I am interested.

Everything intrigues me. From the method of molecules to combine, to the vastest expanses of space; I am interested. Biology, chemistry, geology, genetics, water tables, the aborigines of Australia, the composition of asteroids, tidal flows, diamond distribution, human rights, Shakespearean tragedies, the breeding habits of piranha; all of this I will study and learn.

My wife asked me why I need so many textbooks. "You aren't even taking these courses!" She says.
"But there is so damn much I don't know yet!" This is the only reply that I can give.

I wish I could share this enthusiasm with everyone, and I will indeed try, even if only with one person at a time. The other night I was talking with my wife about a scientist with a theory regarding black holes and the possibility of them jump-starting new universes with the singularities that form inside of them. As I explained some of the prevailing theories and the physics behind them, I felt myself becoming flushed with excitement. This is life! Discussion, learning, theory, application of intellect; these concepts are the best of human capability and what every human should be pursuing. There are people that refuse to allow you the option to learn and grow, however.

Whenever I see a perfectly good mind wasted on religion, I feel a deep and abiding sadness. These people voluntarily surrender their intellectual capacity; nothing is more anathema to investigation and learning than the idea "I already know what I'm supposed to know." The established religions know this and have throughout recorded history insured an ignorant and enslaved membership primarily through demonising knowledge and those that pursue it, while simultaneously creating all sorts of "hells" and "eternal punishments" that a person will enter if they violate dogma. The whole of the dark ages was held forcefully back from innovation in medicine, culture, mechanics, science, etc., the most common method of enforcement being the murder of the intelligent or those who associated with them. Sadly, there is a rise in these ignorant and disgusting theists that seek to keep others in the dark. Many point to Islam as the example when I say this, and yet American fundamentalist Christians are equally bad. There is a group -not exactly a group as each faction has them, but yet similar in stupidity- that is referred to as creationists. the most despicable of these being the "young earth" variety. I despair my children ever knowing scientific curiosity outside the home if these people get their wish to replace science textbooks with the superstitions of bronze age goat herders.

Almost as bad, are the segments of society that treat intelligence as weak or unwanted in their members. The current wannabe "thugs" and gang member cultures are a prime example. Constantly they decry racism, sexism, social status, income limits, etc. as things unfairly imposed upon them. And yet, whenever a member of their group shows intelligence or a leaning toward a higher education, they are verbally and physically abused and punished for daring to make the others in the group appear stupid. This creates a situation in which the oppressed oppress themselves; where it is indeed a slavery, but a slavery of the mind and a self imposed one at that.

Both of these groups have the same root cause: a powerful few knowing full well that an educated group of people will not remain subservient to the corrupt leadership that those in power wish to maintain. The social and racial component are being oppressed in reality, just not in the manner they believe. Politicians of both sides in the political divide here in America profit from the "lower classes" remaining flat stupid; the democrats most of all. This last year, the Obama administration used tax money to make sure that television converter boxes are available to people in the middle and lower classes. Not only is this an absolute waste of money by the federal government (especially considering how cheap the boxes were to begin with and how expensive after counting the "administrators" of the program), it actively insures an ignorant populace. Nothing is more stunting to the intellect than sitting for hours each day staring at a box that provides the least information possible packed into 2.5 minute segments... when the people even bother to watch an informative program which is rare in these days of "Bachelors", "Survivors", "Simpsons", and Oprah.

There is little hope that people will throw off their shackles, as the "need" for these shackles is pounded into us from infancy. There are only two important actions that I see being successful, even showing immediate results. The first is to turn off your televisions and get moving, into anything. discover interests by actually doing and you have the ability to mentor and spark a child's interest by doing. Activity is an extremely important factor in education and gaining knowledge, a factor that all too many people never learn about growing up with a television as a baby sitter.
The second is also easy and is an equally crucial step that every thinking non-zombieist (and even most zombieists) needs to undertake immediately: vote against superstition being taught anywhere but a mythology/theology course! It doesn't even matter if you happen to be a theist, you MUST oppose the attempts to add any religion to any class in school other than those specifically designed for teaching/comparing mythology and religion. If you are shortsighted enough to want your own religion taught in school, please realise that it won't be the only creation myth taught and that eventually your children will lose any hope of learning the basic mechanics of maintaining our society. They will be far too busy learning about how wrong every other group is to understand even basic mathematical and scientific concepts, which by the way is close to the current state of America.

Hopefully more people will take both actions and this country and world will move forward, out of the new dark ages that so many politicians and creationists hope to force upon us. Even the simplest and most devout followers of either group can make a difference, just ask "how" once in a while.

4 cops dead

On Sunday morning, when most of us are getting our coffee and preparing to watch an NFL pregame show, 4 officers of the law were executed by a rapist...ooops...excuse my horrible and evil language...ummmm...sex offender... ummm ya....
anyway, he was out of jail on bail.
Three men and a woman were murdered in cold blood, an assault that was very clearly planned out.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/cops_shot_dead_in_washington_coffee_J4ZcZQdFW5dY71TqX7ldWM

This fashion of crime was committed a month ago, almost to the day, in Seattle. On Halloween night a gang-banger walked up to a police car containing two officers who were in the process of protecting our children on a night when all too many are injured or killed out of pure negligence on the part of drivers. It has been shown, year after year and decade after decade, that having a marked vehicle with REAL officers has a decided difference in injury and mortality rates at times and on dates when children or pedestrians are especially at risk. Both officers in the car were shot and the male, veteran officer was a victim of murder. I, and everyone i know, are thankful that the passenger and junior officer survived with little more than uncomfortable wounds.

The truly terrible consequence of these acts are not the deaths and woundings, however. The extremely disheartening fact is that, as more and more law enforcement professionals are feeling separated from the community that expects them to magically appear seconds after requesting help, these disgusting murderers make sure that officers of the law can NOT be at ease in public. I'm not a fan of cops, and I haven't been for decades. But the most important aspect of city life -even the L.A. gangs know this- we must allow the cops to walk freely and comfortably among all of society. They may be an enemy to drug users/pushers, whores/pimps, homeless/hitchhikers, poor/minority; but there are times where anyone should feel able to approach them with problems and/or questions.

The only lasting legacy that these disgusting murderers leave is that the nation responsible for allowing freedom of assembly and speech, will allow less assembly and speech. The nation that encouraged officers to dine and socialise with "civilians", will no longer be known for such actions. Millions of Americans eat at restaurants frequented by cops...expect to be observed if not made uncomfortable. At bars frequented by cops... expect to be held up for every insult, regardless how minor and unintended.

I have respect for some officers and know they won't change, but all too many are now going to view each and every civilian as a potential murderer/target.Everyone needs to be extremely vocal in their support for local law enforcement. Even people that have had bad experiences or engage in illegal activities need to be telling cops how much they are needed; whether or not you like cops in general, they are necessary for your own comfort and enterprise.

Returning to blogs and discussion(again)

I have taken a few months break from writing and discussing on the internet. This is mostly due to a very abrupt and severe experience on a discussion group that taught me, VERY CLEARLY, that a person may call himself a free thinker, but be nowhere near the reality of free-thinking.
The discussion was on race and whether or not a person can be "proud" of their heritage and/or race without being racist. I take the opinion that one can, of course, be proud of anything they wish, without demeaning or looking badly on others that differ. This is not to say that some people can't, as evidenced by those that I once respected.
As a person that has never seen the slightest shred of evidence for gods and a person that has come to loathe the effect that religion has on people, I had thought that most people who think like i do can make arguments apart from fallacy. WOW, was I wrong!
In fact, the atheists and "free-thinkers" I once thought pretty well of, could only fall into the same bullshit, fallacy-filled arguments that theists resort to.

1) Special pleading fallacy: Where theists say in response to any argument about reality or physical law " god doesn't need to follow that cause he's different" or in response to creation when they say "The universe can't start itself, someone(god) must have caused it" and you respond "what then, caused god?" special pleading rears it's ugly head, "well, god's different and he doesn't need to follow those rules."
The same argument was raised by the atheists I once respected. I gave, literally, dozens of examples of preferences for taste, attraction, thought, and ice cream. Each time I showed that no matter how much a person was proud of, enjoyed, or preferred any certain thing, it did not follow that the person looked down on others of the type or category. Special pleading then took over with the argument "Well it's ok in all of those other aspects of life, just not race or country!"

2) Straw man fallacy: Where theists say in response to ANY argument from an atheist or free-thinker, " oh ya... well Hitler and Stalin said that and then killed millions of Jews, You must be a Jew-hater and mass murderer!"
Sadly, the people that I once held in esteem couldn't even get this much correct. They claimed I was racist and equated me with Hitler, yes, all based on their own opinion of what a dictionary REALLY meant(their definition and the dictionary definition didn't even agree). This somewhat follows with straw man fallacies, but they went too far and actually attributed their own words for mine. As far as I know, a straw man can not be created when your own words are used as the ammunition used against others. I.E.: Hitler could not say "well you want to kill millions of Jews!" as a trump argument. Being that he DID it and SAID it, it would be invalid in that sense or use. Since the only people stupid enough to equate a person's paint job with their race was on the other side of the argument, I felt -and feel- no need to argue against anything further along that line. Very simply: excess melanin is an indicator of race ONLY when joined with numerous other genetic markers. As i stated then, an Ethiopian has nothing genetically in common with a New Guinea pygmy other than melanin, and therefore are not racially similar. Sadly none of the morons I used to associate with can figure out so simple a concept.

3) Fallacy of Accident: "Because the only other white person I ever heard of being proud of their race was a racist, you are a racist." Yes, this was said. I have a child of mixed race. I have a family of mixed race. I ,quite literally, have 3 nationalities and 7 races represented in my family. I love and esteem them all and I refuse to argue this point any further than that. It does tend to paint a picture of the accusers however. How sad one must feel to be a member of their families if one isn't a carbon copy of them...

4) My absolute favourite fallacy during the moronic readings I endured during this time, some months ago, was Special Pleading to Authority.
One of the most frustrating arguments that an atheist or free-thinker must endure is: "Uh-hunh, the bible says so." or "My pastor said..." or "But according to the pope..." this is Special Pleading(Authority). Not only could the so-called free-thinker not get this right, it is after all the absolute bottom of the barrel in arguing, he used a non-authority. My argument: "I'm descended from Scots and have a pride in my forebears and the accomplishments of Scots." His argument... and no, I'm not kidding... "Oh ya? well i know a Scottish guy and he said you aren't one!!" really now? c'mon...that's an argument? Some guy who doesn't know me, my heritage, my family, my travels, my education, my research, etc., said I'm not? Oh, how can I ever reconcile my terrible misconceptions with this person's reality? Especially since such an awesome and erstwhile judge of all things Scot has decided that people he has never met, never will meet, and has no information on, are or are not whatever he decides...

Well, This should make clear my point. I will endeavor to post more often and i apologise for being absent to those of you who mailed me.

sickness and prayer

a family teaches their children that prayer can cure. well, ok. lying
to kids is not a crime. a child in the family gets ill with cancer.
the church and family members all support a refusal of medical
treatment in favour of "healing" prayer. not ok anymore. willfully
preventing a minor from life-saving medical treatment is a crime or
should be. my solution to this disgusting idiocy is simple: no adult
from the family or congregation is allowed medical care....ever. if
there is a car wreck and someone's arm is laying on the ground 12 ft
away, they get no bandages or blood. they can afterall receive the
"healing" from prayer.
what?... it doesn't work that way?... but apparently it does... if
it's not visible. the cancer that eats away at the child is killing
him as surely as losing ones blood to violence. just as not every
gunshot, car wreck, stabbing, etc. wound can be healed or the person
saved, not every victim of cancer can be saved; but at least most have
the chance. to have the chance removed, and be told there is a god who
will help, is so unbelievably wrong that this punishment should be
enforced strictly.
there are some that say: but wait! i know a guy who knows a guy that
prayed and got better! sadly this argument is just not correct. for
every case of spontaneous remission that was supposedly the result of
positivity and prayer, there is a case wherein the person was
negative, distraught, and overwhelmingly pessimistic, yet still was
cured. the reason for this is simple: it isn't based on which goat-
herding, flat-earther philosophy you follow.
this woman has kidnapped her son and ran off to mexico. she will
presumably follow some "homoeopathic" remedy and her son will die. she
and other theists will then begin screaming about how it's the judges
fault for making her run to mexico, and the stress, and some other
nonsense as to why her son died. after all, it simply can't be because
there is no god that answers prayers(or any other god).
my final problem is this: if you think prayer helps....do it during
treatment. i'm fairly certain that a loving god would want to see
parents doing everything possible for their kids. i simply don't see
how someone would want to worship a god that sits and says" ok the
cancer is spreading. pray people! what!! an outrage!! how dare you
attempt to preserve a life i feel should be cancer ridden!!" then
again, reading the bible... i can see a god concept doing that quite
often.

on education

There is no reason that a student should graduate high school as an illiterate. Multiple steps are taken to insure that this doesn't happen. There are laws that require children to attend some form of school for twelve of their first eighteen years. Parents can be -and are- jailed for their children being truant. Teachers and schools insist on test after test to “prove” that sufficient numbers of details or bits of knowledge have been retained by students. Schools push, prod, and occasionally pull students toward their graduation ceremonies. Somehow, after all of this, students still graduate without the ability to to read more than the simplest of children's books. Consider the following scenario:

The parents leave for work , reminding their progeny to make the bus on time and remember their lunches. The eldest smirks at this, having every intention of buying a hamburger instead. They catch the bus on time and arrive at school, where a teacher sits, waiting to to give them enough information to pass the test at the end of the week. The students take their seats and look at the clock. The teacher has a new sweater they notice, making him look a bit like a tomatoe the girl thinks, snickering. A bell rings and the students ready their pencils. The teacher begins speaking, occasionally pointing at the examples on the whiteboard. The bell rings and the students who had been watching the clock leave hurriedly, having packed away their materials minutes ago. The teacher watches as they file out, mentally preparing to repeat the lesson as the next class arrives.

This scene plays itself out hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. For those raised in the public school system, the story above will be cause for fond reminiscence, feelings of unease, or perhaps merely a sense of eerie familiarity. Many will want to cry out, “No, my school was much better than that,” but was it? Every person's mind, when that person read a story like this, assigns an age or grade that she associates the scene with, an association born of experiencing a similar circumstance. This story gives no time, date, or age, and yet it is a memory in most Americans' minds, regardless of what age they attended public school. This is the timeless and ageless dance of children and teachers to the tune of a bell, and it crosses generational divides: the symphonic cacophony of speaking and listening,whispering and shouting, running shoes and squeaking desks as the clock ticks counterpoint to the muted concert of the workplace. And workplace it is, this factory of memorisation, this assembly line of knowledge dispersal.

Montaigne says in “Of the Education of Children”, that education ”does not receive its proper use in mean and lowborn hands”. He means that education is wasted on those who will not or cannot use it. In his day the ”lowborn” very rarely traveled far from their village or town. They generally worked the land, a task that does not require the study of calculus or African history. A similar correlation can be made when analyzing modern society. The majority of Americans have little talent and no interest in many of the possible studies or pursuits, so why teach them? These people will rarely (if ever) find an application of these studies in their lives; they will be busy pursuing what they enjoy and have talents for. What purpose does giving a “well rounded education” to every person serve, considering that most of the so-called education will be dismissed or forgotten? The idea of educating everyone is possibly admirable but logistically impossible. There is no method for or assurance that everyone can or will learn everything that they are taught, when they are taught. Many of those who attend school can only be called students sarcastically; they have absolutely no interest in learning. Some students will nearly be savants in one particular subject and its corresponding spheres of knowledge while being mediocre students at best in other disciplines. This is the problem with this “one size fits all” educational system that students must grind their way through. This system cries out to be changed.

Since mankind began teaching there has been debate on methods of instruction and, curiously, the debate has barely changed in all of this time. Authors and educators like Montaigne, Emerson, Montessori, Dewey, and Freire all write of the problems and inadequacies of various educational models and theories. All of them have pointed out similar detriments to mass education. I think Emerson stated the general problem best in the essay On Education: “...the moment [education] is organised, difficulties begin”. There are precious few examples of successful public or mass educational systems because of the disparate abilities and interests of students. When children are jammed together according to age groupings, classes get larger and less attention is given to the successful or motivated students. As Emerson noted, “You have to work for large classes instead of individuals; you must lower your flag and reef your sails to wait for the dull sailors; you grow departmental, routinary, military almost with your discipline and [school] police”. This suppression of those who succeed or learn well can only diminish the overall health of society. It creates robots in the guise of mankind, automatons made for factory and labour work.

Changing the entire system is a daunting concept to consider, a task that -quite possibly- will never be undertaken. The concepts that should be applied, however, are relatively simple; age must not be a factor in progression as a student. An effective curriculum needs to be designed by those who have had a successful career in the field , a student's choices and inclinations must be a primary factor in her education, and trade schools are essential as an alternative to intellectual instruction. For change to be effective in its best fashion, it is essential that we create a new structure for schools in general. Currently, students follow the pattern in the story that I presented with one teacher per day until sometime around their fifth or sixth grade, when they graduate to five and six teachers per day. This is an obsolete and ineffective system that is crushing many students' willpower and desire for learning. Instead, a form of the Montessori Method needs to be applied.

Before describing this new system any further, there should first be some understanding of the basic principles and ideas. Education is based on previous knowledge and experience. One could easily be shown the “order of operation” for basic mathematics; however, if one is not sure the meaning of the numbers in parentheses, the order itself is bereft of meaning. This is true for adults as well as children; when a person is lacking the experience to create a logical connection to existing knowledge, that person needs to receive assistance from someone with similar experience or background. The commonality between the two will more easily bridge the gap of understanding that the student encountered. As John Dewey says in “Thinking in Education,” the teacher needs to have “...taken a sympathetic attitude toward the activities of the learner by entering into a common or conjoint experience...”. Some may counter that society would stagnate if people only taught those similar to them, and then taught only subjects that were held in common. This is indeed true, while also being ludicrous. The very idea would be a poor attempt to insinuate that people are limited and predictable. If twins growing up with nearly every circumstance and experience being similar have varied interests, how much more variation does a society have? The key is to allow disparate interests to have validity in education. Every person's sphere of interest will overlap someone else's sphere of interest. When one considers just how many interests and corresponding overlaps each person will have, one sees that, just as twins will not be perfectly identical, so are people in a society not so very different.

For education to be effective there must be a recognition that there are two forms of learning or knowledge: acquired knowledge and inspired knowledge. Acquired knowledge is simply that which others may teach a person. Reading, writing, history, and math are acquired: one person who possesses the information passes it on -teaches it- to a person without the information or knowledge. Inspired knowledge is the mansion built upon the sturdy and solid foundation of basic, acquired knowledge. It is easy to assume that most learning can belong to the acquired knowledge concept, and indeed, the current system tries to force all knowledge to be acquired; yet an examination of the notion shows that acquired knowledge will weather away, or be covered completely by detritus, without a proper structure built of inspired knowledge above it.

One of the key problems with the current school system is that students are not taught to learn important information but rather to pass tests. This has the effect of students retaining or using very little from their ”schooling”; these students are swamped in dry dates and pointless facts. That Napoleon conquered Europe is a fact relatively well known, and yet, the majority of a graduating a high school class will either not know or will have forgotten that Napoleon sold America almost a quarter of our country. This simple bit of information is often given with the only emphasis being on the date. Whether a student has lived in, or has family in, the former Louisiana purchase, or whether Napoleon's hope that it would help America rival Britain's navy, or how this applies to international politics and the radical difference of what America would be like are ignored. Without a personal connection the acquired knowledge will never lead to inspired investigation, thought, or knowledge.

In order to remove ”teaching to the test” from schools, we must remove the concept of graduating from one grade to another. To assume that because all of the students in a class are the same age, they are equal, is just as ridiculous as claiming that all people with blonde hair are stupid or that all teachers are incapable of functioning in the “real world.” Age has nearly no function in the process of a child's education other then inhibiting it. A far better process would be allowing students to progress according to their nature and ability.

For there to be effective progressions, a change in the overall concept of most schools is needed. Will having those “students” that care only for socialization or sports, be able to intimidate and harass these that enjoy mathematics help either person? Many people might argue that this motivates the “nerds” to achieve or can help focus the athletes anger or stress away from the more”important” aspects of his life. This position is utterly without merit. For every one nerd inspired there are ten who quit or carry scars on their souls. For every athlete that may gain notoriety or success after high school there are ten that allowed their ability to harm others to become their only skill. Separate the overall groups of interest that attract students and allow joint or shared enjoyment to be the impetus for learning. Let those that have talent and interest in science pursue science, and those that are physically dominating to carry the schools physical honours on the various playing fields. A complete separation or segregation wouldn't be needed, simply create study courses that allow a future construction contractor to learn the necessary mathematics and physical skills while not being forced to attend the art classes that a future architect may find useful. They both attend the math class together yet other classes would be shared with people whose spheres of talent intersect their own. The architect enjoys music and aspires to design concert halls. In her orchestra class she meets a simple flutist with few skills or interests that do not involve her flute, and yet they both find that they have another class with a boy that is on a general medical track. This method allows plenty of socialisation with fellow students following a variety of career studies, yet each class will contain students with an interest in the material of that class.

I am in no way saying that there should be a caste system or that some people should be denied education. School should be a place to learn and explore information and ideas, not a place of confinement and forced attention. Children should not have knowledge withheld from them, just as children should not have their self worth tied to how well they remember subjectively irrelevant nonsense or how well they pass tests. In the current system, if a student does well they are praised or rewarded with advancement, and if they do poorly they are punished by being held back or forced to attend extra schools. Montessori equates the physical and mental domination of students by many schools using this method with slavery, saying that “to apply such a form of education would be to draw the new generation back to a lower level, not to lead them into their true heritage of progress”. This is what schools need to concentrate on, the leading forward of students. For too long the educational system has done the reverse.

When young, children are great receptacles of information; they absorb vast amounts of ideas, knowledge, and information with ease. This is when it is best to teach them the basic acquired knowledge that will provide a base for future inspired knowledge. Emerson recognized the need for both ”genius and drill” and admonished us that ”when one has learned the use of tools, it is easy to work at a new craft “. This concept is a simple idea and yet many people don't connect the idea to the fundamentals of teaching. This period of life is the best time to begin exploring and, when possible blurring, the distinction between acquired and inspired knowledge. It can often be read or heard that teachers are trying to find new ways to”inspire” students to desire more eduction, and yet they missed the time period in which this would have been most easily accomplished.

Instead of forcing young children to sit at a desk reciting fractions, let them make cake mix or calculate fallen leaves. Let them cut paper to demonstrate portions or have races to expose relative speed equations. This is the first of Dewey's stages, he calls it experience,”...presenting what is new( and hence uncertain or problematic) and yet sufficiently connected with existing habits to call out an effective response”. Every able child holds impromptu races and by making the connection to mathematics the teacher will allow the child to view math as something that is present in daily life; this can then lead to the child gaining an interest in math and allowing acquired knowledge to flower into inspired knowledge. The current problem is described well by Dewey: “the fallacy consists in supposing that we can begin with ready-made subject matter... irrespective of some direct personal experience of a situation”. Every subject can be dealt with in the same manner. If history is the topic then let them set up a battlefield to see it unfold, or plot Columbus' course on a map the size of the rooms floor that they themselves drew. If English is the topic then let them have paraphrasing contests or have them produce a weekly. If science happens to be the subject then the teacher has it easiest of all. What is often considered the most boring or disconnected subject is in fact, the easiest to produce excitement. What causes dye to bond to cloth? Why do fires leave only charcoal behind? What once existed where we now stand? All of these can be relevant to the student when shown rather than lectured.

Of the changes that I propose, the next is by far the easiest and most effective to implement. Trade schools once held a prominent place in American education, taking many young people that left school early or preferred manual jobs and giving them skills that would translate into jobs. Mechanics, construction workers, and others were able to have productive employment and happy lives without the pressures and rigmarole that public education is so well known for. If at any point, a trade school graduate felt that more schooling should be undertaken, they would not only have the ability to pay for college, but the life experience to assist them in being competent students. Many young people don't understand the concept of trade schools, or feel that they would be a punitive assignment for “bad” students but this couldn't be farther from the truth. Trade schools would allow construction workers or mechanics to begin their apprenticeships or labour careers with many of the skills and much of the knowledge that would take years learning “on the job”.

The second transformation involves actual, real change: ending the current system of mandatory education in favour of a much briefer period of general education. A child's interests and talents begin showing themselves at age ten; this then is the perfect time to allow the student to follow these talents. Having enough acquired knowledge to support advancement, the child can choose an exploratory period wherein a variety of disciplines are studied, or if there is a strong inclination the student can enter a particular study path. Another of my proposed differences that I briefly touched on earlier can be found here, in the curriculum of study paths. Rather than this corrupt and asinine system of bureaucrats determining whether something is appropriate for study by running a cost/benefits analysis on potential lawsuits, the subjects of study and depth needed for those studies need to be developed by professionals in the particular fields. Therefore a doctor of thirty years will have input into the general discussions among a group of doctors as to what skills she uses in her practice. There is no need for a doctor to know Keats. The time that a focused young lady spends studying English literature or Chinese philosophy could be far better applied to her intended career. This will allow students to graduate much quicker and yet have a more firm base of necessary and inspired knowledge to put to use. There is no reason to prevent a student from taking the extra time that a nonessential course would require, a doctor who can discuss Keats is might find themselves in demand for her conversational “bedside manner”.

These concepts, if applied, will radically change public education for the better. They will allow the gifted or driven students to succeed, while allowing the slower students time to progress on a path that will be fulfilling to them.