Enter Brexit

Werner Heisenberg was born December 5^th, 1901. I'm sure of that – but not much else about him. Except for the fact that he was uncertain.

His uncertainty arose from the idea (fact) that “everything in the universe behaves like both a particle and a wave at the same time.” That's the way author (of, among other things, How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog) Chad Orzel describes the problem, and that it results in the Heisenberg Principle: that you can never simultaneously know the precise position and the exact speed of an object. You may know how fast you're going, but not where you'll end up. Or you may know where you are and where you're heading, but not have any idea of when you'll get there.

I don't pretend to understand what it all means. I'm not a dog, so the explanation eludes me. But it's clear that the principle, which is one of the basic ideas of quantum physics, operates on all levels – not only those of sub-atomic particles.  Proof of that was provided last week when British voters expressed their will to leave the European Union. The decision was unexpected, but the Brits decided to wave goodbye to the continent. Whether the world will ever be the same is uncertain, but even if it is, when that would occur cannot be guessed.

There's a lot being said and a lot being written on the subject, and it's all very tentative. At this point no one knows the timetable for action, not even the British themselves. At least they won't admit to any formal program. (It would be surprising, however, if they hadn't considered possible scenarios, and their reactions to them, prior to the vote, but they aren't revealing any plans yet.) In the meantime, stock markets around the world are fluctuating wildly and negatively to the results of the vote. Economists, bookmakers, and other oracles had expected a decision to remain, and the markets had been going up in anticipation of that outcome. The actual result was a (n alarming) surprise to all of them. The world's largest gambling houses – the stock markets – had bet wrong and were scrambling to minimize their losses. In Heisenberg's terms, they could see what was coming and when, but they had no idea where it was going.

The economic effects of the vote shouldn't be a surprise however. The “science” of economics is advanced well beyond Heisenberg. Economists know neither where they are going nor how fast. They speak with confidence, but the results of their predictions are often wrong. And the prophesies of different practitioners often contradict each other. That's the case even in “normal” times, when there is no extraordinary circumstance like the current crisis.

What's to be done? Many in England are calling for a “do-over,” a repeat of the balloting. Some claim that they didn't have any idea of what the results of separation would be. They had been misled by the plan's proponents. Others stated that their votes had been intended merely as protests – that they hadn't expected this result. But there will be no new vote. The results are final.

But maybe the results are a signal of what's to come. They had as much to do with nationalism, immigration, and pride as they did with economics. And these are all international issues. Perhaps those favoring isolationism around the globe will feel validated by the British vote. Populism may propagate like a wave around the world. England may be the leader of a spreading movement.

For while the wave of the future may lead to world-wide uncertainty, it may not contain a particle of truth. One possible explanation is that the damage is being caused by the rhetoric of paranoids who haven't thought out the implications of their actions. Perhaps unintended consequences are the heritage of this vote, and of others to come.

The time has come to stand there and do nothing. Populist-led action and change are not necessarily the recipes for improvement. We mustn't be led blindly into the “last refuge of scoundrels.” We don't know what lies ahead; indeed there's a lot that we don't know, and never will. Heisenberg has told us this. Brexit proves it. The only possible positive result will be that we learn from it.

Picture This

Today is my wife's and my anniversary. We were married on June 26, 1960. That's fifty-six years. It was a Sunday. Hanging on the wall is a reproduction of the New York Times front page from that date, and the lead story – upper right hand corner – is titled “Senators' Report Scores Handling of U-2 Incident.” Dates me, doesn't it?

But the same front page dates the Times as well. There are two photographs which comprise a little over eleven percent of the front page – one a poor picture of the back of a Cartier employee and a broken window (there had been a theft of jewelry valued at $30,000) and the other an unexciting representation of some Korean protesters in Japan who opposed a security treaty with the United States. The photographs were black and white.

For comparison I looked at the front page of yesterday's paper (May 10, 2016. As you know, I write these essays in advance) and found that there was about twenty-one percent of it covered with color pictures – seven in all – including advertisements. (There were no ads on our wedding day.) Since the Times's first front page photograph appeared in 1909 (its first photo was in 1896) it's safe to say that while there were pictures fifty-six years after we were wed, there was none fifty-six years before. All the editors could provide were packages of a thousand words each. But those words were spelled correctly and grammatically presented. Those were the days, my friend.

Times (“times,” as well as the New York Times) change. And journalism changes. The media we once knew have been replaced by the personal recording of opinions, facts, and photographs by the ubiquitous reporters of our age – us. While newspapers, magazines, radio, and television haven't disappeared, far more attention world-wide is paid to the social media. Billions of people (including journalists and politicians) have accounts on Facebook^®, Twitter^®, and similar carriers. And very many more have cell phones with cameras in their pockets so they can take pictures of everyone and everything around them.

Times, as I said, change. As is frequently the case the changes were initiated by technological advancements and society's response to them. They represent an improvement over prior methods both of documentation and presentation of information. At least that's the way they're sold.

Pictures have been around – or at least documented – for about forty thousand years. The earliest ones we have are cave paintings. There may have been pictures before that (pictures probably predated language) but no archaeological evidence has been found. That won't be a problem for the archaeologists of the future. Quite the opposite. There will be too many pictures – most of them “selfies” by egotistical members of our species, a species likely to change over the millennia. Those related to the news remain active as long as the news cycle, but they're archived along with the text. They last forever. They never disappear.

There seems to be no end of the pictures posted every day on the internet. The pictures, for the most part lacking any significance, have turned social media into an addiction – one that takes away countless hours of boredom and replaces it with countless hours of pointless gazing – have replaced language with visual images – some of which aren't even real. They're “photoshopped.”

Our vocabulary is decreasing to “like,” “don't like,” “how cute, and “hashtag.” And “emogis.” There's a little more to it, but not much. We used to “reach out and touch someone” with inane speech, but now we do so with even more inane, and repetitive, photographs which we transmit as soon as they're taken. Who cares? Apparently a lot of people do, and they devote all their spare time to gawking at what they've been sent by their countless “friends,” often friends whom they've never met. And language becomes even more abbreviated as we move in the direction of one hundred forty character messages. They make a thousand words seem an unnecessary luxury, if not completely wasteful.

But I'm living in the past. That's what happens when you've been married as long as I. And I like it. Sure we have photos taken when our children were young, but the memories are far more evocative. Our imaginations are now disappearing, but we once used them to fill in the gaps, and flavor our fantasies.

And we talked to each other face to face, using full sentences. Where have all the phrases gone?

Violence In America

The more I read – especially American history and the news about modern America – the less I understand. We are a society built on violence, from our Revolution and our use of weapons to ensure our “manifest destiny,” to the present situation. Add to that some wars and the use of firearms to oppress those of our people who were weaker than we. More recently there have been mass killings of American citizens using such weapons, and yet we are surprised.

Our founders were also concerned about firearms, but their fear was that the government might dominate us and take away our weapons. To prevent that from happening they passed the Bill of Rights – specifically the Second Amendment – that guaranteed that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court, discounting the language that “A well regulated Militia (emphasis added), being necessary to the security of a free State …,” which was the justification for the guarantee, ruled that we all had the right to guns. I don't agree with that decision but it is the law of the land and I must respect it. It is my view that, while, perhaps, gun ownership cannot be denied, it should be far better regulated than it is at present. But that should be accomplished by legal means.

The latest massacres, most recently in Orlando, make it clear that we have failed to take the proper steps to limit the availability of firearms – actions I believe we must take. Those actions, however, should honor our heritage and our laws, and we cannot use extralegal means to assuage our hysteria.

According to today's Wall Street Journal, two bills to achieve some gun control, which had the support of a majority of Senators, failed to receive “the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles.” I'm unclear what “procedural hurdles” prevent the forwarding of a bill to the President for signature or veto, but the majority no longer seems to rule. And many of the opponents of the bills, demanding the limitation of Constitutional rights without any judicial review, a limitation based on FBI “suspicion” of terrorism, were among those arguing against the review of e-mail on on the basis of “suspicion” of terrorism, often also opposing, simply on the basis of police “suspicion,” the use of “stop and frisk” laws which likewise had the potential to yield weapons and prevent violence.

The two problems I see are the inconsistent regard for judicial review on the basis of suspicion, and the idea that a majority vote isn't adequate. It appears there are many who are troubled by the existence of Constitutional requirements for a separation of powers and checks and balances when the guarantees in our founding documents don't favor their own political perspectives.

In the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams declared that we had a “government of laws, not of men,” but the concept that our officials are responsible for following the law is not currently in vogue. We have reached a point where “interpretation” of the laws is more important than the observance of what legislators have written, and when a strong executive has unilaterally arrogated the power of decision-making – limiting the choices of the legislative branch and of the people whom they represent. Perhaps the President's instincts are correct (I personally don't think so) but voters don't get the chance to make that decision. The best they can hope for is the opportunity to include his executive decisions along with the many other factors they consider in the next Presidential election, and by that time they are already faits accompli.

But it's too late then. If we need to change the Constitution, let's do it. If we need to pass legislation that will better regulate our practices, we deserve the right to encourage our legislators to do so. In the meantime, however, we should follow the laws and practices that we now have on the books. We need government of laws. And we need our elected legislators to take whatever steps are necessary to protect their prerogatives and our freedom.

They

Have you ever heard of Delmore Schwartz? Probably not. He was a poet and short story writer who lived in the early and mid twentieth century, winning many accolades, including both a Bollingen Prize for his poetry, and a Guggenheim Fellowship. That, in and of itself, isn't all that important to my remarks, but what is significant is something he said: “Even paranoids have real enemies.” It's been attributed to others as well, however Schwartz seems to have been the first to enunciate it for posterity.

But what's wrong with paranoia? It's really an extension of care and caution. Without that caution, without instinct, animals would find themselves the victims of predators, but with it the same animals can be the predators. Paranoia is simply the assumption that others are plotting – often to get you – and that you have to be on guard to make sure they don't. It can be viewed as a logical consequence of the psychiatric concept of “ideas of reference,” with the subject convinced that whatever he hears somehow relates to him. And those whose hearing is deficient are likely to be certain that others are talking about them. It's normal. Though, as Schwartz said, it often reflects a real problem.

“They,” however, have given paranoia a bad name. They've tried to convince us that it's abnormal, and that those of us who are merely careful – or even cynical – are missing a few marbles. They tell us we're crazy (whatever that means) when their real goal is to get us to lower our guard and not notice the threats that are all around us. They subscribe to the idea that “forewarned is forearmed,” and they want us defenseless.

Paranoia, however, is the rage. Complain that there is a plot against you, or a group of which you are a member, and there will be a rush of “normal” citizens supporting your cause. Thus those who protest that “Black Lives Matter” are certain to attract the attention of other paranoids who believe that there is a conspiracy of racist white police officers against defenseless blacks despite the evidence that far fewer blacks are killed by the police than others, and despite the fact that the vast majority of blacks are killed by other blacks [see the writings of Heather Mac Donald, among others, especially “The War on Cops.”]  Certainly no preventable violence is justified, whether against blacks or whites, whether by police or by civilians. But caution and reaction are both necessary tools in defending our lives and our liberties. A measure of paranoia in the effort to protect ourselves is reasonable, and nature has served us well by instilling it within all of us. As long as that paranoia is based on rational risks, not on political dogma and expediency.

Rational risks. And instinct. That's what keeps all animals, including humans, on their toes. Perhaps it's better to term it “caution” than “paranoia,” however – even though they're quite similar. Sounds better that way. We'd be far worse off without it, irrespective of the blatherings of the psychiatrists and pop-psychologists among us. And we'd be crazy to ignore its warnings.

But, perhaps, the greatest advantage of paranoia exists in a specific group, one that most of us will concede is carrying the idea too far. The group is commonly referred to as “conspiracy theorists,” and consists of those who are convinced that everything they don't like is the result of a plot by “THEM.” There is a group of (generally unnamed and unidentified) people who are withholding information from the rest of us, and who are plotting either to help themselves or to harm others. They maintain that the group they fear has organized to accomplish its goals at their expense or that of others (historically, antisemitism is a prime example of this phenomenon). And their paranoia (or political agenda) is infectious – often the basis of a mass movement. For they have an advantage over those who may take issue with their positions.

The advantage is that conspiracy theorists are always right. Ask them. It's easy for them to prove. If you agree with their position, you've confirmed it. If you disagree, you're part of the conspiracy itself. And your cover-up is further proof that their view is true. Heads they win. Tails you lose. Whether their paranoia is reasonable is open to question. It is undeniable that governments sometimes hide the truth from their citizens, but suspecting such deceit all the time, and questioning the honesty of those who disagree with you, represents a paranoia of overdeveloped dimensions.

Some paranoia is good – in fact it's necessary. But not all. Mae West notwithstanding, you can have too much of a good thing.

Death And Denial

The massacre in Orlando was horrific. “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

The words are those of John Donne. The thought reminds us that we are all united – or should be – in our humanity, and all equally vulnerable to its loss. There is no protection against inhumanity if we choose to view it as inevitable feature of our condition. And if we choose to hide from it, the bell will toll for us all.

But there are steps we can take to limit its effects if we do not bury our heads in the sand; we can minimize the risk if we recognize it and correctly identify it. If, however, we use such calamities as tools to promote political ideas, rather than as teaching tools that can help us avoid recurrences, we ensure their repetition. If we find that struthious behavior is useful for shielding ourselves against truths we don't want to accept, we're likely to seek false solutions to problems that we don't want to consider. And Orlando is an example of this reality.

Although it is unclear to me why the murders of attendees at a gay club by another frequenter of that club should be mourned as a hate crime against the LGBTQ community, that is the narrative that is being promoted by too many of our leading figures and by too many of the organs of the media. According to an editorial in today's New York Times (June 15, 2016) , “the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear [and the perpetrator] was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians.”

The shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS and had already evaluated other possible sites, but these facts are omitted in the editorial. They would detract from the message of political correctness that the paper promotes. And they would remind us of our county's enemy which they fear to identify.

There is no denying the fact that a gay bar was chosen for the action, but the idea that notwithstanding the perpetrator's own sexual status, and his other actions and claims of allegiance, the shootings took pace there as a “hate crime” against gays can only be viewed as a distraction from the truth. Our President refuses to suggest that there is a stream of Islam that poses a threat to the present time and modernization, and to the existence of non-Muslim societies. He and his followers, including those in the press nationally and internationally, eschew such language as “radical Islam,” “Islamic terrorism,” and “jihad,” claiming that acknowledgment of such ideas will only strengthen the movement, since it will suggest that we are prejudiced against Islam, and that we take seriously the menace its violent stream poses. As we should.

For too long our government has tried to downplay any threats by those who oppose us, even to the point of seeking our downfall, while we court them and attempt to force our friends to defer to their demands. We are careful not to “[do] the terrorists' work for them” by confronting their hostility. We are less careful in our accusations against those who oppose gun control and those who promote homophobia. We have no concern that we are strengthening them by our naming and vociferously berating them.

Perhaps the reasons for our actions have little to do with the ostensible problems – at least as they are understood on the surface. Perhaps our greater fear is of terror, and refusal to name it is a denial of its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away. And reminding the voting public that the threat exists is counterproductive to the President and those with a similar political agenda – especially during campaign season.

Favoring and publicizing issues that will appeal to a large and sympathetic bloc, however, is a much more desirable goal at this time, and, for those seeking a “heritage” and friends, a far more profitable approach. “Preaching to the choir” is always a winning tactic.

At least it's a winning political tactic. It's certainly less likely to benefit our nation as a whole. Dividing our nation as the President, and both candidates for his job, have done, will ultimately result in our diminution. We have already lost prestige around the world and contributed to a willingness of other nations to ignore our needs and to follow the course of acceptance of evil. It's easier than opposing it – unless there are negative political consequences. And it's easier to accept the political aid of a “squeaky wheel” with increasing support by “fair-minded” advocates who feel virtuous by doing so. There's no need for them to worry about other problems that way.

Harsh and unfiltered words by one political candidate won't solve the problem, but neither will its conscious avoidance by the other. The longer we deny the threat, the more likely we are to face it. And then the bell will toll for us all.

He Who Pays The Piper

A fascinating – and, to a degree amusing – article appeared on the front page of today's (May 23, 2016) New York Times. Its title was “Adelson's Era: Do Billions Erode Press Freedom?” and it was written by Sydney Ember. The article contends that the owner is putting pressure on the Las Vegas Review-Journal staff to conform to his views in the publication of the news. A specific concern is that newspaper management is guilty of “editorial interference.” The owner himself denies any participation in the nature of the stories carried, and the editors also state that he has played no part in their decisions, but it would be naïve to claim that the same editors, knowing a little about their boss, weren't eager to please him.

It's certainly a significant fear, but perhaps it is unwarranted. Before I discuss its validity, however, let me digress.

I mentioned my wedding last week, but let me make one additional comment which is apropos in light of my discussion today. We chose the band. And while we didn't have a precise play list, we let them know what kind of music we liked, and they were happy to present it for us. By and large the specifics were their choice. Not a big surprise. At least it wasn't then. But times change.

Courts have taken to deciding the nature of a baker's or a photographer's services, and who is entitled to them. Specifically the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court argues that various aspects of cohabitation are covered by the Constitution under the rubric of “privacy” (which, however, is not a right identified in the Constitution). Based on those views it's hard to claim that the choice of music at our wedding might not be considered by the Judiciary to be just as much a Constitutional issue as “Press Freedom.”

The concept of a free press began in this country with the acquittal of John Peter Zenger, in 1733. His trial established the right of a newspaper publisher to air his views. That was before there was a First Amendment or, indeed, a Constitution, but it was a freedom needed then, one that's still the basis of our liberty. And it is a freedom that includes the right of property [newspaper ownership and the right of the owner to publish what he wants], also viewed by our founders as a basic principle upon which our country was grounded.

Press freedom, as I said, is one of the pillars on which our country and our liberty stand. (Some restrictions on it exist but they are limited and governed by, among other things, the laws of libel, sedition, and public safety.) All of the media enjoy it, but it doesn't guarantee that all press organs will be objective – nor should it. They needn't all be fair and balanced. And they're not. All have editorial policies which reflect the biases of their management. And all observe the five esses (in addition to the five double-u's) of journalistic messaging: selection, size, space, slant, and spin. (It's funny to see one paper accuse another of tampering with the news. They all do it. Even on-line, “trending,” and “social media” sites. So we have a lot of sources available and can choose the point of view to which we already adhere.)

The New York Times is a good example. It's a “liberal” paper (reflecting the views of those who own and run it), which means that it is left-leaning, anti-Republican, and anti-Israel (pro-Palestinian – favoring the “weak minority” of Muslims in the Middle East). That's not an accusation, it's a fact. [Adelson is a Pro-Israel conservative Republican which justifies his selection for a front-page condemnation.] And that's what the Times's readers want. It's been in business long enough that the staff knows what is expected of them. Applicants are likely to share the same philosophy, and those hired can be relied on to tell the stories that management wants, and tell them in a way that is desired. (Indeed, they may be “advocacy journalists” who include opinion in what readers assume is objective reporting.) The staff has been selected. Of course when there is new management of a paper the shaking-out process has not yet occurred and staff, who might not have sought employment under the old ownership, are not yet in place. And when such a change occurs current members of the staff may decide that they don't want to hew to the new line.

Selection plays another part in the process. The choice of stories, and their placement, also reflects the paper's (management's) perspective, and is aimed at getting the “right” message to those who only read the front page or the editorials. Those stories that cannot be ignored, but which may conflict with the approved message, are likely to be buried inside or otherwise inconspicuously. The same is true of (small-print) corrections which, though undesirable, must be made when the (prominent large-print) news presented is in conflict with reality.

Size is another criterion considered when a story is published. More space (including number of or articles as well as their length) is devoted to what carries the preferred message, and less to what opposes that viewpoint – if it is published at all. Look at the letters to the editor and you'll see that those questioning the paper's view tend to be short, and they are overwhelmed by those that support the agenda. Strange, then, that the Times was critical of the Review-Journal for shortening stories critical of its owner.

First paragraphs of stories – the ledes – present the slant. They tells the impatient reader all (s)he needs to know in order to have the correct perspective on a subject. While a more accurate understanding of the situation might result from reading the full story – with important facts “clarifying,” and possibly contradicting, the premise of the writer found deep in the story. Fortunately most readers don't get far beyond the first paragraph, so they know only what they are directed to “know” based on the initial slant.

But the icing on the cake – what tops it all off – is the headline. And that is the artfully written spin that directs the thinking of the laziest of readers. Once they've seen the headline they know, and probably agree with, the outlet's message.

All in all, when, for example, the public reads an editorial supporting a President who has knowingly misled the electorate, they will know that the editors are only laying out the organ's dogma. Readers expect the media to present the views their owners are trying to sell. After all, no one is surprised when an auto company fails to disclose all its product's problems or a lawyer tells only what is favorable to the jury. We believe what we want to believe – but we probably believed it before someone tried to convince us. It doesn't take billions to do so, but we'd take it if it were offered to us.

Learning

Advice to writers: Write about something of which you're relatively ignorant.

Yes I know that contradicts the usual advice which is to write about something you know, but I don't agree. First of all it will give you the opportunity to follow the old comic routine, “Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.” More important (and less preposterous) it will provide the opportunity to learn about something which may have always interested you, but which never reached the top of your list.

Most important, however, it gives you the chance to think “outside of the box.” As an outsider you're not weighed down by what everyone in the field “knows.” Perhaps the cognoscenti would all remind you that there is nothing to be gained by “reinventing the wheel,” and that the best step forward is from “the shoulders of giants,” but you realize that a “wheel” is not likely to help you in your quest, and that stepping off shoulders will leave you flat on your face in front of those who preceded you. Ignorance gives you the chance to say something new and different about a subject already filled with “common knowledge.” Maybe you'll be wrong, but what you say will be honest, and faithful to your most important reader – yourself.

Several years ago I wrote Haggadahs (books delineating the meal service for the holiday of Passover) for my children. They included commentary on ancient history and religious practices, based on my own ideas. I was ignorant of what Judaism's sages had to say about the same issues during the millennia of our existence, but that didn't daunt me. I suspect that I contradicted many of them, but I'm satisfied with what I said, and I'd be surprised if some of my thoughts weren't on the mark.

Today's discourse will adopt the same approach. It's about education. I'm not a professional educator (I've taught medical students and residents, but that's more like apprenticeship – not that apprenticeship is such a bad thing. Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere served apprenticeships, and they turned out alright) but that won't stop me because I think we're missing on some important points. My ideas certainly aren't original but that's okay with me. They're based on the obvious – what I consider to be the goals of education: to prepare individuals to live in their society, to ready them for most of what they'll encounter over their lifetimes, and to provide them with the knowledge and skills to practice the professions that society requires. I'm aware of the fact that people are different: different in goals, skills, and interests. No, there's nothing new in what I'll say, but much of it is currently out of date; it doesn't conform with modern educational thinking. What follows is not a comprehensive plan, only some thoughts. To wit.

I'm an unswerving supporter of a common core. There are certain skills that everyone should have, though individual limitations may govern the level of proficiency achieved, and they are based on (are you ready?) the three R's. Basic literacy and numeracy are more critical for any society than rocket science for a few intellectuals. (Of course the basic scientists will tell you that pure science – science for its own sake – is a worthwhile investment of public funds. It may not pay off for hundreds or thousands of years (long after the taxpayers funding it are dead) – or not at all except to satisfy the curiosity of those seeking grants to fund their projects – but it's more important than other undertakings.) Of course we should be prepared, even at an early age, to offer some highly motivated and talented (chosen by tests, professional evaluations, or whatever methods work) students special tracks in fields like science, mathematics, and music, where early learning has the potential for producing geniuses, prodigies, and the like. But for most, a grounding in fundamental skills should be contained in the first lessons they receive. (Morality and ethics should also be early lessons, although there is certain to be disagreement over what is “right” and what is “wrong.”)

Add to that a basic knowledge of the local governmental system. It may be our wish that democracy would hold sway everywhere, but the minimum is some knowledge of how your own government works. Or doesn't.

[Thought should be given to the international provision of such basic education to poor countries, as the UN attempts to provide health services around the world, and many nations respond immediately to natural disasters in other countries. Indeed, a basic education might, in subsequent years, lessen additional needs for international aid by those countries.]

For many, however, an education of this kind won't be adequate. For them the preparation for a trade is seen either as a necessity or the path to a calling. Whether that trade is plumbing, carpentry, theology, or medicine (or, for that matter, the teaching of art, history, or English) is irrelevant, because all are required by the society in which we live. We'd be in sorry condition if we didn't provide both for those who seek a trade that will allow them to support their family's bodies, and for those who need to feed their own souls and those of others. Depending on their age at the time the decision is made, the education should be tailored to contain both the skills of the trade, and, if desired by the candidate, the theoretical fundamentals and the blandishments which will make him better and happier about what he does, but that needn't be required. Starting earlier, and without irrelevant distractions (an electrician doesn't need to know Greek history, and a clergyman's sermon will be just as good – or bad – if he has no background in calculus) the individual will have more time to learn what will be his life's work, and he'll be better at it.

There's a third group – a varied group – consisting of those at a loss for their future goals and seeking to delay a decision or to find something that interests them, those desiring to have a comprehensive background in all areas, and flat-out dilettantes. Their path is costly and time-consuming, but sometimes indicated – at their own expense. While most of those enamored of a particular craft won't be sidetracked, there's no reason why someone on the trade route couldn't also spend time in some such learning. But it's not a necessity. The program would be what we now call “Liberal Arts.” It's one of the main causes of student debt. It's what made up the classic model of education – certainly for upper class – and has been around for centuries. But its main beneficiaries are tenured professors and those students who want to be supported by their parents for a few more years of partying. And, of course, philosophy majors. What's most important to emphasize, however, is that despite the hype, college isn't for everyone. It's not a “right,” and it certainly doesn't guaranty an increased income – not for those who aren't interested nor those unsuited for higher education, whatever the reason.

A final group is worth mentioning: those who wouldn't be capable of benefiting from any of the usual programs. The reasons are many and include disability, resistance, and disruptive nature. They, too, merit education, but they may not fit conveniently into any of the categories mentioned, though they should not be automatically excluded from them, especially if those trained to recognize potential can do their job (Einstein appeared to be a “slow” learner but he blossomed with time and education).

There are also some general issues that cross some borders – issues that have no relationship to each other but which must be considered when planning an educational system. I'll list some of them in no particular order.

1. No matter how good the teacher, for many students lectures are boring, and involving them through active participation – like a question and answer format – may serve to stimulate greater thought and interest.
2. Someone has to pay for education. Should it be all taxpayers or only those who use the schools? Should industries that will benefit from educated workers chip in?
3. To what degree should we allow “relevance” to guide the choices of the student? Who decides what is relevant? At what age (or developmental stage) is it the responsibility of the student, rather than the parent, to make good or bad choices?
4. Recognizing that children are programed to learn certain things when they're very young (e.g. language), How can we incorporate this into the curriculum? Should everyone get such training?
5. Training in the use of the tools currently in use (nowadays it's computers) and those that are expected to change society (“the next big thing”) is warranted.
6. Students can choose which college they'll attend – at least of those to which they're admitted. Should that be an option in lower grades without affecting their costs?
7. Good teachers are often undervalued by government and salaries should be re-evaluated to reflect teachers' value to society.
8. Mixing students with different abilities is counter-productive. We are not all equal, and egalitarian attempts to make classes diverse so as to reflect society are harmful to everyone, leading to teaching to the weakest in a class.
9. Nevertheless, faculties should be diverse rather than homogeneous, and a variety of opinions expressed.

The most important lesson, however is that students should be taught to learn! Most of their lives will be spent outside of school, and whether they're more comfortable in a classroom, the public library, or in front of a computer, they should know how to take advantage of the situation to learn, and they should want to do so.