, I love to watch it on television. Going back to school has meant my schedule over the past two years has limited this, pretty much keeping me to the Kentucky Wildcats and the Redskins. My wife can tell you that if I am at home studying on Saturday or Sunday, I will get nothing done. I have to leave the house. HOWEVER, she can also tell you that I have, rather unscientifically, been claiming this very thing for a couple years now. We frequently DVR football games, because it lets me condense 4 hours of viewing time into about 45 minutes. And to think that is still 4 times too long!

Is there another sport where the clock runs without the ball actually in play? Is there another sport where the point of at least one-fourth of the game is to actually have the ball in play as little as possible? I've never played a down of organized tackle football in my life, so I'm not going to comment too much, but I'd love to hear what a football player had to say. How might they feel about the fact that your sport's games entail less than 11 minutes of real action? I imagine they really don't care at all.