Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
cowards
Annually, my buddy Kenny comes to Boston to visit and watch the Boston Marathon. Patriots Day, the day of the marathon is a festive time, one that is difficult to describe. The Red Sox play a game that starts at 11 in the morning. The marathon begins at 930 a.m and runners stream across the finish line from one o'clock until 5. Kids are there with balloons cheering on their mothers and fathers. Runners have cheering sections. Some wear signs that read Joan, so that spectators can shout "Go Joan Go" for 26 miles. Racers draped in aluminum covers are exhausted but are smiling as they have completed the race and are embraced by their loved ones. Fans who have exited the Red Sox game parade around in their Red Sox caps, jackets, and sweatshirts. It is a big party.
This year we got a late start out of the house and were en route to the finish line when we got the news that there had been an explosion. We continued downtown, parked at my university which is about a mile from the bomb scene. We walked towards the finish line. We saw people sobbing; runners draped in their aluminum shawls were subdued; spectators stunned. We got into the Sheraton where at least 100 maybe 200 runners and their families congregated in the lobby. A fellow from Toronto told us that his wife had just crossed the finish line when the bombs went off.
Not sure coward is a strong enough word to describe the gutless individuals who decided to plant a bomb in a crowd. An 8 year old is dead. Body parts and blood littered Boylston street. For what? Some political statement? Very likely to persuade me that a cause is just by spinelessly killing innocent people and maiming others.
I look forward to next year. I will try to get an early start. I want to be sure to get a spot on Boylston street and cheer for the runners and spit in the face of the gutless chumps who think their cowardly act is justified. And I know I will not be alone.
This year we got a late start out of the house and were en route to the finish line when we got the news that there had been an explosion. We continued downtown, parked at my university which is about a mile from the bomb scene. We walked towards the finish line. We saw people sobbing; runners draped in their aluminum shawls were subdued; spectators stunned. We got into the Sheraton where at least 100 maybe 200 runners and their families congregated in the lobby. A fellow from Toronto told us that his wife had just crossed the finish line when the bombs went off.
Not sure coward is a strong enough word to describe the gutless individuals who decided to plant a bomb in a crowd. An 8 year old is dead. Body parts and blood littered Boylston street. For what? Some political statement? Very likely to persuade me that a cause is just by spinelessly killing innocent people and maiming others.
I look forward to next year. I will try to get an early start. I want to be sure to get a spot on Boylston street and cheer for the runners and spit in the face of the gutless chumps who think their cowardly act is justified. And I know I will not be alone.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
technology and sport
The conference I am attending is winding down. It has been about using new technology to enhance education and implementing on-line courses and programs. It has been illuminating. I've learned about new technologies and best practices. I've a new vocabulary--often acronyms--and met vendors who are offering services that I would not have thought are available. Also, implicitly, and sometimes explicitly--hazards of new technology in education have been identified. Implicitly, in that nearly every session that I attended that relied on technology to explain new technology had some failure of technology that impeded and retarded the progress of explaining the value of the new technology. Still, on balance, there is a need to explore and examine how to use on-line learning to complement conventional learning.
When yesterday's sessions ended about 6 pm Pacific time, I went down to watch the end of the Red Sox game. The Sox led 5-3 going into the ninth. The closer came in and gave up a homer to the first batter. 5-4. He then got two quick outs. With two strikes on the next batter, the Oriole hitter fisted a seeing eye single between third and short. The pitcher walked the next hitter. The Red Sox were still ahead 5-4, first and second, two outs. The next batter worked the count to 3 and 2. One strike away from a victory. The pitcher then threw a beautiful pitch on the inside corner, strike three.
Except it wasn't., The umpire called it a ball. The replays showed that the pitch was a strike. Not a subjective call. It was in the strike box. Still the umpire called it a ball. The pitcher glared in at the ump and then shook his head incredulously.
Bases loaded. Next pitch traveled about forty feet as opposed to the 60 feet 6 inches. It bounced away from the catcher and the tying run came in. Next pitch was a meatball that the batter hit to the moon. Red Sox lose 8-5.
What about new technology. In tennis a machine can determine if a ball is in or out, in football a machine is used to assess the legitimacy of a touchdown. Why not in baseball? That was strike three in the Red Sox game as even a primitive machine could determine. In the same way that technology can enhance education, can't technology impove our game.
Not so fast. I like the Red Sox, but I think you have to be careful when employing technology in sport. I find, for example, the replays in college football enough for me to change the channel during games. The capabilities of new technologies, in sport, like in education, should be used not simply because they can be used. The question to ask is will the effect of using new technology--recognizing all of the limitations-- enhance the overall objective of the activity. When you fall in love with technology you sometimes overlook limitations that surface subsequently and undermine the ostensible value of the tool.
When yesterday's sessions ended about 6 pm Pacific time, I went down to watch the end of the Red Sox game. The Sox led 5-3 going into the ninth. The closer came in and gave up a homer to the first batter. 5-4. He then got two quick outs. With two strikes on the next batter, the Oriole hitter fisted a seeing eye single between third and short. The pitcher walked the next hitter. The Red Sox were still ahead 5-4, first and second, two outs. The next batter worked the count to 3 and 2. One strike away from a victory. The pitcher then threw a beautiful pitch on the inside corner, strike three.
Except it wasn't., The umpire called it a ball. The replays showed that the pitch was a strike. Not a subjective call. It was in the strike box. Still the umpire called it a ball. The pitcher glared in at the ump and then shook his head incredulously.
Bases loaded. Next pitch traveled about forty feet as opposed to the 60 feet 6 inches. It bounced away from the catcher and the tying run came in. Next pitch was a meatball that the batter hit to the moon. Red Sox lose 8-5.
What about new technology. In tennis a machine can determine if a ball is in or out, in football a machine is used to assess the legitimacy of a touchdown. Why not in baseball? That was strike three in the Red Sox game as even a primitive machine could determine. In the same way that technology can enhance education, can't technology impove our game.
Not so fast. I like the Red Sox, but I think you have to be careful when employing technology in sport. I find, for example, the replays in college football enough for me to change the channel during games. The capabilities of new technologies, in sport, like in education, should be used not simply because they can be used. The question to ask is will the effect of using new technology--recognizing all of the limitations-- enhance the overall objective of the activity. When you fall in love with technology you sometimes overlook limitations that surface subsequently and undermine the ostensible value of the tool.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
celebrity
While waiting for my flight out to this conference I spotted a fellow with whom I work at the University. He was going out to the same city but for a different conference. He saw me and came over to where I sat.
"Belichick's on the plane." he said.
"Belichick's on the plane?"
Belichick's on the plane.
Two women came up to my colleague. Apparently, the three of them had met in the restaurant near the gate.
One of the women said. "You weren't kidding. He is right there."
"I told you" said my colleague. "He was right behind me on the security line."
The plane we were on was full, and who knows who was on the flight. High powered physicians, millionaires, authors, professors of all stripes, ---all "nobodies" in terms of celebrity. When my colleague mentioned that Belichick was on the flight I stood up and scanned the area. I saw him sitting with his companion away from the crowd. I also noticed a police presence by the gate accompanied by someone who appeared to be doing some sort of security work.
When we boarded he went on first. He smiled warmly to all those looking at him. I thought it must be difficult to be known wherever he goes. And to have absolutely no anonymity at least in New England. When I got on the plane he and his girlfriend were in the front row and, so help me, he was reading one of the magazines you can buy at a newstand, a magazine that I always thought was just for fans--PRO FOOTBALL.
I forgot about him during the flight. It was an easy but long ride and I was beat when we landed. Now, it was after 2 a.m. my time with a guaranteed extra hour to get my bag and go to the hotel. I followed the signs to the baggage claim and was reminded of the celebrity on the flight. I thought that there was no way he was going to be by the baggage claim. But he was there, waiting with the rest of us, for suitcases. Again there was a security presence around him and while he did not seem to be offputting there was nobody within a ten foot radius except his companion. When the bags finally arrived, the security folks picked up the bags and they walked towards whatever ground transportation that had been arranged.
I've got to think that gets old after a spell. Can this guy buy a doughnut without having to bring an agent with him to keep the fandom away? More than most of the players, this guy's mug is familiar to nearly everyone who watches football games. There are the perks after all. He has some shekels and I bet he did not have to wait on the line I waited on to get a cab. But still, my guess is that he would like to be left alone every once in a while to read his Pro Football magazine.
"Belichick's on the plane." he said.
"Belichick's on the plane?"
Belichick's on the plane.
Two women came up to my colleague. Apparently, the three of them had met in the restaurant near the gate.
One of the women said. "You weren't kidding. He is right there."
"I told you" said my colleague. "He was right behind me on the security line."
The plane we were on was full, and who knows who was on the flight. High powered physicians, millionaires, authors, professors of all stripes, ---all "nobodies" in terms of celebrity. When my colleague mentioned that Belichick was on the flight I stood up and scanned the area. I saw him sitting with his companion away from the crowd. I also noticed a police presence by the gate accompanied by someone who appeared to be doing some sort of security work.
When we boarded he went on first. He smiled warmly to all those looking at him. I thought it must be difficult to be known wherever he goes. And to have absolutely no anonymity at least in New England. When I got on the plane he and his girlfriend were in the front row and, so help me, he was reading one of the magazines you can buy at a newstand, a magazine that I always thought was just for fans--PRO FOOTBALL.
I forgot about him during the flight. It was an easy but long ride and I was beat when we landed. Now, it was after 2 a.m. my time with a guaranteed extra hour to get my bag and go to the hotel. I followed the signs to the baggage claim and was reminded of the celebrity on the flight. I thought that there was no way he was going to be by the baggage claim. But he was there, waiting with the rest of us, for suitcases. Again there was a security presence around him and while he did not seem to be offputting there was nobody within a ten foot radius except his companion. When the bags finally arrived, the security folks picked up the bags and they walked towards whatever ground transportation that had been arranged.
I've got to think that gets old after a spell. Can this guy buy a doughnut without having to bring an agent with him to keep the fandom away? More than most of the players, this guy's mug is familiar to nearly everyone who watches football games. There are the perks after all. He has some shekels and I bet he did not have to wait on the line I waited on to get a cab. But still, my guess is that he would like to be left alone every once in a while to read his Pro Football magazine.
Monday, April 8, 2013
on line education
At the airport waiting for my flight to a conference that will describe new technologies in on line education. This is a big ingredient in contemporary university success. A while back I was involved in creating an on line version of an on ground program. I understand that the on line version is more than twice as popular as the on ground version. Universities across the country are exploring how to deliver courses meaningfully using this format. This is why I sit in the airport.
What has been particularly educational thus far is the horrific traffic jam I endured on the way to the airport having selected a departure time from work which coincided with the end of a Red Sox 3-1 victory at Fenway Park, a neighbor of my university. The traffic was the bad news. The good news is that the Logan airport folks had plenty of attendants at the bag check in as well as the security lines so despite the crawling traffic I am comfortably by the gate.
There is some interesting entertainment nearby. A family of what I take to be triplets sit to my left. The kids look to be about four, two girls and a boy. The mother, moments ago, came by with huge hamburgers for the clan to consume. Watching these kids wrestle with the hamburgers might prove to be more entertaining than the finals of the NCAA tournament tonight. Las Vegas would not have laid odds that these kids could finish the burgers without a mess, but they appeared to do so. Very happy looking quintet my neighbors. Also a literary bunch. Two of the three kids are reading Harry Potter novels which makes me wonder about their age, though they truly are pipsqueaks. The third is nibbling on his last french fry and at the clip of his nibbling, it ought to last the transcontinental flight.
I want to be dispassionate about on line education possibilities. My gut reaction is that for serious students it can be great for a number of reasons. You can work at your own pace; you do not have to live near the university where the course is being offered; you can engage in a way you might be reluctant to if you were in person and on-ground. Instructors who are shy or poor speakers in a classroom setting, can plan intelligently and avoid problems that oral communication apprehension might create.
I remember, however, reading an article several years ago about the benefits of high touch vs high tech. For good on-ground teachers, on-line would eliminate their skill of generating discussion based on nonverbal perceptions and familiarity with students that you can gain only by regular contact. And how do you deal, as an instructor, with testing and corner cutting wise guys. Looking forward to seeing how that might be addressed by the presenters at this conference.
The couple who has parented these three kids who manhandled their burgers moments ago, I wonder how they met. In a class maybe. They didn't produce these kids on line. If they are showing some technology for that at this conference I imagine it will be tough to get a seat at the workshops.
Had an acquaintance from the health club. Guy was a nice fellow but spent a lot of time moaning about how he had not met anyone (Interestingly, a lot of the women at the health club would complain similarly making me wonder at times if one group could hear how it was implicitly insulting the other). Point is, one day about ten years ago he was bouncing around the locker room like a guy who had caught the love bug. Because he had. He met someone on line, and the two discovered they were meant to be. Never saw her before the electronic connection. Anyway he started talking to anyone within twenty lockers about how great things were. He told all that he planned to drive down to North Carolina I think it was, pick her up, and then get married a week after they arrived in Boston.
I did not know the guy that well, but I suggested a more conservative course. He waved me away as if I was a fly landing on his nose. Why wait he said without any sense of anything that I could identify as logical. Haven't seen the guy in years, so I don't know how it all came out.
Can you learn meaningfully on line? Fall in love? The former will be explained in the next two days. Don't think the couple to my left with the three extraordinarily well behaved kids would answer affirmatively to the latter.
What has been particularly educational thus far is the horrific traffic jam I endured on the way to the airport having selected a departure time from work which coincided with the end of a Red Sox 3-1 victory at Fenway Park, a neighbor of my university. The traffic was the bad news. The good news is that the Logan airport folks had plenty of attendants at the bag check in as well as the security lines so despite the crawling traffic I am comfortably by the gate.
There is some interesting entertainment nearby. A family of what I take to be triplets sit to my left. The kids look to be about four, two girls and a boy. The mother, moments ago, came by with huge hamburgers for the clan to consume. Watching these kids wrestle with the hamburgers might prove to be more entertaining than the finals of the NCAA tournament tonight. Las Vegas would not have laid odds that these kids could finish the burgers without a mess, but they appeared to do so. Very happy looking quintet my neighbors. Also a literary bunch. Two of the three kids are reading Harry Potter novels which makes me wonder about their age, though they truly are pipsqueaks. The third is nibbling on his last french fry and at the clip of his nibbling, it ought to last the transcontinental flight.
I want to be dispassionate about on line education possibilities. My gut reaction is that for serious students it can be great for a number of reasons. You can work at your own pace; you do not have to live near the university where the course is being offered; you can engage in a way you might be reluctant to if you were in person and on-ground. Instructors who are shy or poor speakers in a classroom setting, can plan intelligently and avoid problems that oral communication apprehension might create.
I remember, however, reading an article several years ago about the benefits of high touch vs high tech. For good on-ground teachers, on-line would eliminate their skill of generating discussion based on nonverbal perceptions and familiarity with students that you can gain only by regular contact. And how do you deal, as an instructor, with testing and corner cutting wise guys. Looking forward to seeing how that might be addressed by the presenters at this conference.
The couple who has parented these three kids who manhandled their burgers moments ago, I wonder how they met. In a class maybe. They didn't produce these kids on line. If they are showing some technology for that at this conference I imagine it will be tough to get a seat at the workshops.
Had an acquaintance from the health club. Guy was a nice fellow but spent a lot of time moaning about how he had not met anyone (Interestingly, a lot of the women at the health club would complain similarly making me wonder at times if one group could hear how it was implicitly insulting the other). Point is, one day about ten years ago he was bouncing around the locker room like a guy who had caught the love bug. Because he had. He met someone on line, and the two discovered they were meant to be. Never saw her before the electronic connection. Anyway he started talking to anyone within twenty lockers about how great things were. He told all that he planned to drive down to North Carolina I think it was, pick her up, and then get married a week after they arrived in Boston.
I did not know the guy that well, but I suggested a more conservative course. He waved me away as if I was a fly landing on his nose. Why wait he said without any sense of anything that I could identify as logical. Haven't seen the guy in years, so I don't know how it all came out.
Can you learn meaningfully on line? Fall in love? The former will be explained in the next two days. Don't think the couple to my left with the three extraordinarily well behaved kids would answer affirmatively to the latter.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
horrible call
The jump ball call giving Louisville the ball with 6 seconds left is one of the worst calls of all time.
This gave Louisville the game. The call should have been a "no call" and a play on. If a whistle had to be blown on that play it could have been a foul on Hancock.
It was a shame for this excellently played game to be decided by such a decision.
This gave Louisville the game. The call should have been a "no call" and a play on. If a whistle had to be blown on that play it could have been a foul on Hancock.
It was a shame for this excellently played game to be decided by such a decision.
Gone for Good: Book Review
Now that novelist Robert Parker has passed I am on the lookout for fast reads that are similar. Parker was the author of the Spenser novels (as well as two lesser known crime series) and his books were very easy to read and often--but not always--left you with some lesson to contemplate. The stories could get repetitive and his depictions of Susan Silverman (Spenser's sweetheart) and Hawk (Spenser's friend) were stick figures with a bad case of anorexia. Still, you could breeze through the novels and they more often than not were more than just a tale.
I've enjoyed some of the Ed McBain 87th precinct series. Kiss is a real good one. McBain is also Evan Hunter and, I'm guessing, wanted to keep his cop series (authored by McBain) and other writings (authored by Hunter) separate. One of the best 87th precinct novels, however, is called Candyland which is brilliantly presented in two parts, the first written by "McBain", the second by "Hunter".
Had good luck with a few of the John Sandford books too, but some of the Prey series are just too bloody for me. Worked with a fellow in the post office once who asked me if a movie I'd seen had "a lot of killing in it." He went on to explain his inquiry by adding "I don't like any movies without any killing." This guy would love the Prey books. The Virgil Flowers offshoot are sometimes fun but the stories are often very repetitive. Flowers goes to a town where there is a murder. It involves some sexual activity. He gets involved with someone sexually. He solves the crime with the help (or not) of his bed mates.
There are other authors I've tried too, but I have not found a consistent winner among the whodunit yarns-- haven't found a lock as we say in the casinos--an author you can turn to and know that you can pick her/his book up, you will like it, it will not be ridickalus in terms of plot or a character's superhuman qualities, and the story will hang around in your head for a while.
A few weeks back, there was a two page ad in the Times about a new Harlan Coben novel. I never heard of the guy. Looked him up on the internet and apparently I don't read enough because this guy has written many novels and has quite a loyal following. I found the reviews from Amazon and picked out the Coben books that had the highest rating. Gone for Good was one of them. Coincidentally a local library was having a used book sale. I brought the list to the sale, found Gone for Good and started reading this past Monday.
It is, as advertised, a page turner. But the twists and turns while engaging are so unlikely that I can't hang the story anywhere when I think about it. If you think you might want to read the book, you might want to skip to the next paragraph, but it's not essential. I will not give the whole thing away. Here's the frame. Guy is in love and trying to find his missing brother who, eleven years ago, was accused of killing the main character's ex sweetheart. The brother ran from the crime scene and is thought of as dead, but the brother is told by his dying mother that the brother is alive. So, the main character tries to find his brother and then lots of stuff happens involving his current love, his former girlfriend's sister, a transformed redneck, a couple of ne'er do wells who like killing people, a cop seeking personal justice, a seedy ex doctor in las vegas, and a child.
Is it a good read? Well, it doesn't pass the ridikalus test. Lots of stuff happens zip zip that could not happen so quickly. Guy gets the crap beat out of him and the next day is out bouncing around town following clues. Guys make it from New Mexico to New York in no time. People pop out from behind trees conveniently. So, it does not pass the ridickalus test. And, as I wrote, I don't think it will pass the hanging around in my head test either.
What will hang around in my head is not the story, but the title. Gone for Good. A number of times I looked at the book cover and the words stared back at me. One particular night the words seemed especially ominous when my cat decided to hit the late bars and did not come back until around midnight causing some distress in the household. Must have had a hot date. But he came back. The thought of him gone for good was not comforting. Nor is it comforting when you face the reality or even possibility, like the character had, that someone you love may be gone for good. You'd have to read the book to know who among the many characters in this novel is indeed gone for good and who you might think will be, but is not. Maybe this is an applicable message from the novel. In life, we have to live it out to know for sure who in our lives among the living are in fact gone for good.
I've enjoyed some of the Ed McBain 87th precinct series. Kiss is a real good one. McBain is also Evan Hunter and, I'm guessing, wanted to keep his cop series (authored by McBain) and other writings (authored by Hunter) separate. One of the best 87th precinct novels, however, is called Candyland which is brilliantly presented in two parts, the first written by "McBain", the second by "Hunter".
Had good luck with a few of the John Sandford books too, but some of the Prey series are just too bloody for me. Worked with a fellow in the post office once who asked me if a movie I'd seen had "a lot of killing in it." He went on to explain his inquiry by adding "I don't like any movies without any killing." This guy would love the Prey books. The Virgil Flowers offshoot are sometimes fun but the stories are often very repetitive. Flowers goes to a town where there is a murder. It involves some sexual activity. He gets involved with someone sexually. He solves the crime with the help (or not) of his bed mates.
There are other authors I've tried too, but I have not found a consistent winner among the whodunit yarns-- haven't found a lock as we say in the casinos--an author you can turn to and know that you can pick her/his book up, you will like it, it will not be ridickalus in terms of plot or a character's superhuman qualities, and the story will hang around in your head for a while.
A few weeks back, there was a two page ad in the Times about a new Harlan Coben novel. I never heard of the guy. Looked him up on the internet and apparently I don't read enough because this guy has written many novels and has quite a loyal following. I found the reviews from Amazon and picked out the Coben books that had the highest rating. Gone for Good was one of them. Coincidentally a local library was having a used book sale. I brought the list to the sale, found Gone for Good and started reading this past Monday.
It is, as advertised, a page turner. But the twists and turns while engaging are so unlikely that I can't hang the story anywhere when I think about it. If you think you might want to read the book, you might want to skip to the next paragraph, but it's not essential. I will not give the whole thing away. Here's the frame. Guy is in love and trying to find his missing brother who, eleven years ago, was accused of killing the main character's ex sweetheart. The brother ran from the crime scene and is thought of as dead, but the brother is told by his dying mother that the brother is alive. So, the main character tries to find his brother and then lots of stuff happens involving his current love, his former girlfriend's sister, a transformed redneck, a couple of ne'er do wells who like killing people, a cop seeking personal justice, a seedy ex doctor in las vegas, and a child.
Is it a good read? Well, it doesn't pass the ridikalus test. Lots of stuff happens zip zip that could not happen so quickly. Guy gets the crap beat out of him and the next day is out bouncing around town following clues. Guys make it from New Mexico to New York in no time. People pop out from behind trees conveniently. So, it does not pass the ridickalus test. And, as I wrote, I don't think it will pass the hanging around in my head test either.
What will hang around in my head is not the story, but the title. Gone for Good. A number of times I looked at the book cover and the words stared back at me. One particular night the words seemed especially ominous when my cat decided to hit the late bars and did not come back until around midnight causing some distress in the household. Must have had a hot date. But he came back. The thought of him gone for good was not comforting. Nor is it comforting when you face the reality or even possibility, like the character had, that someone you love may be gone for good. You'd have to read the book to know who among the many characters in this novel is indeed gone for good and who you might think will be, but is not. Maybe this is an applicable message from the novel. In life, we have to live it out to know for sure who in our lives among the living are in fact gone for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
