Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say:

Self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Self-sacrifice is not a duty. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

For some act to be a "duty" it must be something which you are obligated to do. You are obligated to not harm other people, or take their property (steal), or otherwise abuse them. These are duties.

You have no duty to marry, join the military, go to church, work for nothing, or anything else. You may choose to do these things because they benefit your life but they certainly are not obligations.

Self-sacrifice is the cornerstone of biblical ethics. According to the Bible it is a "duty" to sacrifice yourself to others. It may be this is the the core reason we have continuously lost Liberty in this country. As soon as you accept self-sacrifice as a duty then you have allowed others to determine what you are required to do. If those making the decision are part of your government, you (and your fellow countrymen) have lost some of your Liberty. If that chunk of Liberty is too large folks will object to the loss. As of yet though, they have not blamed the core responsibility for the attempted action against individual liberty - the idea that self-sacrifice is a duty.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say:


This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it. - Ralph Waldo Emerson


When times are tough figure out how to make lemonade.




A few years after the USA pull-out of South Vietnam I was invited to dinner at a Vietnamese family's home for dinner. The patriarch of the family told the story of the family's history and how they had made it to American soil. They were Chinese actually who had left China after the change to communist rule. They had moved to North Vietnam and lived there until it too became communist. They then moved to South Vietnam. When the United States left and the country was under communist rule he wanted to emigrate to the the USA but he said that for each family member it cost a bar of gold (a kilogram, if I remember correctly). They were not a rich family so he started looking for something he could do which would make a lot of money in as short a period of time as possible. He noticed that since the Americans had left there was a shortage of cigarettes. There was no shortage of tobacco because it was grown locally but there was no cigarette paper supply so he learned how to make it. There was a great demand for his product and he made enough money to buy their way out of the country.


Once in America they began doing well because each family member had at least one job, the children were encouraged to do well in school and they celebrated their freedom.


That is making lemonade when handed lemons.

Augmented Post

In battling evil, excess is good; for he who is moderate in announcing the truth is presenting half-truth. He conceals the other half out of fear of the people's wrath. -Kahlil Gibran


I've never understood this "balance" in life thing myself.






Sometimes I have more to say.  I am not known to write in verse so I thought I would (kind of):


Balance Thing


You know 
I've never understood this balance in life thing.
Balance of good and evil?
I think not.


Balance of health and sickness?
I'll stay well, thank you.


Balance of happy and sad?
Give me a smile any day.


Balance of freedom and slavery?
All of the former, none of the latter please.


Balance of food and poison?
Hold the poison for me.


Balance of education and ignorance?  
Balance of intelligence and stupidity?
Balance of justice and injustice?
Balance of law and anarchy?
Balance of life and death?
Balance of winning and losing?
Balance of wealth and poverty?
Balance of pleasure and pain?
Balance of profit and loss?
Balance of praise and ridicule?
Balance of euphoria and depression?
Balance of friends and enemies?
Balance of courage and cowardice?
Balance of honesty and dishonesty?
Balance of love and hatred?
Truth and lies?
War and peace?
Wisdom and folly?
Swim and sink?
Strength and weakness?
Right and wrong?
Adventure and boredom?


No, I think not.
If you insist I must be balanced
Just go away, for you see
My goal is to be unbalanced
As unbalanced as can be.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:


We especially need imagination in science. It is not all mathematics, nor all logic, but it is somewhat beauty and poetry. - Maria Montessori 

Remember Computer Science is indeed a science.


I started at the university in 1967. In my General Engineering class we were privileged to have a class or two using the spiffy new analog computer. It had a bunch of op-amps, capacitors, resisters, voltmeters (analog dials of course), an osciiiscope and a patch panel not unlike the first telephone operators had with wires you could strech from device to device. It was by way of these wires that you "programmed" this computer. This machine had no memory as such - if you don't define a voltage across a capacitor as memory.


About this same time a lab partner had access to the IBM 1600 which was in the basement of the engineering bluilding. It consisted of three upright piano sized units; card punch, card line printer, card eader/cpu. Output  of the cpu was by way of punched cards. It , if I remember correctly, had 1,400 bits of core, was programmable only in asembly language via punch-cards.


There was a debate going on at the time: digital or analog? Analog computers were pretty good at solving differential equations. While they were a little short on accuracy they at least provided an answer; digital machines like the 1600 just didn't have the RAM needed to provide any answer at all. (Even in 1972 I took a grad course on Numerical Methods where the text book was "Numerical Methods that (usually) Work". No kidding!). Four years later (1971) the CDC 3300 and the computer department had its own building and there was a terminal in every building on campus. Needless to say the CDC 3300 was digital. The argument had been settled. The 3300 had something like 56k of RAM and was as slow as bejesus if there was more than a few dozen users on at any one time. If your program used many resources you would have to submit it to run overnight.


By that time I was working for EPA and we were also using the IBM 360 in Bethesda Maryland (at NIH). We used our card reader and 300 bit/second modem to submit jobs using JCL (Job Control Language) the most arcane, frustrating, evil, operating system ever devised by demons - I mean humans. If the card reader didn't fail then your JCL probably would and it would take a day to find out. I firmly believe the reason there are so many religious people in the world is because of JCL and card readers. Talk about the power of prayer! One got to where anything was worth a try! 


But I digress. My point here is we didn't have a clue what was going to become of the computer industry. We could not conceive of the utility of a personal computer. Gigabyte was beyond our imagination (I don't even know if the word existed at the time). There were very, very few who had the imagination to even hazard a guess at the future of computing. Most were science fiction writers and they were dismissed as crackpots out to make a buck writing fiction.


Pay attention to the crackpots. Don't swallow everything they say but somewhere within all that noise may be a fragment of an idea that may change the future.

Augmented Post

There are many reasons to dance, but only one purpose. - Lyle


First some clarifications: I am referring to ballroom style of dancing where this is a man and a woman moving together in a coordinated manner. Also this statement is directed primarily to the gentleman.


People fail to differentiate between the reasons for attempting an endeavor and the purpose of the endeavor. They may very well be very different things and perhaps it is best if they are very different. Too often the reasons are all which exist and the purpose goes undefined. This may very well doom the project from the very start. In the dance example "reasons to dance" might include; you enjoy dancing; you want to meet a lady; you may want to get to know a lady better. On the other hand the "purpose" of the dance is to make the lady look good. To fail to define this purpose dooms the dance. The gentleman may show off, but few if any are impressed - especially the lady of the dance. On the other hand if the purpose is fulfilled the dance will be viewed by all to be a great success. 


Before undertaking a project take a look at the reasons for attempting it but don't fail to define a purpose; then set out to fulfill that purpose.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say.

I recently watched a "reality" series called The Colony. The setting was LA after a deadly virus had wiped out most of the population. The story was of 10 survivors who end up in a giant warehouse and scrap yard. Of course there are no utilities; no water; no electricity; no working sewers, etc. They are left on their own to survive however they can with what they've got. Occasionally they would be "attacked" by roving bands of bad-guys so security was one of their priorities. There first priority was water of course. Their only source was from the LA "river" which was pretty bad. They built a filter system and boiled the water to sterilize it. This worked well until they ran out of propane for boiling. In the meantime they had rigged up some solar cells which charged a bank of car batteries so they had plenty of electricity.One of the guys remembered that water could be sterilized with ozone so he built a Tesla coil to create a spark and then collected the ozone generated and bubbled it through the water. The only problem they had then was getting water from the river back to their warehouse without being attacked by the wandering gangs.

Occasionally, good people would come by looking for handouts. This caused dissension among the members of the colony. Some insisted that it was their moral responsibility to give these unfortunates water. Others thought that if you gave a few water, pretty soon you would be overwhelmed, and perhaps overrun, by the needy. Not one of the cast came up with the solution which is moral and will lead to peace - it has been used since the beginning of mankind*. It is trade. In a situation like the Colony one could say "Bring me 10 gallons of river water and I will trade you for one gallon of clean water." The needy can provide a valuable part - security for the Colony,  in exchange for clean water. Water could be traded for food, or fuel, or weapons, or even protection from bad guys. There is no moral dilemma as long as both parties are agreeable to the trade. The traders are free to put whatever conditions they think are needed on the trade. They could say "If you steal the river water from someone then we will no longer trade with you."  Much more effective than preaching!

Today, common thought about trade is somewhat convoluted. On the one hand it is considered somehow dirty. It is only dirty if it is not free trade. On the other hand it is somehow considered evil to put conditions on your trade. You must treat everybody equally - no matter how immoral they might be. I consider this to be evil because it is no longer free trade.

Free trade is the great peace keeper between people, tribes, cultures and nations.

* Perhaps the ability to trade defines mankind. A tiger will never offer you a trade - it will either kill you or let you go.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say, even if I don't have a quote to bounce it off of.

There is a small (or perhaps minuscule) effort to characterize the current debate over the need for universal health care as the attempt to institute physician slavery. This is a rather unique way of putting it but I think it comes off wrong unless what is being said is understood from a very basic level. I'd like to provide that understanding.

First we need for you to understand that health care is not a right. If you understand then skip this part.

Is Health Care a Right?: No, it most definitely is not. Like food and shelter it is a necessity, but not a right. Please do not confuse the two. To adopt the position that these are rights would mean that some other individual would have to give up their individual rights in order to provide them. You have then violated their true rightful rights. If you declare food to be a right then you just trampled the farmer's rights to do as he (or she) sees fit with their crop. If you tell the farmer, you must provide these crops to the less fortunate then you have just made him (or her) a slave. You are telling them what they have to do at the point of a gun. Now this doesn't mean that the less fortunate individual is forced into starvation. They are welcome to get a job and pay the farmer for the food. They are welcome to start a business; make a profit; spend their profit to feed their family. They are welcome to go to any number of private charities which provide food (and counseling). They can go to family or friends for assistance. If they have no family or friends then they are welcome to change their ways. The alternative is to declare food as a right, or as in the the USA, an almost right, which will lead to the downside you see everywhere here; poverty leads to obesity.

So if health care isn't really a right but we treat it as such what happens? Anytime you declare something a right that isn't then what you are doing is violating someone else's rights (legitimate rights). If you make healthcare a right then you must demand from doctors service which they perhaps would not offer otherwise.Or, you may prevent a doctor from providing a service he normally would provide.

Making healthcare a right will also necessitate compensating all doctors the same for a given service. Does it make sense to pay the best the same as the worst? So much for rewarding excellence.

But, back to the term Physician Slavery. Slavery is a loss of Liberty.  Liberty is being free of governmental restriction. Universal healthcare means loss of Liberty for doctors. The healthcare bills before Congress can all be described as Physician Slavery bills. Perhaps using this terminology will get the discussion back to where it belongs - to a discussion of morality and principles.

Beautiful Work

A belief in work ought to be a thing of beauty. - Malclom Gladwell (in his book Outliers)


This is not the normal time for me to do an expanded post but this simple quote struck me so hard I have to respond at length. 


He says "belief in work", rather than simply saying "work" (with the implication that work is good). What he is saying is that the individual should see work as a thing of beauty and that the observer of those who work as creating and performing meaningful work are creating a thing of beauty. I had a physics professor in college who told me once "There are no lousy jobs, just lousy people who complain about their jobs." He understood. My father told me often "If you want a job that will last forever get a job as a janitor because people will always be dirty and will need to be cleaned up after." He said this without the slightest hint that Janitor was at all a demeaning job. He understood. 


The work you do today may not reward you to your satisfaction. You may want a better paying job; a more rewarding job; but that does not mean the work you do today should not be admired. It may not be the job for you, but that has no relation to the value or beauty of the work the job entails. It should not, under any circumstances, cause you to not think of work as a thing of beauty.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.  Thomas Jefferson 

Sorry Tom.

The Founding Fathers failed. They would agree, I'm sure, if they could come back and see the loss of individual Liberty since their time. I used to think that the U.S. Constitution was flawed and if we could find and fix that flaw further erosion would be prevented. I have since come to believe the Constitution to be utterly magnificent in it's concept and simplicity. Trying to fix minor flaws would never result in a "perfect" document where no one was able to find some kind of loophole.  They did not fail when formulating or writing the Constitution. Their concepts of individual liberty, self reliance and property are just as perfect today as they were then. The concept that government is the servant of the people and that the only true function of government is to protect the liberty of the individual was a revolutionary idea which is made concrete by the Constitution. This was not a failure - it was a supreme success for mankind.

The failure of the Founding Fathers was not in how their new government was formed. Their failure was not providing a morality which was matching in it's perfection and a true complement to the governmental system they provided.

The moral principles of then (and today) are derived from a Christian ethic. These moral principles are in direct contradiction to the governmental principles embodied in the Constitution. Christianity tells us we are sinners - were born sinners - must repent our sins regularly and made amends for them; The Constitution tells us we are good and do not deserve punishment unless we are found guilty (the Judiciary); Christianity tells us the highest moral good we can do is to help our fellow man - to seek personal reward is a sin; The Constitution tells us we are free to make our own lives better. Christianity tells us to give; The Constitution tells us to trade. Christianity tells us to be subservient; The Constitution tells us we are masters of our lives. Christianity is anti-capitalism; The Constitution is pro-capitalism.


So if the Founding Fathers had set out to embody pure Christian ethics in their new government what would they have come up with? A Monarchy or a Theocracy or a Theocratic Monarchy. If they had truly believed in that, there would have been no need to revolt; the Declaration of Independence would never have been written because that is what they had. They knew it was wrong, they just didn't know why. This was their failure.


So the choice is yours. Do you believe in the Common Good or do you believe in Individual Liberty? If your moral ethic does not match your political ethic you will get neither. You will be bewildered. 


Could the Founders have avoided their failure? Probably not, because they did not have the tools or the understanding. To challenge or change the moral ethic of a people is a gargantuan task compared to changing a political system. I commend them for what they did. I think it is up to us to do what they could not.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily. - George Santayana 

Voters; news media; investors looking for a quick buck; advocates of the latest doom and gloom scam are prime examples of people who throw out their skepticism when faced with a charming personality.

I've thought a lot about why people are so inclined to sign on with the latest doom and gloom scheme (Y2K, overpopulation, Armageddon, etc.). They have been around forever but with the communication explosion their proliferation seems to be going at a faster pace. I originally thought it was like gossip- "I know something you don't know so I'm special." Now that everyone on the planet has instant communication with everybody else, people still sign-on to these schemes. I recently came across the following theory and I present my take on it here, not as Truth but as a thought to consider.

Most of us go abouts trying to improve our lives and the lives of our family. This is self-interest and it is what made this country great and gives us an ever increasing quality of life. On the other hand we are taught from the day we were born that the ultimate moral goal is to be perfectly altruistic (mother Teresa). This places a dichotomy in your personality, the result of which is quilt. You are supposed to feel guilty because you are successful and because of that guilt you need to pay alms to make amends for your sin.

The latest is the Global Warming scenario (Oh, I forgot, we are now supposed to say "Climate Change" because the evidence is pretty clear we are not warming). We are supposed to feel guilty, especially the developed world, and need to make amends by denying that which made us successful and the rewards it brings. Change light bulbs, buy a tiny car, use less, conserve more; not to save your hard-earned money but to amend for the fact you can afford things which make your life more pleasant. The science behind the scenario is not important - it can be bad and lead to flat out false predictions - but what is important is that you assuage your guilt. When the predictions prove to be blatantly wrong there is always another Doom and Gloom scheme to take its place.

So if you are like me these false predictions are troublesome and a diversion from reality. The solution then would be to remove the dichotomy and that can only be done by having an integrated set of morals. Do not  feel guilty for doing things in your self interest (and I don't mean to go out and cheat your neighbor - that would be in contradiction of your moral value of honesty). Let others do the same. Encourage and admire those who are successful (morally). Be generous when you can - as opposed to altruistic because you ought to be. You have committed no sin so you should feel no guilt.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. - Alexis de Tocqueville


We'll see how much bribery is required for his prediction to come true.


When you do a wrong, you can either fess up to your fault and take your lumps or you can try to fix the wrong. Congress has a third method - pretend you didn't do wrong; blame someone else; go about fixing the wrong by doing more wrong.


It is ironic that the most regulated part of our economy - the banking and financial industry - is in danger of collapse yet the government (which does the regulating) is in the process of "fixing" the problem by doing more regulating. The most discouraging aspect is that no one seems to be questioning the supposition that "something" must be done. Why? Why not take our lumps and learn from the error? Because most of Congress would be out of a job, that's why.


How did Congress manage to get the bulk of the people to go along with their obviously faulty logic? Bribery - with the people's own money - even money which does not yet exist. "We must create more jobs" and pay for them with your own money. Government jobs do not create more wealth. They will pay for these new jobs by "creating" more money; created money gets paid back by creating inflation - which the productive and non-productive people pay for dearly. But the bribe is working. Congress has not only discovered the bribe but have perfected it. How long will our Republic endure?

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

It is more from carelessness about truth than from intentionally lying that there is so much falsehood in the world. - Samuel Johnson 

There may be a difference between carelessness about truth and in intentional lying but the symptoms and results are the same. The degree of sin committed is approximately equal.

How might one be "careless about the truth?" There are several different ways which come to mind.

- Failure to investigate fully.

- Ignoring a portion of truth which does not fit with the speakers point. I would call this the truth but not the whole truth.

- Making a joke. Most jokes are funny because they are careless with the truth.

Failure to investigate fully:

This might also be called jumping to a conclusion.  This is also the lazy way to prove your point. You find a fact which supports your hypothesis and quit looking.

Partial truth:

This is a technique employed every day by scammers. They talk authoritatively and provide verifiable truths which support their claim and ignore the facts which shoot down the theory. This was used extensively during the months leading up to Y2K by those predicting world collapse because of computer date handling deficiencies. Trouble was it didn't happen (in fact it didn't even cause a ripple). The fact that was ignored was the effort people went to to ensure their programs would be compliant. A lot of Doom and Gloomers made a lot of money selling books and people who make generators and sell bulk foods did pretty well too. Today the global warming folks are doing the same - in fact if you do it well you might even get a Nobel Prize! You don't "lie", you just select the truths that fit.

Make a Joke:

Humor is good - only when you use humor to "prove" your argument you are being careless with the truth (not funny).

What is the most common use of being careless with the truth? The courtroom. Think about it - when you are a witness you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The defense and prosecuting attorneys are not required to take a similar oath. Their job is to be careless with the truth and to keep the opposition from getting by with it. If fact, as a witness, you are able to only answer the specific question - you can't elaborate to tell the whole truth. The attorney's job is to fashion questions which prevent you from fulfilling your oath. If you think the purpose of a trial is to bring out the truth - give that idea up!

Be particularly wary of attorneys who are promoting Doom and Gloom - they are trained experts at being careless with the truth.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass 


It's called Sanction of the Victim.




Though Mr. Douglas is talking about governmental injustice the same applies at a more person-to-person level. People can also victimize you and you can give them that opportunity - in which case you, the victim, have given your sanction. There is a fine line here. If you think you have been victimized you need to follow these guidelines:


- Determine if you really are a victim. Considering yourself victimized is an easy way out. It places the blame on someone else - you don't have to be self-critical and so you personal integrity can be preserved (in your own mind anyway). It's is not fair, just, or moral to not shoulder some or all of the blame if you are the one who is indeed at fault. Life doesn't always go smoothly and many times you will find it is your own lack of education; your lack of skepticism; your mis-founded faith; your error in not checking your premises, that lead you to becoming a "victim."


- Could the person have avoided the "victimization"? If the boss didn't pay you because the business was closed due to bad weather then he did not victimize you - he had no control over the weather. If your agreement was to be paid for hours worked then he's off the hook. If you agreed to a monthly salary then he's on the hook (he took on the risk of bad weather).


- Did you "ask" for the victimization? There is a difference between being mugged on main street of the the small sleepy town and being mugged in what you know as the bad part of town with $100.00 bills hanging out of your pockets and gold chains proudly displayed. In either case the mugger should not have done the mugging but there is a significant difference in whether you are indeed a victim. You may have not given your sanction but you sure did act stupid and should shoulder some significant part of the blame.


- Were you lured into setting yourself up to becoming a victim? Did you build on the 100 year flood plain assuming that since you were not going to live another 100 years that you needn't worry, when in actuality it was only an estimate that it would not flood more than once every 100 years (which year nobody was able to predict)? Your fault for not being more skeptical. There is that probability that it would flood two years in a row.


- Did you have unfounded faith? Did the Mutual fund advisor recommend the fund based on past performance? You didn't read the fine print (the "past performance does not guarantee future performance" clause)? If your faith was unfounded then you caused the problem - take your lumps and learn from you short-comings. 


I'm tired of hearing the sweet young thing complaining about being raped when she walked down the alley with only her pubic hair holding up her pants. I'm equally tired of hearing the person who bought a house which flooded because the dike failed in a 50 foot storm surge nobody would have predicted.


Which leads me to my point: There is a difference between Freedom and Liberty, even though the words seem to be used interchangeably these days. One can limit ones own freedom. You are free to do stupid things but the prudent person limits their own freedom. I am "free" to flirt with every lady I meet though I limit that freedom willingly for the benefit of my marriage. My Liberty may only be limited by governmental bodies. I cannot limit my own liberty (nor would I want to). Often I see people endorsing limits on their Liberty thinking that it is the same as limiting their freedom. Not the same.


"Sanction of the Victim" as referred to by Mr. Douglas applies to Liberty, not Freedom.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

Silent gratitude isn't very much use to anyone. - Gertrude Stein

Thank you for reading this blog.

Sometimes one way of showing gratitude is by having good manners. Lack of good manners is a sure-fire way of appearing that you do not appreciate another's generosity. One wouldn't think that in this day and age manners would need to be taught, but experience tells me otherwise. Here are a few thoughts on going to someone else's house:

- Arrive at a decent hour. If someone is providing a place for you to stay then don't arrive in the middle of the night - there are motels for that. If the proprietor of a motel wants to get a good nights sleep there is always the "No Vacancy" sign to turn on. Your hosts don't have that luxury.

- Remember that it is the whole family that is opening their home to you as a guest. That includes spouses, kids and pets. Treat them all with respect. When you leave, thank all of them for their generosity.

- Be interested in your hosts. Find out what their interests are - it will come in handy in expressing your gratitude. A token gift reflecting their interest is far more meaningful than a mere verbal thank you or something you like.

- Talk about things which interest your hosts - they may not care about what interests you. Include the whole family.

- Do your part. Remember someone's house is not a restaurant, motel, spa or vacation destination. Help with the cooking; do the dishes; clean up the mess; most of all, clean up your own mess (better than you would at home). To leave your hosts with extra chores will surely make them remember your stay - but it may not be a good memory. 

- When in Rome.......... Find out what your hosts preferences are and abide by them - not the way you usually do things.

- Reciprocate the generosity shown you. Make the effort to figure out what you can do whether it is buying dinner out, providing that something extra special for the house or meal, offering to take your car - something.

If your stay was a pleasure for your hosts you probably will be invited back! If they were generous enough to open their house to you then be generous enough to open your house - it was no easier for them than it is for you.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:


You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. -Richard Feynman


Memorization is not education.


Memorization is not education but sometimes it is required in order to be educated. I have found while tutoring high school students having trouble with math that the root of their trouble lies with the lack of having ever learned addition and multiplication tables. I guess the thinking is that this memorization is not so important because we have calculators for these mundane tasks (teaching social interaction takes precedence).


Let me give you a somewhat real example: You walk into a convenience store to get a soft drink; they have 16 oz drinks for 79 cents or 64 oz drinks for $3.25. Quick - which is the better buy? Are you going to whip out your calculator? If you have memorized your multiplication tables and how many ounces are in a pint the problem becomes much simpler to do in your head. (If you are still struggling - the 16 oz drink is a better buy). If you have never memorized you multiplication tables it become impossible to mentally calculate that 4 time 16 is equal to 64 - or that 16 oz is a pint and 64 oz is a half-gallon which is 4 pints because there are 2 pints to a quart and 4 quarts to a gallon. That you have memorized these mundane facts allows you to not only solve the problem but lets you practice your reasoning skills - a very valuable skill.


If a student spends just a few minutes a day memorizing addition and multiplication facts then they are better able to learn to reason their way through a problem. By learning to reason they are not only better equipped to solve math problems but also life's problems. My students generally go from the bottom of the class to the top of the class within a month or so - not because they are geniuses but because they have tools to use. Not only have they become better math students but they become better people. Learning to reason is the education but memorized facts are the tools.


Here's a list of facts every kid should be required to memorize:
Addition tables
Multiplication tables
Inches in a foot
Inches in a yard
Feet in a yard
Feet in a mile
Pints in a quart
Quarts in a gallon
Ounces in a pint
Pounds in a ton
Pounds in a pint
Boiling point of water (Fahrenheit and Celsius)
Freezing point of water (Fahrenheit and Celsius)
Amount of a First class postage stamp
mm in a cm
mm in a m
cm in a m
Inches in a meter
ml in a Liter
Seconds in a minute
Minutes in a hour
Hours in a day
Work days per month (approximately)
Days in a month
Days in a year


The next time you are talking to a high school student ask them some of these facts, you might be surprised at how little they know. Think about how little time is needed to learn these basics which may very well make them better people.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

The deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated. - William James 

Hence the need to teach people to do things worth appreciating. "Love me for who I am" only works for a while without positive actions.

Beware of the argument you will encounter: "I could have done this ............ but I didn't." The implication is that the speaker should be rewarded/admired/praised because they could have done something much worse than what they did. Should you admire someone because they didn't rob a bank today? Hardly. Justifiable admiration comes from good deeds not lack of doing bad deeds. Then you have those who do nothing - should they be admired? Again, hardly. No more admiration is due than to the rock which sits on the ground rather than hitting you.

This argument generally crops up when someone has made a mistake. We all make mistakes but it is the action we take to rectify the mistake which deserves admiration.

Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. - Richard Feynman 

Memorization is not education.

Why do many teenagers get into trouble? I think the difference between those that do and those that don't is primarily due to education - not genetics or environment. To further refine this statement - what kind of education is the most important factor. Mr. Feynman gives an example of education which will not prepare a kid for an easier transition to adulthood. Faith based education also fails in this regard. I'm not talking just about religious education but also education given by the parents and teachers which suffer from the "because I say so" attitude. In the one case faith in a religious text and the other, faith in a person of authority, is the cornerstone of the approach. Part of growing up is rebellion against authority. If there is nothing to rely on other than this "faith" the teen is left unguided. 

So what kind of education will stick with the teen during this difficult transition? Learned and integrated principles. Note that I included "integrated" - perhaps the most (if not only) important factor. You can teach a child principles like "stealing is bad" by telling them so but by integrated I mean they also know; why;  what it means to themselves and others; where the principle comes from; what it is connected to and why it is connected. These are essential to integration. Certain tools are required for this integration to occur:  reasoning and logic. Where do these tools come from? Education of course, but if you are going to rely on the school system to teach them you are sorely misguided. Parents teach these things and it take a lot of time - but you've got a dozen or so years, or perhaps I should say you've only got a dozen or so years!

Newborns are very quick to use their apparent ability to reason very early. It goes something like this: I'm hungry; Hunger makes me uncomfortable; Crying gets me fed; Therefore crying gets me fed. It works for them. At a little older age if no other alternative is available then they try throwing a tantrum when they would prefer fast-food over their vegetables. If it works for them then what you get is a young adult who refines the tantrum. My alternative would be to ask the kid for a good reason why fast-food should be chosen over vegetables. To start with you may have to settle for less-than-perfect reasoning but as time goes by require more and more precision. Junk food once in a while won't kill a kid but inability to reason may.


Side note: I really don't like the excuse "She's just a kid." I've taught the basics of Einstein's Theory of Relativity to ten year olds with greater success than to adults. Why teach Relativity to ten year olds? It is a perfect example of stepping outside your realm of experience and finding out that things may not be the same as when you are on familiar ground.


Teach principles. Well founded principles and logical reasoning will go a long way towards protecting against mistakes. Without principles there is little to guide behavior based on emotions. Emotions come from the subconscious and for a time during the transition to adulthood you can expect behavior based solely on emotions. Where do emotions come from? Emotions are an instantaneous reactions based on previous experience. If you teach "Thou shall not steal" as a commandment from an authority, when the time comes that authority is rebelled against then all that is left is the emotion "I want."  Teaching "Thou shall not steal" because it is a violation of another's property rights; I also have property rights; I don't like to have my property stolen; Property rights are the basis of freedom; I want to be free because I'm old enough to know everything; If I steal I may loose my freedom - leads to the emotional response "Stealing is yucky." This is what I mean by integrated principles. The parents goal in teaching integrated principles is so the emotion "I want" leads directly to the thought "Damn, I better go to work to make money so I can have."


There is a place for faith when it comes to teens but the faith should reside with the parent, not the child. If you have done your job well you should have faith your child will make it through the teens and become an enjoyable adult.