Small Wonder

Last week, a co-worker, Steve, gave me the RCA Small Wonder, a mini camcorder. We've played around with it for the past week. We missed some things like Owen taking some steps while holding onto a walker toy he has, and climbing up the stairs. But we did manage to get more laughter tonight. That's the best, anyway, right?



Odd things will make Owen laugh. Tonight it was me smacking myself in the head. Hopefully he won't become desensitized to it and I won't have to ratchet up the self abuse to continue to amuse him.

Red Rock Country

Owen, Grandma Kozlik and I made Owen's first trip up to Sedona this past week. The reason for the trip was three-fold: to use up vacation time (I can only carry over 20 hours into the new year), to get Owen out of town for a mini adventure, and to play around with the camera outdoors. Originally Keith was going to go instead of Grandma, but Keith had something pop up at work. We couldn't change the date because we reserved a night at my parent's time share.

I will never tire of Sedona. Even though I've been there over a dozen times, the scenery still amazes me. Which made it easy for me to have fun playing with the camera. I took ~120 pictures, although many of them were of the same scene, I just changed the settings to see what effect it would have. We started off at Bell Rock. We tried to find the trail that went around Bell Rock (and not around Courthouse since we didn't have time), but apparently it doesn't exist. We took BR "Pathway" to BR "Trail", then went back the way we came.

Then we headed to Red Rock State Park, which now costs $8 to go to. I'm not sure we got our money's worth due to the time we spent there and our lack of desire to do much hiking, but the view of Cathedral Rock is pretty spectacular. I was surprised at how good the fall colors were - we saw some very bright gold trees. Based on our hike a couple of weeks ago at Seven Springs I would have thought all the leaves would be off the trees.

Even though we didn't have the correct connector piece for it, I brought our tripod anyway, so I wanted to catch some good sunset and twilight pictures. Our plan was to go up to the Airport lookout, which has some beautiful views. Unfortunately we missed the actual sunset, but I was able to play around with some twilight pictures using the tripod (I just sat the camera on the tripod and used the timer function). Didn't catch anything spectacular, but it was neat to see how things turned out in that light. We now have the right connector piece, so I'm looking forward to playing around with it more.

As I mentioned earlier, we stayed at my parent's time share, which is just outside of Sedona. After unloading everything (it's amazing how much stuff we had for one night!), we had a quick McDonald's dinner (my first time having McD's probably since college), and put Owen to bed. I took a nice soak in the jacuzzi tub, watched the end of The Christmas Story, and went happily to bed.

The next morning we went up to the Catholic church, which is up on a hill with some great views. It has to be the most beautiful church I've been to, at least in the States. The plan was then to do some shopping at the Sedona Outlet mall, but Owen fell asleep right before we got there, so we decided to keep driving and go to the Anthem Outlets.

Then it was back home to check out the pics!

Ultimate Owen

Owen started creeping (moving forward on his stomach) about a week ago. Boy, does he learn fast - he was all over the place today! We now have to be careful about anything we put within reach anywhere we put him down.

Owen rolled over to Daddy's Ultimate bag earlier today. I was worried he might grab the suntan lotion out of the side pocket, so I watched him closely. Instead of grabbing the lotion, he pulled out the two discs that were in the bag. Go Owen! They were old dirty ones, so I took them away from him and instead gave him one from on the wall. He played with it for about 10 minutes.

Later in the day, I set him on the ground. He creeped past the toys that were in front of him, and picked up the frisbee!

Looks like we have a future Ultimate player on our hands!!

And if today is any indication, he'll be fast and hard to catch. ;-)

More laughs with dad

I'm not quite sure what it is about me, but Owen thinks I'm hilarious.



Well, until lift off.

Memo to self: laughter before lift off does not lead to its continuation, but no laughter then lift off causes it to start.

Owen's First Halloween

Other than the helmet, it's been a while since we've done an update on Owen. So here goes!

On the subject of the helmet, he seems to mostly be used to it. He bats at his head every once in a while, but he seems to notice it more when it's off, than when it's on. For Halloween we decorated it as a NY Giants football helmet, complete with NY logo and his number 3 (for his birthday).

Owen's first tooth broke through the day before his 7 month birthday. The second one followed a few days later (both on the bottom). His third one, this time on the top, broke through today, one day before is 8 month birthday. He hasn't complained too much about them. When he does, the Orajel or a cold teether usually calms him down. Now we have to figure out how to fit in brushing his teeth into his schedule.

Owen had his first solid food (rice cereal) at the end of July. He had various cereals once a day for a few months until it was obvious that he got the hang of it and needed some more sustenance (he woke up consistently at 4:30am hungry). Since then he's had carrots, peas, pears, and sweet potatoes, his favorite so far, and eats solid food 3 times a day.

Owen has been sitting up on his own now for about 2 months. He can't crawl yet, but he can scoot himself backwards and has the turn-around-on-his-tummy thing down pat. He squirms around more when he sits in my lap, such that I have to be careful not to drop him.

He only now is starting to complain if we take things away from him, which I'm sure means more trouble is ahead. His favorite toys are ones that he can put in his mouth and/or make music/light up. He's getting away from the larger toys (swing, rocker, seat), but I'm guessing that will change once Christmas comes around.

On that note, I'm thinking that the large Christmas tree will stay in the garage this year and we'll get a table top one. That's kind of a bummer to me, but will also be less work. But it should be exciting to share the season with Owen.

We successfully moved him from 3 hour to 4 hour feeding schedule, which turned out to be a lot easier than I thought it would be. The Hog said that would help him nap longer during the day (not to mention one less feeding is easier on me). We've had minimal success with that. Most of his naps are still only 30-45 minutes long, 3 times a day, but he has started to take some longer naps and appears to be almost ready to move to 2 naps a day.

Overall he's still a pretty mellow fellow. Keith had a work dinner at Olive and Ivy in Scottsdale, and we decided to take him along. It probably wasn't the best idea (inappropriate for the circumstances), but he behaved beautifully and was a good topic of conversation since we didn't know most of the people at the table.

Well, another weekend gone without getting much done around the house. We were pretty lazy before Owen arrived, and having him as an excuse just makes it more difficult. It's really hard not to choose Owen over housework - but really, what's more important?

I might just be a moron

As I go through life, I continue to find more evidence that I am simply not as smart as I think I am. Or, at least not as smart as I used to be. The latest example:

This post was going to have a more benign title of something like "benefits enrollment" since I didn't really have anything more creative to use in an analysis of our employer healthcare options. But I'll go ahead and do that post before getting my possible idiocy.

Actually, I'm not sure that's possible, since the premise of that analysis is based entirely on the aforementioned lack of intelligence.

This is the deal: We've always used Joanne's health coverage from Motorola/Freescale rather than what I could get from ASU. This was largely based on the direct cost of the plan to us--the monthly premium was cheaper on her plan for the two of us, than it was for each of us individually on our own plans. Or at least that's what I recall to be the case.

We sat down tonight to explore shifting from a no deductible/no copay coverage to a high deductible/small copay coverage, or something in the middle. This is the pricing of Freescale's options (this isn't quite comprehensive--I deleted options I knew we wouldn't consider):


Last year we had essentially the max coverage. I considered for a brief time reducing that, but in the calculation tools, child birth made it a moot point. I also pondered shifting it after Owen was born as I though the middle deductible plan was a sweet spot, but wasn't sure how a new deductible would work, so I stuck with the plan (0 deductible/90%/no copays), with the intention of doing a better analysis for 2009, which would be made easier with better knowledge/expectations of the medical needs of a child.

So I tested various expected service needs: primary visits, specialist visits, immunizations, lab work, general checkups, ER visits, out patient surgery, the Hale family plan, etc. In most scenarios, the high deductible plan was the winner. When it lost, it was because of extended stay hospital visits, but even then it wasn't that much. The main reason was because with the copay option, that covered all general office visits, so the deductible did not apply. But with a 0 deductible/no copay option, it goes straight to coinsurance, which isn't always cheaper than the copay.

We settled on the $1500 deductible/80% coinsurance/$10-$50 copay plan since it seemed to offer the highest liklihood of being the cheapest, not only for monthly deductions ($15/month!) but for overall annual medical expenses. In most of the models we tested, we never did max out the deductible, since so much ended up being covered by the copay. We also found that the lower coinsurance was likely to be better, since we'd have to have nearly $4000 in bills beyond the deductible to have it cost more. Admittedly, that is certainly possible--one extended stay in the hospital would be enough. But much like our other insurance policies, we can afford a certain amount of risk because we have the resources to self insure to an extent. The likelihood is that we are more likely to save $300 than spend an extra $500, and if the latter happens, well, we can deal with that.

After we got the medical portion done, we started looking at vision and dental and whether it was time to add Owen to both. That's when I got out my ASU benefits booklet for a point of comparison to the family costs of Freescale's vision/dental benefits. I then looked at the costs of the medical coverage. Or more specifically the coverages of the available plans.

ASU/State of Arizona offers an HMO plan, 2 EPO plans and a PPO plan. The PPO plan is a lot more than Freescale's (also a PPO) best coverage. The HMO is 30% more. The EPO plans are about the same. But the coverages! Everything is covered! There's a small copay ($10-20), but outside of that, nada!

No deductible, no coinsurance, no nothing.

I'm looking at it and thinking to myself "wait, this isn't what I remember". I recall the plan all costing significantly more than Freescale's options. In that regard, the PPO held true, but the EPO? That seems like a good deal at $150/month for a family, with a token amount out of pocket on top of that. The only thing I can think of is that I rejected the EPO option long ago because there is no out-of-network benefit. But don't you think it would have been smart to look into the extensiveness of the network? Or way the liklihood of needing to go outside of the network? I did a brief search this evening and our pediatrician, Joanne's OB/GYN and Banner Desert and Chandler Regional are all in network.

As the subject says, I might just be a moron.

The only other point in my defense is that ASU's enrollment period is 6 weeks before Freescale's, so a direct comarison isn't possible. But you'd think with 4 years of practice/having to make these elections, I would have noticed that ASU's benefits deserved much more scrutiny than I ever game them.

On a tangetial point: If we had family coverage through ASU, that would be an $1100/month benefit Im not receving. Just at the individual level, it is $461/month. It'd be nice if there was some way to get that $5000-$13,00 that ASU/State of Arizona is willing to spend on me to, you know, just give it to me.

Catching a Falling Knife

Tuesday was the day I finally rebalanced our investment accounts.

Wednesday I felt the sting of catching the blade and not the handle. Tis but a flesh would, right?

--------

This is my first greater-that-just-a-market-correction experience--it's supposed to be good for us, right? We're still accumulating, so the lower prices are good. But there's enough negativity (which according the Efficient Market Hypothesis, is supposed to be priced into the market) to still be unnerving. During market peaks/bubbles, the thought is that "this time it's different". That exists at the bottom too. What if things don't recover? That 50% fall requires a 100% increase just to get back where you started. I guess we're not at the "Death of Equities" stage yet, but it might be a long slog back to being ahead.

---------

Our allocation plan is 45% US, 30% International, 20% Bonds/Fixed and 5% real estate. The market plummet was one reason to rebalance. The other was that I had recently vested at work. This resulted in the 5 years of employer matching being added into my 401a. Not knowing exactly when it was being deposited (October 15), or how much (considerably more than in my personally directed portion), I directed it to a money market in the account and planned on redirecting it fairly quickly.

There are multiple school of thought on rebalancing:

• One is that it's not that big of a deal--the gains from buying low/selling high is diminished by the loss of "momentum" in classes that are highly volatile (think selling out of real estate or emerging markets in 2005, missing out on a year plus of continued high growth).
• Another is the annual/set schedule rebalance--fixed, pre-determined times to rebalance, generally a year or more apart.
• Another is when asset classes get outside of a pre-determined range, it is time to rebalance, say +/- 5% from a large target.
  

The last was our primary justification to say we're not market timing: our bond/fixed allocation was approaching 40%, twice what it's supposed to be, so we bought. Where the market timing comes in, though, is the day to actually do it. I passed on Monday since the market was up. I went and transferred assets on Tuesday because it was down. It just happened to continue doing down on Wednesday.

Unlucky.

Good think I didn't do all the rebalancing, but it was still about 75% of it.

Helmet time

Pretty much from birth, Owen preferred looking to the right when laying down. He developed a small flat spot behind his right ear. No matter how much we altered his position in his rocker, or propped up the shoulder when sleeping, he seemed to find that spot. Still, his head was soft enough to have some hope that it would correct.

We had him in our room for his first 3 months in a bassinet and pack-n-play. He finally moved into his room and his crib in July. I got what is generally considered one of the very best mattresses, the Colgate Classica I, a very firm mattress that is considered high quality. My mother noted how firm it was when we got it--this is what's recommended though.

Within a week it seemed, Owen developed another, larger flat spot, also on the right side of his head. We again made efforts to get him to look left when laying down, and it would work for a little bit, but eventually he would find the spot, so it never self corrected. We knew what was coming next--the helmet. At our last check up in September, we were told, yes, we should visit a specialist. We were referred to Cranial Technologies (in network provider), and in looking at their before and after photos, I thought to myself, "Yep, that's Owen's head."

After the initial consultation and fitting, Owen got his helmet today:



He seems to be OK with it. The biggest change (after having it for 7 hours) is we can't see his forehead, which is key in a lot of the faces he makes. Now when he lifts his eyebrows, his forehead scrunches up and he just looks a little pissed off. Maybe he is.

As I mentioned before, Cranial Tech is covered by our insurance, which means an out-of-pocket cost for us of $200 (10% of the $2000 contracted rate). However, at the consultation, we were told they have had some issues in Aetna (our provider) accepting the claim. If they didn't, we're on the hook for the full amount ($3600)--we don't even get the contracted rate. We were told we could file a determination, but Aetna is good about taking the full 30 days to give you an answer. Since the longer one waits for the helmet, the longer it has to be worn, we opted to skip the determination since we felt like we were going to get it anyway to fix his head.

In retrospect, I do wonder how firm a mattress needs to be. The bassinet feature on a pack and play to any crib mattress will be quite different. Where the PNP can mold to the baby a bit more (hammock style), the crib mattress stays flat. But if a baby is sleeping on its back, does the mattress really need to be super firm? The softness/plushness, I surmise, is primarily a factor if they are side or stomach sleeper. If they're on their back, though, can't they have a little cushion, to get a little more conforming? Maybe the mattress was only a small factor. Maybe Owen just has a soft head because he was early. Or maybe we didn't do something we didn't know we should be doing.

But Owen will survive. After all, there's nothing wrong with having a helmet at this time of the year. He's just ready for some football!

P.S. If anyone has any small NY Giants stickers, please send them our way.

More ultimate

Since the comments have been substantive, I thought I'd address/clarify points that were raised. Too much is on drills and the deep cut, which might be too specific for my questionably worded thesis.

"Theory" approach.

As long as the previous post was, I may not have been as specific on the how to get players to think about ultimate theory. Lawrence said “You mentioned discussing very specific situations with players, so that they can generalize from there. But what about the players that want rules - and haven't had this structure free epiphany yet - and just take your specific situation as one more rule they have to remember?”

My point on the specific situations was to go into detail about situations to not only over the what, but the why. If it stops there, then it is just another “rule” to remember. The goal/hope is that by focusing on the why stuff is happening, players will be more reflective about what happened when they’re playing. I concede this may be too much to throw at new league players, and my thinking is this more applicable to the intermediate/new club player. It might work with new players, but you can’t stop a league game or open play and go over the situation.

At a team practice, there’s always been the idea of calling “stop!” during the scrimmage portion, but it rarely ever happens. I may be overselling the “theory” approach as a cure-all. What I mean by it is that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on how players think about space and spacing, rather than the diagram of a play. And the first step is to get people to think and reflect about the situations they're in and how to recognize what the options are (cut, clear, stop, etc). If doing so is a new concept to them, then it is a matter of teaching them to think about situations and then how to do so. I don't have a better way to do this than to trust players to

Drills

I think I came off as anti-drill overall, which isn’t completely the case. I don’t really care for most drills anymore, but I recognize they are important to developing skills. I just really dislike the way drills are run. This is a function of what Lawrence called “thoughtless reps”. Once everyone has the basic routine of the drill, the focus becomes the drill itself, rather than its applicability. In a cutter/defender drill, the defender always sets up in the same spot. In a thrower/cutter drill, the thrower is always set up in the middle of the field or on the line, never anywhere else. In a dump drill the cut is always to the thrower. It could just be the teams I’ve played on that do this, but those are the teams I care about.

Drills become more useful the more they mimic game situations, and the tendency I see is for drills to become less game-like, either as a result of some amount of laziness, inattention, cheating (in the sense of shortcuts the drill allows rather than what the game), sloppiness or terrible rhythm. If players/teams think more about what the point of the drill is, rather than just running it after basic instructions, they can be more effective.

I’ll use the endzone drill as an example. Three common problems I see with it: (1) Back of the stack to the front cone. No, it should be on a line about 5 yards or so inside of the cone, leaving the cutter more room to adjust out. (2) The person who threw for the score gets the disc on the line. Why? That’s just dumb. It reinforces the dump coming to the line, and makes the swing unrealistic, as it either becomes too long of a throw to get across the field, or it leaves the swing on the wrong side of the field. (3) the Swing cutter makes a “C” cut towards the thrower (they cut away, then curl to the thrower)[this is the least common of the three problems, but I still see it], rather than making the fake to the thrower and going away, so that they get more yards laterally across the field. What happens when all 3 of these happen? The person catching the swing is on the wrong half of the field to have a good angle to throw for the score, as it becomes too similar to someone making a flat (perpendicular) cut.

To address the other drills that were commented on--the diamond drill is probably not the square drill (box?), it's the leading go to drill, so that the two lines are two points and the reception points are the other 2 points of the diamond. I think for new players it's fine to always set up the lines directly across from each other, but for club players? Vary it up a bit. Or at least change the angle of the cut--i see it too often become too flat or too close.

As for the three person marker drill. Aside from the bad habits that I think it can reinforce, what aggravates me more is when the marker backs up. This makes the throw straight up much harder because they no longer have to commit as much to a side to take away a throw. In the drill, markers get conditioned to do this because the thrower has a tendency to step forward rather than out on their fakes/pivots. I don't step forward, but my marker invariably still ends up taking a step or two back, killing any throwing angle i might have unless it's a hard outside in. What do I do? I step backwards. This generally makes the marker feel like they are too far away, so they come back into me. As they move in, they're unprepared to go side to side and I break them. It's not as automatic as it used to be. This tells me that people are playing to the drill (dropping back) rather than the focusing on the side to side movement of a tight mark. I think it should be emphasized to throwers to decide what throw you want to make before starting.

These are probably minor issues, but they speak to how drills become too routine and not as beneficial as they could be. Thinking about a the function of a drill makes them more effective and efficient and can minimize flaws in the setup of a drill.

The Deep Cut

Justin commented: I'm still not sold on your deep cut angle preference. I personally like to cut up the sideline as it's harder for the marker to defend and easier for me to box out the defender if I need to. Plus I feel like it forces the thrower to focus on where to put the disc. If I can put the disc to the right or left side of the field I usually have to take an extra split second to decide and I feel like I make a poorer throw.

Justin, I think your preference is wrong. The thrower’s job is to put into the endzone in a way that allows the cutter to be running full speed at the catch. If you get into a position where you need to box out, it was either a bad cut or a bad throw. If you’re not sure which side to throw to, then your prospective receiver is giving you a bad cut, or you’re overthinking it way too much. Jot disagreed as well, but I think that more a case of me oversimplifying (stay to the center as long as possible) [or not].

The ideal deep cut allows the cutter to triangulate to see the throw and decide where they can catch it. In my experience, a cut straight away from the thrower is more likely to lead to a poor throw (particularly on the sideline where it’s much more likely to hook too far to the middle). In my mind, the only time a deep cut is straight away from a thrower is when they have more than half of the field (laterally) to cut out to, ie if the thrower is being forced flick and trapped, the deep cut straight away from them should NOT be expecting a blady flick--they should be expecting a hammer or backhand to the other sideline.

Speed/creating space between you and the defender and giving the thrower a clear area (not spot!) to put the throw are the most important things about a deep cut. Height/boxing out/laying out is there as a back up when there’s a breakdown in the first part.

The diagram below hopefully illustrates my point. The left is a throw to a spot--it's limited in the area the receiver can get it. The middle, by triangulating, the receiver, chooses where they can get the disc. If the throws short, the receiver can adjust. If it's long, the receiver can adjust. If it's blady swill hooking to the middle of the field, the receiver can read it and maybe still make a play on it. The bottom right, is the only expectation a cut straight away from the thrower should have.





Has understanding theory improved your play or is that just hypothesis? Are your team's faring better or worse because you put yourself in less risky/productive situations?

I would assume so, if people think I’m a better player now even though my physical skills are considerably worse. My understanding of spacing and team play is much better than it used to be. I went through a period last year where I felt like I was never in the wrong position (not that I could always do something from the right position), but that’s faded a bit as I adjust to be slower and not able to get in and out of spots as quickly as I think I might. Hard to say about impact during league, but I no longer run into clusters to attempt to save a thrower, and I wait for space to open up--that's a plus, even if the team isn't as "successful."

Structure versus theory

At league draft 2 weeks ago, a small group hung around afterward and talked various things ultimate. In the course of the discussion, two different people noted that they think I've been playing better in the past year than they've ever seen me play. This shocked the hell out of me. I don't run as well. I don't break as well. I don't cut as well. I touch the disc a lot less. I think my hands are worse. My longer forehands have gotten better, but it's not like they scare anyone. So how could anyone possibly think I got better?

While I disagree with that notion, I do believe I've gotten better at understanding my role in an offense. Back in aught six, I drafted a team with the goal of it being as athletic as possible and seeing where that would get us. I tried using a horizontal stack. We won our first couple, but the offense wasn't that pretty. I think i bailed on it by the third game of the season because we didn't have the consistent threat of a deep game to pull it off, so we kept on getting fronted and weren't able to do much. But I remember in those games being the dominant handler on the field, and with the horizontal, sometimes finding myself on the wide side of the play, ie, not involved. My old habit would have been to dive into the play, but I let the offense do the work (partially because I thought my defender would have me covered), and we often able to work it a bit.

This helped me realize that it isn't necessary to always be doing something. Sometimes you're out of the play and you should keep it that way. Sometimes you just need to move (not even a cut) to open up space for a teammate. The common trait I think of the people that I played the most with was that we were all decent athletically, but not great, so we all learned to work and cycle until we got space. Maybe this is what we had to do, but it's not necessarily the best thing to do.

A difference I've noted in the better teams we've played is that they make one cut, and if they make that one cut well, they get the disc. Teams I've been a part of, that's not always the case--it's cut, cut, cut, and maybe you'll get the disc. But you might not because the thrower's already looked you off, or someone else is cutting into the same area.

And this happens over and over again because of what I've believe is an over reliance on a team structure (who cuts where when) and plays rather than a focus on how to just play ultimate--ie an understanding of what is best situationally. The focus is on sticking to the structure (someone needs to cut there; I will cut there) rather than situation (what is the best thing for me to do from here). Ultimate is not football--a playbook is just a guide, it's not set in stone.

This might be closer to an epiphany, but it's been slow. I've long realized I am no good at strategy/overall team strategy, particularly in a reactive sense--I simply do not pick up on what other teams are doing and think of a way to counteract that. The extent of my strategy is "let's force backhand". But what I am good at (or better at as compared to team strategy) is the what to do in a specific instance and why to do that thing. And it took me a long time to get there. I remember being told after I'd been playing for 4-5 years "You run around a lot, but you have no idea where you're going." I didn't expect that, but then again I've rarely been coached individually/directly. So my teaching approach reflects the desire to address that--most comment I might make is based on the situation/individual. Some of it borders on standard "plays", but the basis is "what do I do in this situation."

Watching practices this weekend crystalized this--the emphasis on a team strategy--plays and/or the offensive is not as effective as it can be because there's a gap in understanding what is happening on the field and why. Any offense can work in theory. Until the defense changes up in a way you weren't expecting. Then what?

I see this in drills and how people are taught to throw or cut. It reinforces habits that may not be applicable to a game.

As a thrower, player are told to practice your fakes. You're nothing without fakes. Fakes aren't bad, but the point of a fake is to get the marker out of position, or to open up a throw. But it's not always the most effective way, and too often fakes become reflexive than purposeful. To me, footwork and pivoting is much more important. These get added into faking, but often take a back seat. Even when pivoting is encouraged, it's still treated like a fake--something automatically done, rather than for a purpose. Back when I was a good thrower (ie could and would break anyone), I knew from the moment I picked up the disc if I could break them, and where the throwing lane was. Didn't require any fakes, and it was one hard pivot (with purpose!). I will concede that was a specialized skill that not many people have, but it was the mindsight of being able to recognize what the marker was giving me and what I could take.

As a cutter, the general approach is the checkmark--a hard change of direction. Obviously that is a good skill to practice and have. But I think teaching cutting theory is lacking (or more "movement theory)--when to cut, where to cut, how to cut for throwers, when to just make a clear cut to open up space for teammates, when to just stay out of the way, when to recognize it is your turn because the movement of the disc has put your defender at a disadvantage. I've been in situations in which I'm defending people far, far superior to me athletically that didn't get the disc because they spent more time trying to get me out of position than identifying when it was the best time to make that cut. One case in particular, someone was open on me for 4 passes. Never got the disc even though he was always on the open side and never too far down field. Admittedly, part of this was due to cuts from teammates that perhaps shouldn't have been made, but, to me, it was bad recognition of when to go, and when to hold up for things to clear out.

The other part of cutting is setting up the space for the thrower to throw to. Generally speaking the in cut should be easy/obvious, but not always. One of the two best compliments I ever got as a player was someone telling me (this was 04/05) was that I always made cuts that were easy to throw to. I never thought of myself as doing anything special, but I knew I never made any amazing catches on my in cuts--nothing really great to "save" the thrower from a turn, and maybe that's why. The other part of incuts--to the breakside, is dual recognition from the thrower and cutter to recognize what the marker is giving up, the inside out, or the around throw.

As for long cuts, a lot of players don't set up the angle to make it easier. The deep cut is understood as a vertical cut, when really it isn't. Ideally the cutter stays to the middle (generally) as long as possible, so it is easier to see the thrower, the disc and whether it's smarter to continue the deep cut, or break it off and come underneath. The good deep cut and throw isn't the one where the receiver is running full speed to catch it at a certain spot (ie vertically to the back of the endzone), it's the one where they can choose the angle to get to it the fastest (ie, the intersection of the arc of the flight of the disc and the cut). This may come of as basic skills, but it is rooted in the mental approach to the game--where am i cutting to that allows me to run hard, allows me to see the disc, and makes the throw easy(er). Maybe that isn't teachable, maybe it only comes from experience, but I think going into great detail about what to do in a specific situation can help players create their own mental framework about how to think about situations on their own, including drills.

Too often drills are rote repetition that reinforce not beneficial habits. There are a lot of drills that I used to like that I know longer do because of this. I also get frustrated with drills because they aren't run like a game situation in terms of angles, approach or mindset.

• The three person marker drill overdoes fakes, teaches throws to bad target areas (straight through the marker), and teaches the marker to lunge and over commit. This doesn't even get into the tendency of the marker to back up, to take away the straight throw, which is a mark they'd never do in a game.
• The diamond drill, like many drills starts with the cutter straight away from the thrower cutting out an angle, which pretty much only occurs on a brick. Except it doesn't even happen then because the defense is set. It also emphasizes a 45 degree angle on the cut, which I've decided is dumb. It should be closer to 30 degrees--it make the cut more to the thrower, minimizes the risk of a throw more to the middle, provides plenty of room for the cutter to adjust out and can provide the right flare if it is to the outside to gather momentum into the continuation throw.
• A variation of the diamond drill to the break side--this is actually what turned me against drills 4 years ago--the marker would overcommit to stopping the break, the thrower would throw some swilling outside in pass that would be D'd everytime. This kind of scenario in which the marker is "cheating" provides the cutter the opportunity to recognize what space to cut to.
  
• Dump cut drills are invariably a cut to the thrower. The space behind the dump, past their defender is never utilized. Back in '05 at a tournament, Guy threw me a dump pass like that--out into space to the middle of the field, so I'd catch it going away from him. I don't think I even moved--using that space never occurred to me.
• In a cutter/defender drill, most people have the tendency defensively to always set up in the same spot. Thinking about it more situationally might inspire trying different approaches--out in space, up really tight, trailing just behind.

I may be expecting too much from this theory approach to learning/team building. The adoption of it in practice still requires thought while playing, but instead of thinking "is it my turn to cut?" and the focus because on "what can i do/should i be doing from this position?" and from a team performance perspective, that is more important. Taking a situation and thinking about the outcome, or what effects that outcome is critical to improvement because it maximizes one's contributions. Sometimes that contribution is the good cut. Sometimes it's recognizing the easy dump or swing right away. Sometimes it's just getting out of a teammate's way. But the only way to learn from it is to analyze it individually.

New tricks

I will concede the commentary is substandard, but it is what it is.

Tabata Intervals

A common ad I see in most issues of The Atlantic is one for ROM, The Four Minute CrossTrainer, which claims to provide a complete non-impact cardio, resistance- and flexibility workout in 4 minutes a day. What's the price of this fairy tale exercise machine?

A cool $14,615.

The webpage mentions it has been a marketing nightmare. I wonder why?

The ROM came up on the NY Giants Fan Forum I frequent, and someone mentioned looking up Tabata Intervals, which claim to do much the same thing. Or at least it takes High Intensity Interval Training to another level in just 4 minutes. It's 20 seconds of max intensity followed by 10 seconds of rest repeated 8 times. A random blog post that came up in a google search does a better job of giving background than I would, but Tabata, the Japanese scientist after which the regimen is named, found that interval approach did more to increase both anaerobic capacity and aerobic capacity than would an hour a day of more moderate exercise.

I did see some other random comment to be in good shape already before attempting, but that won't deter me. I'll give it a go on the Concept 2. When I rowed Thursday, I found an inefficiency I was making. When I first started, I read to go strapless on the feet to improve form. I did that for a while, but I went back to straps when I got the C2. I went without Thursday and I found I had to stay more upright (95-100 degrees) to not going flying off the footpad. With straps, I was going to maybe 120 degrees, which increased the time of the stroke without any real benefit. With that improvement, I think I can do 1:45 at max (the lowest I've pulled is a 1:35 pace for 500m). The C2 allows for 6 seconds of drift (ie, still accrue meters with no pull for the first 6 seconds), so that leaves a total of 3:28 to get meters. If I can go 1:45 over 3:28, I'd approach 1000 meters in that time, which sounds optimistic since my fastest 1000 is around 3:50. Then again, doing this workout in terms of trying to achieve a certain number of meters is probably wrong headed. And it wouldn't be a 4 minute workout since I'd want to warm up for 500-1000 meters. It also assumes I have the heart or desire to finish the workout strong. I'll make sure Joanne is around when I try it.

Peace be with you

You may recall a previous post of mine where I explain how Owen was at the age where he must be the easiest to take care of - sleeping through the night, immobile, eating well, etc. You may also recall a more recent post where Keith mentions how I noted how Owen is showing his own personality and becoming more independent. Well, I have a feeling his independence means his "easy" period is coming to an end.

Last weekend he showed the first signs of being uncomfortable with strangers. Marisa came over, and at first Owen stared at her and then turned away and cried a little bit. The good news is I kept holding him and talking to Marisa, and by the time she had to leave, he was smiling at her. Same thing happened this weekend. When Kate and Teague first came over, Owen wasn't sure what to make of them. But by the time they left, they were getting smiles too.

Owen is definitely taking more of an interest in things around him and wants to be involved. He has a hard time breastfeeding when people are over - he doesn't like being covered up, so I end up going upstairs to feed him. He normally falls asleep at church, but today he was very fidgety and too interested in looking around him to sleep, even though he was due for a nap (he finally fell asleep on the ride home).

He is very close to being able to sit up on his own, and could probably turn over from his back to his stomach if he wanted to. Crawling (or at least creeping) can't be too far behind. Which means that we need to start baby proofing. Which leads me to wonder how much do we really need to baby proof? We have one gate for the stairs which we haven't taken out of the box yet. But do we need to worry about the three stairs between the kitchen and the family room? Am I going to have to banish all of my plants to non-reachable places? How about all of the electronics that we have in the family room? Are we really going to have to start vacuuming more than once a month?

I'm also struggling with the move to solid food. I understand what food to offer him and how much, but I am unsure of the best scheduling. How do I adjust his breastfeeding given my work and Ultimate schedule?

I won't even go into how frightened I am of teething.

In the Catholic mass there is a section of the service where we turn to our neighbors, shake hands and say "Peace be with you". It's one of my favorite parts. Today Owen was in the baby carrier during that part of the mass. One woman, after seeing I had a baby with me, seemed to put more emphasis on the statement. It was as if she knew that I would have some not-so-serene moments in my future. While I know that is true, I'm taking it one day at a time, and thanking God for such a beautiful blessing.

Bountiful Basket #2

I waited too long to place my order this week, which necessitated a different pickup location near Lakeshore and Guadalupe. Joanne left early in the morning to go to Tucson for a scrimmage, so Owen got to go on a little adventure with his Pop, which is only the second time we've been out in public solo (I don't count the couple of times I've brought him out to ultimate, since Joanne was there, although not in Owen's mode of transportation). He even got to wear his hat. He's grown into it a bit, so now he looks silly instead of goofy.

That is a move up.

Anywho, this week's haul:

• 1 # strawberries
• 2, 10 # bananas (7)
• 2, 1 # green grapes
• 1, 1 # cherry tomatoes
• 1, 5 #broccoli (2 full heads, not crowns)
• 2 # baby carrots
• 2, 15 # bosc pears (8)
• 2, 6 # mangoes (3)
• 2, 10 # red potatoes
• 3, 11 # red plums (14)
• 1, 11 # green peppers (5)

The basket is supposed to be 50/50 fruits/vegetables. That isn't quite the case. The 29 pieces of hand fruit will be a challenge, but I think we'll be OK. The location I picked up at is a new spot. I doubt that they messed up on splitting everything up, but I wonder if the delivery was mismanaged slightly and the location got an extra pallet of fruit instead of veggies. I was really surprised there was no leafy greens. There also was a basket with random stuff in it. It might have been the trade basket--I'll need to check the FAQ to see if that was it. I do recall one of the groups I looked into have that, but it required a full swap--ie the allotment of strawberries for the allotment of carrots.

Bottom line: 23 pounds of produce of mostly good quality (the pears are on the small side) for $16.50.

Mediocre day made better

Some festering small things at work meant I came home a little unhappy. Or maybe it was the lack of sleep. Anywho, that changed pretty quick!

Zombie

Owen uncharacteristically woke up at 2:30 this morning. Good times. I went to check on him. 40 minutes later I went back to bed. A moderate success. Until he woke up 10 minutes later. I went to get him again, but it was doing very little good, so Joanne came in and did something only a Mom can do. I went back to bed.

I say uncharacteristic, since Owen had been on a fairly consistent schedule of sleeping until 6 or 6:30. But last week, he did 3 or 4 days in a row (Joanne says 3; I thought it was more than that) of waking up at 4 in the morning. That's supposedly a sign that he's ready for more solids. We'll see. During that period last week, I got him once and got him back to sleep. Upon my return to bed, Joanne mumbles to me "nice job."

Really? What's the point of both of us being up, dear? That may be more unsatisfying than having to get up in the first place--that you didn't do a good enough job for Mom to go back to sleep. Or is it a lack of faith that I'll do the job (such as this morning, when you were asleep the first time), so no use in going to sleep? Throw me a bone here! C'mon!

Wearing Owen

New parents have a lot of choices and methods they can choose to employ. Food, sleep habits, waste disposal, even methods of interaction. In the case of the last one--there's the differing levels of babywearing, which can be a component of attachment parenting, or simply a means of transportation. Most new parents do end up getting a carrier of some sort, with Baby Bjorn being the dominant name in carriers, but I was attracted to some of the other benefits that proponents of baby wearing claim. Even if some of the outcomes aren't provable, it was something that felt right. Afterall, everyone likes to hold the baby. What is odd, though, is that when I was looking into this, I felt like we'd be on our own here because outside of a BB here and there at ultimate, I've seen very few carriers amongst friends, but that may be more a function of lack of events in which they'd be required.

We got a hotsling in late March, which allowed Owen to be held cradle style, and keeping Joanne's hands free. The sizing gave us some hope that we'd both be able to use it, but it didn't quite fit me, and since I only tended to have Owen in small chunks of time, it didn't seem necessary to get a sling just for me. In retrospect, Slinglings might be a better deal, as you can get 3 for the price of 2, though that might be more of a commitment than new baby wearers might need.



The sling generally worked pretty well, though it took Joanne some time to become comfortable with putting Owen in and knowing he was in right. Then, when she was used to that, Owen was too big for cradle style, and was ready for a front facing position, which resulted in his feet being squeezed up to his face. There are additional carrying positions, including a hip carry position, but the sling may be close to retired since we finally got a more adjustable carrier.



Meanwhile I spent time researching other more dad-friendly carriers, ie not wraps--mei tais and soft structured carriers were the primary styles. In function, they are largely the same in their positioning. The key difference is that mei tais are entirely fabric, while SSCs have buckles. Since this was more of an interest to me, I got to largely pick what I wanted. I had ruled out a good chunk of SSCs like the Baby Bjorn (or some of their models) because of the hold type--the idea to suspend Owen from just the crotch just seemed... uncomfortable. I guess there's some research that it can also affect spinal development. I was more interested in a carrier with front and back carries in a froggy style--with the legs splayed out around the carrier's waist. This shifts the baby's weight to not just the spine, but to all of the butt and thighs.

The initial leader was the Ergo--very popular as the Bjorn alternative, but it struck me as very bulky, particularly for AZ. It just seemed hot and heavy. The next consideration was the Patapum. Very Ergo-like, but it looked a bit lighter, and it was up to $30 cheaper. Still, I never quite pulled the trigger. After becoming a member of The Baby Wearer forum, I came across mei tais like the Babyhawk and the Connecta. The Connecta was especially interesting because it is in between a mei tai and an SSC. It is the highest rated SSC (since it has some buckles, it is categorized that way), and it even comes in a solarveil fabric, but Joanne didn't see a carrier as being worth $120 (it is made and shipped from the UK.

We ended up getting the Action Baby Carrier, largely from comments that it was a very light weight and cool. Although it was new to the market in May, the same company has made other well received carriers, so I finally pulled the trigger about two weeks ago, buying it from McKinley Kidz, even though the Patapum was a little cheaper.



The first reaction we each had was how comfortable it was. Owen's not that heavy yet, but neither of us found it a strain at all--the hip belt works well to distribute the weight. He hasn't been in yet for more than 30-40 minutes yet, but in that time, the only discomfort has been a little heat. I've taken him out once because of it--more to prevent him from getting upset than my own discomfort. Joanne had Owen fall asleep in it once. I also put him in today when he was a little upset, and he calmed down pretty quickly--maybe even faster than if I was holding him. In the pic above, his arm looks trapped, but it's just restrained. The other one is free, and he's OK with that. We haven't used the back carry yet or taken it out on any adventures, but that will change Saturday when Owen & I go to pick up our co-op order. Not too adventurous, I know, but we're breaking him in slowly to the excitement that is our lives.

Oh, that's right. Owen is the excitement in our life.

Die Another Day

If you've ever been to our house, you may, or may not, have noticed our small (2 gallon?) fish tank with one fish. The fish that will not die. It's tucked away in the corner of our kitchen, so you many people don't notice it. I only pay attention to it once a day to feed it (if I remember).

The story starts my sophomore year in college. My friends bought me a fish tank and two goldfish for my birthday. Such a great gift! Fish are my favorite animal, which you would never guess from looking at our upstairs hall bathroom. I faithfully took care of the goldfish until they both eventually died (sometime that year I think). Then a friend of mine gave me some guppies from her larger tank (she probably had 50 or so fish in her tank). From the start of those 5 or so fish, I have had fish in the tank for about 10 years now. They would breed, then die off...breed, then die. They even survived a week in Keith's custody when I was on vacation (well, almost all survived). I finally got down to one fish, who has had the tank all to himself for well over a year now.

I thought for sure that he would be long gone by now. As soon as I got pregnant I thought it would be fitting if the fish died right before LBA was born - the whole cycle of life thing. But no, he hung through even though I'm sure there were days where he didn't get fed while we were busy with the baby. He hasn't even shown any jealousy towards Owen. Just swims around like nothing is new. I also have let whole months (yes, plural) go by without cleaning the tank. I finally cleaned the tank about two weeks ago figuring if I went through all that effort he would make sure to die the next day. But no, he's still around.

I finally searched the Internet today to see how long goldfish are supposed to live. 10-30 years????!!!!! Oh, wait, that's goldfish. I have a guppy. New search: 2-3 years IF YOU TAKE GOOD CARE OF THEM. Ha!! I must have the most resilient guppy in the world.

Now the question is what will I do once we run out of fish food. Good thing there is still 1/3 of a container left. He can't possibly last long enough to use that up.

Or can he??

Best dinner ever

I guess the proper format would actually be: Best. Dinner. Ever. And that's a bold statement, even if I limit it to just my dinners. Tonight was clearly #1 for me (and Joanne as well)...

I tried something different with the pork chops tonight. Rather than using my two standard rubs (either a pork rub or one with a lot of sage), I tried something a little different. Along with the normal salt and pepper, I went looking for something different (but not too different) and loaded them up with some rosemary. I asked Joanne what would be a good, different spice and she suggested cinnamon, so I added that as well. We had three ears of corn left, which is a bonus ear. Still, that's a fairly mundane preparation for what was to become the best dinner ever.

I brought everything in around 7. Joanne put Owen in the high chair and we cut into the chops. They were fairly thick, but they were cooked without the exterior being overcooked. That's good. The cinnamon, though, didn't quite work--it was too distinct, maybe burnt, and too separate from the meat. The corn, though, mmm mmm good.

Then it started. Owen was smiley and giggley when I got home. He took a little nap in the middle of his dinner and when we started, he was fairly happy. I started making faces at him, with a little dash of baby talk, and he started laughing. As you probably know, there's nothing quite like a baby's laugh, and, for us, nothing tops Owen's. When he starts laughing we try to keep it going because we enjoy it. We weren't quite ready for this display: about 30 minutes of pure Owen happiness--all smiles, giggles and laughs.



We didn't capture any of it because we were too transfixed to get either of the cameras (the pic above was from yesterday). Joanne even got a little emotional in the middle because of the realization that Owen wasn't an infant any more--he is a person with his own distinct personality. This isn't to say we haven't thought of him as having a personality--he definitely has that. Over the past couple of weeks or so, we have watched him reacting more to us, doing more reaching for things, paying more attention to toys, starting to show signs of mimicking us, and getting closer to sitting up on his own.

I think the better way to describe it is being parents just keeps getting better and better.

Bountiful Baskets

Despite JT's indifference, we went ahead and put in an order with the Bountiful Baskets Co-op this week. As a first timer, there was a $2 surcharge ($17 instead of $15) and we also got a loaf of artisan bread. A delivery fee of $1.50 is also included, making the total $20.50 for the following:

• 1.8 lbs plums (7)
• 3.2 lbs nectarines (8)
• 6 ears of corn
• 1.25 lbs green peppers (3)
• 2 lbs sweet onions (3)
• 1 lb bag of baby carrots
• 1 smallish head romaine lettuce
• 2.35 lbs of red grapes
• 4.7 lbs of cantaloupe (1)
• 2 lbs of celery (1 head)
• 2.4 lbs of bananas (8)
• 0.7 lbs of green beans
• 3.5 lbs of tomatoes (3 big ones)
• 1.5 lbs artisan bread loaf

The process for pickup was fairly simple. As a co-op, in depends on volunteers, which are supposed to arrive ~90 minutes before pickup time (about 6 am on a Saturday!). They receive the pallets of produce and other orders and divide up all the produce into small baskets--this week into two. When I arrived at about 7:50, the Carriage Lane Park lot was mostly full, and I got into line behind 10 or so other people. A check-in person verifies your order (bring your receipt) then you get to directed to the check-out person--1 of the 10 people or so that watch over a group of baskets. You transfer the produce from their baskets to your basket/bag and then you're on your way, unless you got other stuff. This morning there was a station for bread, so I stopped there and put the basket into the car. One favor that was asked was for members to take home some of the cardboard shipping containers to be recycled. Total time from parking to departure was 10-12 minutes.

In terms of quality, most of it looks good. The lettuce was a bit wilted, but it crisped up after being washed. The tomatoes are a bit greenish--that's probably the weakest part. One of the peppers had a funky shape, but there was no blemishes. Joanne has already had a plum and nectarine and gave the thumbs up. I was a bit disappointed to see know lemons, potatoes or berries--those are staple type items for us.



As for the amount, I don't view it as an overwhelming amount, but that might be the recent training of Costco purchases that required us to eat a lot of fruit. 15 plums/nectarines might be pushing it, but if we each do 2 a day it shouldn't be a problem-- we found ways to take care of 18 kiwis and 11 peaches in one week, how hard could this be?

My rough approximation of cost is in the neighborhood of $35 based on the prices this week in the Basha's ad. The carrots are the brand Basha's sells I believe (Rousseau), which may mean BB uses a primary Bashas supplier. Or it may mean nothing at all. The peppers and celery are not things we would buy, nor is the cantaloupe, but Joanne will eat it since we have it (I'll try it, but I'm not really a melon person). Overall, we're fairly pleased with the outcome. One thing that will make it better is when Joanne has enough sleep to come with me and then we can walk around the park a bit with Owen. I suppose we could have made it a Man Morning, but, uhh.... not really. Maybe next time.

Yet more food stuff

The Republic had a feature in the Food and Drink section this past Wednesday on food costs and how to control them through purchasing decisions and developing better cooking habits (as in actually prepare and cook as opposed to just heating). I think the reporter could have done a better job in selecting a subject for how to save money--a family of four that spends $400/week on groceries isn't typical, i wouldn't think. That lends itself to a lot of fluff that is too easily trimmed. Granted, the 2 kids were 15 & 17, but still. I went back and looked at our bills for the first 7 months this year. Joanne and I averaged roughly $100/week (all grocery charges; about 3/4 of costco and a small bit at target), and I splurge a bit on meat and seafood, not shying away from stuff in the $7-10 a pound range.

As part of the feature, a list of tips were included, a lot which we already employ, some oddities (olives are a staple of a well stocked pantry?), but others were good reminders or things we hadn't considered:

To save money on produce, consider joining a community-supported agricultural group, or CSA. Consumers pay a monthly fee to farmers and receive baskets of locally grown produce, from kale to lemongrass, each week.

Wean your family off boxed cereals, granola bars and other high-priced convenience foods. You can make 30 bowls of oatmeal for the same cost as one box of cereal. Or make your own granola, or buy less-expensive cereal and trail mixes from the bulk bins.

Limit beverage purchases. Loading the cart with soda, iced tea, orange juice and Merlot quickly inflates grocery tabs.

Learn to make your own salad dressings and marinades. They take just minutes and cost at least half the price of prepared versions

Be energy efficient. Plug in your toaster oven out on the patio in the summer. Use a slow cooker. When using the oven, load up with as many trays of food as possible. For example, if roasting potatoes, add extras for hash browns for breakfast.

Comments in random order: It never occurred to me to put the toaster oven outside--I am slow sometimes (like how it took me almost 3 months to figure out the best way to put on a Onesie).
In another example of slowness, I am a big fan of Minute Maid's Low Acid OJ--all the great taste of OJ, but no acid. It didn't really dawn on me for a long time that it's over $5/gallon. I am sometimes shocked by how much beverage bill can be--a container or two of Naked (much cheaper at Costco), milk, a couple half gallon cartons of OJ, the Dew, maybe gator/power-ade. It all adds up. Not that it's had an effect on our purchasing decisions yet.

The making your own stuff--it never seemed like a bother, but I am reassessing. The last time I shopped for a red wine vinaigrette, i spent too long comparing ingredients--sugar or corn syrup, was the sweetener first, does organic matter, does it have some ingredient I don't like but wouldn't notice. But that's more me being a bad shopper. The anti cereal/bar thing was new in concept, as I grew up a cereal or bagel person. I think I know one person that's an oatmeal for breakfast person (not that it's a topic that comes up much). In that search, I found a site operated by the world's self-professed expert on your morning meal, Mr. Breakfast. Lots of good stuff there, particularly on the oatmeal front--in addition to a lot of recipes, there's the top 10 reasons it's an ideal breakfast.

Last, the CSA produce. I've looked into this twice in the past year. The first time was curiosity; the second was with more purpose after we found out Josiah and Monika had bought a share. My initial impression was that at $20-25/week, it isn't actually a cost savings, though the food itself is probably better. Joanne asked how much I spent on the last Costco produce haul ( 18 kiwis, 11 large peaches, a dozen bananas and a 5 lb bag of carrots), which was about $23. My impression is that the latter is a lot more than the a CSA share. Still, we are likely to try one out. The feature mentioned four in the Valley:

• Crooked Sky Farms based in South Phoenix, a share is $20 a week for 12 weeks. The pickup best for us is Thursdays just south of ASU.
• Desert Roots Farm is based in Queen Creek. This is the one I looked at twice and that JoMo joined. They are adding a pickup spot at Riverview on Tuesday afternoon/evenings that is ideal. A share is $23 for 12 weeks, but they have a 4-week summer session starting soon that would work as a trial. Home delivery is an extra $5/week.
• Whole Earth CSA: they use the blog as their website, and it seems to be lacking a bit in terms of easily finding useful info, so not a contender.
• Bountiful Baskets: this is a food co-op, not a CSA, so it uses a group purchase to cut out the store markup in dealing directly with a produce warehouse. For us, there's a pickup at Carriage Lane park, but I saw a note that there is only a 15 minute pickup window. It's 7:45 am on Saturday mornings, so that might be doable. And $15 looks to go a long way.
  

For my wealth of non-local readers, you can find your own CSAs at Local Harvest.

Hard to believe

Arthur Brooks, the incoming president of the American Enterprise Institute, writes in today's Wall Street Journal:

In May 2008, the Gallup Organization asked 1,200 American adults how many days in the past week they had felt 'outraged.' The average number of angry days was 1.17, and 54% of those surveyed said none. Only one in 20 reported being outraged every day. Despite the litany of horrors presented to us daily by campaigning politicians, most of us appear to be doing really quite well managing our anger.

Indeed, we are less angry today than a decade ago. Let's look back to the glory days of the 1990s, when -- according to the media narrative -- we enjoyed uninterrupted peace and prosperity. In 1996, the General Social Survey asked exactly the same 'outrage' question of 1,500 adults. Then, only 38% had not been outraged at all in the past week. The average number of angry days was 1.5 per week, 29% higher than at present.

That's not what I would have expected. The article goes on to say the one group that is more outraged than in 1996 is the self-described "very liberal", which is more intuitive. Is it because the Obama effect has already taken effect, or people are optimistic about ABTB (anyone better than Bush)? Assuming the author is right that the question was the exact same, some differences could be attributed to surrounding questions (did previous questions take an optimistic slant, or pessimistic). It's been a while since I've done any good survey construction or studied the practice, but each of the surveyor names give some sense of impartiality.

Brooks goes on to write:

A more interesting question than what afflicts extreme liberals today is why folks outside their ranks (including moderate liberals) are failing so miserably to muster up much rage in the current environment. One theory is that ordinary Americans have been lulled into a culture of complacency -- or in the fancier language of academics, they're suffering from "false consciousness."

Another possibility is that most Americans recognize that, while gas is expensive and our grocery money doesn't go as far as it did last year, we are still an enormously prosperous and fortunate nation.

The first seems more likely, the second seems to give americans to much credit. I wonder to what effect selection bias, or the use of the term "outrage" has? Both of these can draw on the mortgage crisis--perhaps increased transience caused by the meltdown shifted the response. Gallup should have ways to work around that, I would hope. But secondly is the difference between outrage and fear. I can't really reconcile that with the 1996 results though. At this time, however, maybe people are more afraid of the general climate moreso than outraged--a split vote if you will. And even if people are less outraged, Congress still has a 9% approval rating and Bush has about the lowest presidential approval ratings on record, so people are definitely pissed off about something.

What's my point?

On Facebook last week, a friend posted a note regarding the study published in Science magazine
that females have caught up with males in standardized testing on math and science. The note was posted with some sense of satisfaction, and a lot of the same feeling was in most of the various news accounts. The positive news was centered on this:

The researchers looked at the average of the test scores of all students, the performance of the most gifted children and the ability to solve complex math problems. They found, in every category, that girls did as well as boys.

My first reaction, without reading it too closely I admit (that seems to be a common theme for me) was to wonder how much of the change was male regression versus female progression. Given the handwringing over primary education in the U.S., was it a good thing, or a bad thing that the sexes were equal?

Today, however, I read some counterpoints to the study. Or more specifically, disagreement with how the outcomes of the study were reported. The point of contention is that the news accounts of the study centered on the focus on the testing mean (boy versus girl average) instead of variance (dispersion of scores). In news reports, it was first mentioned in the Wall Street Journal:

Girls and boys have roughly the same average scores on state math tests, but boys more often excelled or failed, researchers reported. The fresh research adds to the debate about gender difference in aptitude for mathematics, including efforts to explain the relative scarcity of women among professors of science, math and engineering.

And it's since been discussed on Marginal Revolution, which was then mentioned on the Freakonomics blog.

The main point of contention is the shape of achievement of boys and girls in math and science. The average amongst a group only tells you so much. If one group scores 100, 95, 90, 70, 60 and the other group scores 90, 85, 85, 80, 75, the mean is the same, but the level of achievement is different. A starker example would be if the first group was 100, 100, 100, 60, 55. If one presumes a high level of accomplishment in math/science is necessary for technical fields, the general increase by girls may not be enough to cause that bump in advanced education/career path. Furthermore, there's the issue of why is there such variance among boys.

This variance is something that occurred to me a long time ago--that the difference in intelligence of the sexes was negligible, but guys pushed more to the extremes. One of the comments in the blogs above mentioned that intelligence is believed to be tied to the X chromosome, so girls get the average of 2, while boys get just one, increasing male variance. I'm not sure if that's true or right, but it's a theory.

I would think some variance, or perceived variance would be sociological. Lower male achievement may be condoned to some degree because "boys will be boys", athletic achievement, an outgoing personality (or however you'd describe Bart Simpson) which leads to the belief one is smart, but just just doesn't test well, or just a greater propensity to get into trouble (also Bart). Girls seem to be less prone to these pitfalls. In regard to athletics, for example, I think I've read that female athletes score above averages, whereas male athletes are well below.

On the flip side, there's the thought that boys garner more attention, which means more direction, which could be important to the high variance. When I think back to elementary and high school, my recollection is that in the former, there were more smart girls but the smart kids were all at the same general level. Except for me. I was brilliant. Everyone told me so (oh, how the mighty have fallen). Middle school was much the same.

High school was a little different. Some people slid out of the "smart" group. More of those might have been female, hard to say for sure--I might just have been more aware of their lack of presence. But the general mix in the various AP classes junior and senior year was still fairly evenly split. The one thing that struck me (as it did in college) was that the smart girls seemed to work a helluva lot harder than the guys, but there wasn't a whole lot of difference in grades. I think the smartest people in my grade were considered guys, but that may have been the smartest girls were quiet and reserved and the smartest guys thought they were brilliant, so perceptions may have been shaped by those personality traits.

Still, that's all anecdotal experience. The blogs/discussions linked above get into more detail about the statistical relevance of the study and the meaning of the variance. In response to my subject, I guess my point is, in the words of Winston Wolf, "Well, let’s not [pat each other on the back] quite yet. " It would be misguided of educators, public officials, business and other stakeholders to treat the problem (female underperformance in math and science) as solved without looking deeper into the issue. That is, if it is an important enough issue to address outside of efforts to generally increase STEM education.

Screw you Gerber!

Back in the heady days when we thought it would take forever to use up $500 of credit at Babies R Us, we contemplated getting a swanky highchair. Pneumatic lift, 1 piece molded plastic seat, made with style and flair... why not? We quickly realized $500 doesn't actually go that far, so we did a complete 180, and went ultracheap with the Ikea Antilop--$25 with the tray, and a similar, one piece, easy clean seat!

Owen hasn't complained about sitting in it in the trial runs, and Carter Hale and Myra Streit survived their meals using it. So we were all ready to give Owen his first try of solids this weekend, but all we needed was the right feeding utensil. Having been interested in the Boon high chair, I became familiar with their other products, generally well reviewed, if not sometimes a little overkill. On a previous visit to BRU in May, we got the Boon Squirt, which keeps the rice cereal in the handle and the feeder can squeeze the feed onto the spoon. In retrospect, this seems more neat than super functional, but it's possible I don't have enough experience to know what I'm talking about.

We returned with our BRU haul, and as I'm prone to do, I researched what we just bought, rather than being prepared and doing it before hand. The Squirt has BPA! But a BPA-free version was scheduled to be available later in the summer. Joanne made another sojourn to BRU on Saturday to exchange the Squirt, but, alas, the BPA-free Squirt was not yet available. In what can only be described as knowing her mate well, Joanne bought two types of spoons, knowing the chances of getting one I'd be happy with on only one try was small.

It didn't even take any reviews to make my choice. On the back of the Gerber spoons, it says, in its entirety:

Long, slim handle makes feeding baby easier for mom

The hell?! Did the ink for "and dad" cost too much? If my mom didn't read this blog (hi Mom!), I'd be busting out some F-bombs (No, Mom, i wouldn't actually do that if you weren't a reader. I don't have a potty mouth. Honest!). Seriously, who are the ad wizards who came up with this one?

So the Meal Mates it was. Just on principle.

Sunday, July 27, Owen got his first "taste" of something not from a bottle. And a taste may have been all it was. I'm not sure anything actually went down, but at least he had a fun time with it!

Breaking some eggs

I'm not quite sure where I read it recently--perhaps in a Cook's Illustrated (the latest issue of which, is the best we received--almost everything is of interest), maybe somewhere else--it was written that cracking eggs on the side of a mixing bowl, which most people do, is not the optimal way. Instead, whoever wrote whatever it is I read, offered the countertop as the best place to smack the egg. While making brinner tonight, I gave it a shot. Low and behold, no shells in the mixing bowl, no egg on the counter (I generally get some rundown from the bowl) except for the 1 that I hit way too hard. Really, quite a better method. I was using rather thin shelled eggs, so it will require more testing to see how it works with thicker shelled brown eggs that we occasionally get.

Speaking of breaking eggs, you might be aware of the Large Hadron Collider being built on the French-Swiss border by a consortium led by European Organization for Nuclear Research, which will smash protons together to replicate the big bang. In the free issue of Harpers that I received, courtesy of The Atlantic (or possibly the Economist, but I doubt it) selling my info to Harper's distributor, there was an extended passage from Luis Sancho, a cosmologist specializing in time theory, that submitted an affidavit to the US District Court in Honolulu in opposition to the project:

Theoretical calculations show that the LHC could produce two kinds of dark matter--black holes and strange, ultradense quark matter--that are extremely dangerous, as both have been theoretically proven to swallow in a chain reaction the entirety of the Earth... The exact probability of a runaway reaction that converts Earth into dark matter is unknown. The minimal risk as calculated by CERN allows for a 1-10% chance of extinguishing Earth... A calculation shows that the LHC experiment would be, technically, the largest holocaust in history. It would also be the biggest environmental crime in history, far more harmful than global warming, as it would mean the destruction of all life-forms on the planet.

That's a big egg to break! And this was news to me, as apparently I missed this topic when it was news/blog fodder a couple of weeks ago. A CS Monitor recap:

"So, will the most ambitious science project in human history end human history? No.
I should say “no, according to scientists working on the LHC.” But the evidence points to a resounding “no.”
A study released last month disassembled the arguments against powering up the collider. The report found “no basis for concerns that [small] black holes from the LHC could pose a risk to Earth on timescales shorter than the Earth’s natural lifetime.” In other words: Yes, it could happen, but chances are the sun will burn out before this collider can have an Earth-ending mishap.
Their reasoning? Slashdot puts it best: “Everything that will be created at the LHC is already being created by cosmic rays. If a black hole created by the LHC is interactive enough to destroy the world within the lifetime of the sun, similar black holes are already being created by cosmic rays.”

No I don't understand the science behind, so I can't clearly say it's alarmism with no really proof. When I read Joanne the passage, she actually laughed--there is a certain "ridiculous" quality to the affidavit. Oddly, it is also one of the more uplifting, least depressing columns/articles/pieces in this particular Harpers. Think about that for second--contemplating world destruction was not the top downer in the issue. In fact, it might not even be in the top 10. Joanne stopped reading before she got this far because it was all so depressing. We opted not to get the subscription (the Index was rather weak as well) although we did get a second issue, the catchy "Why the GOP must die".

Lesson Learned

One of the advantages of having the youngest baby amongst your friends is that you get to learn from their experience.

Observe:

It is Carter's first birthday. He is getting a cupcake to celebrate. Notice the candle on top:


Child + flame = parents rushing to the rescue.

But not quite in time!


Good thing kids are resilient!



Thanks Jeff & Kathleen for the useful tip!

It was an honor to know you Charlie

This morning was shocking. For work every morning I do a scan of news related to research, economic development, entrepreneurship and innovation. One of the scans I do is for ASU. I was not expecting to see this:

"Very sad news for those of us who do physical anthropology. Charles ("Charlie") Lockwood (University College London) was killed today in a motorcycle accident in London. He is survived by his parents and sisters.

Charlie was a good guy. He left the Valley/ASU shortly after President Crow took over ASU. Most of it was the opportunity he had at a UCL and his research in South Africa, with some displeasure over the Crow's approach when he got to ASU. Charlie started playing Ultimate at about the same time as Joanne (summer 2000). We played on local men's teams together. I provided an email address to him of critical importance even though that person whose email address it was was standing right there.We didn't keep in close touch after he moved, but we met up with him when we went to Europe in September 2006. We had dinner at an Indian place in Kensington that was in the neighborhood of where I stayed during a summer program in June 1996. The picture above is from that evening.

The two things I'll remember most about Charlie: first, off field, he was one of the most thoughtful people I have known. What he said and what he did gave the impression of having a reason or logical rationale that wasn't an after the fact rationalization. To get his input or thoughts on anything, you got the sense and confidence he knew what he was talking about. The second, on the field, of people I've played with, he's in the top 2 or 3 people that played with the most heart. He wasn't an amazing athlete, but he always gave his full effort. He wasn't afraid to take the other team's best player, even if that guy was 8 years younger, a couple of inches taller, been playing a lot longer (Charlie started playing in his early 30s). And you know what? He didn't lose that one-on-one matchup. My vision of Charlie on the field isn't really in getting the D, but being in a position that if the other guy let up even one bit, he would get it.

An "In Memoriam" page is up at Anthropology.net

Ahi Ah-hah

Before I made it to the lamb at Costco, I was in the seafood area and I was prepared to get enough Ahi Tuna for five. I called Joanne and she was reticent, based on our not having had it before, and fish being hit or miss on the quality. And it wasn't particularly cheap. But, to try something new, I got a piece that was suitable for us for dinner tonight.

The plan, as it usually is in the summer, was to grill, but the weather didn't really cooperate. That meant grilling inside on the cast iron. Where as the lamb marinades were multi-hour affairs, the one I used for the ahi was 30-60 minutes. It was pretty simple: soy sauce, honey, ginger, pepper and a dash of sesame oil...

I'm getting ahead of myself. What I wasn't aware of at the time of purchase is that ahi is meant to be seared, with the inside still raw. As I mentioned previously, I tend to overcook meat out of fear of undercooking. And we're not sushi/raw fish eaters, so this presented a conundrum.

I adjusted the cooking times up a bit, to account for the likely less hot stove top (using the cast iron meant not turning it too high so that the smoke alarms went off) and wanting a little less rareness in it. One out of two ain't bad. No smoke alarm (or large quantity of smoke), but the middle still was very pink (about an 1/8th crust on either side, with about 1/2 slab of pink in the middle), and not that hot. We proceeded to eat with caution.

The ahi itself was very good--I definitely liked it more than I expected to. I commented to Joanne beforehand what was the chance we'd only have a couple of bites because we didn't like it. The crust/marinade was also very good and worked well with the tuna. But that pink! Joanne had concerns about the raw fish issue, so she stuck to the more cooked areas, but ended up having a sandwich. I figured I have enough sick days for work, so despite the joy that was the food poisoning/stomach virus episode in October, I soldiered on and nearly polished it off. It was definitely tasty. Hard to say if we'll try it again, though. In looking at prepared images afterwards, I cooked it about right. I guess we'll have to get over our pink trepidation.