The History Boys

Now to try the review in bullet point format.

• The characters are a bit stagy, very outgoing in class, but then this happens a lot in films set in classes.
  
• A little surprising to have them sing in class and re-enact classic films. Movie directors just love old films, don't they?
  
• None of the teachers are recognizable (to me), and aren't particularly attractive, but all good actors. Kudos for casting choice.
  
• Despite dealing with a rather controversial topic (teachers who have a thing for their students), the students seem rather tolerant. They see it as an annoyance.
  
• Far more literate (movie, literature, history) than most movies set in schools, which often ignore the education aspects.
  
• Humor is subtle, which is rare in film. Sometimes a look, sometimes using analogy (a song, history) to make a point.
  
• Addresses (somewhat) the issue of teacher interest in students.
  
• Probably missing something because it's British. In particular, the pecking order of various colleges, and how Oxbridge sits atop this pecking order.
  
• This extra study period is not that familiar to me (it appears they have more school after school to prep for the Oxbridge exams).
  
• The film focuses on a small handful of characters, three teachers, and half a dozen students. Rest of school, outside influences, are pretty much ignored.
  
• With so many characters, stereotypes are used to some extent. The Muslim, the black, the Catholic, the Jew. Some of the questions they ask seem a bit out of place given that they should all know each other pretty well.
  
• The film doesn't much question whether these students should go to Oxbridge or not, except for Rudge, who just wants to play sports. But his character is a bit minor.
  
• Wasn't sure how they were going to play Hector off Irwin. At first, I thought they would be rival teachers, and they are, philosophically, but not personally.
  
• A bit surprising to have Dakin so nonchalant about his sexuality and willingness to experiment, but it does raise an interesting point about bright kids wanting to impress their teachers (he says as much at one point).
  
• It's slyly funny, getting knowing laughs. This isn't the usual kind of humor you see in films, though perhaps more of what you might get in plays. Feels like the sensibilities of those writing plays and those writing screenplays are quite different. Plays seem to make a greater effort to be liked than films, which can simply be confusing. This may be due to the nature of a play, which often survives by staying on for months and months and months. To do so requires a storyline people really enjoy when they leave, meaning it should be smart, but likable.
  
• A bit PC to have such a mix of kids, but the black kid and the Muslim are fairly minor characters.
  
• Film is very male-centric. Although Dakin has a girlfriend, it's Posner's longing for Dakin that is the story. Dakin's relation with the girlfriend is mostly about getting to bed with her, not treating her as a person. He has a far more complex relation with Irwin, the teacher.
  
• Irwin looks a lot like Stephen Colbert.
  
• Does the actor playing Hector really have teeth like that? Ah British dentistry.
  
• A bit of a copout on the ending, I thought.
  
• The film seems to know it's smart, and rewards the clever viewer for following along.
  
• Headmaster is, of course, a bit stereotyped, made out to be only concerned about the school's ranking. I suppose that's not unusual.
  
• Despite being set in the 80s, there's very little sense of the 80s (unlike, say Donnie Darko, which really is as much about life in the 80s as it is a strange SF story). It could have taken place in the 60s, even it's attitude towards homosexuality.
  
• What about math? Don't they study that?
  
• Is the motorcycle bit a reference to Lawrence of Arabia?
  
• Clever use of end scene to tell what happened to the various people.
  
• Clever end credits to say who is who.
  
• Not much life outside of classes, eh? No parties or dances or anything?
  
• Not exactly sure what the point of the story was. There were many, I suppose, mostly focused around being pragmatic vs. seeking knowledge for its own sake.
  
• Overall liked it a lot, especially, the acting and comedic pacing.
  

Oscar Time

Everyone says Oscar has a short memory, which means Academy members tend to pick films that feature in December, and as such, good movies, those with a chance for Oscar, are often released late in the year.

That means, a bunch of good movies are out for the watching. Among the ones I want to see are: Letters from Iwo Jima, Clint Eastwood's companion piece to the mostly forgotten Flags of Our Fathers, telling the story of Japanese soldiers told to defend Iwo Jima to their deaths. The Queen, about Queen Elizabeth's reaction to Lady Diana's untimely death.

Curse of the Golden Flower, a court melodrama, by Zhang Yimou, set in radiant colors, with Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung replaced by Chow Yun Fat and Gong Li. Volver by Spanish bad boy turned patriach, Pedro Almodovar. Pan's Labyrinth by Guillermo del Toro, about a girl's fantasy during wartime. Children of Men, a variation on Handmaid's Tale about a society where no children have been born, until one day, a pregnant woman is found, directed by Alfonse Cuaron(!).

I still haven't caught a few films I wanted to see: The Fountain, which had mixed reviews, Shortbus, which came in and out of theaters, and The Departed, Martin Scorsese's take on Hong Kong thriller, Infernal Affairs.

I'm sure I'll only catch a few of these, but at least, there are a few films I'd like to see, which was better than a few months ago, when I didn't care to see much.

Don't Know Much About History

Young teacher, the subject
Of schoolgirl fantasy
She wants him so badly
Knows what she wants to be

If I had to compare History Boys to another film, it would be British Dead Poet's Society.

Of course, there are more differences than simply which side of the pond the action takes place.

Dead Poet's Society takes place in a prep school sometime during the 60s. Many films that are set in the recent time often view it with the lens of modern time. DPS was filmed in the 80s, so Robin Williams, playing unorthordox teacher, John Keating, coaches the kids to play soccer, much, of course, before the sport became so ubiquitous that its the sport moms are most associated with.

Roger Ebert criticized the film's portrayal of adults outside of Robin Williams. Ever since That 70s Show, it's now difficult to take Kurtwood Smith seriously as the stern father of thespian-wannabe Neil Perry (Robert Sean Leonard).

DPS mostly chronicles John Keating's desire to inspire curiousity and creativity through an appreciation of literature, the better, he claims, to woo women. A friend commented that the film had too little Williams, and indeed, Williams, while a central character, isn't exactly the focus of the film. Rather his ideas are the focus.

Indeed, the film gives some sketchy background about his past. Educated at the private school he's taught at, we know little about John Keating except he, like the kids he'll inspire, likes to read poetry. The film's appeal, at least for a teen (which I was at the time), is the inspiration of learning, and the rebellion against adults who just don't get it.

The problem with most films set in schools is that it's rarely about education. Even insipid shows like Saved By The Bell barely have a teacher in sight (seen in early seasons, teachers disappear in later ones), and education is a mere afterthought. While it could be seen as some clever satire of modern education, I'm perfectly happy qualifying the series as stupid.

The History Boys was, apparently, a very successful play, and there's a certain staginess about the acting, but it seems to work anyway, at least, in a broadly entertaining sort of way.

While set in the early 80s, there's nothing particularly 80s about the film. Filmed recently, it takes PC notions to the 80s classroom, thus one black (African English?), one Muslim Indian, a Jew, a fat kid, a religious Catholic, well, you get the idea. PC happiness galore.

Unlike DPS, THB has two teachers that form the center of the story. On the one hand, there's Hector, who teaches love of education, though many means, often having students try to stump him by acting out scenes from old films, or sing songs that would normally be on Broadway (London, there, I suppose). He's also a little lecherous, offering students rides on his motorbike while his hands occasionally wander.

Despite what sounds like a rather heavy scenario, the kids are all remarkably immune to his advances, and don't even begrudge his actions. They put up with it with rather calm resolve, and otherwise seem to enjoy his teaching.

The headmaster, fussy and upwardly mobile, doesn't like this rambling form of teaching. He looks to a new teacher, Irwin, to teach them how to write essays that will wow Oxbridge. Looking much like a more diffident, blonder Stephen Colbert, Irwin says the key to entering these grand institutions is to come up with an odd angle, keep the essays interesting. His approach is pragmatic.

Very much unlike DPS is the story of these teachers weaknesses. Surrounded by young lads, there's temptation to possibly do something, and this reflects something that apparently happens quite often in schools, although typically male teachers being surrounded by underaged girls as sources of temptation.

The film is fairly even-handed, perhaps even forgiving. Hector clearly loves teaching, and quoting this or that, but he knows he's a large man, and though his character is married (his wife is never shown), he knows he'll never get quite what he wants, although what he wants isn't so clear. The film is savvy enough to realize that he imagines what he's doing is somehow "benediction", though this is clearly rebuffed by the no nonsense Mrs. Lintott, whose stern expression seems so very typical of many a school marm.

Indeed, what I liked about THB was its casting choices. None of the teachers are particularly handsome. Indeed, they're pretty far from it. There's no Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson here.

Much like DPS focuses on Neil Perry and Todd Anderson (played by Ethan Hawke), THB focuses on Posner (Samuel Barnett) and Dakin (Dominic Cooper).

Dakin's the lady's man in the film, which nevertheless is extremely male. Posner, gay, Jewish, and presumably from some working class town in Britain, longs for Dakin, often bursting in song. Dakin, on the other hand, wants to impress the new teacher, Irwin, and while he affirms himself as straight, wants to get it on with the teacher.

Which leads me to the song above. While Dakin's actions are a bit flamboyant, perhaps more than one would expect from any student, it creates doubt in Irwin. Dakin's a little too smart, as he points out the reason Irwin won't have a fling with him is because he doesn't want to be like Hector, the portly queen of a teacher.

If the film succeeds, it's because it's great at innuendo. A knowing glance, using history as metaphor for having sex. Indeed, it's almost too brainy for a film. The kids know a ton, and quote it frequently. Hard to imagine it could be a film made in the US.

Indeed, one section is spoken with unsubtitled French. My rusty French allowed me to figure out that the students were pretending they were in a brothel. One of the students has his pants down in the play acting, at which point, the headmaster, introducing the new teacher comes in. Hector is asking which tense things should be in, and asks if it should be in the subjunctive. How many movies do you know that even use the word "subjunctive"?

It feels very much as if the film is written by someone gay. There is a near fantasy element that advances by teachers are ignored by students (commented on, but nothing worse), or that the hot straight male student is willing to make advances on the closeted teacher. There's also plenty of play acting, singing, and female impersonations.

THB does struggle finding a way to end the film, though it takes a clever idea on what happens to each character (somewhat like Broken Glass), but they way it is so boldy brainy, almost to the point where you can't believe these are real students, tackles topics, such as teacher-student relations and whether this struggle to make it to Oxbridge is totally silly (small subplot with athlete Rudge), and just that it's slyly funny, made it a lot of fun to watch, and deeper, in many respects than the shallower DPS, which is another film I also enjoyed.

I'd say A- for enjoyment, and B+ for being a good film.

The Tipping Point

I wasn't planning on blogging about it. I really wasn't.

I went to an Ethiopian restaurant a few days ago in Silver Spring. Nice decor. Nice food. Friendly waitress. Didn't even wait all that long.

The people I went with treated, so all was good.

And then it happened. The waitress came back. She said we didn't tip enough. Why, it wasn't even 15%! She walked away.

To be fair, we did compute the tip incorrectly, tipping maybe 11% or so. But the people I went, being from India, found it shocking a waitress would come back asking for more (which would amount to 3-4 dollars more for her). I had never heard anyone come back claiming the tip wasn't enough.

But the reason it became interesting was a discussion I had with Chris. He believes that tips represent your satisfaction with the service. And yet, tips are hardly the way to express this.

It's easy enough to do a thought experiment. How much do you think a wait-staff person changes the way they handle customers? Now, I can understand there are those who are a bit emotional, and on a given day will have a "bad" day. And as if there's been a bad customer, they may not feel so excited by the next customer.

But all in all, I'd imagine that a waiter is likely to treat everyone about the same. Perhaps that hypothesis is wrong, but let's stick with that.

There's a great deal of variability in customers. For example, suppose you feel tipping 15% is too much, for anyone. You're already spending, say, ten bucks, and now you have to shell out another dollar fifty? 12% is enough, you figure.

Compare that to someone who's trying to say that 12% is eh service. Nothing great. Now, assuming the waiter can actually compute the difference between 15% and 12% in their heads (doubtful, for many), what message are they to conclude? Person is cheap or modify my behavior? And modify in what way? Why were they tipping less?

Worse still, wait-staff depend on their tips, and are often underpaid because they are expected to make the difference in tips. Thankless living to be sure, and you're expected to be friendly to the customers even as it's a whim whether they tip you well or not.

Indeed, little things make a difference beyond service. Maybe you're a female waitress whose a bit more attractive than usual. Maybe you get a little friendlier than usual. Or you decide to crouch down when taking orders so your eyeline matches the customer, rather than looking down upon them. All of these are minor things that may affect your tip.

Chris points out the food. What if you think the food is bad? Do you tip less because of it? Then, with that tip, you are alerting the cooking staff?

Money through tipping conveys far too little information, and because it conveys too little information, what hope is there for behavioral modification? And at what point is it crossing boundaries. Maybe an older gentleman wants the waitress to flirt a little. Nothing terribly overt, but something friendly.

And there's a mental burden on the tippee. I usually tip around 20% all the time, which is higher than usual, but really, how much service do the wait staff provide?

Frankly, if there were someway to communicate to the waiter, that would be ideal. For example, I've always felt it would be good to have a button (or several) that indicate you want a waiter. Among the choices would be "we're ready to order", "I'd like more water", "check please", "what's the status of the order", "other".

The question, once you have the buttons, is whether the wait staff would need to come by your table as often if you can, at the press of a button, get their attention. Some people think it's better for the wait staff to come by often, refilling water, and so forth. They do this because they can't exactly read your mind, so the more often they come by, the more likely they can deal with your issues.

Practically speaking, most waiters don't seem to like to come by all that often. Too much walking, I suppose. And, frankly, some people are likely to be annoyed by being visited too frequently. It just seems to make more sense to get them when you're ready to get them.

Now, if you want to check performance, then you could see how long it takes for the wait-staff to arrive.

Having come back from India, there's a second issue with wait-staff. In countries like India, and Britain, for that matter, where class distinctions are still quite common, a deferential wait-staff, e.g., one that knows "its place" still exist.

In the US, even if the wait-staff are fairly poor, they just think it's their current circumstance, that they are not serving their superiors. Even if they can be easily fired, the wait staff imagine they could have the American dream, and make a fortune.

And that attitude isn't so unusual because waitering is not an uncommon job for someone in college, and certainly, fast food counter waiting for high school students is quite common. Few of these high schoolers imagine full-time food serving is in their future. Indeed, for a few years (or less), fast food places are getting their share of over-qualified employees. Not over-qualified for food serving necessarily (though often, they are quite good at it), but that they have the capability to develop skills that will land them far better jobs.

Indeed, given druthers, I think the average educated person might simply prefer to have a compromise when it comes to slow food. They'd prefer to get the food themselves and be alerted to when this happens, or more simply, just don't have tips. Perhaps the customer can rate their wait staff on the way out, pressing a few buttons (though this is, I'm sure, unlikely to happen--I've given surveys, and people hate to fill them out if they don't have to).

So, the point? Tips don't do what they're intended to do, and if we value what they're supposed to do, we should figure something else out.

Speedy Blogger

For the longest time, Blogger didn't update much. I mean, you think with the brainpower of Google, who owns Blogger, that you'd get the best of blogging software. But as Web 2.0 rushed into the future, Blogger stayed blissfully still, ignorant to any new ideas, as other blogging services tried new ideas.

Finally, Blogger went into beta and had a minor facelift. But you know what I like best about the new Blogger? The publish part is now near instantaneous. Before, they had this clock a whizzing, and sometimes it whizzed forever. Believe me, that was frustrating.

And that may have been just for show. People expected to see some effort made by the browser when it uploads an article, just like people seem to need loud noise for vacuum cleaners. But now, presto, I click, and it's done in a second, and if I want to crank out another article, it's ready to go.

After all, doesn't it make sense to simply upload as you type? Why wait until later?

So kudos to the guyz at Blogger.

Ten for Ten

In the last six months or so--perhaps longer, I'm not sure---I've seen supermarkets selling items ten for ten dollars. Not, ten for a dollar, mind you. That kind of prices haven't seen its heyday for half a century.

For example, they had canned ravioli, ten for ten dollars. Or energy bars, ten for ten dollars. Which, with a little simple math, is a dollar each.

Why ten for ten dollars? When you see something that is N for D dollars, do have a nagging feeling that you must by N? Or if you buy less than N, does that mean the price is N/D? For most places it is. Ten for ten dollars really does mean a dollar each. If you buy 5, they don't make you buy 5 more.

Still, there have been stores that tell you that you only get the discount at larger quantities.

But what makes ten for ten dollars sound great? Most items in a store might say 2 for this quantity, but ten for a quantity? That's a bit unusual.

And it may speak to the innumeracy of Americans who look at these N for D sales and don't do the basic math to figure out if N/D per item is a good deal or not.

Indeed, this not only afflicts Americans, I'm told it afflicts Brits as well. So much so that consumer advocates are planning to hand out calculators that help compute just how much of a savings consumers are getting, and not only that, but also teaching consumers more about this.

I understand that learning math is tough for many people, even as we need it in day to day activities such as, I dunno, shopping. And stores aren't above trying to take advantage of your lack of math skills to give you a bargain that isn't a bargain.

Recently, I saw a container of six beers selling more per bottle than one for 12. Most people simply assume that if you buy in large quantities, then you must be saving over small quantities. They don't want to do the math to make sure it's the case. And in the end, even if you pointed out it's pricier, they're likely to throw their arms up and say "it's only a few cents--what does that matter?"

Maybe I should end this blog on a review of an Abbas Kiarostami to fit in with my ten theme, but that would be too much cineastic geekiness for one such entry.

Diet Drinks

For a long time, I avoided diet drinks. Give me my pure sugar please. Oh sure, it wasn't always pure sugar. Stuff's gotten expensive, don't you know. High fructose corn syrup. But whatever. It wasn't saccharin. It wasn't aspartame. It wasn't sucralose (that's Splenda). No pink, blue, or yellow packets for me (the shades would make good colors for baby outfits).

But software development isn't noted for its active exercise, and the first few months I was eating out all the time, and wouldn't you know. I was gaining weight.

This had happened to me before. I had ballooned up to 170, and decided to really give exercise a serious try. I had tried it before to minimal results. So I'd hit the gym, bike an hour a day, and try to limit what I ate.

Slowly (or quickly), the weight came off. I was losing about 1/3 a pound a day, so that was around 2 pounds a week. After five months, I had lost 35 pounds. I needed new clothes. I looked emaciated.

The exercise was rather time-consuming. When I cut down, it seemed fine. I was still at a reasonable weight.

But then full-time work came, I was at 150, then 155, then 160, and I said "uh oh". So I tried diet drinks.

Now, at the time, I was downing maybe 1-2 Cokes a day. More than that, I didn't need the sugar. A coworker had more prodigious amounts of caffeine, something like 6 cans a day. I thought that was outrageous.

But since going to diet, I find myself grabbing 4-5 cans a day. To be fair, I tend to forget I'm drinking a can, and often leave it half full for hours at a time, then toss it because I want it cold. Wasteful, to be sure.

And I haven't really lost any weight. Indeed, diet drinks may lull you into this false sense of security. First, you think, why should 5-6 cans matter? It's diet! Ah, but there's other stuff in there. But I only care about sugar! But the problem is that I am drinking more.

Let's think about that otherwise. Skip the weight gain issues or whether diet actually helps. If I drink 2-3 times more, that's 2-3 times more soda I would buy (were it not free, of course, god bless the software development industry that practically mandates free soda!). But worse, it makes me immune to normal soda. I mean immune to the idea that drinking 5-6 cans is outrageous.

I used to laugh at the idea of light beers. You know. Only 90 calories! But when beers have as many calories as sodas, and when consuming 6 beers (which for me is really never) is considered par for the course, that's like drinking 6 sodas. The bitterness of the beer is mere illusion. Just because it ain't sweet doesn't mean it doesn't have calories.

Anyway, ever since I had to think about my weight, I think about food a lot, usually, on the losing end. I've thought about it more lately because I had been steadily around 163 lbs, but now it's 166. Much of it from just the few days of holiday and sedentary TV watching. I was thinking of investing in a bike for my parent's place, but I'd only use it a few days a year.

It makes me think of Mike Wilbon. He visits his folks only a few days a year, but insists on paying for a year's worth of satellite TV so he doesn't miss anything when he's there. I'm beginning to think that I should do that too, just for the few days I'm there.

Exercise stuff replacing satellite TV, that is.

Ah, the wretched excess of holidays.

In a Pickel

Ah, how could I not use a pun like this?

I was returning back to Maryland from Tennessee to Reagan National (I liked it better when it was just National) returning after a modestly brief holiday.

I had woken up just before 6 AM, something I'm not used to, to get on a flight at 7:50.

As I was seated in the modestly sized plane, I saw, in a distance (I was in the back) someone that looked vaguely familiar. Mr. Pickel!

Ah, those high school days where all teachers went by their honorific, as if they lacked a first name.

I took Mr. Pickel's class twice. Which is not to say I repeated his class, but that he taught two different classes. Once was in 10th grade when I took "Combined Studies". A rather clever idea whose cleverness only became apparent years after I completed it, the course was two courses: an English class and a world history class. The idea was to synch up the course so that if we read something in world history, we'd also read some literature related to that time period.

There was a team of maybe five who taught the course. Mr. Shedd, Ms. Wankerl, Ms. Kinnamon, and possibly one other. Can't recall. They'd give lectures in either the literature or history in back-to-back courses.

All the smart kids took this course.

In 11th grade, I took AP American History, and he taught that course too.

One thing I remember about Mr. Pickel was his enthusiasm. He always seemed like he was having a good time, and was always positive. He was friendly and everyone liked him.

When I saw him boarding, I realized it had been over 20 years since I had taken the course. That's quite a while. He'd gotten a little grayer, but otherwise looked like he did 20 years ago.

He was still just as cheery, happy to talk. I suppose I noticed just how extroverted he was. He sat behind me, so I had to contort and crane my neck in some DNA helical move that left me aching, but better me doing that than him. When I wasn't talking to him, he talked to the person seated beside him.

I suspected he'd talked to hundreds of anonymous people in this way. I could imagine him hosting some sort of Charles Kuralt like show as he went from place to place and talked to people along the way.

He had retired from teaching a few years ago, had his share of world travel (interesting how so many teachers spend their years traveling--how do they afford it?). He wanted to limit his travel to the US.

It's hard to say whether Mr. Pickel really remembered me. He sees so many students, that I can hardly he remembers everyone, but I think he has a better memory than most, and we did take the class a year, and he knew everyone in class. When I taught, I would teach to large numbers, and there were plenty of students I never knew that well, if at all.

We talked a little about teaching, a little about the changing technology of the world (he fit more in the old-school view, though he uses email). He said he no longer cared for phones, and preferred email. I'm sure so many people know him that keeping up in any other way is just too much. I told him Donald Knuth had given up on email. He, by contrast, gave up on the phone.

He said he had had a wonderful life so far, enjoyed what he had done, and was still enjoying life, and that given that, he's not sure he was willing to switch with a younger person, if that were at all possible.

And I think that's as positive a thing as one can say about their life.

Lies and Truth

Read this guy's blog entry.

In it, he recounts the story of a professor who said he would deliberately lie once during each of his lectures. He wanted students to discover the lie. Initially, it was blatant, but as time passed, it became harder and harder to detect the lie.

Why did he do it?

Because students are notorious for not listening in class, or being generous, for failing to question what is being said in class.

If the job of the student is to learn, they must question "truth". I put "truth" in quotes, because I don't particular believe in truth. I believe in shades of gray, and that certain statements are truer than others. But too often, we delegate to authority, be it professorial authority, religious authority, presidential authority, or legal authority.

The number one goal for students is to learn and to learn is to question. The professor created a clever idea to promote doubt, to make students think twice about what is said, and he did it in the form of a game.

Not surprisingly, this article zipped to the top of the Reddit ranks, because knowledgeable people understand that an informed public is one that questions. There are leaders who would have us trust what they do, right or wrong, because they react as many react when told what they do is wrong. They deny it.

I once heard a kid who proclaimed innocence at wrongdoing, though it was clear he had done the deed he denied. It was more important for him to avoid punishment than to utter truth. Why do we desire truth so much? That I don't have an answer for. Perhaps, most pragmatically, it's because we try to model our world, and if we have agents that have incentive to lie often, our model of the world can become corrupt, so much so that we may block any reliable information.

Being truthful helps. Of course, our perception of truth can be clouded. We may, like Othello, be shown something, and interpret it incorrectly. But we're willing to allow people to tell truth as they see it, as long as what they say, most of the times, makes sense.

Thus, the professor, in his one well-constructed lie mostly spoke truth, and spoke the lie to elicit truth seekers, to get them to ponder what would normally glaze, and that is what all teachers should strive for, to get students to think.

Innovative Teaching

Just perusing over an article about teaching in the Washington Post.

Most articles about teaching occurs where teaching is most desperately needed, i.e., in schools where students do poorly. It's elitist of me to say this, but people also need to care about teaching where students do well. I'll tell you why.

On the one hand, if we don't teach those who are hard to teach, we're creating a generation of Americans that are more likely to lead lives of crime, whose opinions are likely to be easily swayed, who don't look beyond the immediate gratification of what they can purchase.

To be fair, these attitudes can strike the most well educated and the most affluent. Advertising is insidious, and even as the well-educated can now buy things that show their education, utensils that show their research (Jeff Smith's enduring suggestion of the Susi Garlic Press, or high quality kitchen-aria are the purview of the rich and educated), they still buy. My parents, frugal as they are, find that if the items they own still work, they have no desire to get anything new to replace it. Thus, a redesign of a kitchen, or something to replace the gaudy 70s style wallpaper is seen as frivolous. There is many an item they have that's 20 years old or more.

Even so, education, as slow a process as there is, has value that carries on, and yet, it must be repeated generation after generation, as kids often want some easy way out, that takes less time, that offers quicker rewards.

This style of education, as laudable as it may be, is much like training those worst in basketball to play basketball. True, basketball lacks the kind of social climbing that education does, but humor me a moment, while I explain.

Imagine if we spent all our effort trying to train the worst athletes in basketball. We'd, in effect, have very few elite players. These players may still come around anyway, but I doubt, to the extent they appear today, where we can take one limitation (poverty) and use that as an excuse to teach the disadvantaged how to play basketball.

Even so, people (apparently) want to see great players, and are willing to shell the bucks to watch Senor Iverson or Senor Bryant square off against Messrs. Wade and Nash.

Similarly, when we educate, we also need to educate to the best, to make them better.

Some of this education is not education per se. It's merely giving assignments to the bright, and using a sink-or-swim philosophy to see how well they do. Our brightest minds lack the ability to educate, at least, in any conventional sense of the word. Instead, they rely on their ability to pick interesting problems and hope the best can indeed learn these lessons, however indirectly.

This method's success tends to work only on the best of the best, which is why graduate schools primarily recruit the best of the best. Those that are in the average range, not great, nor hideously awful, might do well to have inspirational teachers, but such teachers are in rare supply, especially at the college level, because teaching requires two parts: teaching and knowledge. And knowledge is a rare commodity.

The solution, which has generally been advocated, but rarely followed up on, is to get these smart folks to think about teaching. Train that keen intellect upon the problem of education. This act has benefits. The organization of knowledge in one's mind enhances that information. Thus, the adage that the one who learns most from teaching is the teacher.

The reason we should care to educate those that are already quite well educated? Because it's those at the top of the education heap that can make the biggest differences in society.

Consider a country like India, with a population soaring above a billion. The literacy rate isn't particularly high, but India is willing to educate its very best to the best of its ability. Were it to focus all its effort on educating the least able, it would be money partly wasted. That money, for a relatively peaceful country such as India, is better spent on the very top, so they can supply the brainpower.

Admittedly, such funding may lead to elitist among the educated, and eventually create a rift among the educated and not so educated, but if a country is to move into the 21st century, with its dependence on success firmly tied to technology, they must have hyper-educated citizenry, and so to educate the few so they may be the intellectual and technological leaders of today and tomorrow, as elitist as this may be, creates a situation where trickle-down may actually work.

So I applaud articles as the above that reward innovation in teaching, but I say that the innovation must come from all over, top to bottom, not just those in the greatest need of teaching, but to improve the average of the well-educated so their standards are pushed higher.

A country can only benefit if this attitude is taken.

Evils of Popups

I'm not talking about browser popups. Most popup blockers do a great job of blocking popups. Recall that once upon a time that if you went to the "wrong" website, popup after popup would inundate you. You leave a site, and it would open a new window. Surely, that tactic wanted me to buy even more. Thank goodness for folks like Firefox and popup blockers that realized the people who used their products wanted this evilness stopped.

No, I'm referring to intentional popups. For example, I'm using Visual Studio. It, like many other applications, make judicious use of popups.

These popups are separate windows, mind you, and that's where the evilness lies.

I had my laptop spanned across a second monitor. Visual uses some evil popup because it thinks I need it out of the way. Now, let me be fair, it's not Visual, but a plug-in, called Visual Assist. I want to look for some files, it places a popup.

Now, for some reason, I had it popping up on the second monitor, meaning my application was on one monitor, my popup on another.

Once I was simply on my laptop as I am now, it still thinks the popup is on my other monitor.

EXCEPT IT ISN'T THERE!

I mean, come on! Can't you tell, before you decide to put a popup up where the monitor is? What is active?

Apparently not.

This whole mess might be avoided if the popup weren't exactly a popup, but instead, some kind of overlay on the actual window itself. Sure, it might block some stuff, but if it's well designed, it wouldn't cover anything.

That way, it wouldn't run into this bizarre situation where it thinks there's two monitors, BUT THERE ISN'T!

I realize that this is a geek complaint at its best, but I'm sure I could come up with real-world analogs.

I know, I know. As a computer person, the toughest thing is to make things easy, which ironically, is really hard, because you have to anticipate all sorts of things that you really can't anticipate because you're smart, and the people that use your stuff are really, really dumb. They'll do things you wouldn't have thought of in years and years and years.

So I'll have to live without my useful popup until I can get back to my second monitor or ask someone with Windows guruness imbued on them to solve this gnarly problem.

And now to your regularly scheduled blog reading.

On Atheism

I usually don't blog on something as heavy as atheism, but lately, there's been a few articles on the matter. I suspect events in Iraq and the rightward turn of presidential politics and the hypocrisy of folks like Ted Haggard have lead open-minded folks to think about atheism.

Let's look at the pros and cons of religion. I'll start with the cons, as that's easier for me to enumerate. Think of all the wars that are started where religion is part of the basis. Let's start with Iraq. No, not US and Iraq. Iraq and Iran. In the 80s, these two countries warred with one another, Shiite vs. Sunni. Why? Religious differences. In Muslim rhetoric, there is often great discussion of who is "good" and who is not, and this can lead to a lot more than a war of words.

Religions often promote conservatism. Number 1 example is the church's stance on homosexuality. To be fair, a few churches are more forward thinking on the matter, but the majority consider it a sin. This, despite the fact, that many other acts are considered sinful in the Bible (and other religious tomes) such as keeping the Sabbath holy (how many people have had to work on Sundays?). There are many things considered just as wrong, if not more so, but the reason it's such a big issue in religion is because it's personally frightening to many people, or at least, many Americans.

Ironically, in societies that segregate men and women, men are far less homophobic. How many American men would consider putting an arm around another man's shoulder? This would freak many an American out. Yet, there are actions carried out by the most macho of men, football players and other athletes, that would be considered, well, gay. For example, football players routinely slap each other on the butt. Try doing that to your fellow worker to see if this relatively "manly" action is perceived in a friendly sort of way.

Indeed, sometimes the geekiest amongst us, often lacking the athletic machismo, find that, at least, they can push away what is perceived as an untoward advance.

This homophobia doesn't necessarily result from any religious proclamations. Indeed, even the most left-leaning liberals can't help but be unnerved if a friendly action is perceived as more than simply friendly.

But those with religious leanings can then wave Leviticus to the masses, claiming the evils of homosexuality, thus giving backing to something they already feel uncomfortable with. Indeed, for all the friendly back-patting in football, there is no active NFL player who has come out. All who have done it have done it after retiring. Former players have claimed the reason is that players would have to answer questions they don't want to answer.

Beyond this, there's evangelism, which promotes Chrisitianity among the heathen and not-so-heathen masses. I once read an observation that Christians, who seem offended at gays, should indeed, be offended by another group even more. Jews. After all, Jews don't believe in Christ as Saviour.

Now, I don't want to foment anti-Semitism, and I have to thank our PC culture that American Christians try very hard not to offend, even if they don't spend a great deal of time learning about Judaism or Islam, but there are those that proclaim Christianity in schools or the athletic field, without respecting other religions.

Again, conservative bias sometimes comes out where the most ignorant will claim "America is for Christians", despite the fact that its earliest inhabitants came to escape religious persecution (though, to be fair, they simply wanted to practice their own form of religious persecution, rather than take a more enlightened approach).

I could go on and on about the cons of religion, how the current President chooses to ignore science, even as the tools used in war require a strong knowledge of science and technology. How conservatives focus on a narrow section of biology (evolution), and perhaps, by extension, slam all of science. At least, there isn't a strong movement to return to the days of the Earth as the center of the Universe.

What about the pros?

There are indeed pros of religion. Perhaps the one strongest pro of religion, is that, by and large, many of its practitioners try to be good. Christians, by and large, try to be good, and I've met many a nice person. All the Mormons I've met have been nice people, even if the rest of Christian-dom doesn't believe in their addendum to the Bible.

But perhaps the reason many people favor religion is the community it creates. Whether or not this community is "enlightened" (by science, open-thinking, rational thought, etc), doesn't matter that much. People simply like the church because it provides a support structure.

And in this department, atheists can hardly compete. Indeed, for atheists to organize for such support, might be akin to some other pseudo-religion.

This isn't to say, I suppose, that one couldn't create a secular alternative to religion, just that no one has done so, because the strong belief in religion wouldn't be there. It's possible to replace it with themes we normally associate with religious organization.

After all, why can't we have a group that does good works, a kind of humanist compassion? But could people commit their lives this way? Who would lead such a group? Would it not be suspect to the same kinds of issues that organized religion faces?

The answer, alas, is probably yes. After all, atheism, in some sense is the opposite of organized religion, in particular, the organized part of organized religion. It's the organization that is more problematic than the religion.

I bring this point up because I wonder whether atheism needs to look to this step to move it forward, to embrace literacy, science, and good works, or whether atheists are too disparate to have enough common beliefs, beyond simply a lack of belief of a Supreme Being.

Where on Earth is Stuart Fletcher?

I wrote a blog entry quite a while back on Stuart Fletcher. The more famous of the Stuart Fletchers is from the UK. He used to play the bass for a band called The Seahorses. The less famous musician used to play for a band called The Sorts, located in DC.

Sometime during this period, Stuart decided to come back to school and finish up a degree, perhaps to the delight of his parents. He graduated with a 4.0 and looming on the horizon was graduate school. After all, if you show a strong academic inclination, why not do more of it in graduate school.

But that would mean, presumably, giving up a life of music, which had been, up until his academic foray, Stuart's focus in life.

For a while, Stuart disappeared, at least, from public, Google-able sight. I had read that he had joined the tour of another band, though mostly for logistics, and then afterwards, nothing. Which doesn't really mean nothing, but just means that no news on the Web that was readily accessible made it my way

Then, recently, a few weeks back, Stuart's name surfaced again. This time, with a band called The Sea Navy. Stuart had joined this band whose lead was originally in Boston, but had moved out west. Stuart's family is out in Washington state, so indeed, he appears to have made one big decision in his life, which is to leave the band that presumably was his home for some number of years, as he lived in DC.

Has Stuart given up on his academic career? Who knows? Nearby is the well-funded University of Washington, which has a reputable graduate school in computer science. It's certainly possible to return to school there.

So far, this entry may seem out of the blue, and perhaps it is indeed, out of the blue.

But at least, one Mr. Stuart Fletcher is no longer among the missing, missing from the ever-seeing eye that is Google.

Metrosexually Speaking

I was watching Dhoom 2 yesterday. It was no great shakes, despite the special effects, and the dance/singing sequences. Attempts to amp up the emotion with a Russian roulette scene couldn't really save the movie whose tone veered all over the place.

Despite this, there are some things you can pick up, even watching a film like this. In particular, the two lead males, the cop and the thief cook.

That may seem like no big deal to you.

So what if they cook?

I know many Indian males cook. With sexual segregation still rather common among Indians (it's still generally taboo for men and women to live together unless they are married), guys must learn to cook, at least, passably, unless they plan to eat out all the time.

Even so, once a couple gets married, I'm sure the expectation is for the woman to cook.

In Dhoom 2, the men are shown to be expert cooks. The cop makes a fish in a skillet. The thief has wine and salad, but can whip up unhealthy food at the flip of a hat (is that even a legitimate expression?).

I pointed this out to one of the Indians working with our company, and he says there's a trend to portray metrosexual males.

And that too struck me. A term that I thought was confined to English speaking countries has broached the desi divide because a typical IT guy in India does indeed speak English, and their access to the Internet is nearly as unfettered as mine, so why not pick up phrases like "metrosexual"? Thomas Friedman famously said that the world is flat, and by that, he meant the physical distances that separate us are bridged by, most commonly, the Internet.

Indeed, Indian movies portray a wholesome kind of living, because of its insistence on a wholesome kind of lifestyle, perhaps akin to what went on in the 50s. Perhaps more decadence lies in real life, as it did in the 50s, but the movie industry is not ready, at least, not now, to give us that ugliness.

So, while Dhoom 2 didn't succeed as entertainment, it still exposes a sense of what India may become though actions that seem inconsequential, but may indeed, speak volumes.

Bollywood

I was watching the Bollywood action flick Dhoom 2 last night. It stars Hrithik Roshan, you know, from Krrish, and Abhishek Bachchan, you know, the son of Amitabh Bachchan, a staple of Bollywood action flicks.

To be honest, I've seen, what, three Bollywood films in the last few months, and perhaps none for years and years, as I'm not Indian.

Certainly, the production values of these films are pretty good. For a long time, Americans were pretty much only used to seeing American films or maybe the occasional British films. Until Hong Kong pix started making waves in the late 80s and 90s, Americans didn't think other countries lacked the cinematic know-how (or the money) to make a good looking action/special effects film (I wish more Japanese films would make it this way, as many do look fantastic).

But the story.

So painful.

Bollywood "hits" seem to borrow prodigiously from lots of plotlines. Dhoom 2 is about a cop that tries to catch the "perfect" thief. It's part Entrapment (once you get beyond the Zeta-Jones in a skin tight catsuit, it's about two thieves), part Matrix, part Mission Impossible (with the disguises).

Perhaps the one smart move, if you can even call it that, was to add a comic relief character. Where this film could have bogged down into Matrix seriousness, it decides to take a modestly light touch. Still, tonally, it's all over the place. Plotlines are picked up and dropped. The cop has an annoying girlfriend/wife who's pregnant (that's not explained so well), and he meets up with a former flame, who inexplicably disappears once the action heads to Brazil.

But no matter, her ditzy twin sister is in Rio.

Bollywood films have also been branching out internationally, trying to set films in different parts of the world. Krissh was partly set in Singapore. Dhoom 2 is partly set in Brazil, and of course, during Carnivale.

The director's a bit obsessed with sped up film, computer-generated ultra quick pans, followed by slow motion, scenes with rain (also popular in videos), and the lamest one-on-one basketball I've ever seen (I suppose we shouldn't expect that they would dunk, and opt for the high-percentage layup).

Towards the end, I kept obsessing over Roshan's thumb. Turns out that he has something of a double-thumb on his right hand. Most scenes it doesn't stick out (so to speak), but a few, you notice, hmm, what's that? Another appendage? How come I didn't notice it in Krrish?

I have to say I just kept looking at his hand, where in real life I'd be too ashamed to do so (recently, I saw some fellow with some largeness of the head that seemed oddly cartoonish--and yet it's human nature to stare, and I found myself doing just that).

Yes, the films have dance sequences. Yes, they talk all about romance, but there are never any sex scenes, nor any nudity. Indeed, kissing is often avoided, but the film decides to tackle this taboo by using, you know, Russian roulette to amp up the tension, as a precursor to the lamest kiss ever.

Being a Bollywood picture, you have to have women. But women in India are never quite as popular as men. I suppose in a segregated society (men from women), men still find it's safer to have male role models. To be fair, it's not that different from American culture. If American males don't necessarily identify strongly with male actors, they do with male athletes and male singers.

And as much as heterosexual men feel the need to proclaim their masculinity by being horny over women, how many movies do men really attend just because of the hot actresses involved? Has Jessica Alba really made any films that made a hundred million just because she was in it?

Movies, in the US, are not star driven the way they are in India. It's true stars help films out, but honestly, who was that big a star in Pirates of the Caribbean? Johnny Depp? Please. The film may have made him popular, but he was hardly in the Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis popularity. Indeed, even as I type those two names in, Americans really lack a superstar in acting. These aren't the days of John Wayne, Humphery Bogart, Lauren Baccall.

Back to the film. The music is rather infectious, though certainly not action-oriented. It sounds like they say "Dhoom a Chah-lay" a great deal.

The Indians I saw it with didn't think it was so good, and not terribly representative of good Bollywood films. Certainly, it had recognizable stars. After 36 Chinatown and Krissh, I'd like to see a Bollywood film that people think is good.

On Movie Reviews

Mike D'Angelo, screenwriter wannabe and movie critic be, has a blog. He hasn't written in it for six months or so. But he's written in it recently.

He wants to retool his blog to write notes about movies in bullet form, a la Powerpoint. This was a mini-epiphany. Mini because we live in a society that exaggerates everything to excess (worst. pain. ever.) until the uttering of such excesses is simply for grand humor.

The reason for the trumpet heralding moment?

I realize I wasn't cut out for movie critic-dom some time ago. I lack deep insight into film. I lack compelling writing skills. I lack grammatical acumen. However, I have some sense of what make a good review, and where my shortcomings are.

I find, after all this time, that I summarize the film, which is the lazy man's way to write reviews, and yet, shortly after watching a film, I feel compelled to summarize. So easy to do, don't you know.

But bullet points. Ah, just a few key ideas. Impressions. That's all I need.

So I'll give it a try.

Hmm, it looks like I was wrong about Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, part 1 of his two part movie describing the two sides of Iwo Jima. Perhaps I was too hasty concluding he'd be able to pull off the dual story line.

The next film I'm looking forward too is the retina burning Curse of the Golden Flower. Zhang Yimou has long abandoned his tales of historical drama for historical action. Hero begat House of Flying Daggers which has now begat Curse of the Golden Flower. Visually stunning, it's likely to be an old fashioned tale of double-cross and plotting, packed with plenty of wu-shu, wire-fu, kick ass, and colors that sear on the screen.

For now, that's all I need.

This American Life

This American Life had an amazing segment yesterday. Really, there needs to be more shows like it. Like many other shows on NPR, it's not so much focused on news as it is on people.

The first segment was about an African American male, whose home life was awful, but was trying to make something of himself. He had the kind of charisma that made people, teachers and students like him, and many felt he'd move to bigger things.

He was sent to Boys' State in Tennessee, where the goal is to understand something about politics. The boys, from all parts of the state, vie for political office. Several of them had prepared extensively, though mostly with markers and poster (reducing the act of getting voted not too issues, but to who had the most ads). He wrote his campaign slogan on a t-shirt. People made fun of him for that.

But Chauncey had been preaching at his church, and he made the decision to really run for governor. Giving an electrifying speech, he was voted governor. People off the streets as well as teachers and fellow students were thrilled at the success of someone who looked like they were heading nowhere, mere years earlier.

Despite the charisma and his desire to please everyone with his newfound success (and to take advantage of this success), he still had a poor family life, and wasn't the best academically. Although he had a scholarship lined up, it required him to graduate, which he failed to do, coming up one credit short.

After all the adulation and praise, the failure to graduate on time, burst his balloon and he fell to Earth, not interested in courses, wondering what had happened. Teachers felt guilty at the pressures and expectations heaped on him. He was left working at grocery stores, the boy wonder no more.

He eventually turned to the military, where expectations are in the here and now, and performance, not potential, is rewarded. After two tours of duty in Iraq, six years later, he feels he's getting back on track in his life.

This is the kind of story that you only hear in real life. Stories about almost successes that lead to failure are not something filmmakers show much, or it's made tragic in ways that aren't real to life.

This segment was followed by a man, a heroin addict, who found a treatment in Europe that cured him of his need for heroin. The experience was so transformational, nearly a religious experience, that he felt obligated to help other junkies kick the habit.

The problem was two-fold. First, the drug is illegal in the States since it's a hallucinogenic. Second, he was no doctor, so he didn't know how to administer the drug that well. And there was the potential of the drug causing seizures if he wasn't careful. Still, he felt the risk was worth it because he knew how it felt to be an addict, and how liberating his life had become.

Still, he was dealing with junkies, and he's careful about who he administers the treatment too. Junkies aren't noted for their polite demeanor, so he sometimes worries if his life may be threatened. Yet, he perseveres on because he feels there's no one else to help out.

The story, despite being about drugs, is also a kind of tale of religion, belief, redemption, all based on chemicals. It's nearly science fiction, yet it's real. How chemicals takes you on a dark path, how other chemicals might free you from it.

The last segment was about Noah's Ark, retold. The world is full of artisans. Dancers, painters, poets, who have forsaken hard work for creativity. Noah, however, is old school. He believes in hard work, and complains the world has become lazy and fulfills itself in frivolous ways. He thinks his sons are lacking discipline.

One day, he hears a voice. Indistinct, at first, but then, over the weeks more clear. God plans to bring floods and kill all of humanity, save Noah, his family, and one pair of animals to repopulate the Earth.

His son, Ham, thinks Noah was picked because he was much like God. Irritated at humanity. Noah builds the ark, and thinks perhaps he is crazy for doing so, but then thinks that if he gives up, then he gives up on his faith and lets the world win. And he too decides that only the most worthy animals should be let on board. Ham wonders why the rest of the world must be killed. It doesn't make sense to him. He also wonders how his father must made a decision, much like God, to decide which animals were worthy of living, and which ones weren't.

People know the story of the Flood, and yet, if you ponder the details, it seems needlessly cruel. Since the Flood mythology exists in many people, it is likely that there was some real torrential flood, a rising of the oceans, that so impacted everyone, that it was written for years.

The story is deep and funny. NPR shows archive their stuff, so go take a listen.

This is heady stuff, making you reconsider things you've heard, and that's what good storytelling is all about.

Holy Cow!

I was listening to Mike and Mike in the Morning, a sports show with Mike Greenberg ("Greeny") and Mike Golic, the self-admitted metrosexual reporter, and the ex-jock formerly of Notre Dame. Golic was out with a sore throat.

The guest was Roger Staubach, famed quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys, during the 70s. He's perhaps the most famous player to come out of the armed forces, having played for the Naval Academy. This weekend is the Army-Navy game. It's been a while since either team were considered national powerhouses, perhaps even fifty years or so.

Indeed, with the big bucks and lax standards of most colleges, it's hard to find quality players that want to spend at least part of their lives in the military.

Staubach was asked to comment on the Army-Navy game. He recalled watching it during his first year at the Naval Academy--freshmen weren't allowed to play quarterback, and as an observer, he said "Holy Cow!" referring to the bigness of the occasion.

Did I fixate on the game or that I hadn't heard Staubach's name in I don't know how long?

No, I focused on the phrase "Holy Cow".

Having just come back from India, I was thinking how this, now rather antiquated phrase, came about. How many millions of people who have uttered this phrase would associate it with Hinduism? (Even though many people actually worship Ganesha, which has an elephant representation). Probably not so many.

This made me wonder, why would such a phrase have ever caught on? I know that in the 60s, there was a fascination with India, but I feel that this is even older.

Here's my guess. At one point, radio announcers had to avoid using terms like "My God!" and "Jesus (H.) Christ!". But what to say instead that would be similar? Perhaps they were told to invoke some other religion. Hinduism, perhaps. And thus was born "Holy Cow!".

And with radio being so popular, many people heard the phrase and adopted it, until its origins were buried deep in history.

It's just a theory. I'm sure I could look it up using the Google search engine (as opposed to, you know, "googling" it).

I'll let you do the honors.