Published on September 24, 2013 at 11:53 pm Contact Melissa: [email protected] Facebook Twitter Google+ Tim Lester adopted a blue-collar mentality from San Francisco 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh during Lester’s last season as Elmhurst College’s head football coach.That mentality was created to inspire players to work harder every day in workouts to have an edge over their opponents. Seeing it succeed for the 49ers when Harbaugh took over in 2011, Lester kicked the mentality into full drive at the start of Elmhurst’s 2012 season.“We got blue-collar dog tags that said ‘BCM,’” senior wide receiver Chase Hamby said. “And we have shirts we wear before games and they say ‘BCM,’ too.”Sticking with the blue-collar philosophy, Lester produced one of the most successful seasons in program history. Division-III Elmhurst went 10-2 in 2012 and snagged its first College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin championship title since 1980.While the Bluejays hoped to produce another winning season, they got off to a rocky start after Lester departed for Syracuse in January. Starting quarterback Joe Camiliere was shocked when Lester left the program after the relationships he had made at Elmhurst.AdvertisementThis is placeholder textCamiliere said the seniors took Lester’s departure even harder because he was the one that recruited them and helped them grow.“At first I was disappointed because I had so much respect for him,” Hamby said, “but then I understood his opportunity and became concerned with what would happen to us.”Off the football field, Camiliere described Lester as being more than just a coach to many of the players. In the two years Camiliere knew Lester and worked with him on offense, he became more than a coach to many.“Coach Lester was almost like a father figure to us,” Hamby said. “He was a down-to-earth guy and he really took care of his players.”Lester was mostly leaving for his young family, said Joe Adam, current Elmhurst head coach. The seven-day-a-week job as head coach didn’t give him a lot of time with his wife, Dawn, and four sons. The opportunity for a Division-III coach to go Division I, Adam added, was also a perk.After Lester left for Syracuse, Elmhurst players didn’t know who their coach would be. But the team’s anxiety eased a little more than a week later when Adam — formerly Elmhurst’s defensive coordinator — was named head coach.“When he was announced as the coach, everyone was back on board,” Camiliere said. “He’s been a part of the coaching staff for the last few years.”Adam joined the Bluejays in 2007, a year before Lester. After spending five seasons as the defensive coordinator, Adam finally found himself in a position to lead the offense, as well.One of his goals is to get back to the success the team had last year. When Lester and Adam implemented the blue-collar mentality, they achieved their long-term goal of winning the CCIW. It was a good place for Adam to begin with the 2013 team.Adam kicked the blue-collar mentality into overdrive at the start of the season, putting more seniors in positions of leadership and introducing an NFL-style conditioning program to the Bluejays.But after losing 19 seniors and having a new starting quarterback, three offensive linemen and a tight end, the offensive players are still acclimating to one another.“This team is still trying to find its identity and who is going to drive the engine for us the rest of the season,” Adam said.Now finding himself in a position of leadership for the offense, senior wide receiver Hamby hopes to get the team out of its 1-2 slump.Though Elmhurst just suffered back-to-back road losses, Adam still feels the blue-collar mentality will work and help the school continue its legacy.“What we are going through is not unlike coach Lester’s situation up there at Syracuse, ” Adam said. “It just takes a little time offensively to deal with communication and understand where routes are being run. ”Some of the offensive struggles are no different than what Lester experienced in his second and third years at Elmhurst. Knowing that Lester has that experience, Adam reaches out to him when he can.Adam said he is aware that an offense changes each season and accepts the challenges as the head coach that will lead the team in the right direction.“With coach Lester’s help we put ourselves on the map,” Adam said. “Now it’s time to think big and dream big.” Comments
Goalkeeper Petr Cech insisted that interim boss Roberto Di Matteo had done enough to be given the Chelsea manager’s job after the Blues’ Champions League triumph in Munich.Di Matteo has inspired a remarkable turnaround that has seen the club secure the European title for the first time and win the FA Cup.And Cech told Sky: ” Whatever happens to him he has got two fantastic cups. He’s done enough to get the job but now it is up to the board to decide.”Cech was a hero for Chelsea, saving a penalty in normal time and in a dramatic shoot-out.“Today I faced six penalties and six times I went the right way. It was a rollercoaster ride,” he said.“We all enjoyed it. When it goes to extra-time there is pressure and I thought Robben would go for power and shoot that way.”More reaction to follow later.Who was your Chelsea man of the match? Click here to voteFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
(Visited 871 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Darwinism has replaced the need for demonstration in science with the convenience of assertion.When you read papers and articles that offer to explain how something evolved, what you often find are statements that they just evolved. Let’s see some examples.3D Body Evolution: Adding a New Dimension to Colonize the Land (Current Biology). The title suggests that readers will learn something about ‘3D Body Evolution’ in the case of plants about to colonize the land. One might anticipate learning about transitional forms, mutations, and natural selection. What the paper presents, however, is just a collection of assertions that plants did evolve.Complex multicellular plant bodies evolved in both generations of land plants.From unicellular organisms, multicellularity evolved multiple independent times in diverse eukaryotic lineages.Within some lineages, ‘complex’ mutlicellularity [sic], defined by the three-dimensional (3D) organization of the body plan, evolved from simple multicellular ancestors.Land plants represent one example, with both generations (haploid and diploid) evolving complex mutlicellularity [sic].The study highlights the importance of the CLV pathway for the morphological innovation of 3D body development in land plants and opens a new avenue to approach a mechanistic understanding of the evolution of the 3D patterning of a multicellular body during land plant evolution.Is that it? Surely there must be some empirical data to back up these assertions. All that the authors put forward, though, is a simplistic story about how certain complex enzyme pathways affecting the change from 2-D to 3-D patterning might have evolved in one species of moss, Physcomitrella. They are called CLAVATA (CLV) pathways, and they involve multiple complex protein parts.In summary, Whitewoods et al. found that the land plant-specific CLV peptide/receptor-like kinase pathway regulates orientations of cell division planes during developmental transitions from 2D to 3D growth in Physcomitrella. They also report that a novel CLV function found in the Physcomitrella gametophyte body in regulating cell division planes is conserved in flowering plant sporophyte bodies.There’s no evolution here. There is a complex pathway in a moss that is “conserved in flowering plants.” The short paper mentions nothing about natural selection. The only mutations mentioned damage things; they don’t invent new things. The paper’s summary promises, “A new study demonstrates that CLAVATA3-like peptides function via conserved receptors in Physcomitrella patens as key molecules for morphological innovation of 3D growth in land plants.” But search for how it does that, and you find no such innovation. They end by claiming that the “new avenue to approach the understanding of the evolution of the 3D patterning of a multicellular body” has been demonstrated. It sounds like an advertisement for vaporware or futureware has snookered the customer. Clearly, if evolutionists are only on an “avenue” by which they hope to “approach” understanding, they ain’t got no understanding yet. Their false confidence is founded on prior belief in “land plant evolution.” How did plants evolve? They evolved.Getting to the root of plant evolution (Science Daily). This press release from the University of Oxford actually offers an alleged transitional form. Here comes the promise:Despite plants and vegetation being key to the Earth’s ecosystem, little is known about the origin of their roots. However in new research, published in Nature, Oxford University scientists describe a transitional root fossil, from the earliest land ecosystem, that sheds light on how roots have evolved. Darwinists to the rescue. More will be known! One thing, though, is “known” from the outset: roots “have evolved.” When you already think you know the answer, and no other answers are permitted, can you really know anything? Yes: by the power of suggestion.The findings suggest that plant roots have evolved more than once, and that the characteristics of roots developed in a step-wise manner – with the central root organ evolving first. And the root cap subsequently coming later.Since we already know by fiat that roots evolved, we are not surprised to compound miracles. Roots evolved more than once! Presto. Now, about the step-wise manner, which would appear to support Darwin’s vision. Evidence for this comes from one fossil: a club moss that (according to evolutionists) branched off early in the evolution of land plants. A fossil of a club moss shows a meristem (emerging root or stem) without root hairs or a cap. From this one instance, a grand scenario takes root:The paper’s conclusion suggests that these roots are a transitional step towards modern-style, rooted vascular plants. The findings support the idea that, as this cap-less transitional structure appears in a plant that is already a lycopsid, roots with caps evolved separately in lycopsids and euphyllophytes from their common, root-less ancestors.Whatever this club moss lacked, it survived quite well, even if the Darwinians can be sure it lacked delicate root hairs in a fossil. Can the appearance of all land plants be deduced from a tiny fossil of one club moss? Every part of this story invokes the assumption of evolution. How did club mosses evolve? They evolved. How did plants evolve? They evolved.This is the kind of snow job that is turning vast numbers of students away from God and toward Darwinism. With grand bluffing, glittering generalities and the power of suggestion, students are led down a primrose path to absurdity. Professing to be wise, they have become fools. Professing to be scientific, they have become converts to the cult of Darwin. Bits of fossils are used as shiny pendulums to hypnotize them into thinking “Thisssss issss scienccccccce” while the teacher drugs them into euphoria about how much better they feel now that they have kicked out “religion” and that nasty old God of the Bible they might have learned about as kids. But this is not the experimental science of Joule or Faraday. It is a new Aristotelianism taught with authoritarianism. Plants evolved because it is their nature to evolve. Since the student now ‘knows’ that plants evolved (because that is their nature), wee bits of data work as props to illustrate the dogma. It’s deductive science, not inductive empiricism. Premise: plants evolved. Question: How did plants evolve? Deduction: plants evolved. Yes, there are difficulties, like Darwin’s Abominable Mystery (the origin of flowering plants), but no worries. The students already know the answer. Plants evolved. Even if structures had to evolve multiple times independently to fit the picture, they can believe any imaginative scenario—even multiple miracles—now that the answer is already a given.
Documentary film is only as good as its story. Consider the following filmmaking advice when capturing documentary exposition.To tell a good story, you have to get really good at exposition and setting things up. For documentaries, in particular, this can be tricky because you’re often dealing with real-life people and complicated issues.In my time as a run-and-gun documentary journalist, I had to develop many different ways to help tell (or often, show) the who, what, when, where, and — most importantly — the why of your documentary’s story.There are several tricks for this — some simple and direct, a few more complicated and stylized. So, if you’re setting out on your own documentary storytelling project, here are some filmmaking tips for capturing the who, what, when, where, and why.Scene-Setting Exteriors and SignageI’d say that the most common (and often, obvious) way to set up exposition for your documentary story is with your standard exterior shots. These can often be pretty boilerplate, and you’ll also see them in similar corporate and commercial-style projects, but if done right, they can be quite cinematic and helpful.When shooting exteriors, you’re looking to capture the “where.” Try looking for shots that are as wide and expansive as possible, to give context into where you’re shooting. From there, you can start to focus in on the who, what, and when.If you’re shooting a documentary about a basketball player, for example, starting with a wide exterior of the player’s high school gymnasium (hopefully with a sign out front) would be a good way to begin.Thematic Close-Up RevealsImage via guruXOX.Instead of starting as wide as possible, you can also consider starting with a close-up on some item (or perhaps person) to begin revealing visual information early.From close-ups, you can build intimacy — as well as insights — into the “who” or “what” of your documentary’s story, as you get wider to reveal more.Using the same basketball documentary example, you could also start with a macro-lens focusing on a basketball, or the player’s shoes, before slowly revealing the player in question.Straight from Your SubjectOne of my favorite techniques for getting the who, what, when, where, and why exposition for a documentary project is by simply asking your main subject to give it to you. Sounds crazy, right? And I have to say that, from experience, not every subject can deliver the goods. But if you have a particularly talented individual who likes to talk, they can be very valuable in helping you set up your story.My usual opening question would go something like this: “If you don’t mind, could you introduce yourself to the camera and tell us who you are, where we are right now, what’s going on, and . . . why does that matter?”At the very least, you’ll have footage of them introducing themselves, which can be useful in the edit. However, if they are blessed with the gift of gab, you might find yourself with a soundbite succinctly and authentically establishing all the exposition you need.Text and Lower ThirdsImage from Rocketstock’s “Equation” pack.Alternatively (and don’t take this advice as a cop-out to setting exposition organically), you could always use text on-screen and/or lower thirds to establish a good deal of the who, what, when, where, or why information.Text on-screen can be powerful when used sparingly. Date and location are usually the primary facts to put on-screen for context — especially if you’re dealing with multiple timelines in your documentary.Lower thirds are also very much a part of the documentary lexicon, these days. So no one will blame you for using them to tell your audience the “who” for your subject’s name — and perhaps a little information about their title or relevance.And there are some great resources online for working with text and lower thirds, which can make your documentaries a little more stylized. Here are some text templates and free animated lower thirds.Counterpoint: Try Hiding Some ElementsAs you grow as a documentary filmmaker, you’ll begin to recognize which of these expositional elements best suit your project. In many cases, once you really define your stories (and narratives), you may find that it can be beneficial to not provide your audience with all the information, right away.If you’re editing your documentary project, as well as shooting, try experimenting with what information is most captivating to an audience (in the beginning) and what information might be best to bury for a later reveal.Cover image by Elizaveta Galitckaia.For more documentary filmmaking tips and tricks, check out some of these articles:Make Your Documentaries Matter with Awe-Inspiring MaterialA Complete Guide to Documentary FilmmakingThe 6 Types of Documentary Films7 Reasons Why You Need a Producer for Your DocumentaryDocumentary Editing Tips for Working with Lots of Footage