U2 concert

It's embarassing how one-tracked my mind has been since the U2 concert Dec. 7. Rather than search all over the internet and anywhere else for anyone who is talking (or willing to talk--or at least listen to me talk) about the U2 concert and eavesdropping or occasionally dropping some lame comment that exposes my healthy obsession, here was my experience of the concert to end all concerts.

First the context: We moved from Utah to New York in 2001, just after they (they will refer to the band U2 for the remainder of the post, and in my general language use until further notice) played in New York, and just before they were to play in Utah. I would of course miss both opportunities. We had also missed them by moving to Greece for 6 months in '97. I felt like I had been cursed to never see the one concert that I could ever really appreciate. Gabby couldn't figure out why she had never seen them play before either; it was a combination of bad timing on moves to DC and lack of transportation to Las Vegas. She was a big concert-goer in her day, but for some reason, she always missed them. In general, it was clear the world was conspiring against us.

I was a bit fanatic about U2 in Jr. High and High School. They are the only band about which I have read lengthy book(s). And I basically know every album by heart. They wrote the score for my youth. The backpacking trip to Gospel Hump was primarily October. The trip(s) to Lake Powell, and falling asleep most nights was the Joshua Tree. (I remember getting upset at Ricky Angulo because he only knew the songs on the radio from the Joshua Tree--everyone knows those! I knew like One Tree Hill, Red Hill Mining Town, Trip through your wires, etc. etc. etc.) Russia and the Summer before my mission was Achtung Baby. Most days after school was The Unforgettable Fire. Halloween with Cameron giving out Macaroni & Cheese to older trick-or-treaters was Rattle and Hum. The trip to Las Vegas for New Years was Zooropa. Baja was Pop. All that you can't and How to Dismantle are New York. Boy and War and Wide Awake in America and Under a Blood Red Sky were heavily sprinkled in between.

During the Summer of 1992, at my grandparents old cabin, we were watching Rattle and Hum, and Elliot Spencer made fun of Bono. I remember thinking something like: "I never thought anyone could think Bono was less than superhuman." But the seed of cynicism had been planted. Then I agreed with Elliot. Bono takes himself pretty seriously. Over the next several years, I became annoyed with (my perceived) Bono's self-importance and how serious he seemed to take himself.

How did I overcome this misinterpretation and get back to thinking he was superhuman again? It was a process called "growing up" and it culminated in the concert. A lot of the therapy came by way of recent conversations with Gabby. Our conversation concluded like this: "If Bono does what he does for a year or 2, then he's a dork. But when he just continues to be like he is, and does things about the political causes he discusses, and in general is consistently at once the biggest rock star persona and political activist, at some point, we have to accept that he is for real." I accept this now, and invite you to do the same.

I didn't own How to Dismantle prior to the concert. I looked up the play list from previous concerts and downloaded the songs off the new album so I wouldn't be taken too off guard. We listened to that CD the day before and on the drive to the concert. I really liked what I was listening to. Yahweh! Yahweh! don't break my heart today. I was imagining what it would be like to have all my childhood dreams fulfilled, but skeptical that I would actually get to witness the fulfillment, having them so mercilessly and frequently dashed before. When we got to Hartford (I gave up on tickets to MSG) I kept running ahead and getting annoyed that I was having to wait for Gabby: "Gabby, I know your pregnant, but if we miss the first song, we'll (I'll) be so upset." And I meant it. Wait this long, then miss their first appearance? I didn't know how long the opening act would take, and I definitely didn't know how long the break between opening act and real show would take. We waited in our seats for about 2 hours, each minute of which I looked stupider. But this was an experience 20 years in the making. I ought not blame myself for being a jerk probably.

The show began with some rocking song (help me here?), then City of Blinding Lights began. I could see Edge, Adam, and Larry, then all of a sudden, Bono appears. I wore an embarassingly big smile (it was already big seeing the other 3). Everything Bono says feels inspired. I just want to smile and nudge Gabby the whole time, to make sure she's catching it all. We sing along to every song, we lose our voices early on. Every song that comes on, and every encore, I feel the deeper magic just got deeper. If you've (you includes anyone, anyone at all that I have spoken with since--unless I was momentarily distracted) had a conversation with me since the concert, you've heard the other highlights: Bono chasing Edge. Bono saying: "She tells me its Wednesday; I'm pretty sure it's Saturday night!" Edge and Bono acoustic Stuck in a Moment. Gloria comes on and I had no idea how much I love that song.

The night is filled with memories from 20 years ago through yesterday. How many times have I air-guitared I will Follow or Bad or Where the Streets or Beautiful Day, or Desire, or In God's Country? Remember our homemade music video of Pride with Weston? How many times have I tried to impersonate Bono, trying to move like he does and feel my hair like he does and saying things like: "There's been a lot a talk about this next song..." or "Well here we are the Irish in America..." in my attempted Irish accent. Oh how I wish I had an accent!

After the concert, I'm still reeling. My sense is that they have invented what a rock band can be. They are the only band with a legitimate long-term vision. 25 years worth of solid songs and albums right up through last year. Even on the albums that others criticize, there are several strong songs, as part of a long-term strategy, they are fantastic. I left feeling how any band must want concert-goers to feel: That was amazing. It took me 20 years to be able to appreciate the show, and it took them 25 years to put together a show like that: our histories (and the history of the whole universe) converged. I wanted to hug the world and end poverty. I knew and loved every song and most every moment. I wanted another 10 hours, and I knew their material to fill it in, I wouldn't even mind some repeats. Which reminds me, where can I get that DVD of their Chicago show?

Guess that Movie

Ultra-sound results and more

Well, my suspicions were right. Dr. Stigler looked at my kidney stone and basically dismissed it. He said he would "send it off to have it analyzed." Great. Thanks Dr. Stigler. That's just what I want to have done to my kidney stone, have it analyzed in some laboratory. Nothing about how he had never seen one quite like it before. Nothing about the hard work I went through to bring it here. He did give me an ultra-sound and my kidneys are healthy. He mentioned that they were shaped like kidney beans. Cute, huh? I asked if I could keep the images, and he looked at me as if to say: "I suppose you could, but I don't understand why you would want to." Right, cause they're just like every other image of kidneys you see in your sick, prejudiced, uro-centric world. He also suggested I may have fertility issues. Huh.

bureaucracy and education

If you take efficiency as a key value in education, you at once subject the enterprise to eventual bureaucratic administration. This is because, as Max Weber argues, bureaucracies are 1. the most efficient form of administration, and 2. inevitable in the modern world.

Bureaucracy usually has a negative connotation, but I'm not trying to capitalize on the bad taste the word leaves in our mouths. I buy Weber's argument. He is not pro-bureaucracy, but he gives a good account of its characteristics and advantages. My favorite summary of his is this: "The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of organization. [and the clencher:] The fully developed bureacratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine with the non-mechanical modes of production." (Essays in Sociology, 214, my italics).

The strength of bureaucracy is also its problem: it transforms the people carrying out the associated work into functionaries; in the case of education, this includes teachers.

A few responses:
1. But teachers are critical precisely when they escape a functionary role!
2. Central to the work of teaching is a little thing called 'judgment'. A functionary is characteristically, and patently non-judging. To be a functionary is, in some sense, to not be a teacher.
3. A bad teacher is a bureacratically convinced teacher, i.e. one that approaches his work as so many rules to follow, or reduces students to instantiations of prescribed profiles for which, in any given situation, his work is to heed a list of straight-forward rules.

To which we can respond:
4. Get over it teachers, you're instruments!
5. Can a teacher realistically, and regularly do otherwise than the portrait of a bad teacher in #3?

To which we can respond:
6. If no for #4, can there be a tradition of "great teaching?" or is there hope to attract great teachers to teaching?

If Weber is right, what is a good relation between teachers and (in general) increasingly bureaucratic schools?

bead & bandaid

Last year Maude stuck a bead up her nose. I tried to get it out with tweazers, but I couldn't. Gabby took her to the emergency room. The emergency room doctors couldn't get it out with their grab-nabber. They called in one of those, oh what's the word? That's right, autorhinolaryngologist, so he tried with the provided grab-nabber, but couldn't get it, Then, Oh Fortuna! he had his very own special custom made grab-nabber and he retracted the bead. Maude is much more cautious about sticking things up her nose now.

Olive isn't nearly as cautious. Why, just this last Tuesday, at Pre-school, she sneezed out a rolled up bandaid. She was super excited to show it to her pre-school teacher. She put it in her pocket so she could show us when she got home also. She had put the bandaid up there on Sunday. When we asked about how it got there, first she said that the wind blew it up into her nose. She did come clean a minute later and confessed to putting it up there herself. She thought she had swallowed it, so we didn't worry.

The difference between Olive and Maude in sticking things up their noses is really just a matter of degree of deliberation. Maude sticking a bead up her nose is a pretty deliberate act. It is (more or less) difficult to get a bead up your nose accidentally. But Olive had a rolled up bandaid up there, so she had to first scrunch up the bandaid into a little ball and then cram it up her nose. More deliberate. Of course the remaining question now is which is generally more enticing? Off hand you might say the bead--of course everyone wants to put a bead up his nose. But now that you know you can get a rolled up bandaid up there, keep it for two days then sneeze it out? It has its own appeal, doesn't it?

Kidney stone

I really can't explain the connection I feel with the kidney stone I passed last week. You know, had I not gone through the pain of passing it, I couldn't love it like I do--like God wants me to. Somewhere in the great plan, God planned for me, little ol' Ben Blair to pass his very own kidney stone. I was so eager to see what it would look like. I have placed it in a little jar, and we anxiously await our first visit with Dr. Stigler, our urologist. Somehow I fear he'll treat my kidney stone like any other kidney stone. That is the sad thing about Doctors; they see so many patients and specimens, they often can't see what is special about the individual, in this case me and my specimen--my kidney stone. My worldly friends only see the downside to my passing a kidney stone. They can't understand the joy, joy such a quirky little pebble can bring someone.

select inventions

I think I understand the potential foolishness of sharing my invention ideas in such a public forum. But I also think I know the value of having such a public record should an idea be stolen. Let's be clear here, you have been warned--don't steal my ideas; now, I'm not opposed to working with others to bring these ideas to life, in fact I welcome it, I need some collaboration. It has been a disheartening lack of collaboration with certain authors whose last names rhyme with 'bowling' that has stymied my (and his or her) progress on a novel in a series I'm working on, but that's another story. I am pretty excited about these inventions, for the most part they have been gathering dust, though whenever I reconsider them, I get excited all over again. I welcome any feedback to push or refine the ideas, or tell me your inventions--maybe we can collaborate? OK, here they are:

1. Transfer pen: OK, this is a pen-shaped device that can replace, or at least change how we might think about computer networking, the conventional computer 'mouse', and conventional electronic file storage. It works like this: I notice some files on your computer desktop. I want to get one. In the past, I would have to have you save it to a disk, or e-mail it, or I would have to search through the files on a network to locate it. Not with the transfer pen. I bring my transfer pen, I place the tip of the pen on the icon of the file on the screen, it "picks up" the file, and it is now stored on the transfer pen! When I return to my computer, I simply place the tip of the transfer pen on my desktop, and I successfully upload the file onto my computer. I can also use the transfer pen to manipulate icons on my desktop; I can draw, write, or use it in any way I use my conventional mouse. Dang, I really need to draw a picture here to illustrate how it functions. Please, please use your imagination(s). To proceed from here, I really need someone who knows how to make a transfer pen, or get it one step closer. Know anyone?

2. Human flying (this idea is the roughest--but still extremely exciting): OK, this is basically a device that lets humans fly. It's not an airplane, it would use technology like a hover-craft, only it wouldn't require any extra devices or gear, and any kid could "hook up" and fly. Wouldn't you like to fly? Wouldn't you be willing to pay a pretty penny to be able to fly? So would I. And so would millions of people around the world. To proceed from here, I really need someone who knows how to build a more fitting hover-craft type of device without extraneous gear or devices.

etiquette journal: ballgames

I want to make a collection of etiquette journal entries. The idea is to provide basic guidelines and rubrics for improved etiquette. The first one is about etiquette at ballgames.

I think the first thing about etiquette at ballgames is that some people have really good food and other people don't. For example, at one ballgame, we had carrots, but the people next to us had my favorite pizza: pepperoni and sausage. Maybe one rule for etiquette at ballgames is that you could offer your neighbors a unit of your food (e.g. a half a sandwich, or a slice of pizza). People who really want your food don't always have the courage to ask, so good etiquette would be to offer them a taste. So even a comment like: "Would you like a taste of my hotdog/sandwich/pizza?" can go a long way. In retrospect, I probably should have offered them some carrots. But I thought I did.

The next thing about etiquette at ballgames concerns the vending and lines. Some people like a lot of condiments on their hotdogs, for example. If someone is in front of you in the line, it is because they got there first (usually--though if they didn't then an entirely different set of rules applies--etiquette can be complicated!) If someone got in the line before you, that means that they deserve to be in front of you. For the person in the front of the line, it doesn't really matter the length or the make-up of the line behind. And it is rude to say things like: "Hey, you're hogging all the catsup." or "Did you use the rest of the mustard because you needed like an inch thick of mustard, and now my 6 year old can't have any?" or "Hey there is a line behind you, do you really need that much relish?" I know that some people really do need that much relish, because it is delicious.

Related to the previous two things, if you have a hotdog, and you don't finish it, rather than waste it, you could ask your neighbor if he wants the rest of it. But often, your neighbor won't want to ask something like: "Are you going to finish that hotdog?" or "Could I please have the rest of your hotdog?" Remember etiquette involves a host of complications. For example, at ballgames, you often have never met your neighbor sitting next to you. The only bond you have is your team spirit if you are both cheering for the same team. And he/she may not be honest if you give a choice like: "Should I throw this away, or do you really want the rest of it?" So the best etiquette I think is to say something like: "I'm going to leave for a little bit, I really don't mind if you eat the rest of my hotdog, or if you throw it away, or give it to someone else. There will really be no way for me to know how it disappeared if it is gone when I come back, and I won't inquire after where it went either."

Ralph: Frankenstein, Maude: a pumpkin, Olive: Belle, Oscar: Oscar the Grouch

Halloween decisions have been finalized, and the results are in. Gabby decided to institute a "drop-dead-date" when costume decisions must be final. This was yet another demonstration of her unfathomable wisdom.

I guess the rule was mostly made for Ralph. Ralph averages changing ideas about what he wants to be for Halloween about 4 times per week. This year he has ranged from the boring: a ghost, to the cliched: a clown, to the zombie/robotic: Frankenstein (OK, it's cliched as well). These are intermixed with the generic: spy, adventure man, and astronaut. Other costumes under consideration for Ralph this year include: the headless horseman, a goblin, and Willie Wonka. See other costume ideas under consieration by Ralph here.

I liked Halloween as a child, but for my children it is as close to an ideal holiday as you can ask for. The activities for Halloween include: thinking about costumes, dressing up, seeing other kids dressed up, getting candy, and eating candy (and returning kit-kats, snickers, twix, and a portion of reesus peanut butter cups to Mom and Dad). For me, Halloween was reducible to the candy, and that was it and that was great, I saw the costume as more an obstacle to overcome in getting candy. (What are you Ben? Uh, I don't know. I found this robe in the closet, and this is my Dad's tie on my head. Do you have any candy?) Candy is huge for my kids, but so is the dressing up.

So Maude will be a pumpkin, and if she was someone else's kid I might say "Nice imagination!" (because I continually judge other parents severely, but I'm much more lax with me). But she will be adorable not only because she'll be a pumpkin (and any child dressed up like a pumpkin is usually cute) but she will complete the pumpkin. Actually, Maude basically completes any costume she ever wears. She is what parents hope their kids will look like with a given costume, but sadly and inevitably never do. You'll think I'm bragging when I tell you that...OK, I thought better.

I have read arguments against dressing as Disney princesses for Halloween, and I applaude the social consciousness of this view, and I understand the "nice imagination!" critique for Belle (i.e. Beauty in Beauty and the Beast) as well, but my response is this: 2 birds with one stone. Can you not appreciate that Olive gets to be Belle for Halloween, and she gets to dress up as Belle on any other day she dam wants? She will be loving herself (gazing in the mirror, dancing--i.e. twirling) all Halloween, and then November 1st, she'll dress up as Belle all over again! It really is that simple.

Oscar will be Oscar the Grouch. Because Oscar will always be Oscar the Grouch.
So, I'm pretty excited.

Elder Eli Jones memory

This is an account told me by one of my favorite companions on my mission, Elder (Eli) Jones. We also shared many great spiritual experiences, but this isn't one of those. Here is what happened to him:

He was in a college class, and they were talking about gender and appearance I believe:

Instructor: What is the first thing guys notice about girls...come on, this should be easy...

Eli Jones: Uh, their butts?

Class: (awkward murmuring)

Instructor: Anyone else?

Other Class member: Hair?

Instructor: Yes. Hair. A girl's hair is typically the first thing guys notice.

Robots

(this is part of a larger study I'm working on about robots)

With so much recent interest in robots, and with the possibilities that emerging technologies afford in working with and developing robots, I think its a good occasion to talk about robots.

Robots can do many things. For example, they can talk, walk, make cars, play soccer, and do the dishes. Probably the best robot is Richie Rich's robot maid, Irona. Also, electric Grandma--herself a robot--is a great robot. Probably the best feature about the electric Grandma is that she can pour juice out of her finger. There are also lots of different names for robots like mega-bots, junk-bots, humanoids, automatons, circuit-bots, microbots, and such.

People that don't like robots usually just don't understand robots, or haven't taken the time to get to know robots. There are some problems with robots. For example, if a robot runs into a wall or door or something else, it keeps walking. Also, their voices are a little bit wierd, here is a sample of how robots talk. Also they have a lot of things that can pop out of them, like different robot parts. You can learn about robots from a variety of sources: movies, TV, books, magazines, the internet (computers), robot experts, and history. I encourage you, if you haven't already, to learn more about robots.

Although most robots in movies move in mechanical ways, this can be misleading. For example, many robots don't even look like people, like some look more like dogs, or electrical boxes. Robots can move, compute, clean, lift up a piece of furniture with one hand and vacuum under it with the other, measure, add, and, as mentioned earlier, talk. One thing that allows some robots to do this is artificial intelligence. Probably the best way to describe artificial intelligence is to imagine a bowling ball that thinks. That is what artificial intelligence is like--a thinking bowling ball. What allows robots to have artificial intelligence? Simple: circuits.

The most basic, important feature of robots is probably circuits. No circuits, no robots. Know circuits, know robots. Unfortunately, many popular images of robots focus on wires, controls, and switches, not circuits. I think that we should probably learn more about circuits, and that would help us better understand robots. I think this is especially important if you want to become an expert on robots. Robots can be found all over the world, but most everyone in the world is not a robot.

If you want to learn more about robots, you can learn more about them here, here or here (this last link is a commercial site where people can buy robot parts. I don't make a commission if you purchase robot parts from them, but you might be interested in it anyway.) Here is an exciting blog about robots.

On Learning and Plateaus

I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that the problem of education is the problem of 'plateau-ing'. Here is what I mean: unless pushed, or moved in some way, we tend to settle. In most endeavors, we experience tremendous rapid growth or development, and then, for a variety of reasons, we taper off. I lived in Russia for 6 months as part of a pioneering English-teaching effort by my college, Brigham Young University. I lived with a Russian family and taught their son, 4-year old Andrei, English. I was also learning Russian, and this account will focus on my efforts, triumphs, and obstacles in learning Russian, and highlight my 'plateaus'. This account is typical of language learning for most people. I will divide it into a few phases.

Phase 1: Freshly arrived in Russia. I landed in Moscow, and was overwhelmed by the speed with which people spoke. I thought I had no chance to ever be able to communicate with these people. There was too much to learn!

Phase 2: A month or so later: I had now grown accustomed to some routine language used in the house and in my routine schedule: "Come for breakfast!" "Good morning!" "Good night!" "Do you want some more?" "Be careful, the doors are closing, next station...Shabolovskaya" etc. I could also use simple phrases to make my way around. I had come a very long way in a short time.

Phase 3: A month or so later: I could now engage in simple conversations with my host family, taxi drivers, and strangers. I could get around and handle most any problem that confronted me. I could on my own order Chambourgers (hamburgers), and buy fresh chleb (bread) and moroshna (ice cream). Again, I had come a very long way in a short time.

Phase 4: At the end of the 6 months: I certainly could engage in conversations more easily than I could during phase 3, but my perceived "pace" in learning Russian had slowed down significantly. From phase 3 on, I could get around; learning, or improving my Russian, was no longer a priority, I could function as is. I could add a word or expression here and there, but by and large, I was independent and could express myself with what I had. I had, in a word, plateaued.

It is possible that I had not really slowed down, but that my learning was not as apparent as it had been in the earlier phases. I think that it is surely the case that I was learning in less apparent ways, but I'm also convinced that my learning had slowed down. I did not need to listen as carefully now that I could get around. I did not feel the need to push myself to express what I could and continually expand my available language. I did not push myself to more and more fluidly speak, and closer approximate the understandings and utterances of native Russians. I was satisfied with what I could do, it worked for me.

We get accustomed to a certain standard and mode of communication, and close our eyes to its shortcomings. Occasionally, we have a conversation, or read something, and become aware that we still have far to go, but this sensation typically passes, and we find a comfort zone and pursue a path of least resistance to communicate 'adequately'. We find few people who can sustain a long-term apprenticeship to a language (or discipline). It requires a child-like attitude, humility, an eagerness to learn rather than show-off, a willingness to make mistakes and look foolish. In general, it requires a conviction that the issue is not to demonstrate how you can function as is, or that you can often pass off as a native, but rather the issue is to never be satisfied until you understand and speak as a native--which may never happen, but it is the appropriate course.

Two memories

When I was in 6th grade I was really hoping to get the presidential fitness award. I had just barely missed it the year before, and I was running around to the Star Wars theme a lot more in 6th grade, so I was more fit than past years. It (the presidential fitness level) seemed to come so easily to Matt (Lohner) Seth (Trammell) Scott (Cloward) and the like. They could do the 50 yard dash in like 7 seconds consistently, no problem. I kept missing it.

Finally I asked Mrs. Hill if I could try it galloping once. She was a bit confused by my request. I told her to trust me, just man the clock, and let me gallop. "Please. You'll see, I'm positive I can gallop faster than I run." Soon she would see, I imagined, that I was well within the presidential benchmark. She finally gave in to my pleadings. I imagined obliterating my best time and the rest of the class—first blown away by my speed—lining up to learn how to gallop. I galloped the 50 yards, feeling that my speed was pushing nature's boundaries, and impressing my classmates and other kids on the playground. I approached Mrs. Hill in a sort of "told you so" attitude, and she told me that I was a little bit slower than my previous run.

**********

To get the hiking merit badge, I had to complete a 5 mile hike through a city/village/or otherwise developed area. I asked Willard Gardner if he could be my counselor. I requested to do it like this: we would walk 2 miles to McDonalds, I would then order and eat a 20 piece chicken McNuggets, then we would walk back the long way home. He agreed, and that's what I did to complete my hiking merit badge.

Number 5 is alive

As a reward to my loyal readers, I'm letting you know before we've even told our families: We are expecting #5, due May 15.

Where I stand on global uniforms

So where do I stand on the whole global uniform issue? Briefly: I'm for it. But so I don't look too coo-coo, let me make as strong a case I can for rejecting a global uniform.

First there is the knee-jerk: I like to pick my clothes. Like probably many of you, I don't want to be "forced" into a “uniform” even if everyone else across the globe is doing likewise.

I think this knee-jerk reaction is probably pretty typical, and not just for silly reasons. Clothing has near universal religious, and cultural significance. Practically speaking, could there be a uniform that is acceptable to stringent clothing standards for e.g. the female face-covering apparel in the Mid- and Near East, that all others could get on board with? Not likely. And it's likewise not likely that we can easily get them to adopt something quite different. This brings up an important part of the issue. In considering a global uniform, we can't just flippantly disregard the religious and cultural significance of clothing. More generally, we can't look at clothing as simply a neutral "covering", and then go about pragmatically making the most sensible covering. So—to be clear—there is nothing that is straight-forward about the proposition of a global uniform, it is rife with controversy, we seem to run into significant religious and cultural obstacles the minute we even begin to explore the possibility.

Now I move from religious and cultural significance, to a more generic social tool that clothing plays. Not only from a human encountering another human needing to make some justifiable judgments--do a sorting of sorts--perspective where the efficiency of such sorting is dramatically increased when clothing is not uniform. (You and I can have a certain expectation about what kind of interaction we will have with: a man with a new suit and tie, a woman with a long, vibrant fur coat, or a young man with no shirt, cut offs and worn out Converse All Stars.) But also from the perspective of the man with a new suit and tie, the woman with the coat, and the skater; these people can create a sort of identity, and take on a persona that is deliberate and personally fulfilling. Not only can they take on a persona--and join in the tradition of people wearing suits, fur-coats, and cut-offs, but, to put it in more common terms: they can create and express their individuality. In today's world, and the forseeable future, such expressiveness is not only a basic human right, it’s basic to human dignity. To require a global uniform is to infringe on our basic humanity. Do you want to infringe on others' basic humanity?

Response: I genuinely have the knee-jerk reaction mentioned at the outset, and I appreciate that the issue is sensitive and complex. However, that our initial response is negative, and that a solution could be difficult is not reason to abandon any effort. At a time, emancipation seemed overly difficult and unappetizing, but it was in the end (as I hope all will agree), necessary and inevitable. It does suggest, however, that a persuasive enough case be made to motivate our best efforts to making a solution.

Now a few advantages: efficiency, improving social interactions across cultures and economic status, the result of schools that have tried suggest its good. So, first, efficiency. Obviously all costs associated with clothing take a nose-dive because of economies of scale. This in turn affects interactions between groups from differing socio-economic levels and makes perhaps the most frequently used prejudice obsolete (i.e. prejudice based on clothing). Schools provide an insightful lab. Schools as you know have conducted experiments with uniforms. Talk to a parent that has a child at a school where uniforms are required, chances are they are delighted that there is a uniform, it simplifies their child’s mornings, wardrobe, school anxiety, etc. Schools that have a required uniform don’t suffer from lack of individual expressiveness, rather, that expressiveness must turn to more creative forms than simply “apparel”. I would argue that that is a good thing. Further, schools that require a uniform systematically avoid problems of prejudice that more easily arise in non-uniform-requiring schools. Granted schools aren’t society, they do have characteristics of a social system—they are a sort of microcosm of society, and inasmuch as a simple adjustment can have important beneficial effects in this microcosm of society, I think it is worth exploring the possibilities of extrapolating from that experiment to society at large. What if we find the same or similar results? I think the promise is too great to neglect the effort, notwithstanding the difficulty it presents (let's be very realistic here the work ahead will be difficult).

At a fundamental level, I disagree with a claim, or at least an unstated assumption that individuality can only be expressed if one can pick his or her clothes. I think it is narrow-minded to think that we can't express our individuality if all share a global uniform. Do you really require your clothes to express yourself? To take a page from science fiction--which in a provocative sense makes a frequent portrait of future worlds with inhabitants as it were inevitably adorning a global uniform--Star Trek showcases heroes, heroines, sidekicks, intellectuals, villains, etc. Within the confines of the starship enterprise, we meet (metaphorically at least) the full spectrum of human possibility, yet for the most part, and for all intents and purposes, all share a uniform. Undoubtedly there are contemporary stringent religious and cultural dress codes, if we are talking about a 1-2 year solution, I think global uniforms are a stupid solution. But I think the problems associated with global apparel, and therefore workable solutions are much deeper and broader than that. I think it is near-sighted to only invoke the contemporary when a solution is sought for millennia. Obviously there is a lot to debate here, I will sum up my side by saying that if we can imagine a future world where there is a global uniform--however it got there--and I think conventional imagery of the future shares this imagination, why be so irrationally tied to the present?

Perhaps the most basic questions are these: What are the advantages of a global uniform? What are the disadvantages? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? If yes, then aren’t we obliged to explore in depth the possibility of realizing a better solution? I think they do and I think we are.

On exposure to target language

A respectable language learning program must expose students to a rich target-language environment. It shouldn't be so rich that the student is overwhelmed and "turns off", nor should it be so simple as to either not push the student, or be reducible to a list of words to master. Proper abundant exposure to the target language is, or ought to be a fundamental consideration of any (language) learning program. Swap 'discipline to be learned' for 'target language' in the previous sentence, and the same holds true for any educational program. The ideal level is perhaps best expressed by the popular 2nd language acquisition notion of "i+1". 'i' represents the linguistic level of the student (in the target language), and '+1' suggests that the program is a small push beyond that (too small or too big and students turn off). Noted language acquisition scholar Stephen Krashen says it like this: "[Language][a]cquisition is brought about when you talk to acquirers so that they understand the message, and when the input includes a little language that is somewhat beyond them." Comprehensible input, my esteemed associates, is a (if not the) holy grail of language learning.

There are numerous ways to make language comprehensible. A couple examples are diglot weaves and demonstration lectures. In diglot weaves, a student's native language is weaved together with the target language so as to provide a comprehensible context. The "stuff" that can be weaved ranges from individual words (When the boy was younger, he would often pick his nariz. This disturbed his parents, who told him it was bad manners for a boy his age to pick his nariz in public ) to language structures--so if a student is a native English speaker learning Spanish, the teacher speaks mostly English but according to a Spanish structure (the hombre no has the desire to eat the sandwich) Another example is a demonstration lecture. The idea is a lecture whose meaning is at the same time demonstrated, the meaning is clear because of the context, and the language simply accompanies. For example, imagine I have a white paper, a yellow paper, a white pencil, and a yellow pencil. I could say something like this (all in the target language): "This is a sheet of paper. This is also a sheet of paper. This is a pencil. This is another pencil. This paper is yellow. This pencil is also yellow. This paper is white. It is not yellow. These two are pencils. These two are papers..." In both of these examples, the underlying principle is bridging from familiar to unfamiliar. In diglot weaves we bridge from the familiar native language vocabulary and structure to the target language. In demonstration lectures, we bridge from familiar objects and descriptions to their expressions in the target language. We also avoid drilling vocabulary and phrases outside of a meaningful context. A more traditional approach would be to give students a list of words and phrases and demand that they memorize them. By being deliberate about making a rich "i+1" situation, we can delve into a richer linguistic environment, retain a comprehensible experience, and avoid the drudgery that typifies most language learning programs.

Stanley Cup

The Stanley Cup* Sports Challenge began in the Summer, 1999. The Stanley Cup consists of 10 events which change every year. If you were to add the scores of each participant from each Stanley Cup, I am likely in the top 3, if not the outright top spot. Put briefly: I am a force to be reckoned with in the Stanley Cup. Of course, if you know the Stanleys, this may not be saying a whole lot. Following are some highlights and events from past Stanley Cup Sports Challenges:
1. Pulling a compact car 10 feet on level ground with a rope.
2. Dips
3. Ping-pong tournament
4. Dodgeball
5. BMX biking around the block
6. Who can gather the most pennies from the bottom of the pool over two minutes
7. Race to the top of Black Hill in St. George**.
8. High Jump
9. Bocce
10. Batting cages (note for next time: it's hits that matter, not power)
11. Laser tag
12. Bean bag toss from Josh's hot air balloon
13. Stand up comedy routine
14. Who can hold his breath the longest under water
15. Archery
16. Joust
17. Peg-board
18. Sportsmanship***
19. The winner of each year's competition gets the bronzed guzzler and the Stanley Cup plaque with the names**** of all past winners.

Some notes:
Q:Isn't it sexist to not involve female participants in the Stanley Cup?
A:I suppose so.

Q:Could you explain the Stand up comedy routine?
A: Yes. This is one of my personal favorite memories. The Stand up comedy routine competition took place in the Stanley's back yard at about 2:30 in the afternoon, the sun was bright, the seating was limited, and the audience was comprised of the other participants and 2 judges. Each participant had one minute to perform his routine in front of all the other participants (who had a vested interest in NOT thinking the other participants were funny). Imagine continuously striving (for 60 seconds) to be funny to a hostile, quiet crowd standing about 5 ft from you in bright daylight. I didn't do very well, but one joke I told that I still love (co-developed with Weston Spencer ca. 1989) goes like this:
Q: What is the longest thing known to man?
A: String


*My wife's maiden name is Stanley. The Stanley Cup takes it's name from her family (the Stanleys), and the Cup is a "bronzed" Guzzler used by my late Father-in-law, Mike Stanley.
**The Stanley Cup typically takes place in St. George, all legitimate Stanley Cups have been held here, except the one in New York.
***Sportsmanship is a separate event each year. This ensures that all participants conduct themselves in the spirit of good sportsmanship. It isn't actually true that sportsmanship is an event each year or any year.
****Each year's winner actually selects a "nickname" to go on the plaque. Past selected nicknames include: Jed, Snaggle-tooth, Pony-boy, and Pac-man. Technically, Pony-boy has never been selected.

9 to 5

On Devon Call

People who know lots of my friends may be surprised that I probably laugh the hardest when I remember activities of Devon Call. He wasn't your typical class clown, or the guy with all the witty come-backs. Here are two scenes that illustrate for me why Devon makes me laugh.

One thing that is absolutely essential for you to know about the Call family is that they are always on the serious cutting edge with regard to telephony technology. For example, they had conference call before the rest of us even had such a concept. An entertainment activity Devon would do went like this: He would call up two people, sometimes they were boyfriend and girlfriend, sometimes they were a couple that had recently broken up, sometimes they were strangers that maybe had heard of each other. Devon would get one member of the couple on, and immediately say: "Oh, sorry, one second..." Then he would get the other member on and immediately say: "Oh, sorry, one second..." Then he would patch the two together and we could listen in on a muted phone. It was usually awkward (in an entertaining way) for the couple to start talking, neither daring to ask why the other called. And it was entertainingly awkward for either to say anything like: "Thanks for calling." Because the other would say, "Wait, did you think that I called you?" etc.

*****
At his welcome home from his mission to Australia, Devon shared the meeting with another returned missionary, Twila Newey, who had recently returned from Hawaii. Twila was the first speaker. How did she begin her talk? Of course you know: Brothers and Sisters...Aloha! And the congregation responded in unison: Aloha! And as I recall, she gave an impassioned and spiritually uplifting talk.

Then it was Devon's turn, he got up and said: "Brothers and Sisters...G'day!" Most of the congregation shifted in their seats, then maybe 10-15 members hesitantly and questioningly responded: "G'day?"

I'm just a regular guy

Yeah, I just wanted to tell everyone that I'm just a regular guy. I know that's hard for some to imagine; but believe me, I'm just a normal person with normal wants and needs. It's really not all that complicated at all. I'm just a regular person!!