The 21st Century University: No hard sciences?

Unfettered freedom of speech is no flaw, it's as American as apple pie. Everything happening today happened in 1800 between Madison and Hamilton. Aaron Burr died in a duel, remember? Politics today is almost mild in comparison. Things were much more dangerous then.

When I say "hit rock bottom", I mean so that people will start voting differently. There won't be any armed conflict in the U.S. anytime soon. This isn't a regional thing, it's an age thing. I suggest you look up the age demographics and how they vote. You will see that the older you are the more likely you are to be a conservative. Time will resolve this issue. Every year there are less old people and more young people. For 40 years the baby boomers have decided elections in this country with their massive voting block. It has become so that they believe they will always get their way, why wouldn't they believe that? But of course their time is passing. Within five years that conservative voting block will finally no longer be in the majority.

Roger - I'll grant you sometimes I don't make my points well. In this case you misunderstand my point. We have just had a Supreme Court decision affirming the free speech rights of corporations to make unlimited political contributions. At the beginning of the 19th century this would have been a no problem with the communications technology of the time AND the demographics of enfranchised voters. In the 21st century power of communications technology is the big change. It has a huge ability to influence people, especially when it comes to issues that would be truly trivial under worse economic conditions. And we have a far greater proportion of voters who lack the brain power to think for themselves or the motivation in their gut to cast the right vote.

The "dangerous" political conflicts of 200 years ago clearly were less restrained by legal strictures than they are today. But the level of hatreds are just as high today. And this is especially hatred of our national government, which is the essence of our nation's existence. We have a giant media propaganda machine stoking the fires partisan hatreds in general and hatred of our national being in particular. They call it "states' rights" and "starve the beast". Where is the money to run that propaganda barrage coming from? And the question we all must ask is "Is this in the best interests of America?" I say it is a very real test of the viability of the American government model.

When I say "rock bottom" I am not talking about a change in voting preferences. So contrary to what I thought we are not on the same page. I am talking about economic rock bottom. Right now we have a large piece of the Congress pushing to open the path to economic collapse of the nation. The vast majority of professional economists agree about the possible consequences of a USA debt default. None of them are pretty scenarios. One who doesn't believe the economists has a very questionable grip on reality.

About "Conservative Voting Blocks". Maybe where you live it is all the Social Security/Medicare generation. I don't see that here. What I see populating the conservative world is people who want to protect and increase their wealth in any way they can, people who feel they must protect their cherished beliefs, and self sufficient people who view themselves as not needing government except to fight wars and enforce laws that protect them. I see people who want life to be like some idealized memory of past times. And I see people whose new found prosperity far outweighs their intellectual assets.

The real conservative voting block today is a spread of ages that extends down into the 30 somethings who fear that they are being sucked dry by a government system that will have nothing left when they come to get repaid. What they don't understand is where the "sucking" really originates. The "Noise Machine" has done a good job there.

Ed Weldon

The voting blocks I was speaking of are based on national polls. If we eliminate free speech it wouldn't be America that was saved anyway. Again, it has always been this way, please read about Madison vs. Hamilton and you'll feel better. They literally used the news papers they owned to slander each other mercilessly.

We are far from economic collapse and the economists are not projecting it with debt default. Debt default isn't even legal. What will happen after the deadline is that the government will be shut down in order to get the money to pay the interest on it's debt obligations or it will defer them with interest till an agreement is reached. This will lead to higher interest rates (probably) which in turn will make mortgage rates higher and slow or reverse our recovery. We may even lose our AAA rating, but it won't destroy us economically.

Who will replace us as the world's financial power? China, a totalitarian regime where they have 50 million more men than women who are out of work and angry and democratic process to vent. Do you realize there have been growing violent riots in China? How about Europe, where the EU has been falling apart because they have no central political government? Japan which has been flatlined for 25 years.

When I talk of "rock bottom", I mean wealth disparity. I mean people here barely being able to survive on their salaries while billionaires dine on diamond lobsters. No amount of corporate tv money will be able to change the vote then.

Unless of course we change the system. Have some faith in our democracy Ed. Read some history. This isn't the first time the wealthy were overly controlling the country. This isn't the first time the wealth disparity got out of hand. Eliminate freedom of speech? Read history, we tried that once for the very same reasons you're saying. It almost killed our democracy before it started.

Roger - Your optimistic position is a good counter to mine. But I think both our positions need some deburring and polish.

With respect to national polls on voting blocks your 2007-2009 links predate the election of 2010. The Republican takeover of the Congress and a number of state governments to me reflects an electorate that has at least temporarily lost faith in the traditional parties. They seemed more likely to vote immediate issues that are affecting them. Especially real or threatened drops in their living standards. The candidate or party that commands the best campaign strategies has an edge. Modern communication technology is a new and powerful tool in this competition. We see this literally every day.

I agree that we are far from economic collapse, what ever that means. (Ed is given to occasional hyperbole) Perhaps a better condition to watch for is depression. Like "recession" it is a defined economic state. In current times these economic states rise out of what I'd call "shock events". They can be financial, natural disaster or political to name a few recent incidents.

Modern economies are highly interconnected and rely heavily on the integrity of that structure. A shock that hits a single member in the structure can drop the efficiency of operation by large numbers. So would be the case with a drop in the AAA ratings of USA debt obligations. A study of the effects of the recent tsunami on the Japanese economy illustrates the profound effect of local economic structure failures. The case in point is the widespread shut down of Japanese auto manufacturing due to the loss of just a few parts suppliers. And we all saw how the 2008 failure of a single medium sized Wall Street investment bank (Lehman Bros.) triggered a world wide credit freeze and launched a major recession.

If the US dollar fails as the world's reserve currency what will take it's place? Good question. I'm not anywhere enough of an economist to be able to predict what will happen. Best I can figure is that we would see some constraint of international trade and economic instability in at least some nations. I agree that the Chinese Yuan may not be next in line. The World continues to be uncertain about China. But confidence is building as they mature their system of governance. As distasteful as their totalitarian system is I believe the jury is still out on the question of it's potential for success and even economic dominance.

Wealth disparity in any nation can only be sustained with the imposition of some degree of totalitarian control to suppress the inevitable insurrections. We see that in real time in the Middle East this year.

About freedom of speech. It's really a relative condition. Neither absolute freedom nor absolute control are possible with today's technology. Were it possible to put a number on the amount of "speech freedom" in the USA it would likely rank into the high 90's. In the UK it might be a bit below ours given the controls they have in place over political campaigns. They don't have an actual constitution but rather a structure of laws developed over the last millennium. So it is easier for them to change the speech rules than here in the US.

I'm not advocating the elimination of freedom of speech. What I am saying is that our US version of speech freedom will be a major factor in this century's testing of the USA's government model. And we will be tested; perhaps to the breaking point.

Perhaps we need to talk a bit about the corruption of free speech in America. I submit that court interpretations of the first amendment have taken some of this to extremes. You don't burn a flag with your voice or the written word, do you? Where do we draw the line on "terrorist threats"? Why is it that I can utter four letter words with my mouth and transmit them through some forms of media but not others? How about transmission of those words via radio frequency? Some frequencies are OK (wireless cell phone and computer links) others illegal (AM and FM). Last I looked the Constitution had nothing to say about electromagnetic spectrum frequencies.

So perhaps some restrictions on freedom of speech have the potential to kill our democracy. I'll go along with that. But I submit that there are currently free forms of speech that are just as capable of killing our democracy and that they need to be reigned in. We need to recognized the power of material resources to sustain a one sided mind altering barrage of propaganda aimed at the people of our nation. When this propaganda benefits a minority of people whose primary loyalty is not to the USA but to their own multinational interests, we need to take notice and correct the problem.

Ed Weldon (really drifting OT here)

Ed,

If you look it up, you'll see that voter turnout for older voters was at record highs for the midterms. They were afraid that the new healthcare bill was going to undermine their existing medicare. There was no shift in the demographics of the voting blocks, just who showed up for that election.

As for an economic depression, I don't think so and here's why. Population growth and market growth seem correlated. As I mentioned earlier, there seems to be a large group of population entering their 20s. When this group hits their late 20s, they will start having kids and buying houses and our economy will revive despite our best efforts to destroy it in the mean time with spiraling debt and ridiculously low tax rates.

China is unsustainable. Totalitarian regimes fail invariably because they don't have any method of letting off steam. In this country you just witnessed a major letting of steam. This is why we are so strong, we survive our angriest moments. China won't. Once conflicts start to break out more often and it effects the profits of corporations investing will pull out, the economy there will slow, conflicts will increase (from the unemployed) and a downward spiral will occur, leading inevitably to political change by which point the west will be scared to death of investing in China. In summary, communism doesn't work.

Regarding free speech, I ask you again to read about Madison (and Jefferson) vs. Hamilton in the 1790s and early 1800s. I'm asking you to read about that because you may feel a bit better when you realize that it has always been the way it is today.

We, as a country are a conglomeration of states with different priorities and needs. The vicious conflicts we see in the media is simply a reflection of this uncomfortable marriage. The genius of our founding fathers was the creation of the Senate and the House to counterbalance each other. The founders thought deeply about governance and how to create many different types of checks and balances (not just the three branches of government but also within the branches).

Just a P.S. to my lengthy post. It has been quite a while since I read the introduction to the Ted Nace book cited above. I just reread it. I think it says so much. I hope readers here will at least read the author's introduction. To me it is inspiring and depressing all at the same time.

Roger, this dogma prejudiced rubbish your regurgitating on China, simply shows you have no idea that communism has renewed itself regularly since Stalin and Mao.

Totalitarianism may exist in North Korea, but elsewhere all the representatives are elected. It may be a 'one party pyramid system' but is equally as 'democratic' in terms of representation. Perhaps more 'effectively' than is current in the US system and certainly a more "can do" government when things need doing.

You write: Once conflicts start to break out more often and it effects the profits of corporations investing will pull out, the economy there will slow, conflicts will increase

It might be a problem if any foreign corporation had investments above a fraction of a decimal of a percent.

The 'letting off steam' I remember best, being lucky enough to be in town at the time, was this one.

The essential difference is one system needs this - or a million man march - to make change.

In the other a small percent of civil disobedient students may get the heavy hand response, but 1 adult standing in front of a tank, remonstrating about Chinese killing Chinese, can cause a total rethink in government about their 'approach'.

That 'rethink' has China now ranked second in world economies.

If you want to fear something about "communism", it's the ability of a one party system to recognize and quickly respond to circumstances.

Nor does that system shrink from responding if it involves a complete flip in dogma.

As the "communist" mechanism elects the smartest to govern, these in turn know better than to be slaves to propaganda. They simply rephrase, and get on with it.

I don't regurgitate. Isn't it funny those who profess to be the most patriotic seem to have the least faith in democracy?

Communism doesn't work. China will implode because it's communist.

You Wrote "If you want to fear something about "communism", it's the ability of a one party system to recognize and quickly respond to circumstances."

Ha! You are full in. That is a line straight from China's propaganda machine. Do some reading on modern day china and you'll see things aren't nearly as rosy as you are being lead to believe.

There is a difference between looking successful and being successful. China is very good at looking successful, until of course they're killing each other in the streets.

Have some faith in democracy, it's ugly because human interaction is ugly. But it's honest. It's just as ugly in china but they are dishonest, and eventually it will catch up with them. It always does.

That must be the reason they just left Germany with a few billion going whichever way. Yeah, so the Germans are complicit in assisting communists states? Give me a break.

Sorry, I just remembered you are unsubscribed so your racist comment:

they are dishonest, and eventually it will catch up with them. It always does.

can not be reflected upon.

Kids chatter, I will refrain.

"Do some reading on modern day china"

Reading? And this 'theory' would outweigh the 'hands on' would it?

Roger, Ed...

Hope you guys don't mind me adding a couple of cents here to your back and forth.

Roger and Ed, I think you are basically on the same page as far as where problems lie(?)

In a nutshell, in my opinion, what have become very systemic problems in our society (and therefore government) are 1) A corporation has the same rights as a human being, 2) Money has been been determined to be integral or equivalent to "free speech", 3) Money drives political elections, 4) Politics has become a "career", 5) The average citizen feels helpless.

Both of you have also identified other issues as well. Regarding the ones I listed, THE common denominator for the first 4 are MONEY. This is very directly tied to the statistics about income and income disparity. How did we get to where we are? I have posted a link before in a couple of other threads of one person's history of corporations. They definitely didn't enjoy the status they now have in our republic's earlier days. (I found the hard copy version in the library before realizing it is available for free online. I applaud the author for making it available this way.) But then, as you see when reading how he (Ted Nace) came to write the book, he was one of the "upper" income persons who had gotten his wealth via the corporate vehicle to a large degree. So he isn't writing from a sour grapes perspective.

Anyone who thinks a corporation should be considered equivalent to a human being is somehow reaping the benefits of that perspective. And anyone who thinks money=free speech... ditto. We all know that these interpretations are not what was meant in the late eighteenth century by the writers of the constitution. Free speech had much more to do with a free press and with a person's right to express his/her opinion in public without fear of repercussions, than with money . And with media conglomerates, free speech in it's root sense, is even more restricted and out of reach of the average citizen. (Not to mention the ADD nature of society, created in part by so many TV commercials that can't have a stable single "scene" for more than a second. Try watching filmed rock concerts and you'll go crazy trying to get a glimpse of the main performers. The number of cameras used and the number of scene switches is maddening.)

How do we diminish the power of money to influence government? That is the key question. Voting has little chance of addressing this influence, unless people who want to get active and do some real work, get "citizen friendly" petitions on state ballots, because you will never see legislation designed to truly address it. I don't know if this can be done in federal government. Term limits would help. As long as being a public servant is a career path, which aspirant wants to relinquish money from the equation?

Roger, not all baby boomers lost their idealism. But I have often asked, rhetorically, and of peers from that era, what happened to the '60s generation and their ideals? Unfortunately, for the most part, it was a combination of having to make a living like every one else and therefore having little time or energy to make efforts to change things. Besides "sit ins" there was also the problem of #5 listed above. You start living (or trying to) and begin to feel helpless. (And I still maintain, that it is the ambitious people that are not so idealistic. And even if some are, it, they too often succumb to the perks of power and position.)

There needs to be a revolution. But how? If one adheres to non-violence, are we left with staging peaceful demonstrations and hoping the police will batter us, and invoke embarrassment and pity to the cause? How many people in our country feel this pain of helplessness? Far too many, I'm afraid.

As far as "rock bottom" being an alternative to invoke change, how could we have endured the unemployment rates for the last 2 years, while banks got off virtually scott-free in the mortgage crisis, without an uprising? I know some think the Tea Party is that uprising, but for all the show, there wasn't that much effect in the last election cycle. I think that energy should have been left without a label and just applied to the 2 parties in power. Starting a new party is not really the answer. Maybe we'll see a third party win a presidential election someday, but I doubt if it will be in my lifetime. Maybe yours, Roger. (And that ground-up change would be more along the lines to your liking.)

To be clear, when I speak of aging baby boomers being more conservative than other voting demographics, I'm saying like 65/35. In every age group there are voting tendencies, but that does not mean the whole group is that way.

Furthermore people might find it surprising that I don't blame the baby boomers for being conservative. Every demographic has the right to represent their own interests, that is the nature of democracy.

I hope those two things are clearer now.

Seems to me that the baby boomers aren't all that conservative. The are just now starting to retire. The more conservative block is more along the retirees (generation prior to the baby boomers).

Technically your correct, the people born right before the baby boom, for which there is no name for their generation, seem to be the most conservative, however the baby boomers demographic is conservative leaning (45-65 in age). Certainly everyone after the boomers lean left instead of right with increasing emphasis the further removed we are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer

Roger, I'm sorry, if it seemed like my response was because you thought I was taking your observation personally. I didn't mean it that way. And I understood what you are saying about becoming more conservative as one gets older. I think that is true. The real impetus for my response is the wonderment of what happened to my generation!? Compared to the promise we held, I think we fizzled.

Please don't apologize, if I clarify it isn't because I'm offended but because I feel I should be more clear in what I'm trying to say. Unfortunately it is hard to textually convey emotion (and I really don't like using emoticons), but my earlier response should be read like (oh no, not ketchup, I wanted mustard) not as (how dare you!).

I don't think Ed means eliminate free speech. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech for all people. His points (I think) are that

• Corporations are not people in spite of the various legal fictions that have accumulated over the years claiming that they are, culminating in the recent SCOTUS decision.
• We have not even begun to come to terms with the power of television, a form of 'speech' that our founders could not have imagined. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then 24+ frames per second = one newspaper. The information comes in much too fast to process it. I think one of the more disturbing aspects of this is the number of our young people who seem to have chosen fictional TV characters as role models. It's going to be tough to run a democracy populated with fictional citizens.

I understand that we are talking about restricting free speech. And I am quite familiar with the Supreme Court decision. That fallacy of the argument is that TV will always greatly influence voters. In a vacuum, yes. But if sentiment turns significantly, there is no amount of commercials that could change that opinion. History has shown that in the 1960s.

Now, I put to you, if we do start restricting certain kinds of free speech, what are the unintended consequences?

We already do and have for centuries restricted certain types of speech because of the impact such speech might have on the common health and welfare of the public. You have no guaranteed right to freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, because the overriding threat to the public health and welfare exceeds the good served by allowing the freedom to such speech.

Obviously. But every additional restriction should always be feared.

Case in point:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/youth-vote-shifts-dramati_n_99437.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6378.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118285/Democrats-Best-Among-Generation-Baby-Boomers.aspx

Interesting comment. As the "despised foreign communist" I find this particularly ironic;

"One thing for sure is that they care more about themselves than the nation they view as just another machine to produce money"

It is the heart of "free enterprise" philosophy, where 'success' is measured by personal gain and one is freed of "my brothers keeper".

If you 'detach' and think about what underlies this whole Topic/thread, it's unfairness of 'greed outcomes' by the 'unfulfilled avaricious'.

Be that in celebrity terms or fiscal; out of control, it means there is no 'community', resulting in no 'society'.

However humans are naturally communal, so there is only a certain amount of fracturing and isolating, that can be achieved before a 're-bonding event' occurs.

One of the more famous ones was the French Revolution.

It is said, by a number of historians, that word of the US Bill of Rights was influential in 're-bonding the masses'.

34point5 -- Your comments provoke thought. And further comments......

Free enterprise was a model that worked well when or nation was young, growing and filled with resources to be harvested. 200 years has changed a lot.

Today we have technology and material prosperity far beyond what the greatest 18th century thinkers could imagine. The same goes for resource limits and population growth. And both international cooperation and competition. Given this can we still channel human behavior in constructive directions? Is any given system of governance up to the task? Can these systems be changed effectively to meet changing conditions? Some can; some cannot.

I believe that the motivation to communal behavior comes from both need and the genetic predisposition of humans to cooperate for the common good. But humans also show predatory instincts particularly in the males. I believe the predatory part of human nature is in its ascendency in 21st century USA and the distinctions between winners and losers are becoming sharper.

Interesting view of the Bill of Rights .... rebonding. To me the Bill of Rights was much about getting the average American man, many of whom fought in the revolution and knew how to fire a musket, to go along with a Constitution put together by politicians, intellectuals, and businessmen.

About the French Revolution. Rebonding? Seems to me it was a very messy dumping of a corrupt monarchy followed by 75 years of Napoleonic adventures and then 75 years of being bullied by its German neighbor. I think the bonding actually took all those 150 years, a bonding born of shared misery.

Ed Weldon

I never said it worked out well, nor would I expect Rogers' "that will teach them" path to either. These things never do. The violent ignorant conniving scum always rises to the top. (list available)

Note, I linked directly to the "causes" and if you aren't seeing and eerie parallel, then it must just be me.

What is my "that will teach them" path? I'm saying that young voters don't vote the same as their parents. The baby boomers didn't vote like their parents did and neither will their children vote like they did. The polls already show this. So all I'm saying is that once the current voting block, which has been in power since the late 1960s has been eclipsed (by population and voting percent), politics will start to change in this country.

Before the baby boomers, there was no way segregation was getting repealed. It had be around 70 years. Then the new voting block came of age in the 1960s, a huge block, and segregation was repealed, just like that. Voting trends change in this country, generation to generation. Somehow people forget this.

"What is my "that will teach them" path?"

Clearly the underlying thought and attitude driving: "As I said before, I'm tired of the talking in this country. Let us hurry up and hit rock bottom."

No, please, let me explain. I'm not saying "that will teach them". What I'm saying is, there will be a significant change in sentiment when things get bad enough and I'd rather run towards that change in sentiment than crawl.

What I'm saying is, the sooner we hit rock bottom, the faster things can start to get better. It has nothing to do with "this will teach them!" Rock bottom will be bad for everyone, but at a least it won't get any worse at that point.

I've read the replies and think that the personal opinions, anecdotes, and other responses are enlightening, valuable, and relevant, but I don't read very much herein about actual solutions. Aren't we supposed to be problem-solvers, or has that changed somehow?...

Mr. Guest -- We in CR-4 have a tendency to drift off topic when the primary points of discussion have been posted and debated and participants have run out of important new ideas. The ongoing conversation keeps us together exploring distantly related points while waiting for some new truly relevant comment to come up in someone's mind. Keeping these ephemeral groupings engaged in a topic and looking at the incoming emails often results in very useful resurrections of the topic and constructive explorations of their merit. ..... Ed Weldon

"Just the facts, ma'am"

"I would have thought the problem was the fact that we reward schools financially based on graduation rates, whether the students deserve to graduate or not, while at the same time underpay teachers and force them to teach oversize classrooms. "

Roger, I agree with your statement about the problem being rewarding schools based on graduation rates and even underpaying teachers (at least the good ones).

I don't think we force them to teach in oversize classrooms. I think the sizes of the rooms are fine. Sorry, couldn't resist .

Seriously though, are student/teacher ratios really that high? According to the National Center for Educational Statistic (found here):

"For public schools, the number of pupils per teacher-that is, the pupil/teacher ratio -declined from 22.3 in 1970 to 17.9 in 1985. After 1985, the public school pupil/teacher ratio continued to decline, reaching 17.2 in 1989. After a period of relative stability during the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, the ratio declined from 17.3 in 1995 to 16.0 in 2000. Decreases have continued since then, and the public school pupil/teacher ratio was 15.5 in 2007. By comparison, the pupil/teacher ratio for private schools was 13.0 in 2007. The average class size in 2007-08 was 20.0 pupils for public elementary schools and 23.4 pupils for public secondary schools. "

And while we were dumping more and more money into education from the 1970's to present with pupil/teacher ratios getting smaller.....what was happening to the quality of the graduates? Increasing? I don't think so. Here's an interesting graphic comparing the US against other countries with respect to mathematics (shame it doesn't include pupil/teacher ratio, too). And here is an article with graphs comparing the increase in spending on education with reading, math and science scores and even includes staff/student (not quite the same as the reciprocal of the pupil/teacher ratio). I've included the graphs here (hope they are legible).

Even though student/teacher ratios have been increasing lately it's not much different than it was 30-40 years ago. Furthermore it's not as high as some other countries. While in Japan, my daughter's 3rd grade class was about 35 students (max allowable is 40).

Several states limit classroom student/teacher ratios. For instance Florida's constitution requires Kindergarten through third-grade classes be limited to 18 children. Fourth through eighth-grade classes may have up to 22; high school classes up to 25. I don't know about other elementary schools, but the two my children have been to in Florida, the lower elementary classes (K-3rd) have teacher's assistants and volunteers.

Who is talking about dumping more money into schools? I'm not in favor of the federal government being involved in schools. I've already said I think this is existentialism run amok. If you want scientists, don't invest in schools, invest in science and the market takes care of itself.

Look at how much money was spent on entertainment as compared to science or the arts. That's why kids don't want to be scientists.

That said, non of this is the teachers fault. That federal spending hasn't gone to the teachers, unless I've missed something and teachers are suddenly affluent.

Seriously, why would anybody want to teach nowadays? This conversation has been about how ridiculous it is to hate teachers for having healthcare. The stupidity of no child left behind is another discussion.

I wasn't implying you said we were dumping more and more money into education....nor that you were in favor of it. It's a fact and it hasn't helped.

I don't think there are many against teachers, against teachers being adequately being compensated or having healthcare. I think the anger and backlash is against the teacher's union. While at one time, they served a very good purpose (teachers could be fired for getting pregnant, etc.), they have become part of the problem with our educational system...interfering with common sense solutions to better education.

• Look at what happened in Wisconsin regarding the recent state law regarding teachers collective bargaining rights. While the teachers may have had every right to protest, it doesn't look good when they skip their jobs to do so and then try to get fake doctor's notes to cover their @$$es. I applaud them for being willing to take a stand for what they believe in, but think they are cowards for trying to get out of being reprimanded. I am not speaking about all teachers or even all Wisconsin teachers....but those participating in the protest and skipping their job to do so. Do they deserve health care? Maybe...as much as everyone else....but why shouldn't they be required to pay for some of it? Why should the private sector whose taxes pay the teacher's salaries have to continue with the current agreements when the state budget is in the red and the private sector is suffering in the current economy?
• Take the entire D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) issue in Washington D.C. and how opposed the teacher's union (and many teachers along with it) is to it despite the fact that students who used their scholarships had graduation rates of 91% - 21% higher than those interested in the program who did not receive a scholarship.

I agree with you that we should get federal money out of the schools.....but if it's going to be used, then why terminate a successful program (the OSP) in an area (D.C.) that has been performing so poorly?

The unions are being criticized for not giving up their retirement or healthcare. Honestly, this vilification of unions is out of hand. The point is if we raised taxes a few percent we wouldn't have to cut anything. But we don't raise taxes right, that would be an absurd way to close a deficit, right?

Raising taxes does little to close a deficit if it leads to less revenue. Raise taxes too much in Wisconsin the those with the money move (Maryland tried this recently resulting in one-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls).

The economy is not static....raise taxes while unemployment is high and you get less revenue for the government as well as less employment.

And the unions are vilifying themselves. If they approached resolving their grievances in a civil manner that would be a different story, but thuggery makes vilification applicable.

No one has asked the teachers to give up their retirement or healthcare....but contribute to it (5.8% to retirement and 12.6% to healthcare) just as the private sector does. Only not asking them to contribute an as much of a percentage of their pay as the private sector.

The teacher pay dues to the teachers unions to lobby on their behalf for their improving job security, increasing benifits, fees, reduced work schedules, and smaller class sizes. The unions maintain a program of misinformation to the public sponsored through a huge war chest they gather in teachers dues. The teachers in general are responsible for the trends, as they pay and decide the actions of the union. It would be irresponsible to claim that teachers have had no impact in the quality of education of american students. It is easier to fire a doctor than a unionized public school teacher, and they have no mandated quality assurance that verifies their quality control in educating students (the school districts do, but not the public school teachers). The total money spent is one measure, but it is not a direct measure. Testing correlated directly to specific teacher performance would be, but the unions strongly fight such testing programs that link student's pre- and post-performance to teachers. Whenever any attempt to quantitatively measure teachers performance arises the unions sponsor huge advertising programs to misinform the public as to the intent of the testing programs and imply that there are many other causes that contribute besides the teachers themselves.

Teachers are paid extremely well for the quality of work we allow, the work load on the job, their level of education, the personal physical risk they endeavor and the number of actual hours they must work. (Maybe not as well as Real Estate agents used to be, but then again real estate agents didn't gain the State funded job security teacher get).

Thanks for the link, Roger. I saw LZ Granderson on the TV but didn't catch much of what he said. You link fills that in. LZ is absolutely on the right track. But every kid is different. Not all are cut out to excel in academics. The key for parents is to recognize and accept their kids' talents as well as shortcomings and build a solid structure on top of what is there. ........... Ed Weldon

I have never said, anywhere that their is a concerted attempt to undermine science. In fact, I have several times indicated it is a cultural prejudice, born out of existentialism taken too far, that we are unaware of. I've used the analogy that its the same as if a child at 2 almost died by drowning and then at 24 has an aversion to water even though they don't remember the drowning incident. That is what our society feels towards abstraction and complexity, an aversion.

I don't think it is the abstraction and complexity, though those do contribute to a higher degree of work required to accomplish a task that might otherwise be accomplished more simply by copying others work and re-sizing. The aversion is to work effort in relationship to the perceived rewards for the work. If as a 5 year old you see people, in comparison to others close to you, who have a lot of free time (play time), material items, pretty women, and lots of money (toys or the means to attain those toys) but has to put forth very little effort to attain this, it makes a impression. So at 24 you see this as a path of least resistance to easy happiness, reproductive success, an easy life, etc..

If the perceived tangible rewards were commensurate with the the expected work effort required to attain those rewards for people, then they would go after them. Also there is the issue of valuation to consider, as rewards in the near term tend to be perceived at a higher valuation then rewards in the distant future. the prosepct of receiving $10 before going to a bar tonight is worth more to a 20 something year old than say a expectation of receiving $100 at 60 something.

That is what our society feels towards abstraction and complexity, an aversion.

I know I do. I can't even understand your antiscience blogs trying to explain it.

I think that society has always been averse to complexity and abstraction.............it's not a new phenomenon.

If society wasn't, science, engineering and mathematics would not be specialized fields, and the knowledge would be commonplace.

I've worked for people with advanced degrees, and yet they barely understand the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver. It astounds me every time. I can't understand how people can go through life, not having at least a basic understanding of how everything around them works. But they do. Is it an aversion? I'd say yes.

I guarantee that you have never worked with anyone with a Ph.D. who didn't know the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver. But this is the hyperbole of our age, is it not?

If this modern sentiment of "the more you study you less you know" is not a disdain for the abstract, I don't know what is.

I was embellishing, a little, on the hammer-screwdriver idea.

But yes, I have worked for people with advanced degrees, including Ph d's, not in science, but other fields, that really don't understand how their car works, nor do they care..................how a car works is something that's not applicable to their particular field.

They are not anticar, cars are just someone else's problem to figure out.

A brain surgeon with a PhD, is not going to spend time worrying about what makes his car go, besides gasoline...................nor is he going to risk his fingers wrenching on it on the weekend.

I personally have never thought that, "the more you study, the less you know". I have great respect for my friends that go on to advanced degrees.

If this definition of abstract is correct, I can certainly understand an aversion. I think disdain may be a little heavy.

Let's not forget. Among the first college graduates to skate through with easy non-science degrees, are the ones that are currently running the country.

Yes, but if a brain surgeon were to go to 10 different mechanics to get his car checked, and 9 said it needed new brakes and the 10th said it was fine, I'm pretty sure the brain surgeon wouldn't ignore the 9 and believe the 1, even though the 9 did stand to gain money from the fixing of the brakes.

Of course when 9 out of 10 scientists tell a person who doesn't know science something scientific and 1 out of the 10 dissent, well that's handled differently, isn't it?

The point being that you say that there are educated people without common sense, that's true. Of course there are plenty of uneducated people without common sense too, right? How many uneducated people know nothing about cars? Plenty, but you're only emphasizing the educated. That is an unconscious bias. One that our whole society holds. That is what I'm talking about.

Hmm, your reference only appear to show 33,256 science and math degrees in 2005, unless you count the things like social sciences and history, psychology, liberal arts and sciences, biological and biomedical sciences, health professionals and related clinical sciences, and information science. Nearly twice as many graduates in biological sciences and all physical sciences and mathematics. You might consider that maybe since there is some relationship of teh sciences being discussed to math in the overlying discussion, the term science used for this blog is most oriented to the hard sciences which involve math and no social or biological "sciences". I do not believe that anyone anywhere believes we are having any issues with a shortage of biologists, health professionals (except Doctors) or sociologists. Maybe acually the opposite is the concern that students are trending away form the productive hard sciences and math towards the easier soft "sciences", business, etc..

Seriously people, this is getting exhausting. To Summarize my Arguments:

Unions aren't evil but rather a tool for teachers preserve their healthcare and retirement.

Communism is a flawed government that is unsustainable.

Anytime you restrict freedom of speech, even a little, you better think real hard about it because you undoubtedly are thinking how it will affect your opponents and don't consider how it will affect yourself.

Finally, in our national culture we have an aversion and disdain for abstraction which is manifesting itself in several ways. Our unconditional love of laissez faire economics and our aversion for anything that seemingly stands in the way of it (unions for example). Our growing disinterest in Science as is seen by our spending cuts to science programs, a sizable percentage of the population flat our refusing established science, and an increasingly hostile atmosphere for science at universities. Even the unsettling admiration some have for despotic regimes (they are much simpler, aren't they?), despite the fact they inevitably destroy themselves horrifically or censoring methods which invariably never work as intended (if history is any judge).

I'm unsubscribing, not because I'm mad or anything, just because I can't possibly maintain this pace of discussion and I'm ready to move on to new topics. It's been fun.

Roger

Our unconditional love of laissez faire economics - we are a long way away from laissez fair economics.

One more thing.

The ceiling that you ultimately hit on your career path, will be of your own construct.

I truly hope you come to realise this and grow to your full potential. Now goodbye.

Oh I understand the frustration

he hangs it out there

the threads are always entertaining

his logic is questionable from time to time

he make these provocative statements

& acts surprised when hilarious hyjinks ensue

playing the poor misunderstood victim of anti intellectual bias

DR PH may have unsubscribed

what has that got to do with reading posts?

it's another great tactic

he'll pop back up to complain we're talking behind his back

we can all be thankful he is no longer a moderator

"Totalitarian rule is what China is. One gang rules. This is the base governance of humanity. The strongest gets to run things to it's own profit(taxes and sundry other bribes)."

Nicely put - and of course, also a description of a 'free enterprise' corporate model.

I find the 'irrational logic' that China's management model is a threat, quite amusing.

Perhaps Roger should go rant 'it's totalitarian so will all fail' to his CEO and see what happens.

Not too sure about Cuba since opening to tourism - perhaps not American due to American restrictions? Not sure, but the rest of the world seems happy to spend a dollar there. Are they using for military build up? No - their navy is rusting on the beach since the military threat evaporated. The money now goes to 'raising the standard of living'. Moderate government follows.

I.e. one factor, perhaps The Factor in keeping a despot in power is an outside threat. People question less, sacrifice more.

Second, or perhaps first, in a despot rising, is control of information - meaning these days, setting 'media bias'. It may not be 'government regulated censorship' but it is the same animal. I really quite hope the internet contact with the outside world continues to expose the US media for what it is.

I totally agree on the misplacement of Kudos and the flow-down effect it has had on the technical and scientific investment. Again, I ascribe this to control of media bias.

It may not be overtly political, but the power to 'make giants' and 'break' whom you will, should be in wise hands. Or at least in hands with some perception of cause and effect and preferably a tiny bit of 'social responsibility'?

Well put yourself 34.

The power to make giants, and break whom you will, should never be in the hands of a few, regardless of how wise they are.

This power should be distributed among everyone. This is the concept that made the US great, and sadly one that we are losing.

The countries around the world, including China, that are adopting this concept, (even just a little), are growing and doing well. All I can say, is that it's a damned shame.............................this is certainly not to say that I am ready to throw in the towel.

Just my general feeling without getting into a long winded rant.

I'm not suggesting you give in for a second ^{_{- unlike some.}}

I'm suggesting focus on 'roots' of symptoms, not bemoan the symptoms ^{_{-like many}}

when the subject of media bias comes up, I think we are talking about the fairness doctrine

Is it reasonable to expect some balance as part of the privilege of exclusive use of sections of the public airwaves?

Perhaps, but making giants has many forms. 2

And it often seems to perpetuate on 'volume' or 'repetition' - not 'facts' or 'diligence'

"So are you suggesting the fairness doctrine be revived?"

No. Al least not until there is some way to do it without a real or defacto shredding of the Bill of Rights. I fear the latter as a result of possible future judicial stretches of the meaning of "interstate commerce".

"Do you think the benefactors will gladly derail their own gravy train"

No. History shows that prosperity breeds complacency and inaction in the face of impending disaster.

"....do you think the next generation is going to quietly support our foolishness?"

Very possibly. But it requires us to do one or more of the following with the next generation:

1. Reduce their financial burden

2. Bring them on to gravy train. Means taking some gravy away from the current passengers.

3. Reduce their population; start a war, eliminate their medical care (nasty solutions). Also gets their minds off their standard of living and tends to eliminate the energy they can take to the streets.

4. Brainwash them via their entertainment. Another trick Big Brother used in Orwell's 1984.

5. Feed them mind altering drugs and electronic entertainment. This is fairly cheap. It will keep them entertained, and happy. May reduce their consumption of other tangible goods and services like food. Drugs will likely shorten their lives. Limited access to medical care will do likewise.

6. Fill the labor force with hard working non-citizens. They don't vote and are easier to throw out of the country if they make trouble.

7. Promote the "right" religions. They do very well at getting people to accept their lot as the intent of the deities and deal with their misfortunes.

8. Build more prisons and create more ensnaring laws. Work with great vigor on developing personal electronic restraints as a consequence of law breaking. Then the need for expensive prisons will be less.

9. Outlaw all firearms that are capable of rapid firing and loading. Make it illegal and difficult to open and tamper with any wireless electronic device. These are the tools of terrorists and criminal elements. They can also be the enablers of armed insurrection.

10. Slant all education in the direction of desired public behavior.

11. Make all employment contingent on "correct" personal behavior 24/7.

12. Take absolute and secret control of all means of personal communication. Only exercise that control when absolutely necessary.

Don't think I advocate any of this. My writing above is meant to be a warning; not something I advocate. .................. Ed Weldon

I love it

the classic

what about the children?

Didn't the previous generation do a certain amount of passing debts on to us?

shouldn't the whole thing be structured somewhat like a whole life insurance policy, where you pay in advance for a potential benefit in the future?

Money is the soapbox of the 21st century. Far as I know the Founders of our nation showed no interest in restraining the use of soap boxes or elevated stands for people giving speeches.

Any of you serious historians know who covered the costs of printing Tom Paine's Common Sense pamphlets?

Ed Weldon

things changed since the 80's with all the waves of deregulation

I can't say the system was less corrupt before, money has been much more overt in politics since then

pining for whatever version of the old days anyone favors makes no difference, there is only forward

should things fall apart, you & I are not in that bad of a spot, we live in the 4 largest economy in the world. from food to manufacturing there is a bit of everything here

".........we live in the 4 largest economy in the world. from food to manufacturing there is a bit of everything here" Garthh -----

There's one more thing here. Some of the brightest and most resourceful people. California attracts them. Even the immigrants fit that mold. Come to think of it there are other things. Especially among the engineering crowd. Self sufficiency, confidence and the ability to solve problems.

I don't worry about ourselves. Or even about our sons. They can both handle tough situations and are married to really good women. But my empathy for others makes me worry. Not everyone is endowed the way we are. So I continue to put some energy into shoveling against a hopeless tidal surge hoping it will turn in my lifetime.

Ed Weldon

Ed, you raise many good points over your last several posts. To which, I'd like to contribute my 2¢

To me, the process is not about the election, but the 4 years (or whatever, depending on the country) between elections.

This is when 'issues' are formed, that become 'platforms'. It's the manipulation of small events, or spurious distractions, to 'public conscience' that preordains the whole policy direction.

For instance murder by knife is generally more common than by firearm. So why the continuing focus on restricting the ownership of firearms, or types thereof - across the 'law abiding' sector? Given "clarity" the Constitution would never come into it.

Look at the time spent on 'Clean Coal' and 'CO₂' over the last 3 decades, when it's actually about moving on from 'ancient thermodynamic tragic', to more efficient technology? Given "clarity" it would have been done by now.

These 'blindside outcomes' are formed and maintained 24/7 by media (as 'column inches' = profit)

No amount of media 'regulation' - like 'equal time' - is going to make spuriously constructed issues 'pertinent'.

Unless we can draft an "Anti-Garbage in = Garbage out" Media Bill.

You're right about the media. There is always a component of self serving fiction in everything presented there. They justify it because it attracts an audience. That'll never change. Audiences pay the bills and leave a "bit" of profit if enough watch. I remember when I was a kid that I was easily submerged in fiction to the point where it was very real to me. We are all subject to that. It takes a big shot of mature objectivity to get on top of it when we have to. And it can be very satisfying when we don't have to. So we consume and take the fiction along with us when we vote.

But I think there is a real issue behind most of the nonsense the media spouts. The trick is getting people to see through the fog to get the real picture. But what's the real picture. I'm thinking your real picture of the two examples you cite is different from mine. And that picture is always distorted by our own position on an issue and how any outcome will affect us personally.

For grins and maybe some reflection on the CO2 issue here's a photo I took in in the railroad yard in Carlin, NV, a few years ago. I call it "Vanishing Point Carlin".

Ed Weldon

Be as positive as you can.The other pole will never cease to exist.

Nor weaken.

When constructing the truth tables you have a affinity for particular areas

you are a veritable expert in certain failure modes

I don't know that I would describe it as negative or positive

I know..... I try to explain that to my wife. ..........Ed

I probably wouldn't fell a big quake over here in the Sierras [Ed on the other hand...]

I could possibly see the dormant volcano [100 miles east] let loose

there's probably an outside chance of a hurricane affecting your region

so what???

I'm in an area much more likely to be hit by a hurricane (West-Central Florida). I've been through many. I've also been in California for a few earthquakes. I prefer a hurricane any day.

At least with a hurricane you have several days (sometimes more than a week) of warning.