Response to: Americans far less trusting than per capita wealth would predict

Having trust is a foundational or fundamental quality that we should analyze at an individual level and more closely.  Why is it that we trust?  One can come up with several reasons and perspectives (with statistics, science, epistemology, etc).  Often though, we seem to forget that trust is deeply and seriously codependent with our worldview or view of reality. 

If I believe that my reality is part of a selfish society, where everyone has to look out for oneself (equally or not), then I cannot trust anything outside of what I can control.  I will keep others at a distance.  I would be apprehensive of any group, organization, or establishment because I would feel threatened.  Furthermore, those groups, organizations, establishments, etc. would also be less effective because the individuals in the group would feel anxious that another, just like himself, is looking for his/her best interest. 

If my perspective of the world constantly separates, differentiates, distinguishes, and encourages such distances and prejudices, I am placed in a position of having to choose a side of the divide: “Because there is a Westside and Eastside, I must belong, support, and take pride in anything that represents the Westside;” “Because there are ethnic differences, I must belong to one and I must support and protect the parameters of such a distinction;”  “Because I belong to certain religious sect, I cannot trust the other side.”  All the forms of differentiation and distinction causes conflict and distrust. 

On the other hand, if I believe that society is interdependent and I am an important factor in the workings of society, I have no choice but to trust another—I have a societal responsibility to trust another.  I trust that the judicial system is working without corruption because I am part of it.  I trust on our civic leaders because citizens feel deeply connected and concerned about civic matters.  I trust my atmosphere and environment because I play an integral part in it.  If I believe that the world is codependent, then the trust I have in myself, is the same trust of others.  If my worldview is that of in interdependent world, then I trust that my actions are influential and I trust that others act in a responsible way because they understand that their actions are influential.

As an aside, most scientific findings (and perhaps this posts’ statistics) also have this interdependence.  The majority of scientific projects involve a group of specialists that deal with particular aspects of the projects.  Ultimately, each individual in a group depends and trusts that the work being done--that the observations are accurate, that the controls are prepared adequately, that the data is interpreted and recorded specifically, that all others in the project have the capacity to interpret and understand the same data the same way, etc--are accomplished adequately.  If such collective trust was nonexistent, then science as we know it would dissipate.

Trust is codependent with our view of world.  What is our worldview?  How do we see the other?  How do we see our neighbors?  What role do we play in society?  How much influence does one believe one has in the world?

There are many cases in our society where our worldview is presented as deeply individualistic, independent, and self-controlling.  The media, national policy, and idealisms promote a self driven worldview.  Our sense of a collective mind (see my post: E Pluribus Unum) has been altered to a sense of an independent mind.

In such a worldview where one cares more about the welfare of oneself than the welfare of the collective world, it is understandable why one would not trust in anything outside of one’s control.  Furthermore, if our society, culture, and idealism necessitate the incessant act to differentiate and distinguish, one can envision why it is that there is such distrust in other factions.  Although wealth may play a role in trust, I encourage those with more facilities than myself to explore deeper causes for our lack of trust.  Perhaps those countries that show more trust than the US practice more collective thinking—they perceive their world as codependent or interconnected?  What is their perceived worldview?  What do they trust—trust in what?  These and many more questions should be raised.

On Why “Change” Should be Used More Diligently and How I Would Like to Apply it.

On Why “Change” Should be Used More Diligently and How I Would Like to Apply it.

Change is a word often used nowadays in all aspects of life.  President Obama ran on his platform of change and we welcomed and voted him into office.  Currently, the Tea Party is suggesting/demanding a “radical” change in US spending policy.  Our foreign policy is geared towards changing the perception internationally of the US.  China is going though drastic changes in government.  North African and Middle East rebellions are fighting for change.  All are considered change.

We often change many aspects of our conventional lives as well.  We change diets, jobs, homes, lovers, devices, etc.

I would like to inquire into the word “change” and see if we can utilize the word with more weight, significance, and, ultimately, responsibility.

Change is conventionally defined as: to cause to be different; to give different form or state; to make radically different (google it).  Etymologically speaking, it can be considered as barter (although etymologically speaking, barter’s meaning is to deceive or to cheat, but I digress).  If one barters, one switches a thing or act for something else, which usually is nothing like the act or thing they were switching.

With this conventional understanding in mind, I will define change as a process that makes an act or thing different, or radical transforms it.  This process “switches” the state, form/kind, or function radically.  When some particular thing or action has become subject to change, that particular thing or action has radically transformed.

This definition is provided so that we can pay close attention when I present several examples, some provided above.

In the case of Obama’s political platform, his intention was to change the political environment in Washington.  He was going to counter the policies of Bush.  He was going to differ from his predecessors through changing the way Washington does business.  The result so far:  Obama is still using political strategies and maneuvers that have been utilized in the past.  He differs to Bush, only in degrees.  In fact, the change he so promoted and we accepted is not really a change.  It is a shift, in degrees—a movement in an alternate direction to a certain degree, on the same political system we are all too familiar with.

Obama is also attempting to adjust the foreign policies by changing how other countries perceive the US and how we make decisions in the global arena.  He is attempting to demonstrate to the global community that the US is a partner in global problems and that the US will play a responsible role, along with the rest of the global community.  He wants to show the world that the US wants to include the other countries who want to play leadership roles.  He also wants to integrate and not exclude countries from the global community if they are so willing to interact.  All judgments about his foreign policy aside, can we really believe that these actions are a change?  Do we not see that we were once a global partner, respectful ally to the global community, and perceived with high regards for our inclusion policies?  So, are Obama’s “changes” really changes or are they a mere redirection within the same plane of foreign policy?

The Tea Party’s intention to radically change fiscal policy in the US government should not be seen as anything “radical” or of “change.”  The Tea Party believes, all judgments aside, that the US was better off the way the government and its people comported themselves in a particular era of US history.  Its intention is not to “radically change” the government but shift its behavior to match a particular mindset of a past era (Thus the historical reference of the Tea party).  So the Tea Party’s “radical change” does not seem to be in line with their original intentions.  It seems as if their real intention is not change but movement from one ideology to another, within the same spectrum—the utility of government.

In our conventional world, when we tell someone, “Dude, you’ve changed,” do we mean that he has transformed into a butterfly?  Most likely we recollect a certain image of the individual as a reference point, compare that image with the present image, and notice that there are slight alterations—of degree, not of kind.  When we change our eating habits, we do not suddenly eat with our ears.  When we change from non fiction writing to fiction writing, we still use the same references to create a modified worldview—instead of horses and horns, we create unicorns.  We cannot (or perhaps should not) write something outside our reference terms, otherwise our common connection is lost.  I could go on, but I think my point is clear:  Change is often not being used in the correct manner. 

What we usually refer to change is not change at all.  It is the movement in degrees opposite to the reference point.  Think of it this way, if you are travelling on a train, and the train is going on one direction and then goes the opposite direction, is it really changing—radically transforming?  Unless the train is a transformer and suddenly becomes an airplane, there is no change happening.  It is a simple movement on the same track.

Actually, there are only a few instances when something or some act seems to change.  Butterflies seem to change.  Plants seem to change.  Some very few items seem to change.  So we should use the word more carefully.

The reason I am exposing and delimiting the usage of this word is because I have a critical question I want to ask:  Do humans have the capacity to really change?  Do we have the capacity and conditions to radically transform our existence—the way we live and see the world?

Here we can see why I needed to delimit the meaning of the word change because when I ask the question:  Do humans have the capacity to change, I do not mean change in the way it is erroneously construed—a mere change of direction on the same system.  What I mean is profoundly more intense.  Can one radically change our human condition?  Can one change the way we see the world?  Can one really transform who we really are?

I guess that begs the question:  Who or what are we?

It would be tempting to dive into the rabbit hole of philosophical pondering of human identity, existence, epistemology, etc.  But I will not bore you at this moment with these inquiries, they are not necessary in order to address the question.

We, the observers, are always the reference point to decipher the other.  Therefore, we are always keenly or intuitively aware of whom we are.  The moment one acknowledges another, we, in that instant, know very well who we are.  The “I” who recognized the other is distinct from the other in that it is not me (whatever that may be).  The moment one cannot distinguish oneself from another, the other is no longer there.  Therefore, we are always well aware who we are in the most primordial of ways.

So can we, the observers of the world, drastically change who we are?  Do we have the ability to radically transform ourselves?

This begs another question:  Why would we want to change ourselves?

No matter how technologically advanced we have become, no matter how the human race has grown, our human nature—our human condition—has not changed much.  Like Colin Quinn states in his first segment of his play, Long Story Short, we have advanced in a broad range of technologies but our human nature still needs to place a reminder to “wash your hands before you leave the toilet.”  Our human condition has not changed much.  We still suffer.  We still strive for happiness.  We still long for love.  We are constantly in violent conflict with our neighbors.  We still feel empty and alone.  Our human condition has not changed much through centuries.  So the question should not be would we want to change, but why not.  Why can’t we change to eliminate these pains?  Can we change?

One obvious answer is no.  Based on what the human race has gone through, repeating the same mistakes over and again, our human condition cannot change.  Furthermore, based on the definition of change above, in order to change, we would have to radically transform from our human condition to a butterfly.  It seems inconceivable to change in such a fashion.

Yet, there are moments in each of our lives, moments of great anxiety, times when the weight of the world is on our shoulders.  Moments that tempts us to explore whether this life can be transformed.  For the most part, we see these moments and turn away—we revert to our status quo and, for the sake of our consciousness, we modify or distance our existence away from what it was before.  Yet these moments come again challenging us to explore our very Being.  That must tell us something.

Can we really change?  Can we have a radical transformation?

The question needs to be undertaken by each one alone.

However, there is one thing that I can supply.  I can supply you with what I call two metaphysical presuppositions—two ways that one can comport with the world. 

The common presupposition is that we assume that there is a world out there that interacts with me, influencing me and thereby affecting me to judge, measure, calculate, and act, affecting the world in return.  Our mind presupposes that there are units out there that we need to relate, measure, calculate, and distinguish—separate—from us.  Reason means to calculate the relationship between things (from ratio, ration, reckon).  If our metaphysical presupposition is that there are things out there, then our rational mind is there to analyze, distinguish, differentiate, and categorize those things so that they can fit in our worldview.  As we separate and distinguish apparent things in the world, we distance ourselves from them, believing that we are different from them.  The greater the separation accumulates, the greater the conflict within us.  A conflicted mind at that point has two options: should it stop distinguishing or should it continue on? 

On the one hand, the rational mind has had many luxuries given to it.  Due to its ability to calculate the presupposed units out in the world, it has been able to manipulate and generate many technologies to better deal with the world the mind has enabled.  There are a lot more things to keep busy with and a lot more things to keep distinguishing, separating, and differentiating.  On the other hand, there is conflict.  Why do we kill?  Why do feel alone?  Why do we have anxiety about meaning?  Since making another different from you—Jew and Muslim, Black and White, Eastside and Westside—has brought you to become hostile to the other, perhaps one can consider a cessation of distinguishing—what seems like a drastic change.  However, what are you going to stop distinguishing?  As soon as you distinguish the things you want to distinguish, you have failed in your intent.  The project becomes so viciously problematic and empty that fear seeps in and you revert to the rational mind’s status quo. 

This cycle repeats itself every so often when one deals with great ordeals.  Most of the time, our anxiety demands change but our rational mind convinces us that change means distance and not kind (to the mind that measures, there is no such thing as something not measureable).  So one “changes” in many ways to deal with the ordeals without realizing that one only has the capacity to distance itself from that which one has anxiety about.  True change, under this paradigm is impossible.

The second paradigm is indeed radical and requires deep attention and hearkening.  It involves the metaphysical presupposition that the observer and the observed exist codependently.  If the observer is the observed, then the world is I and I am the world.  This might sound incomprehensible at first but with some personal observation, one may see the fruits.  What this means is that if we see the world not as a unit separate from oneself, but just another way one interprets itself, then changing in form is possible.  If one can transform their worldview from I/other to something entirely empty of such dichotomies and differentiation, then true change is possible.

Unfortunately, this is the point for personal departure and exploration.  As our calculating mind tries to make sense out of this, continuing to explain the second paradigm will fall trap to reason’s calculating grips.  I implore those who have read this to explore this second notion on your own.  I will continue to supply food for thought on this subject since the blog is predominantly created for this intention.

The word change is a terribly important word.  I hope that this exposition exposed the limitations of the usage of this word and explained the way I would like to see this word used and practiced.  Is change possible?  It all depends on what you do and not on what you think.  To change demands courage and responsibility, I encourage you to explore it more thoroughly.  There are many pressing issues in the world.  Conflict and anxiety are crashing with hope for change.  I hope this presentation will reach those who really are sincere and serious about change.

Philosophy in the School Place: Argument for, against, or partial homeschooling

This is an argument for, against, or partial homeschooling.  I must be clear with this point: I am not yet fully convinced on either side.  So this is not an attempt of conversion.  Instead, it is a plea and request from a friend to you, to help me solve my dilemma and perhaps at the same time, we might solidify your educational decision.


I will start by providing some general definitions of terms.  I am certain that as we continue this conversation these terms will require some clarity and tweaking. 


By "public" schooling, I am referring to a system of schooling in which the child is left in a learning institution or facility, for the purpose of learning, without the guidance, attention, and instruction of their parents or guardians while at the facility.  So under "public," I include public, private, charter, and boarding schools, or any other schools that have this kind of quality. 


By "children," I am referring to kids from 3 to 17 years of age, or who generally fit the grades Pre to 12 grades.  So I am excluding those kids who are out of 12 grade or 17 years and older.

By "home," I am referring to an abstract notion of home--not necessarily your house, but a place where your comfort level is heightened (and hence having a sense of home).  This abstract notion of home differs from the general notion of home in that this concept connotes a state-of-being where one's meaning rests and develops, instead of a location where one seeks shelter and rest.  In this sense, home is where life, love, and the world develops a perspective and a reason to be.  Comfort is the undercurrent that allows one's development of meaning at home.  Although a home doesn't necessarily require a locale, a locale satisfies many physical necessities--a place to eat, be nurtured, rest, and have shelter.  In this respect, a physical home may play a role by allowing one to feel more comfortable.  The last aspect of this notion of home considers the people who one is intimately connected with.  This could be any number of groups.  Generally, a family or "loved ones" play an integral part in one's development of meaning because they may provide love, care, compassion, and a particular way of human coexistence. 


I will not expand further on this notion of home because this is not a presentation on this concept.  This definition should suffice for this presentation.


By "home schooling," I am referring to the capacity, potentiality, and activity of a home to function as the primary place of learning.


By "learning," I am including a wide array of subjects that are being acquired.  These include but are not limited to: academic (the sciences and math, literature and humanities, and the arts), social (inter-personal and community oriented), personal (identity, behavior, etc.), physical, and spiritual/philosophical learning.  As we go forth, I intend to highlight, quantify, and value the type of learning that is being taught as a means to determining the worth of the specific learning that is at focus.  I am uncertain whether the combination or aggregation of these types of learning should be a metric as to the quality of a particular type of method of learning or a particular type of institution, but until another metric is determined, I will consider these types of learning very important metrics.


By "immediate world," I am referring to the conventional or day-to-day interaction that one participates in.  This generally includes: pre-work activities (exercising, going to store, reading, getting coffee); work (studies, career, any money-worthy effort in which you expect a compensation of some sort, or any effort that is concrete--but not necessarily material--and valuable); home (abstract or physical) activities (cooking, family interaction, fixing your home, physical fitness, etc.); and homework--work from "home" that is directly linked to the work you endeavor (studying, applying work-related insight for experiential learning).  What is not included (with some exceptions) in immediate world affairs are social interactions outside of the demands of home or work; spirituality or deep contemplation (unless that is your work); and escapism of any kind (vacations, religious practices, outings, or any sort of escapade). 


One primary difference between the general use of the term "real world" and my term "immediate world," "immediate world" is directly related to my notion of "home," in that in our immediate world, our primary concern is developing meaning and perspective.  Therefore, in our immediate world, our home is our main place of interaction (which may or may not include other family members), followed by your work.  The community or citizen responsibility is interconnected with how one manages their home.


Those are the terms that I wanted to clarify in order to be more precise.  Some, after looking at the entire presentation may argue that based on the definitions of these terms, my argument is strong but not in the common usage of the terms.  That might be the case.  Some may elect to stick with the general notions of the terms.  However, the terms, as I understand and value them, are a fundamental part of the analysis of the argument.  I would like to encourage everyone to examine the strength of the terms themselves to see if these terms would be acceptable adaptations to the general notions.


Here is my stance so far: I do believe that there has to be some combination of public and home education.  I am leaning towards some sort of homeschooling paradigm where a group of parents would come together to group teach kids of a range of ages (an idea that came forth in a discussion with Jaime and Amy).  The material, structure, some classes (music class for example, if there are any left), and the necessary goals/tests of the coursework would be provided by our public school system.


Here are some of the reasons why it is I am leaning towards this path (some of you will recognize these points well):


1) The public school system spends too little time on new academic learning. 


In some of the discussions I have had with some of you, we informally examined the actual "coursework" time dedicated in school hours.  We segmented the school time into the periods a high school or a junior high might have (elementary schools tend to vary).  Between the time it takes to settle the kids down in their seats, attendance, announcements, prior lesson review, and homework announcement, every period contains a minimal (relative to tenure of the period) amount of academic coursework.  With very rough calculations (education people can help me out here), out of the 6 hours spent in school, about two to three hours are spent in actual academic material. 


What this makes me believe is that perhaps a person willing to instruct their children may be able to teach the core materials at home.  If it takes about minimum of 2-3 hours to teach coursework, then perhaps we can make the time to teach our kids the material (weeknights, weekends?).


Some would argue that there are other things that kids are learning other than academics.  For example, some kids may learn the "street knowledge" required to survive in the "real" world.  Others may learn to be social and explore their personal identity.  These other types of learning will be addressed later to see if schools are the ONLY place where these qualities can be attained.


2) The public school system's social culture delimits the student's ability to focus on academic, personal,
and spiritual/philosophical development.


Much of the student's spare or free time is spent on superficial social activities--fleeting activities that play no immediate world impact on the child, and escapades of some sort, such as developing a "cool look," attempting to attract or to be involved in cliques, chatting about superficial social activities that occurred at or after school, or going on outings to "kill" time.  This, in-turn requires more time to deal with the emotional results of those activities, and chatting on the phone or net, or “veging” (moping?) at home, dealing.  These superficial activities reduce their time and energy that they would otherwise spend in the application of the coursework, whether it be homework or observation, experimentation, and/or experience.


Some would argue that these social activities prepare the kids to the real world social/cultural arena.  However, in my experience, those same social ephemeral activities hinder our further development at home and at work.  There are many examples in the workplace where social structures hinder the ability of people to work more effectively. 


One common example is the continued usage of the clique or "cool/not cool" structure that started in school and continues in some work places.  These social structures, delimit the potential cooperation and effectiveness of a group of workers by ignoring the potentially powerful input or impact of social "liabilities" or social outcasts in the workplace.  If the social structure that children developed was different, perhaps this problem would be avoided. 


The social culture developed in schools and reinforced in the media is also affecting our social interaction with society.  In a similar fashion as in the workplace, our community gets affected by ignoring the inputs of many outcasts.


In the immediate world, we don't just interact with people our own age.  We interact with people with wide array of characteristics.  Public schools, as diverse as they can be, do not account for the various age/maturity equations of our community and culture.  Children's development should account for this reality.


Instead, we prepare our kids to enter an ineffective social paradigm that obstructs their growth.  For this reason, I believe that social and personal learning and development is better nurtured through the interaction between your parents, extended family, close relations, and clubs or organizations that offer specialized extra curricular activities where the child interacts in an atmosphere more akin to the "immediate world." 


3)  Public schools distance the connection between the student and the "immediate world."


Where the prior claim deals with the problem of preparing the children to assimilate to the community, this claim deals with the physical, psychological/emotional distance we force upon our children when we send them to public schools.


First, the physical distance from our children forces them to leave a possible comfortable environment of the home.  This situation also inhibits children from the potential of what could be one of the most important elements of human coexistence--physical loving and caring touch.  The time spent in school conditions the child to assimilate to a reality where physical touch is used sparingly and most often in inappropriate, uncomfortable, uncaring, and uncompassionate ways.  Physical touch is limited to some close friends (if that), through sexual or sporting activities, and/or through violence, the worst byproduct of the physical distance between the home and your child.


Second, the psychological and emotional implications can be substantial.  When we decide to leave our children to the care and attention of someone else, our children increasingly condition their minds to accept a reality where the home involves the controlling conditions of the public school.  For some, this kind of condition may be enjoyable.  But for others, this conditioning may foment bitter resentment and rebellion towards the home, school, and others, effectively inhibiting their learning, development, and coexisting. 


In a (supposed) Democratic and independent society, we should prepare our children to be free-thinking, critical, and independent beings, willing to question and challenge dogmas, and become pioneers of new and groundbreaking ventures.  Instead, we force them every weekday morning to get up, to go to a controlled environment where "authority figures" tell them how they must behave, what they must eat, when they must "break," what they should learn, when they must learn, and for how long they need to learn it.  One recent movie that is out on DVD, "The War on Kids," has an abundant amount of examples of how our children are being controlled, monitored, and conditioned to "follow directions.”  In an interview with Stephen Colbert, the author of the movie (Cevin Soling) states that schools were originally developed for the military and had intentions of preparing children to join the forces. (http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=256574).  Our children psychologically determine that their parents and society want them to be controlled and administered and their potentiality for independent and critical thought gets subdued.


Some would argue that this country is recognized as the best country that can flourish Democratic values, independent thinking, and a pioneer spirit—that our public schools are the reason for that proclivity.  I am not challenging the common knowledge that this country is recognized as a leader in independent thought, etc.  However, this type of thinking is not developed in public schools but rather in institutions of higher or collegiate learning.  In these institutions, the educational platform enables and enriches the student's potential for innovative and critical thought.  In such environments, independent thought grows.  But even these institutions, with the established course requirements and scores, hinder the geniuses and the best minds (that is why most of them leave school).


It is not hard to acknowledge how the transition from high school to college is very difficult for most of our children.  The public schools condition our kids to follow, be obedient, and to not cause or question problems.  Our colleges and universities, on the other hand, require that their candidates have a solid sense of critical thinking, analysis, and problem solving. 


It is increasingly becoming apparent that our schooling is deteriorating.  I am not claiming that there is only one factor.  However, if one examines this disconnect more carefully, perhaps one can appreciate the immensity of the problem and how this argument has some significant strength.

.....

The prosperity that the US has enjoyed is due, in part, to its political and commercial ideals, its educational system, and military might.  The public school system played an enormous part in all these factors.  After WWII, the industrial activity in the US increased dramatically.  The public school system was enhanced and further developed so that there can be a sufficient and capable amount of WORKERS IN FACTORIES.  Public schools were training our kids to follow instructions, learn basic coursework, and be athletically fit to be effective workers in a wide variety of industries and trades.


On the other hand, the young men who fought in WWII were already trained, or forced to learn (due to the circumstances of war), to follow and take command.  Ironically, the leaders and pioneers of the growing US economic affluence were not the young who were prepared in public schools, but rather, those who followed orders at war, learned to be independent, appreciated freedom, and received the opportunity to go to college after military service (via GI bill).  To this very day, we admire that great generation for its pioneering spirit, work ethic, and appreciation and zeal for the "American ideal." 


This trivial look back at history was meant to highlight the importance that public schools played in preparing an industrious workforce.  It is generally assumed that public schools developed the leaders of this country.  I don't believe that is the case.  The public school system only developed a great order-following workforce for the industrial demands of the 1900s.


As the US flourished, it garnered a decisive amount of command and power in the world.  The rest of the world followed suit and until recent times, developed their own competitive industry and workforce.  Presently, the US public school system has stagnated against changing times.  It has used its overwhelming power and authority to control those in public schools.  As (Marx?) stated, "power corrupts."  The excessive use of power and control of students has corrupted and decimated the ability of the public school system to even produce a solid workforce.

.....

Above, I have presented my reasons why I believe the public school system has not convinced me to indoctrinate my child/children in the system.


I do beleive that the public school system does have some positive functions.  They are as follows:


1) Public schools provide adequate curriculums to prepare students with general academics.  The tests also provide an adequate (but not sufficient) degree of analysis of the students' performance.


Nevertheless, I am apprehensive about the public school's ability to prepare a more concentrated curriculum and tests that can prepare the student for the demands of higher education and specializations.  In an article in the NY times (see NY TIMES, EARLY GRADUATION, SOPHOMORE), it mentions how this project attempts to deal with this public school deficiency.


2)  Public schools also have the potential to provide essential instruction on how to work or cooperate together--it adequately teaches teamwork.  I place emphasis on the "potential" because although I believe that public schools have the appropriate platform and facilities (gyms, music classes and theatres, science rooms, etc.), I don't believe that teamwork is emphasized enough.  There are some levels of partnering, but I would like there to be more.  At any rate, public schools do have a legitimate and strong ability to efficiently teach varied degrees of cooperation.


These positive attributes are the primary reason that I believe that homeschooling alone is insufficient.  Children do require aptitude tests (standardized tests) and they do require the capacity to cooperate on observations, expression, tasks, and jobs.  Therefore, I do not reject the public school system entirely.  However, if we are to analyze the varied subjects, topics, and qualities that our children develop as they grow, we should be able to conclude that perhaps other venues are more efficient than that of public schools.  I will focus on this on another post.

Deconstruct This: E Pluribus Unum

America used to be the country where many gathered towards one grand goal (E Pluribus Unum--Out of many, one).  Many grandiose national projects have been achieved by the gathering of the collective will.  Unions and public masses would gather as one to contest injustices in many aspects of social and economic life.  The "United" States represented the epitome of what it means to have a union of people to achieve greater goals than the sum of its parts.

We need to take another look at what E Pluribus Unum now seems to represent. 

Presently, our society is in conflict and selfishly independent.  Many have decided that only their individual lives matter, and the rest should figure it out on their own.  Many have decided that their own independence matters more than the collective whole of the nation.  We invested for our own selfish gain and we continue to expect the government to assist in our personal gain (Through decrease in taxes or increase in government assistance, for example).  We prepare our children for their own success.  We vote for policies and politicians that would reflect our own independent needs.

So, perhaps E Pluribus Unum now represents not the many coming together as one.  Instead, it represents that out of the collection of individuals, only one matters:  Out of the hundreds of workers, only one CEO matters.  Out of a collection of firefighters, let us split them apart and condition them to think that their individual safety nets are more important than society's.  Out of team concept, let us focus on the "Jimmers" or "Kembas" of the world.

Long were the days when out of many, one unity arose.  Now are the days that, out of so many who sacrificed for this nation before us, all we care about is one--ourselves.