By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
By Eric Nicholson
However, this fact didn't mean I was a bad student. Anybody who could put one and one together would be able to see that sometimes it's not the student, but the teacher. That DISD doesn't want this information released isn't a surprise either. If they're hiring badly trained teachers, they should be reprimanded for it. The perfect way to do that is to put that information on the Internet like [Russell] Fish is trying to do. This way, those who knew this information already can be reassured, and those who need tangible evidence can realize something they have probably known all along.
Regarding the "bad teachers make bad students" article, I agree. My first nine years at a public school in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, gave me a horrible education, about the equivalent that DISD offers today to its children.
For high school, I attended a private, coed school that was about the equivalent of Greenhill today. What a difference. I knew these kids were not genetically more intelligent than I was--they were just much better educated than I was.
Private schools can fire bad teachers. Public schools keep bad teachers forever.
Drowning out the hype
Jim Schutze's penetrating article on "Flood money" [January 22] was grabbed from the shelves within a few hours, but at least three Dallas councilpersons made copies available at their public meetings for two weeks. Almost everyone who has read it opposes the levee-tollways boondoggle.
That is the most effective local news story I remember. Please tell us more about this $246 million waste of taxpayers' money (more than a billion dollars of state and federal leverage), the largest Dallas waste in 58 years.
Edward C. Fritz
Mayor Kirk's TV blitz did not hesitate in letting Dallas' minions know that the new arena would create thousands of jobs! When do we start counting?
In the Dallas Observer's February 5 review ["Head 'em up"] of the band Bowling for Soup, Matt Weitz asks for a moment of his readers' valuable time and then makes a pointless attack on the appearance of one band member--but only after taking a swipe at their name. He should instead take a moment of his own time to at least go hear the band, if not interview the members and their fans.
I wonder what Matt thought of Gene Simmons' fat, hairy belly, or what he wrote about a goofy name like REM. Bands should be reviewed on their merits. Irrelevant comments about looks or names tell us nothing about their music, their message, or even their entertainment value. All Matt can add to his vent is that BFS has been around for four years--so I guess it must have something going--and that "it is said to be quite winning live." It is also said that some journalists are not so lazy and shallow.
I'm writing in regard to your review of Bowling for Soup. I question whether you even listened to the album, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your review said less about the music than it did about the band's name and personnel. The only thing you had to offer about the music was speculation on its influences and doubts about its originality.
So you didn't like the album. I honestly don't give a shit about that. What bothers me and makes you sound like an idiot is the personal attack on Bernie. I don't know what you look like, so I'm not sure where your motivation comes from. Perhaps you're a little insecure about your own girth. I feel certain, however, that if he was not fat, you would have looked elsewhere for your comic genius. I'm just not sure what you were thinking. Maybe you were just having a bad day and needed someone to attack. The bottom line is that you were completely unprofessional in your remarks about the "big ol' hairy fat guy."
We (me and some other cool people) have recently had the displeasure of reading Matt Weitz's article about Bowling for Soup. We totally disagree with everything he said! Bowling for Soup is one of our favorite bands. They rock! So, I am writing to tell everyone on here to ignore that person's review and to at least go check them out. Is that too much to ask, damn it?
Eddie Vedder is an artist
Forgive me if I am wrong, but when I opened the Observer to read the review ["All rocked out," February 4] of Pearl Jam's newest album, I was expecting to read about the quality of the songs, etc. Instead, Keith Moerer wastes an entire article about a potentially interesting topic by jumping on the I-hate-Eddie-Vedder bandwagon. If he has a legitimate complaint against the album, then let him say his piece. But how many times must he reiterate the fact that he doesn't like Eddie Vedder? I find it interesting that the things he hates about this band are their ideals and standards. I suppose he probably gets into concerts for free and does not care that a band has respect enough for the fans to fight for their right to pay less for a concert.
Likewise, to deny that Vedder is an artist is completely absurd, seeing as he is one of the few artists left in the business. Pearl Jam is one of the--if not the--most important bands of this decade.