If The Time for School Is At An End, Then What's Next?

Yesterday's post, in which I asserted that The Time for School is at an End, prompted many readers to ask some version of the question, Okay, but what do we replace it with? I have a lot of ideas about this, which I expect to share over the course of the next few days and weeks. This morning I'm republishing a post from a couple years ago in which I sketched of one aspect of how we might want move forward with a much needed transformation. That we need something beyond an overhaul, I think, is without question, but what that's going to be requires a discussion, one that includes all of us. I don't imagine there will be one solution, but rather one that is woven from many threads into a single fabric. In that spirit, I offer this thread for consideration.

*****

I often write here as a critic of normal schools with their compulsory top-down, standardized curricula that devalue the interests of our youngest citizens in favor of adults deciding what, when and how children are to learn. It's a system that flies in the face of what we know about how human beings are designed to learn, a product of the Industrial Revolution that has continued more or less unchanged to this day, perpetuated by habit rather than an ongoing, rigorous application of the science. The evidence is clear that if we truly want well-educated citizens, ones capable of thinking for themselves, of questioning authority, of standing up for their beliefs and values, people who are sociable, motivated and able to work well with others, then we would have long ago transformed our schools into places where children direct their own learning.

Sometimes I like to imagine what that would mean. More and more Americans are opting out all together, choosing a version of homeschooling or un-schooling that works for their families. Others have sought out alternative private schools that employ, say, the Waldorf method or Reggio Emilia or perhaps even the democratic free school model of places like the Sudbury Valley School. These are all fine ways for individuals to opt out of normal public education, but there is a limit to how many of us can afford the price, either in terms of time or money. No, it seems to me that a real transformation of education in America, one that includes all children, must be a public one: well-educated citizens are a public good, one that is vital to every citizen in that it is the only guarantee of our grand experiment in self-governance. So what I'm thinking about here is a true transformation of public education, which, I believe, is necessary if our democracy is to continue to thrive.

If we get rid of schools as we know them, it seems to me that we will still need something "like" schools, safe places for our children to spend their days. Unless this transformation in education comes as a part of a wider transformation in our society, one that does not require so many two-income families, "schools" will need to continue to serve this function. Indeed, I reckon that the school facilities that we've already built will work just fine as a starting point: large buildings with lots of room and, typically, with a fairly substantial amount of land surrounding them.

Neighborhood children of all ages would arrive at these "schools" in the mornings just as they do today and, as in the democratic free-school model, they would be free to pursue their own interests throughout the day with the support of "teachers" whose jobs would be re-defined to more closely resemble that of professional play-workers, adults who spend their days loitering with intent, not intervening or directing, but available to step in, minimally, when needed.

There would, of course, continue to be the cafeteria, a place where professional cooks prepare and serve meals, the difference being that these kitchens would be open to the children to participate as their age and interests (e.g., chopping, stirring, measuring, serving) allow under the guidance of the kitchen staff. Likewise, there would be a garden and greenhouse tended by professional gardeners charged with supplying the kitchen, and who would also likewise make room for children interested in any or all aspects of that process. There would be a functioning workshop where professional carpenters would build the furniture and other items needed by the school, another place where children of all ages are welcome. These transformed schools would be home to musicians and other artists, mechanics, engineers, computer scientists, psychologists, athletes, handy(wo)men, nurses, custodians, accountants, yoga masters, and other specialists, each going about their real work while also always making space for young apprentices of all ages, role-modeling, supporting, and teaching, allowing the children to explore as their ages and interests dictate.

But, of course, the children would not be limited. If a group of kids take an interest in, for instance, building a rocket, the more experienced children (which would likely most often be the oldest, but not always) would lead, while the adults would be there to help with locating information or securing materials.

These "schools" would not just be for children. Neighborhood seniors, for instance, would also be invited on campus to spend all of part of their days, sharing their skills and wisdom, while also participating in meals and serving as audiences for dramatic and musical performances. In the evenings, parents would be encouraged to not just fetch their kid and rush off, but to rather spend their evenings there, together with other families, dining, dancing, reading in the library, or puttering around the workshop or garden, and otherwise hanging out with their neighbors, creating community.

Each neighborhood school would be "owned" by the neighborhood, in the way that our cooperative school is owned by the parents who enroll their children. Each household would have an equal voice in how their school operates, managing the funds to best serve their community, democratically creating a school that most perfectly reflects the aspirations and dreams of the people who live there.

These transformed schools would be, like our democracy itself, grand experiments, each one continually evolving to serve the needs and interests of the neighborhood, and especially the children. I envision them as standing at the hearts of their neighborhoods, around-the-clock gathering places, based not on commerce, but upon the shared interests of the people who live in the community: places that serve as models of real self-governance in action. I imagine that children who are raised in this type of environment will grow into the sorts of citizens we most need.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of one of the ways I see transformed public education in America. There is so much more to talk about. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!

A Process Of Godlike Creation Children Education

"Those clouds are having a race."

"My tummy's full of happy bubbles."

"The thunder growled at me last night."

"I feel love flowing through my whole body."

Humans can hardly communicate, or even think for that matter, without the use of metaphor. It's how we construct our collective reality. Clouds don't actually race, happiness does not come in bubbles, thunder cannot growl, and there is no river of love, yet these things are, nevertheless, real. On one level, the creation of metaphor seems like an incredibly complex thing: the projection of the qualities of one domain onto another, creating an entirely new reality linking both domains. On another level, however, metaphor is a piece of cake, something that even the youngest humans can do.

One of the great joys of working with young children is to be present as they employ metaphor to construct knowledge and understanding. They delight us, not just with their joy, but with the sheer inventiveness, ease, and humor with which they create new meaning from this old, stale world, a place where we adults have long ago settled upon our metaphors. They surprise us out of our humdrum, showing us a new world that has, in a moment of childlike epiphany, come into existence. We take it as evidence of their genius, and it is, but it's more than that: it shows us that humans are, in fact, creators, all of us, and metaphor is a no less important building block than the atom.

There are many reasons for adults to practice listening in the presence of children. We think because we've lived more years that what we have to say is of more vital importance, that we can and should always be teaching. But much of what we do amounts to sucking oxygen from the room as we play an inadvertent demon to a process of godlike creation.

I've just published a book! If you are interested in ordering Teacher Tom's First Book, click here. Thank you!

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!

Education When Time For School Is At An End HURRAY !!

Over the course of the last 70 years or so, our expectations of children have changed dramatically. In many ways we perceive them as less competent. As a society we have lowered our expectations of what they are capable of doing in the world. They no longer walk themselves to school. None of them carry pocket knives, and for that matter, are kept far away from most tools. And even if you trust your own child to be home alone as you run a quick neighborhood errand, the wider society considers you neglectful because, of course, children younger than, say, about 15, are perpetually on the verge of stupidly killing themselves (or being killed by nameless, faceless others) if left for even the briefest moment without adult supervision. Or so our urban legends about childhood would have it. As a result, our children are growing up in a world scrubbed of risk, challenge, hurt feelings, and failure because, as we've come to believe, they are not capable of handling it.

At the same time, and perhaps partly as a result of this cultural paranoia, we've placed unreasonable expectations on our children, especially our youngest children in the form of schooling. We are institutionalizing our children at younger and younger ages. They are spending more and more time in "school" and less and less time playing, while being subjected to greater and greater academic expectations. Today, more than 80 percent of kindergarten teachers expect five year olds to be reading. In 1998, that number was 30 percent, and in 1950 that number was approaching zero. That our literacy rate hasn't budged over the past half century despite these developmentally inappropriate expectations tells us that our early literacy efforts, at best, have no impact, but there is ample evidence that this phenomenon is taking a mental health toll on our children, with one in five children between the ages of 3-17 struggling with a diagnosable mental illness, mostly in the form of anxiety and depression, much of which can be linked to these pressures.

These dynamics represent bookends of fear that are crushing our youth. We're afraid they are going to be hurt so we've dramatically restricted them. We're afraid of them falling behind so we reign them to carts in academic coal mines. It's almost as if our greatest fear is of childhood itself . . . or children, or liberty, or play.

From where I sit, the time for school is at an end. We have clearly reached a point of diminishing, dramatically diminishing, returns. For most children, most of the time, school is a place where they can be safely warehoused and made to nose the grindstone in a way that is contrary to what large majorities of scientists and psychologists tell us is appropriate. This is the same phenomenon we're seeing with environmental denialism. We, as a society, are so committed to our habit of schools that we struggle to even consider a world without them, the most common knee-jerk question being, "But without schools, what will the children do while their parents are off at work?"

It's a central question, a question about caring for the children more than "education," an important question that has been answered in different ways by different societies throughout human history. Most prime of life adults have pretty much always worked productively in useful ways, this is nothing new in human evolution, and while birth mothers may have traditionally shouldered a somewhat larger share of the burden of child care, a substantial part was handled by the wider community, the village. Instead of ghettoizing child care into out-of-the-way, low paying, low prestige corners, most prior human civilizations have placed caring for the children at the center of life, creating communities in which children were included, in which caring for them was the responsibility of us all, and in which they were free to have a childhood, under the watchful eyes and loving hearts of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and neighbors. It's from living in a community that we learn what we most need to learn, from a wide variety of adults and other children, the lessons of working together, of being personable, of asking a lot of questions, of taking responsibility, and, when ready, and not necessarily waiting until the arbitrary age of 18 or 21, to assume our own productive, useful work.

We are currently a long way from achieving anything like that vision, but it is nevertheless the way forward, not just for children, but for all of us. If this change is to happen, it won't come from on high, but rather must bubble up from us, from individuals choosing to place caring for our children at the center of our lives. Indeed, it's already happening with more and more parents opting for homeschooling, unschooling, cooperatives, and democratic free schools. There is a lot of irrational fear to overcome. There is a lot of science denialism to overcome. There are a lot of addictive habits to break. And there are economic realities that make it seem insurmountable. But we know what to do and that is to create community, to find it, to nurture it. It can begin to happen in libraries and on playgrounds, in work places and nursing homes. It can begin in our schools and churches; where sports are played, where music is made, and where dancing is happening. It starts when we seek to make space for children everywhere that community is happening. It starts with learning to trust more people, including children, because trust is the greatest antidote to fear.

If there ever was a time for schools, it's at an end. When we bring the children back into the center of our lives, we will once more have the kinds of communities in which we can all thrive, together.

(I've written a follow up post in which I sketch out one idea for how a future without schools could look.)

I've published a book! If you are interested in ordering Teacher Tom's First Book, click here. Thank you!

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!

Irrevocable Decisions Education

Author and Yale University professor of philosophy and cognitive science L.A. Paul proposes a puzzle in which you are to imagine that you are approached at a party by a charismatic stranger with whom you exchange a few minutes of delightful banter. He says to you, "I'm a vampire and I think you would make a great vampire." He goes on to offer to make you into a vampire, telling you how wonderful it is, how you will be immortal, how you'll have super strength and speed, the ability to fly, and, like him, you'll be irresistibly charming. You have to admit, that all sounds pretty good, but you have some concerns. "What about the blood drinking? I don't like the sound of that. And I don't know if I can live without ever seeing the sun again. Those seem like a pretty big downsides." The vampire nods, "I get it, but let me assure you, once you're a vampire, those things won't matter."

Dream the Combine and Clayton Binkley

What do you decide? Becoming a vampire is an irrevocable decision. You can't really know if you'll be able to abide the negatives so you have no choice but to take the vampire's word for it. Becoming a vampire means you will become a whole new individual. Not only will you have super powers, but you be someone for whom drinking blood is not repulsive and never seeing another sunrise is no big deal.

Paul's point is that transformative experiences require something irrevocable to happen. Of course, we don't always get to choose our transformations, such as the type that happen when, say, someone loses a leg, but others we do get to choose, but only if we have the courage to make irrevocable decisions. Deciding to become a parent is in many ways quite similar to the decision to become a vampire. There's no going back and the moment that baby is born everything changes.

I recently sat down with a friend who is considering a major life change. He's decided to leave his current job and is seriously considering going into a whole new profession. He's in the process of weighing options, assessing the pros and cons, considering the impacts on his loved ones. That he's going to make a change is clear, the only question is whether or not it will be a transformative one. Another friend in a similar situation has defined her fulcrum as being between "safety" and "following my heart." Both of these people are looking at being "vampires" from the other side of their irrevocable decisions: they see the cool stuff, but aren't sure if they'll be able to live with the blood drinking. They've both asked for my advice and I've urged them to choose transformation.

I am not the person I was 50 years ago. Every atom in my body has changed, numerous times, between then and now. I have encountered hundreds of moments that irrevocably changed who I am. Transformation is a fundamental aspect of how the universe works: if you don't choose your transformations, they choose you, and there is no way to know what it means until you are on the other side. We live in an ever-emerging now, so in that sense, every moment is a transformation. We are always in the process of emerging, but I've come to see that we don't always have to live at the effect of transformation. We can be the cause as well, at least sometimes, but it requires doing something frightening. It requires stepping into the unknown. It requires making an irrevocable decision and then summoning the courage or gumption or whatever to embrace it like a parent embracing their newborn baby.

As for regrets, we all have them, but the worst, I think, are those we harbor about things we didn't do. We're all going to be transformed. The question is: do we choose our transformation or does it choose us?

I've just published a book! If you are interested in ordering Teacher Tom's First Book, click here. Thank you!

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!

Ask JKM a Question: You (Season Two) Film 2020

A reader, Chuck, writes:

"I know you have been busy and, frankly, I was not sure if you still have time for “Ask JKM a Question” feature on your blog (I know it has been a while). But my wife and I just finished binge-watching both seasons of the series You on Netflix and, for the first time in a long time, I felt inspired to send you a question because I was so curious as to what your thoughts on this series might be. 

And, if I am being honest, the main reason I thought of you is because season 2 of You reminded me so much of an old episode of The X-Files, "Terms of Endearment." It seems like a weird comparison to make, but I guess everything in life can be distilled down to at least one X-Files episode if you try hard enough. 

Anyway, I enjoyed season 1 of You but felt that season 2 was far superior. This is due, in no small part, to the outstanding performances of actors Penn Badgley and Victoria Pedretti. If you ever do get a chance to watch the series (I know it can be time consuming with ten episodes each season), I would love to know your thoughts.

Thanks as Always (and Happy New Year!)"

Happy New Year to you, Chuck, and thank you for the question.  I am still happy to answer "Ask JKM" questions, and was happy to see yours.  Any readers who have questions are welcome to pose them, and I will respond as soon as I can.

I do apologize for having to step away from the blog more than I would have liked, in the last 12 months.  I am hoping to return to it on a fuller basis, when it is feasible.

Before I answer any questions about the series You, I should probably post a "SPOILER ALERT" here.  

Don't read on, fair readers, if you have not seen the entirety of the second season.

Still here?

Okay.

I have seen both seasons of You (2018 - ) and the answer is that I think that is a terrific, well-made series. The first season had a fantastic New York vibe, and I was worried, honestly, when I heard the second season would be moved to Los Angeles. I worried that everything that made the series so appealing to me would be gone in the second season, especially given the fate of Beck, a character I adored.

Boy, was I wrong. 

Instead of repeating the same formula, You absolutely re-invented itself via its Los Angeles location, and ended up as an edgy, wicked, and absolutely on-point commentary about Hollywood, Me Too, Woke Culture, Self-Help, dieting, and more. I agree with your assertion that Season Two was actually stronger than (the superb) season one, and I do credit that success to the writing and acting, but also to the location change that I had fretted about.  The switch to L.A. infused the series with new energy, and deepened the discourse in a way I wouldn't have imagined possible.  This year, Joe entered a city where everyone was as dangerous, obsessed, and, really, narcissistic as he was.  Compared to some of the people he encounters in Season Two, he seems like an amateur in terms of stalking and obsession, in fact.

Your comparison to "Terms of Endearment," a sixth season episode of The X-Files (1993 - 2002) is apt, and very insightful.  For those who don't recall it, that episode stars Bruce Campbell as a husband and father-to-be named Wayne.  His secret, of course, is that he is, literally a monster.  Specifically, he's a demon.  But as the episode reveals at its climax, he is not the only monster in his relationship.   

The second season of You could be interpreted as a non-supernatural variation on the same story.  Joe/Will is a monster of the human variety, a psychopath, I would guess, and he enters a relationship with Love Quinn,  a woman whom he puts up on a pedestal as this pure icon of beauty, a kind of feminine ideal.  If you've watched the second season, you know that Joe gets quite the surprise, come end the of the ten episode catalog.  It is an ending that very much mirrors the idea of "Terms of Endearment."  So that connection is there, even if the supernatural element has been replaced with human psychology. 

What is so fascinating to me, about this paradigm, however, is what it tells us about Joe. In both seasons of the series, he falls in love, honestly, with the idea of love. He becomes infatuated and obsessed with a woman, and with his ideas of who she is.  When she is not who he believes she is, Joe becomes dangerous, even murderous.  The second season reckons with this idea, that men in general (and Joe in particular) fall in love with illusions that they have made themselves, not the actual woman who is the object of their affection.  Joe grows -- maybe -- at the end of the season, by realizing that he has not really "seen" Quinn, and instead of murdering her when he does really see her...he settles down with her.

I don't know if this notion of Joe and Quinn in domestic bliss will work in terms of Season 3, but again, I applaud the creators and writers on the series for ambitiously moving beyond a formula that would quickly become stagnant: Joe falls in love, acts obsessively and dangerously, commits murder, and has to run to a new city.  Rinse and repeat.  The last episode of Season Two promises that Season Three will be a whole new ball game, and that's good.

I think you are correct, too, Chuck, to credit Penn Badgley, who plays Joe/Will, with much of the series' success.  He is the anchor for everything, and is compelling, and strangely sympathetic. Much of the second season involves Joe going head to head with a nemesis, Candace. By all rights, our sympathy should be completely with her. He nearly killed her. And yet, our sympathies are not with her.  We want to see Joe succeed, despite the fact that he has committed horrible acts, and that she is right about everything (as even he comes to admit, near season's end).  This is kind of fucked up, and actually serves on a commentary regarding how women are viewed in our culture. 

Yet if we did not, at some level, love Joe, You simply would not work, and would also likely face accusations in the press that it is misogynist, and that it encourages sympathy with the devil.  But Penn Badgley's performances are sympathetic, even if the character he plays is an awful human being.  And we are capable of experiencing nuance in terms of our understanding of Joe. He is a monster, but he is also a human being. Season Two brings in flashbacks to his childhood, for instance, so we get a better understanding of how he became who he is.  

Another reason we love Joe: He sees everybody for all their bullshit.  What I like about Season Two is that his eyes are finally opened, indeed, to his own bullshit.  In Season Three, I assume we will learn whether Joe grows in that regards or backslides.

So You is absolutely a new favorite in my house, and it's going to be a long wait until the next batch of episodes in 2021.

Readers: You can e-mail me questions at Muirbusiness@yahoo.com, if you like!

NFL REPORT !! IF ASTROS PLAYERS APOLOGIZE FOR CHEATING, IT MEANS THEY'RE GUILTY!

Why would you apologize for something you don't do? NO... you wouldn't.

You apologize for something you did wrong, in the hopes you'll be forgiven. Here's the problem with the word "apology" and the "Astros". They changed the entire landscape in their quest to be greedy over the past few years. Players that weren't Astros players should have received accolades for their high level of play, but didn't because Astros players received them by cheating instead.

Teams that probably should have won didn't... because the Astros cheated their way to winning.  Even guys that probably should have received a much bigger pay day after a stellar season were affected, because the Astros cheated to get bigger contracts and bonuses.

In short, what Jim Crane, the owner of the Houston Astros wants is for his players to apologize so he can get ahead of it, and then have a 2020 season with controversy removed.  He wants to get past it. But here's the thing... the Astros will ALWAYS be tarnished and tainted now. They are untrustworthy.

Because the Astros are admitting guilt if they apologize for the sign-stealing scandal.  I am telling you right now... Rob Manfred and MLB brass better re-open an investigation into these idiots... because every single day it gets worse.

And if the Astros players come out and apologize for the sign-stealing scandal, it means they are part of the problem and guilty... not part of the solution of fixing the game like Jim Crane thinks.



The Houston Chronicle writes:

"A “strong statement” of apology is coming from the Astros players involved in electronic sign-stealing during the 2017 and 2018 seasons, owner Jim Crane said Tuesday."

And there's more. Sports Illustrated writes what Crane said:

"When we get down to Spring Training, we'll all get them together and they'll come out with a strong statement as a team and, I think, apologize for what happened and move forward," Crane said on Tuesday before the Houston Sports Awards. "We're going to sit in a room and talk about it, then we'll come out and address the press. All of them will address the press, either as a group or individually. Quite frankly, we'll apologize for what happened, ask for forgiveness and move forward."

Crane fired former Astros manager A.J. Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow for their role in the sign-stealing scandal on Jan. 13. The Astros were also fined $5 million and forced to forfeit first- and second-round picks in the 2020 and 2021 MLB drafts. 

The Astros owner was given the Executive of the Year Award on Tuesday. Astros third baseman Alex Bregman was named Houston Athlete of the Year."

I have to tell you... any noble, strong and smart player would return the Athlete of the Year award after a scandal like this. Bregman is a turd for even accepting it. And Crane, he made millions off of the Astros cheating scandal. The fact that MLB is not pressuring him into selling the team is outrageous. Jim Crane is part of the problem.  THEY ALL NEED TO GO.


I'm starting to worry the Rob Manfred is orchestrating this entire thing so he doesn't have to reinvestigate the Astros.  Whatever the case... this entire scandal sucks and I won't rest here at BYB. We will continue to write about it until there is more punishment, more firings and more fines. And ultimately, I want to see a handful of these assholes banned from baseball for life.  Bottom line.

YANKEES SAID TY HENSLEY IS SUPERHUMAN

How many of you know I love and support Ty Hensley, Jake Hensley and love their work ethic? Many hands are raised. I mean... I can't see them... but in my imaginary auditorium... I see everyone's hands up. OK... anyway... let's get to the point...

Ty Hensley throws 100 mph. HE'S BACK MOTHER F-ERS!

Not trying. He IS. We know because we’ve watched this dude grind through all of it every single day. #TysTheLimit #BYB #CAN

— Robert Casey (@BleednYankeeBlu) January 21, 2020

He's back and he's getting better every day.

Ty Hensley's journey was long and hard... but in the end, when everyone wrote him off... he kept coming. Working out like a monster, staying healthy... finding his happy place... the love of baseball, the love of life. Hensley could have given up about 10 to 20 times since I've known him. Lord knows I probably would have.

The deck was stacked against him many times. But last season he had an incredible time with the Unicorns, an independent ball club out of Indiana, and then, yesterday it was proven that he is superhuman... hitting 100 on the gun, as reported on Twitter.

For the record I want to state that the Bleeding Yankee Blue family has been in this guy's corner since he was drafted by the Yankees. We stood by his side through all the highs and the many lows and you know what? I am thrilled and honored to say that the Hensley's are my friends... great people.


Many will see this story and think that it's ridiculous that I wrote a story on BYB about how Hensley hit 100 on the gun. It's not ridiculous... it's just another major achievement that needs to be reported. Challenges are always in life. But's it how you navigate that makes you the person you are. I have always been impressed with Ty.

Unstoppable folks. Where he goes next is anyone's guess, but I can tell you one thing... BYB will be right there with him. No doubt.

NOSTALGIA | Underrated but Great #4: Mission: Impossible Season 5 (1970-1971)

The general consensus regarding the great, original Missile: Impossible (1966-1973) series is that it reached its pinnacle in Years Two and Three.  Peter Graves took the lead role of Jim Phelps in Season Two, and both seasons featured Martin Landau and Barbara Bain in career-making performances, as master of disguise, Rollin Hand, and model-turned-spy, Cinnamon Carter, respectively.  In this case, the conventional wisdom is largely correct.  Seasons Two and Three of this series are sharp, inventive, and unforgettable. They likely do rank as the very best of the seven season run.

But Mission:Impossible had turbulent times ahead. 

The Landaus departed from the series during a salary dispute between the third and fourth seasons. This meant, among other things, that there was no female lead for the series in its fourth year, only a rotating cast of guest stars, including Antoinette Bower, Lee Merriwether, and Anne Francis, among them.  

Leonard Nimoy also joined the cast as the new master of disguise, Paris the Great, but as he told author Patrick J. White in The Complete Mission:Impossible Dossier, he felt more like an implant into a successful formula than an organic addition to the great cast, which included Greg Morris as electronics expert Barnier Collier, and Peter Lupus, as the strongman on the team, Willy.  He was substituting for Rollin Hand, but not really creating a unique character for Paris

Something else had happened by the fourth season too. 

The rigidly formulaic weekly format had become a little stale through all the repetition.  Everyone knew there was the tape scene, in which the mission was introduced ("Good morning, Mr. Phelps..."), and the portfolio scene, in which Jim selected his team for the specific mission, by going through his IMF satchel of portfolio.  Then there was the apartment briefing in which the team assembled and a few tantalizing details of the mission were spoken about.  Then there was the mission itself, and finally, the surreptitious getaway.  

Throughout the first four seasons, this sequence of key (trademark) scenes was played out again and again, and there was another thing too: the missions never went awry.  

On the contrary, the missions were pretty much picture perfect, timed to the second, on each occasion.  If something "seemed" to go wrong on the mission, it was revealed in the first four seasons to be part of the plan all along.  This was not necessarily bad, because the missions were so elaborate, and, frankly, brilliant, that that the pleasure in watching the series was in figuring out how it all fit together.  It is difficult to remember today, in an age when the movie series is all about ever-more impressive stunts, that the franchise was really once a thinking-person's show; probably one of the most tightly, and smartly-scripted hour dramas to come out of the sixties and seventies.

But, again, by Season Four, it was all feeling a bit canned.  So for Season 5, many changes were in the offing in an attempt to keep the series vibrant and fresh, and up to date for the 1970's.  And as fans today know, anytime a series makes big changes, it becomes a source for controversy. 

Welcome to Season Five! 

The first changes began with casting. Lesley Anne Warren, then only in her mid-20s, joined the series as the youngest IMF agent yet, Dana.  She was very different from Cinnamon Carter, and there was a subtext to her work that some liked and some didn't.  There were occasions, for example, when Dana seemed to disapprove of what the IMF was doing, or feel sorry for the "marks" who were duped. Warren attempted to layer a "person" over the mission personas, which was not something that previously happened a lot.  She simultaneously played the role, and commented on the playing of the role, in a self-reflexive manner.  Some people felt this made her performances look "transparent."  Others, such as this author, felt she brought something new and different to the series, and welcomed the attempt.

 Also joining the cast, for roughly half the episodes in Season 5 was a very young Sam Elliott, as Doug, a physician and IMF agent.  Doug was not nearly as successful an addition to the cast as Warren's Dana, in large part because a doctor was not always needed on missions. By the end of the fifth season, Doug was standing in for Willy, helping out Barney do his behind-the-scenes work in elevator shafts, in basements, and so forth.  The addition of Doug also meant that Willy's part was curtailed, and Lupus only appeared in half the season episodes. That cutting back of Willy's role was a mistake of colossal proportions, not because of anything to do with Sam Elliott or his work here, but simply because audiences loved Willy.  He was a beloved part of the IMF family, by this point, and removing him actually did the Doug character no favors. Why remove a fixture of the series for someone new, and then have that someone new fill exactly the same role?  This is the kind of switch-up that fans generally hate, and for good reason.

So the cast/character changes for Season 5 were certainly a mixed bag.  But series writers and producers did something bold in terms of their writing approach to the series.  They mixed up the formula in a dramatic way, to add a scintillating and new sense of surprise to Mission:Impossible episodes in a very real way.  

First, they removed the portfolio scene, and shortened the tape sequence.  The voice on the tape at this point, for example, sometimes did not remind Jim that "the secretary will disavow" any knowledge of his team's action if any team members are "caught or killed."  More importantly, however, unpredictable factors began to impact the missions, and so the series went off formula in dramatic and often explosive ways ways.  Where once we assumed that the IMF would always succeed, the writers for Season 5 began to explore twists and turns that called everything into question.

Gazing across the catalog of the fifth season, one can see how the writers developed new ideas to keep the series fresh, and in the process, revived the series in a dramatic way.

Here's a list of some of the most memorable and unique episodes from the underrated season.

"The Killer:" This was the season premiere of Season 5 (1970 - 1971), and saw the team go up against a hired gun, Lorca, played by Robert Conrad.  The twist in the format here was that the killer picked his murder techniques by a roll of the dice, so the IMF team could never predict his next move.  The question became: how do you stop a killer, when that killer doesn't even know his next move?  

The answer, as provided by the episode, was brilliant: you gum him up in transit, you slow him down so you have time to adjust!  Here, Leonard Nimoy's Paris played an incompetent taxi driver, who would drive too slow, take wrong turns, or drive into traffic so the scrambling IMF team could adjust to whatever destination Lorca set. That was just one piece of the puzzle. Another piece was a hotel actually taken over by the IMF, to monitor the killer.  This episode was so strong, and so suspenseful, that the script was re-used for the 1988-1990 revival series premiere.

"My Friend, My Enemy:" In this riveting episode, perhaps the very best of Season 5, the IMF team is itself, mission:impossible'd, if that's a phrase.  After a mission, Paris is captured by enemy agents, led by Dr. Tabor (Mark Richman). They program him to hate Jim Phelps, and to assassinate him.  This is a reverse of the typical format, as our beloved team members are the "mark," and led through a series of traps and puzzles, without their knowledge.  Increasing the value of the episode, we learn here some terrific and fascinating details about Paris's background, and his hatred for authority figures.  We learn how his father pushed his mother away, and she abandoned Paris as a child. And then, we learn how, his magician mentor murdered the love of Paris's life, again spurring a hatred for authority figures. Dr. Tabor uses that hatred, and tries to turn it against Jim Phelps, the team leader.

"The Missile."  This is an absolutely nuts episode, but deserves credit for the way it involves random fate. On a typical mission to trick enemy agents, a serial killer randomly lays eyes on Dana in a car repair garage, and becomes obsessed with her.  As Dana gets the information about how the enemy agents plan to assassinate Jim, the serial killer stalks and abducts her, and takes her to his apartment, so that she can't telephone that information to the team.  The idea of random fate interfering in the mission is one that hasn't played out before, and this is a terrific showpiece for Warren's Dana.  In this episode, she must escape the serial killer, and get the information to Jim, before it is too late to save his life.

"Squeeze Play."  As Patrick White explains it in his great book, a pillar of Mission:Impossible is the idea that the audience should never feel sorry for the mark.  The mark is the bad guy tricked by the IMF team.  They are often despicable characters, without redeeming quality.  They get what they deserve, in other words. 

This episode explodes that idea in a haunting way.  Here, an aging Mafia boss, Zembra (Albert Paulsen) who cares for his granddaughter, Eve (Victoria Vetri) is the mark, as he prepares to pass his power to a young replacement.  The IMF team interferes, and in a shocking moment, Eve learns the truth about their plans. Paris, playing a gangster who stands to inherit Zembra's kingdom, so-to-speak, must break character, and convince her that what the IMF is doing to her family is right, and just.  All that Eve can see, however, is the old man she loves. But, knowing that his decisions as a leader in the Syndicate cause people to die, she goes along with Paris. The end of the episode is bittersweet, as Paris tries to thank Eve for not interfering with the plan and convince her that she is free to live life away from the Syndicate.  Eve goes off instead,, to care for her sick grandfather, now defeated. She still loves him, and will stay tied to him, despite everything. In this case, the audience can see the human impact of an IMF mission. It isn't entirely pretty.

"The Hostage."  In this episode, Paris is mistaken for a role he played  during a just completed mission. In that mission he played a rich American hotel magnate.  After the mission is completed, he is captured and held for ransom because of his believed (really fake...) fortune. His captors don't realize that he is not the rich businessman he appears to be. The team must rescue him, and not break the illusion of his "role."

"The Innocent."  In "The Innocent," Barney is injured and can't complete a mission to sabotage an enemy computer.  This requires Jim to recruit somebody outside of the IMF, a young "hippie" computer scientist, played by Connelly.  But Connelly's character, Jerry, wants no part of the IMF, or the mission.  He is against American imperialism and interference in foreign affairs. He would just as soon turn in the IMF agents to the enemy, as complete his task.  So Jim must, basically, justify why the IMF does what it does.  This is one of the few times in the series that the work of the IMF is explored in moral and legal terms.  (After all, it is basically an organization operating above the law, inside the borders, often, of sovereign countries.  It tricks and entraps people. But of course, it does so on the side of the angels, right?)

"The Merchant."  In this episode, Jim and his team must attempt to take out a Nazi gun-runner, played by guest star George Sanders. The plan involves Paris wagering and winning 5 million dollars from Sanders' character, at a casino poker table.  It is all rigged perfectly, using an earpiece and computer designed by Willy. Then, in the last minutes, a drink is spilled on the table, short-circuiting the computer. Now, with five million dollars on the table, Paris must win the hand without any tricks, gimmickry, or inside help.

The above-episodes are just some of the most memorable and twisty ones of an inventive and ambitious season.  Other examples include "The Homecoming," guest-starring Loretta Swit.  That story finds Jim investigating a series of murders in his home town, at the height of the Vietnam War. A distressed veteran is tagged for the crimes, but Jim sees something else going on. Again, current events are acknowledged, which is a rarity on the series, and there is even a message about how America treats its veterans in an unpopular war.

Then there's the absolutely outrageous "Kitara," which involves using racism against a racist, basically.

Not all of these episodes are perfect, but they showcase Mission: Impossible changing thing up, taking chances, and moving forward into the new, more 'gray' territory of the 1970's.  The 1960's episodes were crisp, elegant, and perfectly plotted, like romantic James Bond movies, only much smarter, and more complex. As the series hit the 1970's, the formula, and even the IMF's "mission" came into question, creating a set of remarkable stories that still hold up today.

Lesley Warren and Leonard Nimoy both left the series at the end of Season Five, but their work here stands the test of time.  Although not widely loved, Season Five remains a late series high-point in one of the cleverest, most intelligent TV series ever produced.

WHAT IF THE YANKEES SIGN NOLAN ARENADO?

Source: The Athletic

With just about 14 days until the start of spring training, the Yankees have a lot of options when it comes to infielders.  As our writer Missy posted on Friday in TWO YANKEE BATTLES TO TAKE PLACE THIS SPRING TRAINING, infielders Tyler Wade and Thairo Estrada may get a shot to be replacement infielders but what if I told you to forget all that?  What if the Yankees could tap the Colorado Rockies again for an infielder and this time it could be Nolan Arenado?

According to The Athletic, "The Yankees could offer a strong package that includes third basemen Gio Urshela and Miguel Andújar, along with top pitching prospect Deivi Garcia and outfielder Clint Frazier. ... All four of those players would be expendable to the Yankees if they can land Arenado. This type of deal makes a lot of sense baseball-wise. ... Another option could be for the Rockies to offer Arenado straight up for outfielder Giancarlo Stanton, who has eight years remaining on his 13-year, $325 million contract, of which approximately $60 million will be paid by the Miami Marlins if he doesn’t opt-out after this season — and he’s not opting out of this contract no matter what."

Wait, what...Giancarlo Stanton to the Rockies?  Oh blessed redeemer, yes.  I would really hate to see Urshela and Andujar go and this other idea of Stanton just sounds so much sweeter.  But with Stanton's no trade clause and the fact that he loves being a Yankee, this deal is less likely, no matter how sweet.

Source: CBS Sports

"The 28-year-old Arenado is a five-time All-Star and seven-time Gold Glove winner. Arenado has at least 37 home runs and 110 RBI in each of last five seasons, making him a perennial National League MVP candidate," reports NJ.com.  He also has a no-trade clause and there is a line of other teams in contention with the Yankees to grab Arenado.

Source: ESPN

If he was to come to New York and perform even close to his former teammate DJ LeMahieu, wow...I mean that would be incredible.  We will keep an eye on developments.  This is the kind of excitement and anticipation that the offseason is supposed to be about...not about cheaters who have consumed all of our brains and perhaps unnerved our passion for the game.  Let's focus on the the anticipation of 2020 and it starts with the possibility of Arenado coming to the Bronx.

--Suzie Pinstripe
BYB Managing Editor
Twitter: @suzieprof