The history of coffee, while hard to verify to accuracy, legend a sheepherder who realized the effects of coffee while tending his sheep. His sheep became very active when they ate a certain type of berry off a plant. He tried them himself, and felt the same effect. Rumor has it that a monk told him to be careful of the devil’s fruit. However, it is also rumored that the monks used the fruit to stay awake and pray.

Another wide spread legend claims an Arabian was banished to the desert. He boiled and ate an unknown plant. He was able to survive in the desert on the plant. The residents of a town close by felt the survival was a religious sign. The plant was then named Mocha, after that town.

Few people realize the coffee plant originally grew only in Ethiopia. They wrapped it in animal fat to eat while on raids. It was transported to Arabia, it grew, and they controlled the market of it. The Turks then were the first to drink it. They added cinnamon and clove for a sweeter taste.
Coffee founds its way to Europe via the Venetian trade merchants. Rumors of the taste of coffee began to surface all over. The Arab’s keep an even tighter grip on the coffee plants. Christian’s began claiming coffee was the devil’s drink, similar to the monk story above. Pope Vincent III decided to try it. He enjoyed it very much. After that, talk of banishing the drink went away.

Soon after, coffee houses were built all over Europe. They became a popular place to hang out and drink coffee. It was in the 1700’s that coffee traveled to Americas. A French infantry captain took a small plant with him. That plant was cultivated, resulting in over 19 million coffee trees within 50 years. Coffee was declared the national drink of the United States in a protest of the excessive taxes on tea from Britain.

Today, millions of people enjoy their coffee throughout the day. Coffee comes in many brands and many flavors. You can buy ground coffee or coffee beans at most any grocery store. There are also gourmet coffees to choose from Businesses such as Starbuck’s Coffee are million dollar industries, offering you the convenience of coffee any way you want it.

Coffee is consumed by millions of people everyday. It is easy to understand why it makes such a practical gift. You can create quite a unique collection of coffee as a gift. You can combine it with other items as well.

There are several different flavors of coffee on the market today. It is easy to gather an assortment as a gift. It is fun to try new flavors of coffee, but not a luxury most of us afford ourselves. By giving them as a gift, you are going to make someone look forward to that first cup of coffee in the morning even more. A fun alternative is to give them a new coffee every month rather than all at once. The coffee of the month club membership will allow them to have a new coffee delivered to their home each month for a full year.

Creating a gift basket is a great coffee gift. You can fill the basket with their favorite coffee, add a couple of coffee cups, some fancy sugar, a few types of creamer, and you have a great basket of assessable coffee and condiments. You can go online to designyourownbasket.com. There you can select the items you would like to have in your coffee gift basket, and have it shipped as well.
There are gourmet coffee shops that specialize in shipping coffee gifts with special blends for you. Simply let them know what you are looking for and the amount of money you wish to spend. They will create a customized package to meet your specifications.

Some other simple coffee gift ideas include customized coffee cups. I got my mother in law one a few years back with the names of all her grandchildren on it. She uses it all the time. For those who enjoy getting their coffee on the run, a gift card to Starbucks is the perfect coffee gift.

As you can see, coffee comes in so many different varieties and with many accessories. Coffee gifts can be as simple or as unique as you would like them to be. They are a practical gift for that hard to buy for person or a boss you don’t know well, but always see with a full cup of coffee!

“[In education]...the individual is just a statistic. Everybody is treated the same. Any differences due to experience, maturation, ancestry, or what the subject had for breakfast are canceled out. The organism, to put is bluntly, is treated like a machine whose task is to associate inputs and outputs. Any autonomously active, intrinsic organization within the organism or between organisms and their environment, although present, is swept under the rug.” - J. A. Scott Kelso(2) There is an interesting “blind spot” in traditional education that permits time-honored group-think to continue.

Consider the following four statements:

1. People look different. In fact, humans are surprised when they see two individuals who look alike. The difference in people’s appearance is an accepted fact of life. Someone who suggested that everyone should be required to look the same would be viewed with suspicion. Would any rational person suggest that all fourteen-year-old humans should be five-feet six-inches tall, blond- haired, blue-eyed, and able to bench press one hundred pounds?

2. According to the Human Genome Project, there are about three billion base pairs making up the genes and DNA in a human being. Only a portion of those genes are responsible for a person’s appearance and physical abilities. These genes can be damaged but remain relatively unchanged in their operation over the life of the individual. Although it’s possible to change one’s physical appearance through exercise, surgery, or cosmetic methods, physical appearance remains relatively constant throughout life.

3. The human brain is composed of about ten billion neurons, each of which has perhaps ten thousand connections to other neurons. This results in approximately one hundred trillion connections in the brain. Unlike genes, each of these connections, from the moment of formation, is subject to change by interactions with the environment—through experience. In other words, the brain is constantly changing in response to experience.

4. No two people—even identical twins—have the same experiences as they grow and develop. Taken together, what do these four statements suggest? The number of genes and genetic variations that produce differences in physical appearance and ability are minuscule compared to the possible permutations in the way individual brains process information. Given that no two individuals have lived through the same experiences—experiences that modify both the neurons and their connections—the potential cognitive differences among human individuals is staggering. Yet few people balk when reformers insist that all students should be responsible for learning the same things at the same age. The statement flies in the face of reason, science, and experience. It is infinitely more irrational than insisting all fourteen-year-olds be five-feet sixinches tall.

Although many traditional educators would accept the four statements as true, they are somehow able to put that information in a corner and forget it when it comes to teaching. Perhaps they are hoping that, like so many reform efforts, it will eventually go away if they ignore it. This is simply not going to happen. The brains of students are not going to miraculously become alike for the convenience of education and the efficiency of assembly line transmission of knowledge.

Attempts to introduce brain-compatible teaching in schools often result in teachers adding a few activities for different learning “modalities,” or giving students a “choice” of supplemental projects. These are apparently sufficient to salve the conscience and quiet that little voice that reminds us what really needs to happen. These changes make little or no difference in the fundamental metaphor that drives education— filling mental containers with knowledge objects.

As long as this remains the primary purpose of education, focusing on individual differences is literally “unthinkable” unless there is a teacher for every student. Schools will continue to operate in ways that are, at best, only marginally compatible with the brain’s natural processes.

Posted by: Emmanuel Chibueze E.