WBEZ | Work

So you want to be a famous musician?

Thu, 23 May 2013 08:00:00 -0500

On May 15, prolific noise rocker Ty Segall announced that he will be releasing a new album this August called Sleeper: his seventh solo record and first 2013 addition to an impressive discography of over 35 releases (both solo and collaborative) since 2005.

But while some people idolize the 26-year-old garage-punk prodigy from San Francisco (his name was even trending on Twitter on the day of his announcement via Pitchfork), others still have no idea who he is.

Segall exists in an odd bubble of half-fame and half-obscurity, in which he can play to sold-out venues across the country and still hang out in local record stores without being bothered too much. Unfortunately, most aspiring rock stars won't even get that far.

The digital age is both a blessing and a curse for modern-day musicians. Websites like YouTube and Kickstarter can equal big business for artists, as online campaigns allow them to reach out to their fans directly via socia networking and potentially become viral sensations overnight.

On the other hand, free music streaming sites like Spotify and Pandora provide little financial yield for the musicians themselves ($0.004 per play if you're unsigned) and cannot be relied upon to cover the ever-mounting costs of travel, instruments and gear, recording sessions and software, album distribution and any additional publicity required to become a household name.

Also, it should be noted that unless you're playing sold-out ampitheatres á la Paul McCartney and Justin Bieber, ticket sales won't net you a fortune either.

Lots of musicians get a jumpstart due to wealth or family connections, like when Taylor Swift's investment broker father spent millions of dollars to finance her first album in 2006 and when Lana Del Rey's millionare parents bought her out of one contract to sign her with another more lucrative label for instant stardom in 2011.

Does it depress you that Kelly Osbourne (daughter of Ozzy) got a record deal to sing horrible Madonna covers, while scores of other truly talented bands and artists have dwindled into obscurity? Unfortunately, this kind of gross nepotism runs rampant in the music business today (see Jann Wenner putting his 22-year-old son in charge of RollingStone.com) and in most other areas of the entertainment industry as well.

So, how do artists make money when they don't already have the money to spend?

Selling merch: Retail CDs, vinyl, t-shirts, buttons, stickers, lighters, koozies and other creative items that are cheap to buy in bulk (and thus more likely to turn a profit).
Campaigning on Kickstarter: Need some extra cash for your next album or tour? This popular crowd-funding site is worth a shot (hey, it worked for Amanda Palmer!)
Dominating YouTube: Racking up views on this global channel could not only catch the attention of a major record label, but also garner you up to $1,500 per one million streams from advertising and/or corporate sponsorships.
Making a deal with iTunes: Independent artists usually see the most revenue from their albums via iTunes digital downloads. Full album downloads at roughly $9.99 could add up quickly, especially as you build your fanbase through touring and social-networking around the world.
Getting your song on a TV show: Start making those L.A. connections, because licensing fees for even just a small clip of one of your songs on a show like Breaking Bad could amount to a cool $250,000-$600,000 paycheck.

Many relatively well-known musicians still keep their day jobs; not surprising, considering that the average musician makes only $34,000 off their music in America each year before deducting expenses from touring, recording, etc. (which, given the rising prices of gas and fancy recording software, can wrack up quite the bill).

Even Pitchfork-famous indie artists like Grizzly Bear and Cat Power have struggled to make ends meet; so be practical about the pros and cons of a musician's lifestyle before committing to it full-time.

If you're only making music for the money, then you should get out now. But if you truly love what you do—and don't mind riding in a smelly tour bus, starting out in tiny venues and living off Ramen noodles for months (or years) until you get your big break—then ignore the haters and keep rockin' on.

Leah writes about popular culture for WBEZ. Follow her on Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr.

So, what’s (still) made in the Chicago area?

Mon, 20 May 2013 17:31:00 -0500

Dozens of you have started our Curious City excursions with great questions. Some of those questions were subtle. Others were, um, less so. But few of these questions had an answer turn so much on one word.

Jessica Chronister of Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood asked, “What’s still being manufactured in Chicago in terms of factory-made items?”

We didn’t notice how one word — “still” — could be taken, at least not until it popped up during an interview.

“Well, it’s interesting how you framed the question ‘What’s still being manufactured in the Chicago region,’ ” said Garett Ballard-Rosa, a policy analyst at the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. “Manufacturing’s never left the Chicago region.”

Many of us may have assumed that Chicago’s evolved out of the industrial age. But then, there’s counterevidence: The South Side’s Ford plant makes cars; mills in Gary, Indiana, churn out steel; and one factory makes a Chicago neighborhood smell like chocolate brownies.

But these are operations you notice on your own, since they overwhelm your eyes or one of your other senses. (Again, just try forgetting a neighborhood that smells like brownies!)

There is, though, another side to the region’s manufacturing profile. It’s just not so easy to spot.

“Our manufacturing segment is composed of a lot of small and medium size manufacturers,” Ballard-Rosa said.

Ballard-Rosa explained how we stack up; Chicago, he said, is the second-largest manufacturing center in the nation, behind Los Angeles. And, unlike cities such as Detroit and Seattle — where one specific industry makes up more than half of the manufacturing scene — our manufacturers are diverse: We make Lava lamps, lollipops, leather, plastics, martial arts uniforms, trophies, etc.

That is, we make all sorts of things.

But Jessica and I put a face on this smaller side of manufacturing. We started small and then got a little bigger.

First stop: West Side granola

The Milk and Honey brand of granola is made at a West Side industrial kitchen that’s infused with the smell of honey and oats. Owners Carol Watson and Karen Skrainy gave me and producer Logan Jaffe the opportunity to see the making of flavors like Pumpkin Spice, Blueberry Pecan Mix and Rick Bayless’s Mexican Mix.

“It’s not a fancy, highly automated procedure whatsoever,” Skrainy told me. “We do it just like you would at home. In standard-sized sheet pans we mix all the ingredients by hand, bake them in hand, stir them by hand.”

The kitchen is big for Milk and Honey’s 10 workers, but Skrainy and Watson said they hope to expand without having to move locations again. On average, they churn out 330 bags of granola each day.

Get the flash player here: http://www.adobe.com/flashplayer

Watson started the granola business out of the kitchen of her cafe, which bears the same name. They sold enough of the crunchy stuff that they had to grow into a new location. And more growth turned into yet another move.

Interestingly, Watson doubts expansion will lead them to turn this “mostly by hand” process into an automated one. Instead, she said, they’re likely to just add more hands.

Watson said though they’re small, they can also pull off a national contract with Whole Foods. Milk and Honey’s location helps with that.

“Chicago is centrally located for shipping because if we were on the East Coast or the West Coast. So it works out well for us,” she said.

Coffee (grinders) for the world

Location is key for another small manufacturer that Jessica and I visited together: a midsize firm called Modern Process Equipment, located in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood.

If you drink Intelligentsia coffee, or if you ever drank Turkish coffee while in the Middle East, there’s a good chance those coffee beans were ground by an MPE grinder.

Company president Dan Ephraim said MPE ships between 30 and 35 percent of its product overseas.

“We’re the largest coffee grinder manufacturer in the world,” he said. “In the United States, we produce over 90 percent of the coffee grinders for industrial and commercial applications.”

Get the flash player here: http://www.adobe.com/flashplayer

MPE employs about 100 workers, several of which were on hand to demonstrate their skills to Jessica and me. At one point, we passed by people who operate machines that cut metal with high-pressure streams of water. Others assembled or tested coffee grinding machines that are large enough to put your home or office version to shame.

Unlike the manually-driven processes at Milk and Honey, automation is key at MPE. At one point, we were introduced to a machine that uses lasers to count coffee grounds.

Ephraim and his brother bought the company 30 years ago. Back then the firm concentrated on reconditioning grinders. But the brothers innovated.

“Pretty much all our machines are computer-operated,” Ephraim said. “Anything that is accurate or repetitive, we try to computerize it.”

The future is lean, small

Innovation is something that experts at CMAP mentioned several times, and it’s a point that addresses a myth that Chicago no longer manufactures much.

CMAP’s Simone Weil said we make lots of stuff, but automation has thinned our manufacturing workforce.

“The flip side of that though and the kind of positive shift that we’re seeing the work force, since you need fewer people, they need higher skills,” she said.

CMAP says the region lost manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010, but automation wasn’t the only cause.

Weil says we sent manufacturing jobs overseas, and some employers turned full-time employees into part-timers. But she says we’ve recovered a bit, by adding 20,000 manufacturing jobs over the past few years.

She said upping recruitment for these jobs is important in growing the more skilled manufacturing workforce.

Weil’s colleague — Ballard Rosa — says innovation is Chicago’s key to a sustainable manufacturing center.

“The number one thing the region needs to do is re-establish itself as a center of manufacturing research that leads to new commercial products and processes and efficiencies,” he said.

That would make our region more competitive, more vibrant and, maybe — when it comes to manufacturing, anyway — a little more noticeable.

In the age of social networking, there's no such thing as privacy

Mon, 06 May 2013 08:00:00 -0500

Surprise, surprise: Millenials are more willing than any other generation to share personal information online.

According to a new survey from the University of California's Center for the Digital Future, Millenials, ages 18-34, were more likely to share their location in order to receive coupons from nearby businesses: 56 percent vs. 42 percent of those 35 and over. More than half of the Millenials surveyed also said that they would share private information with a company if they got something in return.

This push for active participation in social media may seem harmless at first, until you look at the bigger picture and cringe at the Orwellian nature of it all.

For example, have you ever bought a product at your favorite store, and then saw an advertisement for a similar product pop up on your Facebook sidebar just moments later? Cue the Big Brother shiver up your spine: that's no coincidence.

Everything that we post to our personal websites can be tracked, and the Internet is always watching. Whether we admit to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we live in a surveillance state that is growing more efficient and eerily omniscient by the day.

Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon rule the Web; and consequently, have delved deeper into our private lives and personal interactions than ever before. Apple tracks us on or iPhones and iPads. Google tracks us on every page that it has access to, and Facebook does the same, even following non-Facebook users in their pursuit of prime marketing data. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him, and discovered that 105 companies tracked his Internet use in one 36-hour period.

Sometimes we fight back, like when Instagram proposed giving advertisers free reign over all posted photos and then backed down when users threatened to boycott. Sometimes the Internet giants admit their wrongdoing, like when Google apologized (after being slapped with a $7M fine, of course) for "data-scooping" personal information from zillions of unencrypted databases.

But the truth is, these highly-sophisticated apps and websites thrive on monitering our every move, and we may be powerless to stop them. If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, then what hope is there for the rest of us?

Consider the major data breaches of networking sites in 2012 alone:

LinkedIn: 6.5 million passwords stolen
Yahoo: 400,000 passwords stolen
Global Payments: 1.5 million customers' credit card numbers and PINs exposed

Facebook experienced yet another privacy breach in February, two weeks after Twitter made a similar admission. Also, users have been quitting Facebook in record numbers for months now. Perhaps people are finally catching on to the "privacy paradox" and deciding to forgo social media altogether, although the more likely scenario is that this decline is only temporary.

Statistics prove that most of these Facebook users will likely return (because, sadly, nearly 40 percent of Americans would rather have a root canal than give up their social networking profiles for good) so where does that leave us? We can combine forces to change the pervasive nature of the Internet, or we can look inward and start by changing ourselves.

If we really want our private lives to remain private, then we can't give up without a fight.

Leah Pickett writes about popular culture for WBEZ. She still uses Twitter and Facebook, but has given a year without Internet some serious thought.

Five myths about feminism

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:00:00 -0500

Female superstars like Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Beyoncé want to empower young girls and be champions for women everywhere. Just don't call them feminists.

When asked if they considered themselves feminists, they all balked at the term:

"I don't really think about things as guys versus girls." — Taylor Swift, The Daily Beast
"I guess I am a modern-day feminist. I do believe in equality. Why do you have to choose what type of woman you are? Why do you have label yourself as anything? I'm just a woman, and I love being a woman." — Beyoncé, Vogue UK
"I am not a feminist, but I do believe in the strength of women." — Katy Perry, Billboard's "Woman of the Year"

All of these statements are non-answers that completely miss the point. By definiton , feminism is "the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes." So if you "believe in equality" and "the strength of women," then you are, in fact, a feminist. Why hem and haw around the question? Honestly, I don't think that these women have any idea what feminism actually is.

Say what you will about the "adorkable" Zooey Deschanel, but at least she has the balls to openly declare her feminism, unlike most Hollywood starlets these days:

"There is not an ounce of me that believes any of that crap that they say. We can't be feminine and be feminists and be successful? I want to be a f-cking feminist and wear a f-cking Peter Pan collar. So f-cking what?"

A modern aversion to the word "feminism" may stem from old myths about the women's movement that still exist today ("I'm not a feminist because I'm not a bra-burning, man-hating megabitch, etc.") and, in my opinion, should be myth-busted immediately.

Here are a few common misconceptions about feminism that are simply not true:

Myth #1: Feminists hate men.

Feminism is about equality, not the superiority of one sex over another. Patriarchy can be just as damaging to men as it is to women (encouraging an "alpha-male" mentality, instructing boys never to cry or show emotions, etc.); so, by that rationale, men can be feminists too. Feminism isn't about shifting blame or shoehorning all of the world's problems onto men. It's about identifying areas of inequality and working together to fix them.

Myth #2: Feminists don't believe in marriage.

Contrary to popular belief, not all feminists are bitter old spinsters, mannish lesbians or ice-queen CEOs who only care about climbing the corporate ladder. Just because you want to get married one day (to a man or a woman) does not mean that you care any less about women's equality at home or in the workplace.

Myth #3: Feminists are pro-abortion, bra-burning, bleeding heart liberals.

Yes, feminists tend to be more liberal than conservative, and collectively pro-choice for the most part. However, you don't have to vote Democrat to support women's equality, and defending a woman's right to choose does not make you "pro-abortion." The key word here is choice, and that's the true beauty of feminism. Choosing to be a stay-at-home mom or dad doesn't make you any less of a feminist, just like choosing not to have children doesn't make you any less of a woman or man. Also, those "hairy-legged women libbers" of the sixties never burned their bras in protest. True story.

Myth #4: Feminists are offended by any gesture of gallantry.

I like when men open doors for me. It's a nice break from having them slammed in my face. Feminists may have introduced the idea of splitting the check (and treating our partners to dinner every now and then) but that doesn't mean we hate chivalry and romantic gestures as a whole. I appreciate when a guy offers to pay for dinner or insists on driving me home; however, I always make sure to return the favor at some point. As long as there's equality and balance in the relationship, then a feminist couple can take care of each other in whichever way feels right for them.

Myth #5: Feminists may have been necessary in the past, but we don't need them anymore.

We've come along way since the fight for women's suffrage and Roe v. Wade, but we still need feminism, both in the United States and around the world. Rape and victim-blaming, child brides, sex trafficking, genital mutiliation and disfigurement, honor killings, forced prostitution, infanticide of female babies in countries like China and India, domestic violence and other crimes against women are as rampant as ever. The struggle for equality continues on, and feminists will not rest until every woman has the inalienable rights and freedoms that she deserves.

Leah Pickett writes about popular culture for WBEZ. Follow her on Twitter @leahkpickett.

Kickstarter: the good, the bad and the downright infuriating

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:00:00 -0500

The Internet rejoiced last week when the "The Veronica Mars Movie Project," helmed by the original series creator Rob Thomas and enthusiastically supported by star Kristen Bell, broke a slew of records for the fundraising site Kickstarter. After just 12 hours in existence, the project became the fastest Kickstarter to reach both $1 million and $2 million, as well as the highest goal to be met in the site's five year history.

Fans of the Veronica Mars TV show (a snappy teen detective noir that premiered on UPN in 2004 and became an instant cult classic even before its cancellation in 2007) petitioned Warner Bros for years to produce a film adaptation, but the studio wouldn't budge. Will those same big shot studio heads change their minds now that the undeniable power of crowdfunding as come into play? At the moment, all signs point to yes.

While the general reaction to Veronica Mars "winning Kickstarter" has been positive, naysayers have been quick to point out that the site's inevitable downslide (a.k.a. studio takeover) is getting a big push from this project.

Does an established show runner, backed by one of the most lucrative film studios in the country, really need donations from strangers to raise $2 million? Clearly, Thomas was trying to make a point about fans supporting the idea (see, just because the show got cancelled due to low ratings doesn't mean that my loyal fan base won't show up in theaters!) However, those who equate watching the numbers rise on the Mars Kickstarter to "the world changing" should take a step back and reevaluate themselves (I saw that tweet, Amanda Palmer).

Suddenly, the conversation has shifted from "Kickstarter is changing the way movies are made" to "Kickstarter is ruining art for the real artists!"

Take for example, the hubbub over this documentary project that Gawker posted under the headline "Guy Raises $7,000 on Kickstarter to Fund Insufferable Bonding Trip With Each of His Facebook Friends." Yep, Connecticut photographer Ty Morin wants you to give him money so that he can travel all over the country and take pictures of his friends. His video looks nice, but seriously? I believe in supporting the arts (I have a "worthless" film degree, after all), but in this situation, my money would go to charity that actually needs it over some random dude asking for a paid vacation.

Unfortunately, Kickstarter is filled with projects that ask for large sums of money but offer very little in return. The site has dealt with quite a few scams over the years, including a man selling $15 watches for $100, disguising them as high-end pieces and raising over $9,000 before the plug was pulled (the project is currently suspended and pending an internal investigation).

Legal issues aside, one could also argue that a documentarian who promises a good film about kayaking and proceeds to make something really boring has essentially scammed the benefactors into financing his kayaking trip. Perhaps patrons should be willing to shoulder at least some of the blame for how they've chosen to give their money away, but nobody likes to feel like they've been tricked into supporting an artistic endeavor that, in the end, doesn't ring true.

So, has The Veronica Mars Movie Project effectively shaken off the "Kickstarter fatigue" of dashed dreams and broken promises? Looks like it. If the film does get made as a result of this campaign, then Kickstarter will become a mecca for other fan-favorite shows (Gilmore Girls, Freaks and Geeks, My So-Called Life, etc.) to get the cinematic treatment as well.

Buzzfeed.com already approached legendary show runner Joss Whedon to ask if he's planning a Kickstarter campaign for Firefly, the sci-fi television drama that garnered a huge cult following despite getting cancelled in 2002 after only eleven episodes.

Whedon was a big fan of Veronica Mars when the show was on the air, and continues to support Thomas in his new endeavor: "I thought it was an awesome and ballsy move...It feels like a real game-changer. Like, not since Louis C.K. [selling his comedy directly online.]"

Still, audiences clamoring for more Firefly will have to wait a little longer, as Whedon still has a full lineup scheduled under contract with Marvel. Also, Kickstarter might not be his thing:

"Couple years from now, when Nathan [Fillon]'s no longer on Castle and I'm no longer the Tom Hagen of the Marvel Universe and making a giant movie, we might look and see where the market is then," Whedon said. "But right now, it's a complete non-Kickstarter for me."

What are your thoughts on the Kickstarter phenomenon? Leave a comment below, let me know via Twitter @leahkpickett or join the conversation on Facebook.

Working women: can we really have it all?

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:00:00 -0500

Good news: the U.S. unemployment rate just dropped to 7.7 percent, the lowest number we've seen in 4 years. Bad news: most of the highest-paid jobs in this country still belong to men.

The outliers in this scenario are two incredibly successful women of the Internet age: Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer. However, these media mogals have recently been on the receiving end of some harsh criticism for the way that they choose to navigate through a man's world.

Women clamor for more female CEOs, but when one of our own does make it to the top, we're often the first to start tearing her down. Sandberg has been mocked by female critics as "a PowerPoint Pied Piper in Prada ankle boots" (nice alliteration, Maureen Dowd) who "doesn't do enough" to empower other women. Meanwhile, Mayer has received her own fair share of feminist backlash by telling her employees that they can no longer work from home, then building an office nursery for her child and not extending the same courtesy to other parents on staff.

I sympathize with the working mothers of Yahoo, especially since Mayer has the million-dollar luxury of bringing her baby to work while the rest of her lowly peons do not. Still, I believe that Mayer's decision was made with the best of intentions, even if she does come across as a bit of an elitist in doing so.

Mayer saw that her at-home employees weren't signing in on a regular basis, her company started slipping and she did what she had to do to get everybody back on track. Also, paying for her kid's nursery with her own money is, in a roundabout way, setting a positive example for her staff members: "I'm making you come to the office, so I'll be here every morning too--with my newborn baby in tow."

The hate for Sheryl Sandberg, on the other hand, seems even less justified. Her new book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead, encourages women to participate, or "lean in" to get ahead professionally. Sandberg earns a reported $30 million a year, so surely this is sound advice.

Well, reviews from female critics have been decidedly mixed. While some offer a smattering of faint praise ("Sandberg's advice to young women, which can sound like a finger-wagging admonishment when taken out of context, is framed here in more encouraging terms," writes Anne-Marie Slaughter of the New York Times), most lash out with sharp-tongued vitriol.

As Connie Schultz attests in the Washington Post, "Sandberg barely mentions the millions of single mothers in the workplace. She does, however, advise women on how to find a supportive spouse--who in her book, is almost always male. Ambitious lesbians will have to find their tutorial elsewhere."

Yikes.

Okay, so maybe Sandberg isn't the next feminist icon à la Gloria Steinem or Rachel Maddow. She may not even be the best person to advise working moms on how to advance their careers, considering that her multimillion dollar salary doesn't make her all that relatable. But does she really deserve this much animosity from the women she's trying to help? I don't wholeheartedly agree with every theory that Sandberg lays out in her book, but I applaud her (and all the women featured in the PBS documentary Makers) for drilling holes in the glass ceiling that would not have been possible even 20 years ago.

Perhaps we should focus on building up our female leaders instead of bashing their every move, considering that we still don't have very many of them to represent us. According to Bloomberg, women only held 14.3 percent of executive positions at Fortune 500 companies and 16.6 percent of board seats in 2012, while over half of companies surveyed had all-male directors.

These statistics are troubling for several reasons. First of all, it is a proven fact that companies perform much better when they have more female directors. Massive corporations (with market caps of over $10 billion) that included women on their boards had stock prices that outperformed their peers by 26 percent over 6 years, which is no small feat. Also, there has been an overall lack of progress to closing the gender gap, with the number of women in leadership positions rising at a "glacial pace" of only 1.4 percent since 2011.

Ladies, we need each other. Instead of building walls out of spite, jealousy or sheer "mean girl" cattiness, let's try championing and supporting one another instead. If we band together and form a united front, lingering misogyny in the workplace won't stand a chance against us.

Follow Leah on Twitter @leahkpickett or add her on Facebook.

Hacking back invasive species, and crime

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:00:00 -0600

Brenda Elmore grew up in West Pullman, literally a stone’s throw from the Whistler Preserve in Riverdale, Ill. Even though she has always lived within walking distance of some of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County’s largest holdings, she learned from a young age to stay away from them.

“I used to be scared to come anywhere near it,” Elmore said.

She says her parents told her that Jason, the machete-wielding killer from the Friday the 13^thmovies, lived in the Forest Preserves. In reality, they were worried about gangs. The far south side forest preserves’ seclusion and proximity to areas troubled by gang activity made them ideal dumping grounds for bodies. And a dense underbrush of white poplar, buckthorn and purple loosestrife — all invasive species — obscured any view of the interior from the road.

As she cuts back invasive species with a chainsaw in Kickapoo Woods, it’s clear Elmore, 50, has come a long way — and so have the Forest Preserves. She is part of the Calumet Invasive Species Conservation Corps, an EPA-funded program that hired workers from underrepresented areas of Chicago to restore at least 228 acres of wetland and wet prairieland in the Calumet region. Friends of the Forest Preserves co-administers the $518,467 federal grant, which is part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, with the Student Conservation Association.

“Our first time out here it was just an impenetrable mass,” says Elmore, an alumna of the city’s Green Corps job training program. “We had to fight our way through it.”

Prairie restoration in the Calumet, as in many places, is largely about clearing invasives that have choked out native species by blocking all the light. Dozens of species of bygone prairie grasses still have seeds lying dormant in the soil, and could take off once again if conservationists can help them establish a foothold.

A five-person crew hacked at ash trees and white poplars Monday, nearly one and a half years into their two-year stint with the program. Aerial photographs from 2007 and 2011 show how much progress they, along with volunteer groups and contractors, have made.

“I always turn the group around on their way out of the site after a day’s work,” says group supervisor Brian Mann. “So they can see the impact they have.”

A construction of sandhill cranes flies overhead. They are migrating and looking for somewhere to stop off. Kickapoo probably doesn’t have enough water to attract them, Mann says, but as biodiversity returns to the site it is likely to sustain species the area's stewards would have been lucky to spot decades ago.

For Mann, who came to this line of work from real estate and then plumbing, restoration is also about self-discovery.

“I used to hate getting up in the morning,” he says. “Now I love my job.”

It is a similar story for Elmore.

“I didn’t realize I liked being outside as much as I do,” she says. At first Green Corps was “just a job” for her, she says, but she soon realized she liked the work. After the Calumet Invasive Species Conservation Corps program is complete, Elmore hopes to land a job that will keep her outside, working with nature.

A Mere $392,800 Gets You A Degree!?

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:00:00 -0600

Are you shocked by the cost of a university education today? I am, and I work at a university.

Frankly, I don’t understand how parents and students today are able to pay the present room, board, and tuition costs of an education at either a public college ($25,000) or a private college ($55,000). The cost of higher education has increased at a faster rate than inflation for at least the last ten years.

And, according to college financial aid consultant Kalman Chany, there is no end in sight. Chany predicts that when today’s children to go college, the estimated cost of a state school will be $37,000 a year, and at a private school, the cost will be $98,200.

When you multiply these numbers by a factor of four, you wind up with public tuition topping out at $150,800, and private tuition at $392,800. (And, by the way, these figures do not include books, spending money, and transportation) Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m still convinced of the importance of a college education, both in regard to developing competence and a career, as well as addressing the related questions of “personal identity and character.”

However, I am also convinced that universities need to redefine their financial models and ways of doing business. The golden ages of the “baby boomers” charging off to college in unprecedented numbers is over. Birth rates have been down for over 15 years, and so has the pool of normal college age students.

Moreover, the demands and specific needs of the market place have changed. Nowadays, just getting a degree is no longer a guarantee of getting a job.

“Boomer” parents were once able to help, if not, completely pay college bills while simultaneously maintaining a middle class existence and planning for retirement. But, today’s parents can’t do it all anymore. And, clearly, most students cannot pay for their own tuition.

Those students who do pay their own bills, often do so by taking on loans that often require 10 to 15 years to pay off. Given today’s and tomorrow’s projected costs, I simply don’t think universities can maintain their present pedagogical model and method of doing education.

I’m convinced that within 15 years, the average university undergraduate curriculum will be a two to a three year experience. Yes, there will be “some” liberal art; but the focus will be on career preparation and technical competencies. This possible near-future scenario deeply troubles me greatly.

But, after four-decades in the classroom, I, sadly, just can’t imagine any other workable alternative.

Know thy neighbor

Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:00:00 -0600

My father has no interest in Facebook, rarely uses LinkedIn and is completely befudddled by the concept of Twitter. So when he called me the other day to rave about a neighborhood mobile app called Blockboard, I was a) honestly surprised that he even knew what an app was, and b) immediately intrigued by the concept.

Blockboard began in San Francisco as a way to connect neighbors on a uniquely personal level, effectively bridging the gap between the hundreds of "friends" that we have on Facebook and the untapped support systems that exist right in our own communities.

Prior to 2011, the startup was called BlockChalk and consisted of mostly neighborhood alerts, similar to a mobile Craigslist. Now under the umbrella of Klout, which made its first-ever acquisition by purchasing Blockboard this time last year, the system is rumored to become much more streamlined and social media-friendly in 2013.

When you download the free iPhone app, Blockboard will recognize your location via GPS and suggest neighborhoods for you to follow. Once you're plugged in, you can interact directly with your neighbors or contact your city government about hyperlocal issues such as graffiti, trash, potholes, vandalism, etc.

"Neighborhoods are more emotional than physical in many ways," says co-founder Stephen Hood, "So although Blockboard will suggest which neighborhood we think is yours, it's up to you to choose."

Blockboard hasn't reached Chicago yet, but another buzzworthy neighborhood app called BlockAvenue is already making the rounds. What began as community startup in Cambridge has since spread nationwide, allowing locals to connect, share ideas and discover communities block by block. The @BlockAve_Chi Twitter account has accumulated over 1,300 followers in just a few weeks time, and their trending numbers are growing exponentially by the day.

Some neighborhoods are taking the idea of hyperlocal connections one step further, creating mobile apps that specifically represent their individual communities. For example, the DUMBO region of Brooklyn (an acronym that stands for Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass) is now the first neighborhood in New York City with its own app. As a devout Logan Squarian, I hope that my neighborhood will soon follow suit.

Growing up in a wealthy area of North Dallas, I existed in a bizarrely insular microcosm where neighbors exchanged subtle glances across perfectly manicured lawns, but never spoke a word of greeting to each other. I lived next door to the same people for 18 years, never knowing a single thing about them. This culture of seperateness was considered normal, and to be honest, I never gave it a second thought.

My life in Chicago couldn't be more different, and I'm grateful for it. Now that I live in a tiny three-floor walkup and know all of the tenants in my building by name, I find the whole idea of mystery neighbors to be strange, slightly scary and even sad. I feel my heart sink a little whenever I see the same people riding the train day in and day out, heads buried in their e-books, refusing to look up or even acknowledge one another. When did avoiding eye contact with strangers turn into a total aversion of community and denial of basic human interaction?

Neighborhood apps provide an invaluable public service: bringing people together through social media, as opposed to driving them even further apart. Will community-based startups like Blockboard and BlockAvenue soon eclipse Facebook and Twitter as our go-to sources for hyperlocal news? With the loss of EveryBlock still fresh in my mind, I certainly hope they'll be here to stay.

Since Twitter is still a thing (for now), you can follow me @leahkpickett.

On Presidents' Day, comparing national holidays around the world

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:28:00 -0600

In the United States, we have 10 public holidays, including today, Presidents’ Day.

That’s about an average number if you consider the world over. But, for wealthier, industrialized countries, it’s actually slightly below average.

But it is hard to make much of a judgment on a country based on how many holidays it has.

Based on a 2011 study done of 62 major industrialized countries, the country with the most public holidays is Colombia, with 18. Colombia has a reputation for being a pretty conservative country. But according to ABC News, in the last year or two, Colombia has been passed by its fellow South American country, Argentina, which is developing a markedly left-wing reputation. Under Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the country now has 19 public holidays.

But even some countries known as being left wing have fewer holidays than the U.S. For instance, Communist Cuba has only 9, along with more leftist or liberal countries like Ecuador, Denmark, Switzerland, and Canada. The Netherlands and the United Kingdom both have only 8.

Yet, some of the world’s most repressive countries actually have more public holidays than we do. Most of them weren’t covered by that 2011 study, but I did a little checking myself.

A lot of countries have holidays that are confined to specific regions, ethnic groups, or religions. Sometimes, there will be government holidays not always acknowledged by the private sector. Nevertheless, the results are still surprising.

Iran, a Shi’ite Islam religious theocracy, has as many as 18 public holidays. And the country with the most holidays I found anywhere in the world was Saudi Arabia, Iran’s Sunni nemesis, with as many as 22 government holidays every year in some regions.

A lot of these days come from two Muslim holidays that take multiple days, and are observed throughout the Middle East. (Which is why Lebanon rates so high in the 2011 study, with 16 public holidays).

But it’s not just in the Middle East. In Asia, one country with a surprisingly strong showing is none other than international pariah North Korea, arguably the most repressive government anywhere in the world right now, with no fewer than 20 public holidays every year, according to one source.

Even Belarus narrowly beats the United States, with 11 public holidays to our 10.

So, the level of freedom, liberalism, conservatism, or economic prosperity has, in the end, very little to do with how many days a year people get to take a break. So, when you’re annoyed to find your bank closed today, just think: in some countries, where the quality of life is far worse than here, it happens even more often.