Slashdot Mirror

>"I tried diet X and lost Y pounds, thus clearly establishing that >substance Z is causing everyone to become fat."

Well, it depends on "substance Z". If you're talking about american fast-food sandwiches, the answer is YES, they make people become fat, lots of studies confirm that.

>"Moral failing Q is the real culprit! We need government policy >R! I have no proof!"

It wouldn't be bad to have more government policy about health and food, maybe putting taxes on junk food could be good.

>"I'm from country C and we have no fat people. You >Americans are fat, and I have a ridiculous accent!"

Sorry, but it's absolutely true (the fact that americans are fat, not the accent):

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Ok, the country with by far the most internet users is China, you want to give them a 22.5% interest in regulating the internet? Or instead, lets prioritize on a per capita basis, the country with the highest internet usage per capita is Greenland. They're the most vulnerable to regulation, so let's put them in charge. India has only 10% per capita online, but they're #3 for most users. The top G8 country per capita is Canada at #4.

You figure out a way to get big countries with low per capita usage and small countries with high per capita usage to agree on anything, and I bet the Nobel committee would come a-knocking. In the meantime, the country that ranks highest in combined number of users and per capita usage is the US. At least they're predictable. Next on that list are Japan and Germany. Eerie isn't it?

And for the record, I am not American.

Weirdly, it's not true. On average the USA consumes way more cannabis than the Netherlands:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_can_use-lifestyle-cannabis-use

Switzerland:
-Human Rights
-Politics
-Mandatory Gun Ownership/Military service
-Universal Health Care, and good results to show for it
-A diversified and regional Education system, with decent, but not stellar, results.

The only real challenge is that it's kind of hard to become a citizen. Good luck!

Switzerland:
-Human Rights
-Politics
-Mandatory Gun Ownership/Military service
-Universal Health Care, and good results to show for it
-A diversified and regional Education system, with decent, but not stellar, results.

The only real challenge is that it's kind of hard to become a citizen. Good luck!

But burglary is only one crime parameter. If you look at a broader range of crime statistics the picture is less clear cut. Rape is for example twice as prevalent in Holland as in the US. Overall victimization is also higher in Holland. But other crime statistics show less crime in Holland.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime

This ref ( http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/burglaries.aspx) for 2006 has it at 640 for the Netherlands and 721 for the USA (in per 100000 people). This ref ( http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime&all=1 and http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/us-united-states/cri-crime&all=1 ) has total crime victims at 25% in the Netherlands and at 21% in the US.

This ref ( http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/burglaries.aspx) for 2006 has it at 640 for the Netherlands and 721 for the USA (in per 100000 people). This ref ( http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime&all=1 and http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/us-united-states/cri-crime&all=1 ) has total crime victims at 25% in the Netherlands and at 21% in the US.

Check out what the rest of the world pays per litre, look at how far down the US is on the list -- even lower than Canada, which produces the damned stuff.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_gas_pri-energy-gasoline-prices

Now STFU and pay like everyone else -- WITHOUT government subsidies!

According to this chart there are nearly 400 million mobile subscribers in China today. C-Net seems to think that number is way too low. They pegged it at over a half million 4 years ago, with 200k new subscribers daily .

So it is very likely that the number of smart phone users in China will exceed the entire population of the united states in very short order. When you've got a billion more people than the United States has, these kind of numbers are not all that surprising. The US is a pretty big country. So big that more than a half-million people die from heart attacks each year. This is more than the entire population of nearly 100 countries. China is so populous that they have more than 120 cities with populations exceeding 1 million. They currently have around 700 million people living in cities. That is close to the total population of europe and double the population of the USA. That's a lot of opportunities for selling cell phones.

Actually, it would have helped if the poster realized that this is by GDP and not really the dollar amount. So much for how smart the Slashdot crowd is. Most can't even read from what I've just seen. Also note that I used the same site. So much for your assumed bias.
 
  More information that is slightly dated but we can see the trend.
 
  And yet more
 
  And even more. You'll note that even with the budget cuts we're still spending more than we did in 2008. Certainly not stone age figures.
 
So there you have it. Point proven. The education problems in the United States are not a funding problem. We have a social problem that people simply refuse to address. I can't imagine why, with all the data out there, we continue to bang our heads against a wall that simply doesn't exist. I suspect laziness to be totally honest. As Americans we have this idea that the solution to problems is to throw money or bullets at it. We see this with The War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, The War on Terrorism and The War on Ignorance. All of these things have brought us down a notch and none of them have made any progress in their stated goals. Instead of knee-jerk reactions please join me in wanting a solid solution with long term benefits for all involved. These problems are being "solved" by misrepresentation of the true underlying issues. It's costing all of us in time, money and quality of life. The approaches taken by our collective "leadership" have done nothing but throw up more schism to people who are wanting the same end results. We can take the time and come to a common ground, common sense solution. We can be better than we were. Why don't we do it?
 
Thank you for your time.

The numbers are in folks. The United States spends more money per student than any other country in the world

If ranking 36th in per student spending means spending more than any other country you are right. Yes Estonia ranks well above us on spending.

And I think we can surmize, given the US's current level of social-capitalist involvement, as compared to the rest of the modern world (G7 and BRIC), that we are not anywhere remotely close to the excessively socialist side.

The US government spends over 40% of the GDP each year on an increasingly upward trend

This is a better chart: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_net_soc_exp_of_gdp-economy-net-social-expenditure-gdp

We're #11 in the world in total social expenditure with 23.4% of our GDP going to that purpose, yet somehow people still feel we aren't socialist enough. Moreover, they have the gall to claim we're a "pure free-market driven" country. It disgusts me.

The metrics that actually matter to the people making use of the system, how more/less likely you are to die of ailment x in country y, shows quite the opposite. If you are diagnosed with any form of Cancer in the US you are more likely to still be alive after 5 years than anywhere else in the world (in some places, such as the UK, the survival rate is half of what it is in the US) and the numbers for almost every other medical problem shows the same pattern with the US being first or top three.

Total bullshit. US cancer death rates are in the middle of the pack on aggregate statistics. Yes, the US does pretty good for some cancers (for some people, most notably those with insurance), but not for all.

Nice of you not to buy insurance when you don't need it. Or don't think you need it. Most people I know don't plan on getting ill. It's not something that is on the calendar for "next year". But keep rolling the dice if you like.

You want to know something absolutely bone-chilling?

You know that China that sentences people to labor for thought crimes? That big bad China? Huge population?

The US imprisons more people than they do. That's more people, period. Also more per capita, a shit-ton more per capita, but the really scary number is plain old More. There are over a Billion Chinese! It doesn't seem possible, but it is true.

especially taking into account the inverted population pyramid

I am assuming you are talking about the US, so what is this inverted population pyramid you are speaking of (look for 2010)? This here is an inverted population pyramid. I completely agree with your comment, though, it is just that the population in the US is not going to shrink anytime soon.

especially taking into account the inverted population pyramid

I am assuming you are talking about the US, so what is this inverted population pyramid you are speaking of (look for 2010)? This here is an inverted population pyramid. I completely agree with your comment, though, it is just that the population in the US is not going to shrink anytime soon.

Yet millions still flock here every year in the hopes of a better life. Hrmm... I haven't heard of hordes of people looking to improve their lot going to the backwards Eastern European country from which you're probably posting.

I think you overestimate it by a tad. There's no flocking, just over a million immigrants a year. If you look at immigrants per year per head of population, the US comes in 31st. Just above most Western European countries, but way below Australia or Canada. Europe as a whole has a lot more immigrants per year than America does, and that includes Eastern Europe.

America hasn't been the promised land for a long time, and not that many people pick it out as the ideal place to live. It's just because American media doesn't cover any international news or events that Americans themselves don't realize this.

Actually, I think that you actually put 'Fucked that for you'. America uses more ENERGY than any other nation. We are also the worlds largest user of Nuclear energy. China just surpassed on intstalled capability, but china's production is very low relative to most other nations because they do not have good areas to place it in.. We are one of the largest of the hydro. We are the largest of geo-thermal electricity.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption"> Now, as to coal, CHINA uses 30% more in 2008. Since that time, America's use has dropped, while China's has grown at the rate of 1-2 new coal plants EACH WEEK. At this time, they are approaching DOUBLE what America uses in coal. Worst, they run zero pollution controls and have some of the worlds dirtiest coal.
So, that leaves oil and gas.
Oil is used in transportation, but it is also used in chemical production, roads, etc. In 2009, America used about double in oil of China. But again, our oil use has dropped, while China's rises at ~10% or more a year (economy has been growing 8-12% for some time and then you add the fact that China is becoming a very rich nation; slop factor into this). China is already approaching America's oil use.

Finally in the end, simply look at the energy usage. In 2008, China and USA used almost the same amonut of energy. However, China's growth in all fossil fuels have jumped tremendously. America is basically flat, with much of the growth coming by moving to AE, as well as moving Coal to Natural gas. OTH, more than 90% of China's growth is in fossil fuels.

I guess the ostrich feels nice and comfortable with its head in the sand. Maybe I should just leave it there. Or you could look at the world's oil reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels, and divide that number by the nearly 90 million barrels of oil per DAY the world is using, and do the math yourself. Using these figures there's less than 40 years out there. Oh and we haven't talked about economic growth, with countries like China adding the demand of equivalent of Australia every single year. Not to mention that the last drops of oil are going to be a lot harder to get at than today. It's going to be fun going down the curve when every few years there is half as much oil supply available as there is today. But hey if long division makes your head hurt, keep it in the nice warm sand.

on my electric bill

Yeah, wow. I can't speak to the fictions they print on your power bill, but most electricity used in Belgium is nuclear; 59.3%. Belgium is the 3rd most nuclear powered nation on Earth. Figures here.

Traction control systems can typically be turned off if driving in mud or sand or whatnot.

I have seen plenty of cars where it could not. 4x4s and sports cars usually allow for this. Cheaper cars sometimes do not.

Stopping fast on gravel by locking your brakes? What a joke. The difference would be so marginal that it would be covered by the extra effort it took you to stomp on your brakes.

Care to back that up with a fact or two? With anti-lock brakes you are supposed to stomp on the pedal as well.

And why are you driving so fast on gravel in the first place? Because you live in bumfuck nowhere?

How fast is "So fast?" 20MPH, 50MPH or 100MPH all require the use of brakes. A panic stop to avoid a wild animal crossing the road will lock or engage the anti-lock brakes at any of those speeds. As far as bumfuck nowhere, pretty much. None the less I still have better internet speeds than half of the US so it's not that far out there.

Over 99% of the nation's roads are paved.

Bullshit. It's 65%.

And your defense of carburetors is basically "I don't understand them thar electronical fuel jetson thingies and my mechanic don't neither.

My defense of carburetors was factual and valid. I can sum it up for you in a nice list if you would like:

1. Carburetors are simpler. The simplicity makes troubleshooting easy. There are no sensors to diagnose. Fuel pumps are on the block and can normally be changed in minutes instead of hours like in-tank electric pumps used on EFI cars. Carbureted cars need one wire to run. If your entire electrical system dies on the side of the road you can run one wire to the hot side of the coil, jump the starter solenoid and drive home. This is a handy feature for Jaguar owners.
2. Carburetors are cheaper to fix. There are no sensors to buy. A rebuild kit probably won't ever cost more than $50. $20 is probably closer to the usual price. Fuel pumps generally cost less than $50 as well vs. the $150+ norm for EFI cars. Since everything is easily accessible labor is cheaper (assuming you don't just do it yourself.)

I am my own mechanic. I understand EFI systems and have done a lot of successful troubleshooting on EFI systems. My experience was very negative. Sensors fail for no apparent reason and often cost hundreds of dollars in parts alone to replace. When an EFI car runs like crap it is often difficult to determine what sensor is faulty without the aid of a diagnostic computer. Sadly, unless you take it back to the dealer, the diagnostic computers give a guess. Almost always you start with the 02 sensor. If it still runs crappy you replace the TPS or whatever sensor the computer finds next. Rinse and repeat until you have found the culprit. That is if you are lucky. The most fun is when the computer says everything is A-OK and the car dies every time you stop at a stop sign. The issue is not a lack of understanding, but a lack of wanting to deal with all of the bullshit involved.

You're basically arguing against superior shit because you understand old shit, and you're using stupid .001% of the time cases to try to justify it.

I understand old and new "shit." As someone who works in IT, Prefer not to trust my life to a computer with little in regards to failsafes. I strongly disagree that "new shit" is superior. The emissions are better but that is the only way they are better for my use. I'm saving more in greenhouse gas emissions by driving the old cars and not melting them down repeatedly (how much greenhouse gas does that emit?) and replacing the steel with plastic made from non-recyclable, non-renewable resources.

Protip: You AREN'T special, you AREN'T a bett

Our health care system was a lot better when all hospitals were non-profit and doctors were part of the middle class.

Doctors are not part of the middle class?

My wife started college at 16, didn't fool around, and managed to graduate from medical school at 24 with around $130K in student loan debt. She then worked 80+ hours per week in an internal medicine residency for 3 years earning 45-50K/yr. She then took a fellowship for 2 years working 70+ hours per week earning $50K/yr. At age 29, she began a split fellowship/academic instructor position that finally began to pay a salary approaching reality for the level of training involved - $100K. Student loan debt is still around $120K due to deferments.

If you ignore all the investment to get there, she's "rich" in the eyes of left wing extremists like yourself. However, considering that she's had to accumulate more debt, dive into a hardcore and extensive higher education, work far longer hours for a merely median wage, and do that for 9 years longer than the typical BA, you're not going to get any sympathy from me.

Doctor's income is not wealth until sometime in their mid 40s. Doctor's income is DEBT SERVICE in their 30s, starting a family in their late 30s or early 40s, and only then becomes something that puts them above middle class.

It's also stupid to argue that some of the most highly trained people in our society (0.3%) ought to be compensated as "the middle class." If you want more family practitioners, pay them for God's sake. Otherwise, there's simply not enough altruists to go around, and you cannot command for there to be more...

Citation needed.

Looks like we're number four.

What's bloated? What's "PC" and doesn't matter?

Bloated is when for years salaried non-teaching positions have been consistently growing much faster than actual teaching positions. PC is the feel-good stuff they do, kumbaya cultural rather than actual studies.

It would be supremely stupid for a teachers' union to publicly state such a thing. I know teachers. They are in a union. They care deeply about their students.

It would be, and it was. Teachers may care, but their collective voice as unions doesn't, at least not if it gets in the way of the union.

Albert Shanker, former AFT head, "When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of schoolchildren."

Bob Chanin, former NEA bigwig, said things like academic achievement and better schools are fine, but "When all is said and done NEA and its affiliates must never lose sight of the fact that they are unions and what unions do first and foremost is represent their members."

Union/teachers first, kids second, if at all.

There are socioeconomic factors that determine one's success in education. A primary one is structural racism.

The racism is in the culture to not value learning (emphasis on socio). My kids go to an about half-black school. Some of the best students come from poor black families. However, overall the blacks in the school do the worst. Boys do worse than girls. Asians do the best, and they aren't necessarily any better off financially than the blacks.

(Wow, I apparently forgot to post this yesterday, and it was hiding in one of my tabs.)

Okay, I'll reply to your trolling. The "right" wants to cut FEDERAL education spending because we're spending more per student than almost every other country in the world and not getting corresponding results. They want the individual states to take control, because the centralized approach is not working.

To the point, the decision was made in 1921 to encourage long-term investment by taxing income made from investment at a lower rate than other income. It had a 2-year minimum on the term of the investment. The minimum term was removed in 1986 which was sponsored by Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt.

However, it is still the apparent intention of Congress to encourage investment, and that's why the rate is lower.

In the last 100 years crop yields have dramatical increased. If we had used your argument at any time in the last 100 years, we would have massive famine in a decade. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_cer_yie_kg_per_hec-cereal-yield-kg-per-hectare http://www.gapminder.org/labs/gapminder-agriculture/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=3.31483870967742;ti=2005$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=r67I2b0XlvDxkRoC1Jspz1A;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=20;iid=rlnTLt1ZGHEMuq0-l2DPfAA;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=273;dataMax=95395$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=63;dataMax=9789$map_s;sma=50;smi=1$cd;bd=0$inds=

It's a crappy straw man to throw out a generalization like "the last 100 years". I'm speaking of today, not some random time between 1911 and 2011.

Today we actually grow more calories worldwide than we need to feed all of humanity; we just waste too much of it. I'm not saying that was true in 1941, and it's complete obfuscation to suggest that I was.

Today we have vaccines for all but a half-dozen epidemic diseases, and reasonable means of controlling or severely reducing most of that remaining handful (if those means were fully practiced). We've even completely eradicated two infections diseases (the second was recent, and IIRC not infectious to humans but to horses, but it still demonstrates progress). I'm not saying that was true in 1941, either.

Don't dismiss me as some sort of rosy-eyed Luddite; I'm only saying that better social cooperation and "best practices" implementation can be of much more value in improving life right now than further research, not that further research is pointless or that we never should have done the science of the last 100 years.

Everyone is always going just "Oil-oil-oil...". Whatever the political or economical issue may be everyone just jumps on the oil bandwagon as if that's the only possible answer.

How about food instead?
~312 mil people on one end of the line, holding top spots in world's production of corn and soy and in arable and permanent cropland.
~2.7 billion people on the other side of the line. Including world's largest producer of meat - China.

As for Russia... Selling oil is not their priority.
They'd much rather corner the world market on natural gas.
And naturally, as the article mentions - they plan to be selling electricity from renewable resources.

And there's no need to even start talking about all the stuff that gets imported into USA from China.

First, murder rate is a common yardstick because it's fairly normalized. There are still things that are murder in one country and not in another.

Second, you still haven't done any research. All you did was complain about mine. I provided data with a source and a perfectly good google phrase that I knew provided the info you needed. Why did I know, because I actually did it and saw what was available. You scoffed at my source as it did not conveniently fit your preconceived notion of the facts. You basically said that it is impossible to prove my point because any data I want to provide is either biased, inaccurate, or simply ambiguous - all the while assuming your own data is pristine and perfect (see my mention of murder again for why it is not). I won't even bother worrying about the accuracy of your data (I'm sure it is accurate enough for our discussion), but it's frankly beside the point. We were talking violent crime, not just murder.

So, I'll try again. I did all the work for you. Just go to the link and take a look at the numbers of violent offenses as they are broken out by type. US will be in one column and UK in the next. You want to look at the per capita since we're talking about the rate of crime.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

If that's not good enough for you then I will just accept that you cannot be reached. If you can provide me some facts otherwise I'll gladly take a look. Maybe I'll learn something.

> But I lived overseas where I could walk the streets at 3am without a care in the world... But the fact is the United States is suffering from serious cultural issues that perpetuates things like crime.
I think it depends on where you are. As a tourist, you're probably travelling in safe places - in part because dangerous places aren't the places that get a lot of tourist traffic. (I know, for example, that the tourist areas of Mexico are generally safe, but Mexico has a lot more problems with crime, drug cartels, and 3-4x the homicide rate than the US.) Also, you might be perceiving the US as very dangerous thanks to news reports, while you're judging other countries based on personal experience.

Assaults (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
# 1 South Africa: 12.0752 per 1,000 people
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
# 10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
So, you're only 1%-8% more likely to be assaulted in the US than you are in New Zealand, the UK, Canada, and Australia.

Burglaries (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
# 3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
# 4 Estonia: 17.4576 per 1,000 people
# 5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
You're quite a bit less likely to have a burglary in the US than you are in Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, New Zealand, the UK, Poland, or Canada.

Total crimes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
# 13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
The US ranks in the same ballpark as these other countries when it comes to total crimes per capita.

Car thefts (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people
# 2 Denmark: 5.92839 per 1,000 people
# 3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
# 4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people
# 5 Norway: 5.08143 per 1,000 people
# 6 France: 4.9713 per 1,000 people
# 7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
# 8 Italy: 4.19755 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people
Car theft is quite a bit less common in the US than these other developed countries.

Rapes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
# 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people
# 12 New

> But I lived overseas where I could walk the streets at 3am without a care in the world... But the fact is the United States is suffering from serious cultural issues that perpetuates things like crime.
I think it depends on where you are. As a tourist, you're probably travelling in safe places - in part because dangerous places aren't the places that get a lot of tourist traffic. (I know, for example, that the tourist areas of Mexico are generally safe, but Mexico has a lot more problems with crime, drug cartels, and 3-4x the homicide rate than the US.) Also, you might be perceiving the US as very dangerous thanks to news reports, while you're judging other countries based on personal experience.

Assaults (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
# 1 South Africa: 12.0752 per 1,000 people
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
# 10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
So, you're only 1%-8% more likely to be assaulted in the US than you are in New Zealand, the UK, Canada, and Australia.

Burglaries (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
# 3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
# 4 Estonia: 17.4576 per 1,000 people
# 5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
You're quite a bit less likely to have a burglary in the US than you are in Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, New Zealand, the UK, Poland, or Canada.

Total crimes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
# 13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
The US ranks in the same ballpark as these other countries when it comes to total crimes per capita.

Car thefts (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people
# 2 Denmark: 5.92839 per 1,000 people
# 3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
# 4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people
# 5 Norway: 5.08143 per 1,000 people
# 6 France: 4.9713 per 1,000 people
# 7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
# 8 Italy: 4.19755 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people
Car theft is quite a bit less common in the US than these other developed countries.

Rapes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
# 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people
# 12 New

> But I lived overseas where I could walk the streets at 3am without a care in the world... But the fact is the United States is suffering from serious cultural issues that perpetuates things like crime.
I think it depends on where you are. As a tourist, you're probably travelling in safe places - in part because dangerous places aren't the places that get a lot of tourist traffic. (I know, for example, that the tourist areas of Mexico are generally safe, but Mexico has a lot more problems with crime, drug cartels, and 3-4x the homicide rate than the US.) Also, you might be perceiving the US as very dangerous thanks to news reports, while you're judging other countries based on personal experience.

Assaults (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
# 1 South Africa: 12.0752 per 1,000 people
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
# 10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
So, you're only 1%-8% more likely to be assaulted in the US than you are in New Zealand, the UK, Canada, and Australia.

Burglaries (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
# 3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
# 4 Estonia: 17.4576 per 1,000 people
# 5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
You're quite a bit less likely to have a burglary in the US than you are in Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, New Zealand, the UK, Poland, or Canada.

Total crimes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
# 13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
The US ranks in the same ballpark as these other countries when it comes to total crimes per capita.

Car thefts (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people
# 2 Denmark: 5.92839 per 1,000 people
# 3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
# 4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people
# 5 Norway: 5.08143 per 1,000 people
# 6 France: 4.9713 per 1,000 people
# 7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
# 8 Italy: 4.19755 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people
Car theft is quite a bit less common in the US than these other developed countries.

Rapes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
# 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people
# 12 New

> But I lived overseas where I could walk the streets at 3am without a care in the world... But the fact is the United States is suffering from serious cultural issues that perpetuates things like crime.
I think it depends on where you are. As a tourist, you're probably travelling in safe places - in part because dangerous places aren't the places that get a lot of tourist traffic. (I know, for example, that the tourist areas of Mexico are generally safe, but Mexico has a lot more problems with crime, drug cartels, and 3-4x the homicide rate than the US.) Also, you might be perceiving the US as very dangerous thanks to news reports, while you're judging other countries based on personal experience.

Assaults (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
# 1 South Africa: 12.0752 per 1,000 people
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
# 10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
So, you're only 1%-8% more likely to be assaulted in the US than you are in New Zealand, the UK, Canada, and Australia.

Burglaries (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
# 3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
# 4 Estonia: 17.4576 per 1,000 people
# 5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
You're quite a bit less likely to have a burglary in the US than you are in Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, New Zealand, the UK, Poland, or Canada.

Total crimes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
# 13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
The US ranks in the same ballpark as these other countries when it comes to total crimes per capita.

Car thefts (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people
# 2 Denmark: 5.92839 per 1,000 people
# 3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
# 4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people
# 5 Norway: 5.08143 per 1,000 people
# 6 France: 4.9713 per 1,000 people
# 7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
# 8 Italy: 4.19755 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people
Car theft is quite a bit less common in the US than these other developed countries.

Rapes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
# 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people
# 12 New

> But I lived overseas where I could walk the streets at 3am without a care in the world... But the fact is the United States is suffering from serious cultural issues that perpetuates things like crime.
I think it depends on where you are. As a tourist, you're probably travelling in safe places - in part because dangerous places aren't the places that get a lot of tourist traffic. (I know, for example, that the tourist areas of Mexico are generally safe, but Mexico has a lot more problems with crime, drug cartels, and 3-4x the homicide rate than the US.) Also, you might be perceiving the US as very dangerous thanks to news reports, while you're judging other countries based on personal experience.

Assaults (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
# 1 South Africa: 12.0752 per 1,000 people
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
# 10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
So, you're only 1%-8% more likely to be assaulted in the US than you are in New Zealand, the UK, Canada, and Australia.

Burglaries (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
# 3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
# 4 Estonia: 17.4576 per 1,000 people
# 5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
You're quite a bit less likely to have a burglary in the US than you are in Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, New Zealand, the UK, Poland, or Canada.

Total crimes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
# 13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
The US ranks in the same ballpark as these other countries when it comes to total crimes per capita.

Car thefts (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita
# 1 Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people
# 2 Denmark: 5.92839 per 1,000 people
# 3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
# 4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people
# 5 Norway: 5.08143 per 1,000 people
# 6 France: 4.9713 per 1,000 people
# 7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
# 8 Italy: 4.19755 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people
Car theft is quite a bit less common in the US than these other developed countries.

Rapes (per capita) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
# 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people
# 12 New

Nanotech already done

Please at least post a link to backup that claim. Here's my link showing the education spending by % of GDP. As of today(24.7.2011), the United States are #37. Maybe the annual total of U.S education spending is more, but you also have what ~300M people.

And I think at least Californian students would disagree with your claim that

Spending is NOT the issue.

after the major budget cuts.

In closing I would claim spending might not be the only issue for education in the U.S, but it is high up there with the education system being a mess itself. Fear not America ! You are not alone with your crappy educational system !

Please at least post a link to backup that claim. Here's my link showing the education spending by % of GDP. As of today(24.7.2011), the United States are #37. Maybe the annual total of U.S education spending is more, but you also have what ~300M people.

And I think at least Californian students would disagree with your claim that

Spending is NOT the issue.

after the major budget cuts.

In closing I would claim spending might not be the only issue for education in the U.S, but it is high up there with the education system being a mess itself. Fear not America ! You are not alone with your crappy educational system !

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/ene-energy

As you can see, they use fossil fuels for most electrical generation and 30% for nuclear (slighly old numbers, as they've increased renewable generation since then to 17% of their total power generation). Now to put their solar growth alone into perspective, "Germany set a new world record installing 7,400 MW of solar PV in one year. The country also reached a renewable energy electricity penetration of more than 30% on February 7th, 2010." http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011

It has doubled the amount of energy from solar panels and, before their nuclear decision, already targeted to have 35% of electricity generation from from renewables by 2020. So while Luddites tell us that France will be selling nuclear power (which France has to heavily subsidize with taxpayer dollars) France already has 6.7% of its energy generation supplied by renewables with their goal of having at least 20% by 2020.

Meanwhile nuclear plants don't even have their storage issues worked out.

Sorry, I managed to drop the links, so I'm posting again.

The vast majority of foreigners moving to Europe come from former European colonies, plus guest workers summoned by European companies in times of labor shortage; not exactly a stellar record. The US, on the other hand, has received very large numbers of immigrants and refugees since its founding, and by and large without serious tensions.

Sources?

It's definitely not true today. Germany alone harbours more than twice as many refugees as USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_ref_pop_by_cou_or_ter_of_asy-refugee-population-country-territory-asylum

From Afghanistan, Europe harbours more than eight times as many refugees as USA.
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~rc391/shanaz/linda/diaspora.html

Since USA invaded Iraq and up until 2007, it had granted refugee status to a measly 800 Iraqis, while Sweden had accepted 18 000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq#United_States

I'm going as far as saying, USA doesn't take responsibility for the refugee problems it's creating.

Considering that Norway ranks #13 on the total crimes per capita list at: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita [nationmaster.com] your assessment that they're doing quite well is simply wrong.

No it's not. That's not a list of every country in the world. It's a list of 20 compared and it covers general "crime". Have a look at something like murder rate instead.

Let's get the facts right before dismissing the OP.

You've just admitted that the USA does *worse* than Norway. How does that fact in any way support the OP?!

Considering that Norway ranks #13 on the total crimes per capita list at: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita your assessment that they're doing quite well is simply wrong. In fact, they're not significantly different from the US. Norway shows 71 per 1000, vs. 80 per 1000 for America. Let's get the facts right before dismissing the OP.

Sorry, but a lot of developed countries pay a lot less for their universal health care then the USA, per capita. Sure it means that medical specialists might earn a little less. They're not going to earn millions, most people in the semi-public sector are limited to the amount the Prime Minister earns, which is about 250,000 euro. Still pretty decent in my view.

Go look up the numbers http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita
United States: $4,631.00 per capita
Netherlands: $2,246.00 per capita

The Dutch government has defined a "standard healthcare package", which all insurance companies must cover for a fixed amount (just over 1000 euro a year). They can compete on service and extra options. They also can't refuse you the standard package, so anyone can get this basic set of healthcare and it's mandatory to be insured. Only people like the homeless aren't insured, jobless people and those on minimum wages are helped by the government to pay for their insurance.
And for what's covered: Currently the discussion is if support for giving up smoking should be covered. That should give you an idea.
There's optional extra packages for things like modifications in the home, electric wheelchairs, TV and newspapers at your bedside in the hospital.

We also struggle with rising costs for medical care, but as you can see, we're in a much better place than the USA which pays about twice as much.

Wait, so in 2004 amid shart increases in revascularization in both Canada and the US, the US had a narrow (statistically significant, but narrow) lead in 5-year mortality after heart disease, and that's the deciding factor for which healtchare system is best?

When the US has declined in revascularization since then (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3072819/) and Canada has increased (http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=15079&search=Aortocoronary+bypass+for+heart+revascularization%2C+not+otherwise+specified)?

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the US was wrong to decrease its rate. The optimum might have been in the middle, or there might be some better new method.

But it's easier to say "go to Japan or, failing that, France":

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_dis_dea-health-heart-disease-deaths

(note the US has more than 10% higher fatality than Canada in that graph...).

I can't speak to that Daily Mail article, but it's of an entirely different calibre than your other evidence.

I have a point to make, but first I'll give you sweet, sweet data. Here's the relevant Wikipedia page, you can backtrack the direct sources from there. These are the 2009 PISA results:

Math: China (#1), Finland (#6), United States (#30)

Reading: China (#1), Finland (#3), United States (#17)

Sciences: China #1), Finland (#2), United States (#23)

= = = = = =

And now, the average cost to teach a child (Primary/Grammar/Elementary School Source, Secondary/High School Source) For Primary School and High School:

Primary/Grammar/Elementary School: Switzerland (#2, $6,470.00 per student), U.S. (#4, $6,043.00 per student), China (No data)

Secondary/High School: Switzerland (#1, $9,348.00 per student), U.S. (#3, $7,764.00 per student), China (No data)

= = = = = =

Next, the average salary per teacher for Elementary and High School (U.S. source, Finland source, China source). All are converted to dollars using XE.com.

Elementary School: Finland (~$46,000), United States (~$40,000, China (~$18,000)

High School: Finland (~$46,000 - ~$71,000), United States (~$42,000.00 - ~$44,000), China ($24,000 - ~$28,000)

= = = = = =

On this last bit, I've done some digging but haven't been able to find concrete data on all three countries from one source, so I'm going with estimates. Peek into sources if you want.

The average U.S. School day is 9-3, or about 6 hours. Finland is about 5 hours. China is about 8 hours (roughly 9-5, with a two hour lunch, so still around 7 hours).

= = = = = =

Okay, so. China pays their teachers way less than the U.S. but get far better results. Finland pays their teachers about the same and gets way better results, but not as good as China. The U.S. pays the same amount of money (roughly) that Finland does for much, much worse results.

So what the hell are we doing wrong?

China is all drill, drill, drill. A lot of the East Asian countries (South Korea, China, Japan, Indonesia, etc.) have long school days which are often supplemented by private schooling (a.k.a. "Cram courses") after the fact. Most kids are home anywhere between 8:00-10:00 PM, 2-4 hours of homework, and then wake up at 6:00 or 7:00AM the next day.

Americans, we're 9-3, plus maybe an hour or two of homework (at most). Often there's an after school program, but these are more glorified daycare and less practical education.

Finland actually ends up using *less* hours per day than us, but they use innovative teaching methods that the U.S. is sorely lacking.

I see Finland and China as two extremes. China is like grinding in an MMO. If you simply just do something a lot, you're going to get better by rote and practice. That's the general Asian method, I've found. Drill, test, drill, test, drill, test. Finland seems to be the opposite extreme - less drilling, more trying to find methods that work without having an insanely look school day. The U.S. has the worst parts of both and the benefits of neither.

If we lengthened the school days in America and really put the kids asses to work, we could edge up closer to China - maybe eve beat it out. They do way better than us for 1/3 - 1/2 the cost on teacher salary. However, if we maintained the same salary but looked at where our methodology is wrong and tried new things, we could achieve similar resu

I have a point to make, but first I'll give you sweet, sweet data. Here's the relevant Wikipedia page, you can backtrack the direct sources from there. These are the 2009 PISA results:

Math: China (#1), Finland (#6), United States (#30)

Reading: China (#1), Finland (#3), United States (#17)

Sciences: China #1), Finland (#2), United States (#23)

= = = = = =

And now, the average cost to teach a child (Primary/Grammar/Elementary School Source, Secondary/High School Source) For Primary School and High School:

Primary/Grammar/Elementary School: Switzerland (#2, $6,470.00 per student), U.S. (#4, $6,043.00 per student), China (No data)

Secondary/High School: Switzerland (#1, $9,348.00 per student), U.S. (#3, $7,764.00 per student), China (No data)

= = = = = =

Next, the average salary per teacher for Elementary and High School (U.S. source, Finland source, China source). All are converted to dollars using XE.com.

Elementary School: Finland (~$46,000), United States (~$40,000, China (~$18,000)

High School: Finland (~$46,000 - ~$71,000), United States (~$42,000.00 - ~$44,000), China ($24,000 - ~$28,000)

= = = = = =

On this last bit, I've done some digging but haven't been able to find concrete data on all three countries from one source, so I'm going with estimates. Peek into sources if you want.

The average U.S. School day is 9-3, or about 6 hours. Finland is about 5 hours. China is about 8 hours (roughly 9-5, with a two hour lunch, so still around 7 hours).

= = = = = =

Okay, so. China pays their teachers way less than the U.S. but get far better results. Finland pays their teachers about the same and gets way better results, but not as good as China. The U.S. pays the same amount of money (roughly) that Finland does for much, much worse results.

So what the hell are we doing wrong?

China is all drill, drill, drill. A lot of the East Asian countries (South Korea, China, Japan, Indonesia, etc.) have long school days which are often supplemented by private schooling (a.k.a. "Cram courses") after the fact. Most kids are home anywhere between 8:00-10:00 PM, 2-4 hours of homework, and then wake up at 6:00 or 7:00AM the next day.

Americans, we're 9-3, plus maybe an hour or two of homework (at most). Often there's an after school program, but these are more glorified daycare and less practical education.

Finland actually ends up using *less* hours per day than us, but they use innovative teaching methods that the U.S. is sorely lacking.

I see Finland and China as two extremes. China is like grinding in an MMO. If you simply just do something a lot, you're going to get better by rote and practice. That's the general Asian method, I've found. Drill, test, drill, test, drill, test. Finland seems to be the opposite extreme - less drilling, more trying to find methods that work without having an insanely look school day. The U.S. has the worst parts of both and the benefits of neither.

If we lengthened the school days in America and really put the kids asses to work, we could edge up closer to China - maybe eve beat it out. They do way better than us for 1/3 - 1/2 the cost on teacher salary. However, if we maintained the same salary but looked at where our methodology is wrong and tried new things, we could achieve similar resu

If you don't understand the difference between being put to work for a crime and being put to work for the colour of your skin, I'm not sure what to say.

Now Stalin was obviously single-minded to the point of paranoid cruelty in certain years, just as Churchill was when, say, he let a million starve in Bengal. But Churchill gave his Empire away to the US, while Stalin brought more progress in shorter time to his nation than any leader throughout the twentieth century... so it's worth your being precise about what you're accusing him of. Try to avoid Wikipedia quotes.

(Of course, a glance at US prison statistics and US prison ownership confirms that the US still engaged in race-based enslavement. Beating Russia even by numbers.)

We live in a country where most people can't explain how the tides or fracking magnets work

US science literacy is still quite high in international comparisons:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sci_lit-education-scientific-literacy

The US also is among the top for money spent per secondary student:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

Should the US improve? Of course. But ideologically motivated diatribes like yours aren't helping. Take your own advice: improve your literacy and then start arguing with facts instead of fear mongering.

We live in a country where most people can't explain how the tides or fracking magnets work

US science literacy is still quite high in international comparisons:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sci_lit-education-scientific-literacy

The US also is among the top for money spent per secondary student:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

Should the US improve? Of course. But ideologically motivated diatribes like yours aren't helping. Take your own advice: improve your literacy and then start arguing with facts instead of fear mongering.

Some of them have a point, others not so much.

"The United States reports the world's highest incidence of violent crimes"

- More than Mexico where thousands are dying in drug gang violence? Besides, US has a large population, if you use violent crimes per capita as a measure, you should find US quite low in the table, although not as good as most other developed countries.

Out of the 64 countries listed in this list, the first I bothered to look at when I searched "violent crime per capita", the US is #24, and the highest 'first-world' country. The violent crime rate is 3 times higher than in Canada and the UK, and 4 times higher than Germany. But you may stop worrying, Mexico is 3 times higher than the US. And maybe that's why the rest of the world thinks of the US the way the US thinks of Mexico, when it comes to violent crime.

"The U.S. regards itself as "the beacon of democracy. However, its democracy is largely based on money. "

- Not that I like the big spending on elections, but is fund raising not part of the democracy? I highly doubt if fund raising for a political party is allowed in China.

And here I thought democracy was founded on an educated public, not a marketing exercise. Maybe being required to spend less would get things away from rhetoric and vitriol, and on to reasoned debate on the relative merits of the various positions. More money certainly hasn't achieved that...

"While advocating Internet freedom, the U.S. in fact imposes fairly strict restriction on cyberspace. On June 24, 2010, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which will give the federal government "absolute power" to shut down the Internet under a declared national emergency. Handing government the power to control the Internet will only be the first step towards a greatly restricted Internet system, whereby individual IDs and government permission would be required to operate a website."

- Power to shut down the internet is just granting legal power for government to stop a serious cyber war. It's hard to see the US government getting away with shutting down the internet for stopping protests like the dictators do in Middle East. The last sentence is merely China assuming US will follow its footsteps. It has not happened and will not happen in near future.

The first steps toward tyranny are always reasonably painless. Many tyrants gained power by having popular ideas. If you can't see the risk in reducing freedom, or the value in taking the risks that freedom entails, just stop using the phrase "land of the free, home of the brave".

"Unemployment rate in the United States has been stubbornly high. From December 2007 to October 2010, a total of 7.5 million jobs were lost in the country " ...

- What does a severe financial meltdown has to do with human rights? Oh right, in China human rights mean having rice to eat.

One of the last steps towards governmental collapse is when the average person can't afford to eat. People will put up with a lot of crap, but going hungry starts riots. Fast. So yes, the ability to support one's self is an indicator of the health of a country.

And finally, if your standard for your country being good is that it's better than some of the worst countries out there, I think it's time to give those standards a close examination.

but the site itself and the bulk of the readers are American.

By volume :P

Of the following iconic tech companies, how many come from India? Apple, Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Yahoo, Google, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, Intel, Dell, HP, and I could go on. Other than staffing companies, what great tech companies were formed in India?

3 of Google's 9 Board of Directors were foreign-born. 50% of Google's 2 founders were foreign born.

Care to count the number of Nobel prizes that have come from the USA, as opposed to India? As I understand it, there are high schools in the USA that have produced more Nobel prize winners than the entire nation of India. Certainly there are several US colleges that have produced more Nobel prize winners than the entire nation of India.

The Nobel prize (since there are so few of them) seems like a bad way to judge a population's level of education. But if you look at Nobel prize per capita, the USA ranks #11:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_nob_pri_lau_percap-nobel-prize-laureates-per-capita

If you compare the E.U. as a whole against the USA (which is closer in size and geographical area than one paticular european country), then Europe still outshines the USA in nobel prizes.

How many ground breaking tech breakthroughs have come from India in the last 200 years? Computers? Radio? TV? Radar? Nuclear power? Heavier than air flight? Light bulbs? Movies? Phonograph? Anything?

India is just now in the process of transforming itself from a 3rd world (2nd world?) nation into a first world nation, it's per capita GDP is just about 7% of the USA's. Most of the inventions you mention were invented more than 100 years ago and many were invented outside of the USA or by foreign immigrants:

Computer - 1830's - Charles Babbage ( England)
Radio - late 1800's - various - Marconi, Tesla, Hertz, Edison among others
TV - 1920's - Farnsworth - (American)
Radar - 1930's - Sir Robert Watson-Watt ( England)
Nuclear Power - 1938 - Otto Hahn (Germany)
Flight - 1903 - Wrights (American) or Alberto Santos-Dumont (Brazillian (in Paris))
Light Bulb - 1806 - Humphrey Davy (England)

Ok, I'm tired of researching - but you get the picture - Americans didn't even invent much of the technology attributed to them.

So where is the evidence that Indians are all the "best and brightest" and Americans are all stupid? Do you realise about 50% of Indians are illiterate, and that India has the worst slums in the world? And yet we need Indians because they are great tech geniuses and entrepreneurs.

Don't just look at the India of today, look at the India of 20, 30, 50 years from now. That's what America is competing with.