Sue and Stu

 

In a time long ago
Kids were good
Kids were bad
Kids were happy and laughing
Kids were squealing and glad
 

In a time long ago
Kids could do what they want
They could run ‘round in traffic
They could eat a croissant
 

All the kids thought this bliss
Oh so happy were they
Until one horrid mess
Happed on one horrid day
 

A cute girl, name of Sue
And her kitten named Stu
Were out playing in traffic
What was mother to do?

Come get out of the street
Now come play in the yard
Before someone gets hurt
Yelled her mother real hard
 

But Sue just would not listen
As her mother did scorn
It was dark; it was foggy
Then they heard a truck horn
 

The horn blasted and blasted
Mother screamed turning blue
The truck screeched to a halt
Only inches from Sue
 

Sue stood still—frozen stiff
As tears flowed from her eyes
And her mother was frantic
As she let our her cries
 

Mother ran to her child
Checking arms, legs and nose
Yes, she scanned every inch
Checking fingers and toes
 

Mother spoke to her child
When I yell and I blurt
It is not out of anger
I just don’t want you hurt
 

Mommy, mommy cried the child
I should heed your command
I was selfish and unwise
I did not understand
 

The two hugged and embraced
In a huddle of two
Then a thought of great terror
What had happened to Stu
 

The truck driver was screaming
Screaming with all his might
Crying what could he do
Asking if all was right
 

Mom said Sue would be fine
To not be all alarmed
There was no injury
Not a person was harmed
 

In a moment of terror
Came a scream out of Sue
On the side of the road
Lay her kitten named Stu
 

Stu lay silent and limp
And his chest was now heaving
So, mom scooped him up softly
And yelled, come we are leaving
 

In the car Sue sat silent
As they rushed to the vet
Tears of sorrow flowed down
Out of love for her pet
 

The vet did what she could
Then in soft words she said
I am sorry to tell you
Little Stu is now dead
 

There’s a lesson to learn
From this story of Sue
That you listen to mom
When she says what to do

Count Those Calories

 

              I’m in the process of losing weight. It’s not easy for me. I'm about 40 pounds lighter and am learning how to manage things. For anyone trying to lose weight, I think it’s important to count calories.

Weighing the Options

              The first benefit of counting calories is that it provides a tool to consider options. Let’s take a real-world example. I love Chipotle. My go-to meal is the burrito bowl. It’s a glorious trough of food! They have a nutrition calculator online where I can build a bowl and see my calories. I can also see which ingredients really add up calories quickly. I’ve been able to build my "diet" bowl with a side drink that is 780 calories. While certainly not low calorie, it’s an extremely satisfying, filling meal that I’m able to fit into my weight loss goals.

              What if I went hog wild and ordered the most fattening bowl and drink I could? Even for someone with my voracious appetite, it’s a meal that would leave me feeling sick and sluggish afterward. But, how many calories do you think it would add up to? It would be 2,400 calories! For me, trying to lose weight, that means I could only have that one meal for an entire day.

              What if I went the other extreme? What if I tried to build a super low-calorie bowl? I could skip some of the higher calorie components I love like the rice, guac, and roasted chili-corn salsa. It is possible to build a 260-calorie bowl based around beans, salsa, and veggies. That would be a complete waste of 260 calories. I would be a hungry, surly bear roaming the kitchen within a half hour. Bleh!

              By counting calories, I know the cost. The cost of eating a satisfying meal at Chipotle is 780 calories. It takes some effort to hunt down and figure out calories, but I’m fat and I don’t want to stay fat. I’ve also put together a 650-calorie meal at Denny’s. Sure, I could probably order a side salad with no dressing and have less calories, but 650 calories is my cost to eat something satisfying at Denny’s.

Learning Your Budget

              As I’m tracking calories and monitoring my weight, I’m learning my budget. By budget, I mean how many calories I can afford. I know it will take several months to really nail down a realistic number, but right now it looks like I’ll maintain weight at around 2800 calories and can lose weight efficiently if I keep things around 2000 calories or less.

              How do I know that? Let’s say I track calories and find for a given week I average 2,000 calories a day. Let’s say I lost 1.6 pounds for that week. To get solid numbers, you need to track for several weeks. I recommend your official weigh in is at the same time each week and under the same conditions. For example, if you weigh yourself after using the restroom one week, you should do that every week. You should also weigh yourself at approximately the same time and day of the week. In general, I do my official weigh in on Monday morning before I’ve eaten or drank anything. I wouldn’t recommend weighing yourself after breakfast—unless you’re precisely weighing each meal. Also, be aware that one week really doesn’t count to figure out your calorie budget. My weight can fluctuate five pounds or more throughout the course of a day. So, it’s going to take several months of tracking to get consistent numbers and find my calorie budget.

              So, my calories were 2,000 per day (2,000 X 7 = 14,000) and my weight loss was 1.6 pounds. A pound of fat is about 3,500 calories. So, that’s a 5,600-calorie deficit (1.6 X 3,500) or 800 calories a day (5,600 ÷ 7 = 800). If I take my 2,000 calories per day and add in the 800 calories per day I lost, I can estimate I would maintain weight at about 2,800 calories a day. Obviously, this isn’t perfect. I could have lost some water weight. I could have put on some muscle from working out. So, it’s only an estimate, but at least it gives me some numbers to base things around.

              Also, be aware as you lose weight that your calorie budget goes down. A smaller car burns less fuel than a bigger car. The same is true with your body. As you lose weight, you need less calories to move around. So, your calorie budget at your ideal weight is going to be less than your calorie budget at your chubby weight—unless you move around more with that newer, fitter body to make up the difference!

              What if I add in exercise? I am exercising intensely, and it does increase calories burned. You can go online and find calculators that estimate how many calories a given activity will burn. Realize, those calculators are estimates. So, you still need to track your calories and weight.

              Let’s say I want to eat that super fattening 2,400 Chipotle burrito bowl? How long would I have to run at a quick pace (10-minute mile) at my current weight to burn it off? I would have to run a little over 2 ½ hours. That means I would be running over 15 miles.

Ugh! Here’s the truth about exercise and calories. If you’re able to spend 30-60 minutes a day doing something of moderate to high intensity, you’re likely not adding much more than 300-500 calories burned (maybe less for a smaller person). That activity is subtracting at most about a pound of fat burned per week. I’m not saying you shouldn’t exercise. The benefits of exercise are tremendous and is part of a healthy plan to lose weight. However, don’t fall into the trap of thinking, “I worked out hard this morning. I can enjoy a Big Mac, fries, and a Coke!” No, no, no. You can’t! If you’re like me, you’re taking their offer to biggie size. Suddenly that 300-calorie workout is dwarfed by that 1,320-calorie meal! Do I spend 2/3 of my weight-loss calories for the day on McD’s? Or, do I go for my 780-calorie bowl at Chipotles? Or, my 650-calorie burger at Denny’s? Or, do I use McDonald’s nutrition calculator to see where I can shave some calories? Or, do I decide I’ll run for over an hour tonight? Okay, I already worked out this morning, so who am I kidding? I’m not going running tonight. I have a new episode of The Orville to watch!

Establishing Lifetime Changes

              One of the biggest benefits of counting calories is one begins to get a sense of what to eat and what not to eat. Am I opening that bag of chips? Or, am I breaking out the hot air popper and having some popcorn—with some yummy seasoning! Do I want that buttermilk-based ranch dressing? Or, is a low-calorie mustard-based dressing just as satisfying? Obviously, I better read some labels, because that mustard-based dressing may have a lot of hidden calories and may not be as low-calorie as it should be. Plus, I better keep an eye on portion sizes.

              Calorie counting allows one to develop more of a sense of what to eat and what to avoid. It also helps one to figure out those lower-calorie alternatives that may be just as satisfying as the higher-calorie alternatives.

              I’m going through the process of figuring out what works for me—in terms of eating and exercising. Calorie counting is a tool to help do that. It helps me to figure out my calorie budget for the day and to spend those calories wisely. I think it's an important component of a weight loss journey.

Teaching Various Ages

 

              I’ve taught a wide range of students—from toddlers through senior citizens. This includes teaching college classes, teaching online English classes to kids, and teaching in volunteer positions. There are many similarities between teaching various ages and a few differences including: attention span, abstract thinking ability, and knowledge base.

Attention Span

              When teaching adults, they can only absorb so much material. If you stretch them too far, you’re wasting effort. When absorbing information through watching or listening, this attention span is only about 15-20 minutes. Sit through a sermon or lecture. About 15-20 minutes in the average adult either begins to lose focus or starts forgetting what was covered. This is normative. There’re certainly people that can listen for hours. And, a certain number of motivated students that will take notes and stay focused for a long time. But, the 15-20 minute rule applies to most.

              So, what to do if you have more than 15-20 minutes of material? You need to give people a chance to apply the material. This could be through discussion or hands-on application. Once the material begins to be absorbed into longer term memory then you can move on and present more material. So much that is done in our education or religious circles disregards this simply rule.

              While this applies to adults, the younger a person is, the shorter their attention span. A toddler may only have an attention span of a minute. An elementary school student’s attention will be longer, but it does vary between students. Usually, girls have better attention spans than boys.

              So, we could view attention span on a continuum—from maybe a minute or so for a toddler to 15-20 minutes for an adult. These are just general guidelines but should help if you need to teach something to various ages.

Abstract Thinking

              Young kids have limited ability to think in concepts. They tend to need information boiled down to stories, object lessons, and hands-on activities. For example, a young kid may understand what a table is; but he may not be able to wrap his head around why "table" is a noun. He just doesn’t have the ability.

              When do people gain the ability to think in the abstract? In general, I wouldn’t expect a kid much younger than 8-10 to be able to do much with abstract thinking. This ability may develop quite a bit earlier or later. I’ve met some adults that don’t excel at abstract thinking. Often, they are very gifted at using their hands—carpentry, painting, sports, or other kinds of physical activities.

              I suspect abstract thinking ability begins to develop when one is a toddler, but I still would keep things extremely concrete for anyone under 8-10 years old.

              While adults do have the ability to think in the abstract, it is much easier to absorb concrete information—stories, object lessons, and hands-on experiences. Ever sit through that hour-long terms-and-definitions college lecture? Later, you look at your notes and think, “Did we cover this? We must have, but I don’t remember a thing!” Why? Because you were presented abstract material and it didn’t sink in. You’re more likely to remember a funny story your teacher told than a list of terms and definitions.

              My advice with any age group is to keep things as concrete as possible. Use stories, object lessons, hands-on applications, and visual aids as much as possible. It will help your material sink in deep.

Knowledge Base

              This is the final difference in teaching age groups. In general, the older a person is, the deeper their knowledge base. Adults in general know more than children. Although, I have met a few adults where that seems iffy.

              The most important thing when teaching is to put yourself in the shoes of the learner. Figure out what they know and don’t know. Don’t place unreasonable expectations on them. Teach at their level and you’ll be fine.

Summary

              Jesus was the master teacher. Think about what he did? He met people where they were—even at times just meeting a basic physical need like making sure a hungry person was fed. He taught using stories and analogies—putting things into the concrete, everyday life of his audience. Most of his “sermons” were only a few minutes long. And, even his longest sermons (like the Sermon on the Mount) probably lasted under a half hour.

              There are an infinite number of variables when teaching to different age groups. However, if you consider attention span, abstract thinking abilities, and knowledge base, you’ll be well on your way to effectively meeting your audience.

Where You Been?

It’s been a while since I’ve blogged. So, the biggest question may be, “Where You Been?” Yeah, yeah, I know. I should technically say, “Where Have I Been?”, but this is a blog—not some sort of grammar test.

 

I have been writing, but much of that writing has been for school projects. In 2019 I went back to school to update my skillset. I wasn’t having much luck finding a good job. Sure, I had work, but nothing that I wanted to do for the rest of my life. Actually, there was almost the constant internal nagging of just quitting and removing a big stress in my life.

 

Instead of quitting, I decided to do something positive and go back to school. I just finished up degree work in Digital Video and Media Technology at Stark State College. Basically, I learned content creation—in particular videography, photography, editing, sound design, graphic design, and even some web design. In short, I added the technical media skills, which are so needed today, to my creative writing skills. I’m also a skilled educator, but honestly, I don’t want to do that any longer.

 

Along the way I ended up experiencing my first global pandemic. Yeah me! Fortunately, I didn’t catch the bug. I’m fully vaccinated and made sure to stay in the house. At times I felt like a dog with public health officials being my owner and telling me when I can and can’t leave the house.

 

Like many, I experienced loss. Early in the pandemic, my aunt passed away. She was in a nursing home. I heard rumors that Covid had hit the nursing home. Turns out those rumors were true. Fortunately, I was able to go and see her right before lockdown. It was an extreme hardship on my two cousins, who couldn’t see their mom face-to-face during the last weeks of her life. They had to see her through the nursing home windows. She was buried with a small service with just her daughters and maybe a few others present. They didn’t want to expose family and friends to the virus during the pandemic. There was talk of plans to have a larger memorial after the pandemic was over. I’m not sure if that will happen. Two years is a long time to revisit the grief of such a loss.

 

I also lost a friend. I would occasionally go to a movie with her and we would have an occasional chat on the phone. She was one of my former students. She was a nice lady and I occasionally think of her and miss not being able to reach out.

 

Taking classes during the pandemic was an experience. Spring of 2020 classes were going great. I was in a fun media class. The instructor was great and every week we’d have great conversations in class. Then everything changed. Classes moving to being virtual. Everything became disconnected. Now, everything was a Zoom meeting and a discussion board. It just wasn’t the same.

 

I was also just starting to get involved with Phi Theta Kappa, the honor society at Stark State. Then, I became disconnected. I lost about a year of involvement. I did eventually become engaged. I became the Newsletter Editor and then Vice President. It was a great experience, but I feel I missed a year of fun because the world went sideways.

 

Now, I’m looking for work. I feel both hopeful and frayed. The last couple years have been weird. Where you been? I’ve been surviving a global pandemic. I’ve lost a few people close to me. I’ve faced some hardships, but I’ve also had blessings. I’m now fully engaged in figuring out where I am. So, where you been?

Let's Arm Teachers

            After recent events in Florida, people are starting to throw around the idea of arming teachers. As both an honorably discharged member of the Army Reserves and a college instructor, I will say this idea won’t work. Even worse, it will end up leading to catastrophes. There is some validity to arming teachers. That’s not the problem. The problem is that this is being viewed by some, and may likely be legislated, as an easy solution to the problem. Arming teachers, if it happens, will end up failing due to improper implementation.

THE TWO MINDSETS

            Using a firearm, particularly in a panic situation that may require killing or harming another person, takes a totally different mindset than teaching. The idea that a teacher can simply flip the switch, from compassionate teacher to trained warrior, at a moment’s notice is foolish. Simply giving a teacher a gun won’t help, because the average teacher would freeze if the situation arose where action was demanded. Using a gun to defend takes training—extensive training. The training would likely be expensive and ongoing. It’s not uncommon to hear stories of schools without textbooks or heat. So, where is the money going to come for this expensive training?

A GUN IS A GUN

            Arming teachers puts guns into the school. Could a teacher’s gun end up being used against that teacher? Or, against other students? Could a teacher be stripped of a gun by a violent student?

            Teaching requires an immense amount of focus—enough focus that a teacher would lose focus on the gun they are carrying. It’s simply impossible to teach (at least properly) and remain a vigilant warrior simultaneously. Until the switch to vigilant warrior has been turned on, that teacher’s gun is vulnerable. If violence happens, the teacher with the gun may become the target—the main point of attack for a perpetrator!

DO COMBAT SOLDIERS SHOOT TO KILL?

            There have been some experts that suggest that combat soldiers—people highly trained to handle a weapon and take a life—often deliberately overshoot when placed in combat. This is likely particularly true with their first experience in combat. The debate on this is controversial, so you can do your own research, but it does raise doubts about a teacher’s ability to fire, especially during their first round of combat.

            Combat. Let’s just be honest. When a shooter enters a school property, that premise has now become a combat zone. But, it’s a different kind of combat zone. When a soldier is sent to war, they know they are in a combat zone. It becomes a part of their psyche, constantly in the back of their mind. A teacher doesn’t drive to work expecting combat. Their psyche isn’t in that place, and this may make them less prepared to enter combat.

IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE?

            Instead of arming teachers, a more viable solution may simply be putting a few armed guards (whether police or military) on school grounds. Being a vigilant defender means coming to work with that mindset. It’s not a switch that can easily be flipped. The switch already needs to be on when a crisis arises.

            Even military personnel and police would need significant training—not near the training a teacher would require—but still significant training.

CONCLUSIONS

            Arming teachers may be part of the solution, but it isn’t the easy solution some people paint it to be. An armed teacher may be a deterrent; but, can an armed teacher become a defender in a crisis situation quickly enough to either eradicate or minimize casualties? Not necessarily. It would take someone with the right psychological makeup combined with intense and ongoing training. Without proper training, the average teacher with a gun would freeze at the moment of crisis.

What is Wrong with Education?

            What is wrong with education? It's an interesting question, isn't it? To begin we must distinguish between learning and education. One would assume the two concepts are intimately intertwined, but that assumption is faulty. Learning is often an inverted version of education.

            When we thinking of learning, we think of gaining knowledge of self, knowledge of the world, and a better understanding of truth. This process is driven internally. It's our own sense of wonder; emotional attachment to some thing, concept, or person; or innate curiosity that propels us to explore the world. Learning is an inside-out process fueled by the spark of spirit and heart that lies within.

            Education is all about control. It's not that a teacher wants to be controlling. It might not even be a dean, supervisor, or principal that wants to be controlling. But, who is really in control of education? It's almost always some bureaucrat or politician that makes the real decisions that control the direction of education. And, what are bureaucrats and politicians? Control freaks!

            How do control freaks operate? It can't be about the spark of spirit and heart that lies within. That can't easily be controlled. For each individual, that spark is unique. Unique things are hard to control. They’re unpredictable. Control is always achieved externally—through policies, procedures, grades, tests, and whatever other rewards and punishments one deems necessary. In religious circles, this is called legalism. It's when a group or individual becomes overly concerned with meeting externally-opposed standards as opposed to being transformed in the inner man.

            So, learning starts from the inside. Education is imposed from the outside. I don't necessarily think education has to be that way, but that's how it's usually done.

            Let's consider for a moment how a teacher is wired. I've met many. Most are wonderful people that are concerned for their students. They give, give, and give of themselves—of their time, effort, emotional and spiritual energies. Teachers (by this I mean someone who is a teacher by nature and not necessarily by profession) are wired this way. All their internal goodness flows out—like a spigot that has been welded wide open. They can’t stop giving of themselves. It’s a nature they can’t overcome even when it becomes detrimental to their own wellbeing.

            There are people that God has designed to be teachers. Not everyone leading a classroom is one of them. If you’re a student, you know the difference between someone who is a teacher by profession, and someone who is a teacher because that’s who they are. When I speak of teachers, I’m speaking of the latter.

            Put someone wired this way into a system that focuses on imposing externals to control behavior, and a pressure-multiplying effect happens. The forces from within are pushing out and the forces from without are pushing in. The effect is the same as a pressure cooker with too much internal pressure. There’s only two options: explode or lessen the steam. We’ve seen the first option on social media—the teacher that explodes. People always blame the teacher, but it’s the system that pushed to that conclusion. The second option is what happens to most teachers. Over time they lose steam. Their love for teaching and students diminish. They don’t want it to happen, but self-preservation demands the inevitable decline of teaching steam.

            Let’s consider what happens to students. Place someone inside a system of external rewards and punishment and they do learn—primarily how to manipulate the system to avoid punishments and reap rewards. The direction comes from without instead of within. Overtime students learn to become other-directed and manipulative. But, learning is an inside-out process. People generally don’t let the inside come out unless they're in a supportive, open environment—which is the polar opposite of education. That becomes the crux of the matter—learning and education are often negatives of one another.

            Teachers struggle to form the proper relationships with student. They are often at odds—with teacher being the enforcer of the system, and student being the manipulator of the system. A teacher has a hard time turning off their spigot of energy. It’s at the heart of the gift God has given them—an outpouring of positive energy into their environment. Self-directed people reflect and enhance that flow. Other-directed people absorb that energy like a sponge. Remember, students have been conditioned by the system to be other-directed and manipulative.

            A true teacher is wired to function within a learning environment surrounded by learners. The inner spark of each member of the community, not the inner spark of a few labeled as “teacher”, fuels such an environment. God hasn’t designed a teacher to be surrounded by other-directed people. In such an environment, the teacher becomes a burnt-out husk—constantly giving while others are constantly absorbing.

            What is wrong with education? Learning is self-directed; education is other-directed. Learning functions best in an open, supportive environment that allows for individual expression and exploration; education is controlling, constricting, and bureaucratic. Learning explodes when a teacher becomes a catalyst; but education takes those gifted to teach and puts them in an environment than exploits them, and surrounds them by people that abuse them. Abuse will only sound like a harsh word to those that have never been an educator. Educators will testify that students and administrators show everything from a mild lack of respect to an utter disregard to the humanity of teachers. Abuse is anything that dehumanizes another—and educators face dehumanization on a daily basis.

            Learning and education are opposites. This is a simplification, but it is an accurate one in many cases. I know an exploration of these topics mean different things to those who control the system and those that teach. For those controlling the system, they think, “Okay, then let’s add this structure, or try this policy, or let’s retrain our teachers.” Bureaucrats never think in terms of radically transforming anything, because they wouldn’t know how to function. So, when confronted with systemic problems, they try to solve it by adding something to the system—which, inevitable, ends up another to-do on the checklist of the minions below them. Ever wonder why the most seasoned teachers are often the least vocal at the faculty meeting? They know that great ideas are transformed as they progress up the chain of command—from means of transformation to measures of tyranny.

            What is wrong with education? Education often conflicts with teaching and learning. The product doesn’t meet the marketing, and the only hope is to abandon what we consider education and begin to design something new from the ground up.

            

Wahoo for the Windians!

            The streak is over, but the march to the pennant continues! The Indians have become the dominant team in baseball. Can they go all the way? Only time will tell, but fans in Northeast, Ohio have come to revel in the team-wide heroics that define this team. Let’s look at a few.

TITOLATING MANAGEMENT

            We see the mastermind in the dugout, constantly chomping on his sunflower seeds. His humble demeanor masking the strategy going on in his head. He is a wizard with the players, bringing out the best in each of them. Perhaps the best moment to understand Tito is when he sent 21-year Francisco Mejia to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with a 23-game winning streak on the line. Some may question the wisdom of that decision, but Tito was less concerned about a winning streak and more concerned about developing a winning player. He understands talent and will take a gamble when he sees potential. In terms of the game, sometimes that gamble pays off. Sometimes it doesn’t. But, in terms of player development, the gamble always pays off. Every player on the roster is playing to their potential. That starts at the top.

FRANKIE SPANKIE

            Frankie continues to spank the ball—it’s going back deep, deep, deep, . . . it’s gone! When he came to Cleveland, we knew Lindor could lead with leather. Now, he’s developing into a potent power hitter and a great lead-off batter.

BAUER POWER

            When discussions arise about Cleveland’s pitching staff, the first name mentioned is Kluber. He is the Klubot and resistance is futile. However, it has been the development of the rest of the staff that has transformed them into a force of nature. Right before our eyes, Bauer and Clevinger are becoming aces. The road to the pennant is paved with pitching. The formula is usually: 2 aces, a dominant closer, several setup men, and solid pitching to fill in the gaps. The Indians may enter October with 4 aces, 2 dominant closers, and a bullpen filled with hard hurling setup and middlemen!

            We also have to give props to Bauer for his Mini Head baseballs. This is the type of fun that creates a great atmosphere—both for the fans and the players!

BRUCE JUICE

            The big man takes it deep—again! The Indians are playing better with his bat, and no doubt his presence in the locker room and on the field. We’ve also witnessed his efforts to help those harmed by Hurricane Harvey. He doesn’t just make this team better. He makes the world a better place. Welcome to Cleveland!

RAMI SLAMMY

            When Ramirez hit five extra base hits in a game, no one in Cleveland was surprised. Jose is one of the most exciting offensive players in the game. The moment the ball leaves the bat, he’s looking to extend a single into a double, or a double into a triple. He’s also developed into a great fielder. What may be scary for every other team is that we’re not certain if Ramirez has peaked. He could get even better!

GOMER HOMER

            Credit must go to the two men behind the plate—Gomes and Perez. The fans have come to expect their defense, their cannon throws to pickoff runners, and the way they work with the pitchers. But, these two have given us more—so much more. They’ve transformed the bottom of the lineup into a threat. Opposing pitchers simply can’t find an easy out anywhere in this Indians’ lineup.

GIOVACUUM URSHELA

            This kid has leather—lithe and lively! He may be the best defender in the Indians’ infield—and this is an infield stacked with leather. It seems every young player the Indians call up brings something fascinating to the field. The logical conclusion is that this organization is deep—from the minors all the way up, they have the management and developmental staff to bring the best!

EDWINNER

            I could also refer to the parrot! EE is a veteran that brings experience and a big bat to this club. It’s also fun to watch fans dressing up in parrot uniforms. He is an anchor in the middle of the lineup!

A-JACK

            It may be more appropriate to use his nickname, Ajax. We’ve all heard of the cleaner that washes away grime, grease, and gunk. Ajax washes away homeruns! He had the catch. It’s likely the play of the year for baseball—maybe the play of the year for all of sports. It’s just another example of the excitement every player brings—night in and night out!

SLAMTANA

             Carlos goes deep! Again! Night after night he brings the bat. We are also watching him develop into a defensive diamond at first. Clevelanders stay up late at night arguing who should win the MVP. The obvious choice is Lindor, but then talk of Ramirez and Santana enter the mix. If only Santana could also play guitar. Would that be asking too much!

            There’s not much debate in Cleveland who should be the manager of the year. And, even less debate about the Cy Young. It should be Kluber! But next year, could several Indians hurler be in the race? Ah, that is worth a late-night argument.

            Of course, these are only a small sample of all the highlights. We have the 22-game winning streak. That should be enough, but we want more. We want the pennant, and this team has the tools to deliver!

Rhythm, Poetry, and Music

            Rhythm is a repeating pattern of sound. We hear rhythm everywhere—from the crashing waves of the ocean, to the hypnotic sound of a train, to the speech we hear in our daily lives. Rhythm is part of nature. Summer rises and leads to fall. Fall leads to winter, and then spring arrives. The sun rises and sets. We wake up; we go to sleep. Rhythm is so engrained into our spirits, minds, and experience, that we often don’t stop to think about it.

            Rhythm is found in nature, but it is also learned. As we learn to speak, we naturally learn rhythm. Take some time to listen to someone that doesn’t speak English as a native language. Even if every vowel and consonant resonates with perfect pronunciation, they still may be difficult to understand. Why? They have pronunciation, but they don’t have a rhythm our ear is accustomed to. Our native tongue shapes our experience and conditions us to be drawn to certain rhythmic patterns. When those patterns are missing, we find things jarring, and it requires extra effort to extrapolate meaning.

            In English certain syllables are given more or less emphasis. We generally have three variations in emphasis: loud, which is a stressed syllable; medium, which is a semi-stressed syllable; and soft, which is an unstressed syllable. Let’s consider the word, “harmony”. It is generally said:

            HAR         mon         ee

Obviously, the emphasis is being exaggerated, but when the emPHASis is on the wrong sylLABle things sound a bit wonky. We've grown used to a rhythmic pattern for familiar words, and when someone doesn't follow that pattern, we find the sound cacophonous.

            Let's consider a pattern of rhythm for a moment:

            DUM         cha         dum         cha

Say it! Yes, I'm serious! Now, take it and repeat it in a cycle:

            DUM         cha         dum         cha         DUM         cha         dum         cha

            DUM         cha         dum         cha         DUM         cha         dum         cha

            DUM         cha         dum         cha         DUM         cha         dum         cha

            DUM         cha         dum         cha         DUM         cha         dum         cha

This rhythmic cycle is the most common pattern of rhythm found in Western music. No doubt other cultures may produce different rhythm patterns. Ever eat at a Chinese restaurant? At my local Chinese establishment (with its addicting beef lo mein), when the lady takes your order, she then barks it back to the kitchen staff in Chinese. You can hear all the cooks barking back and forth in a speech that sounds foreign and jarring to my tender American ears. Why does it sound so jarring? Because the rhythm isn't what I'm used to! Can you recognize music that comes from the Orient? It has a certain sound, doesn't it? Part of this is the rhythm.

            Ever wonder why someone sounds a little pompous when they never use contractions and always use "he or she" instead of the ubiquitous "they"? It's because they are grammatically correct, but rhythmically challenged. It ain't right, but sometimes grammar and rhythm collide. "It ain't" has a different rhythm then "it is not", and often the "ain't" paints a better melody. Contractions also change the rhythm of a sentence, because they shorten things one syllable. One syllable doesn't sound like much, but consider:

            DUM         cha         dum         cha         DUM         cha         dum         cha

            DUM         cha         dum         cha         DUM         cha         dum         cha

            DUM     cha  cha        dum         cha         DUM         cha          dum        cha

            DUM         cha         dum         cha         DUM         cha         dum         cha

Oh, that hideous third line of rhythm!

            Do you happen to have a friend that likes to curse, and is also funny? You can be honest and tell me the truth. I'm only a blog, so I won't tell anyone:) Part of you may be thinking, "He shouldn't be saying those frickin-frackin words, that son of a blizzard!" Yet, part of you finds his colorful metaphors (with all those bleeping words and even his grammatically deficient sentence structures) not only appealing, but raucously hilarious! Why?

            Consider cursing for a moment. It's okay, I won't tell your mother. Cursing often involves short words or phrases that are rhythmic in nature. "The man who had sexual relations with my maternal parent" isn't as rhythmic as that, "MOTHER F, . . ." Well, you can fill in the rest! If you consider cursing from the standpoint of rhythm, curse words and phrases are a rhythmic Lego set that easily allows one to construct rhythmically powerful language.

            When building rhythm, it's often easier to use short, concrete words as opposed to long, abstract words. How often do you hear the word "exponentially" in a song? In Western music, the most common rhythm patterns are based on two, three, and four "syllables". Okay, "syllables" isn't the correct technical term, but for the moment we're looking at the similarity between music and language. In many ways, the beat of music is similar to the syllables of speech.

            There is a rhythm to speech we find appealing. That rhythm is similar to rhythm we tap our feet to or enjoy when we hear Dr. Suess. Rhythm is a foundational element to music, writing, and poetry. If you want success in those disciplines, you need to get your groove on. Rhythm is also the point where the three intersect. Song lyrics can be viewed as poetry that is voiced with an emphasis on changing pitch. Poetry is a song without strong emphasis on changing pitch. Music can be written without lyrics, but even without lyrics, there are certain patterns of rhythm our ears find appealing. Many of those patterns come from the way we speak our language.

Could Collective Bargaining be Uberized?

William looks at his half peanut butter sandwich. It’s all he can afford to eat. His wife, Wilma, a nurse, will be eating the other half later today at her lunch break. The only one in the family who eats a whole peanut butter sandwich is Willy Jr. And, sometimes, right before payday, even little Willy goes hungry.

William and Wilma work hard, yet they can’t seem to make ends meet. William picks at the blister on his hand. It has been bothering him all day, as he’s been making widgets for his company, Widgets R’ Us. William has sent out hundreds of resumes, all to jobs he’s highly qualified to do. But, none have panned out. He’s thinking about choking his neighbor Bob, who just yesterday was telling him, “If you don’t like your job, just find another.” Just find another! That’s not so easy. Like many workers, William has tried to find another, but jobs are scarce.

Meanwhile, Peter Pennipencher is riding in his limo to Widgets R’ Us. He is the CEO. His job is to pinch everyone—workers, customers, the government; it doesn’t matter to Peter, as long as his company makes profit. That’s the only thing he’s hired to do—make profit for investors. If he does that in the short term, he gets perks on top of his multimillion-dollar salary. Right now he’s reading about a company that produces widgets overseas. They produce them cheaply, and it has Peter thinking about moving production overseas.

William is thinking it would be wonderful to unionize. But, he’s scared. He’s met Peter, and he knows Peter is heartless. He wouldn’t hesitate firing anyone who even whispers the word, “union”. Plus, William has been misclassified as an independent contractor, and word has leaked out that independent contractors don’t have the right to form a union. There have even been rumors about severe legal actions that would be taken against them. Peter is behind all the rumors. A union ruins his whole scheme. Just imagine workers wanting decent pay, legal protection under the law, and benefits? It would cut into the company’s profits—and his stock options.

Peter is using every option at his command to “uberize” his workers. What he wants is a highly skilled, highly motivated, productive workforce; but, he doesn’t want to pay for it. He’ll use every trick in the book to cheat his workers out of pay and benefits. It’s what he’s paid to do! He uses all kinds of apps, computer models, and technological resources to coordinate his workers and eliminate the need for as many people as possible. It’s one of the reasons why his workers are so overworked.

But, let’s imagine for a moment that William and the other workers are able to unionize. The biggest barrier to that is fear. But, what if technology takes fear out of the equation? What if technology allows the workers to band together, but to do it anonymously? Without fear of retaliation, unionization might happen at the Widgets R’ Us factory, but workers are also afraid of outsourcing. But, what if the same technology that allows them to unionize, also allows them to coordinate with other workers in the factories overseas? What if it also allows them to coordinate with other workers in the same industry? All of a sudden, Peter’s power over his workers would fade. Right now, Peter’s workers are afraid of him? But, what if the tables turned? What if Peter was afraid of his workers?

Let’s imagine for a moment that a software developer comes up with an app called Unionize. It allows workers to anonymously sign up for an account and use a fake name on its online discussion board. It has to have an anonymous discussion board. Peter will eventually sign up for an account, and it’s important he sees how many of his worker want to band together, and what they really think of him and the company. It helps to increase the fear he experiences. It’s also good for Peter to know that his workers are coordinating their efforts with others in the industry, and the factories overseas. This increases his apprehension and his desires to appease his workers.

The app allows workers to pick their company, job title, and industry. As more workers sign up, it begins to build a database—of workers, companies, job titles, and industries. It also shows workers how many other similar workers are wanting to unionize to better themselves. It could be a powerful tool.

Imagine new features begin to be added to Unionize. It allows workers to chose whether they are classified as independent contractors or employees. It also has algorithms that estimate if workers were being misclassified, and if it is highly probably, the app immediately notifies the proper tax and labor departments. Now, more power is being given to workers.

Now, imagine the app includes categories of things such as wages, hours worked per week, paid sick days, paid vacation days, paid personal days, percentage of profit sharing, and cost of health insurance. The app could allow workers to choose what they felt were fair amounts for each of these categories. And, the app could include what the workers were actually receiving in each of these categories. Over time, the app would begin to give a picture of an industry. This information gives power to workers.

Now, imagine workers could supply estimates of how many workers were being employed by their employer. The app could track and make all this data available to users in real time. It could even provide algorithms that could estimate when a particular company has enough workers interested in either forming a union or trying to improve worker pay and/or conditions. And, since the app already has information about wages and benefits, it could provide suggestions as to worker demands. Such an app could also calculate currencies worldwide to the home currency of each user, so it could give a global overview of an industry.

Because such an app could coordinate the activities of workers around the world in a particular industry, it could be useful for coordinating worker strikes; both locally and globally. Workers would now have the power to force an industry to its knees, and bring management to the bargaining table! And, they could do it anonymously.

Of course, then comes the rub. Someone has to show up at the table. And, those workers would face possible retaliation. So, let’s give the app another feature. Imagine it allows workers to nominate third party arbitrators—people who would represent the workers, but not be attached to the industry. The app could also allow workers to reveal their identities if they would like to be representatives of a company’s workers or an industry.

If someone could only uberize collective bargaining, it would be a tremendous tool in raising income and benefits to workers worldwide. Unfortunately, I don’t have the skills to develop such an app. But, if you have the skills, please take my idea and run with it. We’re living in an era where our standard of living is plummeting, and the only reason I can see for it is so Peter can live even larger than he’s already living. We need the power to return to the people.

I Don’t Have Standard Students

            Auto manufacturers machine engine blocks to extremely tight tolerances. Each cylinder is exactly the same—not just for a single block, but for every block for that particular engine model. The reason why is obvious. They need the pistons to fit, and every piston for that particular engine is also exactly the same—machined to extremely tight tolerances. It’s one of those round-pegs-in-round-holes type of situations.

            Standardizing education is like machining engine blocks to tight tolerances. Some believe if the block is machined correctly, the outcome will be a smooth running learning machine. But, there’s a problem. Students aren’t like pistons. Each one is different. Some may fit the system like a glove, but some are a little more awkward—fitting like a foot in a glove. Or, even worse, some don’t fit at all.

            Suppose for a minute that auto manufacturers were no longer able to machine their pistons. Imagine they had to get all their piston from an outside source, and all the pistons were of various sizes. The only way they could make functioning engines is to start designing engine blocks to custom fit whatever pistons they had. The same applies to education. Bureaucrats have tried to mechanize learning, but in doing so, they haven’t followed a basic engineering principle. The peg must fit the hole!

            I am currently teaching online English classes to kids in China. One of my kids is a five-year old boy who is extremely energetic. Can you say ADHD? I knew you could! Now, imagine trying to teach English to this hyperactive little boy through an online system that resembles Skype. If I was in a face-to-face classroom, and had the freedom to teach him according to his learning style, I’d teach him English through calisthenics. J is for jumping jack: jump, jump, jump. P is for pushup: push, push, push. Today’s verb is run: run around the building, run around the building, run around the building. After he reached the point of exhaustion, I’d drag his little limp body to a desk and enjoy the 5 minutes of complete attention he’d give me until he fell asleep. Then, I’d go take a nap—a long nap, because this kid is exhausting!

            What do the “rules” of education say? They say when you’re teaching someone something that is new to go slowly—very slowly. The training the company I’m teaching for taught me to go very slowly for young kids. My thousands of hours of experience in the classroom say the same thing. We keep machining those cylinders that say, “for new material, go slowly—very slowly!” Now, I challenge you! Try to hold the attention span of a hyperactive, five-year old boy by going S-L-O-W-L-Y! I’m going S-L-O-W-L-Y, and all I see on my monitor is this kid crawling all over his room—jumping on the bed, showing me his feet (don’t ask me why, because I don’t know), playing with whatever toy he has in his hands, drinking his juice, . . . well, you get the point!

            Today I was teaching him the letter T—yeah me! Instead of going slowly, I instead tried speeding things up. Instead of, “T is for t-a-b-l-e” and then cupping my ear and waiting while he dances around the room, I sped it up and turned it into a little chant. Yes, I was being a little cheerleader with little dance moves and everything! “T is for table! T is for table! T is for table! T is for table!” While I wasn’t completely successful, because he has the attention span of a gnat, at times he starting parroting my cheers. High-speed, energetic chants seemed to work better than slow speed, patient conversation. Maybe this student is just a high-speed, energetic piston, and in order to reach him, I have to give him a high-speed, energetic cylinder. Today I broke the rules and I think it may have been the most successful lesson I’ve had with this kid in a long time. Sure, his attention faltered after about 15 minutes into his 25-minute lesson, but 15 minutes of decent attention was a miracle. Yes, I’m not an ordinary teacher. I’m a miracle worker! His attention did start to refocus near the end of the lesson as well. After class, I went down to the lake and was walking on water! Yes, I’m that good!

            Before we declare me a miracle worker, maybe I’m not the second coming. Maybe I was just following a basic principle of engineering—that the hole must be the right size for the peg. I don’t have any standard students. So, why does everyone want to keep forcing me to standardize education?