Home Making

It is a principle of the Civilization Sphere that the family is the basic unit of civilization. During this week before Mother’s Day, I’d like to take a look at some very positive and beautiful things about living together in a family home.
 

Perfection is not required. Earnest striving is enough, with God’s help, to sanctify the home for the family. The savage world may rage beyond the doors, but a civilized family protects its members from much suffering—and provides an abundant life.

The list today includes things that, in every category, I know people who are better at it than I am. But putting it all together, I think I can feel pretty good about the effort. As one friend of daughter Social Sphere said during the teen years, “Y’all are the most functional family I’ve ever seen.”

Mostly this list is what brings delight to me. I’ve been thinking about the word delight somewhat lately. Because it’s entirely positive, and yet the de- prefix often means the negative un-. So I used my faithful old dictionary and learned that the de- in this case comes from the Latin-based word for from: from light, literally, or from enticing or enchanting. What delights is what entices to do good or brings to mind what is good.

So, specifically, what delights in the family and home?

People who love one another is first. A family starts with the covenant between a man and a woman to commit to one another through whatever life throws at them, to choose to love through it all. And then, within that unit are added offspring—with the natural bonding that comes from falling in love with tiny little persons newly come from heaven. In my life, the crowning glory has been bringing children into the world, and watching them grow into civilized, brilliant, creative, God-serving adults. And the dessert is now getting grandchildren. I adore them. Everything about them delights me. Yes, I am idealizing for the moment, because dealing with them 24/7 is beyond my capability at my current age, but that isn’t required of me—which is one of the better perks of grandparenthood. We just get to enjoy the delight and let their parents deal with the more challenging moments.

My grandchildren, my delights

I want to look beyond the delights of the family members, because these things are part of an abundant life—and in an ever more savage outer world, we need to find ways to enjoy civilization within the home.

Make music. Enjoying music made by others is also important; sharing what we’re enjoying with each other is better. (We got to attend a concert of The Piano Guys last Thursday, which was a memorable and delightful couple of hours.) But making music in the home is something extra. It’s hard to beat having a piano in the home and someone who can play it while people gather around and sing. A guitar can serve as well. Patiently encouraging the development of music skill in family members is civilized, and civilizing. I have a sort of life rule that you shouldn’t miss the opportunity to learn a new instrument or a new language. To that end, I’ve learned enjoyment level skills playing piano, guitar, mountain dulcimer (play this in a weekly jam session), soprano and alto recorder, and ukulele. I developed the most skill vocally (good in choirs, because there’s not a lot of clamor for classical altos), and I currently lead the church choir. We also have a violin and cello in the house, that kids studied for several years. There are families more musical than ours, but we have had enough to delight.

Make good food. It’s possible to have a good home without a lot of cooking skill. But it adds delight. The conversation is more important than gourmet skill. But sharing delicious, healthful meals together adds delight. I’m in favor of simple, by necessity. I’m better at it than I used to be. Skill really does build over time. And sometimes putting in extra effort into food, to celebrate holidays or special family occasions, adds delight. One of my favorite parts of Social Sphere’s wedding celebration (nearly a year ago) was planning and preparing the food. I couldn’t do it every day, and it exhausts me just to imagine that much effort again. And yet finding those recipes, trying them out, putting things in the freezer to wait till last minute finishing—that was my fun. Who knew?

from Social Sphere's Houston reception

One thing I learned with small children (probably because it so much applies to me) is that the best way to prevent a meltdown/tantrum is to keep a child well fed and well rested. Carry food, and make sure a child doesn’t have to go too long. A quick drive through the fast food lane might be occasionally necessary, but a cooler with grapes, carrots, cheese, and some sliced turkey will be a better cure. Also allow for regular rest times. If you plan a schedule that runs over a child’s need for regular food and rest, you’re going to suffer the natural consequences. Don’t get mad at a child for that. Next time make the proper preparations.

Grow a Library. Going to the library is a good addition, and having a Kindle or Nook is handy. But having books to hold and share, read aloud together, and pass along is necessary for civilization in the home. I’m one of those who watch Beauty and the Beast and say, “The library is what she first fell in love with.” (Note: I think Mr. Spherical Model may have fallen in love with me becaues of my piano and my library.) My kids used to sleep with a stack of books. Books were something we shared together, and still do. All through their high school years we read aloud together. My granddaughter runs for a stack of books when I arrive; that is what we must do together. The concept of old, unneeded books is kind of foreign to me. Sharing the delight with a new generation is worth the space on the shelf.

Beautify the Home. This one is tougher for me. I have good intentions and occasional success. After all the family moved out, I finally recovered my pantry, and to me it is now a thing of beauty. But there are many more parts of my life not set in order yet. I have friends with lovely homes, full of art and color and coordination. My priorities were elsewhere (see Library and Music above). But I love being surrounded by beautiful, inspiring things as much as the next person. I believe in having meaning in the surroundings, so that is a constraint. Energy, time, and money are also constraints. A home needs to feel comfortable to live in while being beautiful. I’m a fan of Pinterest, online. So many ideas; so little time. I think it’s a great thing we can share ideas for free. There is a lot of delight to be had there, as long as you take it as a source, and not as a comparison causing a sense of failure. Décor is a matter of taste. But home beauty is about the sense of love you feel when you come in.

Believe me, this is a huge improvement

Making a home is making a place where family love can thrive. In monetary terms, homemaking doesn’t pay well. But, without a wife and husband putting love into making it happen, there is no way to buy it. And without it in your own home, for you there is no civilization. Make a home first, and then worry about the rest of the world.

As the great Christian writer (author of The Chronicles of Narnia) put it, “The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only—and that is to support the ultimate career.”

One more quote, from one of my favorite people, the late Gordon B. Hinckley, who was President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “Women who make a house a home make a far greater contribution to society than those who command large armies or stand at the head of impressive corporations.”

Free Exercise of Religion

I try not to be alarmist (even though I often feel alarmed at news in our country and our world). But I am alarmed today at stories from the last couple of days concerning the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Just to clarify, yet again, we do not get our rights from the Constitution; we get our natural human rights from God. For the sake of preventing tyrannical usurpation of those rights by government, we have several of them plainly expressed in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became part of the Constitution before it was ratified.

One of my most frequently read posts is the Two Hundredth Post, from January 13, 2012. It’s a simple explanation of the meaning of the religious freedom clause. I suggest to our administration that they read it for a basic understanding. (The President’s teaching of Constitutional Law apparently failed to bring him to the level of basic comprehension.)

Government can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. End of subject. Self-evident. Except to the opposition to truth and freedom that is trying to tyrannize the rest of us, using some sort of twisted logic about how rude it is of believers to show any signs of religious belief around others.

Specifically today I’m concerned about the military. The Pentagon came out with a policy concerning religious expression: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”

The question here is what is meant by “proselytization,” so an Air Force spokesman, following pressure about the question, came out with an additional statement: “When on duty or in an official capacity, Air Force members are free to express their personal religious beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable.”

Wait, the First Amendment doesn’t say, “The government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion except when a person can be found to claim discomfort from being exposed to that free exercise of religion.” That exception isn’t there. Coercing someone to be baptized into a particular faith would be against the free exercise clause—but I believe there is no such case on record anywhere in the history of the US Military. So they must mean something else.

Who decides what crosses the line of discomfort? The intolerant non-religious person? Assurances aren’t very reassuring following these policy implementations:

·         Reference to God was stripped from the Rapid Response motto.

·         Bibles were removed from supplies at the Air Force Inn.

·         Air Force cadets were prevented from promoting charities for needy children.

·         A course on Just War Theory, in use for 20+ years, was removed from available training because it included a few Bible verses.

·         A Christian speaker was disinvited from a speaking engagement at an Air Force Prayer Breakfast.

·         An Air Force officer was commanded to remove a Bible from his desk.

We’re supposed to trust them to be sensible about the definitions of such words as “proselytize,” and “uncomfortable”? And if some official decides the arbitrary line has been crossed, the military person is subject to court martial—that means a criminal record, dishonorable discharge, and possible prison sentence.

Imagine what this means to chaplains. A young man comes to the chaplain prior to going out on a dangerous mission, asking questions about life and death and God. The chaplain expresses his personal view that God is eternal, there is life after death, and quotes John15:13: “Greater love hath no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” It is intended to comfort as well as honor the soldier going out bravely to do his duty.

But it’s a New Testament verse, and therefore related to the wide range of Christian sects, but while still applicable to other religions, might not resonate with a non-Christian. What if a non-Christian young man follows such a conversation with an expression of disappointment to an officer: “I didn’t really get the comfort I wanted; the chaplain just gave me the usual stuff from his own Christian point of view.”

That could be interpreted by someone as the chaplain pushing his personal religious belief, even though he was just doing his job of offering comfort as best he knew how. The accusation of disapproval or discomfort is enough to put the chaplain at risk. Under these circumstances, this threat essentially does away with the position of chaplaincy in the military—where life and death questions, as well as the stress of being away from home and family, and facing severe conditions are part of the soldier's job and can’t be ignored.

Can anyone read the First Amendment and believe it says, “There should be no chaplains in the military, because their religious views might make an unbeliever uncomfortable”?

And what about conversations between fellow soldiers? Suppose one soldier asks a buddy what his plans are for Sunday. His friend answers, “I’m going to my church services. You should come; you might enjoy it.” Harmless enough. It’s simply an answer to a direct question along with a friendly invitation. But what if the first guy was hoping for companionship for some very non-religious activity, and he decides it makes him uncomfortable that his friend’s behavior is such a stark contrast?

If the standard is “someone feels uncomfortable,” that means all religious people are on notice to hide their religious beliefs and expression.

Can anyone read the First Amendment and believe it says, “There should be no visible, verbal, or other signs of religious belief among members of the military, because that might make an unbeliever uncomfortable”?

It would be nice if we could trust government officials to use common sense regarding our rights to the free exercise of religion. But such officials already have a shoddy record. We are in serious trouble if we are even having a discussion about preventing our military from having religion as a detectable part of their lives.

Meanwhile, in the private sector, a track relay team in Columbus, Texas, a small town between Houston and San Antonio, won their race but were quickly disqualified—because one of the runners pointed upward after finishing. Just to be clear, he used his index finger, not his middle finger. The UIL (University Interscholastic League, an association for high school inter-school competitions) judge claimed the gesture broke the rules—not because it was religious, but because it could be interpreted as taunting the other competitors. Such gestures include celebratory gestures, even including raising the arms overhead.

OK, but there was no taunting or even a glance at opponents, and no arms were lifted overhead. The gesture wasn’t even a standard religious symbol, such as making a cross (which wouldn’t qualify as taunting or celebrating either, but this judge might claim it did). This was simply a young man, making a small signal to give glory to God at a moment of team glory. But lifting a finger was enough to nullify the years of intense training by all of the team members, the success of these runners in this race, and their hopes of going on to state finals.

I can’t verify this from the information available, but I don’t think it was spelled out to these young men that pointing a finger toward God would disqualify them. They were probably told generally that celebratory gestures, such as doing a dance, or pointing at losers and taunting them, or otherwise showing bad sportsmanship would not be allowed. It is hard to imagine how that general policy would be interpreted in a young man’s mind as, “Oh, then I’d better not even point to God if I feel thankful to him.”

We often look at Nazi Germany and wonder, “How did they get like that?” The way it happened was, things like we are seeing started happening, and people shrugged it off, rather than stand up and put a stop to the foolishness. And pretty soon the foolishness became serious and life threatening.

Collectivism vs. Capitalism

Back in late March to early April of 2011, just a month into writing this blog, I wrote a series called “Anything Evil about Capitalism” parts I, II, III, and IV. (The first two define the terms wealth and capital, to prepare for making moral judgments in the third. The fourth is to additionally address inherited wealth. These ideas review portions of the Economic Sphere portion of the Spherical Model.) Over the weekend I watched last Friday’s episode of the Glenn Beck TV show that supported the assertion that capitalism is moral. Rabbi Daniel Lapin was the guest teacher wielding the chalkboard. So much of it was clear and sensible, I wanted to share it. [To see the video requires a paid subscription, but it's the first hour of Friday, April 26, 2013.]

Rabbi Daniel Lapin on Glenn Beck show, 4-26-2013
(note: erasing "freedom" and replacing with "$" was part of
the discussion, not the actual formula)

He also starts with defining terms, specifically defining collectivism and materialism, to prepare for making a comparison with their opposite. Here’s a part of the conversation:

Rabbi Daniel Lapin: We’ve been talking about collectivism, a whole lot. It’s one of the favorite words of the left side of the political spectrum. And I thought it would be helpful if we identify, first of all, what they say it is, and then what it really is.

Collectivism is, as it’s usually defined, as any kind of political, or social or economic philosophy that stresses our interdependence with one another. You and I agree with that. We couldn’t live without each other. We know that; we understand that.

Glenn Beck: Yeah, no man is an island.

Rabbi Lapin: We get it. That’s not what collectivism really is. What collectivism really is is a formalized, deliberate structure…deliberate attempt to create a moral matrix to legitimize taking things from one group of people and giving it to another. That’s what collectivism is all about. It’s essentially finding a framework of virtue about stealing.

He goes on to say that the “manure” that fertilizes the idea of collectivism is materialism, “the fundamental conviction that nothing that isn’t material matters in the world.”

Then there’s a need for more definition:

Glenn Beck: Define materialism. Because in my own head I was thinking it was about having all this great stuff. But you’re talking about that there is no spiritual part of the world, that it is only the material make-up.

Rabbi Lapin: Well, I can actually call upon an expert from the left to define materialism, no less an authority than, you might remember, Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco, speaker of the California State Assembly. Now, I'll give you in almost exact terms how he defined materialism.… What he said is, “If I cannot eat it, wear it, drive it, or make love to it, I’m not interested in it.” That’s a pretty good definition of materialism. If I can’t actually see it, touch it, make use of it, exploit it, benefit from it in some way, it doesn’t exist. In other words, there is no such thing as love. There’s no such thing as loyalty. There is no such thing as awe. There’s no such thing as staring at the heavens in wonder or biting into an apple and just wanting to thank somebody for giving that to you. None of that is true, because it’s all just firing of neurons in your cortex and your spinal column. There’s no mystery in life; it is all thoroughly basic and scientific.

This discussion of materialism clicked a lot of understanding of the enemy mind, connections I hadn’t made before. I expect some of that will come up in future posts. But this post we’re mainly limiting to the morality of making money. The definition discussion prepares us for the blackboard instruction. It contains this chart, which he then explains:

 

While he’s discussing that first line, he gives one of the best definitions of capitalism I’ve heard, and that’s what caught my attention.

Rabbi Lapin: If materialism and collectivism encourages competition about being a bigger victim, what does this [making money] philosophy engender? Competition to provide service. How beautiful is that! It’s figuring out, to recognize that you will succeed best at making money if you are obsessively preoccupied with supplying the needs of your fellow human beings.

In referring to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and the technological products they’ve provided, Rabbi Lapin says, “The money they make is testament to how many of God’s children they pleased.”

Which is better? Making wealth for your use by providing service to others, or requiring wealth from service providers to provide goods and services to someone who did not earn it? Clearly, the answer is making wealth through service is more moral.

But what about those who can’t provide for themselves? The best answer is for those whose love makes them feel responsible for the weaker members of society to provide for them willingly. And where those closest can’t do enough, then the caring larger public of service providers will offer help. I’m more willing to trust that goodness to a people whose goal is to find ways to serve than I am to trust a people who look for ways to take wealth from service providers.

Amplify the Love

During one of our conversations last week, my son Economic Sphere applied an idea he had learned some years ago in a basic marketing class. For any product, you have lovers, haters, and swingers. You don’t need to spend resources marketing to the lovers, because they’re already buying. You don’t need to spend resources marketing to the haters, because they’re still not going to buy. So you spend your resources marketing to the swingers, who can be persuaded to buy. But there’s a right way and a wrong way.

The wrong way is to defend yourself against the reasons the haters use for hating your product. Identify why the lovers love your product—and then amplify those reasons.

This principle could be applied to “marketing” the ideas of conservatism (the northern hemisphere of the Spherical Model). This is going to be one of those times when, later I’ll think, “Why didn’t I think to say this at the right moment?” There will be better sales lines than I come up with, but I thought I’d do a little exercise, identifying the reasons for loving civilization, freedom, and prosperity, or at least finding simple, direct ways of stating the principles. 

Political Freedom

·        The choice isn’t between the tyranny of chaos and the tyranny of despotism; the real choice is between tyranny and freedom. I reject tyranny and choose limited representative government, where we the people are free to govern ourselves.

·        I don’t want some faraway bureaucrat deciding that educational fairness means equal outcomes. That’s just holding my child (and most children) back to the level of the slowest learner. Real educational equality should be providing the best opportunity for each child to reach his potential. I don’t know how to reach that goal for every child, but I know it’s my responsibility to make that happen for my child. I just need government to get out of the way so I can do my job.

·        Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e., how we live our lives, make a living, make life choices) are the basic God-given rights. We don’t need government to grant them; we just need to be vigilant to keep government from usurping more power than we the people have granted.

·        The federal government has a few basic purposes (spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution). Anything else, and the people are going to be better at doing it than government—always. Just look at the evidence; you know that’s true.

·        Government isn’t capable of caring; government is only power. If government is claiming to care, it is lying in order to claim more power than you granted. Beware.

 

Economic Freedom

·        I’m a better expert at what is the best way to spend my money than some faraway bureaucratic “expert,” because I know what I need and want.

·        We’re born naked, impoverished, and inexperienced. It is by growth, hard work, and gaining in expertise that we try to overcome this condition throughout our life. We are born with the right to life, the right to live free (not enslaved), and the right to pursue our own path to overcome the naked, impoverished state. If someone’s telling you they have a “right” to something that is purchasable, they’re telling you they believe you should be enslaved to provide it for them. Do the translation so you won’t be enslaved.

·        Wealth doesn’t come from government; wealth is the accumulated results of work. We earn it, and it represents our lives. You take our money, and that is putting us in servitude.

·        Austerity is when people have opportunities and income taken from them; it isn’t government cutting back on programs it has no business involving itself in in the first place. In fact, government “austerity” leaves more resources in the private sector, so people can use them in abundance. That’s a good thing.

·        You want the most prosperous country in the history of the world—perpetually? Follow the Constitution. It works every time it’s tried. 

Civilization

·        Art, literature, and technological innovation thrive in the civilized world; these all degrade in a savage world where licentiousness replaces God-given freedom and willing obedience to God’s law.

·        Which is better: a world where you follow God’s law to respect the life, liberty, and property of others, or the savage world where the biggest and strongest take from those who are weaker? It’s amazing how much better off all of us are when we willingly govern ourselves with moral principles.

·        Families, with married mother and father raising their own children in a loving, protecting home, is the key to civilization. Those of us who have experienced good families know it. Those who haven’t experienced it know there’s a hole we have to struggle to fill. There’s no substitute for loving moms and dads. And government is a particularly poor substitute.

·        Civilized people will give freely from their surplus wealth and time to help shore up people going through hard times. We believe in caring for the less fortunate. But care has to be something given freely from a loving people; there’s no caring in coercion. Charitable giving is best done through churches and local charities, as close to the needy as possible, to meet the root needs.

Lesson from Economic Sphere

With Economic Sphere visiting this week, we’ve covered a few economic topics. And mostly I’m reassured that I’ve been on the right track.

Lesson 1: Thou Shalt Not Covet

One conversation the other day was about income redistribution. He asked me, of two job situations, which would I prefer? In the first one, I’m offered $50,000 a year, and my boss makes $55,000, 10% more. In the second I’m offered $100,000, and my boss makes $200,000, 100% more.

I answered sensibly: I’d prefer making $100,000. First, because I’m making twice as much money as I would have in the other job, and second, because the amount my boss makes shows a lot more growth potential for a career.

Surprisingly, when this question was asked in a study, an alarming number of people preferred making less money, as long as their boss made only a little more than they did. They thought it was immoral to have the boss make so much more than the employee.

We agreed that the morality is skewed. And the problem lies in that least of the Ten Commandments: Thou Shalt Not Covet. Why should it matter to me what a boss makes as long as I’m being fairly compensated for my work? The amount the boss makes is irrelevant. His job is different. He takes different risks, and has different expectations placed on him. His job probably includes some advanced education and experience in strategic planning.

The Ten Commandments, if they'd been written in English
image found here

I agree that some executives are overpaid. That’s a concern to the company, its board and stockholders, and to the extent that affects the company, also to the employees. But if the highest paid employee makes 20-fold what the entry-level employee makes, who cares, as long as he’s worth it to the company? Difference in income is simply irrelevant.

When you ask someone with that alternative moral belief, “What is immoral about someone making more than someone else?” and you get kind of a sputter answer. They think it’s self-evident; it’s unfair. But they can’t explain why different outcomes for different inputs equates to unfairness. They just have this internal sense that it does. What they don’t recognize is that refraining from jealousy over another’s fortune is a higher morality. Forcefully taking from a producer to give to a non-producer is simply theft, whether the state does it or a thug.

That’s why you see the argument for leveling the outcome for everyone in the southern hemisphere of the Spherical Model, where you also find tyranny and savagery. What you see in the northern hemisphere is actually more fair. And, because that is where you also find a more moral people, you also find them willingly giving aid to those truly in need—which means a two-way exchange of love as well. The giver gives to the poor because he loves and cares about him and wants to relieve his suffering. The receiver humbly receives, recognizing the gift was voluntary, and he is both grateful and determined to become productive and giving if he can. Love and gratitude are eliminated between people in the southern hemisphere, with the state placing itself in a godlike benefactor role, requiring gratitude and allegiance for its theft.

Lesson 2: No Central Planner Can Know Enough

This conversation was about the Superman comic strip nemesis Brainiac, which I was not familiar with. So I’m summarizing here without expertise. In the Superman, the Animated Series version, Brainiac was a “character” on the planet Krypton, where Superman was born. The people had developed a sort of central computer repository of knowledge, that became sentient—Brainiac. The idea was that everyone who learned anything would upload their information into this central brain, and then it would have all the knowledge necessary to make the wisest decisions for all.

This went well until a certain point in the history of the planet. Using only nonspecific technical jargon (which is what the series does), we learn that something has gone awry with the core of the planet, and it is going to blow up. This was the first time that Brainiac, the know-all computer, had a discrepancy between his purposes and those of the people he served. If he let the people know of the danger, they would expect him, even directly order him, to help them find a way to get everyone safely off the planet. He would thus be destroyed, but the people he served would survive. Or, he could use his processing power to upload himself onto something that he would get off planet—thus the people’s history and culture would survive, because he held it all within his brain, but the people themselves would die. He decided that was the better option; in order to accomplish it, he lied to the people, claiming the disturbance in the core was simply some seismic activity, nothing to worry about.

From Brainiac Attacks
image found here

Superman’s dad, Jor-El, as we know, knew about the danger to the planet. He tried spreading the word, but when people asked brainiac, Jor-El was contradicted. So he put his efforts into getting his son safely off planet before the explosion. So, there were two pods leaving Krypton in time, Superman’s and Brainiac’s.

The comparison here is that a central knowledge source is not simply a servant of the people who built it; it sees itself as its own entity of value—surpassing in value the individual people.

That led to further conversation about central planning, and how, no matter how all-knowing, no central planner can make decisions as consistently appropriate as individuals. The reason is that the central planner can never know the one most important thing necessary for making a decision about how I will spend my money: my preferences. I may not know them up until the time I find a pair of jeans in a store and try them on. I might prefer the feel of one pair over another. Or the way one pair fits my exact shape better than another—not measurement-wise, just in where things pull or tug. Or maybe there’s a subtle difference, like the topstitch color or the buttons that are the deciding factor for me. And I don’t know those things to feed the information into a central decision maker until I actually make the decision. How much worse is it if I am not allowed to make my decision, but must depend on the computer, using whatever amalgam of data it has up to this point, spits out as my decision?

The point is, no central planner, no matter how all knowing, has enough information to make better decisions for individuals than the independent individuals do. Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom has this as a major theme. Economist Thomas Sowell explains it from time to time (here is one piece). 

Things that have been common sense to the common man (AKA: We the People) for centuries continue to be true.

Dinner Table Conversation

We have had visitors this week. Economic Sphere and his wife are here, on leave from the military, his first time back home in over a year. So I’m catching up on my economic education, as seems to naturally happen in his presence.

In addition, Monday night we had a visit from a friend from Uganda. Farida had Thanksgiving dinner with us, year before last, while she was in town for training. She works for the same worldwide company as Mr. Spherical Model. We have kept in touch on Facebook since then. She’s in town again for two more weeks of training.

Our Ugandan friend, Farida

Her home is Uganda, but since February she’s got an 18-month assignment in Venezuela, which has been an adventure. [Note to my kids: yes, I still refer to adventure as a euphemism for hardship.] We were asking her how things were going, aware that right now there’s a fair amount of angst in Venezuela, following the death of Hugo Chavez. These are political questions, and she hasn’t spent all that much time with us, so she hesitated and looked down as she said this: “I just think socialism is really bad.”

Economic Sphere told me the next day, “She just didn’t realize she was sitting here with someone who could mathematically prove that statement to be true.” Yes, socialism is really bad.

The way that’s playing out for her is mostly cultural, because she’s getting paid by an international company, so it’s less about income. She admitted that Uganda has some corruption problems, but they’re mostly manageable by the people there. But their capitalist economy means, if you work hard, you can succeed. In Venezuela, it doesn’t matter whether you work hard or not. The government makes it nice for people who are poor; they build these nice projects for them. But they can’t ever get anywhere beyond that. For the regular person, it doesn’t matter whether you work hard or not; the result will be the same.

That is an excellent summary of socialism, pretty much textbook. It was validating to hear it just around the dinner table.

She’s had a housing problem as well—somewhat related to culture. Farida is Muslim, from a country with many Muslims, but with what must be a less constraining tradition. She dresses very American. The two times we’ve had her to dinner, she wore a skirt, which was dressier than we were in our jeans and khakis, but no head scarf or other indicator of religion. She is a very pretty young woman as well—so in many ways she must be a rarity in the world of oil drilling engineers.

Anyway, coming up with housing in Venezuela was a bit of a challenge, so the company people there (the same company Mr. Spherical Model works with, who would never make this suggestion in the US) were going to room her with a married man whose family was back home. She said no, that wasn’t acceptable. They pressed her; didn’t she like the man? It was difficult for her to explain. It had nothing to do with how nice he was; it simply wasn’t acceptable for a Muslim woman to room with a man she wasn’t married to.

I was somewhat aghast; I am totally on her side. She shouldn’t have been asked. There should have been no such expectation. It’s disrespectful toward her, whatever religion she is—in my world. But in that world there has been a fair amount of social capital depletion during recent decades.

She has female coworker friends there, and they say they are learning from her. It hadn’t occurred to them it was OK to say no, either to a man, or to any authority figure. Saying no about the housing appeared huge to them. But she also says no to a great deal of male attention. One of her coworkers is bothered by constant phonecalls from a man she’s not interested in. Farida says to her, “But you gave him your number.” Yes, the man had asked for her number, and she seriously never considered that it was her right not to give it to him. Farida appears almost alien to them as she explains that they can say no, and they can stand up for themselves.

Farida was eventually given a nice little house to live in. But getting things for the home, including food and cooking tools, has been challenging. She needs a phone, put in the order for one in February when she got there. They told her it would get there in about three months. No one blinks an eye at the delay; that is what they’re used to. (She is renting a cell phone for the weeks she’s here—instantaneous need satisfaction in this free economy.)

Corruption is rampant there. When they are pulled aside and asked for ID, they’d better have it—and/or a chunk of extra cash. The real reason for being stopped is that the cops expect to be paid bribe money. Another story—people she knew had their apartment broken into and things taken, including phones and other electronic devices. The burglars went house-to-house down the street doing the same. Eventually they were caught, and the stolen items were easily recoverable—but the police kept the items, with a sense of entitlement. The people were powerless.

The government provides the basic foods it decides people should have: usually chicken and some kind of white bread. Farida is mostly vegetarian, and tries to be gluten free. She’s used to fresh fruits and vegetables, which are expensive and hard to come by in Venezuela, despite the climate.

There was a cultural oddity I hadn’t expected in Venezuela, which at one time was one of the more Europeanized nations of South America. Foreigners are rare, and they stand out—so much so that people turn and stare at Farida everywhere she goes. She’s beginning to learn Spanish, but in the meantime, communication is a huge struggle. In a dictatorship, it was to the benefit of the tyrant leader to isolate the people. Keeping them speaking only Spanish was one way to do that. Farida says the people seem unaware of the world beyond their country. They’re astonished that she doesn’t speak Spanish, because they thought everyone spoke Spanish. The fact that she looks different from them also draws stares.

She isn’t safe going to a grocery store alone. And she’s more vulnerable if people hear English and no Spanish, because they assume she has dollars to spare. She could drive there, but because there is almost universal disregard for traffic signals, people have advised her that it’s better not to drive.

She has been many places around the world. She loves her home of Uganda best (and makes it sound so beautiful, we would like to visit). But Venezuela is the first place she has really experienced culture shock. She is gritting her teeth and bearing it until the 18 months are up, and she hopes it will be worth it in terms of opportunities afterward. She did try not to be overly dramatic when she said it was a bit like serving out a prison sentence.

So, yes, socialism is really bad.

Homestyle Education, Part IV

I’ve spent the last three posts reviewing a particular innovative classroom from about twenty years ago: Part I, Part II, and Part III. I’d like to do some followup, now with hindsight.

The Followup

At the time I wrote, it was during my son’s second year in the class. We wondered what to do for the following year. He had been recommended, since kindergarten, for the gifted program at a magnet school across town. I was hesitating, because sending him far away seemed uncomfortable if it wasn’t necessary. During the two years in the multi-age class with an extraordinary teacher, I think he got much of what he would have gotten in a gifted class.

But for third grade we needed to make a decision. The school was trying to expand the multi-age classroom concept. It was going to be tried with a third-fourth class. The teacher wasn’t as experienced or as flexible as Mrs. Crane, but I thought it was worth a try.

In retrospect, we missed a good year we could have had at the gifted school. This next multi-age classroom was just one teacher handling two groups of kids: one assigned third-grade level work, and the other assigned fourth-grade level work. A kid could choose harder work if he wanted, but there wasn’t anything really self-paced or individualized.

Now we had the standard rows of desks, with students sitting unnaturally quiet, and doing the same work others were doing. It was boring. And while our very smart son didn’t get behind, he didn’t really thrive either. So for fourth grade we sent him to the gifted school. By then, it turned out all his neighborhood friends were being sent there as well, so socially it was a good choice. And the gifted classes were innovative in many of the same ways as Mrs. Crane’s class.

Meanwhile, Economic Sphere, our second son, had gotten through kindergarten. His older brother’s kindergarten teacher had moved up to teach a first-second grade multi-age classroom, with some additional innovations. She began the year team-teaching with yet another teacher and classroom. So really there were two classrooms full of students (about 52 total), half assigned to each teacher, but all receiving some attention from both. And the kids ranged from Down’s Syndrome first graders to gifted second graders—a wide range. (Special Ed students also had an aide assigned to them.)

Mrs. Helmsley had been an excellent kindergarten teacher, and her philosophy about how to run a multi-age classroom coincided with Mrs. Crane’s. In fact, eventually they worked together to train other teachers in the district in methods that worked. Part way through the year, it became apparent that the chaos of having 52 kids in a room was too much, so the divider between classrooms was replaced, and the two multi-age classrooms worked separately. But the other innovations continued.

I used to volunteer as a writing helper in the classroom, during what they called Writing Workshop. Kids wrote their own “books,” with whatever help they needed. They illustrated as well. And when they were finished (which often took a number of Writing Workshop sessions), they would “publish,” which meant getting the pages bound. And then they would share, reading aloud to others who had recently published. It was a very satisfying experience to have that sense of completion and recognition. I still have some of Economic Sphere’s first books tucked away somewhere. (His very first published “writing” was a wordless picture book, which was unorthodox even in that setting.)

They adjusted for individual children, which we needed. Economic Sphere came home from school in September of his first grade year, about two weeks into the school year, and said, “I’m the best speller in my class.” He’d only been reading aloud since June, but he was reading the Encyclopedia at that point. I wasn’t aware of the spelling skill yet, so I said, “You mean you’re the best first grade speller in your class.”

“No,” he said, with certainty; “I’m the best speller.” Within days I got a call from Mrs. Helmsley recruiting my help. They had no spelling lists that would do. He needed to come up with his own spelling lists, going through the dictionary to find words he didn’t know yet. Among those early lists were Tyrannosaurus Rex, dolphin, constellation, and reindeer. By year’s end, he had moved on to archaeopteryx. What I appreciated was how delighted his teacher was by his special abilities, and how willing she was to accommodate, rather than say, “Since he’s doing fine, we just won’t worry about him.”

When he got through those two years, we sent him directly on to the gifted school for third grade. The gifted school also did themes, lasting a semester or even longer. They put on plays and musicals. They did murals. The teachers used a portfolio approach to progress reports as well. I looked for just a couple of things at parent-teacher conferences: Was my child progressing well? And did his teacher appreciate him and like him—see in him the delightful things I saw.

I knew these several extraordinary teachers spent their lives thinking up new and different ways to share learning with the kids. These brave souls allowed a kid to bring in the heart of a deer (during hunting season) and led the kids in the dissection. We had a class that used small wading pools to contain habitats for spiders and their webs. We provided a large, green, striped garden spider that was known for beautiful webs.

There were hamsters, rabbits, and chicks in various classrooms. One Saturday we ran over to the school when we got word the chicks were hatching—phonecalls going out to every child’s parents so the kids wouldn’t miss out just because it was a weekend.

It has been a couple of decades, and we left the area fifteen years ago, so I have no way to follow up and find out whether the multi-age classroom concept is still thriving there. It might have been dependent on those few extraordinary teachers. I believe the gifted program is still there; the gifted program we got when we moved here was nothing like that, and the culture shock of disappointment is what led us to homeschool.

Again, these great classrooms I’ve described were all in public schools. But what worked was everything standardization prevents:

·         Personal decision making by the teacher, in concert with the parents, about a particular child and his/her learning style and needs.

·         Curriculum and learning materials chosen by the teacher for her classroom, sometimes for a particular child.

·         Enrichment brought in when it was available, adjusting other things so the special opportunity wouldn’t be lost.

·         Bringing in parents to help in the classroom, so parents were part of the learning taking place.

·         Plenty of individualized education—each child at his own pace, with plenty of opportunity to follow his own interests.

·         Accepting differences in pace and style without shame, stigma, or labeling; this included the “learn, then teach” method, where students helped tutor someone in a subject they already understood.

All of these things are natural within a family homeschool. It would be difficult to approach homeschooling some other way. Schooling within the home is the natural, normal method that has been used, at least for elementary education, through most millennia. The factory-institution style schools we see so often now are a recent anomaly. Functional illiteracy grows as responsibility and choice are taken over by government, usurping the parental role.

The only way for public schools—or private schools—to successfully educate a leadership class is to use the methods that work in the home. Make the school less like a factory and more like a natural learning environment, where differences are cherished.

Next time you come up against Common Core, or CSCOPE, or any other top-down decision, speak up and say, “That’s not acceptable for my child.” And if you can’t get the schools to give you what they can and should, get your child out of there.