Whither America's Technological Edge?

baldass_newbie asks: "Ben Stein wrote an editorial titled, 'How to Ruin American Enterprise'. To me, technological innovation is a big outward sign of a successful economy. Sometimes it appears like the U.S. is losing its edge in technology. Well, I was wondering what the Slashdot community at large thinks is wrong (or right) with the U.S. and technological innovation?" The article deals less with technology and more with the society on which said innovation is based, and the problems that may bring it down around our collective ears. Give the article a read, and share your thoughts on whether or not you think it's an accurate assessment on the current and future situation of America's technological advantage.

Comments

Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[ras_b]

Every time some new, cool tech gadget comes out here, i talk to my friend from Tokyo and he tells me he had it a year ago.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having the coolest gadgets first means nothing in terms of technological prowess.

- Who invented the transistor?
- Who started the computer industry?
- Who invented nuclear power?
- Who put human beings on the moon and then brought them back safely 6 times

THAT is what is missing. Not the latest tiny-ass minidisc player.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Simon Garlick]

How about something since we were all born?

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Who split the atom? Who put human beings in orbit?

I give the US credit for being a tech leader. But a lot of major things have come from outside the US.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Simon Garlick]

- Who invented the transistor?
- Who started the computer industry?
- Who invented nuclear power?
- Who put human beings on the moon and then brought them back safely 6 times

Actually, now that I think about it...

Transistor, the team at Bell Labs. Score one for the USA.
Computer industry? I'd say the team led by England's Alan Turing.
Nuclear power? I'd say the team led by Italy's Enrico Fermi, or if you look back further, New Zealand's Ernest Rutherford.
Putting humans on the moon? I'd say the team led by Germany's Werner von Braun.

OK, that's one from four. Nothing to really brag about. And my comment about "in our lifetimes" still stands.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Wyatt Earp]

Who split the atom?

It happened at the University of Chicago. Yea most of the scientists were foreign born and recent immigrants, but that's how the US works.

Who put humans in orbit? Germans working for the Soviets, same as the Germans working for the Americans that put our people in orbit.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[DunbarTheInept]

The ability to attract foreigners to do tech research within a country is a part of that country's tech edge, and should be counted. Fermi was Italian, but Italy wasn't where he did his work. Von Braun was German, but the Apollo missions weren't based in Peenemunde. Turing gets major kudos for advances in computer science, but you cridited him for computer industry, which is something else entirely.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[jaoswald]

Two of your remaining four came to America to do their most influential work. Who cares if Fermi was born in Italy? The U.S. had the organization, the funding, and the non-fascist, non-anti-semitic political scene that let him build the first fission reactor in Chicago. Heisenberg, possibly as brilliant (though with hardly the experimental acumen), working in Nazi Germany, got nowhere. Likewise for von Braun--Nazi Germany had him developing penny-ante weapons, the U.S. had him boost people to the moon. (I suppose he helped the U.S. develop ICBMs, but hey, that's technology, too.) Even Einstein died an American.

If the U.S. is still the destination of choice for the best and brightest foreign-born minds, that's going to pay off BIG in the long run. The only challenge I see is Chinese-born professionals starting to feel that China offers enough freedom to make staying there pay off more than coming to the U.S. In order to do that, China has to focus on maintaining its own internal stability, probably liberalize its political system, and will have to take a very calm approach to international relations. That helps the U.S., too, so the downside of being the second-largest national economy won't be so bad.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[geekee]

The internet was invented in America.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[squiggleslash]

With respect, this is precisely the USA's problem: It's resting on laurels with a sense of misplaced smug technical superiority that'll get the better of it.

If you don't buck up, you'll end up like Britain, spending 50 years celebrating inventing half a dozen invention innovations from steam power through (via an immigrant Italian) radio, to the (mechanical) TV, before realising that Britain isn't really ahead of the rest of the world any more. There was a moment during the 80's that it became obvious, just as we were celebrating our home grown personal computer revolution, thanks to Sinclair and Acorn, and we suddenly realised nobody was taking any notice of the stuff we were putting out, because the rest of the world had raced ahead of us. Sir Clive Sinclair made some comment once that he'd invented the pocket calculator, but the Japanese had made it successful.

There are innovations going on in the US, but there's also an over heavy emphasis on ignoring technologies built outside. That attitude is guaranteed to get the better of the USA, especially if America's dominance as a world power is diminished, as the rise of a united Europe, a restructed former-Soviet Union, and a blue-in-tooth-and-claw Capitalist China, make all too possible.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Zeinfeld]

the automobile

The internal combustion engine is usually attributed to Benz, a German. The american inventor was a patent fraud whose claim to have invented the engine was thrown out by the US courts in the Ford case.

the sowing machine

The first functional sewing machine was invented by the French tailor, Barthelemy Thimonnier, in 1830. There were about 6 previous patents for sewing machines of which the first US one came in at number 5...

electricity

Try Faraday, Royal Society, London

the light bulb

Swan invented the light bulb first and actually filed his patent first to boot. Edison only got a patent because at the time the USPTO did not recognise foreign inventions or prior art.

bar-b-que

I don't think you can count that since the Hawaiian islanders were having BBQ before the US was founded, before Westerners had discovered it even. I don't think you can count inventions aquired by conquest.

the vaccine

"In 1796 English country doctor Edward Jenner found that if a small amount of material was taken from a cow suffering from cowpox and injected into a healthy human child, that child would become immune to smallpox. " - incidentally the term vaccine comes from the Latin for cows.

Should I continue?

Well since that leaves you with only the atom bomb, the telephone, cotton gin and the laser I don't think you should. I'll disallow the Internet and the computer since the first computer design was British, the first practical computer was german (Konrad Zues Z1 and z2), the first electronic computer was british - the programmable enigma machines but was classified research, the Internet is not an invention it is an implementation of packet switching which was invented on both sides of the pond.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Mac Degger]

I always love that statement, for it shows how little you know of the development of the system you're using.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Mac Degger]

Why are you even going down that trail? Talking about Von Brauns weapon reasearch in this context is dumb, especially as the entire "space race" was begun solely with the intention of getting ICBM's! You actually think getting to the moon was the goal here?

Plus, by going that route, you invite people to come up with the fact that Braun and Einsten where heftily harrassed by the FBI...be proud of that one (especially Einstein, a pacifist if I ever saw one). And lets not forget how impossible the US is making it to immigrate. It used to be harsh, but post 911 it's draconian. So don't be too proud.

Truthfully, this whole topic is rather distastefull to me: the one thing all those poeple have in common is that they're human! Who cares where they come from...for that matter, who cares if the US is losing it's technological edge (and judging by the number of people getting a degree, it is), as long as humanity itself keeps advancing.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Exactly my point. In most cases, there is not just one contry or person that was behind the whole thing.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Shelled]

Counted perhaps. Of singular importance? No. The upbringing, education, cultural framework and intellectual bent weren't American. Fermi was almost 40 and had won a Nobel Prize before he emigrated. Von Braun was over forty and a very distinguished physicist. Americans recognized the talent and foot the bill but American culture didn't create these innovators. To equate investment with innovation is really stretching the definition of "technical edge".

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[geekee]

The internet started out as DARPANET, DARPA standing for the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency. Basically Darpa (i.e. the US govt.) paid to have the initial network developed.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[autopr0n]

Who invented nuclear power?

Zee Germans?

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[autopr0n]

Who split the atom? Who put human beings in orbit?

The Germans would have split the atom before us, if they had a chance. And the Russians put people into space before we did.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[jaoswald]

I generally agree with your points. Von Braun isn't the greatest example of human achievement, but it was the choice of the original poster, not mine. But still, isn't it amazing that something based on missile throw weights led to something as sublime as men on the moon?

I thought it was pretty clear from my post that I'm in favor of liberal immigration laws, and against the kind of oppressive political scene that the FBI harrassment of Einstein represents.

In terms of national interests, it does matter to me where there is a prosperous, free, and open society. If the U.S. starts to be less of any of these, I'm going to work to change that, because the U.S. is where I happen to be, my family and friends live here, and I would rather not uproot and move somewhere else if I can avoid it. No one wants to be a refugee, or an emigrant, if they could avoid it.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[jaoswald]

Technically, the V2 was a great advance. However, as a weapon, it was more psychological than military. Biological warheads are a major technical problem of their own, and the guidance was crude. Plus, by Sept. 1944, the first date for a successful V2 attack, the outcome of the war in Europe was no longer in doubt. As an aside, the stats I've seen show that roughly a dozen civilians were killed or injured on average by each V2 that hit London.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Zeinfeld]

Electronic TV is an American invention (Philo T. Farnsworth); the British had a mechanical TV that was earlier, but, frankly, that was, like the vacuum tube computer, another technological dead end.

This just gets back to my point in the other thread, pretty much any industrial country can lay a claim to just about anything by choosing to recognise another invention as the 'critical step'.

Logie Baird's system was flawed, but the system that ran against it in the bakeoff was a corporate development designed by the BBC engineers. True they used ideas from many sources, but it is one thing to dispute the claim TV is an exclusive British invention and quite another to prove that the US deserves the attribution.

It isn't invention per se that is the cause of American technical leads, it is the economy. America is more productive in this area, so technology tends to get developed faster and put to use faster.

It is more the pay structures. Engineers get paid between two and three times as much in the US than in the UK - before stock options are considered. Imigration is realatively easy and so the US can suck in most of the top talent in various fields. Most educated people speak English and the US is relatively culture neutral so it is pretty easy to hire a top team and locate it in the US, much harder to do that in say Norway or France.

The other effect that has been somewhat ignored is that the Clinton boom coincided with the end of the cold war and the winding down and cutting back of military research efforts. I believe that the relative commercial failure of US industry from 1950 to 1990 was due in large part to the best brains being wasted on military aggrandisement. In the 90s companies suddenly had to invest in consumer oriented technology and the economy grew at a sustained 4%. Back in the UK it was generally thought that the Japanese and German economies had done well for the same reason, both countries relative decline dates back from the US waking up.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

The Germans would have split the atom before us, if they had a chance.

Probably right there. But it was split by a New Zealander anyway.

And the Russians put people into space before we did.

That's what I said/meant.

Me things you have the wrong end of my stick. My point was to show that there were important steps in technology done by non-americans, and that most inventions rely on other previous inventions and discoveries.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[jaoswald]

According to Wikipedia, more than 1300 V2 rockets were fired at London. Iraq launched something like 40 Scuds toward each of Israel and Saudia Arabia in the Gulf war.

The Scud missile is basically a modified V2 in design, gaining additional range by reducing accuracy and warhead weight.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[jaoswald]

The U.S. had nothing to do with Fermi's building of the first fission reactor? That's interesting, I thought it was part of the U.S. project to develop the atomic bomb.

Sure, Fermi won his Nobel Prize before he came to the U.S. But before he came to America, Fermi's accomplishments were only in basic science.

Incidentally, these world-class scientists laid the foundation for the post-war excellence of U.S. scientific institutions. Germany has hardly the scientific impact these days (even 50 years later) that it did before the war. Europe's loss was America's gain.

Re:Since When Did America Have a Tech Edge?

[Guppy06]

The way you define Fermi as Italian and Von Braun as German, you'd think you were extremely anti-immigration. While I admit Fermi wasn't a US citizen until two years after he helped builed the first nuclear reactor in Chicago (a city not in Italy), Von Braun gained his citizenship long before even Gagarin's flight.

They were about as American as you could get. The only thing they couldn't do is run for president. We're not exactly talking about Austria here.

I suppose next you'll try to tell me Nabakov was a Russian author.

Well, duh.

[Skyshadow]

C'mon, this is obvious:

How long can America keep pumping out students whose test scores are in the cellar for industrial nations and expect to maintain an edge in technology? As it stands, a lot of our brains are already imported from India and China.

I live in CA, which should stand as a dire warning to the rest of the country: They limit their property taxes, their schools go underfunded, and as a result California natives largely end up working to repair the cars and wash the floors of the well-educated from elsewhere.

The US needs to get serious about education, and fast. With the tech boom and the world shinking as it is, this is a really bad time to be stupid.

Re:Well, duh.

[MagikSlinger]

The US needs to get serious about education, and fast. With the tech boom and the world shinking as it is, this is a really bad time to be stupid.

It's not just the government. American parents pay lip service to education, but don't really set either a good example nor push their children to excel. I remember in school the classes always had a mix of real poor performers to really good students. The difference was not the teachers, but their home-life and parents. Parents get the kind of education system they want. If they don't care, don't expect the government to care either.

[Insert your favorite bash to blame for this here]

Re:Well, duh.

[Ryu2]

I do agree that education is the root cause, but test scores, etc. are only one part of the story. I'm an American, but I've spent a lot of time in many Asian countries, and have worked with many people over there. The educational system there emphasizes discipline, conformity, rote practice and drilling and unity, in accordance with societal values that traditionally pervase Asian societies.

This may sound good on paper, but there's a sad human side to it as well, in the form of students spending days and nights outside of class in outside of school courses, known as juku in Japan or hagwon in Korea, in a furious rat-race attempt to succeed. All emphasis is placed on getting into the top schools, to preserve the all-so-important face prevalent in Asian society. It's no coincidence that the suicide rate amongst teenagers in Asia is much higher than the general population over there.

Corporal punishment is practiced in classrooms. The curriculum is homogenous across all schools and teaching method is rote memorization and practice, practice, and more practice, which does not encourage the development of free thinking, and all this talked about "innovation" is generally spawned at the industrial rather than the academic level.

While Asia is indeed impressive, all this comes at a price, and blindly following their methods is. IMHO, not the way for the US to go.

Re:Well, duh.

[Skyshadow]

Your solution is to raise property taxes in an area where real estate is already prohibitively expensive? Discouraging people from buying isn't a good idea...

Bullshit.

What you're actually seeing is yet another example of my parents' generation (the boomers) once again thoughtlessly gorging themselves at the expense of their children.

They run up huge debt rather than pay higher taxes. They extend the pyramid scheme that is social security so they can benefit at their children's expense. And they underfund the educational system so they can live in a slightly larger house than they otherwise would.

The CA system only really benefits people who already own homes, not new home buyers. So, it's just another example of our parents living at our expense.

Re:Well, duh.

[Niles_Stonne]

[Insert your favorite bash to blame for this here]

I misread that as:

"[Insert your favorite Bush to blame for this here]"

oops.

Re:Well, duh.

[FatRatBastard]

I live in CA, which should stand as a dire warning to the rest of the country: They limit their property taxes, their schools go underfunded...

Bullshit. There's a lot wrong with California public education, but underfunding isn't one of them. California public schools spent $9,267.00 per student for the education of its kindergarten through high school. That's a LOT of money per kid (you can send your kid to a top flight private school for about half), and most of it is pissed away by the bureaucracy. You don't cure a shopaholic by giving them more money, and you don't solve the education funding "problem" by giving them more money either.

Re:Well, duh.

[leviramsey]

Those societal things are often why the various Asian nations tend not to make advances in science, medicine, and technology, though they may be the ones who best capitalize on it. Innovation, by definition, requires challenging the old order, the hierarchy. Confucian-type values make it very difficult to take this first step.

How many major, reasonably innovative (ie not a clone of Outlook) pieces of computer software (to take an example) are currently or were designed by an Asian (not an Asian American)? I can't think of one off the top of my head. Now how many are being coded by Asians (using design directives from non-Asians)?

This may sound horribly racist, but that is not the intent. If anything, it's pointing out a tension that exists between Confucianism and innovation. The fact that many persons "of Asian extraction" but who grew up in the West are great innovators indicates that it is not an issue of brain capacity; it is an issue of culturally-influenced psychology.

Re:Well, duh.

[jazman_777]

What you're actually seeing is yet another example of my parents' generation (the boomers) once again thoughtlessly gorging themselves at the expense of their children.

The wealthiest segment of our population is the retired folk. And they are always whining for more.

And the children of the boomers are bad, too. Ever heard of a "starter house" and moving up to bigger houses slowly? Not any more, you don't. Today, you buy that 5000 sq ft house that has more bathrooms than bedrooms, and that's the first house!

Re:Well, duh.

[captain_craptacular]

I agree. People always point to the Japanese and talk about how they always have gadgets there before we do here. Thats not really true. The Japanese don't invent anything, they take our ideas/inventions and perfect them. They may adopt new technologies faster, but theres a good bet those technologies originated in the US (if not in the US then elsewhere in the western world).

Re:Well, duh.

[bcboy]

Hm. Well, all of your facts are wrong.

http://www.stateline.org/header_facts.do?headerI d= 52

You can't get remotely close to a top flight private school for half of what California spends. You can, however, send them to a fundamentalist workbook "school", where their faith won't be troubled by learning about biology or geology or physics.

Re:Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

public schools spent $9,267.00 per student for the education of its kindergarten through high school. That's a LOT of money per kid

A few points. First, a large percentage of the students arn't reported in some districts (mostly minority). Second, along the same lines of universal service, public schools pay for transportation (private schools do not). Third, public schools bear the brunt of your "problem children" as special ed is quite a large chunk (and burden) that private schools duck out on. Fourth, Private schools are often resting on foundations or recive alternative funding through gifts since these schools push one more more beliefs; when private schools build a gym they raise money from the community via tax deductable donations, public schools raise bonds. Fifth, public schools have strict educational guidelines have restricted set of teachers they can hire, this leads to higher chosts (plus the fact that hiring a techer for not-so-bright people costs more). Sixth, public schools provide books to students, for private schools this isn't usually true. Seventh, the facility for public schools is often used for lots of other purposes, voting, community events, lots of non-profit group usage (and often even private school usage -- for free).

So the bottom line is that even at 1,000 or 2,000 more per student is cheap considering all of the *EXTRA* items that a truly universal public education system must handle. All of these things ADD UP QUICKLY. It is you who are being dis-ingenuios by throwing up this sort of comparision to "private" alternatives.

Re:Well, duh.

[jonbrewer]

California public schools spent $9,267.00 per student for the education of its kindergarten through high school. That's a LOT of money per kid (you can send your kid to a top flight private school for about half)

Half? Like $4600/year? In a church-funded private school, maybe. In a "top-flight private school," no, I don't think so.

A "top-flight private school" will have classes of 20 students each with a reasonably well-paid teacher. Such teachers command incomes of $60k/year. (By the way, that's the average [mean] salary for a public school teacher in the city of Boston, where I live) Benefits per teacher raise expenditures another $30k/year.

Suddenly you've just spent $4500 a year just to pay for the teachers. Now buy/rent/maintain a building, get some administrative staff, a nurse, a principal, buy some books ($300/student/year minimum), some computers, and while you're at it, someone to maintain the computers.

I think $9200/year per student is cheap. I certainly wouldn't send my child to a school that spent any less. And if that means I have to pay high property taxes to support education, it's fine by me. The better educated our children are, the less we'll spend on social services for them in the future.

Re:Well, duh.

[dzym]

You missed one very important point.

As soon as the brains are imported from India or China or whereever ... they're American.

Re:Well, duh.

[FatRatBastard]

Hm. Well, all of your facts are wrong.

Well then take it up with the California Dept. of Finance since it's they numbers they're reporting.

As for the "Top Flight" that was a tad snarky, just as snarky as a matter of fact as your assertion that all but the top private schools are nothing but Christian madrases. You can get a damn good private education for half the price, and not just one where your kids' "faith won't be troubled by learning about biology or geology or physics."

Re:Well, duh.

[stefanlasiewski]

California public schools spent $9,267.00 per student for the education of its kindergarten through high school.

Double bullshit. Where did you get that number? Care to provide a credible link?

According to Education Week, California spent an Average of $5,603 per pupil: 49th lowest average out of 50 states (Highest: NJ at $9,362, lowest Arizona at $5,006), and our students were the had some of the lowest scores in the nation.

Low funding == bad education.

Re:Well, duh.

[Arandir]

What you say? Raise taxes for great justice!

Seriously, property tax revenues relate directly to the state population, and thus to the school funding needs. If the schools don't have enough to replace broken windows, then eliminate the waste instead of trying to shake down the renters for more every two years.

Re:Well, duh.

[st. augustine]

California public schools spent $9,267.00 per student for the education of its kindergarten through high school. That's a LOT of money per kid (you can send your kid to a top flight private school for about half), and most of it is pissed away by the bureaucracy.

You're not taking into account the fact that private schools' actual costs are generally about twice their tuition. The rest is made up by charitable donations and foundation investments.

Re:Well, duh.

[FatRatBastard]

Taken from the 2002-03 Governor's Budget Summary (first paragraph):

Ensuring that the 6.1 million pupils enrolled in California's public schools receive a high quality education and are provided the tools to meet California's world-class standards, education remains this Administration's highest priority. Despite the fiscal challenge facing California, the 2002-03 Budget fully funds statutory growth and cost-of-living adjustments for K-12 programs. As indicated in Figure K12-1, approximately $53.9 billion will be devoted to California's 988 school districts and 58 county offices of education, resulting in estimated total per-pupil expenditures from all sources of $9,145 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $9,236 in fiscal year 2002-03.

Ooops.. off by about $130, but still a hell of a lot higher than the number you quoted.

Re:Well, duh.

[sbeitzel]

You're missing the best part about the California system. Now, it's true that what Proposition 13 did was make it so that the state can't reappraise the property until it is sold or improved (I'm fuzzy on this, but essentially it means that if you build a new room onto the back of your house, they can reappraise, but if you just knock out a wall in between kitchen and dining room, they can't), so this means that long-term property holders get the tax burden shifted away from them and onto new owners.

The brilliant part is that although this was sold to the electorate as protecting granny in her old house, the "people" it really protects are the business landlords. Most companies don't own their buildings, they lease them long term. So when a business relocates, the owner of the space hasn't changed and the property doesn't get reappraised. Does this rock or what?

This means that the business that's giving people two communities over jobs ('cause the people can't afford to live across the street from the office) isn't paying property taxes (via increased rent to the landlord) to the community whose infrastructure (roads, electrical & phone grid, sewers, water, etc.) it's impacting. Or at least, the taxes it is paying are adjusted to property values as of 30 years ago and not current values.

Some places responded to this with payroll taxes, but that's an even thornier issue than property taxes. What should happen is that the people who benefit from the infrastructure should pay to support it. But what is happening is that the people who pay for the infrastructure are mostly people who haven't yet had the opportunity to derive maximal benefit from it, while the long-term benefits are going to people who haven't been paying their fair share.

Re:Well, duh.

[Raiford]

Although the schools may not be underfunded on paper, the educational infrastructure of the state surely looks underfunded. The public school system here in Sacramento is in shambles. The physical plant of most schools are in decay and in sore need of repair. Overcrowding is a big problem. All this and I understand it is far worse in L.A. County. I don't know exactly what the problem is here but there is a really big one that is producing an undereducated generation.

Re:Well, duh.

[invenustus]

I've always thought a good solution to the problem you describe would be (at the local level) making school attendance optional. My parents would still have kicked my lazy butt down the street to school every day if they weren't required to by law. If kids with parents like mine were the only kids in schools, it would be a lot easier for teachers to teach and for students to learn. Just my $0.02.

Re:Well, duh.

[El_Nofx]

Exactly. Just last week either /. or CNN had an article saying that the EU was going to take steps to stop the brain drain. Look at how many foreigners come to the US for grad school. Once they get here, most stay here. They have kids and they become one of us, not Indian-Americans or Chinese-Americans, but Americans.

Re:Well, duh.

[z4ce]

This is all state level stuff right? So this doesn't even include city and county taxes that go to schools?

That's a lot of money per student!

Re:Well, duh.

[Arandir]

I think you missed my point entirely. Property taxes, when used wisely, are sufficient for funding programs whose costs are dependent upon population (schools, fire, etc). Property tax revenues increase proportional to the increase in population.

Re:Well, duh.

[grmoc]

That is when you sell you now $500,000 house and move into a nice house elsewhere, or a nice apartment elsewhere.

Why is it more fair to charge people who've already been there less than the people actually doing work?

They are getting a benefit from living ina place where property value rises- that is, they can sell and make liquid the property, thus reaping the profit.

The whole -point- of property taxes is to affect these turnovers. Raising revenue for the society is a bonus effect, and shouldn't be viewed as the purpose.

Re:Well, duh.

[grmoc]

Furthermore, it has the effect of reducing the society's energy efficiency, and all sorts of other negative things-
There is a disencentive to renovate- You get to pay more taxes!
There is a disencentive to sell- Why? Its an incredibly safe investment, and the taxation rate is absurdly low.

Combine these two factors, and you get a lot of renters living in shitty apartments/homes that will practically never be renovated.

One of the interesting effects of this policy is that many of the smart-but-not-incredibly-lucky people here move away after a few years.

Re:Well, duh.

[ErikTheRed]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I was fortunate enough to spend most of my high school years (87-89) in a highly functional school district (Richardson, Texas). There were many cool things about this disctrict:

At the time, the district was an "Independant" one (as opposed to a "unified" one) - funded by local taxes, run by a locally elected school board that actually functioned like a board of directors for a corporation (with the citizens of the community being the shareholders).

They would hire business executives to run the district like a business and payed them damned well to do so (and these executives pretty much had the guns to their heads as far as performance was concerned).

Since there wasn't a teacher's union (Texas is a "right to work" state, which discourages unions), underperforming teachers could be given the boot in an expedicious manner. Not that they let anyone without a Master's degree teach there anyway. We even had a few PhD's on the faculty.

School bonds? No such thing. Finances were properly managed, and new schools and other capital improvements were paid for with cash on hand. New computers for the labs every two years. Same for the chemistry and physics departments. The arts departments were well-funded, etc. No money was wasted on interest payments, Wall Street bond salesmen, etc.

Cool classes: how many other public high schools let you take a class in Robotics?

Sadly, it all came to an end. The political-correctness police decided that all of the success that Richardson was having was horribly unfair to districts that didn't have as much money - not that Richardson was by any means a wealthy community - we're talking pretty-much middle class here. They were just willing to pay very high property taxes (~3% annualy, IIRC, just for the schools), and the local citizens had the power to make sure they got the results they were paying for. The community was highly involved, because their involvement actually made a difference. So anyway, after two years of lawsuits it was decided that you couldn't fund schools locally. When the schools became funded by the state, more and more control was ceded to the state beaurocrats over everything else. Honestly, I haven't been back since '89 and I haven't personally witnessed the current state of things, but from what I've heard from friends things have deteriorated significantly.

The moral of this story: Local control allows districts to rise to whatever level they want; state control will guarantee that no one does much better than anyone else (in other words, you get shit). The source of money always dictates who has control; so the money should be obtained as close to home as possible. I have no problem with the state sending funds to poor and / or sparsely populated areas, but the money should come with no strings other than those that make sure that it's not spent fraudulently. Teacher's unions are poison. By ensuring that bad teachers can't be fired and discouraging any standards for teaching quality, they do irreparable harm to students everywhere. They do more to hold down racial minorities and inner-city kids than the Klan or Skinheads ever dreamed of. They were started with good intentions, but they now operate with purely selfish motives - give the teachers more cash, and fuck the kids. I don't have a problem with teachers making a good wage, but they need to be held tightly accountable for their output.

Public schools can work, and they can even be excellent. You just have to provide the proper environment to allow them to flourish.

Excuse me while I whore for Karma

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Well, I was wondering what the Slashdot community at large thinks is wrong (or right) with the U.S. and technological innovation?"

Well, that's easy. Big business doesn't like innovation. They like the semblance (sp?) of innovation to encourage you to buy "new" things, but completely and truly new things cost money, take away from the bottom line, and transition periods are where big companies tend to get replaced. Thus, we have to fight for innovative products, no matter how useful they are, and we only get them because some company "goes rogue" - such as portable MP3 players.

The only innovation we get is innovative ways to protect the old guard - like copy protection that arguably erodes consumer rights (I say consumer in the global sense, being a non-USian so I can't really say my rights as a US citizen :).

What?? Read the article first!?

[MagikSlinger]

Give the article a read, and share your thoughts

But that violates the /. tradition of posting your thoughts and never reading the article! Heck, some members don't even think about what they're posting.

Innovation?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I think my firm is outsourcing this to a an "offshore," in Hyderabad...

We get better performance for the IT dollar this way.

Note to mods:
This is not a troll. It is satirical and possibly unfunny, as it reflects a sad ironic observation about technology funding. A "troll" in the classic, USENET sense, is hallmarked by its intention and context - not by its content. A "troll" is successfull, because it is a perfectly acceptable message designed to provoke unacceptable attention or responses.
Thanks for listening!

Re:Innovation?

[cbuskirk]

Quit making fun of Hyderabad!!!! I went to the Royal College of Magic there. We are not a party magic college.

One of the biggest problems

[Alethes]

I think one of the biggest problems that stifles innovation in the technology sector of the US, at least, is a distorted understanding of how patents should work.

School

[seanadams.com]

7) Encourage a mass culture that spits on intelligence and study and instead elevates drug use, coolness through sex and violence, and contempt for school.

This IMHO is the big one. I went to school in England until about age 12, and then came back to a private school in California. Overnight, I went from doing trig, chemistry, latin, greek, french, to gluing fucking popsicle sticks together. I kid you not, our schools are WAY behind the rest of the world.

If you're an American parent, PLEASE either ship your kids over to Europe, or home school them yourself. American society is way too fucked up to allow for anyone to get a decent education. You would not believe the social pressure - I remember it well, and I had to fight it tooth and nail in order to succeed.

Re:School

[IamTheRealMike]

trig, chemistry, latin, greek, french, to gluing fucking popsicle sticks together,

Wow. You must have gone to an old-skool school :) I'm proud to state that the school I went to is in the top 5% of all comprehensives - it's mixed, non selective and state run. We never did latin or greek, that's rather highbrow. We only learnt French because, well, we're right next door to them. Trig at age 12? Man, we didn't do that until we were 15 or 16 (gcses). I dunno how Brit schooling compares to American, but you're experience seems to have been a lot better than normal.

Oh, and for any Yanks wondering - such articles are regularly published in UK media too, and all the parents stress about lack of quality schooling and how India will kick our ass etc. I think it's a western thing, rather than American.

Re:School

[Knara]

When I was having thanksgiving dinner with my extended family, the wife of one of my cousins was complaining about her kid's schooling. In the same breath she complained about how the schooling was inadequate, and how they give the kids too much homework.

How could this be, I wondered. I added that from my experience (and the experience related by my friends who did not go to a private school like I did), kids needed *more* homework, not less.

Her reply? "Just wait until you have kids, and have to spend your time helping them with their homework."

And there, my friends, is why our educational system is in the crapper.

Re:School

[Malc]

American schools were recently ranked 18th in the world.

Re:School

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with schools all the time, and I can tell you the problem with education in the United States is not teachers. It's not even the politicians. It's the general population which seems to be schizophrenic about public education. There are referendums on school vouchers popping up all over the place. That means people are bailing out on public ed. We have to decide whether we want public schools or not and act accordingly.

As far as marketeers, lawyers, etc., those are the people who have always been successful in the United States. You can't claim that the captains of industry have been brilliant engineers or innovators. More often it seems they're simply people who are ruthless, unscrupulous, lucky, or some combination thereof.

I'm also a little tired of people bashing the education system without offering any constructive criticism. It's quite easy to scream about how bad the system is and stand silent when asked for potential solutions. In the States, we educate a more diverse and larger population than most people who claim to have better systems. There are individual states in the Union larger than entire EU nations. In fact, there are two or three districts in West Texas that are larger than sovereign European states. So don't tell me we're always comparing apples to apples.

In short, I think there's a lot of panic about a situation that would better be solved by reason and open discussion. Let's pay our teachers better, put administrative power over schools back at the local level, trim the bureaucratic fat at the state and federal levels, and demand more from our kids.

Forgive me...I've had way, way too much coffee.

Re:School

[Malc]

I've already posted a link to this ranking in another comment. Canada came forth - something to be proud of. I guess more liberal attitudes towards pot really don't affect children badly. I think it's more about what we expect from our children - if we set our expectation low then of course they won't achieve!

Re:School

[KludgeGrrl]

True, I don't think anyone can seriously believe that the public school system in the States is not in deep trouble. We've all heard about the %11 of US students who cannot find *the US* on a map... But this neo-conservative plan for the future would hardly solve the problem.

Apropos of education Stein writes:

"Allow schools to fall into useless decay. Do not teach civics or history except to describe America as a hopelessly fascistic, reactionary pit. Do not expect students to know the basics of mathematics, chemistry and physics. Working closely with the teachers' unions, make sure that you dumb down standards so that children who make the most minimal effort still get by with flying colors. Destroy the knowledge base on which all of mankind's scientific progress has been built by guaranteeing that such learning is confined to only a few, and spread ignorance and complacency among the many."

But later (#10 for all you following at home) he argues against what he perceives to be unfair and heavy taxation. So the US is supposed to improve schools without raising money to do so? At its most simple level, there are two basid problems.

1) Teachers get paid shit in the US. In NYC the average salery for public school teachers is just under $32,000/year (before taxes), which makes it impossible to feed and house oneself in the city (unless there are some other funds coming in, trust fund, spouse, etc). Likewise, a university professor (tenure track) at San Fransico State makes abut $40,000/yr -- in San Francisco! A janitor in a Columbus Ohio high school, on the other hand, makes about $50,000/yr. What does this tell you about the value in which teachers are held?

There are some great dedicated teachers out there, but I have taught more than one, kind well-meaning, and utterly incompetent student who planned to teach high school (and went on to do so). Yes many teachers suck (although I think almost all must be pretty selfless to put up with a very hard job). Look at what we pay them.

Yet Stein is also against those evil teacher unions. I hate to break the news, but most teacher unions are not fighting to lower standards, they are fighting for decent working conditions. Sometimes this involves lowering the bar because standards cannot be held in the conditions in which they work. Bringing us to pt. 2...

2) Given the lack of financial support for education in the US, many schools are falling apart and grossly overcrowded (10% are trying to function at %125 capacity) necesitating teaching in gyms, halls, etc... and creating enormous classes that are impossible for the most dedicated teacher to manage.

So even if we had better teachers, they would have an impossible job to do. So we end up with a nation of illiterates (44 million I think), who don't know anything about the world around them, not to even mention technology or science.

It is all very well to say "Hey we should do a better job teaching our kids," of course we should! But to do that we must spend money. Not that throwing money at the problem will make it go away, but it's a fundamental ingredient for meaningful change -- an ingrediant that the rest of Stein's articles run in the face of.

(sorry for the dangling participle)

Yes, I differ with Stein in a number of ways, we are clearly on different ends of the political spectrum, but I leave it to others to address his other "points to change" in an intelligent fashion. I'm ranted out for the moment ;)

Re:School

[Gropo]

I absolutely concur! I was raised in British and American international schools in Europe until the 4th grade, at which point we moved back to the 'States and I attended Public schools. They began to teach us French in 1st frickin' grade!

I recall my 3rd grade class play was a highly professional production with singing solos etc - I move back to the states and I'm the frickin' '3rd upper Molar on the right side' in some banal play about hygeine.

This country's public school system (shy the new 'charter' system) strikes me as Cro-Magnon survival skills in comparison...

Re:School

[elluzion]

I had a similar experience, though not to the degree of yours. I spent my first 11 years of school in DoD schools. My dad was in the army. I moved to a civilian school in the middle of the 11th grade and it was totally different.

My new Geometry class was still learning the basics (after a semester) whereas my first geometry class was already farther than the second would get all year. My new german class was still learning to count. The civilian school didn't even offer a civics class for me to transfer into. They had a single-semester class named "Government" that I slept through for an A. It was pretty shameful. My children will not go to public schools. Though I don't know how much better private schools are.

I could not believe the differences. I am glad I had the benefit of 10 and a half years in DoD schools.

Re:School

[jazman_777]

Her reply? "Just wait until you have kids, and have to spend your time helping them with their homework."

Tell you what, just wait until you have kids, and not only do they spend all day in school, you have to help them do their homework all evening so they can learn what they should have in eight hours at school. It's just easier to homeschool 'em.

Re:School

[TandyMasterControl]

I logged in to see if I had any mod points to give your post --unfortunately none as yet.

America can have the best schools in the world anytime we decide that's what we really want. It's all a matter of the value we place on education. We seem to have a surplus of cash: funding pointless or redundant weapons systems for example is something we do all the time (with an accumulated value to society at below zero. Will anything we learned building the B-1 bomber, an obsolete system before the first copy rolled out the hangar door, pay dividends to America over and above the tens of billions wasted on it? How about the more extravagant but possibly even more useless B2 bomber program @ $1.3 billion a copy, a weapon system even the Pentagon said we didn't need. Then there's Son of Star Wars, the pinnacle of Mankind's folly with a cost slated eventually to reach the Trillions. All weapons systems made conceptually obsolete by the low low tech cruise missile --both our own and those our enemies will design and deploy)

A country that has raked trillions of dollars into a pile and set fire to them knowing full well at the top of its decision making bodies the inanity of these purchases doesn't deserve to complain a second about its public education system when it has left it chronically underfunded.

These people who clamor for more and more war toys so their friends and future employers can get rich sucking the lifeblood of our civil society are a hundred times more of a threat to us and our way of life than Al-Quaeda or tinhorn dictators like Iraq's Hussein could ever hope to be.

Re:School

[silas_moeckel]

Hrm homework our salvation? Granted I finished my public education in the early 90's but more homework does not seem to be what they need. First off differnt students learn best in differnt ways some may ned the wrote repition that homework provides few should. The problem is the teachers time. Students need one on one time with teachers and good mentors TA's etc. First things first throw out wrote memorization it's trash forget it it dosent work it's msotly there because it's easy for most students and they can get that happy feel good of a good test score. If you can study for a test your not doing anything. My school had end of year surprise testing for some subjects and the reality is if they werent on a curve the vast majority of the students would fail. Now there was a section of us that did well on these and a lot of these students were not A test takers, why I can only guess because we learned it not memorized reguritated and purged the infomation.

Re:School

[Arandir]

I move back to the states and I'm the frickin' '3rd upper Molar on the right side' in some banal play about hygeine.

Which is why everyone is arguing that US schools need more funding. Do you know how much it costs to build a molar!

Re:School

[Fastball]

I agree up until the sixth grade.

I passionately hate math (ducking flames now). Any time I see an equation with coefficients and variables, I want to puke. I don't care about trains A and B: they'll get there when they get there. I might have understood Calculus better had my teachers spoken Old English instead. But I was and continue to be highly fluent in algebra, because my mother drilled me until I cried buckets.

I learned my multiplication tables in the second grade thanks to my mother's patience with a very loud, uncooperative brat, me. Our class would have a competition where a kid would stand up and go up and down the rows of desks and be challenged by each student. My teacher would hold up a card with a multiplication, e.g. 4x4, and the student who answered correctly first would continue down the row. My mother sat me down the night before and went over every multiplication from zero to twelve until I had it.

I mean burned in folks. The next day when the teacher held up the cards, I didn't see the multiplication, I saw the answer. 4x4 wasn't 4x4. It was 16. I was so quick that next day, I went around the classroom five times before my teacher asked me to sit down and give others a chance. I think he let me go on so long, because he couldn't believe it. I'll never forget that day. It was one of my proudest, most fulfilling days of my life. Mathematics of all things.

I graduated college with a B.A. in English. I write poetry chapbooks. Literature rocks my world. But I'm the guy that always adds up the scorecard correctly, tallies the stats, and runs the numbers for others.

Ironically, I was a terrible reader until the fifth grade. I never could put events in sequence correctly (remember?). But my fifth grade teacher, the best I ever had, never let up on me. He worked me, gave me a ton of things to read until I improved. I love to read so much now, I'm in dire need of bookshelves.

The point is, you have to drill kids when they're young. Parents and teachers alike. IMHO, you have until the sixth grade to educate a kid on the fundamentals: reading, writing, and arithmetic. After that, school is a social call. No high schooler cares more about metaphors or differentials than he does about his social standing. To this day, I don't remember what I studied let alone learned in the seventh and eighth grades, because I was too busy considering tits and cars.

We in the U.S. need two basic changes to our education system:

First, drill the absolute shit out of kids from first to sixth grades. Algebra, reading comprehension, and writing composition should be outstanding by the end of the sixth grade. If you think about adulthood, if you can add, subtract, multiply, divide, read, and write well, then you can take care of yourself. It all comes back to these fundamentals.

Second and just as important, completely reform high school and college curriculums to prepare people for jobs. I firmly believe that if you take two eighteen year old men and run one through a college curriculum and start the other in an apprenticeship or company, the kid outside of the college halls is going to be light years ahead of the collegian after his four years are gone. Colleges as institutions are more enterprising then educational, period. College curriculums are the combo value meals of understanding. I knew intimately that I could not hack it as an engineer or scientist due to my lack of interest/understanding of calculus. But I had to waste away for two semesters of calculus regardless. Same story with requirements completely irrelevant to my interests and strengths. Strip away these requirements and structure a series of classes that revolve around my interests and strengths, and I should have departed college no more than two years after starting.

I'll end with this important point. I'm afraid of the American job market and its limitations not on the sheer number of jobs but on what we Americans have to take up to earn a decent living. I am lucky enough to make some money writing in addition to my regular gig as a web programmer, but I would love to make a living in a skilled labor trade. Electrician, carpenter, etc. The way I see things--and my parents steered me this way for better or worse--you're gonna have to be a lawyer, manager, or doctor to get by in the years to come. Maybe I'm wrong. We manufacture almost nothing in the U.S. any more. Look around your apartment or house. MADE IN CHINA.

Our system of education is supposedly geared to turn out knowledgeable workers, but there's only so many of those jobs to go around, right? Not everybody can be a manager. I long for the day when the phrase reads, "The world needs CEOs too."

Re:School

[elmegil]

While I agree that we do not put a high enough priority on spending for education versus spending for other things, spending alone does not solve the problem. There has to be an agreed upon means to enforce accountability. I don't believe that such a system has been proposed, and I'm not sure how successful it would be if it were proposed; too many vested interests want to keep things pretty much the way they are.

There also has to be a real interest by parents. Not interest in "johnny getting good grades"--that leads to parents blaming teachers for their kid's lack of motivation--but interest in actual education. I just don't see it happening.

Re:School

[MightyTribble]

Damn straight.

I was one of the first years to do GCSE - we did trig at 12, too. But it got easier. I think the Business Studies GCSE was the first crack in the wall - that was like a free 'A' grade.

And now, well, let's just say ever since they found 'O' level questions on 'A' level papers, I refuse to believe that the record exam results are as a result of kids getting 'smarter' or working harder. Pre-degree qualifications in the UK are a joke now. But the US High School Diploma is funnier.

Re:School

[Zoop]

I'm also a little tired of people bashing the education system without offering any constructive criticism. It's quite easy to scream about how bad the system is and stand silent when asked for potential solutions.

I'm so freaking tired of this rap on education critics I could scream. We do offer solutions. Thousands of them. The problem is, we recognize that the problems aren't marginal; they're structural (structural is a big word meaning the system itself has problems, not one or two bad apples). This threatens those whose income is derived from the current system. In fact, most of them would make MORE money from any changes, but because it means something different, they freak.

So rather than accept that the system might need changing (vouchers are a way to incentivize change in public schools to make them better, c.f. the EU country Sweden, and "incentivize" is a big word that means "makes you want to get off your arse and do something"), apologists for the current system scream that oh, poor them, they're so beat up, and nobody will tell them how to make it right. Then in the same breath they will exclude all serious attempts at reform, exactly as you have done. You, sir or madam, are a part of the problem.

Your solution? More money. Wow. If only that had ever been tried anywhere. Oh, wait, it has. I notice you say nothing about reducing the non-teaching admin staff at schools themselves, only fat at the "federal" and "state" level. Er, great, but when a kid in North Carolina (bigger than many European countries, since that seems to impress you in a complete non-sequitur, non-sequitur being a Latin word meaning "it doesn't follow, and so you haven't proved anything"). I notice you knee-jerk-ly defend the competence levels of teachers, which study after study has found to be seriouslly wanting, and you don't mention any reforms of the teaching colleges themselves, who spend hours per week on "pedagogy" and usually one to two hours per week on substantive matters--at a lesser level than undergraduates in the same subject matter. But noooo, we can't criticize teachers or the system that makes them.

So what you mean to say is that there are no reforms that you will accept coming from those who criticize American education, not that we don't have any. It's just that "reform" to you means "more money and no accountability", and we've tried that shit and it steadfastly refuses to float.

If the EU member Sweden can do something different, what do you have to lose? Oh yeah, you work "with" teachers, so probably there won't be much demand for you in a system that rewards actual educational results, not simply big budgets. And yes, I worked at a teacher's union so I know that's what it's about.

Re:School

[Mac Degger]

Don't underestimate the power of memorisation. While of course you need to be able to operate on the facts to do things, you do operate on facts. Knowing them instead of having to look them up is quite a timesaver, leading to increased efficiency. Not only that, but knowing a lot also leads to being able to put seemingly unrelated bits of data together, which is one basis for invention.

A good mix of thinking and knowing is crucial to get a good education.

Re:School

[Mac Degger]

Can't agree: the EU has as many inhabitants as the US, with at least as much ethnic diversity, yet I'd still say the EU has better overal schooling than the US.

Re:School

[Mac Degger]

About funding: what about reallocating some of that defence budget which is gobbling about 50% of the total budget?

Re:School

[nathanm]

About funding: what about reallocating some of that defence budget which is gobbling about 50% of the total budget?

What??? Defense spending is under 20% of the US federal budget. Here's a good website that explains the whole federal budget, and for the illiterate, and easy to understand pie chart. Those are for the FY 2001 budget, which is a couple years old, so the current budget is also available (as Excel spreadsheet files).

Re:School

[Malcontent]

Do you know if the CIA, FBI and the rest of the spooks are under the defense slice? How about the newly created homeland defense dept. I think they should all be lumped under the defense portion of the budget.

Re:School

[argStyopa]

Bah, this is the agitprop pumped by teachers' unions since day one. SPEND MORE MONEY AND WE PROMISE TO GET BETTER RESULTS. Oh wait, they don't promise anything...since they'll be back the next budget, begging for more cash.

In Minnesota, state funding varies WIDELY by district, from some that get less than $6000 per student to some (mainly inner-city, big schools) over $11,000 per student.

Let's take the lower side of average of this: $8000 per student.

Classroom: 25 students (better than most) = $200,000 per year from the state.
Let's take a highly skilled general ed teacher, who can cover basics in the sciences, english, social studies, history, etc. Pay him/her a GOOD salary - $75,000 per year. $125,000 left.
Classroom - 30 x 30 office space, renting in the Minneapolis area at $8.50 per sqft = 7650 per year. Let's triple this to cover visits to swimming pools, gym time, etc for this class of 30. Round it to $25,000 per year. $100,000 left.
Lets say also that you are serially raped on textbook prices (as usual - why doesn't the justice dept investigate THAT???) and drop $500 per student on books (general books, remember).
$85,000 left. You have to get the kids to class - $15,000 ($500 per student, as an example of 'astonishingly high' busing costs in Maryland, pulled from the web).
$70,000 remains in the kitty. (And you're feeding the kids breakfast AND lunch, since according to a USDA study by OANE of FNS food programs states "The combined Federal subsidy for free lunches and breakfast covers the cost of producing these meals.")

For what does this remaining money get spent? By and large its lost in FRICTION and WASTE in the school systems, who then toddle out to their communities crying for bonding bills to pay their budgets or 'football will get cut'.

And schools (teachers, unions, adminstrators...) wonder why the public views it all as a big shill game?

Re:School

[nathanm]

Do you know if the CIA, FBI and the rest of the spooks are under the defense slice?

The FBI is funded under the DOJ.

The CIA is funded partly overt, and partly secret, spread out under various entities on the budget.

The rest of the spooks are already mostly under DOD, but several federal agencies outside of DOD have their own intelligence functions.

This site has a good summary of who makes up the US intelligence community.

How about the newly created homeland defense dept. I think they should all be lumped under the defense portion of the budget.

As far as Homeland Security goes, I'm not sure where this will fall for budgetary purposes. Since it's mostly an amalgamation of several agencies from different departments, I suppose it'll get its own category, and reduce the share of the other depts.

Regardless, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and service to the national debt together will still dwarf all combined defense spending.

Re:School

[nathanh]

Trig at age 12? Man, we didn't do that until we were 15 or 16 (gcses). I dunno how Brit schooling compares to American, but you're experience seems to have been a lot better than normal.

I went to an Australian public school and we did trigonometry when I was 12 (year 8). We had covered the basics of matrices and calculus before I finished high school. All students were expected to achieve this level. Admittedly this was more than a decade ago. I have heard the standards have slipped since then.

Re:School

[grmoc]

Absolutely.
I failed Latin in high-school because I felt that the homework was busy-work (it was), and it wasn't necessary for learning the material.

I did -very well- on the exam, but failed the class since homework counted more than the knowledge you walked away with.

This is one thing I found different between the schools I've attented in the U.S. and the school in Europe I attended-

In Europe, it was all leading up to the test, and how you measured up was how you scored on the test.

In the U.S. the quantity of work you are willing to endure seems to be more important that your knowledge of the subject(s).

Re:School

[grmoc]

I (as well it seems) hand, have a heck of a time with memorization of facts, figures and formulas. While patterns come easy to me, dates, names, etc, are nearly impossible.

This means that I can do very very poorly in a math class where they don't allow me to write down reference material, and very very well when they do.

I can see how memorization is important, however it also seems that in many cases it is stressed as being more important than the learning of the patterns. This is (unfortunately) understandable-- It is easy to test memorization and more difficult to test comprehension of patterns!

Re:School

[grmoc]

Absolutely. I agree 100%.

I became disenchanted in school at about 6th grade because I realized that homework was (at least in the context of learning), completely irrelevant.

As a result, I had high standardized test scores, and abysmal grades.

I believe it is a pacing problem- You aren't rewarded with an accelerated (or perhaps a more rich/varied) learning experience, instead, you are forced to conform with those who are not up to the task.

The base result: Boredom, frustration, anger.

I remember getting detention in class on day in middle-school for reading (a novel) in class. Mind you, this was a class in which I had never achieved less than a 95% on a test.

Wouldn't you know it, detention was for a different sort of person- We were allowed to sit and stare, or to read a book, or do homework while in detention. I finished my novel.

In short, (again) I agree with you 100%

Re:School

[Dusabre]

Trig at 12?

After moving from the UK, i.e. greek/latin/french/russian/trig - good public school (US readers - means private school), I found myself with Eastern European kids doing calculus at 13. CALCULUS. Got a good education even though the only maths I use deal with probability and geometry. Seems the farther east you go from the US, the more hard-core and tougher primary and secondary schooling gets.

Re:School

[MrResistor]

You're not that abnormal. My experience was exactly the same, and I have quite a few friends with similar experiences.

I aced every test in every subject, but only on a few rare occasions did my GPA break 3.0. My sister was my polar opposite, completing every bit of work assigned to her. She graduated with something over 4.0, one of about 15 in her class of 500+ to do so.

Of course 10 years later I can still remember, for example, my Trig identities. She can't, and it's only been 7 years for her. Which of us actually learned something?

Re:School

[sjames]

Homework requiring a great deal of parental help and a quality education are not inextricably tied. If the students truly LEARNED the skills needed to accomplish the homework, there would be little need for help. The rest would be reading in preparation for the next day's lessons. If the text is clear and followup in class certain, this shouldn't be a problem.

As someone who often teaches informally, I have found that in many cases the 'educational' fad of the day has interfered with basic education. A good example is the so-called 'new math' that my generation encountered in U.S. schools.

New math mostly consisted of a highly stylized form of addition and subtraction where the digits of the operands were broken out and operated on seperatly. As it turns out, the form was taught, but not the meaning of the form. The result was that no understanding was gained AND parents were confronted with odd 'form arithmatic' that they naturally didn't understand (as it had little to do with anything).

The form rapidly became all important while the substance suffered.

At the same time, the schools are often sloppy. A good example is that elementary school arithmatic is improperly called math by EVERYONE. For that matter, the term school is sloppy. Of course, they really don't deserve the term 'school of thought' since they never teach any skills of thinking. Many subjects (most of all history) become a matter of memorizing a list of half truths rather than understanding. Controversy is avoided at all costs. The primary cost seems to be understanding.

Part of the problem seems to be that nobody in the school has any love of the subject matter. I look back at english lit. for example. We read edited and expurgated 'Readers Digest' versions of classic literature. Archaic words and useage were modernized! Great commentary on civilization was reduced to 'and then what happened?'.

They insisted that it be read aloud, in turns, in class. Many of the students (even in the 'advanced' class) read in a staccato monotone. IMHO, ANYTHING will be boring when read that way day after day. Any chance of seeing the beauty or deeper meaning of the prose was lost.

Having done that, they then wondered why the kids didn't appreciate great literature! Perhaps if they had actually read or heard any, they might have appreciated it. Instead, they took the poor substitute to be the real thing and wrote it off as hopelessly boring

All of this has been going on long enough now to be a generational problem. Unless the parents somehow overcame their own public education (either through independant study or higher education) they are hardly in a position to help their children become well educated.

Re:School

[sjames]

The thing is, memory works by association. A memorized list of dry facts will fade in short order. A set of facts within a framework of understanding will tend to stay with you a lot longer. Where understanding is put to practical use, the rote memorization will happen naturally with little special effort.

The problem isn't the rote memorization per se. The problem is 'education' that consists entirely of rote memorization. The problem is made worse when the only presented goal is to do well on a test at the end of the chapter. That is what brings out the memorize, test and purge cycle.

Well, he seems largely correct...

[perry]

Ben Stein's comments seem to be reasonably accurate, if you read them. We do indeed live in a country with a crippled education system, general contempt for intellectual activity among the bulk of the population, etc. I don't agree with absolutely everything he said, but overall, it is hard to argue.

All the foul language and no-nothing replies I've seen here in response to his article are evidence for his contentions, by the way.

Re:Well, he seems largely correct...

[GMontag]

Finally, a clueful post that I can agree with.

I heard his comments refrenced on one of the political shows this weekend. He is right on the money in his general criticism of what is going on in the US right now with overbearing courts and bad school systems ruining several generations at one swipe.

As for a different poster's comment that it is just Right Wing propoganda, or some such, and it is just missing "Christianity in schools" invective that people cluless of Right Wing ideology seem to shoot:
1)the "Right Wing", as in true Conservatives, embraces freedom of choice, especially in religon
2)Ben Stein is not Christian

Re:Well, he seems largely correct...

[Spazholio]

All the foul language and no-nothing replies I've seen here in response to his article are evidence for his contentions, by the way.

And the delicious irony of it all is that the phrase is "know-nothing". Yes, I'm pedantic. =)

Bad economy may cause more innovating?

[dagg]

Could the current "bad" economy actually encourage more people to innovate? People hurt by the current economy will have to do one (or maybe two) of these things:

1. Work at McDonalds.
2. Become a car salesman.
3. Do nothing until the economy comes back (if they actually saved money while they could).
4. Innovate something new and get the economy moving again.

I hope that the smart downtrodden will choose #4. And I hope that a few of those people will succeed.

Too late

[FreeLinux]

technological innovation is a big outward sign of a successful economy. Sometimes it appears like the U.S. is losing its edge in technology.

America lost it to the Japanese several years ago. America is actually showing signs of catching up again.

6a.

[RalphTWaP]

Blockquoth the poster evermore:

6) While you're at it, discourage respect for law in every possible way. This will dissolve the glue that holds the nation together, and dissuade any long-term thinking. Societies in which the law can be clearly seen to apply to some and not to others are doomed to decay, in terms of innovation and everything else.

And now for an addendum

6a. Specifically construct laws so riddled with inaccuracy of purpose, incomprehensibility of intent, impossibility of execution, immorality of effect, and plain lack of common sense, that everyone is criminalized equally, and proven innocent $ub$antially due to their per$onal $olvency. Particularly good results may be achieved if the laws in question are ignored as technicalities by the traditionally moral masses.

inspiration for this post, and the poster believes the original article, was gained largely through understanding the logical basis of the works of Ayn Rand, all credit as it is due

Current state of antitrust legislation

[BWJones]

Well, to start with, we can include the current state of anti-trust legislation in, for example, the Microsoft anti-trust case and the access that enough money has in determining legislation and legal opinion.

In yet another example of questionable practices in our legal system, the Washington Post is reporting that given the states budget crisis, Microsoft would not only fight any appeal the states chose to make in the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit, but the company would also contest any legal costs states might be able to recover from litigation. However, if those states and the District of Columbia were not to appeal, Microsoft would be happy to cover the legal expenses and provide an extra amount of money to "help enforce the settlement deal".

I would argue that this continues the stranglehold that Microsoft has on innovation. What does this say about our legal system and technological innovation? Perhaps another question from this would be: How does one distinguish between appropriate settlement money and outright bribes?

Re:Current state of antitrust legislation

[geekee]

I think Ben Stein might be arguing against prosecuting MS, in his diatribe against suing everybody else rather than taking personal responsibility. Look at whos started the antitrust lawsuits. Not consumers, but companies like Netscape and Sun, which are looking for govt. protection because they can't compete in a free market.

Religion

[1stflight]

Ever notice how much our technological edge gets dulled by the fear and power of the religous right? No cloning, stem cell research, animal organ transplant research, all because, "it goes against God's will." To which I say if God had wanted us to be illiterate, cave dwelling, dying at 30 idiots, then we'd all still have fur, and the skyscrapper would be a foriegn as the airplane. Religion has dulled America's edge and will continue to do so, so long as we fail to stop using it for a crutch.

Re:Religion

[1stflight]

Actually we have this rule called, "Separation of Church and State". Makes for the best of both worlds when applied. As for what happens when you don't follow it, anyone recall the "Dark Ages" when mankind expereinced 300 years of 0 innovation!

Re:Religion

[rabidcow]

You identify the problem as "the religious right" and then claim that it is "religion." These are not the same thing.

This is like saying that there's an increase of violece due to insane video game players who are out of touch with reality, so video games are obviously to blame.

Religion ... a crutch.

I counter your insightful argument with "athiests are a bunch of poop-throwing monkeys."

w00t! 10 points!

Re:Religion

[TFloore]

You're looking for this quote, though you might not realize it...

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei

Nothing new under the sun... The jokes on the internet are old, and so are the problems...

A Better Question...

[LordYUK]

How do we win his money??

Re:A Better Question...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Speaking from experience -- and yes, I did win his money, just not all of it -- you have to be damned smart. You also have to be able to take some ribbing and give it right back. Humorless people need not apply.

Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Doktor Memory]

9) Develop a suicidal immigration policy that keeps out educated, hardworking men and women from friendly nations and, instead, takes in vast numbers of angry, uneducated immigrants from nations that hate us.

Uh huh.

Whatever you might happen to think about our current immigration policy (I don't like it much myself), there's no getting around the fact that this is hyperbolic bullshit. The vast majority of illegal aliens in the US are migrant workers from Mexico. (Following Mexico are El Salvador, Guatamala and Canada. You have to go all the way down to #17 before you find a country with any substantial terrorist activity: our "ally" Pakistan.) Say what you will about Mexico, but it is not exactly a hotbed of anti-American radicalism.

The rest of this article is exactly the sort of mixture of over-stressed common sense and batshit insanity that I would expect from a former Nixon toady.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Doktor Memory]

The books, written in Spanish and including all academic subjects, teach that America "stole" the southwest from Mexico

I suppose it would be unsporting to point out that this is, technically, true?

Anyway, call me weird, but I'm just not that worried about the Mexican army storming into San Antonio, hell-bent on reclaiming Aztlan any time soon.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Doktor Memory]

They aren't? That's going to come as a huge surprise to the Germans...

Oh, they're only stealing if you lose. I get it now...

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[namespan]

there's no getting around the fact that this is hyperbolic bullshit.

Very true. Well... most of it is, anyway. I think there's a few points where he does hit the truth, and that's the sad part. Since he's talking like a right wing talk radio pinhead, the only people who are really going to listen are the folks who would have said exactly the same thing anyway, given the chance.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Doktor Memory]

Mexico doesn't qualify?

Not even close. Whatever grudges the average Mexican might (legitimately, IMHO) harbor over the loss of Texas, the country has been a staunch and consistant ally for longer than you or I have been alive.

Nationalism is a constant, and it's normal to be a bit suspicious of your immediate neighbors: just ask the Germans about the French, or the Canadians about us. The fact remains: as a source of anti-American rhetoric (never mind actual action), Mexico doesn't even come close to Cuba, to say nothing of Pakistan, Iran or China.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Chris Y Taylor]

"Say what you will about Mexico, but it is not exactly a hotbed of anti-American radicalism."

http://aztlan.net/

http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/I mm igration/Reconquista/

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[bigpat]

No where did it say that terrorism was the way we should measure whether a country's population "hates" us. Besides, Don't Mexicans hate us or at least resent the US a bit? Doesn't anyone remember the Mexican American War? I think that the Mexicans do.

Come on, if Britain were in an economic, military and socially superior position to the US, then I think Americans would remember that they burned down the Whitehouse a bit more biterly. Well, the important part of this is that the US is no longer the land of opportunity (plentiful land and natural resources) that it once was and immigration policies should reflect that.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[StevenMaurer]

When I was dating my wife (who is Mexican), we were on a particularly beautiful vista overlooking the Bay Area in lights, and she mentioned this.

Her: All this used to be ours

Me: So you really want California run by the PRI?

Her: Eeerg.

Believe me when I say that Mexicans don't really covet the U.S. Hell, they'd be glad if they could just have a honest to goodness government running Mexico.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[DAldredge]

You are correct. Those with the most power get to make the rules. You may not like it, but that is the way it is.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Doktor Memory]

I don't think it was his intent to single out any particular group, but other people try to single out a group, claim that this is who he was refering to, and use it as proof that he either has his facts wrong, or that he is a bigot.

And thus, the argument departs directly for fantasy-land, all aboard, no stops.

Back here on planet earth, spaceman, immigration is a phenomenon involving actual people from actual countries. Countable people, from countries with readable, verifiable histories. So if you try to purport, in a national forum, that our immigration policy is letting in "hordes" of people who "hate us", it is damn well a relevant counterargument if it turns out that the vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal, are from countries that most certainly do not in any way systematically "hate us."

The fact that the only supporting argument that anyone in this thread can muster is paranoid idiocy about a Mexican "takeover" of the American southwest speaks volumes about the quality of the original proposition.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[stefanlasiewski]

The books, written in Spanish and including all academic subjects, teach that America "stole" the southwest from Mexico and that Mexico is entitled to take it back

Well, the first part is true, although "stole" is a term that is only used by the losers. Mexico occupied Texas & California, and some regions in between. There were wars between the US & Mexico, and the US won the territories from the war.

If Mexico won the wars, and took California and Texas back, you can bet that all US Textbooks would say "Mexico stole those territories".

As for the second part is speaking of Aztlan, which is the Legendary Birthplace of the Aztech & Mexican peoples. It's an ancient belief, and it's very similar to the American belief of manifest destiny, but it's not anything like Terrorism, and it doesn't make Mexico as one of the "nations that hate us" (It's exactly the opposite).

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Doktor Memory]

You don't think uneducated immigrants from Mexico hate us?

No, I don't.

Proof's in the pudding: they keep coming here to live, and they don't agitate for subversion, sabotage or armed insurrection in any substantial numbers. (On the rare occasions that they have, largely in CA in the 60s, it's been in the context of much wider unrest: Oscar Acosta and his henchmen vanished as a viable political force with the Black Panthers.)

They may well hate their jobs, the conditions that they work and live in, and the insane laws that keep them trapped in this situation. (All of these things are pretty justifiably hatable.) But I don't believe that they hate us in the way that the Iranians do, or the Bolsheviks did.

They only wanted our money, but didn't give a shit about our cultural and social ideas.

Perhaps this is because Mexico and the US are both Christian, semi-capitalist republics (of varying democratic quality in Mexico, god knows, but then again also here) founded by european conquerers of alternating brutality and idealism?

To put it in a less convoluted fashion: it's easy to not give a shit about the "cultural and social ideas" of your host country when they are in the broad strokes pretty similar to your own.

And besides: what are our cultural and social ideas if not making money? Sounds to me like they assimilated better than you did. :)

I suspect that what you're really aiming at here is that they weren't interested in learning our language. I concede the point, with the proviso that I Just Don't Care. At all. English will always be the language of government and commerce in this country, and no amount of immigration is ever likely to change that: if they don't learn it, their children will.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Doktor Memory]

No, you don't understand his premise: allowing anti-Americans into the US will contribute to the ruin of American Enterprise.

I understand the premise perfectly well. I also expect him to support the premise with actual facts. And the facts do not support the contention that we are allowing significant numbers of "anti-Americans" into the country at the expense of immigrants who share our values.

The great irony here is that large sections of "American Enterprise" (primarily farming and construction) would completely collapse without both our legal and illegal immigrant populations (especially the illegal ones), but that's a rant for another day.

Trying to type-cast me as someone who is not down to earth is consistent with you response to the article.

Correct. I believe both you and Mr. Stein are ignoring the facts in exactly the same way.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Daniel Phillips]

The vast majority of illegal aliens in the US are migrant workers from Mexico. Following Mexico are El Salvador, Guatamala and Canada.

Migrant workers from Canada? You must be joking. Perhaps you are thinking of retired Torontonians living in Florida, collectively known as "snowbirds".

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[BitHive]

When the revolution comes, I expect you'll be one of those standing in line to be up against the wall.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[DAldredge]

Why? I never said that I thought it was right. I said that it was a fact.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Kiwi]

Anyway, call me weird, but I'm just not that worried about the Mexican army storming into San Antonio, hell-bent on reclaiming Aztlan any time soon.

Exactly. The only way that Mexico's knowledge of how the United States stole their land has changed their foreign policy is that some Mexicans feel they have a right to cross the border without immigration restrictions.

And, no, it was not OK for us to take the land the way we did, anymore than it was OK for Iraq to take Kuwait they way they did ten years ago.

- Sam

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Kiwi]

I lived in México for four moths myself. I never saw anyone burn an American flag there. Never.

The strongest anti-American sentiment I saw was a sentiment that we caused September 11th by having a foreign policy which pissed off foreign countries. There is also a sentiment that the current adminstration is a bunch of war mongers.

There is no sentiment that America is the great Satan or the other kind of nonsense which is common in some middle eastern countries. In fact, Acapulco has a lot of large banners saying "God Bless America" when I was there a year ago.

I've frequently read one of the more radical newspapers, La Jornada; it is left-wing, but no more so than the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

- Sam

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Edmund Blackadder]

And where in the world would you find any data showing that the majority of LEGAL immigrants to the US are angry, uneducated and lazy (he never spelled out lazy but the negative implication is there). I know many immigrants and that is just not the case.

In fact immigrants usually work harder than Americans, for less money.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[commodoresloat]

You have the right to have the opinion that the US's forced annexation of Mexican land is just, but your opinion is a minority opinion, and one that is extremely disrespectful of both Mexican people and Chicanos on this side of the border. It is the equivalent of telling people on Slashdot that programmers who write GPL code are a bunch of losers who can't write code people would want to pay for.

That's a weak analogy, though it might appeal to some in the slashdot crowd. A more accurate one is that it is like telling Jews that it was perfectly just for the Nazis to steal Jewish property, businesses, homes, etc., and to sell lampshades and soaps made from the bodies of massacred Jews. After all, what was that other than "spoils of war"?

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[commodoresloat]

They have flag-burning sessions there pretty much everyday.

Can you provide even a shred of evidence to back up this garbage? I've been to Mexico several times. Never lived there but have spent some time there, not just the border towns but also Mexico City, Guymas, Puebla, some other places. Never once have seen an American flag torched. Never once even saw an anti-American demonstration. I did once see a man at a conference voice some anti-US government (not anti-American) sentiment based on US support of Mexico's war in Chiapas. He was an American. He was angrily attacked (verbally, not physically) by Mexicans in the audience who voiced support both for Mexico and for American support of Mexico. I don't pretend the incident was representative, but it certainly suggests there is more complexity to the average Mexican's opinion of America than your flag-burning comment suggests.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[commodoresloat]

one of their stated aims is to reconquer the SW USA

And they will. But not in the way you're talking about. Their stated aim, and the aim of many radical Mexicanos who preach "Aztlan" is to populate the land, become citizens, participate in the economic affairs of the communities they inhabit, and vote for leaders who represent the interests of those communities. Some of these people couch these goals in terms that are intentionally meant to inflame the xenophobes, but the fact is that most of these people are quite simply preaching Democracy & Capitalism 101. Some people, like our friend Ben Stein, are terrified that democratic social change means the destruction of America, but I believe that true patriots understand that it is the very definition of America. Instead of running in fear from overzealous lefty Xicanos waving Mexican flags and shouting about Aztlan, why not point out to them that the true power of this nation is the very fact that it can change to facilitate the interests of those who inhabit it?

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[commodoresloat]

No; illegal aliens from Canada, including "snowbirds." But believe it or not, all Canadians illegally in America are not just here to turn red on the beach and fail miserably at picking up girls in Miami.... there actually are many Canadians who come here illegally to work. They're not picking fruit though, and their skin is considered white, so they're not recognized as a migrant labor force by (US) Americans. There are also large numbers of illegal immigrants from Italy and England in the US. Again, they slip under the radar for reasons that boil down to race and class - they're white, and they aren't picking fruit.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

A more accurate one is that it is like telling Jews that it was perfectly just for the Nazis to steal Jewish property, businesses, homes, etc., and to sell lampshades and soaps made from the bodies of massacred Jews. After all, what was that other than "spoils of war"?

Well, even though there were limited experiments making soap from human fat, and at least one lamp shade survived the war, it's a stretch to claim that those items were mass produced and sold to the general public. Nizkor is a good source in these matters. (That the soap legend was widely believed during the war is another matter).

The reason that I pick these nits is that they're one of the inroads that the holocaust deniers have used to further their own agenda, i.e. setting up the straw man that "many people believed this, and it's wrong, so that must mean that everything else they're saying is wrong as well." The Nazi crimes don't really need any embelishment, the truth is both quite sufficient and necessary.

Not that I disagree in any way with your original point; "because we can" is only very seldom a morally justifiable defense.

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Chris Y Taylor]

"Also, the Americans of the time did not feel taking the Mexican land was just."

So, how did the Mexicans feel about having orignially taken the land from the Native Americans?

Re:Can I moderate Mr. Stein -1 Flamebait?

[Chris Y Taylor]

Sam,

No, they are not. They intermarried with the Native Americans, but Mexicans are a mixed heritage. At the time of the Mexican American war, I doubt there was much Native American blood in the ruling class and major landholders of Mexico.

Let's see...

[anonymousman77]

Export tech jobs, import people to do tech jobs.

If we look at the economics of the situation, there is no reason for anyone to become a programmer anymore.

There is only an incentive to become a pencil pushing manager or a lawyer.

I'm not trying to troll or to get flamed here. If you think about it, this is a huge reason why we have all these problems!

The obvious Slashdot-addendum

[kavau]

13) Encourage powerful, monopolistic companies to rest on their fat assets (pun intended) and squelch any competition by their sheer size and market domination. Allow them to stamp out any potential competitors before they become a real threat to the established company. This will discourage innovation and widespread use of better products.

This is rich

[Cheapoboy]

3) Create a culture that blames the other guy for everything and discourages any form of individual self-restraint or self-control this from the man who said mmorpg's should be illegal because his son was 'addicted' to them. cute.

Re:This is rich

[Cheapoboy]

Crap, I can't find my 'english to troll' decoder ring..can someone tell me what this message means?

Re:This is rich

[Washizu]

"the man who said mmorpg's should be illegal because his son was 'addicted' to them"

I never heard about this so I looked up some info on it:

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/news/sdetail1150 .h tml?story=1150&start=175

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/showtell/stor y/ 0,24330,3406487,00.html

http://www.etonline.com/television/a12770.htm

He claims his son was worse off because of playing Everquest, but I couldn't find a single statement saying he thought online games should be illegal. Does anyone know if he really said this?

Re:This is rich

[Washizu]

"He'd know, he's the kid's father."

I agree. I wanted to know if he wanted EQ banned from the land or just his house.

CA schools have money, they just waste it...

[aquarian]

The real problem with CA schools is bureaucratic inertia and waste. LA, for example, has approximately one administrator for each teacher on its payroll. And guess whose salary is higher?

Re:CA schools have money, they just waste it...

[thogard]

In 1981 the Ponca City school system had 8 staff working in the "adminstration building" doing district wide admin. They adminstered all of the schools (8 elementry, 2 jr high and one highschool) for a total of about 6000 students. Now they have 5700 students and have 24 people doing the work the 8 used to do. So in 20 years the admin cost per student has gone up about 6x (figure the admins now make twice what the teachers do).

I've seem stats that seem to show that the larger the school district, the higher the admin/student ratio is and there are no cost savings by having larger school districts as all it does is move the budget to the admin side of the ballance sheet.

Ponca City High shool has turned out more students that went on to get PHDs than a vast majority of schools in the US. Why is there a decent (by US standards) public school in rural Okiehoma? Its because the researchers that work for the oil company demanded their kids get a good science education. If the town doubled in size or 1/2 of the research scientist left, I suspect the the school would drop to the levels typical for the nearby area and quickly head towards the anti-darwinish teachings like in Kansas.

Well, let's see

[SweetAndSourJesus]

Sure, they have Sony, Matsushita, NEC, Toshiba, etc.*

We've got Intel, AMD, HP, IBM, Microsoft, and Apple.*

I think there's a lot more visible innovation going on in the United States. The average joe doesn't hear about the latest and greatest in commodity hardware, but they see commercials for the iMac or whatever every day.

I think it may just be a matter of preception.

*Obviously not all-inclusive lists, sorry if I left your favorite out.

Re:Well, let's see

[DAldredge]

Except for maybe AMD and Apple all the companies you listed are moving as much work as they can in Support/Design/Dev to India/China/Russia because the only have to pay $500 USD per month per worker.

Re:Well, let's see

[leviramsey]

Traditionally, what often happens is an American company devises a technology but it's a Japanese company that brings it to fruition, often improving the underlying technology to make it more ready for the market.

Re:Well, let's see

[ergo98]

It's foolish to think that any buiding in foreign lands somehow indicates the imminent demise of Western civilization (as people do classic, and as ignorant as always, linear extrapolation of trends). Firstly, if there are smart people in India, or China, or wherever, and if they represent a well education population with a stable society, then why can't they contribute in the world economy? I'd set up shop there too simply because it makes sense to have regional suppliers: The Asian area accounts for a hearty percentage of the Earth's population, so you probably should be ready to cater to them. Secondly once these shops move in a funny thing starts to happen: The wealth and wages of the people rise, they start buying the goods that they're buiding spreading the wealth, and it's a better economy for everyone. Already I've heard that a good Indian programmer costs about $22,000US/year: That's a far cry from the slave labour prices in the nasceant days of the Indian tech sector, and it makes it a lot more of a toss up if it's really worth it locating over there, but at the same time when it is it imbues the people with the wealth to turn around and buy those chips and switches and software.

Re:Well, let's see

[ergo98]

You think the administration and communications costs of running a division in India, for instance, are free? You are absolutely insane. I'm not talking about just the long distance (although that would add up), but the significant time spent on communications, naturally the increased data security costs, and losses due to communication gaps.

Once Indians get too pricey, the multinationals will move their operations and front groups to focus on poorer, more desperate people, all the while proclaiming to be "American" companies.

This is ridiculous. Desperate people who are computer programmers or engineers? That seems a little absurd. India is yielding gold on the fact that they have a first rate educational system and a motivated workforce: More power to them! The idea that this transplants anywhere that there are "Desperate" people is ridiculous.

Already, Russia and China are trying to edge out India in destroying American jobs.

You mean the American jobs making products that are used and consumed around the world? You see the economy as a zero sum game and that's unfortunately how a lot of people see it, and THAT will be the failing of America if it fails to see the potential.

This same sort of "they're stealing all our jobs!" BS comes out everytime that there is a economic slowdown...then there's a boom again and suddenly every employer is offering $100K, despite lots of desperate people in nowhere land.

Re:Well, let's see

[spanky555]

You think the administration and communications costs of running a division in India, for instance, are free?

Nope, YOU said that. I said that smaller companies can utilize front companies, meaning companies already existing and run by Indians, in India. I said larger companies have to incur the costs of moving, which implies a division. No, it's not free, but it's definitely cheaper any way you look at it. And all those nasty pollution and OSHA laws aren't in effect in some of these countries.

You see the economy as a zero sum game...

Well, actually, I don't. I also should have explained that I don't think Indians/Chinese/Russians are "stealing" our jobs, but multinationals utilize their efforts to destroy American jobs - no doubt.

America most definitely does not fail to "see the potential", that is if you are talking about the potential for globalism. Unfortunately, it's this very globalism that is creating so much anti-American sentiment. And yes, destroying American jobs.

As for a first-rate educational system...hmmm. What's India's illiteracy rate? 50, 60 percent? Yeah, top-notch.

That being said, yes, I commend India and the others' efforts at trying to better themselves, especially if they are creating their own competitive companies. But I *don't* see why American companies have to fall all over themselves to move jobs there, if only to boost profit margins for next few quarters or years. What can this mean for long-term innovation?

To think about the economy in only next quarter's earnings is terribly naive, in my opinion, and this obsession was not always the norm. I know it sounds so terribly old-fashioned, but a sense of gratitude to your country and the people who populate it doesn't necessarily preclude a company being profitable and maintaining growth...

Re:Well, let's see

[RalphSlate]

Well generally you don't hire the entire country when you set up shop. Of those who are educated the education system is first-rate, or so I've heard.

Interesting observation. India is apparently adept at using its economic resources by only educating the cream of the crop. That means that more money is available to the smartest people.

Here, in the US, education is more of a right. The education dollars have to educate everyone, not just the best and brightest. Hence, the best and brightest get less education.

Based on the theory that education spurs innovation, is it possible that the US is at a disadvantge because it chooses to "leave no child behind", compared to countries who are satisfied with 60% illiteracy, 80% poverty, but 20% who can beat the pants off anyone from the US?

Re:Well, let's see

[DEBEDb]

Already, Russia and China are trying to edge out India in destroying American jobs.

Already, America is trying to edge out
the rest of the countries in destroying
their jobs by their innovation, the lack
of which is bemoaned by the original post.

"Destroying" is a nice negative word that
will stir up emotions, but do they really
destroy in this way what is in some way
rightfully yours? I am doubtful.

Re:Well, let's see

[ergo98]

I think you meant for the company, but I personally think it's going to mean the end of the technology sector as a job option for U.S. citizens...

Firstly, pretend that it was: Do you think that "American" firms loyally staying at home would be the answer? In the world of free trade, such a exercise would be their DOOM as "foreign" companies came in and eat their soup. Having said that, I don't think this is happening whatsoever, and again it's classic linear extrapolation. In any case you are seeing it as zero-sum: Their gain is your loss. What about the billion+ consumers in India, just picking it as an example? What happens when they all get online and need software and computers and chips and support?

North America? I hope that doesn't mean Mexico. I lurk on VW newsgroups, and people claim that VWs made there (vs. Germany) are junk. Maybe Honda has a better track record, tho....

Indeed I have heard that Mexican car quality is horrendous, and Mexico is actually a great example of globilization self-stabilizing: When free trade first took off a tonne of companies ran down there to set up shop envisioning super cheap labour, but quickly came back with their tails between their leg when they found an uneducated, unmotivated workforce with a very low quality standard, and a corrupt and unstable government. They also found that the hourly wages of employees isn't quite as big of a deal when you have a horrendous power system, poor healthcare,etc.

In any case my Odyssey was made in Ontario, though other Odysseys are made in Louisiana I believe.
People have been preaching doom for Western society for DECADES, and apart from internal fluctuations I strangely haven't seen it come to fruition.

In no particular order...

[occam]

Microsoft (thanks to Bill Gates and cronies)

Software Patents (thanks to Bruce Lehman and lawyer cronies, formerly of USPTO)

Tail-wagging-dog Politics (i.e., Congress-people succumbing to copyright stakeholders special interest taxes on CD media, etc.)

Status Quo Mentality from top (e.g., RIAA, "safe" bet managers deploying MS) and bottom (e.g., job security minded grunts recommending MS).

-=-

A little more business integrity, legal industry integrity, congressional knowledge and integrity, and IT staff knowledge and integrity!

Of course, many (not necessarily US) efforts are countering some of these issues including Linux, other open source projects, and even the Mac OS X which seems poised to set a higher standard in home/small business/enterprise client computing.

Make it illegal to do something new or different.

[JohnA]

Seriously... our government has become more interested in preserving outdated business models rather than creating an environment that encourages innovation.

A quick visit to the Your Rights Online section of this very website shows how the legislative and judicial enviornment of the country is completely biased in the direction of existing monopolistic policies and companies.

If we want to encourage innovation, we need to remove the laws that treat each American individual as a suspect if they do anything outside a scientifically created generic American profile.

But what do I know, I'm just a open-source developer of cryptography solutions... :-)

Re:What?? Read the article first!?

[rmadmin]

You mean I'm not the only one on /. that reads the post, hits 'Read More', and tries to figure out what the article has in it by what other people reply with? I don't feel so alone now!

A few more statistics...

[Doktor Memory]

Oh wait, you think he was talking about legal immigration? He wasn't, but the arguement isn't any better then: according to the most recent statistics provided by the INS, the top five sources of naturalized citizens are:

1. Mexico
2. Germany
3. Phillipines
4. Italy
5. Canada

Not exactly Al Qaeda's hordes there.

Re:A few more statistics...

[mgblst]

Are you sure, those Canadians always looked kinda funny!

Re:A few more statistics...

[jmv]

That's because we're sooooo jaleous of Americans ;)

Re:A few more statistics...

[stefanlasiewski]

Yes, but the point is that the Phillipines aren't sending a bunch of "angry, uneducated immigrants from nations that hate us".

If they hated us they wouldn't keep coming here, and the Phillipine government wouldn't ask the US goverment for help when dealing with the Islamic seperatist elements.

I think I'd rather....

[Russ Nelson]

I think I'd rather import smart people than import stupid ones.
-russ

Sorry. You don't deserve karma.

[glrotate]

"Big business doesn't like innovation. They like the semblance (sp?) of innovation to encourage you to buy "new" things, but completely and truly new things cost money, take away from the bottom line, and transition periods are where big companies tend to get replaced."

IBM spent 5 billion dollars last year on R&D. Microsoft just announced a boost to 5.2 billion dollars for next year.

A company like Ford would do anything they could to develop a substantial innovation over GM and DB.

Big business is always looking for an edge just
like the next guy.

This has nothing to do with big business, it is about the leisure class gone amuck.

Re:Sorry. You don't deserve karma.

[puppetluva]

You said:

A company like Ford would do anything they could to develop a substantial innovation over GM and DB.

You meant to say:
A company like Ford would do anything they could to avoid having to develop a substantial innovation over GM and DB.

If maintaining the status-quo through legal and monopolistic means facing less risk than innovation (which it almost always is in mature industries), any fool could tell you that most companies would pay bribes (make donations to lobbying groups) to maintain the status quo.

Re:Sorry. You don't deserve karma.

[benzapp]

A company like Ford would do anything they could to develop a substantial innovation over GM and DB.

Do you really believe that??? After one hundred years of designing automobiles we can get little more than a slightly more efficient engine and airbags? Cars are perhaps the best example of how industries conspire to maintain the status quo. I highly doubt the average citizen of 1902 would honestly believe automobile engineering would have accomplished so little in a century.

To me, this seems like a blatant troll, but some moderators apparently do not agree.

What America Exceeds At

[unfortunateson]

Unfortunately for Neal Stephenson's forecasting record, it may no longer be fast pizza delivery (Domino's got sued (see Stein comment #3)), or software (lots of the kewl open source stuff is, indeed overseas -- can you say linux? [I can't pronounce it right no matter how many times I try -- leenooks?]), but it's still entertainment.

1) Fun: We still produce more films than anyone but India, and not many people outside of the subcontinent watch those anyway. A substantial amount of the television shows (Emeril!) music, video games, theme parks, etc. still come from the good ol' US of A.

2) Pharmaceuticals -- now careful, I'm not lumping these with Entertainment. Prescription drugs are mostly innovated here.

3) Microprocessors -- sure they're manufactured where the labor is cheap, but Intel, Moto, IBM... they're developing the stuff here.

4) Industrial Design -- The shiny new cars that are manufactured by foreign companies use US design teams. Why do you think Daimler bought Chrysler?

Re:What America Exceeds At

[J4]

Chrysler bought Daimler.

Re:What America Exceeds At

[abhinavnath]

Well actually... Bollywood produces more movies than the American film industry does. (See this link.) Indian movies have substantial audiences in the UK, the Middle East, Africa, East Asia and (randomly) Greece. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Indian films are crud. There's hope though... gems like Lagaan (Go see it. Really.)

Re:What America Exceeds At

[jpmorgan]

Why do you think Daimler bought Chrysler?

Wrong way around there. Also, Ford bought Jaguar.

And since then, the quality of cars coming out of both companies has dropped noticably.

Re:What America Exceeds At

[Sentry21]

Note: The following is not US-bashing, nor Canadian patriotism (many examples are non-Canadian, I just can't think of many :P). Think of it more like devil's advocate plus Canadian pride plus it's two thirty in the morning and I'm listening to Arrogant Worms music. With that said...

1) Fun: We still produce more films than anyone but India, and not many people outside of the subcontinent watch those anyway. A substantial amount of the television shows (Emeril!) music, video games, theme parks, etc. still come from the good ol' US of A.

I hate to rag on someone's pride, but outside of the US, you're famed for producing schlock, and lots of it. You've produced The Sopranos, Sex and the City, and CSI, sure, but for every one good TV series that HBO (or, amazingly, CBS) airs, there are twenty or thirty shitty shows that have no substance whatsoever, and are just one-season runs to get people hooked until they can come out with the next round of crap (fortunately, in Canada, CTV and Global get all the HBO shows anyway, so we don't have to wait for syndication to get them on broadcast).

Now ask yourself how many modern games have really good staying power? How many are really, really that awesome? I think NWN is, but that's Canadian (Bioware). Rainbow Six 3, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, Myst? Published by Ubisoft, from Montreal. Knights of the Old Republic and Baldur's Gate are/were Bioware too, but we all knew that. It also occurs to me that EA publishes and develops a lot of games, which is pretty cool. It's cooler that they're based in Vancouver though. I didn't care much for Black and White though, I guess the UK isn't my ball of wax.

As for music, turn on the radio. Enough said there.

2) Pharmaceuticals -- now careful, I'm not lumping these with Entertainment. Prescription drugs are mostly innovated here.

I'll easily give you that they're largely innovated there, but even Canada's pharmaceutical industry is, as I recall, huge, and our genetic/biotech firms are on their way to being light-years ahead of the US's, by virtue of less paranoia and so on - and I don't mean genetically enhancing crops then cross-pollinating and suing someone, I mean designing soy plants to produce enzymes, antibodies, protiens, etc. for use in medicines.

3) Microprocessors -- sure they're manufactured where the labor is cheap, but Intel, Moto, IBM... they're developing the stuff here.

This, again, is true, but don't forget about a lot of other companies. Cisco's R&D department is right near the waterfront in a beautiful Israeli resort town on the sea. ATI, which is in the process of stomping NVidia (or, at the very least, giving them a run for their money) is based in Markham, Ontario. Yeah, Intel and AMD are American, but without a good ASUS or ABit board to put them in, they're useless, and both companies are Taiwanese. If you get one though, and put Windows on, and have a Solaris machine and want to run code on both, but don't feel like using Canadian James Gosling's Java idea, you could use Activeperl and Activepython on Windows. Activestate, we all know, is in Victoria, but that's irrelevant, really.

4) Industrial Design -- The shiny new cars that are manufactured by foreign companies use US design teams. Why do you think Daimler bought Chrysler?

Installed base? It was profitable? The phrase 'European styling' exists for a reason. Look at the Ford (I think) Asstek, or the Plymouth Prowler, or any number of other ass-ugly vehicles. Yes, Americans make nice cars, but they also make shitty cars. Europeans make less cars, but they're all so much nicer.

The US has a lot going for it, don't get me wrong, but I just can't let blanket 'we're better than everyone at this' statements go unattacked, even if only as devil's advocate.

--Dan

Re:What America Exceeds At

[10Ghz]

Wrong way around there

Are you REALLY saying that Chrysler bought Daimler? Ummm... No. In theory it was a "merger of equals", but anyone with a half a brain knows that Daimler was the company that was calling the shots. Or why do you think the new company is called DaimlerChrysler, not ChryslerDaimler? Why was the head honcho or Chrysler replaced by a guy from Daimler? Sounds awfully strange to me if Chrysler is the company calling the shots.

No, Daimler took over Chrysler, fair 'n square. Any of you (americans) who think otherwise are flat our wrong.

Re:What America Exceeds At

[unfortunateson]

[TROLL]Isn't Canada part of the US?[/TROLL] Sorry, I couldn't resist. Regarding schlock, remember Sturgeon's Law: 95% of everything is crap. Regarding biotech, everybody's biotech is perpetually on the verge of breakthrough -- it just rarely materializes. Until you've got a product that puts you in the Amgen/Genentech club, you're small potatoes. There are hundreds of companies like that in the US with nearly the next big thing.

What do you expect from a Nixon Speechwriter?

[cbuskirk]

Most of that article is rightwing propganda with a little on tech to gloss it over. Here is a list of ways we can do to help....

1. The duh answer of them all of course is increased school funding. I relize however, if everyone got a decent education, we would have very few people willing to join the military and those who did would join one loaded with officers, and no cannon fodder, I mean elisted men.

2. Not everyone needs to get a four year degree. There needs to be many more professional opportunities for people with 2 year degrees. It would increase tax revenue to have a better paid population, and reduce the burden on four year universities who can better use the money on people who need to spend the time in college.

3. Companies that spend a sigifigant portion (~75%) of thier R&D money in Univeristy based Labs would recive an huge tax break.

4. Medical Advancement: Place a 20 blackout on the production of generics and in return drug companies must reduce prices by 75%. New drug prices are high in this country because a company must recoup the billions it spent on R&D in the first 3 years to make any sort of profit, because after 5 it can be made by anyone dirt cheap.

This give companies much more capital and incentive to innovate instead of copy what the other guy did and sell it cheaper.

5. Government Funded Hard Science: If we rely only on corperations to fund research, then we are going to be limmited to innovations that will make a profit, and we will be worthless as a civilization.

Re:What do you expect from a Nixon Speechwriter?

[Orne]

... And most of your response was leftwing propaganda centered on increased government regulations and programs requiring increases in taxation.

Schools deserve no more money until they become efficient with the money they already have, and unions are not encouraging that.

That counts for efficiency in college governance too, not just in the elementaries; there's no reason tuition needs to outpace inflation.

I'd agree with your message on tax breaks, but everyone should be entitled to tax breaks, and Universities shouldn't be eligible for corporate money unless they can guarantee that 100% of it goes to research.

As for drugs, how about we get some of these foreign governments to actually pay for the health of their own populations, so we don't have to subsidise their governments by increasing the price at home.

Lastly, if we rely on the government to fund research, then the public will never be truely free to take science in directions that are counter to the government's interests; the government hasn't outlawed embreyonic stem-cell research, they only said they weren't paying for it...

Re:What do you expect from a Nixon Speechwriter?

[kin_korn_karn]

... And most of your response was leftwing propaganda centered on increased government regulations and programs requiring increases in taxation.

Schools deserve no more money until they become efficient with the money they already have, and unions are not encouraging that.

That counts for efficiency in college governance too, not just in the elementaries; there's no reason tuition needs to outpace inflation.

I'd agree with your message on tax breaks, but everyone should be entitled to tax breaks, and Universities shouldn't be eligible for corporate money unless they can guarantee that 100% of it goes to research.

As for drugs, how about we get some of these foreign governments to actually pay for the health of their own populations, so we don't have to subsidise their governments by increasing the price at home.

Lastly, if we rely on the government to fund research, then the public will never be truely free to take science in directions that are counter to the government's interests; the government hasn't outlawed embreyonic stem-cell research, they only said they weren't paying for it...

Hey Mr. Libertarian, guess who enforces all of the above? the GOVERNMENT!! So your political philosophy is fucked either way. Enjoy these parting gifts...

Re:What do you expect from a Nixon Speechwriter?

[multimed]

1. The duh answer of them all of course is increased school funding.

Because throwing more money at a problem always fixes is right? Don't get me wrong, I believe in spending on eduction big time because it's one of the few public services where there's actually any sort of return on investment to society. But admit that spending more money on education will only (partially) cover up the underlying problems at best. At least in my state (WI) there are two major goals of the public education system:

• have as many students as possible show up on the day they do headcounts to determine state funding
• send as many students to college as possible.

If the problems with this aren't obvious enough, let me be explain. Students who aren't college bound are not educated on how to function in the world. Big problem there. Students who are prepped for college-entry aren't actually prepared for college. And they aren't educated on how to function in the world either.

So I can't be criticized for not providing a possible solution, here goes:

Focus needs to be on teaching the cirriculum, not headcount or SAT scores. Cirriculums need to have more input from society as a whole--make them public record so us taxpayers can see what they're actually trying to teach and whether or not they've been successful. More emphasis on math and science, and most importantly, critical thinking and problem solving. I think the saddest statement about our educational system is the quality of consumers it turns out. The vast majority of society doesn't actually think about, let alone question anything they read or hear, they just blindly believe anything, never considering the source, credibility, contributing factors, true cause & effect, etc. Of course will upset the advertisers but I think that's a good thing.

Re:What do you expect from a Nixon Speechwriter?

[RealAlaskan]

1. The duh answer of them all of course is increased school funding. I relize however, if everyone got a decent education, we would have very few people willing to join the military and those who did would join one loaded with officers, and no cannon fodder, I mean elisted men.

There is a strong correlation between increasing expenditures and decreasing results, if you look at a time series for any random school district. There is no correlation between expenditures and results, if you look at panel data. As H.L. Menken (sp?) said, ``For every problem, there is an answer which is simple, attractive, and wrong.'' I think you've found it for this problem.

The answer here is for parents to demand more of their children, and more of their children's teachers. Given that most public schools are bureaucracies, they'll have to home school.

2. Not everyone needs to get a four year degree. There needs to be many more professional opportunities for people with 2 year degrees. It would increase tax revenue to have a better paid population, and reduce the burden on four year universities who can better use the money on people who need to spend the time in college.

You came so close on this one! Universities shouldn't be training construction managers (Purdue has a four-year program in that!). We need to encourage non-university, non-bachelors-degree education for crafts and trades.

The current system cheats everyone. The crafts and trades people, and the engineers, have to suffer through a lot of distribution requirements which preserve the illusion that they are getting a university education. This means that the classes must be dumbed down to be accessible to the unscholarly and uninterested (notice I didn't say stupid). The result is that the engineers don't get the in-depth techincal education they need, and the scholars don't get the education they need either.

3. Companies that spend a sigifigant portion (~75%) of thier R&D money in Univeristy based Labs would recive an huge tax break. 4. Medical Advancement: Place a 20 blackout on the production of generics and in return drug companies must reduce prices by 75%. New drug prices are high in this country because a company must recoup the billions it spent on R&D in the first 3 years to make any sort of profit, because after 5 it can be made by anyone dirt cheap. This give companies much more capital and incentive to innovate instead of copy what the other guy did and sell it cheaper. 5. Government Funded Hard Science: If we rely only on corperations to fund research, then we are going to be limmited to innovations that will make a profit, and we will be worthless as a civilization.

Are (3) and (5) contradictory? Probably not. On the other hand, given the amount of damage that corporate funding seems to be doing to academic research, your (3) might be counter productive. Finally, (4) is just a re-jiggering of the patent laws, and while it might be a good start, it isn't nearly far-reaching enough.

Furthermore, the US has been subsidising drug development and low drug prices in Canada and Europe by allowing high drug prices here to drive innovation. As long as we're chasing pie in the sky, let's force those socialist free riders to start paying their fair share!

Re:What do you expect from a Nixon Speechwriter?

[WombatControl]

Don't just assume that because Stein was a Nixon speechwriter that his comments are any less valid. I had a chance to talk with him for a few minutes a while back, and he's a really insightful guy.

As for your points:

1. Funding is good, but unless there's oversight and reform it will go to waste. We need a system that pushes for educational quality rather than payoffs for teachers who don't give a damn about their students educations and administrators who line their own pockets. The educational system in America is broken at a fundamental level, and until there are real reforms made increased funding won't be effective.

2. I'm a big propondent of the liberal arts. While a 2 year degree can get you a job, it also means you have a very limited skill set. If you lose your job, you're limited to only your chosen field. A liberal arts graduate on the other hand has a wide set of skills and can move between positions more easily. Although in certain cases, you're right, a technical education might be the best option.

3. Sounds like a good idea to me.

4. This might not be such a bad deal, although I'd be wary about increasing the time before a drug can go generic. Part of the solution involves streamlining the approval process for new drugs and reducing barriers to entry. The other part of high drug costs in the US is that we're paying for Canada's price controls as well. (Lousy freeloading Canadians!)

5. To an extent, I agree with you on that, although if another federal bureaucracy like NASA is the result I'd say it's not worth it. Our spending on science is very little compared to the fraud and waste that the US government produces. If we could just take one year's fraud from Medicare, Social Security, and foreign aid, we could have a manned Mars mission by 2010...

America has ALREADY Lost it's Innovation?

[isa-kuruption]

Many comments from people have said we have already lost our innovation! Well, if you read the first paragraph, he says we are ALREADY down the road on a LOT of these ideas! He acknowledges right at the beginning we are already falling on our face.

If you can get better IT from offshore, this is a huge problem. His editorial proves the point that we are losing out due to the things he mentions. To criticize Ben Stein on his point that we've already lost any innovative advantage is to PROVE HIS POINT!!!!!

Pointing at a problem is not offering a solution

[webster]

We see this all the time. People see terrible things going on and think that all they have to do is point at it while loudly raising alarm, and they have contributed to the solution. Well, it ain't true. Yeah, the education system sucks, but it isn't because those running it want it to suck. TV is a vast wasteland, and always has been, but what, if anything, can be done to improve it? Even offering a solution is dangerous enough, but fixing a social problem without a plan will certainly lead to disaster.

Utopians consistently excel in discovering faults, but those who actually try to fix them usually end up with a situation far worse than the one they were so alarmed about.

Re:Ben , ben ... who cares

[jgalun]

Poor Ben Stein.

Born and raised in privelage then appointed to work for Nixon as an economic advisor. Soon thereafter we had the worst economy since the depression.

I don't know if it's fair to blame the Nixon recession on conservative economics. LBJ had left Nixon with massive military spending on a war in Vietnam and new Great Society spending. And then the Arab nations began their oil boycott.

All three of these factors led to massive inflation (massive spending on the military; massive spending on domestic programs; more young people in Vietnam and fewer young people in the work force; and a rising price of oil, a key price factor in many products). In response, Nixon instituted price ceilings. NOTE: Price ceilings are not a conservative, free-market response to inflation. It is a response generally associated with the left-wing, in fact.

More specifically, blaming Ben Stein for the Nixon recession is foolish - Ben Stein was a speechwriter in the Nixon Administration, not an economic policy advisor.

Ben Stein Biography

[BurntHombre]

http://www.benstein.com/bio.html

Hightlights:

• -Graduated from Yale Law

• -Speechwriter for the Nixon administration

• -Visine spokesman

And last, but not least...

• -SOMETHING-D-O-O Economics...VOOdoo economics. Bueller?

The site that can't fix it's flag icon

[teamhasnoi]

even after I've sent one is asking where our tech edge is.

Hm.

It is true, but not just for the USA...

[rediguana]

I spent half this year living in Washington DC. As a foreigner, I came over to get work experience in emergency management, and spent most of my time doing terrorism related work. And yes, I am from one of these friendly countries, I like to think of myself as educated, and yet I could not get the appropriate visa to get paid - so I've got first hand experience with the visa point. But I digress.

What I really wanted to say is that the US is not alone in this situation, nor does it apply solely to technology - it may just be one manefestation. It is eroding the very fabric of society, and not just the United States.

I read these points and a large number (probably 75%+) of them apply to my own country. So whilst the article was written with US-centricity, don't think for a moment that you are alone, or are even leading the bigger societal trends. You're not.

The corollary is that the solution is not likely to be developed by one country, but multiple as we are all facing very similar problems. Only the specific solutions to each country may require tweaking because of legislative and other details.

Re:Join fingers...let's code for America

[jkujawa]

What if he wants to be an artist? Why shouldn't he be a doctor?
Your son is not your property.

Re:Join fingers...let's code for America

[Pop n' Fresh]

Wow, I see you give your child all the opportunities a geek's son could want. He's not even out of elementary school yet and not only do you already have his future profession picked out, you know where he's going to go to college! What a lucky boy.

I find it funny...

[sawilson]

That if Ben Stein had posted that rant here on
slashdot, he probably would have been modded -1
troll :)

Don't rock the boat baby. Everything is ok. The US
rocks! We will win the war on ______!

Things wrong with US Schools

[Codex The Sloth]

* Handing out laptops to everyone is not the answer -- most of those countries that beat US schools don't have access to current books, let alone laptops.

* The internet will not teach your children -- while it's true there is a fountain of knowledge at your fingertips, there's a ocean full of crap to sift though.

* Stop focussing so much money on organized sports when your school is graduating illiterates.

* Kids using Powerpoint is not the answer. Unless the question is -- How do we raise a nation of Marketing drones!

Re:Things wrong with US Schools

[MrResistor]

The internet will teach your kids, but probably not anything you want them to know.

I agree with all your other points. While sports may have benefits, as other responses go into, the first priority of a school needs to be education. The sad truth is that education is being sacrificed for sports at many schools, and that's just not right.

We still lead in one crucial area

[ruriruri]

We may have lost the technology race, but America still has the junk-food edge! From high-fat/low-nutrient chocolate bars to high-carbohydrate corn-syrup carbonated beverages, America clearly leads the world in the production and consumption of unbelievably shitty pseudo-foods! We must not allow the Soviets to close the junk-food gap.

Unfortunately, one area in which there appears to be no gap is the right-wing rhetoric arms race.

Japan vs. US

[Gudlyf]

Every time some new, cool tech gadget comes out here, i talk to my friend from Tokyo and he tells me he had it a year ago.

The way I took this -- and I could be dead wrong -- is that US companies watch these newer, cool gadgets get released into foreign markets and sit back and watch. I'm sure they do studies on how well the products work and what could be improved. Once the product has been proven a success, improvements are made and bugs are flushed out, then the product is release in the US.

I'm also pretty sure that the every cool gadget that Japan gets before we do, there are a dozen gadgets that fail miserably quickly in Japan and would never see the light of day in the US in the first place.

Re:Japan vs. US

[AtomicBomb]

Japan (or I should say East Asia, just look at the trendy color screen mobile phones in South Korea) is the place for gadgets.

The high population density is a big drive factor behind these things. An average 20-something guy in US (Canada, Australia...) may spend quite a big chunk of his disposable income in car, surfing gear etc. In East Asia, living space is much smaller, car is considered a luxury for most... To show off, the equivalent Joe Sixpack will in fact buy cool tech gadget (mobile phones/ PDA/ digital cameras...).

The technical content to design a 850hp car or any latest cool tech gadget is not low. But, the tech understanding (or even literacy levl) of the end-user can be quite low. The desire for gadget and technolgy level in society does not correlate strongly due to the population density factor.

The rest of the way there

[st. augustine]

We're well on our way to hell in a handbasket. What would it take to get us the rest of the way there?

1. Blame all problems with the educational system on greedy teachers' unions. Do not provide sufficient funding for building upkeep and course materials, let alone enough to attract a wider range of more highly qualified teachers. Count on philanthropic parents in rich neighborhoods to chip in to keep their kids' schools going, and let schools in poor neighborhoods go to hell.
2. Allow large corporations to buy unlimited influence in government. Have any legislation that affects a particular industry be written by the lobbyists for that industry's entrenched players. Assume that anyone currently making a profit has a God-given right to their business model, and structure the intellectual property laws appropriately. Claim marketing expenses as R&D.
3. Support a company's right to falsify evidence in favor of their products and suppress evidence against them. If the evidence that a company's products or processes do more harm than good has finally become too overwhelming for them to cover up, shoehorn loopholes into unrelated laws to protect them.
4. Treat CEOs as celebrities, even when all they've done is preside over tanking companies and collect golden parachutes. Confuse blind luck with well-deserved rewards and ruthlessness with business sense. Pretend that we live in a society with equal opportunity, and salute those whose successes have been handed to them on a silver platter as though they'd earned them.
5. Encourage companies to avoid taxes by creating shell offices in Bahamanian PO boxes. Reward them with open-ended government contracts with no cost auditing.
6. Do your best to keep 50% of your productive population out of the workplace. Continue to pretend that a single-income family is viable in today's economy. Provide no support for working parents. Discourage women from intellectual, innovative, or creative pursuits.
7. Discourage cultural and social diversity as much as possible. When immigrants absolutely can't be kept out, do whatever you can to make them, and their citizen children, feel unwelcome and unvalued. (Consider bringing back the educational and religious policies of forced assimilation that worked so well with Native Americans.) Presume in the face of all historical evidence that the children of uneducated immigrants will be unable to contribute to society. Assume that America has nothing to learn from the rest of the world, and do your best to make sure it doesn't.
8. Enact a tax system that encourages the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Shift as much of the tax burden as possible onto the middle class. Make sure that the wealthy have plenty of ways to exclude their income from taxation, and that the less wealthy have as little access to capital as possible. Encourage them to go into debt, and allow consumer lending companies to set themselves up for a fall approaching the one the Japanese banking system's going through.
9. Take as a given that nothing that works (or doesn't work) in the rest of the world could possibly have applicability to America, unless of course it agrees with your preconceived notion of the direction America should be going. If anyone tries to suggest that something the Europeans or Japanese are doing might be a good idea, accuse them of being socialist or communist. Where possible, try to confuse France with the USSR.
10. Pretend that a health care system that leaves tens of millions of citizens uninsured is "socialized". (Use "socialized" as a dirty word to describe any system that might actually cover all Americans.) Skew what medical care there is toward prolonging the agonies of the terminally ill. Discourage preventative medicine and expect all medical problems to be solved with pharmaceutical "silver bullets".

My list need not end here but I got tired of typing. And anyway, I even agree with one or two of Mr. Stein's points. But just as Mr. Stein did I realized that my list was already the program of many of our elected officials. (Hmm.)

Re:The rest of the way there

[jmv]

Completely agree. This guy's solution is along the way of: "what's good for greedy corporations is good for the US". ...oh and let's teach all the children that whatever happens, the US is always the best nation in the world and that any "stranger" claiming otherwise is just jaleous...

Re:The rest of the way there

[netwiz]

Two things from your post:

One, there is no such thing as social diversity. Cultural yes, but society is defined as the total set of ethics and ideals. If these are significantly diverse, you have no society, simply a group of individuals w/ no common ties, and probably a desire to end each other as a result of no recognition of each other in their familial group. Extreme social diversity does not breed cooperation. Do you think gypsies contributed all that much to the societies around which they operate? At some point, there has to be societal cohesiveness, and some kind of conformity for things to work.

Two, the wealthy already have an enormous tax burden. In fact, they regularly pay for services they never use. Sorry, but in this country, if you have an income of over two hundred kilodollars, you pay 39.6% of that to the federal government. This is nearly impossible to get around. These CEOs you talk about? They've got salaries that are on the books. Their stock option grants? That goes under capital gains with a tax rate of 40%-50%, and there's no real way to get around that, either. I don't know what the fix for this is, but a significant amount of money goes to fund our federal government, an entity which was never supposed to have all that much power in the first place. In fact, the income tax was explicitly illegal in the first place, but the various Powers That Be manipulated the downtrodden masses into agreeing to something that the wealthy said was a Bad Idea. Now look where we are...

Re:The rest of the way there

[st. augustine]

One, there is no such thing as social diversity. Cultural yes, but society is defined as the total set of ethics and ideals.

Funny, I've never seen society defined that way. But I was using social in the broader sense, e.g. social science, social class.

If these are significantly diverse, you have no society, simply a group of individuals w/ no common ties, and probably a desire to end each other as a result of no recognition of each other in their familial group.

The key word there is significantly. We've gotten along reasonably well for several hundred years with considerable diversity in ethics and ideals in Western society, and I don't see any reason to stop now. We don't need ein volk, ein Reich, we just need

society... A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

I'm not arguing for zero conformity or unquestioning acceptance here . (I'm fond of Terry Pratchett's observation, on "respecting ethnic folkways", that "some people's ethnic folkways consist of gutting other people like clams".) But I'm sick and tired of hearing the need for social cohesion cited as an excuse for perpetuating social abominations.

Two, the wealthy already have an enormous tax burden.

Enormous in absolute terms. Not enormous in terms of what they can afford to pay.

I don't know what the fix for this is, but a significant amount of money goes to fund our federal government, an entity which was never supposed to have all that much power in the first place.

Fine. Let's see a list of all the federal programs you want defunded, and how much each of them would save. I'm sure we'd all rather pay lower taxes, after all. Then let's see if we can get a majority of voters to agree that those are the right programs to cut.

Re:The rest of the way there

[st. augustine]

There's just no way that you can argue that low income people are footing the tax burden of the wealthy.

I'm not. I'm arguing that tax "reforms" in this country have for the past several decades been shifting more and more of the tax burden onto the middle class. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd like to see your data.

"Whose" tax burden it is is another question.

Re:The rest of the way there

[geekee]

"Blame all problems with the educational system on greedy teachers' unions. Do not provide sufficient funding for building upkeep and course materials, let alone enough to attract a wider range of more highly qualified teachers. Count on philanthropic parents in rich neighborhoods to chip in to keep their kids' schools going, and let schools in poor neighborhoods go to hell. "

His point has nothing to do with teacher's salary. He's saying that whoever decides the criteria for passing a particular grade should not dumb down the material to make it easier for kids to pass, which is what is happening. The typical democrat says throw more money at the problem. Really what is needed is more involvement of parents in their kids education.

"Allow large corporations to buy unlimited influence in government. Have any legislation that affects a particular industry be written by the lobbyists for that industry's entrenched players. Assume that anyone currently making a profit has a God-given right to their business model, and structure the intellectual property laws appropriately. Claim marketing expenses as R&D. "

Typical slashdot speak. Pretend donations to govt. count more than votes on election day. Claim intellectual property is not property, and free to whoever can get his hands on it.

There so mouch bs in the rest of your statements, I don't feel like addressing them all, but, for one, the tax code favors the poor, not the rich. When was the last time a poor person paid half his income in taxes? The marriage penalty you allude to is not supported by the right wing. On Immigration, he's talking about keeping out illegal immigrants, who may be criminals or terrorists, for all we know. Comment 9 is completly irrelevant and fabricated by you for God knows what purpose. Finally, socialized medicine is the best way to insure that the brightest Americans pursue other more profitable fields than medicine.

Re:The rest of the way there

[Malcontent]

"Two, the wealthy already have an enormous tax burden."

Actually that's false. The top 5% of the country controls 95% of the wealth of the country. Despite that they only pay something like 75% of the taxes. the top 5% of this country should pay 95% of the taxes. They are undertaxed.

Re:The rest of the way there

[Malcontent]

"He's saying that whoever decides the criteria for passing a particular grade should not dumb down the material to make it easier for kids to pass, "

It's impossible to educate kids with underpaid teachers, in overcrowded schools, with substandard books and materials, and buildings that are falling apart. Either you spend money to fix all that or you dumb down the kids.

"Pretend donations to govt. count more than votes on election day."

What do you mean pretend? Does anybody dispute this?

"On Immigration, he's talking about keeping out illegal immigrants,"

You want to know how to stop illegal immegration? Jail any business owner who hires an illegal. The reason so many illegal immigrants are in the US is because the US business need them. Who else is going to pick your apples and cucumbers?

Re:The rest of the way there

[Malcontent]

The upper 50% of the income earners account for almost a 100% of the income earned, of course they should pay almost all the taxes.

The top 5% earn 95% of the income but pay only about 75% of the taxes.

You have to take into account the money earned not just the money paid in taxes.

Re:The rest of the way there

[Edmund Blackadder]

You have different definition of "wealthy". Yes the upper 50% pay the majority of the taxes. But the really really wealthy have great ways of hiding their income. Once you have the money to open the nessecary off shore accounts, and hire the nessecary lawyers you can save a lot of money.

Thus the really wealthy escape taxes, which are largely payed by the middle class (upper middle class if you will).

Add to that the fact that today in america most wealthy people make money from mooching of the government in one way or another than the previous poster pretty much had it right.

Re:The rest of the way there

[geekee]

"It's impossible to educate kids with underpaid teachers, in overcrowded schools, with substandard books and materials, and buildings that are falling apart. Either you spend money to fix all that or you dumb down the kids."

Neither finance nor teacher qualifications are the primary problem. I can teach kids reading and math without a huge budget if they want to learn. If they and their parents aren't interested in learning, all the money in the world isn't going to change that however. I've known at least 1 teacher who can attest to this problem.

""Pretend donations to govt. count more than votes on election day." What do you mean pretend? Does anybody dispute this? "

All the money in the world can't legally buy you one single vote on election day. Politicians do what the voters want in the end. Although money influences politics, voting citizens opinions influence politics much more. Otherwise, the tax system in the US wouldn't punish the rich for succeeding, for instance.

"You want to know how to stop illegal immegration? Jail any business owner who hires an illegal."

I'm with you on that one.

Re:The rest of the way there

[Malcontent]

"I can teach kids reading and math without a huge budget if they want to learn."

And yet you don't. Why is that? Let me guess. You don't want to teach kids because it would mean giving up your high paying job for a job which pays slave wages and requires an enormous amount of your time.

"All the money in the world can't legally buy you one single vote on election day. Politicians do what the voters want in the end. Although money influences politics, voting citizens opinions influence politics much more. Otherwise, the tax system in the US wouldn't punish the rich for succeeding, for instance."

Well this part is just silly.

Re:The rest of the way there

[MrResistor]

Why aren't the guys working on new medical breakthroughs profiled and given celebrity status? Or heck, the teachers who challenge children to reach beyond the classroom and expand their knowledge?

Because they're to busy actually doing something to invest all that time and effort on self-promotion. Those teachers and Doctors don't have time to sit down and chat with Larry King.

Britney Spears does, in fact, arguably, that's her job. Singing is a distant second (or even third, after cheerleader-style choreography) to promotion for a carreer such as hers.

Re:The rest of the way there

[MrResistor]

Pretend donations to govt. count more than votes on election day.

I'd like to see you dispute that based on available evidence.

Claim intellectual property is not property, and free to whoever can get his hands on it.

Intellectual Property is a legal fabrication, not a natural right.

Re:The rest of the way there

[geekee]

"You are living in a fantasy world. Did you get that way with medication, or are you just naturally naive?"

If I'm living in a fantas world, why did Clinton serve 2 terms? Companies with deep pockets didn't want him there.

"You're saying that you don't want to be rich, because you'll be punished with higher taxes? Or are you saying that rich people actually have a tougher life than people who are poor, due to taxation? Maybe you're saying... what the fuck are you saying?"

I'm saying I might as well not bother trying to be rich, because the work involved is not worth it given the govt's cut. Might as well just put in my 40 hrs at the factory, since I don't make much less anyway, and it's a lot easier and less time consuming. Of course people will still get rich, but you destroy the incetive. Read Ayn Rand. Wait, get a brain 1st, you asshole.

Re:The rest of the way there

[geekee]

People are so out of touch with reality around here. There is a lot more supply then demand for teachers in the US. Kids who want to learn here have the opportunity. As for elections, they counted the number of votes, not the number of dollars spent, to decide who won.

Re:The rest of the way there

[Malcontent]

"There is a lot more supply then demand for teachers in the US"

Bullshit. In most districts there is a severe shortage and unfotunately it is these districts that need the good teachers because they are poor.

"As for elections, they counted the number of votes, not the number of dollars spent, to decide who won."

It takes money to organize and to get out the vote. It also takes money to send out brochures that "educate" the black voters that their phone bills must be paid up before they can vote, that such and such a politician has been endorsed by the communist party, and of course to round up homeless people and bus them to the polling place.

Only an ignoramous would claim that the impact of money on our political system in negligable.

Re:The rest of the way there

[geekee]

"Only an ignoramous would claim that the impact of money on our political system in negligable."

I never claimed this. All the money in the world won't help you, however, if no one likes your platform. The fact that the DMCA is law shows that people are for it or don't care, probably the latter. It's political suicide to go against the wishes of your constituents, regardless of how much money you're offered.

china will take over the us in genetic research

[circletimessquare]

the us has the right telling it to limit genetic research for religious reasons. stem cells, cloning, etc.

absolute nonsense.

and the us has the left telling it to limit genetic research for environmental reasons. frankenfood, algeny, etc.

absolute nonsense.

europe is under a similar voodoo curse of the ignorants. the uninformed and fearful dictating policy.

china has no such constraints, and will the lead the world in genetic research in a matter of 10-20 years.

it's really kind of sickening and depressing. of course a lot of bad things can be done with genetic engineering. but does that mean we have to stick our heads in the sand? a lot of good can be done too! i applaud the technocrats in china on this issue, and the children and grandchildren of the know-nothing do-nothings in the west will reap the benefits of chinese researchers.

Hope you actually read the article.

[RobFrontier]

While you may not agree with the ideology of the man, he does make valid points. Many of his arguments cross party lines. Speaking as an Independent (Liberterian leaning) I see myself as someone who agrees, our country has already gone too far down this path. I don't think there is anyway to recover from it. Just hope that enough independent, intelligent, socially responsible people remain to balance out the ignorant masses.

Re:Hope you actually read the article.

[smack_attack]

"It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Claire Wolfe

And yet 11% of US citizens 18-24...

[gatesh8r]

Can't even point out where the US is on a world map.

The educational system needs stronger standards. It also has to let students fail and repeat. I went through school (in a "smart" state, Wisconsin) unchallenged and graduated with minimal effort because it was too easy. The sad part is I graduated a 3.0 cummulative GPA, and I was a slacker!

This shit shouldn't happen. I know of some people in my class that should of never passed.

Re:And yet 11% of US citizens 18-24...

[ppanon]

Can't even point out where the US is on a world map.

Maybe that's because they always get told the U.S. is the greatest country in the world. So of course the students always wind up picking either Canada or Russia based on its size on a map. :-)

Re:And yet 11% of US citizens 18-24...

[xercist]

This shit shouldn't happen. I know of some people in my class that should of never passed.

Shouldn't of passed? Shouldn't of passed?! Jesus christ man I don't know whether to print out this quote and put it on my wall to laugh at when I'm sad, or if it would just make me sadder.

It's education stupid

[LoRider]

One of the reasons my fare country, the United States of America, sucks is because of education. Our education system is eroding more and more every year.

Why?

That's actually quite obvious. There are people, probably all neo-cons, that want privatization of our schools. They are vehemently against anything resembling socialism and will fight to the death to privatize everything.

Capitalism can only succeed if we have a mix between private corporations and some socialist programs. Schools should be available to everyone without the contamination of corporations, libraries should available to all, health care to everyone.

So the plan is let the public school system crumble to the ground, show the success of school vouchers for private schools, make public schools private. It's so freaking obvious it's not even worth debating. The Republicans want everything to be driven by capitalism and will stop at nothing to achieve it. The Democrats are too scared to do anything about it for fear of not getting re-elected. The average American doesn't have the time to worry about it because they are working 50-60 hours a week with 1 week vacation and trying to figure out how to afford sending their kids to college.

I hate to say it but we are fucked. We are going to be fucked for quite some time, until the average dumbass figures out he's working harder than his dad did and making less money and paying more taxes while corporations don't pay shit in taxes. It's only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan but I am afraid it will be a few years before the dumbasses realize the situation and a few more years to get it fixed.

Re:It's education stupid

[jamesmrankinjr]

So let me see if I understand you. It's not the ACTUAL, currently EXISTING system of public schools without alternatives that's failing American kids; it's the POTENTIAL, future system that MIGHT include a voucher program SOMEDAY that's failing them? Is this some kind of social quantum effect where debating the possibility of a future policy can impact current conditions more than actual current policies?

Fascinating.

Best,
-jimbo

Re:It's education stupid

[Malcontent]

"Further, as I mentioned in my previous post, it is bad practice for a company to hord lots of cash (in terms of opportunity cost) so corporations tend to spend the profits."

Have you ever heard of Microsoft? They are a corporation and they have over fourty billion dollars in cash with no debt. There goes your theory.

Re:It's education stupid

[Malcontent]

Why does a corporation need to vote? They can simply buy any congressman they want.

Re:It's education stupid

[Edmund Blackadder]

The actual currently existing education system is very close to what a voucher system would be. With the exception of some rich suburban neighborhoods, most public schools are underfunded and overcrowded, every one that has money and or power sends their kids to private schools, thus the people with power do not really care much about the quality of the public schools, and the quality of the public schools falls. Thus most of the nation's children receive subpar education.

Replace public schools with affordable voucher schools and there you have your voucher system. Although the affordable voucher schools will probably be much shittier (there is profit to be made) and the folks that use private schools will pay less local taxes.

Re:It's education stupid

[Malcontent]

Ok let me quote you again in case you missed your own post. you said.

" That is to say, since the corporation is not a real person, it has no interest in hording money."

Now apparently you think that having 5 billion in cash and 45 billion in almost cash (short term investments) is not hoarding cash. That's 50 billion dollars in very liquid assets. More then the gross national product of many countries. On what planet is this not hoarding cash?

Corporations are legally bound to give that money back to the shareholders. The problem here is that a handful of people hold the majority of MS stock. For them getting paid dividents would mean nothing because they are already billionaires. Either that or Bill Gates and his cohorts know something we don't and need that much cash on hand in the very near future.

Some good points...

[StarTux]

One section summarizes RIAA et al pretty well, and their impact on innovation (along with the DMCA...). Too many laws = stifling innovation. Also too many laws can easily lead to flouting of laws as they become too cumbersome to enforce.

Section 8, not just America, but I would say most western nations where family values are almost nil. Strength in family? Maybe. Stifling innovation? Absolutlely. Got a head full of ideas, yet lack any confidence to do anything with them.

But, the real issue is...What can be done to save the US? These issues could do more damage to the US economy than any terrorist attack (maybe this is the evil peoples main success; make the US scared so it feeds upon itself with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

StarTux

Yes, America is losing it's technological edge

[bmetzler]

The reason for that is because Microsoft has bound the industry. No one can move forward technologically, because they are stuck in the path the Microsoft imposes upon them. It is only when Microsoft is broken up, and companies are free to innovate and implement new technology that America will gain its techonological edge again.

-Brent

Why do foreigners come to American universities?

[joshamania]

When a foreign, non-American citizen, comes to the United States to attend a university, it is pretty much in order to obtain a top notch education that could not be obtained at home.

When an American goes abroad to study, it is nominally to fuck off and gain "cultural perspective".

So, what was the topic again?

Re:Hear, hear!

[.sig]

This is kinda scary, but I actually find myself agreeing with an AC. I must be one of the few people in the US who went to a good school before getting to college.
I didn't have to go Europe to take french, trig, beginning C programming, and some elementary biology and chemistry before getting to high school. (i.e., around 12-13 years old) I've tried to maintain this throughout high school, and even though I got a little lazy in college, I still pushed pretty hard. And what for? I can honestly say I know at least a little about just about everything, but what good does it do? I probably would have been much happier goofing off and enjoying life, especially since I would still probably be just as qualified for my current monkey-coding job.....

My Take

[DaytonCIM]

Allow schools to fall into useless decay.

Let's first address the physical decay facing our nation's schools. The current conditions facing most students and teachers are appalling. We spend more money decorating the White House for annual holidays than most school districts budget for building maintenance.

Do not expect students to know the basics of mathematics, chemistry and physics. Working closely with the teachers' unions, make sure that you dumb down standards so that children who make the most minimal effort still get by with flying colors.

Standardized testing and federal guidelines must challenge our nation's students. In the last 15 years, federal regulations and state authorities have enacted a wave of PC rules that force schools to combine students of varying learning abilities into one large class. In that class, is expected that a student with a reading ability of an 8th grader to complete the same work as a student with a reading ability of a 12th grader.

What happened to Remedial and Honors classes?

Encourage the making of laws and rules by trial lawyers and sympathetic judges, especially through class actions. Bypass the legislative mechanisms that involve elected representatives and a president. This will stop--or at least greatly slow down--innovation, as corporations and individuals hesitate to explore new ideas for fear of getting punished (or regulated to death) by litigation for any misstep, no matter how slight, in the creation of new products and services. Make sure that lawsuits against drugmakers are especially encouraged so that the companies are afraid to develop new lifesaving drugs, lest they be sued for sums that will bankrupt them. Make trial lawyers and judges, not scientists, responsible for the flow of new products and services.

There is no question that this country needs to address Tort reform. In addition, we as a nation need to recognize that regulation is not what the founding fathers had in mind when writing the Constitution. I don't need the FCC protecting my children or me from televised orgies; I am most capable of regulating my children and myself. I don't need lawmakers asking what is popular with the country. I need lawmakers that are not afraid to do what is right, even if it is not what is popular.

Create a culture that blames the other guy for everything and discourages any form of individual self-restraint or self-control. Promote litigation to punish tobacco companies on the theory that they compel innocent people to smoke. Make it second nature for someone who is overweight to blame the restaurant that served him fries.

We must encourage and teach our children to take responsibility for their actions. Simple as that. If you drink and drive it is not the responsibility of the bartender, it is your responsibility.

Sneer at hard work and thrift. Encourage the belief that all true wealth comes from skillful manipulation and cunning, or from sudden, brilliant and lucky strokes that leave the plodding, ordinary worker and saver in the dust. Make sure that society's idols are men and women who got rich from being sexy in public or through gambling or playing tricks, not from hard work or patience. Make the citizenry permanently envious and bewildered about where real success comes from.

Continue making music videos that display a non-reality. For example, Jay-Z does not make 10 figures a year and selling 10 millions albums does not make you rich: ask TLC. In addition, be honest and open about the .com millionaires and the damage wrought by that economic boom.

Hold the managers of corporations to extremely lax standards of conduct and allow them to get off with a slap on the wrist when they betray the trust of shareholders. This will discourage thrift and investment and ensure that Americans will have far less capital to work with than other societies, while simultaneously developing that contempt for law and social standards that is the hallmark of failing nations. Hold the management of labor unions to no ethical standards.

Halliburton. WorldCom. Enron. United Airlines. But why are we upset? Why are we surprised? This is not the first time that CEOs have raped us. Oil companies did it in the 70s. Savings and Loans did it in 80s.

While you're at it, discourage respect for law in every possible way. This will dissolve the glue that holds the nation together, and dissuade any long-term thinking. Societies in which the law can be clearly seen to apply to some and not to others are doomed to decay, in terms of innovation and everything else.

I don't imagine that a 31 year-old black woman who shoplifts $5100 in merchandise from Macys would receive probation and community service. I don't imagine that anyone but a star baseball player would be charged and convicted of DUI, possession, and assault 4 different times before seeing the inside of a jail cell. I don't imagine that anyone but a star basketball player could physical assault their coach/boss, and then be offered a 7 figure yearly income with another team/job.

Encourage a mass culture that spits on intelligence and study and instead elevates drug use, coolness through sex and violence, and contempt for school. As children learn to be stupid instead of smart, the national intelligence base needed for innovation will simply vanish into MTV-land.

It is sad when video games outsell books. It is deplorable that most teenage boys can spew more slang for a woman's genital region, than he can name past Presidents.

Mock and belittle the family. Provide financial incentives to people willing to live an isolated existence, vulnerable and frightened. This guarantees that men and women of sufficient character to bring about innovation will be psychologically stifled from an early age.

Why do my wife and I pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than single people?

Enact a tax system that encourages class antagonism and punishes saving, while rewarding indebtedness, frivolity and consumption. Tax the fruits of labor many times:

First tax it as income.
Then tax it as real or personal property.
Then tax it as capital gains.
Then tax it again, at a staggeringly high level, at death.

This way, Americans are taught that only fools save, and that it is entirely proper for us to have the lowest savings rate in the developed world. This will deprive us of much-needed capital for new investment, for innovation and our own personal aspirations. It will compel us to ask foreigners for ever more capital and allow them to own more of America. It will also promote an attitude of carelessness about the future and, once again, encourage disrespect for law.

There isn't anything I can add here. Ben Stein is dead on. As a young couple and making over $100K a year, my wife and I still don't know how we are going to afford a house, retirement, etc... It sounds far-fetched, but given taxes and more taxes, there is very little that we can save.

Have a socialized medical system that scrimps on badly needed drugs and procedures, resorts to only the cheapest practices and discourages drug companies from developing new drugs by not paying them enough to cover their costs of experimentation, trial and error.

If you don't think we have socialized medicine in the US, then explain to me what an HMO is.

Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism--and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women--to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable.

Because it is important that we return school prayer. Forget that schools cannot afford textbooks and some children cannot afford lunch, we have to work together to return school prayer. School prayer will make everything better.

And make sure that we give equal time to Darwin and the Book of Genesis when discussing the origins of the Universe.

But I stopped at a dozen because I realized that this is already, in large measure, the program of so many of our elected representatives. The debauchery of our tort system is already in place, and the rest of the agenda is under way.

Enough said. Out.

Games

[grouchomarxist]

Games is one software area in which a lot of innovation is coming out of Asia (esp. Japan).

People innovate in areas they really enjoy. I wonder if the lack of innovation in productivity software is due to the difficulty of using the awkward asian language input mechanisms along with the dominance of American companies.

Lawsuits And Responsiblity

[Mittermeyer]

I can agree that there are horrid stupid no-responsiblity lawsuits out there.

My current favorite is the asbestos suits in which the companies have been utterly destroyed, but the true needy victims will likely get no money because the industrial-sized law firms have methodically looted the funds for relatively undeserving clients.

However, lawsuits have been the most effective way to force companies to build safety into their products. If there were full tort reform as Stein and his ilk would like, then killing people with exploding car gas tanks would just be another cost of doing business.

Responsiblity cuts both ways- the populace should take responsibility for their own foolish or immoral actions, but not at the expense of being able to make sure larger organizations are responsible too.

How about this change- lawsuits must pass more stringent tests to not be deemed frivolous, and are limited to realistic damage levels, but company officers who do harm either through negligence or willful contempt of safety are criminally liable.

Home Schoolers to Win Ben Stein's Money?

[ubiquitin]

Ben is right on target here.

Interesting that home schooling, as carried out by diligent and disciplined parents, addresses his points 1,3,4,7,8.

The family is the fundamental unit of an organic, growing society. Jeopardize the integrity of the family and the state will, sooner or later, lose unity itself.

Behold, an American welfare system that rewards single mothers, an American culture that looks down upon those who pursue a life of dedication to their family, and an American public education system that is in tragic need of overhaul.

Ben Stein

[Funkeriffic Toad]

Since when do we take economic advise from a man who hosts a game show on Comedy Central?!

Seriously...

Family is very important!

[PineHall]

8) Mock and belittle the family. Provide financial incentives to people willing to live an isolated existence, vulnerable and frightened. This guarantees that men and women of sufficient character to bring about innovation will be psychologically stifled from an early age.

Stable 2 parent families are important for society. I have seen a number of friends who have had to work through some serious issues because their childhold family had serious problems with broken marriages being the most common issue. Check out the book The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce for a psychologist's startling findings.

Constructive Criticism

[Strange Ranger]

Somebody want solutions to the education problem? A few humble suggestions, not easy ones:

1. Require national standard minimum skills tests for EVERY ACCREDITED MAJOR before a degree is granted. Get professors and top hiring managers to design the test. This helps keep our universities from graduating every single person they possible can. Really, where else can we find a financial incentive for our universities to flunk more people and graduate less of them? Degrees should not be a dime a dozen.

2. Make grade school HARD. If it takes little Johnny an extra 3 years to graduate, so be it. Holding back brighter kids so the less able ones don't feel bad has to stop. I honestly want my second grader learning Intro Chinese, Solar System basics, Ecology (where litter goes), math that isn't memorization, etc. etc. No more whole days spent on Red+Blue=Purple.

3. Simple one: Make it VERY HARD to become a teacher. This is what the AMA did for doctors. This gives us better teachers who we know are motivated. It shrinks the teacher pool so we are forced to start paying more for teachers. Sure, it hurts initially when class sizes grow, but it pays off in the long run, and still 40 kids to one great teacher is far better than 10 kids to one lousy teacher.

These 3 steps could be implemented without spending much taxpayer money, and the benefits would be easy to see after a few years.

Re:Constructive Criticism

[netwiz]

Except that the only people out there that could pass said stringent tests for teachers will constantly find themselves wooed away by offers of triple their salary in the private sector. Now, would you advocate that they make such great sacrifice to help our nation's children? Even if you do, will you follow your own advice? Probably not. Neither did I. I'd _love_ to teach, at any level. I'm pretty good at explaining things, at least that's what my coworkers say. However, I would have to get a roommate to afford rent in this city, and a house is Right Out. There's a reason why most teachers are the wives of someone making a Real Living, it's because you can't have a decent life on a teacher's pay. You double the salary, I'm there _tomorrow_.

I don't completely disagree w/ your ideas, but usually, the smart work gets done by the smart people, and money is how we encourage them to seek out those jobs.

Re:Constructive Criticism

[Sentry21]

Make grade school HARD. If it takes little Johnny an extra 3 years to graduate, so be it. Holding back brighter kids so the less able ones don't feel bad has to stop. I honestly want my second grader learning Intro Chinese, Solar System basics, Ecology (where litter goes), math that isn't memorization, etc. etc. No more whole days spent on Red+Blue=Purple.

This I agree wholeheartedly about. I loved school until about grade 4, when my burst of learning hit a brick wall because the reservoir ran dry. Not a day goes by that I don't wonder where I could be or what I could do if I'd learned at my own rate, instead of getting a day's learning done every week or so. When I was reading 400 page novels in a week and the rest of the class was bitching about having to read a 10-page story (or rather, having the teacher read it to them), I knew that the education system needed work.

And you know what? I don't think that reading that much is unrealistic. I'll admit that not everyone can do it, but I think that it could be the rule, not the exception. We need to start seeing education and knowledge as a reward in and of itself, not just a route to better jobs, more money, or whatever, and we need to stop emphasizing sports. Large schools have more 'intellectual' after-hours clubs, sure, but the smaller schools can 'only' afford sports teams. How is this right?

Sidenote: I'm Canadian, incidentally. I've been educated (grades 8-12) in three provinces. Saskatchewan didn't have the money to keep up to date (Social Studies textbooks from 1978), BC had too much beaureaucracy (sp?)(they spent entire school board meetings arguing over what title our school's 'principal'/'director' should be given) and too much union crap. If I had children to put through high school right now, I'd move to Lethbridge, Alberta, and put them through WCHS. It's the best highschool I've attended/visited/heard of. Language programs, trips, and the atmosphere is intellectually-inclusive. It's sad when these features are so rare.

--Dan

American technological edge...or not

[Glock27]

First in the "Hall of Shame" is the H1-B Visa bill that is importing mass quantities of foreign workers to compete for US jobs:

"Moving at Internet speed, the House and the Senate approved legislation Tuesday to increase non-immigrant H-1B specialty occupation visas to 195,000 for FY 2000 through 2002." Full article here.

That was courtesy of the Clinton administration. THIS YEAR we are importing 100,000 foreign technology workers to compete for your jobs, due to the incredible shortage of workers we have in the current technology bubble. What, the bubble's over? Too bad...

These workers must keep their jobs, or they are deported. "You don't mind working 80 hour weeks do you? I thought not...". Plus 40K a year is a fortune to many of these folk!

Second is the abysmal rate at which we're turning out math, science and engineering graduates in the US. The US (if memory serves correctly) will turn out about 50,000 EE grads this year, of which 2/3 are foreign citizens likely to leave with their new expertise at some point. Mainland China alone will graduate over 600,000 EE grads this year, of which the vast majority are Chinese citizens. Also, in 2001 Mainland China opened ten shiny brand new software engineering universities. India is another large counry with a vast potential tech workforce.

I think there are legitimate worries regarding America's technological future.

Re:American technological edge...or not

[Glock27]

I posted a longish reply to this, but Slashdot ate it. So, I'll shorten it considerably.

Your thesis that H1-B visa holders aren't paid less in general is simply not correct. Cost savings are the primary reason employers are interested in these workers. Switching jobs is also very difficult in the current economy.

I did want to say that I'm happy for you that you're in America now and have better opportunities than in your homeland. Congratulations! :-)

Finally, on the "contradiction" issue - there is no contradiction. My main point was that there is little incentive for college students to choose IT or engineering fields when they see the government bringing in hundreds of thousands of foreigners to compete for their future jobs. It is also unfair to older technology workers who do great work but expect to be compensated for their experience, rather than undercut by cheaper foreign labor.

I'd like to see the faces of CEOs across America if a similar bill were enacted, targetted at their jobs.

Here's a timely article from Cnet today:

Sun faces renewed visa complaint

Re:Join fingers...let's code for America

[(H)elix1]

What if he wants to be an artist? Why shouldn't he be a doctor?

Your son is not your property.

I agree - the child is not my property. The tuition funds ARE, however. That should be the first 'real world' lession...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Education System Yadda Yadda

[the eric conspiracy]

The fact is that the average American student lags behind the average student in most developed countries through secondary school.

However the top 10% of US students are equal to the top 10% of the highest ranking secondary educational systems in the world.

Moreover, the percentage of American students who go on to post-secondary education is far greater than any other country. And American universities are as good or better than any in the world. Most of the Noble Prizes since WWII were awarded to people working at American universities.

The result is that top students graduating from top US universities are fully equal or better equipped to compete on an international playing field compared to any other country.

And also despite having a higher percentage of it's workforce employed than other western nations, and a more diverse workforce, US worker productivity per hour is as good as any nation. If the educational system as a whole were failing, this just would not be so.

No, the issue is not the education system, but rather the way the US economy works. In particular we do not reward real innovation enough. The stock market is interested in what is going to happen 6 months from now, when in fact most innovations take 5-7 years to get to market.

We don't need technology

[dnoyeb]

This comment brought to you by, The United States.

"Holdings company of the World!"

Trade Secrets, Copyright & The Erosion Of Pate

[Mittermeyer]

One of the biggest problems from my perspective is that the entire purpose of patent law has been undermined by the expansion beyond the original intent of trade secrets and copyrights.

Trade secrets has allowed companies to essentially patent the unpatentable and protect concepts and ideas far past the patent limit.

Copyrights are even worse in that they have allowed companies to publish software and legally protect it without actually publishing the source code.

Consider Microsoft's successful squashing of any 'unauthorized' books regarding API calls. To me Microsoft would be truly covered if all the API calls were actually published and therefore copyrighted, but they are not. So what is covered is not actually known to the public or described in any public way, yet Microsoft can continue to have them and be legally protected by just copyrighting the distribution of the executables.

This is an abomination of the entire point of having a patent or a copyright system- to encourage innovation by giving the user exclusive use and rights legally protected for a time in exchange for having the body of knowledge published publically.

Why bother to patent when trade secrets or copyright can protect you longer with no public release of knowledge or concepts?

We have drastically erred on the side of use and rights without the fair exchange of public knowledge. Until we fix this part our innovative tech base will continue to suffer.

I strongly agree with much of what you say, but...

[FallLine]

Stop focussing so much money on organized sports when your school is graduating illiterates

Organized sports are not that expensive and the communities that tend to be poorly performing are also the ones with the lowest levels of participation in sports. In fact, those that have high levels of participation in sports tend to drastically outperform those with low levels. I, for one, believe that mandatory athletic programs for ALL students (excepting perhaps those that are actively engaged in the arts and other structured activities) is a good thing. That does not mean that every person needs to play varsity or even JV (which is viewed as a feeder program at most of these schools) but that everyone that wants to play a sport should, even if it is 3rd, 4th, or 5th string. Many of the problems in the schools are a result of lack of participation. It is not an accident that the best students at good schools tend to be those that play sports most seasons. Most of these shortfalls in public school funding are going to huge adminstrative overhead (like 1 administrator per actual teacher in some districts) and not to athletics per se . Although many do spend too much on popular varsity sports, the issue isn't the sum it's the imbalance.

Note: I also blame low standards, grade inflation, madatory teacher certification, absurd union rules, social promotion, backwards education philosophy, and other issues....but that's another story. :)

Re: Tech innovation check

[Stripe7]

Should be fairly easy to see. Lets see what the US companies are patenting compared to the patents in the rest of the world. Hmmm, 1 click shopping patents, patents on how to use a swing etc..

OK, lets compare, if all the idiotic patents were not listed and then compared to the also non-idiotic patents owned by non-US interests we should be able to determine fairly easilly how far the US has dropped in technology.

Re:pretty sensational

[mgblst]

How can I be so sure? Simply because nobody else has what it takes to match us: a devotion to free enterprise, a strong workforce, a wealth of natural resources, social mobility,

and blind, pig-faced optimism, that prevents us from seeing what is wrong with ourselves. Lets hear it for America, hip-hip hooray.

Re:Join fingers...let's code for America

[rnd()]

If you try to force him, he's likely going to major in Philosophy and have long hair and learn to code on his own and write only GPL'ed software.

Oh yeah, and he'll probably spend a lot of time on Slashdot. In fact, he's probably going to look at these very comments in Google Cache one day, so be careful what you say.

Tired, hateful, reactionary nonsense

[radicalsubversiv]

Yuck. It's been a long while since I've read something so mixed-up and vicious. I knew Ben Stein was a conservative, but I had no idea he was quite this reactionary.

Going blow-by-blow:

Allow schools to fall into useless decay.

I'll give him that -- American public education is definitely on the decline.

Do not teach civics or history ...

Indeed, far too little of both. ... except to describe America as a hopelessly fascistic, reactionary pit.

WTF? Have you been in a high-school history classroom lately? Sure, the curriculum now tends to include slavery, genocide against Indians, and so forth, but I've yet to see anything of that caliber in a history text. Even the famously leftist (but wonderful) People's History of the United States comes off making the people (if not the government) of this country look pretty valiant.

Working closely with the teachers' unions, make sure that you dumb down standards so that children who make the most minimal effort still get by with flying colors.

Hold it right there. We all know teachers' unions can sometimes be a little reactionary, but they're not what's ruining public education today. The biggest threat is precisely the implementation of endless "standards," in which pointy-headed administrators tie teachers' hands in the classrooms and turn learning into nothing more than a series of Scantron answer sheets. You want a capable workforce capable of innovation? Good luck accomplishing it by making them into test-taking robots.

2) Encourage the making of laws and rules by trial lawyers and sympathetic judges, especially through class actions. Bypass the legislative mechanisms that involve elected representatives and a president. This will stop--or at least greatly slow down--innovation, as corporations and individuals hesitate to explore new ideas for fear of getting punished (or regulated to death) by litigation for any misstep, no matter how slight, in the creation of new products and services.

Funny fact -- we actually filed more lawsuits-per-capita in the 19th century than we do today. These endless campaigns to do away with our constitutionally-protected recourse to the courts are nothing more than a greedy attempt by powerful corporate interests to make sure they don't have to pay for the consequences of their misdeeds. I suppose you're driving a Ford Pinto to the game show every day, Ben?

Make sure that lawsuits against drugmakers are especially encouraged so that the companies are afraid to develop new lifesaving drugs, lest they be sued for sums that will bankrupt them. Make trial lawyers and judges, not scientists, responsible for the flow of new products and services.

Alternately, use public funds to do life-saving research at the National Institutes for Health, then turn the results over to the drug companies for them to patent and make a killing. Ensure that the FDA is packed with industry insiders who don't understand the very meaning of the word regulation, and then use your profits to engineer a political consensus against any sort of price-controls for prescription drugs. Watch as columnists for business magazines tow the party line.

Promulgate the pitiful joke that Americans are hereby exempt from any responsibility for their own actions--so long as there are deep pockets around to be rifled.

I suppose the fact that the above-mentioned deep pockets constitute Forbes's readership is totally incidental...

5) Hold the managers of corporations to extremely lax standards of conduct and allow them to get off with a slap on the wrist when they betray the trust of shareholders. This will discourage thrift and investment and ensure that Americans will have far less capital to work with than other societies, while simultaneously developing that contempt for law and social standards that is the hallmark of failing nations. Hold the management of labor unions to no ethical standards.

In the interests of fairness, here is one area in which Stein is dead-on. Although the problem goes far beyond the lack of adequate standards -- it is really a structural problem in which corporations are not accountable to their workers, consumers, or the public at large. As for union leadership, the biggest problems with unions in this country is that they're too weak, and their leaders compromise too much and don't represent the interests of their members. Ongoing efforts towards union democracy may help that.

Provide financial incentives to people willing to live an isolated existence, vulnerable and frightened.

This is Republican propaganda. The so-called marriage tax penalty was highly questionable to begin with, but it's now been repealed.

9) Develop a suicidal immigration policy that keeps out educated, hardworking men and women from friendly nations and, instead, takes in vast numbers of angry, uneducated immigrants from nations that hate us. This, too, leads to the shrinking of our knowledge base and the eventual disappearance of social cohesion.

I can't begin to comprehend what the argument is here, beyond racist invective. Most immigrants (documented or otherwise) to this country are hard-working people who do work that most native-born Americans would never care to do.

10) Enact a tax system that encourages class antagonism and punishes saving, while rewarding indebtedness, frivolity and consumption. Tax the fruits of labor many times:

First tax it as income.

Yes, because income taxes are inherently fair, in that those who are benefiting most from our economy are in turn paying a greater share of the costs of making it work. (Sorry, Libertarians, but the market doesn't keep itself afloat.)

Then tax it as capital gains.

Capital gains is income for wealthy people who can make money without working.

Then tax it again, at a staggeringly high level, at death.

Sorry, Ben, but the estate tax only applies to estate in the millions of dollars. Besides, if you're four-square in favor of hard work, why give the children of the wealthy a free ride in life?

11) Have a socialized medical system that scrimps on badly needed drugs and procedures, resorts to only the cheapest practices and discourages drug companies from developing new drugs by not paying them enough to cover their costs of experimentation, trial and error.

A SOCIALIZED medical system? Geez, Ben, what country are you living in? We have one of the least socialized health care systems in the developed world, and as a result it functions extremely poor. It is grossly inefficient (some amazing percentage of our health care dollars go toward bureaucratic overhead), and puts us somewhere behind Cuba, according to the World Health Organization. We're in the middle of a huge health care crisis in this country, and it's been brought to us by greedy HMOs and drug companies. (Also, see above about corporate welfare for the drug companies.)

12) Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism--and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women--to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable.

This country was built by people of a variety of different faiths, frequently persecuted in their homelands, who came here seeking a place to practice their religions freely, and have an opportunity to govern themselves. Our task is allow everyone in America to bring the highest values of their traditions (whatever they may be), to make a society that works for all. Or, we could simply engage in intellectual elitism, pointing and laughing at those we consider backwards.

Never worry, Ben Stein and his ideological allies can bring us back from the brink of disaster, to build a country where everyone is fearful, rule by the rich goes unquestioned, and cultural pluralism is a thing of the past.

Re:Tired, hateful, reactionary nonsense

[elmegil]

We all know teachers' unions can sometimes be a little reactionary, but they're not what's ruining public education today.

They sure as hell aren't helping. Everyone needs to quit pretending that the teachers' unions are for anything but the teachers. I think they have every right to organize, but they DON'T have education at heart, they have teachers' working conditions at heart. Can a teacher with bad working conditions do a good job? Hell no. But do the most wonderful teachers' working conditions in the world guarantee a good education? Also hell no. Accountability is something that is anathama to any union ("we have a right to this job, no matter how badly we screw it up!"), and the teachers' union is no different.

On the other hand, I couldn't agree with you more about the lawsuit issue. The point is that the legal system needs to produce just ends--if that happens, the rest of it (number of lawsuits attempted etc) don't matter. And for the drug companies in particular, I have absolutely zero sympathy, given their record of watching the bottom line closer than the public good. Sorry, but if my child had a mercury based preservative in his vaccines because some fucking moron didn't bother testing these vaccines thoroughly on children to find out the negative effects, the drug company responsible deserves to die (in Ben's words).

The U.S.? How about Japan?

[crivens]

I always thought that Japan was ahead of the U.S. in terms of tech innovation.

Technical edge is not enough.

[renoX]

I'm a foreigner (French), so of course my external POV is biased but I disagree on several points on the article:
- point 3. Promote litigation to punish tobacco companies on the theory that they compel innocent people to smoke.

Sorry, but this is very bad exemple, while I agree that in the US there are too many litigations, I also believe that tobacco companies do try to compel innocent people to smoke by running ads targetted to young teen.
In France, after a long battle, the problem has been solved in a radical way: any advertisement for tobacco is forbidden in any media.

- point 12. Uh? I've always seen American people as being in general higly religious which apparently haven't prevented the US from being the richest nation.
I don't really thinks that the nature of the religion is important wether it is catholicism, mysticim, or other things (except sects of course)

But I'm an atheist, so I'm not very knowledgeable into religions and I don't care, to be honest.

Also the article somehow insists too much on the technical side of the affair: US has not have the best student or best researchers for a long time, still the US is still the first nation on a big number of field, why?
Because the transformation of new idea into industries which sells works very well in the US whereas in the other country usually it doesn't work so well.

And another thing: the article didn't list the patents as a highly dangourous thing: they could slow down inovation very much..

Most Efficient Re-Distribution of Resources

[snatchitup]

Hands down, America can re-distribute its economic resources to what really counts economically.

For awhile there, it was expanding the presence of the Web. Right now, its transferring capital to make a more liquid real-estate market due to all the new-found wealth.

The free flow of economic resources it what makes America Great, and at the same time, rutheless!

Excitingly rutheless.

You'll never see the ready public acceptance of mass layoffs anywhere else in the worl.

Tech workers need layoffs, they are economic resources. The re-distributing to higher demanding positions.

"The world needs plenty of ditch-diggers!"

In the private business market in America. You don't see money being thrown at things that won't produce profits. For instance, satellite consumer products are tough to make money on. Most of the recent satellite based consumer products being dreamed up, aren't here in America. They just don't make enough money. They quickly fade away, for instance "Irridium".

Internet satellite radio seems to be fighting a slow death, but in reality, it's a mere flash in the pan. The internet does just as good a job without a satellite (for instance www.Spinner.com)

Re:Ben Stein

[smack_attack]

He wrote half the speeches for Nixon, a Republican and still has half the mind to blow our current economic guides out of the water on this one. I agree with him wholeheartedly that we are on the path to our own destruction because our current philosophy DOES NOT WORK.

He sounds like he's preaching a lot of the same ideals as Ayn Rand.

You Gets What You Pays For

[Mittermeyer]

Any society will respond to what is valued either through the marketplace or socially. Ours is no exception.

We do not value little smart gadgets like the Japanese do, so we do not make them as well or as consistently. The Japanese do not have per capita square footage like we do, so anything that gives them more capability in a small space is prized. Electronics are also a very profitable item to ship, so it was an excellent arena for the Japanese to specialize in.

Being behind in consumer electronics is not new. Our broadcast standards have been absolutely behind most of the world for decades, for instance. But a clear picture wasn't as important to us and so we have lagged until HDTV.

On the other hand we feel a need to have a strong military. So we put our money into all sorts of hideous toys that are so far ahead of everyone else's that Pax Americana is an absolute fact. No matter how much Japan or France or Russia or China may want to, they simply cannot build an F-22 for a long time to come.

Unfortunately F-22s do not readily translate into consumer products, but items like BOMARC and B-52s translated into the 747, still a world-beater product.

I'm not suggesting that the military-industrial complex is our technical salvation, but since we prioritize and pay for it we get that kind of technical edge. If we want innovation in other sectors of our economy, we will need to prioritize that, either as a government initiative or the natural course of market desire.

And we need to stop whining if we don't absolutely dominate every global industrial endeavor. As long as we can offload the commoditization to Japan or the Little Dragons and keep the innovation in-house, who cares if we all have Playstations instead of Ataris?

Re:You Gets What You Pays For

[Mittermeyer]

As a long-time wargamer that specializes in resource allocation, I am very concerned about the outrageous cost of the F-22. This is definitely a program that is out of control, and is well on it's way to destroying serious transport and logistics assets as the Air Force mortgages the present for it.

However, two Eurofighters do not equal one F-22 in capability. The Eurofighter is essentially a bigger evolutionary version of the F-15 and SU-27. The F-22 is a revolution.

The F-22 has three crucial technologies that in combination make it revolutionary-

* it is part stealth while retaining full combat maneuverability, so it will not be invivisible but it will be very very difficult to hit (and EW will work better for it),

* it has a totally radical radar that can track general targets while illuminating others for final weapon acquisition and firing with a low probability that the enemy will detect the radar, (this thing is almost like having an Aegis radar in a fighter with low signature),

* and it has supercruise, meaning that it can cruise at normal power above Mach 1, which has incredible advantages in terms of reaction time, distances covered, requiring fewer planes total to do the same job.

Bottom line, the F-22 is an incredibly radical weapons system as revolutionary as the M-1 battle tank was. The Eurofighter is a relatively weak sister, you would be better off getting a cheaper fighter and working on your missiles and AWACS capability.

The only question is, will the F-22 destroy the European military aerospace industry or American expeditionary capabilities first?

Re:You Gets What You Pays For

[Mittermeyer]

I have the greatest of respect for the French and Russian military aerospace engineers. They have created truly revolutionary planes that have forced American designers to work far harder to counter them then is realized by the general public. But notice what I actually said- yes they CAN do it, but they CANNOT FOR A LONG TIME TO COME.

Building something like the F-22 takes years of lead time in terms of designing, testing, redesigning, and building (the assembly line as much as the plane for such a specialized item). Even if the will, the money, the workforce and the engineering capability existed in Russia or France (I would argue one or more is lacking in each of those countries) it would be a decade before they could possibly catch up.

Look at the deployment dates of the F-15 versus the SU-27 to see what I mean.

As to your second point, yes Russia did spend itself into the dirt. Given their top-down Communist government, though, I fail to see that the USSR would have done better trying it's hand at consumer goods.

America is not spending itself into the dirt with our military, spending as a percentage of the budget has been dropping (25% during Kennedy years for instance, 8-9% now).

We do have a tremendous debt that has piled up (in large measure during the Reagan years as we spent on both military and social spending and later as Clinton discovered you can artifically pump the economy). In my opinion this debt threatens our national security. The current expansion in defense spending does add to this burden, but just as much as our welfare society (corporate or otherwise).

In between bemoaning the cost of defense, consider the kind of world without a USN or USAF where every tin plate authoritarian government could stop commerce with just a few planes or subs.

With our military we encourage a free trade world which forestalls the kind of mercantilist/colonial governments that started world wars. Pretty good investment I'd say, but you still can't turn an F-22 into a Walkman.

We'll have to come up with the Next Coolest Thing. As long as there is a reward system and infrastructure to support it (part of Stein's point), I'm not worried.

Why?

[Cyno]

Education is not profitable.

Why mix socialism and capitalism? Why not just do away with capitalism? Let's face it, the system doesn't work, and it doesn't work because of capitalism and greed. Replace it with a system that does work. Replace advertisements with information about science and technology presented in a fun and entertaining way. Make me want to learn physics and latin and how to program. And offer me a proper environment to learn and work. I wouldn't mind going to school for 10-14 hours a day if I had comfortable chairs to sit in, computers connected to networks filled with all the info I'd ever need, and my purpose for being there was to learn instead of pass tests or get a grade.

Life could be so much simpler without the overhead of managing money.

Re:Why?

[enjo13]

Of course you would be much poorer. Captilism works because it is the only economic system that suceeds at creating and sustaining wealth. You have to manage money because it allows society to choose what it values. Society values education, we throw a lot of money at it. I would argue that the biggest problem with education is that it is TO socialist. I don't school vouchers (I don't want MY tax dollars funding religious indoctrination), but I do like the idea of performance based rewards for administrators in our schools. We need some method of making our schools accountable the same way that a business is accountable to its consumers.

The answer is not more socialism, but less. Socialism is an ineffective, wealth robbing system. While it sure feels good to talk about in principle, in practice it simply can not create the wealth needed to sustain a complex and thriving economy.

Re:Why?

[Cyno]

If we got rid of tests and grades and attempted to show our kids that learning is fun through example.. But instead of even trying you'd rather laugh at me and joke around like its not even possible. Gee, thanks. Got any better ideas?

Re:Why?

[Cyno]

Captilism works because it is the only economic system that suceeds at creating and sustaining wealth.

True, but define wealth. For me wealth is the quality of life, which has very little to do with money, but a whole lot to do with the quality of our products, school system, and society in general, etc.

Whoa, you think business are accountable to its consumers? Howso?

I think the system runs on the work we do, not the money we exchange. Because of that I believe it would be far more efficient without the overhead of managing money, and the boost in quality we would get if we didn't have to worry about paying bills while we're working.

Think of it this way. Every American eats food, we know this because they aren't starving in the streets. They must be doing something valuable enough for them to earn the food they eat. Couldn't we simple redirect the flow of that money instead of into consumer hands to buy food, directly into the hands of the farmers who grow it so they can continue to grow it and pay their bills, while we make it all free in the grocery store. Remember we're going to eat one way or another, but if we don't have to manage money when we go buy our food it save us a little time. Add up all the time it would save you and your friends and family and all the people you know and you begin to see how much time we waste managing money.

Now let's assume we all have a limitted amount of time, let's assume that life doesn't last more than 100 years. Do you honestly want to spend a large portion of your time alive counting out coins and dollar bills because you think it makes you more wealthy?

Alternatively I think your plan would work as well. If we did away with all socialism and made everyone work for everything we'd either be rich or really busy. But what happens when jobs become automated? What happens when the corporation doesn't need 80,000 people? When they can use 1000 people and some machines to do the same job and cut costs do you think they're going to hesitate to lay you off?

I'm deeply frustrated with our current system. I don't know how to make it perfect, but I think if we honestly stood back and took a look at our lives that we all could come up with some interesting ideas. And discussing these ideas is what is important, even if we never implement them. It gives me hope at least. :)

Re:Why?

[canadian_right]

Capitalism is good at allocating resources, and rewarding work - in the short term. Lazy capitalists are just as poor as lazy socialists.

Capitalism is very poor at doing things that are good for society at large over the long term. Its hard to make a profit with a school and keep tuition affordable. Universal education makes all of society wealthier in the long run, but pure, raw, capitalism sees it only as a cost.

Rigid idealology, left or right, is rarely the best solution. A mixed system, capitalism were it works best, socialism where it works best, is the best solution.

Re:Why?

[Cro Magnon]

Think of it this way. Every American eats food, we know this because they aren't starving in the streets. They must be doing something valuable enough for them to earn the food they eat. Couldn't we simple redirect the flow of that money instead of into consumer hands to buy food, directly into the hands of the
farmers who grow it so they can continue to grow it and pay their bills, while we make it all free in the grocery store. Remember we're going to eat one way or another, but if we don't have to manage money when we go buy our food it save us a little time. Add up all the time it would save you and your friends and family and all the people you know and you begin to see how much time we waste managing money.

But then what happens to the grocers? And when the grocery stores die, think of all the time we'll spend driving out to the boonies to buy from Farmer Brown.

So?

[Augusto]

And what does that mean?

I worked in a program to help migrant farm worker's kids get a better education, not to mention that I have met a lot of Mexican people. Not a single one of them has ever expressed those views. That's like pulling out KKK literature to say that the US is a hotbed of facist aryans.

75.3497% of statistics are made up

[Catskul]

....annother 9.356% are misapplied.

I hereby declare this 11% statistic null and void....

Really, I dont know if this statistic is correct or not, but Im sick of people ripping statistics that the media has contorted, mangled, and misrepresented, and reusing them in an even more misreprestnted way.

Here's a proposal: Anytime you quote a statistic, make sure you link to a reference so that anyone reading your post can read the research for themselves and decide if that statistic really applies.

Re:75.3497% of statistics are made up

[Catskul]

... And how did they conduct this survey? The details are very important in statistics. How many students were involved in the survey? How many schools? How were the schools chosen? How did they conduct the actual survey? If they just handed out papers to teachers for students and then the teachers just told the students to fill them out, many students may have jokingly labled the US as England or some such, or just not filled it out at all.

Another point is that these statistics are only relevant in relation to the other data. As in : Of US students 89% ages 18-24 could find their own country, while 93% of Sweedish students could find their country.(for example: not actual statistics)

Its also intresting when you see a bunch of statistics all claiming different statistics.

I found: 10%, 11%, 15%, and 20% in different places. Here are some links with some of those statistics on them.

http://www.elon.edu/pendulum/Issues/012302/News/ Fo rmerNational.html
http://teacher.scholastic.com/u pfront/issue/articl es/03bdosomething.htm
http://news.mpr.org/collect ions/education/index.ph p?offset=10

The actual National Geographic survey is here.

Re:I strongly agree with much of what you say, but

[DarkVein]

Organized sports are not that expensive and the communities that tend to be poorly performing are also the ones with the lowest levels of participation in sports.

This isn't my experience. Klein Highschool in Houston Texas, for instance, has a truely massive campus. It's the size of six football fields. The only trouble is that it has three football fields, a soccer field, and a baseball field. There are typically 35 students to a classroom.

The real emphasis on sports over education actually comes from grading system. There are four levels for most classes: Basic, "normal", Advanced, and Honors.

Basic classes move at 1/2 the pace of the normal classes, requiring two semester to complete the same material. These classes usually feature up to 2/3 of the class sleeping, heads on desk, because the pace is so mind blowingly slow. One assignment per day, maximum, in a two hour course. Doing homework in class is punished. Homework counts 60% of your grade. Test count 10%.

The normal class is just that, normal. These classes are usually 40 or more to a class, so many students are bumped to basic to make room. Homework counts 40%, test 30%.

Advanced and Honors are basically the same. Usually "Advanced" is what colleges call "honors-option" courses, where extra work is given to Advanced students in a normal class. Advanced courses are usually reserved for students that participate in extra-cirricular activities. Namely, sports. Varsity are usually given Honors classes. Both of these classes count Homework as 10% of the grade, and tests as 40%. Class participation, including in-class assignments, is 50%. Doing homework in class is encouraged as productive, even during instruction.

Students who take certain extra-cirricular activities are also rewarded with an improvement to their gradepoint average. Klein Highschool typically graduates around ten students who have a 10.0+ gradepoint average. Yes, this is on the 4.0 gradepoint scale. Klein says that this tells colleges which students went "the extra mile" with school activities. About a third of the entire student body (over 5,000) graduate with greater than a 4.0 average. Those who do not participate in after-school activities can not surpass 4.0.

Re:Pointing at a problem is not offering a solutio

[Cyno]

I'm a utopian... Anyway, there are solutions to solve all our problems. Most of them developed over the last 5 years.

Pointing out the problems so loudly that you can no longer deny them is the first step in building a discussion, which is necessary in finding the proper solution. Without discussion, which our current political system discourages, we end up debating the same issues for decades and get nowhere. Why wasn't our school system a hot issue for debate at the last election? Because we're too concerned with money. And I believe if you look at all these problems people keep pointing out you will find that all of them are related by 1 thing, money. People sell out and take the get-rich-quick scheme because that is the goal of American life. If we weren't persuaded by money, if we didn't cater to money or care about money we wouldn't be posting on this article and our school system would be designed properly for our kids. Unfortunately I think the only way to get our minds off of money is to do away with it completely and instead use computers, databases and networks to manage our resources efficiently.

Schools intentionally make people stupid!

[benzapp]

C'mon, this is obvious:

How long can America keep pumping out students whose test scores are in the cellar for industrial nations and expect to maintain an edge in technology? As it stands, a lot of our brains are already imported from India and China.

I live in CA, which should stand as a dire warning to the rest of the country: They limit their property taxes, their schools go underfunded, and as a result California natives largely end up working to repair the cars and wash the floors of the well-educated from elsewhere.

The US needs to get serious about education, and fast. With the tech boom and the world shinking as it is, this is a really bad time to be stupid.

I hear this stuff all the time, and used to believe it myself on occasion. Its simply not true. The educational system was NEVER intended to make people smart, it was intended to make the intelligent human masses comfortable working in factories doing boring, repetitive work and acquiesing to the demands of leaders. Education as we know it, is a system which originated in fascist germany as a way to school better, more obedient and selfless soldiers.

Make no mistake. Schools are doing EXACTLY what they were designed to do. Think about it. Have you ever gone to a neighboorhood in the US which was constructed in the 19th century? How is it houses were constructed to be not only durable, but beautiful as well? The parks, museums, sculptures... All built long before public schools. Have you ever read civil war letters? The average 15 year old infantryman in the civil war writes far better than 99% of the people who post on slashdot. Could you imagine any book by Charles Dickens being on the bestseller list today? Why are so many schools named after the industrial magnates of yesteryear, like Carnegie, Colgate... Why were so many colleges funded by the industrial elite?

If you really think about it, it just doesn't add up. Schools make you DUMB, this is what they were supposed to do. It makes a people easier to control, and less prone to nasty rebellions. Humans are innately intelligent, it is only warping their minds through years of social conditioning they became mad, lost, and inhuman. Carnegie, JP Morgan, Frick, all of them sat around and thought about how to make free men content to work in their god foresaken factories, and like it. They made it so, and now we are living with that legacy.

The forced educational system must come to an end, it is time for this system of class control to collapse and for the average american to recapture the American dream that was stolen from him by the fascist powers of a century ago. We sit here and rip on the US educational system, even though the educational system is the single largest industry in the United States, both in capital expenditures and employment percentages. How is it people in India and China can do as well as us, even in the midst of an anarchy which can barely pave roads let alone build schools. They are better because they are NOT schooled.

To all who are interested, I highly suggest you read the online version of a book entitled The Underground History of American Education by one John Taylor Gatto. The book gives a well written account of exactly how the free minds of the United States were perverted into the drones we have today. It is rare I read a book that is truly eye opening, but this book will make it all make sense.

Re:Schools intentionally make people stupid!

[An Onerous Coward]

I would love, more than anyone I know, to be sucked into your rhetoric about how we're all enslaved by a soulless system. But when it comes to matters historical, you're a bit off.

Think about it. Have you ever gone to a neighboorhood in the US which was constructed in the 19th century? How is it houses were constructed to be not only durable, but beautiful as well? The parks, museums, sculptures... All built long before public schools. Have you ever read civil war letters? The average 15 year old infantryman in the civil war writes far better than 99% of the people who post on slashdot.

The problem here is, you're browsing society at +5. The average 19th century house was built with the same surly, I-could-give-a-rat attitude that you find in many modern subcontractors. Or it was a bunch of logs thrown together, or even a construction based primarily on dirt. Not surprisingly, the average 19th century house is now rubble.

The houses you describe were generally the houses of the relatively wealthy. They would be the ones with the money to hire the best builders, and to maintain those houses properly. The amazing quality of the construction you're claiming is most likely a myth.

Similar things could be said about your "average" fifteen year old infantryman. I doubt there were many to begin with. Even at the very end of the war, I don't believe they were drafting anyone under the age of 17. Since few people who were fifteen when the Civil War started even have grandchildren still living today, any letters you find were probably saved because they were particularly impressive.

Nor did literacy always imply fluency. I've had reason to read over quite a few nineteenth century documents. These people were, to put it mildly, not a generation of Edgar Allen Poes. For every person who could dash off a clear, insightful set of coherent sentences, there were a dozen who could just barely get the point across. Don't tell me that any fifteen year old in the nineteenth century could write better than 99% of Slashdot, because reading their journals is *exactly* like reading Slashdot.*

* Minus the obligatory fRist ps0t!

Re:Schools intentionally make people stupid!

[benzapp]

The problem here is, you're browsing society at +5. The average 19th century house was built with the same surly, I-could-give-a-rat attitude that you find in many modern subcontractors. Or it was a bunch of logs thrown together, or even a construction based primarily on dirt. Not surprisingly, the average 19th century house is now rubble.

No, I think not. The problem is you are a product of a school system that teachs that humans are inherently corrupt and that mediocrity is human nature, except when they submit to an authoritarian power which knows better than they do. You are obviously from a suburban part of the world and have probably never even been to a neighborhood which existed in the 1880's let alone the 1920's. Walk into the Brooklyn Historical Society, or come to a neighborhood known as Cobble Hill, which was even in the 1970's a working class neighborhood. You will find brick town houses of relatively spacious size that look much as they did 120 years ago. These same brick houses which were once the homes of shippers who worked at the Brooklyn docks now go to rich financiers for well over $1 million. Yes, I love in Brooklyn. I am not even going to bother finding you references on this, if you can't come to the nations pre-emininent city and learn a little history, a quote won't matter to you one bit.

The houses you describe were generally the houses of the relatively wealthy. They would be the ones with the money to hire the best builders, and to maintain those houses properly. The amazing quality of the construction you're claiming is most likely a myth.

Relative to Africa? Yeah, maybe. But I think a dock worker who built a house now affordable only to the top .5% of the US population speaks for itself. And as far as the quality of construction, I would like to see your plywood home last for 100+ years.

Similar things could be said about your "average" fifteen year old infantryman. I doubt there were many to begin with. Even at the very end of the war, I don't believe they were drafting anyone under the age of 17. Since few people who were fifteen when the Civil War started even have grandchildren still living today, any letters you find were probably saved because they were particularly impressive.

This is where you astonish me. Do you really think I would just spout this shit out of my ass? This proves more than anything you have been brainwashed by the school system. 17? Coincidentally almost the age of adulthood today. Bad news jack. Another great step in the forced schooling enslavement was an attempt to increase childhood, so as to rob the youth of their opportunity to organize and revolt. 20th century rebellious youth did precious little compared to the "adolescents" of the 19th century. They did great stuff like stage the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Why do you think they use the term "rebellious" anyway?

Read upon Admiral Farragut. Admiral Farragut captured his first British ship during the War of 1812 at the ripe old age of eleven. He gained his first command at twelve. Granted he was young for his age. But my point is this, if you think 17 was the LOW end of infantrymen, let alone sailors... You know absolutely nothing of military history. But, this proves the system works. 12 year olds 200 years ago had no problems staging revolutions. 12 year olds today are barely off their mother's tit, and are more concerned with toys that the glory of war. You my friend, are exactly the young man JP Morgan wanted. Someone unwilling and incapable of waging war. A true bitch, forever a slave to the system.

Nor did literacy always imply fluency. I've had reason to read over quite a few nineteenth century documents. These people were, to put it mildly, not a generation of Edgar Allen Poes. For every person who could dash off a clear, insightful set of coherent sentences, there were a dozen who could just barely get the point across. Don't tell me that any fifteen year old in the nineteenth century could write better than 99% of Slashdot, because reading their journals is *exactly* like reading Slashdot.*

As a student of history, and someone who has spent much time reading civil war letters, I could not disagree with you more. But given your overall ignorance of the entire century you have exhibited thus far, I will give you one last change for redemption. Perhaps you can give me an example of this poor writing, so I can see for myself.

Re:Schools intentionally make people stupid!

[MrResistor]

The problem here is, you're browsing society at +5. The average 19th century house was built with the same surly, I-could-give-a-rat attitude that you find in many modern subcontractors. Or it was a bunch of logs thrown together, or even a construction based primarily on dirt. Not surprisingly, the average 19th century house is now rubble.

No, I think not. The problem is you are a product of a school system that teachs that humans are inherently corrupt and that mediocrity is human nature, except when they submit to an authoritarian power which knows better than they do. You are obviously from a suburban part of the world and have probably never even been to a neighborhood which existed in the 1880's let alone the 1920's. Walk into the Brooklyn Historical Society, or come to a neighborhood known as Cobble Hill, which was even in the 1970's a working class neighborhood. You will find brick town houses of relatively spacious size that look much as they did 120 years ago. These same brick houses which were once the homes of shippers who worked at the Brooklyn docks now go to rich financiers for well over $1 million. Yes, I love in Brooklyn. I am not even going to bother finding you references on this, if you can't come to the nations pre-emininent city and learn a little history, a quote won't matter to you one bit.

Sorry, but it is you who are incorrect, and yes I do know what I'm talking about.

The town I have lived in my entire life is a "historic" community. Most of the buildings in the town date to the 1860's, including the house I lived in from ages 12-20, which is on a map of the town from 1864.

Yes, there are a lot of brick buildings downtown, I would say 80-90 percent off the top of my head. You know why? Because everything that wasn't brick burned down! Brick buildings have never been cheap to build, and so it is highly unlikely that a brick building would have been built to anything less than the highest standards of the day. Even today, bricklayers (and similar) command top dollar.

There are many wooden houses that remain as well, but mostly because it is a legal requirement (it is against the law to tear down a structure built before a certain date, and the owner is fined if it falls into disrepair). They are a nightmare to maintain, difficult and costly. Those that have survived were built to survive, and little else, and even that survival is largely the result of continuous maintenance and improvement, which is the only thing that makes them habitable by modern standards.

I'm sure that in the 19th century it was perfectly acceptable, maybe even desirable, to have practically no insulation. All those gas lamps probably made up for the inefficiency of the big open fireplaces nicely, and a high rate of air exchange probably kept the air breathable. If not for the quarter-inch gaps between the boards in their all wood walls they likely would have died of asphyxiation. Don't even get me started on the hacks used to get electricity, phone, and running water into these things.

Of course, these are the ones that survived. There are various towns in the area that didn't, and the only structures on those sites today a reconstructions built by the various historical societies in the area.

I do know a thing or two about construction, by the way. My dad has been a Contractor for 30 years, and I worked in construction for over ten years, mostly residential, including a few remodels of Victorian homes.

The houses you describe were generally the houses of the relatively wealthy. They would be the ones with the money to hire the best builders, and to maintain those houses properly. The amazing quality of the construction you're claiming is most likely a myth.

Relative to Africa? Yeah, maybe. But I think a dock worker who built a house now affordable only to the top .5% of the US population speaks for itself. And as far as the quality of construction, I would like to see your plywood home last for 100+ years.

If properly maintained, as is the case with the vast majority of surviving Victorian structures, there is absolutely no reason why a modern home shouldn't last 100 years or more. Houses from the 1920-30's still survive, and that was definately a low point in terms of construction quality.

Your lack of understanding in this regard, however, is nothing compared to your lack of understanding of real estate value. My grandmother has been in real estate for 40 years, and she would be happy to inform you that quality of construction means only slightly more than dick in real estate. Really, there are only 3 important things: location, location, and location. This is why a crappy 1960s surf shack in Palo Alto sells for $500k.

Yeah, the fact that a dock worker could afford a house that now only the top .5% can afford does speak for itself, but the only thing it says is that it happens to be in NYC.

This is where you astonish me. Do you really think I would just spout this shit out of my ass?

That seems to be where everything else you've said has come from, why should I expect this to be any different.

Another great step in the forced schooling enslavement was an attempt to increase childhood, so as to rob the youth of their opportunity to organize and revolt. 20th century rebellious youth did precious little compared to the "adolescents" of the 19th century. They did great stuff like stage the French Revolution and the American Revolution.

If you think you would be better off fighting wars than doing whatever it is you are presently doing, be my guest. Please, run away and join the French Foreign Legion, if you think those kids had it so good!

Why do you think they use the term "rebellious" anyway?

Because that has been the word used to describe the characteristics of a rebel since the 15th century. "Rebel" comes from the Latin rebellis, from re- + bellum war, from Old Latin duellum, which has some rather obvious connections to modern words as well.

The word "rebellious" has no connection with the concept of youth, except in the modern, post WW2, usage.

12 year olds today are barely off their mother's tit, and are more concerned with toys that the glory of war. You my friend, are exactly the young man JP Morgan wanted. Someone unwilling and incapable of waging war. A true bitch, forever a slave to the system.

The average 12 year old of JP Morgan's day was already working in the factory, no schooling needed. For an alleged student of history, you seem to know surprisingly little about it. You think we're slaves to the system now? You know nothing of this era you claim to be such an expert on.

Nor did literacy always imply fluency. I've had reason to read over quite a few nineteenth century documents. These people were, to put it mildly, not a generation of Edgar Allen Poes. For every person who could dash off a clear, insightful set of coherent sentences, there were a dozen who could just barely get the point across. Don't tell me that any fifteen year old in the nineteenth century could write better than 99% of Slashdot, because reading their journals is *exactly* like reading Slashdot.*

As a student of history, and someone who has spent much time reading civil war letters, I could not disagree with you more. But given your overall ignorance of the entire century you have exhibited thus far, I will give you one last change for redemption. Perhaps you can give me an example of this poor writing, so I can see for myself.

I'll take the word of someone who has read letters and journals over the word of someone who has only read the letters. As the parent says, you're only reading the letters that were good enough to keep, and the journals (in my admitedly limited experience) show a much lower level of education. Even those, though, were written by those who had some amount of education. The average 12 year old today is much more fluent than then average 12 year old during the Civil War, who quite likely couldn't read at all.

Re:Spending != Innovation

[glrotate]

Oh? Do you know of any engineers or scientists who would like to join the company I'm starting?

I'm paying 350 hugs a week.

Re:Seems obvious to me!

[zentec]

The problem with "innovation" is that's driven by one single force -- the almighty buck.

You can't have innovation without the pursuit of the dollar. You can't force those who innovate to pay the freight for "minimum living standards".

Pick your poison -- innovation via capitalism or socialism. I'm afraid we're leaning far more toward the latter.

on the other hand

[Indy1]

most of the noble prizes that go to US universities are OFTEN to foreign scientists.

http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/index.html

Re:I strongly agree with much of what you say, but

[Yunzil]

After all the hard work of the kernel folks, you seem to expect them to be perfectly happy with having to support binary modules that they can't debug, and that fall in a grey area of the GPL.

Citation?

I, for one, believe that mandatory athletic programs for ALL students is a good thing.
[...]
feeder program at most of these schools) but that everyone that wants to play a sport should, even if it is 3rd, 4th, or 5th string.

Mandatory does not mean you get to play if you want to. Mandatory means you play whether you want to or not. I, for one, did not.

Many of the problems in the schools are a result of lack of participation.

I'm not sure I agree with this or not, but *forcing* kids to participate (in anything) isn't going to accomplish anything either. The reason kids don't "participate" is generally not because of a lack of opportunity; it's because they don't want to.

Note: I also blame low standards, grade inflation, madatory teacher certification, absurd union rules, social promotion, backwards education philosophy, and other issues....

I'll agree with you there! :)

squandered lead

[sharrestom]

I'm an mech engr in business running a couple of CNC machines for a living making a variety of parts for local telecom, recreation, and misc industries. I've got all of the cool stuff that you need to be in this business, but I've recognized for some time that the balance of manufacturing power has shifted to Asia. This isn't a bad thing in an economic sense, and Americans and the west benefit greatly from the low priced products originating in Asia, and more specifically, China. One could argue that it is western technology, and a massive Asian manufacturing economy that together fuel this expansion. What does concern me though, is that Americans have come to expect, that we as a people, will somehow defy socioeconomic law and continue as an economic, and singular military superpower, ad infinitum. One need only look at the manufacturing lead that Americans held at the end of WWII, to realize that much of the American Century was fueled by the fortune of a geography that shielded our continent from the massive destruction of both world wars in Europe, Russia, and Asia. This lead has, over almost 60 years time, diminished, with the prospects, if not occurence, of reduction in the standard of living for the middle and lower class. It is not too great a stretch to see an Asian future in which rising manufacturing prowess fuels a greatly expanded appetite for innovation, and wealth creation. How will the people of America respond to this economic and social challenge? My own take is probably not well.

Re:Pointing at a problem is not offering a solutio

[webster]

Anyway, there are solutions to solve all our problems. Most of them developed over the last 5 years

I would be very interested to see a link to these solutions. I would hope such a link contained information that included the proposed detailed day-to-day operation of the solution, once impemented; the detailed plan for making the transition from where we are to where the solution means to take us, including how to deal with the inevitable opposition; the means by which we'll get to the point where such a transition is even seriously considered; and finally, why anyone thinks the solution would work any better than past utopian solutions.

I think the only way to get our minds off of money is to do away with it completely and instead use computers, databases and networks to manage our resources efficiently

This, also, make me want to see a plan. It reminds me of the Socialists' claim that all would be well if the workers were in charge. I have never seen nor heard of a detailed economic model that gave any hope of actually succeeding in managing a nation's resources efficiently, wisely and fairly. Such a model may well be within the capabilities of human ingenuity, but I'd be a little surprised if such a thing already existed, given my understanding of the state of technology.

An open letter to Ben Stein

[mikosullivan]

Mr. Stein:

A hypothetical question for you: if one of our students were the author of the essay How to Ruin American Enterprise, and had turned it in to you as a paper, how would you grade it? Would you feel that the essay had enough concrete examples? Would you feel that it addressed possible opposing points of view, showing where those points of view were incorrect? Would you feel that it presented a balanced, considered opinion, or would you possibly feel that the essay strayed too much into unsubstantiated zealousness.

If you would have given this paper a good grade, I'd like to sign up for one of your classes: I need the "Easy A".

-Miko

how to ruin america

[EugeneK]

Ben Stein's got it all wrong.

• spend billions of taxpayer $'s on funding violent and repressive client states like Israel, Columbia and Saudia Arabia
• create a National Security State where civil rights and privacy are sacrified in the name of a never-ending war with a rotating cast of interchangeable villians
• continue to spend more on incarceration than education. teach children their only hope for a future is as a soldier, a prisoner or a guard.
• don't fund or subsidize technology that is useful for civilian society (which would pay for itself in new productivity improvements and economic scenarios). Instead only fund research that is used for killing people or spying on them and that otherwise sits useless in military warehouses.

my comments

[Tablizer]

1) Allow schools to fall into useless decay

I am not sure the schools have much to do with it. Most school stuff is buzy work to train people to tolerate cubicle-based repetition.

2) Encourage the making of laws and rules by trial lawyers and sympathetic judges, especially through class actions.....

The authors attacks are too specific. The legal and Intellectual Property issues are indeed probably the biggest problem we face, but the author is too focused on drug lawsuits. I agree though that companies should not be punished when users are clearly stupid and abuse a product.

Make it second nature for someone who is overweight to blame the restaurant that served him fries.

I think there is some legitimacy to this. There is improper labeling and disclosure, and the food industry keeps finding ways to reject "nutrient density" (ratios); using grams and the arbitrary, useless "serving size" instead.

If it takes lawsuits to fix it, then so be it.

Sneer at hard work and thrift. Encourage the belief that all true wealth comes from skillful manipulation and cunning, or from sudden, brilliant and lucky strokes that leave the plodding, ordinary worker and saver in the dust.

That is reality, not just the US. "The Art of War" is an Asian work, I would note. (It talks about winning through psychological manipulation instead of brute force".) It should be required reading for anybody bound for cubicle-land.

Encourage a mass culture that spits on intelligence and study and instead elevates drug use, coolness through sex and violence, and contempt for school. As children learn to be stupid instead of smart, the national intelligence base needed for innovation will simply vanish into MTV-land.

Why not? All the "smart" jobs are going overseas where the labor is cheaper. The US is becoming a nation of managers anyhow. Managing is mostly a social function, not a technical one. That is only reason it too is not shifting overseas.

9) Develop a suicidal immigration policy that keeps out educated, hardworking men and women from friendly nations and, instead, takes in vast numbers of angry, uneducated immigrants from nations that hate us. This, too, leads to the shrinking of our knowledge base and the eventual disappearance of social cohesion.

This person has no clue what an H-1B is.

If you flood the simple jobs, then it will encourage people to get educated. But, if a programmer has to work at McD's because an H-1B took his/her job, then there is little incentive to be a programmer anyhow. Why is flooding skilled labor better than flooding unskilled labor?

How to Ruin American Enterprise

[anthony_dipierro]

Don't give poor access to learn technology by arresting people who provide books and software for free without permission of the megacorp which owns the copyright on it.

USA is going down the drain frankly.

[miffo.swe]

With the emerging protectionism of some predatory companies on the expence of newstarters the innovation regarding to computers have almost grinded to a halt. Damn, our computers is still based on 1950 technoloygy when better ways exists but no one seems willing to take a chance and implement it with such entrenched companies as Intel and Microsoft at the helm. The USA needs aggressive enforcement of antitrust, oligopol and kill the DMCA in its cradle. The DMCA pretty much cements certain oligopols and monopolies by law.

All these stupid decisions gives the ball to other countries to play with. I think the USA can very well go the same way as Japan did in the 90's. With current leadership in the states that is dangerous as hell. Bad economy? Start a war and focus the citizens on another direction.

It happens right now!

Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

[thewickedmystic]

Perhaps losing our technical edge isn't such a bad thing...

Has anyone else noticed how we use our technological edge? Particualarly on a global scale? Things such as Echelon has not made things better.

Don't get me wrong. I am a patriot, but I believe in the Constitution, not the current... um... well, maybe I shouldn't say that, this isn't being posted as an AC.

Maybe we should imagine what would happen if the USA didn't have the edge over the rest of the world. Who knows, without a bully on the playground things might get better.

I think we should- Just a sec, someone's at the door. Hey! What are you doing! That's my cable modem connec-

NO CARRIER

Re:Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

[Forkenhoppen]

Having read a lot of stuff on emergence lately, I'm kind of in the mindset of considering nations as their own organisms too. And this "bully" idea is a bad thing. As is the current "policeman" idea.

The US should not be the world's policeman; that's what the UN is for. The US should instead be the world's more knowledgeable older sister. They should be behaving as such; talking with these nations, trying to help them along.

People make mistakes, and so do nations; corporal punishment's on the decrease domestically, so why should it remain such a fervant part of the US's foreign policy?

Re: School teaches you to learn, not absorb facts

[writertype]

Initially, my reaction was: "Mod this up, as this fellow doesn't know his own wisdom."

Now, I'm not so sure.

I started college as a physics-English major. I later dropped physics, as I was unable to pursue all of the courses I wished. I also struggled with the math, but I'm happy to say I maintained passing grades.

What Fastball (a baseball-loving liberal arts major! I wish you were a girl, so I could date you...) swings and misses at is the realization that college should be used to refine the skills one learns in high school -- and those are not merely facts like who won the Battle of Waterloo.

The metalesson college offers is refining one's ability to learn and reason, and providing an intellectually nurturing environment to do just that. With all due respect, stating that he had to "waste away" for two semesters of calculus is itself a waste. Think Snow Crash: you're training your mind to accept knowledge, even if that knowledge isn't being processed yet.

(This argument applies also to the specialized training you can receive in college - even if advanced HTML is not offered, I would argue that a basic comp sci course offers the principles needed later.)

Moreover: what job should college prepare you for? I would wager that there are many people who would have never predicted that they would end up in the job they are now.

Isolating yourself intellectually from something you find "stupid" and "unnecessary" is itself a waste, similar to the argument that living your whole life in Bumfuck, OH is acceptable because the outside world has nothing to offer.

Wither America's Technological Edge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Title has a typo. See above for correction.

Re:Pointing at a problem is not offering a solutio

[Cyno]

I would be very interested to see a link to these solutions.

Are you a politician? Such a plan would require mountains of paperwork to satisfy your intellectual curiosity Since you are smart enough that you can verify if such a plan would be capable of working then why don't you sit down and hash it out for us? What I am saying is the technology is here to hash out such a plan IF we have our brightest discuss it in an open forum where everyone can comment equally, unlike current political debate on CNN or Fox or your favorite news channel. I'm certainly not smart enough to write a simple plan to revolutionize the economy. But I know where I'd start.

So WTF? You think our current economic model manages our resources efficiently, wisely and fairly? Or you just like to discourage others from exploring the possibilities?

I'd rather hear a counter arguement about how it is impossible to create such a system using current technology than simply discrediting my opinions because I haven't written up a website with enough words to prove it to you.

Prove to me that all would not be well with the people in charge. Show me an example of how people have tried to implement such a society with current technology. I doubt there ever has been such an experiment. They certainly didn't have current technology 100 years ago.

There they go again, damn commies trying to take away our jobs.. (people shouldn't have to work... technology can help make that a reality)

Re:Ben , ben ... who cares

[jpmorgan]

Price ceilings are generally associated with the left-wing, but that doesn't make them good left-wing policy. There are much better leftist approaches to the problem.

They're a classical example of the leftist stupidity, thinking that you can solve all problems by legislating them away.

(For the record, the right-wing stupidity is pretending market externalities don't exist).

Re:Multiculturists and engineering

[cranos]

Up until now, it's been mostly the liberal arts and humanities that have been poisoned with this stupid brand of "liberalism"

Damn you mean that students are actually learning about different cultures as opposed to the white washed one sided point of view they got before?? Shame shame.

And how in the hell can multiculturism hurt the hard sciences? Do you actually have a problem with say an Indian doing geology or maybe an African doing heart surgery?

You are obviously someone has never gotten over the cold war. Guess what goodness and light won and badness lost, get over it.

Re:Pointing at a problem is not offering a solutio

[webster]

I'd rather hear a counter arguement about how it is impossible to create such a system using current technology than simply discrediting my opinions because I haven't written up a website with enough words to prove it to you.

Far from discrediting your opinions, I am hoping to gain some insight into them. And when I ask for a link, I do not necessarily mean a web link. You say that, in the past five years, solutions to all our problems have been found. I did not and do not think it was hostile of me to ask for a little more information, nor to indicate my hope that descriptions of these solutions include how they would deal with some of the more pressing problems they would face.

If, on the other hand, they all boil down to "we should let technology save us", your hostility is understandable and no more need be said.

This article is stupid

[br00tus]

I'll address his lists point by point. Probably the one most obviously fallacious to Slashdot readers is "Develop a suicidal immigration policy that keeps out educated, hardworking men and women from friendly nations". So raising the H1-B cap to 195,000 is keeping supposedly educated people out how? I guess he's mad that the H1-B cap isn't 300,000 or 400,000, and that IT wages have only fallen a little, and that there still are a few job openings that pop up once in a while. Stein is nothing other than a commissar for the powers that he serves, of whom they are is obvious from the publication he is writing in (Forbes). Then he bashes Mexican immigration but neglects to mention that Steve Forbes is a big booster of Mexican immigration for a variety of reasons - I guess Stein is smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds him, and try to make people think the Teamsters union was all for NAFTA and all that or something...

1) It's true American schools are bad, although not for the reasons he gives. The US has imported hundreds of thousands of skilled workers from countries who have socialist education systems (mainly India and China) because according to tech business leaders, American schools are not putting out the type of students needed. The fact that hundreds of thousands of H1-Bs immigrated to the US shows that their education system is superior, but their pay system is inferior (e.g. it can't pay the workers what they can get here).

2) He only picks on trial lawyers, I guess corporate lawyers get a pass. Lots of horrible things have been created in court, like the modern corporation with the rights of a person, I doubt he would have a problem with that type of court back door use though

3) Slashdot often posst article where some big corporation sues some individual over some minor infraction. In Stein's world, the corporations are the victims, at the mercy of small individuals suing them. Imagine calling tobacco companies (who are more or less drug dealing mass murderers) victims of the law, tobacco companies are the most lawsuit-happy entity in existence, they prevented Sixty Minutes from airing a piece on tobacco for a long time by strange legal threats. Goodbye open society and free press, stopped by the drug dealers like Phillip Morris and co. It's disgusting how the right rushes to defend tobacco drug dealers and portrays them as victims but then turns around and sends guys selling marijuana on the corner to prison for years on end.

4) Where does real success come from? Look at who has the most important job, the president. He got bad grades, bad SAT scores, got into an Ivy League school anyway, got C's there, got into Harvard anyway and so forth. If you look at the Forbes 400 richest Americans list, the majority got there by inheriting the money. It's true that all wealth comes from as the classical economists said, workers working, and creating wealth, but that is covered up by his buddies more than anything.

5) The rich, who are the controlling shareholders/owners of corporations seem to be unable to control their top executives. The reason for this is pretty obvious, they all want immediate, unreasonable returns from their executives and as time goes by things become more unmanagable. This is a byproduct of the economic cycle as it goes along but people like Stein don't see it that way.

6) Yaa laws like it's OK to drink liquor and sell tobacco but not marijuana. And you're not allowed to get a BJ from your girlfriend in certain states. Plus about one million intellectual property laws. The law is bullshit, it's purpose is to protect Stein and his ilk, if he wants people to respect the law they should stop passing stupid laws.

7) In England television is controlled by the government with BBC, in America it was handed over to corporations, with the help of conservatives like Mr. Stein, so instead of seeing "quality television" you have MYV selling things using sex, violence or whatever. He made the bed, now he has to lie in it.

8) I always hear people talking about how the family is belittled and mocked and how they are all for the family...this is pretty stupid it's like saying you're for mom, God and apple pie and other people aren't...rhetorical masturbation. Even Marilyn Manson got married.

9) Right, the H1-B cap is raised to 200,000 a year but he's not happy. And as I said, the workers must be imported from countries with a socialist eductaion system (China/India) since ours is going down the tubes. Steve Forbes said Mexican immigration to the US was a "good safety valve to quell domestic discontent down there" and factory owners love them and only get a slap on the wrist when caught hiring them. So who is encouraging this illegal immigration. I guess Stein wants the H1-B cap at 300,000 or 400,000, because tech salaries haven't gotten low enough and there still might be one or two job openings till popping up here and again.

10) Stein's president has been telling people to go out and consume, which I presume means spend the money don't save it. So who is doing this pushing to spend instead of save? If Stein is high on saving over spending there's a lot of Republicans he better go talk to.

11) A socialist medical system? What country is he writing from? The US has the least socialized medical system in the industrial world.

12) As far as promoting fundamentalism, Stein should once again look around the Republican party, which through out "E Plurubus Unum" as the national motto and replaced it with "In God We Trust", and which wants to stick the Ten commandments and other crap in every public facility in the country.

Re:I strongly agree with much of what you say, but

[FallLine]

Citation?

That quote was not mine. Do your own homework :)

Mandatory does not mean you get to play if you want to. Mandatory means you play whether you want to or not. I, for one, did not.

I know what mandatory means full well; the two statements are not mutually exclusive. I believe that it should be mandatory that every student plays some sport or some other school activity (e.g., drama), except for when the student has a genuine handicap, is participating in other rigorous activity that cannot be played within the school (e.g., semi-pro tennis), and so on. I also believe that students should be able to play any sport that the school offers, within reason (e.g., willingess to compete, reasonable health, etc). The problem is that most public schools in the US only offer a varsity and (somewhat less often) a junior varsity team which only accomodates a mere fraction of the number of students that are interested in playing. There are a good number of private schools, on the other hand, that offer 5 or more strings of every major sport and everyone that wants to play has a good shot at getting involved with the school. In other words, it scales with demand. There may be some sports that do not have enough space to accomodate every student but that deficit is generally not enuogh to field a team. My point is that not only are sports at the public schools merely not mandatory but that they are effectively closed to all but the so-called jocks. What's more, this serves to isolate both player and non-player from the school.

I'm not sure I agree with this or not, but *forcing* kids to participate (in anything) isn't going to accomplish anything either. The reason kids don't "participate" is generally not because of a lack of opportunity; it's because they don't want to.

I disagree. This same argument can be made for school work. We shouldn't require it because students don't want to play? Well, I went to two (well technically 3) different high schools that had different philosophies about sports. The one that required it, whether you believe it or not, generally had a willing and excited student body that wanted to play their sports (and that's been my experience with similar schools today and with the historical experience) You might chalk it up to a feedback effect and a certain critical mass...just as you might with academic performance at a good school. No? I was also gave somewhat short shrift to some of the other benefits like the fact that students that are busy generally do not get in nearly as much trouble, tend to be psychologically healthier, have lower incidence of disease, have fewer discipline problems on campus, etc.

Baloney and Cheese Balls

[jefu]

I agree with much of Mr. Stein's thoughts but feel tempted to add one or two or three things :

13) Stifle innovation by granting overly broad patents on ideas that were previously discovered or published, or that are obvious even to the novice in the field, and by granting copyrights that last essentially forever. Be sure to encourage the patent and copyright holders to sue anyone and everyone.

14) Encourage large corporations to snuff out competition. It may help in this to encourage monopolies and structural impediments to marketing new products. Be sure to put laws and regulations in place that will make it difficult for people to compete at all.

15) Pass laws restricting free speech, freedom of association and granting law enforcement essentially arbitrary rights to search and seizure of property, and to arrest and imprison people. Since it is likely that the government cannot do all the law enforcement necessary, pass enabling legislation allowing corporations to enforce laws where it relates to their commercial interest. Let them create their own law enforcement agencies (the rights of bounty hunters clearly establish precedent).

16) Encourage foreign nationals to come study at graduate schools in the US. Make sure that they are favored with jobs and grants and make it easy for them to change student visas for work visas. After all, those spendthrift american youth who managed to get into debt getting their undergraduate degrees are clearly not good candidates for graduate degrees. Obviously, since the US spends money on them as grad students they should not (by any means) return to their countries to help their countries to achieve technological or economic development or democracy.

17) Baloney and cheese ball sandwiches. How could the US be complete without them, hmmm, Pip?

Re: School teaches you to learn, not absorb facts

[Fastball]

Good points. I see three things we're working on here:

1) The process of learning
2) Specialized curriculums
3) Education-Employment relationship(s)

1) The process of learning. There's no doubt in my mind that rote, absorbing learning at a young age is key. E.g., children are better at picking up foreign languages than adults. Why? It helps that they aren't worried about credit card debt or a girlfriend missing her period, I'm sure. No, a young mind is just so beautifully uncluttered. You know, like a blank whiteboard, shiny and pure. There's no better time to fill it with facts and ideas, before responsibilities and anxieties poison it.

However, getting in high school and college, so much more of what we learn comes from social interaction. This time is better spent keeping the hell out of the kids' ways. College is two things to every college student: his GPA and his dick (or the female's erogenous zones, her vagina, tits, and ass--God it's not fair you ladies have three zones!). The world wants his GPA, and he wants the world to have his dick. It's just a paradox that every kid goes through. Thank God for Cliff's Notes; if it weren't for Cliff, I wouldn't have had time to discover my dick. I would have been bogged down with Bronte's Wuthering Heights or some other fscking coming of age drivel.

2) Specialized curriculums. I don't know about you, but I have read and written exponentially more since I finished college. Many more subjects and genres too. We may be having an agreement here. I too am a fan of a broadening one's knowledge of more subjects. However, I don't think regimented syllabi, attendance, and essay exams (*shiver*) stimulate a person's desire to understand the subject. Maintain a GPA maybe, but not understand the subject. I always felt the quicker I get away from college the more time I would have to think. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but think about... :)

3) The education-employment relationship(s). I agree that many folks end up in a line of work they don't conceive themselves taking up or has little to do with what they studied in college, but is that necessarily good? Are they happy? Do they pine for something more or different? College curricula exacerbates this problem, because so previous little material covers real-world processes and situations. Of course, looking at this from the outside in, most jobs in America require very little specialized, trained, enhanced thinking or skills. My personality dictates that I anger at ceremonial requirements like learning Dijkstra's algorithm and Hamming code when all I want to do is register a domain, set up a DNS server, and build a web site. I don't like doing things, because everyone else is doing them.

Here's how I look at it. With so much of what I do for a living learned on my own time, I cannot justify the tens of thousand of dollars required to take up cross-cultural requirements and other sixteen week death marches. I agree with you, writertype, that honing one's ability to learn and reason are important. Experiencing unpleasant (read: stupid) things can be educational and enriching. I fumed during the first two weeks of a required pre-1800 English literature course. It turned out to be one of the more interesting genres of literature (Robinson Crusoe and Gulliver's Travels reached me despite the longwinded prose). But these pleasant revelations were sparse compared to the "just get through it" courses I suffered. When a 30% on a physics exam scales to an A, understanding evaporates.

And for the record, I started college as a business finance major. Struggled through the freshman requirements, then got a 98% on my first accounting exam. Got bored with the rest of the sophomore classes' filler material and nearly flunked out in spectacular fashion. Switched to CS the next year and labored through logic gates and big O notation in class while building a 486 and discovering the nuances of Linux at home. I had a reputation as an ace essay writer in my fraternity house (another story altogether though I have a tattoo to show for it), and after earning an A for a friend's twenty-five page grad school history paper, I switched to English. And the rest is history...

BTW, don't worry about dating me, because I've got one foot out of MLB's door. If they reinstate Pete Rose, I quit. That coming from a kid who wore his number in grade school and saw him break Cobb's record with 4192 in Riverfront Stadium. Really. MLB is a fucking disgrace, and letting a known tax cheat, hot dog of the first order, a man who charges fans large lumps of $ for his autograph despite riding an overwhelming wave of their support, and a man who explicitly put the earnest competition of a major league sport into question by gambling on his own team constitutes an absolute withdrawal from honest sporting competition. Not that MLB has given a damn about that for over a decade now by allowing a Dixie cup strike zone, turning a blind eye to rampant performance enhancing chemistry, marginalizing the playoffs with the wildcard, and doing anything else for the Almighty Buck. I intend to spend every spare minute this Summer enjoying everything else but major league baseball.

Phew. I'm sweating now...

Re:I strongly agree with much of what you say, but

[FallLine]

I don't agree. Schools with massive organized sports (like all of Texas) also tend to have the largest problem with what some would call nerd bashing. The result it the sides of the bell curve are squeezed in so the jocks end up towards the top of the curve and everyone else is excluded.

I think you are confusing my statement with the situation in Texas. In Texas, correct me if I'm wrong (I've never lived there), but the focus is on ONE team in primarily ONE sport in each season. Yes, you may have a JV team or even a third and fourth string, but it's not enough to field all students in the school that are interested and they're viewed as feeders at best for the varsity teams. All other sports teams are given short shrift, lack of funding, lack of time, lack of respect, etc. The end result is that you have 90% of the school playing no sports and another 10% that is playing them all the time.

Contrast this with the situation amongst the better private schools. Here you have a multitude of sports offered each season and everyone that wants to play can play, by and large, providing that there are enough players to field a team. Furthermore, virtually everyone in the school is playing a sport or is actively involved in some other program (e.g., drama). What's more, the varsity athletes are generally not allowed to get away with murder. Oh yeah, and I forgot one other thing, no one is just playing one sport all year round, even the varsity athletes are expected to participate in a sport (necessarily a different sport) every season and not merely lifting weights to get ready for football or what have you. They're still held accountable for their grades and it's understood that that is what will get them into a good college ultimately. The end result here is that participation is roughly 100% and that everyone is playing about the same amount.

Before you argue that this is necessarily expensive, I'd argue that it need not be (from experience) and that it can pay for itself. At many private schools the teachers are encouraged and often required to coach at least one sport a year. At some they're even trained to drive buses so that THEY can shuttle their team to and fro. You rarely have the fancy stadium(s), weight rooms, trainers, physicians, etc. There is generally also less vandalism, fewer incidents of misbehavior, fewer kids getting mixed up in bad things, etc--relative to those schools that do not require it.

Re:Seems obvious to me!

[geekee]

At whose expense? The Soviet Union and China have tried this experiment. Look at where they are. One went bankrupt. The other is turning to capitalism. There's little incentive to be productive if you can't profit from it.

Re:Ben , ben ... who cares

[goon america]

Price ceilings are not a conservative, free-market response to inflation.

They are when you want to win an election!

Nixon begged Eisenhower to slash interest rates in 1960 to instigate a temporary boom. The resulting recession probably cost him the election.

Years later, Nixon had his shills in the Federal Reserve slash interest rates while he instituted price ceilings just before the 1972 election. The economy boomed, and Nixon won. After the artificial price ceilings and interest rates were taken away the economy remained in recession for the next three years.

And more recently, President Bush recently instituted 30% steel tariffs -- in swing states.

Remember, the ideology of the free market stops counting when you're afraid that you don't have enough market power.

Re:Multiculturists and engineering

[cranos]

Okay I got very confused when you used the term multiculturism. What you are describing instead is a form of aparthied. True multiculturilism involves many different people from a huge variety of backgrounds living together peacefully without feeling the need to cut each others throats. We've managed to do that here pretty well, despite what the right wingers have to say. As to your claim about Uni's trying to practice through diversity boosting the number of "racist incidents" could it be that because people are now aware of racism as a bad thing and something they don't have to put up with the number of reports has increased? You say diversity is something that should happen on its own, but its not going to without someone leading the way, and why not the educational system? Get them while they're young is what I say, I went to school with kids from a huge range of cultural backgrounds and I can honestly so that I am better off for it. I now have a better understanding of why things in the world happen because I took the time to investigate and try to understand other cultures. I may not agree with them on certain things, but I understand how they came to be. Short-sighted attacks on multi-culturilism and other mult-ethnic systems only lead to a continuation of segregation and attacks on other cultures. At this moment in time we most need to be able to understand why another culture works the way it does. Without true understanding we are doomed to make the same mistakes that have been made in the past, with understanding we can actually move beyond the need to blow shit out of each other and try to reach nuetral ground. Just one more point before I sign off on my rant, on the subject of Western History and its good and bad points, you claim that the only thing being taught in Modern Unis is to hate Western Culture, I've got to say that is bullshit. What is happening is that people are no longer being taught the rose-coloured version of history, no longer did the white man bring civilisation to the noble savage, no instead they are being taught the truth, that in the majority of cases the white man fucked over the noble savage so badly that we have almost driven the various aboriginal peoples to exinction. Sure we've done great things and we should treat those things as they deserve, but hell we need to remember that our ancestors could be complete and utter bastards at times.

Re:treading with caution...

[Mandi Walls]

And yet religion doesn't prevent or treat those things...

Take, for instance, the Amish and Mennonites. They are a closed gene pool and have the market cornered on weird genetic diseases, weird shit like kidneys not working correctly in addition to the cliche six fingers. see here and here

As for eugenics, would we have eugenics without anti-semites like Henry Ford and Adolf Hilter?

Religion isn't the moral compass that people want it to be. It's a method for identifying yourself , your group affiliation, and your place in the world. It's just as easily bastardized for inhumane purposes as anything else.

--mandi

Re:What?? Read the article first!?

[Drakonian]

Funny coz it's true.

I think something is broken with the system when it's all the earliest posts that get the most karma - from the exact users that don't read the article!

Confession time: I couldn't figure out why my posts were never modded up, time and time again. Then I started posting early, most often without reading the article. Booya - I was up to excellent karma in no time at all. Does anyone else see a problem with this? What if we tried something like no moderation allowed for the first 15 minutes after a story was posted? Well, I guess we'd have a lot of trolls. How about no positive moderation? Just food for thought.

Re:What?? Read the article first!?

[gvonk]

No, no, no. What we NEED is to REQUIRE moderators to view at -1 threshold, flat, most recent first. Then, it all gets modded at an even rate (assuming constant moderation)...

He don' need no schoolin' anyway...

[aquarian]

Ah don' see whar it matters, 'cuz he jus' gonna work in the bodyshop wid his daddy!

Automotive design...

[aquarian]

4) Industrial Design -- The shiny new cars that are manufactured by foreign companies use US design teams. Why do you think Daimler bought Chrysler?

This is true. Add to that, the design chiefs at BMW, VW/Audi, and most Japanese firms are all American. And most of those are graduates of Art Center College of Deisgn in Pasadena, CA.

US has ideas?

[BoneMarrow]

I always thought of the US as Asias marketing department. Do Americans actually have ideas?

Attracting the best and the brightest.

[ahfoo]

Well, at one time anyhow.
In fact, if you go look at ETS's TOEFL home page, you'll see that they've cut almost forty percent of the TOEFL testing center locations because students are not coming like they used to. Most Americans aren't aware of this because it's not a big news story, but it's a fact. The United States WAS the destination for every other kid in Taiwan a few years ago, but that has changed quite abruptly in the most recent two years.

Re:Multiculturists and engineering

[cranos]

You know I'm still trying to see the Marxist connection here?

I am not going to get into a my civilisation is bigger than you civilisation slanging match, its purile and wastes your time and mine. Let me just say this: Mono-culturilism is a dangerous idea, it makes the assumption that one culture is inherently better than the other, this has been shown time and time again to be wrong, witness the fall of the Roman and Chinese Empires, both dominated large portions of the world, both were the dominant powers and both let themselves fall by descending into corruption and despotism.

What makes you so sure that Western Culture will not follow the same path?

i have to say

[Edmund Blackadder]

A lot of this stuff is uninformed rambling. And the whole structure of the piece is really weasly. He does not say that all of these points are true, he says that they may or may not be true ("I think the reader will agree with me that we are already far down the road on many of them"). Just so he can cover his ass and say "I was talking hypotheticaly" when he is forced to own up to something. It is a typical tactic of people that like to make questionable controversial statements to rouse emotions.

I think he has some good points. But some of the stuff is just plain misleading, especially that about providing financial incentives for people to live alone, or capital gains tax being equal to taxing the same money twice. Or that inheritance taxes' effect is to discourage saving.

Point 9 is just plain xenophobia and racism. Similarly point 12 is plain exploitation of peoples fears. I dont think anything like this is in danger of happening. Of course it would be interesting if he included christian fundamentalism in that, but he does not have the guts to do that, so he puts in a phrase about hard working men and women to make sure the christian fundamentalists dont feel they are part of that group.

All in all a calculated statement made in order to stir up passion, and without any substance to it. I am getting pretty disappointed from ben stein. It seems like Nixon has rubbed off on him.

whither sensibility ?

[dmohanty]

I am a software engineer from India, with quite a few years in the software industry with a voracious apetite for news pertaining to world economics/IT trends/physics/medicine etc. I currently work for an American MNC, a technology leader, at its India office.

Mr. Stein's article contains a lot of facts the Americans must ponder over and I think their implementation will help stem the rot of American culture greatly. But it and the subsequent remarks by fellow slashdotters do have some factual incrorectness about them. This remark refers to comments on the "technological edge" and the "immigrants".

America does have a "technology edge", if we consider the seer number of Nobel prizes the Americans have won, the sophistication of the American arsenal, the kind of animation that hollywood churns. Yes, there is a lot of hype about many of their achievements, Nobel prizes too can be manipulated, their technologial superiority gets magnified hugely by the combined efforts of their media and their armed forces. But keeping all that aside, if we try to gauge the number innovations coming out of the US, the number of new ideas that that country has produced in the last century, there is an overwhelming feeling that America has been the heart that pumps not only money, but also technology throughout the world (It has pumped more than its fair share of destruction also).

I attribute the American edge to two factors, "freedom to think" and "freedom to enjoy a decent life" even though you are an immigrant in the US. This has helped America become the beacon of bleeding edge technology that it is today. Most of the technological advances by Americans in the last century have the immigrant Europeans, the Japanese, the Chinese and to some extent the Indians behind them.

The kind of labour that is handed out to the IT operations flourishing in India is yesterday's technology. Even if the Americans were to manufacture the space shuttle in India, they would have little to loose. Because the space shuttle is 25 years old. Today's technology e.g. nano-technology, inter planetary missions, JSF, LASER beams that can destroy an incoming missile in mid-flight, sustainable fusion, quantum computing etc. will take more than 25 years to come to India and the Indians are in no mood to play catch-up.

The American technological edge will continue to exist till the Americans continue to use their brains, till they continue to embrace and till they have the hunger to learn.

Our technological edge

[jgardn]

Businesses accept a certain level of risk when they invest their money in things to grow their business.

Technology is one of the most dangerous risks to take. Not only are you pouring money into something that has never been done before, but you are doing it for a product that has never been created before. Usually, the results of your investment will not be seen for several years or more.

Ben Stein is right on the money. Those things that liberals want to do -- uproot our society, change the way everyone lives over night, and throw away everything we built our country on -- means that the future is unpredictable.

Conservatives have had it right all along. We should be building on the past, not tearing it down and starting from scratch.

Ooooh

[Chris Johnson]

I tell you, if you can't believe a game show host about the real issues threatening America, who can you believe? O_O

Wait, something wrong there, let's try rephrasing it. "If you can't believe a lawyer about..." no. Um...

I'll say this, though, I like his point #4. I approve of working hard and I approve of thrift, and I can see how this is not rewarded by our society though I strongly disagree with his notions of how society is to be fixed.

I also like #5, wanting to punish corporate crime more severely. Funny how Ben's OTHER opinions indicate that on the other hand, he wants the corporate upper class to have more money, to be able to wield it in society and in the legal arena more freely, and that he wants them to leave it all to their children, furthering the steady shift from class society to flat-out caste system. According to Ben, if you ARE in the wealth caste, at all costs you should be protected from the lower classes using society's mechanisms to get a share. Oh, but if you are naughty you should be punished! Assuming you don't simply use your money and power to evade justice, which of course you will, what else would you do?

Never trust a man who is both a lawyer AND a game show host. QED ;)

Space Race

[Hasie]

During the '60s and '70s, when the space race was in full flight, many young people in the USA decided to study science and technolgy to be part of space - the final frontier (sorry, I just had to). Now the space race is over. Man is not going to the stars any time soon. The upshot of this is that fewer young people in the USA are going into science and technology. The large number of TV programmes about lawyers and doctors and other non-science/technology fields are compounding the problem. At the moment the USA gets around this problem by importing scientists and technologists, but this can't continue forever. Unless the USA can find a way to motivate another generation to study science and technology, it will lose its leadership.

The REAL reason this country's going to hell...

[dr.badass]

Quoth the article :
(Story continues after advertisement)

-DoctorB

Ben Stein, luser

[alizard]

We're well on our way to squelching what gives this country an edge. What would it take to kill innovation altogether?

Following Ben Stein's implied prescription as to the cure to what ails America would do it once and for all. If he'd ever done anything constructive with technology for a living, he might be clued enough to make his perceptions about what makes technological innovation of value. Reading his article makes him wonder what planet he moved to after his job with Nixon quit him. As well as why he returned and why Forbes decided to give him a public forum.

As a casual observer of what makes this country work and what stops it cold, I hereby offer a few suggestions on how we can ruin American competitiveness and innovation in the course of this century.

His suggestions might be worth something if he'd ever gotten closer to real technologists than any article in the financial press could have taken him.

I think the reader will agree with me that we are already far down the road on many of them:

1) Allow schools to fall into useless decay. Do not teach civics or history except to describe America as a hopelessly fascistic, reactionary pit.

He wants schools to leave the Nixon era out of history books? Not that I blame him, he's one of the guilty parties, he was on the Nixon staff. But he isn't important enough to be mentioned by name.

Do not expect students to know the basics of mathematics, chemistry and physics.

A couple of hours ago, I helped an average high school student in an average suburban high school make a model of the sodium atom. In large part, the science textbooks are finally becoming adequate and much better than the ones I used in high school (graduated at mid-term in 1972).

Working closely with the teachers' unions, make sure that you dumb down standards so that children who make the most minimal effort still get by with flying colors. Destroy the knowledge base on which all of mankind's scientific progress has been built by guaranteeing that such learning is confined to only a few, and spread ignorance and complacency among the many. Watch America lose its scientific and competitive edge to other nations that make a comprehensive knowledge base a rule of the society.

We're going to lose our competitive edge to the RIAA/MPAA cartel long before the educational system has time to do what he describes.

While public education is in serious disrepair, the problem (at least in California and other states which are finally enforcing some) isn't standards, it's structure and methods. The standards for high school graduation in a local California school district I reviewed are perfectly adequate. I'm at something of a loss as to how their educational methods are going to accomplish this, from what I've been able to see, the teachers are using homework not to reinforce the classroom instruction given during the school day, but to force parents to provide the instruction the teachers weren't able to provide. The money is probably adequate, but is dissipated in "administrative expenses" having little discernable relationship to classroom instruction.

2) Encourage the making of laws and rules by trial lawyers and sympathetic judges, especially through class actions. Bypass the legislative mechanisms that involve elected representatives and a president. This will stop--or at least greatly slow down--innovation, as corporations and individuals hesitate to explore new ideas for fear of getting punished (or regulated to death) by litigation for any misstep, no matter how slight, in the creation of new products and services. Make sure that lawsuits against drugmakers are especially encouraged so that the companies are afraid to develop new lifesaving drugs, lest they be sued for sums that will bankrupt them. Make trial lawyers and judges, not scientists, responsible for the flow of new products and services.

I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about the unrestrained influence of the lobbyists of the Hollywood content cartel than I am about tort law, which has largely already been reformed in the direction Mr. Stein asks for. The factors that restrain innovation in the pharmaceutical industry are more that companies have found that paying lawyers to build patent portfolios from previous work is more profitable than hiring scientists and engineers.

We're finding that entertainment industry executives are even less safe technology gatekeepers than trial lawyers ever were. If he wants to point a finger, he should look to his own employers.

3) Create a culture that blames the other guy for everything and discourages any form of individual self-restraint or self-control. Promote litigation to punish tobacco companies on the theory that they compel innocent people to smoke. Make it second nature for someone who is overweight to blame the restaurant that served him fries. Encourage a legal process that can kill a drug company for any mistakes in self-medication.

IIRC, the overweight person got his fat ass kicked in court, and he can't name any drug companies that have gone out of business over a patient's fuckups any more than you or I can. However, the evidence is simply inconclusive. I can cite examples where these cases got tossed out of court and cases where the plaintiffs won.

Make it a general rule that anyone with more money than a plaintiff is responsible for anything harmful that a plaintiff does. Promulgate the pitiful joke that Americans are hereby exempt from any responsibility for their own actions--so long as there are deep pockets around to be rifled.

4) Sneer at hard work and thrift. Encourage the belief that all true wealth comes from skillful manipulation and cunning, or from sudden, brilliant and lucky strokes that leave the plodding, ordinary worker and saver in the dust.

Does anyone know of any examples of people who've gotten seriously rich (say, over $100M) solely by hard work and thrift? It's rather telling that Ben doesn't know of any, either. We know this because he didn't cite examples. Hard work only counts when one is doing the right things, and thrift is only a good thing when one economizes on the right things... i.e. don't spend $1K of your investors' money per employee on office furniture in a high tech startup, and DON'T try squeezing nickels when it comes to picking server hardware when your site is already getting 1M hits a day.

Make sure that society's idols are men and women who got rich from being sexy in public

Presumably, he means entertainers. Hmmm... why are we using the badly informed remarks of an entertainer as a basis of public debate?

or through gambling or playing tricks, not from hard work or patience. Make the citizenry permanently envious and bewildered about where real success comes from.

Anybody sufficiently interested in finding out can discover where most individual fortunes came from, including the parts the founders of thse fortunes would really rather we didn't know about. Of course, knowing where wealth comes from doesn't necessarily imply that one can make it even if one has the knowledge and talent to create intellectual capital. Knowing who Ann Winblad is doesn't mean she'll give you the time of day, unless you encounter her through the right "insider" VC community channels.

Hint: If Bill Gates hadn't had substantial family money behind him, would we have ever heard of either him or Microsoft?

5) Hold the managers of corporations to extremely lax standards of conduct and allow them to get off with a slap on the wrist when they betray the trust of shareholders. This will discourage thrift and investment and ensure that Americans will have far less capital to work with than other societies, while simultaneously developing that contempt for law and social standards that is the hallmark of failing nations. Hold the management of labor unions to no ethical standards.

Odd that he got that one almost right. Now why did he personally invest in Enron and Worldcom to begin with?

If he's as well informed as he pretends to be, he'd know that the reason for the spectacular stock swindles perpetrated by Enron, Worldcom, and many other companies was reduced oversight by the SEC, which the Bush Administration insured by gutting the agency's funding. Corporate leaders will cheat if they can get away with it, that's why the SEC was invented in the 1930s. Why is he putting Ben Stein's money into funding the GOP if he really believes there's a problem?

6) While you're at it, discourage respect for law in every possible way. This will dissolve the glue that holds the nation together, and dissuade any long- term thinking. Societies in which the law can be clearly seen to apply to some and not to others are doomed to decay, in terms of innovation and everything else.

No argument here. However, he's a former scriptwriter for Richard Nixon, who left the White House barely in time to avoid public trial for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The GOP is the very center of the cultural imperative that says the law is for everyone except the wealthy. A good argument, but is he really the one to make it?

7) Encourage a mass culture that spits on intelligence and study and instead elevates drug use, coolness through sex and violence, and contempt for school. As children learn to be stupid instead of smart, the national intelligence base needed for innovation will simply vanish into MTV- land.

Still whining about youth culture after all these years. I guess he figures that he fooled the public during the Nixon era with this, (the 1972 Nixon campaign was basically an attack on youth culture) he can still get away with it. He will be happy to know that the current version of youth culture is just as likely to turn out amoral suits to provide the kind of "innovative" business leadership he seems to be looking for as any idealism out of the hippie era.

The PC he presumably typed these grave pronouncements on and the ones we're reading and writing this on are as much a product of the 1960s youth culture as acid rock and love beads. Those of you who are too young to remember this from being there can pick up the history from Hackers by Stephen Levy. Though looking at pictures of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak around when they started Apple should give you the idea. Those of you who are a bit older will remember when I say Whole Earth Catalogue gave Homebrew Computer Club its startup funding. And the world indeed changed as a result.

What will the current participants in the current revision of youth culture come up with in the way of technology? There are more young computer programmers around than in any time in previous history, and most of you are probably here. Isn't it sad that Ben Stein doesn't like your musical tastes?

8) Mock and belittle the family.

Last time I heard, The Osbournes are still the hottest show on TV... the family might not be the one that Ben Stein grew up with and Ozzy Osbourne isn't exactly Ozzie Nelson, but the family actually seems to work.

Provide financial incentives to people willing to live an isolated existence, vulnerable and frightened. This guarantees that men and women of sufficient character to bring about innovation will be psychologically stifled from an early age.

Let's be polite here and figure that he botched this one on the basis that he stopped doing his own income taxes as soon as he could afford to do so, probably in the early 1970s. The rest of us need only flip through our form 1040 booklets to figure out what tax breaks families get that singles aren't eligible for.

9) Develop a suicidal immigration policy that keeps out educated, hardworking men and women from friendly nations and, instead, takes in vast numbers of angry, uneducated immigrants from nations that hate us. This, too, leads to the shrinking of our knowledge base and the eventual disappearance of social cohesion.

He's never heard of H1B and we're supposed to take his pronouncements on how immigration law works seriously? Perhaps Forbes should have gotten Madonna or Eminem to write the article instead. I don't see how they could have done a worse job. Where the hell does he think the casual labor that keeps his yard in good shape comes from, under a cabbage patch?

10) Enact a tax system that encourages class antagonism and punishes saving, while rewarding indebtedness, frivolity and consumption. Tax the fruits of labor many times:

First tax it as income. Then tax it as real or personal property. Then tax it as capital gains. Then tax it again, at a staggeringly high level, at death. This way, Americans are taught that only fools save, and that it is entirely proper for us to have the lowest savings rate in the developed world.

We also have the lowest total tax rate in the developed world once all these layers are added up, and those who invest as companies in technological businesses can pick up an R&D tax credit. If he were qualified to speak on technological innovation, he'd know it.

This will deprive us of much-needed capital for new investment, for innovation and our own personal aspirations. It will compel us to ask foreigners for ever more capital and allow them to own more of America. It will also promote an attitude of carelessness about the future and, once again, encourage disrespect for law.

Tell that to Bill Gates. Fortunes are still being made in America. Though Gates doesn't have much to do with innovation, there are others who've made high-tech fortunes in the system he condemns, and a whole lot of us who'd be happy to give it a try given access to venture capital.

11) Have a socialized medical system that scrimps on badly needed drugs and procedures, resorts to only the cheapest practices and discourages drug companies from developing new drugs by not paying them enough to cover their costs of experimentation, trial and error.

Which country does he think he lives in? The USA has the most expensive medical system in the world on either a per capita basis or in terms of total dollars. Attempts to introduce universal health care have been uniformly squelched by millions of dollars spent by the US health care industry and in particular, insurance companies who would be forced to stop profiting from health care if the US health care system became "socialized".

12) Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism--and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women--to an equal status with technology in the public mind.

With the exception of the Xtian fundamentalists, all the groups he's whining about are very well represented in technological innovation. Anyone who doesn't quite get this should try googling for:
technopagan VRML

Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable.

If he'd had the guts to go after fundamentalist Christians pushing "Creation Science", I'd agree with him. As far as I know, this is the only significant example of religion overriding science that's going on right now.

My list need not end here.

Would it be uncharitable to suggest that it ended because he'd run out of ideas? Perhaps a few more hours of listening to Rush Limbaugh would have given him some.

But I stopped at a dozen because I realized that this is already, in large measure, the program of so many of our elected representatives. The debauchery of our tort system is already in place, and the rest of the agenda is under way.

The only agendas I see in progress right now are that of restricting civil liberties in the guise of "protecting us from terrorists" and the Hollywood content cartel's anti-tech agenda. Either are as dangerous to America's ability to innovate and compete as the decline of public education. Ben Stein deals with neither. If Ben Stein got paid for this article, Forbes should retract the article and try to get their money back from him.

Ben Stein was practically the only GOP contributor among the ranks of Hollywood entertainers, look him up. (search under individual donors, enter STEIN, BENJAMIN)

Benjamin J. Stein is a lawyer, economist, writer and actor, and host of the game show Win Ben Stein's Money.

If Ben Stein ever devotes a show segment to public policy and has an honest judge score the contestants, he's going to lose a bunch of Ben Stein's money. The guy does have style, but I never realized before reading his article how little he's got to back it up with.

Laser

[varjag]

Well since that leaves you with only the atom bomb, the telephone, cotton gin and the laser..

Some inventions cannot be attributed to a single nation or person; laser is one of them.

'"Basic work in quantum electronics leads to the inventions of resonator and amplifier based on maser-laser theory", Townes, A.Prskhorov and N.Bason of Lebedev Institute in Moscow were awarded together the Nobel Prize of Physics of that year.'

Not a Technology Article

[oldstrat]

Nope, it wasn't a technology article in any sense.

However, if you want to knock the legs out of American technological progress all you have to do is allow the DMCA and other DRM grabage to run thier courses.

Violation of freedom of speech (yes current overlong standard copyright law, and absurd patents do this), will stifle all progress.
The quick coffin in casket will be taxation of everything. As European users know the Governments run trucks up and down the streets day and night monitoring to see how many televisions are in each house and assessing taxes for each.
I can envision this happening in the U.S. with WIFI.
Online ordering needs to remain tax free, the seconf that changes, the internet will become the next "CB Radio" has been fad.
ISP's need to keep thier hands off charging bandwidth caps, and blocking and charging extra for ports.

Greenspan proved that you can kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Re:Not a Technology Article

[JimPooley]

As European users know the Governments run trucks up and down the streets day and night monitoring to see how many televisions are in each house and assessing taxes for each

You're talking bollocks. I have never ever seen a TV Detector Van except in adverts.

Re:Not a Technology Article

[oldstrat]

I don't know where you are but I saw them in England and Germany between 1977 and 1985 and I -know- what they were doing.
These days you would never recognise it, as it would look almost identical to any other van.

Technology Regulation Kills

[werdna]

Intellectual Property is a mixed bag, it gives incentive to technologists and capital markets to bring new technology to market on one hand, but creates limited monopolies that can stifle innovation, particularly incremental advances, on the other. When these two interests are adequately balanced, these rules make for killer economies.

However, the latest trends have led special-interest driven legislation to destroy that delicate balance and create what is no longer intellectual property, but special-interest technology regulation, such as the DMCA (which gives patent-like protection to unpatentable non-technologies), Dilution (which grants ownership of words), the upcoming broadcast flag regulation and more recent attempts such as "the Stupid Hollings Bill with Many Initials" to pass laws making computers non-computers.

These tech reg laws will destroy our competitive edge, in the name of protecting an industry more than adequately protected by existing laws. The content industry had their best year in recent history, and then they killed Napster, whining that Napster was killing them, and only then did the bottom fall out of the market. Permitting special interests to protect "turf" rather than permitting the free market to make dinosaurs of dinosaurs is killing us, only slowly at first, but it will be the end of technology at the end of the day.

Nobody is more pro-IP on this forum than myself. And I remain willing to defend traditional Copyright, Trademark and Patent law principles. But technology regulation is a gross error, and one that is subtly having a devastating impact on our economy.

HAHAHA

[autopr0n]

I take it you're a CA graduate? $9.3k/year for twelve years is only $770 a year!

You think you can get into a 'top flight' private school for $192 a semester?

Just ban immigration for research and high tech...

[Per Abrahamsen]

and US would lose its edge fast. The best minds of the world are immigrating to the US, and that means the US is dominating in most fields of science and technology.

If the unions succeed in stopping this immigration, it would mean a huge setback for the industry, and would cause large unemployment among the members of the same unions.

However, it might help the rest of the world, as we might be able to keep more of our brightest minds at home.

Yeah, whatever.

[autopr0n]

Relative to Africa? Yeah, maybe. But I think a dock worker who built a house now affordable only to the top .5% of the US population speaks for itself.

Yeah, it says "I'm real estate in NYC". Anything in NYC will fetch a rediculous price.

Anyway, I don't know about 120 years ago, but today doc workers are in the top 1% of american wage earners.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[benzapp]

Anyway, I don't know about 120 years ago, but today doc workers are in the top 1% of american wage earners.

This is a good point, but this wasn't the case at that point. Many of these brick row houses of which I speak are decidedly modest, even compared to other homes of the day which are nearby. Many of the more elegant homes are much larger, and have more ornate facades. Most of these meager brick townhomes do not even have facades. They are functional, not lavish. They weren't living in shacks or in tenaments, but they were certainly not the wealthiest bunch. I would say they were decidedly middle class.

But you are right, I had no idea up until the recent dock worker strike in california that they made so much.

The real reason, probably,...

[budalite]

is the importance that is placed in American Society on the need for and the importance of the middle and lower echelons to independently collect information and make decisions for the good of the "enterprise" (be that military unit, community, or business). The American middle-class is a phenomena practically non-existent in the rest of the world. Europe has a decent middle-class, but the classes in Europe are far more adversarial. Here, in America, the middle class generally believes that it is a major part of the American "success" story and revels in its newfound culture. The reason for the American edge in anything has nothing to do with its technical superiority. America has no superiority in any science or art. What it has is enough room for each man or woman to either make something of themselves or to hang themselves. Happy Holidays.

About Schools

[RembrandtX]

Im not sure how it is in PC land California.
But here is Baltimore the public school system is Horribly Corrupt. [as evidenced by my spelling *chuckle* thats a joke, not a slam on society]

My wife teaches in a middle school in baltimore county 'suburbs' and it is a nightmare. most of the classrooms in her school do not have windows. they have plywood. This year breaks the 3 year record her room did not have heat. [they just replaced the heater .. no air conditioning thought - its already in the heat/air unit, but they don't hook it up .. because kids learn fine in 100+ degree weather.]

Her school is part of whats called 'targeted' schools, which means .. up until a successful law suit this year .. teachers who work in 'targeted' schools [ie .. low -> no income schools] may only transfer to other targeted schools. My wife has been turned down on *two* occations for transfers to schools that are closer to our house (one was right across the street), and in both cases - new teachers with no experience were given the job.

Last year, the principal's aid, and 2 other secretarial staff were indited for embezzlement. They had been doing it for over 6 years, but no once noticed until payroll checks started to bounce.

This year her school was forced by the county to drop 4 positions due to budgets. Bringing the class sizes between 40 and 50 kids per class. meaning that in an average class period of 40 mins, my wife has approximatly 55 seconds per student. [meaning that in a 7 period day .. on average .. a student in her school gets 6mins and 41 seconds of education.]

Now lets talk about pay. Teachers get paid horribly, just like cops and firemen. My wife has been teaching for 7 years now. And just reached close to 39k a year. In order to reach that amount, she had to do two after school activities, and direct her entire department. (otherwise it would be more like 36k)
Lets break that down a bit .. just for ha-ha's
{these are all rough calculations mind you.}

39,000 a year
and she works about 10.5 months of they year.
[teachers work about a week after the students leave, and start about 2 weeks before the kids come back. - oh .. and don't forget she gets NO vaction/sick time during the year. If she has to take time off if she is sick - her pay is docked.](42 weeks)
That means she brings home roughly $928 a week (before taxes)
she works from 7:00-3:30 each day .. with a 15 min lunch, and no breaks. 4 days a week she has afterschool activities which brings her home at 5:00 (1.5 hours per day X 4) This doesnt count Parent Confrence nights (about once a month) or the production nights on the plays she does, etc.
So she works roughly 9.75 hours a day (10 if a student asks her questions at lunch - ill use 10 just cause its rounder for now)

So .. she gets roughly $9.28 an hour (did i forget to mention that she only gets this much because she has her masters ?) Thats with a MASTERS DEGREE! In one hour she teaches (average again) 67 students.

meaning .. your kid's education from her is worth about 0.13 cents. [Again, this is flat math, obviously it would be slightly LOWER during the day, and much higher in the afterscool activities.]

Isn't that Kind of scarey ?

A professional (and she is actually a very good teacher) with a MASTERS degree .. makes less than a manager of a McDonalds. [Where 3/4 of the kids wind up anyways .. on both sides of the counter.]
She also works longer hours, and takes her work home (both emotionally, and physically - tests have to get corrected some times.] Don't forget, that if there are addional needs for her classroom, that comes OUT of her salary - maybe it will get reimbursed at the end of the year - if its approved and the school isnt over budget.

The alternative of course, is to divide her $1200 a year budget for art supplies among about 300 students a day. [you can see where THIS is going]

So .. for #1 on the list .. I have to say he is dead on from my point of view. Bad schools = stupid kids = more crime & less progress .

Re:About Schools

[RembrandtX]

True about over-paying.
I can't agree with the school vouchers though . thats the WORST system. rather than fix the problems in the local school system .. school vouchers try to bus kids from bad schools districts to well funded ones .. to 'balance' or 'average' out the test scores. Nothing to do with kids educations. They tried that Here in the next town over like 5 years ago. They bussed the WORST kids from the inner city schools to the local school, under the assumption that they just wern't getting an 'even playing field' in the city schools. The results were out of the 50 kids bussed in .. 44 of them were expelled in the first 2 weeks for acts of vandalism, violence, or truency. needsless to say .. the program was scrapped.

The real problem with todays education system is .. as you stated .. Teachers are expected to raise our kids for us .. but not dicipline them.

My wife's student's parents are (on average) 25-26 .. and she teaches MIDDLE school. I'm not one to preach family values .. but its hard for 16 year old kids (making the assumption that the father and mother still talk) to raise a child. And school has become more of a babysitting service.

out of the 310 or so students my wife has this year. 12 parents returned signed grade notices for her class. .. TWELVE.

No wonder the kids don't learn, why should they ? its not like their folks even notice :(

Hmm...

[kiwimate]

I went to a fairly bad school in New Zealand, and I learned trigonometry at age 13, and calculus at 15. If you didn't start trig until your GCSEs, when on earth did you get around to calculus? I would've loved to learn Latin, but my school didn't offer it. However, every student did have to take a semester of French in third form (13 years old).

the school I went to is in the top 5% of all comprehensives...but you're experience seems to have been a lot better than normal

Err, I think your school is probably quite relieved you don't name them, if they are ranked that highly, gave you a complete education, and you still don't know the difference between your and you're. And I'd have to say that this experience doesn't sound unusual given what I and all my friends and family experienced in schools throughout NZ, Australia, and England.

What Ben Stein Wrote:

[AB3A]

...was how to discourage innovation. And on most counts, I agree with him.

Yes, there is much technical innovation in the US, but this country certainly doesn't have a monopoly on technical progress --no matter how you define such things.

The key is to be able to recognize and use the discoveries of others, never mind who they are or where they came from. This is a strength of a multi-cultural homogeneous society. The "not invented here" syndrom should be less common in a society such as this.

What Ben Stein wrote was very simply a diatribe against a bunch of idiotic and luddite behaviors which various influential and powerful organizations seem to be perpetrating.

He nailed the issues on lack of ethics, ignorant politicians who don't understand the legislation they're proposing, teachers who aren't allowed to teach, bosses who squelch innovation for fear of a law suit, and so on and so forth.

The only question is not whether the US is suffering from this, but whether any other country is managing to stay ahead of these problems.

Re:Teachers Unions

[elmegil]

Accountability should be to parents and communities, not politicians in Washington. :-)

"Contempt for school"

[seven89]

From the article:

7) Encourage a mass culture that spits on intelligence and study and instead elevates drug use, coolness through sex and violence, and contempt for school.

This is an important point. I saw a movie once where the hero was a guy who "took a day off" from school and had a wild and crazy time. The only teacher in the movie was a excruciatingly boring old fogey that no "cool" kid in his right mind would want to emulate. I'm glad we have people like Ben Stein coming out against that sort of thing.

Re:Join fingers...let's code for America

[(H)elix1]

I don't care so much what the major* is. I do care she (in my case) is a solid student and can stand on her own two feet when she is done. Like the parent post, she is being groomed for college as well as life in general.

Paying for college is a tricky thing. My wife and I both paid our own way through school without any parental help while we were (mostly) single. A couple minor grants here and there, but I had to work, as did she. Not a four year plan, but did it with honors. I had friends who were given tuition, room and board, cars, etc... and they squandered it. So yes, I am saving - I call it my 'Porsche' fund, though I suspect 'LearJet' might be closer the way tuition continues to climb. She can opt to ignore school.... but I'm taking the tax hit to make sure I'll be the one squandering it.

(*) I am cynical about majors, knowing now how little the actual degree means in the real world. I wish I had done a Math major rather than BioChem & MicroBiology. A solid Music program - other than the cost of tuition - does not scare me.

Re:Pointing at a problem is not offering a solutio

[Cyno]

Sorry, its just that I'm passionately hostile about this subject.

So, to start off I think we need a public national database / web interface. If we could get everyone to connect to that page and tell us what they need, want, use, buy, etc. Then we can take all those different types of products and figure out what can be automated and what is going to require manual human labor. We would need contributors for all the jobs requiring human labor, until such a time that they can be automated. And those should be the first jobs on the list to be automated since nobody wants to do them. Then elsewhere in the database we can create the list of all the jobs people want to do for a living. There are many people who like the jobs they do today. These jobs won't need to be automated. So once we have this data we can begin work on the media system to promote education and the jobs people want to do. Create the proper environment to promote education and productive output. I see no reason why our universities could not be corporations. The problems we face right now is simply because we care about money. Leaving it aside for the moment you can see how similar a university and a corporation is. We can learn on the job as well as study all the theoretical info at the same time in the same place, more or less. This is a generalization, but I think you begin to get the idea.

This system could be implemented on top of the current system, but only after everyone has had a chance to think about the concepts involved. Right now it would be immediately discreditted since almost nobody believes a society can exist without money.

Re:Pointing at a problem is not offering a solutio

[webster]

How would you deal with the situation where the sum of what all the people wants exceeds the sum of what all the people can provide? What if it turned out that the absence of money significantly reduced the inclination of people to work? Then the sum of what all the people provided would be a lot less than what is provided today.

How would you change contract law to deal with the absence of money?

How would you deal with the situation where there where not enough automation volunteers to deal with all the automataion needs; where nobody wanted to be a soldier, or a sewer worker, or a CEO?

What would be the advantage of turning a university into a corporation? For that matter, given the absence of money, what would be the nature of a corporation?

If he'd only been a more interesting Econ teacher.

[Hubert_Shrump]

Kids would stay in school rather than playing sick and having wacky adventures.

Re:Multiculturists and engineering

[cranos]

Um first off Im not American, I am Australian. I never said that you could excuse certain behaviours I said you could understand them better. If you have a better understanding why things happen then you can attempt to mould circumstances so they don't happen again.

Re:I strongly agree with much of what you say, but

[sjames]

It's not so much the spending as the emphasis placed on sports by an institution supposedly devoted to acedemics. It tends to be visible everywhere in school.

For an example, in a school with a fair football team and acedemic teams regularly winning or placing, most of the students don't know the acedemic teams exist. This is because only the footbal team is deemed worthy of an announcement (even if it looses) and a trophy case in a public area (acedemic trophys were kept in classrooms, athletics had a trophy case in the main hall by the entrance).

Meanwhile, the school paid for busses for the varsity teams, everyone else chipped in for gas and car pooled to their events. I note that in many schools that football equipment is provided for in the budget, but most other extra curricular activities must be paid for by selling door to door. This is the sort of thing that sends the clear message that acedemic performance and even athletic performance in 'less popular' sports is unimportant.

There are many problems, and it certainly can't all be laid at the feet of the football team, but the imbalance of emphasis might explain a few of the problems. By all means, keep sports in the schools, but treat them a a part of a rounded education, not as the entire reason for school to exist.

Don

[Yet Another Smith]

I live in the boonies in Minnesota. Small town schools seem to do fine for the most part...

Unfortunately this is not universally true. I'm from a small town in South Carolina, and our rural schools are in pretty awful shape. I'd have a lot more use for the AFT and the NEA (American Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO affiliated teachers' union, and the National Education Association) if they didn't support Bill Clinton's decision to put former SC governor Dick Riley in charge of the Dept. of Education. Riley's primary focus as governor was to improve education in SC. Unfortunately his policies left us ranked 51st in the nation, down from 49th. This is not the kind of results I want repeated nationwide.

Regarding the original thread comment, there have been numerous alternatives put forward by those interested in educational reform. I am less of a fan of vouchers than I am of relatively unrestricted charter schools. This addresses objections of some civil libertarians to providing government money to religious schools. However, the AFT and NEA have consistently opposed any charter system. Their chorus is 'it might be worse than public school education'. However, If you believe, as most Americans do, that American schools are not performing to expectations, there needs to be change, and if the AFT and NEA can't come up with their own proposals, then they need to stop shooting down ours.

Here in the Dallas metroplex there are people trying to illegally get into the rather terrible Dallas Independent School District because they're in school districts that are even worse. There's a clear demand for school choice, especially in failing districts. Yet apart from whinging that "people [are] bashing the education system without offering any constructive criticism," the AFT & NEA rarely offer real reform. If the teachers aren't the problem, then the current method of administering schools is the next likely candidate. So abolish the geographically isolated school district and make sure that any given location is served by at least two schools with totally separate administrative systems, so that everyone has the choice that the rich/upper middle class already have. Remember, school choice is a reality for those who can afford to move to better school districts or send their children to private schools.

One of the most damning indictments of the modern educational establishment is one of my coworkers' family. He has a much younger brother who's in 4th grade. His mother is a teacher. She is vehemently opposed to school choice/vouchers/charter schools. She feels they will destroy public education. She sends her fourth grade son to private schools because she has no confidence in her own school district's ability to teach her son. 'School choice for my son, but not for the plebes!' When a teacher, who uses private schools, says that the poor students in her school district shouldn't be allowed to leave the public school system and go to the same private school she uses for her family, I have trouble finding a rational explanation for that behavior. To my mind it smacks of a patronizing attitude at best, and racism at worst.

Admittedly I find Ben Stein pretty funny, and usually fairly well-spoken and intelligent, but this little screed was too whiny for my taste. This smacked way too much of the 'America is going to hell in a handbasket, and my political enemies are to blame' racket that has never held much sway with me. Saying all that with clear concise reasons why its going to hell in a handbasket (examples of initiatives that have been blocked by the teachers' unions and so forth) is OK.

Slightly OT

[ninewands]

When I read the article, I noticed that the Christian Science Monitor linked BACK to this article ... could this be an attempt at "reciprocal Slashdotting"???