More Letters to the Corinthians

Zero to 3 Diet

Obesity is commonly caused by one of three factors. You either have a problem with starch, sugar, or fats.

Starch people (like me) love things like bread, pasta, rice, and cake; sugary people like pop, candy, and sweets; and fats people are addicted to foods like ice cream.

The lifelong diet for starch people is this:

0-3 starches per day; a bowl of cereal or 2 pieces of bread equals 1
beans don’t count, beer does

This doesn’t mean you have to give up starches forever, it means you have to control them. For example, not having burgers with the bun or toast with your eggs. Sure, it’s never easy but this diet makes things simple by giving you just one rule.

Other ways to control starch include: having yogurt for breakfast, keeping cookies and baked goods out of the house, saying “No, thank you” to most deserts, and having protein with your pasta.

Part of the reason why dieting is so hard is because there’s so much to remember, but this time we’re making it easy. Watch your problem foods, shake your body whenever you can, and don’t eat too much. That’s it!

P.S. Sugar and fats people are on their own.

If you suddenly go to zero and experience headaches, feeling blue, or strong food urges, it’s probably because of low blood sugar. Try canned, dried, fresh, or frozen fruit.

Trump

In order to appreciate the current political situation in the US, you need to know a little about American politics.

Independents

On Larry King Live, former president Bill Clinton, explained how presidential elections work. He said that before any election starts, 45% of the people are voting left, 45% are voting right, and only 10% make the actual decision. This means that 90% of the population are staunch ideologues who cast their ballot regardless of candidates or issues.

Proof for his statement can be found in the 2008 election. Sexy democrat, Barack Obama faced off against old republican, John McCain, who was considered a political lightweight. In the midst of a disastrous war and an economic meltdown (presided over by a republican president), there had never been a better time to lean left. But in the end, the results were:

Obama 53%, McCain 46%, Other 1%.

The media called it a landslide for Obama because he got 8% of the independent vote while McCain only managed to get 1.

Third-party candidates

Clinton’s view becomes even more interesting when you look at presidential elections that involve third-party candidates. In 1992, famed businessman, Ross Perot, ran for office against republican president, George H. Bush, and democratic nominee, Bill Clinton. Perot’s platform was a rejuvenated form of conservatism that appealed to many on the right. The final results were:

Clinton 43%, Bush, 37%, Perot, 19%, Other 1%.

Assuming moderates were evenly split, Perot attracted away at least 13% of the republican base, thereby causing a democratic victory.

Then consider the election of 2000, when democrat Al Gore ran against George W. That election featured notorious consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, as a third-party candidate. His reputation and platform appealed strongly to the left. The final results were:

Bush 47.9%, Gore 48.4%, and Nader 2.7%.

There’s no doubt that if Nader hadn’t run, Gore would have won the election.

GOP

Before getting to Donald, let’s talk about the Republican Party.

The article, Left is for Liberal, details the differences between the two major parties. In part, it describes the conservative ideology as being pro-business and in favour of lower taxation for less government service. But there are degrees to the degree. Meaning you have “small c” or moderate conservatives, and those of the far right.

During the last presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich explained that republican primaries usually come down to a contest between a more conservative candidate, like himself, and a moderate, like Mitt Romney. And history shows that in the greater majority of cases, the moderate wins. But after the inception of the Tea Party in 2008, the Republican Party has been shifting further and further to the far right.

The Tea Party’s isn’t your typical ideological objection to the strong carrying the weak. It’s a deeper philosophic argument that openly touts 1700s-style conservatism.

Shortly after its formation, 1996 republican presidential nominee, Bob Dole, came out publicly to warn against their policies. And Bernie Sanders, in an October 2014 interview with Bill Moyers, said the Tea Party has been enormously successful, stating “they’ve taken a centre-right party and made it a right-wing extremist party.”

Moderates are being pushed aside by dirty tea party tricks. Like, incumbents being challenged by well-funded Tea Party candidates for re-nomination—which is crazy. For example, in 2010, Utah’s three term senator, Bob Bennett, was defeated in his primary by Tea Party candidate (and Brigham Young graduate), Mike Lee.

In short, pundits say the only way to stop this super-right charge is for “small c” conservatives to boycott their own party. Moderates have to stand up to the extremists and threaten to join hands with the democrats. (So this hard right-wing thing is a problem.)

Xenophobia

Xenophobia is the irrational dislike of people from other countries.

In today’s presidential world, no serious candidate would ever base any part of their campaign on something like this. Why? Because democrats don’t like it, independents don’t like it, and “small c” conservatives don’t like it. The best you can do with a platform of this nature is attract maybe 25% of the vote. Certainly no way to win a presidential race.

So why would any serious candidate kick off his or her campaign with a large reference to xenophobia? That’s what Donald Trump did. And that’s why, immediately after his initial remarks about Mexico sending us their criminals and rapists, seasoned columnists started to smell a fish.

They contrived a conspiracy theory that went something like this: Donald starts off as a republican, splits off into a third-party candidate, appeals to the xenophobic wackos, takes 5-10% of the vote, and Hillary cruises to the White House.

They later supported this theory with additional facts like: “Trump is really a democrat” and “he’s personal friends with the Clintons.” And then provided numerous examples of his being for the left.

The Donald

Okay, so what do we really know about Trump? He’s rich and probably a narcissist.

If you ever had to cast a person to play the part of the above conspiracist, Donald would be it. He’s definitely an attention seeker who, at best guess, is politically aligned somewhere between a moderate and a democrat.

In the words of Zeus, Socrates, and some other Italian guy, you never really know the reason why, but my sincerest suspicion is that Donald is operating from the good. I truly believe his intentions are to face down the threat of extremism and give the Tea Party a swift kick in the pants. And though no conspiracy theory can ever be reliably proved, the strategy of using xenophobia as a defining issue was brilliant. No other matter could have better exposed the ugly underbelly of the far-right movement and forced moderates into making a choice.

In the 1980s, after the Pope and Britain’s royal family, the most popular person alive was Muhammad Ali. In the 1990s it was Michael Jackson, and during the first decade of this century—Tiger Woods. I believe Donald will soon be awarded this title (so yes, there’s something in it for him).

Political extremism, on either wing, is bad because it’s mainly about manipulative minority rule, and we should never have that. I applaud Trump for taking the lead on this issue and wish him success. Because, like Metropolis could only call upon Clark Kent to battle the villains of his day, we have only “the Donald” to champion this fight. God bless America and God bless Donald Trump.

Then again, it’s just a theory.

How a Bank Works

Ever wonder how a bank works? And why there’s so much money in money?

I once toured London, England, and when the guide announced we were going through the financial district, I thought how much money can be in banking? Boy, was I wrong.

Marginal reserve banking system

Banks get most of their reserves by selling GICs. Reserves also come from personal savings and the money we sometimes keep in our chequing accounts. They then lend out a regulated multiple of these reserves to cash-strapped customers and charge interest.

For example, let’s say a bank has $10 million in reserves and the regulated multiple is 10, they can lend out $100 million. Do a little math and you’ll find that using 3% as both the rate of interest paid and the rate of interest charged on loans, banks generate $3 million in revenue for only $300K in cost. Sure, they have to pay marketing and admin expenses, but that’s a whopping gross margin.

Let’s do the math again, 3% on $10 million in reserves equals $300K product cost. And 3% on $100 million in commercial or retail loans equals $3 million in revenue. What other industry enjoys a 90% gross margin?

The government regulated multiple is very important because the higher it is, the greater the leverage. Before the crash of 2008, the US multiple was upwards of 35. This makes the potential revenue yield $10.5 million for $300K in cost. That’s an extra $7.5 million for the same reserves.

Risk

Okay, okay, so what’s the catch? If customers don’t pay back their loans, the bank incurs a $100 million loss when they have only $10 million in reserves—so they go broke. That’s why banks try to minimize their risk. They only want to lend to people and organizations that’ll pay the money back. And they reinforce this principle by taking legal rights (security) over the assets they finance.

Let’s look at two examples: cars and homes.

Car loans

What do you think happens if you miss a couple payments on your car loan? A truck comes out and hauls away your wheels. Then the bank sells it and puts the proceeds towards the balance of the loan. That’s why banks force you to sign a chattel, giving them the legal right to do this. It’s also why they force you into giving a lump sum deposit (or at least, the first and last month’s payments) up front. This way your loan balance will always be less, or close to, the wholesale value of the car. So if they get stuck with it, they don’t lose.

A vehicle is a security backed loan because there’s something to seize. It’s also preferred because repossessed vehicles are easy to sell. Furniture is another story. Furniture is harder to get rid of and harder to repossess. So banks view these type of loans as riskier. That’s why they charge a higher interest rate for them.

Home mortgages

Now let’s flip to houses. They’re also a security backed loan since the bank can foreclose. That’s when they take your house and sell it, again using the proceeds to pay off the loan. But homes are different because their prices are volatile—they swing both up and down.

Upward swings aren’t a concern because the value of the security is now greater than the loan. It’s downward swings that bother the bank. A large decrease in market value can cause homeowners to “hand back the keys” and walk away from their obligation. And if the home is worth less than the loan, the bank can’t recoup all their investment, so they lose money.

Remember, you can’t go to jail for not paying back a loan. The bank took the risk and charged you a fee. So if the housing market crashes, it’s not your fault. Yes, they can force you into bankruptcy, but that’s not a crime.

Because of this possible downside, banks have additional provisions for mortgages. In Canada, we have CMHC. If you don’t have 20% to put down, CMHC mortgage insurance guarantees this portion of the loan so banks only have to finance 80%. This then gives banks better security since their risk is no more than $80K on a $100K asset.

Fees

Money lending today only equates to half of all bank revenue, the rest comes from fees. And not just the mafia surcharges they hit you with every time you use an ATM, banks are now in the insurance and brokerage businesses.

Entering these markets has not only fueled additional growth for the industry, it’s stabilized the system further to where Canadian banks are seen as relatively safe investments. And that’s why banks stocks are attractive to any investor. (As long as there are no more housing bubbles and everyone pays back their loans.)

Cultural Economics

Whether it’s gay rights, rap, or the breakdown of marriage, culture plays a significant role in our lives. And many times it influences us economically, which is the focus of this article.

Dual income

Back in the 70s, one parent worked to support four to eight people. Now we have two working to support three or four. That’s a big change. Birth control coupled with the women’s movement and desire for smaller family sizes has lessened the importance of measuring individual income. Today, we focus more on what a family brings in.

Capital assets

Economies produce two kinds of outputs: capital assets and consumables. Goods and services that get used up within the year they’re made are consumables. They include food, cleaning services, and live entertainment. Capital assets last much longer—things like, roads, schools, hospitals, and power plants. Sure, capital assets still require annual maintenance, which is a consumable, but the initial output lasts a long time.

When a country experiences war, many of their capital assets get destroyed and must be rebuilt. But if a country doesn’t see war, their economic resources get spent on building new roads, new schools, new hospitals, and new power plants. This is a major reason why North America has experienced such prosperity.

Necessities

You can only do three things with money:

spend on necessities
spend on luxuries
save to spend another day

Public opinion as to what constitutes a necessity has changed. Pets and fancy vacations, once considered luxuries, have now moved into basics—regardless of personal income. This new definition doesn’t just influence wage demands, it alters personal savings since the attraction behind keeping up with culture often wins out over the fear of going broke.

Inheritances

Family inheritances also affect the amount of money people save. Sure, we now live longer but most of us can expect to receive something substantial from mom and dad. And today’s larger nest eggs are divided among fewer kids.

Price watching

True capitalism expects consumers to play their part. People are supposed to watch over prices by supporting suppliers who deliver superior value. This way companies are forced into keeping prices down. But if you’re too busy to shop (say, for something like snow tires), the system breaks down and we all end up paying more.

Over-specialization of labour

Back in the 70s, whenever a homeowner requested a tradesperson provide a quote, they’d compare that price to doing the job themselves. And if they felt the premium was too high, they would do the job themselves. But when the average homeowner is void of such talents, this evaluation process becomes redundant and people wind up paying more. In the past, we were at the mercy of the accountant and the lawyer. Today, we’re at the mercy of trades.

Happiness

Economists define standard of living based on outputs. The more you consume, the better off you are. But shouldn’t happiness be part of the equation? In the 1970s, people lived in 1200 square foot bungalows, opened garage doors manually, called neighbours over to play cards, and ate mostly at home. They were moderately happy. Today we live in larger homes, have automatic switches for everything, enjoy copious forms of entertainment, and eat out with regularity—but we’re still only moderately happy. Why?

Because economies don’t generate happiness, they only create goods and services. Yes, extra goods and services make people happy in poorer countries but not in ones like ours. When we went from watching black and white to amazing HDTV, people didn’t get a happiness hit. That’s because somewhere along the line there was a social cost (not necessarily from the technology) that nullified the gain. Or, we simply got used to the new quality advancement and adjusted—just like people don’t jump up and down every time they see water coming out of a tap.

Summary

Economics is a social science—not a real one. So numbers don’t tell the whole story. In fact, numbers usually leave out the most important part. And because economies involve emotion-based participants (people), everything can’t be measured by levers and dials. That’s why on top of facts you also look at faces.

Progressives

In the realm of different believers, progressives and fundamentalists are regular churchgoers who vigorously support the Bible. But progressives like to think about their scripture while fundies take it literally.

Progressives are often fundamentalists who’ve broken away (e.g., kids who take faith less seriously than their parents) and they’re open to religious discussion. (You needn’t be afraid of them.) The two also differ when it comes to abiding by church rules. Fundamentalists follow them wholeheartedly, while progressives like to apply a little interpretation. For example, during the Islamic period of Ramadan, strict Muslims view the rule of fasting between sunrise and sunset as just that—even if they live up north where this can last up to 16 hours. Progressives say the law was made for an area closer to the equator so, for them, six to six is close enough.

Christianity, like most religions, is a good moral core surrounded by a number of rules. Each believer then has to decide which they’re willing to accept. Here are some of the rules that progressives have moved away from over the past 50 years.

not being allowed to go to movies on Sundays
not being allowed to dance
not being allowed to consume alcohol
believing women don’t have the same status as men
believing only Christians go to heaven
believing gays and lesbians are not welcome in the church

Today’s progressives are also open to meeting people of other faiths and discussing how God has entered their lives. And they disagree with the notion of supporting only one political party—they’ll vote for whomever they please.

Summary

You can’t keep educating people without expecting them to think. That’s why the future of religion lies with its progressives. This group is different from “lights” in that they believe the Bible is divine and are probably still a little Christian-supremacist, but they’re redefining faith from the inside.

In terms of Christianity, this means separating yourself from the Old Testament. Deists left that one long ago, while fundamentalists still cling to it. Progressives take a middle path where they respect the old covenant but rank it well below the New One. And though this process isn’t always easy, progressives see the lessons in that older document. Same lessons the Jews used to take us to the next level. (And why our cartoon people are saying thank you.)

But today, we need to move on—and religion is changing.

Fundamentalism

In his film, Religulous, Bill Maher takes aim at Christian fundamentalism in America attempting to expose the lunacy of it all. (The title is a combination of the words religion and ridiculous.) I found the film worthwhile but wish it had answered more questions. Like, what’s the definition of a fundie and why does any person want to be one? What percentage of Americans think this way? And is this number shrinking or on the rise? Since Bill didn’t answer these questions, let’s give it a try.

The film’s definition of a fundamentalist seems to be churchgoers who take their scripture literally. For Christians, it’s believing in Old Testament stories like Adam and Eve, Jonah living inside a whale, and Noah running around collecting all those animals. It also includes believing in the existence of Hell, Mother Mary as a virgin, and that homosexuality is a sin.

It appears people become fundamentalists for three reasons:

Jesus loves you
You enjoy feeling superior
You’re susceptible to the euphoria of prayer

Fundamentalists are usually born into an already fundamentalist family or belong to the utterly broken and totally screwed up. I don’t think kids from good non-fundie homes wake up saying, “Hey, I want to start believing in this stuff, literally.” But those with battered backgrounds often seek out the help of the church. Why? Because above all else, Jesus loves me. And this form of love is obviously better than the one I should have received from home.

It also appears that as soon as the cameras shut off, fundies began snickering over how dumb they thought ol’ Bill was. Comments like “he doesn’t know” and “he’ll never be saved” could easily have come from this group. One of the pillars of super-faith seems to be the feeling of being chosen or superior. And when you think of it—these people have been ridiculed their entire lives. But thanks to fundamentalism, they’ll soon be the winners sitting atop the mountainside, while condescending, bully-bastards who once taunted them suffer at their feet. (And revenge is so sweet.)

The third reason appears to be the reaction some have to prayer. It’s like the power of prayer is an upper-based addiction like no other. Something chemical is going on here because they’re all high on Christ.

So to summarize: “newbie” fundamentalists want (and need) the love of Jesus, like to feel superior, and are addicted to the euphoria of prayer.

Problem

So why did Bill say we have to be afraid of them? All the fundamentalists in the film seemed harmless. Looked like nice people. Is it because those who believe blindly are susceptible to carrying out bad wishes from an evil command? Are fundamentalists primarily docile people who can become dangerous because they don’t like to think? And is it terrorism we’re talking about, or is it voting largely the same way and their tendency to sometimes carry signs that say “God hates fags,” all because some leader told them?

Solution

What’s popular these days are arguments between atheists and fundies, which are mostly futile. It may be better to acknowledge that fundamentalist-type people exist and treat them accordingly? For example, like we have international agreements to reduce the number of nuclear arms, we could have international faith agreements to remove controversial passages from each other’s scripture, just to keep everyone safe.

Prior to finding this notion absurd, consider that the Catholic Church has altered its canon a number of times. For years, it said babies who died before baptism were sent directly to limbo. And though this was probably a motivation to push followers into practicing early sacraments (since rituals are part of cementing adherence), it created additional suffering for already grieving parents. But the church reversed its policy to unbaptized babies now go to heaven. Furthermore, today the Vatican acknowledges Darwinism as a valid belief system, and sometimes says homosexuality isn’t a sin. (At this rate we’ll have birth control by Christmas.)

Religious authorities must take responsibility for having created this mess. Rules that were necessary in the past have become outgrown in many places. The fault doesn’t lie with fundamentalist-type people, it’s with doctrines like the Bible and the Quran. Blaming fundies is like blaming a three-year-old for falling into a pool. Put up a fence!

Simple-minded people will always be among us and will always require some sort of care. So let’s give them a bible that is simple and pure. One that says everyone goes to heaven (regardless of religion) and there is no hell. We could make it even more positive by putting greater emphasis on one God and less on the messenger. (Plus, we should stop forcing these folks to evangelize and give away all their dough.)

For the sake of fundamentalists, we should rewrite parts of our bibles to clean up the faith. This way everyone gets to follow the rules and we can all get high.

Note: There are many psychological reasons why I would join. It’s an easy answer to natural questions and a straightforward path to heaven. And in places like Europe and CanAmerica, religion is a choice. But in other parts of the world, fundamentalist behaviour can be forced upon you — and most people hate it. (Some don’t.) Remember this before you judge.

Iraq and Syria

Over the years, we’ve heard much about the Middle East. More recently it’s been about Iraq and Syria. So here’s your background information (as of January, 2016)

Iraq

The population of Iraq is 37 million. In terms of religion, 65% are Shia Muslim (like most of Iran) and 35% are Sunni (like most of Saudi Arabia). They also have a couple of Christians.

Iraq was ruled by a monarchy under the eyes of the British Empire from 1921 to 1958. In 1958, it was overthrown by a bloodless military coup. Saddam Hussein became the country’s fifth president in 1979, serving for 24 years until the US led invasion in 2003. Prior to becoming president, he was VP to his older cousin. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim. During his reign, positions of power in the country were mostly filled with Sunnis. This added to the discriminatory rift that already existed between the two religious groups.

After the US led invasion, the country was governed by an interim council. This council formed the country’s new constitution, which, among other things, changed the top position from president to prime minister. In 2006, the country elected Nouri al-Maliki, a Shia Muslim, as its first prime minister.

After the complete withdrawal of American forces in December 2011, Maliki immediately initiated discriminatory actions against the Sunni minority. Since they couldn’t rely on their government for protection (and now that Americans were gone), in order to defend themselves, the Sunnis spawned the formation of the group that eventually became ISIS.

ISIS was initially run by former military and government personnel from Saddam’s regime (who’d now been banned from holding any such positions), but it also included a radical core that had existed within the country for decades.

Syria

The population of Syria is 18 million. In terms of religion, 15% are Shia, 10% are Christian, and 75% are Sunni. Syria became independent of France in 1945 and was an original member of the United Nations. The country suffered political instability until 1970, when Bashar al-Assad’s father came to power. Hafez al-Assad was in office for 30 years, from 1970 to 2000. Bashar has been president since 2000.

Bashar graduated from medical school in 1988 and attended postgraduate studies at the Western Eye Hospital in London, specializing in ophthalmology. In 1994, after his elder brother Bassel was killed in a car crash, Bashar was recalled to Syria to take over Bassel’s role as heir apparent. Bashar is a Shia Muslim. So, like Saddam Hussein was a Sunni living within a Shia majority, Bashar is a Shia living within a Sunni majority.

The civil war uprising against Bashar started in March 2011. Shortly thereafter, ISIS joined in on the confusion to claim land within Syria for itself. This land was then added to what they’d already captured within Iraq to form a caliphate.

ISIS

ISIS is now a military gone wild. The problem isn’t that they kill people—leaders like Maliki and Bashar have killed many more—the problem is they’ve twisted the initial mission of defending Sunnis into one of radical fundamentalism. One intent on extremism, including ethnic cleansing.

To many, the solution for dismantling ISIS seems to be to eliminate its initial need. For Syria, this means ousting Bashar; and in Iraq, it meant the removal of Maliki. If Iraq’s new prime minister, also a Shia, can produce inclusive government so that Sunnis feel equal, the need for ISIS in Iraq may disappear. And if Syrian rebels defeat Bashar, the majority Sunni population will surely produce someone more sympathetic to their cause.

In reality, it will probably result in larger discrimination of the majority against the minority, which is why Bashar and Saddam aggressively held power in the first place. Plus, ISIS has become a fundamentalist organization with its own cause.

Summary

Sunni and Shia are different types of Muslims—you can’t visually tell them apart. People liken their conflict to the one once held between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.
In Iran, 90% of people are Shia (10% Sunni). Because of these numbers, Iran is seen as the champion of the Shias.
In Saudi Arabia, 90% are Sunni (10% Shia). Because of these numbers, Saudi is seen as the champion of the Sunnis.
In Iraq, 65% are Shia and 35% are Sunni.
- Saddam was from the minority Sunni population. To hold power and prevent discrimination against his group, he favoured Sunnis and discriminated against Shias.
- Maliki was from the majority Shia population and discriminated against Sunnis once he took power.
- ISIS is a Sunni organization that arose out of Maliki’s discrimination. It was initially filled with former Saddam military people plus a radical core that already existed within the country. This radical core has now taken charge.
- Because the US couldn’t trust Maliki, they eventually insisted on his removal. He has been replaced by Haider al-Abadi, also a Shia, who once served in Saddam’s government.
In Syria, 15% of people are Shia, 10% are Christian, and 75% are Sunni.
- Bashar al-Assad is from the minority Shia population (the opposite situation to that of Saddam).
- Iran is said to be on Bashar’s side because of the Shia thing. They were also friendly with Maliki for the same reason.
- Turkey may be aiding rebels because they are majority Sunni.
- Putin is friends with Bashar because Russia has oil interests in the area.

You’re now ready to watch PBS Frontline’s episode, The Rise of ISIS, this interview with General David Petraeus, and Frontline’s latest on the topic, Once Upon a Time in Iraq.

Note: For simplicity, we often amplify the conflict between Shia and Sunni. Many times, it’s not that bad. Remember, people are people and we all want the same things.

How to Pick Up a Waitress

When it comes to choosing a partner, most women want the same thing—a nice guy who finds them attractive. So any gentleman who finds himself smitten must first impress the lady that he’s nice, and then toss her a compliment.

Let’s take an example using a waitress. On the first few occasions when she comes to your table, be attentive, courteous, and polite. Then on the third or fourth visit, tell her that she’s pretty.

After the compliment, she’ll come back either receptive and warm, or professional and cold. If she comes back warm (like, touching your shoulder or asking where your lady is tonight), the door is open. Your job now is just to say the right thing.

If she comes back all professional and cold, saying something like, “Is everything okay, here?”—you’re hooped. Move three tables over and start hitting on the dishwasher. But if she’s warm, go with something like, “How’d you like to join me for lunch, tomorrow?” Better yet, a “late lunch” (since you’re sensitive to the fact that she works late).

Ideally, this procedure should occur over two or three visits (that’s the way nice guys do it) but it can also work all in one night.

Remember, the formula is:

Nice ➔ Compliment ➔ Response ➔ Proposition

And don’t take too long to ask her out. Girls can’t wait forever. You need to perform these steps within a certain time frame. Practice on your mom—she’ll let you down easy. Then move up to a waitress. You might get extra fries.

Why School

Other than the fact they’d probably hurt themselves with farm equipment, we send kids to school for three reasons:

Attain knowledge
Develop the ability to learn
Develop the ability to reason

Dumb kids don’t know much, have a hard time learning, and aren’t very good at problem solving. Smart kids know a bunch of stuff, are capable of learning more, and can figure their way around most situations.

Knowledge

Since we can’t teach everything, kids learn what the system deems appropriate. Much of it’s building blocks for further education (like, advanced chemistry building on intermediate chemistry), but some subjects standalone—requiring little foundation.

We can’t always make school applicable to everyone’s interests. Part of the plan is to expose young people to as many subjects as possible so they’ll discover what they like. Then once you know what you like, you can focus (and the experience becomes more enjoyable).

It’s a pity we forget most of what we learn. Algebra, chemistry, Shakespeare, and how to rip apart a frog will be mostly forgotten by the time you start a job. That’s why it’s good to keep a book of knowledge to document the parts you’d like to remember.

Ability to learn

Like a bodybuilder develops physical muscle in a gym, students develop intellectual muscle in a classroom. So when they say, “Why do I need to know about Japanese people in the fourteenth century?” The answer is, “To develop your ability to learn.”

The goal isn’t to shove information inside your head so you’ll remember it all. It’s to teach you how to get information shoved inside your head so you can do it again—with future stuff that’s important. It doesn’t matter if the information is applicable, what matters is whether you’re good at learning. And if you are, certain industries can work with you.

Ability to reason

School is about more than memorizing material to later regurgitate. You also need to know how to be logical. Reasoning comes with the understanding of core foundations and base principles—and then knowing how to apply them. Math is one of the subjects that develops this.

Reasoning also involves having the confidence to question things and apply common sense. We don’t want people running around believing everything they hear.

More reasons

Okay, so we send kids to school for three more reasons:

Develop social skills
Develop the ability to think
Get them out of our hair

Social skills

Without question, much of survival depends upon one’s ability to interact with others. So the notion or ramming multitudes of little pumpkins into one small room is a great idea. Because in life, you have to learn how to get along.

Sure, techy jobs pay well, but a people-person can also make a good living. Not everyone has to be mired in details. And what’s really hot is if you have both—technical skills and people skills. That’s how you get to be a manager.

Kids attending private schools, especially in the early years, are denied a significant portion of the whole experience. Because if your kids can’t handle working class people when they’re young, how are they supposed to at age 30? And just like skiing is easier to learn as a child, school age is the best time to mingle with the masses (since seven year-olds rarely stab each other).

Creative thinking

Thinking isn’t reasoning. Reasoning is using principles that others have already created. Thinking is coming up with new ones.

Creative minded people picture the world differently and live outside the box. They’re the ones who write plays, cure diseases, and invent laptops. That’s why it’s good to have school projects like writing your own novel or starting a business. They force you into using your imagination.

Out of our hair

The last reason is to get kids out of our hair. Not just because today’s parents are out there working—what else do you do with a 12-year old? That’s why we have subjects like Phys Ed.

Foods, fashions, and film—though somewhat useful—are mostly offered to make kids spend more time inside the building. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, because as we’ve already said, they’d only hurt themselves with farm equipment.

Note: You may also be interested in the article on Inquiry-based Learning.