Need a lesson plan?
For example:
"Can you give me a lesson plan for learner training for a b1 group of language learners?"
Ask ChatGPT:
And ask Google Gemini:
Here's a little more help:
Mastering ChatGPT for Lesson Planning - Toddle Learn
Eduaide.Ai: AI Created for Teachers
Free AI Tools for Teachers and Educators – Brisk Teaching
And there are always non-AI sources:15 Sites With Free ESL Lesson Plans + How to Create Your Own!
..
"I was rather interested in my fellow prisoners who seemed to me in no way morally inferior to the rest of the population, though they were on the whole slightly below the usual level of intelligence – as was shown by their having been caught."
This quote leads to all sorts of questions:
Jay Doubleyou: what is 'justice'?
And even this:
Jay Doubleyou: what is an 'illiberal democracy'?
Because, according to Matthew d'Ancona writing in the New European:
From El Salvador to Greater Lincolnshire via the White House, populists want to sweep aside the criminal justice system as we know it
Let us call it the Bukele Doctrine. It was unveiled in the Oval Office last month, in specific reference to a profoundly controversial arrangement between the US and El Salvador. But, in this hour of global realignment and democratic fragility, it should act as a warning to all free societies.
On April 14, Nayib Bukele, the Salvadoran president, sat beside Donald Trump, and explained how his ferociously repressive regime had cracked down on crime: “Sometimes they say that we imprisoned thousands. I like to say that we actually liberated millions”. This framing fascinated the US president. “It’s very good,” he said. “Who gave him that line? Do you think I can use that?” Most definitely, was Bukele’s reply. “You have 350 million people to liberate,” he said. “But to liberate 350 million people, you have to imprison some. That’s the way it works, right? You cannot just free the criminals and think crimes are going to go down magically. You have to imprison them, so you can liberate 350 million Americans that are asking for the end of crime and the end of terrorists.” ...
It is hard to overstate how transformative Bukele’s glib formulation truly is. For centuries, the legal systems of free societies have aspired to respect what is known as “Blackstone’s ratio” – as precious a principle as the “Golden Rule” that we treat others as we would like to be treated.
In his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-9), the great English jurist Sir William Blackstone declared that “the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”. In 1785, Benjamin Franklin went further: “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer”...
There is alarming evidence, too, that fear of crime and disorder has eroded popular support for Blackstone’s ratio. In a survey of more than 12,000 Americans in 2023, legal scholars Gregory Mitchell and Brandon Garrett found that most were now unwilling to err on the side of acquitting the guilty to avoid convicting the innocent; and that a sizeable minority thought that false acquittals were worse than false convictions.
As I wrote in January last year: “Trump’s 2024 pitch has its roots in a primitive notion of order and vengeance that has nothing to do with the rule of law”. And now he is making good on that pitch.
In an interview with the Atlantic to mark his first 100 days back in office, he was asked about the deportations without due process. “What if there’s a mistake?” said the magazine’s Michael Scherer. “You might get the wrong person, right?” Trump replied: “Let me tell you that nothing will ever be perfect in this world.” Just reflect for a moment on what that throwaway remark actually implies.
In a separate interview with Time magazine, the president was asked whether he agreed with his predecessor John Adams, who said that the American republic was “a government of laws, not of men”. For almost 250 years, this principle has been the nation’s secular creed. But – extraordinarily – Trump’s response was equivocal. “I wouldn’t agree with it 100 per cent,” he said. “We are a government where men are involved in the process of law, and ideally, you’re going to have honest men like me.” ...
All over the free world, an argument is raging about the viability of liberal democracy and its institutions. Are they still fit for purpose in the second quarter of the 21st century? Might some form of authoritarianism, though it comes at a price, be a better delivery system for the needs of contemporary society? ...
In January, a poll for Channel 4 found that 52% of Gen Z (defined in this survey as aged between 13 and 27) believe that the UK would be a better place if a “strong leader was in charge who did not have to bother with parliament and elections” and that 33% think that life would be better if the “army was in charge”. This is odd only if you forget how dramatically restricted the opportunities of the young to housing, a secure job and an affordable family life now are. As they see doors slamming all around them, is it any wonder that their thoughts are turning to different ways of organising society?
The populist war on law - The New European
So, how important is 'the rule of law'?
According to Simple English Wikipedia:
Rule of law is a legal maxim that suggests that no one is above the law and governmental decisions must be made only by applying known legal and moral principles.[1] The Rule of Law limits the powers of Government by judicial defense of laws and the Constitution which is based on recognized basic legal values, established in international law. The Rule of Law is meant to prevent dictatorship and to protect the rights of the people.Rule of law - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
rule of law, the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power. Arbitrariness is typical of various forms of despotism, absolutism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.
Rule of law | Definition, Implications, Significance, & Facts | Britannica
And in the news:
Trump’s 100-Day Assault on the Rule of Law | Nippon.com
EU lawmakers probe rule of law in Meloni’s Italy – POLITICO
Italy among the "dismantlers" of the rule of law in the EU, according to a study
Mexico’s government is throttling the rule of law
Mexico's fork in the road: Rule of law or authoritarian shift? - Atlantic Council
Eastern Partnership: Workshop on the Rule of Law takes place in Warsaw - European Commission
.
.
.
Can technology save us from our ecological mess?
Jay Doubleyou: is technology going to save us?
It might help to save the ecological mess from getting worse:
Jay Doubleyou: flora and fauna: appearing and disappearing
And one stand-out species which might need saving is the wolf:
Jay Doubleyou: sharing our lives with wolves: on bbc's shared planet
What about de-extinction?
De-extinction (also known as resurrection biology, or species revivalism) is the process of generating an organism that either resembles or is an extinct organism.[1] There are several ways to carry out the process of de-extinction. Cloning is the most widely proposed method, although genome editing and selective breeding have also been considered. Similar techniques have been applied to certain endangered species, in hopes to boost their genetic diversity. The only method of the three that would provide an animal with the same genetic identity is cloning.[2] There are benefits and drawbacks to the process of de-extinction ranging from technological advancements to ethical issues.
It sounds good, coming from the company that's doing a lot of it:
The process of generating an organism that both resembles and is genetically similar to an extinct species by resurrecting its lost lineage of core genes; engineering natural resistances; and enhancing adaptability that will allow it to thrive in today’s environment of climate change, dwindling resources, disease and human interference.Solving the Colossal Problem of Extinction | Colossal
But others aren't so sure:
Colossal’s claim that this is “the first successful case of de-extinction” is wrong in fact, void of motivation (except commercial), and ethically questionable – these wolves have been genetically modified for no medical or ecological reason. Scientists are furious. “To see this work being done with such a casual disregard not only for the truth, but for life itself is genuinely abhorrent to me,” said one palaeoecologist.
Critical Mass: The dire truth about ‘de-extinction’ - The New European
Headlines like the one that appeared on the front cover of TIME magazine – with the word “extinct” crossed out – seed a false hope that no matter what environmental damage is done, species loss can be easily undone.
The risk is that de-extinction will be used as an ultimate offset for any environmental impact.
Humans fear death. It is possibly our most primal instinct. We mourn and feel great sadness for the death of an individual, not only because they are gone, but because it is irreversible and final. Permanent.
That finality is the same for humans or any living animal. It is what makes fighting biodiversity loss such an urgent concern, so much so that people risk their lives to prevent it, with 150 wildlife rangers dying each year around the world in their fight to protect endangered species.
Protest movements like the Extinction Rebellion draw attention to irreparable damage to biodiversity. Ethan Wilkinson/Unsplash
In the conservation movement, raising awareness of “martyr” species – like the northern white rhino and the passenger pigeon – helps underline the argument in favour of protecting current species. Framing extinction as temporary creates false hope and undermines motivation for real conservation action.
‘De-extinction’ of dire wolves promotes false hope: technology can’t undo extinction
Chief among the concerns raised was that claiming it is possible to bring back extinct species may actually lead to more existing species being lost. It could give politicians and industries the idea that damage to the environment can be fixed by resurrecting species.
Such a message could be particularly damaging at a time when the US is withdrawing from international agreements on climate change and revoking measures intended protect the environment and wildlife, says David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist and independent consultant based in Washington, DC.
"It's beyond irresponsible for these people [Colossal] to be claiming some sort of conservation victory in this environment," he says.
This worry was quickly reinforced when Doug Burgum, the US Secretary of the Interior – who the Colossal team met with in advance of their dire wolf announcement – praised the company's work on X as a new "bedrock for modern species conservation". Burgum also criticised the ineffectiveness of the "endangered species list" – presumably a reference to the Red List of Threatened Species, drawn up by the International Union of Conservation (IUCN) or the list of threatened & endangered species maintained by branches of the US Government – thanks to what he characterised as a focus on regulation. "Since the dawn of our nation, it has been innovation – not regulation – that has spawned American greatness," he wrote.
Dire wolves and woolly mammoths: Why scientists are worried about de-extinction - BBC Future
.
.
.
Japanese culture has been a fascination outside Japan:
Jay Doubleyou: culture mix: japan
And Japanese taste too:
The UK and especially London is home to a large Asian diaspora:
Jay Doubleyou: big british asian summer
London is full of wonderful things Japanese:
A Japanese Day Out in London | Blog | Travel Japan (Japan National Tourism Organization)
Japan House London – The Cultural Home of Japan in London
The UK’s Biggest Japanese Culture Event - HYPER JAPAN
Japanese Things To Do In London | The Clermont
And there is now a beautiful show on at one of London's biggest museums:
Announcing the 'Hiroshige: artist of the open road' exhibition | British Museum
A remarkable new exhibition at the British Museum will celebrate the life, work, and legacy of Utagawa Hiroshige (1797–1858), one of Japan's most popular and prolific artists. Hiroshige's thoughtful and engaging way of depicting landscape, nature and daily life in Japan captivated viewers in his own day, and he continues to influence and inspire. The first exhibition on Hiroshige in London for quarter of a century, and the first ever at the British Museum, Hiroshige: artist of the open road will present this major Japanese artist through his prints, paintings, books and sketches.This is really beautiful:
And here's a trip round the museum:
Hiroshige is one of Japan's most beloved artists. He captured the 'Floating World' in 19th Century Japan in the Edo period. This exhibition is the largest showing of Hiroshige prints in the UK for many years.
.
.
.
The United Kingdom does not have an official language: Language | Study UK and Languages of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
The English language is now the only language recognised to be officially used in the USA: Designating English as the Official Language of The United States – The White House
As covered by the BBC at the time: Trump makes English official language of US - BBC News
And as of today, if you drive a truck and your English isn't good enough, you've lost your job: Trump Orders Strict Enforcement of English for US Truck Drivers
This is political: “Speak English!” Has Donald Trump weaponised English by making it the official language? | News and events | Loughborough University
Trump's mother spoke Scottish Gaelic: BBC ALBA - Mathair a' Chinn Suidhe – Trump’s Mother
And his grandfather spoke German: Donald Trump's new immigration rule would have kept his German grandfather out | The Independent | The Independent and Merz woos Trump with invitation to German ancestral village – POLITICO
Most Americans haven't spoken English: Trump’s English language order upends America’s long multilingual history
The U.S. has a long multilingual history, beginning with the hundreds of Indigenous languages indelibly linked to these lands. The secondary layer are colonial languages and their variants, including French in Louisiana and Spanish in the Southwest. In all historical periods, immigrant languages from around the world have added substantially to the linguistic mix that makes up the U.S.
Today, New York is one of world’s most linguistically diverse cities, with other U.S. coastal cities not far behind. According to data from the Census Bureau, one-fifth of all Americans can speak two or more languages. The social, economic and cognitive benefits of bilingualism are well-established, and there is no data to support the assertion that speaking more than one language threatens the integrity of the nation state.
English has long functioned as a pragmatic lingua franca for the U.S. Yet an American tendency towards ideological monolingualism is gathering momentum.
The emergence of Spanish as the nation’s second language, with well over 40 million speakers, has generated a particular anxiety. During the last few decades, more than 30 American states have enshrined English as an official language.
Most of the world’s people are resolutely multilingual and are only becoming more so. Americans will not stop speaking, writing and signing in languages other than English because of an executive order. The linguistic dynamism of the U.S. is essential to the country’s social fabric. It should be nurtured and defended.
Finally, this is not about language learning: Opinion | Trump’s English-Only Rule Is an Unkind Policy for a Nonexistent Problem - The New York Times
Then there’s the claim that this order will compel immigrants to learn English, and the implication that people who fail to do so are shirking a basic American duty. This attitude is based on ignorance about how people acquire language.
In our midteens — after the end of what linguists call the critical period — our ability to master a new language starts to atrophy. I once lived next door to a couple that had just arrived from Israel. Their 2-year-old knew no English at all and used to squeak “khatul!” whenever he saw the cute black cat I had back then. A few years later he sounded like Macaulay Culkin. That’s how it is for little kids. Those who start living in English at, say, 16 will learn to speak fluently but probably retain a slight accent, and when tired might flub the occasional idiom. Adults starting from zero encounter almost inevitable limits. A brilliant Slav I know came to North America at about 50. His English was great, but with a strong accent and a tendency now and then to render things the way his native language would, such as designating me “an early-waking-up person.” This was normal.
Learning a new language, after all, isn’t just a matter of dutifully memorizing the words for things; you also have to learn how to put them together. Example: A native Spanish speaker is learning English. She’s at an American club and wants to say, “The guy who brought me can’t dance!” (Quick, show music geeks, what’s that from?) First she has to know that the past tense of “bring” is not “bringed” but the hopelessly random “brought,” and that in English we put the direct object (“me”) after rather than before the verb. Or, the woman is a native English speaker at a club in Beijing, new to Mandarin but trying to say the same thing. In Mandarin she’d have to say, “The take-me-come-in-guy can’t dance.”
That’s all part of why immigrants in late middle age or beyond, if they live in communities where almost everyone speaks their native language, may never really find their footing in English. In my neighborhood, where I am frequently assumed to be Dominican, barbers address me in Spanish and older Latinos, especially women, approach me asking me to point them in the right dirección. According to the English-only idea, those older ladies are a problem in some way. How?
Imagine a native Mandarin speaker who is new or newish to English. Let’s say she can get by just fine while navigating a menu or engaging in brief exchanges. Grand. But if she were being admitted to a hospital, taking a citizenship test, voting or doing anything else involving detail or urgency, she would want to be able to use, hear or read her native language. To deny her that is pointless and unfeeling.
But that is precisely what Trump’s executive order will do. In all those settings where ordinary people interact with government functions, nonnative speakers will be forced to muddle through in English alone, regardless of whether that produces any clarity for them — or for the government branch in question.
The only silver lining to all this is that to a considerable extent, modern technology will render the new rule powerless. Google Translate and other apps can now translate straight from the page, as well as interpret between you and another speaker in real time. The executive order “Designating English as the Official Language of the United States” will largely kneel to the power of the iPhone.
But what matters is the spirit of the thing. The English language is under not the slightest threat in America, and providing services in other languages for adults past the critical period is kindness, not disloyalty. A punitive yawp that English be “official” in this country is jingoistic trash talk in the guise of statesmanship.
.
.
.
